Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout401 E. Front Street Address: 401 E Front Street CITY OF PORT ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - BUILDING DIVISION 321 EAST 5TH STREET, PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 -Ij Application Number . . . . . 07-00001161 Date 10/15/07 Application pin number . . . 311806 Property Address . . . . . . 401 E FRONT ST ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 06-30-00-5-1-4210-0000- Tenant nbr, name . . . . . . RENAISSANCE MASSAGE Application type description SIGNS Subdivision Name . . . . . . Property Use . . . . . . . . Property Zoning . . . . . . . Application valuation . . . . 250 Owner Contractor ------------------------ ------------------------ LYNN KEENAN ADVERTISING SALES & MORE 215 KLAHANE RIDGE DR. 1327 E. 1ST STREET PORT ANGELES WA 98362 PORT ANGELES WA 98362 (360) 565-1196 (360) 452-7785 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit . . . . . . SIGN Additional desc 15 SQ. FT. FIS SIGN Permit pin number 112615 Permit Fee . . . . 115.00 Plan Check Fee .00 Issue Date . . . . 10/15/07 Valuation . . . . 250 Expiration Date . . 4/12/08 Qty Unit Charge Per Extension 1.00 115.0000 PER S- SIGN FREE OR PROJ 25+ 115.00 ------- ----- --- -------- Special Notes and Comments October 15, 2007 1:05:18 PM sroberds. Proposal is for a freestanding sign, 21 sq.ft. in area, in the CA. Sign will be entirely on private property. No land use issues anticipated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fee summary Charged Paid Credited Due ----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- Permit Fee Total 115.00 115.00 .00 .00 Plan Check Total .00 .00 .00 .00 Grand Total 115.00 115.00 .00 .00 r% Separate Permits are required for electrical work,SEPA,Shoreline,ESA,utilities,private and public improvements. This permit becomes null and void ifwork or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days,if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the work has commenced, or if required inspections have not been requested within 180 days from the last inspection. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be com ether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the sions of any state o I law regulating construction or the performance of construction. Date Print Name Signature of Contractor or Authorized Agent Signature of Owner(if owner is builder) T:Forms/Building Division/Building Permit(10101/07).wpd BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION RE,CORD 0 CALL 417-4815 FOR BUILDING INSPECTIONS. CALL 417-4735 FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS. CALL 417-4807 FOR PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM 24 HOUR NOTICE. IT IS UNLA WFUL TO COVER,INSULA TE OR CONCEAL ANY WORK BEFORE .INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED. POST PERMIT INA CONSPICUOUS LOCATION. KEEP PERMIT CARD AND APPROVED PLANS AT JOB SITE. INSPECTION TYPE DATE ACCEPTED COMMENTS YES NO FOUNDATION: FOOTINGS SHEAR WALLS/WALLS FOUNDATION DRAINAGE DOWN SPOUTS PIERS POST HOLES(POLE BLDGS.) PLUMBING UNDER FLOOR/SLAB ROUGH-IN WATER LINE(METER TO BLDG) GAS LINE FINAL DATE ACCEPTED BY: BACK FLOW/WATER AIR SEAL WALLS CEILING 4:: FRAMING CN, JOISTS/ GIRDERS SHEAR WALL/HOLD DOWNS WALLS/ROOF/CEILING DRYWALL(INTERIOR BRACED PANEL ONLY) T-BAR INSULATION SLAB WALL/FLOOR/CEILING__ MECHANICAL 7 HEAT PUMP/FURNACE/DUCTS GAS LINE t WOOD STOVE/PELLET/CHIMNEY FINAL DATE ACCEPTED BY: COMMERCIAL HOOD/_DUCTS MANUFACTURED HOMES FOOTING/SLAB BLOCKING&HOLD DOWNS SKIRTING PLANNINGDEPT. SEPARATE PERMIT H's SEPA: os PARKING/LIGHTING ESA: LANDSCAPING, SHORELINE.- 01; FINAL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY[USE RESIDENTIAL DATE YES NO COMMERCIAL DATE ACCEPTED YES NO ELECTRICAL-LIGHT DEPT. 417-4735 ELECTRICAL LIGHT DEPT CONSTRUCTION R.W./PW/ CONSTRUCTION-R.W. ENGINEERING 417-4807 PW/ENGINEERING FIRE 417-4653 FIRE DEPT. PLANNING DEPT. 417-4750 PLANNING DEPT. H BUILDING 417-4815 BUILDING a- nu-� T:Forms/Building Division/Building Permit(10/01/07).wpd -J-0 1-2 R-ENAISSANC.E REC .E. � AUG 3 12009 909 Kent Myers, City Manager City of Port Angeles- CITY OF PORT ANGELES 321 E Fifth St. —Dept.of Community Development Pdrt Angeles, WA 98362 August.25, 2009 Dear Kent, I received your letter of August 6th have been giving it a lot of thought. Let me first say, I enjoyed meeting you, too. And I appreciate that you took the time to come to Renaissance to talk with,me. Thank you for coming by. I am disappointed though, that until -getting your letter introducing the possibility of legal action I hadn't heard from you, particularly since you said you would get back to In e right away with the,correct procedure for addressing the City Council about my sign concerns. As I write to you I am still waiting to learn about the appropriate way to address,the Council since you didn't instruct me about this in your recent letter either. I am copying City Council members in hopes that Lhey will know procedures and I will-have the opportunity to address my concerns'with them. I understand they are undertaking\Lssues of signage in town and, while of course I'm biased, I imagine this would be of particular interest to them now. I think this issue of legal-action is i-riteresting-. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand what thd term "procded with legal action" means. Does this mean that you will be suing me? Will I have co-defendants? Will you also take legal action again Mike Millar.and his small business'?. What about the other people responsible for the location of the sign? Will You include them in your legal action? Will you bririg legal action against the City staff member who okayed the permit application as it was designed by Mike Millar (that is, with the sign hanging over the sidewalk)? Will the Public Works staff member who came by, withthe drawing and permit application in hand, Permit application clearly stating, as you suggest that "thesign must be on-private property",'also be included in the legal action? He,saw the drawing, read the admonition that the sig I n should only be on private,property and okayed the sign locatiori 'as proposed with a large florescent "OK". Will the Community Planning staff member ikho came by to inspect the hole' irito which the sign is anchored also be included in the legal action? He had the\permit in his hand,at the inspection, saw the drawing-, read the.wording about the §ign being on private property, and signed off dn the permit, giving Mike Millar the go-ahead to install the sign as proposed. P/ea�e Tum Over 401 EAST FRONT t TREET PORT ANGELES,.WA 98362 WWW.RENAISSANCE-PA.com 360.565.1199 RenaissanceSign Augdst25,2009 PageTwo....,........... Then, onc4 installed .as permitted"the same staff member inspected the sigh, pole on private property, hanging over the sidewalk at more than the required eight feet for-signs doing sd, and gave the final approval on the.sign. It seems that everyone read the words "sign must be completely on-private property" to mean. that where the pole touches property, it must touch private property and no cne install-ing or inspecting the sign thought anything.of the sign being OVER,public property as a problem, (probably because there are dozens of signs over sidewalks, anchored on private property, throughout Port Angeles, especially on the Front and First arterials). It sounds,like-you have,decided that it is I who am responsible for the sign being placed in a location �f which you n6w' do not approve. Yet, several peo'pie on your staff repeatedly- affirmed the location. Why, if the-original �taff member who okayed the permit felt the,entire sign shod,Id be on AND HANG OVER only private property, didn't she write something �ike ,.move sign 2.5 feet nort W- for correct installation", rather than the wording that so many people, including her direct colleagues, consistently read to mean only the pole must be on private property? Why are you writing to me of legal action when I am,the only participant who had nothing to do with the actual installation except for-following correct procedure in procuring th e permit? Isn't it the City that has-a fiduciary responsibility, through its employees, to assure the sign be placed in a legal location if I do everything in my power, through the permitting process, to place the sign correctly? Let Me state one more time, especially for the-sake of the Council Members, that I have no desire to have a sign that i s out of code. If the sign actually does vi olate code (and that is still debatable isn't it?) then I am amenable to it being replaced. I am not amena,ble, however,'to paying for its replacemerit. I followed all legal prodedure as required by the City,'as did Mike Millar. The site was approved by City employees four times, before and after installation! If City staff members now feel it is in the wrong location and that it must be moved, it seems that the City is responsible-to pay for its replacement. Please advise me, in writing, as to my nexi step In addit�sing the City Council,.and exactly what you mean by "legal action", in case I should need to hire a lawyer. 4ReaiSincerely, n ere c 'y y eenan- iss c ssance Owner cc: Mike Millar Vgathan West William Bloor Glenn Cutler Gary Braun Dan'DIGuilio Cherie Kidd Don Perry Karen Rogers -Betsy Wharton Larry Williams, Becky Upton- i P..,ORT NGELES A W A S H I N G T 0 N, U. S. A. �114NNWA City Manager's Office August 6, 2009 R E C E V E A -6 2009 UG Ms. Lynn Keenan ci YOFPORTANGELES Renaissance Dept.of Community Development 401 East Front Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Dear Lynn: I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you several weeks ago to discuss the continued issue regarding the sign located at your business. As we discussed,the company that installed your sign placed it in a location that violates city regulations. Since the sign hangs in the City right-of-way,the overhanging portion will have to be reversed to meet the City's right-of-way requirements. As we discussed,the sign permit clearly states that the sign would be installed on private property and the sign company representative,Mike Millar,was reminded about this requirement on several occasions by City staff prior to installation. I spoke to Mr. Millar on the phone several weeks ago and lie agreed to contact you to try to resolve this violation and then call me back. He did not call me back as promised, so I contacted him again.last Monday and he agreed to let me know something by the end of last week. I still have not received a return call indicating what action will be taken to meet city regulations. The City has been very patient in allowing you time to correct this problern, but it seems that neither you nor Mike Millar will follow through. Therefore,the City is now preparing a legal action to order removal of this sign. If you still want to avoid legal action,you may dorrect the situation yourself, and I still encourage you to do that. If you intend to do that, let me know promptly. Since this violation has existed for over a year,the City will proceed with legal action unless by the end of August you correct the problem or you present to me a plan to correct it. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, i Kent My CityM i_geir Nathan West, DCED C c: V1 William Bloor, City Attorney Glenn Cutler, PW&U Phone: 360-417-4500 Fax: 360-417-4509 Website: www.cityofpa.us/Email: cityrnanager@cityofpa.us 321 East Fifth Street- P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 RIGHT OF WAY USE PERMIT 1P APPLICATION s NAME OF APPLICANTJ 406�WA-J DATE i, !� �_�Z MAILING ADDRESS 41 PHONE NUMBER STREET ADDRESS OF PROPOSED STREET USE !�L D58—CRIPTION OF REQUEST(include drawings required for clarity): [If street closure is requested, please state the name of the street and limits of closure, together with the duration of closure.] IS THE USE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT? HOW LONG WILL THE OBSTRUCTION BE IN PLACE? WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION? 21Y HOW IT WILL BE LIGHTED? t'-40'T L:�LkEg­:!