Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-01-CA - SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - SIGN CODE AMENDMENT91-1-ca 91-01-v sign code revision SIGN CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENISVE PLAN AMENDMENT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO SIGNS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SIGN ILLUMINATION, AND AMENDING THE TUKWILA SIGN CODE (TMC CHAPTER 19.0). WHEREAS, the City Council has previously considered at length the regulation of signs for public facilities and sign illumination, as these relate to residential areas within the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, public facilities have special needs for signs due to the large size of facility sites and the number and types of activities occurring on these sites; and WHEREAS, the current Tukwila Sign Code (TMC Chapter 19) places undue restrictions on public facility signs; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to provide adequate information to the public regarding activities occurring at or related to public facilities and, therefore, to provide for the proper functioning of public facilities; and WHEREAS, the current code regulations regarding sign illumination require clarification to ensure protection of residential areas from undue glare; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative findings. The City Council finds that public facilities, such as public schools, public libraries, hospitals and government facilities, have characteristics and functions which distinguish them from other types of uses. These distinctions include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Public facilities typically are located on large sites, with more than one building. For example, the Foster High School campus includes a stadium/track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas. Accurate and adequate identification of building locations and activities therein is necessary for safe and efficient use of public facilities. 2) Public facilities typically include a variety of different activities. For example, a school or community center may have public activities scheduled year- round, such as athletic and cultural events, daytime and evening classes, and recreational activities. Clear communication of schedules and locations of such events is necessary for the proper functioning of public facilities. 3) Public facilities serve a wide range of users with diverse interests and backgrounds, such as individual residents, community organizations, private groups, children, elderly, and government employees. Adequate dissemination of information to such a broad audience is necessary for the proper functioning of public facilities. 4) Public facilities provide services to the community which enhance public health and welfare. The ability of public facilities to provide such services should be furthered where possible. 5) Due to their unique characteristics, public facilities have special needs for signs. Further, the Sign Code should provide for the needs of public facilities, given their value to the community and contribution to public welfare. 6) The Sign Code's current standard for levels of light intensity (glare) is difficult to measure in practical terms. Clarification of existing restrictions on the type of illumination allowed, and consistency in standards for all signs facing residential zones would help control light spill -over to residential areas. Section 2. Definitions. The Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.08 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.08.175. Public facility. "Public facility" means any facility funded with public funds which provides a service to the general public, including but not limited to a public school, public library, community center, public park, government facility or similar use. Section 3. Amendments. The Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32 is hereby amended to read as follows: I, GENERAL REGULATIONS 19.32.070 Freestanding Signs -- Setback. Any freestanding sign shall be set back from all property lines a distance at least equal to the overall height of the sign; except for public facility signs as specified in 19.32.080, 19.32.100, 19.32.120, and 19.32.130. II. SINGLE - FAMILY ZONES 19.32.080 Home Occupation -- Church. Approved Conditional Use. and Public Facility signs. (B) Churches, and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed thirty -two square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed five feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back - lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsections 19.32.080 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. ublic facilities may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed gixty square feet per face; maximum lic,gi ht above around, when in setback area shalLnot exceed sixteen feet; minimum setback shall be eight feet; and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back- lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsections 19.32.080 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. lB. MULTIPLE- FAMILY ZONES 19.32.100 Where signs will face other Multiple- Family. Commercial or Industrial Zones. (B) Churches and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty -four square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed ten feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back - lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsections 19.32.100 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Public facilities may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed six square feet per f maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall n • . - -.. ' . teen ee minimum setb . ifl • - i ht fe - t• and base o sign shall be located in a landscaped arla. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back- lighted letters on an opaque background. - All signs in Subsections 19.32.100 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. IV. COMMERCIAL ZONES 1 9.32.120 Where signs will face or abut Single- Family zones. (B) Churches and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed thirty -two square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed five feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back - lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Section 19.32.120 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Public facilities may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty square feet per face; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed sixteen feet; minimum_ setback shall be eight feet; and - ase of signs ocated in a ands sca'p area. Bulletin boards and reader &cards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back- lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsections 19.32.120 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. 19.32.130 Where signs will face or abut Multiple- Family zones or public facilities. (B) Churches and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty -four square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed ten feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back - lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsections 19.32.130 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Public facilities may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty square feet per face: maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed sixteen feet• minimum setback shall be eigh feet; and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boar s are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or back - lighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsections 19.32.130 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of , 1991. 1EST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane E. Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: By FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL; PUBLISHED: EI.FECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor BACKGROUND: DISCUSSION: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor VanDusen FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Department of Community Development RE: SIGN CODE REVISION DATE: November 25, 1991 Proposed revisions to the Tukwila Sign Code (TMC 19.0) have previously been reviewed by the Council (11/18/91). The Council has proposed some of the same revisions recommended be the Planning Commission (9/26/91, 10/24/91), with some additional revisions. The revisions proposed by the Council would give public facilities a more liberal allowance for signage, and would clarify the current regulations regarding sign illumination. Specifically, the Council has proposed the following code revisions: 1) A separate category would be established for "public facility" signs located within or facing residential zones. 2) New standards would be established for "public facility" signs, with size increased to 60 square feet per side and height to 16 feet; and with setback reduced to 8 feet. 3) Current regulations on sign illumination would be clarified. 1) Types of facilities regulated. As noted in the proposed ordinance (attached), the Council has proposed special treatment for "public facilities" or, alternatively, "publicly- funded facilities." However, the Code does not define "public facilities," . an is inconsistent in its treatment of such uses. For example, : the . Code gives the same treatment to "schools, churches, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses" relative to residential zones. Elsewhere in the Code, churches and conditional uses are excluded from this group, by a reference to Memo to Mayor Page 2 Sign Code Revision, 11/25/91 "public buildings such as city -owned buildings, public schools, libraries, hospitals, and other similar public service facilities" (TMC 19.20.020). Given the potential for confusion, staff recommends that "public facilities" be clearly defined as a category of uses, and that regulations be consistent for all uses within that category. This proposed public facility category excludes churches and conditional uses, but includes hospitals. Use of the term "publicly- funded facilities" is not recommended, as it would exclude some hospitals which may provide an important a public service. 2) Size. height, setback standards. New size and height standards are proposed for "public facility" signs. These standards are the same as those recommended by the. Planning Commission. 3) Illumination. In reviewing proposed Sign Code revisions, the Council indicated its concern regarding impacts of sign illumination on residential areas. The Council did not propose that new, stricter standards be adopted, but requested clarification of existing standards. Light emission levels for signs facing residential areas are currently controlled in three ways: a) by the Code's prohibition of "undue" glare; b) by the current restrictions on methods of sign illumination; and c) Planning Commission review of sign design. a) Glare: "Glare" is defined as "the creation of an intense relative brightness exceeding 250 foot- lamberts which causes difficulty in the observation of the general area around the sign" (TMC 19.08.090). This is a common method of quantifying levels of light emission. However, it is difficult to quantify light emission in a way which can be used to evaluate a particular sign's impacts. b) Illumination methods: For signs facing residential zones, the Code restricts illumination to low- impact methods. For example, signs are limited to back- lighted letters in an opaque background, and exposed bulbs are prohibited. Memo to Mayor Page 3 Sign Code Revision, 11/25/91 This type of restriction on sign illumination methods is a practical way to control light emission. Based on staff research and review of several other sign codes, this is the most common method used by other cities to control illumination impacts on residential areas. c) Design review: The existing Sign Code requires that all signs within or facing residential zones be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve or deny a proposed sign, or to impose conditions on its design. There are no review criteria specified by code. The Sign Code's prohibition of glare, existing standards for sign illumination, and the requirement . for Planning Commission review, provide an adequate system for controlling sign illumination. As the Council indicated its intent to maintain the existing standards for light emission, no substantial change in illumination regulations is proposed. Rather, the proposed Code revision clarifies existing standards. The attached ordinance incorporates the Council's proposed revisions regarding types of facilities regulated, size standards, and illumination. The rationale on which the Council based its decisions is also outlined in the ordinance. . G SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS 11t25/9r AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON RELATING TO SIGNS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SIGN ILLUMINATION, AND AMENDING THE TUKWILA SIGN CODE (TMC CHAPTER 19.0). WHEREAS, the City Council has previously considered at length the regulation of signs for public facilities and sign illumination, as these relate to residential areas within the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, public facilities have special needs for signs due to the large size of facility sites and the number and types of activities occurring on these sites; and WHEREAS, the current Tukwila Sign Code (TMC Chapter 19) places undue restrictions on public facility signs; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to provide adequate information to the public regarding activities occurring at or related to public facilities and, therefore, to provide for the proper functioning of public facilities; and WHEREAS, the current code regulations regarding sign illumination require clarification to ensure protection of residential areas from undue glare; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative findings. The City Council finds that public facilities, such as public schools, public libraries, hospitals and government facilities, have characteristics and functions which distinguish them from other types of uses. These distinctions include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Public facilities typically are located on large sites, with more than one building. For example, the Foster High School campus includes a stadium/track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas. Accurate and adequate identification of building locations and activities therein is necessary for safe and efficient use of public facilities. 2) Public facilities typically include a variety of different activities. For example, a school or community center may have public activities scheduled year - round, such as athletic and cultural events, daytime and evening classes, and recreational activities. Clear communication of schedules and locations of such events is necessary for the proper functioning of public facilities. 3) Public facilities serve a wide range of users with diverse interests and backgrounds, such as individual residents, community organizations, private groups, children, elderly, and government employees. Adequate dissemination of information to such a broad audience is necessary for the proper functioning of public facilities. lodi Page 2 4) Public facilities provide services to the community which enhance public health and welfare The ability of public facilities to provide such services should be furthered where possible. 5) Due to their unique characteristics, public facilities have special needs for signs. Further, the Sign Code should provide for the needs of public facilities, given their value to the community and contribution to public welfare. 6) The Sign Code's current standard for levels of light intensity (glare) is difficult to measure in practical terms. Clarification of existing restrictions on the type of illumination allowed, and consistency in standards for all signs facing residential zones would help control light spill-over to residential areas. Section 2. Definitions. The Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.08 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.08.175. Public-facility. tom' C ras cc�mm cea% I. GENERAL REGULATIONS 19.32.070 Freestanding Signs—Setback. II. SINGLE - FAMILY ZONES IIdetf °: <wth pt1��e fLnCla >. :::: gut not <hinrt�d t©a tpublic se b ©o emm Section 3. Amendments. The Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32 is hereby amended to read as follows: Any freestanding sign shall be set back from all property lines a distance at least equal to the overall height of the sign; except for pu blic? aci ity signs €as c fie 19.31{16 194240%11? 32. 1 2 11, and 19.32.130 1932: 080: Home Occupation•vs s- =Churc: < >i tee > iel rovedCinidi3 anal e and a�Facabt�:'s (B) Churches, :::;::;: : :' and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed thirty-two square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed five feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. uuunatecta s it >use re : >1c;: ;: .: ... co icea ed o t <, signs in Subsections 19.32.080 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Page 3 (C) fht 1:faclliti. T T:•:.:■TTT,TT:,... ,, .... setwk... •• , indirect, concealed sources, or back • . prtYve.d „ , • III. MULTIPLE-FAMILY ZONES IV. COMMERCIAL ZONES approve MMISS1011: • • • • • : , • ": 4Xter.$0 : ::tuiteeTtliftetplilippoW0 )1andlwpda 19.32.100 Where signs will face other Multiple-Family. Commercial or Industrial Zones. (B) Churches, sqlesplublie4aellIttes, and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty-four square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed ten feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. . . „ . • .„ • % - „ Concealed sources:. or back-ligh letters on an o J kgmund signs Subsections 19.32.100 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. (C) c:. essinarb : . . . . . .s ack area or upon area of sign or signs i:listiVexceddi:Sixtrsquare...:.: feet per f ove ground, when l'.4 ack shall be • Bulletin boards ;•• ; ; • " and :leader boards are considered signs ••••* fllwmnated gi si 19.32.120 Where signs will face or abut Single-Family zones. (B) Churches, sehep and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed thirty-two square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed five feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Jihunmated . s igns shall use mdirect, b front hgbrod from coaceledsouzve or • -lighted chnnnol letters. • -.. .• - : . 410 . 4 t. "1" . All signs in Section 19.32.120 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. • // Page 4 (C) Pthlic lities m ay : squa : .444 abw 'reer. Y:' ii .:: concealed sources, ,..... ::::::::: ,...„...•..... or upon the face difottizin 19.32.130 Where signs will face or abut Multiple-Family zones or public facilities. (B) Churches, diook and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty-four square feet; maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed ten feet, and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. -4,1110, , .1. • . . illummated . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ooncealed di AU signs m ,• ::: Subsections 19.32.130 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. 'Ott: Section 4. Severability. Section 5. Effective Date. aveone • ve grouna, w ack shall be eight . i'b� er concealed sources, •In Subsectants. . • . *:. ozniMuns . . ' . setbact sbbe "eight •, :: . b ase of sign • sha be landsca area. ad , ColiSide d . . Rilluminatedi` :> :.:,:,;,:;:%k::;::::::::::: ::: : .:::::::::::x•ma. lighte&lettert , • : ...t,.. •:, , batud ....,.:4,,,:..:•::::tv..:::,•::.. . 4:44:7:1Fr=MM: ::::S.:•:+:;4.7.::;:i+N .44:41.:444 , ... . .. . • . eaitne (C) signs shall be located area of • Ior si gns s sty square feet jr zac aaluvainatedk letters opa must • • . be ap proved by the Jamul% If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. Page 5 ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk ATTORNEY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Ordinance No. APPROVED Mayor Gary L VanDusen OFFICE OF THE CITY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of . 1991. APPROVED AS TO FORM: TO: Mayor VanDusen FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Department of Community Developmen RE: SIGN CODE. REVISION DATE: November 5, 1991 BACKGROUND: On July 22, 1991, the Council reviewed the issues involved in a possible revision to the Sign Code which would give schools a more liberal allowance for signage. Following that meeting, the issue was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1991 and on October 24, 1991. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission recommended regulation of high schools separately from other public facilities in residential zones, and revisions to the current standards for high schools. Specifically, the Commission's recommendations were as follows: Revise the Sign Code (TMC 19.00) to establish new size, height and setback standards for high school signs in residential zones. Size would be increased to 60 square feet per side and height to 16 feet; the setback would be reduced to 8'feet. The proposal would revise the Sign Code's current standards as follows (with applicable code sections shown in parentheses): Existing Sign Code Planning Commission (Single- Family/Multi- Family): Recommendation: Size (per face) (TMC 19.32.080 (B)): 16 square ft. / 32 s.f. 60 square ft. Height 16 feet (TMC 19.32.080 (B)): 5 feet / 10 feet Setback minimum (TMC 19.32.070): Same as height of sign 8 feet APPENDIX A Memo to Mayor Sign Code Revision, 11/5/91 Page 2 The Planning Commitsiontnoted'as the basis of its decision: ) Findings and conclusions in the September 20, 1991 Staff Report: "A school located in a residential zone is faced with much greater restrictions than might be expected for a school located in aCommercial or Industrial zone. Moreover, the variety of activities which occur on a school campus have much greater signage needs than residential uses. For example, the . Foster High School campus includes a stadium/track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas, with activities scheduled year- round." General testimony . from, the South Central School District at Planning Commission hearings. 3) The large amount of street frontage along the Foster High School campus. 4) The unique topography of the Foster High School site (i.e. the . 3'-4' embankment along the street and narrow space between this bank and the stadium track). 5) Exhibits A & B presented at the October 24,1991. These Exhibits consisted of photos and a chart describing street frontages and sign sizes for various public facilities in Tukwila. In addition, the Planning Commission considered in its decision information contained in an October 15, 1991 memo from the City Attorney regarding regulation of schools as distinct from other public facilities. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWLLA, WASHINGTON RELATING TO SIGNS FOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND AMENDING THE TUKWH A SIGN CODE (TMC CHAPTER 19.0). WHEREAS, the City Council has previously considered at length the regulation of signs for schools and public facilties in residential zones within the City of Tukwila; and WHEREAS, high schools have special needs for signs due to the large size of campuses and extensive street frontage, and the number of activities occurring on campuses; and WHEREAS, the current Tukwila Sign Code (TMC Chapter 19.0) is places undue restrictions on high school signs in residential zones; and WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to provide for proper functioning of, and adequate communication of activities related to high school campuses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUICWIL.A, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32 is hereby amended to read as follows: I. GENERAL REGULATIONS 19.32.070 FreestandinikSigns -- Setback, II. SINGLE - FAMILY ZONES SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Any freestanding sign shall be set back from all property lines a distance at least equal to the overall height of the sign, ,. IN NE 1932.080 ? :::Oceu • .fie , n ch • S 11/5/91 d`A. • roved (B) Churches, schools, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed thirty -two square feet (exce for g s c hools), maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed five feet (e Cept... ' ° SCh() APPENDIX B Page 2 III. MULTIPLE-FAMILY ZO IV. COMMERCIAL ZONES and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall be front-lighted from concealed sources or back-lighted channel letters or back-lighted cut-out letters framed by an opaque cabinet or non-illuminated opaque sign panels. 1)00110611 IMOsitttUar ..... with a maximum height of 16 feet, and rm,'min setback ol All signs in Subsections 19.32.080 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. 19.32.100 Where signs will face other Multiple-Family. Commercial or Industrial Zones. (B) Churches, schools, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty-four square feet NORMAgnipitilS maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed ten feet 00:**1141 and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Signs may be illuminated from within the sign cabinet, but exposed neon tubing or bare lamps shall not be permitted. pe urn • ......... :111113 0 11113134 /#1 1 *Ct*.:::::::7 iitirtlatt . All signs in Subsections 19.32.100 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. 19.32.120 Where signs will face or abut Single-Family zones. (B) Churches, schools, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed thirty-two square feet (exceptfouhigkxch004 maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed five feet (except fottigh schools), and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Illuminated signs shall be front-lighted from concealed sources or back-lighted channel letters or back-lighted cut-out letters framed by an opaque cabinet or non-illuminated opaque sign panels. 64 Page 3 ..... if y Y.:JtSThl y�[F ?•ir .. $r;4riri:ir:.t i'/:rrr: }; r: ••'f.•: r'�i II.k` , ? i ; • tea,}* •t .(y! �f+, L' ffS: �::•: ::rk..rrf.tG:fa..,ttr::f::s;.t� �.au.fo*.ufrr.:..:!>Xarr: �•.:.vtk;tSur:rtttac All signs in Section 19.32.120 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. 19.32.130 Where signs will face or abut Multiple-F: s• • zones or public facilities. (B) Churches, schools, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed sixty -four square feet ' .::° :.... ;. maximum height above ground, when in setback area shall not exceed ten feet :. : , :firf�tt.� fx and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped area. Bulletin boards and reader boards are considered signs. Signs may be illuminated from within the sign cabinet, but exposed neon tubing or bare lamps shall not be permitted. All signs in Subsections 19.32.130 (B) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of , 1991. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jane Cantu, City Clerk OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Ordinance No. APPROVED: Mayor Gary L. VanDusen Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1991 Mr. Flesher adjourned the work session at 8:00 p.m. and called fora ten minute recess. Mr. Flesher called the public hearing to order at 8:10 MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, OF. THE AUGUST 22, 1991 AND SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 MEETINGS AS:WRr1'rEN. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. There were no citizen's comments. 91- 1-CA:. , Sign Code Revision Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She stated that at the ; last hearing. in September, the Planning Commission : reviewed the issue of a potential Sign Code revision which would allow public facilities a greater allowance for signage..There are four issues on which staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission with regard to the Sign Code revision: 1) height, 2) setback, 3) size of signs, and 4) type of public facilities to be regulated. The current Sign Code requires that the sign setback be the same as. the 'height of the sign; however, the sign that was proposed by the School District does not meet that setback. Also, the height requirement: is currently five feet, and the height of the sign proposed by the School District is sixteen feet. The third issue is what type of public facilities should be regulated, and whether public schools should or could be . regulated separately from other public facilities. Staff noted that the staff report includes .a memorandum from the City Attorney which addresses this issue. To paraphrase, the memo recommends that if the Planning Commission decides to regulate schools as distinct from other types of facilities, it needs to demonstrate specific rationale for separating out schools from other public uses. Finally, the Sign Code limits public facility signs in Single Family Residential zones to sixteen square feet. However, the sign proposed by the School District is 60 square feet. Therefore, the question is what is a reasonable and appropriate size for this type of public facility sign in a residential zone? As previously requested by the Commission, Staff indicated that they had looked at signs of other public facilities in the community and possible formulas for size based on street frontage. Staff entered into the record a display board and a chart with information on of public facilities in Tukwila. Staff entered a chart with sample formulas for establishing size based on street frontage. Staff indicated that there are a variety of ways to develop formulas for size; however, there is still the issue of what maximum size is appropriate in residential zones. Staff is looking for direction from the Planning Commission on this issue. " . Planning Commission Minutes 'October 24, 1991 as hotels and service stations. , Mr. Flesher asked how much street frontage ,the School; had ' ? : Staff indicated that they had approximately 1300 linear feet. Staff went on to say that the Sign Code does separate some commercial uses as distinct from other commercial uses, such Dr. Michael Silver, representing the South Central School District, 4640 S. 146th St.: Dr. Silver stated that the intent of the School District for this particular request has never been to alter the way in which signs are to be erected for any : other institution except for schools. He stated that several weeks ago, the tone of the City. Attorney was that the Commission could not give the school preferential treatment, and tonight it sounds like it is legal in the Attorney's own judgement to do so, provided there is some justification. Dr. Silver stated that this was a different interpretation than what he and the Commission were . led to believe at the previous meeting. He noted that he was pleased to see that the interpretation was that the Commission could create a sub - group or sub - classification within the Sign Code for public schools. Mr. Mauna asked if Dr. Silver had talked with the Police. Department as to what problems this sign may create. Dr. Silver said that there is a fence that runs parallel to the sidewalk and follows the entire length of the stadium and the sign does not protrude beyond that. Mr. Mauna clarified that his question was wheterh Dr. Silver had spoken with the Police Department about what type of impact might be expected from the close proximity of the fence to the proposed sign. Dr. Silver stated that he had not asked the Police about that. issue. Mr. Malin stated that he had spoken with two members of the Police Department who said that the close proximity of the sign to the fence would invite vandalism to the new sign. Dr. Silver said that there were schools that were closer to the sidewalk, or at least the same distance, and that the last four years have shown the least amount of vandalism. Mr. Mauna asked if any other alternatives were considered as far as the placement of this projecting sign or placing one sign flush against the back of the existing scoreboard. public facilities. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1991 Page 4 Dr. Silver said that they had considered putting up a sign that would be parallel to the street, . however, they were concerned with the readability of that type of sign. Mr. Malin ' asked if there was a cost difference between a flush - mounted sign ' and the projecting one proposed. Dr. Silver said that the flush - mounted sign with the same dimensions of the scoreboard would be less expensive. The question was what would be best for the community. Mr. Flesher asked if it wouldn't be easier to defend a categorical change for all public facilities, rather than breaking it down to a sub - classification for schools. Dr. Silver said that there were five schools in Tukwila and there were no plans to build any more schools given the population. Therefore, making a special case for schools would only affect five sites as opposed to opening it up to other public facilities. Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Knudson indicated that he was very concerned about allowing such a change for all Mr. Flesher said that it would be difficult to change the Sign Code just for schools rather . than for the whole classification of public facilities. Mr. Malin said that his biggest concern was regarding the setback Flesher clarified that the request was to allow for larger signs for public facilities in the city of Tukwila, and not to design the sign or even allow the proposed sign. Staff reiterated that the Planning Commission had three options; 1) to recommend to the Council that there not be any revisions to. the Sign Code, 2) to recommend to the Council the entire public facility category in the Sign Code be changed, or 3) to recommend not a broad change; but a change to one category such as schools: MR. HAGGERTON MOVED THAT THE SIGN C BE REVISED TO ESTABLISH . SEPARATE' ' CRITERIA FOR ALL PUBLIC `FACILITIES IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONES. MR GOMEZ SECONDED THE . MOTION; MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE, OF 41, WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. Planning Commission Minutes later, "19913. Page . 5 MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO CHANGE THE . SIGN CODE TO ALLOW SEPARATE CRITERIA FOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONES. MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. MR. MALINA MOVED THAT THE HEIGHT OF SIGNS FOR HIGH SCHOOLS IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIPLE FAMILY ZONES TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 16 FEET, THE SETBACK TO BE A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET, AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 60 SQUARE FEET PER SIDE. MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4-1 WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. The Planning Commission clarified that: 1. Sections 19.32.08(B) (Single Family Zones), and 19.32.100(B) (Multiple - Family Zones) of the Sign Code will be amended with the previous motion. 2. Their decisions have been based upon the following: staff report of September 20, 1991, page 2, section "A ": The Needs of Schools/Public Institutions; general testimony from the School District; the amount of street frontage; unique topography; and exhibits A and B of this meeting. During the Director's Report, the Commissioners agreed to hold a work session prior to their public hearing on November 14, 1991 from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. Mr. Flesher adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. CITY OF TUKWILA . • 621g, SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TCKWILA: WASHINGTON 98188 . . • TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HEARING DATE: DATE PREPARED: ATTACHMENTS: BACKGROUND On September 26, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the issues involved in a Sign Code revision which would give schools and other public facilities in residential zones a greater allowance for signage. At that hearing, the Commission asked staff to provide additional information for the October 24th hearing, in response to questions regarding sign size, height and setback, and types of public facilities to which a Sign Code revision could apply. PHONE # 2O6 4331800 SUPPLEMENT TO STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION • Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development 91-1-CA: SIGN CODE REVISION October 24, 1991 October 14, 1991 A. City Attorney memo regarding public facilities • Gan. L. ranthmiL. .thr%nr A. There are two basic methods for regulating sign size. In residential zones, it is common to use a constant maximum area, based on type of use Tukwila's Sign Code, for example, specifies a certain maximum size for home occupations APPENDIX D Planning Commission ign. Code Revision, 10/24/91 (1.5 s.f.), and . a maximum for public facilities (16 s.f.). All signs.for a particular type of use may not exceed this maximum size, regardless of the size of the lot or size of development. In commercial/industrial zones, an incrementaj method is often used. Under this method, the allowed size increases incrementally, usually based on the amount of street frontage, up to a specified maximum (e.g., 1.0 square feet of sign per 200 linear feet of frontage, up to 65 square feet). Once an appropriate maximum size is determined, either of these methods could be used to accommodate signs up to this maximum. Under either method, there is the potential that size allowance would increase for several public facilities in Tukwila. B. The Planning Commission also asked for more information on the sizes of signs located at other public facilities in Tukwila's residential zones. Based on site inspections of several parks, schools, churches and government facilities in Tukwila, staff found that most of the existing freestanding signs for, these facilities are close to the current code limits on size (from 14 s.f. to 24 s.f.). Most exceeded the five -foot height limit by 2 -3 feet. Signs at . Riverton Hospital were the largest, ranging "from ` 36 s.f. to 81 s.f., with heights from 7 -16 feet. A. In the Tukwila Sign Code, height is measured "from the lowest point of elevation of the ground" to the top of the sign. This current definition of height and method for determining height could be clarified. For example, height could be measured from the lower of the existing or finish grade, " or from the grade of the fronting roadway. B. The important issue with regard to sign height is whether the Sign Code's current height limit of five feet should be increased, and whether it should be increased to accommodate signs similar to the existing Riverton Hospital signs (12 -16 feet tall). , , Planning Commission Sign Code Revision, 10/24/91 3. Se ac 4. Types of facilities regulated: Under the current Sign Code, a sign's setback must equal or exceed its height. If the current height maximum is increased to, for example, 16 feet, the minimum setback would also be 16 feet. The question the Planning Commission must answer is whether it is appropriate to reduce the minimum setback, and, if so, to what degree. Among the sign codes reviewed by staff, ten neighboring cities do not separate schools from other public facilities, such as churches and hospitals. Some cities make no special provisions for any type of public facility. The City of Seattle was the only city which gives special treatment to school signs. Signs for public schools in residential zones are reviewed through a special review process (similar to a variance). Staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide direction on whether Tukwila schools should be treated the same as all other public facilities. The Code could be revised to include a separate chapter for schools, in which size, height and setback standards are tailored to better meet the needs of schools. This would be similar to the Code's current treatment of gas stations and hotels as separate from other commercial uses. However, if schools are to be treated separately from other public facilities, the City must demonstrate sufficient justification for "preferential treatment" of one type of use over another. This is based on the recommendation of the City Attorney (see Attachment A). Planning Commission 10/24/91 Sign Code Revision — Exhibit B The chart below lists various schools and public 6.ft Illuminated potential Signs Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C no no 64sf 64sf 66sf 32 sf 21 sf - --- 32sf 26sf 32 sf 24 of --- 16: sf 16 ef, 16.sf 16 sf 16sf 16sf- Riverton Hospital 32nd . 