10119 EDMONDS WAY (3).pdfI
5't�:.$.� t.`" r :, . �; .... _, ._�,....a..•�.........n......._....._a..<,,�._.... �......«_� �«us...w._....,...........�....._,..:e.m�..t.s_i.:...u...v�,.ta'.. _ ..,
( EXHIBIT 2 FV_
DATE 12�23�$7
CITY OF EDMONDS FEE $2,f ,M
HEARING EXAMINER RECT # 796 /
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APO'S
HEARING DATE: l vo—
APPLICANT '/4CO �C • ADDRESS_1('�fi;�'��
CITY & ZIP �JC��3 PHONE_-42 � `-
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY /C I fq rb1;Vo'(6S 1-rJY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
VARIANCE REQUESTED: %r �'c�It._ i�.�C�
L)G
t, �r
60A-i.�
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT:
ZONE:62
N
s t
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for.
the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and
hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action
or inaction is based in whole or in part upon .false, misleading or incomplete
information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees.
Permission to Enter Subject Property
The undersigned applicant grants his, her or 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 toAthis application.
Sianatu e of Applicant,
Representative
r or
a
EXHIBIT 2
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
Please answer all questions
1. What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape
of lot, etc*'). which create a hardship for you in regard to
development;,f your property?
70 S
4 tvr� T7r
0' AB(,17l' 70 74Di1r-/%T1SG. /n PObL"cr. /> lfaS
77�rS /S
T/t,; P-a(.rc- Da iarr S Tz�, ?o �u2ccth S '�'r/L C.7�oU5 ,
2. Now does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
s Lv � �'�cMc.sr� .-•<�_ ��sMr,�: ?� � �-�� / T�� D,Lrc.-/' �,. l cvsF,O �'�">u�'-.v/,.���.�
-S/7
-F- -ouL>N 77,, / uJlL iL- )DOES r1.'07- ��r �' 7-1•//S ur�D/�ILL
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
OF
� //�/L I.a-,� � � � (�U 11.-c-- O�-/C `1 C'1-��-,�-rL•� €.. T� � cU�.7'� iZ.r� E �.�. r,a- ; ��.,�. / U �•- G(i!�-.,.��-?- (S
f+MUu..tr UG J1��nrat cZ
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
� f-
t`.0 %rrc r
C ,, y. �, = T� c� _ (l�� f � P � �-ao�� c-, � r�r� Tr,..: G��-�c..- �v,-r•rs�,,�.-�1�.���. �� /,%/fl /,�. / /�vC> � r C_
I
J.7-1E`(,=.0;U�lr".:K'. �
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
l.Ul C (v S7/C C /�. _�L �7' /rl/ C - j Tf�T/P�l Kc c�Af-J3 rss G�
r�
dui-J�uZT 7/1F1"
c C S/C7,�(�{ r%_ ��v�itirSS SifUUCrr)
r L.rr..r(2 UOwtil A- ��?_z.rr
�r,_tLt /=,r. r'T7-O -rH ,L 6T �1��/fi2rlSrclLL
�}ln' flNt'r`_ L/lG.r .11t-�' i-i/`l� Dr-
0
I
EXHI$J,T 2 V-39-87
Variance Criteria
For: Texaco
10119 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
A. Special Circumstances
The current City of Edmonds sign code states that the maximum
allowable sign area for an entire site is equal to 1 SF of sign
area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public
entrance. The City of Edmonds has determined that the cashier's
booth be considered as the wall containing the main public
entrance, thus allowing a total of 16 SF of sign area for the
entire property. (Please refer to enclosed plot plan.)
Texaco would like to have either the northwest or southeast side
of the existing gas pump canopy considered the main public
entrance. This is where the public actually enters the business
to purchase goods, not at the cashier's booth.
Texaco should not be penalized sign area because they do not have
food mart of service station buildings to be used for computing
sign area.
The total difference in area is 35 SF, not much, but enough to
allow Texaco an equal chance to advertise its name and prices.
B. Special Privilege
The granting of this variance would in no way constitute what
could be considered a special privilege. Texaco would only like
the City of Edmonds to see that in the selling of gasoline, the
business is conducted at the gas pumps and thus the pump area
covered by a canopy should be considered a public entrance
whether the area is enclosed or not.
Fifty one square feet of sign area is not excessive and no more
area than other businesses in the same zone area allowed, such as
Plaid Pantry, McDonald's, Albertson's, Unocal and Chevron.
Their public entrances are considered where the public
ingress/egress is located. A station which sells only gasoline
should be no different.
C. Comprehensive
D. Zoning Ordinance
n
r
0
1�c5
(� llp�cJ �YA�"�� TU %�SJuGlZ7",� ITS ACru� L �lnfti 0�2 C�ASoG�tr 1��turs
F
`
r�
1
Variance Criteria
Page two
E. Not Detrimental
The granting of this variance, to allow Texaco's public entrance
to be the northwest or southeast side of the gas pump canopy,
will in no way be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare as no structures are being altered or added under this
variance and any signage installed under through the granting of
this variance will conform to City of Edmonds, UBC, and UEC
specifications.
F. Minimum Variance
The approval of this variance is the minimum necessary to allow
Texaco the same rights other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning area allowed. The City of Edmonds Building
Department has interpreted Texaco's "Main Public Entrance" to be
the cashier's booth, even though the public does not even enter
it.
As the pump area is the place where gasoline sales are conducted,
this is the area that should be considered the main public
entrance.
Texaco feels that this variance is the only way to change this
interpretation of the "Main Pubic Entrance".
a
f � � � _�'r�Tr11 r -' •ides7v tt — -- -0 row
\ V v
by ! q
o_ L\
h
Ir Q $ LEGAL DESCRIPTION
s\ oe
-41
w \ li✓/.tlLr�
Cf /tlYYt�J O%�cU�s'7s'S�
.t/09'C1G!? IV 4/f�7
14,dr.9/zs�aK�irr1i,.SLY./SSA
• .c,.r.w.�a,...6 a fravii,u.6irsi /s Sf 9'C7bQc /7�0/i.'
• � !iz» �/,•� /rds� x�ss./�i-y car�v D{.�ae�'
9 o10"1;ir,fzrp7i�,�dG�j�►l; >'rSrsrt�
m. 00,
i SD/Z:St"K/, ZGYL/9t/!b �!r Snr4ixrsb��/
�•• /%t o{sa%d,b/7p lle� •U•d0 Zd
ab�y At--r�rfssr�sk /� ul6oio'
770�1-IM5
4111-2/TD,05 CERTIFICATE
F• FKEDFWIRECORD INIS II eZ6 DAY OF F -
S id (►L /T ZZAO Al y:,T1'_Qu IN 000 it �Of SURVEYS AT
PAGE* AI ME nEUUEST OF G-^"'•' .ew= -
• /Y�N.Ca h c�lh A�aN
Ile
A{ Jli r ir:/�o G.�ala.+ � P6� %i' a^cY% !D �iX /!X�•%� svt'.S�Bi;�/ CL7'J7C/' P�
6'i'47 GYl E/o,�r
.S�os>a�ssS, �i.E ol�clrsil trss rs /'O's
' vs c'�rtrili�e/riix�r'i-v�;br: �i'�rI�QoS
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE e&weco./0 aex-'to 4-1 cy
THIS MAP CMAECTEY RE►nESENTS A SURVEY MAM BY uE OR UNDER My
D,RTCiION IN CONFORMANCE WITH ME REOUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY
;1
fi
RECOMMOACT ATTHE REOUESTOff
�^"Y��"'�"TIN �'^•'f IIt�I '
vIAIOI Sul -VI rr(il. 1
I
Gc w PA-7
/.� % � : •:'ice sac•:: s n• �. �..-,.•�_ ...•-.,;.,,,
MEYRING & ASSOC.. INC.
73471 IIirIweaT I-)
LdmuRdT,1VA 93020
P. O. Do% 32 l,Rn%ood. IVA 9EA
7711]101
i
EXHIBIT 4 v-39-s� - t: V ICINITY M A P
- 053 �-
N W 11A SEC 36 T 97H R 3 E W.M. _
Dno
h
O
22609 j
o
�
7010
zz62B
711
725 Q z27?9 1
YEN s
v@J
y e Z2808 1� 807 2Z740
47 2Z8L1 92 O 021
z2B2o
131 22829 21B30 22031 22830
_ 1 . P r .W/. I .
604 22bo L' g $ 04 r 126 0 3 to
b/5 22610 - 111 /504 1505 1ZZ67.y o.
6T Pl.r n o,
63 22424
625 N v •Oo N '� 1506 1509 b
. L2631 22430 2U2631 $ $ g n ^ y /508 511 -- _-
t# 15l5 t2615
22704 Q 22703 / °p
22711 U712 22711 $ ^ CEljVTfi RY
\ � P Q L
2z7/9 22no spry 2277"PL
p Q 719 �—� ^ b h ` rpo�ma
9 Z2728 TO228 r. w. Ast 2z8o+/r4 ASO2815 T we 7!2283 vOi / NOTO _ ..
?90Y 29l1
t• W J 22410 229/2 0 2Z8 B
Is Pl. S. W. o • 1 2913 _-.
� YARxrwc-
?.29i N 0 3 22920 ; 29f..q a7933 �� M 9�
!9 0
0 3 3olt g M
0
Z c o 9 O 22930 933 300!' hwI ZZ
0 23006 u� K $ I
2 2 $ °
2300 23001 Z3008 Q �t0 i 2300 a
23ooq Z30o� ® [ �q 23006 O Z3097 S — 8
23006 230� A 19 0 R T H 23030 2312& z3oz4 3029 Z3Io3 7025
2.TO 23a28 3029 r'
23008 2300 a M 27026 ^ o. ro u 23 toe 231 23/os I
•O o h A
�� g n 3 231oZ 2sloo 23113 z31o5 2,310
9 ZJJo8 L
o .� .•3/07
0/—= so — $W23r ST. S.W � 0 2�1Iz r15 _
_ 231i9O
• 231 j' v o n o o ,R '7 CO p p 23t22 ti
n c o 0 0 = `+ 23114 231Lo 231L4 23124 231is o` o` a r
° 23129
'-
_- - - 232 At*
N M M r= h G11TC o .�.....
n n o •o to o P P $iV EMT
O' tm 77 C PA A Y,N6 TERNIS SALFM
b ROB HOOD DRIVE o Boa UrNER L
Vtd t a. CHURCH
2 0 `�r` N a W®ODWAY W I GH
Z N.
g 23303 •Oo 0 3304 Q;�2323o f0oT0ALL 3305
:o IN�• 23309 I
23313 o fRLAJ3 Q\� 330S 233� �� ;
d 23319
0 23321 v o �cj- 23313 233/2 0 GYH
•o r1
• oC O o o { 233Z8 n 3329 Kc oFP-__
° U13329 � q
a
9 = 13405 0 0 Ln
M h 3403 yk ® rTvs _
c = w f
NOTTINGRAM LAN 3411 ❑ I I-- []�°"'" _
� KIT
o °fin v to h M ? 3427
a = o 0 0 0 0 ART
3505 co" gc ncf
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 35/UAWO
a,r
R088ERS ROOST BASEBALL. WOOD WAY
H °v� ` .on r h ca 23.620 ura�2 ®X1GH I _
° g ° ° i r
v 3530 •ry L
` 3Ej n N N M N I Z3603'
;LlO o IQ o 0
1100 23
Q 2367" P4. S1✓ 6uIT36/o 361/
2 EVANGEL_. 1,15
3618 3621 `44 O4 ,°� s/ 13G18 6/9 I
2G 73631 COLLEGE; O 23G27 3G26 C 23629 O zcz6,236.27 Z?C27
I
'
4 �'i f �� i
`ds*i1 R
.' I
•
tri .- ,.:� t f°• _I�".,
zYl..w:.'x),
Rom..
