Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-19-SPE - SILVER MICHAEL / SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD SPECIAL PERMISSION4640 south 144th street Permit 91-19-SPE - SILVER MICHAEL / SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD SPECIAL PERMISSION March 30, 1992 sign plan Dr. Michael Silver, Superintendent South Central School District 4640 South 144th Street Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Notice of Decision the Planning Commission File Number: 91- 19 -SPE: ::FOSTER READERBOARD Dear Dr. Silver: This is to confirm that the Tukwila Planning Commission approved the above project as presented on 2/27/92. The Commission also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Reports dated 1/15/92 and 2/13/92. Minor, incidental changes to the approved plans or design be administratively approved by the Director of Community Development. However, please note that any significant changes will require further review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding this project or the Planning Commission's decision, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Ann Siegenth ler Assistant Planner cc: File City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor NOTICE OF DECISION Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 4133 -1833 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 1992 John W. Rants, Mayor Mr. Malina called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. In attendance were Messrs. Malina, Knudson, Flesher, Clark, Haggerton and Meryhew. Representing the staff were Rick Beeler, Jack Pace, Ann Siegenthaler, Darren Wilson, and Sylvia Schnug. ' Also in attendance was Mayor Rants. Mayor Rants introduced the two new Planning Commission members, Vern Meryhew and Scott Clark. The Mayor went on to discuss the Growth Management Act and its ramifications. He noted that he wanted to set up a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Malina thanked the Mayor and City Council for the two new appointments to the Planning Commission. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 9, 1992 AND JANUARY 23, 1992 MEETINGS. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. There were no citizen's comments. 91- 19 -SPE: Foster High School Sign Scott Clark excused himself with regard to this project since he lives across the street from the proposed site. Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She noted that at the last meeting there were some issues regarding the colors of the sign and the type of paint finish which still needed to be resolved. Staff went on to say that the applicant has provided this information. Staff passed out an artist's rendering of the sign, as well as color chips of the paint to be used on the sign. Mr. Knudson asked if the sign would still be diagonal in shape. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 27, 1992 Staff indicated that it would. Mr. Meryhew asked if the illuminated portion of the sign would be two lines of text, or if it could be expanded to more than two lines. Staff deferred that question to the applicant. Kristine Whisler, South Central School District: She thanked staff for their assistance and cooperation in this process and noted she would answer any questions. Mr. Malina asked if there would only be two lines of text with 9" letters as indicated in the staff report, and whether this could be changed. Ms. Whisler stated that the number of lines and size of the letters could be varied. Mario Jones, Scoreboard Sales & Service, Seattle: Mr. Jones stated that two lines of text is the standard format for this size of sign. Mr. Malina clarified that they had already approved the sign, and this hearing was to approve the colors and type of paint for the sign. Mr. Haggerton asked what the operating hours of the sign would be. Ms. Whisler stated that they had no plans for the sign operating after midnight. Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 91- 10-DR: Dollar Development Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She clarified that with regard to page 10, item number 5A, staff has made the recommendation that the landscaping along Pacific Hwy. S. be widened to ten feet, however, a site verification shows that there is ten feet of landscaping there currently although the drawings that the applicant has submitted show five feet of landscaping. Therefore, condition 5A should be kept in the staff report, however, the word "widened" removed, and change the sentence to read, "The planter shall be the Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 27, 1992 required ten -foot width ". Staff stated that this project is a redevelopment of a supermarket site. The total dollar valuation of the site improvements that the applicant is proposing exceeds the dollar value threshold for design review. In this case, the permit applications for this project were submitted separately. The first building permit application did not trigger design review. Most of the work for that first permit has been completed. Now that subsequent applications have been submitted, the applicant needs to comply with the design review requirement. With respect to the design of the project itself, staff is concerned that the project is located in a very visible location and is located at one of the gateways to Tukwila. Staff is concerned about achieving a level of quality that is acceptable to the community, but staff also recognizes that this is a redevelopment of a previous use and that there are some limitations as to major modifications. The recommendations in the staff report address two main issues: the building design and the landscape plan. The areas of concern are that there are some large areas of unfinished, unadorned aluminum siding, particularly on the west elevation that give the project an industrial look. The second area of concern is that the east elevation, has a "patchiness" to it given that there are isolated pieces of aluminum siding. There are several different materials used on this elevation, as well as several different tones of gray coloring. Staff is suggesting horizontal modulation. This could be achieved by using a different band of material, or a different color along the aluminum siding on the west facade. In addition, staff is suggesting that the applicant place some vertical modulation in the facades by emphasizing the columns or buttrices. The architect has stepped the aluminum siding on the east elevation, but it is not repeated elsewhere in the project. Staff is suggesting that the applicant repeat the stepping elsewhere on the project to reduce the isolated patch of aluminum and add modulation. These suggestions are not intended to be substitutions for the architect's suggestions, however they are intended to illustrate some ways that the applicant could increase the modulation, create architectural interest in the facade, and generally improve and refine the overall quality of the building. With regard to the landscape treatment, the applicant has added a great deal of landscaping to the site, however staff is mostly concerned with how the landscaping looks at Pacific Hwy. S. and 160th. Staff is suggesting that the applicant put the landscaping along Pacific Hwy. S. in front of the chainlink fence. Staff is also suggesting that tall shrubs be added to the landscape to screen the fronts of cars along Pacific Hwy. S. Finally, staff is suggesting that the applicant save some existing conifer trees. In summary, staff is trying to create a balance between project feasibility and what is appropriate for the community. Mr. Flesher asked how tall the shrubs would be that staff is recommending be added. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 27, 1992 Staff stated 3 -4 feet; enough to screen the fronts of cars. The spacing of these shrubs would be based on the type of shrub chosen. Mr. Malina asked if there would be any buffering between this project and the residence next door. Staff stated that the applicant has shrubs proposed for that area, as well as four, large trees and their landscaping meets the minimum buffer requirement for a commercial zone. Mr. Malina asked if the applicant is providing customer parking. Staff said that the applicant is not providing customer parking because customers will arrive to the site by van pool from the airport, rather than walking in off of the street. They have also indicated that there may be room on the site to provide customer parking should it be • necessary. Mr. Mauna asked about traffic making a left hand turn, over a double, yellow line off of 160th into the project entrance. Staff stated they had spoken with the Public Works and Police Departments about that issue and were informed that if a double line is less than 18" wide, crossing over it for a left hand turn is not illegal. Mr. Malina said he was a little upset that much of this project had already been built. Staff explained that most of the work that has been completed was completed under a City building permit. The other work that has been started, has not been issued a permit. Mr. Mauna asked if a certificate of occupancy had been issued. Staff stated that the applicant is currently occupying the site and they have been issued a certificate of occupancy based on the original permit. Staff went on to say that the Zoning Code is ambiguous about design review requirements when it comes to a project which has multiple building permits applied for at different times. Mr. Clark asked if the chainlink fence has barbed wire or razor wire on top? Staff stated that none was proposed, but there were vinyl slats proposed. Mr. Clark asked if the fuel island has a spill containment system and does the asphalt slant toward the coniferous trees. Staff deferred that question to the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 27, 1992 Staff said that' they were unsure as to the spill containment system, but that the Fire Department had approved the operation in its present location. Staff deferred the question regarding the direction of the drainage to the applicant. Mr. Clark asked if there was a commercial wash rack system or if it was a manual system for washing the cars. Mr: Haggerton asked if the applicant's free - standing sign complied with the Sign Code. Staff indicated that those signs were non - conforming Those signs existed on the site prior to the Sign Code being adopted, therefore those signs are legally non - conforming. This is the case with many projects on Hwy. 99. Merrick Lentz, Architect representing Dollar Development: He stated that the original permit did not trigger design review and included landscaping, building elevations, and locations of fences. It was the second permit for the exterior canopies which brought the total valuation of the site over the value threshold. He went on to say that staff was aware that more than one permit would be required and in separating the permits, the applicant was not made aware of the design review threshold. In response to Mr. Malina's question, Mr. Merrick stated that providing a buffer for the adjacent residence was not given any consideration because it is not felt that the residence above the auto shop would receive any more impacts from Dollar than it was already experiencing from the auto repair shop. In addition, the residence is considered a non- conforming use. With regard to customer parking, Dollar Development operates this facility for the sole convenience of its airport guests, and customers arrive and depart from this site by vans from the airport. He went on to say that Dollar Development also operates a rental car facility at S. 176th Street and local customers would be referred to the 176th Street facility. Mr. Merrick stated that it was their feeling that the building sets back far enough from Pacific Hwy. S. so any impacts would be minor. In reviewing the staff recommendations, it is the applicant's opinion that the west elevation is adequate in its present condition. The galvanized steel siding material will maintain its current appearance as long as the project is there. Vertical banding is not a natural part of the existing elevation and would tend to focus improperly on the actual shape. The building roofline is slender and does not present any meaningful enhancement opportunities. He stated that they agreed that some additional modulation of the steel siding could be a benefit to the east elevation of the building and would propose to mirror the treatment that is on the southeast corner onto the northeast corner to achieve a balance. Also, they would agree with staff's recommendation of repeating the stair stepping of aluminum on the east side. However, { Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 27, 1992 they do not agree that hi- lighting or coloring of the buttrices would add anything of significance to the building. With regard to landscaping issues, the purpose of the fencing is to provide security for the vehicle storage area and they would prefer to leave the fencing in front of the landscaping. He stated that they had proposed to accentuate the landscaped areas and to screen the fence in the area where landscaping is not immediately adjacent to the property line. Adding screening beyond that area which does not have landscaping defeats the purpose of the landscaping. An open mesh fence would provide a view of the planting behind it. Bringing the screening too close to the street line would create a vision hazard for vehicles leaving the site. Additional screening in the fence would not be necessary in those areas that are backed up by landscaping. Mr. Meryhew asked what the applicant's feeling was on the staff's recommendation of keeping the three large trees and adding tall shrubs. Mr. Merrick said that they had no problem with keeping the three trees, however they saw no use in adding tall shrubs. Mr. Flesher if a 25 foot high canopy was the minimum height needed. Mr. Lentz stated that one gas island canopy was 25 feet high, and the others are not that high. Mr. Mauna asked if the car wash system was manual or automated and if there is run -off. Mr. Lentz said that it is a self - contained unit, it recycles the water and it is automatic. Any run -off would not affect the three trees. Barry Metsker, Construction Consultant for project: Mr. Metsker stated that staff's recommendation of moving the fencing along 160th St. would create a safety hazard because there is an elevation difference of approximately 18" between the sidewalk and the swale area. Also, adding screening to this area would not be appropriate since it is a bio- filtration swale area. Staff stated that the bio - filtration swale does not prevent the addition of some shrubbery. There is opportunity for some landscaping along Pacific Hwy. S., which is the area staff is most concerned with. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 27, 1992 Doris Kassan, Dollar Development: Ms. Kassan invited the Planning Commission to visit the site and went on to say that the site is very much improved compared to its' previous condition. Mr. Knudson responded that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to preserve the "Gateway" aspect to Tukwila and to not only evaluate this particular site, but how this site will affect the neighborhood. Mr. Meryhew stated that one of the main concerns of Tukwila citizens is the beautification of the Gateway areas. Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Clark stated that he agreed that the site has been improved and that it was unfortunate that all the issues were not worked out between staff and the applicant. Mr. Malina stated that there were a number of issues which need to be addressed. He said that he thought the modulation of the building could be enhanced, the landscaping needs to be looked at further and he recommended that customer parking be added on site. With regard to staff's recommendations in the staff report: MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 1A; MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO OMIT REOMMENDATIONS 1B AND 2B; MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1 WITH MR. KNUDSON OPPOSED. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 2A; MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 3A; MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 4A WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT USE THEIR PROPOSED COLOR SCHEME; MR. CLARK SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 27, 1992 MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO OMIT RECOMMENDATION 4B; MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND TILE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1 WITH MR. CLARK OPPOSED. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5A, BUT TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO READ, "THE PLANTER SHALL BE THE REQUIRED 10 -FOOT WIDTH."; MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5B; MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1 WITH MR. MERYHEW OPPOSED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5C; MR. CLARK SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5D; MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 6 IF THERE ARE NO SAFETY ISSUES ONCE REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORKS; MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 7 WITH THE WORDING CHANGED TO: "PROVIDE SCREENING FENCE ALONG LENGTH OF PROPERTY WHERE NO LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED." MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION ( #8) WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CUSTOMER PARKING ON SITE. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION AND THE MOTION DIED. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE 91- 10 -DR: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT BASED ON TILE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MODIFICATIONS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Malina called for a five minute break at 10:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 27, 1992 91 -9 -DR: Tukwila Dental Center Darren Wilson provided the staff report. He stated that the MDNS was issued on January 17, 1992. The mitigated concerns dealt with pedestrian connection to Interurban Ave. S. along 57th Ave. S. The second concern dealt with the right hand turn heading southbound on Interurban, making a right hand turn onto 57th Ave. S. The right -of -way is 30 feet, however, there is only 18 -20 feet of pavement. This project also falls under the Interurban Special Review District criteria in addition to the B.A.R. criteria. He went on to say that on page 6, under staff's response, the second sentence, the monument, freestanding sign should be 48 sq. ft. and not 24 sq. ft. as stated in the staff report. The staff is recommending that five large stature trees be added within the parking lot to keep the consistency of the landscaping throughout the project. Staff is asking that the applicant provide a lighting plan that would also consist of the types of materials for the security lighting. Staff is also recommending that the building design be revised to provide consistent banding and recessing throughout the architectural design, as well as, additional modulation of building facade. He went on to say that due to the surrounding buildings, staff felt that the proposed colors would contrast. Staff is recommending that the applicant use a slate gray color which is one of colors on the color chart that the applicant submitted. Jack Pace stated that in talking with the applicant, they have agreed to all of the staff's recommendations on page 10 of the staff report, except for recommendation number two which deals with the building design and additional modulation. He went on to ask the Planning Commission if they were comfortable with what the applicant was proposing for the north perspective as it faces Interurban. Torjan Ronhovde, Architect: Mr. Ronhovde reiterated that they agreed with staff recommendations 1, 3, 4, and 5 of page 10 of the staff report. He went on to say that the lighting fixtures would be two pole mounted lights in the parking lot area. The upper floor does not extend to the outer limits as in the lower floor because there is not adequate parking to accommodate the additional square footage. Some of the modulation that is proposed for the front of the building is due to the fact there are stairwells that project out. This was not repeated in the rear of the building because there are no stairwells proposed there. He went on to say that he thought that by adding three columns to the back of the building, they were satisfying staff's request for additional modulation, however that is not the case. Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 11:10 p.m. Mr. Flesher stated that he felt the north perspective needed additional modulation. ( Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1992 Mr. Clark asked if the window glass would be colored or clear. Mr. Malina adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Sylvia Schnug The applicant stated that the windows were not proposed to be colored. Page 10 MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE PROJECT 91 -9 -DR BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RECOMMENDATION #2. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, 3, 4, AND 5 ARE ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN, BUT ITEM #2 SHALL BE DISCUSSED AND RE- NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THE NORTH EXPOSURE MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND TO HAVE THESE CHANGES BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. MR. CLARK SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. During the Director's report, Jack Pace discussed the American Planning Association's Spring Conference in April and asked if any of the Planning Commissioners would like to attend. The Planning Commission also agreed to hold a public hearing regarding the Multi - Family Design Standards on April 30, 1992. BACKGROUND FINDINGS . City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor MEMORANDUM to the PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner DATE: February 13, 1992 RE: 91- 19 -SPE: FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD At a public hearing on January 23, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the South Central School District's proposal for a readerboard sign. The hearing was continued so that the applicant could prepare additional information on proposed sign colors. The South Central School District is proposing a two - sided, illuminated readerboard sign at the Foster High School stadium on South 144th (see Attachment A). The proposed color scheme for the sign consists of white and black for background, and purple, black and yellow letters. This scheme reflects the High School's colors of purple and white. The top and bottom sign face panels will be white, with "Werner L. Neudorf Field" and "South Central School District" in black letters. These panels will have 2" purple borders. The top panel will have a purple bulldog logo in the corner. The readerboard itself will have yellow letters on a black background. There will be a 6" purple border around the readerboard (see Attachments B and C). All paint used for the sign will have a matte finish (see Attachment C). Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -133 Supplement Staff Report to the Planning Commission CONCLUSIONS Based on the materials submitted by the applicant, the proposed color scheme is relatively subdued. In particular, the shade of purple used is not overly bright or distracting. Limiting the range of colors and using a matte paint finish, as proposed, keeps the sign from becoming too "busy" or distracting, and provides overall harmony in the color scheme. While colors are subdued, the sign has enough contrast to be legible from a distance. This enhances the functioning and safety of the sign. RECOMiVIENDATIONS Given that the proposed color scheme is harmonious and not distracting, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed readerboard's proposed color scheme. ATTACHMENTS: A. Sign elevation B. Sign rendering (to be submitted at hearing) C. Color board (to be submitted at hearing) 91- 19 -SPE; Foster Readerboard Page 2 6' -0" 3' -6" i_. 1'-3" 1 • '1 DEC 2 0 1991 CITY 0 .:.., _ .. PLANNING DEPT. EXISTING FENCE z Face of sign will not exceed 60' -0" Sign height will not exceed 16' -0" 10' -2" WERNER L. NEUDORF FIELD - CONCERT TOH11611-11T SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT square feet l\• EXI SCO ING ?EBOARD TOP__ %; EXISTING •' SCOREBOARD (CATIONS_ IDENIIFICASION DISPLAY: (J0e) - LETTERS ARE 9" HIGH, COLOR TO BE SPECIFIED - LOGO AND ITS COLOR(S) TO BE SPECIFIED - BACKGROUND FINISH TO BE SPECIFIED - DI ;PLAY FACE IS ALUMINUM "GLOYI CUBEe" DISPLAY; - 16 <64 CUBE MATRIX - 10" NOMINAL CHARACTER HEIGHT - "VENUSe SERIES" CONTROLLER - DISPLAY FACE IS PROTECTED BY A LEXAN e FACEPLATE - 1002 SOLID STATE CONSOLIDATED CUBE DRIVERS IDENTIFICATION DISPLAY: _0801TOM1 - LE1TERS ARE 9" HIGH, COLOR TO BE SPECIFIED - BACKGROUND FINISH TO BE SPECIFIED - DISPLAY FACE IS ALUMINUM NSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DI DET%,!LED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS /ONLY . Si; :'I' DRAWINGS SHOULD BE USED FOR PUF: ?OSES - BE EARTH GROUND /NUMBER & LE- TO L.1EET LOCAL NATIONAL ELECTRIC COD! MAXIM• :M POWER DEMANDS - "GLOW CUBE." DISPLAY: 1,920 ,tiNITS 0 COPYRIGHT 1990 DACTRONICS, INC nr v nn A,T,MG MUM nrM ,,cS,GMCO Dal r• CMCCM DATn: 10 -16 -9( DATE lE TO .FPROVED :( NSTRUCTION CfHS OF RODS SHORTND iT OF LOP ID PANEL SHORTrrD ITT OF BOTTOM ID PANE. DESCR IrT ION DAKTRONICS INC. ■ROOKINGS. SOUTH DAKOTA 57006 SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT /SEATTLE, WA 1664 -1000C 7084 -PO8B -44845 o ITAwM DOK D ATE. 10 -9 -90 APIACV[Dt DA T C: 'SCALE: 0)1K MADE 1 =30 APPR. ___ C +) JC' C BACKGROUND SUPPLEMENT to the STAFF REPORT to the PLANNING COMMISSION Date prepared: February 12, 1992 HEARING DATE: February 27, 1992 PROJECT: 91- 19 -SPE: FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD APPLICANT: South Central School District STAFF: Ann Siegenthaler ATTACHMENTS: A. Site plan B. Sign elevation C. Sign rendering (to be submitted at hearing) D. Color board (to be submitted at hearing) At a public hearing on January 23, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the South Central School District's proposal for a readerboard sign. The hearing was continued so that the applicant could prepare additional information on proposed sign colors. FINDINGS Supplement Staff Report to the ., 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 2 The South Central School District is proposing a two - sided, illuminated readerboard sign at the Foster High School stadium on South 144th (see Attachment A). The sign face will have an upper panel approximately one foot wide identifying the Werner L. Neudorf Field, and a similar bottom panel identifying the South Central School District. - 4101110=„... The middle portion of the sign will contain the changeable readerboard, and is approximately three feet wide (See Attachment B). The proposed color scheme for the sign consists of white and black for background, and purple, black and yellow letters. This scheme reflects Foster High Schools school colors of purple and white. The top and bottom sign face panels will be white, with "Werner L. Neudorf Field" and "South Central School District" in 'e BLACK ?.... letters. These panels will have purple borers $' WIDE ?... The readerboard itself will have yellow letters on a black background. There will be a purple border around the readerboard (see Attachments C and D). paint used for the sign will have .... finish (see Attachment D). CONCLUSIONS Based on the materials submitted by the applicant, the proposed color scheme is relatively subdued. In particular, the shade of purple used is not overly bright or distracting. Limiting the range of colors and using a matte paint finish, as proposed, keeps the sign from becoming too "busy" or distracting, and provides overall harmony in the color scheme. While colors are subdued, the sign has enough contrast to be legible from a distance. This enhances the functioning and safety of the sign. RECOMMENDATIONS Given that the proposed color scheme is harmonious and not distracting, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed eader proposed color scheme. f gec t) 1/2- n & / 7? fir, (7 4-�s -' 91-1-CA: Foster High School Readerboard approve the School District's proposal. Mr. Knudson asked if any`ftrees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 23, 1992 Mr. Malina called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Malina, Flesher, Knudson, Haggerton, and Gomez. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Ann Siegenthaler, and Sylvia Schnug. There were no citizen's comments so Mr. Malina opened the public hearing. 1 ` 1,,' Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She noted that' Attachment "B" should be disregarded. ' , She went' o..��,o s.y,that the proposed sign would be attached to the back of the existinddilaiti a'na w oul { d be a two -sided "V" shaped sign, with each side facing out toward 144th. Each side of the sign would be 60 sq. ft. the height of the sign would be 16 feet. and setback feet., f Ms. Siegenthaler went on to address issues which were raised at previous public hearings regarding this proposed sign. She said staff concluded that given the sign's location, the vay %// elp light source ,4i used, its diagonal 44VgAtif orientation, and '00 the type of traffic ✓✓ conditions on 144th, IL' axer no safety problems G6 + would b: f e generated by the sign.k S1 Z�' GG c -stsi$ that the visual impacts i not as �ss,ea s �c c orig >/cc inally anticipated. There h . e been several public hearings on the proposed sign and there has not been any public objection to the sign. In conclusion, staff is recommending the Planning Commission 144th would have to be removed since the sign would be difficult to see with those trees in place. Staff indicated tha a issu e had not been addressed yet. Those are public right -of -way trees and Public Works has no plans ,to cut the o'`' rune them back. Mr. Malina asked what the colors of the sign would be and glossy orifbiti /n2-' 0 caa o el 4u O tall deferred to the applicant, Dr. Silver. 