V-96-87 sign height.pdf.(,"St. 1 gc)\-)
(,FFY (,',,)F EDMONIDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5111 AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Dairy Queen (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2)
CASE NO.: V 96-87
LOCATION- 7530 - 2123h IS(rect Southwest (see Exhibit A, Attachments I and 2)
APPLICATION: A variance to allow one sign on the building to extend up to a
height of 16 -feet 5 -inches where the maximum sign height allowed
is 14 feet. The sign would also extend 2 feet 6 inches higher that
the top of the mansard roof, where signs are not permitted to
extend above the top of the roof line (see Exhibit A, Attachments
2, 3, and 4).
REVIEIAT PROCESS: Variance, Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 20.60.020.D (SIGN HEIGHT).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
. (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the Dairy Queen application was opened at 9:00 a.m., August 1, 1996, in the Plaza
C>
Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:02 a.m. Participants at the
public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording
of thehearing is available in the Planning Division.
In( mp)rWoj AIqils( I!, 18,90 qljo
lntcn.na)tional -- I lekinarl. 'jawin
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-87
Page 2
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
John Bissell, Project Planner, entered the staff report into the record.
From the Applicant:
Ginger Stinchfield, Applicant's Representative, concurred with the staff report.
From the Community:
No on from the general public spoke at the hearing.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL.
Application by Dairy Queen to install one sign on the building to extend up to a
height of 16 -feet 5 -inches where the maximum sign height allowed is 14 feet.
The sign would also extend 2 feet 6 inches higher than the top of the mansard
roof, where signs are not permitted to extend above the top of the roof line. The
applicant has received approval from the Architectural Design Board for the
proposed sign application with the condition that the applicant apply for and
obtain approval of a variance.
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 17,538 square feet in area.
The proposed sign would be located on the north side of the building
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
(2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Neighborhood Business
(BN).
(3) Existing and Proposed Development: The site has been developed
with a Dairy Queen Restaurant for many years. Recently the existing
Dairy Queen Restaurant was damaged by fire to an extent requiring
replacement of the building.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is nearly flat. The
majority of the site is covered with asphalt, with some limited
ornamental landscaping. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the
site with ornamental landscaping around the perimeter of the site (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-87
Page 3
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North: Developed with commercial business, and zoned BN.
(2) South: Developed with a commercial parking lot, and zoned BN.
(3) East: Developed with an office building, and zoned BN.
(4) West: Currently undeveloped, but with permit application in process
for a new high school, and zoned Public Use (P).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the
surrounding zoning and development.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Compliance with BN Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in a BN zone are set forth
in Chapter 16.45.020.
(2) The proposed building and site development conforms to all BN
requirements.
(3) ECDC Chapter 20.60 states the standards by which signs may be
developed, including sign area and sign height. The standards from
which the applicant is requesting relief are, "Attached signs shall not
exceed 14 feet in height"(ECDC 20.60.020.D.2). and ""When located
on a wall or mansard roof, a sign may not extend above the highest
point of the roof, or above the eaves or drip line of a pitched roof on
which it is located" (ECDC 20.60.020.D.2).
(4) All other requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.60 must be complied with
including sign area. The drawings submitted with this sign height
variance show that the applicant will be complying with all other
requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.60.
b) Conclusion: As conditioned the proposal complies with the development
standards for BN zones as set forth in Chapter 16.45 and 20.60 except the
standard for which the applicant is seeking a variance.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance
from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-87
Page 4
ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the
mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case-by-case
basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and
unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which
a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing
Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist;
no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be
detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
(2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be
used to modify use or procedural requirements.
(3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist due to the size
and shape of the lot. "The size and shape of the, lot as well as City
codes dictate the placement of the building. This in turn requires that
the sign extend over the drive-through lane, at a required height of
eleven feet, causing the sign to need a height variance of two feet, five
inches."
(4) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as the design is
consistent with neighborhood business and pedestrian uses. The
applicant also believes that the design is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the design theme
of the proposed sign is consistent with the design theme of the
proposed sign.
