Loading...
126 4TH AVE N (2).pdfLU J LL� Ta �LL z a- iF ur u jC UU aIL ~ h LL C �i LU C,1 . O� z :' W J h CnQ W J U. Ln X W h z l-- h O gLU o t- W {b ram- -c _ Z `U v 01- z t0 1 .. ,.. ,. .,. �,�..<..., a,._��fu._.+.. ,sue. ::} .x�...,.,,, _. .,�. ._ _.u....... .. .. ......,...._.. .. .. �._. BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITI' COUNCIL Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: ADB-96-131 & AP-96-148 This matter came before the Edmonds City Council on August 5, 1997 for continued argument on a closed record appeal. The Applicant appeals from the determination of the Architectural Design Board denying his application for a parking lot to be located in the front yard of a building at 125 - 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The City Council originally upheld the appeal of the Applicant and returned the matter to the Architectural Design Board for an entry of written findings and conclusions. Upon entry, the matter returned to the Edmonds City Council with a continued appeal by the Applicant. For its findings and conclusions, the Edmonds City Council adopts the findings and conclusions of the Architectural Design Board amended in, but only in, the following respects. In the event of conflict between these findings and conclusions, the City Council's decision and those of the 4 Architectural Design Board, these findings, conclusions and decision shall control. I. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1.1 The plaintiffs property abuts landscaped property in the ownership of a church on the north side of the property. The property to the south of the proposed parking lot is not landscaped and in fact is developed as a parking lot. 1.2 The record is incomplete as to whether or not the proposed parking lot abuts a street, defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code as including the street right-of-way. 1.3 The church to the north has indicated its approval of Applicant's request that the northern boundary area not be landscaped. H. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The City Council concludes that the application as conditioned herein applies with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Findings 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of the Architectural Design Board are specifically not adopted by the City Council. 09/16/97 wss170424.isxr0006.90000 -1- zAE�lvif:,�*k5?v 2� J w �d �w 2 zN z C �a c� v: oa w� �L u- C �2 LU to o� z t® 2.2 There is not a sufficient record for the City Council to conclude that a ten -foot landscaping area in front of the building is required. Given that the burden of proof is on the Applicant with respect to this issue, the City Council defers this issue to the modification criteria. 2.3 The City Council finds that the developed nature of the downtown area, and particularly that of the property to the south which itself includes a parking lot in the front yard is compatible with the proposal. The front yard area to the north is landscaped and a five-foot buffer zone would normally be required. Given the desire of the northern property owner not to require landscaping, the City Council approves a modification of the requirement for a five- foot landscape buffer along the northern property line adjacent to such property to three-foot and dimunition of the traffic for the area adjacent to the sidewalk. The modifications are approved based upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the compatibility of parking lot use with the general intensive commercial use of the downtown business district. M. DECISION The application as herein conditioned is approved. The parking lot shall comply in all respects with the normal engineering requirements applicable to parking lots in its construction and design. No perimeter landscaping shall be required for the lot beyond landscaping of the three (3) feet adjacent to the north property line. The Lot shall otherwise be landscaped in accordance with the plan submitted by the applicant, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. DATED this 25th day of September , 1997. CITY OF EDMONDS arbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk 09116/97 WSS170424.1SX1=6.9M -2- 4?; i— w; oc g, J 0j LU; -i {� 1 to LL WO 2� C2 -il LL <' cn 0,, S Uj Z F ZO ut w O V to 13 F— LLO _z UZ O~ Z 0 MIJ Approve Minutrs of (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9,1997 9/9/97 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #18965 THRU #19824 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $344,106.35; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #18968 THRU #19960 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $286,418.15; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #17736 THRU #17927 FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 16 THRU AUGUST 31,1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $349,663.71 Claims for Damages (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARK GLOVER ($327.54), AND ERIC H. JENSEN, M.D. ($305,800.00) (F) APPROVAL OF REVISED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Findings of Fact REGARDING A MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE M.S-ffi/ DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN Fate No. AP• APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE 961aa FRONT OF THE APPLICANTtS BUILDING (Applica•, Smith; Property . ,,..: Location: 126 4th Avenue North, File Nos. ADB-96-131 and ►rfi=4�• Medical Self (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH HEALTH CARE Instrraate Program MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATORS, INC. FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE MEDICAL SELF INSURANCE PROGRAM Census Taking (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR $Qf1tl0es ANNEXATION CENSUS -TAKING SERVICES feT (n AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A TRANSFER SWITCH FOR EMERGENCY VIor VIVA? POWER AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FROM RUSSELECTRIC wTP ($32,379, Including Sales flax) Final Plat of (J) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT Bella Place OF BELLA PLACE, 9 LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P-96-140; Property File P-96.140 Location: 9332 220th Street Southwest / Applicant Dearl Royce and Chuck Warner) Final Plat of (I) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT Classiw's Addition OF CLASSICO'S ADDITION, 6 LOT SUBDIVISION (File No. P-97-65; Property Location: Pile P-s6 6s 20605 Maplewood Drive / Applicant: Classico Homes Accoundtlg (L) APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE ACCOUNTING MANAGER Manager POSITION OSITION Blecoo- (1VI} Position APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE ELECTRO-MECHANICAL Median Cal SPECIALIST POSITION Brackett's (N) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE BRACKETT'S LANDING Landing So. Pack SOUTH PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (0) RESOLUTION NO. 887 INITIATING A STREET VACATION AND SETTING A Street ass? Street HEARING DATE FOR THE VACATION OF EDMONDS STREET BETWEEN 5TH vacation AVENUE NORTH AND SIX AVENUE NORTH (Applicant: City of Edmonds / Fite No. ST- 97-108) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15,1997 Page 2 1 r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES d .i SEPTEMBER 1591997 F-01 01 U o' The Special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in Cn UJ the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. J H' to LL ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT w Barbara Fahey, Mayor Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor LQ Roger L. Myers, Council President Pro Tem Noel Miller, Public Works Manager to d John Nordquist, Councilmember James Walker, City Engineer tz— W' Jim White, Councilmember Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director x' z r; Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Sandy Chase, City Clerk Z O Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Jeannie Dines, Recorder w w {=1! ABSENT U tA' a;: Dave Earling, Council President x � , Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember 2; cU _! Mayor Fahey welcomed the four Scouts in the audience who were working on their Citizenship Badge. i= �- Z 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Haakenson advised Item 4 should read "Report on Council Committee Meetings of September 9, 1997." COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT j PRO TEM MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. +' } y, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CAdMition onsent COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER Agenda HAMONSON, TO ADD CONSENT AGENDA ITEM P: AUTHORIZATION •FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, TOLLING AGREEMENT, AND RELEASE WITH HARBOR SQUARE ASSOCIATES. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION t ® CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL ApproY� 1997 Minates or CB) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 9W7 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15, 1997 Page I & ,..RX'+':s; rJ)LL c U. �d x i— w w 2:) �o c� cn OF uJ W wv v= o z t Subject: Agenda Time: Agenda Date: APPROVAL OF REVISED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5,1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING (APPLICANT: MARVIN SMITH; PROPERTY LOCATION: 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH; FILE NOS. ADB-96-131 AND AP-96-148) Consent Sept.15,1997 Exhibits Attached: 1. City Council Minutes of 8/5/97 2. Revised Findings of Fact Clearances: Departmentlinitials Admin Svcs/Finance , Community Svc"or City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planning �.s — Personnel Public Works Fire City Council Police Mayor Reviewed by Council Committee: Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Approval by Full Council. Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A History And Summary Statement: On August 5,1997, the Edmonds City Council held a meeting for continued argument on a closed record appeal regarding the decision issued by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to deny an application to construct two additional parking spaces in the front of the applicant's building. The City Council voted to amend the ADB decision (see Exhibit 1) and directed the City Attorney to prepare the Findings of Fact (see Exhibit 2). Recommended Action: Approve Revised Findings of Fact. t Council Action: L/Temp/Admin/c96148fidoc. ,9 1 license or leash laws for cats in the City. She recommended the Council enact a cat leash and license law x immediately to require owners to be responsible for their pets. Mayor Fahey advised staff would be contacting Ms. Kostelyk regarding disposition of her concerns. Z !i Initiative Rich Demer t tis, 921 pine Street, Edmonds, expressed concern with the City Attorney's review of the wPetition at the July"29.,51997, Council meeting and his comments.that it would not hold up in court. Mr. Demeroutis pointed ouf''©ccasions w when the City Attorney's .advice had been questionable including the third term law in 1991, ttie'zty's Sign Ordinance, and the Oxford House v O; ® case. He also questioned CounciImember White's cammdiits,regarding the petition, noting he did not specialize in municipal law. to LU, Further, he urged the Council to rennin from malting comments about citizens who were working for their community. J .. — O{ me Jack Jack Bevan, 19210 94th W, Edmon& asked the°•following questions: (1) whether Medicare paid for jFn=�1transport, (2) whether an insurance company would pay, if a person did not have Medicare, (3) who if LL q cn O} would pay a person were unable to pay, and (4) whei&i r. the additional $.05 in the EMS levy rate would cover the shortfall In response to Mr. Bevan's r questions,, Mayor Fahey advised Medicare and Medicaid pay for transport fees although a 20% co is 3: Z t—; -pay requirel,.-Jf a person's insurance covered ambulance service, transport fees would usually be covered and the ordinance the City adopted Iast week o addressed the inability to pay for transport fees. The $A5 would not cover casts if transport fees were "Mr. LU _: p not assessed., Bevan said the City's budget book indicated the assessed value of the City had increased 1;127% :D over the past 20 years. v —: a Rich,` emeroutis asked why the Mayor requested the City Attorney draft an opinion regarding transport fees if they were created by the Medic 7 Board. As Mr. Demeroutis' time to address the Council had u~. i --{ _O expired, Mayor Fahey invited him to come to her office to discuss this matter. Z; Scosed 4, CONTNFri 1.0N O'� rrnI5 O =- ISSUED BY THE NF ATPHPET AH_AD TO D rA'a NT Y TCners TO CONMUCT TVO Z AP-46-148 M•soritr ADDMON 7 PARFCTiVG GpA FS IN THE FRONT t}F T gPPi T ez\rr� n r.- phcant M�rvtn imj�}I. prop 1tv Laces e tton• 126 4th Aven>.Q North FiIP rv�a p g.�g AE-I UM City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this matter was before the Council following remand to the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Staff jreflected would not make a presentation as their comments were in the record. He explained this was -. an opportunity for the applicant to present argument based on the ADB's written opinion. 0 Council President Earling directed the Council's attention to correspondence received from the applicant's representative, Sally Hyde, dated 7uly 29, 1997. t0 Sally Hyde, 152 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, explained Marvin Smith wished to park two vehicles on the existing asphalt in front of his building. She pointed out it appeared the ADB did not understand their obligation upon remand. Her understanding was the ADB was to reconsider the application; however, based on the minutes of their deliberation, they believed their obligation was to describe the reason the application was denied. Ms. Hyde explained the ADB denied the application based on Chapter 20.12.025 which requires a 10-foot wide landscape area; however this only applied to parking lots that abut the street which this parking area does not. She pointed out there were no other parking lots in the City with a 10-foot buffer. Further, two members of the ADB (Goodrick and Chalupnik), who were not f Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Esc h 1 bi t August Page 3 members of the ADB at the time of the original review, abstained from the vote but participated in the deliberations. ADB Boardmember Chalupnik admitted new evidence into the hearing by stating there was no parking in front of the buildings on 4th Avenue. Ms. Hyde pointed out not only was the ADB to consider only evidence in the record, this information was incorrect. Z Ms. Hyde pointed out the ADB's Findings and Conclusions were not supported by the record and were in s conflict. She referred to paragraph 2.4 of the ADB's Findings which indicated the applicant's proposal to - w; buffer development from the street satisfied the requirement of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(2), (3), and (4). q However, the Findings also include reasons why the applicant's proposal does not satisfy the LU a requirements. She pointed out ECDC 20.10.070 was ambiguous because according to 20.10.075, en a; successful examples of the design criteria contained in 20.10.070 were incorporated in the building w �' design and treatment criteria and interim guide and the Council had previously found that _, p y guide was not to U. applicable to this matter. Another conflict existed as the ADB found the application failed to satisfy the W 0 criteria of landscaping requirements of 20.12 adopted pursuant to 20,10. However, the ADB found the application met the criteria in 20.10.070. She pointed out this indicated either there was an error in the a decision or a conflict between 20.10 and 20.12. Ms. Hyde stated the Code provision that required the 10-foot wide landscape area was not applicable as this parking lot did not meet the State's definition of "abut". The ADB also denied the application as they felt it did not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment of the City of Edmonds and failed to minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight by buffering the proposed parking with landscaping. She noted in Anderson v. Issaquah, it was determined a City cannot deny an application on this basis. = lwt Ms. Hyde summarized Mr. Smith requests the Council approve his application and allow him to park two I-- —i vehicles on the asphalt area in front of his building subject to either the landscape plan submitted or Ni conditionally approved with whatever landscaping plan the Council felt would fulfill the purpose of the v _ Code. She explained these were two parking spaces in front of a building in a commercial area that abuts o another parking lot on the south. She noted the ADB's indication that there should be landscaping on the z south side would not serve any purpose as this is an extension of the existing parking lot. Mr. Smith is willing to comply with the wishes of the church located on the north side. Mr. Snyder said Mr. Smith maintained the burden of persuasion throughout this process. He advised paragraph 2.3 of the ADB Conclusions adopted staffs position (a required 5-foot landscape buffer at the t property lines) but the application did not include a 5-foot buffer. Ms. Hyde said the Code specifies, j "when in conflict with the surrounding properties." She said this application was not in conflict with the property to the north or to the south. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Smith would be agreeable to the Council requiring a 5-foot buffer on the north Q side. Ms. Hyde answered yes, if it was possible to provide the landscaping and if it was acceptable to the church. Mr. Snyder advised ECDC 21.90.120 defined the street as public or private right-of-way or access easement which provides vehicular access to three or more lots. He asked if the record contained information regarding the location of the right-of-way. Ms. Hyde answered she was not certain. ® Councilmember Myers asked if there would be adequate space for two parking spaces if a 5-foot buffer were placed on the north side. Mr. Snyder advised the Code required 5 feet; the Council could grant a modification. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5,1997 Page 4 MT --- • v• 1S 1 ..11ziva auvisea the proposed parking dimensions would use the entire 60-foot area. He recalled Chapter 18.95, parking lot construction standards, had been modified. Prior to this modification, panting stall dimensions were deeper (18 feet); the dimensions could now be reduced to 16.5 feet in length. He noted the parking dimensions were engineering standards and declined to i comment on turning movement requirements. H ccCouncilmember Haakenson asked what the ADB`s responsibility had been upon remand. Mr. Snyder referred to the Council's Findings and Conclusions which indicated the matter was remanded to the ADB tJi o' for entry of written findings. `n W` LU Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council had the authority to determine what was in conflict. cn U. Mr. Snyder indicated the decision ultimately was whether the applicant complied with the criteria of the w Code and its application. L= Councilmember Myers noted the ADB's Findings were not dated and were signed by only one member. U) O,. City Cleric Sandy Chase advised the additional signature was obtained and was dated June 18, 1997. tm- mi Copies were sent by certified mail to the Mr. Smith and Ms. Hyde. 2 i— Z O' COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO w = APPROVE THE PARKING PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPING N REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL OF THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPE a t_-'` sLu Councilmember Myers referred to the ADB decision which indicated the Parkin p g proposed fails to �- provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property owners and the adjacent LL zl street" and said he felt the 5-foot landscape buffer would be adequate. He did not see a need for a 5-foot iy U); landscape buffer on the south side. He hoped the applicant and the church could reach an agreement o F' regarding the landscape buffer on the south side. z Councilmember Haakenson asked if the 5-foot buffer would be required if the church did not want it. Councilmember Nordquist advised his motion indicated the 5-foot landscape buffer would be subject to the church's approval. Councilmember Haakenson indicated he would support the motion. Councilmember Van Hollebeke expressed frustration with the length of time this process has taken. Although he did not understand Mr. Smith's reasons for removing two on -street parking spaces and replacing them with two off-street parking spaces, it was Mr. Smith's decision as long as the buffers as intended were met. He pointed out clear instruction to citizens would avoid ambiguity. Q Councilmember Myers asked whether a smaller buffer would be acceptable if it was determined that it was not possible to provide a 5-foot buffer. Councilmember Nordquist responded he would like the buffer to remain at 5 feet as required by the Code and felt it would be possible. Councilmember Haakenson recalled the Council was not permitted to consider the loss of two on -street parking spaces. I& Snyder agreed the Council was not permitted to use the loss of two on -street parking ® spaces as a reason for denial. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August S, I997 Page 5 to O t W M� = w z� �. a z w ua U en! 0 1�' _ LUi r� u. p z uA tp U = or z No*uist Mr. Snyder indicated Findings would be provided at the next Council meeting. He noted the Findings would include a mechanism for the church to indicate its approval in writing. He pointed out if the 5- foot buffer was not acceptable to the church, the City could not require more as the City's ordinance only required 5 feet. Ms. Hyde said her understanding was that the width of the landscaping could be negotiated with the church. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City's ordinance stated 5-feet; it was not appropriate for the Council to defer a quasi judicial decision to a third party. Councilmember Nordquist clarified that his motion stated the buffer would be 5 feet. Mayor Fahey clarified if the church did not want the landscape buffer, the buffer would not be provided. There was no option in the motion for negotiating the amount of the buffer. Mr. Snyder advised the Findings would be prepared for the August 19 Council meeting. He recommended the Council continue the hearing and decision to the August 19 Council meeting which would allow Ms. Hyde to obtain a letter from the church specifying their decision on the buffer. He disagreed with the Council deferring the outcome to a third party. Ms. Hyde agreed to provide a letter from the church. Mr. Snyder pointed out if the church agreed to the 5-foot buffer but only 3 - 4 feet could be provided, the Council could modify its decision. COUNCMMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIiMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND DECISION TO THE AUGUST 19, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist requested this item be placed at the beginning of the August 19 Council agenda. Mr. Snyder indicated this item could be handled on the Consent Agenda if Ms. Hyde submitted a letter from the church. Mayor Fahey indicated CouncilmerzilS 1146rdguist had stepped down from his position on the Council t for this matter. Mr. Snyder explained normally when a Counciieim dkteed down, he/she would be encouraged to r' > leave the Council Chambers, In this uistaibt,'` oing so yvatipve him of his rights under appeal; therefore, he would be allowed to =b present. He recomfF— ``"d fd Counciknembers disclose any conversations they have had wltlr Mr; Nordquist regarding this maftc'or., any financial interest in the Property. He explained d A- earanee of Fairness Doctrine specifteall�`Lxeluded a challenge that would destroy a quorum a£tlle Council. Mayor Fahey asked' f any Councilmember wished to make a disclosure. There were no disclosures. 0 Plannirigg'upervisor Jeff Wilson explained on May 15, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on ., f quest by Mr. Ashoori for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit to located within a new addition to an existing single family residence. On May 30, 1997, the Hearing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5,1997 Page 6 �-a BEFORE TBE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: AD8»96-131 & AP-96448 This matter came before the Edmonds City Council on August 5, 1997 for continued argument on a closed record appeal. The Applicant appeals from the determination of the Architectural Design Board denying his application for a parking lot to be located in the front yard of a building at 125 - 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The City Council originally upheld the appeal of the Applicant and returned the matter to the Architectural Design Board for an entry of written findings and conclusions. Upon entry, the matter returned to the Edmonds City Council with a continued appeal by the Applicant. For its findings and conclusions, the Edmonds City Council adopts the findings and conclusions of the Architectural Design Board amended in, but only in, the following respects. In the event of conflict between these findings and conclusions, the City Council's decision and those of the Architectural Design Board, these findings, conclusions and decision shall control. I. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1.1 The plaintiff's property abuts landscaped property in the ownership of a church on the north side. of the property. The property to the south of the proposed parking lot is not landscaped and in fact is developed as a parking lot. 1.2 The record is incomplete as to whether or not the proposed parking lot abuts a street, defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code as including the street right-of-way. 1.3 The church to the north has indicated its approval of Applicant's request that the northern boundary area not be landscaped. H. ADR—YrIGNAL C=LC USIONS OF LAW 2.1 The City Council concludes that the application as conditioned herein applies with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Findings 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of the Architectural Design Board are specifically not adopted by the City Council. W104isl 'X35170434.1s7UM.9M Rif r- 7 zt f r. pre S } ....,..:;...t.,.�..uR...JIM.z•'1�.CL+:�J£�Y.'hYv' f..lKtlr<�t�f'•aY r+t.by-� ! Y- �'. .� rS f ..�.._...., .., .. _ �_.......ru..t+.•a+.-owww.Y'N•.nurw..w•r+.�....+.....,._......z..�......._..�.��..�.......�..:.�. :: � .. t t } 7 � �, • . t 2.2 There is not a sufficient record for the City Council to conclude that a ten -foot landscaping area is front of the building is required. Given that the burden of proof is on the Applicant with respect to this issue, the City Council defers this issue to the modification criteria. 2.3 The City Council finds that the developed nature of the downtown area, and particularly that of the property to the south which itself includes a parking lot in the front yard is compatible with the proposal. The front yard area to the north is landscaped and a five-foot buffer zone would normally be required. Given the desire of the northern property owner not to require landscaping, the City Council approves a modification of the requirement for a five- foot landscape buffer along the northern property line adjacent to such property to three-foot and dimunition of the traffic for the area adjacent to the sidewalk. The modifications are approved based upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the compatibility of parking lot use with the general intensive commercial use of the downtown business district. III. DC S� ION The application as herein conditioned is approved. The parking lot shall comply in all respects with the normal engineering requirements applicable to parking lots in its construction and design. No perimeter landscaping shall be required for the lot beyond landscaping of the three (3) feet adjacent to the north property line. The Lot shall otherwise be landscaped in accordance with the plan submitted by the applicant, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. DATED this day of , 1997. CITY OF EDMONDS Barbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTESTIAUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk W �I u. Ta iE1 z I Z W 0 e W Z U, uj 4-- O Z .;. r L4 5 + v .�, ..Z14 " y + r «,r_.avuri. �.::e""",:5::*�:i'�H.a.Clitkl3'taLlkwiva`sitrtwivrr3aa+.a.,...—„-... .. ......�, �.. "� .wwuruaxienr gxa�eka�frn*rxa-.i..v:s.ms,.,mwrrrraxi:e.<m f j I BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Cr g! Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: ADB-96-131 & AP 96-148 cn w Ui X" This matter came before the Edmonds City Council on August 5, 1997 for continued argument wc on a closed record appeal. The Applicant appeals from the determination of the Architectural g Design Board denying his application for a parking lot to be located in the front yard of a 9 :3 building at 125 - 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The City Council originally upheld LL, the appeal of the Applicant and returned the matter to the Architectural Design Board for an entry of written findings and conclusions. Upon entry, the matter returned to the Edmonds City I �� r Council with a continued appeal by the Applicant. 01 For its findings and conclusions, the Edmonds City Council adopts the findings and conclusions 01 of the Architectural Design Board amended in, but only in, the following respects. In the event o N , o of conflict between these findings and conclusions, the City Council's decision and those of the Architectural Design Board, these findings, conclusions and decision shall control. 2 tWj ` LL Q� I. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT � N x 1.1 The plaintiffs property abuts landscaped property in the ownership of a church on the north side of the property. The property to the south of the proposed parking lot is not landscaped and in fact is developed as a parking lot. 1.2 The record is incomplete as to whether or not the proposed parking lot abuts a street, defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code as including the street right-of-way. 1.3 The church to the north has indicated its approval of Applicant's request that the northern ' boundary area not be landscaped. D H. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The City Council concludes that the application as conditioned herein applies with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Findings 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of the Architectural Design Board are specifically not adopted by the City Council. osrssrm i wss170424.1SX/0W6s0000 -1- ------ -- q,�+ h .. 5, v :7 sh ,� 1 to r'� :.s s `s r K rt" ✓' •vn s 7 b 4, -» a a _ � f tx trs Ur tr � P$•;� 4�rx..sP� . { i � 'S f z s'� y a a to s )E vtxt 5n ti - r ,0 3 _r x { }�h ^t r•yi vh..,. � t z �r! Y £ S �:: i s d•,;<r yaI' a °i r rtd s� a t r�i �vre 2y w,, aFr at" ,ys rtir {� Ir 4pS rn a s a • t o f . � ,�.q � x y 4 y r .. .t .,... ruu �3`'�kfi'3X�iEfCdk.'3fi'�1 .a.�.'�'.—.a+�,..,.�aw,.:.•....,r.._._:_�_=... wr.i r, X. ��tr � -ems ..;s. gme�na��i�fitV �2� r �. vm�§auFawM>oarrrsys.u.wa.eew.,,, 2.2 There is not a sufficient record for the City Council to conclude that a ten -foot landscaping area in front of the building is required. Given that the burden of proof is on the Applicant with respect to this issue, the City Council defers this issue to the modification z criteria. j } 2.3 The City Council finds that the developed nature of the downtown area and particularly �� � P P Y � that of the property to the south which itself includes a parking lot, in the front yard is U a1 compatible with the proposal. The front yard area to the north is landscaped and a five-foot C ,J, buffer zone would normally be required. Given the desire of the northern property owner not _J I to require landscaping, the City Council approves a modification of the requirement for a five- UJU. foot landscape buffer along the northern property line adjacent to such property to three-foot and g dimunition of the traffic for the area adjacent to the sidewalk. The modifications are approved based upon the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the compatibility of parking lot U_ v use with the general intensive commercial use of the downtown business district. � W z I— III. DECISION ►- w UJ The application as herein conditioned is approved. The parking lot shall comply in all respects with the normal engineering requirements applicable to parking lots in its construction and 0 design. No landscaping shall be required for the lot beyond' landscaping of the three (3) feet adjacent to the north property line. s Uj' U DATED this 3rd day of September , 1997. _Z U Lni z ~ JCIOF EDMONDS Barbara S: Fahey, Mayor 1 ATTESTJAUTHENTICATED: ' Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk 08/25/97 WSS170424.1SX/M.9= -2 ai 3 Ciaimfor I (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DAVID L. nTT—i GOTTSCHALK (Amount Unknown) Approve (F) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15950 THRU #19303 FOR THE WEEK OF C mnts AUGUST 4, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $377,751.54; APPROVAL OF CLAIM z �I WARRANTS #18954 THRU #19461 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 11, 1997, IN THE z AMOUNT OF $601,488.99; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #17252 THRU #17497 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 16 THRU JULY 31, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $391,101.34 V A I 1997 water (I) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1997 WATER LINE tin tv • Line Program REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT J N LL O� Stoma (J) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 4, 1997, FOR THE 92ND AVENUE W/220TH w 2 � Drainage TIM1O"C/C"m STREET SW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF :3 PPP � CONTRACT TO GREEN RIVER CONSTRUCTION ($132,726.58, Including Sales Tax) u- vy d City Park (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT r W Improvements WITH SVR DESIGN COMPANY FOR THE EDMONDS CITY PARK ACCESS z f- IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT z Councilmember White advised he pulled Agenda Items C, G, and H to abstain from the vote as he was absent from the August 4 Council meeting. oCOUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, �w FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS C, G, AND H. MOTION CARRIED, x v COUNCILMEMBER WHITE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEMS C, G, AND H; h F COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEM H. The items zj approved are as follows: tU tA� F h'jApprove srs 1(C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1997 C3 z (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A Findings of MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1994, ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED Fact AP-9&146 BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO (M.smith) CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING (Applicant; Marvin Smith; Property Location: 126 4th Avenue 3 i North; File Nos. ADR-96-131 and'AP'96L 40 Findings of (H) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A aP 97-sy MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING (J.Nordquist} EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO ® LOCATE IN A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 24107 76TH AVENUE WEST (Appellant: John Nordquist, File No. AP-97- 87 / Applicant: Amir Ashoori, File No. CU-97-21) 3. AUDIENCE FT—re—m-m-7-1 Lester Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, distributed information regarding the Treatment Plant to { Plant Councilmembers. He explained his discussions with KingCounty indicate Westpoint provides a wholesale charge of $19.10 per month to the 35 cities and sewer districts it serves. He recommends the City make auxiliary power for the Treatment Plant a high priority to avoid future spills. Edtwnds City Council Approved Minutes August 19,1997 Page 2 Addition to Agenda Approve 7124 ® Minutes Approve 8l12 Minutes i EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 19,1997 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Andy Streit, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Manager Charles Day, Accounting Manager James Walker, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ADD DISCUSSION OF EMS MEDIC 7 AS ITEM 9 AND RENUMBER AGENDA ITEMS 9,10, AND 11 ACCORDINGLY. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FABLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER AS ITEM 7A. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS ADJUSTED. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember White pulled Agenda Items C, G and H. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 29,1997 (D) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1997 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 19,1997 Page 1 0 M license or leash laws for cats in the City. She recommended the Council enact a cat leash and license law immediately to require owners to be responsible for their pets. Mayor Fahey advised staff would be contacting Ms. Kostelyk regarding disposition of her concerns. s,isatiVe Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, expressed concern with the City Attorney's review of the Petition petition at the July 29, 1997, Council meeting and his comments that it would not hold up in court. Mr. Demeroutis pointed out occasions when the City Attorney's advice had been questionable including the third term law in 1991, the City's Sign Ordinance, and the Oxford House case. He also questioned Councilmember White's comments regarding the petition, noting he did not specialize in municipal law. Further, he urged the Council to refrain from making comments about citizens who were working for their community. Medic? Jack Bevan, 19210 94th W, Edmonds, asked the following questions: (1) whether Medicare paid for Tmnspon transport, (2) whether an insurance company would pay if a person did not have Medicare, (3) who Fees would pay if a person were unable to pay, and (4) whether the additional $.05 in the EMS levy rate would cover the shortfall. In response to Mr. Bevan's questions, Mayor Fahey advised Medicare and Medicaid pay for transport fees although a 20% co -pay is required. If a person's insurance covered ambulance service, transport fees would usually be covered and the ordinance the City adopted last week addressed the inability to pay for transport fees. The $.05 would not cover costs if transport fees were not assessed. Mr. Bevan said the City's budget book indicated the assessed value of the City had increased 1,127% over the past 20 years. Rich Demeroutis asked why the Mayor requested the City Attorney draft an opinion regarding transport fees if they were created by the Medic 7 Board. As Mr. Demeroutis' time to address the Council had expired, Mayor Fahey invited him to come to her office to discuss this matter. closed 4, Record ARCHITECTURAL• DESIGN BOARD TO DENY N APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT MO Appeal ADDITIONAL. PARKING SPACES IN + FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S RTTiT.i)TNC__ AP•96.148 THE — M. smith (Applicant: Marvin Smith; Prouty oration 126 4th Avenue North, File Nos, ADB 96-131 and City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this matter was before the Council following remand to the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Staff would not make a presentation as their comments were reflected in the record. He explained this was an opportunity for the applicant to present argument based on the ADB's written opinion. Council President Earling directed the Council's attention to correspondence received from the applicant's representative, Sally Hyde, dated July 29, 1997. Sally Hyde,152 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, explained Marvin Smith wished to park two vehicles on the existing asphalt in front of his building. She pointed out it appeared the ADB did not understand their obligation upon remand. Her understanding was the ADB was to reconsider the application; however, based on the minutes of their deliberation, they believed their obligation was to describe the reason the application was denied. Ms. Hyde explained the ADB denied the application based on Chapter 20.12.025 which requires a 10-foot wide landscape area; however this only applied to parking lots that abut the street which this parking area does not. She pointed out there were no other parking lots in the City with a 10-foot buffer. Further, two members of the ADB (Goodrick and Chalupnik), who were not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August5,1997 Page 3 0 members of the ADD at the time of the original review, abstained from the vote but participated in the deliberations. ADB Boardmember Chalupnik admitted new evidence into the hearing by stating there was no parking in front of the buildings on 4th Avenue. Ms. Hyde pointed out not only was the ADB to consider only evidence in the record, this information was incorrect. y !II Ms. Hyde pointed out the ADB's Findings and Conclusions were not supported by the record and were in w; conflict. She referred to paragraph 2.4 of the ADB's Findings which indicated the applicant's proposal to buffer development from the street satisfied the requirement of ECDC 20.10.070 q (B)(2), (3), and (4). ov However, the Findings also include reasons why the applicant's proposal does not satisfy the ;. requirements. She pointed out ECDC 20.10.070 was ambiguous because according to 20.10.075, LU =i successful exam les of the desi p gn criteria contained in 20.10.070 were incorporated in the building � Fi U) LL design and treatment criteria and interim guide and the Council had previously found that guide was not ua 0 applicable to this matter. Another conflict existed as the ADB found the application failed to satisfy the :E � criteria of landscaping requirements of 20.12 adopted pursuant to 20.10. However, the ADB found the LL¢ application met the criteria in 20.10.070. She pointed out this indicated either there was an error in the T d, decision or a conflict between 20.10 and 20.12. = w;' ZMs. Hyde stated the Code provision that required the 10-foot wide landscape area was not applicable as this parking lot did not meet the State's definition of "abut". The ADB also denied the application as w Lui they felt it did not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment of the City of Edmonds and failed to 2 =o minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight by buffering the proposed parking O to with landscaping. She noted in Anderson v. Issaquah, it was determined a City cannot deny an a application on this basis. UJ � v F- "-- Ms. Hyde summarized Mr. Smith requests the Council approve his application and allow him to park two Z vehicles on the asphalt area in front of his building subject to either the landscape plan submitted or v U)! conditionally approved with whatever landscaping plan the Council felt would fulfill the purpose of the �• Code. She explained these were two parking spaces in front of a building in a commercial area that abuts Z another parking lot on the south. She noted the ADB's indication that there should be landscaping on the south side would not serve any purpose as this is an extension of the existing parking lot. Mr. Smith is willing to comply with the wishes of the church located on the north side. Mr. Snyder said Mr. Smith maintained the burden of persuasion throughout this process. He advised paragraph 2.3 of the ADB Conclusions adopted staffs position (a required 5-foot landscape buffer at the property lines) but the application did not include a 5-foot buffer. Ms. Hyde said the Code specifies, -- "when in conflict with the surrounding properties." She said this application was not in conflict with the property to the north or to the south. ® Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Smith would be agreeable to the Council requiring a 5-foot buffer on the north side. Ms. Hyde answered yes, if it was possible to provide the landscaping and if it was acceptable to the church. Mr. Snyder advised ECDC 21.90.120 defined the street as public or private right-of-way or access easement which provides vehicular access to three or more lots. He asked if the record contained information regarding the location of the right-of-way. Ms. Hyde answered she was not certain. Councilmember Myers asked if there would be adequate space for two parking spaces if a 5-foot buffer were placed on the north side. Mr. Snyder advised the Code required 5 feet; the Council could grant a modification. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5, 1997 t Page 4 3 Planning Supervisor Jeff.Wilson advised the proposed parking dimensions would use the entire 60-foot area. He recalled Chapter 18.95, parking lot construction �{ standards, had been modified. Prior to this modification, parking stall dimensions were deeper (18 feet); the dimensions could now be reduced to 16.5 feet in length. He noted the dimensions _ parking were engineering standards and declined to comment on turning movement requirements. F- w; Q 5 cJi o! Councilmember Haakenson asked what the ADB's responsibility had been upon remand. Mr. Snyder referred to the Council's Findings and Conclusions co w which indicated the matter was remanded to the ADB for entry of written findings. w z! J F-? cn LL L Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council had the authority to determine what was in conflict. Mr. Snyder indicated the decision ultimately 2 � was whether the applicant complied with the criteria of the Code and its application. u.'( 0,: Councilmember Myers noted the ADB's Findings were not dated and were signed by only one member. Clerk Sandy Chase advised the additional zLuiCity 0 signature was obtained and was dated June 18, 1997. Copies were sent by certified mail to the Mr. Smith and Ms. Hyde. z a COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE PARE NG PERMIT 0 H, SUBJECT TO THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL OF 5-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP.THE i u f- `—` z Councilmember Myers referred to the ADB decision which indicated "the parking proposed fails to provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property J P P rh' owners LU crr, h. and the adjacent street" and said he felt the 5-foot landscape buffer would be adequate. He did not see a need for a 5-foot landscape buffer on the 0 south side. He hoped the applicant and the church could reach an agreement regarding the landscape buffer on the south side. Councilmember Haakenson asked if the 5-foot buffer would be required if the church did not want it. Councilmember Nordquist advised his motion indicated the 5-foot landscape buffer would be subject to the church's approval. Councilmember Haakenson indicated he would support the motion. Councilmember Van Hollebeke expressed frustration with the length of time this process has taken. Although he did not understand Mr. Smith's ' reasons for removing two on -street parking spaces and replacing them with two off-street parking spaces, it was Mr. Smith's decision as Long as the buffers intended as were met. He pointed out clear instruction to citizens would avoid ambiguity. 0 Councilmember Myers asked whether a smaller buffer would be acceptable if it was determined that it was not possible to provide a 5-foot buffer. Councilmember Nordquist responded he would like the buffer to remain at 5 feet as required by the Code and felt it would be possible. Councilmember Haakenson recalled the Council was not permitted to consider the loss of two on- treet parking spaces. Mr. Snyder agreed the Council was not permitted to use the loss of two on -street parking spaces as a reason for denial. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. rn O w� M T'!, z_r ►•- z w w; V tni O ri UJ 1 hz- H ts. O "z o~ z to Mr. Snyder indicated Findings would be provided at the next Council meeting. He noted the Findings would include a mechanism for the church to indicate its approval in writing. He pointed out if the 5- foot buffer was not acceptable to the church, the City could not require more as the City's ordinance only required 5 feet. Ms. Hyde said her understanding was that the width of the landscaping could be negotiated with the church. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City's ordinance stated 5-feet; it was not appropriate for the Council to defer a quasi judicial decision to a third party. • Councilmember Nordquist clarified that his motion stated the buffer would be 5 feet. Mayor Fahey clarified if the church did not want the landscape buffer, the buffer would not be provided. There was no option in the motion for negotiating the amount of the buffer. Mr. Snyder advised the Findings would be prepared for the August 19 Council meeting. He recommended the Council continue the hearing and decision to the August 19 Council meeting which would allow Ms. Hyde to obtain a letter from the church specifying their decision on the buffer. He disagreed with the Council deferring the outcome to a third party. Ms. Hyde agreed to provide a letter from the church. Mr. Snyder pointed out if the church agreed to the 5-foot buffer but only 3 - 4 feet could be provided, the Council could modify its decision. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND DECISION TO THE AUGUST 19, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist requested this item be placed at the beginning of the August 19 Council agenda. Mr. Snyder indicated this item could be handled on the Consent Agenda if Ms. Hyde submitted a letter from the church. mp • ... a/~ - I 1►! _ • -! 1 U__ :._ 1 s . Y: • • .mil _ .,1:. V •1 Mayor Fahey indicated Councilmember Nordquist had stepped down from his position on the Council for this matter. Mr. Snyder explained normally when a Councilmember stepped down, he/she would be encouraged to leave the Council Chambers. In this instance, doing so would deprive him of his rights under appeal; therefore, he would be allowed to be present. He recommended Councilmembers disclose any conversations they have had with Mr. Nordquist regarding this matter or any financial interest in the property. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine specifically excluded a challenge that would destroy a quorum of the Council. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make a disclosure. There were no disclosures. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained on May 15, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on a request by Mr. Ashoori for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be located within a new addition to an existing single family residence. On May 30, 1997, the Hearing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August5,1997 Page 6 Cn ua i UJ cn LL! w} � a L to sW H z t�- E- O U0 cA aH ham- -C z W l!: O h z C*7 to X Item #: -� EDIt-'IONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: CONTINUED MEETING ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF ! THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING (Applicant: Marvin Smith; Property Location: 126 4th Avenue North; File Nos. ADW96-131 and AP-96-148). Clearances: Departmentlinitials Agenda Time: 45 Minutes Admin Svcs/Finance Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: August 5,1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planning Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works 1. July 15 Council Packet Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council 2. Findings of Fact from March 19, 1997, Mayor ADB Meeting Reviewed by Council Finance 3. Transcript from April 2, 1997, ADB Committee: Community services Meeting Public Sajety 4. Transcript from March 14, 1997, ADB .Approved for Consent Agenda: Meeting Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A Previous Council Action: The Council held a hearing on the appeal on February 4, 1997, and remanded the matter to the Architectural Design Board to determine if the project was in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. The scheduled July 15th appeal hearing was continued to receive additional information. Narrative: All transcripts and complete Findings of Fact from the relevant ADB meetings are now part of the record and are included as exhibits. Note that the City Attomey's memorandum on the appeal issues is included as "Exhibit 2" in the original staff report for the July 15, 1997, Council meeting (the July 15th Council AL} U) o w} Ca Q (n } T z F- F- a z ww 2 C 0 0 rr F XF L- c va o" z e� Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: Agenda Time: Agenda Date: CONTINUTATION OF MEETING ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES THE FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING (APPLICANT: MARVIN SMITH; PROPERTY LOCATION: 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH, FILE NOS. ADB-96-131 AND AP-96-148) Exhibits Attached: 1. Vicinity Map Clearances: Department/Initials 60 Minutes Admin Svcs/Finance _ Commun City Attorney Engineer July 15,1997 City Clerk Parks & 2. Memorandum from Scott Snyder (7/10/97) 3. ADB Findings of Fact from 3/19/97 Meeting 4. ADB Minutes from 3/19/97 Meeting 5. Transcript from 3/19/97 ADB Hearing 6. City Council Findings of Fact from 2/4/97 Hearing on AP-96-148 7. City Council Minutes from 2/4/97 Hearing on AP-96-148 Court Plannit�g_�- Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment PIant Police City Council Mayo£�.'.'�''E . R ' w d b Caunc`I F' evte e y t nuance Committee: CommunuySenJees Public Safety Approved for ConsentAgenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: 8. Council Packet re: AP-96-148, from 2/4/97 Council Meeting Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A Previous Council Action: The Council held a hearing on the appeal on February 4, 1997, and remanded the matter to the Architectural Design Board to determine if the project was in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit 1 ITA EXHIBIT .2 g Wenacha� O�w - Rivorfrnnt t entu = Ptah Sactg -Salle 204 W-$tChce, WA 9UO7 - (SO4) 662.19S4 - Paz (SQ9) 66a.1553 F ri' ®..� Eli . Z,. 1 N LU J F- (DLL 9w Q �d w x zti F- O LUr LU �Q U Cr 0� w u& _2 U? or z si0 c® Q f S av:.v s �:. '•.. �marwmv.++M+.rauinv�ax..�..v�.......L...�. .�.. ... 00l18l87 WED 11:44 FAX .°Od=;J0:13 OXW 3EATTLE I'INDI GS OF FACT BEFORE THE EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL (DESIGN BOARD On the Application of Marvin Smith pile No. AP-96-148 FROCEID RA.L IUSTOR This matter was originally heard by the architectural De -sign Board on December 1996. Following the Board's decision to deny this matter, it was a.,ppealed to the Edmonds City Council for a closed record appeal on December 17, 1996• The Fadmonds City Council upheld the applicant's appeal and remanded this mat= back to the Arctbiteetural Design Board with instructions to the Board to continue its deliberations based on the existing closed record and to enter its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. in particular,, the City Council found that the provisions of the Design Mnnual which explicate the Comprehaensive Plan policies formerly found in Chapter 15.15 of the Edmonds community Develo:pmeut Code are no longer applicable. The City Council found that the provisions of Chapterr IS.15 were repealed as part of the Comprehensive Plan revision and that until readopted cannot form a basis for the Architectural Design Board's decision in this matter. Following continued deliberation and based entirely upon the original record created before the Architectural Design Board at its December 4, 1996, sheeting, and the procedural record and argument before the City Council, the Architemaaal Design Board finds and concludes as follows: 1. FINDINGS 1.1 The applicant Marvin Smith proposes to convert thee front yard of a commercial building located at 126 - 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washing ton, to a parkinng area. The parking area as proposed would be comprised of two parking stalls. New landscaping is proposed for a five-foot area between the existing sidewalk and tine edge, of the stalls on either side of the curb cut. The proposed landscaping as shown in an Exhibit to the Architectural Design Board's first hearing does not extend along the norther and southern edges of the parking stall between the subject site and adjacent properties, but rather terminates at the edge of the proposed parking stalls. 1=0 -1- FXHIR JOIN J Q OUa 1 At the December 4,1996, meeting, the staff representative John Bissell contended that the proposed landscaping did not adequately buffer the parking stalls from the adjacent properties with a minimum five-foot planting strip given the requirements of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. 13 ECDC 20.12.025(a) provides in part: 1. A minimum five-foot planting strip is required around the perimeter of all parking lots (see additional requirement for parking lots abutting streets, below). This scrip is not required when parking is enclosed within a building. 2. Where a parking lot abuts any Street, a landscaped area of ten feet in width is required. 3. Where a driveway abuts a property line, a planting area at least rive feet in width must be installed adjoining the property line. A In order to approve a permit, the Edmonds Architectural Design Board is required to fixed by the provisions of ECDC YA.10.060 that: 1.4.1 The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies. ECDC 20.10.060(A). 1.4.2 The staff finds that to proposal mats the requirements of the zoning ordinance or the City has approved a variance or modification in the zoning ordinance. ECDC 20.10.060(B). 1.4.3 The proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of the chapter. ECDC 20.10.060 (C) 1.5 The City Council has found and the Architectural Design Board is bound to accept that the criteria of former Chapter 15.15 as incorporated in the Design. Manual are not applicable to this projact. 1.6 With the exception of the issue noted in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3, the staff firms that the proposal complies with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In particular, the engineering staff finds that the curb cut request complies with the provisions of 18.80.060 governing curb out requirements. The Architectural Design Board has been directed by the City Council not to consider the impacts, if any, of the proposed curb out upon downtown parking. to Jh Np MI 1.7 The criteria for Architectural Design Board review referenced in ECDC 20.10.060(C) are contained in 20.10.070. The Architectural .Design Board funds the following criteria to be applicable: i 1.7.1 "(B) Site Treatment (2) Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance 3 the building design and other site improvements." 1.7.2 "(B) Site Treatnicrnt (3) Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may resolt, such as parking areas near,yard spaces, streets or residential unite, and different building heights, design or color." >i 1.7.3 "(B) Site Treatment (4) Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrian or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices." H. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The record does not contain any evidence tending to indicate that the proposal does not comply with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2.2 The sole criteria at issue is whether the proposal complies with the landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance contained at ECDC 20.12.025(a) and the ADB criteria rcfereaced at ECDC 20.10.070(B) above. 2.3 The landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.12.025(A)(1), (2) and (9) require a minimum five-foot planting strip around the perimeter of all parking lots, except whoa the parking is proposed in a building. A landscaped area of ten feet in width is required if the area abuts the street. A landscaped area of five feet in width is required if the area adjoins a property line. 2.4 The applicant's proposal to buffer the development from the street satisfies the requirement of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(2), (3), and (4). 2.5 The drawings submitted as Exhibit A by the Applicant indicates no landscaping between the proposed parking and the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site. The application therefore does not provide an adequate landscape buffer for the adjacent properties in violations of the provisions of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(3). The application does not include sufficient detail to determine whether the landscaping to be installed could be damaged by pedcstrisns or vehicles .nor whether curbing or similar devices will be included. The Applicant has therefore failed to satisfy the criteria of ECDC 20.10,070(B)(4). The application therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of the Architectural Design Board, Chapter 20.10 ECDC. 2.6 The application fails to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.12,025(A)(1) and (3) in that it does not provide five foot landscaping buffer between the Applicant's subject site and t �4 z I D U 0 0 UJ LU 0 z 0 06/18/9T WED 12:33 ME 206 0215 a UW' SEA.TTLE Q0o2 adjacent properties. The adjacent properties do not have front yard parking and therefore should be buffered. 2.7 Purther, the application does not provide ten feet Of buffering between the parking lot and Founh Avenue North and therefore violates the Provisions of ECDC 20.12.025(A)(2). The application therefore fags to satisfy the criteria of larldscapLis requiremeats of ECDC 20.12 adopted pursuant to Chapter 20.10 ECDc, 2.8 Modification of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.10 would be inconsistent with the purposes set forth In Chapter 20.10 because the application does not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment Of the City Of Edmonds and fails to minimise incompatible and unsightly, surroundings and visual blight by buffer*g the prop4sed parldng with landscaping. M. DECISION' The application is Therefore denied, The Parking lot as Proposed fails to provide for adequate landscaping a10139 the lines be twaen adjacent property owners and the adjacent street. DATED this day of 1997. ARCHITECTURAL DESI G BC B0 ?A OES"5 A By: LL_L qIe 1;:*' d tuber r By: IM315 .4- e. to said Mr. Sullivan was referring to on site drainage issues which are handled by. the drainage code. The street improvements must be worked out between the applicant and the adjacent property owners. ADB-96-131 APPEAL REMANDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION AP-96-148 AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith 126 - 4th Avenue North Sally Hyde, 152 - 3rd Avenue South, Suite 101, Edmonds, was present as the attorney representing the applicant. Scott Snyder was present as City Attorney to assist the Board in cleaning up this unusual situation. Mr. Snyder explained that this issue was remanded back to the Board from the City Council. It is the first time this has taken place since the passage of the regulatory reform act which limits public hearings on each application to one. The Board will be deliberating the issue again through a closed record proceeding and will receive no staff report or comments from the applicant's representative. His comments will be limited to procedural materials. Those Board members who were not present at the original discussion, would not be able to participate in this remand 'unless they were to listen to the tape and review the entire packet which was provided. Mr. Snyder distributed an information packet which contained only information which was distributed to the Board at the initial review of this application, with the exception of the first pages. The document includes draft findings from Sally Hyde and draft findings from the City Attorney for three options: approval with modifications, conditioned approval or denial. The Council's findings and conclusions are also included as are all of the items which were included in the Council's packets when they reviewed the appeal. He reminded the Board that he cannot answer any questions regarding substantive materials, only procedural questions. The same is true for staff. Mr. Snyder explained that under the regulatory reform act, the City is limited to one public hearing which was held on December 4, 1996. The record of that hearing was sent to the City Council. The transcript, identified as Exhibit 3c contains the Board's decision. The application was denied by the Board because of concerns that it did " not comply with Chapter 15.15 and there were also concerns about the downtown parking. Ms. Hyde appealed the Board's decision to the Council on behalf of Mr. Smith and the Council upheld the appeal on the basis that Chapter 15.15 was repealed when the Comprehensive Plan was enacted. The design manual was still in affect, but the policies on which the Board denied the application were repealed. Chapter 15.15 has since been adopted, but for the purpose of this hearing, they cannot consider Chapter 15.15 or any additional information or arguments. The Board can only continue their deliberations on materials which have already been provided. Since the Board has determined that this project complies with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, there is really only one issue to consider and that is whether the proposal complies with the landscaping criteria found in Chapter 20.12. The Board has the authority to create modifications to the landscaping ordinance. Ms. Hyde said that since this is a new process, it is not clear to her that they cannot open the public hearing again. Mr. Snyder said the regulatory reform act is very clear that the City can only have one public hearing on each application. Ms. Hyde commented regarding the packet provided to the Board which she has not had the opportunity to review even though the Council stated that it should be provided to her a week in advance of this Architectural Design Board 0 March 19,1997 PagsCVLJI®I-r Ale4 LL a� to O ts— _' Z i—, Z � W LU � a U to inr �0 _Z vCn o� Z G t® .,. i 4 1 � ;a meeting, She noted that the Board does not appear to have the documents she provided along with her draft findings. She started to pass out this information, but Mr. Snyder expressed his objection to any attempt to provide these documents to the Board at this time. He has copies of this information in his office. Ms. Hyde suggested that it should be up to the Board to decide whether or not to accept this information. Board Member Pierce noted from the attorney's comments earlier, that if the Board feels they are ill prepared for } this discussion, they can place this item on a future agenda. If there are issues which need to be clarified between the City Attorney and the applicant's representative as to what is appropriate for the Board to see, perhaps it would be best to schedule this issue on a future agenda. Unless this requires an imminent decision, he suggested that the issues between the two attorneys be resolved before the Board becomes involved. J Board Member Oaklief concurred with some of what Board Member Pierce said, but he felt it would be nice to discuss some of the issues now and then extend the deliberations to a future meeting. He said he feels ill prepared because this seems to be an atypical process. He is feelin. g a little uninformed about the rules. He understands Mr. Snyder's explanation, but if there is a sequence for this meeting that is different than normal, he would like to know what that is. Mr. Snyder said he is present to advise the Board, but not become involved as a party to the issue. Mr. Bissell and Ms. Hyde are the two party representatives. He referred to Page 4 of the distributed document which describes the City Council's remand back to the Board. It states that "the City Attorney is directed to assist the Board in its deliberation by reviewing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions and, if appropriate, submit alternative Findings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall confine its deliberation to the written record previously developed and to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and no additional argument permitted by any party." Mr. Snyder advised that these are the rules governing this deliberation. He advised that any additional argurnents or testimony from either Mr. Bissell or Ms. Hyde would be inappropriate, and that is why they are not recei ving a staff report on this item. Mr. Snyder referred to the packet of information he distributed and explained that Items 2 and 3 contain the record as it exists. The first item contains the three alternative forms of decision. Ms. Hyde suggested that the minutes from the City Council meeting of February 2 are much easier to understand than the transcript which was provided by Mr. Snyder because the minutes reflect who is speaking. She asked that these minutes become part of the packet along with some of the other items that were originally in the record which she wanted the Board to have the opportunity to review again. The only two things that are additional to what was originally provided to the Board are the letter from Mr. Snyder to herself and her cover letter to the ADB when she submitted the proposed findings. Mr. Snyder said he has no objection to the minutes or any other items which were previously provided being distributed to the Board. However, he questioned whether the two pictures were previously provided, or if they are new information. Board Member Young said that having read the minutes from the City Council as well as the transcript, the reason this was remanded to the Board was because their decision was made with insufficient grounds for support. It was sent back to the Board so that they can reconsider the application and make an appropriate decision based upon the information that was provided at the December 4, 199.6 ADB meeting. Ms. Hyde suggested that the Council's determination is clear in the minutes, but the Board does not have copies of the minutes, only copies of the transcript of that meeting which was prepared by Mr. Snyder. Board Member Young noted that he has a copy of the minutes from that meeting. Mr. Snyder advised that the findings he prepared were approved by the City Council and the Mayor. Ms. Hyde said it was her understanding that the Board denied the application based upon a portion of the code that had been appealed, which had, to do with the design guidelines no longer in affect. 'these had been repealed without the ADB's knowledge and they were no longer part of the Code. The Council recognized that the Architectund Design Board March 19,1997 Page 5 a guidelines did not exist, and therefore, could not form the basis of the denial. She agrees with Mr. Snyder that the only issue left to consider is the landscaping issue. ¢1 Mr. Snyder said the Board is required to determine if an application complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the z Z zoning ordinance and Chapter 20.12. The Comprehensive Plan provides no basis for denial and the application ~ LU' meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. But, the Board made no findings for their position that the q � g g v5 application did not comply with Chapter 20.12. If the Board feels that the application does not comply, they have the option of either denying the application or placing conditions upon it. No JLU ` Board Member Young said he understands that the Board should only consider the information that they had on December 4, 1996 when making their decision as to whether or not to approve the application. According to the wU. O� Council minutes, there was a statement by Mr. Snyder that the applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion in the permitting process. If the Board cannot be persuaded with the existing information, and they cannot take any additional testimony, then he is left with the situation of going through the ECDC and use the previous LL information to determine whether the application is consistent or not with the ECDC. .He inquired if this is an option or if the Board can only look at the information packet they received on December 4. If this is the case, = both the information provided by the City Attorney and the information provided by Ms. Hyde would not be ? i•-' permissible. E✓ O' Z 1--i W Wi Mr. Snyder said that he would have agreed to Board Member Young's suggestion that the Board review the p ECDC if it had been limited to Chapters 20,10 and 20.12, because these are the two sections the Board is asked to v3' consider when determining if an application is in compliance with the code. Ms. Hyde and Mr. Bissell have 0 p 1 differing opinions about whether or not the application meets the criteria of Chapters 20.10 and 20.12. The W zu— ` Board's discussion at the public hearing and the announced decision was all regarding the downtown parking and 1a— the compliance with Chapter 15.15 of the Comprehensive Plan. There were no findings created as to whether the 11 O; landscaping element of the application complied with 20.10 and 20.12. At the Council meeting, Ms. Hyde put Z` forth very forcefully that the Board is limited to her appeal grounds. She only appealed the Board's decision on a U x' narrow issue. The reason it is back before the Board is that they are required to make two findings which were not ~0 1— made: Does it comply with the ECDC and the Board's landscaping criteria. His reading of the situation is that Z there is no issue with the zoning code, as such. But there is the remaining issue that needs to be resolved before a permit can be granted. That is, does it comply with Board's landscaping criteria. Ms. Hyde said one of the problems is that the Board does not have the notice of appeal before them. What she stated in that appeal was that the ADB's decision was based upon the ADB guidelines, as they were represented to i be requirements of the Code. The ADB guidelines were found in Chapter 15.15. These were repealed in June of 1995, so there were not any guidelines in affect at the time the application was originally reviewed. Mr, Snyder said that is not correct, Chapters 15.15 and 15.30 were repealed, but the guidelines, themselves were not repealed nor were their explanation of the criteria contained in chapters 20.10 and 20.I2. Board Member Young said that in reading both the City Council minutes of February 4, 1997 and the Board " © minutes of December 4, 1996 he does not recall any reference to Chapter 15 or any of the subparts of that chapter. The copy of the ECDC that he uses for review does not even have a Chapter 15 in it except as it addresses the Comprehensive Plan. If in fact, the error was in citing chapter 15 of the ECDC, he does not see this in the record unless they were referring to Chapter 15 by implication in the motion that was made. Ms. Hyde said the implication referencing Chapter 15 was the statement that "guidelines discourage parking in front of the building." This is regulated in Chapters 15.15 and 15.30 and these were repeated at the time of the ® original hearing. There was nothing in the ECDC at that time which discourages this use. Board Member Pierce said it appears that the zoning ordinance is not an issue. He inquired if at the time this a lication was denied, the landscape ordinance was still in affect. Mr. Snyder indicated that it was. Board pP Member Pierce said if he understands the Council correctly, there were some questions about landscaping and Y P g ,. l buffering around the parking spaces at the time this was determined.. There were some issues brought up through the staff report to the Board. If they want to revisit this tonight, they can make a determination based upon k Architectural Design Board r March 19,1997 Page 6 d ® 2 � .3 LL di w; Z_ 1-' E- O Z us tu! n 0 = U H� �Z � T O~ Z Z t whether or not the landscaping is sufficient around the proposed parking stalls to comply with the code regarding landscaping. If they find it does not comply, they can uphold their original decision based upon that, but compliance with other regulations (zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan) are not issues the Board can consider. Mr. Snyder indicated that Board Member Pierce is correct. The Board did not make a decision about whether landscaping was sufficient. He cautioned the Board that they have the following options: They can find that modifications are necessary for the landscaping to comply, or they can find that the application does not comply with the landscaping requirements and deny the request. The Board may find that it is appropriate to modify the standards because of size, location, and the surrounding area, but this must be based upon existing record. He explained that because the Board did not make a finding on the landscaping requirements, Ms. Hyde's appeal was successful. The Council remanded the issue back to the Board so that they could establish a finding as to whether the application meets the landscaping requirements. He noted that in order for the permit to be issued, the Board must issue findings on all three items stating that they are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance and the ECDC. Because the Board turned down the application based upon the Comprehensive Plan element, they did not make findings on the other two items. Ms. Hyde said that her understanding is that before the Board can deny an application, they must find that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and identify the sections where inconsistencies occur. They must also find that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance or identify what is wrong with the application. The last area they must consider is whether the application satisfies the criteria of the ECDC. Board Member Young said the bottom line is that the applicant has the obligation in the permit application process to persuade the Board to grant approval. The Board was not persuaded. Whether they were not persuaded based upon one item or all three, makes no difference. In the opinion of the individuals making the motion to deny the application, there was no good reason to grant approval for this application. He is concerned that the Board not consider any new information which would alter this persuasion. His feeling is he would be more comfortable taking the same documents they received on December 4, 1997, and using the ECDC, review the issue prior to meeting at a future date for Board discussion. He is concerned that the Board would not be in keeping with the spirit of the remand if they were to accept either the information provided by Mr. Snyder and Ms. Hyde. Board Member Sullivan agreed that the Board should not be discussing any new information as part of this process. However, it is difficult to make a decision without having this new information. Mr. Snyder said regulatory reform is very clear that a City may have one hearing and then one closed record appeal on each application. Board Member Oaklief agreed that if the Board is not supposed to have outside influences, they should do as Board Member Young suggested, He said he is having difficulty understanding the Board's charge. He is also trying to consider the spirit of the motion and determine if there is anything in the ECDC that would support the Board's decision. He inquire if the Board is allowed to base decisions on continuity of the neighborhood, surrounding downtown business core, orientation of buildings, parking lots, etc.? Mr. Snyder said his role this evening is that of legal advisor only. Mr. Smith, as a property owner, has the right to use his property based on common law property rights unless the City has clear guidelines which would prohibit this use. His advised to the Board would be the same as it was to the City Council. He does not see any basis to deny this application under the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning ordinance. The issue that has not been determined is whether the parking lot landscaping complies with the landscaping requirements. Board Member Oaklief explained that when the Board reviews projects and determines that the modulation of the buildings is not adequate, they base this decision on a particular section of the Code. Mr. Snyder said this justification can be found in the design criteria which buttresses Chapter 20.10 in the Code. The Council's remand to the Board stated that the ADB "shall not consider, for any purpose, the criteria found in Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown area." Board Member Oaklief noted that the motion made by the Board on December 4, 1996 does not really say anything about Chapter 15.15, Are there any Architectural Design Board n March 19,1997 it 0 Page 7 Y } other Chapters which are related to the motion? Mr. Snyder said he does not find anything in the Code which would justify denial and comply with Anderson verses Issaquah. it Board Member Young said it is the Board's responsibility to follow the ECDC when responding to this remand t action. There are any number of provisions (none of which are Chapter 15.15) which pertain to the consideration cc 21 of parking. All of these Chapters are under the purview of the design guidelines, and in turn, are within the u7 tit'. advisory capacity of the Board. What the Board prefers to see when they have an application before them is not a ' U Q`: question of property owner's rights, which are a given. This request goes beyond the property owner rights when in w they requested modifications to the regulations. The Board is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the � I• Council to protect the City's interest to the best of their ability, and they do this fairly objectively by going rn rL C through regulatory criteria which applies to each particular application. They must find whether each application meets the criteria found in the zoning ordinance, the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan. - 0 -t LL Mr. Snyder referred to Chapter 20.10.060(B), which contains the wording which is to be used for Board findings. a When this section was drafted it was intended to limit the Board's charge so that they were not having to oversight yO the staff s administration of various technical provisions of the Code. The parking lot provisions are issues i" covered by Chapter 18.20 which is under the capacity of the Engineering Department to review. The City . Engineer's report was that it complied with the parking lot design criteria. Whether they feel that the staff rightly Z 1—; or wrongly made the decision, is not at issue. If an applicant or member of the public felt the staff made the UJ LWQ wrong decision, they could appeal this decision to the Hearing Examiner and then the City Council. tnl 0 —': Board Member Oaklief inquired if while reviewing this application, the Board should look at the entire lot, or just � r7 that portion that is being modified. Mr. Snyder said they should focus on the lot in front. He assumes that the " U w back lot has been either previously approved or grandfathered, so they should only be concerned with the front lot. u- 0 Z Board Member Pierce'suggested that the Board must decide whether to pass this issue to another evening for di to review or evaluate the application at this time based upon the landscaping requirements found in Chapter r201.12,025 and make a decision to close the matter tonight. O Z Board Member Young said the reference made in the minutes is regarding Chapters 20.10 and 20.12. If the Board is told by both attorneys that this is the only record that can be reviewed, they can cant' forth in the meeting just reviewing these two chapters. In his opinion, there is some criteria in Chapter 20.10 and 20.12 which could conceivably be evaluated. The other option is for the Board to take the issue home, digest it, and prepare to deliberate at the next meeting. He noted that he is uncomfortable with not accepting the information provided by Ms. Hyde. In the past the Board has accepted information from the applicant. However, this hearing is different, and Board Member Young stated that he is not even comfortable with the exhibits provided by the City Attorney. y Mr. Snyder explained that he had asked the staff to provide him with the package which was sent to the City Council when they reviewed the application, and this information has already been provided. Mr. Snyder said his concern has to do with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and Exparte Communications. If they have already r closed the hearing, the Board must remember that the public is a party to all things, as is the staff. If they accept the information from Ms. Hyde, then in accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine they will have to announc, reopen and readvertise the public hearing. The City can only have one hearing. Ms. Hyde said the way she understands it is that there is really only one thing for the Board to decide tonight and that is the landscaping portion of the application. Either the Board agrees that it is in compliance with the code, C ® that they do not really like the way it is landscaped and they conditionally approve it,, or that the application be denied because there is nothing the applicant can do to landscape appropriately to meet the spirit of the code. She said she did not feel there was anything provided by either Mr. Snyder or herself which would be considered new information. Board Member Chalupnic said he does not like the idea of the Board having the responsibility to tell the applicant what has to be changed to meet the landscaping requirements. They can state that the landscaping does not comply, but they do not have to provide any alternatives. Architectural Design Board nn March 19,1997 page 8 I ri i k ii °":_',aiN r.:t ..# a .. Mr. Snyder suggested that because Board Member Chalupnic did not participate during the December 4, 1996 public hearing, it would be inappropriate for him to participate this evening. If the issue is continued, Board Member Chalupnic could take the opportunity to listen to the record and be prepared to participate at the next meeting. Board Member Young noted that Board Me. mber Chalupnic is not commenting on anything in the record, but merely stating Board policy. The Board's pollicy is that if the landscaping does not meet the criteria, it is not the Board's responsibility to make suggestions id'or changes. Therefore, he sees no problem with Mr. Chalupnic's comments being included in the record. J�; Board Member Chalupnic said it seems the real issue iss that the Board did not pinpoint all of the reasons this to U. application was denied. However, applications only require one reason for denial. If the Board can come up with w O� any reason why this should be denied, that is all that is noecessary. He inquired if Mr. Snyder agreed. Mr. Snyder said the Board needs to make three findings. If only one of the criteria cannot be met, the application must be denied. He LL agreed with the concept of not designing forr applicants. But, Ms. Hyde is requesting that the Board CD �# make modifications to the landscaping standards to meet the needs of this application. The Board must determine d if the modifications can meet the criteria and establish findings as such. Ms. Hyde concurred that on behalf of her sclient, she is seeking modifications to the landscaping re:quirements. The Board is not being asked to design the F- Or.parking lot, but it is within their authority to deternuine whether or not modifications to the standard are Z t—+ appropriate. W W: 2 a; o; Board Member Oakiief recalled that he asked Mr. Snyder if there was anything within the spirit of the Code 0 (Chapter 20) which had to do with this application. lie referred to Chapter 20.12.025(A), which lists three a criteria. One of these criteria states that where a parking lot abuts any street a landscape area of 10 feet is LU w required. This is similar to the discussion regarding parking Iot orientation in relation to the street. This section tom— p I also requires a five foot planting strip around the parameter of the parking lot and a five foot planting area along u O' zi the property line where the drive way abuts the property 1. ine. He is most concerned about the criteria which states ui tn' p g Y p q. that where a parking lot abuts an street a landscape: area of 10 feet is required. He said he would feel Ucomfortable making a decision based upon this section of 'the code and voting to deny the application. O Z Board Member Pierce inquired if the. Board could choosey to clarify their position of denial based upon 20.12.025 as reviewed by Board Member Oaklief. He understarnds that the Board can choose to relax the landscape standards, but can they also choose to uphold the landsc«tpe requirements and their original decision to deny the application. Board Member Young said the original decision for denial was based upon criteria which was not functional at the time the decision was made. Mr. Snyder said that if the Board denies the application and finds i that it does not comply with the code, they should also m.ake findings as to why it does not meet the modification criteria. Board Member Young said he would like to make this review as objective as possible by using the code, itself, rather than the materials provided by the attorneys. Thee Board has been asked by the Council to conduct their review through the closed record process. His opinion off this charge is that staff can provide the Board with the exact information which was considered on December 4, I996, along with copies of the minutes from that meeting. The Board should then review this information in light of the ECDC. Perhaps this should be scheduled on the Board's next agenda. Mr. Snyder suggested that thte Board could make a motion to continue this issue to a date certain. Board Member Pierce concurred with Board Member Yooung's suggestion. He also suggested that the Board be clear as to what information will be used for their delibe-rations. Board Member Pierce agreed that they should keep the discussion to the original information with not added information from either of the attorneys. He suggested that they continue this review to a date certain. Board Member Sullivan concurred that the Board shoulod continue the deliberations, but he suggested that the information provided by the two attorneys should be included in their review. In his opinion both of these items are just interpretations of the original information. Architectutat Design Board March 19, 1997 Page 9 1 Mr. Snyder suggested that Board Member Chalupnic review the tapes from the December 4, 1996 meeting, including the transcripts from that meeting. This would enable him to participate in future review of this application. Mr. Snyder strongly suggested that the Board include the Council's findings and conclusions as part ;! of their review. He said he is not opposed to the Board accepting the findings from the applicant's representative, i; with the exception of the two photographs, which he believes to be new. cc gi JLU t.3, in W ; J (n LLJ Qk Lu J LL _ !y' � x z F- 1-- o z ur w, g o'. U tn'' o N r� LL0 LLJ in � S O~ z C7 to Board Member Oaklief said he would rather get this issue taken care of tonight. He is still in favor of clarifying the original motion by stating why the application was denied based upon the landscaping section he identified in Chapter 20.12A25(A). The applicant then has the right -to do whatever he wants on his property as long as it meets the code. Board Member Pierce said he was prepared to attack this issue as suggested by Board Member Oaklief, but he now feels the consensus of the Board is that the issue be continued to a date certain.. Board Member Sullivan inquired who would be responsible to determine what information is new and what is not. Ms. Hyde removed the pictures in question from her packet of information. Board Member Pierce left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. for an emergency situation. 6. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL Mr. Bissell said the first item is a proposal for an awning on the building located at 101 Main Street. The Board .. reviewed a similar application for this'same building several months ago, and the application was approved by the Board. Mr. Bissell said another tenant of thai building has now requested an awning over their space, and staff felt that this awning was in keeping with the theme of the building as approved by the ADB in the previous application. It will not be a large change to the building since one awning has already been approved. Therefore, staff determined that ADB review and approval was not necessary. The next item which was approved by staff without ADB approval was for a non -illuminated, individual letter sign on a building. This is a standard application and the sign area being proposed is less than the maximum allowed. Board Member Chalupnic requested clarification as to how sign area is determined. Mr. Bissell said the Code does not spell out how to calculate sign area. It is clear how to calculate sign area for a free standing sign. But, for a wall sign, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan sign code is to discourage square signs. Determining the sign area could be calculated as if there were a box around the sign. If this were the case, everyone would make a Architectural Design Board C March 19, 1997 a- [1 Page !o h kjx .�.r s s j Cx 4ya t 4 t rf t-� nw 1 } zs ?�+ O S ��'►E' .� LY . J V� U O O W TR NSCRI]PTS FROM THE MARCH 19, 1997 J uj U. ADB MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE MONDAV AFTERNOON (7/14) _LU h Z Z h h O LU O O rU. hj _ z uj z EHLBIT' � 4 Y 3 r t x { { t FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: AP-96-148 THIS MATTER came on before the Edmonds City Council for a closed: record appeal hearing on February 4, 1997. The Appellant is Marvin Smith, an Applicant for Architectural Design Review of his proposal to install two parking stalls on the west side of a building owned by the Applicant at 126 Fourth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Mr. Smith's application was denied by the Architectural Design Board on the stated basis that: Deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons, that the guidelines discourage parking in front of the buildings and that this is a noncompliance, that there are pedestrian hazards caused because of the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay ... In its review, the City Council is limited by the State Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.7013 RCW as codified in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds under Ordinance No. 3112 to consider this matter solely on the record developed by the Architectural Design Board and on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision of the Board. The closed record appeal before the City Council on February 4, 1997 was limited to appellate style argument. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.1 The Architectural Design Board announced its* decision but did not enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1.2 The Applicant filed a timely appeal from the staff determination alleging that: ,r, v EX1-�tiI�IT � _ 1.2.1; The design guidelines referred to in the announced decision are no longer part of the Edmonds Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan; 1.2.2 Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on -street parking; 1.2.3 Community Services Department did not have the authority to determine what constitutes a private benefit to Mr. Smith on his property; and 1.2.4 The plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. 1.3 At the hearing, Ms. Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law and representative of Mr. Smith, argued that the design manual was flawed in that the Comprehensive Plan elements upon which the Board relied, chiefly Chapter 15.15 ECDC had been repealed by Ordinance 3030 on June 30, 1995: 1.4 The Architectural Design Board's design manual was adopted by a separate ordinance in order to provide explication to the Board's criteria in response to the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals in Anderson v. Issaquah. The adoption of the manual remains in fall force and effect but a large portion of the explicated material relates to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that were repealed by Ordinance 3030. 