1311 If Emergency: (Military) 900 11) 36 sf, 12 ft Tukwila Comm Ctr Tukwila Lilmary Tukwila Fire Stn. 147th Foster Park 132 sf 192 d 519 If Crystal Springs Park 160th 1398 if ID: 20 ft internal 64 sf 64 sf 66 sf 20 ft internal 64 sf 64 sf 66 sf 20 ft internal 64 d 64 d 66 sf 20 ft internal 64 d -64 . d 66 sf 20ft no 64sf 60 d . 56 16 sf 16 sf 16 d 16 sf -- --- 32 sf 25 sf 16 sf 64 sf 84 " d:. 66 sf City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Seigenthaler FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney RE: Sign Code. Amendments DATE: October 15, 1991 OCT G 1991 I f , r .PT. You asked me yesterday evening to prepare a brief memorandum for the Planning. Commission regarding what I understand to be proposed sign code amendments relating to display signs at schools. As I understand it, the applicable municipal code sections are Ch. 19.32.080, regarding signs at schools and other listed uses in single family zones, and Ch. 19.32.100, regarding signs at schools and other listed uses in multiple family zones which also face other multiple family, commercial or industrial zones. Each of those sections specifies sign requirements for a number of uses, including churches, schools, public facilities, approved conditional uses, and, in multiple family zones, hospitals. 'I understand, but do not know, that the Planning Commission is considering reclassifying those listed uses so that signs at schools could be bigger than those available to the other listed uses. In effect, then, this would create separate classes (e.g., schools as one class, the other listed uses as another) subject to different treatment. As a general matter, "Equal protection of the laws under state and federal constitutions requires that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment." State v. Lua, 62 Wn.App. 34, 38, P.2d (1991); State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 276,; P.2d (1991). After reciting that general rule, however, the courts then engage in three different types of analysis depending on the nature of the right affected by the legislative classification. A key issue, then, is the nature of the right affected by a classification distinguishing between signs for schools on the one hand and signs for other listed uses on the other hand. APPENDIX F MEMORANDUM Page 2, October 15, 1991 One could argue that the legislative classification is quite neutral and would affect only physical structures that could be used to convey messages without undue impact on the content of those messages. The opposite argument, which is also quite plausible, is that the distinction gives undue preferential treatment to the content of the signs at schools, as compared to the other listed uses, because the school signs would be bigger. With a bigger sign, the message itself could be bigger and therefore subject to greater dissemination. Any impact on the content of the messages on the signs, and perhaps on the signs themselves as a medium by which to convey messages, would impact the First Amendment. Having said all of the above, legislative classifications can be permissible if they meet certain tests. If a suspect classification or. a "fundamental right" is affected, then a court would apply a "strict scrutiny" test. First 'Amendment rights are clearly fundamental rights. Under strict scrutiny, any legislative classification must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. This is a very difficult standard to meet and most legislative classifications affecting fundamental rights are presumed unconstitutional. On the other hand, if a legislative classification does not involve a suspect classification (usually those based on race, religion or national origin) or a'fundamental right, the minimal judicial scrutiny "rational basis" test ;for equal protection applies. Wn.App. at 39. Under this test, we would have to prove: 1. The legislative classification applies alike to all members within the class; 2. That there are reasonable grounds to distinguish between those within and those without the class; and 3. The classification has a rational relationship to 'th purpose of the legislation. Id. The first step would seem to be satisfied in that the designated class is schools, and the legislation does treat all schools alike. I assume here that all Tukwila schools are located in either single . family or multiple family zones. If not, then all schools are nog treated alike if the proposed amendments only . apply to TMC SS 19.32.080 and .100. MEMORANDUM Page 3 October 15, 1991 The second step of the analysis is for the staff and the Commissioners to decide: What are the reasons for distinguishing between schools and the other listed uses? Reasons that come to mind immediately would include schools as a public meeting place for athletic events, plays and concerts, PTA and other related public meetings. These types of events serve a rational public purpose and additional dissemination to the public regarding such meetings is probably desirable. You experts should probably be . able to come up with additional reasons supporting a distinction between schools and the other listed uses. Finally, the third step in the analysis would require us to prove that the classification between schools and the other uses is rationally related to the purpose of the legislation. Assuming enough legitimate supporting reasons to satisfy the second step of the analysis above, this third step should follow fairly easily. Due to the time limitations here, this is a brief and somewhat "off the cuff" response to your request. I do not have the time today to conduct any substantial research regarding the particular issue of legislative distinctions affecting signs or other means of conveying messages. It is my opinion that courts would probably, but not surely, engage in the minimal scrutiny rational basis analysis rather than the heightened judicial "strict scrutiny" analysis in reviewing these proposed sign code amendments. We will need to establish, however, well - defined and articulable reasons for providing greater signage space for schools than is provided for churches, other public institutions, and the other listed uses. For every such reason, staff or the Commissioners should be able to articulate why that reason would be inapplicable to churches, other public institutions and the . other listed uses. MRK /cc SIGNCODa.002 Planning Commission Minutes :: Page 6 September 26, 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual, Steve Friedman, Gencor Development, 750 6th St. S., Kirkland, .WA: He stated that they had the traffic analysis when they approached the Planning Commission the first time, however, the Planning Commission never asked for the information, therefore it never entered the record. . The traffic information then couldn't be discussed at the City Council meeting because it wasn't in the record for the Planning Commission and new information was not allowed to be submitted . Don Moody, 1401 57th Ave. S.: Mr. Moody stated that he was a real estate agent and he wanted to confirm that the demand for commercial use sites is high in comparison to that of office use. Rich Kato, 7502 Woodland, Puyallup, WA: Mr. Kato stated that his father has been in Tukwila for over 50 years and has been planning for his retirement. Their income was based on the earnings from this piece of property. Mr. Kato stated that commercial usage of the site would be better than the office. usage. Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE 91 -1 -Rs NORTH HILLS OFFICE, TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPT ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. FROM P.O. TO Gil. MR GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Flesher called for a ten minute recess at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Flesher re- opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. 91- 1- CA:Slgn Code Amendments Ann Siegenthaler: presented the staff report. She stated that this project was before the Commission again because a few months ago the School District proposed a reader -board sign for Foster High School and the sign was larger than what is currently allowed in the Sign Code. Consequently, the sign application was denied. This has raised the question of whether the Sign Code is too restrictive for schools in residential. zones. The City Council was somewhat receptive to code revisions, but they asked staff to evaluate it further There are two basic questions which need to be addressed before specific amendments can be made: 1) is the Sign Code too restrictive for schools in residential zones; and 2) to what degree should the current Sign Code be revised. Staff noted that they looked at other APPENDIX G Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1991 Page 7 jurisdictions and how they regulate schools in residential zones, as well as evaluating the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and current Sign Code. Staff concluded that there was some justification for some revisions, 'particularly in the areas of size and height, illumination and changeable message signs. Therefore, in answer to the first question, staff concluded that some revisions could be made with minimal impacts to neighborhoods and residential zones. With respect to the second question, Ahe size and height issues need to be addressed tonight with the assistance of the Planning Commission.. Staff is asking: for direction from the Commission on how to accommodate the needs of the School District and weigh that against potential impacts to neighbors. In conclusion, the staff has tried to provide the Planning Commission with background information needed to begin addressing this issue. The Commission. is being asked to provide staff with direction on what is an appropriate way to balance the needs of the School District with the needs and concerns of the residents in that neighborhood, and in other residential neighborhoods which have public facilities. Mr. Knudson asked what the Sign Code currently allows as the 11111ZIMUM size for a sign. Staff stated that in a single family residential zone, the Sign Code allows for a 164 ft. sign, standing five feet in height. Mr. Flesher asked for clarification on how the Kent School District regulates its signs in residential zones. Staff stated that Kent does not have a maximum limit on how big a sign can be, however, the allowable size of a sign is based on the street frontage that the school has. For example, they allow one square foot for every ten feet of street frontage. She went on to say that the height of signs is decided on a discretionary basis by the Kent Planning staff. Mr. Malina expressed his concern for public safety as people slow down to read the sign, and the amount of illumination that will be generated from the sign. Dr. Michael Silver, South Central School District, 4640 S. 144th Street, Tukwila: Dr. Silverstated that the proposed reader-board sign has in-direct light so as not to effect neighbors. He stated that one of the reasons they chose the Foster High School Stadium for the location of the sign is because that is the center of the campus.. The Stadium serves as a focal point. The design of the sign is such that people driving either east-or west on 144th would be able to see the message. He said that the height of the sign from the street level is eight 'feet, and sixteen feet from stadium level. Mario Jones, Scoreboard Sales & Service, 309 S. Cloverdale Street, Seattle, WA: Mr. Jones stated he wished to answer any questions the Planning Commissioners may have Mr. Hag,gerton asked if the message is generated by a computer and if the message flashed Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 26, 1991 at all. Mr. Jones said the message is generated by a computer and did not flash. He explained that the letters were generated by cubes with a yellow flourescent coloring. Mr. Flesher asked if a variance would also be required for the setbacks. Staff clarified that there were three issues with respect to the school's proposed sign: the size, the height and the setback. The required setback is the height of the sign. She went on to say that the Sign Code states that the height of the sign is measured from the lowest point of elevation. Mr. Jones stated that the way in which the City of Kent calculates signage sizes is not uncommon based on his experience and perhaps that process can be used in this situation. Mr. Flesher asked staff if the City Attorney has ruled out the possibility of creating in ordinance which addresses a single school only. Staff explained that the City Attorney has stated that any ordinance should be broad in nature so as not to favor any special interest group, and the ordinance would be more defensible legally. The Planning Commissioners agreed to table this project until the next meeting in order for staff to review other alternatives, such as the method used by the Kent School District where size is based on street frontage. During the Director's report the Planning Commission agreed to move the meeting dates in November and December due to the holidays. The Commission agreed to meet on November 14th and December 12th from 6:00-8:00 p.m. Mr. Flesher adjourned the meeting. CITY OF TL WILA ,r_ LEIARD. T('K1►'1L.4. WASHINGTON 9 1,.' HEARING DATE: September 26, 1991 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared September 20, 1991 PROJECT: 91 -1-CA: SIGN CODE REVISION PROPONENT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Revise the Sign Code (TMC 19.00) to allow larger signs for churches, schools, and public facilities in multiple family and single family zones. PHONE : 7nR J: ;:; 1.0u111' r,.rn l.::..nl "r .. ,. , • SEPA DETERMINATION: Declaration of Non - Significance; issued September 13, 1991. STAFF: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner, Department of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: A. Sign Code Regulations for schools in residential zones. Staff Report to the Planning Commission BACKGROUND ANALYSIS In March 1991, the South Central School District applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the Tukwila Sign Code. The District had proposed a readerboard sign (at Foster High School. Stadium) of: approximately 60 s.f. per side and 16 feet tall. This proposed sign was larger and taller than allowed by code. The Board denied the variance. The School District's position is that the current Sign Code does not address the special needs of school campuses, and has imposed impractical size limitations for school signs. As a result, they have asked the City Council to revise the Sign Code to give school facilities a more liberal allowance for signage. In reviewing sign regulations for schools, five aspects of the current Sign Code need to be addressed: FINDINGS 1. Types of public facilities regulated Z Size and height 3. illumination 4. Changeable message signsireaderboards 5. Operating hours. To evaluate whether or not the proposed Sign Code revision provides a reasonable balance between the needs of schools and of residential neighborhoods, staff has used the following guidelines: A. Needs of schools/public institutions B. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Intent of Sign Code C. Current Sign Code regulations D. Other jurisdictions' sign regulations A. Needs of schools/public institutions 91-1-CA: Sign Code. Revision Page 2 A school located in a residential zone is faced with much greater restrictions than might be expected for a school located in a Commercial or Industrial zone. Moreover, the variety of activities which occur on a school campus have much greater signage needs than residential uses. For example, the Foster High School campus includes a stadiuni/track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas, with activities scheduled year-round. Staff Report to the Planning Commission , 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Page 3 The Sign Code, in allowing school facilities greater signage, recognizes that schools have unique needs relative to residential uses. However, a .signage allowance . of 16 square feet (s.f.) per sign face is not always adequate"; to inform the public about locations of facilities and various. activities /events. B. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Intent of Sign Code (TMC 19.04.020 (A)) The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan contains two policies which address signs: 1. In its policies for Commerce/Industry, as follows: "All signs should be generally . attractive and to scale in size and height with the buildings and premises to which it is related" (Policy 6, pg. 61). 