Loading...
HE Decision OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF YELM REPORT AND DECISION CASE NO.: APP-05-0578-YL APPLICANT: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier 8751 Commerce Place NE Lacey, WA 98516 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The appellant is appealing the administrative decision denying a sign permit application. SUMMARY OF DECISION: Appeal denied. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing Planning and Community Development Staff Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the request as follows: The hearing was opened on July 11, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner. The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows: EXHIBIT "1" - Planning and Community Development Staff Report and Attachments GARY CARLSON, Building Official, appeared and testified that the project began as a staged development on June 14, 2004. The NAPA business opened in a new facility and then the existing building was demolished. Then Walt’s moved in, but has not as yet opened. He reviewed the 30% rule and noted that the block letters over the door are not under appeal. The City has recently hired a code enforcement officer to enforce the sign code and apply it equally throughout the City. He agrees that the appellant has proposed an attractive sign. The awning and marquee signs have an identical definition and the difference doesn’t matter as the sign can only measure 30% of either. He introduced Exhibit “2”, photographs of the site. MIKE HIER appeared and testified that he is the appellant and represents I-5 signs. The sign code penalizes the owner and he noted that the vantage point in Exhibit “2” is the same. If the photographs were taken farther down Yelm Highway, one would lose sight of the sign. They are asking an interpretation of the code as their sign is an awning sign which would conform with other interpretations the City has given for the same reasons. It is a way to interpret the code to get what they want. The Rite-Aid sign exceeds the 30% limit and he questions how the City could have granted a permit. They could interpret the marquee definition to allow it. MR. CARLSON reappeared and testified that the City adopted its sign code in 1996 and amended it in August, 2005. He started with the City in 1999 and the Rite-Aid sign was already approved. Said sign is a feature consisting of part of the building and wall and is not an awning, but a wall. They have the same standards now that they had in 1996. MR. HIER reappeared and confirmed that the City amended the code two years ago, but the size standards are the same as in 1996. He had photographs of several signs in his appeal. No one spoke further in this matter and so the Examiner took the request under advisement and the hearing was concluded. NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the City of Yelm Community Development Department FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION: FINDINGS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has admitted documentary evidence into the record, heard testimony, and taken this matter under advisement. 2. This request is exempt from review under SEPA. 3. Appropriate notice was provided pursuant to the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). 4. The central issue presented by this appeal is whether Sections 15.24.180 and 15.24.280 YMC regarding signage area allowable on the face of an awning was correctly interpreted by the City of Yelm, Community Development Department, when it denied the appellant’s sign permit application. 5. On May 2, 2006, the appellant applied for a City sign permit for Walt’s Tire Factory. The appellant’s sign permit application form requests a permit for one awning sign with dimensions of 12 x 3.5, or a total area of 42 square feet. 6. The application was denied on May 18, 2006, by Larry Hanson, City of Yelm Code Enforcement Officer, because the sign, as proposed, does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 15.24.180 YMC. 7. The appellant asserts that the City of Yelm, Community Development Department, incorrectly interpreted Section 15.24.180 YMC regarding the signage area allowable on the face of an awning when it denied his sign permit application. The appellant asserts that other awning signs within the City exceed the requirements set forth in Section 15.24.180 YMC, and claims that Section 15.24.180 YMC had to have been interpreted differently for those sign permits to be issued. 8. The City asserts that Sections 15.24.180 and 15.24.280 YMC clearly prohibit marquee signs and awning signs from exceeding thirty percent (30%) of the total area of the marquee or awning. The City argues that although Section 15.24.280(C) YMC does use the word “marquee”, it relies on the definition of “awning” in Section 15.24.020 YMC, and therefore the YMC clearly intends that awning signage be likewise limited to thirty percent (30%) of the awning frontage. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this request. 2. Section 15.24.020 YMC defines an awning and marquee as follows: “Awning” means a shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building. “Marquee” means a permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by the building and projecting over public property. 