1.5 In order for an application to be approved by the Architectural Design Board the Applicant must establish by a preponderance of substantial and competent evidence, that the application is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Edmonds Community Development Code and the criteria of Chapter 20.10 of the Edmonds Community. Development Code. See ECDC 20.10.060 Findings. .2- fn KL 1.6 The staff alleges that the application does not meet the landscape buffer requirements z set forth in ECDC 20.12.025 and therefore fails to meet the criteria of the Edmonds Community �ti Q¢ ELI Development Code (ECDC Chapter 20.12) and ECDC Chapter 20.10. ai1`.7 The Applicant's attorney responds that the provisions of the landscape buffering W - t/) u; ri provisions are ambiguous and that her client has complied with them. (n� tu 2 � II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The design criteria relating to and based upon Chapter 15.15 are at best ambiguous _o au ' F1 due to the repeal of the underlying criteria. The City Council concludes that ambiguities in the. 01 ,W w� Code must be resolved in favor of the common law property rights of th-e Applicant and that the v �t criteria of former Chapter 15.15 should not be applied. s � 2.2 The Architectural Design Board failed to enter written findings and conclusions. W Zi to In particular, no finding has been made regarding the compliance of the application with ECDC La U X; o �' 20.12.025. The City Council concludes that in order to appropriately apply the criteria of the z Code, it should rely upon the expertise of the Board given its original jurisdiction over this application and therefore determines it appropriate to remand this matter for the entry of written t Findings of Fact and Conclusions to the Architectural Design Board. The Board is directed to `1enter written findings regarding the required findings of ECDC 20.10.060. f 2.3 The Regulatory Reform Act as codified by Ordinance 3112 limits all applications to one open record and one closed record hearing. The City Council's remand is for the sale purpose of entering written findings and conclusions based upon the original record created 0 before the Commission. No additional testimony shall be taken nor .additional argument received. -3 l f } J r} a r _......,....T.w,:f.nna.u.e.twttcxkaasxataNarmeaw.weww.w.'f.•._....r' .._�1"{....�.........-.... t S 'e "«._... } ...... .. HL DECISI[4N z The appeal of the Applicant is upheld. This matter is remanded to the Architectural z-- Wi Design Board for the entry of written findings. The Applicant and the staff may submit 01 proposed written Findings of Fact one week in advance of the continued deliberation and entry cn Cn wI rf of the decision of the Architectural Design Board. The City attorney or his designee is directed cn u. w to assist the Board in its deliberation by reviewing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Q u- D and, if appropriate, submitting alternative Findings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall �o ZM confine its deliberation to the written record previously developed before it and to these Findings w wf of Fact and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and no Ql U vsadditional argument permitted by any party. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Attorney's a r'' = v provision of legal advice. The Architectural Design Board shall not consider for any purpose r y_ z the criteria of Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown ui N v =; o r area. z In accordance with the provisions of RCW 36.70B.090, the City Council is required to notify the Applicant of why a final decision was not rendered within statutory guidelines. The City Council notes that in this case, the Applicant requested that the hearing be delayed for the Applicant's personal convenience. That delay coupled with the need to remand this matter for ® written Findings and Conclusions from the Board whose experience and expertise in the application of code criteria dictate that the statutory guidelines be excluded. The Architectural Design Board is requested to meet as expeditiously as possible in order to consider this matter E �► and to return its decision to the City Council in a timely manner. In the event that -4- L.,.'•. v ®; N o, W -J }— tA LLLLJ a LL 'a cn d i H w z� ;- 0: z 1—i w w: U to p 1- LLa �z LU to �a o~ z H C*1 t0 Mayor Fahey opened the audience participation portion of the hearing. Brian Comstock,1107 Daley Place, Edmonds (business at 5th and Main), agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's observation that the pilot program appeared to significantly open up parking spaces. He supported keeping the employee parking permit fee at a reasonable level and urged the Council to make this a permanent program. Mayor Fahey advised the fee is established based on the cost to process the permits. She closed the audience participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO ENACT THE NO RE -PARKING IN THE SAME 100 BLOCK ORDINANCE ON A PERMANENT BASIS AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY. CHANGES TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. Council President Earling acknowledged the good intentions of this program and its efforts to solve parking problems. However, he was dissatisfied with micro -managing the system and urged the Parking Committee to address the larger problem of solving long-term downtown parking needs. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. 6. APPEAT_. OF THE HEARING_EX_AM E's DECISION REGARDING FILE NO V-96-119TO Appeal DENY THE REQUEST FORA HEIGHT VARIANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET TO Height variance ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A W SINGLE-FAMILY F ID .NC • WITH A nP-9s ta4 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3T AGE GRADE. SUBJECT PROPERTY M LOCATED AT 16008 75TH PLACE WEST A_Np IS ZONED RS 12. (Appellan ,pjgantt: Dr. Al Ansari and Dr. Batoul Modarress j File No. AP-96-144� Mayor Fahey advised this appeal was withdrawn. It remained on the agenda because notices were published and mailed. Mayor Fahey declared a five minute recess. Appeat 7. APPEAL, OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN $Q TO DFN�Y TA�+ Two APPLICATION FILED UNDER 4lYSi, A1pB_96-131 TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL Additional PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE, B�SIf DING LOCATED AT 12J,4TH AVENUx NORTH,, Parking Spam(AppellantlApplicant: Marvin Smith /File No. P-96-148) AP-9&t48 Councilmember Nordquist disclosed that his company is presently doing business with W. Smith's firm;' Y City Attorney Snyder explained this is the Council's first closed record appeal —an administrative ' process in which the Council is limited to the record created by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He pointed out there is no provision°for public comment and the transcript does not indicate any. members of the public appeared to testify to the ADB; therefore, did not reserve an appeal right. He recommended the Council disregard any previous discussions regarding downtown parking. He noted ECDC Chapter 15 was repealed and his review of the Transportation Element did not provide sufficient detail (Anderson vs. Issaquah Court of Appeals ruling) to consider the effect on downtown parking as part of this appeal. Remaining issues include whether the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the ADB chapter that are referenced in the Design Guidelines. He reiterated any questions must be related to the record created by the ADB and cannot elicit new information not contained in the record. The Council may make a decision on the appeal or remand the matter back to the ADB. Mr. Smith is vested in the ordinances as they existed when he applied and his application must 1 n Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 7 FXHIHIT 7 • .zd,.a_NL,..ro.._... be considered based on those ordinances. He pointed out the ADB ma -say need additional training on establishing a record and more detailed findings. z Mr. Snyder pointed out Ms. Hyde's appeal letter indicates the City, as a prroropertq owner of interest, may z be in violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He explained RCV:W 42.36.090 provides that if a ~ W' challenge to the quasi judicial body would destroy its quorum, the membe-zers may continue to participate a �. and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge would be without weigl i'bt. J OF Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the staff report could be considered as es information contained in the to w; LU J =, record. Mr. Snyder advised the staff report could be considered as long as it did not contain any new w O� information. Mayor Fahey asked if any Couneilmembers had any disclosures to rxsmake. There were no other disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any challenges to Councilmember Nordquist's u) participation. z ~ , Sall Hyde, Attorney fo'r Marvin Smith, indicated she challenged the enrntire Council as the ro e Y Y Y g p p rty is p adjacent to her client's property and City employees use the on -street parkin ng• She did not wish to waive z 1— any of those objections on an issue of appeal if this matter were to proceed t to Superior Court. us w: 01 v Mayor Fahey stated there were no objections to Councilmember Nordquist's"s participation. '0UJ k-: r Associate Planner John Bissell, ADB Liaison, said on December 4, 1996 6, the ADB held a hearing on = U Marvin Smith's application to add two parking stalls to his site on 4thih Avenue North. The ADB u. O, considered the evidence and concluded the application was not in complia_6ance with the standards of the z Design Guidelines and requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and denieo--d the application. U N o Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the agenda memo was a summary of : information contained in the z record. Mr. Bissell answered, to the best of his knowledge, it was. Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith, 152 Third Avenue South, objoiected to any consideration of the narrative on the agenda memo recently issued by the Planning Departr3tment as it did not accurately reflect the ADB's decision at the hearing. She pointed out if the Council 11 relied on the narrative, they S would be relying on the City's version of what the evidence shows. The rxnarrative also states the ADB denied the application based on its failure to comply with the Architecturall•I Guidelines and landscaping, She read the basis of the denial from the transcript, "I would like to make a - motion, I would like to move r that we deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons: that the.guiodelines discourage parking in front of the building so that this is a noncotbpliance; that there is a pedestrian hazard caused because of 8 the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay, and that's about it." She stressed there was no denial' based on the landscape buffer. ' y Ms. Hyde pointed out the initial staff report referenced' Design Guideline :'-s, Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance (requires small parking areas at the rear of bt i ildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities) which has been repealed, Therefore, it was not a propcper basis for consideration by ' the ADB. The staff report also referenced Section 20.10.070(3) of = the Edmonds Community Development Code which is not the same section referenced in the nnew agenda memo --Section 20.12.025 of the ECDC. Therefore, staff is urging the Council to deny th.Ae appeal on a different basis than was proposed to the ADB. Edr 1—ds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 8 4 a -. _.c�:'-r a tx _r.:t .0 _i.t.. n..a •..v.r...rrw � -.: .. - �.e.wr....:..o.•.r nn+..r..�... � .- ......� -. Ms. Hyde stressed a closed record appeal is limited to the information and arguments provided to the ADB at the time of the hearing and argument is limited to issues on appeal. The only issue on appeal is whether the basis of the denial was sufficient on Mr. Smith's application. For the ADB to deny the application, they must state the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies and refer to the specific sections of the Plan or adopted City policies with which it is not consistent. This allows the applicant to correct any inconsistencies. Similarly, if a proposal does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the ADB is required to identify which specific ordinance and its requirement the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to identify which criteria or purpose of chapter 20.10.070 the proposal failed to meet. Cn LL O Ms. Hyde requested the Council approve Mr. Smith's application as he has met all requirements, She Y q PP PP • q w assumed the ADB's reference was to Section 15.15 and 15.30 which were repealed two years after adoption. If the Council wished to deny the application, they must state why the ADB was correct or Q U.UJI grant Mr. Smith's application. IVIr. Snyder pointed out the staff report to the ADB (dated November 15, 1996) did refer to ECDC H 1 Section 20.12. Ms. Hyde agreed but pointed out the ADB did not deny the application on that basis. She } O noted the requirement to surround all parking areas with landscaping raises the question of how vehicles w w and pedestrians access parking and she urged the Council not to deny the application on that basis. She = n pointed out consideration is limited on appeal to the basis of the denial —pedestrian hazard. v cn a 1--' Mr. Snyder referred to the City's ordinance on closed record appeal (21.05.040) which allows the us w�. Council to affirm, modify, or reverse the action or remand for further consideration. He pointed out the applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion in a permit process•and the City ordinance requires the O Z' application to comply with criteria in the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan. He said it appeared the ADB's decision did not consider other criteria because they found it did not meet the Design Guidelines: v He concurred this was not a proper basis for a decision and asked Ms. Hyde her position regarding a zremand to the ADB to have these issues addressed, Ms Hyde responded the only appropriate issue for remand would be the issue on appeal. Mr. Snyder clarified that Ms. Hyde did not agree under Regulatory Reform, an internal administrative or quasi judicial review body had the•ability to remand and correct an obvious error in the decision -making process. Ms. Hyde said she was not familiar enough with the Code to comment; she reiterated the jremand is limited to only the issue on appeal. ^ Mr. Snyder advised Ms. Hyde had three minutes remaining for rebuttal. Mr. Bissell said the stiff report.to the ADB was entered into the record at the hearing, He pointed' out c ® Sections 20.12.025 and 20.12 were cited in that staff report. . ECDC Section 20.12.000 states the landscape requirements in the chapter pre intended to be used by City staff, the ADB and the Hearing Examiner review projects as set forth in ECDC 20.10.010' giving the ADB the authority to consider this - section. It also states the ADB shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained therein. The only way the requirements of the landscape ordinance can be deviated from is if the ADB makes such a motion. ECDC Section 20.12.025 states a minimum 5-foot planting strip is required around the perimeter of all parking lots; a drive aisle is not the parking lot which addresses Ms. Hyde's concern with access. He summarized the sections of ECDC were cited; the only way the applicant could avoid the 5-foot perimeter landscaping surrounding the parking area would be if the ADB stated a waiver or reduction of that requirement which was not done. Untonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 4 5 Page 9 s ., ..... .:,:....� .v.rnx.,,...�e..ao..em-,:A,+......w..,,....,.w.,.,,:..:._ ._..: ..:. : .` ....:.......:...::.,.,,..,.,w...:,,rw.,«.........�.:_...... ._.. ::........ .....:,:. _. __... r Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council was limited to only the transcript. Mr. Snyder advised the Council was permitted to consider the transcript and all exhibits, including the November 15, 1996 staff report. The staff report dated 2/4/97 contained in the agenda memo should be considered as an �( argument from the record, not as evidence. Mr. Snyder said City ordinances state that to grant a permit, sets of findings must be made. The record indicates all findings were not made in the ADB's motion. Although he understood Ms. Hyde was vUv. requesting the Council apply a limited appeals jurisdictional scope and consider only those issues on LO o, appeal, he questioned whether the Council was limited to those findings when an incomplete decision iF was rendered and the applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion. This could result in the granting en ,,,_C of a City permit when the criteria of the code was not met. W � 2 � Ms. Hyde reiterated the issue before the Council is whether there was sufficient basis to deny the permit- C2� and, as there wasn't, Mr. Smith's permit should be granted. zijud ' Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. r0;` Responding to Councilmember White's questions, Mr. Snyder stated this is an internal appeal and the." z w tu! Council has the obligation to find that all code criteria has been met. In this case, there were no findings g M: on two of the required findings for issuing a permit. He advised the required findings are contained in rn Chapter 20.10.060—findings must conclude the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a -t other adopted policy, . that the zoning ordinance requirement has been met or that a variance or to W}, modification has been approved, and that it satisfies the criteria of the Chapter. He agreed the NComprehensive Plan does not provide sufficient detail (under Anderson vs. Issaquah) to be applied. u- 0: z! Councilmember Haakenson questioned whether the ADB's denial was based on incorrect information. F X, He preferred the decision be remanded to the ADB with the proper staff guidance that the Design p Guidelines are not to be considered. z Councilmember Van HolIebeke agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's comments. He asked if a remand to the ADB was appropriate on this basis. Mr. Snyder answered the City's ordinance reserves the right to remand if findings required by ordinance were not made by a lower body. He agreed the Council 1 was limited in appeal to the issues raised but retained the right to remand. This would benefit the japplicant as the issue can be addressed; however, a denial would end their vesting. } COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM 3ER VAN ' HOLLEBEKEj TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, OVERTURN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DECISION ON THE BASIS OF TiiE RMINGS MADE, AND REMAND IT BACK TO © THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED. ., Mr. Snyder advised Findings would be prepared for the next regular Council meeting and would include direction to the ADB that a decision must be returned within a specified period of time as required by Regulatory Reform. Mr. Snyder pointed out this appeal raises some difficult issues as there appear to be gaps in the City's Cade ---design criteria that need to be supplemented and curb cut provisions in the downtown area do not reserve the authority provided by State law. He distributed and requested the Community Service Committee consider interim zoning regulations and curb cut provisions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Fetmeary 4, 2999 �1 Page 10 c, 6 rjj w J F- `" o U. in = uw z ►— r4 �a U cr pLU xL �F �- C U u OF z X � }4'EDMONDS CITY CO UNCIL Originator: Planning Division For Action: : X For Information: Subject: APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY THE APPLICATION FILED UNADER FILE NO. ADB-96-131 TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKIN °G SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 4TH AVENUE (APPELLANT/APPLICANT: MARVIN SMITHi J FILE NO. AP-96-148) NORTH. Agenda Time: 40 min Agenda Date: February 4,1997 Exhibits Attached: 1. VicinityMap 2, ADB Hearing Transcript 3. ADB Staff Report, including plans submitted by the applicant 4 Exhibit submitted by the applicant at the .ADB hearing. S. Letter of Appeal Clearances: Doepartmentllnitlals Admin Svcs/F.7inance _._. Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering �, City Clerk _•_______� parks & Re��y��s-- Court Planning Personnel__________ public•Works_______ Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Mayor Reviewed 'by Council Finance eCommittee: Community Services Public safety-_ Apprcoved far Consent Agenda: Recommencxl Review by Full Council. �..r....�.�u�c Amount _ Re aired: (9 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Appropriation Re aired: $ o --- Funding Source: ' NIA Q� Narrative: On December 41996, the Architectural•Design Board held a hearing to consider an application by Marvin Smith to add two parking stalls on the west side of the existirmg building with access from 4th Avenue North. The existing parking lot which serves the site is lacat•:ed east of the building and is accessed via the alley. The facts of the case presented at the ADB be raring are as follows: a) The subject lot is 60 feet wide, 120 feet deep and is nearly flat. b) The subject lot contains a mixed use building with one dwelling unit and one 1,600 square foot office. The dwelling unit requires two parking stalls. The office use requires 4 total of six parking stalls required. parking stalls, for a c) The site currently provides 14 parking stalls accessing off the allesy. d) The west side of the lot has frontage along 4th Avenue North. Thee east side of the lot has frontage along a public alley. r • 12, W EXHIBIT �',i�.,—�.-.,• .. .. � ....... >. '+? , .. _ .... .... , , _.. ..., , ,., e _ .S. .. <.. �.. ,..r_�..� �t'_� ',i•„�x�Y ,�,t..a.zr�'ci: i`�:4.t� ."11 to `z e) The addition of the two new parking stalls on the subject site wawill invoke the requirements of the State Barrier Free Code, requiring one barrier free parking stall. Since there is not sufficient space between the existing building and 4th Avenue North, the requirired barrier free parking stall would need to be placed at the rear of the building. This would elimir-znate one of the existing parking stalls. Thus the proposal by the applicant would only result in the crea:ation of one new parking stall. f) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has sidewallolks in a pedestrian area. g) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has on-streetia parking on both sides of the street. h) The proposal would require the approval of a new curb cut ente9ering 4th Avenue North. The new curb cut would eliminate at least two on street parking stalls. i) The existing site development provides pedestrian access directialy off 4th Avenue North. The . proposed parking stall installation would change the site so thattat all pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. Therefore, t1this proposed design would remove all separate pedestrian access to the building. j) Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance encourag:ges small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The propos.aal would add parking to the front of a building contrary to the adopted design guidelines; and would acalso result in a pedestrian hazard, also contrary to the adopted design guidelines. k) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith allIleged that the design guide was not adopted into code, and therefore could not be enforced. 1) The City Design Guide was adopted under Ordinance 2959. m) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith allIlleged that the only enforceable section pertaining to this application is the Landscape Ordinanc•c:e, and that the application could be made to comply by allowing a five foot landscape buffer betwea:en 4th Avenue North and the proposed Parking. n) Section 20.12.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Co' ode requires a five foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of all parking areas. The plans subm-mitted by the applicant propose a four foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking stalls and d1he street, a 3 foot buffer between the parking stalls and the building and no buffer between the parkin mg stalls and the adjacent properties. o) On December 4, 1996, the ADB voted to deny the application oiof Marvin Smith to install two new parking stalls because the application is discouraged in the desigggn guidelines. p) The ADB did not grant a waiver from the requirement to providolie a five foot landscape buffer surrounding the parking lot. Summary The applicant is proposing a net gain of one new parking stall whichth does not comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC Section 20.12,025?.5). The specific landscape regulation applicable to the proposal requires a five foot landscape area to sum round the parking area, not just front on one side of the parking area. The applicant is proposing a new pwarking area which does not comply with the Design Guide which was adopted by ordinance. The applic:c;ant is proposing a net gain of one parking stall in a parking lot which currently provides more than twiorice the required parking, and which will cause a loss of at least two public parking stalls. Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Design n Board. Council Action: n8 w =c:3 m' ..... . . . . . 1-2U-37 3:28FU WGUth MURFMY WIDiM- 2067710221:* 2/19 EMRING TXZXSC?aPT ADS-96-131 - Marvin Smith New Parking Axet for an cxJ13ting ottj ce rTAPE 1, SIDE A] You please come to the front desk and state your name and address for the record. Sally Hyde: Yes. My ram is sally Hyde and I'M here on behalf of mr. Smith. Mr- Smith has a hearing problem, so he's asked that I represent him. Steve Sullivan: Okay, I'd like to go on record that I,ve Worked with Sally Hyde, the if nobody in the audience objects, I will Continue to sit on this issue. I'm not familiar with it any way whatsoevez and have had no discussions on it. Okay? Jef f Oklie4: Actually, I have to second that. I also know Marvin Smith, so if there is anyone that has ally objections with me staying on the board for this discussion-- sTim Young: Since we're all bearing Our souls bete, Ms. Hyde and I happen to be In Rotary together, so, you know— man, its yours. I'm innocent. (Man) You're clean? Young: Steven and O*eff and Ilare going to go out. for a beer-- Oklief: So, are there any objections? None? Okay. (=Itiple TC40061 Did You get the address and everything down? 71woman) Itla 152 Third Avenue South, Ste. Jol, Rdmonds, I have a -- John Bisgell. He's probably going to ask me for a staff report next. Oklieft Right. Bissell:. If you. want to have a seat and then I'll M'ke my Presentation and you get to do yours. Oklief: All right, Okay, Thanks, John. John, do you have a staff report? � � v 01 en (n LU f Uj ki LLo I W LJ �d =LU F- zr LULU Ga era en pLU LUC _z v� o� z t0 7. SENT 8Y: 1-M-97 3:2Wbi ;44DEN MERPHY RAL.fI P Bissell: WM ISM&I8X/Fi70aS,94499/f900D8. Okay, this is staff report for AjDB 96-112, which is a. proposed addition of two parrking stall to an existing office development at IJA26 Fourth Avenue North. The existing davelcopment in, has approximately 14 parking stall wiiith about a 1,600 square foot office building and the applicant's tiMosing to add two additiona.al stalls. The ng parking stalls access tcD the rear of the property off of the alley annd the proposed Parking stalls would access from the front of the property off of Fourth Avenue Norch. After the projects complete, Lhen the dppl_icant would. have 16 parking stalls. The parking stalls, the new Parking stalls added, would heave no vehicle Access connection batwoon then proposed new parking Stalls and the existing p:larking stalls so in essence there would be two iparking lots on. this property. it appears by looking at the building doing a calculation baaaed, on the site plan that the building has apporoximately 160o square feet. The office is, the current office use is either a 1 to $00 ratio or a 1 to 400 ratio, meaning that one parking entail is required .for 400 square feet or one pa.arking stall is T required for Boo square feet. Asmumi.ng that it's 1600 square feet with one parking stall required for 400 square feet, then this this use would require no more than four gaarking stalls, There's Currently 14 parking stealla on site so the, and the applicant wants to :add two parking stalls. If the property were to change use and require more extensive parking reequirementa such as a restaurant, this existing buildding could not require more than eight parking ®stalls. Again, the applicant's proposing to haaave 16 parking stalls on site. So, it appears t_.he applicant is proposing to have substantially mcore parking than is required by the Code of the C� ty of gdmonds, The existing pedestrian access tto the Site is primarillr off Pcuxth Avenue Horthn. I mean, one could drive their ear into thae parking lot obviously off the alley and then enter the rear of the building. But the front of the building faces Fourth Avenue north of the wwalkway out the front of the building off of Fourtlth Avenue North to get to the front of the b-ouilding. Mie installation off the parking atal=ls as proposed would ol-1-4 4- i e the d rest p9d®9trYan access so that any pedestrian aooessing the building, whether from the alley or from them street, would have to arose tho parking lot ia= order to get there. The proposed parking lot mould allow for a four -foot landscaped buffer beetween the two .. n ..........._....a._ra+s..;s.a+..ich:wa.::"k�.,..tlu'fssrte4L.,. ln... iru:<x+ws«te,n.,,.,.,..�» } � 4'T { '•. Ja SENT BY: 1-30-37 3:30P61 :UGDDV 5(URPHY W 2067710221:1x 4113 parking stalks On the street. The Community Development Code, Section 20.12, requires a five- foot buffer. Thera have been several j } cases, especially in the downtown area. where the Board has allowed 4 I- w a reduction of that required buffer from the required five-foot, but that �i reduction In all cases has been to allow the required narking. I I'm not aware v of of a single case where the Board has allowed a reduction (n p� of landscape to allow for additional and possibly excessive w a; parking. Uhr the City design guidelines encourage U. parking to be placed at the rear or the builfling cn w O oft the alley where the parking currently is located in the `i- proposal. Uh, pedestrian facilities are encouraged and the design -: D-� guidelines found in the zoning ordinance require a landscape buffer to be provided O h �! around I the parking stalls. The en ineering comments state that the proposed parking -would zJ-: create a curb out in the street that would eliminate at least two parking stalls. z 1-1 It's possible it would eliminate as much as three, but due to a curb cut to the south of this property, it may only eliminate two. V`hi O—e So the applicantrs Proposed to install two on -site parking stalls at the expense r rn = v Of two on -street parking stalls. Uh, the Building Division "—'Z; has commented that the application cannot .be approved as proposed because according to the Washington State Barrier W Free Code, otherwise known as the ADA Code, v x' one handicapped accessible parking stall i>e going to be required with this application, and the z applicant has not shown any•ProPosed handicapped - accessible parking stalls on site. so the application cannot be approved by the Building Department as proposed. It would have to be modified to allow that one parking stall. If the application were modified, the onlyy va.y the applicant could do it would be by eliminating a parking stall in the rear in order to change two parking stallo into one ADA handiCapped- +' accessible parking stall. Thus, the applicant Mould only be gaining one parking stall, at the expense of two public Parking stalls in the situation where the applicant 4 appears to not heed any additional parking stalls. Uh, so in summary, the ,Proposal appears to be inconsistent with the landscape requirements because insufficient landscaping buffers were provided, The proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines by reducing Pedestrian facilities ® and rovidin rking off-strafat where ___.... Larking is available. a propose "WxYld1i'�.t`JillKKxly,49999/8000b. „�- `�f z .. Y (R YL f/4 YrG S{ 4 di • � 1 l t ni ;3N}.ty T `SF ® !, 'N{ �� _� '{ i g '` �, >5l y. ' ii J,y��+},•.lS}.*,�3 4b,.,y N �` .i i Itt .•®t ' ' +f SHUT BY I. 1-30-87 ; 3:31PM ;0054 MURPHY N -+ 2067710221;# 5110 does not comply with the PDA requirements. And the proposal would eliminate public parking in an amount at least equal to the amount of private Q � parking provided with no apparent public or benefit. Therefore, Believes private staff this Cr Mt proposal is not in compliance with the City of Edmonds' codes or design guidelines and, the application should be denied. U 01 � �,, Okliet: Any questions for the staff report? UJ U) LL ? (man) : Just a point of clarification. I'm not sure I w e understand how what tho threshold was that 2( there's an ADA-required stall. Because of these, S :3 is it because of these two? U. ? ta 0 Bissell: That's correct. Because of the modification of � ri Z I—, the parking lot, - 01 ?(roan): In other words, addition of stalls. a mj ?(man: So, but the other what fourteen spaces don't have U a! disabled parking now? C, t:' IBissell:" That's correct. The site was developed prior, to = v the existing — f- F.. u. ZE ? (man.) ; O.R. All right. U _! Bissell:- — barrier -free standards. And according to the o H barrier -free standards, when you modify or Z increase the size of a parking lot, then you must comply. .?(man): O.K., so it isn't the number of stalls. It's the fact that they're altering the the parking lot. Bissell; That's right. it is — ':� ?(man): Let's say I re -stripe a parking lot and it was not accessible. I would have 'to then provide accessible parking stalls. 0 ?(man): A.K. so it's not the number. It's just the fact Sigaell f That's right. And then the number comes, the number comes into it. The number of barrier -free parking stalls required is based on the total number of parking stalls" on, site. go, there's an ® addition that triggers the calculation and then the calculations in based an what's on sitc. wsss32eJG.laxta60Ud.9949s/B0t1o6 . Q - Wn Z 0 U. tii Y 8 Z R" SENT BY: AFIlt 1-80-97 8:82PM ;OMEN MURPHY WAUE- 2067710221;# 6/10 ? (man) O.K. Thank you. ?(man): 0. K. Any other questions for staff? ? (man) I just have one real quick one :John. Uri, there, s notting In the code other than, our design guidelines that say that you cannot park in the front setback. Rissoll: The only place where you can=t park -in the front setback is in the RM zones. And this is a BC zone. ?(man) O.K. So that the parking adjacent to this is ? (man) I'm sorry. ?(man): The parking that's adjacent to this building ig legal parking?, (man) Yeah, it's all accessed. It's not accessed through a curb cut — '1(man)t As far as setbacks go, it's legal., There are you're talking about the lot to the south. ?(man)a Yeah. Rigm. So what 1,m trying to — ?(man).- Yeah, 3: would imagine the, lot to the south probably has turning radius violations, but it's. a.legal nonconfoxming lot. 7(man). O.K. go in other words — ?(man): So the people head in and back straight out on to the street — ?(man): Right and that's not. — ?(man): and that would not be, that would not be permitted according to engineering standards because they have to have a certain amount or back-oub room that is not provided on that wite. 1*1 to suff BY. 1-30-87 ; 3:32PM ;OGDSi MURPHY WALLO Okliet: O.K. I Hyde [inaudible] the staff rePOrV. I Pnd I think rather than go in the order that I set my comments in in this letter, I feel I really better first comment on some of the things that I think are legitimate concerns of the Cityle. My first Mpoint has to do with the feccmmer�iations of t1-je 'staff with respect to landscaping requiremen=s. uh, I have attached to my letter a new plan w1here in fact it has been drawn to allow for the five-foot bufrer, landscape buffer. U11, aPParentl�r, Mr. McClung wna drew this up was under the impression that this fives -foot requirement was going to be changed to four feet, so he draw it up thinking that it would comply with the wa.V the Code was going to be changed. Apparently, it hasn't been changed, so if you redrew it allLowing for the five-foot buffer. I know that thy- Chairman here is familiar.with this particular Zlock, but for those of you that are not, right now, it is asphalt in front of the bulldingV_ It Is not landscaped in front of the building. There are a few plants that sit right up next t..:o the existing building, but it is asphalt, the entire front of the building is [inaudible] . There is no curb. cut, but it is already asphalt. '-This would, in fact, add landscaping as a buffer that doesn't exist at the present time betweem sidewalk and the asphalt. Uh, so that the City, 9 concern with respect to the four -foot buffer,. that's been changed so that there is a rive-fCOot buffer. The second, as far as the barrier --free parking requirement, that too is a 109iti=,te concern and as the City has already commented., that can be accommodated by putting a barrie=-free parking stall in the rear. Uh, Mr. Smith is willing to do that, so that that can be complied, with this law. The other concerns that the City, Mr. Smith does not feel are legitimate concerns. And I understand that the Board is not political, but there are political concerns that, :In my Client's opinion, are Cinaudiblej and that 1=" to do with the two On -street parking zones. The City of Edmonds Is now IBND OF SIDE A OF TApEj rBRQIW=G or SIDE 2 0)? TAPS] Hyde: (Wntinui3*9) —property. And two 1 .0ts down from Mr. Smith's property is the new Rodmonds Floral and Arta Building. Neither one 02E those, sites Z r ,u; Cr. 21 �l (n QI En yj LU h! D �hI SENT BY: Cklief: west 4sasatssxtrooaa,n�»�oaa. 1-30-97 ; 3:33P5t ;OGDEN MURPHY WAL E. has sufficient parking to accommodate all the people, the employees, etc., patrons, that visit those two sites. Therefore, the two on -street parking spots are important for those buildings. Mr. Smith, however, does not have any sort of requirement imposed upon him to provide parking for the ULy of Edmonds employees or the Floral and Arts Building. Mr_ Smith would like to have parking on his property so that he and his customers can access the property from the front of the building. Right now, although the—e is on -street, it's never available because it's being taken up by other busineasee and other, the City of Edmonds' employees, and in the future, the people who are going to be going to the Edmonds Floral and Arts Building. So I want to point out he doesn't have any sort of requirement placed upon him to provide parking for those facilities. Uh, as the chairman Pointed out, the building directly.to the south of Mr. Smith's building in Tact has a Curb cut across the entire front of the building because they do park in front. So this 'is really already .on that side of the street, there are people parking in the Eront t,.. of the [inaudible]. Mr. Smith wants to have parking in front of his building as well. As far as pedestrian e.caema, they said you already cross a, walk across the asphalt to get to the front of the building because it is asphalt in front of the building and that was a change. .And the other concern which causes Mr. Smith a great deal of concern is the City feels that Mr. Smith doGo not need more parking. 'While I find that no different than if you lived in a home and you're a siaagle person and you have three bedrooms and .you want to add a fourth, it isn't the City's concern that you don't need a fourth bedroom, Mr. Smith feels that he does aced this parking. It's his decision and it's his private property. He would like to utilize that asphalt frontage in front or his building for parking. And it's his own private Cecistion to do that and it isn't up to the City to determine whether it's a benefit to Mr. Smith or not. So, once again, the things that I think are legitimate concerns of the City and that's landscape barrier will be drawn so that that can be complied with and the handicapped parking. That also can be taken care of by adding a handicapped parking stall in the rear of the building. 0.1C, Any questions for the applicant? [silence] Oklief: 2 (man) Bissell: 7 (man) : Bissell: ? (man) ; Bissell: Oklief: 7 (man) - r% 1-30-97 1, 3:84PU ;OM84 MURPHY W�, 2067710221;# 0/je Seeing as there is no one =L-n the audience, go ahead and ask it. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to par=icipate? There is no one there- go we'll c]Lcse, the public portion. Uh, we'll go ahead aRnd go to Board discuosion. stave? Well, I have a question, for =ohn, If they provided parking in the rear of the building where the barrier, the ADA the=ee, then do they have to provide a ramp to access the building or is providing parking meet that :requirement? I mean, If they just provide a hamclicapped stall, then do they have to make, then (ices the building have to be accessible. I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell the applLicant that they need to check that with the Building Official after I give my assumed answer, not being the ADA person at the city. I believe theat the answer is that they would have to provide: access to the building. I think they would have to provide a ramp. Tot I'm not positive of that but I knoour that the TI I a P80PIG don't. If somebody comes in and does an interior remodel, they have -to provide a ramp. And we had one guy do a parking stall addition recently, and I know that they hard to do a :camp. 80, my guess is that they probabiMr would need to do a to check with ith the Bbut thatuilding would bOftice amiail.eft:hing they need O.K. Another question for yrou, John, to supplement that. One side of this. building is actually residential; the other Siode is business. go does that mean they would have tto upgrade with the handicapped ramp to both units or is this specifically for the business sidem, or are these two spaces specifically for tine residential Portion? I don't know the answer to that qmcstion. O.K. Did you have any other iterms that strike yoizr fancy? No, no. Not at this time. 3Erfr BY 1-30-37 c 3:33PM .0=4 WMY 1A110 2087710221010/le ?(man): None. Q.K. Go ahead. Young.. This is either for staff or one of the architects z on the Board. But now if we have a replacement handicapped or we've been requesrsd by'somebody r- w; from that c=dnity to call them disabled stalls, �f' so I'm going to yield to that — t, U G` Bissell: Actually, barrier -free stalls is rn in 4, Youn j g• Barrier -free, that o even_}aetter. Bissell.: That's the term that's in the. Code. Young; The barrier -free stall. Now, I'M In the planning business, sort of, but I'm not 1n the design end of it. Those not ` only Have to have some other amenities but they also have to be* wider, right? Bissell: That's correct. ?(.man). 0,K. The stall size rather than being eight and half feet one feet wide is thirteen wide. ?(man): Actually, it would need to be van -accessible. ?(man): It would have to be sixteen feet. ?(man)., sixteen feet. 7 (maxi) : That is correct. since -- ? (man) : And you have to have at least ocse van.-a.crPssi.ble. ?(man)s Right. ? (man) : So if you are have, are required to have one, that has to be van -accessible. Young: O.K., let's say it has to be somewlLore between 13 and 16 feet. Now what we're going to have here ie, correct me if I'm wrong now, I'm trying to verbalize this. Uh, approval of this application would require acme restructuring of the parking of the fourteen spaces that curre-atly exist in the back to be thirteen. Bissell: That's correct. Young: Whether it's 13 meet wins or whethe= ibla 16 feet: wide is kind of academic. You are .going to;loa:a W�+nnx+asxiEwoo.�ma0000. - 9 - i j t h " y: -..r.n.sys......4v.#r:GYSSYi'QNSF.hvin`Wr 1`ikiLWvuww'n+.wn..w'+w..i......�.... _.._ `" 4 .. .• .., . � `.' 1 � }``. SENT BY: l 1-30-87 3:36PM c0G➢E4 WRPHY WALL 2067710221t#il/19 a space in the back. 80 what we're really being asked to consider here is one parking space, a net gain of one parking space. 'S z i Bssell: That's correct. W' ac M �j Oklief: O.K. ¢� U0' ?iman): Well, I would think that actually though U = we need to consider it two just because there are going to be two wU)i -'t- going in the front. I msaM, there's not like you'ra juar adding one. 0 N 2 LU Young: But I'm trying to think of it, you know, the applicant has said that uh, you know, the u,¢ property owner feels that they need these parking LU spaces. Is it that they need parking spaces its the front or is it that they need two more parking spaces? z Z Oi Ftyde: Mv- Smith would like parking spaces in the fzottt. w wi M of Young: O.K. All right. That was my question, so it's o WL. really in the overall scheme of things that we're looking ' c,F W at a gain of one parking space for this building. Whero he's = got 141 now he's going, to have 1S. He's going to have two in front and 11 Z' in the back with one of them being extra wide. Hyde: Mr. Smith is not required to have aay parking H spaces for this particular building, mr, ftith Z hag owned this building :and been there longer than I think I've been ' alive. So he was there before the code in and he is not require[ to have any parking spaces. Re chooses to have earl,-, spaces. ?(man): Right. But, and this is what I'm getting at is what we're being asked to consider is his choice -- Of how massy parking spaces he wants. I think ?(man): -- well, yes. ® 7 (roan) . A.K. i ? (man) : . That's fine, Young: I mean, if I'm understanding it, if I'm not understanding this correctly, you know, then tell t } J me because* we are being asked as kart of the applicant making a choice as to how many parking spaces he wants to also provide access across h' the sidewalk. And again, correct if I'm missing ' s t ' W6D1D3DSd.tytt%MOO(ftY.YriyYIiWt7UDr ' 4�.s r a": '. Nh } _ vg, t {{ IENT ]By: C) 1-80-07 ; 8-07FM ;OGDEN MLMy W-40- 2007710221;4ml2/le Something here, onto the public which is thoroughfare, understand to be CL Curb Cut and will, as I or a d it John, eliminate the Parking $Pace two Parking spaces, depending on how itis striped, out in front of the building or, the At least two parking spAcgs'On the street will be eliminated. Hyde: Yes, the Public parking spaces right. ?(man)-. O.K. Hyde. Al 3: commented earlier, it's no I t Mr. Obligation to provide those. Smith'-s I don't See It as a Cluest'on Of how Many spaces should he have or whether he's wise to have that many spaces or Configured in that way. It's does he COMplV with the requirements of the design, and I think he does by placing in front of the building. five-foot landscape barrier ami I don't know if you're f li&r with the building, And as I indicated, it's all asphalt now. Hypothetically, I think it would be an improvement beca-use.rather than just sidewalk and asphalt all the way to the building, now there's going to be a division with executed landscaping betwean Oklief,. the sidewalk and the ;apphalt. Normlly, Jim, we'd do azi or additions this under quegtionr case, that's fine.UriStaff ROPOrt, but In this Uh, is there anything else You'd like to add here before we c.,onj- .inue trip Board discussion? ? Let's try to clarify the content. Oklief: Yeah, that's fine. 0.1t. Alan Bylsma- A questiOn for John. 3: have before me scano that Says the design guidelineS area' tthins a roViroment of code. Uh, but I thought our design guidelines have been codified. IS that correct? Yea. Oklief: 0-k- Any other discussion? Q.R. Uh, as far as I'm concerned, I think It's fine that they want o add Parking to the building. reason why a person can't I don't Beet as Provide as much they want. parkin have =�A it. trh, there is one item of C---- 9 1 at 3s With the design guideli3aeg and wW1J28XMVFM,"9"&VM W 0 LL 1 U. in z i: q Z �- US UJ Cr 0- a L- LLJ U L U- LU 0 z SENT BY: 0 1-30-37 3:.3WM OGDEN NUUW WAUJJ- 2067710221;#13/13 that's that we normally do try and get the Parking in the back of the building versus, you know, Gapeci2aly in the downtown area. I realize that in some areas, you know, it's been opposite Of that, but that's been in cases where they haen't been alley access to the back. Uh, it actually is an interesting project for me, because in a lot of ways this is an improvement to what's already there. Like the applicant stated, the entire front end of this lot right now is asphalt. There's no landscaping at all. The 0111y landscaping they have currently is in the back in front of the parking Stalls and it's like a foot strip or whatever. Uh, So I think it's uh, you know, an improvement that they're 'Putting in five feet Of landscaping in the front Of the building. Uh, I do think, you know, on just 4 Personal note, that you'regoing to end up by Putting these two parking stalls in even though I think, YOU know, YOU Should have the right to do that and you do have the right to do that. uh, you're going to drastically reaucei the ,accessibility of the front of your building. Because it looks to me like you'll have two feet in between the parking and the stairs. Uh and then when you put the one additional van space in, a van Space beiiig 16 feet wide, that's going to approximately double the space of one of those Stalls which will als6 push that up fairly close to the building. Ob, so I guess the Board has to decide, you know, where the balance point of this is. There's some drawbacks; there's some benefits. The other thing is that if we do approve itiI thii%k we're going to have to put something n the motion that. is going to state if it isn't approved why would we approve this, you know, because n9rnially, according to the design development or the desigfi guidelines, we would 32Oz1MllY require this to be in the back. so, those are my comments. (man) well, MY thoughts are on it, and I cixave down there amd took a look at the site, is that I think the only reason he's doing this is so he Can have control of the parking in front of his building. I don't know what type of business is rim there, but, you know, he Probably has-pec>ple Who never can park in front Of that building. so he's moving it on site and it is right to do it; It gives him Complete control of it, Right. He would always have two free Spaces in front. -12- 41 J SENT BY: 7 (man) - ? (man) 1-30-57 ; 3,3TM ;OGDEN MLRPHY WA LA M.