V-06-34 HE decision and staff report.pdf/-PC. 1 SO)
ITY OF" EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwci.edmondsma,us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Trade Marx Signs for Pagliacci Pizza
CASE NOs.: V-06-34, !C 1. & AP -06-41
LOCATION: 10200 Edmonds Way (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1)
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
APPLICATION: A street setback variance request for a new freestanding sign (see
Exhibit A, Attachments 2 & 4), and an appeal of a staff
determination that the proposed sign is a pole sign as opposed to a
monument sign (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
RE VIE W PROCESS: Hearing examiner conducts a public hearing and renders the final
decision.
MAJOR ISSUES: Compliance with the following:
1) Section 16.45.020; Neighborhood Business - Site Development
Standards.
2) Section 20.60; Sign Code.
3) Chapter 20.85; Variances.
4) Chapter 20.105; Appeals and Court Review.
ADB Recommendation: Approve
Staff Recommendation: Appeal - Deny
Variance - Deny
Hearing Examiner Decision: ADB -06-33: Deny
AP -06-49: Deny
V-06-34: Deny
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 Pagliacci application was opened at 3:10 p.m., May 18, 2006, in the Council
Chambers, Public Safety Complex, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:20 p.m. Participants
Pagliacci V-06-34 pg I
at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim
recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner: Briefly summarized the history of the case,
reviewed relevant criteria and provided staff s analysis and recommendation (see Exhibit
A).
From the Applicant:
Michael Springer, Trade Marx Signs: Noted that the purpose of the sign is to alert
travelers coming from the east of the location of the restaurant. Mr. Springer clarified the
elevation drawings for the sign, noting that the entire support structure would be basically
encased in narrow, rectangular box. Mr. Springer also reviewed the pictures of the
approach to Pagliacci with the Hearing Examiner.
From the Community:
No comments received.
A. APPEAL: AP -06-49
1. The Facts presented in the Site Description on page 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division
Advisory Report, May 11, 2006, accurately reflects the site circumstances, zoning
requirements and land use, and are hereby adopted by reference.
2. The Fact and Conclusion regarding compliance with SEPA review on page 4 in Exhibit
A, Planning Division Advisory Report, May 11, 2006, is accurate and hereby adopted by
reference.
3. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with Section 16.20, Single Family
Development Standards on pages 4 and 5 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory
Report, May 11, 2006, are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference.
4. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Chapter 20.15B, Critical Areas
Regulations with on pages 5 through 9 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report,
May 11, 2006, are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference.
5. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Chapter 20.85, Variances on pages
10 and 11 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, May 11, 2006, are accurate
and are hereby adopted by reference.
6. The staff interpretation that the proposed sign is a pole sign rather than a monument sign
is correct. The difference between the definition of pole sign and monument sign in
Section 20.60.005 revolves around the structural elements only. Neither of these
definitions leads to the position that hiding the structural supports of the sign visually
Pagliacci V-06-34 pg 2
would qualify it as a monument sign. Whether or not the poles, of which there are two,
are visible is immaterial to the definition. It is also unlikely that a 14' tall monument sign
was ever an anticipated outcome of the sign ordinance.
B. DESIGN REVIEW: ADB -06-33
1. For design approval the applicant must demonstrate that a freestanding sign is the only
reasonably feasible alternative signage to alert eastbound travelers. Attachment 5 shows
three photo simulations of the sign and its proposed location as one approaches from the
east. In the first, most distant photo, neither the building or the proposed sign are
particularly visible due to power poles, trees, buildings etc, cluttering the visual field in
the foreground. In photo #2, one can now see the building's west side and the proposed
sign. With photo #3, as one is coming upon the intersection, the west side of the building
is clearly visible, with the proposed sign in the foreground at the corner.
2. While the speed limit along Edmonds Way is 35 mph this does not appear to be a speed
that makes it difficult to clearly view the west side of the building and parking lot when
traveling from the east. At least one other option that appears a viable and reasonable
alternative to a freestanding sign is to mount a sign on the building's west side, similar to
that which is on the north side. Nowhere in the record has the applicant demonstrated
that a freestanding sign is the only reasonable sign alternative.
C. VARIANCE: V-06-34
1. The Facts presented in the Site Description on page 3 in Exhibit A, Planning Division
Advisory Report, May 11, 2006, accurately reflects the site circumstances, zoning
requirements and land use, and are hereby adopted by reference.
2. The Fact and Conclusion regarding compliance with SEPA review on page 3 in Exhibit
A, Planning Division Advisory Report, May 11, 2006, is accurate and hereby adopted by
reference.
3. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Critical Areas, Zoning Standards
and Architectural Design Review on page 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory
Report, May 11, 2006, are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference.
4. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Chapter 20.85, Variances on pages
10 and 11 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, May 11, 2006, are accurate
and are hereby adopted by reference.
5. The stated purpose for the sign is to alert drivers traveling eastbound up the hill from
downtown to Pagliacci's location and that there is an upcoming entrance. As it is now
their logo is mounted on the building facing north towards Edmonds Way, such that
eastbound traffic is already past the vehicle entrance when they see the existing wall
mounted sign.