(5) The applicant states that this is the minimum variance because the
proposed sign is the smallest version of a Dairy Queen sign currently
available which meets the requirements of International Dairy Queen
and is consistent with the proposed design theme.
(6) The proposed design has been approved by the ADB with the
condition that the existing freestanding sign be removed, and that the
applicant obtain a variance to allow the sign to extend over the roof
line and over the height of the building (file No. ADB-96-52)(see
Exhibit A, Attachment 5).
(7) ECDC section 20.60.040(A) states. "Freestanding signs shall be
discouraged. Freestanding signs will be approved only if the applicant
can demonstrate to the city that no reasonable alternative exists to
satisfy the identification needs of the business. " The ADB has found
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-87
Page 5
that, if the proposed sign variance is approved, the proposed business
will not require a freestanding sign.
(8) Under file number ADB -91-56 the ADB approved a Burger King
restaurant at the northwest corner of the intersection of 76th Avenue
West and 212th Street Southwest. The Dairy Queen is proposed at the
south ease corner of the same intersection. The approval of the Burger
King included a freestanding sign for the identification need of that
business.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property and public necessity for public structures.
Special circumstances exist for this proposal due to the size and shape
of the subject lot.
(2) Special Privilege
It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in
granting this variance in that a fast food restaurant at the same
intersection does not have the same site limitations, and that same
business satisfied its advertising needs with a freestanding sign which
is discouraged by the sign code, and which will not be used by the
subject
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued
development of the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site
(4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
(5) Minimum Required
The request is the minimum necessary for accommodation of the sign
(see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 and 4).
1. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-87
Page 6
1 '' 111
1,1 D! 20 1 DIIIII LVA I 1
1. Facts:
a) The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as "Mixed Use
Commercial" within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
b) Policy A.6 of the "Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center" states,
"Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access."
2. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the "Downtown/
Waterfront Activity Center" designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Facts:
a) The subject proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15B
(Critical Areas Ordinance).
b) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the City has
issued a Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas Study
(File No CA -96-69)
2. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the ECDC
Chapter 20.15B.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the variance is approved, subject to the
following conditions:
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the
proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Any other structures,
additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or
height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance.
2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the
Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these
ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
4. The permit is transferable.
5. The approval of this variance application should prohibit the use of any
freestanding signs on the site except for incidental signs, traffic direction
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V 96-87
Page 7
signs, menu signs for the drive up window, and any other similar signs
intended for the sole purposes of conveying information to consumers on the
subject site.
Entered this 2nd day of August, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron. McConnell
Hearing Examiner
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the
Planning Department for further procedural information.
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of
the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
Ginger Stinchfield
2233- 102nd Place S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Emily Buchwalter
The Medici Consultants
2233-102 nd Place S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Shannon Stafford
1301-5 Ih Avenue, Suite 2500
Seattle, WA 98101
Hearing Examiner Decision
Kuldeed Mahil
5429 - 101St Place N.E.
Marysville, WA 98270
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks Department
Public Works Department
Case No. V 96-87
Page 8
CITY OF EDMONDS
C50 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From:
'John Bissell
Project Planner
Date: JULY 25.l496
Film: \/-96-87
Dairy Queen
08euniug Date, Time, And Place: August 1, 1996. At 9:00 AM,
PlozuRoono-EdmoodaLibrury
650 Main Street
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
/\. Application .......................... ........................................................................................... 2
B. Description o[Proposal ................................................................................................... 2
C. Recommendations -----------------------------------..Z
D.FINDINGS {)FFACT AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 3
A. Site Description............................................................................................................... 3
B. Edmonds Community Code (KCL)C)Compliance ................................... 3
C.Technical Committee ...................................................................................................... 5
D. Comprehensive Plan (6CI)() ......................................................................................... 5
E.Critical Areas Ordinance ................................................................................................. 5
lU.RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS .................................................................................. 6
/\. Request for Reconsideration ..... ............... ............................................................... ..... h
B. Appeals -----------------------------------------.6
IV. LAPSE [)F APPROVAL -----------------------------------..6
\/. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 6
vvax ooc/udyzs./996/suoxq^x
Dairy Queen
File No. V-96-87
Page 2 of 6
'11.1 )
Aa Application
1. Applicant: Dairy Queen (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 7530 212th Street Southwest (see Attachments 1 and 2).