- 2067710221;#14/19 Right. It kind of acts to open tip the front of the building. Advertising wasate, but yeah. As a lose of two street stalls, 3: *clon't know, I mean, parking is difficult down in -that area. You know, I personally don't ;.have a problem with losing the off-street stalls just because any any project that getWdeveloped 318.s the right to put curb cuts in to access the property. So, any project that goes in we lose on -street parking, That'S just the way it is, ton: the most part. I mean, when the Art, Flcral and Arts Center went in, they lost off-strm_Qt parking due to their, you know, their access, I believe. Does that not clear that alley of access? 7 (man) t What that rinaudiblel, Just Epart of the alley. Okliet:- O.K. Just off of the alley. Well, I stand corrected on that.. But, you know, a lot of new developments, and manythat I've worked on in the City do haive curb auto that reduce on -street parking. Bylsma: I guess my only comment about, you know, the Parking in front of the building is something I've stressed all along As when we make decisions, is consistency. And we have denied Projects in the past where tMeylve, within the 1a9t Year, where they wanted parking in front of their buildings similar to thfis and we've denied It. Oklief.- The thing Is, you know, thieve the other thing, even though the [inaudible] is not unconforming, I mean, there are instances of parking in the front like I indicated before. Bylsma: But do We [iniUdiblej, you know, do we not approve it ona time and than gomati3je else, you know, when there's a nonconforming parking situation next to the aito, was say, well, we'll let it go ag;Lin? When do Wou — that F a very inconsistent, in my opinion. You know, the guidelines were set up, you know, to try to develop a certain standard. Unaudible]' Oklief: Jim. Yoting - $Q what what does the City code then say abou-t uh curb Cuts? I mean, it's Mr. Smith, 6, itls:xr. -13-::v 8Y: 1-30-87 0s40PU ;4GDE7`t MUt2PHY iY AUV 2087710221;41o118 Smith's frontage, and I don't know just exactly how Edmonds law functions. a But I mean is his, that space on the street fronta9�� his sidewalk or is that sidewalk that uh maintained by the city? you know gets BisstrZZ: That sidewalk belongs to the Cit or Edmonds. And his property line is, I C ty how you say it, the the sidewalk is in the public of -way. That's public right. what you'ra asking Young: The sidewalk is or is not? Bissell: Is in the public right -of way, Young' O.K. That what we're Wandering, debate downtown we had that quite frequently, what I thought. so uh that's Another interesting thing here is that we don't actually have landscape drawings .for this; I don't believe. Do we have landscape -_ (man)= Yeah, landscape drawings were Oubmitted. 7(man) On the submitted application. ?(man); There's two site landscape one. plans. The second one is a ?(man).- finaudiblej , Bigeell: Tf ypuire missing it, the l board, andscape's up on the ?(man): xup► there it is, .As.a mattex of fact there it is, , yeah stand corrected. ?(man) : Is that, cold? ?(man), Tt is. ?(man): Sorry ,for interrupting P 5 You there. Okliaf, �To, that's fine (man): That was all T wanted to. Young; Dub the applicant has, S mean, .how Much rl for lack of a better term does the applieany2rt haver You know, to allt across, you kiow, to cut acroob -ig-37 2. 7..''�7.. ,F,3 Y' f_.:.f. YR.�.... ....th&w _. ._ �•. SENT BY: ? (man) ; ? (man) ;. ? (man) Bissell: 2 (roan) 7 (mars) Wa47J4198. f 8X1 FODOd.99494Ai000iS, 1-30-97 ; 3t40PM ;OMEN MMPHY WAGE 2067710221c*16119 t- the sidewalk, cut into the sidewalk and cut the curb down. Well, I think I think that "right" is a difficult word to use. i know this is not the correct form to ask that, but I mean, you know, what's the policy?. The City has the ability to pass ordinances, for instance, which would limit people's ability to do curb cuts when they had alternatives and so on, and many cities have dons that, This City has not done that, The Engineering Division has had a policy to reduce the number of curb cuts where possible. There's an established policy. It's dealt with in subdivision applications when. when you're doing, you know, for instance, flag lots. somebody can enter off of two, bring driveways into one, and things like that. So wherever a reduction in curb cuts 1.9 possible, that's what will happen. There was a parking lot proposed for the old Edmonds Financial Centex Building several years ago before the City had =y interest in purchasing that building. That parking lot was constructed and the Engineering Division at that time did deny a curb cut application to access Fifth Avenue North because the applicant had alley access and the access to Fifth Avenue North would eliminate three parking stalls. Uh, the applicant in that case agreed with the City because in that case it was beneficial to the applicant to also access the alley, so there wasn't a legal controversy, in this case the City of Edmonds Engineering Division bas iatformed me that the Code encourages consolidation but cannot automatically require consolidation. So, so in other words, the City of Edmonds Engineering )Division cannot say, "no, you may not accese," because they don't have an ordinance in place that say$ that, Well, to me, you know, that's probably not an issue that we would be too concerned about. You know, to me, still the main concern is tho part of the daaign guidelines — CnLU U. L� (a LU z� HQ LULU v0 en of hCj z vu �h z 4 to 4 ,? acyL nta 1-30-87 3:41PU ;OGDErq MUBPHY WA ' CE ? (man) : Bissell: oklief: Bissell: ? (man) : Bissell: 2087710221;R17f18 Where normally we don't allow the parking in the front, but here we'rel 'getting some additional landscaping that we wouldn't get otherwise, so . Can I address a few issues? Sure. [inaudible) There're some things that were discussed. Uh, one thing that Alan brought up Uh, the applicant's representative has stated that the design guidelines are not a requirement, but in fact the design guidelines have been incorporated in the code, in two different places in the code. And that the Architectural Design Hoard is specifically with interpreting and enforcing those design guidelines. So so I would say that that is an inaccuracy In Che applicant's representative's statement. Uh, the applicant has.stated that the situation would be no, not really any different when there's parking there as opposed to the existing asphalt, and I would agree standpoint t is henotasphalt as a nicerom aas if there a aestheticwere landscaping there, but from the pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between are potentially moving aria where sing are heor re cars would not he moving. $0, from a pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between the two, and that should be noted because in the design guidelines, pedestrian access is an issue. that you're supposed to be considering. But ill this case, really, the pedestrian access wouldn't be the curb cut itself. Really, the pedestrian access is the fact that it would be building the parking and then [inaudible] I'm discussing getting from the sidewalk so 1''m not talking necessarily about the curb cut. The curb cut is an issue for pedestrians: p%pej.ng the buildingg. The more curb Cuts you have, the less pedestrian-hoopitable a site is. So the curb out creates a pedeetrian problem for people passing the building,, But I'm speaking of people getting, just addressing scm ethigg that the there'snasphaltptheretnow,.e There ll bht e asphalt there later, sa it's not really any different. .And the point is that it is different if you're dealing with crossing asphalt where there are no (n U. w0 W �d �W T zr r� ww 0U ab ~ F W oa z Oklief: Sir -sell: ?(han): ? (man) 2 (man) 7(Man): 7(man): 7{man). P {man} 7(man): WM1520& 18wFtKJ06.4499913=, i-;JU-b7 ; d:4.rM ;UUUt11dNUXr11T WALLACE" 2U0-1iU2Li;aiti(1U Cars as! opposed to crossing asphalt where there are cars. it's a difference in how pedestrians interact with their environment. Uh, and, the other thing that I just want to touch on is that the applicant's representative has brought up the tact that they believe that the staff Is rscoaanandation for denial is based on some sort Of politically driven issue. That they believe that we rigged the parking for the Floral Building and that we are doing something, the City'e doin something that we're not supposed to be doing w�th the parking on the Old Edmonds Finarn ial Center Building which will be the new City Hall. Uh, first off, the Architectural Design Hoard is probably not really supposed to be considering the political issues and secondly Correct. — uh, the issues brought up by the applicant are inaccurate. The way parking was calculated an each of those buildings was the same as the way the parking has been calculated on every other building in downtown Edmonds. So, so it,s it's first political issues, and second, Slightly, somewhat, let's say, misguided, so, I think the Hoard should just disregard it. well, I agree that, I agree that that portion of, that should be disregarded. Although, you knout, I do understand that off-street parking is a concern for the community — Right. I would agree that off-street parking But I don't really feel that we ohould.take that into account. I would agree that off-street parking -- {inaudiblel I would agree with off-street parking is a concern with this, and where the concerns in the engineering division are coming from on this issue. parking in the downtown area is a general concern for the community. I think we should stick with architectural design board issues.. .1'7 - fti r 4fl t NO, -a.'K •r' kr ,�k'M y�fpi. s r- 4F�'Slr i�t`c {,,vnt" :x:! 41Of V i :4 , Y ',, r �r st 3lt ! �zrs �' i 2 }j2Y��v FiR��• ra,n� t, a1 7 Lt t h z t a; .�:, �ti �' ����yYly 1 i rE �. fy��xEh ,t�;, tY 1 iyi z.Yt r : i� �„ t z �,r" y x .t x, ,r`sr erz dJ ti t o trr<%f Jtz 5y tVle, f ._..,..,-..,,....-.,,«rr�r�resumads'�rtxiedr«•Wiuia ..�. _ ,di yo t t ., t ;�-.tlt'�TI+ z ,z Fi si,, 'ia.��� ¢ �_, m� . �._, .rr-.� `�• - 1—uY—V/ r ai•ywm a v.wua.t i13tl1u ilt Rrity}�y{„ �� 6UlJI7LUGrl rzi l,�l i:1 ' ?(man': Right'. '(man): So, i agree. z ?(man) More discussion? �a lf: r ,,,� Any other comments? Discussion? BYlsma : i 'would like to make a motion. I' d 11 R.ke to mane U 01 that We deny _ 46-131 as submitted for the N �} following reasons, that the 'guidelines 'odiscauzage LU �' parking in front of the building so thoat this is hi a noncomplianoo, 4haE there ig a �pedeatrian N U. hazard caused because of the increased vehicular '" and pedestrian inherplay, and that's about it. a�a oC =' young: u- < i' Ii peoond that. �d Oklief: Oka w x.: Moved and seconded. cauded. All in ' favvcar. z w1 All opposed. (No.response.) z �� w w You've been denied, as part of this prajcit. 0 Sorry. 0 v� o rt' LUJ cU'U. i' ui W1 i= X, O Z waa��oss.�xwe000e.sgssf�e000a� -�8. I `' i :i.. i .O. November 15, 1996 zi o ADB-96-112 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPRO`"VAL 2 NEW N 3m PARKING STALLS FOR AN E�SU NG OFFICE J F- i Ln w o� A. Avolicant/Property Owner Architect/Reepresentative Marvin Smith Sally M Hyde 126 4th Avenue North 152 3rd Avenuue South cn at Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds, Wfi-A 98020 s su Z B. Site Location: 126 4th Avenue North Ot Z o w wi C. Introduction: The applicant has proposed to construct 2 new parking stalls between the 2 :) a street and the existing building, accessing off 4th Avenue Norrth. The building currently p —, provides 14 parking stalls which access off the alley. After thne completion of the proposed w W project the property would provide 16 parking stalls. The exis sting office use requires no more than 4 parking stalls to meet the requirements of the Ednmonds Community Development Code. zi w N! U �' D. Background: z L. Description of Property: The subject property is a 60 fc bot wide rectangular lot which fronts on 4th Avenue North, and with alley access to the r—ear of the property. 2. Zoning: The property is zoned Community Business o(BC). } 3. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is exemFpt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). r` y E. Staff Analysis: e Q 1. Site Design: a) Vehicle Access and Parking: The site currently provides 14 parking stalls at the rear - of the property which are accessed by way of an alley. The applicant is proposinAg to retain these parking stalls, and to add two additional parking stalls which wvill access directly off 4th Avenue North. There will be no vehicle access provido.ed between the 14 stalls in the rear of the lot and the two parking stalls in the frontt of the lot. The existing use appears to be an office with on site cu istomer service. That use requires one parking stall per 400 square feet of buildir'. ►g area. According to the provided site plan, the existing building area appears tco be approximately 1,600 Ex* hibi$ 3 ,j [ 1 � 1 r t 7 .,.. _:_...,. { ,..>.,..ti....,..,....M„...,.x�_,_v m�u-.e.,cx�iu. v...u. «.�........ .,._.. :. _._.....:.._......�...:,,......,..«......«:.,....,+..w...,nrn.�•w.,.,.�..'..".....,......__a _. t.,.... ,__..:._.._......._...._.'�., ..,- i ADS-46-! 12 square feet. Therefore, only 4 parking stalls would be required. It should also be noted that even if the use changed to a restaurant, which is one of the most intensive z retail/service uses allowed in this zone, a total of eight of the existing 14 parking i stalls would be required. Further, the installation of the two parking stalls would UJI' remove at least two on street parking stalls.' J V L) Oi In addition, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Washington State � w? Barrier Free Code, in* that the installation of the two proposed parking stalls requires F the installation of one on -site barrier free parking space. Uj o b) Pedestrian Access The existing site development provides pedestrian access directly off 4th Avenue U- < North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all d pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. F.. = Therefore, this proposal would remove all direct pedestrian access. z 1—; o{ c) Landscaping: w Wi The installation of the two proposed parking stalls would reduce the amount of 2 M landscaping between the building and the public street. Section 20.12.025 of the o m! Edmonds community development code requires a minimum 5 foot landscaping t . o r buffer around the perimeter of ail parking lots. The applicant has proposed a 4 foot Uj buffer between the parking stall and the sidewalk, and no buffer between the U. parking stalls and the side property lines. The ADB has the sole authority to waive z; or alter the requirement of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC 20.12). In the past, the ADB has granted waivers where the applicant had no design alternatives to meet the o minimum code requirements for parking and landscaping. In this case the applicant Z has provided more than three times the code requirement for parking in the rear of the lot. Therefore, the granting of a waiver to the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance would be inconsistent with the code requirements and past decisions. d) Design Guidelines: ; } j Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance requires small parking areas s' at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The proposal would add parking at the front of a building in opposition to the design pp guidelines, and would create a pedestrian hazard, in opposition to the design guidelines. Section 20.10.070(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires landscape should be provided as a buffer to surrounding properties and streets. 4. Technical Review: a) Engineering Division: 3 j « Permits will be required for the construction of the proposal. 4 The proposal would eliminate at least as many on -street parking stalls as it would create off-street, therefore this does not beneficial. proposal seem « Right-of-way construction pennits may be required. , c) Building Division « Compliance with the State Barrier Free Code requirements must be met. x , a fil 4 r:.x`.,X i eKc {,: [�3.r±r.Y}�i+,: fi .... rit^-,•c4.r.-riv :. :.. �J2T+„hiM1`::.. {%gam s .Jaa` 'fig 4 "F t 4 S Y S"� ""P, f T ADB•96-112 • One (1) handicapped accessible parking stall is required, Note: The Board and the applicant should be aware that the comments of the d technical committee are related to code requirements. Those requirements must be met r at the time of the building pen -nit application. If those requirements effect design, those requirements must be integrated into the plan and approved by ADB prior to the tio approval or issuance of a building or development permit. LU J 1.d� Wo F. Summary: The proposal is inconsistent with the landscape requirements because an g insufficient landscaping buffer is provided between the proposed parking stalls, the street, and the adjacent properties. The proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines by LL W d reducing the pedestrian facilities and by providing parking off the street where parking off T a„ the alley is available In addition, the proposal does not provide the required barrier free z I— parking stall. Further, the proposal would eliminate an amount of public parking at lest o equal to the amount of private parking proposed with no apparent public or private benefit. W UJ Therefore Staff believes that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the o Comprehensive Plan, The Zoning Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines and the application Q should be denied. W W: X U Attachments: u. p z 1. Vicinity Map ui W1 2. Applicant's declaration s, t ns, elevations and site plan 0 z }® ®' ,5 50, 3 3 4 i t i ti ,w yp 14 -r ii i i x U O, i to u+1 LU p I LL <- Ln p ► I FUJ Z r ; r o,, EXISTING PARKING a�. U Ns tii. I l �v r F poa.cauw u. p 2 ui u3 , EXISTING BLDG. l n 126 4th AVE. N 1 i (t r I 1 1 ! MW I- R.ML r NEW wrca PAFIGNCs O I. M �; r�o.•araw� +a+nr%xneoo " 4 i mot 00 OP E ,t Sheet No.tP,-1 . If PX7TM CAA'TrrT-T D A T-)'rrrrrr Dates 10-19--98 jj . .:., . 7 .. ';, .-, .:.:. }, .:._ :`-h ... .. .i..'.., r ., L.f .`..m ..;. .. .. ,4 ..:L\�: I....f .. ` AA ..:..,.,..: . C.. tY� i... . v. a'r .s z. ,. w.:t .....x n �<e.,...._ S ..:...:.... ..-.�......... .w ......,.:...»w.. .�........ »... � r ._.._ »..�......:. W -..... .... SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUES., SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 Z (206) 771-4846 . FAX (206) 774-9642 wi December 4, 1996 j _ c�� 0' W o; wArchitectural Design Board ; _j �i City of Edmonds cn LL 250 5th Ave. N. LU 0t Edmonds, WA 98020 LL c2 e{ Re: November 15, 1996 Staff Report/ Marvin Smith Applicant HwArchitectural Design Board: _: ~ Mr. Smith is the owner of the Z �'. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. propertylocated at 126 4th Ave. w w :D The recommendation of the staff appears to be mis-guided for o -: the fallowing reasons: a x U (a) design guidelines are not requirements of the code; 1- p! `-` a' (b) Mr. Smith is not required quired to provide public on street W U), parking; U= z (c) the community services dept. does not have the authority to determine what constitutes private benefit to Mr. Smith or his property; (d) the plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities, nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. The recommendations that are legitimate concerns and merit -- a response are as follows: 5 , (a) The recommendations of the staff with respect'to 0 landscape requirements, specifically landscaping buffer, can be met and a redraft of the plan is attached hereto providing for the additional one foot landscaping. (b) The determination of the staff that the barrier free parking requirement is not met, can be met by designating one stall at the rear of the property•for handicap access. The City's concern that Mr. Smith's parking lotwill reduce on street parking, appears to be connected to the City's• own reallocation of it's offices to the rear of Mr. Smith's property and the development of the Edmonds Community Arts Building two lots away from Mr. Smith's property. Mr. Smith is well aware that. both the city employee's and the patrons of the Edmonds Arts Building want to utilize the on street parking space in front of -his 0. 53 Exhibit .4 k{ ® ?u S t +14 1 o- 0.0 1� n I ` I _�, - ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUES.. SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206)771-4846 - FAX(206)774.9842 D C, t^. 1 / 1990" P90MIT COVN75 ; o, December 16, 1996 Zn Lul. J 1—i wo(. Edmonds Community Development Director - 250 5th Ave. N. rR Edmonds, WA 98020 . ULn w; Re: Notice of Appeal Z1—: o Dear Sir or Madam: z UJ W a`.. This is a notice.of appeal of the ADB decision dated December 4, 1996, of applicant Marvin U co' Smith. Mr. Smith's address is 126 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. Mr. Smith is the owner a of the subject property site. We enclose the filing fee of $100. 2 ~ �= �. o, — Mr. Smith believes that the denial of ADB-96-131 was in error for the following reasons: Z! we U IThe basis of the denial is stated to be "That the plan includes parking in front of the applicant's o building and this is discouraged in the guidelines; and, that there would be a pedestrian hazard Z caused because of increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay." No "guideline" presently exists that prohibits parking in the front of applicant's building. There are no facts to support the finding of a "creation of a pedestrian hazard or increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay", nor is there any ordinance, regulation, or code criteria that { permits a denial on this basis. ' The ADB's decision was influenced by the representation of John Bisset, Associate Planner of the City of Edmonds, who incorrectly and improperly stated that the "ADB Guidelines" were 0 requirements of the Code. The "Architectural Design Board Guide" is premised upon ECDC 15.15.036 and ECDC 15.30.000. (See attached "Building Design and Site Treatment Guide" recently given to the applicant by the City of Edmonds) The code sections referenced by the "Guidelines" were repealed by Ord. 3030 on June 30, 1995 and are no longer in effect. There are no Design Board Guidelines in effect that could be ascertained, and no others supplied by the city upon request of the applicant. t® ECDC 20.10.060 sets forth required findings prior to approval of a proposed development. Therefore, the same criteria must be addressed in order to deny a proposed development. These criteria are as follows: 56 Exhibit 5 "s 3 A. Comprehensive Plan. "That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies." If the proposal did not meet this criteria,*prior to denial the ADB was required to specifically state that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies, and refer to the specific section of the plan or adopted city policies with which it is not consistent. The ADB failed to do this. B. Zoning _Ordinance. "That the staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or .the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance.' If the proposal did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the ADB was required to identify what specific ordinance and it's requirements that the proposal failed to meet. The ADB tailed to do this. C. Criteria. "That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria -and purposes of this chapter.' If the proposal did not meet the criteria and purposes of chapter 20.10.070, the ADB was required to identify with specificity what. criteria or purpose of. chapter. 20.10.070, the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. The ADB's failure to identify specific sections of the Code, zoning ordinance, or comprehensive plan, that are inconsistent with application ADB-96-131, renders such denial arbitrary and capricious, and should be overturned. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant his appeal and approve application ADB-96-131. Please take notice that the applicant's representative will be out of the country during the remainder of the month of December. Due to the intervening holidays it is unclear when this matter would be heard before the City Council in* the ordinary course. The applicant requests that the hearing for his appeal take place no sooner than January 15, 1997, if scheduling of the hearing in the ordinary course would result in a hearing prior to that time. This is not meant to be a waiver of any right to a hearing in an expeditious manner. I point out that the City of Edmonds is apparently a property owner of interest (see attached list of affected property owneks). For the City Council to hear this matter would seem to violate the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". How do you want to handle this issue? Sincerely, Sally M. Hy e Representative for Marvin Smith enclosures cc: M. Smith TM i 01, 75. N, 5• 7 -TO -0 e f:' r f s } t } r i t ....wrux.tr.4M.e+'tirrwtxxrJ<iwmtruametl� nan>cw✓wr.....:_........ .. ......_.:.i�..%+ww.�+M*+.+1«nww.rarw�.......u.-...._...—.i:._ .......__..:.._�__.—..._._ .. .:..:: .,'�. ..—. .. .. ...... - W/ VML IM-E i0 OF FA # d uj ' BEFORE TBE EDMONDS ARCBITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD cr. 21 ai On the Application of Marvin Smith File No. AP-96-148 W LU cn wA PROCEDURAL HISTORY LL o LU This matter was originally heard by the Architectural Design Board on December :, xt 1996. Following the Board's decision to deny this matter, if Was appealed to the Edmonds Ci rY z QCouncil for a closest record appeal on December 1'7, 1996. The Edmonds City. Council upheld z the applicant's appeal and remanded this matter back to the Architectural Design Board with LU a! instructions to the Hoard to continae its deliberations based- on the existing closed record and to aiC enter its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In particular, the City Council found that a �' the provisions of the Design Manual which explicate the Comprehensive Plant policies formerly � w w found In Chapter 15.15 of the Edmonds Community Development Code are no longer i applicable. The City Council found that the provisions of Chapter 15.15 were repealed as part '�- z{ of the Comprehensive Plan revision and that until readopted cannot form a basis for the Ni Architectural Design Boards decision in this matter. _! o Following continued deliberation and based entirely upon the original record created z before the Architectural Design Board at its December 4, 1996, meeting, and the procedural record and argument before the City Council, the Architechual Design Board finds and concludes as follows; I. FINDINGS -- 1.1 The applicant Marvin Smith proposes to conyert the front yard of a commercial building locatad at 124 - 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, to a parMg area. The parking area as proposed would be comprised of two parking stalls. New landscaping is proposed for a five-foot area between the existing sidewalk and the edge of the stalls on either side of the curb cut. The proposed landscaping as shown in as EAibit to the Architectural Design Board's first hearing does not extend along the northern, and southern edges of the parking stall 'between the subject site and adjacent properties, but rather terminates at the edge of the proposed parking stalls, kf i i40310 r :`f r r ExhlbitF 85 .. . _�_ —x., .,. .. ..., .�•t^r.�.e.^tiTr^staxra�'ur? . >. .., .. _ .i �%�'''t'.�'"'t�h''�,^ 01- W SE STME 1.2 At the December 4,1996, meeting, the staff representative 7ohn Bissell contended that the proposed landscaping did not adequately buffer the parking stalls rrom the adjacent properties with a minimum five-foot planting ,yip given the requirements of Chapo:r 20.12 ECDC. 1.3 ECDC 20.12.025(a) provides in part: I. A minimum five-foot planting strip is required around the perimeter of all parking lots (see additional requirement for parking lots abutting streets, below). Thie'snip is not required when parking is enclosed within a building. 2. Where a parking lot abuts any strut, a landscaped area of ten feet in width is required. 3. Where a driveway abuts a property line, a planting area at least five feet in width must be insualled adjoining the property line. 1.4 In order to approve a permit, the Euaonds Architectural Design Board is required to find by the provisions of ECDC 20.10.060 that: 1.4.1 The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies. ECDC 20.10.060(A.). 1.4.2 The staff finds that tho proposal uncoss the requirements of the zoning ordinance or the City has approved a variance or modification in the zoning ordinance. ECDC 20.10.060(B). 1.4.3 Vae proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of the chapter. ECDC 20.10,060 (C) 1.5 The City Council has found and the Architectural Design Board is bound to accept that the criteria of .Former Chapter 15.15 as incorporated i:n the design Manual are not applicable to this project. 1.6 With the exception of the issue noted in paragraphs 1.2.and 1.3, the staff feeds that the proposal complies with the provisions of the zoning oiditimce. In particular, the engineering staff finds that the Garb cut request complies with the *provisions of 18.80.060 goveraing curb out requirements. The Arcbitoctural Design Board has been directed by the City Council not to consider the impacts, if any, of the proposed curb out upon downtown parking. F t a _ 09/10/8? WED 11:4e FAX 206 44T ogle oanv aEATTLE Q00 .51 1.7 The criteria for Architectural Design Board xeview referenced in ECDC 20.10.060(C) are contained in 20.10.070. The Architectural D&siga Board funds the following criteria to be applicable: z s 1.7.1 (B) Site Treatment (2) Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance �1 the building design and other site improvements." o; 1.7.2 "(B) Site Treannent (3) Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer in W i the development from surrounding property where conflict array result, such as parking areas Ui I—, new spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color." Wo .yard g 1.7.3 "(B) Site Treatment (4) Landscaping that could be darna ged by pedestrian S or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices." _ Uj,I H. CONCLUSIONS O LAW Z o 2.1 The record does not contain any evidence tending to indicate that the proposal Uii w1 does not comply with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, �f 2.2 The sole criteria at issue is whether the proposal complies with the landscaping o F requirements of the zoning ordinance contained at ECDC 20.12.025(a) and the ADB criteria � w w� rcferonced at ECDC 20.10.070(B) above. ... zI 2.3 The landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.12.00': 5(A)(1), (2) and (3) require a U)j minimum five-foot planting strip around the perimeter of all parldng lots, except when the. pstr%ing is proposed in a building. A landscaped area of ten feet in width is required it the area ~ abuts the street. A landscaped area of five feet in width is required if the area adjoins a property line. s 2.4 The applicant's proposal to buffer the development from the street satisfies the requrirernent of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(2), (3), and (4). 2.5 The drawings submitted as Exhibit A by the Applicant indicates no landscaping betwet:u the proposed parking and the narthern and southern boundaries of the subject site. The i r application therefore does not provide an adequate landscape buffer for the adjacent properties in violations of the provisions of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(3). The application does not include 0 sufficient detail to determine whether the landscaping to be installed• could be damaged by 4 pedcstriems or vehicles nor whether curbing or similar devices wilt be included. The Applicant has therefore failed to satisfy thtl criteria of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(4). -.The application therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of the Architectural Design Board, Chapter 20.10 ECDC, 2.6 The application fails to satin uireme is of ECDC 20.12 23 A PP satisfy the req n .() ()(1) and {3} a in that it does not provide five foot landscaping buffer between the Applicant's subject site and rt 207l18 ' 55 *; re. �-�y,.q'�,... +,���,,:FY.. S.�r`� 5'�.^�is`k�4 Y •. s'r�� y 1 Sf4� � Mrs t 'aN©:dam.?: °xt'..s_i',ai, x#td®- ..,,..nr•:`�k'�xeik.�i�G,3J. enLL -0 0548/9T VMD.12:33 PAL 206 447 0215 UHF SEATTLE adjacent properties. The adjacent properties do not have front vard parking and therefore should be buffered. 2.7 Further, the application does not provide. ten feet of buffering between the parking lot and Fourth Avenue North and therefore violates the provisions of ECDC 20.12.Q25(A)(2). The application therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of landscaping re�xuiremeats ai EC -DC 20.12 adopted pursuant to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. 2. g Modification of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.10 would be inconsistent with the purposes set forth in Chapter 20.10 because the application does not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment of the City of Edmonds and fails to minimize incompatible rind unsightly surroundings and visual blight by bufferistg tin proposed parking with landscaping. M. DECISION The application is therefore denied. The parking lot as proposed fails to provide for adequate landscaping along the lutes between adjacent property owners. and the adjacent street: DATED this .r day Oft1N I99"/. ARCHITECTURAL J}ESIGN BoAxn By: By: !f / Poer� �. EDMOND$ CITY CLERK VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF APRIL 211997 AR-CHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING zz ( ABB-9 13VAP 9&148 . Marvin Smith F- U 126 . Aft Avenue North � U 0U; d Board Member Young: 1s the itpplicaat or the applicant's representative present;? cn w; ern W, Bissell; The applicant is here as a person in the audience, as is staff on this particular' m1ic #ion. u- in- This item is simply for Board deliberation. w0 Board Member Young. Oh. it's a continution, okay. So there is no need for anyone to take a stand q anywhere. We don't:even have to do the public... In fact we ate not allowed to take any comments. w ¢ ' Mr. Bissell: You are not allowed to take any comments. You are not allowed -,p ask staff any Questions. w You are not allowed to ask the applicant any questions. You are YA allowed to hake any public testimony. z You are only allowed to review the material that was approved by the Board and the City Attorney for p., review at the List public heating. � Ui Ui; Board Member Young: Okay. Well, with that, I will open and attrt to mom,-2m fhrther gyration of 0 0 the two referenced items. Basically, they are both AD8-96.131, and as I un.d=tand it, just tech the 0 perspective of Chapter 20.10, Well, actually, just of Chapter 20 of thae Edmonds Community p F- . Dovelopment Code (ECDC). Having never done this before, them is no farmai way, nnl"c Romder* has V ' tome suggtstioas regarding the information we wore provided at the Iasi Hoard r_ueeting, u. p'i, y Board Mantimer Ooklici: I would just like to rocap what my feelings were from laaot time. Z. U Board Member Young, Why don't we do that. Since this is the first situations of remand we have ever O FZ- had, if we do it wrong we will certainly find out. go I guess what we will star out with is the four Board Z members who were here and the four Board members who were present at the original hearing from which this has been remanded. I believe just to sat the ground rules here and if in fact James you can participate in this discussion now because you have had a chance to review the rye information that we have all had both at the time of the original hearing and subscqum to that at the remand hearing March 19. Linda, I hellos c under the rules that were cTr=wd by the City Attomtiy anM also perhaps I balieve by the ayplimnea rgrresenUUiM I am afraid you can't participate is the discussion}., but you can nit there and i soak up our accumulated wisdom. I Were if that is the casq we will just start with James and whatever Anther deliberations we ban to say regarding AD13.96-131. So James we will sHart with you if you would fir--;- like to add something. Bwd Member Chatupuik: I read all of the material that was given to me, sated I droyt by the location about three times, Heat I don't have a site map, and I am somewhat puzzled because it des not appear to y ® me thatthese Is moot for parking in trout of this establishment. Hut, haying ono details, I can only nay ills['$ bd.y objective observation. 39, 1 bavc no more comments than that. Bond Member Young: Okay, with rsrspect to staff participating or not parUc,,,.'patin& We can in fact Clarify things, as I understood it, that staff spoke about at the last matins. Arad baucally there is, and stop ante and say no, you can't participate, John, and we will have that on tba ,,cord it was my understanding that what the applicant was proposing actually wvoid have fit witl:b mod;.fieations, ifin fact, we as 12n Beard were WWMg to modify the landscaping nxluiromcnls. Is that d'Aher the understanding of Verbatim Transcripts of April Z 1997 Atchitectumal Design Board Meeiiug File Numbers ADB-96-131/AR96.148 �y pop 1 Exhibit 3 J11 SUL-14-1997 1514e P.03 SIM if in fact he can participate, or if he cannot participate... I.et the rtaod show that staff I$ shaking his head that he mirror participate. Is that in fact the recollection of anyone cage on the Board? Board Member Chahipnk. For what it's worth, that is what I think the iataw t don of our legal cot =I was. The d0culty I have is I work with drawings. I don't' have the drawing, and I am afraid I am ¢ t-: - unable to completely understand what the situation is. Visually, it did not look like it met any criteria that w we would establish. UJ Q Board Member Young: OkaY, in the absence of the drawing You are reluctant to make any further � p O; observation regarding it. "U Board Add ChaluPUfiV I was there 35 minutes ago. As I understand, there is a four foot Planting am which is supposed to be opened up to five feet. If that is opened up to five feet; I don't see where a cn O ( car would be parked there. But I don't have the drawings, and I don't' have my tape with me so I could not meaatite it LL Q BI Board Member Young: Okay, thank you James. Mr. OakW.. (n p ' W Board Member Oaklief .first to continue kind of what we were talking about. I think it is our job to zs � clarify why we denied the er�tain to City Caruu;91 argl application, is Particular the items regarding the p land=Ping. So, I believe actually there are a couple of iterus. I think it is actually 10 feel. A couple Z h ndings: One is for a 5 f0ot parameter and one is for 10 foot in between the street and the parking lore. I w ru �! think my t meadatknn, as far as ;making a clasidcation to that, would stilt be to explain that the p p. roarou Baia was decried to that it does an mvide g adequate landscaping according to Section 20.12.025. V U)i So, as far ys I am c 0r4srned, it Owuld probably still be denied, O—: 0 ~ ' w y� ; Board Member Young: You find no reason to waive the landscaping regairemant7 a' Board TMembar OOldief: Nc, I don't. Not in this particulararea. Z W U) Board Member Young: Do you feel that no case wo ra k to persuade ua to waive the landscape rcquiremcat, the substance of which the ECDC we have in Front of us this everting? O Z Board Member Oakhof. When we waive things is situations wharc we feel it does not adverldy impact the City as for as what we ate allowed to by the Cute here, in some inatnrrcea I have gone along with that. But in this case I do not think that would be apptop, ate, That is not swing that he would not be able to Put the parsing lot, be world just have to make it wtrforrn to tie landscaping rapdrements. Board Member Young; Okay, but the proposal, as presented, does not area the statutory standards of the ECDC, and there has not been a case made to waive those by the ADS. Is Out what I here )v% saying. - . t'` Board Member OakUd' Right. I don't tl:el like making a area in that direction DOW Member Young; It is not up to us to make a case. It is up to the appIlCM t Q Board Member Oakiiei: From what was presented to ns, the layout with the laodwsping, t don't think that meets me code. Board Member Metre: As I understood from tiro meeting Iasi rime and moving ahead, that is what they a9kW for is clafiticattan. It seemed to fall down to the ECDC Chapter 20.12.023-the minimum 10 (at Bide Mr. Oaldtef stated In the burr between sUM and p *ig ataea and the five loot area on sidewalks. And I tend to concur with Mr. Oakdief In that C the additional paddrtg were Created in the ftoni of the t ® building, which would also Incur additional trait to and out Room the Parking areas. them would need to be that buffering, especially upon either sift of those parking areas and to tie front with pedestrian tratlke. Verbatim Transcripts of April 2,1997 Arcllltectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-W131/AP-96•148 Pap JUL-14-1997 15e49 P.04 So I think Bally to the case of a paddng lot, those bntlbrs become most important. With that in mind, I feel that this is very important, if the paddag cannot coeform te, that buffering, I would teed to agree that based an that the design cannot be approved. Boasrd Member Young: Either as submitted or.. . z Board Member Pierce: ...or waiving or choosing for us to waive those requirements. - Wcc Board Member Young,. What I am looking for here, and this is always difficult to do without stab this Oj Proposal as presented cannot be constructed without a wavver of the babcape requirements as delineated v in Chapter 20.12.023 also called screening referencing parking lot parameters, spedficaUy subpart 2 W; where a parking lot abuts a street, a hwed.ca* area of l0 &td in width is requiretl. The applicant hag LU . asked far, in essence by the application, a waiver of the landscapc rcgttircanenis to rive feet but has not W U. made a awe as to why that should be waived in this particular case It is not up to us, as a Board, to suggest that and to come to W up with a reason waive the provision of the code in this particular case. Is that g a summation or am I putting words in somebody's mouth? That is what I seem to be hearing from Mr. Oal;liei°and Mr. Pierce. LL Q d i )toad Member Pierce. Mr. Chairman, to add to that also in the sugatnation report from the original �. LU Ineeting, oft thing that was brought up by that repm by staff is that it is asphalt area currently. It is z H =tetttly an area in front of the building that is asphalt. But interns of the screening requirements, the o only thing I would say is by turning it into a parking area, with cars canting in and out, it treats it from z H, Ur W i more of a passive area to an area with ingress and egress of cars. In that case it snakes the screening requirements that mach more important. v CW p Board Member Young: So. in fact the nature of the use that is going to be made of this r p opeK1' Weald � h teaDy. in your opinion and your Judgment. require more screening than is available to the applicant by virtue of the slag of the site? Because it is basically going from a passive to an active use of the from of h N the applicant's property. as. p r ''-' Board Member Pierce: That is correct. i- .Bond Member. Yoamg. Mr. Sullivan. z A+ostmd Member Sadlivaw I think that I c=cur with what everyone bas said so far. It was remanded to us simply to examine ECDC screening requirments, and I don't see a way that it can meet these. The only team we have goer .modified screening requirements in the past bee been pr iotaxily oa Dew Construction whore we have had other trade offs in terms of either additional parking or something that was site determined rather than a situation where I feel hone these is sulfcleot parking for the building. We aaw Aaldng to make a trade off in the front for more parking when We not eves required for the ttraatrxre. So I feel that the acreaning requirement cannot be met as it is currently proposed to us, and it 0,Wd be denied. Hoard Winber Young; Okay, if I understand what you are Wi& where we have waived the '. unalreawnts, in the past there has been a benefit to a44corrt lrrepecty uiwnm &+om the waiver of these requirctuentrIn this particular case, we have not been pomaded that there is A benefit to ad}a = 0 Property s. t BoW Member Sullivan: Right, I don't' m that then is any benefit I think of one example wham we did rostsiot the parkiusg curb around it because there was a preexisting con conforming building. To get the puvkhag in we let that be reduced with a little bit of an overhang with the front nosing of the vehicles Into the i"4 foot buffer, which in essence eomproanim it a bit It was a site specific situation, none of which I ate apparent is this. There is just no compelling reason. L � Verbatim Transcripts of April 2, 1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting �::z� File Number ADai-%-1311AD.N.1d8 page 3 k r 3UL-14-1997 15:d9 P.05 Barad Member Young: Witte that. twill entertain a modes on the part of the Board. We have the pad eels pmlerb by the City AtkwaY. and I believe that am of the options is aP sunested finding under item Id— denitl. I bavm these available If somebody needs them. Or if someone would like to make *motion based on the inkmation at the couciuckm that we have come to, with or without this, I would be welling to take that now. Z Q _ Hoard Member Oaklief: I move that to clar* the donial previously for ADB-96-131, awt the parking tot ~ W'ss' does not conform to ECDC 20.12,023 because it does rot provide minimum planting strip between the �I etrcci and the pa*&% lot. And also the aide lot to the parking lot, to the north and south sides of the v OC Plwnffi ioL pi Cn LU Board bf=bcr Sullivan: I scoond that LU .J h- u1 u- Boned b*wbcr• YcugF Okay, it has been moved and a xan k i Ail in favor. All Opposed. Bearing no W oppetsttion, ADD-90-131 is denial. Wn ahould have the raeotd show that Wean iagly Linda will need to ab"It Do the have arty abmantions? J U. Mad Member COOW&. Yes. t=- x Board Member Young TWk you t•- Oi Board Member ChalupWk I abstain also. o} Board Member YOM. Okay, so we have Im to Am and two abstandons; W. Chialupnik and lute. v v_tr• Ca6@dri & Tbwk you � Z W to M-- F=-{ O Z i Vetitatim Transcripts of April 2,1997 AIaMctud Dedta Boatad Meeting '� File Number ADB-96-13I1AP-*149 5X.4 Pap 4 �< jsr eZk. 05 Tt7TAL • P. Y t �4.I+tii`f �y. - to } LkSpt 1 0 RECEIVED VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF MARCH 19, 1997 EDMONDS CITY CLERK ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING ADB-96-131/AP-96-148 Marvin Smith 126 - 4th Avenue North Board Member Young recognized Sally Hyde, 152, 3rd Avenue South, Suite 101, Edmonds, representative for the applicant, along with the applicant, Mr. Smith. He also recognized Scott Snyder, City Attorney. Mr. Snyder: I am here to help you clean up a bit of a mess tonight. This is going to be somewhat unusual. This is a remand to you from the City Council. This is the first remand I believe we have had since the passage of the regulatory reform act, which means several things tonight. You will be deliberating, and you will receive no staff report. You will receive no comments from the applicant. My comments are going to be limited to purely procedural things. I have packets. The first thing you need to clear up, because I don't know you as Board members, is to try and determine which of you were here and heard the original application. Do we have a new Board member since that time? We do still have a quorum of members who heard the original hearing. I have packets for you. As you can see from the length that is one of the reasons you did not receive them ahead of time. Board Member Oaklief: Are we going to have to read this? Mr. Snyder: It's all information you have had before with the exception of the top group. If you feel it necessary to review the record you could take a break tonight and do so. Or you could continue this matter to some future agenda. Board Member Oaklief, Are you going to explain this information? Mr. Snyder: I am going to walk through this. Board Member Young: This is kind of like in lieu of the staff report since we are here on a legal matter now. Mr. Snyder: What is unusual about this, under the regulatory reform act the City is limited to one hearing, which you held on December 4, 1996. The record of that hearing then went to the City Council. The transcript which is included as Item 3c in your agenda, contains your decision. You may remember that the application was denied on that date because of concerns that it did not comply with Chapter 15.15, which was incorporated into the Design manual and concerns about parking in the downtown area. Ms. Hyde appealed to the City Council on Mr. Smith's behalf. The City Council's decision, as shown as Item C of the packet, upheld the appeal on the basis that Chapter 15.15 was repealed when the Comprehensive Plan was enacted, creating an ambiguity. The design manual continues in affect, but the policies for which you denied the applicant had been repealed. Now 15.15 has since been readopted, but for the purposes of this hearing, you cannot consider Chapter 15.15. You can't consider any additional evidence. You can't consider any additional argument. You are presented with a closed record, so what you will be doing is continuing your deliberations. As you know you are required to find that the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the projects complies with the zoning ordinance and the project complies with Chapter 20.10 and 20.12 (your criteria and the landscaping criteria as put forward). You can continue to review the findings as the arguments developed at the hearing. There is really only one issue, and that is whether or not the parking spaces proposed are adequately landscaped to comply with Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-13l/AP-96-148 . Page 1 Exhibit 4 jj` Mr. Snyder: Just to walk through the items in the packet, Ms. Hyde has submitted draft findings. I have ¢ 11 submitted three sets of draft findings. la are Ms. Hyde's findings. lb are findings that approve the W; project, granting modifications, and I have some alternatives in there as to whether you want five feet on the side, each side, none on the side, five feet in front and ten feet in front. Ic is conditioned approval that Q �4 is approval conditioned upon landscaping being provided. Id is for denial. Item 2 is the Council's vOl findings and conclusions. Item 3 is the Council's packet which consists of the memorandum from the LO ® Council, the vicinity map from the hearing, the transcript from your hearing, your ADB staff report, the in w' w=. lot plan as submitted the applicant, and Ms. H de's letter of December 4 objecting to the staff's P P by Y j g JCn U. report. w Mr. Snyder: I can't provide any additional testimony. I could try and help you with structuring the City's code and how the regulatory act affects it, but I can't argue one position or another. U- 4 01 Board Member Oaklief: Do we ask staff questions like normal? =w z �! Board Member Young: I don't believe we can do that. h- O z F-! ua w Board Member Oaklief No questions and clarifications from John, and only limited ones from the City 2 = Attorney. U cwn! 0 —' p ��. Mr. Snyder: And I can't answer an , J P Y Y y questions about substantive matter, just about procedures. Basically, LU W ; you are stuck with a closed record. So the record you had before is the record you are going to have to make a decision on. z; Ms. Hyde: I can respond to that. Since this is a new proceeding, it is not clear that it cannot be open. v That is for you to decide. F F z Mr. Snyder: Excuse me, Ms. Hyde. The regulatory reform act is very clear to the City Council that the City may have one open record hearing. They had one open record hearing. Ms. Hyde: I understand that. But you and I disagree about whether there can be an open record. i Mr. Snyder: Well, you would disagree about whether it can be remanded. I don't know if there is any jagreement that the act is very clear about what is says. ;T} Ms. Hyde: I do want to make a comment on the packet you have been given. One, I haven't had an opportunity, at all, to look at the draft findings of fact that were provided by the City Attorney. It is my understanding that the Board has specifically stated that those are to be provided a week in advance. F 0 Note, also, that you do not appear to have the documents that I sent along with my draft findings. I have copies here. Mr. Snyder: I object. Do not hand them to the Board. Hand them to the clerk. I have copies of the documents you submitted. Ms. Hyde: I think this is for the Board to determine. Board Member Pierce: I noted from the City Attorney's comments earlier in this discussion, that we as a Board had a option, if feeling that we are ill prepared for this discussion, to place it on an agenda in the future. At which time, if there are things that need to be clarified between the City Attorney and the applicant's representative as to what is appropriate for us to be seeing or not be seeing, maybe it would be appropriate to set a time so that this does not turn into creating a situation that would cause problems. It Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-1311AP-96-148 Page 2 i sounds like there is a definition problem that needs to be ironed out. It sounds that this is an option of the Board to place this item on a future agenda. Unless there are matters of imminence that we have to decide, there are a lot of things I has not had the opportunity to digest, nor do I know if I am supposed to be. I would feel much better if those things were decided before we jump in the middle of it. z !