HomeMy WebLinkAboutA-Frame Signs (9/27/1999) Are
. c 2.-. c- , *lc >-.>-6--5-15 Ch CD All"rd 17 e,r,6 ca >..
W _ o o az p N Nam NUU cQ c m m�m 0 •
U U >:aci oo'�� c' o' a)a-)- z3c.) cov- Y
O¢�D Em ' >_tn• 13 co=-I: y o mc&m E or
Z�mO jro0O a)¢co n3 o,�5 >j .E��a= a 01 .
CrC.FwY `�.0NW-ca m=-oazo c m o o¢t...o o oy c a)3
Q LL.a.0 to NT''Z O cn n,, al N C V N a) a) p m�ti to m.MR
g0<0 Nc,o c nso E o c mz��E- >m�u,t ao=i0 U m c ui
m
V' Zm CCEcoo =com Ovum -' o o. > >i n.. $ c
~O 3 ca)20 rnm o-i QO c—� o_ a oo a) �asa_O o -�a`i m�
Z o c= o c coo o o `s c > o� c c_ a,
cao cNW a) > c 60 vUL N:p-gMLO T0.76c
LL o < o v c`t a>i c w w c orn=►- > > o o ai ca r aa- o
oO 5- cu t0�00 cu"coW cum 0.—2co?M O
a)
.c O
O N X -• a I
•
U CA L .0 L C co o 0 N Cu N.c O 0)
Z O) M 0- N N 3 aT 00 t ,T.-5 a) .. U) _ N E
O lU c) cQ L O N ,.. N >, 0 N = N N
co ao 0U aT L > as
_ N C] O c aC p c a1) L
3 ` a c N .E 5 c O "0 7
a: O O c Y N -0 O"0 W E -) 46
< !n 0 c w. as 0 03 O
U N �-j VO - 0 N c > � N co c •
t C O
� � cY Qp 3 fl „. o \ 65 0)
— tz •c a) (II o
CO .c -i030E 03 o a0aa) c) 0) U O a) c n
"" aa)) � o aa) cin aa � i_ .p o m
`�
ti 3c -' a- � 0 3 3 m c t o o c
0. s~ caava) cc ^ p E c c.) ..,,,a)
0 ..LL To' E--a µ- m s c) 4- a) a)
N aj c c a>s p co L a • N d 0) O
+-+ N as O .. co N U
t >, c o -' •• '0 L o 1 �+� U
N r o o 'av � V � � lu o v a) co
CU :01 )
c E a) aa)) o
c r • < N C V aB 2 O N N "' J O Z E Y
o `/ > >. (I),-, 0 3 a) o E
E �o+ u°)i a = a° c �o a° 0O m a)
o ‘go a7 U 0 >' p U) X N .0 _co p ` p
Nu. 0 t -0 p = U N a) .c N O Z Cu G
LL 7 N O O j -" O �) wU N \ 0
O .n N c "p -' c 0) so a) U •0 \�\ c
Q aE -0 O o L -C � wQ 3 et ��' o
L cr oa) m � O a° 0 o E N. `� N
L O as coo m I— O cv i mil
o c a) L c
3 0 LO p) 0 N E .0 -p O Cu -44‘‘t►►illllll/////
1 i
co aas NL c cu >, >, 47_co o Z c ``\` Q, .�5.... ...6',,• 1�,:.
co �, Q r N — t7 .- .. p 0 5 :Q Q . .•.
co -0 0 o c 0 0 0 O s- 0 an .c a) 7 V:4, S
CO cu c E W 5 c 0 0 0 co I—to I— —I cn =J o r I r oo,a
April 9,2001 Now Renton City Council Minutes Page 112
The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter
be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED
BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.)
Development Services: A- ' Noting that the Council had requested a status report one year after adoption of
Frame Sign Ordinance the A-Frame Sign Ordinance on March 6, 2000, it was MOVED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL REFER
;tti THE A-FRAME SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING&
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution#3498 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a
Franchise: King County, franchise agreement with King County allowing the Renton Wastewater Utility
Construct&Maintain Sanitary to operate,maintain,repair,and construct sanitary sewer mains and service
Sewer Mains on County Roads lines and appurtenances in,over,along, and under county roads and rights-of-
ways. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
Resolution#3499 A corrected resolution was read setting a hearing date on May 7, 2001,to
Vacation: SE 2nd P1 between vacate a portion of SE 2nd Pl.between Lyons Ave. SE and Nile Ave. SE and
Lyons Ave SE&Nile Ave SE that portion of Nile Ave. SE 312.94 feet north of SE 2nd P1. (Parkside Court
&Portion of Nile,VAC-01- Plat/Harbour Homes; VAC-01-001). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED
001 BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ.
CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 4/16/2001 for second and final reading:
Finance: 2001 Budget An ordinance was read appropriating monies from various fund balances,
Amendments increasing the expenditures in various funds and depattiiients, and increasing
the 2001 Budget by$14,110.000. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY
CLAWSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND
FINAL READING ON 4/16/2001. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS Council President Clawson reported that he,Councilman Parker, and
Legislature: Senate Bill 4160, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman had
Transportation Improvements addressed the Senate Transportation Committee in Olympia in support of
Local Option Funding Senate Bill 4160. He explained that the bill would provide the Puget Sound
region with local option funding for transportation improvements.
Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler added that the Suburban Cities Association is
meeting this week to discuss the various transportation proposals that are
pending in Olympia.
Community Event: Centennial Councilwoman Nelson reported that the City's Centennial Celebration float
Celebration Float will appear in the Daffodil Parade in Tacoma on April 21 st.
King County: Emergency MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER
Medical Services (EMS) Levy THE SUBJECT OF THE KING COUNTY EMS LEVY PROPOSAL TO THE
Proposal PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Appeal: Monopole at N 30th Larry Warren reported receiving notification that AT&T Wireless will
St,Kennydale Neighborhood withdraw its application and subsequent appeal to erect a monopole at 1321 N.
Association&AT&T Wireless 30th St.
`\o ooilitaitto
to c0 r o 0
a ,-4-, 0>; ° Z- m = -, a) no o v c c c o
n r- ? ; iv m Do a r rn acD N m ao N =_
.c z� `' a J aZ s w ° o ° - rna, m(0a)
li * ru o N - . o ( = a0 3 m rntu
ao lo h£, O CCO OZ - CO y+ CD 0 a) fl)• — CD ' 0 U''
pp CD O a) ,` -.,
Q
`yy4,,timat co .\\ t1) cD O r
m.
0 CD O en 6 a) o X a) D C•
o 3 10 O• 3 x ° O. n a 0 a
m 07
ca ama) cOUtD0Di n CD
�. c
'04
O 0 o o m , a = -^ -, 0 m 5 -., ° z O ^ cn
7 ' C N 3 c `•Oa1 cDD a) a J 1 1 °
cco_ c 3
., I 0 n 0 = gm C av' = cD 0 0
fl: x o o O
Ca) o o a � a a) c0 O m m CD °:
Ccri
'•• �_` fl) o C0 O m CD n 'rt a x ►-] C
co ° a ° = G 0 a O P"
o °_ r• c G a �- c � 5
O m Q as � v � a :::
no as oac o = ry0pZ G, ° N+ 3 0 CD 0
p 0 (D a 0 C. a) D f-D O CD
Z
m . � c o r• o CD m0 CA.) r-
E � o oo = xa
c cc
1111, cc)0 G G � � ���• to G0 =. = m
n
N`< one CD
r 0 r. G CO 'r
o oG N
mm
o
N CO CDC N
CD
mm-...m m7QA110 * O C Q
MI S
!:_ca-a. :owcro:::::::...:;?:;::::::
amcvm
LO AC C �' y = yp770v`<OOS fl fC Q fOO O aZ .
80 -
>v �o . a, " . mm= - G") cg �b3mnQSN
.. .
a. m- A Q nmm • m i.5 • c25rn3 5 � $ mu' .
o �cvoo - : �a-� § c
wmcix� c305,�,z mmo- N m 0 0.o
i• -47.St 0 0.CL ,......0.--, = 1-c.)
wo -
hO mc O* °3N-ci m � ou) O
Om7 -•-< -co -NOp 7. at
March 6,2000 err Renton City Council Minutes `.r' Page 77
or deny, she said although there is no required process for interviewing or
considering qualifications of applicants, five of the six most recent appointees
participated in an interview process with staff and current Planning
Commission members. Additionally,press releases were issued on several
occasions asking for interested persons to apply.
In the interest of encouraging citizen participation and involvement,Ms.
Keolker-Wheeler made several suggestions for how the City could be more
proactive in letting people know how they could get involved. For example,
the City's web site could include downloadable application forms and notices
of any board or commission vacancies. She believed that with ongoing, active
recruitment,the City would have a much better chance of attracting qualified
candidates for future openings.
Ms. Keolker-Wheeler concluded that although there is no legal requirement to
do so, she hoped that the mayor would follow past practice and encourage input
from staff and current board and commission members when vacancies occur.
Replying that he did not object to advertising for applications to boards and
commissions, Mayor Tanner emphasized that it is his prerogative to make these
appointments. As such, it is not a collaborative process and he would not seek
assistance from councilmembers. He did,however,welcome input from chairs
of the boards and commissions.
ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #3443 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
Streets: Oakesdale Ave SW, interlocal agreement with King County for the County's contribution for the
King County Funding design and construction of Oakesdale Avenue SW. MOVED BY CLAWSON,
SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS
READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 3/13/00 for second and final reading:
Boards/Commissions: Human An ordinance was read amending Title II(Commissions and Boards)of City
Services Advisory Committee Code by adding Chapter 12, creating the Human Services Advisory Committee,
Addition to City Code establishing the requirements and terms of its members, and providing for rules
and procedures for its operation. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY
SCHLITZER,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND
FINAL READING ON 3/13/00. CARRIED.
Vacation: Lake View Blvd An ordinance was read vacating a portion of Lake View Boulevard(104th
(104th Ave SE), Legacy Avenue SE) for Legacy Partners/Mardinale, et al. (VAC-98-004). MOVED BY
Partners/Martindale et al., PERSSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE
VAC-98-004 ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/13/00.
CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading:
Ordinance#4832 An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-4-070 and 4-4-100.B, C, J,K and
Development Services: L of Chapter 4, Property Development Standards, Section 4-11-160 and 4-I 1-
A-Frame Signs 190 of Chapter 11,Definitions, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of City
Code by permitting A-frame signs in the City of Renton. MOVED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler noted that this matter will be reviewed in one
year, at which time Council will evaluate the effects of A-frame signs and
March 6,2000 Akar, Renton City Council Minutes ' Page 78
determine if any changes are warranted.
NEW BUSINESS Councilman Clawson suggested that the mayor and council president send a
Public Works: Olympic letter to Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn to thank her for her request that the
Pipeline Hydrostatic Testing, Office of Pipeline Safety require hydrostatic testing of Olympic Pipeline
Jennifer Dunn's Request to Company's facilities in Renton.
