Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/16/1991 (5) CITY OF CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE July 16, 1991 dtS�II(�ryt'h� Committee Members Present Guests Jon Johnson, Chair Susan Swofford Leona Orr Lois Smith Russ Stringham Planning Staff Linda Lou Dias Lauri Anderson Jim Justis Lin Ball Lutz Timm James P. Harris Bill Rust May Miller Elsy Rust Margaret Porter Jerry James Lois Ricketts Jean Padjett Fred Satterstrom Robert Fry Kathleen Oneida City Attorney's Office Clar Long-Wood & Lace Carol Morris Don Rust Ercella Raynak HUMAN SERVICES ROUNDTABLE UPDATE (L. Ball) Lin Ball stated that the King County Council has adopted the Regional Housing Levy Program. The $150 million levy will include 2 ,400 units of housing and support services for the program. Of this amount $40 million will be used for support to permanent rental units and emergency/transitional units. It is most likely that the levy will go to the voters in February. This issue will be presented to City Council and the community. Public education on this issue has begun, and she asked the Planning Committee members for their comments. She suggested that forums, groups, community leaders, etc. , be contacted for their feelings on the timing of this levy. Councilmember Orr suggested that the Planning Commission be included. She felt a joint work session may be one way to accomplish this. Ms. Ball noted that a public education campaign through billboards, bus signs, community forums, etc. , will be starting soon regarding family violence. She called attention to the recent Seattle Times series entitled "Trust Betrayed" . A donation was received from the Washington State Medical Association to print 5,000 copies of this series. A curriculum is being developed for teachers to identify and respond to signs of family violence. The Roundtable's Action Agenda is three years old. The Roundtable, in developing its priorities for its 1992 work program, is taking another look at the agenda to determine if it still addresses the most critical regional human services needs. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 SANDWICH BOARDS _(Russ Stringham) Russ Stringham, 524 West Meeker, owner and operator of the Hungry Bear, presented a request for changing the signage ordinance. He would like to see a relaxation on the prohibition of portable signs. The higher the visibility, the more customer opportunities exist. This visibility could come from billboards, print media, television, radio, direct mail or from a sandwich board. Because of limited capital resources, many of the normal marketing tools are not available to small business owners. This situation provides an advantage to national competitors. He felt it is disadvantageous to the group that comprises a large share of this area's employment and tax revenue. He stated his average daily sales dropped 12.5 percent every time he removed his sandwich boards over a six-month period. He would put up sandwich boards for two weeks and take them down for two weeks. Since other small businesses in Kent had similar experiences, he felt there would be increased revenue to the city if sandwich boards were allowed in Kent. He felt the question could arise how Kent could allow small businesses portable signage and deny the larger corporations the same privilege. Throughout history government has provided special dispensation to economically disadvantaged businesses through the Small Business Administration, Small Business Investment Corporation, incubators, and many other government-subsidized entities that exist solely for the purpose of ensuring survival of small businesses. Independent business has always been the engine that drives economic growth in this country. He felt the City of Kent would be well within its rights as a municipality to provide the same level of consideration to its own constituency. He pointed out that another objection might be the increased administration costs that are involved, but he felt that total prohibition costs less to control than one involving restrictions and a permit process. It costs the city money to police the offenders under the current law, it costs the time and expense of generating letters, it costs the time of the City's legal staff, it costs the city tax revenue, not just the revenue that is generated in the combined monthly excise tax report, but the revenue that is paid out to employees because the business is growing. He pointed out that some of this money is spent in Kent. He felt that his argument discounts the solution to offsetting increased administration costs and the annual permit process. He felt that part of the business license renewal procedure could be to charge a fee for the privilege of using portable signage. This application could include an affidavit stating the prior year's sales, a diagram of the proposed signage, location and whatever other criteria the Planning Department deems appropriate. He suggested that when the Planning Department encountered what appeared to be a violation, they could merely notify the business 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 of the opportunity to purchase an annual permit. He felt that most small business owners would be happy to pay for the permit for this privilege. Some people feel that the use of sandwich boards creates a hazard. Sandwich boards have been used in Kent and elsewhere either illegally, or in the case of real estate agents, legally, for many years. He did not know of any pedestrian or motorist injury attributed to the use of sandwich boards. He felt the issue of aesthetics could be controlled through the permit process by specifying the parameters, such as size, construction material and content, that are used. He added that sandwich boards also benefit the consumer. He suggested that a middle ground be found that would be satisfactory to the City and the small business owners. Don Rust, Bagman Cafe, presented the need for signage. He felt the ordinance was arbitrary, and that the law is not being enforced consistently. He suggested that the current ordinance be kept in abeyance, and that a committee be formed which would also include the business community and the real estate community. He pointed out he had received letter from the Mayor thanking him for his concern. He added that he was a criminal sign violator in the City of Kent with a record because of a sandwich board sign. Chair Johnson said that the next step would be to take this issue to the Planning Commission as part of the Regulatory Review process and have them hold a public hearing to determine if the sign ordinance should be abolished completely or modified to be more strict or more lenient. He felt that an interim measure could be to direct staff to prepare an interim ordinance that would allow the usage of sandwich boards on a temporary basis until such time the Planning Commission would be able present a recommendation to Council. Mr. Harris felt that one of the solutions that could bridge the time while staff is working with citizens and the time Planning Commission would discuss this issue would be to have an interim ordinance that would deal only with the public right of way allowing sandwich board signs. This could state the circumstances under which these would be permitted, the size of the signs and where on the sidewalk or the public right of way they may be located. He pointed out that there is a liability and a responsibility for that liability. He felt these issues could be determined quickly. Sandwich boards in parking lots and in landscaping is another issue that would take longer to resolve and would involve the Planning Commission. City Council has the right to deal with the public right of way. Most signs are on private property. 