} 1 F- U' Board Member Oaklief I agree with some of the things that Mr. Pierce has said, although I think it Cr. �, would be kind of nice if we discussed some of it now' and extended the hearing. I do feel kind of ill g• a, prepared, but not necessarily because I have not read this stuff. So far this seems to be an atypical process. pi In other words, it is not following what we normally go through as far as meeting sequence. I am feeling ( o i a little uninformed about the Hiles. I understand Mr. Snyder, but if there is sequence or some way this � �' meeting has to occur that is different than normal, I would like to know. The problem is that we have not J F"' done this under regulatory reform before. We had this same kind of problem when we had the first wLL 0. meeting after regulatory reform. 2 qm Mr. Snyder: I want to make my role clear. I don't want you to be confused. I represent the City in its U. corporate capacity and I am hear to advise you. I am not a party. Mr. Bissell, as the staff, and Ms. Hyde, T d t representative of the applicant, are the parties. I refer you to Item 2 of the packet page 4. This is the City F- _ Council's decision and outlines what has been remanded to you for action. At the top of the page it reads: Z t— "This matter is remanded to the Architectural Design Board for entry of findings. The applicant and staff i— 0' z UJ{ may submit proposed written findings one week in advance of the continued deliberation and decision by Lu uJ; the Architectural Design Board (ADB)." Mr. Bissell did not submit findings, Ms. Hyde did and they are of in your packet. "The City Attorney or his designee is directed to assist the Board in its deliberation by c� usj reviewing the proposed findings of fact and conclusions, and if it is appropriate, submit alternative o findings of fact for the Board." Again, I have provided you with three alternative decision forms to cover w w� the three options for conditioned approval. "The Board shall continue its deliberation to the written X t); record previously developed before it and to those findings of fact and conclusions of the City Council." U. p No additional testimony can betaken and no additional argument can be provided. These are the rules. I zI di can certainly understand why you would want to digest the alternatives and refresh yourself with the g record. My advise is very simply. Any additional argument or additional testimony cannot be heard by Or Ms. Hyde and it cannot be heard by Mr. Bissell. That is why 1 am here rather than having a staff report. z Board Member Young: Is this just a recap of things that have happened since the last meeting? Nothing in here is new? Mr. Snyder: Items 2 and 3 are the record as it exists. item I contains four alternative forms of decision. Ms. Hyde: From my understanding you can accept this and then reject it and not consider it if that is what ---- you wish to do, just as in a court, One of the things that is missing is the minutes from the City Council i y meeting of February 2. These minutes reflect who is speaking, and the transcript does not. I thought whoever did the minutes did a very good job and those were missing. That is part of the packet that I have submitted, along with some other items that were originally in the record that I wanted to make sure Q you had the opportunity to review. The only two things that are additional are a letter from Mr. Snyder to me and my cover letter to the ADB when I submitted the proposed findings. Mr. Snyder: ... and two photographs. Ms. Hyde: I couldn't remember whether I submitted the photos of the front of the building or not. Are those new? Board Member Young: I don't remember what was in the packet from the last time. Mr. Snyder: I have no objection to the minutes or anything else that was in the packet, Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting ' File Number ADB-96-1311AP-96-148 Page 3 '. ®, .. . , Board Member Young: We have a transcript here. The way E read it, it identifies who was speaking, but I there are some question marks. suppose if that is what it comes down to, my feeling when I read the situation in the City Council Minutes. My understanding of 'what happened is that this was basically sent back because the decision was made on insufficient grounds to make that decision and we had to come back. So this is coming back to us to see if with just the information we had fact, December _t make the right decision. on 4, we did, in c 2 O Ms. Hyde: I think that is incorrect The City Council determination (we don't have it in the minutes or any transcript prepared for this meeting) was prepared by Mr. Snyder. U O (n w LU F, Mr. Snyder; Excuse me. The findings were approved and sigxied by the City Council and the Mayor. uy u- ( ui O ; Ms. Hyde: Yes, they approved those findings. It was my understanding, andl thought they agreed with me, that you denied the application based on a portion of the code that had been repealed. do -' - And that had to with the no parking in the front. The deli design guidelines were no longer are in affect, but apparently they have been readopted. Those had been re pealed at soriire time in L a,; W the past, apparently without the ADB's knowledge that those guidelines were no longer part of the code. That was an issue that was raised at the hearing. And based upon the guidelines, the Board denied Zz 01 it. The City Council recognized that in fact those guidelines did not exist and had been repealed. Therefore, they could not be the basis for the denial. She agreed with Mr. Snyder z F- that the only issue left is the landscaping issue. LU w, a- N , Mr. Snyder: The Board is required to determine if an application complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance and Chapter 20.12. The staff has indiicated that the oa a proposal complies with the zoning ordinance, so this is not an issue. As Ms. Hyde indicated, the Comprehensive Plan provides no basis for denial. The staff has indicated that the engineeriaig "U w . N N staff did not find any conflict with the zoning code so there wasn't any issue regarding the zoning code. But the Board did not make findings when they made their decision. `—` Z' You didn't find that it complied with the zoning code, and you didn't find that it complied with your criteria in Chapters 20.10 and 20.12. So it is back here, basically, to fill 't blanks. If think it UJ U) you the complies with 20.10 and 20.12 and if you make the findings which are obvious in the zoning code, then you approve it. If modification is necessary, You can certainly p z do that. If you find that it does not meet the criteria then you deny it or place c onditions upon the approval. Mr. Snyder : I am not representing the City . My job is to and assist you through a procedural try quagmire. The Council's decision is clear that theywill not vigorously representingher Permit additional argument, Ms, Hyde is point, which is her jab; but make sure you don't lapse into arguing the case. i Board Member Young: We really should only look at what we had on December 4 and make our decision to grant the application or not. Referring tothe City Council } minutes, which I kept and brought with me tonight, here was a statement by Mr. Snyder that the applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion in the permitting process and the City ordinances requires the application to comply with criteria in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and the Comprehensive Plan. 01 I guess the question is, If we weren't persuaded then, and we cannot take any more testimony, then I am 1 th the s on of going through the ECDC and anything that would pertain to this, and say this application is or is not n consistent with the ECDC. Is that an option that is also closed, i that in we are fact only look at the information packet we received on December 4? In which cmboth this and the exhibit e, Ms. would be improper. I am willing to go through the ECDC. If we are going to do thisythe way I understand the process to work, we should ask staff to send back the ' art through the ECDC as a Board and say yes we are i'� packet and we can go therefore, the application is denied. I am prepared to do that, but mthaybefI mind nowea not and am remand function is under the re g what the regulatory reform act. Mr. Snyder. I have a slightly different spin. Had you been saying Chapters 20.10 and 20.12, I would agree. Not to be technical, but your criteria asks you to determine whether the staff has found compliance with the zoning code. The engineering department, for example, administered the curb cut provisions and Verbatim Transcripts of March 190,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-131/AP-96-148 Page 4 C the engineering report from the last hearing found that the curb cut provisions were complied with. Based upon the record there are not any issues regarding compliance with the zoning code. You are the determinate about whether there is compliance with Chapters 20.10 and 20.12. Mr. Bissell and Ms. Hyde had differing view points at the Board and Council hearings. The Board did not make a finding about Z a! d whether or not the landscaping complied. Their announced decision was all involving downtown parking Comprehensive Plan. There N and the was never a finding on whether the landscaping element complied. m �. Ms. Hyde, at the Council meeting, very forcefully put forward the position that you are limited to her ,`xs, v. appeal grounds. She only appealed on the narrow issue. The reason it is back is the Board is required to U O make two findings that they did not make. Does it comply with the ECDC and does it comply with your N C3, criteria. My reading of the record is that there has never been an issue of the zoning code. But there is � this remaining issue to be resolved before a permit can be issued about whether it complies with the (n u,� cn landscaping requirements. As you know, you have modification opportunities in which you can resolve w O ; that. J Ms. Hyde: I felt like I knew what I was talking about, but now I am confused. One of the problems is that U_ (, the Board does not have in front of them, and perhaps it is part of the record, the notice of appeal. The - 0: way I understood, and the way I stated it in the appeal, was that the ADB's decision was based on the r = ADB guidelines as they were represented to be requirements of the Code. The ADB guidelines were z I• repealed in June of 1995. So there weren't any guidelines in affect at the time. f-- 0, w w' Mr. Snyder: That is not correct. 15.15 and 15.30 were repealed. The guidelines themselves were never p repealed, nor their explanation of the criteria contained in Chapters 20.10 and 20.12. V M O -'' Board Member Young: Where I was confused with reading both the City Council Minutes and the w 1}1 transcript provided by the City Attorney, I don't find anything and do not recall giving reference to any X ca subpart of Chapter 15 at the February 4 hearing. I can't speak for the rest of the Board, but the copy of u p; the ECDC I use, does not even have a chapter 15 in it except as it addresses the Comprehensive Plan. If Z+ in fact the error was in citing Chapter 15 of the ECDC, I don't see that in the record. Unless we were referring to Chapter 15 by implication in the motion. z Ms. Hyde: Exactly. That is the way I understood it. It was guidelines discouraging parking in the front of the building. That is 15.15 and 15.30 and these have been repealed. There is nothing in the ECDC that discourages that. Board Member Pierce: From what I can see, we have removed the zoning ordinance; The City Attorney has tried to direct us forward. At the time this was denied, was the landscape ordinance still in effect? - -- i Mr. Snyder: Yes it was. Y � Board Member Pierce: What I see from the minutes, if we are revising this and if I understand the City Council correctly, is there were some questions about landscape and landscape buffer around the parking Q spaces at the time this was determined. There were some issues that were brought up about this through the staff report available to the Board. U we want to revisit this tonight, we can make a determination based upon whether or not the landscaping is sufficient buffer around the proposed parking stalls to comply with the ADB code regarding landscaping. If we find that it does not comply then we can uphold our decision based upon this. It sounds like the only thing we can base this decision upon is the landscaping ordinance. C3 Mr. Snyder. That is fundamentally correct. You did not make a decision about the landscaping because you based your decision upon something that will not fly. The one thing I would remind you of is that you can modify the requirements. The question is not exactly does it comply, but is it appropriate to modify .. „ those standards in this case because of the size, location and the surrounding area. That decision must be based upon what has already occurred. Verbatim Transcripts of March 19, 1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-131/AP-96-148 Page 5 AL Board Member Young: Again for the record, can you establish a record on a closed record hearing. Mr. Snyder: You need to deliberate and decide. But you need to review the informationI asked Mr. Bissell to forward me the existing packet that came to the Council, so I assumed that everything was here. z { If you want to supplement it, fine. If you need it fine, but basically, you just need to complete your < deliberation. " w < KC � Board Member Young: I am confused how this thin of appealed on landscaping when the motion that g� g g PPS F g L O was' made by Mr. Bylsma, as erroneous as it may or may not have been, did not... U0 Ln w Mr. Snyder; The conclusion did not make a finding on landscaping. When Ms. Hyde's appeal was � r , successful, the Council was left with no findings on the other two issues. In other words, her appeal was wU.1 successful. The reason for denial set aside, there were two other grounds that were required to be found � before a permit could be issued. Nobody decided whether the landscaping was adequate or not, so they 9 -if. sent it back to find out whether you think the landscaping plans comply. u. a N � I Board Member Young: Okay, except for the fact that if we are going to deny the motion (it seems a X = contradiction in terns) we could have done a better job of denying it if that was the decision that was Z h- going to be made. Was our error denying it on the basis of what appears to have temporarily become an F O ineffective chapter of the ECDC or on the fact that we did not find the application in compliance on the w w two other grounds (Comprehensive Plan and the ECDC). I am saying that hypothetically. 2= = Mr. Snyder: In order for the permit to be issued, you have got to find all three things to be in compliance. 0 - ` Because you turned it down on the Comprehensive Plan element, you never got to B and C. We are here to find out if B and C (landscape and zoning code) are in compliance. I am just suggesting that your s v record does not contain any basis from the staff to find that the curb cut provisions and the provisions of ti pi the zoning code are a problem. But there has been a contention all throughout the hearing about whether '- Z! chapters 20.10 and 20.12 comply. ui vy' h Ms. Hyde: I didn't know that the notice of appeal was not in there because this may make things more o Z clear. One of the things I was arguing with was in order to grant an application you have to find that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive plan. My argument was that to deny it you have to find that it is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and tell me what section it is not consistent with. You have to find that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Conversely if you deny it, you have to tell me if it does not meet the zoning ordinance, what is wrong with it. The last is criteria that the proposal, as approved or conditionally approved, satisfies the criteria of the chapter or conversely it does not. If it does not, what section doesn't it comply with. Mr. Snyder: I believe your instructions from the City Council are pretty clear that we are not to continue ' arguing. That means rehashing arguments. Q Board Member Young: I see this as responding to a question. I am not persuaded one way or another. I think the bottom line is (and the point was made very well in the City Council minutes) that the applicant has the obligation in the permit application process to persuade the Board that grants the permit. The Board was not persuaded. Whether we were not persuaded based on one two or three criteria, I guess that does not really bother him. There was not a good reason, in the opinion of the individual who made the motion, to grant this application. I don't want to hear or read anything now, because we are in a closed record situation, that is going to try and change what was or was not persuaded. My feeling is (and I ® represent the planning profession) I would be the most comfortable with taking the exact document we got on December 4, my copy of the ECDC and reviewing these and coming back to another meeting where we just look at what we had on December 4 and this. This right here, we are not attorneys up here. I am sure this is all very important stuff. It is as fntstrating for us as it is for you and I sympathize with you, but we were not presented with an application that said this is a good idea. We were presented with an application that said this is what Mr. Smith wants to do and he has a right to make this application, which Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,190 .Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-13I/AP-96-148 Page 6 U) W J i�- U) tL W0 g� J LL U)d S W zH F- o z WW 'a 0 v: a� Wti rL �- C WU 0 F z Mr. Snyder: Regulatory reform is very clear that they may have one hearing and one closed record appeal. One of the abuses they are trying to avoid are situations where cities kick permits around from board to board and appeals. We are well past the 60 days for which a decision should be made. Remember the applicant can always reapply and if there is something that is in the record that was not provided it can be presented at that time. The idea is that you get a record, you have one hearing and you try and decide it. Board Member Sullivan: I guess if what you are telling us is our process was a bit flawed, it seems to me that we would be better served by getting the rest of the information. Mr. Snyder: To me too, but not to the state legislature, who basically decided for an expedition decision based upon a hearing. The closed record appeal is the argument. This is here for the Board's deliberation and discussion amongst themselves. The Board needs to figure out how they will go forth. Board Member Oaklief: I kind of agree with what you are talking about. It makes since to go ahead and do this because it does seem clear that we are not to have outside influence. It does seem that we are getting outside influence. If this is really our charge, I have a question for Mr. Snyder. You know the ECDC, so what I am trying to get a grasp on is the charge of the Board. 1 understand that we made a decision that apparently was based on 15.15. What I am looking for really is the spirit. I realize that this is not talking about the items we did not put in the motion. Just going on the items in that motion I wanted to look at the spirit of that motion and find out if there is anything in the ECDC that supports that type of decision. Are we allowed to base decision on continuity, the neighborhood, the surrounding downtown business corridor as far as orientation of buildings, parking lots, etc? Mr. Snyder: My role is confined to legal advise. Mr. Smith as a property owner has the right to use his property in conformance with his common law property rights, unless the City has clear explicated design r-: guidelines in a situation like this. The Board is probably familiar with Anderson verses Issaquah. The decision of the Courts of appeal required clear guidelines for the architectural decision. My advise, based upon my familiarity of the Code, would be the same as it was for the City Council, which is contained in p the Council's decision and minutes from that meeting. I don't' see any basis for denying this application under the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning code. The issue that has not been addressed is the parking lot and landscaping. Whether it is a good idea or not is not really before them. Board Member Oaklie£ So if we have a building request that is in front of us and we don't think the building is adequately modulated, that decision would be based on what is actually in the code. C ® Mr. Snyder: The design criteria as buttressed by the design manual. Boar Member Oaklief: There is nothing in there about orientation, etc.? Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-13ItAP-96-148 Page 7 to u.( Q: LU 02_J WM N 0, = w: z t=- F_ O: Z �-: LLI W v cn pLU F Z U � M u. p z ui rn c� y O� z t® Mr. Snyder: I don't find anything in the code that would justify denial and comply with Anderson verses Issaquah. The Council's decision, which is the one new thing that should be considered, says the ADB shall not consider for any purpose Chapter 15.15 nor the impact on parking to the downtown area. Board Member Oaklief. I wanted to make absolutely sure there was nothing in the other chapters that had anything to do with our motion. Our motion does not really say anything about 15.15, but I understand that is the closest thing thatwould match. Mr. Snyder: 15.15 contains'the transportation element. It had a number of policies in it. 15.15 appears to be where the spirit of the motion came from. The new transportation plan element that replaced it is a highly technical document that is more concerned with traffic flows. You can only apply criteria that is very explicit and detailed I don't find any basis in anything other than your criteria, particularly 20.12 that would support anything other than approval. Again, Mr. Smith has the right, as does any property owner, to use his property unless the City has clearly limited his rights. Board Member Young: Following up on that, what you are saying I would agree with up to a point which is that Mr. Smith has the right to apply to make this change in his property. We as the ADB voluntarily try to follow... There is more in here than Chapter 20.10, and I have spent a great deal of time today reviewing it to try and respond meaningfully to this remand action on the part of the City Council. There are a number of provisions, none of which are Chapter 15, that pertain to consideration of parking. All of which fail under the purview of design guidelines which in turn fall under at least the advisory capacity of the ADB. What we prefer to see when we have an application in front of us is not a question of rights. We take that as a given. We live in the United States. Obviously Mr. Smith has a right to use his property any way he sees fit as long as he is not doing harm to his neighbor. But going beyond that, he wants to make a modification that is in fact part of the design and functionality of the City of Edmonds. We are kind of appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council to protect that to the best of our ability. We protect that most of the time fairly objectively by going through the ECDC and finding the sections that pertain the particular application and determine if that application fits those criteria. The three big ones are the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, which are seldom an issue, and the ECDC. Mr. Snyder: I will tell you what my concern is. If you would turn to 20.10.060(b) which is the wording on what your findings are supposed to be, it says the staff finds that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance of the City or the City has approved a variance or modification to the zoning ordinance. The reason I raised that is I think when that was drafted the intent was to provide or limit the charge in a way that you were not having to oversight the staffs administration of various technical provisions of the code. The parking lot provisions, for example driveway slopes, size and configuration of parking lots are issues governed by Chapter 18.20 which the City engineer administers. The City engineer's report was that it complied with the design criteria for a parking lot. When I say that the record does not have a basis for -denial in other part of the code, basically staffs report was that it was in compliance. If an applicant or member of the public feels the staff made the wrong decision, they can appeal this decision to the hearing examiner and then to the City council. So whether you feel the staff rightly or wrongly made that decision they administer those parking lot and curb cut requirements on a day-to-day basis. Their report was that they were fine. Board Member Oakiief: As part of this application, do we look at the lot or do we just look at the portion of the lot that is being modified? When we are trying to find out if this complies, do we look at the lot as a whole or do we look at this specific portion? Mr. Snyder: You are focusing on the lot in front. Board Member Oaklief: What I am trying to figure out here is do we look at the whole tot. In other words, do we determine if all of the lots are in compliance or do we just look at the lot in front? Mr. Snyder: I am assuming that the back lots have been either previously approved or grandfathered. Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,190 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-13I/AP-96-148 Page 8 xZ �- LU w -J U O En En w J F- cn u.' m 9aLL T f- w x z� -O Z N-. w w. O O: o— 0 H LU xU u. O z ui O U � OF z 511 L Board Member Pierce: I see that we are in a pretty clear spot. One, we either pass this on to another evening where everything can be reviewed against the Comprehensive Plan with no new evidence, or we evaluate this project based upon the landscape requirements in 20.12.025 and make a determination based upon that to close the matter tonight. Board Member Young: Does that mean, then, and I'll direct this question to Mr. Snyder. The reference we have been given here and that was made in the minutes is Chapter 20.10 which is criteria of the ADB. And 20.12, and please feel free stop me if I am wrong. If I am told by both attorney's that this is the only record that we can review, I guess we can carry forth in the meeting reviewing these two chapters. My feeling is given that Chapter 20.10 was referenced, there are some things in 20.10 that could conceivably be evaluated. Or we could just leave it with the evaluation of Chapter 20.12. Or we can take this home, digest it, get a reading from Mr. Snyder on the information Ms. Hyde wished to distribute this evening. I am very uncomfortable with not taking it because we have in the past accepted information from the applicant at a hearing. This hearing is a little bit different than that. I am going to regard it with no prejudice against Ms. Hyde and her client. At this point, I am kind of afraid to touch anything. I am not even real comfortable with the exhibits that you have provide. Mr. Snyder: I had asked the staff to provide me with the package that went to the City Council which I understood represented the Board's record. This is back solely for deliberation and it is clear that you cannot reopen the hearing. My concern has to do with the appearance of fairness doctrine and the exparte communications. Remember the public is a part to all things. The staff is party, as well, in representing their capacity. If you accept the information from Ms. Hyde, under the appearance of fairness doctrine since it does not come in the course of a hearing, you have closed your hearing. In order to comply with the appearance of fairness doctrine, you will have to announce the public hearing, reopen it, allow the public an opportunity for anyone to come forward and the staff to address them. Once you reopen the door, you have reopened the hearing. We can only have one hearing. That is why I am being so ritualistic about this thing, It is one of those typical situations where the legislature has done one hearing, but did not consider what you do in these situations. Ms, Hyde: You can correct me if you don't agree. The way I understand it, and I think Mr. Snyder agrees with this, there is really only one thing for you to decide tonight. The landscaping portion of my clients application. You agree with it, it is in compliance with the code and you grant his application. Or, you don't really like the way he has landscaped it, but you see another way he could landscape it so you approve it conditionally. Or there is nothing in the world her client can do to landscape this appropriately to meet the criteria. You don't need anything from Mr. Snyder or I in addition to what is already there in front of them from before to make that determination. Either this application meetings the purpose of the code, you think there is a better way to landscape it and you are going to tell me what it is and conditionally approve it, or there is nothing he can ever do, Board Member Chalupnnic: I don't like the idea of that second option that we have to tell Mr. Smith what he should do with his landscaping. We can say that it does not comply with what we expect, but we don't have to tell him to put this there or that there. All we have to say is that it does not satisfy us. There is no reason why we have to tell him what to do. I hope that my interpretation is correct. Mr. Snyder: Because you did not hear the evidence the first time, it would not be appropriate for you to participate in deliberation on this issue. If the Board continues the matter the new member can review the record and then participate in the decision process. My suggestion would be to stay out of this one unless you continue it and provide the opportunity to review. Board Member Young: I don't think he is commenting on the record. I think he is commenting on something that was stated here that he is as aware of as the rest of us. The policy which was established is that if landscaping or any other plan is deficient we are not going to redesign it for the applicant. I have no problem with Mr. Chalupnic expressing his comment as long as they are restricted to what is being Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-131/AP-96-148 Page 9 said tonight and not on the merits of Mr. Smith's application. Unless I am missing something here legally, I would like Mr. Chalupnic to make his other comment. Board Member Chalupnic: My other comment is that the real issue appears to be that the Board did not Z �� pinpoint all of the reasons for denial. It only requires one reason for denial. It does not require any more = than one. If you can come up with any reasons why it should be denied, that is all that is necessary. That r Lu is it. Do you think this is true? o: 2: U` Mr. Snyder: You basically need to make three findings. If all three findings cannot be made, it is denied. a, One was struck down. There is no record for the second, so they are trying to clean up the third. I have W tn w+ worked with this Board for 15 years. He agrees with the concept that the Board is not going to design � H; things for people. You should be aware that the record is pretty clear that Ms. Hyde, on the applicant's cn u. 0 behalf, requested a modification to the landscaping standards. So if you determine that it does not have five LU i feet or 10 feet in a given location, you would still need to find that the reasons you could modify have }k c not been met. She has requested modification. This is not one of those things where you are being asked LL Q to design a parking Iot for someone, but you certainly have the authority to determine whether you should cn dy m the standard. zBoard Member Oaklief. I am listening to all this stuff and going over it. I am understanding where he is Z coming from a little bit more. I asked Mr. Snyder if there is anything in the spirit of the Code in section �; 20 that had anything to do with this. There may be a little bit. A landscaping requirement states that w where a parking lot abuts any street a landscaped area of 10 feet in width is required. So I think this almost does something similar to what we are talking about in terms of orientation of parking next to the street. In other words, there is a reasons why this landscaped area is to be required. In going back over this Section 20.12.025(a) having to do with five foot planting strip around the parameter of the parking lot = V and a 10 foot landscaped area in front adjacent to the street and then the five foot along the adjoining Oproperty line, these three alone pretty well recognize what we are trying to do. The one I am focusing on — ZI the most is number two. In thinking through all of this stuff, I personally would be favor of going ahead iv cn' and signing this decision based upon clarifying this section of the code as part of the previous motion and voting for denial. The applicant would have the ability to come back and resubmit 0 Z Board Member Pierce: Mr. Snyder, if the Board chose to clarify its position for denial (choosing to draw on 20.12,025 minimum landscape requirements) in our deliberations he understands from the applicant's council that we can choose to relax those requirements, but we can also choose to uphold those requirements and uphold the original decision. i Board Member Young: We can't really uphold the original decision because it was deficient on its face. { It did not reference anything. The only grounds it cited for denying the application was mute because it, by implication, referenced sections of the ECDC that seized to be fimctional at least in the window of time ' in which we were talking about that decision. e IA Snyder: The caution I would give you is if you are going to deny, and you make the findings that it does not comply, you should also make the findings as to why it does not meet the modification criteria since you have had a request to modify. The conclusions in the approval of modifications (proposed findings id) conclude the finding that a modification would be inconsistent with the purpose of the chapter. • I mentioned some of the criteria in paragraph 2a. I suggest that you review these as part of your discussion. Board Member Young: I will be a lot more comfortable looking at it from here We do try to be fair and there is some suggested wording in some of this stuff. I would just as soon leave this review as objective as possible. I would like to ask the Board what is there sense on how they would like to proceed. We have been directed by the City Council to review this item on a closed record. My opinion is that a closed record means Mr. Bissell distributes the same packet he distributed on December 4, along with a copy of Verbatim Transcripts of March 19, 1997'Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-13I/AP-96-148 c Page 10 the minutes from our meeting. We review that in light of our own copies of the ECDC at the meeting two weeks from now. You can work with the staff on how to portray this on the agenda. Mr. Snyder: My suggestion is that you make a motion to continue to a date certain. Board Member Young: That would be my preference. I would be more comfortable without any of the documentation other than the staff report that was provided for the December 4 meeting, a copy of the minutes from the December 4 meeting and a copy of the ECDC. I don't get to vote, but that is my direction. tn W Board Member Oaklief. We don't necessarily make a motion on this? LU h vs u- ( Board Member Young: My understanding is that the motion which was made on December 4 was w �' deficient so it seizes to exists. We will have to come up with a new motion, whether it be to approve, deny 2 r Q� or conditionally approve based upon the record. to D Board Member Pierce: I am prepared to make a motion to continue. 01 XBoard Member Young: Are you going to set any boundaries regarding what we will review? In fairness O,, to the applicant and the City Council we will all have to agree on what it is we will use for our � information. If this is a closed record, let's let it be a closed record. If in fact, we start saying some things LULU, are permissible under some circumstances you can carry that as far as you want to. �o v N` o — Board Member Pierce: I agree. We should keep to the on g p ' it original information with no added information o H— other than the original staff report and continue the deliberation to a date certain. w w' F- �: Board Member Sullivan: I would vote that we would continue it. I would vote that we would include the — z package of stuff that the City Attorney gave us. I would vote that we include the information Sally Hyde LU m provided. In my opinion, both of them are interpretations of the original thing. I have already been tainted by what Mr. Snyder has handed me. Therefore, the other stuff should be included too. It is her interpretation of what our meeting was. I would recommend that we would include both and draw the line z there. It is not really new information, but a reassessment of old information. Mr. Snyder: If Mr. Chalupnic wants to participate in the next meeting, he should review the transcript rather than just review the minutes. Mr. Snyder: I strongly suggest that you include the City Council's findings because they include their { direction. They provide that Ms. Hyde can present draft findings so Ms. Hyde has the right. The old stuff T-;,".- I don't have any problem with. The two new photographs if they are new evidence, should not be y considered. The only part of the packet that he is particularly concerned with are the two photographs. Q 4 Board Member Young: It appears that it is the consensus of the Board to go for a continuance of the deliberations. Board Member Oaklief: That is not really true. I would rather go ahead and get it over with. Maybe we are going to do something different, but I am still in favor of going ahead and clarifying the motion, including the landscaping section. The only reason he would do this is that obviously the applicant has the right to do what he wants to on the property as long as he meets the code. If he can come up with a solution that meets the letter of the code, I would consider it. Board Member Young: If you would like to make a decision tonight, you have that opportunity. Board Member Pierce: I was prepared to attack as W. Oakiief, but I feel the consensus of the Board is to continue. I make the motion that ADB 96-131 and AP-96-148 be continued to April 2 ADB meeting with Verbatim Transcripts of March 19,1997 Architectural Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-96-1311AP-96-148 Page 11 t 5;i$ H f �t ti n 1 original staff packets sent to members and to include the City Attorney's packet and applicant attorney's packet, but not to include any new evidence within this information. Board Member Young: Motion failed for lack of a second. z 4 4Z Board Member Sullivan: Who would determine what is new evidence? F— w: Cr Ms. Hyde: I will withdraw the pictures. U U Board Member Pierce: I move that ADB 96-131 and AP-96-148 be continued to the April 2 ADB w! meeting and to include staff reports for the original ADB-96-131 and reports following decision from City -j rl Attorney and from applicant's attorney minus purging of photographs. cn u. Board Member Sullivan: I second d Board Member Young: It has been moved and seconded to continue ADB-96-131 and AP-96-148 to the La April 2, 1997 ADB meeting. Information to include the staff report as presented at the original meeting a = UJI of December 4, a copy of the minutes of the December 4 meeting as they pertain to this application, copies F j of the packets submitted by Mr. Snyder the City Attorney and Ms. Hyde representing the applicant minus z Q! new photographs which could be considered as new evidence. All in favor: �� Motion carried with Mr. Oaklief in opposition. =G ci v)� F � Z Z Verbatim Transcripts of March 19, 1997 Arrhitecturat Design Board Meeting File Number ADB-%-13IIAP-96-148 . ,. Page 12 1 G 1 01 REcr=IVED SALLY M. HYDE J U L 3 1 1997 ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S., SUITE 101 EDMONDS CITY CLERK EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (200771-41346 * FAX (206)774-9842 0(!-'/vfAyO& FAP,5y Co It AJ C (L tA04,69A July 29, P-414 L MAC, 1997 U U J0 Edmonds Community Services Dept. Edmonds City Council LuI 250 5th Ave. N. u 3:1 �—; Edmonds, WA 98020 0i RE: ADB 96-131; AP 96-148 -J Dear Sir or Madam: r UJ! This letter is a continuation of the appeal -X� Of a permit application of Mr. Marvin Smith to park two cars on the area of asphalt already existing in front of his building on 4th Ave. Thus jwl far Mr. Smith has met with the planning department on several :Di occasions, including one meeting represented, by counsel; three hearings in front of the ADB; and three hearings in front of the City Council. These proceeding are an expensive proposition when You suffer from a hearing disability, as Mr. Smith does, and must therefore hire someone to represent your interest. LL 01 Z, RCW 36.70B.090 requires a governing body to issue a final LU (n X U —t decision within 120 days, Plus 60 days (six months total)if a �-closed record appeal is taken. Mr. Smith's application is dated P , 0 October 30, 1996, and the processing of this application for the z creation Of two parking stalls has now taken longer than the time period required to create a human life, more than nine months. I will not repeat the comedy of errors that has been ongoing up to this point. The point of this letter is to address the most recent decision of the ADB and why it is flawed. Mr. Smith continues to object to a hearing in front of the city council due to an obvious conflict of interest of each member of the council. THE ADB DID NOT UNDERSTAND THEIR OBLIGATION UPON REMAND AND 0 INCORRECTLY DENIED BASED UPON AN INAPPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE The ADB incorrectly understood that their obligation was to find a NEW REASON TO DENY the application; and incorrectly denied the application based upon a provision of the code that is not applicable under the facts that exist. The provision of the code, ECDC 20-12.025(2), that requires a 10 foot wide landscaped area, to only applies to -parking lots that "abut" the street. The parking lot proposed does not abut the street. Please see attached copy of drawing that was presented to the ADB on December .4, 1996, but may not have been included in the record later reviewed by the ADB. Also see attached copy of my letter to the City dated June 11, 1997 qv iest�qping whether the City has mishandled the record. Cr- r- y The ADB also considered new evidence offered by a ADB member z who was not qualified to participate in the new deliberations. These errors are found in the following Portions of the verbatim XUj: transcripts of the April 2, 1997 meeting of the ADB: cc At page 2, board member oaklief states that "our job is to explain in to the City council and clarify why we denied the Cn 0; application, in particular the items regarding the landscaping. ! U) LUj LUX� SO I believe actually there are a couple of items. I think it is -j I--! actually 10 feet U) U. - A couple rulings: one is for a 5 foot LU 0 parameter and one is for 10 foot in between the street and the ing lots. 2 1 think my recommendation, as far as making a clarParkification to g that, Would still be to explain that the reason this was denied is U. that it does not provide adequate landscaping according to Section CD d 20.12. 