Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 06-02-1999 City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 2, 1999 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers SUMMARY Commissioners present: Robert Vaughan (Chair), Karen Kirkpatrick, William Drake, Hope Elder, Eric Faison, and Ed Soule. Commissioners absent: John Caulfield. Alternative Commissioners present: None. Alternative Commissioners absent: Adebola Adekoya and Sophia McNeil. Staff present: Public Works Director Cary Roe, Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank, Community Development Services Deputy Director Kathy McClung, Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer Betty Cruz, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Vaughan called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of May 19, 1999, were approved. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS - Public Hearing: Courtyard Village Development Agreement The public hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Roe gave the presentation. At issue is the deletion of 341st Place from the Transportation Chapter of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has already given its approval. The issue for the Planning Commission is whether the agreement throughly lays out all the issues, does it get all the details? Discussion was held on the environmental sensitive areas issue and what if the road cannot be built? There was no Public Testimony. It was m/s/c to forward to the City Council for approval, with a technical change to the names Chen and Draper. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Public Hearing: Sign Regulations The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Nordby gave the presentation. He provided a list of the proposed changes. Most of the amendments deal with definitions, with some changes done to clear up problems and to accommodate issues not anticipate when the code was initially written. Planning Commission June 2, 1999 2 Concern was expressed that the city expects too much in the way of landscaping. It was suggested that landscaping without vegetation be allowed. Discussion was held on sign area. On page 21, paragraph 3 needs to be clarified to say any one sign “…to a maximum of 240 square feet.” Public Testimony was opened at 8:44 p.m. Lorene Fortenu, 31419 - 3rd Place South - She is here to represent Centerstage. Her comment is that she is glad to see that the amendments will allow them to do more advertising. Jubilyn Lyver, 29645 - 18th Avenue South - She is the Resident Manager of the Overlook Apartments. She would like to put up a sign on her building (facing Pacific Highway South) saying for rent. The city has already informed her that it cannot be done because a commercial sign cannot be erected in a residential zone. She asked if just having the phone number on the building would be ok? Staff replied that they would need to research the issue. Larry Kulp, Marine Hills Architectural Control Committee - He appreciates the work of Betty Cruz and Martin Nordby (Code Compliance Officers) on the sign at the entrance to Marine Hills. He stated that Section 22-335 (a), Nonconforming Signs - Purpose, seems to exclude residential signs. There needs to be more flexibility when enforcing these rules. For example, what does significantly mean? The city should grandfather older attractive signs. Ann Mesick, 30019 - 2nd Avenue SW - She is here representing the Mar Cheri Community Club. She stated that she appreciates the work that has been done. She went on to say that their swimming pool is being adversely impacted due to the loss of their sign because of the regulations. The pool is hidden and without a sign, no one knows it is there. She asked that the Planning Commission recommend that signs that have been used for years be grandfathered. Their sign was professionally painted and only used seasonally. They have attempted other methods (i.e. newspaper, flyers, etc.) but with a limited budget, it has not really helped. The Public Testimony was closed at 9:00 p.m. At this time, the commission went over the staff recommendations as presented in a listing prepared by Mr. Nordby. 1. Pump Topper Signs - Discussion about whether the city should be held to a Hearing Examiner ruling. 2. Normal Maintenance - Discussion as to when does the work go beyond maintenance. It is too intrusive to require a permit for changing the basic copy. The only way to monitor it is through the permit process. It was m/s/c (no nays) to remove the words “basic copy” and “text” from the definition of ‘maintenance.’ 3. Sign Permit Expiration - No discussion. Planning Commission June 2, 1999 3 4. Government Signs - No discussion. 5. Definitions - It was requested that some descriptive language be added to the definition of ‘monument sign’ for clarification. Why was the size (from 18 to 24) changed in the definition of ‘wall sign’? Staff replied that the change was made to accommodate larger cabinets that are now being used. It was m/s/c (no nays) to make the necessary technical changes. 6. Construction Standards - No discussion. 7. Balloons - Clarification was requested as to what constitutes a “site.” 8. Construction Signs - No discussion. 9. Directional Signs - No discussion. 10. Final Inspection Process - No discussion. 11. Subdivision Signs - Discussion was held to clarify the issue. Most current signs, except those in the right-of-way, will be grandfathered. Staff is researching ways of dealing with those in the right-of- way. 12. Menu Boards - Discussion was held as to why these should be regulated. Staff replied it is to avoid outrageous signs. A permit will not be required, just standards. Discussion was held as to the number of menu boards. It was m/s/c (no nays, one abstain) to limit the number of menu boards to two. 13. Fix Typo - No discussion. 14. Prohibited Signs - No discussion. 15. Special Sales - Discussion that 60 days a year seems very short. Staff replied that it is a middle ground and fits with most major retailers who tend to have four events in a year. It was m/s/c (three yeas, two nays) to increase the number of days to 90. 16. Multi-Family Uses in Residential Zones - Discussion was held on the issue raised by Ms. Lyver of the Overlook Apartments. It was m/s/c (four yeas, one nay) to allow a commercial sign if it is facing away from residential areas and so long as it complies with the rest of the code. 17. Recreation Clubhouse or Area - Discussion was held on the Mar Cheri pool issue. The commission felt that no change were necessary. 18. Daycares in Residential Zones - No discussion. 19. Low Profile Combined Sign Package - No discussion. 20. Building Mounted Signs - No discussion. Planning Commission June 2, 1999 4 21. Landscaping - Discussion was held about not requiring vegetation with the landscaping. (It was m/s/c to extend the Planning Commission meeting to 10:30 p.m.) Ms. Cruz showed examples of current sign landscaping. It was stated that requiring vegetation would increase the cost to the business (i.e. maintaining, watering, etc.). It was m/s/f (two yeas, three nays) to not approve the staff recommendation. It was m/s/c (three yeas, two nays) to approve the staff recommendation as presented. 22. Exemption from Amortization - Discussion was held to clarify the issue. 23. Sign Area Transfer - No discussion. 24. Community Service Event or Civic Event - No discussion. Discussion was held on how to make Section 22-335 (a), Nonconforming Signs - Purpose, include residential signs. To this end, it was m/s/c (no nays) to remove the word “business” from “businessperson.” Discussion was held on the length of grand openings (Table 1). It was m/s/c (no nays) to increase the days from 30 to 60 for grand openings. It was m/s/c to approve the staff recommendations as amended and move them forward to the City Council. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS It was m/s/c (no nays) to elect Karen Kirkpatrick to Vice-Chair. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADJOURN It was m/s/c to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m. K:\COMMON.AD\PLANCOM\1999\060299S.WPD