Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 05/08/1973 Kent, 14ashington May 3, 1973 Tuesday The regular Council meeting of May 7th was reconvened at 7 :00 l_a.m. on May S, 1973 by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Councilmen: Baffaro, Elliott, Kitto, Martell , Masters and Thornton, City Administrator Street, City Attorney Mirk. and Planning Director Harris , Public Wo:-l:s Director Ulett, Finance Director winkle and Councilman Just were adsent. It was pointed out that the Lj;ML portion of the proposed new Zoning Ordnance would be the first item of huu:iness , in tl,e continued public hearing of the proposed cocle. Hal Bacon, Vice President of Pay N rak spoke against the proposed sign regulations , noting a recent rulingin Denver declaring their sign ordinance unconstitutional. Ile a-�ointeci out thaat the company would abide by the regulations, or by the Chamber's comrnromise, but would expect to be coi,ipensated for the cost of sign removal, repairs to structures , and perhaps for damages as well. Tea; Aker, representing the Business Advertising Council of Wash- ington, and also a Seattle sign company, concurred with I1r. Bacon, and also referred to the Denver case anO the judge 's comments in regard to compensation. Merville Bishop spore on the needs of the small business man, parti- cularly in reference to off-premise signs. IIe noted that the sigrns should be in good taste and was in favor of having posting of bonds required. IIe said that Renton 's sign ordinance was not strictly enforced because it hurt the small businesses . David Irish of the Foster & Kleiser Co. submitted a statement signed by 23 businessmen opposing the proposed sign chapter of the code, and one containing 34 signatures supporting the Chamber 's recommen- dation for the sign chapter. Jim Hall spoke on behalf of the Jaycees, and also represented John Sommers of Johnny 's IGA stores , in opposition to the city's proposal, and in support of the Chamber ' s proposal . IIe noted that the owner of the Pizza Pete chain was interested in locating in Kent, but would change their plans if the sign chapter was adopted as written. His letter from the Jaycees was filed . It was determined that there were approximately 55 members in the Kent Jaycees organization. Mark 14cCorkle of the Chamber of. Commerce noted that the Chamber had studied the matter from the first draft and had proposed a com- promise. Martell asked McCorkle if all 210 members were in agree- ment with the Chamber 's proposal . McCorkle stated that this was approved by the majority of the Board of Directors . Letters were read supporting the si(�n chapter as approved by the Planning Commission from Robert & Dorothy Shannon, Mrs. 4arren Bell , Gerry & Carole Anderson and Dr. & Mrs. William Shaw. A letter was read from York Haines of Obie Pacific Outdoor Advertising supporting the Chamber 's recommendation, specifically the section relating to off-premise signs. MASTERS MOVED to accept the letters and for them to be made a part of the record, Elliott seconded , motion carried . James Curran commended the Planning Commission for a fine job on the proposed code and noted that a coo munity cannot be upgraded without a struggle. IIe disagreed with the Chamber 's proposal, and stated that the Chamber had not been consistent in it's recommen- dations to the City. IIe sail ' hat only about 3 out of 13 members of the Board of Directors voted on the Chamber 's proposal. Ile pointed out that the Planning Commission 's proposal was for the general good of the community, and should be supported by the City Council. Yrank Lee of Valley Garage stated lie was not a member of the Chamber but that he was against the Planning Commission 's version of the sign section of the ordinance. Ile noted that locations for a Lin- colas Mercury business and for Sambo 's Restaurant proposed for Kent would be located in Auburn due to the restrictive sign ordinance. Dorothy Denton, ChF_irman of the Chambefs committee, stated, in answer to I-f . Curran 's statement, that all of the members of the Board of Directors, except one voted in favor of the Chamber 's recommendation. Mr. Aker quoted a statement by I,1r. Udall taken from the Denver proceedings, noting that the uses of signs was a critical questions. City Attorney Mirk clarified that both Mr. Esker and I1r. Bacon agreed that they would abide by the City's decision to eliminate, the off-premise signs, }-)ut woLild expect compensation, Mr. Taker pointed out that the value of a sign to the particular business would be difficult to state, that only the cost (-):F the sign it- self was readily available. Mirk stated that the fair market value of a sign could be determined, and pointed out that the federal government had compensated owners for signs, and if the owner was not satisfied with the value placed upon the sign, he could then lroceed to court action. Mr. Haines of Obie Outdoor Advertising Company, rioted that the $29 ,000 referred to in his letter w&i not t?z-_� value of the signs , but was the yearly revenue tl)at they receive, and the $3 ,000 represented the ).mount the company pays to the prop- erty owners. Dorothy Denton referred to the Planning Staffs written analysis of the Chamber 's recommendations, which is on file. She sub- mitted a written copy of her comments, Tahich has also been filed. Her comments referred to the following sections : 5 .1 Purpose, 5 .3 Prohibited Signs New Section-Off Premise Si(Ins , 5 .4 All Districts 5 .4.1 Real Est-)Le Signs, 5 .,1. 