7fiG �: y/.i li 2 aut.t 71e i v-g -c S tev' em,4 5 i2Crd S whether the paint would be vod C u us'srd)7 66 a%Z 4t' ir;or�uj�e r ,7_ i t 1- � lx�„ac� floc/ -- / Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1992 Dr. Michael Silver, Superintendent of South Central School District: Dr. Silver stated that the sign would be visible t1. the trees given the speed limit in the area and the spacing between the trees. He stated that the School District could request that some of the trees be pruned. r Mr. Knudson reiterated his concern with the fact that the i ssue addressed by t"-e:</9 /p staff - . - // ,,utd- 7i1c z� urj /'re• f0 t J &?.e. 0 ;e 4/ /r'! •.yce, im G ' -,r , G-eee e?,fr Dr. Silver said that the colors of the sign would be purple and white, the colors of Foster High School. Mr. Flesher asked what the colors of the actual letters would be when the Agfr was illuminated. m (1, Dr. Silver stated) i would be a yellowish -green color and the background would be black. Those colors are fixed and cannot be changed. Mario Jones, Scoreboard Sales and Service, Seattle, WA: 9Cdti�' Mr. Jones stated that th ould use either high gloss, semi -gloss or flat finish paints. , (44,06* ,f L Mr. Malina asked if the School District had decided howl the sign would be each day. Page 2 the trees had not been .tom Dr. Silver stated that the sign might be turned on 00111 6:00 a.m. and run until 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. Staff said that there were no regulations in the Sign Code Ae0 how long a sign could remain at* illuminated, however, the Planning Commission could .iOTd • a time limit as part of their recommendation. Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. S elf Mr. Knudson stated that Iregigia the applicant submitted the colors of the sign for this meeting a- �t ffa stated that their role was'not to ensure Alat the sign be tde 's �f. «. Staf ro is tp nine if there are adverse impacts{d3�t3o a size and L OY lighting say pending sase, theredifferen an en- GL af /3" / iGNhl� Gl • Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 1992 yr...c LG, e-p_a eZeiu,1-ce- c97, i E n _ ssz J R, Sn31iiiil t — yiew d",-butarder- ,.- latiens or Mr. Knudson asked if this application would come before the Planning Commission again. Staff indicated that the Planning Commission had the option of approving the project as stated have-ixteetsjeffs-appravel or hav, tiMit come back to the Planning Commission:,�l %- �d�lG'ulfi S'/� .r „faatie Y�rc Cedc=rs' iv?441 Ce>u /ii'�rr,fi) J Malina re- opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Knudson asked Dr. Silver ifAteetf this projecuwait one more month until the next Planning Commission meeting to review the colors of the sign. Dr. Silver said that they had waited over w 7w' � ear // -z continue to wait if needed. .3 / . 7r�� A; , 1 0 ' `a ca/r/ Cn Gcce 1VIi. �Glalina closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE APPLICANT COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE NEXT MEETING (2- 27 -92) WITH THE FINAL PAINT COLORS AND GLOSS TYPE TO BE USED. MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION PASSED BY A 4 -0 VOTE WITH MR. HAGGERTON ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTING. Jack Pace provided a review of the Vision Tukwila process. Mr. Malina adjourned ` the y me 0 C4�'e- 0 � k 'J/ // °A ` '> be�•iry /o?? g'. , Gi, >/ c.5_ . C f CC 4 4.4ra t y Azed,i, G 4 7e1/ 5 - 7, Out/ ez; lD�� t�t✓�¢ 6G• 112(w! 4 r zeigi5rteie 07ur D 0 7 7, Page 3 ,gady or this project and they could , c 1�5 dte .ycvli f; fix. / r97,G7c; G , 7 0 0 , ' 4 / / ; / , r� 41:4 m �z eting. sue / ed 44 k, c-e,07 % eat. am/ " 4 e- V6 e- Say _ Ag71- e4deee4 _ etgLeo:4,9-e4! Ize7/ ,zZi / 5 - __T4-_( 7zd- il 24 oz 114 witir_60 nri_a_<-66 te - C6+-c44-1'ss-jeri (an" 0/7 eW Ge ‘e, ( City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor STAFF REPORT to the PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared 1/15/92 HEARING DATE: January 23, 1992 ZONING: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: PROJECT: 91- 19 -SPE: FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD APPLICANT: South Central School District REQUEST: Install a two -sided illuminated readerboard sign at along S. 144th at Foster High School Stadium, with a size of 60 square feet per side, height of 16 feet and setback of 8 feet. LOCATION: Foster High School, 42nd Ave. S. and S. 144th; Sec. 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, Washington R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Ann Siegenthaler A. Site plan B. Sign elevation C. Applicant's letter of explanation D. Sign company brochure E. Sign company photo Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 2 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS The South Central School District is proposing a two - sided, illuminated readerboard sign at the Foster High School campus on South 144th (see Attachment A). The readerboard would be a V- shape, with each side 60 square feet (s.f.) in area, a height of 16 feet, and a setback of 8 feet (see Attachment B). The new readerboard would be attached to the back of an existing scoreboard at the stadium, and would face South 144th. The Foster High School campus includes a stadium /track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas. Single family residences border the site on all sides, with apartments on the east side (across 42nd) and a church to the north. The readerboard would be visible to motorists eastbound and westbound on 144th. The Planning Commission previously discussed the proposed readerboard in the context of a proposed Sign Code revision (September 26 and October 24, 1991). On December 16, 1991, the City Council approved a Sign Code amendment which established new standards for school signs. The proposed readerboard meets these new code standards (TMC 19.32.080 (C)). DECISION CRITERIA (Sign Code 19.32.080 (C)): 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 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 backlighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsection 19.32.100 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 3 ISSUES: As stated in the School District's letter of explanation, the "sign will result in increased information to our community, allowing them to participate more fully in local activities sponsored at the schools. Due to the fact that South Central School District has two schools on the same campus, this sign will enable the District to inform community members about activity locations of the two schools" (see Attachment C). The two main issues involved in this proposal are whether the readerboard creates unsafe distraction for motorists, or unacceptable visual impacts. 1. Safety /traffic impacts: The main safety issue concerning the readerboard is whether or not its illuminated, changing messages would be an unsafe distraction to motorists. Staff has discussed this issue with Mr. Marlo Jones of Scoreboard Sales & Service, the School District's sign company. Based on his experience in the sign industry, Mr. Jones is aware of no safety problems generated by the glo -cube type of readerboard. The Tukwila Public Works Department, in reviewing the readerboard, also concluded that it would not create an unsafe distraction for motorists. This is due to several factors: 1. The light source is hidden; therefore, there is no blinding glare from the sign. 2. The illumination intensity of the sign is set at a minimum level necessary to function at night. 3. A two -line readerboard area can contain most messages in one frame; therefore, there is no distracting break in the message. 4. The readerboard's diagonal orientation allows motorists to read the message at a distance. This diminishes the need to turn away from the roadway. 5. The speed limit along 144th is low, which allows motorists time to read a message without it competing with driving. 6. There are no hazardous driveways or intersections nearby which might create an additional demand on the motorist's attention. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 2. Visual impacts: 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Page 4 An important consideration in review of the proposed readerboard is how it may affect property or improvements adjacent to the site. The main issue is the readerboard's visual impact. The proposed readerboard will be very noticeable to neighborhood residents and passing motorists. The readerboard is much larger and taller than other signs in the vicinity, and it is relatively close to the street. The readerboard has been discussed at three public hearings, and notice for these hearings has been given to the public. However, no concerns regarding visual (or other) impacts of the readerboard have been expressed by residents. CONCLUSIONS 1. Safety /traffic impacts: Based on comments from the Public Works Department, the School District, and the sign company representative, the readerboard is not likely to create any safety problems. 2. Visual impacts: The large, illuminated readerboard with its changing messages could have an undesirable visual impact on residences across the street. However, no public comments have been received regarding specific impacts or concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS Given that there are no safety problems, and no expressed public concern regarding visual impacts, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed readerboard. et% 1", (f) i4 3 F :Ls 4 o c\J 8 140114 411 . EOM H61-1 CAMPUS :390a • r 1 DISTRICT 406 • 71./08 p171ZE TIC F/EL0 :,,.... .,-..L.gs 3g 0 cc; • 0.40 AC. % EARL H. MANLEY 7:1.107 IL ,/// 7: /Sit I 85 AC. SCH . DIST 406 8.OZ AC. . 164 393.50 . iO36 /7, Tt 7-' ME Ca 5 6 • 0.99 AC. Z:2 %.1 • I 20 idepl Das 2 19 ca) 14021 /98 la 18 140 15 LL1 16 n Ly on' Q IS _ 14 (y*- Q cr) 141 9 1411 F71 10 11 NCHOLS AYE) S A A' (i) 7t. 31 )Z6 36 .26 3S t ‘lizti, 27 34 14 28 33 141 30 40 3 I 0 - T. /72 (..,/ CORP. OF CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP (OF SEATTLE 8.02 AC •1 -Yr 3 3 1 . /7 i 1 I I t I I 1 I I , I / - i 4 .: yr' c''efAch. I / JC 5 ?ho /4 .3 - C V • -.; r 2-:— N O 1-1 •c., Amur 14 4 T H — - ST 3 0 /0:/ 6 ",:, H.R. SCOONES ■,1 Z.86 AC. :•-l '", 'Cr A 0 4.. /Ca 71.270 /2 IL 289 1 71269 ill 7: Z. P4 :95 0 la AC. P- ro s? I: ZE17 1 A1.1 0 ' • ‘ • ' i i 1 7:7 Z . % 10 3.1 II - es. I ' , r...... z. V .I. 7.o.la 70.26' f t 15 • 7 7 :1.41 ESSIE T. PRECIOUS OA?. I L.I.S8 3pC0 fsi VA - • 7 AC \: t ; . 1. ` 6' -0" 3' -6" 1' -3" O EXISTING FENCE 11BYTiPgril DEC 2 p 1991 1 CITY OF IUI.v1" PLANNING DEPT. a G1t(S +1 n Sidewc,rk 01,klivA` 5 Y / Ie'1Ii WERNER L. NEUDORF FIELD COHCERT TONIGHT SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 52 ' g „ 10' -2" Face of sign will not exceed 60' -0" square feet Sign height will not exceed 16' -0" ▪ l e, U)k retdu " ✓I 6 " ; v i 7 EXI SCO TOP VIEW NO SCALE EJ(ISTING SCOREBOARD 0 COPYRIGHT 1990 DA <1 RONICS, INC REV SHORTND iT OF TOP ID PANEL 10 -16 -9C SHORTND 1T OF HOTTOU ID PANEL DNK DATE DAKTRONICS, INC. BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA 57006 SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT /SEATTLE, WA 1664 -10GOC ON AWING NUP•EK 7084 —P088-44845 'SCALE: 1 =30 " DESIGNED DATE .+I C NECKE DATE`. DESCRIPTION MADE APPR. 00 A ,0 w: DOK DATE: 10 - 9 - 90 APPROVED: DATE: SPEC:FICATIONS: IDENTIFICATION DISPLAY: (TOP) — CUBE*" DISPLAY: 1,920 N>TTS IE TO , PPROVED :C NSTRUCTION CfHS OF RODS South eentral 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET December 16, 1991 SCHOOL DISTRICT 406 KING COUNTY Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 -4196 • Phone: 244 -2100 Dear Ms. Siegenthaler: Per your request, enclosed are: $200 application fee, address labels of neighbors within 300 feet, elevation drawings and photos of a typical sign. It is my understanding these items will complete the application package for the sign at Neudorf Stadium. I would like to stress; the sign being considered for installation will not detract from the quality of surrounding areas and will not detract from the safety or order of the streets. This sign will result in increased information to our community, allowing them to participate more fully in local activities sponsored at the schools. Due to the fact that South Central School District has two schools on the same campus, this sign will enable the District to inform community members about activity locations and parking, as well as the locations of the two schools. District buildings are used by other community organizations and the sign will help direct participants and inform the public of the events. Also, Tukwila has a mobile population and represents many different cultures. It is critical to keep newcomers informed of community events and services available to them: ECEAP registration, adult education, soccer games, football games, graduation, first day of school, senior citizen events, kindergarten registration, election dates, concerts in the park, etc. This sign will not be a public nuisance. Public safety can be, in fact, enhanced by providing information such as posted speed limits and current road conditions. The proposed sign will also encourage better use of facilities. Keeping the public informed is a difficult task. We place public notices in the newspapers, send letters home to parents and send out news releases but have little control over what goes into our area's homes. Many of our patrons neither receive a newspaper nor have children in schools and therefore do not - e our school newsletters. City -wide mailings tytif3 DEC 16 SI OF CITY LN ING DEPT. P TTACHMENT C Page Two Ann Siegenthaler December 16, 1991 encl MS:eb Respectfully submitted Please consider our request for a sign. We believe it to be in the best interest of our children, parents and other patrons and worthy of a permit. If we can provide further information, please let me know. M chael Silver, Superintendent lt1MEWU DEC 1 6 1991 GI I I ., 1 V,. -A PLANNING DEPT. WEDGEBASE SERVICEABILITY • All standard wedgebase displays are front service lamps • Serviceability of electronics for standard displays: - Cabinets under 8' in height - front service - Cabinets over 8' in height - Single face: rear service Double face: inside service POWER REQUIREMENTS • Uses 120/240 single phase, 120/208 single phase (2 legs of 208 three phase), or 277. For other, consult factory • Power consumption is 3 watts per point for indoor displays, 5 watts for outdoor, or 8 watts for larger l- and 4 -color displays CONTROL SYSTEM • Controlled by Vision and other ISE controllers • Full text/animation capability • 365 day scheduling WEDGEBASE SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL • Indoor and outdoor use • AC power — no corrosion • Available in monochrome, 2 -, 3 -, and 4 -color configuration • Uses ASP (Advanced Serial Protocol) drive system • Operating temperatures: -22° F to 122° F ( -30° C to 50° C) • 120 - degree viewing angle CABINET CONSTRUCTION • Steel or extruded aluminum depending on application • Lampbanks covered with bronze fabricated sunscreen • Metal reflectors focus light to viewer while giving brightness of higher wattage lamps • Displays are completely wired with electrical and electronic components • Circuit breaker panel(s) installed in sign • Customer needs only to provide main feeder wires to circuit breaker panel(s) ELECTRONICS • ASP driver has capacity of 768 (8 x 96) points - double face • ASP receiver controls up to 40 ASP drivers • Multiple sign with unique message capability with other wedgebase or other ISE ASP displays • Electronics conformal coated for external use • Rated lamp life of 5,000 hours (3 & 5 watt) and 3,000 hours (8 watt) CHARACTER HEIGHT • Monochrome displays available in character heights of 7" (1" lamp spacing), 10.5" (1.5" lamp spacing), or 12" (1.7" lamp spacing) • 2 color displays available in character heights of 10" (1.43" pixel spacing) and 17" (2.43" pixel spacing) • 3 color displays available in 10" character height (1.43" pixel spacing) • 4 color displays available in character heights of 12" (1.7" pixel spacing), 14" (2" pixel spacing), and 24" (3.43" pixel spacing) WARRANTY • ISE 36 month warranty as stated in separate warranty statement Regular Luminous Intensity vs. Angular Displacement Comparison of 5 watt and 30A15 lamps 5 watt - Maximum Lux - 105 ea 60 e7 1 � .