However, there has been no substantive demonstration that this particular freestanding
sign location and design represent the minimum necessary variance. Lower signs, a west
facing wall mounted sign and other options appear possible, while still meeting the
applicant's stated intent.
Pagliacci V-06-34 pg 3
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for design approval, a street
setback variance and the appeal of the staffs interpretation are Denied.
Entered this 25th day of May, 2006, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
(ina:ILdB. a ger
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
• 1 II ' • i. 1 � � ,
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.
Request 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.
Appeals
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.
Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
Pagliacci V-06-34 pg 4
APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER APPEAL DECISION.
Hearing examiner decisions on appeals of staff decisions that do not involve project permit
applications shall be appealable to the city council pursuant to the process specified in ECDC
20.105.040.
The decision of the hearing examiner on appeals of staff decisions on project permit
applications shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council. An appeal of this final
decision may be made to the Superior Court of Snohomish County as detailed in ECDC Section
20.110.040.D. Any such action shall be filed no later than 10 working days after the service of
the written order of the Hearing Examiner,
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.'
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
EXHIBITS
A. Planning Division Advisory Report dated May 11, 2006.
Michael Springer
Trade Marx Signs
3614eAve S
Seattle, WA 98134
Planning Division
Engineering
Public Works
Pagliacci V-06-34 pg 5
In C.1BW0
Date:
lum
Transmitting
C TTY OF" EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
May 11, 2006
Trade Marx Signs
3614 Sixth Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98 134
V-06-34/AP-06-49
For Your Information: X
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Note attachments: X
Sincerely,
Cc: Pagliacci Pizza
SB Investments Two LLC
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
11 i'ncodpm•ated:i August 11, 1890 �'D
CITY������U�07��� �
��^, °�",^,"v,^,"~`,
1%l'5TH AVENUE NORTH, BDMON0S,WA900%0
PLANNING DIVISIO11
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION1
To: TJou Largen, Hearing Examiner Pro Tern
From:
Meg Gruwell
Senior Planner
Date: MAY 11, 2006
Film: \/'06-34,A[)B'06-33,AND AP -06-44
TRADE MARX SIGN FOR P/\GLIACClPIZZA
Hearing Date, Time, And Kxlmem;
Council Chonuboro` Public Safety Building
250-5 mAvouoe N.
Edmonds, Washington
Section
Page
D.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
A.
APPLICATION ..................................................................................................................... ............... 2
B.
RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------.z
DD,
FINDINGS Ky87FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ....,,,,.,..,.~,,,.,...,,,.,..,,..,,,.,,...,.,~,^...,..,,,.,3
A.
SITE DESCRIPTION ................................. ........................................................................................... j
B.
Srx7u ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEy&).................................................................................. 3
C.
RoMomooCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (8CDC)COMPLIANCE .............................................. 4
D.
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE .................................................................................................................... x
E.
APPEAL oxSTAFF INTERPRETATION ---------------------------------v
K.
PUBLIC COMMENTS .............................. .......................................................................................... |O
G.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .......................................... ......................................................................... lO
101.
RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS ..-.,..,..~.,,,,,,.,,.,,.,,,.~.,,,,...,.,,,..,.,.,,,,,...,..,..,11
A.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ---------------------------------.11
B.
APPEAL orxVARIANCE DECISION .................................................................................................. )|
C
APPEAL orADECISION 0wxmAPPEAL OvxSTAFF INTERPRETATION .............................................. |l
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR ,,,,..,.-,.,.,.,,,.,.,.,.,,.,,,-,.,,....,,,,..,.,,.,,,.,.,,...,,X2
VI, ATTACHMENTS _,_,_,^,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,^,^,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,....,.....,...~,...,,~,.,.-.,..,..,,,....,,,..l2
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 2 of 12
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applicant and Appellant: Trade Marx Signs for Pagliacci Pizza (see Attachment 2)
2. Site Location: 10200 Edmonds Way (see Attachment 1)
3. Request: A variance to reduce the required 20 -foot street setback to 12 inches on the
corner of 102nd Place W. and Edmonds Way for a new freestanding sign (see
Attachments 2 through 4). Also an appeal of a determination by staff that the proposed
freestanding sign is a pole sign and not a monument sign (see Attachment 3).
4. Review Process: Variance and Appeal of a Staff Decision: Hearing Examiner conducts a
public hearing and makes the final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
16.45.020 (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS - Site Development Standards).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.60
(SIGN CODE).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
(VARIANCES).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105
(APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW).
B. Recommendations
Based on the statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report staff
recommends DENIAL of the appeal, upholding the interpretation of the code by city staff
that the sign is a pole sign and therefore not permitted in the Neighborhood Business zone in
the Westgate Corridor.
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
DENIAL of the street setback variance.
If the Hearing Examiner chooses to recommend approval of the variance, we recommend the
following conditions:
1. The street setback variance of 12 inches to the street property line along Edmonds Way and
102nd Place W. as shown on the site plan in Attachment 4, is approved.
2. The sign shall be designed to meet city code for the Westgate Corridor. If the Hearing
Examiner finds the sign to be a monument sign, the pylon cover should extend to the midpoint
of the cabinets, as shown on the elevations on page 3 of 4, and the boxed cabinet letters shall
have a background color that is opaque and does not allow any internal illumination to shine
through.