yy
�
EXHIBIT 5 V-39-87
3R
IU1.83
EXIST. CACJ-11E+� }�:1�iu.
uJl�t K" E
B
(� . PLOT PLNN
f - zo
1 i�o PI'A.Ie TT+a Nw
oZ SC s,t)C.OF -OCl
�Whl.L- GJALr.t,AL� FLA TT+�
MqT,-t �v3t✓Ic- T�' ,,
FLU -rtAI:... Puo-vo-c r„--
CoA-4.P✓r,r-ItL. S I(OM %1; CA
LM. F-VAL 1 ';C 5K1ir:I
H
7
I
NOTE. THIS 19 AN U
SHI
DESIGN • MANUFACTURING • INSTALLATION DRAWING CREAI DNIGINAL By T, AUS SIGN I COM
PANY. 17 IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PER
DUALITY SIGN SYSTEMS FOR DISTINCTIVE VISUAL COMMUNICATION ti.�Ir'; Jj`t i r• .,. SONAL BEING IN
CONNECTION
YBY
WITH
AJECT SAS
SIGN COMPANY, 17 IS NOT 70 BL SHOWN
10 ANYONE OUTSIDE OF YOUR ONGANI:A
'90 STONE AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WA 98133 LION NOR IS IT TO Of NEI'R000CLD.
COPIED. OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION
365.0242 UNTIL TRANSFERED ,
IL
JAAL
_• _ _- _" - ..._ ... . ` _•"'ter'•••— y t.
4( N, '_-- '�' f y. J ..ter••" . , .. 1 1 `• . � � .r •
.'.1 RC ��YYL}Y�I.Y.r� T11.,fr
F � a
s" y"
1 �_ • • .���'MI�FL 1 tl
�i + Y � d 1 :• , -."•'ram 1 j1 Y �..:
4"
O Y II
w.
• � 1
IT
_
..... .. ... ..
-
-mil_+-.
is -•s
1 s
�� 1 i
i ,�
•~ Y S4 %
i
•�
Y'
\
11 .„
'
- —�[ :� '•�-� G M.�
1 .
M1) _
I
.:_W4.YFe`y VV N1aK1-Y:n • .}� rLr-.�.•,CI
1
A I'` n � I l .i •!Y•'~
7 _
- L 1 ...1—_4 M.._• S R 1!h ]L � ...
- [.TY 'I'1 - .
aIrN
40
.J �� L c t II yy66 L _
tr.`�' ' 9. i•
J r '
a
4 -
C _
s r
--.Ky�j ^� ems^ v of 'iisiS OWE mom'
T \ i L CFI LEI 1� i` }�..;� •rr•�'^^'. : _ - _
C
la a n—
_ try s�i +ice r I+�:��n'�! Ti5t�h 7.s:3t rs Y��y "�-••--• , � �.,y.,.,
. �..wb yL� jig, ti• wi+• 1 iftr.F t , , 1 - •y ,l !q i�l- � rt 1 -. .i
.^U+:..•. ., t. ��J. f: t��.��`�.5.�'�{ i�'�si .. _.i. .._ � .�'i`,�•t-`ur.?c-r.__«_, .�.�+"'t+_'4.L�'�'Tr'n'�-�'3:ur_..,+Ls`.��ai_''.rn"2_rsnnttti�..�::r
r w
.1l, y ✓:�
1 j �
r.,'+r � 'r } ., t 4 {..oi rwt:.i tiY �• � _-ti '. •w.. -�I c {`rif•
T„TY '�,-``A- ...t �';i le:,h. y,a Yl.:..�n. 'Yi">', _ '.��'k:r :Y,?.5;. 1ta•'.
t tr.•, IYi -lard .
1 M
.4 l•.111•• 1� ••t
• , 4
u e2'ry
r� a— r +— � _ `"'' . � ._� ! ,lam• ,.
�.•. ate,,, \1 :: .
c,
�Y
/
L
. wz
.��ks,F°:�'YY F{l.�r�'e•�'� k�`a .Y �.;. r.,. .'r� t•cv2�✓ a i.. i y of Edmonds �M .�1 1 v z D
Gary F, "Fire M. INTtR-OFFICE CORRESPONDLWCE
Bobby M. - PW D E C 2 �: 198%
Dane-Smith%Jerry-`,-Hauth - Engineering
TO FROM Duane Bowman DATE �1���'�ING
RlIRJFCT - - --
V-39-87 VARIANCE FOR CODE INTERPRETATION OF SIGN CODE.
ADDRESS LOCATED AT 10119 EDMONDS WAY.
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1988
PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOU COMMENTS NO LATER THAN
JANUARY 12, 1988.
THANKS.
4
.tiff ic. �'� •, �� .. .d.-_•r..... -✓ - I ..ws:•..,......�o.: .�.�...�.. _......+...�......�..
,4L .t.�i:�...e.ueu:�..._la::..a: ate.......:.......w. .L'• ..� : .,,w �. .�, ..
City of Edmonds
Gary M. -Fire M. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDE�.E
`Bobby: M . = ` PW
Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth - Engineering
TO — FROM Duane Bowman
SUBJECT
ZG'Z
12�1. -�
DATE �t'T�
V-39-87 VARIANCE FOR CODE INTERPRETATION OF SIGN CODE.
ADDRESS LOCATED AT 10119 EDMONDS WAY.
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1988
PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOU COMMENTS NO LATER THAN
JANUARY 12, 1988. RE(4,,i%1V20
THANKS. P Joel
PLAN,"^'G DEPT;
I y A ixd w.e—�
O✓7C S�I��e- (DoP
IJ !� ��•.s� a K
City of Edmonqct,
Gary M. Fire M. INTER -OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
Bobby M. - PW
Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth - Engineering
TO FROM Duane Bowman
SUBJECT
F���►tIY�D,
PEG
PLANAI'",f; DEPT',.
DATE 12/24/87
V-39-87 VARIANCE FOR CODE INTERPRETATION OF SIGN CODE.
ADDRESS LOCATED AT 10119 EDMONDS WAY.
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1988
PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOU COMMENTS NO LATER THAN
JANUARY 12, 1988.
THANKS.
0C) 0,0w"""0-,-)v
iiLl:
-; i c.0
IJEC 2 8 1987
EDMONn(; FIRE DEPT.,
4
�^.��:i cr4 y ' � 4 s i«�r �r�s•rRi3:1��' ic+''`�`t 'O-aa.�.'k .xa'?itw�i,L:,tt:�"�� ter._' �^ � �x� _ t -i t: ......,....�:..I.wa...... - .�....�.....a._k:.....,,......._u.:.� -..x . - -
Texaco, Inc.
10602 NE 38th Pl.
Kirkland, WA 98033
ALbertson's Inc.
9803 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jay Starr
13190 Stone Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98133
V-39-87
0
Texaco, Inc.
10119 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds
City Cemetery
627 Date St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Nancy Briar
P.O. Box 2969
Kirkland, WA 98083
Albertson's Inc. #6407
4th Cheltenham Prop. Inc
P.O. Box 20
Boise, ID 83726
Finis Tupper
711 Daley
Edmonds, WA 98020
1
1
(-tk**)JA(7:YMz- 7-0
LIN
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
q &)3
01(bc)2C)
On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent
all properties located within 80 feet of the subject property.
Sig ature o Applicant or Applicant's Representative
Stibscri bed and sworn to before me thi s day of t ► i O 19•
Notary Public in an" for the State of Washington
Residing at '1'
0
1091
rte • WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
19 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION
10) 19'
ZONE DISTRICT.
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 70#Ab-opow., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY
BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL,
YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER STATING YOUR VIEWS
WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE -THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR
FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY
AT THE MEETING.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE
NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252).
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
NE G
WARN' ■ OOF THE HEARING ISACNCEALMENT OF M BEFORE OR PUNISHABLEDATE
A MISDEMEANOR
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER%]A6UU1tI4V Zli A
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS
BELOW
THEIHEARINGWISH
EXAM�NERSPEAK
F�NDINGS
N THIS
ITEM AND/OR WISH TO RECEIVE A COPY OF
OF FACT
V-39-87 TEXACO, INC. �.
Variance to sign code to allow sign area calculation
based upon pump island canopy at 10119 Edmonds Way,
Edmonds.
NAME ADDRESS
(Include city and zip code)
l.�i �
-..� i ....:. .. .. : .... .... ..t .. ..... . ... .... :. i.. .. ., ;_.�. t. _..�.�_a... ..... .J..I..........nlr...:.:w...v....�.�4.�...J..rif.n�x.:w.w...�.�..n_. w. .. ..� �.«..__�.�..-.._�J.+— �-----j
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
FILE NO. V-39-87
APPLICANT Texaco, Inc.
Duane V. Bowman being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
and says:
That on the 11th day of January , 19 88 , the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event,
in the Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or near
the subject property. I
Signed 1&Zu4P Z. LA `C �
Subscribed and sworn to before me this //'� day of ,
19.
Washington.
Residing atlL,��
1W1P COMMISSION EXPIRES 6 116 i;°
,
y:
FILE NO. Texaco, Inc.
APPLICANT V-39-87
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Diane M. Cunningham being first duly.sworn, on oath
deposes and says:
That on the 11th day of January ,19 88 the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners,
the names of which were provided by the applicant.
Signed 1'�•C�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
19
y
Notary Public in and for the.
State of Washington. /
Residing at 1,2�
MY �nnnne�eSION
Texaco
c�'l ��.� �� ti ✓(lit Q
2_ /�.���
18
19c9
am-.- -�
c� a4a�
.�`. "^�sti�T.iY an�"1.'.a'�Pa�'Adt.'�...<,•''>. a,.u.,..: .........., . .�.. _. .... ., .. _. ...... .. ...
i
FORM NO. W 8 taK•142
Transamerica Title Insurance Company
Washington and Alaska Commitment — 1986
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
ISSUED BY
TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Transamerica Title Insurance Company, a California
for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issu,�.-�~'-
, .. .
identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed i �` l� f—
mortgagee of the estate or interest covered here /1� 1
Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and cha
and conditions and stipulations shown herein, the E ' �t,�y •� lyd�
exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the
side of this cover and inside of back cover for printed -;'----
exceptions contained in various policy forms.)
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount
of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,
either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsements and is
subject to the Conditions and Stipulations on the back of this cover.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all
liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date
hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided
that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Transamerica Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name
and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A.
NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR MAY BE EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE
WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT, AND A SPECIMEN COPY OF THE POLICY FORM
(OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED
PROMPTLY UPON REQUEST.