Office of Pipeline Safety
ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN.
CARRIED. Time: 8:11 . m.
P47./
�\rv/
ARIL . '( ERSEN, CMC,City Clerk
Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold
March 6,2000
February 28, 2000 '✓ Renton City Council Minutes '..r' Page 68
Parks: Landscape Maintenance Community Services Committee Chair Nelson presented a report
Contract,Facilities recommending that the current landscape maintenance contract with Facilities
Maintenance Contractors Maintenance Contractors be amended to include landscape areas identified in
the City's Care Maintenance program. The Committee further recommended
that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement.
MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR
IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Appointment: Councilmember Nelson announced that the Community Services Committee
PlanningCommission will hold confirmation of the mayor's appointment of Dan Lynch to the
Planning Commission at this time as Jeff Lukins has not yet officially resigned
this position. Mayor Tanner replied that although Mr. Lukins has not submitted
a formal letter of resignation,he did verbally announce his intention to resign at
a recent Planning Commission meeting.
Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler suggested that whenever a vacancy is created
on the Planning Commission,that the City actively solicit applications from
interested persons,perhaps by placing an announcement of the vacancy in the
newspaper and on the web site. Mayor Tanner responded that, as with any
other of the City's boards and commissions,residents are invited to submit an
application to be appointed to the Planning Commission at any time. These
applications are kept on file and when a vacancy arises, the mayor reviews
them and makes his selection, which Council either approves or disapproves.
Councilman Clawson agreed with Ms. Keolker-Wheeler that it might be a good
idea to solicit applications in the case of the Planning Commission only, since
Renton has many residents who are new to community activism and who might
be interested in serving. Mayor Tanner stated that the process for board and
commission appointments has not changed for years, and it was not his intent to
change it at this time. He reiterated that anyone interested in serving on a
board or commission is welcome to submit an application at any time.
Finance Committee Finance Committee Vice Chair Nelson presented a report recommending
Finance: Vouchers approval of Claim Vouchers 179307 - 179766, and two wire transfers totaling
$2,573,457.44. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
ORDINANCES AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #3442 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
Metro: 2000 Flexpass Program interlocal cooperative agreement with King County and Sound Transit for the
(City Employees) sale of Flexpasses to City of Renton employees by King County. MOVED BY
PERSSON, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 3/06/00 for second and final reading:
Development Services: A- An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-4-070 and 4-4-100.B, C, J,K and
Frame Signs L of Chapter 4,Property Development Standards, Section 4-11-160 and 4-11-
190 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV(Development Regulations) of City
Code by permitting A-frame signs in the City of Renton. MOVED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER
THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/06/00.
CARRIED.
n
December 6, 1999 v... Renton City Council Minutes r,rr Page 429
OLD BUSINESS Council President Parker presented a Committee of the Whole report
Committee of the Whole recommending that Council authorize the Administration to enter into a
Parks: Pavilion Building contract with Columbia Hospitality(CRG Hospitality) to complete the Phase I
Feasibility Analysis,Columbia feasibility analysis and report for the Pavilion building at a cost of$34,760
Hospitality, CAG-99- (including$29,760 for approximately 310 hours of professional time plus an
estimate of$5,000 for expenses, including architect consultation). Staff will
report back to the Committee of the Whole in March of 2000. MOVED BY
PARKER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Budget: 2000 Council President Parker presented a Committee of the Whole report
recommending that Council adopt the 2000 Budget as proposed,with the
following changes:
Proposed Budget— $141,480,291
Adds:
Fund 316: Skateboard Park—$150,000
Fund 215: Transfer of excess fund balance to Fund 316 as revenue($820,000)
Fund 207: Transfer of excess fund balance to Fund 316 as revenue($35,000)
Fund 221: Transfer of excess fund balance to Fund 316 as revenue($100,000).
Total Appropriations: $142,585,291.
To cover the cost of I-695 and Council's decision not to increase the card room
tax as proposed by the Mayor,the allocation of the property tax revenue in
Fund 316 will now be made in the General Fund. The transfer of excess fund
balances as illustrated above will substitute for the property tax allocation in
Fund 316.
The Council also increases revenues to Fund 316 from property sale proceeds
to met the additional requirements of adding an appropriation for the
Skateboard Park.
The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter
be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY
NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED. (See page 431 for ordinance.)
Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending approval
Finance: Vouchers of Payroll Vouchers 23000-23223 and 514 direct deposits in the total amount
of$962,235.78. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning& Development Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report
Committee regarding A-Frame signs. The Committee met four times to consider the staff,
Development Services: Sign Code Review Team,and citizen input concerning amendment of the
A-Frame Signs City's Sign Code. A public hearing on this issue was held on September 27,
1999. The Committee recommended that the Administration prepare an
ordinance amending the sign regulations for environmental review and
consideration by the Council that incorporates the following recommendations:
1. A-Frame Signs should be permitted: A-Frame Signs should be allowed for
businesses city-wide subject to the proposed standards.
2. Permit process should be streamlined: The Committee recommended that
temporary signs have a simplified permit application form and process,
separate from permanent signs.
December 6, 1999 w.r Renton City Council Minutes .✓ Page 430
3. Evaluation of regulations in one year: The Committee recommended that
staff keep record of the number of permits issued, complaints and enforcement
issues and report back to the Council in one year. At that time,the Council can
determine to retain the A-Frame Sign regulations,modify the regulations, or
eliminate the program if necessary.
Item L in the proposed standards regarding removal of A-Frame Signs upon the
daily close of business is the subject of a split Committee report:
Option 1: Require Daily Removal of A-Frame Signage: A-Frame signs are
considered to be temporary signs,however, if these signs were to remain in use
24 hours a day,they would essentially become permanent signs. We are
concerned that if problems should arise with a sign after the close of business,
there would be no one representing the business to deal with the issues.
Further, removal of the signs during non-business hours would reduce the
amount of City liability by reducing the amount of public exposure to the signs.
In addition,removal upon close of business would reduce the amount of sign
clutter during the times when the business is not open. With Council
concurrence,we would request that the Administration prepare an ordinance
amending the sign code which includes a requirement for daily removal of A-
Frame signs during non-business hours.*
Option 2: Do Not Require Daily Removal of A Frame Signagc: During the
Frame signs on a 24 hour
basis. Then, if there are problems that arise,they can be addressed by Council
when this issue is revisited again in a year. With Council concurrence, I would
hours.
*MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,
COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT WITH OPTION#1.**
Councilman Edwards supported Option#1 which would require daily removal
of A-Frame signs, since such signs are made to be portable and meant to be
temporary rather than permanent in nature. Councilmember Nelson agreed,
saying that A-Frame signs should be removed to the interior of the business
during non-business hours.
While Councilman Corman also supported Option#1,he suggested that the
City look into allowing small,permanent directional signs for stores located
some distance from the street entrance; for example, in a strip mall. He felt
that A-Frame signs should not be used as directional signage.
Councilman Schlitzer said while some concerns have been expressed regarding
A-Frame signs,the question of whether they should be able to be displayed
around the clock was never an issue. He said many A-Frame signs have been
left out all day and night in the past without any problems or complaints.
Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler responded that daily removal of A-Frame
signs will help lessen visual clutter in the City. She added that the presence of
an A-Frame sign makes it appear as if the business is open, when it may not be.
Saying he is a proponent of A-Frame signs,Council President Parker said these
should be an asset to Renton rather than a liability. He supported Option#1 in
the spirit of compromise, since the City will be allowing A-Frame signs rather
December 6, 1999 *✓ Renton City Council Minutes Page 431
than prohibiting them.
**MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEE REPORT WITH
OPTION#1.
Ms.Keolker-Wheeler expressed appreciation to the Sign Code Review Team
which was able to formulate recommendations despite the various and
sometimes competing views its members brought to the table. She also
thanked staff for having done a tremendous amount of work on this project.
ORDINANCES AND The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advanced for
RESOLUTIONS second and final reading:
Budget: 2000 An ordinance was read adopting the annual budget for the year 2000 in the total
amount of$142,585,291. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY
EDWARDS, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED.
Ordinance#4818 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was
Budget: 2000 MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading:
Ordinance#4819 An ordinance was read annexing approximately 12 acres located east of
Annexation: Smith Hoquiam Ave.NE(142nd Ave. SE),generally between SE 113th and 116th
Streets across from Hazen High School (Smith Annexation, A-98-002).
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL
AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance#4820 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of 12 acres located
Annexation: Smith,Zoning east of Hoquiam Ave.NE(142nd Ave. SE), generally between SE 113th and
116th Streets across from Hazen High School annexed to the City of Renton to
Residential -Five Dwelling Units per Acre(R-5) and Residential-Eight
Dwelling Units per Acre(R-8)for the Smith Annexation. MOVED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ADOPT
THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS Council President Parker opened nominations for 2000 Council President.
Council: 2000 Council Councilman Edwards nominated Councilman Randy Corman to serve as
President Election(Corman) Council President in 2000.
There being no further nominations, it was MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY EDWARDS,NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED. CARRIED.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL SELECT
COUNCILMAN RANDY CORMAN AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2000.
CARRIED.
Council: 2000 Council Mr. Parker then opened nominations for 2000 Council President Pro tem.
President Pro Tem(Schlitzer) Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler nominated Councilman Tim Schlitzer to
serve as Council President Pro tern in 2000.
There being no further nominations, it was MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY CORMAN,NOMINATIONS BE CLOSED. CARRIED.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL SELECT
COUNCILMAN TIM SCHLITZER AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
FOR 2000. CARRIED.
APPFr"n:7 Dv
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELMENT COMMITTEE `� /V 97
COMMITTEE REPORT Date -
December 6, 1999
A-Frame Signs
Referred April 27, 1998
The Planning and Development Committee met four times to consider the staff,Sign Code Review Team, and
citizen input concerning amendment of the City's Sign Code. A public hearing on the issue was held on September
27, 1999. The Committee recommends that the Administration prepare an ordinance amending the sign regulations
for environmental review and consideration by the Council that incorporates the following recommendations:
1. A-Frame Signs should be permitted: A-Frame Signs should be allowed for businesses Citywide subject to the
standards listed in Exhibit A.
2. Permit process should be streamlined: The Committee recommends that temporary signs have a simplified
permit application form and process,separate from permanent signs.
3. Evaluation of regulations in one year: The Committee recommends that staff keep record of the number of
permits issued,complaints and enforcement issues and report back to the Council in one year. At that time the
Council can determine to retain the A-Frame Sign regulations,modify the regulations,or eliminate the program if
necessary.
Item L in Exhibit A regarding removal of A-Frame Signs upon the daily close of business is the subject of a split
Committee Report:
OPTION 1: Require Daily Removal of A-Frame Signage: A-Frame signs are considered to be temporary signs,
however,if these signs were to remain in use 24 hours a day,they would essentially become permanent signs. We
are concerned that if problems should arise with a sign after the close of business,there would be no one
representing the business to deal with the issues. Further,removal of the signs during non-business hours would
reduce the amount of City liability by reducing the amount of public exposure to the signs. In addition,removal
upon close of business would reduce the amount of sign clutter during the times when the business is not open.