3. The sign shall not be constructed within the utility easement.
4. 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.
5. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the sign.
6. The permit should be transferable.
7. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of
approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the
application. Only one one-year extension is possible.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 3 of 12
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 14,810 square feet, with
approximately 80 feet of frontage on 102nd Place W., and approximately 175 feet
of frontage on Edmonds Way / State Route 104 (see Attachment 4). The site
takes access from both 102nd Place W. and Edmonds Way via driveways to the
parking lot on the north side of the lot.
(2) Land Use: The site has a restaurant and associated parking on it (see
Attachment 4).
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) (see
Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and vegetation: The subject site is quite level with a moderate slope
climbing up to the southwest property line. The property has recently been
landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcovers.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) The property to the northwest is zoned Planned Business (BP) and is developed
with Sunrise Assisted Living facility and the Rosewood Court facility further
north (see Attachment 1).
(2) The properties to the southeast are zoned Neighborhood Business (BN) and are
developed with a Braille school and McDonalds (see Attachment 1).
(3) The properties to the southwest up 102nd Place are primarily zoned Single -
Family Residential (RS -8) and are developed with single-family residences (see
Attachment 1), except for the adjacent property, which is zoned Neighborhood
Business (BN) and the site is currently under construction, with a proposed
office building being constructed.
(4) The properties to the east and southeast are zoned Neighborhood Business (BN)
and are developed with Taco Bell and Times Square Antiques (see Attachment
1).
(5) The properties to the northeast are zoned Planned Business (BP) and are
developed with single family residences, some of which are used for businesses
(see Attachment 1).
B. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
1. Facts:
a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review
(WAC 197-11-800(6) (b) and ECDC 20.15A.080).
2. Conclusion: If special circumstances are found, then the application complies with the
requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 4 of 12
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a) Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally
Critical Areas General Provisions).
(2) A Critical Areas Checklist has been submitted (CA -1999-95) and a waiver from
the requirement to complete a critical areas study was granted, as no critical
areas were found on or adjacent to the site.
b) Conclusion: The proposal meets the requirements of the Environmentally
Critical Areas Chapter.
2. Compliance with Zoning Standards
a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to development in
the Neighborhood Business zone are set forth in Chapter 16.45.020 and include the
following for locating structures:
BN
(1)
Street Setback:
20 feet
(2)
Rear Setback:
0 feet
(3)
Side Setbacks (to all other property lines):
0 feet
(4)
Maximum Height:
25 feet
b) Conclusion: The proposal requires a variance to street setbacks to be approved
before it complies with the requirements of the BN zoning standards.
3. Compliance with Architectural Design Review
a) Fact: The proposal was reviewed by the Architectural Design Board at their May
3, 2006, meeting. The staff report is attached as Attachment 6. The Board moved to
recommend approval of the sign as presented by the applicant (see Attachment 7).
b) Conclusion: The proposal has been recommended for approval by the
Architectural Design Board.
4. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance
a) Facts:
(1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC 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. The criteria are as
follows:
(a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating
to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings
of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would
deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances
should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as
age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with
the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to
make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from
the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 5 of 12
(b) Special Privilege: That 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) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the
variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan,
the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is
located.
(d) Not Detrimental: That 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 the same zone.
(e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum
necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
(2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal which address the
decisional criteria and these are in Attachment 3.
(3.) The sign code places several requirements on freestanding signs, as stated in
ECDC 20.60.045.
20.60.046 Freestanding signs — Regulations.
A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged.
Freestanding signs shall be approved only where the applicant
demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and
feasible alternative signage methods to provide for adequate
identification and/or advertisement.
B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be
as follows:
Zone
Maximum Area of Sign ...
BN
24 square feet (single)
BN, BC,
48 square feet (group) ...
D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs
shall be as follows:
E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible
to the center of the street frontage on which they are located. They may
not be located on public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets
may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each frontage.
F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no
more than one freestanding sign, except in the business and commercial
zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which
case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage subject to the
restrictions on area contained within this chapter.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Maximum Height of Sign
Zone
BN, BC,
14 feet
CW
...
E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible
to the center of the street frontage on which they are located. They may
not be located on public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets
may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each frontage.
F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no
more than one freestanding sign, except in the business and commercial
zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which
case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage subject to the
restrictions on area contained within this chapter.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 6 of 12
G. Landscaping.
1. Each freestanding sign shall have a landscaped area twice the
size of the sign area at the base of the sign. The landscaping and sign
base shall be protected from vehicles by substantial curbing.
2. The applicant shall provide a landscape performance bond in the
amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of the landscaping, or
$1,000, whichever is more. The bond shall be processed in accordance
with Chapter 17.10 ECDC. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003].
(4) The applicant would have room on the site to place a 14 -foot high freestanding
sign that met the required 20 foot setback, but in order for it to avoid the asphalt
parking lot and concrete walkway and patio, the sign would have to be southeast
of the semicircular patio. This would be at the south end of the property.
(5) Structures, as defined in ECDC 21.90.150, are required to meet setbacks per
ECDC 21.90.020.
