Loading...
102 3RD AVE S.pdf{ James Chalupnik Lynne Hann, Deputy City Clerk W LU : D Jeff Oaklief { Craig Pierce IS Q }=; Carreen Rubenkonig ® Steve Sullivan LU Absent r U. O A � r _ Is 5. A END FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED: $ffAMMREQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CABINET SIGN Corry's Fine Dry Cleaning 102 3rd Avenue No. Corry Baker, 16305 35th NE, Lake Forest Park, the applicant, as well as Mark Hawksworth and Russell Svardal, Northwest Sign and Design, 815 8th Street, Kirkland, the applicant's representatives, were present. John Bissell presented the staff report and explained that this proposal for two new internally -illuminated signs for an existing building is being resubmitted after being previously denied at the October 1, 1997 ADB meeting. The proposal has been modified by changing the color of the awning to match the color of the sign, and by adding screening around the back of the sign to hide the mounting hardware. Red letters on a green background will be used for these metal -framed, plastic -faced cabinet signs with exposed neon lighting. Mr. Bissell stated that one sign will be located on the east side of the building on the sloped parapet wall. The other sign will be placed on the wall on the north side of the building. Total sign area will be 60.5 square feet where 62.8 square feet is allowed and the height will be 12.6 feet where 14 feet is allowed. John Bissell pointed out that staff is concerned that the changes made to the sign application may not address the concerns of the Board as reflected in their motion for denial made at their meeting on October 1, 1997, and therefore, is not making a recommendation on this proposal. Mark Hawksworth presented photographs which showed the green building color and matching raceway. The only portion of the sign which will be visible will be individual channel letters, and the side of the sign will be enclosed and be a part of the fascia. He showed samples of 30 milliamp transformered neon to illustrate the brilliance of the red letters. Boardmember Chalupnik asked for clarification on the brightness of the neon samples. Mark Hawksworth stated that the two samples shown are different types of red with the Clear Red tube being the one proposed. Boardmember Rubenkonig asked the applicant to explain why this approach to signage is appropriate for the downtown area and how it fits into this City's neighborhood. Cony Baker commented that this sign design was created to best utilize the existing roof of the building and indicated that his Lake City location has the same building and sign design. Mark Hawksworth pointed out that both the green awning and the sign height are appropriate for the downtown area. The individual channel neon letters are commonly used and are similar to other signs in commercial strip centers. Boardmember Rubenkonig commented that downtown Edmonds is not a commercial strip center. Boardmember Pierce asked about the importance of neon versus other types of illumination, primarily due to concerns about the brilliance factor and possible view impacts. Architectural Design Board Mewing Page 2 November 19,1997 t 0 Mr. Hawksworth stated that shepherd -type lighting might be an alternative, however, the illumination Z J factor would be greater than the less intense individual neon letters. Boardmember Oaklief asked about the construction of the sign. He also asked for clarification on the °C name of the neon tubing which will be used and where that particular red falls within the brightness U vO spectrum. o ws Mark Hawksworth explained that the sign construction is aluminum with open single tube neon letters. , E': The background houses the electrical components which connect the letters. He stated that Clear Red is to 01 the trade name of the neon to be used, and after showing samples of other reds for comparison, commented that Clear Red is in about the middle of the brightness spectrum. J U_ d1 Cory Baker also pointed out that with the background being green, the neon will be more diffused. Z I—, Boardmember Chalupnik asked about the brilliance on the signage they have used at other locations. Mr. Hawksworth explained that the illumination on a sign which had a back -lit awning with indirect alighting could be more or less intense, depending on the projection of the awning, which dictates the v to distance from light fixtures. twit w Boardmember Chalupnik pointed out that backlighting with opaque paint could be used to reduce 'the f=. �,' brilliance if view impacts were too great. I Russell Svardal commented that the Sea -First Bank across the street will block most of the Corry's sign v so views should not be impacted. o~ 2 Boardmember Chalupnik disagreed and stated that for pedestrians walking west on the north side," of Main Street, the sign would not be blocked by the Sea -First Bank building. i Boardmember Sullivan clarified that there will be one red neon bar and that the inside of the letters will be red and