Transamerica Title Insurance Company
B—rv^����•�c-*rt;:�%J—x-.V President
By Secretary
Q4kj�� IF
t
.uwcnvKii..�.w,6. 1:J.,s.,t.,.-i.+a:.,e.ti....,u.��..u:.�...,.�L:�'u:::,'wluvtld a::..u..a.....r_.�s...,.....:�,_.....l+.ae:...,ws..s,...:.W ..:., ...:.,:.:.:,, w.u......;u�.:.:..z.:....:u..._..w.•.........�� ,._t.... ..1.�iW
Please direct correspondence to:
2939 Colby Avenue
Everett, Washington 98201
Prepared For:
Transamerica Title Co.
320 - 108th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attn: Ruth
Transamerica No. : 513188 j
Customer No. : 653499
Seller GULL INDUSTRIES
Buyer rower XACO REF ING
By
BRUCE RICHARDSON Title Officer
Lisa Stanosek Assistant
For Service on this Order Call:
(206) 252-1156
Effective Date: September 2, 1987 at 8:00 a.m.
1. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount
(a) ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B 1970 $261,556.00 Premium $844.00
(Amended 10-70-70)
83
(Standard X)(Extended )
Proposed Insured:
TEXACO REFINING & MARKETING, INC., a Delaware corporation
(b) ALTA Loan Policy-1970 $ Premium $
(Amended 10-17-70) Tax
;., .
Proposed Insured:
(c) Standard Loan Policy $ Premium $
Policy -Form 4-14-86 Tax $
Proposed Insured: '
(d) $ Premium $
Tax
Total $909.83 1
2. Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof
vested in:
PACIFIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Washington corporation.
3. The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of Snohomish,
State of Washington and described as follows:
SEE ATTACHED HERETO.
'"t 4� �3.i �•,:� 5.;, sy:��1...i.�...� w'�11'�'5..�.Sc�;t.t Y3 ,....cv;ax ..s..., .�.._,.vr ..-ti.... n..�zn.r,.�.._. ,�..i .. �..5 s«,.....a �rt......:.....�__..,...»....�....,.�.........,...A.... ......�..» ,.........._ ... .... .. _, ......... ti....
Page 2
Order No. 513188
LEGAL DESCRIPTION•
That portion of Lots 7 and 9, Block 3 of Westgate Park, Division No. 1, as
per plat recorded in Volume 13 of Plats, page 31, records of Snohomish
County, Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 10 in said Block 3;
Thence North 89° 47' 08" West along the North line of said Lots 9 and 10,
respectively, 501.15 feet to a point which is South 89° 47' 08" East 175.00
feet from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 9 and the True Point of
Beginning;
Thence South 0° 12' 52" West, 204.19 feet to the Southwesterly line of said
Lot 7;
Thence North 40° 23' 05" West along the Southwesterly line of said Lots 7 and
9, respectively, which the line is also the Northeasterly margin of Edmonds
Way, 268.92 feet to the most Westerly corner of said Lot 9;
Thence South 89° 47' 08" East along the North line of said Lot 9 a distance
of 175.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning;
EXCEPT portion conveyed to State of Washington by deed recorded under
Auditor's File No. 2246005.
Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington.
a
Page 3
Order No. 513188
Exceptions. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain
exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the
satisfaction of the Company.
A. Standard exceptions set forth on inside back cover.
B. Defects, liens encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any,
created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent
to the effective date.hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured
acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment.
C. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly
executed, delivered and duly filed for record.
D. Real Estate Excise Tax pursuant to the authority of RCW Chapter 82.45
and subsequent amendments thereto.
As of the date herein, the tax rates for said property is .0159:
E. General taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and
statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency:
(1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1)
Tax Account No. Year Amount Billed Amount Paid Balance
6106-003-007-0007 1987 $1,659.36 $829.68 $829.68
1987 Assessed Valuation:
Land: $91,600.00
Building: $53,500.00
1. Reservation contained in deed from the State of Washington recorded
under Recording No. 403140, reserving to the grantor all oil, gases,
/ coal, ores, minerals, fossils, etc., and the right of entry for
opening, developing and working the same, and providing that such
rights shall not be exercised until provision has been made for full
payment of all damages sustained by reason of such entry.
2. Right of the public to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon
property herein described in the reasonable original grading of
streets, avenues, alleys and roads, as dedicated in the plat.
Page 4
Order No. 513188
EXCEPTIONS:
3. The right to drain all roads and streets over and across any lot where
water might take a natural course after roads are graded in. No land
drainage shall be diverted to public road rights of way nor shall it be
diverted or blocked from draining along its normal course. Any
enclosing of drainage waters in culverts or drains or re-routing across
lots shall be at the expense of the land owner. All as dedicated on
the face of the plat.
4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:
GRANTEE: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington
PURPOSE: Sewer Pipe Line
AREA AFFECTED: North 10 feet of Lot 9
DATED: Undisclosed
RECORDED: November 10, 1966
RECORDING NO.: 1911340
(Copy attached)
5. Reservations and Easements and Party Wall Agreement contained in Deed
recorded under Auditor's File No. 1912640 on November 17, 1966.
6. Agreements, reservations of easements and restrictions contained in
Warranty Deed under Auditor's File No. 2021316, copy attached.
7. Maintenance obligations for approach road between right of way line of
SR 104 and shoulder line of said highway as imposed in Warranty Deed
under Auditor's File No. 2246005.
8. Right to enter on adjacent lands of grantor where necessary to
construct approach road as granted in Warranty Deed under Auditor's
File No. 2246005.
SELLER: Pacific Capital Corporation
PURCHASER: Grant C. Maurer, Inc.
' DATED: March 21, 1977
RECORDED: March 28, 1977
RECORDING NO.: 7703280289 (E#4283)
Purchaser's interest now held of record by Gull Industries, Inc., a
Washington corporation by assignment executed by Gas 'n' Go, Inc., a
Washington corporation, successor in interest to Grant C. Maurer Inc.,
a Washington corporation by assignment recorded July 13, 1983 under
Auditor's File No. 8307130224.
a
:�� ��.'�.�.u!i�3.Cetw...�....�:a�ir...�...'U.}�....y �.,.. �... �:.r ,�.._.......� ,,...!s_......_..�.,...,. ..W ........... a... .. .. ...sl ,-......,....................,_oo:«,_..__._. _........_�,�,....._.o..J..�...�<.��..,s,..u.:,+:;�._...._......... .... ....... .�«��i.,
Page 5
Order No. 513188
EXCEPTIONS:
10. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:
GRANTOR: Gull Industries, Inc., a Washington corporation
TRUSTEE: Transamerica Title Insurance Company
BENEFICIARY: Gas 'n' Go, Inc., a Washington corporation
LOAN NO: Undisclosed
ADDRESS: 4302 Southwest Cloverdale, Seattle, WA 98136
ORIGINAL AMOUNT: $200,000.00
DATED: June 30, 1983
RECORDED: July 13, 1983
RECORDING NO.: 8307130225
ASSIGNMENT OF SAID DEED OF TRUST:
ASSIGNEE:
Grant C. Maurer and Wilma M. Maurer, his wife
ADDRESS:
4302 S.W. Cloverdale, Seattle, Washington
DATED:
April 12, 1984
RECORDED:
April 16, 1984
RECORDING NO.:
8404160219
11. FINANCING STATEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF:
`/ SECURED PARTY:
Gas 'n' Go, Inc.
• DEBTOR:
Gull Industries, Inc.
COVERS:
Personal property and fixtures located on property
herein described.
FILED:
July 14, 1983
U.C.C. NO.:
8307140307
12. Unrecorded leaseholds, if any; rights of vendors and holders of
security interests
on personal property installed upon said property;
and rights of tenants to remove trade fixtures at the expiration of the
term.
- END OF EXCEPTIONS -
ael/SM
#21
.rForm �o h SPA , J
ra by Cbetked Dace P1u VoL PG.���ar No
SKETCH OF PROPERTY S OUT IN ATTACHED ORDER
fa
To assiii in locating the Premises. It i not based on a survey, and the company
assume• no liability for variasians if any, in dimensions and locadoa.
`) r ►.. 1. o rg 4 0! - t vc2 S �-�� r G \�inr2.1L ��
Note —This map does not purport to slow an higbaaya, roads or easements affecting the property.
r
71
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
C1 , , a Nevada corporation, for and a
THE GRANTOR* ALBERTSON S, INC, ;.
good and `
• N D NO/100 (S10.00) DOLLARS and other g •. �=
to consideration of TEN AN �•
valuable considerations in hand paid, conveys and warrants to LANDMARK
i'
valve ;..
corporation, the following ,.•F
lLirt. .
CONSTRUCTORS, INC.. a.•
of Snohomish, State of Waslington: t
situated in the County
described real estate. •t
That portion of Lots 5, 8, and 10, Block 3 of Westgate
����w��¢ ParR. Division No. 1, as Per Plat recorded C
In Volume
!3 of Plats, page 310 records o[ Snohomish County.
F ,...., 65
Washington, described as follows: , 1300
p z y
;n at tFe Northeast corner of said
Loot
'!
q Begnnn 8 ' 49" East along the fill ,.•� .
thence South 00 20res eetively, which line is also
, x said Lots 10 and 8. P 229.96 feet
the West margin of 9h Avenue South,
t1 "J thence North ` L ft-,y.t
%i to the Southeast corner of said Lot 8; _�/1,✓
` $90 46' 47' West along the South line of said corner
8
distance of 246.28 feet to the Northeast corner of
"-- no said Lot 5; thence South 0° 18' 25" 9E4 feet to the Southst along the e
� Line of said Lot 5 a distance o[ 99• 0 46' 15" West along
east corner thereof; thence North 89
the South line of Bald Lot 5 a distance of 33.'>3 feet;
- - "- - thence North 00 14, 26" East ]29, 85 feet to the North
thenep So•sth 89047' 09 Eact ales= 1
linty of saidbt 0; point of beginning;
said North line 276.69 teat W the
EXCEPT the East 10 feet of Lots8 and 10,
,
EXCEPTconveyed
eed recorded
to the City of Edmonds by C)uit Glal s Date in the City
ender Audltor's File No. 1848370; .
Washin ton
0, of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of g i
�> >co
at lof Lots 7 and 9. Block ] of
And also: That portion er lat recorded
Westgate Park, Division No1asp
• , P
is Volume 13 of Plats, page 31, records of Snohomish
bed as follows:
County, Washington descri,
Begituning at the Northeast corner of Lot 10 in said
Dloek ]; thence North 89047' OB" West also the North
-- line of Said ;L°twhic and
ir South 89047respecti'/ 08,, East 175.00
�� - feet to a P° most We corner of said Lot 9 and
feet from the m j
thence South 0° 12' S2"
tL� the true point of beginning;�jne i
•�� West, 204. 19 feet 0to the Southwesterly along he Southwesterly 1`
7; thence North 40 23 OS which line
line of sa'•d Lots 7 and 9, respectively,
268.92
Is also the northeasterly margin °f Edmonds Way,
; thence
feet to the mO08'st WEast along the Northesterly corner of ilire ofd Lot 4said Lot 9
South 89 47 175. Dint of beginning-.
a distance 0f City of eet to the trueEdmonds, County of Snohomish,
situate in as City OMC" RECORDS
State of Washington.