21.90.150 Structure.
Structure means a combination of materials constructed and erected
permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent
location on the ground. Not included are residential fences less than six
feet in height, retaining walls, rockeries, and similar improvements of a
minor character less than three feet in height.
21.90.020 Setback.
Setback means the minimum distance that buildings/structures or uses
must be set back from a lot line, excluding up to 30 inches of eaves. (See
also, Rear Setback, Side Setback, and Street Setback.)
(6) Staff has determined that signs that are less than three feet in height may be
allowed within the setbacks per the definition of structures.
(7) Staff has further determined that signs that are on fences, or on fence -like
structures, are allowed within the setbacks, since fences are allowed within the
setbacks. Fences must meet the provisions of ECDC Chapter 17.30, which
include that fences within ten feet of any street right-of-way or within 30 feet of
any corner shall be no higher than three feet, unless the City Engineer determines
that a fence up to six feet tall would not create a hazard. Section 17.30.035
states how decorative elements, such as arbors and trellises can be added to a
fence, up to a height of nine feet.
(8) Signs that are over three feet in height and do not qualify as fences must meet
setbacks.
(9) The proposed sign is 14 feet tall.
(10)The applicant stated at the Architectural Design Board meeting that part of the
reason for providing the sign was to alert drivers along State Route 104 driving
eastbound (and southbound) where the driveway for Pagliacci Pizza was.
Photographs of the approach, with the sign inserted, were provided as an exhibit
(see Attachment 5).
(1 1) Speed limit along State Route 104 in this vicinity is 35 miles per hour.
(12)The corner of the property where the sign is proposed contains a utility easement
(see Site Plan in Attachment 4). The Engineering Division has commented that
the sign location needs to be outside of this easement area.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doe / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 7 of 12
(13)Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Technician, has also commented that a sign that
was more fence -like (on the order of 6 feet high by six feet across) would be
acceptable at that corner so long as it did not go closer to Edmonds Way. Her
main concern with a fence at the corner is that patrons exiting Pagliacci's from
the Edmonds Way driveway need to be able to see any cars waiting to turn right
from 102nd Place W.
(14)Earlier maps show 102nd Place curling more tightly across this lot and accessing
Edmonds Way at an angle. It appears that in order to make a more perpendicular
access from 102nd Place W. to Edmonds Way, a portion of the right -or -way was
vacated and attached to this lot, with the corner cut off to allow for an easier
turning radius.
(15)Signs in this area include the taller McDonald's pole sign and Times Square
Antiques sign (both visible in Attachment 5, in "Southbound #3"). The
McDonald's pole sign does not appear to meet the required 20 foot setback. The
building was built in 1978, per Snohomish County Assessor records, and the
area was not annexed to the city until 1983. Times Square Antiques freestanding
sign meets the required 20 foot street setback according to the site plan on
record.
(16)Lower level signs include the Sunrise Assisted Living facility sign and the
Rosewood Courte sign. The Sunrise sign maintains a ten -foot street setback
where a 15 -foot setback is required, but the sign is constructed similar to a fence,
which would be allowed in the setbacks so long as it was not determined to be a
hazard. The Rosewood Courte sign is shown on the site plan to have a zero -foot
street setback. At less than 6 feet tall, it also could be allowed as a "fence"
within the setbacks, providing it did not present a hazard.
(17)Many signs along Edmonds Way have been granted variances, though most of
those variances were for height. One recent variance granted for setback was at
Westgate Village, at the southwest corner of 100th Avenue W. and Edmonds
Way, where zero street setbacks were approved for freestanding signs and
pedestrian trellises.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances: The lot has some special circumstance in the
configuration of the lot that cuts off the corner. However, the site is similar to
many sites in providing the minimum ten -foot wide landscape strip and having
parking and driveways directly behind. Some sites, such as the Times Square
Antiques have placed their sign in an island of landscaping within their parking
area. Strict enforcement of the requirement to maintain setbacks for structures
would restrict a 14 -foot sign to the southern side of the lot, but not preclude it.
Also, strict enforcement of the setbacks does not preclude the owners from
having advertising for their business within the setbacks in the form of a low-
level monument sign that does not meet the definition of structure, or a fence-
like structure, which could also be allowed within the setbacks. Therefore, it
does not appear that the special circumstances on the lot would deprive the
owners of rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with
the same zoning if the zoning ordinance was strictly enforced.
(2) Special Privilege: Other businesses along State Route 104 have also obtained
variances for signs. In particular, Westgate Village at the southwest corner of
1001h Avenue W. and Edmonds Way obtained variances to allow freestanding
signs and pedestrian trellises to be at a zero -foot setback from Edmonds Way
and 1001h Avenue W. This is a busy intersection where these two streets
intersect. Other signs, such as the McDonald's pole sign appear to not meet
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 8 of 12
setbacks, though they may have been constructed under different regulations.
Therefore, 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.
(3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: None of the goals for the Westgate
Corridor address signs. The variance would have to be approved for the sign to
be in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
(4) Not Detrimental: The Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed location
of the sign, and has not expressed any concerns over it creating a traffic hazard.
