Kirkland Council Puts Decision On Billboard On Hold For 60 Days

KIRKLAND - Kirkland's only billboards, the subject of a years-long tug of war between the city and the signs' owner, will stand at least another 60 days.

In that time, the city and Ackerley Communications Inc., the owner of the nine billboards, will likely negotiate an issue that has never been spelled out in the voluminous documentation of the case:

How much is a billboard worth?

That question could become paramount if the Kirkland City Council affirms a hearing examiner's decision that denied Ackerley Communications further time extensions on the signs.

If the council forces the signs to come down, that could amount to a condemnation of Ackerley's property. That in turn likely would trigger a move by Ackerley to claim compensation for damages, said J.J. Leary Jr., an attorney who represented the outdoor-advertising giant at a City Council hearing last night.

Because negotiations could ensue, neither Leary nor City Manager Terry Ellis would offer an estimate of how much the signs could be worth.

That uncertainty, as well as Ackerley's indications it would probably seek compensation if it is forced to take down its signs, prompted Ellis last night to suggest the council delay a vote on the matter for at least 60 days. The council agreed.

Four of the nine Ackerley signs are in South Juanita at 9730 Juanita Drive Northeast; four are in the South Rose Hill neighborhood along Northeast 85th Street; and one is at 12425 Slater Avenue Northeast in the Totem Lake area.

The signs became an issue on Jan. 1, 1988, when the neighborhoods in question were annexed by Kirkland, which insists that signs be posted on the same property as what is advertised on them. That ordinance effectively bans billboards.

Ackerley took advantage of an 18-month grace period after annexation and now seeks a six-year extension for the billboards. Those extensions are allowable under city zoning.

"We're talking about the last billboards in the city and for some people, that may be cause for cheer," said Leary. "Nonetheless, this could be an action by the city banning one form of advertising while allowing all other forms of advertising.

"That raises constitutional issues as well as monetary ones."

Ackerley Communications has pointed out that the billboards, some of which have been up for 20 years, were put up legally. Ackerley also has refuted the hearing examiner's argument that the signs are aesthetically unpleasant.

The firm was represented by seven people at last night's hearings, including Terry Sandblast, a consultant who argued that the signs technically do not block views, as some residents have complained. Sandblast testified that the city planning documents had indicated that streets - and not the areas alongside streets where billboards are built - are the appropriate "view corridors" in the community.

Citizens who testified, however, were unanimous in their opposition to the signs.

"I cannot escape those signs," said Evelyn Mitchell, who lives near the Juanita billboards. "I cannot escape them unless I close my living-room curtains."

Kirkland resident Tim Delaney, who works for the American Cancer Society, panned the billboards for advertising tobacco and alcohol products.

He urged the council to affirm the hearing examiner's decision.

"Ackerley's arguments are based on a lot of legalistic technicalities," Delaney said. "They put those signs up 20 years ago and they've probably got them paid for 20 times over. What is important here is the uglification of our community."