the outer edges, out to the cabinet and the projections from the mansard roof, will all be green. Mr. Hawksworth stated that was correct. Board Chairman Young asked if both signs will be constructed the same way. He also inquired about the © height of other illuminated signs near that same intersection. Mark Hawksworth stated that both signs will be constructed the same. John Bissell pointed out that the maximum sign height for freestanding signs in this area is 14 feet 'and all the neighboring signs were permitted under that Code section. The height of the Sea -First Bank building is approximately 18 feet. Board Chairman Young asked about the need for a sign which is more than 21 feet tong. He stated that when the proposal was first submitted to the Board in October, Russell Svardal indicated that if the sign was shorter, detail in the smaller words would be lost, and asked Mr. Hawksworth to comment. Mark Hawksworth pointed out that the sign was designed to be compatible with the size of the building. He stated that the total sign area fits within the area allowed in the Code, and making the Ietters smaller would create technical difficulties because of the connection space required between each letter. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 November 19, t997 i Boardmember Pierce stated that the cabinet on the sign on the north elevation protrudes out from the building and asked if a pedestrian hazard could be created by placing the sign at the proposed height. Mr. Hawksworth explained that this sign has a cabinet depth of only four inches, plus the three and one- half inch depth of the letters, so should not protrude enough to be a hazard. Board Chairman Young asked Mr. Baker to comment on the reasons for selecting the sign on the north side of the building, and whether there is a concern about potential vandalism on a sign which is low and accessible to pedestrian traffic. Corry Baker commented that the sign on the north side was selected because it is consistent with the one on the east side of the building, as well as with signage used at Co vandalism has not been a problem with other signs placed at low' levels. 's other locations. He stated that There were no audience comments on this proposal. John Bissell pointed out that in the past, the Architectural Design Board has had concerns with backlit awnings which were not opaque, creating an entire awning which was illuminated, and have been considered to be too brilliant and incompatible with adjacent uses. When illuminated signs have been Proposed for the downtown area, the Board has had lengthy discussions regarding neon versus cabinet - some cases, neon was introduced earlier in history, and cabinet faced sifaced construction as they relate to the appropriateness of the sign and the period of the building. In gns have typically been discouraged, due to the incompatibility with neighboring uses. Mr. Bissell also explained that there have been previous discussions by the Board regarding the amperage of neon signs, and the brilliance of colors and difference types of neon tubes, versus the brilliance created by a fluorescent tube with a plastic face. Mark Hawksworth commented that historically, the original form of illumination was open neon, followed by fluorescent fixtures and then plastic faced fixtures. Boardmember Rubenkonig stated that she finds it difficult to approve this proposal because the distinctive neon approach to signage appears incompatible with the neighborhood, as previously referenced in ECDC Section 20.60.020.A.2.b. j Boardmember Sullivan explained that after having seen the samples provided, and with the cabinet being �1 enclosed on the back, he felt that the signs are now compatible. The building is relatively new with clean features and the design seems appropriate. He also suggested that the Board's motion include the stipulation that the proposed signage use the Clear Red neon. ® Boardmember Chalupnik pointed out that his only reservation is that the sign appears rather large, however, he would support approval. Boardmember Pierce stated that the storefront, the awning and the sign design are attractive and compatible and he would support approval as well. Boardmember Oaklief explained that although the building design more closely relates to a commercial strip rather than historic downtown Edmonds, and the proposed sign is well -designed and compatible with the architecture, these signs will be more prominent than many other signs in this area. He expressed concern that Clear Red neon will still be too brilliant, and would only support approval of the proposal if a less intense neon was used. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 November 24, I447 IC7 70 �{r Board Chairman Young stated that since seeing the neon samples, and with the cabinets now being enclosed, he feels that the sign is appropriate and would support approval. The other signs in the immediate area, including the traffic signal at the intersection, are all as bright or brighter than the signs which are proposed, and he finds these signs compatible with the other development in the neighborhood. Mr. Young commented that the brilliance of the signs would not impact the view since there are buildings right behind Cor y's which already block the direct view to the sound and mountains. C]; BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG, TO w rn APPROVE ADB-97-136 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE � �, CHANNEL LETTERS WILL BE PAINTED A MATCHING RED COLOR. INSIDE ONLY AND col THE EXTERIOR OF THE CHANNEL LETTERS AND THE RACEWAY CABINET WILL BE 2 � � PAINTED TO MATCH THE ROOF; AND, THE NEON TUBES WILL BE CLEAR RED NEON AS g Jl DEMONSTRATED AND DESIGNATED IN THE TRADE NAME, BECAUSE IT IS FOUND TO u. j ` BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PARTICULARLY THAT SIGNS O, SHOULD BE PERPENDICULAR OR FLAT TO THE BUILDING AND BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THAT IT z ��-- SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY }.- A ' DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS ,Z w; MOTION REGARDING ADB-97-116 ON OCTOBER 1, 1997. MOTION CARRIED WITH 15:D° BOARDMEMBERS OAKLIEF AND RUBENKONIG VOTING NO. = p` U to w LU� PRELIMINARYREVIEW. x c� u O None. z r 6. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL ® None. (Board Discussion was begun while awaiting the arrival of the applicant's representatives for ADB-97- 136). © Board Chairman Young expressed concern about the magnitude of the Port of Edmonds' covered moorage facilities and commented that during the Board's deliberation on this project it would have been beneficial for the ADB to have had a better idea about whether the drawings the applicant presented gave a true representation of the massing of that facility. Both of the Boardmembers with architectural background were absent during that meeting, and Mr. Young stated that without their expertise, the plans and drawings did not appear as clear to the other Boardmembers as they should have. He suggested that for future proposals of this magnitude, the Board may wish to consider what type of exhibits would be ® appropriate so that more consistent decisions can be made. Boardmember Sullivan responded that all projects require engineering and architectural drawings and stated that if the Board feels the drawings presented do not represent the proposal adequately, they should require the applicant to return with more detailed information before a decision is made. For example, an aerial rendering or model may have been appropriate for the type of project proposed by the Port. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 5 November 19,1997 Board Chairman Young asked John Bissell to explain the Board's latitude in requesting different, and more extensive information from various applicants. John Bissell cautioned the Board when requiring additional information. The applicant has the burden of proving that their application meets all criteria which must be considered by the Board. If more information is requested, it must be because the Board feels the applicant has not proven their case and need the additional data to make a determination either to approve or deny the application. Mr. Bissell also pointed out that there have been other proposals considered by the Board where additional information was requested and appropriate questions asked, and he complimented the Board on the actions they have taken on other projects. However, he cautioned that if in denying a project the Board denies the use, then that is not within the ADB jurisdiction and the decision would not be valid because the Zoning Code is the instrument which allows the use. U_ n Boardmember Chalupnik commented that modulation was the key issue of concern when the Port's Ton Cal proposal was considered, and a great deal of discussion and very detailed recommendations for mitigation were given to the applicant. Z h!: z o? Board Chairman Young stated that in the past, the Board has, on occasion, omitted from approval, any w LW 2 � sections of a proposal being considered when the Boardmember with expertise in that field was not a present. He asked if a hearing can be continued to a later date when this occurs. La o John Bissell explained that, depending on time constraints for acting on the application spelled out in _ regulatory reform, and depending upon the type of additional information requested by the Board, it may be permissible in some cases to do this. v T Boardmember Oaklief commented that on proposals which will have a great deal of impact on the community, the Board should have the ability to request additional information which would allow them z to make a complete, well -thought-out decision. He suggested that this could possibly be linked to the size of the project being proposed. Boardmember Rubenkonig pointed out that where modulation should take place is not always addressed adequately by the Board, and additional information should be made