The purpose of the sign is to help alert patrons to the upcoming driveways, and
thereby allow them to slow down in a timely fashion to be able to turn. The
Engineering Division has also indicated that a fence -like sign would also be
allowed at this intersection. The proposed sign is rather large, but this is an area
oriented to automobiles. The proposal should not be significantly detrimental to
the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity.
(5) Minimum Variance: The sign could be placed outside the setbacks in the
southeast corner of the lot, but this would not allow it to be centrally located
along the street. It also would not perform the job of alerting eastbound
motorists where to turn, since the sign would be closer to the adjacent property's
driveway. In order to place the sign on the corner but not in the parking lot drive
aisle, the sign will have to be in the setbacks. The applicants had originally set
the sign back further from the property line within the planter area, but once the
utility easement was shown on the site, the available area for the sign shrank
considerably. This is the only possible location for the sign to be located
centrally at the corner, staying outside the utility easement, and maintaining an
orientation directed towards traffic headed eastbound on State Route 104.
However, the function of the sign could be provided in a low-level monument
sign or fence -like sign that would be allowed within the setbacks, providing it
did not present a traffic hazard. Staff could envision a six-foot high sign that
mirrored the curves of the building to let the traveling public know that the
building matching the sign was Pagliacci's. Therefore, the minimum necessary
to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning would be no variance, but a shorter sign that could be allowed
outright in the setbacks.
D. Technical Committee
1. Review by City Departments
a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire
Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and
Recreation Department. The Engineering Division was the only division to provide
comments, and they commented "It appears as though the proposed location of the
sign falls within a sanitary sewer easement that runs through this corner of the
property. The sign location will need to be outside of this easement area. The site
plan showing the location of the sign will need to be revised to include the
boundaries of the easement." The site plan has been revised to address these
concerns, and the sign was moved as shown to avoid the sewer easement.
b) Conclusion: As shown, the proposal appears to meet the requirements of the
above City departments.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 9 of 12
E. Appeal of Staff Interpretation
1. Issues raised by the Appellant:
a) Summary of Statements by the Appellant: (See Attachments 3 and 4)
(1) The appellant states that all structural components have been covered by a pylon
cover that matches the material and color used in the restaurant building and they
contend that the design as drawn meets all code requirements and definitions.
2. Planning Division Comments:
a) Facts:
(1) The initial design submitted for this location was very similar, but the support
was only a single pole. Staff informed Trade Marx Sign company staff that pole
signs are not allowed in the Westgate/SR-204 area, as shown in the matrix given
in ECDC 20.60.020.L.
(2) Although this site is within the Neighborhood Commercial (BN Zones), it is
more specifically within the Westgate Corridor as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan, so the column labeled "Westgate/SR104" applies to this site.
(3) The matrix states that monument signs, and internal illumination of signs is
permitted within the Westgate Corridor.
(4) The matrix states that boxed cabinet signs are conditionally permitted through
design review if consistent with the standards itemized in ECDC 20.60.020(M).
The only conditions relating to boxed cabinets in subsection M state "8. The
background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and
compliment the colors used on the building." And "9. The background color of a
boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow any internal illumination
to shine through." Boxed cabinets are defined in ECDC 20.60.005 as
"permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that is roughly
rectangular in shape and provides for internal illumination and changing the
message of the sign by replacing a single transparent or translucent material such
as a Plexiglas/lexan face. This definition is meant to distinguish between a
cabinet sign that is essentially a rectangular box and one that follow the outlines
of the letters of the sign, or an `outline cabinet sign."' An outline cabinet sign is
defined as "a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that
roughly follows the shape of the text of the sign and provides for internal
illumination." This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that
follow the outlines of the letters of the sign and one that is essentially a
rectangular box or a "boxed cabinet sign." An "outlined cabinet sign" will be
treated more like an "individual letter sign" where the area of the sign is
calculated based on the actual outlined shape of the sign." The proposed
cabinets will not be mounted on the face of the building, but will be on a
freestanding sign. The cabinets that spell the letters of Pagliacci are rectangular
in shape. The cabinet that contains the Pagliacci logo is the shape of the logo,
and the cabinet that contains "Delivers 453-1717" is an oval, so neither of these
two qualifies as a boxed cabinets.
(5) The matrix in ECDC 20.60.020.L. states that pole signs are not permitted.
(6) Pole signs are defined in ECDC 20.60.005 as "freestanding signs where the
structural support for the sign is a pole(s)."
(7) Monuments sign are defined in ECDC 20.60.005 as "freestanding signs that
have integrated the structural component of the sign into the design of the sign
and sign base."
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 10 of 12
(8) The structural support of the sign is the six-inch square steel tube.
(9) The cabinets are attached to the six-inch square tube with 1.5 -inch diameter steel
pipes.
(10)The pipes are proposed to be covered with a 0.090 -inch aluminum pylon cover
that will stretch from the six-inch square tube to somewhere around the middle
of the cabinet signs on either side. On page 3 of 4, the pylon cover is shown to
come to the midpoint of the sign on the elevations. However, on page 2 of 4 the
elevations show the pylon cover does not reach the midpoint of the cabinets.
The plan section view, shown on page 3 of 4, also seems to show the pylon
covers stopping short of the midpoint of the cabinets.
b) Conclusions:
The plan as originally submitted was definitely a pole sign.