2. The Plan also addresses non - residential impacts on residential neighborhoods through its Neighborhood Objectives and Policies. The Intent of these policies is to discourage intrusion of intensive, incompatible uses into residential areas which may create "adverse . environmental, visual, aesthetic and property tax impacts" (Objective 1, pg. 45). One of the key purposes of the Sign Code is to "establish standards...so that the streets of Tukwila may appear orderly and safety may be increased by minimizing clutter and distraction." C. Current Sign Code Regulations 1. Public facilities regulated (TMC 19.32.080 through 19.32.130) Currently, the Sign Code treats "schools, churches, hospitals, : public facilities and approved conditional uses" the same in terms of signage allowance .. The Code does not define "public facilities," nor "public schools" as distinct from "schools." 2. Size. height Single Family Residential (TMC 19.32.080) For school sites in Single - Family. Residential zones, the Sign Code allows one sign per street front, with a maximum: size of 16 s.f. per face (32 s.f. total). Signs . may, be either wall- mounted or freestanding. Freestanding signs are limited to a five -foot height, and the minimum setback is the height of the sign. For school sites located in Commercial zones, but which are adjacent to Single Staff Report to the Planning Commission 91 Sign Code Revision Page 4 Family zones, size and height limitations are the same (TMC 19.32.120). The Planning Commission reviews all sips for public facilities in Single - Family and Multi- Family zones or public facilities adjacent to these zones. Multi - family Residential (TMC 19.32.100) In Multi - Family Residential zones, requirements are the same as for Single - Family, except that each school sign may not exceed 32 s.f. per face (64 s.f. total) in size, with a maximum height of ten feet. Schools located in : Commercial zones, but which face or abut Multi- Family zones, must meet the same code requirements for Multi- Family zones (TMC 19.32.130). 3. Illumination Illumination and light emission levels for signs in Tukwila are controlled through the Sign Code's regulations on "glare." Glare is defined as "the creation of an intense relative brightness exceeding 250 foot - lamberts which causes difficulty in the observation of the general area around the sign (TMC '19.08.090). "Undue" glare is prohibited. Increasing current size and height limits for school signs would increase the potential for glare and light spill-over onto adjacent properties. Residences most affected by this would be those directly facing an illuminated sign. A "changeable message sign ", or a readerboard, is generally defined as an illuminated sign with changeable messages which are electronically controlled. Tukwila's Sign Code does not prohibit nor provide for changeable message sips. However, other sign codes address such signs, usually prohibiting animated signs but allowing changeable message signs. Few cities regulate the frequency of message or copy changes. standard may be appropriate for residential zones. An "animated sign" is generally considered distinct from a "changeable message sign." In Tukwila, an animated sign is defined as a sign which `physically 'moves, 'or`appears to move due to flashing lights (TMC 19.08.030). The Sign Code excludes from '.:this definition sign borders/backgrounds which chan8e at a maximum rate of 10 times per minute, which use lamps with no more than 15 watts. However, a ' frequency Staff Report to the Planning Commission 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Page 5 The Code prohibits animated signs, .unless approved by the Planning Commission as having met certain criteria (TMC 19.28.010(C)). One criteria is that the content of such signs is limited to the time, date, temperature or business hours. 5. Operating hours The Sign Code currently does not restrict operating hours for any sign. D. " Other jurisdictions' requirements In evaluating whether, and to what degree Code revisions are appropriate, staff reviewed the sign ordinances of several comparable- sized cities. The requirements of other cities are similar to Tukwila's Sip Code in that they impose the greatest restrictions on signs in residential zones. The greatest difference in other codes is that they allow signs two to three times larger than what the Tukwila code allows in residential zones. Attachment A is a comparative chart of regulations used . by Tukwila and other cities for school signs in residential zones. CONCLUSIONS Intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Sign Code Substantial increases in the size of signs in residential zones would not meet the intent of the Sign Code. However, a moderate increase in size and height would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives for attractiveness and scale, and for minimizing adverse impacts. This would also meet the Sign. Code's intent to maintain safety, and minimize "clutter" and impacts to residential zones. Although the Code currently specifies different standards for Single - Family and Multi - Family zones, the potential impacts of signs to residents and properties are similar for both zones. Most cities apply the same sign regulations to all residential zones. :.Based on this, sign regulations for schools in Tukwila should be the same for both Single. and Multi - Family zones. Current Sign Code regulations: 1. Types of public facilities regul�,,, ated The intent of the Sign Code is to treat a : school the same. as ' a church, hospital, community center or other "public facility." This is not unreasonable, given that many of these other facilities have impacts and needs similar to schools. Therefore, a code � • Staff Report to the Planning Commission 3. Illumination 91-1-CA: Sign Code Revision Page 6 revision which allows more liberal signage for schools should apply to all, similar "public facilities" located in or adjacent to residential zones. 2. Size and height regulations: It is clear that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sign Code is to balance the unique needs of public facilities with neighborhood needs. Therefore, increasing sign size and height maximums to levels allowed in the Commercial zone would not be appropriate for residential zones. However, a moderate increase would meet the intent of the Plan and the Sign Code. Given the unique nature of a school campus or similar public institution, the Code's current allowance of a 16 square -foot (s.f.) sign face is impractical. A height of five feet, and ten feet in Multi - Family zones, is also too restrictive for the same reason, and would negate the effects of any increase in overall size. As shown in Attachment A, other cities allow signs two to four times larger than what the Tukwila Code allows. Allowed sizes range from 25 -50 s.f. in the lower range, and 90 -125 s.f. in the upper range. The policy question before the Planning Commission is: if an increase in sign size and height is justified, how much of an increase in these standards is appropriate? The Sign Code currently addresses potential impacts from sign illumination by limiting' levels of light intensity (glare). However, this standard is difficult to measure in practical terms, particularly when evaluating a particular sign's potential for disruption to a neighborhood. An additional standard which addresses glare would be helpful. For example, a regulation which restricts illumination of signs in residential zones to indirect illumination would rarely interfere with the sign's function, but would control light spill- over. 4. Changeable message signs: Some changeable message signs (date, time, temperature) are already permitted by the Code. It follows that, as long as adverse impacts are minimized, . allowing other changeable message signs would be consistent with the Code's intent. Therefore, the Sign Code should provide opportunities for public facilities to use "changeable message" signs, defined as distinct from "animated signs." • ' Staff Report to the Planning Commission 91- 1 -CA: Sign. Code Revision Page 7 5. Restrictions on operating hours As long as impacts of glare—which would be effective at any : nighttime hour—are adequately addressed, there is no need to regulate operating hours. This is consistent with the current Sign Code and other cities' regulations on operating hours for signs. Mountlake Tukwila Edmonds Puyallup Terrace Bellevue Redmond Renton Seattle SIZE Single family 16sf 10sf 18sf 24st 25sf 25sf 32sf 15sf Mult - family 32 sf 10 sf 18 st 24 at 25-35 25-50 at 32 sf 24 sf (25 -35 sir HEIGHT Single- family 5 ft Multi - famil 10 ft ILLUMINATION 250 ft- Imbts. Indirect Not only objectionable CHANGEABLE SIGNS No provision 3.5 ft 3.5 ft 6 f Allowed 8 ft 8 R Major Institution Zone •• 11w scho sites with street frontage similar to Foster High School Attachment A freestanding signs, in square feet (sf) per face. and feet (ft). 5 ft 10 ft 6ft 15 ft Auburn Kent" upto50sf 90sf (based on street front) 100 -125 sf 90 sf (based on street front) 10 ft Admin. 8 f 5 -10 ft 10 ft 6 f 25 ft (6-10 ft)• Indirect al* 30 'ft Admin. Indirect only Indirect OPERATING HOURS None until 11 pm None None None None None None None Nune BACKGROUND ANALYSIS 1. Size: CITY OF T UKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUI;WILA, WASHINGTON 98188 SUPPLEMENT TO STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development SUBJECT: 91 -1 -CA: SIGN CODE REVISION HEARING DATE: October 24, 1991 DATE PREPARED: October 14, 1991 ATTACHMENTS: A. City Attorney memo regarding public facilities PHONE # (2061 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusfn, Mayor . On September 26, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the issues involved in a Sign Code revision which would give schools and other public facilities in residential zones a greater allowance for signage. At that hearing, the Commission asked staff to provide additional information for the October 24th hearing, in response to questions regarding sign size, height and setback, and types of public facilities to which a Sign Code revision could apply. A. There are two basic methods for regulating sign size. In residential zones, it is common to use a constant maximum area, based on type of use. Tukwila's Sign Code, for example, specifies a certain maximum size for home occupations Planning Commission Page 2 Sign Code Revision, 10/24/91 2. Height: (1.5 s.f.), and a maximum for public facilities (16 s.f.). All signs for a particular type of use may not exceed this maximum size, regardless of the size of the lot or size of development. In commercial /industrial zones, an incremental method is often used. Under this method, the allowed size increases incrementally, usually based on the amount of street frontage, up to a specified maximum (e.g., 1.0 square feet of sign per 200 linear feet of frontage, up to 65 square feet). Once an appropriate maximum size is determined, either of these methods could be used to accommodate signs up to this maximum. Under either method, there is the potential that size allowance would increase for several public facilities in Tukwila. B. The Planning Commission also asked for more information on the sizes of signs located at other public facilities in Tukwila's residential zones. Based on site inspections of several parks, schools, churches and government facilities in Tukwila, staff found that most of the existing freestanding signs for these facilities are close to the current code limits on size (from 14 s.f. to 24 s.f.). Most exceeded the five -foot height limit by 2 -3 feet. Signs at Riverton Hospital were the largest, ranging from 36 s.f. to 81 s.f., with heights from 7 -16 feet. A. In the Tukwila Sign Code, height is measured "from the lowest point of elevation of the ground" to the top of the sign. This current definition of height and method for determining height could be clarified. For example, height could be measured from the "lower of the existing or finish grade," or from the grade of the fronting roadway. B. The important issue with regard to sign height is whether the Sign Code's current height limit of five feet should be increased, and whether it should be increased to accommodate signs similar to the existing Riverton Hospital signs (12 -16 feet tall). Planning Commission Sign Code Revision, 10/24/91 3. Setback: Under the current Sign Code, a sign's setback must equal or exceed its height. If the current height maximum is increased to, for example, 16 feet, the minimum setback would also be 16 feet. The question the Planning Commission must answer is whether it is appropriate to reduce the minimum setback, and, if so, to what degree. 4. Types of facilities' regulated: Page 3 Among the sign codes reviewed by staff, ten neighboring cities do not separate schools from other public facilities, such as churches and hospitals. Some cities make no special provisions for any type of public facility. The City of Seattle was the only city which gives special treatment to school signs. Signs for public schools in residential zones are reviewed through a special review process (similar to a variance). 1 Staff is asking the Planning Commission to provide direction on whether Tukwila schools should be treated the same as all other public facilities. The Code could be revised to include a separate chapter for schools, in which size, height and setback standards are tailored to better meet the needs of schools. This would be similar to the Code's current treatment of gas stations and hotels as separate from other commercial uses. However, if schools are to be treated separately from other public facilities, the City must demonstrate sufficient justification for "preferential treatment" of one type of use over another. This is based on the recommendation of the City Attorney (see Attachment A). City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 - 1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor COT C 1c91 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Ann Seigenthaler MEMORANDUM Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney )� Sign Code Amendments October 15, 1991 You asked me yesterday evening to prepare a brief memorandum for the Planning Commission regarding what I understand to be proposed sign code amendments relating to display signs at schools. As I understand it, the applicable municipal code sections are Ch. 19.32.080, regarding signs at schools and other listed uses in single family zones, and Ch. 19.32.100, regarding signs at schools and other listed uses in multiple family zones which also face other multiple family, commercial or industrial zones. Each of those sections specifies sign requirements for a number of uses, including churches, schools, public facilities, approved conditional uses, and, in multiple family zones, hospitals. I understand, but do not know, that the Planning Commission is considering reclassifying those listed uses so that signs at schools could be bigger than those available to the other listed uses. In effect, then, this would create separate classes (e.g., schools as one class, the other listed uses as another) subject to different treatment. As a general matter, "Equal protection of the laws under state and federal constitutions requires that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment." State v. Lua, 62 Wn.App. 34, 38, P.2d (1991); State v. Smith, 117 Wn.2d 263, 276, P.2d (1991). After reciting that general rule, however, the courts then engage in three different types of analysis depending on the nature of the right affected by the legislative classification. A key issue, then, is the nature of the right affected by a classification distinguishing between signs for schools on the . one hand and signs for other listed uses on the other hand. ATTACHMENT A MEMORANDUM Page 2 October 15, 1991 One could argue that the legislative classification is quite neutral and would affect only physical structures that could be used to convey messages without undue impact on the content of those messages. The opposite argument, which is also quite plausible, is that the distinction gives undue preferential treatment to the content of the signs at schools, as compared to the other listed uses, because the school signs would be bigger. With a bigger sign, the message itself could be bigger and therefore subject to greater dissemination. Any impact on the content of the messages on the signs, and perhaps on the signs themselves as a medium by which to convey messages, would impact the First Amendment. Having said all of the above, legislative classifications can be permissible if they meet certain tests. If a suspect classification or a "fundamental right" is affected, then a court would apply a "strict scrutiny" test. First Amendment rights are clearly fundamental rights. Under strict scrutiny, any legislative classification must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. This is a very difficult standard to meet and most legislative classifications affecting fundamental rights are presumed unconstitutional. On the other hand, if a legislative classification does not involve a suspect classification (usually those based on race, religion or national origin) or a fundamental right, the minimal judicial scrutiny "rational basis" test for equal protection applies. Lua, 62 Wn.App. at 39. Under this test, we would have to prove: 1. The legislative classification applies alike to all members within the class; 2. That there are reasonable grounds to distinguish between those within and those without the class; and 3. The classification has a rational relationship to the purpose of the legislation. Id. The first step would seem to be satisfied in that the designated class is schools, and the legislation does treat all schools alike. I assume here that all Tukwila schools are located in either single family or multiple family zones. If not, then all schools are not treated alike if the proposed amendments only apply to TMC §§ 19.32.080 and .100. MEMORANDUM Page 3 October 15, 1991 MRK /cc SIGNCODE.002 The second step of the analysis is for the staff and the Commissioners to decide: What are the reasons for distinguishing between schools and the other listed uses? Reasons that come to mind immediately would include schools as a public meeting place for athletic events, plays and concerts, PTA and other related public meetings. These types of events serve a rational public purpose and additional dissemination to the public regarding such meetings is probably desirable. You experts should probably be able to come up with additional reasons supporting a distinction between schools and the other listed uses. Finally, the third step in the analysis would require us to prove that the classification between schools and the other uses is rationally related to the purpose of the legislation. Assuming enough legitimate supporting reasons to satisfy the second step of the analysis above, this third step should follow fairly easily. Due to the time limitations here, this is a brief and somewhat "off the cuff" response to your request. I do not have the time today to conduct any substantial research regarding the particular issue of legislative distinctions affecting signs or other means of conveying messages. It is my opinion that courts would probably, but not surely, engage in the minimal scrutiny rational basis analysis rather