With Council concurrence,we would request that the Administration prepare an ordinance amending the sign code
which includes a requirement for daily removal during non-business hours.
tdil
/e4&1- btkal-
lathy K er-Wheeler,Chair , em er
OPTION 2:Do Not Require Daily Removal of A-Frame Signage: During the enforcement moratorium,and even
longer for some businesses,a number of businesses have displayed these signs for 24 hour periods with no reported
problems. I maintain that we should try permitting A-Frame signs on a 24-hour basis. Then, if there are problems
that arise,they can be addressed by Council when this issue is revisited again in a year. With Council concurrence,I
would request that the Administration prepare an ordinance amending the sign code which does not include a
requirement for daily removal during non-business hours.
C.l
Schlitzer, t ate
EXHIBIT A
1. Sign Standards: A-frame signs complying with all the following standards may be permitted:
a. Number of Signs Permitted:
i. Within City Center Sign Regulation Area: Only one of these signs is permitted per business per
street frontage.
ii. Elsewhere in the City: One of these signs is permitted per business per street frontage and,in
addition,one additional sign is permitted to be located abutting the business and building to which the
sign relates. •
b. Permitted Location:
i. Within City Center Sign Regulation Area: A-Frame signs must be placed against the building and
business to which the sign relates.
ii. Elsewhere in the City: A-Frame signs may be located on the public sidewalk abutting the business
site and/or within the landscaping abutting the business site. Additionally,for businesses located within
shopping centers, an additional A-Frame sign may be placed against the building and business to which
the sign relates.
c. Pedestrian Clearance: A minimum of 4'of unobstructed sidewalk area is required to place an A-Frame
sign.
d. Clear Vision Area: No sign shall be located so as to pose a danger and violate the clear vision area
specified in Section 4-4-10006,Prohibited Signs. Where a traffic vision hazard is created,the City may
require a modification to the height or location of a sign to the degree necessary to eliminate the hazard.
e. Size: Signs shall be no larger than 32"wide and 36"tall.
f. Construction Specifications and Materials: The sign must be professionally manufactured of durable
material(s). No lighting or attachments,such as balloons are permitted.
g. Maintenance and Appearance: Signs must be well maintained in accordance with the existing sign code
provisions of Section 4-4-100D3,Sign Maintenance Required and Section 4-4-100D4,Appearance of Signs.
h. Alteration of Landscaping Prohibited: No landscaping may be damaged or modified to accommodate a
sign placed on the right of way.
i. Permit Requirements: Any business displaying an A-Frame sign shall be required to obtain a permit and
have a copy of the sign permit for each sign posted along with its City business license. Additionally the
business shall post the City's regulations governing A-Frame signs so that employees are made aware of the
standards. All A-Frame signs shall have the sign permit number a minimum of one-half inch in height placed
in the upper left-hand corner by the permittee.
j. Proof of Insurance for A-Frame Signs on Public Right of Way/Sidewalk: Upon recommendation of the
City Attorney and the City's Risk Management Department,proof of insurance with the City named as an
additional insured shall be required in order to obtain a sign permit. The insurance amount shall be in an
amount recommended by the City's Risk Management Department.
k. Confiscation of Signs: The City may confiscate signs that do not comply with the provisions of this
Section.
1. Removal upon Close of Business Required: A-Frame signs shall not be displayed during non-business
hours.
•
} N c
m O O c in=4. 8 - c O N v O°�O C O� -o
0 c— O O>N E YOB co O o aa) co Or c aa)•c (Q CL-• cY4 E
w CO c °> c.' a>m aci r n (n�-C c > = � c`r a E Cn N=o� a�i a`> o
O a= O 'O7 ¢a0 Ca 0)7 o— a'T OJ a> co a_ a>— >UN O
d� o o c> = asu> a ca wQ> E ¢ o- o� c> o Q ca
O rn ..c.- (ti m _
�_
0 U o U O a> O U- In o c U c ro• 2 N al c0 O co.c h.0 > co _ _ >,
ZOZo� CT:, N > (a ooE> o a> co a> cao g03 c
O D •_ �*Za_ cii L vim= mac- m co >LYrn coav>.ca> -5._ Q c
F-0 O a>U U v a>�>.o U a •o� c"- � v o - o o t•a>
WZ> E9- WC.cv)2 w cco U ' wOY OcC¢a> a� a o00 °>jo
c W ._r _c c `.- rn rn
OZU zccrnZ o ci.c Z 48, o ai a>�o.-co 0 -fs E a,,D U o F->,E o , ma), cam
>.C3Z °'Za> Ea`>.c_ rn¢ aa, m`r �U <Dm< o >_, acrn¢ oaa, °' = �rnoac> >. nv8 c `O °>rn
F[[OEQ) om o>zCDEa� a> mrnza> oocwrn_Za> Eo-`oU.-°' m¢a � o N _cm
U O co N o C o_c 7 r c (4 0 7 3 o N O C O-"O O ul r U N- .`O Q c0 x N o M a> o c
uW O>TNCC C c.C-o0 c CC OCO CO (n9 ^UTcc2 _0---a>cj0 (O 'U ON�L� cV� O12. cc;
c c c c c N .O O N a1
wOC.3� a`O o�U czo O�Qr�ULo o'o O:a o a>� a�i O.E o o E c N a)mL a,r, (caU CN
U O N E o L O L N 0 re O N > o c 45 '.- 8.�.� > O C>-O OH O> 0 01M d�CU 4) d Q> 0 ��V O'� lti).6 j
_ c
O L.L O < o a) 0,ro`> < o.0 co. co Ecc1 O o < fNG t O a Q> c Q,0 o o>E O U (4 4 c 0 U 2 T T= o
z mz �r=.E�w 3UU)c>Ucn m'w ac>%»0W ��w : onw as� oo[O)o EM0 z
II
a>
v> a � \
O ilL!
a> cco0o >, N co \ `
U co La co 69
C � •N •rn� U UL o
J N c L, .c ».. E 1
c `�
en NSW = � � � � , r o
.. A-
Z rn fl � Lo- ~ a CO aa> .0 -.El
0 o ao Ow/ L .n
N 3Eaa) .c c „ 0 ` 03
-
Q Z § a> 2" L c � N a
a> o cocnr �. a 'v o
v_ c � cNa oc >' w
V .0 c� CD a a> N CCS o c °= c
J0.
W W ��y Q c O -0 N o c \1 L A t c
N r O ad_ a O O co cp p� / a{ I ", pc t0
L x coccocUa 33c a> � o a
LL . u) .c c N CD cLi 0 o � � �`1 ° °
0 c ! JO »r
o EcoYm c�a3 o \1a> �! = cg
C O > �Na c c .« � c N U N n m o
t_. o Q � Y is �, cv E co o` 1 co Z+ U
N C O c L \`CO
O O O N
Q �q > p co .C? , -� Z X
C a>
E
y a 0 0 0 CO C' CO d a0 L \ Q)
u. N c3 t L '.-• N C O - co U co
a> O
co Y a) et O
O O. E a,>' 0. 0 C N W 0 CD 00 .0 •
co a O c co V ;, O O> Cl) �` • "•�
Q u 0a ca N o � — oQ 1 • c 0-
U ea c a c.) (n -> a O co I-- c..) U ,J11 k H r i ;s�'>S ,,,'
e
Amends: ORD 3719
Now, *aro
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4 817
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING SUBSECTION 4-1-140.M.3 OF CHAPTER 1,
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE 4
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS), OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY ESTABLISHING PERMIT FEES FOR A-
FRAME SIGNS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-140.M.3 of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of
Title 4 (Development Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances
of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. TEMPORARY SIGNS:
Grand Opening Signs, Banners, $5.00
Streamers, etc. for Businesses
with Less than 5 Employees
pursuant to RMC 4-4-100.J.5
Grand Opening Signs, Banners, $25.00
Streamers, etc. for Businesses
with 5 or More Employees
pursuant to RMC 4-4-100.J.5
Political Signs There shall be no fee for
political signs
Real Estate Directional Signs $15.00 per sign for a 6 month
on Public Right-of-Way period with a renewal fee of
$10.00 for a 3 month period
with only one renewal allowed
A-Frame Signs $100.00 for the first sign and
$50.00 for each additional sign
Other Temporary Signs $15.00 plus a deposit of
pursuant to RMC 4-4-100J6, $100.00 which shall be forfeited
Signs Within City Center if the applicant fails to remove
the sign when the permit expires
tiblol ORDINANCE NO. 4 817
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days
after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 22nd day of November , 1999.
Marilyn J. et r en, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 22nd day of November , 1999.
Jess anner, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 11/2 6/9 9 (Summary only)
ORD.806:11/22/99:as.
2
November 22, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes"'iv Page 421
Streets across from Hazen High School (Smith Annexation,A-98-002).
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,
COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL
READING ON 12/06/99. CARRIED.
Annexation: Smith, Zoning An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of 12 acres located
east of Hoquiam Ave.NE(142nd Ave. SE), generally between SE 113th and
116th Streets across from Hazen High School annexed to the City of Renton to
Residential -Five Dwelling Units per Acre (R-5)and Residential-Eight
Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) for the Smith Annexation. MOVED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER
THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/06/99.
CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading:
Ordinance#4814 An ordinance was read amending subsection 8-5-15.D of Chapter 5, Sewers, of
Budget: 2000 Utility Rates Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)of City Code relating to 2000 utility rates for
(Pass-Through of King all customer classes. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN,
County/Metro Increase) COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL
AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance#4815 An ordinance was read amending Sections 8-1-9 of Chapter 1, Garbage, 8-2-
Budget: Automatic Increases 3.E of Chapter 2, Storm and Surface Water Drainage, 8-4-31.B of Chapter 4,
in Future Utility Rates Water, and 8-5-15.A of Chapter 5, Sewers,of Title VIII(Health and Sanitation)
of City Code relating to automatic increases in utility rates.MOVED BY
EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: FOUR AYES (PARKER,
KEOLKER-WHEELER, EDWARDS,NELSON); TWO NAYS (CLAWSON,
CORMAN). CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced to
second and final reading:
Budget: 1999 Year-end An ordinance was read providing for the 1999 Year-end Budget adjustments
Adjustments and establishing the Leased City Properties Fund. MOVED BY EDWARDS,
SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR
SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED.
Ordinance#4816 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance,it was
Budget: 1999 Year-end MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT
Adjustments THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Development Services: A- An ordinance was read amending subsection 4-1-140.M.3 of Chapter 1,
Frame Sign Fees Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations)of
City Code by establishing permit fees for A-frame signs. MOVED BY
KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL
ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING.
CARRIED.