����111111111111111 7., ��.�Illi'llllllllllllll o.e 111111111111111111 7 47 ��11111 11111111x111 37 , . •.:� :7 � 1111 1� x111111111111 a.7 r7 ,.Aft. • 1 111 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ' , ��1 1 ���� , 111111 1 x111111 ► !xl1I ,�1111�liiQi� 111 mum: 67 70 60 60 40 37 00 10 0 30A15 - Maximum Lux - 69.4 0 w 'ate�u : 11111111111111 X1111 1 011 111111 111 ' 111 3 7� � � j �� . t �i mo( riif° 05 � 1111111:'111111I l l ' Irliteil 1111111 111 11111 11111111W111, x11., I ll111111l1l1i`� 70 ISO 60 60 60 30 77 ,a 7 ,.o 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.e 0.7 7.7 w sA U `s G • INTEGROS) SY'ST8VIS ENGINEERING, INC. t 4t 1 �� 1850 North 600 West • Logan, Utah 84321 ov 801/753 -2224 • FAX 801/753-2975 • 800/543-7904 (Sales) • 801/752-8338 (Service) corcoran panthers corcoran high school Ni •T5 A PPLICANT: 1 QUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: STAFF REPORT to the PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared 1/15/92 G DATE: January 23, 1991 PROJECT: 91- 19 -SPE: FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD South Central School District Install a two -sided illuminated readerboard sign at along S. 144th at Foster High School Stadium, with a size of 60 square feet per side, height of 16 feet and setback of 8 feet. Foster High School, 42nd Ave. S. and S. 144th; Sec. 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, Washington R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Ann Siegenthaler A. Site plan B. Sign elevation( sign face C. Applicant's letter of explanation D. Sign company brochure E. Sign company photo 1,c17 5 D p ((E-e Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 2 (P OPOSAL The South Central School District is proposing a two - sided, illuminated readerboard sign at the Foster High School campus on South 144th (see Attachment A). The readerboard would be a V- shape, with each side 60 square feet (s.f.) in area, a height of 16 feet, and a setback of 8 feet (see Attachment B). The new readerboard would be attached to the back of an existing scoreboard at the stadium, and would face South 144th. As stated in the District's letter of explanation, the "sign will result in increased information to our community, allowing them to participated more fully in local activities sponsored at the schools. Due to the fact that South Central School District has two schools on the same campus, this sign will enable the District to inform community members about activity locations of the two schools" (see ttachment C). S - :i1 'Y /SITE INFORMATION The Foster High School campus includes a stadium /track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas. Single family residences border the site on all sides, with apartments on the east side (across 42nd) and a church to the north. The readerboard would be visible to motorists eastbound and westbound on 144th. BA �INGS The Planning Commission previously discussed the proposed readerboard in the context of a proposed Sign Code revision (September 26 and October 24, 1991). On December 16, 1991, the City Council approved a Sign Code amendment which established new standards for school signs. The proposed readerboard meets these new code standards (TMC 19.32.080 (C)). 3SION CRITERIA (Sign Code 1932.080 (C)): 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 Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 3 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 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 backlighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsection 19.32.100 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. SUES: The two main issues involved in this • • ce a Wt sual impacts. roposal are whether the readerboard creates: 1. /traffic impacts: The main safety issue concerning the readerboard is whether or not its illuminated, changing messages would be an unsafe distraction to motorists. Staff has discussed this issue with Mr. Mario Jones of Scoreboard Sales & Service, the School District's sign company. Based on his experience in the sign industry, Mr. Jones is aware of no safety problems generated by the glo -cube type of readerboard. The Tukwila Public Works Department, in reviewing the readerboard, also concluded that it would not create an unsafe distraction for motorists. This is due to several factors: 1. The light source is hidden; therefore, there is no blinding glare from the sign. 2. The illumination intensity of the sign is set at a minimum level necessary to function at night. 3. A two -line readerboard area can contain most messages in one frame; therefore, there is no distracting break in the message. 4. The readerboard's diagonal orientation allows motorists to read the message at a distance. This diminishes the need to turn away from the roadway. Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 4 5. The speed limit along 144th is low, which allows motorists time to read a message without it competing with driving. 6. There are no hazardous driveways or intersections nearby which might create an additional demand on the motorist's attention. An important consideration in review of the proposed readerboard is how it may affect property or improvements adjacent to the site. The main issue is the readerboard's visual impact. The proposed readerboard will be very noticeable to neighborhood residents and passing motorists. The readerboard is much larger and taller than other signs in the vicinity, and it is relatively close to the street. The readerboard has been discussed at three public hearings, and notice for these hearings has been given to the public. However, no concerns regarding visual (or other) impacts of the readerboard have been expressed by residents. (CLUSIONS impacts: 1. ety /traffic impacts: Based on comments from the Public Works Department, the School District, and the sign company representative, the readerboard is not likely to create any safety problems. ./'V,lsual impacts: The large, illuminated readerboard with its changing messages could have an undesirable visual impact on residences across the street. However, no public comments have been received regarding specific impacts or concerns. *COMMENDATIONS Given that there are no safety problems, and no expressed public concern regarding visual impacts, §tall recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed readerboard. 