� EXPLAIN THE NECESSITY TO USE THE PUBLIC STREET, SIDEWALK OR PLANTING STRIP. ARE THERE ALTERNATE AREAS THAT COULD BE USED?11,0_ 4-" J m44L"�: 4, 4' 2 4�\,4L�4 HOLD HARMLESS and INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT In compliance with the Port Angeles Municipal Code, and in consideration of the issuance by the City of Port Angeles of a Right Of Way Use Permit to the undersigned allowing the placement of the above described street use or obstruction, the undersigned for himself and for his successors in interest, hereby agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Port Angeles against any claims or lawsuits for personal injury or property damage arising out of, or in any way connected with,the pli mmohit of the use or obstruction on the City street,sidewalk, planting strip,or right f way !k/k DATEB this &-tq day of MA-0-8.4 _20 N E RE A t pp _"�ON A+ I zz lk" \ *Lie /4�OTARYPUBIIC for Washin to In % rbasiding at 4SHItAO �y commission expires: Ll lldlfl,1016% '(This permit,if approved,may be terminated by the City of Port Angeles without cause and at any time) [OFFICE USE ONLY7 Date application received. Fee paid $ Receipt# Date Certificate of Insurance per PAMC 11.12.140(B) received Agreement to Remove Encroachment signed and on N/A and recorded on N/A Application rev gineer D ate 311YI09 .�and recommendatio*n by City En is to deny or a and with the followog conditions: re ve.v, J WAIrt QP_1_r0_V 10O.Yv-Abdie -C4'P_3+W 114sth" R.O.O. tp 54;6' a r+k, +tA 4E ynbyl" VA')SP (%F " dRIA, tki se!�A Out OF Ile R-1 Application approved or denied by the Director of Public Works Date Approved copies to: Applicant 0 Fire 0 Police 0 Street 0 Other 0 Address file 0 RUP# N:\Urban Services Standards\Chl\ROW Use Permit.doc, January 10,2008 )08) Sue Ooberds - Renaissance From: Sue Roberds To: Dennis Dickson Subject: Renaissance Dennis: This is in response to a couple of items in Lynn Keenan's November 26 letter. If she wishes to appeal denial of the Right of Way Use Permit, she needs to do so through the City Council, not the Planning Commission, per 11.12.140 PAMC. I'm not sure where she got the notion that she would need to work through the Planning Commission , but I know she has been confused about that for some time now. Her 13 day appeal period has passed, but again, it could be a matter of interpretation as to whether her discussions with staff have stayed that time period (?). As is normally the case when these issues dra, on for Ion, periods of time, facts tend to be fuzzy, but in my mind, at least, they are quite simple: 1. Initial review of her sign permit led me to immediately call the applicant, ASM Signs, to ascertain the intent of sign placement. It was made very clear by me, and confirmed by Mike Millar, that the sign would be "entirely on the applicant's property." This wording was placed on the building permit so no one would miss it, and reviewed by Permit Tech Linda Pangrle when that permit was picked up. 2. The matter of mis placement of the sign was immediately brought to the owner's attention and she later, in her last letter to me, noted her intention to indeed place the sign in the location that it is at because of her concern with a neighbor's tree. She admitted that it was intentional, so no matter how she tries to blame staff for her problem, the admittance of knowingly placing the sign where it sits is there in black and white. Just my thoughts. I'm sure you will be responding to Ms. Keenan regarding a decision on her appeal status. Sue Roberds NAISSANCE NOV 2 6 2008 CITY OF PORTAWGELES Dept.of Community Developmept DennisDickson Sr. Assistant City Attorney 321 East Fifth St Port Angeles, WA 98362 November 26, 2008- Dear Mr. Dickson,, I am writing in regard to your letter of November 18, 2008., We have a distinctly different memory of our last interaction, which as you note, was by phone. This compels me to request that all of our communicationt,in the future be in writing'. That said, let me share my-recollection of our conversation after your visit. First, during your visit I asked if the City would be willing to shoulder the 6ost of removing our sign since it wai the City that was in error, not 1. You said yqu would advocate for t'hat on my, behalf, though you did counsel me to hold no hope for this happening. Then, when you called you told me that the City would, indeed, not be paying to remove our sign. When you asked when I could have it done, I told you it was my intention to complete the next step in my long-term intentions outlined in my letter to the City of March 6, 2008..At that point I said that if the City were not willing to pay for the�removal or moving ign that I w'uld seek to address the City Planning Commission during of the Renaissance s 0 the public comment listening session of thei.r meeting, (NOT as your letter states,":pursue an appeal" process with Sue Roberds, I know that Sue Roberds has no power to hear or respond to an appeal from mej When I.told you'l would speak to the Commission, you suggested] would need to-get in contact with Sue Roberds about that. I responded that I would do so. You then told me that she was in the process of getting minor surgery (remember your jo.ke? You thought it was m'inor because it wasn't happening to you?) and that you would get back with me in regard to the date of her return to work. When I said I could.call her office to find that out, you.insisted you;a be happy to do that and then get back wi�h me as to when I might find her in the office. As you know, that was the last I keard from you, in what has since.b,een well over a month. As far as I know, Sue is still recovering from surgeryland I am stifl waiting to learn when the Planning Commission next meets. 