Ordinance#4817 Following second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was
Development Services: A- MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,
,Frame Sign Fees COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL
AYES. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CANCEL
Council: Meeting Cancellation THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AND COMMI 1TEE OF THE
(12/27/99) WHOLE MEETING ON 12/27/99. CARRIED.
s i
fire
November 22, 1999 Nose. Renton City Council Minutes Page 418
Noting that a good percentage of utility revenues pays for employees who do
the necessary work to provide this service, Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler
said many union contracts contain inflationary clauses for salaries. Capital
projects are one thing,but personnel costs will increase as well. She
emphasized that Council can always choose to not increase rates if it
determines that an increase is not needed.
Mayor Tanner concurred, saying that the ordinance contains both the CPI and
the 5% figures for the purpose of reminding Council, on an annual basis, to
consider and decide this issue. He added that rates will not be raised in 2000,
and there is no reason to raise them in 2001 unless some unexpected, worst-
case scenarios occur.
Councilman Edwards commented that he would not want for the City's
property tax or other General Fund revenues to be used for personal water
consumption.
Councilman Corman explained that his objection to the ordinance is the
inclusion of the 5%potential annual increase. He said that because of the way
the ordinance is written,the region could theoretically experience no inflation
over the next 15 years, yet utility rates could double if the 5%rate increase was
continually enacted. He added that the ordinance does not lay out a mechanism
whereby Council can decline to impose the 5%rate increase, or indeed any
increase at all.
Mayor Tanner said Council will forever retain the authority to modify this
ordinance in whatever way it wishes to,either by approving amendments to it
or by repealing it outright. He emphasized that he has no interest in raising
utility rates, even by the Consumer Price Index.
Council President Parker noted that this ordinance would offer to the City's
bonding companies the assurances that Renton could provide additional capital,
if needed, for its utility system. He felt it would be irresponsible not to enact
this legislation as written.
**MOTION CARRIED TO REFER MS.PETERSEN'S LETTER TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
OLD BUSINESS Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report
Planning&Development recommending that the fee schedule be revised and an ordinance be adopted
Committee establishing permit fees for A-frame signs. The Committee recommended a fee
Development Services: A- of$100.00 for the first sign and$50.00 for any additional A-frame signs. This
Frame Sign Fees recommendation is based on feedback from City Code enforcement staff and is
generally consistent with the recommendations of a majority of the Sign Code
Review Team members. The A-frame sign standards recommendations will be
reported out of Planning&Development Committee at the December 6, 1999
Council meeting. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY
CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Comprehensive Plan: 2000 Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report
Review Cycle, Preapplication regarding Preapplication#1 (Mona Ridge) for the Comprehensive Plan
#1 (Anona Ridge) amendments 2000 review cycle. The Committee reviewed a proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to redesignate a two-
acre site from Residential Rural to Residential Single Family. The Committee
recommended concurrence with the staff recommendation that Council not
consider the proposed amendment in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan review
cycle.
APPROVED DY
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELMENT COMMITTEE Date /"-a 97
COMMITTEE REPORT
November 22, 1999
Fees for A-Frame Signs
Referred April 27, 1998
The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the fee schedule be revised and an ordinance
be adopted establishing permit fees for A-Frame Signs. The Committee recommends a fee of$100.00 for
the first sign and$50.00 for any additional A-Frame Signs. This recommendation is based upon feedback
from City code enforcement staff and is generally consistent with the recommendations of a majority of the
Sign Code Review Team members. The A-Frame sign standards recommendations will be reported out of
Planning&Development Committee at the December 6, 1999 Council meeting.
/Keirehei //jivaid.
Kathy Keolk- -Wheeler,Chair
Dan Clawson,Member
Timothy J.Schlitzer,Alternate Member
rn —
ex, y.,f,.t,
�� -iv C -
New
September 27, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 327
Continuing,Mr.Dennison said as with other annexations,the streets and
drainage systems are generally below Renton standards. These would be
improved with development of the adjacent properties. The area is within
Water District 90's service area,and it is assumed that the District would
continue to provide water service upon annexation. Renton would provide
sewer service,which is not now available in the area.
Mr. Dennison concluded that the proposed annexation is generally consistent
with Renton's Comprehensive Plan annexation policies and the objectives of
the King County Boundary Review Board. Staff recommends that Council
accept the 10%Notice of Intent to Annex petition.
Responding to Councilman Clawson,Mr.Dennison said the eastern urban
growth boundary lies approximately one-half mile from the proposed
annexation area.
Audience comment was invited.
Correspondence was read from Janice M. Spoon, 16701 SE May Valley Rd.,
Renton, 98059, supporting the annexation as one of the affected property
owners. Correspondence was also read from Victoria Troisi, 14630 SE 132nd
St.,Renton, 98056, stating that she opposes the annexation because it will bring
cheaply-made multi-family housing into the area. Claiming that the proposed
development would cut her neighborhood in half,Ms. Troisi inquired about the
annexation process and expressed her concerns about the existence of a wetland
in this area and the fact that one of the property owners is already filling in land
to prepare it for development.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL DIRECT
THE ADMINISTRATION TO RESPOND TO THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS
AND ASSERTIONS CONTAINED IN MS.TROISI'S LETTER. CARRIED.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL: ACCEPT
THE 10%NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX; AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION
OF THE 60%PETITION;REQUIRE ADOPTION OF CITY ZONING ON
THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
AND REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSUME A
PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING The proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local
Development Services: and State laws,Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider A-frame
A-Frame Signs signs.
Laureen Nicolay,Associate Planner,explained that the issue of A-frame signs,
which are prohibited under current Renton City Code,was referred to the
Planning&Development Committee last year after Council received public
comment on this subject. At the same time, Council imposed a moratorium on
enforcement of the prohibition against such signs pending further study.
Subsequently,a twelve-member sign code review team was formed to develop
recommendations to the Council on this issue. The review team consisted of
local business owners and interested citizens.
Ms.Nicolay said the review team held numerous meetings during which it
reviewed sign regulations from other jurisdictions and inspected existing A-
frame signs in Renton's downtown. Of 22 local jurisdictions contacted, only
Sumner permits A-frame signs for other than real estate purposes.
September 27, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 328
Continuing,Ms.Nicolay said the review team was unable to achieve full
consensus on all issues; however, a majority of the members concurred with the
following recommended changes to Renton's Sign Code:
1. Allow A-frame signs in the downtown sign regulation area only,and only
abutting the business to which the sign relates. The team felt this was
warranted due to the pedestrian nature of the area,the City's emphasis on
downtown investment,and the unique concentration of retail businesses in that
area.
2. The A-frame signs to be allowed should be standardized signs,exactly 32"
wide and 36"tall,and limited to one per business per street frontage.
3. Signs should be placed against the building and business to which they
relate,and a minimum four-foot clearance of unobstructed sidewalk area
between the outer edge of the sign and the street curb should be required to
allow for adequate pedestrian passage.
4. Each sign owner should provide proof of insurance, with the City named as
additional insured.
5. An initial sign permit of$100 should be required for each A-frame sign.
6. If the new regulations are adopted, Council should revisit them after one
year to assess their impacts.
Ms.Nicolay noted that additional issues requiring further discussion by the
Planning&Development Committee involve: whether to specify an exact sign
size or to allow for a range of sizes; whether to allow signs to be constructed of
only certain materials; whether to require that signs be removed when
businesses are closed; if an annual permit fee should be imposed(and if so, in
what amount); whether a minimum sign face size should be established; and
whether A-frame signs should be allowed city-wide.
Commenting that strong differences of opinion remain on this subject,
Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler said this matter will remain in the Planning
&Development Committee.
Councilman Edwards expressed his preference that the second A-frame sign
fee,relating to monitoring and enforcement of any imposed regulations,be less
than$100 per year, since this figure is based on actual estimated administrative
costs. Mayor Tanner noted that the City typically sets permit fees so they
recoup 60%of the costs associated with issuing the permit.
Audience comment was invited.
Debbie Wicks, 2508 Kennewick Pl.NE,Renton, said that the two A-frame
signs used by her business,Fashion West,are very important. She disagreed
with one of the proposed recommendations, saying that it would be nearly
impossible for her business to bring these signs in every day, as these are
located a distance away from the store. She felt it was a safety issue for her
employees who would be reluctant to recover the signs after dark. Ms.Wicks
added that if the signs are left on the street frontage,they can continue to serve
as advertising even when the store is closed.
In response to a question from Councilman Corman,Ms. Keolker-Wheeler
explained that because Fashion West is located outside of the downtown sign
regulation area, it would be allowed to keep its A-frame signs only if Council
• decided that these be permitted city-wide. If A-frames are allowed throughout
the City, Council would have to decide where these could be placed for
woe
September 27, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 329
• businesses such as Fashion West,which are set back substantially from the
street. The question of whether these signs would have to be removed when the
businesses are closed would also have to be resolved.
Responding to Council President Parker,Ms.Wicks said she felt that A-frame
signs should be allowed city-wide in the interest of fairness to all businesses.
Beverly Franklin,210 Wells Ave. S.,Renton, 98055, stated that the small
businesses in the downtown bring in a lot of money from out-of-state visitors.
Speaking from experience, she said she could spend much money advertising
her business in other ways but would not realize the return on her investment
that her A-frame sign generates. Responding to fears that if these signs are
allowed city-wide, they will then proliferate, she estimated that their numbers
would increase less than 10%because most businesses who want these already
have them.
Heidi Carlson, 806 Index Ct.NE,Renton, 98056,noted that most other cities
contacted about this issue don't allow A-frame signs, and she felt that Renton
shouldn't either. Instead, she preferred allowing permanent signs set in
concrete which are attractive and which eliminate the various problems
associated with A-frame signs. Saying that A-frames only detract from
businesses, she urged the City to unclutter Renton and offer attractive business
areas for investors and customers alike. Ms. Carlson suggested that,if Council
allows these signs,it impose an annual fee prohibitive enough to effectively
prevent business owners from applying for a permit.
Phillip Beckley, 655 Ferndale Ct.NE,Renton, 98056, said that A-frame signs
do not enhance Renton's image and that the City should strive for a more
attractive look than that which results from a proliferation of such signs.
Suspecting that Council will ultimately allow A-frames in the downtown area
for a trial period of one year,he asked that the review team be allowed to
continue meeting during this time to further evaluate the impacts of these signs.
Alice Maxwell, 6646 - 114th Ave. SE,Bellevue,WA, stated that her business,
Fashion West,has used A-frame signs for 29 years without any problems
whatsoever. She claimed to get more results from these signs than from any
other type of advertising,and said that although Bellevue and Seattle might
prohibit these signs,those regulations are not enforced. Ms. Maxwell said if
her business is allowed to keep its A-frames, she did not want to be required to
remove them when her store is closed due to safety concerns.
Councilman Corman wondered why,if the store wants to leave its A-frame
signs out on a permanent basis, it does not instead install permanent signs in
their place. Ms. Maxwell stated that she has approached Fred Meyer about
getting a permanent sign for Fashion West,but Fred Meyer allows these only
for the larger stores.