025. °t Lui 3:1 z t- Mr. Pierce stated 11 As I understood from the meeting last time �- 0i and moving ahead, that is what they asked for is clarification. it z LULU: seemed to fall down to the ECDC Chapter 20-12.025--the minimum 0 2 M; feet like Mr. Oaklief stated in the buffer between street and 5 01 1 urn, parking area and the five foot area on the sidewalks. And I tend to concur with Mr. Oaklief in that if the additional parking were LU created in the front of X the building, which Would also incur additional traffic is and out from the parking areas, there would need to be that buffering, especially upon either side of those Z, parking areas and to the front with pedestrian traffic.,, Mr. Young 0 stated "This proposal as presented z constructed without a* cannot be waiver of the landscape requirements as delineated in Chapter 20.12.025 also called screening referencing parking lot parameters, specifically subpart 2 where a parking abuts a street, a landscaped area of lo feet in width is requiredlot The applicant has asked for, in essence b y waiver of the landscape requirements to five feetthe but has not made application, a a case as to why that should be waived in this particular case." Mr. Sullivan stated "It was remanded to Us Simply to examine ECDC screening requirements, and I don't see a way that it can meet these. The only reason we have ever modified screening 0 requirements in the Past has been Primarily on new construction where we have had other trade offs in terms Of either additional parking or something that was site determined rather than a - situation where I feel here there is sufficient parking for the building.,, Mr. Oaklief stated "I move that to clarify the denial to previously for ADB-96-131, that the parking lot does not conform to ECDC 20.12.025 because it does not provide minimum planting strip between the street and the parking lot. And also the side lot to the parking lot, to the north and south sides of the parking lot.,, k Seconded by Mr. Sullivan. z l� Both members Goodrick and Chalupnik abstained from voting, but member Chalupnik introduced "evidence" LU' ¢ U at the hearing on the size of the lot and his personal inspection, while admitting that he did not have J 0 and had not reviewed the complete application, as he did not have a � w; copy of the drawing submitted by Mr. Smith. It is improper for Mr. Chalupnik to introduce "evidence" En at a closed record hearing, and also improper for him to participate in the deliberations o as he clearly had NOT reviewed the entire record prior to the hearing. =, U_ THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND ARE IN CONFLICT WM s z o The "Findings" prepared by Mr. Snyder and submitted by the ADB are not supported by the zr.' record. For example, at paragraph 1.2 the findings state "At the December 4, 1996, u,ui M 0' meeting, the staff representative John Bissell contended that the proposed landscaping did not o• oil adequately buffer the parking stalls from the adjacent properties with a minimum 0-1,U o—: o 1-- five foot planting strip given the requirements of Chapter 20.12 ECDC". A review the Lull h of transcript of the December 4, 1996 meeting reveals that Mr. Bissell was unaware that Mr. Smith �?- o Z had submitted a new drawing that changed his proposal from a 4 foot landscape strip to 5 foot a landscape strip, U=. The "Conclusions of Law" signed by the ADB conclude at paragraph 2.4 that "The applicant's z proposal to buffer the development from the street SATISFIES the requirements of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(2), (3), and (4).�" These requirements are as follows: (2) Landscape treatment should be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. j (3) Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result,. such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Q, (4) Landscaping that could be damaged b should be protected by curbing or similar devic szans or vehicles lu At paragraph 2.5 the ADB contradicts itself when it finds that "The drawings submitted as Exhibit A by the applicant indicates no' landscaping between the proposed parking and the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site. The application therefore does not provide an adequate landscape buffer for the adjacent properties in violations of the provisions of ECDC 20-10.070(B)(3). The application does not include sufficient detail to determine whether the landscaping to be installed could be damaged by k tt pedestrians or vehicles nor Whether Curbing or lar devices will z be included. The Applicant has therefore failed to satisfy the < criteria 'a Of ECDC 2'.'o.'70(B)(4)- The application therefore fails to F- LU: satisfy the criteria Of the Architectural Design s 20-10 ECDC it < CONCLUSION *IN THIS CONCLUSION oardp Chapter UJ L) IS IN DIRECT CONTRA -J 0! PARAGRAPH 2.4 AND IS NOT SUPPORTED B DICTION TO THE (J 0� cn ECDC 20.10.070 Y THE RECORD. LU IS FATALLY AMBIGUOUS -J U) V-( According 01 application g to ECDC 20.10-07-9 UJ Of the design i examples criteria Contained - ECDC 20.10.070 are incorporated in the Building Design and ECDC Criteria Interim 2 � Of the Successful 1 :3� Guide, but as previ LL < M council Ously established at a hearing before (n recent and as set forth in he first par the city T and 11 agraph of the ADB1s most UJ referenced the Buil t ding Design and z Find' Is not applicable. A Site Treatment o Findings, "The t paragraph Guide Board is bound t City Council h 1-5 Of the ADB's Z found and the Arc' 0 accept that as hitectural Design W Lul as incorporated * the criteria of former Chapter 15.15 M Z�in the Design Manual are not applicable to this :) 0; has 15 15 is incorporated by reference into 20.10, and it y (n; already been found that 0— 20_10 cannot be applicable. s not applicable, therefore a �- 1 .15.15 1 UJ 1 U� THE ADB DECISION WAS U- Z! ADMITTED EVIDENCE BASED Upon INCORRECT AND .. i UJ C& IMPROPERLY At paragraph 2.6 the decision states "The z nothe requirements Of ECDC 20 t provide �12.025(A)( application fails to Applicantis five 1) and (3) in that it properties d subject site foot la dscaping buffer between the and adjacent Properties- The adjacent in the Official record t be conclusion 0 not have front Yard Parking and therefore should ent buffered." There is noth- and in fact, the front to support his Of the building to the south of Mr. Smith is entirely front area Parking. (Rick StevensTHE ADB building) CONFLICTING DECISION SECTIONS WAS BASED UPON An INAPPLICABLE OF THE CODE PPLICABLE AND At Paragraph 2.7 0! ten feet of "Further, the application does not Provide buffering between the Parking lot and Fourth Avenue North and therefore 20.12-025(A) 2). violates the provisions of criteria of I ( The application therefore fail ECDC andscaping requirements Of ECDC 20 s to satisfy the to Chapter 20.10 ECDC.11 .12 adopted pursuant that theAs stated earlier, the ADB already found application met the requirements Of the c In 20 10-070, and then found that it was criteria set forth to If 20.12 and 20-10 are in conflict, conflict criteria- in co Furthermore it isn't with 20.12. buffering not even the Possible to meet the Is required between the Park' city contends that 10 feet of North, and virtually NO Parking parkin lot and Fourth Avenue lot in the entire downtown Edmonds 0 core has a ten foot buffer, between the parking lot and street, jj including the new Floral and Arts Building and THE REMODEL OF THE 14 NEW CITY HALL. cz W: MR. SMITH'S PARKING LOT DOES NOT ABUT THE STREET jc�' o' "Street" is defined by ECDC 21.90.120 as "public or private right -of _way or access 0w easement which. provides vehicle access to LJ more than three lots." "Street" by the definition LL provided by the code includes what is commonly known as an alley, yet there are not L0I any ten foot, or even five foot landscaping buffers, in any of the >_ alleys in Edmonds. Certainly not the new City Hall or the Floral a and Arts Building, two fairly recent L� projects. nLu As shown on Mr. Smith's application, and attachment to i December 4, 1996 letter, the z �, proposed "abut" p parking lot does not abut the street, as the term "abut" is commonly used and legally defined in this state, means "touches". Black's Law Dictionary defines the y wi word abut as to reach; to touch. To touch at the end; be � o contiguous; join at a border or boundary; terminate on; end at; border on; reach or touch with an end. The term 'abutting' implies o a closer proximity than t the term 'adjacent.' no intervening land." X The parking proposed parking lot does "abut" not the street. As shown on the application, there is a sidewalk 'that intervenes between the z; street and the proposed parking lot. ti N. v = In Kemp V Se ttle,149 Wash. 197, 270 Pac. 431 (lain) the a} Washington courts stated that It is also uite q plain that z "abutting" and "adjacent" were not used s non to characterize any parcel of real estate having a street and lot. Onealine in common. The other was to characterize one not in part bounded by a street line". In the case of Mr. Smith's application, the proposed parking lot line does not "abut" the street, it "abuts" i the sidewalk, and therefore ECDC 20.12.025(2) would not apply to j this application and a denial on the basis of this portion of the �.- code is improper and incorrect. Also see London v Seattle, 93 } Wn.2d 657, 611 P.2d 781 (1980) in accord with Cep v. Seattle finding that borders must be in common with a street in order to "abut" a street. Q y THE CODE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE a Paragraph 2.8 of the decision states "Modification of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.10 would be inconsistent with the purposes set forth in Chapter 20.10 because the application does not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment of the City {� of Edmonds and fails to minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight by buffering the proposed parking with landscaping.+' First of all the application does may. bufferingthpropose proposed parking lot with landscaping, p� g, so the conclusion that it does not is unsupported by the record. The statement that a parking in front of the building is incompatible is also not supported by the record. Clearly one half of the block already has parking in front of the buildings, and the entire building to the south that abuts Mr. Smith's property, has parking in front. N u , LUi A finding that the application does not maintain a "desirable and aesthetic environment W of the City of Edmonds" is exactly the type of finding that has been determined in Anderson w 2 O � y Issaquah pp• 64, 851 P.2d 744 (1993) to be unconstitutionally vague, It is too easy to . gtii disagree about what is aesthetically pleasing, For example, it is N § reasonable to assume that many could conclude that 4 or 5 feet of landscaping at the west X �- =i side of the proposed parking lot, is more aesthetically asphalt area that pleasing than the un-landscaped p z� presently exists. z 121 In addition, Mr. Smith has always co-operated with his neighbors to the north (the Baptist U"o church) and south (Rick Steve's building). Several years ago, at the request of the church, Mr. Smith 0 —s: t removed a wire fence between his property and the church property. Mr. Smith has i w ; no desire to alienate his neighbor of many decades . As for Rick Steve's property to the south of the F-I- u-21 Z proposed parking lot, it too is building front parking lot and visitors regularly step onto Mr. Smith's LB property when getting out of their. car. Landscaping not only would serve no ""buffer"" P r purpose, on the south end of the proposed lot, it would make accesore difficult for the parking space s mels at the north end of Mr. Stelot. Mr. Smith urges this council to approve his application and allow him to park two cars on the asphalt area in front of his building, subject to either the landscape plan submitted, or conditionally approve with whatever landscaping plan the council determines fulfills the "purpose" of the ECDC. Sincerely, Sally r. Hyde - SMH/ L®` ` J y i+ aa-7• E ........... . . N", SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 1.52 THIRD AVENUE s., SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 96020 (206) 771-4846 * FAX (206) 774-9842 RECeIVED June 11, 3.997 JUN I 1 1997 COMMUNITY SERVICES Edmonds Community Services Dept. 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Paul Mar Mayor Barbara Fahey RECEIVED 250 5th Ave. N. • Edmonds, WA 98020 J U N 1 1 1997 RE.' ADB 96-131; AP 96-148 EDMONDS CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Fahey and Mr. Paul Mar:' The purpose of. -this letter, is to remind both the community services department and the honorable.mayor Fahey, that there has .not been a final determination on the Permit application of Marvin Smith, Mr. Smith's initial application'is dated -October 30, 1996. By statute, a governing body is requiied to issue a final decision of a permit application within 120 days,.PIUS-60 days if a closed record appeal is taken. (RCW 36-70B.090) I now calculate a total of 224 days that - have passed since Mr. Smith submitted his application. With the exception of a very short extension that was requested over the . Christmas holidays; there has been no agreement to extend the time for a final determination required by state law. Please explain in writing how the City intends to handle this issue. One other issue that I feel I**must raise now is the issue of the Official record in this matter:' .According to my client, Smith, some of the correspondence: and' documentation Mr. umentation from this office, delivered to the community services, department, is not part Of hU-Official file.* Could You -please explain the policy of the community services department on*this issue.•'Does the department Place everything pertaining to.,one 'application in the applicants file and wait for. a. later" determination regarding appropriately what is considered? Orl does: -the community services department make it's own determination.of what'is appropriate.and discard or delete information -as -it sees -fit? 0) LL -o � dl z u, Z_ I�- h O` z F-; w LW g ml 0 tni o�- UJ = U h � LL � —z v o~ z to _���I.� w�llr �►��+► Agenda o Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: CONTINUTATION OF MEETING ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES THE FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING (APPLICANT: MARVIN SMITH; PROPERTY LOCATION: 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH, FILE NOS. ADB-96-131 AND AP-96-148) Clearances: Department/Initials Agenda Time: 60 Minutes Admin Svcs/Finance Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: July 15,1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Plannii{�/G'� Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works L Vicinity Map Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council 2. Memorandum from Scott Snyder (7/10/97) Mayor 3. ADB Findings of Fact from 3/19/97 Reviewed by Council Finance Meeting Committee: Cwnmun4 Services 4. ADB Minutes from 3/19/97 Meeting Pubt'c Safety 5. Transcript from 3/19/97 ADB Hearing Approved for Consent Agenda:Recommend Review by Full Council. 6. City Council Findings of Fact from 2/4/97 Hearing on AP-96-148 7. City Council Minutes from 2/4/97 Hearing on AP-96-148 8. Council Packet re: AP-96-148, from 2/4/97 Council Meeting Expenditure Amount Appropriation _Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A Previous Council Action: The Council held a hearing on the appeal on February 4, 1997, and remanded the matter to the Architectural Design Board to determine if the project was in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. \it 0 Narrative: This is a continued hearing by. the Council on a closed .record appeal by Marvin Smith of a decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to deny a request to construct a new parking lot.' The purpose for the continued hearing by the Council is to consider the complete record of the appeal, including the ADB's Findings of Fact as a result of the Council's remand of February 4, 1997. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a memorandum from the City Attorney outlining the issues and procedures for this appeal hearing. Recommended Action: Uphold the decision of the Architectural Design Board and deny: the appeal. r t ��t i i KY. 07/10/97 THU 15:05 FAX 200 447 0215 OMW SEATTLE IZO04 ACE P. L. L. C, ATTORNE Y S AT LAW 2100 Wvstfvk6C@x1arTOmer • 160i FihbAvenuc - seatge, WA96{JL1M • 206 447.7(Kb . R { i Fax (206) 447•0216 MEMORANDUM DATP. July 10, 1997 To: Mayor Barbara Fahey City Council, City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Continued Fearing - Marvin Smith, Applicant. The Architectural Design hoard's written decision, attached as a part of your Council packet, returns this matter to the City Council for final resolution. As you may remember, the matter was Continued and remanded to the Architectural )Design Board for entry and written findings which address all of the required decision criteria. Review of the written decision indicates one, issue which needs to be addressed and resolved by the City Council. Paragraph 2.6 denies the applicant's requested modification based upon a finding that other properties in the neighborhood do not have front yard parking, Since the ADE's decision must be based entirely upon its record and since the closed record contains no evidence or testimony regarding front yard parking at a4jacent sites, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the finding. The City Council has two options. It may: 1. Take limited testimony at a continued hearing regarding the issue of front yard parking in the neighborhood and whether a modification should be granted. or 2. Since the applicant has the burden of going forward and presenting sufficient evidence to support the approval of his application, particularly regarding the issue of a modification, find that the record contains insufficient evidence to Support a granting of a modification. ._... ..__...— 00/10/8T WED 11.44 Ft1S :00 447 0210 01W aEATTLELOOS I {{ f{ UJ mm2w OE EACT i gi BEFORE THE EDMONDS ARCIDTECTURAL DESIGN BOARD of L) w zf On fire Application of Marvin Smith File No. AP-96-148 a wi Cn LU o L c» PROCEDURAL HISTORY 0 r tom- aj This matter was originally heard by the Architectural Design Board On December 4, ? o� 1996. Following the Board's decision to deny this matter, it was appealed to the Edmonds City F a Council for a closed record appeal on December 17, 1996. The Edmonds City Council upheld LU tyG the applicant's appeal and remanded this matter back to the Architectural Design Board with M O; instructions to the Board to continue its deliberations based on the existing closed record and to oFIz enter its Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law. In particular, the City Council found that w the provisions of the Design Manual which explicate the Comprehensive Plan policies formerly W c� found In Chapter 15.15 of the Edmonds Community Development Code are no longer U. 0� applicable. The City Council found that the provisions of Chapter 15.15 were repealed as part zj of the Comprehensive Plan revision and that until readopted cannot form a basis for the Architectural Design Board's decision in this matter. r �- z . Fallowing continued deliberation and based entirely upon the original record created before the Architectural Design Board at its December 4, 1996, meeting, and the procedural record and argument before the City Council, the Architectural Design Hoard finds and concludes as follows. 1. FINDINGS l 1.1 The applicant Marvin Smith proposes to convert the front yard of a commereW building located at 126 - 4th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, to a parking area. The parking area as proposed would be comprised of two parting stalls. New landscaping is D' proposed for a five-foot area between the existing sidewalk and the edge of the stalls on either side of the curb cut. The proposed landscaping as shown in an Exhibit to the Architectural Design Board's first hearing does not extend along the northern and southern edges of the parking stall between the subject site and adjacent properties, but rather tenuinates at the edge of the proposed parking stalls. af :assts EXHIBIT 3 D �f } C1tj ✓ 7Y !u�'`"it 1hnt� 1.2 At the December 4,1996, meeting, the staff representative John Bissell contended that. the proposed landscaping did not adequately buffer the parldng stalls from the adjacent Z properties with a minimum five-foot planting strip given the requirements of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. < 51 1.3 ECDC 20.12.025(a) provides in part: ' U a 1.. A minimum five-foot planting strip is required around the _ perimeter of all parking lots (see additional requirement for U. panting lots abutting streets, below). This snip is not U) W O required when parking is enclosed within a building. 2 o2. Where a parking lot abuts any street, a landscaped area of m ten feet in width is required. Lul Z �J 3, Where a driveway abuts a property line, a planting area at e� least five feet in width must be installed adjoining the z w w property line, u m 1.4 In order to approve a permit, the Edmonds Architectural Design Board is required a !=' to final by the provisions of ECDC 20.10.060 that: LU W ; h 1.4.1 The proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive plan and U. Z! i other adopted City policies. ECDC 20.10.060(A). 1.4.2 The staff finds that the proposal anccts the regL&ementa of the zoning 0 Z ordinance or the City has approved a variance or modification in the zoning ordinance. ECDC 20.10.060(B). 1.4.5 The proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of the chapter. ECDC 20.10.060 (C) 1.5 De City Council has found and the Architectural resign Board is bound to accept that the criteria of former Chapter 15.15 as incorporated Ln the Design Manual are not applicable y to this Project- 0 1.6 With the exception of the issue noted in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3, the staff finds that the proposal complies with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In particular, the engineering staff finds that the curb cut request complies with the provisions of 18.80.060 governing curb out requirements. The Architectural Desiggn Board has been directed by the City Council not_to consider the impacts, if any, of the proposed curb out upon, downtown parking. SfiS313 t &a7_7 �, t,.i ...� .,...' �:.. -.art.., .., t.� ..:.!,,... .. _,,.. ., r�.�tir.:::i U) U. .J LL D)d _LU z t— ;: 0 wW v0 cn 0H yz v5 O h z t0 1.7 The criteria for Architectural Design Board review referenced in ECDC 20.10.060(C) are contained in 20.10.070. The Architectural Design Board finds the fallowing criteria to be applicable: 1.7.1 "(B) Site Treatment (2) Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements." 1.7.2 "(B) Site Trent (3) Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking areas near,yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color." 1.7.3 "(B) Site Treatment (4) Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrian or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices." H. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The record does not contain any evidence tending to indicate that the proposal does not comply with The provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2.2 The sole criteria at issue is whether the proposal complies with the landscaping requirements of the zoning ordinance contained at ECDC 20.12.025(a) and the ADS criteria referenced at ECDC 20.10.070(8) above. 2.3 The landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.12.02:5(A)(1), (2) and (3) require a � minimum five-foot planting strip around the perimeter of all parking lots, except when the parking is proposed in a building. A landscaped area of ten feet in width is required it the area abuts the street. A landscaped area of five feet in width is required if the area adjoins a property a line. :a 2.4 The applicant's proposal to buffer the development from the street satisfies the requirement of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(2), (3), and (4). 2.5 The drawings submitted as Exhibit A by the Applicant indicates no landscaping between the proposed parking and the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site. The f application therefore does not provide an adequate landscape buffer for the adjacent properties in violations of the provisions of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(3). The application does not include i sufficient detail to determine whether the landscaping to be installed could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles nor whether curbing or similar devices will be included. The Applicant has therefore failed to satisfy the enter of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(4). The application therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of the Architectural Design Board, Chapter 20.10 ECDC. 2.6 The application fails to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.12.025(A)(1) and (3) in that it does not provide five foot landscaping buffer between the Applicant's subject site and 103313 -3- >Tr;gzh'��lw fit rt'r�It t t+t3 �st'�ri�. t4 fS �. t,.3i tr}n: v?fir x;t. rrf t7 ,r :, YI t t i i. <i o fie" t t i �a��t < k ` t >, 6 { > r 1 < F.� �xts.)'� r riw f F� t r aT{> �,,,w t j� rr if 1" e c r ��'� s gti u...:t..aV+l.6LiM4't+.Hnx•..rWfstlUUNW9tN—.........;w +..�.:..:+....r...w ......i_`..... ...�..r.L�......... n..:� '�. � . �..�:._..�.r..i 1+, :! .._...�::.. ...v.. .:..._:..�. 08l18l97 NED 12: J3 FAX 20$ T 0215 00 98AME IM002 t adjacent properties. The adJacent properties der not have front yard'paTlemg and therefore. should be buffered. z 2.1 Further, the application dues not provide ten feet of buffering between the parking tat and Fourth Avenue North and therefore violates the provisions of ECDc 2o. i2.025(A m. t- Lul The application therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.12 adopted pursuant to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. 2. 8 Modifiicetion of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.10 would be inconsistent with ur w the purpnses set forth in Chapter 20.10 because the application does not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment of the City of Edmonds and fails to minimize incompatible and unsightly w 0 surroundings and visual blight by buffering the proposed parking with landscaping. III. DECISION LL s w . The application is therefore denied. The parking lot as proposed fails to provide for z � adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property owners and the adjacent street. w1 DATED this day of 1997. o �Illli ARCHITECTURAL)DESIOKBOARD _ (} ` - U.. 0 - By. W Ln!3 ef, d tuber �i 1l r p' a 2 By: (Cb*) i 0 t� r5s3is . 4 to ADB-96-131 APPEAL REMANDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION AP-96-148 AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith 126 - 4th Avenue North Sally Hyde, 152 - 3rd Avenue South, Suite 101, Edmonds, was present as the attorney representing the applicant. Scott Snyder was present as City Attorney to assist the Board in cleaning up this unusual situation. Mr. Snyder explained that this issue was remanded back to the Board from the City Council. It is the first time this has taken place since the passage of the regulatory reform act which limits public hearings on each application to one. The Board will be deliberating the issue again through a closed record proceeding and will receive no staff report or comments from the applicant's representative. His comments will be limited to procedural materials. Those Board members who were not present at the original discussion, would not be able to participate in this remand unless they were to listen to the tape and review the entire packet which was provided. Mr. Snyder distributed an information packet which contained only information which was distributed to the Board at the initial review of this application, with the exception of the first pages. The document includes draft findings from Sally Hyde and draft findings from the City Attorney for three options: approval with modifications, conditioned approval or denial. The Council's findings and conclusions are also included as are all of the items which were included in the Council's packets when they reviewed the appeal. He reminded the Board that he cannot answer any questions regarding substantive materials, only procedural questions. The same is true for staff. Mr. Snyder explained that under the regulatory reform act, the City is limited to one public hearing which was held on December 4, 1996. The record of that hearing was sent to the City Council. The transcript, identified as Exhibit 3c contains the Board's decision. The application was denied by the Board because of concerns that it did not comply with Chapter 15.15 and there were also concerns about the downtown parking. Ms. Hyde appealed the Board's decision to the Council on behalf of Mr. Smith and the Council upheld the appeal on the basis that Chapter 15.15 was repealed when the Comprehensive Plan was enacted. The design manual was still in affect, but the policies on which the Board denied the application were repealed. Chapter 15.I5 has since been adopted, but for the purpose of this hearing, they cannot consider Chapter 15.15 or any additional information or arguments. The Board can only continue their deliberations on materials which have already been provided. Since the Board has determined that this project complies with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, there is really only one issue to consider and that is whether the proposal complies with the landscaping criteria found in Chapter 24.12. The Board has the authority to create modifications to the landscaping ordinance. Ms. Hyde said that since this is a new process, it is not clear to her that they cannot open the public hearing again. Mr. Snyder said the regulatory reform act is very clear that the City can only have one public hearing on each application. Ms. Hyde commented regarding the packet provided to the Board which she has not had the opportunity to review even though the Council stated that it should. be provided to her a week in advance of this Architectural Design Board March 19,1997 EXHIBIT meeting. She noted that the Board does not appear to have the documents she provided along with her draft findings. She started to pass out this information, but Mr. Snyder expressed his objection to any attempt to provide these documents to the Board at this time. He has copies of this information in his office. Ms. Hyde suggested that it should be up to the Board to decide whether or not to accept this information. z { = Z' wi Board Member Pierce noted from the attorney s comments earlier, that if the Board feels they are ill prepared for cc a= g i this discussion, they can place this item on a future agenda. if there are issues which need to be clarified between d M: . J the City Attorney and the applicant's representative as to what is appropriate for the Board to see, perhaps it �{ would be best to schedule this issue on a future agenda. Unless this requires an imminent decision, he suggested w that the issues between the two attorneys be resolved before the Board becomes involved. to J F,. N Board Member Oaklief concurred with some of what Board Member Pierce said, but he felt it would be nice to p discuss some of the issues now and then extend the deliberations to a future meeting. He said he feels ill prepared gbecause this seems to be an atypical process. He is feeling a little uninformed about the rules. He understands Mr. Snyder's explanation, but if there is a sequence for this meeting that is different than normal, he would like to u- = know what that is. Nam, :F w Mr. Snyder said he is present to advise the Board, but not become involved as a party to the issue. Mr. Bissell and Z 1=- Ms. Hyde are the two party representatives. He referred to Page 4 of the distributed document which describes the z of City Council's remand back to the Board. It states that "the City Attorney is directed to assist the Board in its w w deliberation by reviewing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions and, if appropriate, submit alternative Findings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall confine its deliberation to the written record previously U a —" developed and to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and ❑ h� no additional argument permitted b an g p y y party." Mr. Snyder advised that these are the rules governing w w this deliberation. He advised that any additional arguments or testimony from either Mr. Bissell or Ms. Hyde z Ui }" H would be inappropriate, and that is why they are not receiving a staff report on this item. u. aj Z� Mr. Snyder referred to the packet of information he distributed and explained that Items 2 and 3 contain the record as it exists. The first item contains the three alternative forms of decision. Ms. Hyde suggested that the minutes t - from the City Council meeting of February 2 are much easier to understand than the transcript which was provided Z by Mr. Snyder because the minutes reflect who is speaking. She asked that these minutes become part of the packet along with some of the other items that were originally in the record which she wanted the Board to have the opportunity to review again. The only two things that are additional to what was originally provided to the Board are the letter from Mr. Snyder to herself and her cover letter to the ADB when she submitted the proposed findings. 1 Mr. Snyder said he has no objection to the minutes or any other items which were previously provided being _.._._.� distributed to the Board. However, he questioned whether the two pictures were previously provided, or if they r are new information. Board Member Young said that having read the minutes from the City Council as well as the transcript, the reason C8 this was remanded to the Board was because their decision was made with insufficient grounds for support. It was sent back to the Board so that they can reconsider the application and make an appropriate decision based upon the information that was provided at the December 4, 1996 ADB meeting, Ms. Hyde suggested that the Council's determination is clear in the minutes, but the Board does not have copies of the minutes, only copies of the transcript of that meeting which was prepared by Mr. Snyder. Board Member Young noted that he has a copy of the minutes from that meeting. Mr. Snyder advised that the findings he { ® prepared were approved by the City Council and the Mayor. Ms. Hyde said it was her understanding that the Board denied the application based upon a portion of the code that had been appealed, which had, to do with the design guidelines no longer in affect. These had been repealed without the ADB's knowledge and they were no longer part of the Code. The Council recognized that the Architectural Design Board R March 19,1997 Page 5 Rug guidelines did not exist, and therefore, could not form the basis of the denial. She agrees with Mr. Snyder that the only issue left to consider is the landscaping issue. Mr. Snyder said the Board is required to determine if an application complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance and Chapter 20.12. The Comprehensive Plan provides no. basis for denial and the application meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. But, the Board made no- findings for their position that the application did not comply with Chapter 20.12. If the Board feels that the apIplication does not comply, they have the option of either denying the application or placing conditions upon it. Board Member Young said he understands that the Board should only consioder the information that they had on December 4, 1996 when making their decision as to whether or not to approve the application. According to the Council minutes, there was a statement by Mr. Snyder that the applicant has bite burden of proof and persuasion in the permitting process. if the Board cannot be persuaded with the existing information, and they cannot take any additional testimony, then he is left with the situation of going througha the ECDC and use the previous information to determine whether the application is consistent or not with time ECDC. He inquired if this is an option or if the Board can only look at the information packet they received on December 4. If this is the case, both the information provided by the City Attorney and the information provided by Ms. Hyde would not be permissible. Mr. Snyder said that he would have agreed to Board Member Young's su.ggestion that the Board review the ECDC if it had been limited to Chapters 20.10 and 20.12, because these are tine two sections the Board is asked to consider when determining if an application is in compliance with the code. Ms. Hyde and Mr. Bissell have differing opinions about whether or not the application meets the criteria of Chapters 20.10 and 20,12, The Board's discussion at the public hearing and the announced decision was all regarding the downtown parking and the compliance with Chapter 15.15 of the Comprehensive Plan. There were rmo findings created as to whether the landscaping element of the application complied with 20.10 and 20.12. At -the Council meeting, Ms. Hyde put forth very forcefully that the Board is limited to her appeal grounds. She only/ appealed the Board's decision on a narrow issue. The reason it is back before the Board is that they are required too make two findings which were not made: Does it comply with the ECDC and the Board's landscaping criteria. His reading of the situation is that there is no issue with the zoning code, as such. But there is the remaining issue that needs to be resolved before a permit can be granted. That is, does it comply with Board's landscaping criteria. Ms. Hyde said one of the problems is that the Board does not have the noticae of appeal before them. What she stated in that appeal was that the ADB's decision was based upon the ADB guidelines, as they were represented to be requirements of the Code. The ADB guidelines were found in Chapter 15. 15. These were repealed in June of 1995, so there were not any guidelines in affect at the time the application was originally reviewed. Mr. Snyder said that is not correct, Chapters 15.15 and 15.30 were repealed, but the guidelines, themselves were not repealed nor were their explanation of the criteria contained in chapters 20.10 and 20.12-. Board Member Young said that in reading both the City Council minutes of February 4, I997 and the Board minutes of December 4, 1996 he does not recall any reference to Chapter 15 or any of the subparts of that chapter. The copy of the ECDC that he uses for review does not even have a Chapteer 15 in it except as it addresses the Comprehensive Plan. If in fact, the error was in citing chapter 15 of the ECDC, he does not see this in the record unless they were referring to Chapter 15 by implication in the motion that was made. Ms. Hyde said the implication referencing Chapter 15 was the statement that: "guidelines discourage parking in front of the building." This is regulated in Chapters 15.15 and 15.30 and these were repealed at the time of the original hearing. There was nothing in the ECDC at that time which discourages this use. Board Member Pierce said it appears that the zoning ordinance is not an issue. He inquired if at the time this application was denied, the landscape ordinance was still in affect. Mr. Snyder indicated that it was. Board Member Pierce said if he understands the Council correctly, there were some questions about landscaping and buffering around the parking spaces at the time this was determined. There were some issues brought up through the staff report to the Board. If they want to revisit this tonight, they can make a determination based upon Architectural Design Board March 19,1997 Page 6 cr 2 <L a LU U', U 0' rn Cr) LU . LU o w� LL Q TO Cyr ZN F- O! Z w =( O Di U (a 0 h. Z V� �- O —Z US CO O1-- Z a�a�uig is aut tiwcilt at uullu ulc prupuscu yarning SLans Cu comply wim ire cone regartling landscaping. If they find it does not comply, they can uphold their original decision based upon that, but compliance with other regulations (zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan) are not issues the Board can consider. Mr. Snyder indicated that Board Member Pierce is correct. The Board did not make a decision about whether landscaping was sufficient. He cautioned the Board that they have the following options: They can find that modifications are necessary for the landscaping to comply, or they can find that the application does not comply with the landscaping requirements and deny the request. The Board may find that it is appropriate to modify the standards because of size, location, and the surrounding area, but this must be based upon existing record. He explained that because the Board did not make a finding on the landscaping requirements, Ms. Hyde's appeal was successful. The Council remanded the issue back to the Board so that they could establish a finding as to whether the application meets the landscaping requirements. He noted that in order for the permit to be issued, the Board must issue findings on all three items stating that they are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance and the ECDC. Because the Board turned down the application based upon the Comprehensive PIan element, they did not make findings on the other two items. Ms. Hyde said that her understanding is that before the Board can deny an application, they must find that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and identify the sections where inconsistencies occur. They must also find that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance or identify what is wrong with the application. The last area they must consider is whether the application satisfies the criteria of the ECDC. Board Member Young said the bottom line is that the applicant has the obligation in the permit application process to persuade the Board to grant approval. The Board was not persuaded. Whether they were not persuaded based upon one item or all three, makes no difference. In the opinion of the individuals making the motion to deny the application, there was no good reason to grant approval for this application. He is concerned that the Board not consider any new information which would alter this persuasion. His feeling is he would be more comfortable taking the same documents they received on December 4, 1997, and using the ECDC, review the issue prior to meeting at a future date for Board discussion. He is concerned that the Board would not be in keeping with the spirit of the remand if they were to accept either the information provided by Mr. Snyder and Ms. Hyde. Board Member Sullivan agreed that the Board should not be discussing any new information as part of this process. However, it is difficult to make a decision without having this new information. Mr. Snyder said regulatory reform is very clear that a City may have one hearing and then one closed record appeal on each application. Board Member Oaklief agreed that if the Board is not supposed to have outside influences, they should do as Board Member Young suggested. He said he is having difficulty understanding the Board's charge. He is also trying to consider the spirit of the motion and determine if there is anything in the ECDC that would support the . Board's decision. He inquire if the Board is allowed to base decisions on continuity of the neighborhood, surrounding downtown business core, orientation of buildings, parking lots, etc.? Mr. Snyder said his role this evening is that of legal advisor only. Mr. Smith, as a property owner, has the right to use his property based on common law property rights unless the City has clear guidelines which would prohibit this use. His advised to the Board would be the same as it was to the City Council. He does not see any basis to deny this application under the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning ordinance. The issue that has not been determined is whether the parking lot landscaping complies with the landscaping requirements. Board Member Oaklief explained that when the Board reviews projects and determines that the modulation of the buildings is not adequate, they base this decision on a particular section of the Code. Mr. Snyder said this justification can be found in the design criteria which buttresses Chapter 20.10 in the Code. The Council's remand to the Board stated that the ADB "shall not consider, for any purpose, the criteria found in Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown area" Board Member Oaklief noted that the motion made by the Board on December 4, 1996 does not really say anything about Chapter 15.15. Are there. any Architeetural Design Board March 19, 1997 Page 7 At( Board Member Young said it is the Board's responsibility to follow the ECDC when responding to this remand Z action. There are any number of provisions (none of which are Chapter 15.15) which pertain to the consideration z J� of parking. All of these Chapters are under the purview of the design guidelines, and in turn, are within the cr advisory capacity of the Board. What the Board prefers to see when they have an application before them is not a :)I question of property owner's rights, which are a given. This request goes beyond the property owner rights when 0 v they requested modifications to the regulations. The Board is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council rn to ws to protect the City's interest to the best of their ability, and they do this fairly objectively by going � � , through regulatory criteria which applies to each particular application. They must find whether each application (n LL 1 p1 meets the criteria found in the zoning ordinance, the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan. w Mr. Snyder referred to Chapter 20.10.060(B), which contains the wording which is to be used for Board findings. When this section was drafted it was intended to limit the Board's charge so that they were not having to oversight �'- Cn the staffs administration of various technical provisions of the Code. The parking lot provisions are issues S W' covered by Chapter 18.20 which is under the capacity of the Engineering Department to review. The City ZF, Engineer's report was that it complied with the parking Iot design criteria, Whether they feel that the staff rightly or wrongly made the decision, is not at issue. If an applicant or member of the public felt the staff made the Z �'. wrong decision, they could appeal this decision to the Hearing Examiner and then the City Council. to u.t p! Board Member Oaklief inquired if while reviewing this application, the Board should look at the entire lot, or just c} N' pr that portion that is being modified. Mr. Snyder said they should focus on the lot in front. He assumes that the ° back lot has been either previously approved or grandfathered, so they should only be concerned with the front lot. UJ v Board Member Pierce'suggested that the Board must decide whether to pass this issue to another evening for u- Z1 review or evaluate the application at this time based upon the landscaping requirements found in Chapter cq! 20.12.025 and make a decision to close the matter tonight. U � N' Board Member Young said the reference made in the minutes is regarding Chapters 20.10 and 20.12. If the Board Z is told by both attorneys that this is the only record that can be reviewed, they can cant' forth in the meeting just reviewing these two chapters. In his opinion, there is some criteria in Chapter 20.10 and 20.12 which could conceivably be evaluated. The other option is for the Board to take the issue home, digest it, and prepare to deliberate at the next meeting. He noted that he is uncomfortable with not accepting the information provided by Ms. Hyde. In the past the Board has accepted information from the applicant. However, this hearing is different, and Board Member Young stated that he is not even comfortable with the exhibits provided by the City Attorney. --_ -J Mr. Snyder explained that he had asked the staff to provide him with the package which was sent to the City Council when they reviewed the application, and this information has already been provided. Mr. Snyder said his concern has to do with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and Exparte Communications. If they have already ' closed the hearing, the Board must remember that the public is a party to all things, as is the staff. If they accept O the information from Ms. Hyde, then in accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine they will have to announc, reopen and readvertise the public hearing. The City can only have one hearing. Ms. Hyde said the way she understands it is that there is really only one thing for the Board to decide tonight and that is the landscaping portion of the application. Either the Board agrees that it is in compliance with the code, that they do not really like the way it is landscaped and they conditionally approve it,. or that the application be denied because there is nothing the applicant can do to landscape appropriately to meet the spirit of the code. She E ® said she did not feel there was anything provided by either Mr. Snyder or herself which would be considered new information, Board Member Chalupnic said he does not like the idea of the Board having the responsibility to tell the applicant what has to be changed to meet the landscaping requirements. They can state that the landscaping does not comply, but they do not have to provide any alternatives. Architecnirai Design Board March 19,1997 Page 8 Mr. Snyder suggested that because Board Member Chaalupnic did not participate during the December 4, 1996 public hearing, it would be inappropriate for him to p:{articipate this evening. If the issue is continued, Board Member Chalupnic could take the opportunity to listens to the record and be prepared to participate at the next sz �f meeting. Board Member Young noted that Board Mamber Chalupnic is not commenting on anything in the Z': record, but merely staring Board policy. The Board's paolicy is that if the landscaping does not meet the criteria, it ais not the Board's responsibility to make suggestions for changes. Therefore, he sees no problem with Mr. 4 �'. Chalupnic's comments being included in the record. Qi Di rn W Board Member Chalupnic said it seems the real issue its that the Board did not pinpoint all of the reasons this was denied. However, wz aiY re 4 application applications lonly hire one reason for denial. If the Board can come up with —J 1" any reason why this should be denied, that is all that is nnecessary. He inquired if Mr. Snyder agreed. Mr. Snyder wp said the Board needs to make three findings. If only o the of the criteria cannot be met, the application must be 2 denied. He agreed with the concept of not designing foor applicants. But, Ms. Hyde is requesting that the Board 9 _J make modifications to the landscaping standards to meet= the needs of this application. The Board must determine u- <' if the modifications can meet the criteria and establish firndings as such. Ms. Hyde concurred that on behalf of her T) d!