2 T,:�mnorary Signs and Comparison of Sizes of Signs. Mrs. Denton noted that .Sill Ii,•zelett and Dave Irish who were on the committee were both in the E.udience. Pat Curran referred to the off-premise portion of the sign sec- tion and asked how it would be determined which signs would be removed when there were more than 4 within the 60 feet. Mr. Irish explained that the dates of the permits would be checked and the earliest dates would have priority. Upon I4r. Curran 's further question, Mr_ . Irish stated that outdoor advertising firms had not attempted to do business in Bellevue because their_ or- dinance forbids off-premise signs . Ile noted that attempts were being made to chancre Bellevue 's ordinance. Mr. Irish confirmed for Elliott that the Chamber committee had agreed that some reg- ulations were needed to govern roof :=irrr�s, but hp.d not mz,de any specific recommendation. Warren Secord of S & S Valley Tire doted thaat he had a sign die signed so it could be seen from the freeway and also had a roof sign and could not agree that both should be removed . Mr. Aker noted that some control _should be placed on signs, but the ordinance should be one under which the businesses could live. IIe states, that his firm had offered their assistance with the ordinance, but -the city had not accepted. Upon Master's question, the City Attorney stated that it is im- proper to impose a fee for political signs, as this infringes on the' right of free speech. It was pointed out that the city 's ordinance relative to political signs specified the time limits in which they must be removed. Upon Thornton 's question concerning prohibited signs, Harris noted that at present off-premise signs are not allowed in MA zones or in commercial zones, and the Chamber favors allowing these in an enlarged 11A area, also in CM, HC and GC. At present, off-premise signs are allowed in M2 and Ml . Ile noted that the Chamber 's proposal would increase the area in shish these signs would be permitted to about S sq. miles, as compares) to 4 sq. miles now. Iie pointed out that billboards are now allowed in C3 zones only as an acessory. He pointed out that the Chamber 's suggestion for sign posts , entry signs and house numbers should not be a part of the code, but should be covered by City policy. IIe noted that it appeared that the Chamber had doubled the size of the signs over the size recommended 1:ythe Planning Commission. Thornton noted that the effect of the sign restrictions would be detrimental to the businesses of the community. Ile agreed that some signs shoul( l:,e removed, and future signs should have some control over them, 1,-)ut pointed out that the Chamber had made some good) suggestions, especially pertaining to the Prohibited Signs section. Ile �)Oiritee out tha.L- some of t''rc signs which have been criticezed were well licrlited and attractive. Plartell and Baffaro concurred with Thronton in that the Chaml,,or 's proposal was more acceptable to the community. Mayor Hogan noted that the PlanningCommission members were also businessmen of the co;nmuriity. Martell noted that the Chamber 's proposal would still control the number of signs allowed in a given number of feet. Elliott noted that he agreed that the Planning Commission a.i'd i lruining Staff had done an admirable job, and that some specific items should be reviewed in detail , and specifically mentioned Section 5 . 3 Prohibited Siclns : 1 . Off-premise or advertising signs, 2.. hort ,.ble signs 3 . Roof signs, 4. Flashifig and rotating ;signs except for digital type flash- ing public interest signs 'iND SectlOil 5 .,'_ General Restrictions and Limitations, #4 Signs over public sidewalks Fi.id ��aclest._i.an way: -- "no sign may project more than 1/3 of the distance between the property line and the curb line. . . " . Elliott noted that iris was out of line and that almost any sign hanging on any building projects at least 50% or 2/3 rds curl: widths , and that this mould have to be changed to 75/ or 100/. Elliott pointed out further that Masters had referred to Section 5 .4.2 . #2 Political Signs Line; agreed that this item was covered by the City's political sign ordinance . Section 5 .5 .1 Signs Permitted in Residential Districts , 43 . Elliott stated that he thought that there should be no restrictions on farm product identification signs . He noted that Sections 5 .5 .3 #41. and 5 .5 .6 . #2 also referred to farm product signs. Section 5 6 2 Amortiz,,tion Period of P1on Conforming Signs Elliott pointed out that it was too early for the city to consider the amortization process and suggested that portions of this section referring to amortization only, be eliminated, which would allow a gradfater clause use for all existing signs. Kitto stated that lie acrrecd with Elliott 's su f estions regarding on-premise signs . With reference to off-premise signs , lie expresserl concern about Section 5 .6.2., and opined that the Council should have the advice of the City Attorney before taking, action on amor- tization. He pointed out that Ile VMS not in favor of totally pro- hibiting off-premise signs, nor was he in agreement with the Chamber ' s proposal, nor entirely with the Planning Staffs recommendation. I3e stated that the matter needed further study with input- from the City Attorney. Martell agreed on the question 02' amortization. Masters stated that the Planning Staff 's recommendations on the Chamber 's suggestions were a fair compromise, and should be accepted by the Council in the interest of approving the code. She noted further that she thought businesses would not object to some con- trol over signs and that the city was not prepared to enter into the area of payment for signs which wou'-d be removed . She suggested that the sign portion should be adopted , withholding references to amortization. City Attorney Mirk noted that only portions of