Responding to Councilman Clawson,Ms.Maxwell said she did not believe that
the proposed regulations would result in a proliferation of A-frames throughout
the City since these are now essentially allowed without a fee. She suggested
that if the City starts charging a fee for them, fewer businesses will have them
than currently do so.
Mr. Corman felt this was specious reasoning, since A-frames aren't currently
allowed under City Code but the proposed regulations would formally legalize
them. Therefore,the past can't be looked to as an example of what would
happen if the signs were officially allowed.
September 27, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 330
Council President Parker commented that these signs do benefit the businesses
that use them and, in his view, they can be regulated very simply.
There being no further audience comment, it was MOVED BY EDWARDS,
SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CARRIED.
Councilman Corman hoped that the Planning&Development Committee will
consider alternatives to A-frame signs that would sufficiently promote
businesses and make it easy for customers to locate stores.
After being alerted that someone else wished to speak to this matter,it was
MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER,COUNCIL REOPEN
THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED.
Doug Cartwright, 3815 NE 4th#C-60, Renton, stated that A-frame signs,as
well as construction signs,pose serious safety issues to wheelchair users such
as himself. He said some of the A-frames which he encounters cannot be
maneuvered around, so he must pick them up and move them out of his way.
Responding to Councilman Edwards,Ms.Nicolay said under the proposed
regulations,A-frame owners would have to provide a site plan to the City
showing exactly where the sign would be located and depicting the minimum
clearance area from the sign to the curb.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE City Clerk Marilyn Petersen reviewed a written administrative report
REPORT summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs
adopted as part of its business plan for 1999 and beyond. Items noted included:
* Paving of the Cedar River Park trail will be completed this week,with
hydroseeding of the park scheduled for next week.
* The City's contractor on the SW 23rd St. culvert clean-up project has
finished hauling the petroleum-contaminated soil to the disposal site.
* Three new after-school pilot programs begin next week at McKnight
Middle School, featuring bowling, golf, and roundball.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Janice Brown, 5247 S. 51st Ct.,Renton,president of the Summit Park
Citizen Comment: Brown— Townhome and Condominium Homeowners' Association, said that the Sikh
Sikh Temple on Talbot Road Temple's radio station has neither been shut down nor removed although it is
operating without a permit, in violation of City Code. She wondered if the
flagpole outside of the temple which the Sikhs claim is used for religious
ceremonies was, in fact,built to disguise the radio antenna. Referring to
problems which have occurred at this location in the recent past, she noted that
the site's landscaping is supposed to be completed before the end of this week.
Mayor Tanner replied that the City is carefully monitoring this troublesome yet
complex situation.
Citizen Comment: Ford— Lee Ford, 372 Stevens Ave.NW,Renton, stated that sidewalks are built for
4. A-Frame Signs DO pedestrians to use and not for advertising purposes, thus A-frame signs or any
T other kind of signs do not belong on them.
CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
-.Sign Cods
Review Team Members
Bruce Anderson
Phil Beckley
Heidi Carlson '�
Doug Cartwright '�
Dominic Gatto
Al Gould
Beverly Franklin '/ /
Alice Maxwell �
Sam Pace
Fred Pierson
Marge Richter
Debbie Wicks
Cities that Proh jit Cities thaUllow
A-Frame Signs A-Frame Signs
Bellevue Sumner
Berkeley Tucson
Bothell
Edmonds
Everett
Federal Way
IssEquah
Kirkland
Lynnwood
Mesa, AZ
Morroe
Mukilteo
Oak Harbor
Palm Desert, CA
Pasadena, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Redmond
San Antonio, TX
Santa Barbara, CA
Seattle
Sea-Tac
Shelton
Spokane
Tacoma
Tukwilla
Vancouver
-CITY CENTER:,, IGN REGULATION 'OUNDARIES
—,, - —,a-- --. - ' il
t ' ' ter—soil 111.0 PIA �c
‘ „ or ____ _ 7:_iy
7. El! 7
171111
_
iti ,:---5
Airport Way _ ion Nisi — j
1111_. _w.. w� .��
a 'Er, Ban
..
\----- i HI ii
sloDi St —__ \ 1 LE
itim
,• �" �) I
\I cird 11111111111111 esomagIM
lin
IIIIN
a I _ - — _-
III
J S 2n d St WAS 2nd S
� � :�
im. ; , : �,/
S3rdS Q L _ .)���
111111w1111 J!I
� •" p
VI 7 -
a _. .. v), ____II i IIIP it= ell
1. _y / LLA \ — 1--- 7--1
-20 ;ma am, op -- -'---- ,, , ,--,
c). c,--)
,....., ..... .p 41 I - t'n (/) mu , ,. _, I
0 Sla tkkh r' 1 pi ir, rill ris I st-= ;--,
1.0
_— —— —' —� __I;IMI MEW
CU_ i--
t'- �.1 S f— —i L I . sas or - ,_
,7////
0 Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
vNQ• ED/N/SP rl
O. Dennison 0 6 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
0 27 September 1999
[ laws 1
1 :7,200
Review TeaThkrz-Nqtj
Recommendations -
„dm
e6NNiN _
t
L
eui ld in43
iv facade441Z,—Hv .
0 •
A-rraMq
curb (c." 510N
•
- r
1
•
1 MIN ..MUM• CLs►;�,--�
•
7- • - V- W7 'WN s/1 4i 4IX
- 7Y1'tcA-Lky a'--- I I '
Review Lam Recomm,ndations
that do not require amendments to
current Sign Regulations
• Clear Vision Area : Visibility of drivers
should not be impaired near intersections,
including private driveways.
• Insurance Requirements/City Liability:
Businesses to provide liability insurance for
signs on public right-of-way
• Administration/Initial Sign Permit Fee:
$ 100.00 per A-Frame sign .
• Sign Maintenance: Signs must be properly
maintained
• Enforcement of Sign Regulations: Sign
regulations be effectively enforced with City
authorized to remove illegal signs.
Sp‘cific Issues. for
Further Discussion
• Exact sign size or range of sizes?
• Construction materials?
• Evening/weekend sign removal?
• Amount of annual permit fee for signs
on City sidewalk?
• Establish a minimum sign face size?
(to prevent unstable signs)
• Allow A-Frame signs Citywide?
• Other issues raised at the hearing.
1 . Should busesses be allowl "on-
premise" portable A-Frame signs for
advertising purposes?
2. If allowed, should such signs be limited to
the City Center Sign Regulation Area or
Permitted Citywide?
3. What should be the allowed size of signs?
4. What should the signs be made of?
5. Should the signs be restricted as to support
structure (leg) length to prevent unstable
signs?
6. Should signs be removed on a daily basis
when the business is not open?
7. What should the annual fee be for ensuring
sign maintenance and verification of
insurance for signs on City right of way?
8. If the Council determines to permit these
signs Citywide, how many signs should
each business be allowed?
9. For signs outside the City Center Sign
Regulation Area (downtown), where should
these signs be located?
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 22, 1999
TO: King Parker, President
City Council Members
VIA: Mayor Tanner
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator & '
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
STAFF CONTACT: Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner
Development Services Division, x-7294
SUBJECT: A-Frame Sign Regulations within the City Center and
Rescission of Existing Sign Code Enforcement
Moratorium (Resolution #3327)
ISSUE:
Sign regulation amendments to allow "on-premise", portable A-Frame signage for
business use (other than real estate directional signs).
RECOMMENDATION:
• Consider public testimony at the September 27'h public hearing on the issue of A-
Frame signage, discuss outstanding issues and possible solutions and refer the
issue back to Planning and Development Committee for final evaluation and
recommendation.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Existing Sign Code Provisions: Current City sign regulations prohibit portable, off-
premise signs and most signage on public right of way City-wide.
"A-Frame" signs defined: A-Frame signs are also referred to as "sandwich board"
signs or"A-board" signs. A possible definition for these signs is as follows: A non-
illuminated type of portable sign comprised of hinged panels configured in the shape of
the alphabetic letter"A". These signs contact the ground but not are not anchored to the
ground and are independent of any other structure.
History and Enforcement Moratorium: The issue of A-Frame sigrage was originally
referred by Council to Planning and Development Committee after the issue was raised
at a Council meeting. In May of last year, the Council passed Resolution#3327,
prohibiting enforcement of the A-Frame sign restrictions pending further study of the
issue.
Review Team Formed: At Council request, the Development Services Division formed
a twelve member sign code review team comprised of local business owners (including
a sign company) and interested citizens to review the issue of portable A-Frame
signage.
Review of Sign Codes of other Jurisdictions: The Sign Code Review Team met
numerous times, reviewed sign regulations from other jurisdictions, and inspected the
existing A-Frame signs within the downtown area. Of the 22 local governments we
contacted (Bellevue, Bothell, Edmonds, Everett, Federal Way, Issaquah, King County,
Kirkland, Lynnwood, Monroe, Mukilteo, Oak Harbor, Redmond, Seattle, Sea-Tac,
Shelton, Spokane, Sumner, Tacoma, Tukwilla, and Vancouver, only Sumner permits
these signs for businesses other than real estate. We also contacted 8 out of state cities
we thought might allow such signs due to the pedestrian nature of those communities'
downtowns: Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson, Arizona; Pasadena, Santa Barbara, Berkeley,
and Palm Desert, California; and San Antonio, Texas. Only Tucson permitted A-Frame
signs on a "permanent" basis. The City of Berkeley also permits the.7n to be displayed
two weekends a year and on holidays.
REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Team did not achieve full consensus on all issues, but the majority of members
concurred with the following changes to the sign code:
Review Team Recommendation—Allow in Downtown Only: With the exception of
one Team member, a strong advocate of continued prohibitions against "A-frame"
signage due to safety and accessibility concerns, the majority of the team members
concurred to recommend that A-Frame signs be permitted only in the downtown sign
regulation area and only abutting the business to which the sign relates. The Team felt
that permitting A-Frame signs in the downtown area was warranted due to the
pedestrian nature of the area, the City's emphasis on downtown investment, and the
unique concentration of retail businesses in that area. Exhibit A, attached, depicts the
City Center Sign Regulation Area. (See further discussion regarding allowing these signs
outside of the downtown area on pages 5 and 6).
Team Recommended Number, Size, and Location of A-Frame Signs: The majority
of team members also concurred to recommend that Council permit only standardized
signs of a certain size limited to one per business per street frontage. The Team wished
to ensure that only sturdy, attractive, wind resistant and professionally produced signs
would be permitted. The specific recommendations of the majority c*the Review Team
were as follows:
• Number: Only one of these signs should be permitted per business per
street frontage. (See further discussion on page 6 for signs outside of the
downtown area)
• Size: The sign must be exactly 32"wide and 36" tall. (See further discussion
of sign size on page 5).
2
Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility Issues: Sidewalk widths in the downtown vary
from 8 to eleven 11 feet in width. In other commercial areas of the City, sidewalks are
typically 5 feet in width. Any sign code amendments to permit portable signs should
include the following provisions to reduce the potential for pedestrian passage impacts:
• Location: Signs must be placed against the building and business to which
the sign relates.