3. Request: A variance to allow one sign on the building to extend up to a height of 16 -feet
5 -inches where the maximum sign height allowed is 14 feet. The sign would also extend 2
feet 6 inches higher than the top of the mansard roof, where signs are not permitted to extend
above the top of the roof line (see Attachments 2, 3 and 4).
4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
20.60.020.D (SIGN HEIGHT).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
Application by Dairy Queen to install one sign on the building to extend up to a height of 16 -feet
5 -inches where the maximum sign height allowed is 14 feet. The sign would also extend 2 feet 6
inches higher than the top of the mansard roof, where signs are not permitted to extend above the
top of the roof line. The applicant has received approval from the Architectural Design Board for
the proposed sign application with the condition that the applicant apply for and obtain approval
of a variance.
r ' r To
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
Approval of this application subject to the following conditions:
1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see
Attachment 4). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the
typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another variance.
2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance
with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction.
4. The permit should be transferable.
5. The approval of this variance application should prohibit the use of any freestanding signs on
the site except for incidental signs, traffic direction signs, menu signs for the drive up
window, and any other similar signs intended for the sole purposes of conveying information
to consumers on the subject site.
V9687.DOC / July 25, 1996 / Staff Report
Dairy Queen
File No. V-96-87
Page 3 of 6
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSI®NS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is approximately 17,538 square feet in area. The
proposed sign would be located on the north side of the building (see Attachment 4).
(2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Neighborhood Business (BN).
(3) Existing and Proposed Development: The site has been developed with a Dairy
Queen Restaurant for many years. Recently the existing Dairy Queen Restaurant
was damaged by fire to an extent requiring replacement of the building.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is nearly flat. The majority of the
site is covered with asphalt, with some limited ornamental landscaping. The
applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with ornamental landscaping around the
perimeter of the site (see Attachment 4).
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North: Developed with commercial business, and zoned BN.
(2) South: Developed with a commercial parking lot, and zoned BN.
(3) East: Developed with an office building, and zoned BN.
(4) West: Currently undeveloped, but with permit application in process for a new high
school, and zoned Public Use (P).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
D. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Compliance with BN Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in a BN zone are set forth in Chapter
16.45.020.
(2) The proposed building and site development conforms to all BN requirements.
(3) ECDC Chapter 20.60 states the standards by which signs may be developed,
including sign area and sign height. The standards from which the applicant is
requesting relief are, "Attached signs shall not exceed 14 feet in height"(ECDC
20.60.020.D.2). and ""When located on a wall or mansard roof, a sign may not
extend above the highest point of the roof, or above the eaves or drip line of a
pitched roof on which it is located" (ECDC 20.60.020.D.2).
(4) All other requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.60 must be complied with including
sign area. The drawings submitted with this sign height variance show that the
applicant will be complying with all other requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.60.
V9687.DOC / July 25, 1996 / Staff Report
Dairy Queen
File No. V-96-87
Page 4 of 6
b) Conclusion: As conditioned the proposal complies with the development standards for
BN zones as set forth in Chapter 16.45 and 20.60 except the standard for which the
applicant is seeking a variance.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code
may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would result in an
unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Attachment 2).
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance
request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria
include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
(2) Variances may be used to modify bulk standards. They may not be used to modify
use or procedural requirements.