than the heightened judicial "strict scrutiny" analysis in reviewing these proposed sign code amendments. We will need to establish, however, well- defined and articulable reasons for providing greater signage space for schools than is provided for churches, other public institutions, and the other listed uses. For every such reason, staff or the Commissioners should be able to articulate why that reason would be inapplicable to churches, other public institutions and the other listed uses. €- Planning Commission 10/24/91 The following are examples of possible formulas for determining sign size based on amount of street frontage: A. Street frontage Up to 4001.f. 401-1,000 1.f. Over 1,0001.f. (e.g. 5001.f. = 32 s.f. sign 8001.f. = 32 s.f. sign 1,1001.E = 64 s.f. sign) B. Street frontage Up to 400 1.f. Over 400 1.f. (e.g. 5001.f. = 25 s.f. sign 800 1.f. = 40 s.f. sign 1,1001.E = 55 s.f. sign) Maximum size 16 s.f. 32 s.f. 64 s.f. C. Maximum size for all public facilities is 16 s.f. EXCEPTION: For public facilities on lots with frontage in excess of 8001.f., sign area be increased 10 s.f. for each additional increment of 100 1.f., up to a maximum of 66 s.f. (e.g. 9001.f. = 16 (+ 10) = 26 s.f. sign 1,000 1.f. = 16 (+ 20) = 36 s.f. sign 1,3001.f. = 16 (+ 50) = 66 s.f. sign) Maximum size 16 s.f. 1 s.f. /201.f., up to 64 s.f. max. Sign Code Revision - Exhibit A Using street frontage as the basis for sign size results in relatively small signs for most sites, with larger signs for only a few sites. For these few sites, the critical decision is determining how large a sign is appropriate. Planning Commission 10/24/91 Sign Code Revision - Exhibit B The chart below lists various schools and public facilities in Tukwila's residential zones, their existing signage, the amount of street frontage and potential signage under Alternatives A, B, and C noted in Exhibit A. Facility Street Frontage Existing based on measurements, visual inspection, maps) Riverton Hospital 32nd 1311 If Emergency: (Military) 900 If) 36 sf, 12 ft 20 ft internal 64 sf 64 sf 66 sf ID: 81 sf, 16 no 64 sf 60 sf 56 sf Tukwila Library 59th 132 sf — — - 16 sf 16 sf Tukwila Fire Stn. 147th 192 sf — — 16 sf 16 sf — Foster Park 53rd 519 If -- — — 32 sf 25 sf 16 sf Crystal Springs Park 160th 1398 If -- - 64 sf 64 sf 66 • sf Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 26, 1991 Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual. Steve Friedman, Gencor Development, 750 6th St. S., Kirkland, WA: He stated that they had the traffic analysis when they approached the Planning Commission the first time, however, the Planning Commission never asked for the information, therefore it never entered the record. The traffic information then couldn't be discussed at the City Council meeting because it wasn't in the record for the Planning Commission and new information was not allowed to be submitted. Don Moody, 1401 57th Ave. S.: Mr. Moody stated that he was a real estate agent and he wanted to confirm that the demand for commercial use sites is high in comparison to that of office use. Rich Kato, 7502 Woodland, Puyallup, WA: Mr. Kato stated that his father has been in Tukwila for over 50 years and has been planning for his retirement. Their income was based on the earnings from this piece of property. Mr. Kato stated that commercial usage of the site would be better than the office usage. Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE 91 -1 -R: NORTH HILLS OFFICE, TO ACCEPT STAFFS RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPT ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FROM P.O. TO C -1. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Flesher called for a ten minute recess at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Flesher re- opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. 91 -1 -CA :Sign Code Amendment: Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She stated that this project was before the Commission again because a few months ago the School District proposed a reader -board sign for Foster High School and the sign was larger than what is currently allowed in the Sign Code. Consequently, the sign application was denied. This has raised the question of whether the Sign Code is too restrictive for schools in residential zones. The City Council was somewhat receptive to code revisions, but they asked staff to evaluate it further. There are two basic questions which need to be addressed before specific amendments can be made: 1) is the Sign Code too restrictive for schools in residential zones; and 2) to what degree should the current Sign Code be revised. Staff noted that they looked at other Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 26, 1991 jurisdictions and how they regulate schools in residential zones, as well as evaluating the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and current Sign Code. Staff concluded that there was some justification for some revisions, particularly in the areas of size and height, illumination and changeable message signs. Therefore, in answer to the first question, staff concluded that some revisions could be made with minimal impacts to neighborhoods and residential zones. With respect to the second question, the size and height issues need to be addressed tonight with the assistance of the Planning Commission. Staff is asking for direction from the Commission on how to accommodate the needs of the School District and weigh that against potential impacts to neighbors. In conclusion, the staff has tried to provide the Planning Commission with background information needed to begin addressing this issue. The Commission is being asked to provide staff with direction on what is an appropriate way to balance the needs of the School District with the needs and concerns of the residents in that neighborhood, and in other residential neighborhoods which have public facilities. Mr. Knudson asked what the Sign Code currently allows as the maximum size for a sign. Staff stated that in a single family residential zone, the Sign Code allows for a 16 sq. ft. sign, standing five feet in height. Mr. Flesher asked for clarification on how the Kent School District regulates its signs in residential zones. Staff stated that Kent does not have a maximum limit on how big a sign can be, however, the allowable size of a sign is based on the street frontage that the school has. For example, they allow one square foot for every ten feet of street frontage. She went on to say that the height of signs is decided on a discretionary basis by the Kent Planning staff. Mr. Malina expressed his concern for public safety as people slow down to read the sign, and the amount of illumination that will be generated from the sign. Dr. Michael Silver, South Central School District, 4640 S. 144th Street, Tukwila: Dr. Silverstated that the proposed reader -board sign has in- direct light so as not to effect neighbors. He stated that one of the reasons they chose the Foster High School Stadium for the location of the sign is because that is the center of the campus. The Stadium serves as a focal point. The design of the sign is such that people driving either east or west on 144th would be able to see the message. He said that the height of the sign from the street level is eight feet, and sixteen feet from stadium level. Marlo Jones, Scoreboard Sales & Service, 309 S. Cloverdale Street, Seattle, WA: Mr. Jones stated he wished to answer any questions the Planning Commissioners may have. Mr. Haggerton asked if the message is generated by a computer and if the message flashed Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1991 at all. Page 8 Mr. Jones said the message is generated by a computer and did not flash. He explained that the letters were generated by cubes with a yellow flourescent coloring. Mr. Flesher asked if a variance would also be required for the setbacks. Staff clarified that there were three issues with respect to the school's proposed sign: the size, the height and the setback. The required setback is the height of the sign. She went on to say that the Sign Code states that the height of the sign is measured from the lowest point of elevation. Mr. Jones stated that the way in which the City of Kent calculates signage sizes is not uncommon based on his experience and perhaps that process can be used in this situation. Mr. Flesher asked staff if the City Attorney has ruled out the possibility of creating an ordinance which addresses a single school only. Staff explained that the City Attorney has stated that any ordinance should be broad in nature so as not to favor any special interest group, and the ordinance would be more defensible legally. The Planning Commissioners agreed to table this project until the next meeting in order for staff to review other alternatives, such as the method used by the Kent School District where size is based on street frontage. During the Director's report the Planning Commission agreed to move the meeting dates in November and December due to the holidays. The Commission agreed to meet on November 14th and December 12th from 6:00 -8:00 p.m. Mr. Flesher adjourned the meeting. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUKRILA. WASHINGTON 98188 HEARING DATE: September 26, 1991 PROJECT: 91 -1 -CA: SIGN CODE REVISION PROPONENT: City of Tukwila STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared September 20, 1991 REQUEST: Revise the Sign Code (TMC 19.00) to allow larger signs for churches, schools, and public facilities in multiple family and single family zones. PHONE 0 (2061433.1800 Gary L. VanDuseri. Mayor SEPA DETERMINATION: Declaration of Non - Significance; issued September 13, 1991. STAFF: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner; Department of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: A. Sign Code Regulations for schools in residential zones. Staff Report to the Planning Commission BACKGROUND ANALYSIS 1. Types of public facilities regulated 2. Size and height 3. Illumination 4. Changeable message signs /readerboards 5. Operating hours. A. Needs of schools /public institutions FINDINGS A. Needs of schools /public institutions B. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Intent of Sign Code C. Current Sign Code regulations D. Other jurisdictions' sign regulations 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Page 2 In March 1991, the South Central School District applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to the Tukwila Sign Code. The District had proposed a readerboard sign (at Foster High School Stadium) of approximately 60 s.f. per side and 16 feet tall. This proposed sign was larger and taller than allowed by code. The Board denied the variance. The School District's position is that the current Sign Code does not address the special needs of school campuses, and has imposed impractical size limitations for school signs. As a result, they have asked the City Council to revise the Sign Code to give school facilities a more liberal allowance for signage. In reviewing sign regulations for schools, five aspects of the current Sign Code need to be addressed: To evaluate whether or not the proposed Sign Code revision provides a reasonable balance between the needs of schools and of residential neighborhoods, staff has used the following guidelines: A school located in a residential zone is faced with much greater restrictions than might be expected for a school located in a Commercial or Industrial zone. Moreover, the variety of activities which occur on a school campus have much greater signage needs than residential uses. For example, the Foster High School campus includes a stadium /track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas, with activities scheduled year- round. Staff Report to the 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Planning Commission Page 3 The Sign Code, in allowing school facilities greater signage, recognizes that schools have unique needs relative to residential uses. However, a signage allowance of 16 square feet (s.f.) per sign face is not always adequate to inform the public about locations of facilities and various activities /events. B. Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and Intent of Sign Code (TMC 19.04.020 (A)) The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan contains two policies which address signs: 1. In its policies for Commerce/Industry, as follows: "All signs should be generally attractive and to scale in size and height with the buildings and premises to which it is related" (Policy 6, pg. 61). 2. The Plan also addresses non - residential impacts on residential neighborhoods through its Neighborhood Objectives and Policies. The intent of these policies is to discourage intrusion of intensive, incompatible uses into residential areas which may create "adverse environmental, visual, aesthetic and property tax impacts" (Objective 1, pg. 45). One of the key purposes of the Sign Code is to "establish standards...so that the streets of Tukwila may appear orderly and safety may be increased by minimizing clutter and distraction." C. Current Sign Code Regulations 1. Public facilities regulated (TMC 19.32.080 through 19.32.130) Currently, the Sign Code treats "schools, churches, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses" the same in terms of signage allowance . The Code does not define "public facilities," nor "public schools" as distinct from "schools." 2. Size, height Single Family Residential (TMC 19.32.080) For school sites in Single - Family Residential zones, the Sign Code allows one sign per street front, with a maximum size of 16 s.f. per face (32 s.f. total). Signs may be either wall - mounted or freestanding. Freestanding signs are limited to a five -foot height, and the minimum setback is the height of the sign. For school sites located in Commercial zones, but which are adjacent to Single Staff Report to the 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Planning Commission Page 4 Family zones, size and height limitations are the same (TMC 19.32.120). The Planning Commission reviews all signs for public facilities in Single - Family and Multi - Family zones or public facilities adjacent to these zones. Multi- family Residential (TMC 19.32.100) In Multi- Family Residential zones, requirements are the same as for Single - Family, except that each school sign may not exceed 32 s.f. per face (64 s.f. total) in size, with a maximum height of ten feet. Schools located in Commercial zones, but which face or abut Multi - Family zones, must meet the same code requirements for Multi- Family zones (TMC 19.32.130). 3. Illumination Illumination and light emission levels for signs in Tukwila are controlled through the Sign Code's regulations on "glare." Glare is defined as "the creation of an intense relative brightness exceeding 250 foot - lamberts which causes difficulty in the observation of the general area around the sign (TMC 19.08.090). "Undue" glare is prohibited. Increasing current size and height limits for school signs would increase the potential for glare and light spill -over onto adjacent properties. Residences most affected by this would be those directly facing an illuminated sign. 4. Changeable message signs /readerboards A "changeable message sign ", or a readerboard, is generally defined as an illuminated sign with changeable messages which are electronically controlled. Tukwila's Sign Code does not prohibit nor provide for changeable message signs. However, other sign codes address such signs, usually prohibiting animated signs but allowing changeable message signs. Few cities regulate the frequency of message or copy changes. However, a frequency standard may be appropriate for residential zones. An "animated sign" is generally considered distinct from a "changeable message sign." In Tukwila, an animated sign is defined as a sign which physically moves, or appears to move due to flashing lights (TMC 19.08.030). The Sign Code excludes from this definition sign borders/backgrounds which change at a maximum rate of 10 times per minute, which use lamps with no more than 15 watts. Staff Report to the 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Planning Commission Page 5 The Code prohibits animated signs, unless approved by the Planning Commission as having met certain criteria (TMC 19.28.010(C)). One criteria is that the content of such signs is limited to the time, date, temperature or business hours. 5. Operating hours The Sign Code currently does not restrict operating hours for any sign. D. Other jurisdictions' requirements In evaluating whether, and to what degree Code revisions are appropriate, staff reviewed the sign ordinances of several comparable -sized cities. The requirements of other cities are similar to Tukwila's Sign Code in that they impose the greatest restrictions on signs in residential zones. The greatest difference in other codes is that they allow signs two to three times larger than what the Tukwila code allows in residential zones. Attachment A is a comparative chart of regulations used by Tukwila and other cities for school signs in residential zones. Intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Sign Code Substantial increases in the size of signs in residential zones would not meet the intent of the Sign Code. However, a moderate increase in size and height would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan objectives for attractiveness and scale, and for minimizing adverse impacts. This would also meet the Sign Code's intent to maintain safety, and minimize "clutter" and impacts to residential zones. Although the Code currently specifies different standards for Single - Family and Multi - Family zones, the potential impacts of signs to residents and properties are similar for both zones. Most cities apply the same sign regulations to all residential zones. Based on this, sign regulations for schools in Tukwila should be the same for both Single- and Multi - Family zones. Current Sign Code regulations: 1. Types of public facilities regulated: CONCLUSIONS The intent of the Sign Code is to treat a school the same as a church, hospital, community center or other "public facility." This is not unreasonable, given that many of these other facilities have impacts and needs similar to schools. Therefore, a code Staff Report to the 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Planning Commission Page 6 revision which allows more liberal signage for schools should apply to all similar "public facilities" located in or adjacent to residential zones. 2. Size and height regulations: It is clear that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sign Code is to balance the unique needs of public facilities with neighborhood needs. Therefore, increasing sign size and height maximums to levels allowed in the Commercial zone would not be appropriate for residential zones. However, a moderate increase would meet the intent of the Plan and the Sign Code. Given the unique nature of a school campus or similar public institution, the Code's current allowance of a 16 square -foot (s.f.) sign face is impractical. A height of five feet, and ten feet in Multi - Family zones, is also too restrictive for the same reason, and would negate the effects of any increase in overall size. As shown in Attachment A, other cities allow signs two to four times larger than what the Tukwila Code allows. Allowed sizes range from 25 -50 s.f. in the lower range, and 90 -125 s.f. in the upper range. The policy question before the Planning Commission is: if an increase in sign size and height is justified, how much of an increase in these standards is appropriate? 