• Pedestrian Clearance: A minimum of 4' of unobstructed sidewalk area
between the outer edge of the sign and the street curb is required.
• Clear Vision Area: Any regulations adopted should ensure that driver
visibility is not impaired near intersections, including priv=ate driveways.
Insurance Requirements/City Liability: The Team concurred that insurance should be
required for signs on public right-of-way. No changes are needed since the current sign
code regulations require that the sign owner provide insurance with the City named as
an additional insured. The specific regulations are as follows:
Liability Insurance: Excluding wall signs projecting twelve inches (12") or less
over a public right-of-way, the owner of any sign projecting over a public right-of-
way shall file with the Building Official a public liability insurance policy issued by
an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington,
appropriately conditioned in conformity with the objectives of this section, with
limits of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) to three hundred thousand
dollars ($300,000.00) public liability coverage and fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00) property damage coverage. The City shall be named as an
additional insured, and notified of lapses or changes to the insurance policy.
Annual Permit Required for Signs Over Public Property: An annual sign
permit shall be required for any signs projecting over the right-of-way, excluding
wall signs projecting twelve inches (12") or less. Annual fees shall be consistent
with RMC 4-1-140M. The annual permit shall be issued upon a determination
that liability insurance remains in effect, and that the sign and supporting
structure are secure. (Ord. 4720, 5-4-1998) Note: There is currently no annual
fee amount established by the Code, however.
Sign Maintenance: The Team wanted to ensure that A-Frame signs were properly
maintained. No changes are needed to ensure maintenance since the current sign code
has provisions requiring the maintenance of signs. The following language is already in
the sign code:
Sign Maintenance Required: All signs, together with all of their supports,
braces, guys and anchors, shall be kept in repair and in proper state of
preservation. The surfaces of all signs shall be kept neatly painted or posted at
all times. The ground area shall be neat and orderly. (Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983)
Appearance of Signs: If a sign is visible from more than one direction, all areas
not intended as display surfaces including the back and sides shall be designed
so that such areas are given a finished and pleasing appearance with the display
surfaces visible only from the directions that they are intended to be seen. (Ord.
2504, 9-23-1969)
3
*of *4110
Administration: If the Council decides to permit A-Frame signs, the Team, with
concurrence by City sign code enforcement staff, recommended that a sign permit be
required for each A-Frame sign ($100.00 fee). Also the permit number would be
required to be noted on the sign for efficiency in enforcement. The Development
Services Division's code compliance officer would be charged with enforcing the new A-
Frame regulations if new regulations are adopted and the moratorium is lifted. The
review team recommended that the Council reconsider the new regulations again after a
one-year period. Development Services staff would track the one year time period and
prepare a report including the number of sign code violations and administration time for
presentation to the Council at that time.
Violations of Sign Code: The Review Team expressed concern that any new
regulations be effectively enforced. No changes are needed to ensure compliance since
the current code already provides for removal of illegal signage by the code enforcement
officer and establishes penalties for sign code violations. However, additional staff time
will be required to administer(plan review, permit issuance, explaining provisions, etc.)
and enforce the sign code should the Council determine to permit A-Frame signs. The
current regulations state:
Penalties: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter
shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-2, Civil Penalties. (Ord. 435i, 5-4-1992) [This
Section allows fines of$100.00 to $500.00 dollars per day depending on the
length of time the violation continues]
Removal and Storage of Illegal Signs Authorized: Unauthorized signs or other
advertising devices either wholly or partially supported on or projecting over the
public right-of-way may be removed by the Building Official or his representative
without notice to the owner. Such signs or devices shall be stored at the City
garage for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which time the owner •
may redeem such sign or device by payment to the City Treasurer an amount
equal to the City cost for the removal and storage, but in no event shall the fee
be less than twenty dollars ($20.00). After expiration of the thirty (30) day storage
period, the sign not having been redeemed, it shall be destroyed or otherwise
disposed of. (Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983, Amd. Ord. 4422, 10-25-1993)
Confiscated Signs: All confiscated signs shall become the property of the City.
(Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983)
•
SPECIFIC A-FRAME SIGN ISSUES FOR FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
The following issues either came up subsequent to the final Review Team meeting or
were issues where team consensus could not be reached. A bulleted list of discussion
items is attached as Exhibit B.
Size of signs: The Sign Code Review Team recommended that in order to be eligible
for a sign permit, an A-Frame sign must be exactly 32" inches wide by 36" tall. Members
felt this larger size of sign would be more wind resistant. A sign company representative
subsequently noted that a sign size of 24" by 30" could be more cost effective for
•
businesses since this would allow full utilization of a standard 4 by 8 sheet of plywood.
Council may also wish to consider permitting a range of sign sizes (e.g. 24" by 30" up to
32 by 36") in order to allow for specific site conditions. For example, if only 32"wide by
36" tall signs are permitted, a business building abutting a 6-foot wide sidewalk would
not be able to put up any A-Frame signage since such a wide sign would project into the
required 4-foot clear pedestrian area. Two sign sizes will be displayed at the public
hearing (24"wide by 30" tall and 32"wide by 36" tall).
Construction Specifications and Materials: The Team agreed that the materials used
to construct the signs needed to be durable. Team members differed, however, in the
materials recommended. The material suggested by the sign company owner was '/2"
MDO plywood [a heavy pressed particleboard] with the edges protected with plastic
edge cap or plastic molding. Another team member will present information at the public
hearing supporting an alternative construction material, a composition material
incorporating plastic, which may be more durable than the particle board.
Design of Signs: Code enforcement staff note that if the Council wishes to prevent the
potential for a business to install an unstable A-Frame sign with long legs, a minimum
sign face size may also need to be stipulated in addition to overall maximum sign
dimension (e.g. approximately 4" less than the overall sign dimensions).
Removal of Signs Upon Closure in Evenings/Weekends: The majority of review •
team members concurred in recommending a requirement that these signs be
removed in the evenings and/or weekends a business is closed. Members felt that this
would reduce vandalism potential to the signs. However, a team member has requested
that Council consider allowing these signs to remain in place in the evenings due to the
difficulty in placing/removing the sign on a daily basis.
Insurance/Liability/Annual Permit Requirements: The current code requires an
annual sign permit for signs over public right-of-way and proof of insurance with the City
of Renton named as an additional insured. The Sign Code Review Team was aware of
and supportive of the insurance requirement, but may not have been apprised of the
current code's requirement for an annual permit. The primary purpose of the annual
permit is to verify proof of insurance. No annual permit fee was discussed with the
Team. Staff recommends that the annual fee of$75.00 to $100.00 be established to
cover the costs of administering the insurance requirements and inspection the sign
appearance and maintenance.
Allowing A-Frame Signage for Businesses throughout the City: Staff has been
unable to resolve a request by a team member that the City consider some means to
permit A-Frame signs on a limited basis for shopping center*tenants and other business
buildings located outside of the downtown area which are set back a significant distance
from the street.
* Shopping Centers are considered to be any building with 4 or more tenants or any group of buildings,
according to the definition section of the Development Regulations.
5
Team Member Request that Council Consider Permitting A-Frames City Wide for
Shopping Centers and/or All Businesses (continued):
Equity: After considering numerous options, staff could not create permissive
language which would equitably permit these signs for shopping center tenants
and other buildings constructed a distance from the street without permitting
them essentially everywhere in the City. If the Council chooses to permit A-
Frame signs throughout the City, the number of signs each business can
display could be limited similar to the requirements considered for the
downtown. Commercial areas outside the City center have additional location
possibilities. Should the Council wish, A-Frame signs could also be permitted
to be located in (or partially within) a landscaping strip--as well as on the public
sidewalk and adjacent to the business building. Potential could exist for
damage or extensive pruning of landscaping should this option be selected.
Sign Proliferation: If approved, this would likely result in a significant increase
in signage throughout the City. For example, in the case of a shopping center
on the corner of Rainier Avenue South and Airport Way, this center contains six
businesses and at least two street frontages. In this case each business could
,put an A-Frame sign on Rainier Avenue and Airport Way resulting in 6 of these
signs placed on the sidewalk within a distance of approximately 100 feet along
Rainier Avenue and 6 signs within a distance of 300 feet along Airport Way.
Variances not Viable Option: A variance or modification process to allow
these signs for only some businesses was unworkable since there would no
legally defensible means to allow some and not others thre gh the variance
process. The'modification process was also rejected as ai..option to attempt to
limit these signs since it would ultimately allow approval of the same number of
signs as outright allowing them, but would just add another permit process for
an applicant to go through.
CONCLUSION OF MAJORITY OF SIGN CODE REVIEW TEAM:
The majority of the Sign Code Review Team concluded that the proposed regulations
would permit more effective advertising in the pedestrian-oriented City Center without
substantially compromising pedestrian mobility and safety. If approved by Council, the
design and construction standards should ensure these signs have a uniform and
attractive appearance. Sign maintenance requirements will ensure they remain
attractive during the one-year trial period. The Council should review the impact and
effectiveness in one year's time to ensure the regulations are functioning as intended.
In summary, the issue before the Council is whether or not to permit A-Frame signage.
And, if Council elects to permit such signs, whether to permit them City-wide or just in
the pedestrian-oriented City Center Sign Regulation Area (downtown).
Attachments Exhibit A, City Center Sign Regulation Area Map
Exhibit B, Bulleted list of discussion points (colored paper)
Exhibit C, Public handout summarizing issues (duplicates information
contained in this issue paper)
6
4-4-100H *III, EX4IBIT A
3. Map of CITY CENTER SIGN REGULATION BOUNDARIES: -
48, .--"'L-r13.1„.....t. _v___, _
e _
Renton 14rttiCIp01 erpert �ua {
IN ,m I � _d
foLI
' � \\ NrW t II
N.
Imo
DI
4411411
y 1. j \ !AI\ z --- lab., , , ; ; i— — - -
- ' , I , 1 lobo4
401fi
--:- ..--:__.=:I-— L
:"..
• -- g
end st i I / -
s t
, , ,--- -- - - ill':
1 > — — Mill _
re
S 9rd St ' S}d t - /
1
EIn __,-.--, - f /./ _
j :, Q
3 ....,--i, ili /
S 4th St
5\ o _. r S to S• .
Q
C
gilli
ay, 1.11 _
/j�� i
.► '.') S n
-
r
f6t
S b
( > th St S tith$t T.
1—
(Ord. 4720, 5-4-1998)
(Re visedj/99) - 4 - 50 - - - _
EXHIBIT B
SPECIFIC A-FRAME SIGN ISSUES FOR
FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
1. Should businesses be allowed "on-premise" portable A-Frame signs for
advertising purposes?
Option A—Yes, the City should permit them, but revisit the issue in one year.
Option B—No (If Option B is selected, the remainder of items are no longer
relevant)
2. If allowed, should such signs be limited to the City Center Sign Regulation Area
or Permitted Citywide?
Option A—Allow in City Center only
' Option B—Allow Citywide
3. What should be the allowed size of signs?
Option A—All signs must be exactly 32" inches wide by 36" inches tall.