Vol i98 P,236 i
Co an
! , •a: *� ,lip
off
ef
.W
few
i
W
SUBJECT TO:
1, Reservation contained in deed from the State of Washington,
recorded under Auditor's File No. 403140, reserving to the
grantor all oil, gases, coal, ores; minerals, fossils, etc., and
the right of entry for opening, developing and working the same
and providing that such rights shall not be exercised until pro-
vision has been made for full payment of all daaages sustained by
reason of such entry.
2. Easement for sower pipeline with appurtenances, dated October
110 19660 and recorded ftovenber 10, 1966, under Auditor's File
No. 1911340, to the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of
the State of Washington, reference to which record is made for
further particulars.
3. Reservation of easements and Party Wall Agreement contained
in deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 1912640, on Uovamber 17,
1966.
1. Subject property is located within the corporate limits of
Edmonds, and is subject to L.I.D. assessments.
S. 'Grantee agrees not to permit, allow, erect or place any build-
ing or structures on the most westerly herein conveyed triangular
parcel lying easterly of a line beginning N 89.47108" W 526.15 fact
and S 00.121520 W 20 feet from the NE corner of Lot 100, Block 3,
and extending S 00.121520 E 152 feet to the Northerly boundary of
Edmonds Way. Also, on such property grantee agrees not to construct
any buildings or structures in any area lying southerly of a line,
extended easterly and westerly entirely across such property, and
said line lies at all points 100 feet south of the most northerly
boundary of such property.
d. Grantee agrees not to permit, allow, erect or place any build-
M1 or structures on the herein conveyed real property lying north -
Y y of a lino marking the northerly face of an existing Albertson's
rbod Cantor bulldinq, on adjoining real property that lies between
the above two parcels herein conveyed, as said line is extended S
89•47'08" E, from the northeasterly -corner of said building, to
■inth Avenue South,
Also, Grantee agrees not to permit, allow, erect or place any
building or structure on the most easterly herein conveyed propeirtl
on the herein conveyed real property lying southerly of a line;.
beginning S 00.201490 E 100.00 fact and N 89.471030 W 30.00 LOst
from the N.E. corner of Lot 10, Block 3 and extending thence N 890
47 08 W 130.00 feet thence S 00.20'49" E 30.00 fast, thence N ?g•
47'08• W 116.69 feet to the easterly wall of said Albertson's rood
Center building.
7" Grantee agrees that Grantor, and the owners, their successors
and assigns, and their tenants of the parcel of real property (en
which the Albertson's Food Center is located, said property was
conveyed by Albertson's, Inc. by Deed to Fourth Cheltenham Proper-
ties, Inc., dated November 15, 1966, and recorded in Snohomish County
Washington Records) lying between the herein conveyed real property
do and shall have an easement for ingress, egress, and traveling
.easementby vehicular a
areaherepedestriannd u
inbelowmentioned and to and acrosspon and nd from Edmonds Way and
Ninth Avenue South, as the situation may be, and an easement for utility
OMC1AL RECORDS'
'+roi 1987i It
ruF237
b
... �. .. :.. .. '.� �.: ra t y .( Y .��. . .. a.....,•e�.J.. a .. vL eLJ].'w•nrvrlrWbo t...+i?w� .�— ......�..��
.
and service lines upon,/over and across the same casement area "/
which is described as the most northerly twenty (20) feet of both of
the herein conveyed parcels and running their entire east -west length.
` Such easement is subject to any easements, exceptions, reser-
vations, rights of way, encumbrances and matters of record.
�. Subject to any easements, exceptions, reservations. rights
and any matters set forth in the Warranty Deed from Albertson's.
Inc., a Nevada corporation, to Fourth Cheltenham Properties. Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, dated the 15th day of November. 1966. and
recorded in Snohomish County Records.
reserves
9. Grantor hereby grsau an easenent for the purpose of utility
and service lines upon, under over and across the westerly parcel
of the herein conveyed real property and such is for the benefit of
Grantor and the Owners, their successors and assigns, and their
Tenants of the parcel of real property (on which the Albertson's
Food Center is located, and said property was conveyed by Deed
to Fourth Cheltenham Properties, Inc.. dated November 15. 1966.
and recorded in Snohomish County, Washington Records) between
the herein conveyed real properties, and said easement area is
described as follows, to wit:
A ten foot easement for utility lines lying five feet on either
side of a centerline described as follows:
Eiginning at a point situated N. 89047' 08" W.. 501.15 j
feet and S. 00012' S2" W., 115.00 feet from the Northeast
Corns of Lot 10. Block 3; Thence S. 50000' 00" W. 58.00 f
feet more or less to the Northeasterly boundary of Edmonds
Way and the point of termination.
This easement is subject to any easements, exceptions, reser-
vations, encumbrances, rights of way and matters of record.
10. Grantor hereby �etxnZ an easement for electrical utility and
service lines and a lawful, lighted electric business sign upon, over,
under and across the easterly parcel of the herein conveyed real
property and such is for the benefit of Grantor, and the Owners, !
their successors and assigns, and their tenants of the parcel of real
property (on which the Albertson's Food Center is located, and said
property was Deeded by Albertsons Inc.. to Fourth Cheltenham
Properties, Inc., dated November 15, 1966, and recorded in Snohomish
County, Washington Records) and said easement area is a ten(101
foot area lying five (5) feet of each aide of a centerline described as
follows:
A ten foot casement lying five feet on either side of a centerline -
described as follows:
an
a
OFF(C1AL RECOR M
vol 198 Pgr23S
..� • �. y� �i�.1� � Y.R. �rT•�.'.•�!�•n�--.-�7.1
Beginning at a point located on the Westerly boundary of
9th Avenue South, S. 00.20149" E. 170.00 fact from the
Northeast corner of Lot 10. Block 3; Thence N. 89.46147" W. 1
176.00 feet; Thence S. 70.00100" W. 108.00 feet more or -
lose to the property lino and the point of termination.
Said sign shall only be located within the easterly yi N
0D) feet of said easement area.
This easement is subject to any easements, exceptions,
reservations, encumbrances, rights of gray and matters
of record.
11. Right of the public to make necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon
the said properties herein described in the reasonable original grading
of streets, avenues, alleys and roads, as dedicated in the plot.
12. Grantor shall only use the real property herein conveyed for
lawful retail purposes, lawful apartment purposes, or lawful
professional purposes. So long as Grantor holds an interest ai owner
or tenant in the adjoining real property conveyed by the aforesaid Deed
to Fourth Cheltenham Properties, Inc., dated November 15, 1966. and
lying between the herein conveyed parcels, Grantee shall not permit,
allow or use any of the real properties herein convoyed for any of the
purposes of a food store or a retail supermarket, however Grantee
may operate a restaurant thereon.
13. Any existing utility or service lines, and any eaves and footings
which may now be located on the premises.
• i.
.4. Any easements, encumbrances, exceptions, reservations. I
roads, rights -of -way, and other matters of record.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said corporation has caused this instrument
i to be executed by Its proper officers and its corporate scat to be hereunto afftxed
this -Z(o day of March, 1968.
I ALBERTSOWS, INC.
By
President
By U'yt' Y Lam, yA"rr72
Secretary
1 •• OFFINAL AECORtd
so
nwi
t• .I• .-,•.-• •,.�.,. .' ...mot.:�,�
i` • a._.r
e q
THIS PACK!' SENT TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER ON JANUARY 15, 1988r
EXHIBIT LIST
V-39-87
EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT 2 - APPLICATIONS & DECLARATIONS
EXHIBIT 3 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT 4 - VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 5 - PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT 6 - PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBIT 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE: V-39-87
HEARING DATE: January 21, 1988
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance to sign code to allow sign area calculation based upon
pump island canopy at 10119 Edmonds Way, Edmonds.
II. APPLICANT:
Texaco, Inc.
Jon C. Haroldson
10602 N.E. 38th Pl.
Kirkland, WA 98033
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
See Exhibit 3
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is a triangular shaped lot located on
the east side of SR 104, across from the McDonalds
restaurant in the Westgate area of Edmonds. The site is
developed as a self-service gas station. The station has a
small attendant building and covered pump island.
In March of 1986, the Hearing Examiner denied a variance,
under file V-5-86, to exceed the permitted 24 square foot
sign area for a fresstanding sign for the subject property.
The property has changed ownership and the new owner is
seeking a variance to the sign code to allow the gas canopy
to be the structure that determines sign area for the
business. The canopy frontage is 51 feet.
Staff has made the determination that the attendant booth is
the building serving the public and that its 16 foot
building frontage is the determining wall to calculate sign
area.
Surrounding development is a mixture of commercial and
single family residential.
B. Official Street Map
Proposed R/W Existing R/W
West - Edmonds Way 70' 70'
4
I-=
'Avu'�,�.�'P14b.;�5.is'�w'M?'1L°�+:e1C�s T�:di...:y.....i_...........,...a�w.,�uri��.a..+.t.u-,e.�.ev....,......�.ia..,..,....u.u........... _....._..,.....w..uu.., o.I_............. ... .,..e_.......... .x _...,.,... ....,......_�.__�.....,, �..�.•...,�.,.,e._..,.. �,s...xs..,ou .. .. ...... ..........._ � �..�,
Staff Report Page 2
V-39-87
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
Special circumstances do appear to exist in this
particular case. The use of the small attendant
building puts the gas station at a disadvantage with
other businesses in the area.
2. Special Privilege
The proposed variance does appear to represent a grant
of special privilege.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the
subject property as High Density Residential, as are
the adjacent properties to the north and west. The
areas to the south and east are designated
Commercial/Business.
The proposed variance does not appear to conflict with
the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The subject property, as well as the surrounding
properties to the south, east, and west, is zoned BN.
The area to the north is zoned RS-20 and RS-6.
The proposed setback variance does not appear to
conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance or
the BN zone district.
5. Not Detrimental
The proposed variance does not appear to pose any
significant impact to the public or to any near by
private property or improvement.
6. Minimum Variance
The requested variance is a minimum variance.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The sign code specifically states in Section 20.060.020 (C)(2)
that " the maximum sign area per business shall be calculated at
one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall
containing the main public entrance into the business."
0
E •.. .
Staff Report
V-39 -87
Page 3
The pump island canopy is considered a building by definition in
the ECDC. It does not however have walls, therefore sign area
must be computed off the attendant booth. The argument presented
by the applicant that this is a self-service gas station and the
primary building providing the public service is the pump island
and therefore sign area should be calculated from it is logical.
Staff does not oppose the variance to allow a maximum sign area
of 51 square feet, subject to the following conditions:
1. All signs must be approved by the Architectural Design
Board.
2. A sign permit is required from the Building Division.
3. The current freestanding price sign must be removed.
4. Maximum freestanding sign area is 24 square feet.
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5th AVE. N. * EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 - (206) 771.3202
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEMRING EXMIINER OF THE
C111.1y OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NALIGHTEN
MAYOR
C TJ.F 2 9- 8 7
W FILB•.
�1'91'E:R OF THE', APPLICAl"ION
FOR APPROVAL OF
A VARIANCE'
Thr. varlarice- is granted subject to
the conditions listed.