401 EAST FRONT STREET PORT,ANGELES, WA 98362 WWW.RENAISSANCE-PA.c.om 360.565.1199 November 26, 2008 Letter to Dennis Dickson, City of Port Angeles As you might imagine, now I can't help but wonder if I have missed my opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission before your December 15, 200& date of referring this matter for enforcement action. It's been a challenge to-remlain positive and assume the' best of intentions on everyone's part through this situation. Mr Dickson, I know that I have no appeal process available to me through the City's staff. It's my hope to speak to the Planning Commission because I view them as something of a, jury of my peers, �i group of fellow citizens and small business owners who are more likely' to understand my perspective on this,situation; a situation in which, even your colleagues suggest I am a "vicitim"—not my choice of words, -but that of a colleague of yours. I did everything right, Mr. Dickson. Multiple departments in the City made mistakes that lead to-the�sign's (first) permitting, (second) locating, (third) installation,-and (fourth) final approval. Why the staff of the City of Port Angeles thinks that I should pay to reverse those mistakes is something that I believe a &ilzens' advisory panel ought to consider. Sincerely, *LynKeenan Renaissance Owner (<; Ro S� enn� 'OR NGzLES'' V E. �A RECH W ,A S H I IN G T 0 N, U. S.': A MAY 3 0 2008' . Legal Department �,,CITY OF PORT AN7GELjs May 30, 2008 Ms. Lynn Keenan XV Renaissance 401 East Front Street PortAngeles, WA 98362 Dear Ms. Keenan: The matter concerning the sign advertising your business at 401 East Front Street has.been referred to me in the City of Port Angeles Legal Department.. In connection with that referral, I have reviewed the building permit, sign plan, and site map drawing, together with your correspondence. Your sign, as presently constructed and located, violates the provisions of PAMC 11.12.060 in at least two separate ways. First, the support pole from which the, sign hangs is constructed partially in the right-of-way and therefore constitutes an encroachment or obstruction into the the exception of a few inches, the face of the sign is located right-of-way. Separately, wi I -and thus,is within the right-of-way. I am enclosing a copy of Cl�apter entirely over the s i dewalk �01 11.12 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code. f the sign is constructed partially into the right-of-way,the Public. Although the support pole 0 Works and Utilities Department has indicated a willingness to grant a right-of-way use permit if the overhanging portion of the sign were reversed so that it no.longer overhangs the rightw-of- way, but rather extends north onto private property. I would be pleased to work with you toward getting this matter resolved,and would look forward, to hearing from you in that regard. Should we be unable to resolve the matter, enforceindrit provisions are outlined in PAMC 11A.2.160 and 11.12.170. I look forward to.hearing from you. My telephone number is (360) 417-4532. vour n Sr. Assistant City Attorney DCD.jd Encls. G-\.LEG,�LVETTERS.2008\KeeDan.RenaissanceSign.052908.wpd PhbhLT��b'04f?-4530/Fax: 360-417-4529 Website: www.cityofpa.us Email: attorney@ cityofpa.us 321 East Fifth Street- P.O. Box 1150 Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 "" ELES ('"J'U'R T Ma CITY OF P� A ASH INGTON, U. S. A. MEMO May 12, 2008 DEPARTMENT TO: Dennis Dickson, Senior City Attorney OF COMMUNITY FROM: Sue Roberds, Planning Mkja4 & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RE: Renaissance Sign - 401 East Front Street Mark E.Madsen Building Permit 07-1161 was issued to Lynn Keenan, owner of Renaissance, to City Manager install a free standing sign at 401 East Front Street. During the course of review of 417-4501 the application, discussion took place between myself and sign contractor Mike Millar regarding sign placement because the site map was so poorly done. Mike Sue Roberds assured me that the sign would exist entirely on Ms Keenan's property. I placed Planning Manager the following wording on the face of the building permit to ensure proper sign 417-4750 placement: "Sign will be entirely on private property." Unfortunately, with the Nathan West exception of a few inches, the sign face is located entirely over and within the City Principle Planner right of�y�a. The support pole is partially in the right of way,but the Public 417-4751 Works and Utilities Department has compromised on this issue as long as safety Scott Johns measures (wheel stop) are in place because placement is so close to the property Associate Planner line. However, those measures have also been ignored. 417-4752 When the mis location was noted by several people, staff double checked the Daniel Bialzik property line, and contacted property owner Keenan and the contractor which Assistant Planner resulted in several weeks of continuing conversation and verification that the sign 417-4804 was indeed NOT on private property. Following another month of refusal to re Jim Lierly place the sign, the building permit was revoked on February 28, 2008. Building Inspector 417-4816 Mike Millar does not deny my early conversation with him regarding placement Patrick Bartholick nor!�-g`obad-Lfie�ason orr the mis placement. Staff members have had several Code Compliance, coXersations with Ms. Keenan and Mr. Millar and others representing her Building Inspections regarding this issue. The matter will not be rectified without enforcement. I am 417-4712 loathe to have to go this route, but communication has ceased between Ms. Keenan Linda Pangrle and this office at this point. Permit Technician In the attached letter from Glenn Cutler and myself, you will note other safety 417-4815 issues that have been made known to Ms. Keenan through the course of events that Fax are not being addressed. 360-417-4711 I have enclosed copies of the building permit, letter from Ms. Keenan, and staff letters for your infon-nation. Please let me know what more information you need to commence enforcement of this matter. Enclosures: copies of file information Cc: Glenn Cutler Steve Sperr E RENAISSANCE , MAY 2 0 2008, CITY FPORTAN L S Dept.of community Developmen Glenn A Cutler, Director, Public Works & Utilities Department Sue Roberds, Planning Manager, Community & Economic Development Department City of Port Angeles 321-E. 5t'-St. Port Angeles, WA 98362 May 12, 2008 Dear Glenn and Sue, This letter is in regard'to your letter dated April 3, 2008 in which I was not granted an ROW Use Permit for the,Renaissance sign as it stands now. I have several responses and a question or two to follow�up. You've suggested I remove the cross bars on the sign and reaffix them so they hahg north. I've discussed this option with both Sue Roberds and Trenia Funston. In each co9versation I've said the same thing and fear that my concerns go unheard or disregarded. First, I appreciate Trenia's concern.abo'ut the concrete wheel stop. I have moved and affixed the st6p three feet from the sign. Second, and her*e is where I feel'my comments have been disregarded, if the crossbars are removed from the pole they will be destroyed as will the pole. They have been affixed,with permanent polyurethane adhesive. Several biscuits were used in the joinery in order to make it'as strong as'possible.