(3) The applicant states that special circumstances exist due to the size and shape of
the lot. "The size and shape of the, lot as well as City codes dictate the placement
of the building. This in turn requires that the sign extend over the drive-through
lane, at a required height of eleven feet, causing the sign to need a height variance
of rivo feet, five inches. "
(4) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and the Zoning Ordinance as the design is consistent with neighborhood business
and pedestrian uses. The applicant also believes that the design is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance because the design theme of the
proposed sign is consistent with the design theme of the proposed sign.
(5) The applicant states that this is the minimum variance because the proposed sign is
the smallest version of a Dairy Queen sign currently available which meets the
requirements of International Dairy Queen and is consistent with the proposed
design theme.
(6) The proposed design has been approved by the ADB with the condition that the
existing freestanding sign be removed, and that the applicant obtain a variance to
allow the sign to extend over the roof line and over the height of the building (file
No. ADB-96-52)(see Attachment 5).
(7) ECDC section 20.60.040(A) states. "Freestanding signs shall be discouraged.
Freestanding signs will be approved only if the applicant can demonstrate to the city
that no reasonable alternative exists to satisfy the identification needs of the
business. " The ADB has found that, if the proposed sign variance is approved, the
proposed business will not require a freestanding sign.
(8) Under file number ADB -91-56 the ADB approved a Burger King restaurant at the
northwest corner of the intersection of 76th Avenue West and 212th Street
Southwest. The Dairy Queen is proposed at the south ease corner of the same
intersection. The approval of the Burger King included a freestanding sign for the
identification need of that business.
V9687.DOC / July 25, 1996 / Staff Report
Dairy Queen
File No. V-96-87
Page 5 of 6
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings
of the property and public necessity for public structures.
Special circumstances exist for this proposal due to the size and shape of the subject
lot.
(2) Special Privilege
It does not appear that any special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this
variance in that a fast food restaurant at the same intersection does not have the
same site limitations, and that same business satisfied its advertising needs with a
freestanding sign which is descuraged by the sign code, and which will not be used
by the subject
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the continued development of
the site in a manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the site
(4) Not Detrimental
Approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare (see Attachment 2).
(5) Minimum Required
The request is the minimum necessary for accommodation of the sign (see
Attachments 3 and 4).
C. Technical Committee
1. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments.
D. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC)
1. Facts:
a) The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as "Mixed Use Commercial"
within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
b) Policy A.6 of the "Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center" states, "Development should be
designed for both pedestrian and transit access."
2. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the "Downtown/ Waterfront
Activity Center" designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
E. Critical Areas Ordinance
1. Facts:
a) The subject proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.1513 (Critical Areas
Ordinance).
b) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the City has issued a Waiver
from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas Study (File No CA -96-69)
V9687.DOC / July 25, 1996 /Staff Report
Dairy Queen
File No. V-96-87
Page 6 of 6
2. Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the ECDC Chapter
20.1513.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. bequest for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
Attachments 1 through 5 are attached.
1. Vicinity Map
2. Application
3. Declarations of the Applicant
4. Site Plan and elevations
5. Minutes from the June 19, 1996 ADB meeting
Emily Buchwalter
The Medici Consultants
2233 102nd PI SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Engineering Division
Shannon Stafford
1301 5th Ave STE 2500
Seattle, WA 98101
Public Works Division
Kuldeed Mahil
5429 101 st Pl. NE
Mayrsville, WA 98270
Parks & Recreation
Division
Planning Division
Fire Department
V9687.DOC / July 25, 1996 / Staff Report
x,.