(2) As resubmitted, the structural pole has been covered with the aluminum pylon
cover and the cover has been extended to indicate a broader support. The post is
still visible, and in part looks like it is flanked by a wider post on one side and a
narrower post on the other side.
(3) The currently proposed design could be interpreted in two ways. It could be
interpreted to be a pole sign, since the structural support for the sign is definitely
a pole. However, the sign could also be interpreted to be a monument sign, since
the appellants have attempted to integrate the structural component of the sign
into the design of the sign and sign base.
(4) The sign has a number of elements combined. The Pagliacci letters marching
down the sign emphasize the pole nature of the sign. The logo and phone
number at the top seem unrelated to the letters, and seem to add to visual
confusion, rather than balancing the sign. Even with the widened pylon, the
effect of the sign is still that of boxed cabinets being hung off of a pole.
(5) Staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed sign is a pole sign, not a monument
sign, and is not permitted on this subject parcel in the Westgate Corridor.
(6) If the Hearing Examiner found the sign to be a monument sign, staff would
recommend that the pylon cover should extend to the midpoint of the cabinets, as
shown on the elevations on page 3 of 4. Also the boxed cabinet letters shall
have a background color that is opaque and does not allow any internal
illumination to shine through.
F. Public Comments
1. Letters Received
As of the date of this report, the City has not received any comment letters.
G. Comprehensive Plan
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Westgate Corridor" on the
Comprehensive Plan map.
b) Conclusion: Restaurant development and accessory signs are consistent with the
existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 11 of 12
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, in the section on "Goals for the Westgate
Corridor," identifies goals and policies which relate to this area. None of the goals
or policies addresses signs.
b) Conclusion: The Comprehensive Plan is silent on the issue of setback variances for
signs.
III. RECONSIDERATION'S AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for fling 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. Request 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.
B. Appeal of a Variance Decision
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 applicant and the date of the
decision, the name and address 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 fourteen (14) calendar days
after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Appeal of a Decision on an Appeal of a Staff Interpretation
Section 20.105.030.0 states that "The decision of the hearing examiner on appeals of staff
decisions on project permit applications shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city
council." Section 20.105.070 of the Edmonds Community Development Code states "Any
final decision or other final action for which no other administrative appeal is specifically
provided in the ECC or ECDC and for which all other appeals specifically authorized have
been timely exhausted shall be reviewable as provided by state law before the Superior Court
of Snohomish County. Any such action shall be filed within 21 calendar days from any final
decision or other final action so to be reviewed. The cost of transcription of all records
ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant." Appellants are
advised to check with the Court for more specific requirements.
D. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock"
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continued for the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
Pagliacci Pizza Sign
Page 12 of 12
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.85.020.0 states "The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year
from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application."
V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a
change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
VI. ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity / Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Applicant's Declarations
4. Site Plan and Elevation
5. Photograph Exhibit of the Approach along SRI 04 with Sign Inserted
6. Staff Report to the Architectural Design Board for ADB -06-33
7. Synopsis of the May 3, 2006 Architectural Design Board Meeting
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Trade Marx Signs Pagliacci Pizza SB Investments Two LLC
3614 Sixth Ave. S. 423 E. Pike St. 1621 NW 185t1i
Seattle, WA 98134 Seattle, WA 98122 Shoreline, WA 98177
Planning Division Engineering Division
V-06-34 and AP-06-49.doc / May 11, 2006 / Staff Report
H PL SW
5,11
ood
I
op
Zoning Vicinity Map
i RS -20 !@,(I�Y§014 RS -6 RM -3
BP CG2
RS -12 RSW-12 RM 2.4 BN SII CW MU
RS -10 RS -MP RM -1.5 BCE�j MP1 P
RS-8rX11'11X1
,,,, CG M MP2E"l— Os
. .......... . .. I
'K
Ta_ �a
. . . ........ ...... ....
tV
0
N
Rezones
PRD
File ADB -06-33
11C is o
r
Attachent 1
city of edmonds
land use application
0323�
MAR 2
-TR.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW et6, FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT � t-�
C3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I I FILE # fNb8-%-M ZONE Tl-t-�
❑ HOME OCCUPATION ADV, 0
ZI FORMAL SUBDIVISION V07,wAC�H-3,n r -e'
D SHORT SUBDIVISION 45- FEA RECEIPT#.
D LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT �T HEARING DATE
Z1 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
C] OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT a2�JE ZI STAFF Q PB 0,ADB UCC
C3 STREET VACATION
0 REZONE
U SHORELINE PERMIT
2L VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
U OTHER:
PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION
PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPERTY OWNER —F-A4=r L. /. -1 PHONE # 24*>Lo ro !S -Z - 4`)E4.7
ADDRESS =5',7-
E -MAIL ADDRESS FAx #
TAX ACCOUNT # SAO tSEC. TwP, RNG.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE -""4r
-e
,.� I
APPLICANT PHONE;0 7e-7::;,
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAx # ZC�6 - efv Z5 -
CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE#
ADDRESS
E-MAIL ADDRESS FAx #
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use
application, and grant my pe 'scion r the blit officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject
I
property for the purposes o i p ct' o ting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE/v
This application form was rev se 4
on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220.