-In my first conversations with the Planning Department about the sign I was told that it must withstand "winds Up to 100 miles per,hour". As a result the sign, especially the joints, were made to bd as strong as possJble. Infinitely more important than destroyiIng the sign, however, is the fact that if the.sign would hang north rather than south, much of the face of the sign would hang behind, - my-neighbor's tree (which was pruned last fall to encourage vigorous growth this summer). As a business owner in a dual-zoned neighborhood I'm,aware of my responsibility to be a good business neighbor. It's an aspect of being herp that's important to me.-As a result, the last thing I want'to do is enter into a long7term process of repeatedly compelling myneighbor to trim her tree so it doesn't cover up the Renaissance sign. Our business was here before she bought her property, but the sign is new and I beli,eve it's my responsibility to work around her on this.."This is EXACTLY why we submitted the plan for the sign.hanging over the sidewalk.r Which brings me to this request I want to make to you again, as it has yet to be addressed. 401 EAST FRONT STREET PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 WWW.RENArSSANCE-PA.com 360.565.1199' May 12, 2008 Letter to Sue Roberds and-Glenn Cutler, City of-Port Angeles Two times previous to this letter—once via email and another in hard,copy--i have.requested in writing the codes that the Renaissance sign violates. I've yet to receive any such list. I don't want to be.disrespectful-of you, in.anyway. Nobody appreciates (your) civic service more than I and I . appreciate the reality of managing a city with multiple constituents. But, without some documentation from you that lists the local sign codes, state highway related WACs, of RCW`s etc. that the Renaissance sign violates it feels to me like the sign has viblated,nothing more than a staff decision to keep'(some) signs from hanging above (some) sidewalks. The fact that both the7 initial Public Works Inspector, then the Planning Department Inspector—each with a copy of the design showing the sign hanging over the sidewalk--interpreted the comment "sign must be entirely on private property" to mean that the pole must be on priv'ate property strengthens that sense. Please send me in writing the codes violated'by the sign as it-stands now. I Af this point I want to stay consistent with my'March 6 th letter to Sue and approach the topic of unearthing and relocating the sign since 1,am unable t o secure'the ROVV Use Pe i-mit forthe sign, as is. I'm not sure if I should be proud or embarrasted to admit that it took Us the first 18 months of being in business to put away enough.money each month to pay.for the (admittedly modest) sign in - question. The prospect of relocating the sign is clearly a financial challenge, esp ecially at this time of year. I certainly have not been putting away money for the sign. Since the City first approved the sign, then later—after it Was permanently affixed and cured in con crete—d isa pp roved the sign, is the City willing to help with the cost of unearthing and relocating the sign so it hangs neither over the sidewalk, nor behind neighboring trees?.If sb, ,l am interested in .negotiating this option. If not, it's just about the last thing I want to do, but I will make arrangements to speak to the City ,Planning Commission about the sign. However,before then, I would appreciate that list of violated codes. If they are not in the body of the code, please.include the dates in which the codes, WACs, etc. went into effect. Thank you, in advance., Respectfully Your�, *yKeenan cc: City Manager, City Attorney 401.EAST FRONT STREET PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 WWW.RENAISSANCE-PA.Com 360..565.1199 (4/2MO08) Sue Robe'rds-401 East Front Street .......... Pa e ...........- g, From: Sue Roberds To: Ikeenan@reidmidd.com Subject: 401 East Front Street Dear Lynn: A site visit this afternoon indicated that your sign has not been revised, nor has a wheel stop been placed per the City's letter of April 3. Lynn, this shouldn't be such a chore for you. We really do want to help you make this right, but the sign must be swung toward your property. Past mistakes need to be corrected so that we can all move forward on a positive note. I need you to identify your time line for compliance so that we can avoid future unpleasantness and undue stress. Please call. Sue Roberds Planning Manager City of Port Angeles, WA 360-417-4750 �77 I P�PR g�GELEI TAI WAS Hl NGTON, U. S. A. . Community & Economic Development Department 44t April 3, 2008 Lynn Keenan u�:'jt'� Renaissance 401 East Front Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Business sign located in Front Street Right of Way 401 East Front Street Dear Lynn: This letter is in regard to the above referenced sip installed at 401 East Front Street, for which a Right-of-Way(ROW)Use Permit was applied on March 6, 2008. It also addresses your letter, also dat'ed March 6, to Sue Roberds regarding the building permit issued for the sip. installation. After much discussion, it has been determined that the Public Works and Utilities Department would allow the supporting post for the sign to remain at its present location in the Front Street ROW if the following occurs: 1. Resubmit a ROW Use Permit'application detailing how that portion of the freestanding business sip that presently projects 4 feet over the sidewalk will be reversed so that it is located north of its supporting pole. A ROW Permit will then be issued for the supporting pole that will be allowed to remain in the ROW, conditioned on moving the actual sign as described. This action can be justified as the pole location will be completely outside of the sidewalk corridor. 