Option B—Allow a range of sign sizes from 24" by 30"to 32"by 36"
Option C—Another sign size(s) of should be permitted
4. What should the signs be made of?
Option A-1/2" MDO plywood (pressed particleboard]should be used .
Option B—The composite material recommended by Beverly Franklin should be
used.
Option C—The following other material(s) should be used:
Option D—Stipulate only that the signs must be constructed of"durable" material
and kept in good repair(poorly maintained signs may be removed by the City).
5. Should the signs be allowed to have varying "leg" length?
Option A—Require a minimum sign face area thereby eliminating potential for
signs with long supporting "legs".
Option B—Have no restrictions regarding sign face size.
6. Should signs be removed on a daily basis when the business is not open?
Option A—Yes, signs should be removed.
Option B—No, signs should be allowed to remain
7. What should the annual fee be for ensuring sign maintenance and verification
of insurance for signs on City right of way:
Option A—A fee based on actual administrative costs (preliminary estimate is
$75.00 to $100.00).
Option B—Other fee of$ • G elo ?
Option C—No fee.
Page 1 of 2
•
ADDITIONAL ISSUES TO
DISCUSS IF A-FRAME SIGNS ARE PERMITTED
OUTSIDE OF THE CITY CENTER SIGN AREA:
8. If the Council determines to permit these signs Citywide, how many signs
should each business be allowed? •
Option A—One sign per business per street frontage limited to a maximum of
two signs per business (while most businesses would be limited to one sign, this
could allow 2 signs for tenants of most shopping centers and for businesses with
corner lots).
Option B—Two signs per business. (This would allow all businesses the same
number of signs regardless of the number of abutting streets).
Option C—Other
9. For signs outside the City Center Sign Regulation Area (downtown), where
should these signs be located?
Option A—Allow signs:
• Abutting the business building, and
• On the public sidewalk abutting the business lot, and
• Within the landscaping strip abutting the business lot.
Option B—Allow signs:
• Abutting the business building, and
• On the public sidewalk.
Option C—Other
•
Page2of2
EXHIBIT C
SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING
ON PORTABLE A-FRAME SIGNGAGE
Tonight the Council will take public testimony regarding the issue of A-Frame (Sandwich
Board) signage. The Council is considering whether to amend the existing sign
regulations to allow`on-premise", portable A-Frame signage for business use (other
than real estate directional signs, which are already allowed). In addition to taking public
testimony, the Council will discuss outstanding issues and possible solutions.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
Existing Sign Code Provisions: Current City sign regulations prohibit portable, off-
premise signs and most signage on public right of way City-wide.
"A-Frame" signs defined: A-Frame signs are also referred to as "sandwich board"
signs or"A-board" signs. A possible definition for these signs is as follows: A non-
illuminated type of portable sign comprised of hinged panels configured in the shape of
the alphabetic letter"A". These signs contact the ground but not are not anchored to the
ground and are independent of any other structure.
History and Enforcement Moratorium: The issue of A-Frame signage was originally
referred by Council to Planning and Development Committee after the issue was raised
at a Council meeting. In May of last year, the Council passed Resolution#3327,
prohibiting enforcement of the A-Frame sign restrictions pending fur her study of the
issue.
Review Team Formed: At Council request, the Development Services Division formed
a twelve member sign code review team comprised of local business owners (including
a sign company) and interested citizens to review the issue of portable A-Frame
signage.
•
Review of Sign Codes of other Jurisdictions: The Sign Code Review Team met
numerous times, reviewed sign regulations from other jurisdictions, and inspected the
existing A-Frame signs within the downtown area. Of the 22 local governments we
contacted (Bellevue, Bothell, Edmonds, Everett, Federal Way, Issaquah, King County,
Kirkland, Lynnwood, Monroe, Mukilteo, Oak Harbor, Redmond, Seattle, Sea-Tac,
Shelton, Spokane, Sumner, Tacoma, Tukwilla, and Vancouver, only Sumner permits
these signs for businesses other than real estate. We also contacted 8 out of state cities
we thought might allow such signs due to the pedestrian nature of those communities'
downtowns: Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson, Arizona; Pasadena, Santa Barbara, Berkeley,
and Palm Desert, California; and San Antonio, Texas. Only Tucson permitted A-Frame
signs on a "permanent" basis. The City of Berkeley also permits them to be displayed
two weekends a year and on holidays.
Page 1 of 6
REVIEW TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Team did not achieve full consensus on all issues, but the majority of members
concurred with the following changes to the sign code:
Review Team Recommendation—Allow in Downtown Only: With the exception of
one Team member, a strong advocate of continued prohibitions against"A-frame"
signage due to safety and accessibility concerns, the majority of the team members
concurred to recommend that A-Frame signs be permitted only in the downtown sign
regulation area and only abutting the business to which the sign relates. The Team felt
that permitting A-Frame signs in the downtown area was warranted due to the
pedestrian nature of the area, the City's emphasis on downtown investment, and the
unique concentration of retail businesses in that area. Exhibit A, attached, depicts the
City Center Sign Regulation Area. (See further discussion regarding allowing these signs
outside of the downtown area on page 5).
Team Recommended Number, Size, and Location of A-Frame Signs: The majority
of team members also concurred to recommend that Council permit only standardized
signs of a certain size limited to one per business per street frontage. The Team wished
to ensure that only sturdy, attractive, wind resistant and professionally produced signs
would be permitted. The specific recommendations of the majority of the Review Team
were as follows:
• Number: Only one of these signs should be permitted per business per street
frontage. (See further discussion on page 5 for signs outside of the downtown area)
• Size: The sign must be exactly 32"wide and 36" tall. (See further discussion of sign
size on page 4).
Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility Issues: Sidewalk widths in the downtown vary
from 8 to eleven 11 feet in width. In other commercial areas of the City, sidewalks are
typically 5 feet in width. Any sign code amendments to permit portable signs should
include the following provisions to reduce the potential for pedestrian passage impacts:
• Location: Signs must be placed against the building and business to which the sign
relates.
• Pedestrian Clearance: A minimum of 4' of unobstructed sidewalk area between the
outer edge of the sign and the street curb is required.
• Clear Vision Area: Any regulations adopted should ensure that driver visibility is not
impaired near intersections, including private driveways.
Insurance Requirements/City Liability: The Team concurred that insurance should be
required for signs on public right-of-way. No changes are needed since the current sign
code regulations require that the sign owner provide insurance with the City named as
an additional insured. The specific regulations are as follows:
Liability Insurance: Excluding wall signs projecting twelve inches (12") or less
over a public right-of-way, the owner of any sign projecting over a public right-of-
way shall file with the Building Official a public liability insurance policy issued by
an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington,
Page 2 of 6
appropriately conditioned in conformity with the objectives of this section, with
limits of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) to three hundred thousand
dollars ($300,000.00) public liability coverage and fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00) property damage coverage. The City shall be named as an
additional insured, and notified of lapses or changes to the insurance policy.
Annual Permit Required for Signs Over Public Property:An annual sign
permit shall be required for any signs projecting over the right-of-way, excluding
wall signs projecting twelve inches (12") or less. Annual fees shall be consistent
with RMC 4-1-140M. The annual permit shall be issued upon a determination
that liability insurance remains in effect, and that the sign and supporting
structure are secure. (Ord. 4720, 5-4-1998) Note: There is currently no annual
fee amount established by the Code, however.
Sign Maintenance: The Team wanted to ensure that A-Frame signs were properly
maintained. No changes are needed to ensure maintenance since Vie current sign code
has provisions requiring the maintenance of signs. The following language is already in
the sign code:
Sign Maintenance Required: All signs, together with all of their supports,
braces, guys and anchors, shall be kept in repair and in proper state of
preservation. The surfaces of all signs shall be kept neatly painted or posted at
all times. The ground area shall be neat and orderly. (Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983)
Appearance of Signs: If a sign is visible from more than one direction, all areas
not intended as display surfaces including the back and sides shall be designed
so that such areas are given a finished and pleasing appearance with the display
surfaces visible only from the directions that they are intended to be seen. (Ord. •
2504, 9-23-1969)
Administration: If the Council decides to permit A-Frame signs, the Team, with
concurrence by City sign code enforcement staff, recommended that a sign permit be
required for each A-Frame sign ($100.00 fee). Also the permit number would be
required to be noted on the sign for efficiency in enforcement. The Development
Services Division's code compliance officer would be charged with enforcing the new A-
Frame regulations if new regulations are adopted and the moratorium is lifted. The
review team recommended that the Council reconsider the new regulations again after a
one-year period. Development Services staff would track the one year time period and
prepare a report including the number of sign code violations and administration time for
presentation to the Council at that time.
Violations of Sign Code: The Review Team expressed concern that any new
regulations be effectively enforced. No changes are needed to ensure compliance since
the current code already provides for removal of illegal signage by the code enforcement
officer and establishes penalties for sign code violations. However, additional staff time
will be required to administer (plan review, permit issuance, explaining provisions, etc.)
and enforce the sign code should the Council determine to permit A-Frame signs. The
current regulations state:
Page 3 of 6
41100
Penalties: Penalties for any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter
shall be in accord with RMC 1-3-2, Civil Penalties. (Ord. 4351, 5-4-1992) [This
Section allows fines of$100.00 to$500.00 dollars per day depending on the
length of time the violation continues]
Removal and Storage of Illegal Signs Authorized: Unauthorized signs or other
advertising devices either wholly or partially supported on or projecting over the
public right-of-way may be removed by the Building Official or his representative
without notice to the owner. Such signs or devices shall be stored at the City
garage for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which time the owner
may redeem such sign or device by payment to the City Treasurer an amount
equal to the City cost for the removal and storage, but in no event shall the fee
be less than twenty dollars ($20.00). After expiration of the thirty (30) day storage
period, the sign not having been redeemed, it shall be destroyed or otherwise
disposed of. (Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983, Amd. Ord. 4422, 10-25-1993)
Confiscated Signs: All confiscated signs shall become the property of the City.
(Ord. 3719, 4-11-1983)
SPECIFIC A-FRAME SIGN ISSUES FOR FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
The following issues either came up subsequent to the final Review Team meeting or
were issues where team consensus could not be reached. A bulleted list of discussion
items is attached as Exhibit B.
Size of signs: The Sign Code Review Team recommended that ir! )rder to be eligible
for a sign permit, an A-Frame sign must be exactly 32" inches wide 4.v7 36" tall. Members
felt this larger size of sign would be more wind resistant. A sign company representative
subsequently noted that a sign size of 24" by 30" could be more cost effective for
businesses since this would allow full utilization of a standard 4 by 8 sheet of plywood.
Council may also wish to consider permitting a range of sign sizes (e.g. 24" by 30" up to
32 by 36") in order to allow for specific site conditions. For example, if only 32"wide by
36" tall signs are permitted, a business building abutting a 6-foot wide sidewalk would
not be able to put up any A-Frame signage since such a wide sign would project into the
required 4-foot clear pedestrian area. Two sign sizes will be displayed at the public
hearing (24"wide by 30" tall and 32"wide by 36" tall).