L:\L1BRARY\PLANN1NG\Forms & HandoutsTublic HandouMland Use Applicafion.doc ATTACHMENT 2
Variance Request for Pagliacci Pizza MAR 2 9 2006
Application Declarations: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
First Issue: the setback of 20 feet from each property line for the monument sign
is causing a hardship. Pagliacci Pizza is requesting a variance
A 20 foot set back from the property lines is required by code. Due to the unique
shape of the property and the position of the building; that leaves no place for the
sign in a planter at that end of the property and would placed in a driveway.
1. Granting a variance to place the sign as proposed on the attached plot
plan would conform with 20.60.045 ("Freestanding signs shall be located
as close as possible to the center of the street frontage on which they are
located')
2. This centered placement would resolve a conflict between two sections of
the code; the 20 ft. setback form all property lines and centering the sign
on the street frontage.
3. The zoning of "Westgate/SR-104 would not be adversely affected by
revised positioning since a centered position is desirable.
4. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the zoning ordinance, since
it rates the centering of a sign on the property over the setback
requirement.
5. The variance if granted would not affect land values since the zone is
already commercial, there is no view corridor affected, and the planting
area will separate the sign from public areas.
6. The only other location for the sign on the property which would center on
Edmonds Way would also place the sign in the parking lot.
Second Issue: the planner's interpretation that the sign does not qualify as a
monument sign. The definition of a monument sign (Section 20.60.005
Definitions, "Monument signs" are freestanding signs that have integrated the
structural component(s) of the sign into the design of the sign and sign base)
1. The drawing has been detailed to show that all structural components
have been covered by a "pylon cover" that also matches a material and
color used in the building the sign is identifying.
2. It is our contention that the design as drawn & detailed, as proposed
meets all code requirements and definitions.
ATTACHMENT 3
rvYDJ 5 r
-
pb
----------
i
P
-__
o Z -At �
e,d
X
-
C
4
W
�.A
b
0
a
v
H
O
1= v m cis
Ci ®
fa d o
o S o o= in
I— eat
CY d
CY
�
eet �
d
d u
CY
II
It H
II
rn
N lo" Cy
x
x x
x
Ip wLL
N
m
o
O N
p•
� � r,'.
�
eo cs
0
vggd
m
v—
x
OR
um
Do. cm
,.
. ..,.
.
WD
sm
r t
mu
0
a
v
H
O
0
�^9 -----------�M
53190®OV5
3Wb'N
3ani,os .9
33AO3
w
_
ea
glg��p
g
y
OD01
I- VJ C1
a; L
o
a._ aXa h- V
WVP d T—
0
�^9 -----------�M
0
53190®OV5
3Wb'N
3ani,os .9
33AO3
NOIAd
3111®OV4
OD01
m ,� z
I„L
0
TV
O
r-.
Q
OL
� V
Q f= -
c _
cr T
I
.171E 0 L
r J
g w m m
� r
m
� n
V V �
�- r
O
n I I M"Ji IIVILIV I %J
8. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
a. FRY NO. ADB -2006-33: Application by Trade Marx Signs for Pagliacci Pizza to allow a 14 -foot tall
illuminated sign in the setback at 10200 Edmonds Way in the Neighborhood Business (BN zone).
Bart Hanes, Trade Marx Sign, 3614 Sixth Avenue South, Seattle, was present.
Senior Planner Meg Gruwell presented the application for a consolidated hearing with Pagliacci Pizza who is seeking a
variance from the street setback for their sign. She explained that the City's sign code says that a sign should be located
either centrally on the frontage, or if it is on a corner lot, it can be located in the corner. Instead of having the 20 -foot
required setback for the structure, Pagliacci is requesting a one -foot setback. The property line is cut off and the nearest
distance to the sidewalk is about 13 feet from the sign, and it will not be a one -foot setback right up to the sidewalk. The
applicant is also appealing an interpretation by staff that this is a pole sign instead of a monument sign. The proposal
started out as being a pole sign supporting it and has been broadened and made so that the facing includes more of the
sign and has a wider base. Presently, staff finds that it is more of a monument sign. The sign meets the 14 -foot height
limit and it meets the area allowed for signs for the site. There is landscaping at the base as required. In the
neighborhood across the street, the Sunrise has a lower monument sign with a residential use.
Ms. Gruwell explained that there are very limited urban design guidelines on signs but they do address orientation to cars
in the auto -oriented commercial, that there should be only one freestanding sign per lot, a sign should be simple to read
from passing cars, internal illumination is allowed, and large letters should be used that are easy to read. The proposed
sign, taken together with the logo, the phone number and Pagliacci, she thought, was a little cluttered. She invited the
Architectural Design Board members to make recommendations or comments on the project, and, subsequently, it
would be heard by the hearing examiner.
Boardmember Utt was surprised to hear that 14 feet meets the monument sign requirement. Ms. Gruwell clarified that it
meets a freestanding sign requirement. She explained that monument signs are freestanding signs that have integrated
the structural component of the sign into the design of the sign and sign base. Pole signs are fieestanding signs where the
structural support for the sign is the pole, or pole.