Denver ' s sign ordi- nance were declared unconstitutional . IIe explained that the Denver ordinance provided for an amortization period ranging from two to five years, depending on the cost of the sign. The court ruled that payment solely by amortization was not enough. Upon Masters ' question, Mirk pointed out that if the city's code declares that signs are not permitted in a particular area, the language must include provisions for payment to the owner in the event the amorti- zation provisions withheld for further study if the Council so de- sired. Mirk pointed out that the decision had been made to adopt this document as a zoning; code rather than as a zoning ordinance, which would make publication of the entire document unnecessary, and would allow changes to be made by motion of the Council- , after a public Bearing on the proposed change. Ile pointed out that the procedure would be to adopt this as the Tent Zoning Code and then to pass on ordinance adopting the code. On Street 's inquiry, I;irk determined that a. zoning; map was no longer required, and stated further that since a public hearing on this code was held before the Planning Commission; that this hearing before the Council was riot even required . Martell suggested , that -the Building Department should be involved , since signs are structures . Rrnold Bryant, Fire Marshall, suggested that the permits for signs could continue to be issued by the Build- ing Department after they had been approvecl by the Planning Depart- ment. Ile pointed out that fees were now required , so a new fee schedule would be unnecessary. Ile further sugig3ested that under. Section 5 .0 .1, a new sub heading be added providii'C for the inclusion of structural drawings., and noted that he would work with the Plann- ing) Staff to refine the Details. Elliott and Mlartell concurred . Harris determined for Masters that the Planning Commission had not reviewed the Chamber 's suggestions; that it had been done by the Planning Staff. Lou Koszarek, Chairman. of the Planning Commission, stated that the Commission had made the original recommendations and that the conclusion of the matter was in the hands of the Planning Director, who is attempting to present a workable plan which will be 'IGNS acceptable to the Council and to the community. He noted that the Commission accepts the concessions made by Harris Commission member Neifert noted that he had no comments to add to those of Koszarek. Masters stated that in view of the careful consideration and the hours spent by the Commission on the proposed code, that it should be adopted; pointing out that it could be amended in the future if it proved to be unworkable. Martell rioted that the Chamber 's suggest- ions should be considered since they represent the business people of the community. Street noted that it was assumed that the hearing would be con- cluded tomorrow night, and that at that time the Planning Director, Attorney and Administrator could be directed to incorporate the proposed changes into a draft to be considered by the City Council at the regular workshop meeting of May 14. Mirk reviewed opinions of the Councilmen concerning changes to the code, as follows : Martell favored the Chamber ' s suggestions and preferred to delay on the amortization portion. Elliott 's questions were on prohibited signs, signs over public sidewalks, political signs , and farm product signs, and in addition, his concern over the amortization question. He noted that aside from these specific suggestions, lie was inclined to favor the Chamber 's proposals. Kitto favored the Planning Commission's recommendations concerning the on-premise signs, con- curred with Elliott 's and Masters ' suggestions and had not fully come to a decision regarding off-premise signs. Baffaro favored the Commission's recommendations, except that he was against the ban on off-premise signs. Masters favored accepting a compromise between the Commission's and the Chamber 's recommendations and was in favor of delaying the amortization question. Thornton favored the Chamber 's suggestions. TEXT This concluded the discussion on the Sign portion of the code, and the Council returned'to discussion on the Text portion which had not been completed on Monday, May 7. Street reported that several Councilmen had sent him their written views on proposed changes to the text. From Elliott: 1) The Pro- posed Modifications to the Zoning Code Text, May, 1973 sheet as submitted by the Planning Staff is acceptable, but some discussion should be had on Section 3 .11. 2 page 34,--banks should be allowed drive-in service windows. 2 The letter from Mr. McHugh of Pre- cision Spring & Stamping is valid, and the CM regulation should be changed to allow 10,000 square foot buildings. The Council con- curred with this. 3) The letter from Chuck Adams is valid and CM site coverage should be mapped to 50/ site coverage. The Council agreed. 4) -Height Limitation. A limit of one story above zone specifications could be allowed by the Planning Director, but excess height requests above that should be reviewed by either the Planning Commission or by the Council. . In answer to questions by Street and Masters, Harris ascertaned that the Special Uses section of the code would not cover this; and that an application for a building permit for more than one story over the allowed height would go before the Planning Commission, and there- fore adjacent property owners would be notified of the hearing on the matter. 