The URL can be used to link to this page

51 WEST DAYTON ST.pdfdo= 11 A EXHIBIT' 2, FIL 'Llp CITY OF EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE APPLICANT SEGELBAUM AND PEALE CITY & ZIP Edmonds, WA 98020 DATE FEE__ RE CT if -7 14'�-D APO'S HEARING, DATE: ADDRESS 51 West Dayton, .Suite 208 INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PHONE 775-5551 Same as above (See attached) Lease VARIANCE REQUESTED: For a sign 28" X 52" bearing the lettering, - "Segelbaum and Peale, Attorneys at Law", located at address indicated ;1 1-%nWim FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: ��/W ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT : i 6Q, �+. ma ( el)0' A"WC-b I 6,y,1,s-r1tJ & -7q, i tJ 6A I tOA� 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 0 to enter the subject property officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds for the purpose of inspection and post ng ap\tend to this apDliXcaionZ S-i,:,nature' f Applicant, UwneV or 0 0 V Representative k DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT Please answer all questions What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard to development of your property? The configuration of our building is -such that it appears we cannot post a sign, due_to, the small frontage of the building and prior posting of another sign (or signs). 2. How does your property differ from other property in the same vicinity? Other buildinqs in the area seem to be similar to ours, -yet have siqns relating to their businesses. 3. Will this variance be detrimental to the.public or damaging to other property or improvements in the vicinity? M 4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these hardships have been caused by your own action? our business will not be adequately identified to the public -without a 'sign. We do not believe the hardship was caused by our action 5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance? The use of the property will be impaired. 0 Edmonds Bay office Building, legally described as follows: That portion of government lots 2 and 3, section 23, Township 27 Northr Range East, W.M., Described as follows: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SAID POINT BEING 150 FEET DISTANCE NORTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE WESTERLY MAIN TRACT OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN (FORMERLY GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO.) AS NOW LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON A RECORDED SURVEY IN VOLUME 8 OF SURVEYS ON PAGE 104; THENCE NORTH 89 50'52" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 3 A DISTANCE OF 56.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52 08'53" EAST ALONG A LINE SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 A DISTANCE OF 3 FEET: THENCE NORTH 48 02128" WEST WITHIN SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 A DISTANCE OF 57.27 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY MEANDER LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE SOUTH 52 08153" WEST ALONG SAID MEANDER LINE A DISTANCE OF 97.04 FEET CROSSING INTO SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 40 25'11" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38 17'07" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY, A DISTANCE 30.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47 16'30" EAST A DISTANCE OF 226.68 FEET To THE POINT OF BEGINNING Commonly known as 51 West Dayton, Edmonds, Washington, 98020. k STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE REQUEST There are special circumstances that relate to the Edmonds Bay Office Building, located at 51 West Dayton, in Edmonds, Washington. The building is shaped in an unusual way so that there is relatively little space available for signing, compared to other buildings. If the front of the building were straight rather than having a series of jogs, then there would be adequate ability to place signs on the building. Other buildings in the area have been permitted variances or have non -conforming uses of signs. The sitting of the building on the lot, coupled with its address, leads our clients to have difficulty in finding our office. Our street address is 51 West Dayton, yet the building itself does not front on Dayton. A number of clients have been confused, due to this fact. our sign helps alleviate this problem. The building sits back from the street and it would be difficult to read a sign on the building if it were any smaller. As it is, it is difficult to read from Railroad Avenue. our posting of a sign has no adverse impace on others' properties or public health safety and welfare. The sign is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the purposes of the Commercial Waterfront Zone. The sign is well designed and tastefully made so that it blends nicely with the exterior of the building. a . j CS 6 1W EXHIBIT 4 p I k E X H I T 5'- We the undersigned, as neighbors and co -tenants of the Segelbaum & Peale Law office have no objection to the City of Edmonds granting them a variance, authorizing the office to keep the sign posted on the front of the Edmonds Bay office Building at 51 West Dayton. Name Address 4V 0,A'/—ra tv 7 0 b A T 0/ I MIBIT 3 Mao a. Iva. vi 7 -aft . - M2 -4 --- ffi�c 2- aaa�. aa, aaaa.- a-- a,. lq� , .:� . T, m ry d 4i� T�-�w .......... ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER LIST Tax # 232703-4-D13 EDMONDS BAY OFFICE BLDG. 51 West Dayton, Edmonds, WA 98020 Owner: Margaret Brice Verwick Trust 144 Railroad Ave. #201 Edmonds, WA 98020 -and also- G. F. Brice III Robert Radcliffe A. Benton, Jr. 315 - 2nd Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98104 Tenants: G. B. Schwartz and Associates, Inc. 51 West Dayton, Suite 102, Edmonds, WA 98020 Peg Blackstone Counselling Services 51 West Dayton, Suite 101, Edmonds, WA 98020 Clark's on Edmonds Bay 51 West Dayton, Edmonds, WA 98020 Safety Engineering & Consulting, Bob Johnson 51 West Dayton, Suite 201, Edmonds, WA 98020 Tom P. Conom 51 West Dayton, Suite 206, Edmonds, WA 98020 Sea Soft 51 West Dayton, Suite 204(B), Edmonds, WA 98020 Artol3,Industries, Inc. and Surface Technologies, Inc. 51 West Dayton, Suite 207, Edmonds, WA 98020 Glen Lehde 51 West Dayton, Suite 111, Edmonds, WA 98020 Harry Somers 51 West Dayton, Suite 112, Edmonds, WA 98020 Alda Wakefield 51 West Dayton, Suite 211, Edmonds, WA 98020 Monson Manufacturing, John Evans 51 West Dayton, Suite 212, Edmonds, WA 98020 1 Adjacent Property Owner List (cont.) Tax # 232703-4-153 City of Edmonds 505 Bell, Edmonds, WA 98020 Tax #Is 232703-4-014, 232703-4-158, 232703-4-159 Port of Edmonds 336, Admiral Way, Edmonds, WA 98020 232703-4-003 Harold R. & Ardean Store 14277 Worden Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Apartment at 264 Beach Place, Edmonds, WA 98020 232703-4-004 Richard & Ethel Slye 260 Beach Place, Edmonds, WA 98020 232703-4-005 Sidney Evans 258 Beach Place, Edmonds, WA 98020 2 a ........... ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 80 feet of the subject property. --i�r -Applicant's Representative Signature of-Anlicant Subscribed and swor t befo e me th day of -." --,e I N`otarl ffPublic i and e State of Washington Residing at C1 CNA- Segelbaum & Peale 51 W. Dayton, #208 Edmonds, WA 98020 G.F. Brice III. Robert Radcliffe A. Benton, Jr. Clark's on Edmonds Bay 51 W. Dayton Edmonds, WA 98020 Sea Soft 51 W. Dayton, #204B Edmonds, WA 98020 Harry Somers 51 W. Dayton, #112 Edmonds, WA 98020 Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Richard & Ethel Slye/Owner 260 Beach Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Bay Office Bldg- Margaret Brice Verwick Trust 51 W. Dayton .144 Railroad Ave. #201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 G.B. Schwartz & Assoc., Inc. Peg Blackstone Counseling Svc. 51 W. Dayton, #102 51 W. Dayton, #101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Safety En(-,r. & Consulting 51 W. Dayton, . #201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Artou Industires, Inc & Surface Tech, Inc. 51 W. Dayton, #207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Al da Wakef i el d 51 W. Dayton, #211 Edmonds, WA 98020 Harold & Ardean Store 14277 Worden Way Saratoga,*CA 95070 Sideny Evans/Resident 258 Beach Place Edmonds, WA 98020 Tom P. Conom 51 W. Dayton, #206 Edmonds, WA 98020 Glen Lehde 51 W. Dayton #111 Edmonds, WA 98020 John Evans/Owner Monson Manufacturing 51 W. Dayton, #212 Edmonds, WA 98020 Resident 264 Beach Place Edmonds, WA 98020 A �Aty of Edmond') - Fire M. QjNTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDEN Gary M. CE .Bobby M. - PW n'Smith/Jerry Hauth Engineering ba Duane Bowman 8/31/87 FROM DATE TO I- V-26-87 RECEIVED s rEp PUBLIC \NORKS VARIANCE FROM CODE FOR A SIGN 28" x 5211 BEARING THE LETTERING, 11SEGELBAUM AND PEALE ATTORNEYS AT LAW", LOCATED AT 51 WEST DAYTON. HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 THANKS.. 4 4$b '9 �91> 71 ty of EdmonL& 1987 Gary M. Fire M. CINTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENICE Bobby M. - PW ENGINEERING Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth --Engineering TO FROM Duane Bowman DATE 8/31/87 SUBJECT V-26-87 VARIANCE FROM CODE FOR A SIGN 28" x 5211 BEARING THE LETTERING, "SEGELBAUM AND PEALE ATTORNEYS AT LAW", LOCATED AT 51 WEST DAYTON. HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 THANKS.- 4 *'Wity of Edmont6's 'Gary M. -Fire M. (TNT7ER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Bobby M. - PW Z3 Dan Smith/Jerry Hauth - Engineering TO FROM Duane Bowman DATE 8/31/87 SUBJECT V-26-87 VARIANCE FROM CODE FOR A SIGN 28" x 5211 BEARING THE LETTERING, -ISEGELBAUM AND PEALE ATTORNEYS AT LAW11 , LOCATED AT 51 WEST DAYTON. HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1987 PLEASE RESPOND WITH YOUR COMMENTS NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 21, 1987 THANKS. R E C E I V E D SEP 0 11987 .E[jM0ND$ FIRE. DFM 00 r, CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TH VAO I it I el. T=VIN AA I A % C 0 —WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING 19 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION p pa dgL_ 5Traw v r ZONE DISTRICT THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT-70 M., 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 OFTHE 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 CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE WARNING! OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTERSf4? V qd? V AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) FILE NO. V-26-87 APPLICANT Segelbaum & Peale Duane Bowman being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says: That on the 4th day of September 19 87 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. Signe Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 Notary Public in and for the: State-opf' Washington. Residing at in CON&ISS-ION EXPIRES 646.6' E . FILE NO. V-26-87 APPLICANT Segelbaum & Peale AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH Diane M. Cunningham being first duly.sworn, on oath depose�, and says: That on the 4th day of September 19 87 the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the names of which were provided by the applicant. Si gned Subscribed and sworn to before me this A�lv day of 19 4 Z Notary Public in and fdr the_� State of Washington. Residing at MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 6-16-89' i xA-'. x* N CITY OF EOMONOS 250 51h AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: 9/30/87 TO: James Driscoll 520 Pike St., #1505 Seattle, WA 98101' LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR TRANSMITTING: Sign Code prior to 1/1/81 AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMAT . ION: xxx AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT COMMENT AND RETURN: MINUTES OF MEETING: REMARKS: PLANNING DIVISION cc: Richard Shurtz Duane Bowman DI IPI Ir %A1r')QVCZ P I A N 1,111 N (11 PARKS ANn RFr.RFATION ENGINEERING 20.1o.030 I -ro ( 1-1 610fi" 605C, f2�ziorZ . . /�;J_ "Wall Graphic" means a type of wall sign in %-.,hich color and form are a part of an overall design on the building. "Wall Sign" means a sign that is parallel to and not projecting from a wall, or which is painted directly on a wall. "Window Sign" me - ans a sign that is attached to, or located near, the window in such a manner as to obscure vision through the window in whole or in part. It is intended to be seen by p&rsons outside of the building. 20.10.030. General Regulations.. 