It t_,n n s
land use application vi 2 7 `99'
Property Owner Phone 4`6 09
Address, 0 AU0 f,60 92 I U l
Agent K> V t_ M tit A i L_ Phone ?;,(ac) - r l- 11 S CO
Address
Tax Acc "T SCd. 4 - 00 r 0 g Z - 0 100 Sec. 4 -of Twp. 4_7t-4 Rng. �t
Legal Description
Details of Projector Proposed Use -%
Q ,
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public o.. to
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting a ATTACHMENT 2
File No. V®96®87
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
®
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
®
®
COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FILE # � � ZONE
®
®
HOME OCCUPATION
FORMAL SUBDIVISION
DATE 6IF b REC'D BY
®
SHORT SUBDIVISION
FEE�2 RECEIPT# 7
®
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
®
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
HEARING DATE
®
OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT /
STREET VACATION
HE ® STAFF ® PB ® ADB ® CC
®
REZONE
®
SHORELINE PERMIT
VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
ACTION TAKEN:
EXCEPTION
® APPROVED ® DENIED ® APPEALED
®
OTHER
APPEAL#
Applicant tt t 'mac �c�1� --ice �1 ti-� Phone a �1��1 v
Address Z-0" tyZ"s� ��y�
-c �/z3�,, 1>� 'q goo4
Property Address or Location i° e.J
Property Owner Phone 4`6 09
Address, 0 AU0 f,60 92 I U l
Agent K> V t_ M tit A i L_ Phone ?;,(ac) - r l- 11 S CO
Address
Tax Acc "T SCd. 4 - 00 r 0 g Z - 0 100 Sec. 4 -of Twp. 4_7t-4 Rng. �t
Legal Description
Details of Projector Proposed Use -%
Q ,
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public o.. to
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting a ATTACHMENT 2
File No. V®96®87
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
The Medici Consultants
Architecture, Interior Design, Space Planning & Programming
Dairy Queen
753.0 212th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Variance- Applicant Declarations
Note: Critical Areas Checklist has been completed - #ca 96-69
1. Special Circumstances
Ei fly
The size and shape of the lot, as well as city codes, dictate the placement of the building. This in
turn requires that the sign extend over the drive-through lane, at a required height of eleven feet,
causing the sign to need a height variance of two feet, five inches.
2. Grant of Special Privileges.
The existing sign on the site is currently less in compliance than the proposed sign would be.
Also, the proposed sign is more in line with the spirit of the code, which discourages freestanding
signs. Neighboring buildings were granted the right to use freestanding signs.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The character of the sign and building are consistent with a desire to create pedestrian friendly
space. The design of the sign is reminiscent of the fifties, as is the building.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The site is located in a neighborhood shopping district, the entire concept for the site is one of
nostalgia, and the sign is in keeping with this concept. Without this sign, the effect of the fifties is
greatly reduced. The lower elements of the sign relate to the heavy pedestrian traffic on the site,
while the slightly higher portion calls to the quite considerable automotive traffic around the site.
5. Not Detrimental
The additional two feet five inches of sign height in no way causes harm to anyone or anything on
or around the site, and it remains at a lower level than the major portion of the building, although
it does project 2'-6" higher than the lower roof.
2233 102nd Place S.E Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (206) 453-9298 Fax: 454-5846 ATTACHMENT 3
File NO. V-96-87
6. Minimum Variance
This sign is the smallest version of the Dairy Queen sign currently available. Site restrictions dic-
tate that it be placed over a vehicular way, needing eleven feet of clearance. In providing this
clearance, the sign projects two feet five inches above the allowed fourteen feet, as well as above
the adjoining roof. Any other option fails to fulfill the desires of the client and of International
Dairy Queen to present a cohesive image of their new design concept.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
The Medici Consultants
2233 102nd Place S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004
Tel: (206) 453-9298 Fax: 454-5846
v
IIIIIIII W991
MW
ill
07
cn
r) � H
�R96 `5 NEW FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TO REPLACE FIRE DAMAGED RESTAURANT
Dairy Queen
7530 212th Street Southwest
(Final Approval)
Emily Bookwalter and Ginger Stenchfield, 2233 102nd Place Southeast, Bellevue, and Doug Prevelca,
3605 132nd Avenue Southeast, Bellevue, were present to represent the applicant.
