Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2014-02-11 Item 2C - Discussion - Freeway Interchange SignsTO: City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Mayor Haggerton Community Affairs and Parks FROM: Jack Pace, Director BY: Brandon Miles, Senior Planner DATE: February 4, 2014 SUBJECT: Sign Code Regulations Freeway Interchange Signs ISSUE Briefing on regulations regarding placement of freeway interchange signs within the City. BACKGROUND In August of 2010, the City adopted a new sign code to regulate the placement of signs in commercial, industrial, and residential zones. The 2010 code replaced a code that had been in place for nearly 30 years. This new sign code was crafted after significant public input, including the creation of a Sign Code Advisory Committee. The Committee included representatives from businesses, residents, the City Council and the Planning Commission. After an eight month process the Committee drafted policies and recommendations for the City Council to consider in creating a new sign code. One significant issue that the Sign Code Advisory Committee reviewed was the use of "Freeway Interchange Signs". Under the old sign code, "freeway interchange businesses" were permitted freeway interchange signs. A freeway interchange business was defined as a business located within areas designated around freeway entry/exit points. The purpose of the freeway interchange sign was to serve the traveling public and to identify businesses such as regional shopping malls, eating, lodging or service stations. Freeway interchange signs were permitted to be up to 125 feet tall and have a message area of 125 square feet per face, with a total message area of 250 square feet total. The Sign Code Advisory Committee recommended that new freeway interchange signs not be permitted in the City. As was stated in the Sign Code Advisory Committee Policy Recommendations, "Freeway interchange signs are [a] legacy of the past and they likely provide little assistance to the traveling public. WSDOT permits small directional signs within their right of way to note upcoming services. These signs are typically spaced further back from the off ramp in order to allow motorists adequate time to make a decision to exit the freeway. Additionally, WSDOT provides signs on the exit ramps which further provide direction to motorist as they exit the freeway (p. 24)." Furthermore, there was concern that the regulations regarding freeway interchange signs were content based and thus could be subject to legal challenge. With adoption of the new sign code, in August of 2010, the five existing freeway interchange signs in the City became nonconforming. Under the City's nonconforming sign regulations, these remaining signs are permitted to have unlimited refaces and copy changes until August of 2015, provided the sign size, shape, and location do not change (TMC 19.36.050). After August 2015, the signs may remain as-is indefinitely, unless certain work is proposed that would require the sign to be removed. 11 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 DISCUSSION On January 13, 2014 the owner of the Union 76 station, located at 13810 Interurban Avenue 8Outh, spoke to the City Council about his desire to reface and expand its exiotin0, non- conforming freeway interchange sign. The current freeway interchange sign located on the property has a total area of 100 square feet per face /200 square feet total). The property owner submitted a sign permit to the City requesting to add an electronic panel to the sign, which would add an additional 144.08 square feet of sign area per face (288.16 square feet total). This would bring the total sign area per face to 244.08 square feet and the total sign area for the sign would be 488.16 square feet. As discussed above, the maximum sign area for a freeway interchange sign under the old sign would have been 125 square feet per face and 250 square feet of area of message area for the entire sign. The area proposed by the gas station is drastically more than what was permitted under the old sign code. Since the new sign was adopted, the City has aggressively pursued the removal of nonconforming and illegal signs. As was discussed above, at the time of adoption of the new sign code, there were five existing freeway interchange signs. Last year the number was reduced to four when the freeway interchange sign at the Best Western, located on West Valley Hvvy, was removed. The owner of the property was rebranding the property from Best Western to Ramada. As part of the rebranding the property owner requested to change the shape of the existing sign cabinet for the nonconforming freeway interchange sign. The proposed work to the Sign was not permitted under the code and, while the property owner could have simply refaced the sign, he chose to remove the sign in order to comply with the City's nonconforming regulations. Additionally, the City is also in the process of ordering the removal of 22 freestanding signs that failed to register under the City's non-conforming program. The City has already secured the removal of the Sizzler freestanding sign located along Southcenter Parkway. It is also unclear how the Union 76 Gas Station would benefit from placement of a tall sign. The angle of the freeways in the area and the height of nearby trees significantly hinder the line of sight for any cars to see the existing freeway interchange sign on the property. FINANCIAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION Information Only. Staff does not believe that changes are needed to the City's regulations regarding freeway interchange signs. The City's Sign Code Advisory Committee set a vision for the City in its recommendations to the City Council. Staff suggests that the City continue to try and reach the vision laid out by the Committee. Property owners with existing freeway interchange signs are permitted to complete refaces and copy changes of their existing signs for another year and a half. Businesses can also take advantage of motorist information signs installed and operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. If the Committee would like to continue to discuss this matter, staff would suggest that this matter be referred to a Committee meeting in March for further review. Staff would suggest that the Committee provide staff specific questions or direction on what it would like to see at the March meeting. ATTACHMENTS None w:12Vw Info *emu,-CovndKrmewaySigno.um,