1. Architectural Design Board (ADB) Review of Signs. All signs, except temporary and/or incidental signs, shall be subject to review and approval by the ADB prior to is suance of the permit as set forth in Section 20-10.120 of the Edmonds city Code and installation. In reviewing the design of the total signage of a site, the ADB, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Chapter 12.20 of the Edmonds City Code, shall approve the number, location and type of signs to be permitted and may reduce or increase the allowable signage, sign area and/or sign height from the maximums otherwise permitted. [Ord. 2067 51, 19791 2. Number of Permitted Signs. An enter-orise and/or site occupant is permitted one free standing sign for each public street frontage, not including alleys (see Corner Lots Section 20.10.030(6)(a) below), and an unspecified number of at-�ached signs, provided however, the total square footage of all signs shall not exceed the maximum allowed in subsection 3 below. Enterprises or site occupants sharing a cc ' mmon parking area shall use a group free standing sign and are not per- mitted to have individual free standing signs. 3. 'Total Allowable Signage. The total allowable signage for an enterprise and/or occupancy per site shall be calculated at one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of the wail containing the primary access. The total signage allowable may be divided between attached and free standing signs. First -floor -window signs shall be included in the total allowable signage. The total area of the attached s . ignage on any wall shall not exceed the ratio of one square foot of sign area to one lineal foot of that wall. 4. Measurement of Sign Area. Sign area shall be measured according to the definition of Sign Area in Section 20-10.020. 5. Sign Height. Edmonds (12/31/79) 504 k BONN T To HEARING EXAM THIS PACKET SEN 9/11/87 EXHIBIT LIST V-26-87 EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 2 - APPLICATION/DECLARATIONS EXHIBIT 3 - SIGN ELEVATION EXHIBIT 4 - PHOTOGRAPHS I EXHIBIT 5 - SUPPORT PETITION 4 EXHIBIT 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FILE: V-26-87 HEARING DATE: September 17, 1987 I. REQUESTED ACTION: Variance to allow sign to exceed permitted 4.5 sq. ft. area limit by 5.59 sq. ft. at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds. II. APPLICANT/OWNER: Segelbaum and Pearle 51 West Dayton, Suite 208 Edmonds, WA 98020 III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit 2 IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: A. Description of the Subject Property and Surrounding Are The subject property is located at the western terminus of Dayton Street on the Edmonds waterfront. The is an existing three story office/retail/restaurant building located on the subject property. The Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a new sign to exceed the permitted sign area. Code allows a maximum sign area equal to the wall area containing the primary access to the building. The wall area is 84 lineal feet for a permitted sign area of 84 square feet. The existing restaurant sign contains 79.5 square feet, leaving only 4.5 square feet available for other wall signs. Surrounding development is primarily commercial, with the exception of Olympic Beach Park which is located immediately to the west. B Official Street Map Proposed R/W Existing R/W East - Railroad Avenue 25' 251 South - Dayton Street 60' 601 C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010 1. Special Circumstances 0 . Staff Report V-25-87 Page 2 No special circumstances appear to exist in this particular case. The permitted sign area is primarily taken up by the restaurant sign. 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 Commercial/Business, as are the adjacent commercial properties. The area to the west is designated as a Park. The proposed variance does appear to conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The sign area requirement is designed to keep the total sign area on a wall in scale with that wall. Section 15.15.030(f) of the ECDC speaks to the issue of proliferation of signs. 4. Zoning Ordinance The subject property, as well as the surrounding properties, is zoned CW. To the west, the property is designated as Public Use. The proposed variance does appear to conflict with the purposes of the sign ordinance. 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 does appear to represent a minimum variance request. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of V-25-87. The sign area for the building has been taken up by the restaurant sign. This is not grounds for permitting increased sign area for other businesses. k ......... . EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 51h AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 e (206) 771-3202 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NALIGHTEN MAYOR IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FILE: V-26-87 SEGELBAUM AND PEALE FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE DECISION: The variance is denied. INTRODUCTION Segelbaum and Peale, 51 West Dayton, Suite 208, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, (hereinafter referred to as Applicants) have requested approval of a variance to allow a sign to exceed a 4.5 square foot . area limit by an additional 5.59 square feet. The sign is on property located at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter referred to as subject property). A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds, Washington, on September 17, 1987. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: Duane Bowman Richard Shirtz Planning Dept. 51 West Dayton, Ste 208 City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding: 1 - Staff Report 2 - Application/Declarations 3 - Sign Elevation 4 - Photographs 5 - Support Petition 6 - Site Plan 7 - Excerpts from Edmonds Sign Code (Page 504---12-31-79) October 14, 1987 Page HEARING EXAMINER'S DLt-ISION RE: v-26.-87 After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appli- cant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing the follow- ing Findings of Fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicants have requested approval of a variance to allow a sign to exceed the . permitted 4.5 square foot area limit by an additional 5.59 square feet. The sign exists on property located at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds, Washington. (Staff report.) 2. The subject property is located at the western terminus of Dayton Street on the City of Edmonds waterfront. Located on the property is a three-story building that is used for office, retail and restaurant purposes. (Staff report.) 