Mr. Bissell advised that several months ago a fire damaged the existing Dairy Queen restaurant at the
intersection of 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest. The owner is proposing a different style
of building, using the new style Dairy Queen has established for their corporate image. They are also
proposing a site orientation change. Mr. Bissell described the site design of the project including
vehicle access and parking, pedestrian access, landscaping, and trash enclosures. He explained that the
arrangement of the pedestrian access was difficult. The applicant has placed the building close to the
street with parking to the rear or side of the building. In order to provide a drive through service, it is
necessary to have a driveway between the street and the building. He noted that this has impeded the
pedestrian traffic from the intersection of 212th Street and 76th Avenue. This issue is of particular
concern since it is anticipated that students willbe patronizing this restaurant when the new high school
is built.
Mr. Bissell indicated that the Engineering Department has requested that the turning radius be
increased by the drive through on the south side of the building. This may cramp the applicant's ability
to add additional landscaping in this area.
Mr. Bissell explained that the applicant has provided three sign options, none of which meet the ECDC
standards. The applicant is aware of the need for a variance to proceed with signage, but would like the
ADB to approve one of the three options contingent upon the applicant obtaining a variance. He
described the three options as follows:
Wchitecturat Design Board
ATTACHMENT 5 June 19,1996
File No. V®96®87 Pages
Option 1 provides a wall mounted sign which has a height of 19.5 feet where a 14 foot sign height
is allowed, and a sign area of 75 feet where 57 square feet is allowed. The applicant has stated that
the existing freestanding sign will be removed.
Option 2 uses two oval, wall mounted signs. Each of these signs is approximately 45 square feet for
a total of 90 square feet where 57 square feet will be allowed. With option 2 the applicant has
stated that the freestanding sign will be retained
Option 3 proposes a 16.5 foot tall wall mounted sign where a 14 foot tall sign would be allowed.
The area of the sign would be less than 57 square feet. With option 3 the applicant has indicated
that the existing freestanding sign would be removed.
Mr. Bissell said the applicant has requested final approval for both the building design and the signage.
The building could be approved with a separate motion contingent upon the applicant receiving a
variance. This would enable the applicant to proceed through the variance process at the same time as
the building permit process.
Boardmember Young inquired if the phrase "hot eats, cool treats" would be included on the building
signage. Mr. Bissell said it would not since that would exceed the allowed amount of signage. Ms.
Bookwalter pointed out that Dairy Queen is trying to go with a new image similar to the drive in
restaurants from the 50's. This type of signage was a typical way of advertising a product in the 1950's.
The applicant would like to have as much signage as would be allowed.
Boardmember Young clarified that there would be no freestanding sign if the sign variance is allowed
and one of the three options is used, Ms. Bookwalter said the free standing sign would be removed.
They would love to have a roof sign, but staff has indicated it would not be possible. She provided a
picture of a new A&W Restaurant and another drive-in restaurant to illustrate the development trend.
Boardmember Goodrick inquired why the sign in option 3 could not be reduced in height to meet the
standards without a variance. Ms. Stenchfield said the Code calls for an 11 foot clearance over a drive
through area. If this sign were lowered to the height limit, the 11 foot clearance would not be possible.
Ms. Bookwalter added that if the taller sign is approved, they will agree to remove the freestanding sign.
She indicated that her preference would be option 3. Boardmember Goodrick agreed. Ms. Bookwalter
said they have attempted to eliminate some of the square footage from the sign in option 3.
Regarding the turning radius as mentioned previously by staff, Ms. Bookwalter said they now propose
an eight foot landscaping area against the building in the northeast corner of the property. This allows
more radius for cars to _get around the building. But, this will prohibit them from putting additional
landscaping between the drive isle and the parallel parking.
Boardmember Frank inquired where the applicant anticipates pedestrians from the high school will
access the business. Mr. Bissell said it is very likely they will use a cross walk from the corner of 212th
Street and 76th Avenue West. The applicant has worked hard to locate the building so that the
pedestrian traffic can be channeled to the path of least resistance. Ms. Bookwalter indicate that there
would be a cross walk striped on the pavement to indicate a pedestrian crossing.
