Loading...
Boohan sign package.pdfARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT February 16, 2000 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: The Architectural Des gn Board :, From: Karissa Kawarnoto Planner Date: FEBRUARY 10, 2000 ADB -2000-7 Approval of a parapet lighting band, sign package and recommendation on wall sign height variance for Boo Han Plaza. Subject site is located at 2261.8 Hwy 99 St SW. Zoning of the property. is General Commercial (CG). A. Apulicant Lena Robison from I-5 Signs 3005 Marvin Rd. NE Olympia, WA 98516 B. Site Location: 22618 Hwy 99 C. Introduction: Boo Han Plaza is an asian grocery and retail complex approved by the Design Board in 1998 and is nearing completion and occupancy. The owner is interested in maintaining a uniform appearance for the building and the tenant signage. A large grocery store will anchor the development along with a mix of retail, restaurant and service oriented businesses slated for the remaining leasable area. Each tenant will be responsible for obtaining approval for their wall signs, however, they will be required to abide by the size, style, and materials shown with this application. The freestanding sign will also have spaces to identify. each business. D. Staff Analysis: CG Wall Sign Regulations Allowed Proposed Height 14 feet 21 feet Area One square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall *TOTAL for the Grocery Store: containing the main public 100 sq. ft. entrance to the building = 200 sq. ft maximum Page 1 of 3 ADS staff Report Boo Han Plaza III ADB -2000-7 CG Pole Sign Regulations Allowed Proposed Height 25 feet 21 Area One-half square foot of sign 11 feet x 12 feet = area for each lineal foot of 132 square feet street frontage not to exceed 160 square feet = Freestanding Sign Justification: The applicant is aware of this requirement and will be prepared to demonstrate the need for the freestanding sign at the meeting. Colors: The building exterior is E.I.F.S. in an off-white color. A darker beige color has been approved for the contrast sections and trim: To liven up the building appearance, a red, internally illuminated parapet band will wrap the frontage. The illuminated band is intended to act as a security measure which will enhance the tenant signage but also shine down onto the walkways and parking spaces in -front of the entrances. For the Boo Han Grocery store, black and red extruded PVC lettering are proposed. Other tenants may proposed different colors, however the text style and materials will be the same. Issue: Due to the architectural design of the building, the storefront windows interfere with the location of the primary tenant signage. At this time, the sign is proposed at 21 feet in height between the parapet and the top of the windows. In talking with the applicant, it may be prudent to apply a sign height variance for the entire complex. The tenants most likely will not need a variance to 21 feet, however, the applicant will be analyzing the situation to determine the ideal sign height. If necessary, the variance application will incorporate the entire complex. More details on their final proposal will be available at the meeting. Unless the applicant chooses to also apply for a sign -area variance for the Boo Han Market, the sign will have to be reduced to approximately 76 square feet in size, down from 99 square feet as shown. By obtaining approval from the ADB for the style and material of the signage, many of the tenant signs could be approved administratively by staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes the ADB can find that the lighting band and freestanding sign proposal for Boo Han Plaza III meets the required findings as follows: The project is consistent with Comprehensive. Plan and other adopted city policies. The proposal meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes of ECDC Section 20.10 — ADB criteria. As for the Boo Han Market sign height, the applicant has requested the Board make a recommendation on their proposal for consideration by the Hearing Examiner. Page 2 of 3 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — MINOR PROJECTS a. FILE NO. ADB -2000-7: Application by Boo Han Plaza III for a parapet lighting band around the building frontage and sign package for the entire complex, including freestanding identification sign. Property is located at 22618 Highway 99 and is zoned General Commercial (CG) Roger Robison, from I-5 Signs, 1942 Mixner Street, Olympia, WA., 98516, and Bert Loper, 302 N.W. 203`d Street, Shoreline, WA., were present. Planner Karissa Kawamoto presented the staff report and stated that the applicant has proposed a lighting band that will be not only for lighting of the signage but will focus light down onto the walkways in front of the tenant spaces and the grocery store. In their proposal, however, it was found that their signs were going to be too high and so they are looking for a recommendation from the Board on a height variance. Ms Kawamoto explained that the 14 -foot height limit doesn't work with the design of the building and the amount of fascia that is above the store fronts. The highest point of the signs will be 21 feet and that will be for the grocery store. The tenant spaces are lower, but they will have to be over the 14 feet. Right now their variance application is only for sign height for the entire complex, the text and materials that they are proposing. Tonight they are looking for recommendations from the Board to the Hearing Examiner that will be heard on March 2nd for their variance. Responding to Boardmember Sullivan's question, Ms. Kawamoto explained that there are windows that go around that are underneath the signage and if they put the sign down to the 14 feet, it would run through the windows; and they also felt that it would be centered better within the stucco portion if they could have it