3. The Applicants' sign is an attached sign on the wall of the building on the subject property. on the same wall is a restaurant sign that is 79.5 square feet. (Bowman testimony.) 4. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.60.020(C)(4) states: "The total area of attached signs on any wall shall not exceed the ratio of one square foot of sign area to one lineal foot of that wall." The wall area, on which the Applicants' sign and the restaurant sign are located, is 84 lineal feet. According to ECDC 20.60.020(C)(4) the permitted sign area is 84 square feet. (Bowman testimony.) 5. As noted, the restaurant sign contains 79.5 square feet. Applying standards of ECDC 20.60.020, only 4.5 square feet are available for other wall signs on site. it is from this standard that the Applicants seek a variance. (Bowman testimony and Staff report.) 6. The Applicants' sign measures 52 inches by 28 inches, or 10.09 square feet. (Bowman testimony and Exhibit 3.) 7. 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 satisfied. These criteria include: A. Because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights an ' d privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. October 12, 1987 Page 2 .. ... .. ....... HEARING EXAMINER'S D....ISION RE: V-26-87 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. 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. ) 8. The Planning Department submitted that special circumstances exist for the granting of a variance. According to the Planning Department, the permitted sign area of the building is used mostly for the restaurant sign. (Staff report and Bowman testimony.) 9. The Applicants' representative submitted that the jogged area on the front of the building should be considered as part of the front lineal wall creating sufficient area for the allowance of the sign. (Shirtz testimony.) 10. The Applicants' representative submitted that the building on the subject property sets back from the street and this creates problems for building identification. The repre- sentative submitted that the sign where it currently exists is necessary. it is well designed so that it blends with the exterior of the building. (Shirtz testimony.) 11. The Planning Department submitted that the proposed variance appears to represent a grant of a special privilege. (Staff report.) 12. The Applicants' representative submitted that a variance is needed for the sign in order to better identify the office. (Shirtz testimony.) 13. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map designates the subject property as Commercial/Business. The adjoining properties, except for the property to the west, have the same designation. The property to the west is designated as a Park. (Staff report.) October 12, 1987 Page 3 HEARING EXAMINER'S El" ISION RE: V-26-87 14. The Planning Department submitted that the requested variance appears to conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. It was their contention that the requirement for sign area was created for the purpose of limiting the scale of signs and area of signs in the City of Edmonds. According to the Planning Department, the granting of a variance from this standard would be in violation of ECDC 15.15.030(5)(f) which states that where multiple businesses operate from a central location, the merchants are encouraged to coordinate signing to avoid the prolifera- tion of signs, each competing with the other. (Staff report and Bowman testimony.) 15. The subject property is zoned CW. (Staff report.) 16. No impact to other properties would result with the granting of the variance. (Staff report.) 17. The granting of the variance is the minimum variance request. (Staff repoirt and Bowman testimony.) 18. The restaurant sign was built and erected prior to the placement of the Applicants' sign. The Applicants' sign was constructed subsequent to the adoption of the Sign Code. (Bowman testimony.) 19. The Applicants' representative testified that other properties in the vicinity have signs that exceed the permitted sign area as allowed under ECDC 20.60.020(C)(4). No specific examples were submitted and no actual dimensions were provided. (Shirtz testimony.) CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of a variance to allow an attached sign located on a building at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds, Washington, to exceed the allowed 4.5 square foot area limit by an additional 5.59 square feet. 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 satisfied. The application does not satisfy these criteria. 3. Special circumstances do not exist on the subject property for the granting of a variance. ECDC 20.60.020(C)(4) allows Ila total area on any wall shall not exceed the ratio of one square foot of sign area to one lineal foot of that wall." The wall on which the sign is located is 84 feet and the total square footage of sign area allowed on this wall is 84 feet. 4. The granting of a variance will be the grant of a special October 12, 1987 Page 4 k HEARING EXAMINER'S I -'ISION RE: V-26-87 privilege from the criteria of ECDC 20.60.020(C)(4). It would allow the Applicants the right to exceed the standard that is applicable to other properties within the City of Edmonds. 5. ECDC 15.15.030(f) is part of the Comprehensive Plan of the city of Edmonds. This section sets forth the intent of the City of Edmonds to prevent the proliferation of signs through the encroachment of multiple advertisements on one sign. The variance as requested by the Applicants would be in conflict with this section of the ECDC. 6. The subject property is zoned CW. ECDC 16.55.*000 sets forth the purposes of CW zones. The requested variance is not in conflict with these purposes. 7. The requested variance will not be detrimental to the public, nor to nearby private properties or improvements. 