2. Promptly move and secure an adjacent concrete wheel stop. During a recent inspection of the sign, City inspectors expressed their concem,that the existing concrete wheel stop closest to the base of the sip is too close to the sip and is not properly secured into the ground. That portion of the wheel stop adjacent to the sidewalk is broken, showing exposed re-bar. As was discussed with you at the time, a secured wheel stop must be installed no closer than 3 feet from the sip post. This distance is required in order to prevent customers from making contact with the post when parking their,vehicles and from interference with pedestrian use of the right-of-way. This is a safety concern and must be corrected immediately. Regardless of the progress of resubmission of a ROW Use Permit application, the wheel stop issue must be addressed within 15 days of receipt of this letter. Phone: 36 -417-4750 Fax: 360-417-4711 0 Website: www.cityof pa.us Email: smartgrowth @ cityof pa.us 321 East Fifth Street - P.O. Box 1150/ Port Angeles, WA 98362-0217 The matter of relocation of the sign Was discussed,with your sign contractor prior to issuance of your building' permit.'It was noted on,the building.permit that-the sign was to.be entirely located o.n:yqur property. A series of misunderstandings in subsequent discussions does.not relieve the property owner..or permittee from taking corrective action. While,we agree that it is disappointing that we have arrived at this point, we must consider the public's interests in maintaining public ROW for its.iritended.use, while protecting the safety of its citizens both.within and outside of the ROW. Once the whe6l sto issue is addressed as described above, and a'ROW Use.Permit P application is resubmitted that-details how the main part*of the sign is removed:ftom overhanging the sidewalk, your building permit will be reissued with the condition-that the. sign's support pofe may remain inside the adja6ent:strebt ROW,as described.in#1 above. If you have questions,please�cofttact either one of us at geutleiggilyof or pa.us (417 4800)� sroberds@city-ofpa.us (417-4750)., Sincerely, Glenn Cu r,'Dir. tor Public Works 4Utilities Department Sue Roberds, Pl,a ing Manager Community&Economic Development Department March 28, 2008 Renaissance Ms. Lynn Keenan 401 East Front Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: 401 East Front Street Dear Ms. Keenan: This letter responds to yours of March 6, 2008, regarding the placement of your new freestanding sign at 401 East Front Street. As we discussed, the issue at hand has nothing to do with design of the sign,but has everything to do with its placement. You indicated (in your letter) your intent to address the encroachment of the sign into the adjacent right-of-way by obtaining a Right of Way Use Permit. The sign can be relocated entirely within the confines of your property and remain visible to the public without use of the adjacent property. A Right of Way Use Permit in this case then would become a permanent use o1right-of-way to an individual and would likely be denied for that reason. The matter of location was discussed with your sign contractor prior to issuance of the building permit and, as a result of that discussion,was noted on the building permit. It is your ultimate responsibility as a property owner to take corrective action in this matter. A series of misunderstandings doesn't make an action more correct. I know that you share in my disappointment that we have reached this juncture. However, by your letter, I understand that you do not intend to remove the encroachment. As you know, the building permit has been revoked. Although I remain available to answer any questions you may have, corrective action is necessary at this point. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Manager TAFORMS\CODE COMPLIANCEKeenanletterldoc -Ms. Sue Roberds, Planning Manager City of Port Angeles 321 E. 5" St. Port Angeles, WA 98362- March 6, 2008 Dear Ms. Roberds, In response to your letter of February 27, 2008 1 Want to let you know what my intent is in regard to the Rehaissance business sign. I intend to obtain a Public Use'Permit as you have suggested is'an option for me. As I mentioned to you on the phone, I'm usually a good, go-along-to-get-along kind of-citizen. I understand that creating communities that work takes the investment and flexibility of everyone. I'm more th'an willing to go the dist6nce, even more than .my fair share. As you mentioned on the'phone, I've had cause to do this multiple times in the course of developing Renaissance. In the case of the sign, though* I am not ready to"go along" at this point. I really feel, Sue, that I've pursued all the right ste�s in reigald to securing a sign'for my business. From my perspective it is the City that is cujpable, having app�roved the sign l6cation THREE times; two of which took .place before'the 32 cubic feet of concrete were poured to secure it. On all three visits the.Public Works staff and Planning Department staff had before them your words "Sign will be entirely on private property"and repeafedli affirm-ed'the'sign location and installation. To me, this demdristrates the City's responsibility, not mine, for any errors made. Furthermore, my investrnent in that sign goes well beyond the thousands of dollars invested to create and install The increase in our business has been terrific since the sign was installed. Each week people comment that they have seen our ads but until they saw the sign.never knew where we were located (hard to believe given our location, isn't it?). The sign has no doubt played a part in being awarded the Beautification Award by the Chamber of Commerce, which in giving the award congratulated Renai'ssance on,making,the entrance to downtown more inviting. We've even had neighbo�s from across the street thank us for installing such a tasteful, natural sign. Sojirst, I intend to apply for a Public Use Per'mit. Hopefully that will be granted and the saga will end there. In the event that it is not granted, second, 1-intend to -.eturh to a discussion with you-in hopes ol