20130116 Presentation Information 01312013 . � 4�:
. q
` ' .
BUS� NESS S�GN '
Bi11's Towing & � REPLACEM�NT PROJECT ��
Recovery � �.
. 360-458-5963 � � , � �
OFFICE�BILLSTOWING.NET ^ '
� f�resented on �
� 1/28/2013 °
� ' F�ECEIV�]D
Page 1 of 3 FEB O 1 2013 �
BY:
- 1 Purpose
� � ',"'f � The purpose of this project is to replace the existing 20ft tall, old and
outdated business sign at 801 W Yelm Avenue with a new modern
� ,, sign that is slightly shorter, but still visible. A professionally installed, ,
'� �°�' business sign on a ten foot pole would make the sign visible over the
fencing that Washington State requires us to have.
2 Compliance Plan
Our current sign, as well as our replacement, is taller than the '
ordinance allows. Below are our particular issues, as well as the
efforts we have considered in attempting to comply with the city's .
' ordinance.
2.1 Why is our sign tall? P
Issue 1. Washington law requires our property to be fenced. 8ft tall
with barbwire around wrecking area, and 6ft with barbwire around
impound areas (non-wrecking).
Issue 2. Since the improvements to Yelm Avenue (LID Project), our
property is 3ft lower than the street, and therefore 10ft lower than the
top of the front fence. This unique topography prevents passing
motorists from seeing a shorter(height compliant)sign
2.2 What have we considered in an attempt to comply?
Option 1. Install a shorter(height compliant)sign.
As a Washington State Vehicle Wrecker and a Registered Tow Truck
Operator(RTTO), we are required to have our entire property
fenced. The specification of that fencing is outlined in the RCW and
is a requirement for our business licenses. With that in mind, a .
compliant 10ft sign would be completely behind the fence and
therefore visually restricted. '
Option 2. Move the fence around the sign.
When considering creating a small `cubby hole' in the fence for the
sign, we encountered multiple issues. 1. as mentioned above, we are
not allowed to have unfenced property at a wrecking/towing yard. 2.
because of the size of our gates 32ft and 45ft; we would only be able
to create a very small pocket in the fence, therefore an 8ft sign :.
mounted in a tiny pocket(see drawing)would still be visually
restricted by the 10ft fence until you were right next to the sign, at
which time the readable face would not be facing you, and therefore
would not be readable. �
� Page 2 of 3 `
- 3. Solution.
�`' We believe the only legal and feasible solution is to replace our
current tall sign with a new, more attractive, and somewhat shorter
���=� } sign. The new sign would be on a 10ft base, which is just enough to
make the sign visible over our fencing.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion,we ask that you grant us a variance to the city's sign
ordinance so that we may keep our business modern, and attractive,
and we can enjoy the same benefits as other businesses in town. •
Not only will this sign be mo�e attractive, it will be shorter than the
existing sign,while maintaining complete compliance in square
footage.
Drawing Key
Drawing 1 is a top down view of the entire property which depicts
the proposed location of the new sign, and illustrates the large ramps
that allow vehicles to gradually drop 3ft to our property. Scale is 10ft
per box.
Drawing 2 is a side view of the proposed sign in relation to the fence
and the level of the roadway. It illustrates just the difficulty in making
the sign visible. Scale is 1ft per box. .
Drawing 3 is a top down view of the North East corner of our °
property. This is the largest non-gated section of fencing and
therefore the most feasible area for a `pockeY to be created for the
sign. This drawing illustrates that a sign in a pocket such as this
would only be visible for a fraction of a second to passing motorists.
Scale is 5ft per box.
Drawing 4 is the artisYs rendition of our proposed sign. It illustrates
the dimensions of the new sign.
Page 3 of 3 ,