Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2014-06-23 Item 4B - Discussion - Sign Regulations for Freeway Interchange Signs 4.B. ITEMINFORMATION STAFFSPONSOR: ORIGINALAGENDADATE: AGENDAITEMTITLE CATEGORY SPONSOR OPH7 OHR OP&R SPONSOR'S SUMl\1ARY REVIE\'V'EDBY CA&PCmte COWMtg. F&SCmte TransportationCmte UtilitiesCmte ArtsComm. ParksComm. PlanningComm. DATE: COMMITTEECHAIR: SPONSOR/ADMIN. COMMITTEE COSTIMPACT/FUNDSOURCE EXPENDITUREREQUIRED AMOUNTBUDGETED ApPROPRIATIONREQUIRED FundSource: Comments: MTG.DATE RECORDOFCOUNCILACTION r.o MTG.DATE ATTACHMENTS 32 lap City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL U��U��������U� on�n ��n`�nmn��n n�*n����~ n�n�~n�n��o���n��*��n�n TO: Mayor Haggerton Committee of the Whole FROM: Jack Pace, Director BY: Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director Brandon J. Miles, Economic Development Planner DATE: March 3, 2014, Updated June 3 and 17, 2014 SUBJECT: Sign CodoReQu|ations'Freevvoy/ntenchangoSi/no 3'd Briefing Memo (Updated Following COW Meeting) ISSUE Should sign code regulations prohibiting new and enlarged freeway interchange signs within the City be modified? BACKGROUND Atthe February 11,2014 CommunityAffairs and Parks meeting, the owners ofthe Union 76 gas station at 13310 Interurban Avenue discussed their desire to see the regulations regarding freeway interchange signs modified. As part of an expansion to include a diesel fuel station on an adjacent parcel the owners want to reface and expand the non-conforming 200 square foot freeway interchange sign (100 sf per face) in a manner that is not permitted under the City's Sign Code. Their proposed sign would have a total square footage of 488 square feet (244 sf per face). The largest freeway interchange sign permitted under the prior Sign Code was 250 sf (125 sf per face). Under the current Sign Code no new freeway interchange signs are permitted and existing ones may be refaced and have copy changes until August of 2015, provided the height and area of the sign remain uncharged. Any changes to the sign code must remain content neutral, meaning that we can no longer legally limit certain types of signs to specific types of businesses as in the previous freeway interchange sign regulations. CAP brought the issue back for further discussion on March 25, 2014 and then forwarded this matter to the June 9, 2014 Committee of the Whole for discussion without a recommendation. The COW considered the options and asked staif to develop them further. While there was not a consensus about the correct approach the Council generaily expressed a desire to find a solution for the Petersons that did not result in a proliferation of additional freeway interchange signs, create legal challenges or involve a lengthy public process. Between meetings staff has met with the owners in order to gain a better understanding of their goals and sign needs. Staff also reviewed photos from Google Earth to determine the visibility of the existing sign from Interstate 5 and State Route 599. INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 DISCUSSION The visibility of the existing sign (as well as other freeway interchange signs in the area) is severely limited by the topog[aphy, trees and the design of the roadway. Often times when the sign is visible it is already too late for a motorist to make a decision to attempt to exit the freeway. For example, the sign is only visible from north bound Interstate 5 after the off ramp to State Route 599 has passed. Motorists have to use the SR 599 off ramp from Interstate 5 to access the gas station. The sign's visibility from SR 599 is extremely limited. Southbound traffic on Interstate 5 has the best view of the existing sign. Staff would like to present three options for the Committee to consider regarding the issue of freeway interchange signs. Option 1. Retain the Existing Code Language In accordance with their overall policy direction to phase out pole signs the Sign Code Advisory Committee recommended that new freeway interchange signs not be permitted in the City. As was stated in the Siqn Code Advisory Committee Policy Recommendations, "Freeway interchange si s are [a] /egacy of the past and they likely provide Iittle assistance to the traveling public. N/SDOT permits small directional si ns within their right of way to note upcoming services. These si ns are typically spaced further back from the off ramp in order to a/Iow 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 The Union 76 Gas GtoUon, as well as other businesses with freeway interchange signa, are permitted to do refaces and copy changes until August of 2015. provided