0 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 HEARING DATE: January 23, 1991 STAFF REPORT to the PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared 1/15/92 91- 19 -SPE: FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL READERBOARD PROJECT: APPLICANT: South Central School District ZONING: R -1 (Single - Family Residential) STAFF: Ann Siegenthaler REQUEST: Install a two -sided illuminated readerboard sign at along S. 144th at Foster High School Stadium, with a size of 60 square feet per side, height of 16 feet and setback of 8 feet. LOCATION: Foster High School, 42nd Ave. S. and S. 144th; Sec. 15, Twn. 23, Rge. 4, Tukwila, Washington ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant's letter of explanation B. Site plan C. Sign elevation D. Sign face E. Sign company brochure F. Sign company photo Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 4331833 John W. Rants, Mayor Staff Report to the Planning Commission PROPOSAL VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION BACKGROUND * from variance application dated 1/23/91 FINDINGS 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Page 2 The South Central School District is proposing a two -sided luminated rea ' - • oard sign at the Foster High School campus on South 144t . (see Attachme :' ► The readerboard would be a V- shape, with each side 60 s • ' are feet (s.f.) in area, a height of 16 feet, and a setback of 8 feet (see Attachme • C / The new readerboard would be attached to the back of an existing scoreboard at the stadium, and would face South 144th. The 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....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...The intent of the sign is to inform the public and not to present a commercial message. "* The Foster High School campus includes a stadium /track, pool, high school, junior high school, auditorium and parking areas. Single family residences border the site on all sides, with apartments on the east side (across 42nd) and a church to the north. The readerboard would be visible to motorists eastbound and westbound on 144th. The Planning Co ICI it 'ssion previously discussed the proposed readerboard in the context of a :: Sign Code revision (September 26 and October 24, 1991). On December 16, 1991, the City Council approved a Sign Code amendment which established new standards for school signs. The proposed readerboard meets these new code standards (TMC 19.32.080 (C)). 1 Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 3 DECISION CRITERIA C)N: 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 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 backlighted letters on an opaque background. All signs in Subsection 1932.100 (C) must be approved by the Planning Commission. ISSUES: The two main issues involved in this proposal are 1. ‘her-the=aderboWfdimusos-wisafe distraction for motorists; and 2. a er e a unacceptable visual impacts to the surrounding residential area. 1. Safety /traffic impacts: The applicant states that "(t)he sign will result : I increasing inf • • • ation to the community that will allow the •. to attend act vi ' - s at the hig ' hool, and therefore mitigate traffic. Du: t the fact th t th South Ce tr.. School istrict has two sc : s on the s . me c• • us, this ign w enable the D istrict rm communr m •«bers a •ut loca s of . ctivities, p. . 'n;. locat •ns, defining e locate • es o l the two sch • . s. The readerb • .rd will, in f. t mite:: tra 11 c problems •y providing information to users, and by remin• g drivers : 144th of the speed limit adjacent to the school. "* Whether the readerboard would actually enhance public safety in this way would depend upon the type of message chosen for display. The main safety issue concerning the readerboard is whether or not its illuminated, changing messages would be an unsafe distraction to motorists. o f- 2. Visual impacts: (S. 144th). CONCLUSIONS 1. Safety /traffic impacts: Staff Report to the 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Planning Commission Page 4 previous public hearings, the School District's sign company (Mr. Mario Jones of Scoreboard Sales & Service) Based on a review by the Tukwila Public Works Department, the readerboard would not create an unsafe distraction for motorists. An important consideration in review of the proposed readerboard is how it may affect property or improvements adjacent to the site. The main issue is the readerboard's visual impact. Through its Neighborhood Objectives and Policies, the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan discourages intrusion of intensive, incompatible uses into residential areas which may create "adverse environmental, visual, aesthetic and property tax impacts" (Objective 1, pg. 45). The readerboard will be very noticeable to neighborhood residents and passing motorists. The readerboard is much larger and taller than other signs in the vicinity, and it is relatively close to the street, d area et 'on. e1 h • ► . . , -u a limit on hours o The proposed readerboard has been discussed at three public hearings, and notice for these hearings has been given to the public. However, no concerns regarding visual (or other) impacts of the readerboard have been expressed by residents. he readerboard may not actually increase public safety. However, based on omments from the Public Works Department, the School District and the sign company representative, the readerboard is not likely to create any safety problems. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 2. Visual impacts: 91- 19 -SPE: Foster Readerboard Page 5 The large, illuminated readerboard with its changing messages could have an undesirable visual impact, ght, on residences across the street. However, no public comments have been received regarding specific impacts or concerns. RECOMMENDATIONS Given that there are ncant safety • , a o - and no expressed public concern regarding visual impacts, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed readerboard. Planning Commission Minutes October -24, 1991 o Mr. Flesher adjourned the work session at 8:00 p.m. and called for a ten minute recess. Mr. Flesher called the public hearing to order at 8:10 p.m. Page 2 MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 22, 1991 AND SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 MEETINGS AS WRITTEN. 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 frontage of public facilities in Tukwila. Staff also 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. APPENDIX C Planning Commission Minutes / • October 24, 1991 1H7 Mr. Flesher asked how much street frontage the high school had. . as hotels and service stations. Page 3 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. Malina 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. Malina 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. Malina 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. Malina 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. 69 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1991 Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. 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. Mauna 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. Knudson indicated that he was very concerned about allowing such a change for all public facilities. 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. Mr. 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 CODE NOT 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 4-1, WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. X , Planning Commission Minutes '-? ctobe =24; 1991: 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. MAUNA 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 FEEL', 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. • Planning Commission Minutes °September:26, 1991: Mr. Flesher closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m. 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: Page 6 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 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. 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 1. . 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. 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. Haggerton 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 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.