TNTRODUCTION
a a'.: a lnC f :Ll-j car,,e of j,031 C. llaroli:lsor., 1.0602 NE 38th 111-ace,
Wlalcfi--J.n(-,t.oT) 99033, Olcreinalt(-.tx- rf-,fc..irnod -11--o as
c a t) has re'...'viested approval of c-; varilflcti! fi:cili. tiv- Belitiondyi
."..C) allow a sign area cal lctfl--titiolll t^ L)e ha!3,ed -,`n iclm, F.-U-Inp
t:!allc-ypy a..,- -i '..-y of ri-.:-Jmvond,
i01.19 F, d mo n d.s W a. y ii I Lbe ;A,
�'i j. I t C.) I I .
-(- I i r-,. re-quesi- wa-13 before- the lleaxl�-tg Blx -(Nt J-)-' C-2z of
on
th".) City, of 'Ed! -minds, Wazslii-ngton, on January 21., A 14 8 F,-
tlie follotvinq presented i-F,videmce.
iav 0"t-a-=
.4
t
lamii.ing Depet. 10602 NE 38-h P1
K IK I an el , WA 9 8 () 33
y r!,d ii to n (3 s
9 02
1-1-l'o.r.c.N", Briar Finis Tup-q per
0 02 1-1 E 3 9 t 1). P.' 711. IF la I y
L .
T,,irhland, (siA 98033 Csdmon-dcr- WA 900 . 20
All- t h 1) fi-! a. -zi T, tl":! -following exhibits WEtre SUbmJAl-.-E-..d and were,
c-'s 1. record of this proceedirig-
-1,;a officia t
If 2
41 3 ]Jegal Descri.pLnan
INCORPORATED AUGUST 11, 1890
3
HEARING EXAMINER�,,;CISION
RE: V-39-87
February 9, 1988
Page 2
" 4 - Vicinity Map
" 5 - Plat Plan
" 6 - Photographs
" 7 - Canopy Height Drawings
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appli-
cant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of
the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance from the
City of Edmonds sign code. The Applicant seeks permission to
calculate sign area based on a pump island canopy at 10119 Edmonds
Way, Edmonds, Washington. Without the variance the Applicant is
restricted to a 16 square foot sign.
(Staff Report, Starr Testimony)
2. The Edmonds Community Development Code 20.060.020 (c)(2)
requires that the maximum sign area for businesses shall be
calculated at one square foot of sign area per each lineal foot of
wall containing the main public entrance into the business. The
Applicant has requested that the pump island canopy on site be
considered in the sign area calculations rather than the attendant
building. (Staff Report)
3. The Applicant operates a gas station on the subject property.
The gas station is self-service and has one small building that is
occupied by an attendant. There are deed restrictions on the
property preventing a convenience store from being located on
site. The Applicant submitted that they are at a disadvantage with
the old architecture on site to satisfy the standards of the
Edmonds sign code and, in particular, ECDC 20.060.020 (c)(2).
4. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist.
Those criteria include:
A. Because of the special circumstances relating to
the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning
ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and
privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning.
B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant
of special privilege to the property in comparison with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning.
0
HEARING EXAMINER CISION
RE: V-39-87
February 9, 1988
Page 3
C. The approval of the variance will be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. The approval of the variance will be consistent
with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone
district in which the property is located.
E. The variance as approved or conditionally approved
will not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property
or improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC)
5. The Planning Department submitted that special circumstances
exist for the granting of a variance. The City stated that
requiring the Applicant to use the small attendant building for
sign calculation will result in a disadvantage to the Applicant
who must compete with other businesses in the area. (Bowman
Testimony)
6. The City submitted that
appear to represent a grant
Testimony)
the requested variance does not
of a special privilege. (Bowman
7. The subject property is zoned BN (Neighborhood Business).
This same zoning designation exists .for the properties to the
south, east and west of the subject property. The property to the
north is residentially zoned property. (Bowman Testimony)
8. The comprehensive policy plan map of the City of Edmonds
designates the subject property as high -density residential. The
same designation is given to the properties to the north and west.
The properties to the south and east are designated as
commercial/business. (Staff Report)
9. The City submitted that the requested variance would not pose
a significant impact to the public or to nearby private properties
or improvements. (Bowman Testimony)
10. The requested
Applicant to same
(Bowman Testimony)
variance is the minimum variance to allow the
rights as other property owners in the area.
a
w e, ..t._� .v.. .r_ ,....�,.r. ..l�.t�..a. �.........�.._ a. __.._....... ... ...,,.... ... ....,.„.�.a7 ..�._.. ..i.... .,.:i,!.L_r w......,' ..,..,_..».. ,. ,......,._ ....r_.�........ _ .�....,_..r,sW,u.._........�.�._x..........�._..,....�,.......s.._..,_ ..... ..
HEARING EXAMINER ,CISION j
RE: V-39-87
February 9, 1988
Page 4
11. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds did not oppose
the variance to allow a maximum sign area of 51 square feet. The
Planning Department submitted that the following conditions should
be imposed:
(1) All signs must be approved by the Architectural
Design Board.
(2) A signed permit is required from the Building
Division.
(3) The current free-standing price sign must be
removed.
4) Maximum free-standing sign area is 24 square feet.
(Staff Report)
12. The Applicant submitted that conformance to the sign area
limits the Applicant's ability to advertise its products. A
representative of the Applicant stated that the pump canopy should
be considered the main public entrance of the facility because it
is the area where the public purchases the product, gasoline.
(Exhibit 2)
13. The public does not enter the attendant building. Trans-
actions occur while the attendant is enclosed within the building
and the customer is outside the structure. (Starr Testimony)
14. A witness (Tupper) submitted opposition to the sign variance.
The witness submitted that the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 are not
satisfied by the application. Specifically the witness submitted
that no special circumstances exist for the granting of a
variance. He stated that the Applicant should be required to
adhere to the sign code of the City of Edmonds. (Tupper
Testimony)
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance from the
sign area calculation for property located at 10119 Edmonds Way,
Edmonds, Washington. Specifically the Applicant asked for a
variance from ECDC 20.060.020 (c)(2) which requires',that a maximum
sign area be calculated at 1 square foot of the sign area for each
lineal foot of wall containing the main public entrance into the
business.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be
I'®
a
HEARING EXAMINER ( CISION
RE: V-39-87
February 9, 1988
Page 5
satisfied. With conditions, the application satisfies these
criteria.
3. Special circumstances exist for the granting of a variance
including the deed restrictions limiting the size of the building
on site. Another special circumstance is that the building, an
attendant building, is not the main source of business for the gas
station. The pump island canopy is the main source of business
and can be considered the main public entrance into the business.
4. The granting of the variance is not a grant of a special
privilege. Through deed restrictions and physical limitations the
Applicant does not have the same opportunity to advertise as other
businesses in the area.
5. The subject property has a comprehensive plan designation of
high -density residential. The sign being located on the gas pump
canopy will not be disruptive to the neighborhood and will be
consistent with the goals and policies of high -density residential
designations.
6. The requested variance does not conflict with the zoning
ordinances of the City of Edmonds nor the purposes of the BN
zoning designation.
7. The requested variance does not appear to pose any signifi-
cant impact to the public nor to nearby private properties or
improvements.
TIVOTCTnM
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the Applicant shall be allowed a variance to
calculate the maximum sign area by using the pump island canopy on
site instead of the attendant booth. This variance is granted
subject to the following conditions:
1. The maximum sign area shall not exceed 51 square feet.
2. All signs must be approved by the Architectural Design Board.
3. A sign permit is required from the Building Division.
4. The current free-standing price sign must be removed.
5. The maximum sign area for a free-standing sign shall be 24
square feet.
r .e
HEARING EXAMINERS CISION
RE: V-39-87
February 9, 1988
Page 6
COMMENTS
This case presented a unique problem. Because of deed restric-
tions, the Applicant cannot build a larger building on site. Had
there been no deed restrictions, the Applicant would be able to
build a small building to house a convenience store for the gas
station. If that were the situation, the Applicant would not need
a variance because the building would be of sufficient size to
adequately satisfy the maximum sign needed to advertise the
Applicant's products. However, that is not the case. The Appli-
cant is restricted to the small attendant booth on site. Thus the
main public entrance has to be considered the gas pump canopy.
Customers come to the business for the purpose of getting gas at
the gas canopy. If an attendant is out of the attendant booth,
customers have no need whatsoever to go to the attendant booth.
The only function the attendant booth serves is a centralized
location for the money collected on site and the protection of the
attendant from the elements. The main service of this subject
property is gasoline, which is provided at the gasoline pumps
under the canopy.
Accordingly, the variance is warranted. The Applicant can con-
sider the canopy for dimension calculations for the sign adverti-
sing Texaco products.
Entered this 9th day of February, 1988, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 1988.
0
PLEASE INDICATE BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING ITEM:
Item 5 HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SIGN
VARIANCE AT 10119 EDMONDS WAY (AP-3-88/V-39-87) (APPELLANT:
FINIS TUPPER; APPLICANT: TEXACO, INC.)
Name (Please print clearly) Address
A 1-1 sl o - i-6 -`- /l-v or-
Febr•aar• 17, 1`8
City of Edmonds
505 Bell St.
Edmonds i,.,ta. =8020
RE: Appeal V-_;9-E7
Please accept this letter• as appeal of the Hear• i ng Examiner
decision dated Febr•ua.r•,•r Y, 198„8 for the above referenced
variance of Texaco, Inc . , 10119 Edmonds. Way, Edmonds
Washington.
As defined in the Edmonds. Community Development Code, Deed
Restrictions do not constitute special circumstances.
Sincerely,
F i n--T-+�
711 Daley St.-------:
Edmonds U.Ja 98020
k
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGEk;�' MEMO (-
Item number:
Oriqinator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
ING SIGN
SUBJECT HEARING VARIANCE OATA10119 EDMiONDSPPEAL OF IWAY NG E(API3E88/VC39I87)(APPEDLANT: FINIS
TUPPER; APPLICANT: TEXACO, INC.
Clearances: Dept./Indio./Initials
AGENDA TIME: 30 Minutes ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
AGENDA DATE: March 15, 1988 CITY CLERK
CSERVICES
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: ENGINEERING
PARKS & RECREATION
1. Appeal Letter PLANNING ai
PUBLIC WORKS
2. Hearing Examiner Report FIRE
PERSONNEL
3. Vicinity Map POLICE
COMMITTEE
4. Plot Plan
5. Sign Elevations
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On January 21, 1988, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on
the sign variance request of Texaco, Inc. to allow the gasoline pump
island canopy to be used for calculating sign area for the self-service
gas station at 10115 Edmonds Way.
The sign code requires sign area to be calculated on the lineal
"building" frontage of a business. By strict interpretation of the code,
the attendant booth is the only "building" on the subject property. This
would allow only a 16 square foot sign for the business. Since the pump
island canopy does not have walls, it is not considered a "building" and
therefore cannot be used to calculate sign area.
The applicant argued that, while the canopy is not a "building", it is
the logical structure from which sign area should be calculated, as it is
the primary structure used by the public.
The Hearing Examiner, on February 9, 1988, issued his decision to grant
the variance request. Subsequently, on February 18, 1988, Finis Tupper
filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
AP388/COUNCIL
EXHIBIT 2
Councilmember Hall inquired if the pygmy goat would be allowed in Mr. Walsh's home. Mr.