5) Section 6.9 Parking and Storage of Vehicles Elliott recommended this be deleted as unenforceable. If autos are abandoned or a nuisance they can be controlled under Title IV of the Building Code. Mirk concurred, and pointed out that this was also unconsti- tutional. He stated he would compose a section with better control. Street' summarized Baffaro 's report: 1) Height limitations (already been covered) ' 2) Notices to property owners shall be mailed and shall be sent to property owners within a radius of 500 feet instead of 200 ft. Farris noted that he had suggested that the radius of area be deter- mined by the Planning Director and that the notices are now mailed, although the text language states notice given. Street noted that 200 feet was the distance accepted by the courts and the Planning Director could be authorized to extend the distance where practical. Masters ' report concurred with the rest of the proposals by the Council. In reference to Karyn Waldner 's request, she was in favor of not allow- ing beauty solons as home occupations , but for those already licensed and operating to be allowed under a non-conforming use. She recommended that the Planning Commission 's proposal be upheld with reference to Howard Tank's request, and was in favor of the idea of the code being continuously reviewed as explained by Barris. Martell expressed his concern that I1C classifications were highly restrictive and that it should be expanded, perhaps into the CC allowances. Kitto suggested that IIC be eliminated and for those areas to be classified GC. Upon Elliott 's question, Harris outlined the difference between HC and GC: GC allows a wide range of commer- cial uses, and EIC is more restrictive, as it is primarily for use at intersections of freeway interchanges . Ile pointed out that these locations would become more valuable in the future and would be used for motels, restaurants and service stations. Barris pointed out that on the changes reflected on the "blue sheet" additional uses would be allowed such as discount stores . Martell suggested that more uses be allowed. Iie further suggested that office space should be allowed in manufacturing zones .. Mr. Dowell spoke from the audience noting that the lot coverage for GC is 35% when the uses permitted are the same as in IiC, and pointed out that the coverage is increased for CM. Martell noted that since one had been changed, that the GC should also be changed. Street noted, that the probability of anyone putting more than 35% lot cover- age in a GC zone was remote. Dowell conceded this point but noted that if a new business replaced an existing business, it could become important. Elliott pointed out that the type of business governed the parking requirements. Dowell pointed out that the coverage should be the same since the use is the same. Barris explained that they should not necessarily be the same, and what with parking requirements, setbacks, and open space the coverage always comes out to 30 to 40io. Street noted that CM zoning allowed versatility and a manufacturing business would certainly require fewer parking spaces than would a commercial enterprise. lie pointed out that it was the intent of the Planning Commission that GC zone is at it 's maximum presently and planned that it could be reduced in future years . Masters re- commended that the designations be 'left as they were written in the original document. Street noted that the Planning Staff 's Suggested Changes to Proposed Zoning Code dated May 7, 1973 contained a change for page 6 of the code under the heading of Definitions - Ordinary Iiigh Water Mark AND a change on page 103 of Section 7.10 .4 Continued Enforcement. He read the proposed changes and noted that the change sheet has been made a part of the record. The City Attorney referred to Elliott's written review accepting the Proposed Modifications to the Zoning Code Text. He pointed out that on page 3 of the "Modifications", Item #13 New Section 6.10 .6 Non- conforming Uses (Zoning Code page 93) which reads: Rehabilitation of nonconforming dwellings. Existing dwellings located in any zone in which they are not a permitted use, may be rebuilt after a fire or natural disaster or brought up to building and fire code standards after review by the Board of Adjustment. Upon Fire Marshall Bryant 's recommendation, this should be changed by deleting the underlined and substituting Uniform Building Code, Volume I. Also on page 3of the "Modification" Item 415 : Section 7.2.1) - ZoningPermit, Page 97 of the Zoning Code, Zoning permits shall be required for all buildings and structures hereinafter erected , constructed, altered, repaired or moved within or into any district established by this ordinance, and for the use of vacant land or for a change in the character of the use of land or buildings, within any district established by this ordinance and whenever any other city permit is required when so determined by the Planning Director. It is recommended that the underlined portion be deleted. Mirk referred also to page 94 of the Code, Section 6.18 Structures to Have Access and recommended that the words fire protection be deleted, since the Building Department would cover this. Referring to page 85 of the Code, Section 6.5 .1 , the City Attorney noted that the Fire Marshall had recommended that items #l, 5 and 6 be deleted, as they are covered in the Fire Code. Some discussion ensued on -the advisability of changing the Units of Measure Section on page 69 of the Code referring to benches. It was decided to leave this section as submitted . There were no further comments from the floor and ELLIOTT MOVED to continue the hearing until 7 :00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 3th, at which time the mapping section of the Code will be discussed . Baffaro seconded, motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Marie Jensen City Clerk