higher than 14 feet. Mr. Robison, applicant, stated that the market itself was taller than the portion of the building and so that was the reason for the variance for the market. He indicated very little, if any, signage would be above 14 feet, but some of it might exceed the 14 -foot limit by 6 inches or 12 inches. Mr. Robison added that the light band was going to shine the light down on the fascia of the building, as well as the walkways and, in combination, then. offer illumination to the parking areas. He explained they are creating a system with the stucco walls that was more workable for the changing of signs in attaching them with quarter -inch holes, which are easy to cover and repaint. Boardmember Bykonen asked if the Board was looking at the light band but were not.approving blanket approval for the signs for future tenants. Ms. Kawamoto explained that they would restrict the tenant signage to the same material that will be used on the market and were looking for a sign package approval. Boardmember Bykonen inquired about what the desired height would be that they are looking for around that band. Mr. Robison replied the maximum height would be 15 feet. The only place where that would differ would be on the grocery store, where they already have the drawings and the heights as proposed. Mr. Robison explained that the letters were individual and, according to the code, probably each tenant space has a certain number of feet, and then there is like one square foot for each. So that could be specified as a criterion, and then that it be centered in the space. Boardmember Sullivan commented that the light band was probably a more critical issue than the signs bumping up or down six inches and inquired whether they will be able to guarantee that the light from the light band won't spill over on to Highway 99 or on to the neighbors. He also asked if there was a lid on this lighting. Mr. Robison replied that there is a metal top and the light shines down, and everything that is lit is inside the property. The other properties are substantially farther away. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 February 1G, 2000 1 Boardmember Sullivan expressed that they needed to discuss the pole sign in terms of its appropriateness to the site so that they are clear when they approve this that it is specific to this need. Boardmember Chalupnik commented that it seemed straightforward to him that 14 feet is the height that is allowable. He expressed concern about making a special allowance that is to be interpreted by the owners as to how much they can go above the allowable 14 feet. Mr. Robison replied that it's not the owners who would determine that, and that the band comes down to 15 and a half feet, and then they want to center the signage in the remaining portion of the band to make it consistent. In some cases, if the signage were tall enough, that may get over the 14 -foot height, so they didn't want that to be a problem that staff couldn't address when they had the permit application in front of them. They want to center the signage and make it look right so it's not stuck at either the top or the bottom of the parapet below the sign band. Mr. Loper, citizen, said that he would like to give them the latitude to do anything they wanted with signs and decorations, etc. He commented that they were going to do the very best they could to attract business and it's going to be good-looking. Boardmember Bykonen expressed that this was something they should think about when reviewing projects early on. The band really wasn't designed around the sign and it was unfortunate that that wasn't incorporated in and that the 14 -foot height didn't work well with this banding and the configuration. But given that the project was up and it was built and going on, he suggested adjusting it a bit to make it look better, raising the height limit on the band around the perimeter. He suggested putting some limits on it to know what they are talking about, and proposed something in the range of 14'6", or 14'9" and that they be centered in the bays and centered vertically as much as possible within those limits. As far as the main grocery sign on the building, he thought there were really no options there as well. The way the building was designed, he thought it was in the only place that really made sense for the building. As far as the freestanding sign, he really had no comment on that. Boardmember James Chalupnik expressed that his comments were not addressed to the illuminated band but rather at the non -illuminated signs. He indicated that the Board should make everyone comply. He did have some concern about the red parapet lighting band and how it would be illuminated. He presumed fluorescent lighting and Mr. Robison confirmed that. He endorsed the applicant's request for a variance for the sign that applies to the Oriental market. Boardmember Sullivan expressed that he thought that the red band was a nice addition to the building and he felt comfortable, being that these are all non -illuminated lighting and that the building was part of the built environment now, to recommend that the Hearing Examiner give them freedom up to 14'9" or 15 feet, or suggestedd saying 30 percent or 50 percent of the signs can exceed that height but not all of them. He thought that the pole sign fell into the category of being a necessary element. He felt comfortable with the proposal and felt they could recommend to the Hearing Examiner approving the light band, approving the sign pole, which was already in their jurisdiction, and then making the recommendation on the height variance. He stated that these were going to be non -illuminated signs, thick plastic PCV, that was going to be mounted. Chair Rubenkonig clarified that with regard to the individual signs that they have been told are going to be attached to the stucco, the applicant