• client, she is seeking modifications to the landscaping r=quirements. The Board is not being asked to design the parking lot, but it is within their authority to detenrnine whether or not modifications to the standard are z F- appropriate. ;- O Z 1"; w ua Board Member Oaklief recalled that he asked Mr. Snyvder if there was anything within the spirit of the Code 20 (Chapter 20) which had to do with this application. He referred to Chapter 20.12.025(A), which lists three U rn;; criteria. One of these criteria states that where a parl-king lot abuts any street a landscape area of 10 feet is ar'd required. This is similar to the discussion regarding par -king lot orientation in relation to the street. This section w wI also requires a five foot planting strip around the parameeter of the parking lot and a five foot planting area along 1=, v the property line where the drive way abuts the property =line. He is most concerned about the criteria which states U. pi that where a parking lot abuts any street, a landscapee area of 10 feet is required. He said he would feel Ni comfortable making a decision based upon this section off the code and voting to deny the application. U 2 t— Board Member Pierce inquired if the Board could choosee to clarify their position of denial based upon 20.12.025 Z as reviewed by Board Member Oaklief. He understa Inds that the Board can choose to relax the landscape standards, but can they also choose to uphold the lands=ape requirements and their original decision to deny the application. Board Member Young said the original de-.cision for denial was based upon criteria which was not functional at the time the decision was made. Mr. Snyd • er said that if the Board denies the application and finds that it does not comply with the code, they should also tr.-take findings as to why it does not meet the modification 1 criteria. - --- Board Member Young said he would like to make this rreview as objective as possible by using the code, itself, c• rather than the materials provided by the attorneys. Thee Board has been asked by the Council to conduct their review through the closed record process. His opinion o of this charge is that staff can provide the Board with the exact information which was considered on December- 4, 1996, along with copies of the minutes from that E3 meeting. The Board should then review this information . in light of the ECDC. Perhaps this should be scheduled on the Board's next agenda. Mr. Snyder suggested that tlhe Board could make a motion to continue this issue to a date certain. Board Member Pierce concurred with Board Member Ycoung's suggestion. He also suggested that the Board be clear as to what information will be used for their delibe-=rations. Board Member Pierce agreed that they should keep the discussion to the original information with ncm added information from either of the attorneys. He C �9 suggested that they continue this review to a date certain. Board Member Sullivan concurred that the Board shouHd continue the deliberations, but he suggested that the -.. information provided by the two attorneys should be incl .uded in their review. In his opinion both of these items are just interpretations of the original information. s Architectural Design Hoard March 19, 1997 page 9 car ... 4..r ,.1.. MR,if.. E. ' d s F 1 Mr. Snyder suggested that Board Member Chalupnie review the tapes from the December 4, 1996 meeting, including the transcripts from that meeting. This would enable him to participate in future review of this application. Mr. Snyder strongly suggested that the Board include the Council's findings and conclusions as part of their review. He said he is not opposed to the Board accepting the findings from the applicant's representative, with the exception of the two photographs, which he believes to be new. Board Member Oaklief said he would rather get this issue taken care of tonight. He is still in favor of clarifying the original motion by stating why the application was denied based upon the landscaping section he identified in Chapter 20.12.025(A). The applicant then has the right to do whatever he wants on his property as long as it meets the code. Board Member Pierce said he was prepared to attack this issue as suggested by Board Member Oaklief, but he now feels the consensus of the Board is that the issue be continued to a date certain., Board Member Sullivan inquired who would be responsible to determine what information is new and what is not. Ms. Hyde removed the pictures in question from her packet of information. Board Member Pierce left the meeting at 9:05 p.m, for an emergency situation. 6. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL Mr. Bissell said the first item is a proposal for an awning on the building located at 101 Main Street. The Board . reviewed a similar application for this'same building several months ago, and the application was approved by the O Board. Mr. Bissell said another tenant of that building has now requested an awning over their space, and staff felt that this awning was in keeping with the theme of the building as approved by the ADB in the previous application. It will not be a large change to the building since one awning has already been approved. Therefore, staff determined that ADB review and approval was not necessary. The next item which was approved by staff without ADB approval was for a non -illuminated, individual letter tha sign on a building. This is a standard application and the sign area being proposed is less n the maximum allowed. Board Member Chalupnic requested clarification as to how sign area is determined. Mr. Bissell said the Code does not spell out how to calculate sign area. It is clear how to calculate sign area for a free standing sign. But, for a wall sign, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan sign pde is to discourage square signs. Determining the sign area could be calculated as if there were a box around the sign. If this were the case, everyone would make a Architectural Design Board i March 19, 1997 Page 10 U) t!N d �w z OR ►�- us w �o 0- p l- LU ham- L V O � Z 0 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: AP-96-148 THIS MATTER came on before I the Edmonds City Council for a closed record appeal hearing on February 4, 1997. The Appellant is Marvin Smith, an Applicant for Architectural Design Review of his proposal to install two parking stalls on the west side of a building owned by the Applicant at 126 Fourth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Mr. Smith's application was denied by the Architectural Design Board on the stated basis that: ... Deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons, that the guidelines discourage parking in front of the buildings and that this is a noncompliance, that, there are pedestrian hazards caused because of the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay ... In its review, the City Council is limited by the State Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW as codified in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds under Ordinance No. 3112 to consider this matter solely on the record developed by the Architectural Design Board and on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision of the Board. The closed record appeal before the City Council on February 4, 1997 was limited to appellate style argument. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.1 The Architectural Design Board announced its decision but did not enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 1.2 The Applicant filed a timely appeal from the staff determination alleging that: EXHIBI-T-6. � .l 1 l i {Y kryYa l ., t T } SY •t i tY t�}2} E" `} ; t t 1 s C } } ........z.++i........�.....w...«+wrw4.... •__ , i _. i..x.........,.. ... .. j 'xM._ ).._ tii�L.....si:.. ,. IS..._.�a..»...—.....�....+.....+..+. ��..�.. I.. 1.2.1 The design guidelines referred to in the announced decision are no longer j part of the Edmonds Community. Development Code or Comprehensive Plan; 2 } t 1.2.2 Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on -street parking; LU Cr 1.2.3 Community Services Department did not have the authority to determine -.. J Ub4 LU what constitutes, a private benefit to Mr. Smith on his property; and LU 1:2.4 The plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities nor does it create a pedestrian a hazard. U. w ' 1.3 At the hearing, Ms. Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law and representative of Mr. Smith, argued that the design manual was flawed in that the Comprehensive Plan elements upon which g P F. Zo �, the Board relied, chiefly Chapter 15.15 ECDC had been repealed by Ordinance 3030 on June o �- 30, 1995. z ` c"'� 1.4 The Architectural Design Board's design manual was adopted by a separate us ` ordin in order to provide explication to the Board's criteria in response to the decision of 0ance Z the Washington, Court of Appeals in Anderson v. IssaQuah. The adoption of the manual remains in full force and effect but a large portion of the explicated material relates to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that were repealed by Ordinance 3030. .;:. 1.5 In order for an application to be approved by the Architectural Design Board the `i Applicant must establish by a preponderance of substantial and competent evidence, that the is application is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Edmonds Community Development Code and the criteria of Chapter 20.10 of the. Edmonds Community Development Code. See ECDC 20.10.060 Findings. J1.1 - -2- 1.6 The staff alleges that the application does not meet the landscape buffer requirements set forth in ECDC 20.12.025 and therefore fails to meet the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC Chapter 20.12) and ECDC Chapter 20.10. 1.7 The Applicant's attorney responds that the provisions of the landscape buffering provisions are ambiguous and that her client has complied with them. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The design criteria relating to and based upon Chapter 15.15 are at best ambiguous due to the repeal of the underlying criteria. The City Council concludes that ambiguities in the Code must be resolved in favor of the common taw property rights of the Applicant and that the criteria of former Chapter 15.15 should not be applied. 2.2 The Architectural Design Board failed to enter written findings and conclusions. In particular, no finding has been made regarding the compliance of the application with ECDC 20.12.025. The City Council concludes that in order to appropriately apply the criteria of the Code, it should rely upon the expertise of the Board given its original jurisdiction over this application and therefore determines it appropriate to remand this matter for the entry of written Findings of Fact and Conclusions to the Architectural Design Board. The Board is directed to enter written findings regarding the required findings of ECDC 20.10.060. 2.3 The Regulatory Reform Act as codified by Ordinance 3112 limits all applications y to one open record and one closed record hearing. The City Council's remand is for the sole purpose of entering written findings and conclusions based upon the original record created before the Commission. No additional testimony shall be taken nor additional'argument M. DECISION The appeal of the Applicant is upheld. This matter is remanded to the Architectural Design Board for the entry of written findings. The Applicant and the staff may submit proposed written Findings of Fact one week in advance of the continued deliberation and entry of the decision of the Architectural Design Board. The City attorney or his designee is directed to assist the Board in its deliberation by reviewing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and, if appropriate, submitting alternative Findings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall confine its deliberation to the written record previously developed before it and to these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and no additional argument permitted by any party. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Attorney's provision of legal advice. The Architectural Design Board shall not consider for any purpose the criteria of Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown area. In accordance with the provisions of RCW 36.70B.090, the City Council is required to notify the Applicant of why, a final decision was not rendered within statutory guidelines. The City Council notes that in this case, the Applicant requested that the hearing be delayed for the Applicant's personal convenience. That delay coupled with the need to remand this matter for written Findings and Conclusions from the Board whose experience and expertise in the application of code criteria dictate that the statutory guidelines be excluded. The Architectural Design Board is requested to meet as expeditiously as possible in order to consider this matter and to return its decision to the City Council in a timely manner. In the event that -4- z I z 1 LU I Ci a LU LL LU O Mayor Fahey opened the audience participation portion of the hearing. Brian Comstock,1107 Daley Place, Edmonds (business at Sth and Main), agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's observation that the pilot program appeared to significantly open up parking spaces. He z 1! supported keeping the employee parking permit fee at a reasonable level and urged the Council to make S this a permanent program. F- w Mayor Fahey advised the fee is established based on the cost to process the permits. She closed the v O audience participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation U D to Ul COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO � a, ENACT THE NO RE -PARKING IN THE SAME 100 BLOCK ORDINANCE ON A PERMANENT (n O j BASIS AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY. Lu i CHANGES TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. LLQ 1. Council President Earling acknowledged the good intentions of this program and its efforts to solve However, was cn d parking problems. he dissatisfied with micro -managing the system and urged the Parking w Committee to address the larger problem of solving long-term downtown parking needs. s z ►- E- O' MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. Z w tui 2 =) U d; Appeal - 6. APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION REGARDING FILE MO Y--96-119, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE OF APPROXIMATEL-Y 12-FEET TO O �:: variiance __ -- _ ALLOW =� CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SIN -F Mn Y RESIDENCE WITH A Lu F' AP-96 144Lu MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3T ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS XIM7-FEE X V!`. LOCATED AT 16008 7,5M PLACE WEST AND IS ZONED RS-12 (Appellant/Applicant: Dr Al — Ansari and Dr. Batoul Modarress /File No AF 96 144 Z+ ui cn' Mayor Fahey advised this appeal was withdrawn. It remained on the agenda because notices were published and mailed. o z Mayor Fahey declared a five minute recess. Appeal- 7. APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL T►1BSI BQARI� TO D NV TgF Two APPLICATION FILED UNIMR FILE NO, ADB-96-131 TO CONSTRICT TWO ADDITIONAL Additional PARIMG SPACES IN FRONT OF OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 41H A37MM NORTH Paddi Spaces (Appellant/Applicant; Marvin Smith /File No AF-96448) _ AP-96-148 Councilmember Nordquist disclosed that his company is presently doing business with Mr. Smith's firm:' City Attorney Snyder explained this is the Council's first closed record appeal —an administrative ` - 0 process in which the Council is limited to the record created by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He pointed out there is no provision for public comment and the transcript does not indicate any. members of the public appeared to testify to the ADB; therefore, did not reserve an appeal right. He recommended the Council disregard any previous discussions regarding downtown parking. He noted ECDC Chapter 15 was repealed and his review of the Transportation Element did not provide sufficient detail (Anderson vs. Issaquah Court of Appeals ruling) to consider the effect on downtown parking as { ® part of this appeal. Remaining issues include whether the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the ADB chapter that are referenced in the Design Guidelines. He reiterated any questions must be related to the record created by the ADB and cannot elicit new information not ' contained in the record. The Council may make a decision on the appeal or remand the matter back to the ADB. Mr. Smith is vested in the ordinances as they existed when he applied and his application must Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes ' February 4,1997 Page 7 EXHIBIT 7 t A �ri7trx IrrO •���rOY��YrkflAiW��Irr/ r�' r.v h � .?., x�r}'' a?�...r Y..L .,, 4 w} �Fj— LL? to C w; ~ x z 1— z � w w - pi p 1_J 1 w p Z US o~ Z t® C% be considered based on those ordinances. He pointed out the ADB may need additional training on establishing a record and more detailed findings. Mr. Snyder pointed out Ms. Hyde's appeal letter indicates the City, as a property owner of interest, may be in violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He explained RCW 42.36.090 provides that if a challenge to the quasi judicial body would destroy its quorum, the members may continue to participate and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge would be without weight. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the staff report could be considered as information contained in the record. Mr. Snyder advised the staff report could be considered as long as it did not contain any new information. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers had any disclosures to make. There were no other disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if there were .any challenges to Councilmember Nordquists participation. Sally Hyde, Attorney far Marvin Smith, indicated she challenged the entire Council as the property is adjacent to her client's property and City employees use the' on -street parking. She did not wish to waive any of those objections on an issue of appeal if this matter were to proceed to Superior Court. Mayor Fahey stated there were no objections to Councilmember Nordquist's participation. Associate Planner John Bissell, ADB Liaison, said on December 4, 1996, the ADB held a hearing on t Marvin Smith's application to add two parking stalls to his site on 4th Avenue North. The ADB considered the evidence and concluded the application was not in compliance with the standards of the Design Guidelines and requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and denied the application. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the agenda memo was a summary of information contained in the record. Mr. Bissell answered, to the best of his knowledge, it was. Salty Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith, 152 Third Avenue South, objected to any consideration of the narrative on the agenda memo recently issued by the Planning Department as it did not accurately reflect the ADB's decision at the hearing. She pointed out if the Council relied on the narrative, they would be relying on the City's version of what the evidence shows. The narrative also states the ADB denied the application based on its failure to comply with the Architectural Guidelines and landscaping. She read the basis of the denial from the transcript, "I would like to make a motion, I would like to move that we deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons: that the.guidelines discourage parking in front of the building so that this is a noncothpliance; that there is a pedestrian hazard caused because of the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay, and that's about it." She stressed there was no denial based on the landscape buffer.. ' Ms. Hyde pointed out the initial staff report referenced' Design Guidelines, Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance (requires small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities) which has been repealed. Therefore, it was not a proper basis for consideration by, the ADB. The staff report also referenced Section 20.10.070(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code which is not the same section referenced in the new agenda memo --Section 20.12.025 of the ECDC. Therefore, staff is urging the Council to deny the appeal on a different basis than was proposed to the ADB. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Febntsry 4, 1997 Page 8 wj J iz— d �O w} � F- J LL M (n Cy z� z� LU Lu a 0-1 1 u_ p' —z v= o~ z X:7 Ms. Hyde stressed a closed record appeal is limited to the information and arguments provided to the ADB at the time of the hearing and argument is limited to issues on appeal. The only issue on appeal is whether the basis of the denial was sufficient on Mr. Smith's application. For the ADB to deny the application, they must state the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies and refer to the specific sections of the Plan or adopted City policies with which it is not consistent. This allows the applicant to correct any inconsistencies. Similarly, if a proposal does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the ADB is required to identify which specific ordinance and its requirement the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to identify which criteria or purpose of chapter 20.10.070 the proposal failed to meet. Ms. Hyde requested the Council approve Mr. Smith's application as he has met all requirements. She assumed the ADB's reference was to Section 15.15 and 15.30 which were repealed two years after adoption. If the Council wished to deny the application, they must state why the ADB was correct or grant Mr. Smith's application. . Mr. Snyder pointed out the staff report to the ADB (dated November 15, 1996) did refer to ECDC Section 20.12. M. Hyde agreed but pointed out the ADB did not deny the application on that basis. She noted the requirement to surround all parking areas with landscaping raises the question of how vehicles and pedestrians access parking and she urged the Council not to deny the application on that basis. She pointed out consideration is limited on appeal to the basis of the denial —pedestrian hazard. Mr. Snyder referred to the City's ordinance on closed record appeal (21.05.040) which allows the Council to affirm, modify, or reverse the action or remand for further consideration. He pointed out the applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion in a permit process' and the City ordinance requires the application to comply with criteria in the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan. He said it appeared the ADB's decision did not consider other criteria because they found it did not meet the Design Guidelines.' He concurred this was not a proper basis for a decision and asked Ms. Hyde her position regarding a remand to the ADB to have these issues addressed. Ms Hyde responded the only appropriate issue for remand would be the issue on appeal. Mr. Snyder clarified that Ms. Hyde did not agree under Regulatory Reform, an internal administrative or quasi judicial review body had the'ability to remand and correct an obvious error in the decision -making process. Ms. Hyde said she was not familiar enough with the Code to comment; she reiterated the remand is limited to only the issue on appeal. Mr. Snyder advised Ms. Hyde had three minutes remaining for rebuttal. Mr. Bissell said the staff report to the ADB was entered into the record at the hearing. He pointed out Sections 20.12.025 and 20.12 were cited in that staff report. ECDC Section 20.12.000 states the landscape requirements in the chapter ore intended to be used by City staff, the ADB and the Bearing Examiner review projects as set forth in ECDC 20.10.010 giving the ADB the authority to consider this section. It also states the ADB shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained therein. The only way the requirements of the landscape ordinance can be deviated from is if the ADB makes such a motion. ECDC Section 20.12.025 states a minimum 5-foot planting strip is required around the perimeter of all parking lots; a drive aisle is not the parking lot which addresses Ms. Hyde's concern with access. He summarized the sections of ECDC were cited; the only way the applicant could avoid the 5-foot perimeter landscaping surrounding the parking area would be if the ADB stated a waiver or reduction of that requirement which was not done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 9 zne %.ouncu was perrmuea to consider the transcript and all a xtnbits, including the November 15, 1996 staff report. The staff report dated 2/4/97 contained in the agenda memo should be considered as an argument• from the record, not as evidence. q Mr. Snyder said City ordinances state that to grant a permit, s ets of findings must be made. The record iz. indicates all findings were not made in the ADB's motion. Although he understood Ms. Hyde was requesting the Council apply a limited appeals jurisdictional scope and consider only those issues on LUtot; 01 appeal, he questioned whether the Council was limited to those findings when an incomplete decision U was rendered and the applicant has the burden of proof and pe3rsuasion. This could result in the granting w U' of a City permit when the criteria of the code was not met. -J in o LU Ms. Hyde reiterated the issue before the Council is whether th4ere was sufficient basis to deny the permit 0 and, as there wasn't, Mr. Smith's permit should be granted. LL M # Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council ,for deliberation. in }y. Lu, Responding to Councilmember White's questions, Mr. Snyde-r stated this is an internal appeal and the ? Council has the obligation to find that all code criteria has been met. In this case, there were no findings z � on two of the required findings for issuing a permit. He advi4ed the required findings are contained in LU LulChapter =o 20.10A60—findings must conclude tie proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted policy, . that the zoning ordinance requirement has been met or that a variance or 0— modification has been approved, and that it satisfies the criteria of the Chapter. He agreed the u3` Comprehensive Plan does not provide sufficient fficient detail (under Anderson vs. Issaquah) to be applied. = Ul Hi Councilmember Haakenson questioned whether the ADB's denial was based on incorrect information. U- e z� He preferred the decision be remanded to the ADB with the proper staff guidance that the Design "' C3 i Guidelines are not to be considered. z ~ Councilmember Van Hollebeke agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's comments. He asked if a remand to the ADB was appropriate on this basis. Mr. Snyder answered the City's ordinance reserves the right to remand if findings required by ordinance were not made by a lower body. He agreed the Council was limited in appeal to the issues raised but retained the raght to remand. This would benefit the applicant as the issue can be addressed; however, a denial would end their vesting. COUNCMMEM 3ER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCMMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKEi TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, OVERT URN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDEgGS MADE, AND REMAND IT BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DETER MINE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ® COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder advised Findings would be prepared for the next regular Council meeting and would include direction to the ADB that a decision must be returned within a specified period of time as required by Regulatory Reform. ' Mr. Snyder pointed out this appeal raises some difficult issues as there appear to be gaps in the City's Code --design criteria that need to be supplemented and curb cut provisions in the downtown area do not reserve the authority provided by State law. He distributed and requested the Community Service Committee consider interim zoning regulations and curb cut provisions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minute February 4,1997 Page 10 tr M U p Cn w=, J h, - aLU z uj- z_� h 0' LU uk Is =) a a+ o �:l i u. O yz vy b~ z Q Ca Agenda Time: 40 min Agenda Date: February 4,1997 Exhibits Attached: 1. Vicinity Map 2. ADB Hearing Transcript 3. ADB Staff Report, including plans submitted by the applicant 4 Exhibit submitted by the applicant at the ADB hearing. Ob ^ Item #: EDIOrIONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96-131 TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH. (APPELLANT/APPLICANT: MARVIN SMITH / FILE NO. AP-96-148) Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance — Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks Court Planning . Personnel Public Works Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Mayor Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Cammun4 Services Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: 5. Letter of Appeal Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A Narrative: On December 4 1996, the Architectural Design Board held a hearing to consider an application by Marvin Smith to add two parking stalls on the west side of the existing building with access from 4th Avenue North. The existing parking lot which serves the site is located east of the building and is .accessed via the alley. The facts of the case presented at the ADB hearing are as follows: a) The subject lot is 60 feet wide, 120 feet deep and is nearly flat. b) The subject lot contains a mixed use building with one dwelling unit and one 1,600 square foot office. The dwelling unit requires two parking stalls. The office use requires 4 parking stalls, for a ' total of six parking stalls required. c) The site currently provides 14 parking stalls accessing off the alley. d) The west side of the lot has frontage along 4th Avenue North. The east side of the lot has frontage along a public alley. cn �' {n W'. w 2': _J J-J Cn o LU LL In al T 6u z_ r' p_ O, W LU, 2 =) M o; U vs LU LU _Z LU (n US o� z t0 z e) The addition of the two new parking stalls on the subject site wil 1 invoke the requirements of the State Barrier Free Code, requiring one barrier free parking stall. :Since there is not sufficient space between the existing building and 4th Avenue North, the requirecd barrier free parking stall would need to be placed at the rear of the building. This would elimina:.te one of the existing parking stalls. Thus the proposal by the applicant would only result in the creation of one new parking stall. f) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has sidewalks in a pedestrian area. g) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has on -street parking on both sides of the street. h) The proposal would require the approval of a new curb cut enternng 4th Avenue North. The new curb cut would eliminate at least two on street parking stalls. i) The existing site development provides pedestrian access directl)e off 4th Avenue North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. Therefore, this proposed design would remove all separate pedestrian access to the building, j) Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance encouragees small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The proposall would add parking to the front of a building contrary to the adopted design guidelines; and would also result in a pedestrian hazard, also contrary to the adopted design guidelines. k) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith alleged that the design guide was not adopted into code, and therefore could not be enforced. 1) The City Design Guide was adopted under Ordinance 2959. m) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith alle .ged that the only enforceable section pertaining to this application is the Landscape Ordinance, and that the application could be made to comply by allowing a five foot landscape buffer between 4th Avenue North and the proposed Parking. n) Section 20.12.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires a five foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of all parking areas. The plans submitted by the applicant propose a four foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking stalls and th(n street, a 3 foot buffer between the parking stalls and the building and no buffer between the parking; stalls and the adjacent properties. o) On December 4, 1996, the ADB voted to deny the application of Marvin Smith to install two new parking stalls because the application is discouraged in the design guidelines. p) The ADB did not grant a waiver from the requirement to provide a five foot landscape buffer surrounding the parking lot. Summary The applicant is proposing a net gain of one new parking stall which *sloes not comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC Section 20.12.025)}. The specific landscape regulation applicable to the proposal requires a five foot landscape area to surround the parking area, not just front on one side of the parking area. The applicant is proposing a new parking area which does not comply with the Design Guide which was adopted by ordinance. The applica-nt is proposing a net gain of one parking stall in a parking lot which currently provides more than twice the required parking, and which will cause a loss of at least two public parking stalls. Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Design ]Board. Council Action: e) The addition of the two new parking stalls on the subject site wil 1 invoke the requirements of the State Barrier Free Code, requiring one barrier free parking stall. :Since there is not sufficient space between the existing building and 4th Avenue North, the requirecd barrier free parking stall would need to be placed at the rear of the building. This would elimina:.te one of the existing parking stalls. Thus the proposal by the applicant would only result in the creation of one new parking stall. f) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has sidewalks in a pedestrian area. g) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has on -street parking on both sides of the street. h) The proposal would require the approval of a new curb cut enternng 4th Avenue North. The new curb cut would eliminate at least two on street parking stalls. i) The existing site development provides pedestrian access directl)e off 4th Avenue North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. Therefore, this proposed design would remove all separate pedestrian access to the building, j) Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance encouragees small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The proposall would add parking to the front of a building contrary to the adopted design guidelines; and would also result in a pedestrian hazard, also contrary to the adopted design guidelines. k) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith alleged that the design guide was not adopted into code, and therefore could not be enforced. 1) The City Design Guide was adopted under Ordinance 2959. m) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith alle .ged that the only enforceable section pertaining to this application is the Landscape Ordinance, and that the application could be made to comply by allowing a five foot landscape buffer between 4th Avenue North and the proposed Parking. n) Section 20.12.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires a five foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of all parking areas. The plans submitted by the applicant propose a four foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking stalls and th(n street, a 3 foot buffer between the parking stalls and the building and no buffer between the parking; stalls and the adjacent properties. o) On December 4, 1996, the ADB voted to deny the application of Marvin Smith to install two new parking stalls because the application is discouraged in the design guidelines. p) The ADB did not grant a waiver from the requirement to provide a five foot landscape buffer surrounding the parking lot. Summary The applicant is proposing a net gain of one new parking stall which *sloes not comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC Section 20.12.025)}. The specific landscape regulation applicable to the proposal requires a five foot landscape area to surround the parking area, not just front on one side of the parking area. The applicant is proposing a new parking area which does not comply with the Design Guide which was adopted by ordinance. The applica-nt is proposing a net gain of one parking stall in a parking lot which currently provides more than twice the required parking, and which will cause a loss of at least two public parking stalls. Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Design ]Board. Council Action: ` 1 y Yt Y i } t 2 trt 1 I I } t l } �j i J ,, ! l• i' Jt t 1 i-3u-37 : 3:28FM ;'MEN IUURPHYv WAU.ACE- 2667710221:# 2/19 . MMING ' UNSCRIPT ADB-96-131 - Mervin SMLth Now Parking Axe& for an 8aiati.ng oftioe _ C'IAPE I SIDE A3 � gE Wall you please tame to the front desk arscd state your name and address for tbs U Ul record. -i v �� Sally Hyde - Yes. My' name is Sally nyde and I'm here an behalf LU x, of Mr. Smith. Mr . Smith has a heaxing CnLL problem, so he's asked tha.t I represent him. Uj Steve Sullivan: Okay, I'd like to go on record that I've worked qa. with Sally Hyde, the if mobody in the audience cc,,, ¢ onjects, I will Continue 'to Sit on this issue. us I'm not familiar with it any way Whatsoever and N LUt have had no discussions on it. okay? zt-� O Jeff Oklief: Actually, I have to secozud that, I also know Z Marvin smith, go if there Zi.s anyone that has any u,wi objections'with me Staying on the board for this a discussion-- �F�-. Jim Young: Since we're all bearing oust souls _here, Ms. Hyde e w u► and. I happen to be in Rotary together, so, you know-- Alan, it's yours. `—`0 21?(Man.) I'm innocent. ui L Fi ?(man) You're clean? O z 'Young: Steven and 7eff and I are 2904rig to so out for a beer-- oklief: 54, are there any object -dons? i'one? Okay, imuitiple voiaesl Did you: get the address and everything down? ' 7(waman) It's .152 Third Avenue Soutl=, Ste. 101, Edmonds. I have a-- ,, John Bissell. He's probably going to ask me for a star report i 0e's oklief: Right. Bissell -If you want to have a seat wind then I'll make 'my Presentation and you get to do yours. Oklief: All right. Okay. Thanks, John. John, do you E ®, have a staff report?�f WD.IiJSi30.7�?tACOCtl.!!illlAOOdi. -'�.. 'a ` x Exhibit 2 .;.,.. ...::.. .♦-.';.:. .,, .. ...:., .. 1. .y..;... .r<....... .. ...r...., .,.': .:,... .. ,., n,..`.a ...,_...., L ,. ...... .. l}is-fie, x e ,Fti. _ ,._ E}r ..5'12'. :h5$.2. U)0 LLQ cn O _ us s— z_ t_ s- a ww 0a a aF W u H L -a U5 o" z to Bissell: Okay, this is staff report for ADB 96-112, which is a proposed addition of two parking stall to an existing office development at 1126 8ourth Avenue North. The existing development is, has approximately lc parking stall with about a 1,600 square foot office building and the applicant's propooing to add two additional stalls. The existing Parking 'stalls access to the rea. of the property off of the alley and the proposed parking stalls would access from the front of the property off of Fourth Avenue North. After the project's complete, Lhen the applicant would have 16 parking stalls. The parking stalls, the new parking stalls added, would have no vehicle access connection between the proposed new pparking stalls and the existing parking stalls so in essence there would be two parking lots on this property. It appears by looking at the building doing a calculation based on the site plan that the building has approximately 1600 square feet. The office is, the current office use is either a. 1 to 800 ratio or a l to 400 ratio, meaning that one parking stall is required for 400 square feet or one parking stall is required for goo square feet. Assuming that it's 1600 square feet with one parking stall required for 400 square feet, then this this use would require no more than four parking. stalls. There's currently 14 parking stalls on site so the, and the applicant wants to add two parking stalls. If the property were to change use and require more extensive parking requirements such as a restaurant, this existing building could not require more than eight parking stalls. Again, the applicants proposing to have le parking stalls on sits. SO, it appears the applicant is proposing to have substantially more parking than is required by the Coda of the City of Bdmcnds, The existing pedestrian access to the site is primarily off Fourth Avenue North. I mean, one Could drive their Car into the parking lot obviously off the alley and then enter the rear of the building. But the front of the building faces Fourth Avenue north of the walkway out the front of the building off of Fourth Avenue North to get to the front of the building. Tne installation of the parking stalls as proposed would eliminate the direct pedestrian access so that any pedestrian accessing the building, whether from, the alley or from the ,street, would have to cross the parking lot in order to get thorns. The proposed parking lot would allow for a four -foot landscaped buffer between the two waunase,iasMMM"asoU -2- 1734 97 3:36FM ;OMEN NtAiE'itY WAI ACE-4 2067710221',# A! 18 C parking stalls on the street. The Community Development Code, Section 20,12, requires a five. foot buffer. There have been several cases, especially in the downtown area, where the Board has allowed a reduction of that required buffer ¢ from the required five-foot, but that reduction in all cases has been to allow the required g parking. I I'm not aware of a single case where LU A; the Board has allowed a reduction of landscape to p allow for additional and possibly excessive N A parking. Uh, the City design guidelines W z encourage parking to be placed at the rear of the _j-1 building off the alley where the parking a) O currently is located in the proposal, Uh, W g pedestrian facilities are encouraged and the design guidelines found in the zoning ordinance C2 a require a landscape buffer to be provided around the parking stalls. The engineering comments that = W state the proposed parking -would create a t- curb cut in the street that would eliminate at I--; least two parking stalls. It's possible it would Z a eliminate as much as three, but due to a curb cut w W, to the south of this property, it may only eliminate two. So the applicant's proposed to U Cni install two on -site parking stalls at the expense o —1. of two on -street parking stalls. Uh, the W W Building Division has commented that tho = c3' application cannot be approved as proposed U. — because according to the Washington State Barrier z � Free Code, otherwise known as the ADA Code, one N handicapped accessible parking stall is going to be required with this application, and the pE- applicant has not shown any proposed handicapped- z accessible parking stalls on site. so the application cannot be approved by the Building Department as proposed. It would have to be modified to allow that one parking stall. If the application were modified, the only way the applicant could do it would be by eliminating a parking stall in the rear in order to change two parking stulls into one ADA handicapped - accessible parking stall. Thus, the applicant would Only be gaining one Parking latall at the - expense of two public parking stalls in the ® situation where the applicant appears to not need any additional parking stalls. Uh, so in summary, the proposal appears to be inconsistent with the landscape requirements because insufficient landscaping buffers were provided, The proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines by reducing pedestrian facilities and pr©vidin r I off-street wham Y t iplop._,.-M Parking is available. a propo®a WxYl7443dibF7gE[�Gttb 999991HOCa6. • � - ® .. S1!�.t. r� �..,' t5,'� .. ..PZ .:ttufr+s„x y y y 35NT BY- 1-30-37 3:31FM ;OGDE4 MIRM 1FALLACE+ 20677102214 5f13 ` 0 does not comply with trhe ADA requirements. And the proposal would elirminate public parking in an amount at least equal to the amount of private parking provided with no apparent public or z e private benefit. Then-efore, staff believes this _ proposal is not in compliance with the city of ►- LU, Edmonds, codes or dLasign guidelines and the application should be «denied. LU "I c_ji �P Oklief: xny questions for the :staff report? cA w CO = ?(man); Just a point of alari=Eication. I'm.not sure I -'�-! understand how what tha threshold was that w'L there's an AAA -required stall. Because of these, LU 0 is it because of these two? �-' a sBissell: That's correct. Because of the modification of D d the parking lot. x w i, z I ?