HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1668 - Affirming the decision of the hearing examiner denying a variance from the city's sign code setback requirements pursuant to MMC 16.16.210 (3) (a) (iiCIT Y 0 F MAR Y S V I L E
Marysville.Washington
RESOLUTION NO./661
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DENYING A VARIANCE
FROM THE CITY'S SIGN CODE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT
TO MMC 16.16.210(3)(a)(iii)AND GRANTING A SIGN PERMIT
ALLOWING FOR A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK PURSUANT TO MMC
16.16.230 RELATING TO COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN PLAN
PERMITS.
WHEREAS,Steven Carlson and Thomas Graham applied for a
variance from the sign code setback requirements set forth in MMC
16.16.210(3)(a)(iii);and
WHEREAS,the City Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on
said application,which was held open administratively through
close of business on December 17,1993;and
WHEREAS,the City Hearing Examiner adopted Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a Recommendation denying the variance request;
and
WHEREAS,the applicants,by letter dated January 13,1994 to
the Marysville City Council,requested consideration of a five-
foot setback for its proposed sign pursuant to MMC 16.16.230
relating to comprehensive design plan permits;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville City Council held a public meeting
on said Hearing Examiner recommendation and on the applicants'
request pursuant to MMC 16.16.230;and
WHEREAS,the Marysville City Council affirmed the decision
of the Hearing Examiner denying the applicants variance,but
approved the applicants'request for a sign permit allowing for a
five-foot setback pursuant to MMC 16.16.230;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MARYSVILLE,WASHINGTON,AS FOLLOWS:
1.The Findings of Fact,Conclusions and Recommendation of
the Hearing Examiner with respect to the above-referenced
variance application is hereby AFFIRMED,and the above-described
variance request is hereby DENIED.
2.The applicants'request for a sign permit pursuant to
MMC 16.16.230,relating to comprehensive design plan permits,is
hereby APPROVED for the reason that each of the criteria set
forth in MMC 16.16.230 is satisfied.The Council hereby finds
that the justification for said permit is outlined in the letter
RESOLUTION - 1
Imvltcarlson.res
of January 13,1994 and narrative statement provided by the
applicants.
3.The approval set forth in paragraph 2 above shall be
specifically conditioned upon the applicants'meeting all other
requirements of the City's sign code as set forth in Chapter
16.16 of the Marysville Municipal Code.Any violation of said
code shall subject the applicants to enforcement action pursuant
to the City's sign code or such other legal remedies as may be
available to the City.
4.The grant of a sign permit pursuant to MMC 16.16.230 in
this matter shall not be construed as precedent setting and shall
be considered in all respects a decision which relates to the
unique features and conditions relating to the applicants'
property and the subject proposal.
5.This decision shall be final and conclusive with the
right of appeal by any aggrieved party to the Superior Court of
Snohomish County by Writ of Certiorari,Writ of Prohibition,or
Writ of Mandamus within fifteen (15)calendar days after the
passage of this resolution.
1~PASSED by the City Council
~day of February,1994.
and APPROVED by the Mayor this
RESOLUTION -2
/mvL/carLson.res
Y CLERK
CITY OF MARYSVILLEBY_V.WA1J4
MAYOR