3. Illumination The Sign Code currently addresses potential impacts from sign illumination by limiting levels of light intensity (glare). However, this standard is difficult to measure in practical terms, particularly when evaluating a particular sign's potential for disruption to a neighborhood. An additional standard which addresses glare would be helpful. For example, a regulation which restricts illumination of signs in residential zones to indirect illumination would rarely interfere with the sign's function, but would control light spill- over. 4. Changeable message signs: Some changeable message signs (date, time, temperature) are already permitted by the Code. It follows that, as long as adverse impacts are minimized, allowing other changeable message signs would be consistent with the Code's intent. Therefore, the Sign Code should provide opportunities for public facilities to use "changeable message" signs, defined as distinct from "animated signs." Staff Report to the Planning Commission 91 -1 -CA: Sign Code Revision Page 7 5. Restrictions on operating hours As long as impacts of glare -- which would be effective at any nighttime hour- -are adequately addressed, there is no need to regulate operating hours. This is consistent with the current Sign Code and other cities' regulations on operating hours for signs. Mountlake Tukwila Edmonds Puyallup Terrace Bellevue Redmond Renton Seattle Auburn Kent** SIZE Single family 16 sf Multi -family 32 sf HEIGHT Single -family 5 ft 3.5 ft Multi -family 10 ft 10 sf 16 sf 10 sf 16 sf 3.5 ft 6 ft 6ft Eft 24 sf 25 sf 24 sf 25 -35 sf 6 ft 5 -10 ft • 'Major Institution Zone •• for school sites with street frontage similar to Foster High School (maximums for freestanding signs, in square feet (sf) per face.. and feet (ft). 5ft loft 25 sf 32 sf 25 -50 sf 32 sf 10ft 6ft 6 ft 15 ft 15 sf up to 50 sf 24 sf (25 -35 sf)• ILLUMINATION 250 ft- lmbts. Indirect Not Indirect only Indirect only No exp. lamps No undue Indirect only only objectionable over 25 watts glare only • 100 -125 sf 90 sf (based on street front) 90 sf (based on street front) 10 ft Admin. 25 ft 30 ft Admin. (5 -10 ft)* Indirect only Indirect CHANGEABLE SIGNS No Allowed ID only . Allowed Name & services Allowed ID only Not allowed Allowed Allowed provision ID only OPERATING HOURS None until 11 pm None None None None None None None None oat . 19 OB s City of Tukwila • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 • Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Mayor Van Dusen M E M O R A N D U M FROM: Rick Beeler, Directo Department of Commun ty Development RE: Sign Code Revision - Work Plan Alternatives DATE: July 31, 1991 On July 22, 1991, the City Council reviewed a request by the South Central School District to revise the Sign Code (per DCD Staff Report dated 7/18/91). The School District had requested that the Code be revised to allow larger signs for schools in residential zones. The consensus of the Council was to address the following in a revision of the Code: • Size • Level of light emission • Frequency of message change • Whether or not hours of operation should be regulated • Regulation of "schools" vs. "public institutions." Staff believes that this Code revision should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. As this falls within the "land use" purview of the Planning Commission, we should continue to use the Commission to review the Sign Code as in the past. Preparation of a Sign Code revision which addresses the above issues requires approximately 16 -36 hours of staff time over approximately the next four weeks. „The earliest date for Planning Commission review would be September 26, 1991, with Council review in October. This schedule meets the School District's needs. In order to accommodate this Code revision, some current projects would need to be delayed as follows: 1. Temporarily (for one month) permit turn - around time would increase by approximately 1 -2 weeks. Mayor Van Dusen Memo, 7/30/91 Page 2 . SUMMARY 2. Resolution of approximately 25% of the SAO waivers approved by Council would be postponed for one month. Alternatively, a Code revision could be scheduled for the Planning Commission hearing in October, and for Council review in November. This would allow staff to process permits and complete SAO waivers as currently scheduled. It is not clear whether this alternative would match the School District's schedule. Staff can have a Sign Code drafted in four weeks for hearing by the Planning Commission on September 26, 1991 and hearing by the Council in October. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: John McFarland FROM: Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney RE: Sign Code Revisions DATE: July 24, 1991 Enclosed is a draft ordinance incorporating alternative proposals designed to reflect the City Council's direction regarding signs for schools and other public facilities. To address only the very narrow issue of sign code changes for a school in an R -1 zone, I believe that only Section 1 of the attached ordinance needs to be adopted. We will want Rick Beeler's confirmation of this opinion. As you can see from the attachment, however, Chapter 19.32.080 deals by its terms with not only "schools" and "public facilities ", but also "churches" and "approved conditional uses ". The same is also true for TMC Sections 19.32.100, .120, and .130, all of which are also addressed in the attachment. This leaves several issues to be considered and decided upon for both Administration recommendation and Council consideration: 1. Should an effort be made to separate sign code requirements for churches and conditional uses, as compared to schools, public facilities, hospitals and the other uses delineated in the attachment? 2. If Section 1 of the attachment, or some similar version, is adopted, shouldn't we also adopt amendments to the other related sign code sections as reflected in Sections 2 -4 on the attachment? 3. Related to paragraph 2, above, should the setbacks be changed? Currently, the setback requirement applicable to all free standing signs is a distance "at least equal to the overall height of the sign." TMC 19.32.070. MEMORANDUM Page . 2 July 24, 1991 MRK /cc Enclosure cc: Rick Beeler SIGNCOD8.001 4. With respect to the school district's proposal, does "glow cube" illumination (see DCD staff report at page 1; page 19 of 7/22 Council Agenda Packet) conflict with the animated sign regulations set forth at TMC 19.28.010(3)? Let me know what you think, but this should at least get the discussion started. The final policy determination to be made is whether these amendments should be submitted to the Planning Commission. As I stated at the Council meeting last Monday, I believe the amendments should be submitted to the Planning Commission in order to be consistent with what I understand to be our past practice. There is no express requirement that such amendments go first to the Planning Commission, but it certainly does . seem to fall within the Planning Commission's purview of "matters relating to land use...." TMC 2.36.030. Since there is no dispute that the sign itself must first go to the Planning Commission (see, e.g., TMC 19.32.080(b)), unless that requirement is deleted from the existing sign code and the attachment, it makes sense to me that the proposed amendments be submitted simultaneously with the sign application itself. Although some may argue that the Planning Commission cannot consider the sign itself under the amendments set forth in the attachment until those amendments have been adopted by the Council, I am not particularly concerned about the merits of any such argument. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19, AS ORIGINALLY ;ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1274, RELATING TO THE SIZE OF SIGNS IN R -1 ZONES ON PROPERTY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC ENTITIES. WHEREAS, the City Council has previously enacted Ordinance No. 1274 creating the Sign Code, and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend certain provisions of the Sign Code in order to provide for greater awareness by the citizens of important community events and activities at public and other facilities in R -1 zones, and WHEREAS, the City Council concludes that these amendments are necessary and proper in order to protect the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tukwila, [WHEREAS: Add re Planning Commission hearing ?] NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Home occupation signs, and signs for churches, school, public facilities and conditional uses in single - family residential zones. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32.080 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.32.080 Home occupation signs -- Church, school, public facility and approved'conditional use signs. (a) Home occupations may be identified by a single, nonilluminated wall plaque of not more than one - and - one -half square feet. (b) Churches, schools, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of any sign, or the sum of all signs, shall not exceed square feet. The maximum height above ground, when in the setback area, shall not exceed feet, and the base of any sign or signs shall be located in landscaped areas. Bulletin boards and readerboards are considered signs. All signs noted in this subsection must be approved by the Planning Commission. Illuminated signs shall be frontlighted from concealed sources or back - lighted channel letters or back - lighted cut -out letters framed by an opaque cabinet or nonilluminated opaque sign panels. AND /OR Section 2. Signs for churches, schools, public facilities, etc. in multiple family zones. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32.100 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.32.100 Where signs will face other multiple family, commercial or industrial zones. (a) Home occupations may be identified by a single wall plaque not more than two square feet; plaque may be illuminated from front. (b) Churches, schools, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street upon which the property fronts. Total area of any sign, or the sum of all signs, shall not exceed square feet. The maximum height -1- above ground, when in the setback area, shall not exceed feet, and the base of any sign or signs shall be located in landscaped areas. Bulletin boards and readerboards are considered signs. All signs noted in this subsection must be approved by the Planning Commission. Signs may be illuminated from within the sign cabinet, but exposed neon tubing or bare lamps shall not be permitted. AND /OR Section 3. Signs for churches, schools, public facilities, etc. in a commercial zone facing or abutting single family zones. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32.120 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.32.120 Where signs will face or abut single - family zones. (a) Home occupations may be identified by a single, nonilluminated wall plaque of not more than one - and - one -half square feet. (b) Churches, schools, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street on which the property fronts; signs to be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building. Total area of any sign, or the sum of all signs, shall not exceed square feet. The maximum height above ground, when in the setback area, shall not exceed feet, and the base of any sign or signs shall be located in landscaped areas. Bulletin boards and readerboards are considered signs. All signs noted in this subsection must be approved by the Planning Commission. Illuminated signs shall be frontlighted from concealed sources or back - lighted channel letters or back - lighted cut -out letters framed by an opaque cabinet or nonilluminated opaque sign panels. (c) For commercial uses, including service stations, sign areas which are sixty percent of those in Table 1 (see Section 19.32.140) are permitted; other requirements are listed in Section 19.32.140. (d) All freestanding signs must be approved by the Planning Commission. Permits may be approved if in the judgment of the Planning Commission the effect of the proposed sign would not contribute to a cluttered or confusing condition nor would generally degrade the physical appearance or character of the street or neighborhood. (e) Nonrolling equipment and merchandise must be displayed from within buildings or within glass fronted cases, except in connection with temporary commercial, industrial or public service displays. AND /OR Section 4. Signs for churches, schools, public facilities, etc. in commercial zones facing or abutting multiple family zones or public facilities. Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 19.32.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.32.130 Where signs will face or abut multiple family_ zones or public facilities. (a) Home occupations may be identified by a single wall plaque not more than two square feet; plaque may be illuminated from front. (b) Churches, schools, hospitals, public facilities and approved conditional uses may have one sign for each street on which the property fronts. Total area of any sign, or the sum of all signs, shall not exceed square feet. The maximum height above ground, when in the setback area, shall not exceed feet, and the base of any sign or signs shall be located in landscaped areas. Bulletin boards and readerboards are considered signs. All signs noted in this subsection must be approved by the Planning Commission. Signs may be illuminated from within the sign cabinet, but exposed neon tubing or bare lamps shall not be permitted. (c) For commercial uses, including service stations, sign areas which are ninety percent of those in Table 1 (see Section 19.32.140) are permitted; other requirements are listed in Section 19.32.140. -2- (d) All freestanding signs must be approved by the Planning Commission. Permits may be approved if in the judgment of the Planning Commission the effect of the proposed sign would not contribute to a cluttered or confusing condition nor would generally degrade the physical appearance or character of the street or neighborhood. (e) Nonrolling equipment and merchandise must be displayed from within buildings or within glass fronted cases, except in connection with temporary commercial, industrial or public service displays. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such . invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication of the attached summary which is hereby approved. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this day of , 1991. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: Jane Cantu, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Ordinance No. CITY ATTY /SIGNCODE APPROVED: Mayor Gary L. VanDusen CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 STAFF REPORT to the CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: 91 -1 -CA: FOSTER SIGN CODE REVISION PHONE 11(206,) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor PROPONENT: South Central School District REQUEST: Revise the Sign Code (TMC 19.00) to give school facilities a more liberal allowance for signage. PREPARED: July 18, 1991; Department of Community Development BACKGROUND: On March 7, 1991, the South Central School District applied to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) for a variance to the Tukwila Sign Code. The District requested a variance to the size, height and setback requirements specified by code, in order to install a two- sided, illuminated readerboard sign at the Foster High School Stadium (42nd Avenue South and South 144th). The BOA denied the variance. The zoning of the school site is R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The Sign Code allows a school in a single family zone to have one sign, with a maximum size of 32 square feet (s.f.), and a maximum height of five feet. The minimum setback for freestanding signs is the height of the sign. The Code also allows for up to four temporary signs of 100 s.f. (maximum) for advertising special events, and up to four "internal information" signs for noting building and parking locations, traffic direction, etc. The School District's proposed sign would be illuminated, using a "glow cube" -type of construction. This type of sign is allowed under the Sign Code, provided it does not conflict with the animated sign regulations (TMC 19.28.010 (C)). The Planning Commission reviews all signs for public facilities in Single Family zones (TMC 19.32.080 (B). P Staff Report to City Council Foster Sign Code Revision, 7/18/91 Page 2 The School District's proposed readerboard would exceed these Sign Code's requirements as follows (with applicable code sections shown in parentheses): Size (TMC 19.32.080 (B)): Height (TMC 19.32.080 (B)): Setback (TMC 19.32.060): • Sign Code: 32 square ft. 5 feet 16.5 feet School District Proposal: 121.92 square ft. 16.5 feet 8 feet As stated to the Board of Adjustment, the School District believes a new readerboard is necessary to accommodate "growth of the use of the present campus as well as the envisioned use, and the need to present information to the community." The School District believes that it is not possible to achieve this goal, given the current size limitations of the Sign Code. As a result, they have asked the City Council to investigate the possibility of a revision to the Sign Code which would give school facilities a more liberal allowance for signage. ISSUES: There are four issues involved in a potential revision to the Sign Code: 1. Would larger or taller signs distract motorists or otherwise create a public nuisance? 2. Would larger signs in Single Family zones provide a public benefit or increase the public welfare? 3. Should larger or taller signs be permitted in Single Family zones? 4. Does the Code impose unreasonable restrictions on schools or other public institutions in residential zones? Should these institutions be given a greater allowance for signage? Staff Report to the City Council Foster Sign Code Revision, 7/18/91 Page 3 1. Would larger signs in Single Family Zones create a public nuisance? An important consideration in the proposed Code revision is whether the revision would allow signage which would adversely affect the public welfare, or adversely affect property or improvements adjacent to the site or in other residential zones. The sign requested by the School District is approximately seven -times larger than allowed, three -times taller than allowed, with a setback approximately one -half the distance required. At night, residences across the street from the sign would be affected by the large, lighted area of the two sign faces. In addition, a reduced setback would increase the visual impact of the sign from the street. One of the key purposes of the Sign Code is to "establish standards...so that the streets of Tukwila may appear orderly and safety may be increased by minimizing clutter and distraction" (TMC 19.04.020 (A)). The size, height and setback requirements for school signs in R -1 zones are intended to reduce visual impacts to residential neighborhoods. Increasing these limits to the degree proposed by the School District would not meet the intent of the Sign Code with respect to Single Family zones. However, some increase in the size and height may be possible without creating adverse impacts. 