3. The sign permit application form designates that the proposed sign is to be an awning measuring 12 feet by 3.5 feet, or 42 square feet. The proposed sign meets the definition of awning sign as set forth in Section 15.24.020 YMC. Thus, the proposed sign is classified as an awning sign and is subject to the regulations prescribed thereto. 4. Section 15.24.180 YMC establishes standards for signage on awnings and marquees as follows: Signage will be allowed on awnings and marquees in Commercial and Industrial zones of the City. Such signage shall be limited to 30% coverage of the face of the marquee or one square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee, whichever is less. The signage area shall be calculated on the basis of the smallest rectangle, circle, or spherical figure that will enclose the entire copy area of the sign. Any such calculations shall include the areas between letters and lines as well as the areas of any devices which are intended to attract attention. Signage areas shall be included in the overall calculation of total allowable for the building. 5. The awning face of the proposed sign measures forty-two (42) square feet which exceeds the thirty percent (30%) maximum coverage requirement for awning and marquee signs. Thus, the proposed sign does not conform with the requirements set forth in Section 15.24.180 YMC. 6. Preexisting nonconforming signs are subject to enforcement actions by the City of Yelm. Thus, their existence is not relevant to this appeal. Furthermore, nonconforming uses are not precedent for other uses. Jefferson County v. Seattle Yacht Club, 73 Wn. App 576 (1994). 7. Section 15.24.280(A), (B), and (C) YMC state clearly how different configurations of wall signs are to be calculated. A. Flush-mounted wall signs: One square foot for each lineal foot of store (occupant) frontage (main front of entry). One identifier sign for businesses with a separate delivery access will be allowed, not to exceed two square feet. B. Marquee sign: One square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30% coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. C. Awning sign: One square foot for each lineal foot of the front of the marquee or 30% coverage of the face of the marquee, whichever is less. The methods for calculating signage as defined in Sections (B) and (C) above are identical to each other. While the calculation for awning sign in Section (C) uses the word “marquee”, it relies on the definition of awning in Section 15.24.020 YMC. Thus, it can clearly be construed that the intent of Section (C) was for the signage to be likewise limited to thirty percent (30%) of the awning face or frontage. DECISION: The City of Yelm, Community Development Department, properly denied the appellant’s sign permit application. The appeal of I-5 Signs and Mike Hier of the City of Yelm, Community Development Department’s decision to deny the appellant’s sign permit application is hereby denied. ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2006. _____________________________________ STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR. Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED this 26th day of July, 2006, to the following: APPLICANT: I-5 Signs, Mike Hier 8751 Commerce Place NE Lacey, WA 98516 City of Yelm Tami Merriman 105 Yelm Avenue West P.O. Box 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 CASE NO.: APP-05-0578-YL NOTICE 1. RECONSIDERATION: Any interested party or agency of record, oral or written, that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner may make a written request for reconsideration by the hearing examiner. Said request shall set forth specific errors relating to: Erroneous procedures; Errors of law objected to at the public hearing by the person requesting reconsideration; Incomplete record; An error in interpreting the comprehensive plan or other relevant material; or Newly discovered material evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing. The term “new evidence” shall mean only evidence discovered after the hearing held by the hearing examiner and shall not include evidence which was available or which could reasonably have been available and simply not presented at the hearing for whatever reason. The request must be filed no later than 4:30 p.m. on August 9 , 2006 (10 days from mailing) with the Community Development Department 105 Yelm Avenue West, Yelm, WA 98597. This request shall set forth the bases for reconsideration as limited by the above. The hearing examiner shall review said request in light of the record and take such further action as he deems proper. The hearing examiner may request further information which shall be provided within 10 days of the request. 2. APPEAL OF EXAMINER'S DECISION: The final decision by the Examiner may be appealed to the city council, by any aggrieved person or agency of record, oral or written that disagrees with the decision of the hearing examiner, except threshold determinations (YMC 15.49.160) in accordance with Section 2.26.150 of the Yelm Municipal Code (YMC). NOTE: In an effort to avoid confusion at the time of filing a request for reconsideration, please attach this page to the request for reconsideration.