Boardmember Schaefer commented that the idea of the sign being oriented for vehicle traffic recognition and the
mention of a cluttered appearance with all the lettering, plus the logo, he questioned the need to have the telephone
number for deliveries on a sign that is viewed by people who are driving by. He suggested that the delivery component
could be expendable.
Bart Hanes introduced himself, pointing out that he represented Pagliacci and is the contractor who handles their
corporate identity. He explained that they are trying to comply with the location and the limitations of the property and
that they are in compliance with the proposed sign, except for its perception as a monument sign, and the setback
requirements. He described how the monument sign is dictated by implementing elements that are structural to the
building or compliment the building itself, which they have used in other applications and are trying to mirror. He noted
that the sign is under their square footage allotment. He explained that historically Pagliacci's has been driven by their
delivery business. Recently they have begun opening restaurants with sit-down clientele and this is their fourth one. On
the site plan, he pointed out that there is limited parking space for a limited clientele. By utilizing the delivery sign,
which is the mainstay of their business and serves the community considerably, it affords the opportunity to recognize
that. He agreed that the delivery number could be omitted if it is perceived as cluttered. He displayed various
perspectives of the sign area as cars approach the restaurant and discussed the visibility, exposure and identified the
ingress and egress of the property.
Boardmember Schaefer inquired if the applicant is confident that the footing will clear the public right-of-way. Mr.
Hanes replied that it is well beyond the public right-of-way.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 May 3, 2006 — Approved Minutes
Boardmember Utt commented that after hearing Mr. Hanes' portion of the presentation, he felt that the sign was fairly
uncluttered and it was minimalist. He concurred with the interpretation that it is a monument sign, given that the pole is
concealed and encased in the sign. Given the configuration of the site and the limitation that Pagliacci has to work with,
he thought that the process was in place for this kind of project where there are extenuating circumstances, and if they
followed everything to the letter, they would be hiding the sign back behind something.
BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, TO
RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF ADB -2006-33 AS PRESENTED BY
THE APPLICANT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8a. PRESENTATION BY TONY SHAPIRO:
Tony Shapiro expressed appreciation to the board for the opportunity to be able to present their project preliminarily. He
distributed early concept drawings to the board and began a Power Point presentation.
Mr. Shapiro informed the board that the project is a long strip of land along Edmonds Way and 232nd. The site was
rezoned a year ago to BC, and also has multi -family adjacent to it. Prior to that it was all single-family. The Planning
Board changed it to Edmonds Way corridor on both sides of the street. The site is surrounded by some significant
apartment complexes and there are single-family houses that are in various states of repair. There are significant trees on
the site. At an earlier rezone hearing, the citizens expressed concern about losing the trees and Mr. Shapiro explained
that the applicant is making an effort to retain between 15 and 20 percent of the trees.
Mr. Shapiro stated that their primary objective is to provide office space with retail space in the mixed-use portion at the
corner, and a mix of housing that will include both flats and townhouses. The townhouses will probably be
condominiums and the flats will stay as apartments. The flats are in the mixed-use building and the townhouses are
fi•eestanding. They would like to incorporate a sustainable architecture as much as possible. Currently there are about
ten curb cuts along the street and those will be cut down to two entry points, one at the dividing line between the
townhouse or multi -family zone property, and the BC property, so that an access road will come in below grade parking
and then go down a drive aisle behind the townhouses. There will be a landscape buffer between the townhouses and the
road. He discussed how busy Edmonds Way is and how they hoped to put a landscape strip in. He noted that from the
edge of curb to the property line is eight feet and they might be able to do a three or four foot landscape pad and then
four or five feet of sidewalk, with street trees. Another objective is to set the garage accessible fi•om the back side of the
townhouses, down an alley, which will provide for a separation from the noise and visibility fiom the street. Another
idea for the townhouses is to have a bioswale, as well as a holding pond at the north end of the property, or a rain garden.
They hoped to get water flow from the roofs of the townhouses out to the bioswale and then flow under a stairway, and
continue on down to a holding pond or rain garden at the end of the site.
Mr. Shapiro discussed dropping the townhouses a couple of feet from street level but that it posed some problems if they
try to get surface flowing rain water from the back units out to the bio -filtration swale. They may not be able to obtain
some of the objectives they hoped to with the height limits that they currently have. He pointed out that he wanted to
discuss with the board the height limits that currently stand for the property at 25 feet, plus five feet. He knew that the
City Council had been pondering downtown height limits on properties for some time and there had been a number of
public hearings with the Economic Development Board at Five Corners and Firdale discussing height limits. He had
attended two of the Firdale Village meetings and the gist of those meetings was that people tended to accept three or four
story buildings in areas outside of the "bowl." He hoped that the Architectural Design Board would have an opinion on
the matter that supported higher buildings. He felt with the densities that the Growth Management Act is forcing upon
municipalities in this region to push height levels above the 25-30 foot level, it was not unreasonable. He hoped that the
applicant could obtain a bit higher height limit on the townhouses, which would enable them to modulate the roofs more.
They are exploring the possibility of using roof decks due to the amount of open space that the townhouses will have.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 5 May 3, 2006 — Approved Minutes