Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2000HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 The meeting of the Auburn Hearing Examiner was held on May 16, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance were as follows: HEARING EXAMINER: Diane L. VanDerbeek STAFF: Lynn Rued, Fred Ostmann, and Patti Zook Ms. VanDerbeek called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. explaining the order of procedures and swore in staff and those in the audience intending on testifying. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPLICATION NO. CUP00-0003 The request of Cliff & Cheryl Dechand for a conditional use permit to allow a drive through espresso stand to be placed in the side yard located adjacent to "D" Street SW. Their property is located at 410 West Main. Assistant Planning Director Rued stated that this case should be continued to the June 20"~ Hearing Examiner meeting. This additional time will enable the applicants to revise their site plan. Hearing Examiner then continued the case to the June meeting. APPLICATION NO. PLT00-0001to be removed from the agenda The request of Lakeland Communities LLC for preliminary plat approval of a 105 lot single family subdivision. The site is located east of Lakeland Hills Way & north of 62nd Street SE in Pierce County. Hearing Examiner wanted to confirm the case is being withdrawn. Assistant Planning Director Rued replied yes because the applicants want to redesign the site drawing and bring the request back to the Hearing Examiner at a later date. APPLICATION NO. SHR0001-99 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing. Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. The City of Auburn Parks and Recreation Department requested a shoreline management permit to allow the reconfiguration of seven holes, importation of screened sand, and installation of asphalt cart paths, at the Auburn Golf Course. The City owns the golf course which is being upgraded. The golf course lies in the vicinity of the Green River and a shorelines permit is required. Five fairways will be reconfigured and work performed on the greens. A 4,200 lineal feet of cart paths will also be constructed. Since the golf course is not adjacent to the rive. r, impacts to the river will be minimal. The conservancy designation allows recreation facilities. An environmental review was completed. Staff recommends approval. Hearing Examiner asked about conditions. Assistant Planning Director Rued replied that conditions are contained within the environmental determination. A staff engineer is present to answer questions. Hearing Examiner inquired if 4,200 lineal feet of cart path is for three fairways. Design Engineer Ostmann said the cart path is adjacent to fairways 5, 6 and 7. The path will follow the outlines of the greens. The path will be 8-foot wide and sloped to drain to adjacent grassy areas. Hearing Examiner asked if there is a paved path now. Design Engineer Ostmann said the path will be all- season with better drainage. PAGE 1 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 There was no public testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Headng Examiner indicated that she will issue the written decision within 10 days. APPLICATION NO. VAR00-0001 Hearing Examiner opened the public hearing, Assistant Planning Director Rued presented the staff report. Dennis Nicholson, on behalf of the SuperMall, has requested a variance to allow the construction of a 75 foot high, double faced sign with approximately 1,500 square feet of sign area per each face to be located between the mall and Highway 18. The site, zoned C-3, Heavy Commercial, allows a 45-foot high sign and allows 250 square feet per sign face. Section 18.56.050(A)(3) would allow an additional 62.5 square feet of sign area for a total of 312.5 square feet for each face of a double sided freestanding sign. The variance request is substantially larger than what the Zoning Ordinance allows. The SuperMall was rezoned in 1993 to C-3. The rezone had a condition relating to a master sign plan. The master sign plan was approved in 1995 and spelled out what freestanding signs would be allowed at the mall site. The plan allowed two freestanding signs: 1 oriented to Hwy 18 and 45 feet high and one oriented to Hwy 167 and 65 feet high. The additional height of the sign oriented to Hwy 167 would allow it to be seen over the off ramps of Hwy 167. Assistant Planning Director Rued advised that the variance application is bare regarding any justification for granting the much larger sign. He believes the sign package approved in 1995 is valid. The Washington State Dept. of Transportation has directional signs on Hwy 167 and Hwy 18. It is difficult to see the need for such a large sign. He tried to think of an example for a size comparison, but is not aware of any signs of this size in the area. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Staff does not believe that the variance request meets the established criteria. Hearing Examiner recalls a Federal law about roads funded and prohibiting large signs. Assistant Planning Director Rued referred to the Federal Highway Beautification Act which refers to billboards. Hearing Examiner referred to the signs in Fife which are on Indian land. Assistant Planning Director Rued said the rules relating to those signs are different. Dennis Nicholson, Operations Director for the SuperMall, which is now owned by Glimcher Properties. The problem facing them as new owners of the Mall is one of an identity crisis. They are dealing with this identity crisis in many ways which he then described. Glimcher is the largest operator of this type of mall which is a mega value mall. He then spoke about their expertise in operating malls. The site's wetland areas, detention ponds and bioswales make the siting of signs very difficult. Their sign is needed for the health and welfare of the mall. He then spoke about the water quality monitoring and water quality testing. They do not want to tear up the bioswales for the sign footings. The sign would be located on the northwest corner of the property in front of Oshman's Sporting Goods where the sign would have the greatest impact and least amount of impact on sensitive areas. Considerable effort was made on their part to speak towards the hardship of siting signs. Staff is concerned about approving this sign and it leading to allowing other large signs in town. He then mentioned the number of tenants and size of the mall. The mall does not have sign identity and now has only pylon signs on 15th Street. Hearing Examiner commented that Bellevue Square does not have a sign identity problem. Mr. Nicholson said that Tacoma Mall does. Hearing Examiner is unable to think of any signs in the area which are of the size that the applicant proposes. Mr. Nicholson said the mall planned to have two signs originally, but did not wish to go this way. They could have two instead of one, but the signs would not be visible or readable. Don Bentz, General Manager, has only been on the property for two weeks. The Seattle area is a competitive market. In his career he has not seen such poor signing as this mall has. Glimcher is PAGE 2 HEARING EXAMINER MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 an innovative company which has made improvements at the mall which he mentioned. He mentioned a survey which showed people did not know the mall was a value mega mall. The mall needs to be competitive. He mentioned the sales tax revenue which is 5% increase over last year. They need the sign to remain competitive. This is a partnership with the City in which everyone wins. Hearing Examiner asked about factors and/or circumstances that have arisen since 1993 that would permit a sign five times greater than what is allowed. Mr. Bentz admitted this is difficult to answer because he has only been on the property since November. Glimcher has owned the mall for the last 2 years. The sign issue should have been done when the mall was constructed. He said the LED portion of the sign is 680 square feet. Hearing Examiner said that size is still over double what was originally authorized. Mr. Bentz said they are trying to be innovative to build the mall up. The sign is considered to be "cutting edge" in the sign business and this is the direction they need to go. Mr. Nicholson said if they put in two signs they would be 600 square feet each. They are looking at dropping from two signs to on sign. Regarding vegetation, he can only speak to the bioswales which are a poor place to install signs. The vegetation on Hwy 167 precludes signs. Mike Frazier, Amerivision Sign Company, said the total sign area is 1,500 square feet. One sign avoids visual blight. They need a sign that can be seen from Hwy 167. He then showed a picture of flagging between signs at 75 feet. Hearing Examiner asked where the picture was taken. He said the picture was taken south on Hwy 18. Hearing Examiner marked the picture as Exhibit #2. The case file is Exhibit #1. He stated the sign has 167 different levels of brightens. Regarding the Federal Highway Beautification Act, it refers to billboards. He then read a quote from a "highway safety expert". They plan to donate 10% of message time to the City for public information purposes. Larry Sherry, Sam's Club General Manger, admitted he is not familiar with the sign ordinances. He is concerned about the overall visibility for signing. The present signing is inadequate for the size of the area. His primary concern is the future of the Mall and Sam Club as a tenant. More visibility is needed. They got a bigger sign for Sam's that is approved. City Rebuttal: Assistant Planning Director Rued does understand the Mall's concern. However, the City has a sign ordinance to be followed that contains clear regulations relating to the granting of variances. The application and information provided tonight does not present any new compelling information to approve the larger sign. Regarding Exhibit #2, it was confirmed that it was an 8 foot by 8 foot piece of plywood on top of a 75 foot high pole. He still recommends the variance be denied because the required criteria is still not met. There was no further testimony; therefore, the public hearing was closed. Hearing Exa?niner will take this matter under advisement. The written decision will be issued within 10 days. ADJOURNMENT: With no further items to come before the Hearing Examiner, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. HE\MIN~IIN05-2000 PAGE 3