2. Would larger signs provide some public benefit? While it is true that a large, prominent sign may encourage better use of the school facilities and provide beneficial public information, this may not be the case for other "public facilities" located in residential zones. The Sign Code contains no restrictions, nor provisions for regulating the content of signs and, therefore, cannot control the degree to which they may "benefit" the public. At the same time, staff is concerned that revising the Sign Code to allow more signage for schools exclusively would constitute a grant of special privilege not accorded other public facilities in residential zones, such as a church or community center. 3. Should larger signs be permitted in Single Family zones? The costs and benefits of allowing larger signs in residential zones must be considered relative to the city as a whole. Based on the above discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that, in some cases, the impacts on nearby residences due to larger signs may outweigh potential public benefit derived from these signs. While a reasonable increase in allowable size may minimize impacts, a Sign Code revision would have little effect in increasing the public benefit provided by a particular sign. Staff Report to the City Council Foster Sign Code Revision, 7/18/91 Page 4 4. Does the Code impose unreasonable restrictions on schools, and should the allowance for signage be increased? At issue is, given the potential impacts and potential public benefit, whether the current Sign Code regulations for public institutions are reasonable. If it is determined that larger signs should be allowed in Single Family zones, the question is how should the code be revised to be consistent with this determination? The Single Family Zone (vs. Multiple - Family and Commercial / Industrial Zones) imposes the greatest restrictions on signs. Therefore, a school in a Single - Family zone is faced with more restrictions than might be expected for a school located in other zoning districts. Moreover, the variety of activities which occur on a school campus may require much more signage than uses more typically found in a single family zone. However, the Sign Code does make specific provisions for schools, churches and similar public facilities in residential zones (TMC 19.32.080 (B)). Presumably, this is in recognition of the unique needs of such facilities relative to residential uses. At the same time, the intent of the Code is to balance the unique needs of public facilities with potential impacts to the residential neighborhood by restricting signage in residential zones. Currently, a church, clinic or community center has the same sign privileges as a school when these uses are located in residential zones. To increase the Sign Code's allowance for school signs, a clear case would have to be made that a school merits different treatment than other "public facilities." RECOMMENDATIONS The issue is not whether a specific sign should be allowed at a specific site, but how the potential consequences of a code revision may affect other areas of the city. Staff recommends that the Council give adequate consideration to all of the issues and potential consequences in its evaluation of a revision to the Sign Code. The approved work plan for Community Development for 1991 does not include any Sign Code revisions. Therefore, the existing work plan would need to be revised. C ••• 44. • • • • •,,■• • • t City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: Rick Beeler n FROM: John McFarland \(t RE: Council Request for Information DATE: July 16, 1991 2. M week' Short what el present informs have any q cc: Mayor 1. The Council would like the Administration to report on what procedures we have developed to administer the SAO and LAO. Dennis referred to an article in the Seattle Times that cited the increase in permit processing time due to the County's recently developed land rep ' - • •••••�:�•. = i= i..i�•- • _ - . _ •resentation within e ediately, the Council would like a report at ne COW on the SCSD's request for revision to the sign code. f at we initially provided the Council last week, I don't se is necessary. They requested that DCD representatives be fo the discussion. A short staff report, to include Ann's do paper should suffice for the agenda. See me if you n estions. CITY OF T Uli WILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUI;WILA, WASHINGTON 98188 April 5 Sincerely, • NOTICE OF DECISION Mt G(-I4 - 3 (LV. South Central School District No. 406 4640 South 144th Street Tukwila, Washington 98168 RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Adjustment File Number: 91 -01 -V This is to confirm that the Board of Adjustment (BOA) denied project's design as presented on March 7, 1991. The BOA also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated February 25, 1991, with the exception of Criteria F & G, as reflected in the Board Minutes dated April 4, 1991. The action of the Board of Adjustment in denying the variance, shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten days from the date of the Board's action, an applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus. PHONE N (206).132.1800 Gary 1.. Van Ibsen, Mayor � � *ILA 4 City of Tukwila 2 BACKGROUND: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor M E M O R A N D U M TO: John McFarland, City Administrator FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planne RE: Sign Code Revision - South Central School District request DATE: June 28, 1991 On March 7, 1991, the South Central School District applied to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) for a variance to the Tukwila Sign Code. The District requested a variance to the size, height and setback requirements specified by code, in order to install a two- sided, illuminated readerboard sign at the Foster High School Stadium (42nd Avenue South and South 144th). The BOA denied the variance. The zoning of the school site is R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The Sign Code allows a school in a single family zone to have one sign, with a maximum size of 32 square feet, and a maximum height of five feet. The minimum setback for freestanding signs is the height of the sign. The Code also allows for up to four temporary signs of 100 square ft. (maximum) for advertising special events, and up to four "internal information" signs for noting building and parking locations, traffic direction, etc. Currently, the Planning Commission reviews all signs for public facilities in single family zones (TMC 19.32.080 (B)). In addition, the proposed sign may require review under the "animated sign" criteria (TMC 19.28.010 (C). The School District's proposed readerboard would exceed these Sign Code requirements as follows (with applicable code sections shown in parentheses): School District Sign Code: Proposal: Size (TMC 19.32.080 (B)): 32 square ft. 121.92 square ft. Height (TMC 19.32.080 (B)): 5 feet 16.5 feet Setback (TMC 19.32.060): 16.5 feet 8 feet Memo to John McFarland Foster Sign Code Revision, 6/28/91 Page 2 The District believes a new readerboard is necessary because of the "growth of the use of the present campus as well as the envisioned use, and the need to present information to the community." As a result, the School District has asked the City Council to investigate the possibility of a revision to the Sign Code which would give school facilities a more liberal allowance for signage. This is our understanding of the request. However, the District may have asked the Council to reviel i the illuminated /animated issue, rather than the size standards specified for this type of sign. Consequently, the expectations of the School District and Council may need clarification. ISSUES: There are four issues involved in a potential revision to the Sign Code: 1. whether the Code unduly restricts the property owner in his right* to convey a message; 2. whether public convenience would be increased as a result of that message; 3. the degree to which other property owner's rights would be adversely affected; and 4. the intent of the Sign Code. 1. Impact on property owner rights: The Single Family Zone (vs. Multiple - family and Commercial/ Industrial Zones) imposes the greatest restrictions on signs. Therefore, a school in a Single - Family zone is faced with more restrictions than might be expected for a school located in other zoning districts. Moreover, the variety of activities which occur on a school campus may require much more signage than uses more typically found in a single family zone. However, the Sign Code does make specific provisions for schools, churches and similar public facilities in residential zones (TMC 19.32.080 (B)). Presumably, this is in recognition of the unique needs of such facilities relative to residential uses. At the same time, the intent of the Code is to balance the unique needs of public facilities with potential impacts to the residential neighborhood by restricting signage in residential zones. C Memo to John McFarland Foster Sign Code Revision, 6/28/91 Page 3 Currently, a church, clinic or community center has the same sign privileges as a school when these uses are located in residential zones. To increase the Sign Code's allowance for school signs, a clear case would have to be made that a school merits different treatment than other "public facilities." 2. Impact on public convenience: 4. Intent of the Sign Code While it is true that a large, prominent sign may encourage better use of the school facilities and provide beneficial public information, this may not be the case for other "public facilities" located in residential zones. The Sign Code contains no restrictions, nor provisions for regulating the messages on signs and, therefore, cannot control the degree to which they may "benefit" the public. At the same time, staff is concerned that revising the Sign Code to allow more signage for schools exclusively would constitute a grant of special privilege not accorded to other public facilities, such as a church or community center. 3. Impact to other properties: An important consideration in the proposed Code revision is whether the revision would allow signage which would adversely affect the public welfare, or adversely affect property adjacent to the site or in other residential zones. The sign requested by the School District is approximately seven -times larger than allowed, three -times taller than allowed, with a setback approximately one -half the distance required. At night, residences across the street from the sign would be affected by the large, lighted area of the two sign faces. In addition, a reduced setback would increase the visual impact of the sign from the street. One of the key purposes of the Sign Code is to "establish standards...so that the streets of Tukwila may appear orderly and safety may be increased by minimizing clutter and distraction" (TMC 19.04.020 (A)). The size, height and setback requirements for school signs in R -1 zones are intended to reduce visual impacts to residential neighborhoods. Reducing these standards to the degree Memo to John McFarland Foster Sign Code Revision, 6/28/91 Page 4 RECOMMENDATIONS cc: Rick Beeler Jack Pace proposed by the School District would not meet the intent of the Sign Code with respect to single family zones. However, some increase in the size and height may still meet the code's intent. Staff recommends that the Council give adequate consideration to all of the above issues in its evaluation of a revision to the Sign Code. At present, the approved work plan for Community Development for 1991 does not include any code revisions. However, upon your direction we will give the revision priority among existing projects and permits. TO: Rick Beeler FROM: John McFarland RE: Sign Code Revision DATE: June 25, 1991 Last night the Council indicated they would like staff to proceed with reviewing the sign code issue related to the school district's request. Specifically, the readerboard sign on South 144th at the athletic field. I advised that the issue is complicated and involves several considerations to include: the appropriateness of an electronic message sign at that location, the impact the revision will have on activities who may tender similar requests, and the staff commitment associated with processing the revision. The Council is expecting an information paper on the issue next Monday night. It should briefly cover the above cited topics and any other that you feel are of note. Please provide me with a draft prior to close of business on Friday 6/28. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Van Dusen Rick Beeler, DCD May 23, 1991 Foster High School Nonconforming Sign The rumor is that the Council told the School Board that they would see that the Sign Code is changed to solve their sign problems. To date I have received nothing on this, and am wondering if you have. You recall that thq School District failed to get a variance for a readerboard proposal. In addition their construction sign is in the code enforcement process because it is significantly larger than allowed. I am sure that Dr. Silver is not pursuing resolving the latter because of the Council's assurances at the last joint meeting of the Council and School Board. Unless you direct me otherwise, I continue to follow your previous direction of working on the Sign Code revision next year. At this time DCD would have to drop an existing scheduled element of the work plan to work on the Sign Code, which we can do if that is your direction. I suggest, if the Council is serious about this, they discuss it with you in the COW relative to the budgeted work plan. (A41( M 'l,&SLt vitm M2- Cs scs5larz asc em s Avitt..L -lrv . csv c&-c. 2 , root \Al(u. pKect Stlit i.. (U■1 ac m \« rzczJ(, 11 *U ,t s atzger. The meeting was closed at 9:45. When talking about how to address human service needs, the Council and Board talked about the schools who assess new kids coming into the district. It was agreed this could be valuable in getting information to and from those families about City human services. Dr. Silver said the City may be getting a request to fund English as a Second Language & Draw the Line drug programs. The ECAP program also has a wait list, so the Board will request funds for a second program. There is also a serious need for a Family Services worker in the schools. He did report that the programs the City is now funding seem to have made a difference. Finally, Dr. Silver said he is still interested in John McFarland's idea about a Human Services Foundation. 4. New Foster High School The new construction is going well, though it needs some help in funding things that got dropped because of budget constraints. Among them are a better sound system, nice stage curtains, and enhanced lighting. A person is needed to handle the auditorium, especially the openings, closings, bookings, and general mangement. The Board asked if the City would be willing to fund or help fund this position. Another thing the School Board really needs and wants is a readerboard for the stadium area. However, it violates the City's sign code ordinance. They asked if the code could be amended, and the Council promised to look into it through their Community and Parks committee. They talked about a possible exception for non- profit public facilities like the school, library and community center. 5. Black River Quarry The Board expressed a concern about the proposal for a construction site in the quarry. The City said they would get a written synopsis of what's taken place in the process to now, what's coming up, and a timeline of what's happening when. It should go to both the Council and copied to the School Board. 6. Future Facility Needs The Board is looking at a Facilities Study this summer that will be very intensive. They would like a City representative, and a Council representative too, if possible. The meetings will be every week from now into fall. The Council said they would bring it up at their next COW to see if anyone would volunteer. The results of the study will be comprehensive, and may be put on a bond issue vote for funding. 2. Tukwila Use of School Facilities; Child Care 3. Human Services �eG ( DE School Board - City Council Joint Meeting May 9, 1991 7:00 - 9:45 p.m. Present: Michael Silver, Superintendent; Ron Lamb, Jeanetter Baldwin, Wayne Hammond; School Board Members Dennis Robertson, Joan Hernandez, Clarence Moriwaki, Steve Lawrence, Allan Ekberg; City Council Members Don Williams, Lynn Devoir, Evelyn Boykin, Al Frank, Lucy Lauterbach; City Staff 1. School District Use of Tukwila Facilities (pool & library) When use of the South Central Pool was discussed, the school board said that from Grades 6 - 10 kids take swimming for a total of 2 hours swim class. The school pays King County $15 /hour for the pool, plus instructors' fees. The School board didn't have strong feelings about the city taking the pool over. Don Williams said maintenance costs are about $100,000 /year. The new high school will have its own library, which will be 3 -4 times bigger than Foster Library. The Board noted that kids use the libraries now, especially since they have the new programs to help kids after school. One issue raised was that someone is doing a survey at the school of what the schools think of libraries. Noone had much information on that survey, but will report when they find out. Don Williams laid out the needs Tukwila has, especially for space for before and after school care of Tukwila kids. Both the Council and the Board agreed that day care was an important need in the community. Facility space is scarce both in the City and in the schools. Both sides are willing to work together, but must look at how they can pool their resources better. Since the City child care is cheaper than the more intensive school program, the city hasn't wanted to look like they're competing with the school, but Dr. Silver assured the Council there's not a problem since both programs are overflowing. Both sides agreed that they need a better statement on what the needs are, what the dual programs are, and what the facilities needs are. There's a distinct possibility the district and city can help one another. The Board noted that they have a 30% turnover of students each year, and that families need help in being stabilized. Lynn Devoir mentioned the City now has a program to help at -risk kids 3x /week at Thorndyde (25 kids) and at the middle school 2x /week. The Council agreed that was a priority. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 tz'r Z ' 1CATION: ZONING: HEARING DATE: FILE, NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: SIGN AREA: SIGN HEIGHT: SETBACK: ATTACHMENTS: PHONE # (206) 433.1800 4111Ala Y14 Ka' ZG : otS 17 J 5 , ameAs ctuldt:imi-cor44 STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Prepared February 25, 1991 March 7, 1991 91 -01 -V South Central School District No. 406 In order to install a new readerboard sign, applicant requests a variance to the following Sign Code sections: • TMC 1932.080 (B): Size (from 32 s.f. to 121.92 s.f.) • TMC 1932.080 (B): Height (from 5 feet to 16.5 feet) • TMC 1932.060: Setback (from 16.5 feet to 8 feet) Foster High School Stadium, 42nd Ave. S. and S. 144th; Sec. 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, Washington R -1 (Single- Family Residential) Two sides @ 60.96 s.f each = 121.92 s.f. total 16 feet -6 inches 8 feet A. Site & Vicinity Map B. Sign Elevations c Fi l SINS r �i0i Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 4/-figt---N? 6604) Stag Report to B.O.A. Page 2 BACKGROUND VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance FINDINGS The site of the sign location is the Foster High School campus, located at South 144th Avenue and 42nd Avenue South (see Attachment A). The site consists of several facilities, including a stadium/track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas. Single family residences surround the site on all sides. In addition, there are apartments on the east side (across 42nd) and a church to the north. A scoreboard currently exists on the site, adjacent to, and facing the stadium/track This is considered an internal information sign, since it is used for events information and is visible only from inside the stadium. The applicant wishes to attach a two -sided readerboard of 121.92 square feet to the existing scoreboard. This new sign would face the street, and would be considered a freestanding sign. The Sign Code allows a school in a single family zone to have one sign, with maximum size of 32 square feet, and a maximum height of five feet (TMC 19.32.080 (B)). The minimum setback for freestanding signs is the height of the sign (TMC 1932.060). The applicant is proposing a sign with a 16' -6" height; therefore, the required setback is 16 feet -six inches. Review of the Foster sign variance request involves three separate evaluations in order to determine: 1) if the proposed size of 121.92 s.f. meets the seven variance criteria; 2) if the proposed height of 16' -6" meets the seven criteria; and 3) if the proposed setback of 16X6" meets the seven criteria. i In addition to variances for the three design standards noted above, the proposed sign will also require approval from the Planning Commission (TMC 1932.080 (B). -z is e6( S Staff Report to B.O.A. 04401,s 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance Page 3 DECISION CRITERIA i r CRITERIA FOR GRANTING SIGN CODE VARIANCES (TMC 19.12.060) The applicant's request is for three separate variances: size, height and setback. These design standards are interrelated and the applicant has integrated them into one sign proposal. Therefore, all three requests are addressed under each criteria. Criteria for Board of Adjustment evaluation are given below, along with the applicant's response to the criteria, followed by staff's response. As with Zoning Code, the Sign Code states that a variance may only be approved if the request meets all seven criteria. A. The variance as approved shall not constitute a grant of special privilege which is inconsistent with the intent of this sign code, nor which contravenes the limitation on use of property specified by the zoning classification in which this property is located. Applicant's response: "The South Central School District property lies in a neighborhood comprised of single family homes and apartments. This usage has special requirements not necessitated by either apartments or single family dwellings." Staff's response: One of the key purposes of the Sign Code is to "establish standards...so that the streets of Tukwila may appear orderly and safety may be increased by minimizing clutter and distraction" (TMC 19.04.020 (A)). The Sign Code specifically addresses signs for schools, churches and similar public facilities in residential zones (TMC 19.32.080 (B)). The Single Family Zone has the greatest restrictions on signs. B. That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. Staff Report to B.O.A. Page 4 Applicant's response: "Due to the large size of the South Central School District campus, a single point of information to guide users is important. This area, comprising over ten acres, has soccer fields, baseball fields, a football stadium, a high school, an administration building that is commonly used for public meetings, and an auditorium in the new high school that will be used for community needs." Staff's response: In the R -1 zone, the applicant is faced with more restrictions than might be expected for a school located in other zoning districts. However, the sign code does provide for school signs in an R -1 zone (TMC 19.32.080 - Single Family Zones (B)), and there are no unusual property characteristics which actually prevent the applicant from using the site. Based on information from the applicant, the setback and height are due to the cost- effectiveness of attaching the new sign to the back of the scoreboard. C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located. Applicant's response: Staffs response: 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance "The variance will not constitute a change in traffic, views, or light, upon the neighboring community. The readerboard will have an obvious visual impact, but this will be mitigated by use of a glow cube versus a light bulb type readerboard. The readerboard will, in fact, mitigate traffic problems by providing information to users, and by reminding drivers on 144th of the speed limit adjacent to the school." The size of the sign would be 121.92 s.f., with a height of 16.5' and setback of 8 feet. It will have impacts on views from the surrounding residences and passing motorists. However, the diagonal design of the sign would direct some of the visual impact away from the residences closest to the site. The sign would not negatively affect traffic or circulation. As a separate process, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the glow cube -type of construction is not an "animated" sign, which is prohibited by code. Staff Report to B.O.A. Page 5 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance Although a portion of the proposed sign is intended for public service messages, the type of message to be displayed is not relevant to the variance criteria. There are no code restrictions on, nor provisions for regulating the type of message to be displayed. D. That the special conditions and circumstances prompting the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant's response: "The sign to be installed is an upgrade of the existing sign at the stadium. The existing sign is being replaced because it is 1) badly deteriorated; 2) not functional given the scope of growth of the use of the present campus as well as the envisioned use; and 3) need to present information to the community." Staff's response: The conditions prompting the three variances are the large size and multi -use character of the site. In addition, the school occupied the site prior to annexation and prior to the adoption of the Sign Code. Due to the cost of wiring and maintaining a separate sign, the applicant has chosen to attach the new readerboard to the existing sign, resulting in a taller . sign with a reduced setback. Given the applicant's decision to locate the sign in a fenced area, a 5' tall sign would be difficult to see in the proposed location. Although the purpose of the sign is to upgrade the existing sign, the Sign Code requires that any new signs meet code, regardless of their intended use. K That the variance as granted represents the least amount of deviation from prescribed regulations necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the variance is sought and which is consistent with the stated intent of this code. Applicant's response: "The sign, as proposed, has been scaled down in size as well as being changed to a glow cube versus bulb sign to mitigate any negative impacts that it could potentially have. The intent of the sign is to inform the public and not to present a commercial message." Staff Report to B.O.A. Page 6 Staff's response: Applicant's response: Staff's response: Applicant's response: 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance The variance request is for a sign approximately seven -times larger than allowed, three - times taller than allowed, and a setback approximately one -half the distance required. The applicant has not explained why this request represents the least amount of deviation necessary to accomplish their purpose. F. That granting of the variance shall result in greater convenience to the public in identifying the business location for which a sign code variance is sought. "As previously mentioned, the sign will result in increasing information to the community that will allow them to attend activities at the high school, and therefore mitigate traffic. Due to the fact that the South Central School District has two schools on the same campus, this sign will enable the District to inform community members about locations of activities, parking locations, as well as defining the locations of the two schools." The proposed size of the sign would allow more room for information than a 32 s.f. sign. A height of 16' -6" would make the sign more visible at its proposed location. Currently, site signage consists of a freestanding sign identifying Showalter Junior High School, a sign identifying the stadium/track (Neudorf field), and two signs on the pool building, in addition to the decorative monument sign approved for the new high school site. Four temporary signs up to 100 s.f. each could be used for special events promotion. G. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a public nuisance or adversely affect public safety. "The variance will not constitute a public nuisance. Public safety can be, in fact, enhanced by noting on the sign such items as: posted speed limits, current road conditions such as ice and fog, etc." Staff Report to B.O.A. Page 7 Staff's response: 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance The overall sign design is neat and orderly. Based on a preliminary review of the proposed sign, the Public Works Department had no significant safety concerns. The sign's glow -cube type of construction does not necessarily produce unsafe distraction. The sign's structure will be required to pass inspections as part of the permit process. CONCLUSIONS A. Variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the intent of the code: The size, height and setback requirements for school signs in R -1 zones are intended to reduce visual impacts to residential neighborhoods. Since the request far exceeds a 1 three standar ds, it would not meet the intent of the Sign Code with respect to single famil y zones. i5e6,666 SG tmes( r TAR.- ��(. teaa veal/31 ei 1 uskS -a-s a-gr .tee v.i 9, f. z ptaz twout �5 The granting of the variance wou d not give the school spec privilege relative to adjacent single family uses, due to its unique characteristics and needs. A variance would, however, constitute a granting of special privilege relative to other non - residential uses or multi -use sites (such as a church or community center) which may be located in single family zones. Based on this, staff concludes that the sign's proposed size, height and setback do not meet Criteria A. B. Variance is necessary because of special site conditions... T to provide it with use rights permitted to other properties: tA o 6 $4fra off- While the school campus is atypical of an R -1 use, the applicant is not prevented from using h'P � PP P g the site. A large, prominent sign may encourage better use of the facilities and provide beneficial public information. However, a readerboard which meets code would not prevent use of the various facilities. As noted by the applicant, the proposed sign location, height and setback are based on cost considerations, rather than extraordinary site conditions. The site provides other alternatives for signage. 7ifir. /dd Staff Report to B.O.A. Page 8 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance The sign code does not prevent the school from installing a readerboard. Therefore, the applicant is not deprived of property rights which are accorded to surrounding properties. For the above reasons, staff concludes that the sign's proposed size, height and setback do not meet Criteria B. C. Variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property: 14 visit/ The large size of the sign would have h significant visual impact to the neighborhood. At night, residences across the -street from the sign would be affected by the large, lighted area of the two sign faces. In addition, a reduced setback would increase the visual impact of the sign from the street. The sign would not otherwise have a negative effect on p ubic welfare or property. Due to visual impacts, staff concludes that the size, height and setback proposals do not meet Criteria C. (D) 4 special conditions...are not the result of applicant's actions. Some site conditions are beyond the applicant's direct control. However, the code does provide for signage for the site, and the applicant has not provided sufficient justificatio for a sign which greatly exceeds c stmndards... he proposedleight and setback are ba on cost And_ma enance4'`ns eis, w arm arg y the result of previous actions. A sign with a different location and size could meet code requirements and also provide public and event information. va 61 6-4t COIUMS4 u &Coi Based on this, staff concludes that the proposed size, height and setback do not meet Criteria D. Therefore, staff concludes that the sign's proposed size, height and setback do not meet Criteria E. v�`Gti DE ;, C C E). Variance represents the least amount of deviation from code necessary. mo (44,o ) The applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify - a sign with a size, height and setback which deviate substantially from code. $ j € f- G AY= �G��� -• 8 Staff Report to B.O.A. Page 9 91 -01 -V: Foster Sign Variance Variance shall result in greater convenience to the public. f a ces,.412v t 4) f A larger sign has the potential to result in greater con enience to the public, depending on the information provided. However, the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for an increase from a 32 s.f. sign to a 122 s.f. sign. A smaller readerboard in a more visible location and other signage as allowed by code could achieve a similar result. A reduced setback is not likely to result in greater convenience to the public. While the sign may include beneficial public information, the variance process cannot regulate changeable readerboard messages. Evaluation must be based on Sign Code standards and not content. Therefore, staff concludes that the proposed size, height and setback do not meet Criteria F. G. Variance will not constitute a public nuisance or adversely affect public safety. The proposed size, height and setback of the sign would not adversely affect public safety or create a public nuisance. "Ilual FM Staff concludes that the proposed size, height and setback of the sign meet Criteria G. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information provided by the applicant staff has concluded that the applicant's size, height and setback variance requests mee riteria. 6 but do not meet Criteria A 4 c through F. Since all seven of the variance criteria have no n met, the Planning Staff that all three variance requests be denied. 4k Az, . • t/ cArri) , ▪ 1 7-- tir — 12 ; 1 4) • tt.. „Ai .1 — . • k; 1,1 I ,1,1 7 Cr 1 I o o no to 01 0 0 040 AC 71.107 ri. /// EARL H. MANLEY T /Sf - I 85 AC. Ti ?69 1/ /6 393 80 1/ z10 H. R. SCOONES Z 86 AC. (Si) 40 ESS I E—f7-- v) PRECIOUS ' 33 AC. 7 04 NC' 71 40 • ? AC. % 110 r=. cc.f a U 92 AC 7:L.20 99 t 2/0 t 0 Viaa. 01111MIN.11 Witted in both form and content. Ti /6 ATLAS OF SEAT! L • no,rtsert...... •••••••••■ • • • 7 07 '"; 1 2 < JAN 28 1991 cfY OF TGIvivtLA 1 PLA itN 60 6o 6 /3 COLS AYE) 7C.13 eat z3 T1 '3S NOT Pr -- / /4 X /'/ / / // • A 15,44,1 CORP. OF CA`tHOLIC ARCHBISP OF SEATT t,E _1 8.02 AC r —� !L. /06 97/652 33/. 7 Ti /09 ATHLETIC PHLO • 22 n 7644 '4-r/L r9 O I IL J9 Q 1391 112: b � TL IB2 Y /9e rt. r d3 1 s • h 0,99 AC 0 /9e Ti 90 LEGEND Cns only Taw 1 nl Nn n .4,-. leo Nurnhnr N /40 A/7 ✓ ivv• • • • �� °`- ; h pp �` r ' 1 a 1.3 � 4 i i y '1 �—M . 3 fi `\ �q5 C_ ( 0`.39? 5 o ' . >IC� ) , r (Kroll Maps are copyrighted in both form and content.) SAO TL /64 T. /. ..S SCH DIST. 406 '. . 8.02 AC. 0100 eri - X11/ 0.4 0 A TL 60 EARL 4 �• ti h ti • 0.99 AC =o • 153' 1G 3 327,38 18 140 1 5 140 14 28 33 14117 3/ • 72 ▪ 30 ' r - ' "+ / / / T / CORP. OF CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP (OF SEATTLE I S.OZ AC I C 0 7.L.107 3760 36 ci c, 040 • I - 1= r. L. /24 a 7 I 1289 t .95 Ill AC.• Q ;\ \\ - ze r1369 ti \ \ r 1 TL (c {7 T 1 . 41 o - 1A I\L \-- ■A l • Z AC. � ` r, ; I A • i F � It /00 T.[ 2T0 "5260 32d 69 •84 H.R. SCOONES 86 AC. 7078 w.es i5- E5 ' 65 e ESSIE T. h PRECIOUS '' AC., 7144 co6 • \ t ' C� . I I It\ oZ. \(. s EATTLr 1 'UEIt 1`�Ift KROLL MAP ATLAS COMPANY , INC,, SEAT I SCALE 1 INCH :,1t1 I11 1 COPYRIGHTED g 0 NA + •t • . \, I I I 1' -3' 6' -0" 3' -6" I 1 REV t0 - t6 - fE DATE SHORTTNO HT OF TOP ID PANEL SHORIND Hf OF BOITOY IO PANEL DESCRIPTION MADE APPII. DAKTRONICS, INC. BROOKINGS. SOWN DAKOTA 57006 SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT /SEATTLE, WA 1664 -10GOC O eAw,NG NUMUCA: 7084 —P088-44845 1 1 =30 -0N, OESIGMED: D ATE CMCCMCD: OATI: OwAWII DOK DAM 10 - 9 - 90 AAAOVEO. DATE: EXISTING FENCE 'tUSfI Stdewor 10' -2' WERNER L. NEUDORF FIELD COIICERT TONIGHT SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Sign Elevations 8 40 EXISTING SCO .7EBOARD TOP VIEW NO SCALE ATTACHMENT _B o COPYRIGHT 1990 DAKTRONICS, INC SPECIFICATIONS; JDENTIFICATION DISPLAY: (jOP) — LETTERS ARE 9" HIGH, COLOR TO BE SPECIFIED — LOGO AND ITS COLOR(S) TO BE SPECIFIED — BACKGROUND FINISH TO BE SPECIFIED — DISPLAY FACE IS ALUMINUM "GLOW CUBE." DISPLAY; — 1 Ex64 CUBE MATRIX — 10' NOMINAL CHARACTER HEIGHT — "VENUS• SERIES" CONTROLLER — DISPLAY FACE IS PROTECTED BY A LEXAN • FACEPLATE — 100% SOLID STATE CONSOLIDATED CUBE DRIVERS IDENTIFICATION DISPLAY: (BOTTOM) — LETTERS ARE 9' HIGH, COLOR TO BE SF ECIFIED — BACKGROUND FINISH TO BE SPECIFIED — DISPLAY FACE IS ALUMINUM GENERAL DISPLAY; — 2 —V DISPLAY — ALL ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION — DISPLAY FINISH TO BE SPECIFIED — DIMENSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 0 JE TO DETAILED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS /ONLY \/PROVED SHOP DRAWINGS SHOULD BE USED FOR :INSTRUCTION PURPOSES — MUST BE EARTH GROUND /NUMBER 3c LEJGTHS OF RODS TO MEET LOCAL NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE ExIST1NC — SCOREBOARD MAXIMUM POWER DEMAND; — "GLOW CUBE•' DISPLAY: 1,920 WAITS =— •