wants to have some leeway for the height of the signs. The ADB has been told that the signs may not be of a consistent size, but what was stressed is that they would like to request that they be n a consistent location, because they don't know how much verbiage will be in any particular sign, but there is a certain amount of latitude, within six inches to a foot, that's been requested for them to approve. They need an outright recommendation for the Hearing Examiner to approve the proposed sign for the market, and that they accept the letter as given to them this evening, (letter dated February 15, 2000, as to why they propose that they qualify for a freestanding sign along Highway 99, and that it is considered to be necessary for the economic viability of this marketplace.) Arebiteetural Design Board Meeting Page 3 February 16, 2000 5 i Boardmember Sullivan explained that if there were ten signs along that face, he wouldn't want any more than five of them to be allowed to exceed the height. He wouldn't want to say 50 percent of the signs because he didn't want it to sound like they were allowing 50 percent of the sign to go up. He only wanted to give 50 percent of the signs the ability to move up and down that six inches. Ms. Kawamoto explained that it is up to the applicant to prove to the Hearing Examiner why they need the variance and how much of a variance they need, and they will end up having to provide examples to the Hearing Examiner. It may be if the Board provided some framework that the signs should be centered in the fascia, or instead of getting down to percentages and numbers of how the maximum height of those signs should be, that because it's more or less a recommendation from the Board to the Hearing Examiner to make that decision, that maybe some guidelines might be a better approach. Boardmember Sullivan pointed out that the bottom of the awning comes to 15'6". They are probably going to be around 15 feet, which means they are talking about 12 inches variation. He suggested a 15 -foot limit, something that would be clearly measurable. Boardmember Chalupnik suggested no more than five percent of the area of the sign be permitted to go above 14 feet (any sign). Chair Rubenkonig stated that by giving some flexibility it stops the applicant from having to come in again, which they have often done and they have approved variances within this range. She felt if they call out for consistency, and since it's already a constrained area in which the sign will be placed, she thought generally they still would have compliance with the regulations. Chair Rubenkonig inquired about approval of the monument sign. b. FILE NO ADB -2000-12: Application by Graphic Display to replace the awning and sign for the Bank of America branch located at 306 Main Street. Property is zoned Community Business- (BC). Jose Martinez, of Graphic Display, 14505 N.E. 91St, Redmond, WA. 98052, was present. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 February 16, 2000 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM November 20, 2002 ®'' File ADB -01-62 Street File 22618 Highway 99 Star Campbell'`�J� Assistant Planner REVIEW OF NEW SIGNS FOR BOOHAN PLAZA, 22618 HIGHWAY 99. The purpose of this memo is to clarify the manner in which new signs proposed by individual tenants within Boohan Plaza should be reviewed. I have researched past Land Use Permits that have been issued for the property that involve signs. This has ted to the conclusion that individual signs or sign displays that are proposed by tenants of Boohan Plaza may be exempt from Design Review. This is because a sign package for the site was reviewed and approved through file number ADB -2000-7. There was also a Variance subsequently approved through file number V-2000-16 that allowed a maximum height of 15' for attached signs. Through the review of the decisions for these files and discussions with other planning staff, I have come to the conclusion that a sign or sign display should not have to go through a separate design review process if the proposal meets the following criteria: • Any attached wall signs should consist of raised individual letters. • The sign should be mounted so that it is centered on the retail space and centered in the vertical extent of the parapet as much as practical. • The maximum height of the sign should be no more .than '15' per V-2000- 16. • The sign should consist solely of one solid color to complement the red lighted sign band plus either black or white, if desired. • The. proposed sign area should not exceed the allowed sign area permitted for the tenant who is proposing the sign. This is based on the number of lineal feet of the store front: s The above information applies to wall signs. It is also common for tenants to seek approval for window signs. Window signs were not specifically considered with the prior ADB approval of a sign package for the site. However, window signs should not generally require design review. This is because window signs are not as permanent in nature as a wall sign and not as significant an element of a building as a wall sign. In addition, they typically reflect and are a continuation of the design and color scheme of the wall mounted sign. When this is the case, the combination of the wall sign and the window signs for a particular business meet the definition of a sign display and specifically do not require review by the Architectural Design Board per Interpretation No. 2001-3. NOTE: If a sign proposal does not meet the criteria listed above and/or would otherwise specifically require Design Review per the Sign Code (ECDC Chapter . 20.60) staff may require a Design Review application separate from the building permit for the sign. This application may then be reviewed administratively, if appropriate, or sent to the Architectural Design Board. 0 W" on m LL es 67 (S) wLU QNN X -x —x -0 7 9 +