available to consider this issue. Board Chairman Young asked what information could be given to the applicant, before appearing before rr' the Board, to outline the specific criteria which the project must meet for approval. John Bissell explained that the applicant is required to prove how the proposal meets the necessary © criteria, and while the Board is not charged with designing a project, they can consider design alternatives brought by the applicant which may prove to be the best possible option. (The following remainder of Board Discussion was deferred until the regular agenda items were acted upon). John Bissell explained that the proposal considered at this meeting was a good example of an application ® which met the zoning code requirements but did not meet all the other criteria the Board must consider, This applicant returned to the Board with additional information and demonstrated how their proposal met the criteria the Board needs to consider. He encouraged continuation of the Board's requesting additional information, when needed, and questioning of the applicants as to the reasons they feel that their proposals are appropriate and meet the criteria. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 6 November 19,1997 w 0 a w h t3 0 z (, .. CITY OF Ej-,'Mt. NDS, BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUENORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425)771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building •Parks and Recreation Engineering •Wa !nc1sw stewater Treatment Plant ` - Transmiftl Date: November 21, 1997 To: - Corry's Fine Dry -Cleaning 4640 Union Bay PI. NE Seattle, WA 98105 Subject: ADB-97-136 Transmitting ADB Synopsis For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: Comment: The appeal period for your item will be up on 12/9/97. Please call if you have any questions. Note attachments: Sincerely, a = S c1 5 4y3 rtk+S�rt.+ nA >r 4' ftk��. a.. i ..: ..� 5'+eu fF i f} 4 +Jar +, S, x,,,.s +1 .t •. .p 1, yt q ya _ a. � Y 14 i ;s�x�- � tf �F tiler ,+� }�LFS ��; � �Yfii2•;Trr t k.� E 1: � Y''4 �p 3��$ ? �,7 u � {tile t�r;�,i''^r iz It ,_bx ' r t t§it ty rf J s t ', 3 i ; a�t`jis w ( !r • pe / 1 f se si x r a'txs� rr`S.� a{�3� a°r�,, t �� °.:.. ix `ti 1- -'• 1 t 4 rx5 i f'%1 i y # x? .F . n + � `sZz u, � •+� � { x ..^. > i' ( r..r { .: p ( Ro AGENDA' FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED: Z ADB-97-136 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED a CABINET SIGN Corry s Fine Dry. Cleaning 102 3rd Avenue No. .J Gt� BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER PIERCE, TO W y' APPROVE ADB-97-136 AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE CHANNEL LETTERS WILL BE PAINTED A MATCHING RED COLOR INSIDE ONLY AND NUj 0 THE EXTERIOR OF THE CHANNEL LETTERS AND THE RACEWAY CABINET WILL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE ROOF, AND, THE NEON TUBES WILL BE CLEAR RED NEON AS DEMONSTRATED AND DESIGNATED IN THE TRADE NAME, BECAUSE IT IS FOUND TO LL ` BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PARTICULARLY THAT SIGNS to a, SHOULD BE PERPENDICULAR OR FLAT TO THE BUILDING AND BE AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THAT IT 21 SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY oj, DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS w wl MOTION REGARDING ADB-97-116 ON OCTOBER 1, 1997. MOTION CARRIED WITH a BOARDMEMBERS OAKLIEF AND RUBENKONIG VOTING NO. i w` PRELIMINARYREVIEW.• H U. None, c"'i ca 0 6. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL None. 7. BOARD DISCUSSION 8. ADJOURN BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG, TO ADJOURN AT 9:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 November 19, t497 >. Ali .. .. , , t.. ..;e° , .�. �.,- ,. , , s'- }':, .,.. ...z. hj .•. ,..:.o E:',.3�'a"�„, _ s�ss. Si; i�"=; !a=3�.i1'"M 11' � ,,,,, K �Frt�x�yAV i � ti � y 15 �` % S\i ) ' { 1 .. 3 m`'r�T.'.^-'rrT^-^-�-^.^^.��.�.r—..�.� 5 i 11 R 1 {r- b %-'h. n�' 3 i Y F 1 S � ' 1 s `x+ h�,t��,*�� ,� �fF h.� yS {� yFZ fr �.�t ct�r�f I f? T;{/�,, s.: tk�.t 4.� pp �L`F< a � { k r ; r, r r �r�� y�-z t 'LF t i t �.-.;, t �.��' -ix� t �r,,�rrY r+ r4�� � r r i. a� t� t � rr1 s � �r1�. �'' ; t �F t��? r4 �tr �. � a�.9�v a; r � ,,�a it r � ,'t i 7 F,' ru a n r ° r -: s i r � � � _ -r ....hii. � r� �.�..2 .. .., .�. � r _ _a .� � _,d ..f .. +. F,..,,.. t., z .w_ .. ...I._ , E>,F ....r.. .. .... r ,....