Boardmember Oaklief discussed the proposed site plan with the applicant and Board. He expressed his
concern that the site design be changed to allow a safer pedestrian access to the building. He suggested
that the drive aisles be reconfigured to accommodate the traffic in a safer manner.
John Barker, 1560 28th Avenue West, Seattle, said he is the father of three kids who love to go to Dairy
Queen. He shares the chairman's concerns about separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Anything that can be done to keep the drive lane and pedestrian lanes separate would be a noble effort.
He said he personally feels that drive lanes have a lot of distractions. Pedestrian access should be kept
Architectural Design Board
June 19, 1996
Page 6
away from the cars. There needs to be a safe place for people to walk, especially since there will be
large numbers of high school students patronizing the business.
Boardmember Goodrick inquired if there have been any problems with the existing Burger King across
the street from the subject property. She noted that a person must cross the parking lot in order to access
the building. Mr. Bissell said the orientation of the Burger King building is opposite to the orientation
of proposed for the Dairy Queen. This site is surrounded by traffic. The design guidelines indicate
buildings should be closer to the street and pedestrian access should be simple and accessible. Burger
King is further back from the street with no parking between the building and the street which seems to
be more inconsistent with the design guidelines because pedestrians: are required to cross a greater
expansion of asphalt to get to the building.
Boardmember Oaklief said he does not have a problem with the signage options as proposed, but he does
have a problem with the proposed traffic circulation. He suggested that the applicant could attempt to
manipulate the building on the site to eliminate some of the traffic problems.
Boardmember Frank said she appreciates Mr. Barker's comments regarding this development. She
agreed that the tendency with drive through restaurants is for the cars to speed up once they have
received their food. She said she also has a concern with pedestrians having to cross a lane of traffic.
Boardmember Young said he has visited a number of restaurants of this type where there is pedestrian
traffic in conflict with the drive through traffic. He inquired if there are any statistics regarding the
number of incidents which occur in these situation. He did not feel it would be any safer for the
pedestrianw to have to cross a parking lot than it would be to cross the drive through lane. He felt the
City would be getting a trade off. They are getting rid of the freestanding sign and the building will be
closer to the street. It is unfortunate that it cannot be more pedestrian friendly, but he said he likes the
design as proposed. He also said he likes all three of the proposed sign plans.
Boardmember Frank inquired if a speed bump could be placed near the intersection of 212th Street and
76th Avenue in the drive through lane right after the pick up window. This could serve as a reminder to
people that there is a pedestrian access in the area. Mr. Prevelca said Dairy Queen is concerned about
the people exiting the building because sometimes kids tend to run out into the traffic. They plan to put
a fence from the entrance to help direct the pedestrians to the crossing area.
Boardmember Goodrick suggested that sign option 3 gives the applicant the appearance of the 50's, but
is in line with what has been allowed at other locations in the area. This option is acceptable to both the
applicant and the Board. She emphasized that the freestanding sign will be removed as part of this
signage option.
MOTION BY BO MEMBER YOUNG, SECONDED By BOARDMEMBER GOODRICH
TO APPROVE ADB -96-52 AS SUBMITTED WITH SIGNAGE OPTION 3, AND THE
CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN,
INSTALL A SPEED BUMP AFTER THE DRIVE UP WINDOW AT THE INTERSECTION OF
76TH AVENUE AND 212TH STREET BEFORE THE CROSS WALK, AND THAT THE
APPLICANT INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CHANNELIZATION AS DESCRIBED BY THE
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (LE. ROD IRON FENCES) ON THE NORTH SIDE. THE
SIGN IS APPROVED CONTINGENT UPON THE APPLICANT OBTAINING A VARIANCE
AND THE BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE APPLIED FOR SEPARATELY FROM THE SIGN
PERMIT. MOTION CARRIED.
B-96-65 BEACH RESTORATION AND LANDSCAPING FOR NEW PARK AT BRACKETTS
LANDING SOUTH
City of Edmonds
Architectural Design Board
Juno 19,1996
Page 7