8. The requested variance is a minimum variance request. nRrTqT0M Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, it is hereby ordered that the requested variance to allow an attached sign to exceed the allowed 4.5 square foot area limit by an additional 5.59 square feet on a wall on a building at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds, Washington, is denied. The bases of the denial are set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and in the following statements: The Applicants have been placed in a very difficult situation with regard to their sign. As noted in the findings, the permit- ted sign area of the wall on the primary access of the building located at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds, Washington, is 84 square feet. There is an existing sign in this area for a restaurant that contains 79.5 square feet. Thus, according to the provisions of ECDC 20.60.020(C)(4), the Applicants have only 4.5 square feet available for their sign. The Applicants' sign is approximately 10 square feet, or 5.5 square feet more than the total square footage allowed for the wall on site. The Applicants made an argument that the wall on the subject property should include a jogged section of the building directly next to the 84 lineal feet of wall. This, according to the Applicants, will increase the lineal footage of the primary access wall and will allow for the Applicants' sign. ECDC 21.115 is silent on the definition of a wall. However, it would appear that a jogged section of the building on site creates different walls and that the only wall that can be considered is the 84- foot long section where the sign is located. October 12, 1987 Page 5 vr� HEARING EXAMINER'S '�ISION RE: V-26-87 The Applicants have failed to satisfy the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010. The reasons for failing to satisfy these criteria are set forth in the Conclusions. It is hoped that the restaurant that has 79.5 feet of sign may provide some relief to the Applicants in order for both parties to have a sign on the wall. However, the standards of ECDC 20.60.020(C)(4) must be applied. Accordingly, the variance is denied. Entered this 14th day of October, 1987, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Com- munity Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Vvi-Il _I z 112!V j I I L J� ES M. DRISCOL aring Examiner 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, Edmondsr Washington, 98020, within fourteen 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 October 28, 1987. October 12f 1987 Page 6 a S.I-,,C,E, 1,BAU*N,l AND Pr,�Ahr,, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 51 WEST DAYTON STREET - SUITE 208 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 JOHN F. SEGELBAUM WALTER 0. PEALE III RICHARD J. SHURTZ October 27, 1987 James M. Driscoll Hearing Examiner City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINERS FINDINGS AND DECISION File: V-26-87 OCT 27 1987 m DEPT., (206) 775-5551 (206) 771-3507 PLEASE BE ADVISED that Segelbaum and Peale (hereinafter, Applicants) appeal the decision of James M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds, entered on October 14, 1987, denying them their variance to allow Applicants to post a sign at their place of business at 51 W. Dayton, Edmonds, WA 98020. BASIS OF APPEAL The Hearing Examiner erred in finding that no specific samples were submitted of signs of other properties in the vicinity of Applicants place of business that exceed permitted sign areas. Applicant's representative, Richard J. Shurtz, specifically referred to signs of Bumbershoot Restaurant on Railroad Ave. and the building adjacent to Applicant's building on property owned by the Port of Edmonds as not conforming with ECDC 20.60. The Hearing Examiner erred in conclusion number 2 that the Applicants application did not conform with ECDC 20.85.010. The Hearing Examiner erred in concluding in conclusion number 3 that special circumstances do not exist on subject property for granting of a variance. The Hearing Examiner erred in entering conclusion number 4 that the granting of a variance will grant a special privilege in the criteria of ECDC 20.60.020(c)(1). The very nature of a variance is to allow a nonconforming use of property or noncompliance with an ordinance or rule. k I Page Two Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision File: V-26-87 October 27, 1987 The Hearing Examiner erred in concluding in paragraph number 5 that the proposed sign is a type of multiple advertisement on one sign. ECDC 15.15.030(f) is an incorrect citation. R s ectfully u tted, rICH,IARD J. SHURTZ Representative of Segelbaum & Peale Persons to be notified: 1. Hearing Examiner 2. City Clerk DMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: Originator: Planning )ivision For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR SIGN AT 51 W. DAYTON ST., #208 (V-26-87/APPELLANT: SEGELBAUM & PEALE) (SUGGESTED HEARING DATE: JANUARY 5, 1988) /Initials ClearanTe�T 2 p AGENDA TIME: Consent ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY AGENDA DATE: November 10, 1987 CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES EXHIBITS ATTACHED: ENGINEERING PARKS RECREAT111ONN 1. Letter of Appeal PLANNING )� PUBLIC WO FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: ON X ; E 1[11TURE AMOUNT VIATI I El BUDGETED: $0 RFOUTRED: REOUIRED: $0 HI STnDV ANn q11MMARY STATEMENT: On October 14, 1987, the Hearing Examiner denied a variance to allow an attached sign to exceed the allowed 4.5 square foot area limit by an additional 5.59 square feet. Subsequently, on October 27, Segelbaum & Peale filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner decision. Attached is a copy of the appeal letter. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Set January 5, 1988 as the date to hear the appeal. APV2687/COUNCIL vi k PLEASE INDICATE BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING ITEM: Item 6 HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR SIGN AT 51 W. DAYTON ST., #208 (V-26-87/ APPELLANT: SEGALBAUM & PEALE) Name (Please print clearly) Address qk k,-'V 4_ TH( MINUTES SUBJECT TO NO�,.,.BER 17, 1987 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1987 (WORK MEETING) The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa- lute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jack Wilson, Council President John Nordquist Steve Dwyer Laura Hall Jo -Anne Jaech Bill Kasper Lloyd Ostrom Dan Marsh, Student Rep. STAFF PRESENT Jim Barnes, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr. Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Bob Alberts, City Engineer Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Director Dan Prinz, Police Chief Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Sharon Thatcher, Personnel Mgr. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Mayor Naughten noted that a request was made to reschedule the Executive Session following Item #7 on the regular agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO RESCHED- ULE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION TO FOLLOW ITEM #7. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Naughten noted that Item (C) will be funded from Fund Ill rather than Fund 112 if approved. Item (C) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM- BER HALL, 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 NOVEMBER 2, 1987 D ) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON CITY PARK RESTROOM FACILITY ($40,000) (E) SET JANUARY 5, 1988 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR SIGN AT 51 W. DAYTON ST. #208 (V-26-87/APPELLANT: SEGALBAUM & PEAL) )__�F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FIRE COMMAND AGREEMENT FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY BERT ROBISON & ASSOCIATES ON 80TH AVE. ST. RESTORATION AND WATER REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD LITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDAJ COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM (C) BUT EXCLUDE 1% FOR ARTS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT A POLICY DECISION IS REACHED REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF 1% FOR ARTS ORDINANCE. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE ITEM (C). Councilmember Kasper noted that the project was over budget. He said two items that were recent- ly on the Consent Agenda were removed to discuss implementation of 1% for Arts. He felt that 1% for the Arts should be excluded from Item (C) until a policy decision was reached. Councilmember Jaech said she would vote against the motion because she felt Item (C) should be discussed following Item #7, REVIEW OF 1% FOR ARTS ORDINANCE. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HALL, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER NORD- QUIST, AND COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM OPPOSED. 4 ff . S:E;GE-U3AU1\1,A,ND P'F-A:U� ATTORNEYS AT LAW 51 WEST DAYTON STREET - SUITE 208 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 JOHN F. SEGELBAUM WALTER 0. PEALE III RICHARD J. SHURTZ November 23, 1987 Ms. Jacqueline Parrett, City Clerk City of Edmonds 505 Bell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Appeal From Denial of Variance By Hearing Examiner Dear Ms. Parrett: (206) 775-5551 (206) 771-3507 Our office has been contacted by Diane, of the Planning Department, who indicates that the City Council Agenda for the next month will be so congested as to preclude a hearing on Segelbaum and Peale's appeal from the Hearing Examiner's Ruling within thirty (30) days as required by the Municipal Code. We were asked if there was any objection to continuing the appeal to a later date. We have no objection to the appeal being continued until the January 1988, meeting, due to the fact that one of the partners in the firm who wishes to be present at the council meeting, will be out of the country from late November until middle to late December. inc re ly, C RD J. SHURTZ RJS: tkh P, I CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 November 24, 1987 LARRY S. NALIGHTEN MAYOR Mr. Richard J. Shurtz Segelbaum and Peale, Attorneys at Law 51 W. Dayton St., Suite 208 Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: V-26-87 - APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION -Dear Mr. Shurtz: Thank you for your letter of November 23, 1987 in which you indicate no objection to your subject appeal being delayed until January. That hearing has been scheduled before the City Council on January 5, 1988, and a formal hearing notice will be sent to you shortly. Very truly yours, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT, CMC Edmonds City Clerk cc: Planning Dept. F; INCORPORATED AUGUST 11, 1 BSO I PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND/OR WISH TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT V-26-87 SEGELBAUM & PEALE Variance to allow sign for attorney's office to exceed the permitted sign area by 5.59 square feet at 51 West Dayton Street, Edmonds NAME ADDRESS (Include city and zip code) ( (,3 bc'l e- -t3kul-� (- �-j -A � 9 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: Oriqinator: Planninq Division For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR SIGN AT 51 W. DAYTON STREET., #208 (V-26-87/APPELLANT: SEGELBAUM & PEALE) Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials AGENDA T IME: 20 Minutes AGENDA DATE: January 5, 1988 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Appeal Letter 2. Hearing Examiner Report 3. Photographs ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKSI& �MON PLANN NG PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYO Comm EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION -REQUIRED:— $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: On October 14, 1987, the Hearing Examiner denied a request by the applicant/appellant for a variance to allow an attached sign to exceed the allowed 4.5 square foot sign area limit by an additional 5.59 square feet for their office at 51 W. Dayton Street. Subsequently, on October 27th, an appeal was filed seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. Due to scheduling commitments, the appellant waived the thirty day appeal hearing deadline to allow the hearing to be held on January 5, 1988. Attached are the appeal letter, the Hearing Examiner's report, and copies of photographs of the sign. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. SEGELBM/COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION TO I MPLEMENT CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR TALBOT PARK DRAINAGE BASIN STUDELITEM F N THE CONSENT AGENDA] AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR SHELL CREEK AND HINDLEY BASIN IMPROVEMFNTS LITEEFF(�) ON THE CONSENT AGENDAJ Councilmember Jaech noted that Council action was pending with respect to the other two studies that were conducted. She questioned whether tile Council would be "getting ahead of themselves" if Items (F) and (G) were approved. Community Services Director Peter Hahn said the Three Year Capital Improvements Program provides for the continuation of studies in other drainage areas in the City as viell as the commencement of work identified in studies that have already been conduct- ed. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE ISSUE ON FEBRUARY 9, 1988 (AFTER THE JANUARY 23 URS PRESENTATION REGARDING DRAINAGE BASINS). MOTION CARRIED. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIO '�_OARD DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED DR. (ADB-90-86) LITEM (K) ON THE CONSENT AGEN F LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Councilmember Jaech inquired if the concerns raised by the Council during the hearing process will be addressed by Staff. City Attorney Scott Snyder replied affirmatively. He reviewed what he had drafted in the Findings in connection with those concerns. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEM (K). MOTION CAR- RIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH ABSTAINING. (Councilmember Hertrich was not a member of the Council when the hearing took place.) AUDI ENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. Mike Cooper, 820 14aple Street, congratulated the elected Councilmembers and, in particular, Coun- cilmember Kasper. He said he hoped that the citizens who rail for a position on the Council that were not elected will "lay down their swords and bury the hatchet". Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. RING' ON' APPEAL- OF HEARING. EXAMINER� DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR SIGN AT '51� W, 'DAYTON': �S' Mayor Naughten announced that the item was postponed to February 16, 1988 at the request of the appellants. Mayor Naughten inquired if anyone in the audience wished to speak to the issue. No input was offered. HEARING ON PLAN1,1,,ING BOARD R ''I E COMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE IN REGARD TO GAS STATIONS PJAD T STORES (CDC-6-87). J? Kasper inquired if the Council received the minutes from all of the hearings that C 0 Li n c i I In e It i b e r - Mary Lou Block replied nega- ,rere held in connection with the issue. Planning Division Managet tively. He requested that those minutes be provided to the Council. Ms. Block reported that the Planning Board held a public hearing oil October 14, 1987 to consider potential changes Lo thc Edmonds CoillnILinity Development Code (ECDC) regarding gas stations and convonience stores. She said tile Board felt that both gas stations and convenience stores in ,either the BC or BN zone districts should be required to obtain conditional use permits due to �jie potential impacts of these types of uses. In addition, the Board felt that new definitions -d to describe convenience stores, set -vice station (including self-service stations)� ,,ere needL ,ill(, to modilly the current definitions of drive-in businesses and conditional uses. -ecoininendation and the minutes of their Octo- Ms . Block noted that Li copy of the Planning Board's i be r 14, 1987 meeting were included in the COLIIICil packets. Ms . B1 ock sa i d i t i s tile recominendati on o f Staf f to adopt tile P1 anni ng Board' s recommendati on and direct the City attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. j-1s. Bloclr-, said a S1.111111larY Of tile requirements of other local jurisdictions was reviewed and all but ()tie jL11-isdiction requires a conditional LISP. permit for the above-nientioned uses. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 ' JANUARY 5, 1988 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: Originator. Planning Division For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR SIGN AT 51 W. DAYTON STREET, #208 (V-25-87/APPELLANT: SEGELBAUM & PEALE) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1988) AGENDA TIME: 5 Minutes AGENDA DATE: March 1, 1988 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKS &� C REAT ON PLANNING 8 PUBLIC WORK FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: This matter was continued from January 5, 1988. Conditions have changed since this variance application was filed with the City. The main tenant, Clark's restaurant, has gone out of business and its sign has been removed. Since the larger sign is no longer on the building, the appellants do not need a sign variance. Therefore, they intend to withdraw their appeal and obtain a sign permit as required to legalize their existing sign. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The variance is no longer necessary and no further Council action is required on this item. SEGELAPP/COUNCIL 4 Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Staff could request the agencies to review the condition of the stream. Mr. Snyder replied affirmatively. Ile said if that directive was not included in the decision, it would not be a conditioned approval of the subdivision. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. No input was offered. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. SENTATION OF COMMENDATION TO ROY BERGER Mayor Naughten read the commendation into the record recognizing Roy Berger for saving the life of Bill McLain when his canoe overturned in Puget Sound near Edmonds. Mayor Naughten presented the commendation to Mr. Berger. Mr. McLain presented a plaque to Mr. Berger that was designed and purchased by himself and other members of the community in recognition of Mr. Berger's heroic action. Mr. McLain noted that Mr. Berger also saved the lives of four other people in water -related accidents in the past. Mayor Naughten noted that the Ron Bailey School of Broadcasting was present at the meeting and was taping the presentation of the commendation. 5 16 N A I b I W . UA Y I U IN �, I HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE FOR ALET CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5) #208 (V-25-87/APPELLANT. SEGALBAUM & PE the matter was continued from January 5, Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that 1988. Conditions have changed since the variance application was filed with the City. The main tenant, Clark's restaurant, has gone out of business and its sign has been removed. Since the larger sign is no longer on the building, the appellants do not need a sign variance and, there- fore, intend to withdraw their appeal and obtain a sign permit as required to legalize their existing sign. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS MOOT. Councilmember Kasper reminded the Council that the issue of view blockage by trees on Railroad Avenue would have to be addressed in the future. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2661 RELATING TO EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS AND PROCEDURAL REQUIZEMENTS-FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE The proposed ordinance is intended to facilitate permit issuance in the Meadowdale area while providing the City with legal protection from liability to the greatest extent possible. A num- ber of previous strategies were pursued in an effort to settle the complex issues involved in the development of the environmentally sensitive area but for various reasons were stymied by other bodies. Peter Hahn noted that Dr. Bob Anderson, Roger McCorkle, and Del Community Services Director Caryl were present and wished to make statements. Roger McCorkle, Meadowdale Citizens Committee, expressed his appreciation to the Council for working with the Committee in resolving the problems, and particularly to City Attorney Scott Sny- der, who he said was very creative and fair. He also thanked the neighbors for their diligence. Mr. McCorkle said property owners believe that the City has identified the wrong problem in that it believes that the Meadowdale area is a serious slide area and no one should live there. He said citizens are convinced that Staff does not believe building permits should be issued and have discouraged property owners from building by slowly adding requirements and issuing permits only by court order or settlement of litigation. He noted that the residents of Meadowdale have lived with conditions of unstable ground for over 120 years; residents have lived in Meadowdale since the early 1880's; the railroad was built in 1885; 300 year old trees exist in Meadow - dale. Mr. McCorkle said the citizens believe that Meadowdale is a minor slide area and the solution to the problem is proper engineering. He said the ordinance will work only if Staff agrees with the sentiments of the citizens. Mr. McCorkle asked the City and the community to continue to cooperate with one another in resolving the problem. ED14ONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 MARCH 1, 19BB 4 SEGEILBAUM AND PEAIE RECEIVED ATTORNEYS AT LAW 51 WEST DAYTON STREET - SUITE 208 MAK 1988 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 PERMIT COUNTER JOHN F. SEGELBAUM WALTER 0. PEALE III (206) 775-5551 RICHARD J. SHURTZ (206) 771-3507 City of Edmonds 505 Bell St Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Variance Denial Appeal Dear -Gentlemen: In light of the fact that a sign permit has been issued to Segelbaum and Peale, our firm's appeal of the denial of request for variance for a sign has been rendered moot. Consequently, Segelbaum and Peale withdraws its appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner and the firm also withdraws its request for variance. Sincerely, &RIGPELBAUM and P I cz rBy Richard J. Shurtz k GOVT LOT 3 & ADJACENT. TIDELANDS SEC. 23, T 27 N., R 3 E.W. M. 1" 200, INSERT I =-IOO' - ID �� /.I LTZ SUB. UNRECORDED Co, C� C:) -A- See Insert - IKW�Cor Gov.Le`t�3"—� 11 00 01 oe 01 M.C. \4�4 See. cor. NOTE: RA.U., July, '73 This -is not a surveY. it is it parcel map use(j for localion of properly only ST. �. I 0 1 did, J> of rh foodo 0 ��,,odddd ,dend end din in 'no of LF to I ofido,do 'not m end I It in tips d IIV1 1 1 a 'not I I it in I I" I I h in 1, 1 0 1% 1 .1 1 1 1 of )LO t I a a 1 1. 1 1 .1; . I. Iti. ! I P 4 Told d It v aid I.... In I in in 1 41 do .4 10 1 1;4 4 1, 1 1 1 11 ded in I I I I Ld I d I an Pt I 'a d p Ida. ( to d in kd a end p a 4 of d i I In! 5. 0 6 . I !. . I in. 1 11, L did, I se::o in .0 1 '. . d !14. 140. 1. in . I d .a an a 1: did-d; do 00 P; T in eddddd� '. I. I I d I I I I I'd -.�%,�ddeddde I toddled 4. 16 1 1 Vida t I, do I In I In In s, ad 6.. 1- 0.1 1 1 1. 1 1 a. 'A r did :.d id It n p in I ad, r I I I to 6 1 6 a*, 4 so d L I in doneds Indoet ed. . ;I;. did, It I'* II a - P; fee in *4 in I. Into d in In In. I I I an on ad do 9 in. L' to a is I It! I I I a no it I da ft a ad it I F I It p In I d I I., do 14 3, j "s p d Onat to ad % in $ on, I on In. t did di pp T3 id ad. in? it A Ida. d a in I p N I In One 6 L �t A I a p a Is So t, d d is o I I�lq jitil I. in In' a one I in I on) I . I On * I a I in a I all I I P61 6 L a .a is; I online LL.., In. it t O.j!j !�! lid la do 1 !4 .1 at. p p 1 .11 . I I P. .01 1 1 p Nne I "I I I I I .ad I I a a I I o oil 1 0 it %I ad I in t I t in a,- to 1. 1 1 % * I It 11 p .1 I I L I and i in 1 . ; I 1� Jo. do Ind 'a I I .-t L). son 0 : I.Poo a. I at d t I I nod. 'L in 1 1.4.0 ! Pit I. 't in, f I in on I I I a. a did I Pit in 1. at'.. it 'a in a.. If �16.j . I I a? q I a 4 nij-'rei 6 L L j It Pop on in In 4 1 In Is L :do. ii� to 1) A. Oil- I tj . I did, I 1p* ant I %I. a. tlZial! a it 'I I I 1 4 den I ed: I. .I, In in .41. "fif I. I I soji in n It I I I I dit o Ciotti In a 1. In d in iL.. 0; jr: .1 Its I to I I in d I :, If it P.r, I it No a... a I I % a .41 11 I I in 1 .4 1 1 0 -1 p p do 7 fil t;. it !j P'Z I ' I I I I I I . r In I In 0 ad In t It. - d t it I p I - I % a. i a ;.q 'A add : d 4). j In is I; 6,1411 N. , I;, P! I I � Ind. 6 In . p tL in it in I ed I &. !, .7. *A I ad d In I , a a I I on in a ..iII In d In I I. aid ;;in I do a % in I . It 101 1 of in I 1 di ... in %A I (oil 14 It A 1 .4" 6 p 0 go I did. . . I, in I' I 6 d I d do in d, d . ond need d; ft 'Til %f�rd 4 16 10 ;;!q at-.' $Pa.: I in lid J) I P ** ad, in 4 d I let 1 00 X.- Poe Id 4 L de d a 4 In I in I A 0. a in 71 1, a a 1, I d in 6: 4 d ed. q 44 In, r 41 do r a : 41 11 1 I F. a I ?at 0 a In 1 .4; in It I I in in a deit in In. as, sit ad 4 ad Is d b I d. it ; t I ; P In on Inde, ita I do to ;,::In In: d I a., in I ft p do d. ed. 4 IN O:d d did In eddddbd� In 1 1. I a' I in 1p it' I I I Pant 1 10 I Into r in 11 -a in doode tool, I red In 10 I Is . d %.no in it 1, do I I do ta d: P I I I r ' J. a. is. 0 &1 1 1 .'t .1 1 I in : L I on tie I ond In. in :1. d I if tie 4 Ia ;.Pon rr Pit do I ad it 44 p Irl ad on p to a a ne and r. de q, 6 1 in o in in do I I I i ; I. , 1 0 1 1 1 If r I ! : r f - I I I I :I .1 1 % in, I . n rlid I I ; ; It . I ad. I in ek it dt I I P 114 - - : j 1 41 In. 'I. did o') in !io. init I I. did I rI vt 6 1: 1 t I'! In on A an I I V 6 'fed! alit 1 :ndMli*Tj .0 4. 1 dad , p a on, v d oned, It in"iddidderop, .............. to a: on not Add fir- ddd�,W. Ad v t . '1110 I I a end I al 'no I a fit III [!I ne 4 - 7 trin I red to A, so a it . .- I I do Ve I I 1ph need on in In no-d-diddee done nie fit 1, Ind. 0