Construction Specifications and Materials: The Team agreed that the materials used
to construct the signs needed to be durable. Team members differed, however, in the
materials recommended. The material suggested by the sign company owner was %"
MDO plywood [a heavy pressed particleboard] with the edges protected with plastic
edge cap or plastic molding. Another team member will present information at the public
hearing supporting an alternative construction material, a composition material
incorporating plastic, which may be more durable than the particle board.
Design of Signs: Code enforcement staff note that if the Council wishes to prevent the
potential for a business to install an unstable A-Frame sign with long legs, a minimum
sign face size may also need to be stipulated in addition to overall maximum sign
dimension (e.g. approximately 4" less than the overall sign dimensions).
Page 4 of 6
• tidy
Removal of Signs Upon Closure in Evenings/Weekends: The majority of review
team members concurred in recommending a requirement that these signs be
removed in the evenings and/or weekends a business is closed. Members felt that this
would reduce vandalism potential to the signs. However, a team member has requested
that Council consider allowing these signs to remain in place in the evenings due to the
difficulty in placing/removing the sign on a daily basis.
Insurance/Liability/Annual Permit Requirements: The current code requires an
annual sign permit for signs over public right-of-way and proof of insurance with the City
of Renton named as an additional insured. The Sign Code Review Team was aware of
and supportive of the insurance requirement, but may not have been apprised of the
current code's requirement for an annual permit. The primary purpose of the annual
permit is to verify proof of insurance. No annual permit fee was discussed with the
Team. Staff recommends that the annual fee of$75.00 to $100.09';e established to
cover the costs of administering the insurance requirements and inspection the sign
appearance and maintenance.
Allowing A-Frame Signage for Businesses throughout the City: Staff has been
unable to resolve a request by a team member that the City consider some means to
permit A-Frame signs on a limited basis for shopping center's tenants and other business
buildings located outside of the downtown area which are set back a significant distance
from the street.
* Shopping Centers are considered to be any building with 4 or more tenants or any group of buildings,
according to the definition section of the Development Regulations.
Team Member Request that Council Consider Permitting A-Frames City Wide for
Shopping Centers and/or All Businesses (continued):
Equity: After considering numerous options, staff could not create permissive
.language which would equitably permit these signs for shopping center tenants
and other buildings constructed a distance from the street without permitting
them essentially everywhere in the City. If the Council chooses to permit A-
Frame signs throughout the City, the number of signs each business can
display could be limited similar to the requirements considered for the
downtown. Commercial areas outside the City center have additional location
possibilities. Should the Council wish, A-Frame signs could also be permitted
to be located in (or partially within) a landscaping strip--as well as on the public
sidewalk and adjacent to the business building. Potential could exist for
damage or extensive pruning of landscaping should this option be selected.
Sign Proliferation: If approved, this would likely result in a significant increase
in signage throughout the City. For example, in the case of a shopping center
on the corner of Rainier Avenue South and Airport Way, this center contains six
businesses and at least two street frontages. In this case each business could
put an A-Frame sign on Rainier Avenue and Airport Way resulting in 6 of these
signs placed on the sidewalk within a distance of approximately 100 feet along
Rainier Avenue and 6 signs within a distance of 300 feet along Airport Way.
Page 5 of 6
Variances not Viable Option: A variance or modification process to allow
these signs for only some businesses was unworkable since there would no
legally defensible means to allow some and not others through the variance
process. The modification process was also rejected as an option to attempt to
limit these signs since it would ultimately allow approval of the same number of
signs as outright allowing them, but would just add another^1rmit process for
an applicant to go through.
CONCLUSION OF MAJORITY OF SIGN CODE REVIEW TEAM:
The majority of the Sign Code Review Team concluded that the proposed regulations
would permit more effective advertising in the pedestrian-oriented City Center without
substantially compromising pedestrian mobility and safety. If approved by Council, the
design and construction standards should ensure these signs have a uniform and
attractive appearance. Sign maintenance requirements will ensure they remain
attractive during the one-year trial period. The Council should review the impact and
effectiveness in one year's time to ensure the regulations are functioning as intended.
In summary, the issue before the Council is whether or not to permit A-Frame signage.
And, if Council elects to permit such signs, whether to permit them City-wide or just in
the pedestrian-oriented City Center Sign Regulation Area (downtown).
Attachments Exhibit A, City Center Sign Regulation Area Map
Exhibit B, Bulleted list of discussion points
Page 6 of 6
a) >,a>a, Dula) comc,o6co'°i s
n -•0 6w5 UDO.na(X,.co 0
n 2 .E O-- O V t —.-B '7
.�z m O a .a 3 fl.Qtm o f c
fY I. 8o > �� cc o
..V0w- tJ�an o',,"a22 cu, v, c -cn
:� > y.... 7. -21 O fn N�-6 cmi N p yro
qq,,UW'UCA w CO 01��.13 N N co 3
vO= =a,� G3 c < p C co m m o c -
m CD I-COV _m ' Cc Q ar m c m-a-0o a --r-z1.0 .
dal CW= �▪ mm .. a) 2E•E 3T a.a,yt
zc co.mr.• 32 2 O Q a,To N'0 O.- i Td O.
LL 5-51 L•00-75 w OF roEUgU Cn
:\\-\\'`)
a)
w o � a)
O N O c .c L ..
Y 0) O w •c
yL C O w U
O C as O >+ Cr) CO
V p — ,-. L N
W L C_ O (0,
w
J N c L ,L.. g��
.. 00 o .. L I
N QC C oU . O N \\— �_ L
r C O O C L c `, \,C V Ca
a Ts Z -5 O L L C N 0�
L FfNy-I R C '� fn O d U \ OH
3 w .n .0P m a `. �` 1 a o
W w O �+ Hili
aCl• C fn U i ) L
- i:cl
U. o 0 a0i3aCta � � m w \ `►) � °�
o a y � Yaa) mac �I N '" d2 -9
E-- Q a aci c ca ^ r` \ c U
o U e L Ne co € ;•w --., a cc) ' a`v
O C CC ,i c N c w L N O Q N C
0 `� `= a `�° Dacia cow E
v w o v� o .c ar a,
cd a3 _ v c axi E aco 0
LL Y= O 3 N .15 c. a)03 > Y a) a c. 0) a) O maca)
a m �io � � " c « o °O c
;
H o a � a= ac . co — -C o a $ m c wc `c o U) rnZ '
as p y � c O Y a 3 C 0 ov m N a) 'a � rn V cQ
o a> > .0 c Cl) a) o V
„O c 0..- c-0 4_ �.c O N co «. = a)
O a a O a cC O (C cm E ,p B" N Z , a-
.c 'O 3 O c L.
m C lL a U
ca0 ,coc oaI (n -) 'a Q cco U) °°sO`,� 7f "
Alice Maxwell Marge Richter Bruce Anderson
465 Renton Ctr.Way SW 300 Meadow Ave.N 101 Park Ave.N
Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055
Dominic Gatto Beverly Franklin Denise M.Cartwright
1425 S.Puget Dr.#N5 P.O.Box 685 P.O.Box 4064
Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98057 Renton,WA 98057-4064
Phillip Beckley Heidi Carlson
364 Renton Center Way SW#56A-156 Debbie Wicks 806 Index Ct.NE
Renton,WA 98055 465 Renton Center Way SW Renton,WA 98056
Renton,WA 98055
Sam Pace Al Gould Fred Pierson
3905— 154th Ave. SE 14021 SE 136th St. C/O GFC Signs
Bellevue,WA 98006 Renton,WA 98059 253A Rainier Ave. S
Renton,WA 98055
)1 , t / /y
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 27th day of
September, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the
seventh floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 S. Grady Way,
Renton, 98055, to consider the following:
A-Frame Signs
All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and present written or oral
comments regarding the proposal. The Municipal Building is fully accessible, and
interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. Call
430-6510 for additional information.
` �, a,., .
Marilyn P erd
City Clerk
Published South County Journal
September 17, 1999
Account No. 50640
G0 ja,110_ WW1 Gk\
September 13, 1999 Nome Renton City Council Minutes Page 308
that the two incidents were in close proximity, Mr. Straka said the City
immediately contacted Olympic Pipeline Company after learning of the
contamination in the drainage channel. The City also inspected Olympic's
storm system in this area but found no petroleum products. Mr. Straka
concluded that the City has no reason to think that the contamination came
from the pipeline company,but believes instead that it was either illegally
dumped or inadvertently spilled in a motor vehicle accident on nearby SR-167.
*MOTION CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS
PRESENTED.
CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from H.C. "Rocky"Gerber Jr.,2717 NE 23rd St.,
Citizen Comment: Gerber— Renton, 98056, expressing thanks for the street and sidewalk work being done
Sunset Highlands Street& in the Sunset Highlands area.
Sidewalk Improvements
Citizen Comment: King— Correspondence was read from John M.King, chairman of the Washington
Washington State World War State World War II Memorial,thanking the City for its contribution of$5,000
II Memorial Fund to the memorial fund.
Contribution
OLD BUSINESS Council President Parker presented a report regarding Comprehensive Plan
Committee of the Whole policy and zoning issues. After review of presentations addressing
Comprehensive Plan: Policy Comprehensive Plan implementation,new visions for the Highlands and South
and Zoning Issues Renton study areas, and presentations on the use of design guidelines and a tool
to implement urban scale development,the Committee of the Whole
recommends as follows:
1. The City Council adopt emergency design guidelines applicable in the
Downtown Center Comprehensive Plan Designation.
2. The City Council refer review of the Emergency Design Guidelines to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation back to the Council by
the end of October, 1999.
3. The City Council concur on a work program to review the City's Center
designations and revise policies and mapping as needed to develop a two-tiered
approach to the Centers creating urban and suburban designations.
4. The City Council concur on a work program reviewing development
standards to implement these two Center designations including standards such
as parking ratios, setbacks, lot coverage and other standards needed to
distinguish between urban and suburban standards.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Planning&Development Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report
Committee recommending that Council set a public hearing on A-frame signs on
Development Services: September 27, 1999. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY
A-Frame Signs SCHLITZER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
CARRIED.
Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending approval
Finance: Vouchers of Claim Vouchers 174093 - 174691 and three wire transfers totaling
$3,137,998.17; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 21296-21581 and 522 direct
deposits in the total amount of$968,641.51. MOVED BY EDWARDS,
SECONDED BY NELSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED.
APPROVED BY
r. CITY COUNCIL
Date 9, / -t?,
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE REPORT
September 13, 1999
A-Frame Signs
(Referred April 27, 1998)
The Committee recommends that the Council set a public hearing for the above referenced item on
September 27, 1999.
44Yaljt4
SA;YekA b0I•kfLea
Kathy Ke ker-Wheeler, Chair
6
• 508.
Dan Clawson,Member
cc: Jana Huerter
MFPkg2.rpt\