� ..... _ 0 E ADB-97-136 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF TWO NEW INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED WALL MOUNTED SIGNS A. Applicant/Property Owner Applicant's Representative Corry's Fine Dry -Cleaning Gina Graham 4640 Union Bay PL NE Northwest Sign & Design Seattle, WA 98105 815 8th St. Kirkland, WA 98033 B. Site Location: 102 3rd Avenue South C. Introduction: The applicant has removed all existing signs from the tenant space, and is proposing to install two new internally illuminated signs for the existing building. This proposal appeared before the ADB at the October 1, 1997 meeting. At that meeting the ADB denied the application with the following motion: BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK, TO DENY ADB-97-116 BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION MEETS THE CRITERIA IN THE ZONING CODE, IT FAILS TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SECTION B.S.b. OR EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.60.020.A.2.e. REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND 20.10.070.A.2. REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE COLOR, BRILLIANCE AND BRIGHTNESS OF SIGNS. MOTION CARRIED. The applicant has modified the proposal by changing the color of the awning to match the color of the proposed sign, and by addling screening around the back of the proposed sign to hide the mounting hardware. The remaining portions of the application are identical to the application reviewed at the October 1, 1997 ADB meeting. D. Staff Analysis: 1. Material: Metal -framed, plastic -faced cabinet signs with exposed neon lighting are proposed. 2. Lighting: The signs will be illuminated with exposed neon. 3. Colors: The applicant is proposing red letters on a green background. 4. Sign Location: One sign is proposed to be located on the east side of the building on the sloped parapet wall. The other sign is proposed for the wall on the north side of the building. �I ADD 97-236 1 1 1 1D F. G. 5. Sign Area and Sign Height: 0 Sign Height 112.6 feet 14 feet Compliance with the required findings: 1. That the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies. Page 51, section B.5.b. states "Signs should be small and low-level and oriented to pedestrians, signs perpendicular or flat to building." Page 52, section B.8.b. states that "Signs should be kept as simple as possible relying on symbols to avoid needless clutter and complexity." 2. That the staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance. Staff has found that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3. That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria, ECDC section 20.12 , landscaping, and ECDC section 20.60, sign code. ECDC Section 20.10.070.A.2. states that signs should avoid excessive brilliance. ECDC Section 20.10.070.A.5 states that "All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development." Summary In order to approve this application, the ADB must find that the proposal is consistent with the above findings. Staff is concerned that the proposal may not be in compliance with the listed code sections. Additionally the ADB denied the sign because of the code sections illustrated in the motion as noted above. Staff is concerned that the changes made to the sign application do not address the concerns of the board as reflected in the above motion. If the Board determines that the proposal cannot meet the required findings, the application must be denied. If the Board determines that the proposal is in compliance with the required findings, the application must be approved. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's declarations, elevations and site plan. 2 wow ".. OF " Q � ED. --- i S SIGNYANKMAOiiFONAMMEFN CORRY'S FINE DRYCLEANING -'EORRYSFINEDRYO.WUIG'-OPENPANOIANNEEEEMPAIMRODY EAST ELEVATION ttiJ) REDINSIDEBOUYWNNI2NNRUBYREDNEON N 102HAVENUES - AfP NdRNHAWXSNORN FltE . Eami27a YUR Nmttmrea Sign iG� Y Y E E I A Y (YRPoSF0. RF NtlH121 lOSS3'i SI3WWiSIHl NI 1N3Wf1o003N131 :30110N D a D) r city of a a�onds land use application !� ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD • �j COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # Igo-ql-13(e ZONE Ri ❑ HOME OCCUPATION _ ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE to /zi o9� REC'D BY _� ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FEE O RECEIPT# ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING DATE ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT / STREET VACATION ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN: ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED Cl APPEALED ❑ OTHER APPEAL# Applicant �.55€�! 4 C�� 25) Address 1 ; 8,' /Phone !6/•� Property Address or Location /Oa 3 eo. ,4 . Property Owner ,ee iiae 1 N _t,r. ,,.,v Phone Address C!l Y� Gfi�,or� 1 AL .N-' Agent /yt/t/ S/6itJ ?IFS/ls� Phone -'' 'T ) a�-;L—/.-v C� Address a<S_ 59'6 a ^- -3 Tax Acc #�S�/ ga a / - v a g - o i 0 9 Sec. ;k3 Twp. d 7 re/ Rng. 3,' Legal Description /sr% of Project or Pi Ss° ® The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to " enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application. } ,f SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT Milk 0 a� e 21'd" 102 M AVENUE & REP NR WORH M 4ESQ-11W PACs 1VO hwveS'! 4 ffA� fi S E S 1 S G (tlIPOSFA pf 32xr0. 25xr F� I x g�g 6 x Y SNXI fAUIXETPAiN1EDDARIlGREENY •COP.AYSflXE DRYQEAXING'• OPEN PAN DIANXELtEtiERSEMOTED RUDY RED J UDE80UTWNN,2MMRUBYREDNEON C� 3 CORRY S FINE DRYCLEANING NORTH ELEVATION 102WAVEMES. w NAWI HA��UtEm -PAGE Nmtf1 ast sign SWE 6 NE t.,.Y