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 Carol Morris commented that Kent's sign ordinance to regulate signs in the public right of way does not need to be in the zoning code. She has drafted an ordinance that deals with rights of way, size, insurance and identification. Cities are authorized to regulate and allow the use of their streets and other public rights of way for different purposes under terms the city may designate. The sign ordinance must state the city's authority to regulate the streets, and that the citizens must understand that the permit could be revocable. She has already drafted an ordinance that deals with rights of way, size of signs, insurance requirements and identification of signs. Mr. Harris pointed out that if there is an ordinance on the books, it needs to be repealed. He felt it is wrong to have an ordinance and tell the Planning staff to ignore the ordinance. He expressed concern about sidewalks. The overall picture should be presented to the Planning Commission. Sidewalks could be handled through Council right away with an emergency ordinance. Chair Johnson directed staff to bring to the next Council meeting on August 6 an interim ordinance regarding the sidewalk issue. It may be possible for the Council to repeal a section of the sign ordinance that deals with sandwich boards. Chair Johnson directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance for the August 6 Public Works Committee and City Council meetings. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Councilmember Orr expressed concern about Mr. Rust's criminal record and asked to have someone check the situation. SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE (L. Anderson) Lauri Anderson stated that on July 29, 1991, King County Council will hold its first public hearing on the Soos Creek Community Plan. She asked for questions about the proposed plan and concerns with regard to the phasing or transportation policies, the proposed plan and zoning map. She asked for a motion in support of or opposition to the plan so that by July 29 there will be a Planning Committee response to the plan to take forward to County Council. Chair Johnson felt that since the Covington area is designated as an urban area, it should be encouraged to incorporate as a separate city. Since Phase I areas are designated as urban areas under the proposed plan, the county should strongly encourage those areas to annex into neighboring cities. He felt that if the county were going to allow urban densities in those areas, these areas should 4 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 be in urban centers. The rural areas should be kept outside the cities. Councilmember Orr pointed out that under the Mitigation Payment System, an interlocal agreement would be adopted which utilizes reciprocal collection of fees for King County, Auburn, Kent and Renton. She wondered if this would fit in with the Growth Management Committee's plan for collecting impact fees. Ms. Anderson suggested that the City may wish to recommend that the county look at another way of wording the mitigation payment policy so that the cities and the county would adopt mitigation or impact fees that are compatible. Councilmember Orr felt that if the City of Kent developed a large area on the county line, and if it would impact the county, she felt that the city would have an obligation to provide fees for the impacts that it would have outside the city. If the county developed on the city border, she felt that the city would have the right to expect some sort of mitigation from the county. She suggested coordination of mitigation systems, not necessarily support of their system. Ms. Morris pointed out that the city does not want us to let King County feel that Kent is going to "buy in" to their system. Unless we have an interlocal agreement with them, we are not bound to do it. Councilmember Orr MOVED that the Soos Creek Community Plan Update be sent to Council with the Planning Committee's endorsement, including changes regarding the incorporation and annexation language which should be stronger for the urban areas, and the mitigation payment system which should not be referenced specifically, but which should support coordination of mitigation impact fees. Chair Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. HISTORICAL PRESERVATION/NOTIFICATION OF DEMOLITION PERMITS (L. Anderson) Ms. Anderson stated that a year ago staff asked the Planning Committee for an interim ordinance to protect historic structures that were threatened. The ordinance is not in effect yet. Ms. Morris has stated that since Kent does not have a formally adopted register, the City does not have a basis for requiring actions or holding up permits. King County has Kent's draft ordinance and finds no problem with it. This ordinance should be presented to the Committee and the Planning Commission by early fall. The owner of Orillia School may be requesting a demolition permit. Currently 5 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 16, 1991 there is no way to protect the structure, nor is there any way of being informed that a demolition is happening. The proposed resolution would request departments to contact the Planning Department regarding such demolitions so that staff could contact the property owner to discuss the possibility of historic preservation or alternatives to the action. There is no legal means to either delay the permit or stopping the action. If staff were notified that a permit had been requested, that knowledge would help keep the inventory list up to date. Ms. Morris stated that the city has preliminarily identified certain properties, but the term "preservation program" should not be used. If passed, staff could let people know that when the ordinance is in place, there would be certain tax advantages to the owners. Some owners may use the time allowed them from the date of notification until the ordinance is in place to speed up whatever action they had intended for the property. Councilmember Orr moved that the Planning Committee recommend this resolution be brought back on August 6 for final approval and be on the consent calendar August 6. Chair Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. PC0716 6