negotiating who pays the costs of moving the sign the 18 inches it overhangs the sidewalk. I'm happy for it to be moved far enough north to clear the sidewalk, if the City is willing to pay the costs related to that. Third, if the City is not willing to-.cover,the costs of moving the sign, I understand there is-a City Planning Commission which hears public comment at the beginning of each of its meetings; I will seek to address that group on this issue. In our phone conversation you said that our sign does not violate any"sign codes, but instead is out of compliance-with other city codes and codes related,to the State highway, the latter of which you allude to in your letter as well. Would you please provide me with references to the codes that the sign violates?Tbpnk you, in advance, Sue, for sending those references. lRes ctfu I Yours, Y 0 y y Kee an cc. City Manager, City Attorney, Mike Millar 401 EAST FRONT STREET PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 WWW.RENA1S.SANCE;-RA.CO,M 360.565.1199 ff-ffORT NGELES A W A S H I NGTON, U. S. A. Community & Economic Development Department February 27, 2008 Ms. Lynn Keenan Renaissance Massage 401 East Front Street Port Angeles, .WA 98362 RE: Revocation of Sign Permit - #07-1161, 401 East Front Street Dear Ms. Keenan: On December 7, 2007, Building Inspector Jim Lierly finaled.Sign Permit#07-116.1. It was soon noted that placement of the sign is inappropriate as it extends entirely over the right-of-way, which is also a State Highway in the subject location.Placement of the sign was not consistent with the sign permit notes which-indicate that the"Sign will be entirely on private property." The sign contractor was immediately notified.. During the course of the next couple of weeks, I, and others within this Department, spoke to your sign contractor and with Mr. Rivers (representing you)regarding the error in n. placement, and were led to believe that some action would be taken to correct the problei t placed b u 1 imately your Nothing has,been done. Although the sip was no y yo it 's ulti responsibility to ensure that corrective action is taken to relocate the's p appropriately. More recently,I spoke to you during the first part of February, 2008,regarding the matter, and you that the sign permit would be revoked. I told'you that I would give it a few days but that even though the City made an error in finaling the permit, once noted, errors must be corrected. The sign permit is hereby revoked. -iat during these past weeks you have had time to make preparation to re place I hope tl �q ............... TA, the sign, and that such action will be the quick result of our discussion and this letter. I am truly sorry that this issue has come up to spoil the excitement and your investment in a is matter mus lovely new sign for your business. However,please note that thi t be resolved very quickly. Please contact this office no later than March 7, 2008,with your intent in the -Ms matter. Sincerely, N, Sue Roberds Planning Manager cc: City Manager City Attorney Mike Millar, ASM Signs Phone: 360-417-4750/Fax: 360-417-4711 Website: ww-v,/.cityofpa.us/ Email: smartgrowth @cityofpa.us 001 17—+ C:;ffk ED r) P-, 0 Qrf Ann n I�c 1AIA Q A 17 [—(1/8/ Ue R6b-eFds­'-' e: R e'n—ai'ssance Sign' From: Steve Sperr To: Roberds, Sue Date: 1/3/2008 10:58 AM Subject: Re: Renaissance Sign CC: Cutler, Glenn; Funston,Trenia Sue, I am inclined to support a ROW Use Permit for this instance,with a caveat that the sign is to be removed at ASM's cost if ASM installs any more signs within the ROW in the next 2 years without a ROW Use Permit. I'll need to think about this a bit more first, however. I would suggest that ASM start the ROW Use Permit process in the meantime. >>> Sue Roberds 1/3/2008 10:43 AM >>> Dear Steve and Trenia: The Building Division recently issued a sign permit for a freestanding sign at Renaissance(northeast corner of Peabody and Front Street). The sign application was submitted by ASM Signs. I contacted Mike Millar soon after submittal of the application to determine the exact sign site location because the site plan was unreadable. Mike informed me that he knew the sign had to be within the subject property and that it would be. I wrote that information on the sign permit,and Linda reiterated it to him when he picked up the permit. Surprise! The sign is completely located in,and hangs entirely over the sidewalk! Unfortunately,Jim did not check the building permit info before he finaled the sign. He now realizes his mistake. Mike is absolutely putting the blame on the City,although he readily admitted that he did speak to me and did say that the sign would be within the property boundaries. He just doesn't want to move it. We have been in contact with several folks regarding this and have explained to all of them that while there are signs within the City that do hang into the right of way,and that while we do have the ability to allow that to occur in specific situations, it is not preferred, but an option when nothing else works,and the right of way use provisions require the applicant to prove that there is no other alternative particularly within the Highway 101 corridor. Mike is being very defensive and demanding,and although he admits he knew the prescribed location requirements, he wants us to prove we have the right to restrict the signage to property boundaries. I expect he will approach your department requesting a right of way use permit. DCED will continue to push the issue,but I don't want to push too hard unless you are NOT going to issue a right of way use permit. If you are,there is no need for us to go to the wall in this matter. Please let me know what you would like us to do. If we are making a stand at this point and saying no more encroachments,then so be it. If not,I expect you will evaluate a ROW permit. This is probably an issue we should educate Council's CED Committee on as these issues may ultimately get to them on appeal as sign issues sometimes do. We will wait to hear from you,but let me know as soon as possible what approach you want to take because we have not as yet suggested that Mike seek a ROW permit. Sue F-AL(-_2 Application Tracking Action Log Maintenance — CITY OF PORT ANGELES 3tMQAftWPv8LjC SECTOR HTE Application Tracking Action Log Maintenance Application number: 07 00001161 Address: 401 E FRONT ST Application type: SIGNS Revision/Path/Step/Seq/Agency: A 01 00 PLANNING Action date: 101507 Action by: -SR SUE ROBERDS Action code: 1,',P APPROVED Time spent(hours): M �,October 15, 2007 1:05:18 PM sroberds. 