Walsh replied affirmatively. He said they can be trained just like a dog or cat.
Mayor Naughten inquired what procedure to undertake in malting Code amendments. City Attorney
Scott Snyder said the issue was governed by the animal control ordinance. He said he would draft
an ordinance for the April 5 agenda and suggested that it be reviewed by the Public Safety Commit-
tee.
Mayor Naughten
noted
that
Councilmember Dwyer and Mr. Snyder had requested that the agenda be
revised to add
an item
that
Mr. Snyder would explain.
Mr. Snyder reported that the State Building Council disapproved the City's Ordinance 2661 (the
landslide hazard ordinance) by a vote of 6 to 5 but said they would consider an amendment if
received by April 1. The amendment has to do with citation sections of their code. He reminded
the Council that the State Building Council declined to give an opinion to the City in November
on the basis that the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) had issued its
opinion and that they were going to adopt it. ICBO's opinion was that stability was an inher-
ent requirement of the building code and not set forth in any section. Mr. Snyder said he draft-
ed an ordinance for the Council's consideration.
Mayor Naughten also noted that a request was received from Finis Tupper to continue his appeal
of Item 5, Hearing on Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision Regarding Sign Variance at 10119
Edmonds Way, to a future date because he would be out of town. Mayor Naughten inquired if the
Planning Department contacted the applicant to ascertain if they were willing to extend the hear-
ing date. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the applicant intended to be present
that evening for the hearing. Nancy Brier, Texaco representative, requested that the hearing be
heard that evening.
Councilmember Hall said she understood that an appellant must be present for a hearing on ap-
peal. Mr. Snyder noted that the Council has considered continuations in the past. He said the
matter was a discretionary decision for the Council to make, upon receipt of a written request
for continuation, but it should be acted upon in the form of a motion.
City Clerk Jackie Parrett said Mr. Tupper had called the office requesting a continuance of the
hearing because he would be out of town. She requested him to submit a written request for con-
sideration of the Council, and Mr. Tupper indicated that he would do so but the letter was not
received.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO APRIL
5, 1988.
Councilmember Hall noted that requests for a continuation are customarily made by written re-
quest. Mr. Snyder said the issue was whether or not the Council wanted to accept an oral request
for the continuance.
Council discussion ensued regarding the request to continue the hearing.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. A TIE VOTE WAS MADE WITH COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER
JAECH, AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, AND COUN-
CILMEMBER OPPOSED. MAYOR NAUGHTEN BROKE THE TIE VOTE BY VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED.
Jay Starr, S & S Sign Co., said the matter must be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board
but cannot be presented to them until the matter before the Council is resolved. He said a hard-
ship will be placed on the business if the matter is delayed any further because they are operat-
ing without a sign. In view of this hardship MAYOR NAUGHTEN CHANGED HIS VOTED TO NO. MOTION
FAILED.
Councilmember Hall inquired how to proceed. Mr. Snyder said the applicant will make his presenta-
tion. He noted that the facts were not in dispute, and the issue was a matter of interpretation
of the Code.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA AS ITEM
#10 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2661 (RELATING TO LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS)
SPECIFYING STATE BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT SECTIONS. MOTION CARRIED.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 MARCH 15, 1988
i
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AND PROVIDE MATCHING FUNDS AS PROPOSED BY
STAFF. MOTION FAILED FOR LACE: OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE PROJECT FOR 208TH
STREET, WHICH INVOLVES A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 208TH AND 76TH, WITH THE PROVI-
SO THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT OF APPROVAL OR REJECTION IN EVERY ASPECT OF THE
PROJECT, TO BE FUNDED AS FOLLOWS: UTILIZE $13,000 THAT WAS BUDGETED FOR 208TH STREET; $20,000
SURPLUS OF CITY SURPLUS PARCEL NEXT TO LYNNWOOD PLANT; WHOLESALE WATER RATES FOR LYNNWOOD AT
$35,000; $25,000 FROM THE 1988 ARTERIAL STREET FUND, WHICH CALCULATES TO $93,000 MINUS $3,000 FOR
A TOTAL OF $90,000. Councilmember Wilson prefaced the motion by stating that he believed that
Mayor Hrdlicka was correct in saying that the cooperation of local governments in South County
should transcend the needs of individual cities and because testimony indicated community support.
Mayor Naughten said he was convinced that the project was necessary. He complimented Councilmem-
ber Wilson for the responsible motion that he made.
Councilmember Hall inquired if the swap for Lynnwood participation in the SR 99 sewer project was
included in the motion. Councilmember Wilson said he understood that was offered.
Councilmember Hall, although in favor of the motion, expressed concern regarding the dollar trans-
lation for the swap for Lynnwood participation in the SR 99 sewer project. She also expressed
concern that signalization at 76th, 212th, and 208th will be synchronized so closely that a
traffic hazard will be created. She requested that additional information be submitted to the
Council and the College Place area be reviewed by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Jaech was opposed to utilizing Water/Sewer Funds for the project. She suggested
that the $30,000 that was budgeted for the light, $5,000 for the street, and $20,000 from the
surplus City property be utilized. She inquired if the remainder of the monies could be funded
from a source other than the Water/Sewer Fund. Mr. Hahn noted that the surplus City property was
appraised in 1983 between $5,000 and $50,000, depending upon buildability. He noted that the
balance in Fund #112 was available.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if the surplus City property was owned by the City free and
clear. Mr. Hahn said he believed so.
Councilmember Hertrich was also opposed to utilizing monies from the Water/Sewer Fund for street
projects. He said he had encouraged the City of Lynnwood to fund the project to a greater degree
at a previous hearing because 208th Street was not identified as a high -priority item in the
Street Inventory Study. He recommended that the City contribute funding on a smaller scale, not
utilizing the Water/Sewer Fund.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO FINANCE THE
PROJECT WITH $30,000 THAT WAS BUDGETED FOR THE SIGNAL, $5,000 FOR WIDENING OF THE STREET, $20,000
FROM THE SURPLUS CITY PARCEL NEXT TO THE LYNNWOOD PLANT WITH THE PROVISO THAT AN APPRAISAL IS
CONDUCTED, AND THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED BE DERIVED FROM THE STREET ARTERIAL FUND #112. MO-
TION CARRIED.
MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED.
The meeting recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:41 p.m.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE AT 10119 EDMONDS WAY
.E. AP-3-88/V-39-87 APPELLANT/FINIS TUPPER - APPLICANT/TEXACO INC.
City Attorney Scott Snyder supplemented his earlier remarks by stating that a hearing on appeal
is considered a de novo hearing and the original applicant must present evidence. In the past
when an applicant/appellant did not appear at a hearing, he/she could not prevail because they
could not present evidence to sustain their burden of proof. However, in this case, the appel-
lant was not the applicant. Mr. Snyder urged the Council to proceed with the hearing.
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the Hearing Examiner conducted a public
hearing on January 21, 1988 on the sign variance request of Texaco, Inc. to allow the gasoline
pump island canopy to be used for calculating sign area for the self-service gas station at 10119
Edmonds Way.
Ms. Block noted that the sign code requires sign area to be calculated on the lineal "building"
frontage of a business. By strict interpretation of the Code, the attendant booth is the only
"building" on the subject property, which would only allow a 16 square foot sign for the busi-
ness. Since the pump island canopy does not have walls, it is not considered a "building" and,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 MARCH 15, 1988
therefore, cannot be used to calculate sign area. The applicant argued that while the canopy is
not a "building", it is the logical structure from which sign area should be calculated because
it is the primary structure used by the public.
Ms. Block said the Hearing Examiner issued his decision on February 9, 1988 to grant the variance
request. On February 18, 1988, Finis Tupper filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing
Examiner's decision.
Ms. Block said it is Staff's recommendation to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Conclusion N3 as follows: "Special circumstances exist
for the granting of a variance, including the deed restrictions limiting the size of the building
on site. Another special circumstance is that the building, an attendant building, is not the
main source of business for the gas station. The pump island canopy is the main source of busi-
ness and can be considered the main public entrance into the business".
Ms. Block then reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Decision as follows: "Based upon the preceding
Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing,
and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the
applicant shall be allowed a variance to calculate the maximum sign area by using the pump island
canopy on site instead of the attendant booth. This variance is granted subject to the following
conditions: 1) the maximum sign area shall not exceed 51 square feet; 2) all signs must be ap-
proved by the Architectural Design Board; 3) a sign permit is required from the Building Divi-
sion; 4) the current freestanding price sign must be removed; 5) the maximum sign area for a
freestanding sign shall be 24 square feet".
Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's Comments as follows: "This case presented a unique
problem. Because of deed restrictions, the applicant cannot build a larger building on site.
Had there been no deed restrictions, the applicant would be able to build a small building to
house a convenience store for the gas station. If that were the situation, the applicant would
not need a variance because the building would be of sufficient size to adequately satisfy the
maximum sign needed to advertise the applicant's products. However, that is not the case. The
applicant is restricted to the small attendant booth on site; thus, the main public entrance has
to be considered the gas pump canopy. Customers come to the business for the purpose of getting
gas at the gas canopy. If an attendant is out of the attendant booth, customers have no need
whatsoever to go to the attendant booth. The only function the attendant booth serves is a cen-
tralized location for the money collected on site and the protection of the attendant from the
elements. The main service of this subject property is gasoline, which is provided at the gaso-
line pumps under the canopy. Accordingly, the variance is warranted. The applicant can consider
the canopy for dimension calculations for the sign advertising Texaco products".
Ms. Block noted that the appeal did not involve controversy regarding Code. requirements and the
actual facts but, rather, Code interpretation of what constitutes a "building".
Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman indicated the location of the access point to the canopy via
a transparency of a plot plan.
Councilmember Kasper inquired why the canopy was not considered a building. Ms. Block said it is
considered a building. She said, however, the sign area is measured along the lineal wall and
the canopy has no walls. So while the canopy falls within the category of a building, it does
not include a wall by definition.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if the sign adjacent to the street frontage will contain the
words "Texaco". Ms. Block replied affirmatively.
Mr. Bowman said the existing sign is 24 square feet. The additional signage, proposed to be
located on the canopy, will expand the total sign area to 51 square feet.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the canopy existed four years ago. Mr. Bowman replied affirma-
tively.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Jay Starr, S & S Sign Company, representing Texaco, 6251 N.E. 159th, Bothell, said the pro-
cess to install a new face on the existing sign has been ongoing for approximately 5 months be-
cause of the necessity for a variance.
Mr. Starr reviewed blueprints of the proposed signage to the Council.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES
Page 7 MARCH 15, 1988
k
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the deed restriction limited the type of product, i.e, grocery
items, that could be sold on site. Mr. Starr said groceries cannot be sold on site. Council -
member Hertrich inquired if a larger building could be built to sell non -grocery items, such as
videos. Mr. Starr said he did not believe so. Councilmember lertrich inquired if Texaco was
precluded from constructing a larger building on site. Mr. Starr said tile lot was very restric-
tive and would not accommodate a larger building.