the height and area of the sign remain unchanged. Retaining these existing regulations would not have any staff time, budget or legal impacts. Option 2. Allow Area Increases for Freeway Interchange Signs The City's current non-conforming sign regulations only allow copy changes and refaces of an existing freeway interchange sign if there is no change in the height, mnea, or shape of the sign. Under the City's old sign code freeway interchange signs were permitted to be up to 125 square feet per face, up to 250 square feet for all sides. One option would be to relax the restrictions on what work can be completed to an existing non-conforming freeway sign and allow an increase in area up to 125 feet per face (250 square feet for all sides). The sign would still be non- conforming and after August of 2015 changes to the freeway interchange sign would not be permitted and eventually the sign would be removed when the business changed or the sign was damaged. 19.36.050 Existing Freeway Interchange Signs Existing Ssigns classified as freeway interchange signs under the previous Sign Code are permitted to Fenlain for a ve year grace period starUng from the effective date of this ordinance. During the grace period, freeway interchange signs may bo enlarged hza maximum o/125nf per side, 25Osf total. ha*e.un4mA*dbenefoued:, and have copy changes provided the a a,-height and Iocation of the sign n remain unchanged. Relocation or Leerectiod Of the sign during the periodis not permitted. Application for a non-conforming sign permit is required for all sign face, area or copy changes to a freeway interchange sign. After the grace period has terminated, the sign isperm�edtn remain as-is indefinitely however `� =`'������ y�+ • •. complianceeswiththe Sign Code is triggeredregurredforly anyre|ocoUVn.re'erecUVn.al0araUnO.rep|aoemoDt or change in any way to the structure or sign panel/face/copy. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a sign shall be permitted without loss of nonconforming status if the cost of all maintenance and repair over a two-year period is less than 25 percent of the cost of replacing the sign. 34 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 At the June 9Th COW meeting the Petersons indicated that a 125 sf sign face would be acceptable to them. Option 2 would allow the Peterson Gas Station to complete a small expansion aong with its reface and copy change, while at the same time preserving the City's ultimate goal to have the freeway interchange signs removed in the future. It is important to note that under this option the four existing freeway interchange signs that are less than 125 square feet per face (250 square feet for all sides) would be permitted to enlarge their signs in conjunction with a reface or copy change. Language allowing freeway signs the same maintenance and repair threshold as other non- conforming signs was added to the proposal to address another concern of the Petersons. This minor modification to existing regulations would require a Iimited amount of staif time and not create budget or legal impacts. Option 3. Extend the Grace Period The final option would be to add an extension of the grace period where refaces, copy changes and area increases would be permitted to the language proposed in Option 2 above. This would have the effect of aliowing investment in freeway interchange signs and transitions to new businesses for a longer time, making it less likely that the signs would be removed over the long term. The current grace period for freeway sign updates is due to expire in August of 2015. This could be extended another 5 years to 2020. This minor modification to existing regulations would be similar to Option 2 and require a limited amount of staff time and not create budget or legal impacts. FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct costs other than staff time. RECOMMENDATION Staff supports continuing the policy direction to phase out pole signs set by the Sign Code Advisory Committee and endorsed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The current grace period that allows property owners with existing freeway interchange signs to complete refaces and copy changes of their existing signs extends for another year. Businesses can also take advantage of motorist information signs installed and operated by the Washington State Department of Transportation. Staff suggests that the three options provided above be discussed by the full council. If the Council chooses Option 2 or 3 staff will prepare an ordinance for a public hearing at the July m � 14 (�C}VVmeeting vv�haneadieSt adoption date of July 31 .