7 5- Mr__ 1p Proposal is for a freestanding sign, 21 sq.ft. in area, in !the CA. Sign will be entirely on private property. No land -N juse issues anticipated. ;=2.OM 3.00 Highlighted'Sequence'indicates line is not ava*able for List selection. OK is no Exit Cancel Add standar.. L--- __j Cod C, PREPARED 12/07/07, 10:26:22 INSPECTION TICKET PAGE 7 CITY OF PORT ANGELES INSPECTOR: JAMES LIERLY DATE 12/07/07 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ADDRESS . : 401 E FRONT ST SUBDIV: TENANT, NBR: RENAISSANCE MASSAGE CONTRACTOR ADVERTISING SALES & MORE PHONE (360) 452-7785 OWNER LYNN KEENAN PHONE (360) 565-1196 PARCEL 06-30-00-5-1-4210-0000- APPL NUMBER: 07-00001161 SIGNS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT: SIGN 00 SIGN REQUESTED INSP DESCRIPTION TYP/SQ COMPLETED RESULT RESULTS/COMMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLHD 01 11/02/07 JLL BLDG FRAMING HOLD DOWNS 11/02/07 AP November 2, 2007 1:21:51 PM 1pangrle. ___�'1�4 5 2'-� _ _ _ T IG� BL99 01 12/07/07 J L 'LDG FINAL December 6, 2007 4:10:53 PM 1pangrle. MIKE 452-7785 BLDG FINAL - SIGN (RENAISSANCE) -------------------------------------- COMMENTS AND NOTES -------------------------------------- FOR OFilICIAL USE ONLY: IQ— 4-67 8 0.-� BUILDING PERMIT - PREAPPLICATION paulit C N-7-I 1 0 1 Pm-Ap The Building Permii -Preapplicaiion must bdflJ&d out COWletAY- Date Appov*&__ V Please type or print in InIL If you have an),questions,please call j417-481 ( Phone: I __ Applicant and/or Agent:_ Phone: zip, CA V-1 Address: city: Architect/Engineer- Phone: 44 Contractor_ C6-9 S.' License 4- Exp:, Phone: Address: zip. CT PROJECT ADDRESS:---�L- (D ZONrfNG_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION.- Wt: Block: _j/ suhdi'�ision:­­ TYPE OF WORK: SIZEIVALUATION: 1) Residential 0 NewConstr. 0 Reroof 0 woodstove SF. @ S f_/SF.=S_ El Multi-family 0 Addition 0 Move 0 Garage SF. @$--ja.-$_ 0 Commercial 0 Remodel C3 Demolition C3 Dock SF.@$------jSF. -S--- 0 Repair jw-sip 0 TOTAL VALI-TATION S BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. �j f--(At COMIMERCIAL(RESI]DENTIAL: Omuptuicy Group.__ Occupant Load. Construction Type:--_ No.of Stories:-- Lot Size %1A)t COVelage: % Existing Lot Coverage:—_/sq� ft +Proposed Lot Coverage:_/sq. ft TOTAL,LOT COVERAGE:—_-/sq.ft PIAN-N'(NG USE ONLY APPROVALS. PLAN Permits Required: Notes� BLDG__ Max. Height: Setbacks. 2'orung. DPW- Site Plan and Use Approved by: Date: FIRE—_ ESA/Wctland(s)� a Yes 0 No SEPA Checklist required?a Yes 0 No Other: OTHER—­­ PREAPPUCA'nONSUBMYYI*AL- Your appfi=dan and site plan nuast befdkd oid conpkir4,to be acreptedfor review. TheBuilding Division can provide you with more detailed information on the application and plan subtruittai requi-rements. BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL: Your completed application.,site plan.(fbr additions)and building construction plans are to be submitted to the Builduig Division, Any addition larger than 500 sq,ft.will need a Preapplication Review. VALUATION OF CONSTRUCnON: In all czses, a valuation amount must be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and ma.v he revised by the Building Div. to comply%krith current fee schedules. Contact the Pemt Coordinator at 417-4815 for assistance. PLAN CHECK FEE: Your plan check-fee is due a.,the time the building permit application and construction plans are submitted. Ali other pen-nit fees are due at the time of pernut issuance. EXPIRATION OF PLAN REVIEW: It no pcm. w is issued Within 180 days of the date or application, this application will expire by hrnitatim. T'he Building Official can mund the inne for action by the applican,up to 180 days,on written request by the applicant(see Section 304(d)of the Uniform Building Code,current edition). No application cart be extended more thaii once. I hereb.",cerytfv that I have read and examined this applicattois and know the same io be true and correct, and I am authorized to applyfor !his perinit. understand it is not the Cio,'s 'egal responsibiliry to deteentine what pernins are required,- is reinains the applicants responsibih�v to de.rernitne what permits are required and to obtain such. c� Date: Applicant.- pxr:CADATA\WP\KEEPER"LDA?P.M1 PW-1 102.03irrv.21961 21 �0 11 oO i MY,, Sp yy� "ISM ollljvli#N4�1, Y 16 "AMY", Al TV- pmlez XM SY!" w J�,1, L4 A4aW .............----------- 8411 V 6" 12" 611 4'r 31 3' - 310 4" 51 f"�-y Actual Sign: Yx&;-114 Polyrnstal(F�center,Owrftm exkwbm boffi sides). Total visight 14[be.,6 OL Produoed @ CopyCat Cd�. Port Angelm Post/W)ar. poid-,61 x S'p—Fe*uaWd wood;t-bam-e x 4'preswAs-tmated wotd Hardware: 203" 31W x 4"stalrilless eye bolts&1 IW FqN*ft(220 lb&worlft bad)Sor sign. 31W x 6"Stainless WO sorms for t-bam 81 - 611 Ground Preparmition: Sink pole 4 f"deep,in Z x 7 square(by 41 arcernaft Grade 0, 0 0 0� 0 41 Concrete Fill -- 0 2' x2' x4' 0 0 0 0 2f oint 4" joint 3.3' Actu!f Sign: 1/91 volymetal(I'lljorglass center,ahiminurn e,,diirior, both'Ides.lbtal welght:14 lbs,5 or,Produmd Q0 CopyCit Graphic-q,Pert AngelaS Volirt/1-bar:pos:-f,x 6 oressure trepted wood;t-bars-4 u 4 p,essura-treated ';Clod "andwore!3!8'x 4"staln'es!�eye botts 8 1/8' mpal,W*(220 IDs.worktiv toad)for s;lgn.3/81 x 6"stalmosF,Isp s,:rewq for t-bars Ground Preperation;Sini,--pola 5 feet deep.in Z square feat(by T)of m 'Merit 0 Al 2sqlft rj 4 01 C , Fac,,,-1-7 CD FL;-N-�4- 'k - PO L( - ';c'" (�',i 4 2. -Ir F 2- -21 01 IND V-3j V1 rN r N CITY OF pOVtT ANGELES COnstrucrlon Plans The issuance of this permit based upon these plans,specifi- cations and other data shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans, specifications and other data, or from preventing building operations being carried on thereunder when in of all codes and ordinances of this Wrisdiction. —CDC violation a"�=C4- y Approval Date �j