Nancy Brier, 921 First West, Seattle, Texaco representative, said she understood that a conve-
nience store was not allowed on site; the lot was so restrictive in size that a larger building
could not be constructed.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the allowable square footage of a sign has ever been calculat-
ed by the dimensions of a canopy rather than a building. Mr. Bowman replied negatively.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the Code defined a canopy as a building. Mr. Snyder said the
Code does refer to a canopy as a building. He said, however, the Code defines the permissible
sign area in terms of the length of the wall facing the street. Councilmember Hertrich inquired
if the canopy could be defined as having a wall. Mr. Snyder said a wall is not defined in the
Code. He suggested that the Council determine whether or not the physical configuration of the
canopy (the lack of a wall) was a special circumstance or fits the variance criteria. He ex-
pressed concerns that the Hearing Examiner did not cite a subcategory of the variance criteria
which states that special circumstances do not include actions of the owner or prior owners. He
noted that a deed restriction is a restriction placed on land by an owner in the course of trans-
fer.. He said he had reservations regarding the granting of a variance based upon a self-imposed
hardship.
Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., noted that the appeal request was based on the deed restric-
tion. Mr. Palmer said, however, the Hearing Examiner cited the existence of other special circum-
stances in his Conclusion and, thus, satisfies the criteria to render a decision of favor of the
applicant.
Councilmember Jaech inquired how much the sign located in the island would exceed Code require-
ments if a variance was not granted. Ms. Block said total allowable sign area for the site was
16 square feet and the existing sign was 24 square feet.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired what the main entrance to the building was considered to be and
where business transactions took place. Mr. Snyder said the Code does not set up that criteria.
He said that issue was a finding of fact to be made by the Council.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Nordquist reminded the Council that it has been the Council's policy to reduce the
height and size of signs throughout the City.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF
THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired about the height limit of signs on a structure in a BN zone. Ms.
Block replied 14 feet. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the fascia of the subject building was
14 feet. Ms. Block said it was 14 feet to the bottom of the sign.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE
HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder said he understood that height limits applied to freestanding signs. lie noted that if
the fascia was considered a wall, the sign could be located on the fascia as long as it did not
extend above the highest point of the wall or roof.
Mr. Starr said he has observed that many signs throughout the City exceed height limits.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Hall said because of the lack of definition in the Code. the signage should be
allowed and the lack of Code provisions be addressed at a later date by the Planning Board.
COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
DECISION.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 MARCH 15, 1988
4
Councilmember Jaech said she would vote against the motion because a deed restriction cannot be
considered as a special circumstance, as interpreted by the Hearing Examiner.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. A TIE VOTE WAS MADE WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER,
AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, AND COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST OPPOSED. MAYOR NAUGHTEN BROKE THE TIE VOTE BY VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE
AP-4-8 /V-3 - 7 PPELLANTS: J SEPH AND CANDIS SAt
ING EXISTING DECK AT 9308 - 216TH S.W.
Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman reported that the City received a complaint in September of
1987 regarding a deck at 9308 - 216th St. S.W. It was subsequently discovered that no building
permits were ever issued for the deck and that the deck was built too close to the west property
line.
Mr. Bowman said the property owner filed a variance application to legalize the setback encroach-
ment. On January 21, 1988, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the variance request.
The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on February 3, 1988 denying the variance request. On
February 18, 1988, Reid Shockey, acting on behalf of the applicant, filed an appeal seeking to
overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Mr. Bowman said it is Staff's recommendation to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Mr. Bowman indicated the location of the deck in question via a transparency, noting that it is
required to be set back 7-1/2 feet from the property line. He said it was built in 1980, and it
was the Samiones' understanding that a permit was not necessary. Mr. Bowman said the closest
point of encroachment is approximately 1 ft. 3 inches from the property line. He said a fence
screened the deck at one time from the Gross's property but has since fallen. The Grosses were
not aware of the proximity of the deck to the property line until the fence was taken down. The
deck stands approximately 3 ft. high.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired about the height of the preexisting fence, the ownership of the
fence, and the reason the fence was removed. The appellants' representative, Reid Shockey, an-
swered that question later in the discussion.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired about the location of the property line. Mr. Bowman said there
is evidence of fence pole holes and a line of sighting where the fence went down. Councilmember
Nordquist inquired about the accuracy of the property line. Mr. Bowman said he was not sure of
the exact boundary line.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Reid Shockey, 2907-1/2 Hewitt Ave., Everett, said the person that built the deck was a relative
of the Samiones' and had told them that a building permit was not required 'in the State that he
recently moved from and advised the Samiones that a permit was not necessary to construct the
deck.
In response to Councilmember Hertrich's questions, Mr. Shockey said the fence was owned by the
Samiones and was partially blown over. Mr. Samione removed the fence with the intent of
replacing it. Mr. Shockey said the Samiones were not aware that the deck was in violation of
the Code until the City contacted them.
Mr. Shockey said the deck is approximately 14-1/2 feet from the corner of the Gross' house. He
said it is the applicant's position that there is no injury to the Gross's because the separation
of 14-12 feet is greater than what the separation would have been if the Gross's were getting
maximum utilization of their side yard and the Samiones maximum utilization of theirs. He
noted that Staff, as well as the Hearing Examiner, found no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
or the zoning ordinance. Mr. Shockey said the deck does not constitute a major violation which
will require drastic measures to be taken by the City in forcing the Samiones to reduce the
square footage of the deck.
Mr. Shockey said the Samiones would like to reconstruct the fence in the form of a 6 foot
screen along the perimeter of the deck. He said the screen may be more aesthetically appealing
than simply reducing the deck size because the fence will screen the deck from the Gross's view.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if an agreement was reached between the Samiones and the Gross-
es in resolving the situation. Mr. Shockey replied negatively. He said Mrs. Samione has at-
tempted to contact the Grosses but has been unable to reach them.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 MARCH 15, 1988
r
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO
Item ntunber:
originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN VARIANCE
(AP-3-88/V-39-87)(APPELLANT: FINIS TUPPER; APPLICANT: TEXACO, INC.)
AGENDA TIME: Consent
AGENDA DATE: May 17, 1988
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Findings of Fact
2. City Council Minutes
3/15/88
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS & 'REA��ION
PLANNING �-
PUBLIC WO
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR _
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On March 15, 1988, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal
of Finis Tupper regarding the Hearing Examiner decision granting a sign
variance to Texaco, Inc. to allow the calculation of sign area to be
based upon the ptunp island canopy.
The Council voted to adopt the Hearing Examiner's decision and directed
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary findings.
Attached is a copy of the findings drafted by the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the findings of fact.
FAP388/COUNCIL
4
EXHIBIT 1
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE FILE NO. V-39-87
APPLICATION OF TEXACO, INC
FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE
On March 15, 1988, this matter came on for hearing before the
Edmonds City Council on the appeal of Finis Tupper. The requested
variance had formerly been approved by the Edmonds Hearing
Examiner in his decision dated February 9, 1988. Based upon the
hearing before the Edmonds City Council, before the Hearing
Examiner, and the testimony of exhibits presented at said
hearings, the Edmonds City Council hereby enters the following
decision:
The Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions 'of Law of its Hearing Examiner. In so doing, the
council notes that at the hearing evidence was presented which
tended to indicate that the canopy height may be in excess of the
height permitted by City Ordinance for the erection of a sign.
The Council finds that the variance with which it was presented
was on an application to permit the calculation of sign area to be
based upon the dimensions of the pump island canopy located at the
subject site at 10119 Edmonds Way. The application did not
request a variance from the height provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code and more specifically, Chapter 20.60.
The Council therefore expressely limits this variance to permit
the calculation of permissable sign area but instructs the staff
in the issuance of any permits to determine and ensure that no
sign be erected in excess of the height limitation imposed by
Chapter 20.60.
DONE this day of , 1988.
Larry S. Naughten, Mayor
Attested:
Jacqueline Parrett, City Clerk
0006.15071/WSS50571X
04/18/88 - 1 WSS/djb
ANIMMI-1=1
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE FILE NO. V-39-87
APPLICATION OF TEXACO, INC
FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE
On March 15, 1988, this matter came on for hearing before the
Edmonds City Council on the appeal of Finis Tupper. The requested
variance had formerly been approved by the Edmonds Hearing
Examiner in his decision dated February 9, 1988. Based upon the
hearing before the Edmonds City Council, before the Hearing
Examiner, and the testimony of exhibits presented at said
hearings, the Edmonds City Council hereby enters the following
decision:
The Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions 'of Law of its Hearing Examiner. In so doing, the
council notes that at the hearing evidence was presented which
tended to indicate that the canopy height may be in excess of the
height permitted by City Ordinance for the erection of a sign.
The Council finds that the variance with which it was presented
was on an application to permit the calculation of sign area to be
based upon the dimensions of the pump island canopy located at the
subject site at 10119 Edmonds Way. The application did not
request a variance from the height provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code and more specifically, Chapter 20.60.
The Council therefore expressely limits this variance to permit
the calculation of permissable sign area but instructs the staff
in the issuance of any permits to determine and ensure that no
sign be erected in excess of the height limitation imposed by
Chapter 20.60.
DONE this day of
Attested:
Jacqueline Parrett, City Clerk
0006.15071/WSS50571X
04/18/88 - 1 WSS/djb
, 1988.
Larry S. Naughten, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO
Item number:
originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING
APPEAL OF DARING EXAMINER DECISION FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN VARIANCE
(AP-3-88/V-39-87)(APPELLANT: FINIS TUPPER; APPLICANT: TEXACO, INC.)
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
AGENDA TIME: Consent
AGENDA DATE: May 17, 1988
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Findings of Fact
2. City Council Minutes
3/15/88
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS & ION
PIANNING
PUBLIC WO
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR _
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On March 15, 1988, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal
of Finis Tupper regarding the Hearing Examiner decision granting a sign
variance to Texaco, Inc. to allow the calculation of sign area to be
based upon the pump island canopy.
The Council voted to adopt the Hearing Examiner's decision and directed
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary findings.
Attached is a copy of the findings drafted by the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the findings of fact.
FAP388/COUNCIL
0
.. � ' '_', •.. ... � � ...'. � — _ w._...i..._...�.. ...�....�......._� .. ..mot. �..`...... �. .... ,+—s.... 1.. ..e,..cx£Wuw .... �.. J_ .___ _ .�__ ....—...�....�}+.+. a� ,y.
FR'
IS THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
JUNE 7, 1988 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 17, 1988
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, Edmonds. All present joined in the flag
salute.
PRESENT
STAFF
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Steve Dwyer, Council President
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svs. Dir.
Jim Barnes, Parks/Rec. Mgr.
Laura Hall
Roger Hertrich
Mary Lou Block, Plan. Mgr.
Jo -Anne Jaech
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Bill Kasper
Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Sup.
John Nordquist
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Jack Wilson
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Martha Dubick, Student Rep.
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Mayor Naughten commented on the reception just prior to this meeting which commemorated the sign-
Jla�ing of the sewer treatment facility agreement with Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View and Ronald
Sewer Districts. He presented a plaque to each of the participants in the agreement and ex-
pressed the City's desire for continued cooperation with this agreement over the next 30 years.
Iry Potter, the representative from the Ronald Sewer District, said they appreciated the coopera-
tion of Mayor Naughten and Peter Hahn, who worked with them on the project. He said that all of
the agencies will benefit from this agreement. -
Mayor Naughten read the plaque which says, "In recognition of the long-term cooperative effort to
protect the water quality of Puget Sound."
