Port Orchard officials weighed in on the visibility, size and removal of public notice signs during the city’s Land Use Committee meeting Aug. 28.
Community development director Nick Bond said the discussion began after a concern was raised by a councilmember and a resident.
“Councilmember (Scott) Diener had asked that we have a conversation about this and I believe that his concern was with the removal of signs, but he also received an email from somebody concerned that you can’t read the signs while you’re driving,” Bond said.
Bond outlined two issues: enforcement of sign removal and readability.
“I think it is helpful to have those signs up through the permitting process, but once a decision has been issued, they should come down within a reasonable amount of time,” Bond said. “By keeping those up through the process until a decision has been reached, somebody who missed the first comment window, they’ll still see the sign and be able to get information about an active permit.”
Bond also said safety and practicality need to be considered.
“As far as the citizens who might be driving by a sign and don’t feel safe getting out of their car to go read what it says or don’t have a place to pull over, I think those signs are located within the city of Port Orchard and if somebody sees a sign that is concerning to them they need to reach out to the city,” he said.
“I don’t think we want to be putting up billboards and if you make these signs any bigger, you’re going to have a big wind load that you’re going to need reinforced posts with concrete,” he added. “I think the signs we have are about as big as we can make them without adding considerable cost.”
Mayor Rob Putaansuu agreed with safety concerns.
“I think it would be a public safety concern and I don’t think we want people reading these signs while they’re driving down the road,” Putaansuu said. “You should be able to park somewhere and walk to it, they’re typically along a frontage somewhere.”
Councilmember Jay Rosapepe asked about responsibility for maintaining the signs.
“Who is responsible for the signage and what is the requirement for it to stay up?” Rosapepe said. “We see the signage, there’s no activity for a god awful long time, the sign gets beat up. Is it the builder’s responsibility? Ours?”
Bond said the city provides blank signs and developers must complete, place and maintain them.
“We wanted developers to fill out the signs themselves, but they didn’t do a very good job, so we are actually writing the information in marker on the signs and then they pay for the sign and pick it up,” Bond said. “It is their responsibility to put the sign up and ensure it stays up. We’re not out there checking them.”
If a sign is defaced or destroyed, Bond said the developer may be required to replace it depending on the stage of the permitting process.
Councilmember Eric Worden asked about graffiti costs.
“When they get graffitied, the developer pays $50 each time that they have to get rewritten and put back up?” Worden asked.
Bond responded, “If the sign was made illegible, we could ask them to replace the sign and put a new one up. But if the comment period has lapsed or the public hearing has already happened, then that probably wouldn’t be required.”
Putaansuu said the city may add enforcement measures.
“I think going forward we’re going to put a condition in the process that they have to remove it, and if they don’t, they’re going to have to pay a fee, and we’re going to do it,” Putaansuu said. “There’s some out there that have been out there five, six years and some that just aren’t getting removed.”
Jim Fisk, associate planner for the city, also spoke during the meeting, noting that applicants are already responsible for sign removal.
“There is language about removal and maintenance, but they don’t always do it. So perhaps, having code enforcement go out there and do it is the way to go,” Fisk said.
Rosapepe said stricter enforcement could also improve the city’s appearance.
“I think it would help beautify our city a little bit in some areas,” he said.