John Fischer, the representative from Olympic View Water and Sewer District, expressed his desire
for continued cooperation of all partners so the system will serve the area well.
The representative from Mountlake Terrace was not in attendance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Naughten informed the Council that City Attorney Snyder requested Item (D) be removed from
the Consent Agenda for further clarification.
Councilmember Hertrich requested Item (F) also be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE
CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 10, 1988
(C) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 675 COMMENDING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE MARTHA DUBICK
J"(D) APPROVAL OF FIREWORKS STANDS PERMITS
(G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FROM RICHARD E. AND CAROL A. CLAUSEN FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
AT 19005 SOUNDV I EW PLACE
�-GQ,r�.ac� (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN QUITCLAIM DEED EXTINGUISHING A PORTION OF THE EASEMENT AT
6
20314 - 84TH PLACE WEST
7 ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER
/�.E. At4070a -DECISION FOR APPROVAL OF. SIGN VARIANCE AP-3-88/V-39-87 APPELLANT: FINIS TUPPER: APPLICANT:
TEXACO INC. ITEM D N HE C NSENT AGEND
City Attorney Snyder said he included in the Council's packets this evening an alternative set of
findings. He said he was contacted by the attorney for the applicant and was informed that they
0
... --t,.,;r....m...,,—.....,,nut.,'a�,,,....i eul...e_,..,....'_a.._.�::a:...ur.........u�.�......,..,._......�.,._...,.�,..M.._..........�..___ �......�..u.. ...�,�,...,J..._ �.._...��..�..,...... ..... .....��.��.
have applied for a height variance. In light of that application, the applicant has requested
that the last half of the last sentence of the findings regarding height limitations be removed.
Mr. Snyder indicated this would help ensure that there would be no indication during the variance
hearing that the issue had already been decided.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA WITH THE DELETION OF THE LAST HALF OF THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION
CARRIED. (Council President Dwyer abstained from voting because he was absent during the previ-
ous discussion.)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2672 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO STREET STANDARDS
ITEM F ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Hertrich stated his desire to remove Item (F) from the Consent Agenda completely
and send it back to the committee. He said he has some concerns with the wording for curb cuts
and standards for the 1-2 lots. Councilmember Hertrich suggested the Council combine the Communi-
ty Services Committee and the Public Safety Committee for this discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, THAT THE COUNCIL SEND ITEM (F)
BACK TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE FOR THEIR COMBINED REVIEW AT
THEIR COMMITTEE MEETING ON MAY 24, 1988. MOTION CARRIED.
Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, introduced the following new employees:
Bob Bower - Sewer Treatment Plant Supervisor
�pQ Noel Miller - Construction Engineer
Tom King - Facilities Supervisor
Pat Harris - Grounds Supervisor
AUDIENCE
There was no one in the audience wishing to address the Council.
PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE MARTHA DUBICK
Council President Dwyer explained that Martha Dubick, student representative, is completing her
term on the Council. Mr. Dwyer read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, MARTHA DUBICK, a student at Woodway High School, was selected to serve as a student
member of the Edmonds City Council; and
WHEREAS, MARTHA DUBICK served as a student member of the City Council from January 1988 to May
1988; and WHEREAS, during her tenure as a student Councilmember, MARTHA DUBICK demonstrated
exemplary dedication and diligence in the work of this body;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Edmonds City Council hereby resolves that MARTHA DUBICK be commended for her
participation in city government in Edmonds during her term in.office.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Council and Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to MARTHA in
her studies and future career and express the hope that she will continue to contribute her
fine talents to the democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and elsewhere.
Council President Dwyer presented the resolution to Martha and commented that she has been an
active person on the Council and fun to have around.
�i PROCLAMATION TO THE FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY
Mayor Naughten commended the Friends of the Edmonds Library. He said the City of Edmonds is
d� proud of its library and is eager to see it become the center of knowledge and entertainment of
the children, adults, and seniors in the area. Further, the Friends of the Edmonds Library are a
dedicated group of volunteers who donate their time, labor and money to further this goal. He
announced that the Friends of the Edmonds Library are hosting a membership party on Sunday, May
22, 1988, at 2:30 p.m.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 May 17, 1988
r
-_ ..... 4'..w,ate....w.>x..e'l�v..LLnu.L...Y....,...._.l.«.ta.v.....�aw....e....»a �._..r.i_c.._.e .,..._.x.__a... ............_. ... .�.�._ .. u. .........a rf .u.awr.L.i...e. ,n..w...a,W, _.—.... ..e_. .. ...f....
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE FILE NO. V-39-87
APPLICATION OF TEXACO, INC
FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE
On March 15, 1988, this matter came on for hearing before the
Edmonds City Council on the appeal of Finis Tupper. The requested
variance had formerly been approved by the Edmonds Hearing
Examiner in his decision dated February 9, 1988. Based upon the
hearing before the Edmonds City Council, before the Hearing
Examiner, and the testimony of exhibits presented at said
hearings, the Edmonds City Council hereby enters the following
decision:
The Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of its Hearing Examiner. In so doing, the
council notes that at the hearing evidence was presented which
tended to indicate that the canopy height may be in excess of the
height permitted by City Ordinance for the erection of a sign.
The Council finds that the variance with which it was presented
was on an application to permit the calculation of sign area to be
based upon the dimensions of the pump island canopy located at the
subject site at 10119 Edmonds Way. The application did not
request a variance from the height provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code and more specifically, Chapter 20.60.
The Council therefore expressely limits this variance to permit
the calculation of permissable sign area in accordance with the
Hearing Examiner's decision.
DONE this day of
Attested:
Ja queline Parrett, City Clerk
0006.15071/WSS50571X
04/18/88 - 1 WSS/djb
C.. J.t��a+.�+wia+�...ai�'a:w. � �a..:'Y�.r_wu.z4t...S.1��.�,.J.�.+.Lc..,._i�L.ai.u.L...,_...a.i.�.w,...a....ut.w✓......� v....._Li....i..�r.�_.._.Iw__.... _� .�_... �r.u�...... w.._Wa._ .. ... .�.. ..u�.<. M...u:+K...(, .d.:�
FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE FILE NO. V-39-87
APPLICATION OF TEXACO, INC
FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE
On March 15, 1988, this matter came on for hearing before the
Edmonds City Council on the appeal of Finis Tupper. The requested
variance had formerly been approved by the Edmonds Hearing
Examiner in his decision dated February 9, 1988. Based upon the
hearing before the Edmonds City Council, before the Hearing
Examiner, and the testimony of exhibits presented at said
hearings, the Edmonds City Council hereby enters the following
decision:
The Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law of its Hearing Examiner. In so doing, the
council notes that at the hearing evidence was presented which
tended to indicate that the canopy height may be in excess of the
height permitted by City Ordinance for the erection of a sign.
The Council finds that the variance with which it was presented
was on an application to permit the calculation of sign area to be
based upon the dimensions of the pump island canopy located at the
subject site at 10119 Edmonds Way. The application did not
request a variance from the height provisions of the Edmonds
Community Development Code and more specifically,�Chapter 20.60.
The Council therefore expressely limits this variance to permit
the calculation of permissable sign area in accordance with the
Hearing Examiner's decision.
DONE this day of
Attested:
41�,aeline Parrett, City Clerk
0006.15071/WSS50571X
04/18/88 - 1 WSS/djb
u
890 194 -
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5th AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering
August 12, 1988
Texaco Inc.
10602 N.E. 38th P1
Kirkland, Wa 98033
Dear Sirs,
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
PETER E. HAHN
DIRECTOR
This letter is in regards to the free-standing price sign at the Texaco
station at 10119 Edmonds Way in Edmonds.
On January 21, 1988 the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds granted
a variance from the Edmonds Sign Code to allow a sign area calculation
to be based on the pump island canopy. One of the conditions of the
variance approval was that the current free-standing price sign must be
removed. As of this date the price sign has not been removed.
Please remove the free-standing price sign by August 19,1988.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at
771-3202. Thank you for your cooperation
Sincerely,
Richard Schipanski
Planning Division
CC: Sarah E. Mack
Hillis, Clark, Martin and Peterson
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Ave.
Seattle, Wa 98101-2925
9 Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
`;�; vas..::'1sih....,.saa.-r'..:.��;�a�.�e}`v�i:�:i'+.u�.rtr�tL.e,,.mS., 9.�.5..�s�:.:,�'�.taa.�3a:�rr�.:a.n:i..J.s�:d.,..:�.'+�'raa.'.aft Ji;:�.L,.ls+'his,.wi�i:::,.iw...:wu::',t1.ic:L..;ai.;,1:,,ilk...:1sL.a:„+m�.,.�.�wtaw+.»':Diu.+.1».,,�.t..:,,•;5x.....:..;i..«.:,,.........u-.::..9�._.. . ... _ ., ,✓.. .._-,..�COPY
GLENN J. AMSTER
JOEL N. BODANSKY
LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ
MARK S, CLARK
SALLY H.CLARKE
T. RYAN DURKAN
GARY `I. FALLON
ROBERT B. FIKSO
RICHARD E. GIFFORD
JEROME L. HILLIS
GREGORY E. KELLER
GEORGE A. KRESOVICH
SARAH E. MACK
LAW OFFICES OF
HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION
500 GALLAND BUILDING
1221 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2925
(206) 623-1745
TELECOPIER (206) 623.7789
TELEX 4947650 A �9
May 9, 1988
Jacqueline G. Parrett
City Clerk
City of Edmonds
505 Bell Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: File Nos. V-39-87 and ADB-22-88
Dear Ms. Parrett:
DEBORAH S. MALANE
GEORGE W. MARTIN. JR.
MARK C. McPHERSON
ANNE F. NILES
LOUIS D. PETERSON
RICHARD M. PETERSON
THOMAS E PETERSON
STEVEN R. ROVIG
MICHAEL E SCHUMACHER
MICHAEL R. SCOTT
MATTHEW P. SMITH
THERESA R. WAGNER
RICHARD R. WILSON
This firm has been retained by S & S Sign Company, as the
applicant's representative, to advise it regarding the above -
referenced applications.
( We would appreciate it if you would make available tapes of
the following public hearings:
(1) Hearing Examiner, January 21, 1988 _
(2) City Council, March 15, 1988
(3) Architectural Design Board, April 6, 1988
Phillip Wiseman of our office will be contacting you to obtain
copies of the relevant portions of these tapes, or to make
arrangements for listening to the tapes if copies are not
available.
Thank you for your assistance.
SEM/ceq
cc: Mary Lou Bloc
Scott Snyder
Jay Starr
070552.D205
Very truly yours,
w,- GCtta�----
Sarah E. Mack
■
4
I
CITY OF EOMONOS
1-'= 250 5th AVE. N. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771.3202
COMMUNITY SERVICES
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
PETER E. HAHN
DIRECTOR
DATE: June 6, 1988
TO: Sarah E. Mack
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
TRANSMITTING: Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner
RE: V-39-87, Texaco, Inc..
AS YOU REQUESTED: XXX
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
AS WE DISCUSSED:
FOR APPROVAL:
FOR YOUR FILE: XXX
REVIEW AND COMMENT
COMMENT AND RETURN:
MINUTES OF MEETING:
REMARKS:
PLANNING DIVISION
Duane Bowman
PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING
j'