(man); In other words, additicnn of stalls. z Oj{man: So, but the other what fourteen spaces don't have w wl disabled parking now? v cni. Bissell: That's correct. The emote was developed prior to o �I; the existing — LU cwa' ? () ; O.R. All right. U. z) Bissell: —• barrier -free standareds. And according to the v us! barrier -tree standardis, when you modify or" _ increase the size of a marking lot, then you must z ~ comply. ?(man): O.K., so it isn't the number of stalls. It's the fact thact they're alte=ing the the parking lot. Bissell; That's right. It is -- ?(man): Let's say I re -stripe a parking lot and it was not accessible. I wovuld have to then: provide ry accessible parking stalls. ?(man): a,R. So it's not the nuumber. It's just the fact µ i 0 8isseili Thadt'e right. And thee= the number comes, the. Awber comes into it. Whe number of barrier -free parking stalls required is based on the total number of parking stallo. on site. Bo, there's an addition that triggers the calculation and then the calculation in base:d an what on ;site. wsai3xu6.isweo00a.99�ssrsaoos - 4 - �.: iMMOMM N ��a'4. six of nt rta w 4 t y A ........ p t r r 1 l -0t k tt' SENT 8Y 1-30-87 c 3c32PM ;OMEN MURPW WALLACE.: 20677102214 6/18 y d CD ?(Man). 0.K. Thank you °(Man') : O.K. Auy other questions for.staff? z? (man) : I Just have one real quick ane, Jahn. Uh, Ft Z1. there's notting in the code other than our design: _+ guidelines than say that you cannot park in the front setback. o� Biss�11: The only place where you cannot park in the front Ca setback is in the RM Zones, And this is a -BC U1 �1 zone. p ?(man) U.X. 8a that the parking adjacent to this is ?(man): I'm sorry. U. a cn d . ? (man) :' The parking than a adjacent to this building is W. legal parking? Z IF-i 7(man): Yeah, it's all accessed. It's not.,accessed Z ®` through a curb cut — lL W) M p1 ? (mar:) t As far as setbacks go, it's legal. There are -� U N,, you're talking about the lot to the south. W �,,, ? (man) : " " - Yeah. Right. &o what I'm trying to - . x cs. w 0, ?(man) Yeah, I would imagine the lot to the south rI N, z probably has turning radius violations,;. but it's U a legal nonconforming lot. x 2 r 7(ma.n): O.K. So in other words ?(man): So the people head in and back �strajght out on to the street — ?(man): Right and that's not -- ?(man): — and that would not be, that would not be Permitted .according to. engineering standards because they have to have a certain amount of back -out room that in not provided on that site. 0 ? (man) t O.K. Oklief: O.K. Any other questions? Z'm assuming no. O.R. Do you have ` anything to add to the staff rbpozlt? Hyde: Yeah. [inaudible] ', <' �►�Is�3x3Sd.f�xltCC00.l91s!/eaoCD. -5— to w _� D Lh k0 i} SENT BY: 1-30-97 3:32PM ;OMEN MUUV WAU ACE- L o1clis3r:. O. K. 2467710221;# 7/19 xyde: [inaudible] the staf I report. Anti I think rathe than go in the order that I set my comments in i this letter, I feel :1 really better first comment on some of the thingsa that I think are legitimate concerns of the City .'ss. W first point has to tic with the recommendations of the staff with respect to landscaping requirements. Uh, I have attached to my lette r a new plan where in fact it has been drawn to albow for the five-foot bufrar, landscape buffer_ Uh, apparently, Mr. McClung who draw this up was under the lmpreseion that this fiva-foot reclu.irement was going to be changed to four feed, so he drew it up thinking that it would comply with the way the Code was going to be changed. Apparently, it hasn't been changed, so if you redrew it allowing for the five-foot buffer. I: know that the Chairnw. here is familiar .with th1s particular block, but for those of you that are not, right now, it is asphalt in front oE! the building_ It is not landscaped in front caf the building. There are a few plants that sit aright up next to the existing building, but it is asphalt, the entire front of the building is [inaudible] , 'There is no curb cut, but it is already asphalt. This would, in fact, add landscapirag as a buffer that doesn't exist at the present time between sidewalk and the asphalt. Uh, so that the City's concern with respect to the four -foot buffer, that's been changed so that there is a rive -root buffer. The second, as far as the barrier -free parking requirement, that too is a legitimate concern and as the City has alraeady commented, that can be accommodated by puttting a barrier-frea parking stall in the rear. Uh, Mr. smith is willing to do that, so that thant can be complied with this lawn. The other concerns that the City, Mr. Smith does net feel are legitimate concerns. And I understand that the Board is not political, but there are political concerns taut, in my elient,s opinion, are tinaudilble] and that ]cars to do with the two on -street parking zones. The City of Edmonds is now -- LEND OF S3MZ A OF TAPE] [BEGnMING of SIDE 8 OF TAPE] Hydes (Continuing} — props--t . And two lots down from Mr. Smith's property- Is the new'Edmonds Floral and Arta Building. Neither one of those sites wsssjaua.ssnusmoa.owaarsMM . g- . r n eyj 33i 1 �. a N0 LU Dd rLU z� h0 LULU � G1 o F- LUL Z U= 0 h z t0 Oklief: WAS fR9l6.28Xtl000li!!"AA W7. -30-97 ; 8:33PWS�tOGDEN MURPW WALLACE� 2067710221.# 6/18� has sufficient parking to accommodate all the people, the employees, etc., patrons, that visit those two sites. Therefore, the two on -street parking spots are important for those buildings. Mr. Smith, however, does not have any sort of requirement imposed upon him to provide parking for the City of . Edmorids employees or the Floral and Arts Building. Mr. smith would lake to have Parking on his property so that he and his customers can access the property from the front of the building. Right now, although there is ors -street, it's never available because it'a being taken up by other businesses and other, the City of Edmonds' employees, and in the future, the people who are going to be going to the Edmonds Floral and Arts Building. so i want to point out he doesn't have any sort of requirement placed upon him to provide parking for those facilities. Uh, as -the Chairman pointed out, the building directly to the south of Mr. smith's building in fact has a curb out across the entire front of the building because they do park in front. go this is really already on that side of the Street, there are people parking in the front of the [inaudible]. Mr. smith wants to have: parking in front of his building as well. As far as pedestrian a.cceas, they said you already cross a, walk across the asphalt to get to the front of the building because it is asphalt in front of the building and that was a change. And the other concern which causes Mr. Smith a great deal of concern is the City feels that Mr. Smith dodo not need more parking. While I find that no different than if you lived in a home and you're a single person and, you have three bedrooms and ,you want to add a fourth, it isn't the City's concern that you don't need a fourth bedroom, Mr. Smith feels that he does need this parking. it's his decision and it's his private property. He would like to utilize that asphalt frontage in front or his building for parking. And its his own private decision to do that and it isn't up to the City to determine whether it's a benefit to Mr. Smith or not. So, once again, the things that I think are legitimate concerns of the City and that's landscape barrier will be drawn so that that can be complied with and the handicapped parking. That also can be taken care of by adding a handicapped parking stall in, the rear of the building. O.X. Any questions for the applicant? SENT BY- 1-30-97 ; 3 s 34PM ;OMEN KEW 19t11.UcE, 2067710221;# etle [silence] Oklief: O.K. Seeing as there is no one in the audience, I'll go ahead and ask it. Is there anyone in the zR audience that would like to participate? Where is no one there_ Sa wQ ll close the public I.- portion. Uh, we'll go ahead and go to Board a: discussion. Steve? v o1 f ? (man) ; Well T have a question for John, If they (n provided parking in the rear of the building J �E where the barrier, the ADA there, then do they CO have to provvide a ramp to access the building or p is providing parking meet that requirement? I mean, if they just provide a handicapped stall, qa -J then do they have to make, then noes the building U. < - - have to be accessible. ~ x' Bissell: I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell the applicant that they z 0I need to check that with the Building Official after I Oi give my assumed answer, not bung the AAA z person at the City. I believe that, the answer is UA LUI that they would have to provide access to the :) 01 building. I think they would have to provide a a —, ramp. o ~ i .?(man): So — i cs.` — Bissell: I'm not positive of that but I know trot the Tr's z people don't. If somebody comes in and does an interior remodel, they have to provide a ramp. r M And we had one guy do a parking stall addition z recently, and S know that they had to do a ramp. 8o, my guess is that they probably would need to do a ramp, but that would be somethi.ngr they need to check with the Building Official. ?(man): O.K. Another question for you, John, to supplement that. One side of thin building is actually residential; the other side is business. ---- So does that mean they would have to upgrade with the handicapped ramp to both =its or is this specifically for the business side, or are these ` two ,spaces specifically for the residential portion? Bissell: I don't knots the answer to that question. Oklief: O.A. Did you have any other items that strike your fancy? ?(man): No, no. Not at this time. waainsoo.yaxrnooao.�sssnsaa% - 8• . ? (man) Young: Bissell: Young Bissell: Young: Bissell: ?(man): ? () ; ? (man) 7 (man) : Y (man) ? (man) 4 (man) ; Young: 7 (men) Bissell: Young: 1-30-e7 ; 3:03PM ;Q08EN KRM WALLACE 120877102210101le } None. O.'K. Go ahead. This is either for staff or one of the architects on the Board. But now if we have a replacement handicapped or we've been requested by somebody from that cawanity to call them disabled stalls, to I'm going to yield to that - Actually, barrier -free stalls is — Barrier -free, that's even better. That's the term that's in they Code. The barrier-fz•ee stall. Now. I'm in the planning business, sort of, but I'm not in the design and of it. Those not only have to have some other amenities but they also have to be wirier, right? That's correct. O.K. The stall size rather than being eight and one halt feet wide is thirteen feet wide. Actually, it would need to be van -accessible. It would have to be sixteen feet. Sixteen feet. That is correct. Since And you have to have at least one van-ar r.-e ss•t.ble. Right $v if you are have, are required, to have one, that has to be van -accessible. O.R., let's say it has to be somawhore Between 13 and 16 feet. Now what we're going to have here is, correct ma if I'm wrong now, I'm trying to verbalize this. Uh, approval of this application would require some restructuring of the parking of the fourteen spaces that currently exist in the back to be thirteen. O.K. That's correct. Whether it's 13 roat,wide or whether it's 16 feet wide is kind of academic. You are going to lops w�,>s�nya.;awrw�oo,m�,aoona, � .,g. Hyde: 7 (man) : ?(man): 7 (man) ? (man) Young: 1-80-97 3:86PM ;OGDEN MURPHY WAUACE- 2097710221;*11/19 a space in the back. 90 what we're really being asked to consider here is one parking space, a net gain of one parking space. That's correct. O.K. Well, I would think that actually though we need to consider it two just because there are going to be two going in the front. I mean, there's not like you're just adding one. But Z'm trying to think of it, you know, the applicant has said that uh, you know, the Property owner feels that they need these parking spaces. Is it that they need parking spaces in the front or is it that they need two more parking spaces? Mr. Smith would like parking spaces in the front, O.K. All right. That was my question, so it's really in the overall scheme of things that we're looking at a gain of one parking space for this building. Where he's got 14, now he's going to have 15. He's going to have two in front and 11 in the back with one of them being extra. wide. Mr. Smite: is not required to have any parking Spaces for this particular building. Mr, Smith, has Owned this building and been there longer than I think I've been alive. so he was there before the code in and he is not required to have any parking spaces. ge chooses to have parking spaces. Right. But, and this is what I'm getting at is what we're being asked to consider is his choice of how many parking spaces he wants. I t1link — Well, yes. O.K. That's fine. I mean, if I'm understanding it, if I'm not understanding this correctly, you know, then tell me because 'we are being asked as part of the applicant making & choice as to how many parking L i 7 � 9IIVC BY 1-30-97 3:37PM ;OGDEN MU"MY WALLACE, simgell: Clyde : ?(man)- Hyde. Clklief: ? (man) : 4klief: Alan Bylsma: Bissell.: oklief: M7713221412t19 something here, onto the public thoroughfare, which is going to be a. curb cut and will, as I understand it John, eliminate the parking space or a two parking spaces, depending on how it's striped, out in front of the building on the street. At Least two parking spacem on the atreet will be eliminated. Yes, the public parking spaces, right. O.K. As I commented earlier, it's not Mr. Smith's obligation to provide those. I don't see it as a question of how many spaces should he have or whether he's wise to have that many spaces or configured in that way. It's does he comply with the requirements of the design, and I think he does by placing the five-foot landscape barrier in front of the building. I don't know if you're familiar -with the building. And as I indicated, it's all asphalt now. Hypothetically, I think it would be an improvement because xather than just sidewalk and asphalt all the way to the building, now there's going to be a division with executed landscaping between the sidsawalk and the a.s+phalt: Normally, Jim, we'd do all this under questions or additions to the staff Report, but in this case, that's fine. Uh, is there anything else you'd like to add here before we continue the Board discussion? Let's try to clarify the content. Yeah, that's fine. o.lr. A question for John. I have before me something that says the design guidelines aren't a requiroment of code. Uh, but I thought our design guidelines have been codified. Is that corraat? Yee. O.X. Any other discussion? O.K. tM as far as I'm concerned, I think it's fine that they want to add parking to the building. I don't gee any reason why a person can't provide as much parking as they want. Uh, there is one item of concern I have and that is with the design guidelines and ui -H LnU. 1-3Q-97 , 3.*3aPbt WHEN MURP4iy WALL.ACE4 2487710221; 3l19 that,a that we normally do try and get the parking in the back of the building versus, yyou know, especially in the downtown aroa. I realize that in some areas, You know, it's been opposite of that, but that's been in cases where they hasn't been alley access to the back. IIh, it actually is an irrteresting project for me, because in a lot of ways this is au. improvement to what's already there. Like the applicant stated, the entire front end of this lot right now is asphalt. There's no landscaping at, all. The Only landscaping they have currently is in the back in front of the parking stalls and it's like a foot strip or whatever. M, so I think it's uh, you know, an improvement that they're putting in five feet of landscaping in the front of the building . uh, I do think, you know, on just a personal mote, that you're going' to end up by putting these two parking stalls in even though I think, you know, you should have the right to do that and you do have the right to do that, uh, you're going to drastically racuca the accessibility of the front of your building. Because it looks to me like you'll have two feet in between the parking and the stairs. Tih and then when you put the one additional van space in, a van space being 16 feat wide, that's going to approximately double the space of one of those Stalls which will also push that up fairly close to the building. Uh, so I guess the Hoard has to decide, you know, where the balance point of this is. There's Some drawbacks; there's some benefit a. The other thing is that if we do approve it, I think we're going to have to put something in the motion that is going to state if it isn't approved why would we approve this, you know, because normally, according to Lhe design development or the design guidelines, we would nozMlly require thie to be in the back. So. those are my comments. ?(man); Well, my thoughts are on it, and I drove down, there and took a look at the site, is that I think the only reason he' a doing this is so he can have control or the parking in front of his building. I don't know what type of business is run there, but, you know, he probably has people who never can park in front of that building. so he's moving it on oite and it is right to do it: It gives him complete control of it, p(man): Right. He would always have two free spaces in front. ? (man) : ? (Mari) ? (man) : Okliei: ? (man) : Bylsma: Oklief: Bylsma: Oklief: Young: wxvtssua.tawarrom.s9�staaaa�. 1-30-87 ; 3:39PM';OGDEN M0WHY WAU ACE 2067710221; 14/19. Right. It kind of acts to open up the front of the building. Advertising waste, but yeah. As a lose of two street stalls, I don't know. I mean, ,parking is difficult down in that area. You know, I personally don't have a problem with laoing the off-street stalls just ,because any any, project that gets developed has the right to put curb Cuts in to access the property. So, any project that goes in we lose on -street parking. That's just the way it is, for the most part. I mean, when the Art, Floral and Arts Center went in, they lost off-straat parking due to their, you know, their access, I believe. Does that not clear that alley of access? What that [inaudible]. Just part of the alley. O.K. Just off of the alley. Well, I stared corrected on that. But, you know, a lot of new developments, and many that I've worked on in the City do have curb cute that reduce on -street parking. I guess my only comment about, you know, the parking in front of the building is something I've stressed all along is when we make decisions, is Consistency. And we have denied projects in the past where they've, within the inlet year, where they wanted parking in front of their buildings similar to this and we've denied It. The thing is, you know, this the other thing, even though the [inaudible] is not unconforming. I mean, there are instances of parking in the front like I indicated before. But do we [inaudible], you know, do we not approve it one time and then sometime aloe, you know, when there's a nonconforming parking situation next to the site, we say, well,, we'11 let it go again? When do you — that's very inconaistent, in my opinion. You know, the guidelines were set up, you know, to try to develop a Certain standard. [inaudible] Jim. So what what does the City code then say about uh curb cuts? I mean, it's Mr. smith's, it's Mr. -13. SENT BY: Bissell: Young: Biesell: Young: 2(man)I ? (marl) : ?(man): ? (man) Bissell: ?(man): ? (man) ? (man) ?(man), 7 (man) : Okliof e ? (man) : Young; 1-34-87 3 40PM ;4fi0EN NLRM WALLACE— 2067710221;#15/19 ��^ Smith's'frantaga, and I don't know just exactly how Edmonds law functions. But I mean is it his, that space on the street frontage, his sidewalk or is that sidewalk that uh you know gets maintained by the City? That sidewalk belongs to the City of zdmonds. And his property line is, i don't know how you say it, the the sidewalk is in the public right - Of -way. That's what you're asking, s The sidewalk is or is not? is in the public right -of way. O.K. That'w what we're wondering, we had that debate downtown quite frequently, so uh that's what I thought. O.K. Another interesting thing here is that we don't actually have landscape drawing: for this, I don't believe. Do we have landscape — Yeah, landscape drawings were submitted. On the submitted application. There Is two site plans. The second one is a landscape one. rinaudibl.ej , Tf you're missing it, the landscape's up on the board. Yup, there it is. As a `matter of fact, yeah there it is. O.K. O.K, I stand corrected. Is that cold? It is. Sorry for interrupting you there. No, that'a fine. That was all I wanted to. B4t the applicant has, X mean, how much right for a lack of a better tezm does the Applicant have, YOU know, to cut across, you know, to cut across ,, 2 (man) r ? (man) s ? (man) Cn s( BissellLU -j Ln uk 2 (man) P (man) z Wa37J9Ki8.tJ7GP00IXS.9999Drts00dS, 1-30-97 , 3:40PM ;OGDEN MLRPHY WALLACE- 2067710221;#16t19 C the sidewalk, cut into the sidewalk and cut the curly down. Yeah. Well, I think 'I' think that "right" is a dif£i.cult word to use. I know this is not the correct form to ask that, but I mean, you know, what's the policy? The City has the ability to pass ordinances, for instance, which would limit people's ability to do curb cuts when they had alternatives and so on, and many cities have done that. This City has not done that, The Engineering Division has had a policy to reduce the number of curb cuts where possible. There's an established policy. It's dealt with in subdivision applications when when you're doing, you know, for instance, flag lots. Somebody can enter off of two, bring driveways into one, and things like that. So wherever a reduction in curb Guta 9.S possible, that's what will happen. There was a parking lot proposed for the old Edmonds Financial Center Building several years ago before the City had any interest in purchasing that building. That parking lot was constructed and the Engineering Division at that time did deny a curb cut application to access Fifth Avenue North because the applicant had alley access and the access to Fifth Avenue North would eliminate three parking stalls. Uh, the applicant in that case agreed with the City because in that case it was beneficial to the applicant to also access the alley, so there wasn't a legal controversy. in this case the City of Edmonds Engineering Division has informed me that the Code encourages consolidation but Cannot automatically require consolidation. So, so in other words, the City of Edmonds Engineering Division cannot say. "no, you may not access," because they don't have an ordinance in place that says that. Well, to me, you know, that's probably not an issue that we would be too concerned about. You know, to me, still the main concern is the part of the design guidelines — Right. 7 (man) : z Bissell: OklieE: Lui Cr. : < 2M11 Bissell: I .4 LL LO X z z U O LU U. W Y I-- 0 z 7 (mail) : Bissell: J 2067710221;#17/19 Where normally we don't allow the parking in the f rout , but: here we're - getting some additional Ing landscaping that we wouldn't get otherwise, so Can I address a few issues? Sure, [inaudiblej There're Some things that were discussed. Uh, one thing that Alan brought up uh, the applicant's representative has stated _J that the design guidelines are not a requirement, but in fact the design guidelines have been A incorporated in the code, in two different places A in the code. And that the Architectural Design Board is Specifically with interpreting and cnforcing those design guidelines. so so I would say that that is an inaccuracy J,q the applicant's representative's statement. Uh, the applicant has *stated that the situation would be na, not really any different when there's parking there f as opposed to the existing asphalt, and I would agree that thin asphalt from the aesthetic standpoint is not as nice as if there were landscaping there, but from the pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between crooning a parking area where Cars are moving or are, potentially moving and crossing asphalt where cars would not be moving. So, from a pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between the two, and that should be noted because in the design guidelines, pedestrian access is an issue. that You're supposed to be considering. But in thin case, really, the pedestrian access wouldn't be the curb cut itself. Really, the pedestrian acceaw is the fact that it would be through the parking and then [inaudible] building — I'm discussing getting from the Sidewalk so Vm not talking necessarily about the curb cut. The curb out is an issue for pedestrians P&6sing the building. The more curb cuts you have, the legs pedestrian -hospitable a site is. so the curb cut Creates a pedeetrian problem for people nosing But the building. P I'm opeaking of people getting, Just addressing something that the applicant's representative brought up, riat there'e.asphalt there now. There'll be asphalt there later, 50 it's not really any different. And the point is that it is different if you,r2 dealing with crossing asphalt where there are no ; 3:42PM ; Cara as opposed to crossing asphalt where there are care. it's a difference in how pedestrians interact with their environment, Ufa, and, the other thing that i just want to touch on is that the applicant's representative has brought t up the fact that they believe that the rtaf:Els recommendation for denial is based on some sort ofpolitically driven issue. That they believe that we rigged the parking for the Floral Building and that we are doing something, the City's doing something that we're not suppooed to be doing with the parking on the Old Edmonds Financial. Center ftilding which will be the new City Hall. Uh, first off, the Architectural Design Board is probably not really supposed to be considering the political issues and secondly Oklief! Correct. Bissell: Uhl the issues brought up by the applicant are inaccurate. The way parking was calculated on each of those buildings was the same as the way the Parking has been calculated on every other building in downtown Edmonds. So, so it's it's first political issues, and second, slightly, somewhat, let's say, misguided. SO, I think the Board should just digrPgard it, ?(Man): Well, I agree that,.1 agree that that portion of that should be disregarded. Although, you know, X d* understand that off -street parking is a concern for the community — Nman): Right. ?(man): I would agree that off-street parking - ?(Man): But I don't really feel that we should take that into account. I would agree that off-otreet parking — (man) [in audible] ?(man)-. I would agree with off-street parking Is a concern with this, and where the concerns in the engineering division are COMit5i from on this issue. _ parking in the downtown area is a general concern for the community. ?(man); I think we should stick with architectural design, board issues-. .z3t'Att 1 t 3> tr tPi 7" � iYt ) y/`'�i1r 3 �s ! L nY } x rf. l34 ../r5 A�i`1 jir a`1 }t s If; r J f t rtWA.+�p� �y •Li�Ml+yil� .. .... a�.#h ,'♦ f ? (man) : Right. { ? (maxi) : So, 'I agree, ! ? (main) : ' More discussion?z Oklief. Any other cormen.ts? Discussion? °C Bylsma; I would like to make a motion._ I'd like to move V i that we deny 96-131 as submitted _far the 4� following reasons, that the guidelines discourage LO to w perking in front of the building so that thin is LO Lul a noncompliance, that there is a; pedestrian hazard caused because of tine increased vehicular w U. and.yedestrian interplay, and that's about it. dam, Young I'll second that. D O Oklief: Okay. Moved and seconded. All in favor. LU z ate- All opposed. (No response.,) IZ~ilE You've been denied, as part of this project., u W LSorry. V N ' a Fit T (�j u. ._ Z tii UV U =� O ~ Z s 1 V.; - _ - 1 S WYYi97iSf.lMKJP0006�9149D/bOWl� � �. e ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN IBOARD STAFF REPORT !! z 4k �Lu, November 15, 1996 cc 2 0'. ADB-96-112 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPRO`rVAL 2 NEW U) PARKING STALLS FOR AN EXIISTING OFFICE uj` J F- I wLu( A. Applicant/Property Owner ArchitecttReepresentative Marvin Smith Sally M Hyde 126 4th Avenue North 152 3rd Avenuue South L Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds, WNA 98020 B. Site Location: 126 4th Avenue North z p'; C. Introduction: The applicant has proposed to construct 2 ne--w parking stalls between the g Z)i street and the existing building, accessing off 4th Avenue Norjrth. The building currently Cn+ provides 14 parking stalls which access off the alley. After th ue completion of the proposed O —` �� project the property would provide 16 parking stalls. The exis-stin office use requires no P j P P Y P P g a g q i more than 4 parking stalls to meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community F- F Development Code. U. o; z; ui yj v z: D. Background: o~ Z 1� L. Description of Property: The subject property is a 60 f000t wide rectangular lot which fronts on 4th Avenue North, and with alley access to the rear of the property. 2. Zoning: The property is zoned Community Business o(BC). 3. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is exemFpt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). E. Staff Analysis: 0 1. Site Design: a) Vehicle Access and Parking: The site currently provides 14 parking stalls at the rear - of the property which are accessed by way of an alley. The applicant is proposinag to retain these parking stalls, and to add two additional parking stalls which wvill access directly off 4th Avenue North. There will be no vehicle access provid..ed between the 14 stalls in the rear of the lot and the two parking stalls in the from t of the lot. The existing use appears to be an office with on site cu istomer service. That use requires one parking stall per 400 square feet of building area. According to the provided site plan, the existing building area appears tco be approximately 1,600 Exhibit 3 a v. 0; In addition, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Washington State U cc� o ; Barrier Free Code, in'that the installation of the two proposed parking stalls requires X? the installation of one on -site barrier free parking space. J h-1 (n of b) Pedestrian Access LU The existing site development provides pedestrian access directly off 4th Avenue ate, North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all U. a pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. _ W ; ►- x . Therefore, this proposal would remove all direct pedestrian access. Z �-! c) Landscauing: z � The installation of the two proposed parking stalls would reduce the amount of LU M! landscaping between the building and the public street. Section 20.12.025 of the v (ny Edmonds community development code requires a minimum 5 foot landscaping 0 r'= buffer around the perimeter of all parking lots. The applicant has proposed a 4 foot LU w ; buffer between the parking stall and the sidewalk, and no buffer between the � P 0 parking stalls and the side property lines. The ADB has the sole authority to waive LL or alter the requirement of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC 20.12). In the past, the u] cn, ADB has granted waivers where the applicant had no design alternatives to meet the U =' ►= t- minimum code requirements for parking and landscaping. In this case the applicant 9 � P g P g• PP Z has provided more than three times the code requirement for parking in the rear of the lot. Therefore, the granting of a waiver to the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance would be inconsistent with the code requirements and past decisions. d) Design Guidelines: 1 Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance requires small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The proposal -; would add parking at the front of a building in opposition to the design guidelines, ` and would create a pedestrian hazard, in opposition to the design guidelines. ® Section 20.10.070(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires landscape should be provided as a buffer to surrounding properties and streets. 4. Technical Review: a) Engineering Division: • Permits will be required for the construction of the proposal. �t + The proposal would eliminate at least as many on -street parking stalls as it . would create off-street, therefore this proposal does not seem beneficial. • Right-of-way construction permits may be required. c) Building Division • Compliance with the State Barrier Free Code requirements must be met. 2 .. 5� ���•��r �,-.uu. ram, .`��. ;fiirX.t `:, �;>E'f.aY23t,r�i;a tt 34 }'"45 i $ x 7 P. rt.r'r �-�. a t, �- +a' } -. a'� y t 5� t Si " z. s i• s.'r+ r L r3' t y r $r 1 rt t r t x s igF'x. ^fti s+ .s " r :)s^•—»` 's s l EZ 3 )a � ✓' i x a a 1 Q a s' y j 1 s , x sr `,T ._...�._... .w �. }�. '. .....,! i ..,.._,_._3.b T.`.�.'�. ", t. C • xs� ss,,,,"�... m�`{L�,P,, ;i �1%,.,,,.�.r:. F^ z. t •.`.�,.........�..- r ..�'°.1 _ srd,. One (1) handicapped accessible parking stall is required Note. The Board and the applicant should be aware that the comments of the z technical committee are related to code requirements. Those requirements must be met ' at the time of the building permit application. If those requirements effect design,,those UJ requirements must be integrated into the plan and approved by the ADB prior to the ,g of approval or issuance of a building or development permit. 01. ca Q U)� -J F. Summary: The proposal is inconsistent with the landscape requ irements because an insufficient landscaping buffer is provided between the proposed parking stalls, the street, and the adjacent properties. The proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines by U. Q reducing the pedestrian facilities and by providing parking off the street where parking off op the alley is available In addition, the proposal does not provide the required barrier free z � parking stall. Further, the proposal would eliminate an amount of public parking at lest equal to the amount of private parking proposed with no apparent public or private benefit. z Therefore Staff believes that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the MI Comprehensive Plan, The Zoning Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines and the application o should be denied. • coa ch a ate' LU ,,, Attachments: U. a=t 1. Vicinity Map zk 2. Applicants declarations, elevations and site plan ui tn� 0 z � 3 i s rV + ,0 3 t r t y t S S ,s i ALLEY IS, W. _... _ . FL bm' ¢cc Lul. U OI �W{ I ul (1)o I >L = I =W' iEXISTING PARKING F- I— l C3 V?� W-4i i V ` prHuauaN = 00j ! ui (ni f z i I, EXISTING BLDG. I i 126 4th AVE. N i I II i I i i i ��_ I I' i Narrrursmtra Q � yr i renm NEW PARKING I 4' isuvarawe f"AWKAereoo I. if 0 rewtwvor� our i s: 24'-0" 4th AVE. N. xF ate:10�-19--98 Sheet Noi: P-1 r MARV'IN SMITH ' PARKINGJ.DaleX=20'or: i ��, W:t ALLEY j I f li j I� REMOvE EXIST B . BOO t SHRUBS V LAND5CAPE LEGEND �'. 0 CRATAECsUS PHAENOPYRUM ! WASHINGaTON THORN 1 1/2'- 2' GAL. (D OSMAREA BURKWOODII / OSM,AREA 21'.24' HT. ® PERIWINKLE 4' POTS a 24' o% Date: 3=-209 -9s sheetNof::MARVIN SMITH 2 c SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUES., SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771.4846 . FAX (206) 774-9842 December 4, 1996 " " n Architectural Design Board (n W} M! City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. (n LL 01 Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: November 15, 1996 Staff Report/ Marvin Smith Applicant LL cn d, Architectural Design Board: 2 z W' hi Mr. Smith is the owner of the property located at 126 4th Ave. Oj N., Edmonds, WA 98020. z W g W :); c! The recommendation of the staff appears to be mis-guided for U U tA' the following reasons: O -. (a) design guidelines are not requirements of the code; U-0 (b) Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on street - Zi parking; LU W: F' (c) the community services dept. does not have the authority z to determine what constitutes private benefit to Mr. Smith or his property; (d) the plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities, nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. i The recommendations that are legitimate concerns and merit a response are as follows: (a) The recommendations of the staff with respect'to landscape requirements, specifically landscaping buffer, can © be met and a redraft of the plan is attached hereto providing ' for the additional tine foot landscaping. (b) The determination of the staff that the barrier free Parking requirement is not met, can be met by designating one stall at the rear of the property for handicap access. �® The City's concern that Mr. Smith's parking lot will reduce on street parking, appears to be connected to the City's' own reallocation of it's offices to the rear of Mr. Smith's property and the development of the Edmonds Community Arts Building two lots away from Mr. Smith's property. Mr. Smith is well aware that. both the city employee's and the patrons of the Edmonds Arts Building want to utilize the on street parking space in front of his Exhibit .4 �.1x w.".MIN^gir;i,t ��v Fij , y x 7 y,` x `��:sS'u t'kit' �t"s'; .. t .✓ w'''�t' ,.. u a 4 1' 1C 4.f.f 1 r n wf 1 r t t s�+,1i 4 .r r - },� °"•,tt ay . e}� Lls t >t iW.. �N s a3�:.. 7ri i t - l i, �; t t! ti a +.,,; r -.. "�?..t:.....v�....: 1,0 , Z property, due to their own inadequate parking facilities. F q P 9 The a g, inability to park in front of his .building due''to parking c� congestion is one of.the,reasons Mr. Smith wants to develop the area L in front of his building. Mr. Smith, however, Lis not required C! to provide parking for the City, of Edmonds employees, or it,s � _) community arts facility. . Na r w z I.- sally M. Hyde 0 Representative for. Marvin smith w w C: Marvin Smith a r p Y V LL ui �I 0 Z 3 .0 "j LL-2) f' h W Nl a: OF- Z l } .1 �I .1 .1 '1 :I 1 i Nev{ P.►+,®u aNEW PARKMCa T-I Qi PaL...�.. 24'-0" 18'-0" z 4th AVE. N. ti 1Y to 'Eifi�3 °�j MARVIN SMITH PARKINGIScale:l"10=201 Date: -—ge Sheet P-1 i- 1•t•�` SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 tHIRD AVENUES.. SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771.4846 . FAX (206) 774-9842 # . i 0 A IT COUNTER LU of December 16, 1996 cn t cn w; (nLL Edmonds Community Development Director 10 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 LL Re: Notice of Appeal N =' z Dear Sir or Madam: z g Lu This is a notice .of appeal of the ADB decision dated December 4, 1996, of applicant Marvin Ca Smith. Mr. Smith's address is 126 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. Mr. Smith is the owner 0 of the subject property site. We enclose the filing fee of $100. ' , Mr. Smith believes that the denial of ADB-96-131 was in error for the following reasons: a; vi The basis of the denial is stated to be "That the plan includes parking in front of the applicant's building and this is discouraged in the guidelines; and, that there would be a pedestrian hazard z caused because of increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay." No "guideline" presently exists that prohibits parking in the front of applicant's building. There are no facts to support the finding of a "creation of a pedestrian hazard or increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay", nor is there any ordinance, regulation, or code criteria that ` permits a denial on this basis. _j The ADB's decision was influenced by the representation of John Bissel, Associate Planner of the City of Edmonds, who incorrectly and improperly stated that the "ADB Guidelines" were Q requirements of the Code. The "Architectural Design Board Guide" is premised upon ECDC 15.15.030 and ECDC 15.30.000. (See attached "Building Design and Site Treatment Guide" recently given to the applicant by the City of Edmonds) The code sections referenced by the "Guidelines" were repealed by Ord. 3030 on ,Tune 30, 1995 and are no longer in effect. There are no Design Board Guidelines in effect that could be ascertained, and no others supplied by the city upon request of the applicant. ® ECDC 20.10.060 sets forth required findings prior to approval of a proposed development. Therefore, the same criteria must be addressed in order to deny a proposed development. These criteria are as follows: Exhibit 5 A w} LQ zLU �- w 2 Zh j:a z ww� �a U Cr o� LU X` W C �2 ui u aF z r0 1 r Edmonds Community Development Director a December 16, 1996 Page 2 > . " comprehensive A. Com�rehens►ve Plan. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensi plan and other adopted city policies." If the proposal did not meet this criteria, -prior to denial the ADB was required to specifically state that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive { plan and other adopted city policies, and refer to the specific section of the plan or adopted city policies with which it is not consistent. The ADB failed to do this. y B. Zoning_ Ordinance. "That the staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or .the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance." If the proposal did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the ADB was required to identify what specific ordinance and it's requirements that the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. C. Criteria. "That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of this chapter." If the proposal did not meet the criteria and purposes of i chapter 20.10.070, the ADB was required to identify with specificity whatcriteria or purpose of chapter 20.10.070, the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. The ADB's failure to identify specific sections of the Code, zoning ordinance, or comprehensive plan, that are inconsistent with application ADB-96-131, renders such denial arbitrary and capricious, and should be overturned. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant his appeal and approve application ADB-96-131. Please take notice that the applicant's representative will be out of the country during the remainder of the month of December. Due to the intervening holidays it is unclear when this matter would be heard before the City Council in' the ordinary course. The applicant requests that the hearing for his appeal take place no sooner than January 15, 1997, if scheduling of the hearing in the ordinary course would result in a hearing prior to that time. This is not meant to be a waiver of any right to a.hearing in an expeditious manner. I point out that the City of Edmonds is apparently a property owner of interest (see attached list of affected property owners). For the City Council to hear this matter would seem to violate the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". How do you want to handle this issue? Sincerely, l�l• Sally M. Hy e Representative for Marvin Smith. enclosures cc: M. Smith E. "�„a„lw..a,• n.'�.`, ,..;.ti �`` ::'G;;}a., .x,,,..y.. n:"n':�• ,,,ri,. r•.vrc;'a+:.y y .,.L.,,. .,^;,, N. `'�, ,�SJ2,J(,^�k,: ..j'��15.t,t`y ,, .•:ty ,:.��Yj.r h4 LEA<.�§'•"'5�`: `t..•tL'F, ,'v .,.*J; �jyp�" ..s ;W. '?tiu., `�,��,,,,::}•; !,;S.r� t�F�lt �'.s4:nt:+'�.,`�.,�,�I�:�'..: '.�\. S: s . >S: ait x•L :,,:}n... ......... .: ... ..:.. yy�' .,a. h. n...y..:: L} >s r h Si:.:....v.+...v..,.:.... +.........n. ,r.. .•n.w^lP:viti:iitiJ+.hv:T.� • • ADD-96431 APPEAL REMANDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION AP 96-148 ' AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW PARIQNG AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith 126 - 4th Avenue North - > x tN tiMYJu•+Sy,S, , ,v,::+,. :v. , J�xv 455 wx:t•„V,5' \ Y..a .:ynY •.• .::t+.'.x:{ v.�Ly.},•x}: .{�iw; y+.,{,i :yJV.:'#'s``�`,,".�w,t�.a,.:nt.::h..ani.„s.:n45a. (.: q:.:.n•L.;•w...;;}.. .: a•x�}.hST<�:: nL ...+ah��`, .>s }�>�}�y :RJw. :.nL::.,.•,n:., :5;si:t �:.. .,: }:.:,•,.G:Lv. .. ., .: •, tw ���f,:Avp J.: 1i'. ;•::.: v.o ..:: :,.....n...5.. n•. '^`3J: t;tty>v.J. .:5'+*.�•��v.. . ,•„:J.J.:sy,••:P:.,:n:.,.,n;»z;5..p..,...>!..ty, s: „:.::.. t:.i:��,y.�����.�.•'.J:..i:: :.5::.: :,,.w... :.n.::>,r,•? ':. pry �( �y�1y��y�yg.J� q�g�y�� J' /,�'p��yyY.�Y yyy�'y(�. y} q } y� �y,•� ���yy� 'SJ:R"2•T`R7�F9i.YA � 7C.'F3`F'!A'�f{.�.'��57A11T,?I.D:F:A �'{F.R};Il':,,Ik�A,a„�,3R'•�A�;�ti`',,:,t„t;>. 'X:,d',.Af�:£fii> bis, :, �•.�;;:Szaisxaytt.`<L$Y,+ten,. hi. ..... ::t.•t;�:.y:!.,y: n.;r;n,; a.�.„.:zY•p. C.4v. t..\:s,r n,::.ty}:.>h,h;.:.5.55. �.. aa5 ::.: ,.,px'r•:an:.:,:,t :'<�}w7:..,::::ty:: '`y>y: ' .�.}:tv.,KL�R:*}�!,�.Sk�....CCi�.^::4:!L�:R*:�€.^?'�}::•:iiiiYi �An<F;: nu?ttfn„yYn,:Nn>•M•,.,�4,w....avxvn•vy5'mus.wvt^Swpa:.4>vt :},• ...;ey,y.J.•L•LY::nr..<xY,.S •ny!<.:.:: n•.v,.yw unsi +y!,,.ar�,n,.rsni r.,��.����.�'.•.�.'�..,����,�'�;...'<„t.,.y'�„h, �'• `1E131 O =A.0 : SKAwn A.' ' :. . " .'< ': . ( .:.. y .•�•.+.t'�..•.... , , ,:v2N\'nv., .{,.t:t.::v:.> �::�: :n .. � :'t .:n ' +. t..,•...,,t:„,..,,....,;.a,!:oS;L;:�:«r.F::y.S>,:4sn,.a.:.x::t'r'.'x•v`.hy::t4:�,:en,.::.t,:^'J _ 4 �1 �`�' jy { :idt,. _, L;. ;.>hn,L;;,;.,th^{,nv �iyn,..#t+;5:t.;: ::�'vrt ;;.22y..,, .'f:•:»,.CX.,'. � . .•�`���Cvn}'�:�.>`t>'�.n:..J.,,t,:.....:...'.2.�V:.n . 3:Zn: Y�a!j:�''�! iC'; 3'<R'.4'P•� , « .. s ... :.. ......}.,.>L.......}.>::.�k��;#is�x.!':..':.".......n.,.\,.>.:\h, �+x:.r •,y.>S>St xn.5::2,:!,M��T��+��ti��1 :: '� ;s:L's,•:tt� J } •7G�A'�(4�N� : <D?:�. '�5§��'�A>� .t4?lE'.I <' ' �BRi?l'�� '`'`�:'_' '; .:;4n.;y4;t>.::?t'..5:: ,:n>,,.:'v`.n.::C»>:vk ... {^?• , .:,� .. .nA. ,.: �. y,",•C:U nHti ti�>:�yS'."•SS;;:'i: :rs;v ;<t4aytL::<tt. r ",•oSS,o.. n,:. y,,,,r...,,:„;t..,t....:..,:.<,:.,:>sh,:•>s5:•;rn;,L:L..ra..,,,.a.:.:>->::!.::S:.J.:.:.,,ay>:5.:,.::,..J<;j..�s,�.t���,'::.tS.i4lr: �;" y�y�j 2g� }y� y ! ? /•�,! �!�t�y :. 7��! ..,;t,.>.g� �2.t.�>�$i. `::x's��yk 5 ��A,�-.':t�i,�:C�,`•::i•�''L:?:;1:1Y.,�:7,�'citA..."�.. Y;:fit., ,;..,., ,�V.. �tik:O�A�ltAWki^:'$f24A : 5�*Y• }��7! 'v:s.: V{n. > .:: M.P: .::: F.�. i.:.c``.t;...:: Yi. v: '•, .J2 .. �'.vS''...t �.'+,�,,i', �:�5, .;+n '. ;RP:'W!,F�.� �.��...�:.�.•. �:'.��v::r, ��tt,�,i. .��#":h€�i ��'{�� ;. i ;�G z .?,y.��: d"'' <'.:i i ti'S3''�„.. ; "�"'....n,.....n:...•ytF,�, ��,x.....Y..J.»:hs,tt...x.,•>::,�,aways;;tu:,,:<,•y.,,.Lt�:.�;>:fi �ttrsr.f:,if �w^: 6. DISCUSSION OF UEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WiJY'iIOUT AIDB APPROVAL, The Board discussed the two items which were approved by staff without ADB approval. The first item was new awnings and vinyl sign to match previously approved signs at the same location of 101 Main Street. The other item was for a new individual letter, non -illuminated sign in Harbor Square plaza. 7. ADJOURN 4 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOAR STAFF REPORT March 27, 1997 ADB-96-131 APPEAL REMANDED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AP-96-148 FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE A. Applicant/Property Owner Architect/Representative Marvin Smith Sally M Hyde 126 4th Avenue North 152 3rd Avenue South Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 B. Site Location: 126 4th Avenue North C. Introduction: This appeal was remanded to the Board from the City Council and appeared before the Board on March 19,1997. At that time the Board moved to continue deliberation on April 2, 1997. This is a closed record hearing with no staff report; and no testimony allowed from staff or from the applicant. The board is to use only the information submitted by the City Attorney and the Applicant's attorney at the March 19, 1997 hearing. The board requested that the minutes from the original hearing be provided, and the City Attorney approved that request. Please find those attached. ADB-96-131 NEW PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith 126 - 4th Avenue North zit; _ Marvin Smith, 126 - 4th Avenue No., Edmonds, and Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law, I52 - 3rd Avenue So., Suite 101, Edmonds, were present. w John Bissell presented the staff report and explained that this proposal is for the addition of two parking stalls for an O existing I,600 office building located at 126 4th Avenue No. The existing development has approximately 14 V) 0, parking stalls which access the building off the alley in the rear, and the two additional spaces would be located on Uj V) w F-; the street in front of the building. He explained that there would be no vehicle access connection between the two new parking stalls and the existing parking Iot, Based upon the size of the office building, the existing number of 0I LU parking stalls far exceeds the minimum parking requirements, and this would be true even if the building use were to change. The existing pedestrian access to the site is from 4th Avenue No. The installation of the two proposed parking stalls would eliminate the current pedestrian access and would make it necessary for pedestrians to cross a parking lot in w'' order to gain entrance to the building. The proposal allows for a four -foot landscaped buffer between the two z I— parking stalls on the street, however, the Community Development Code, Section 20.12, requires a five foot buffer. t— O w w Mr. Bissell explained that the Design Guidelines encourage parking to be placed at the rear of the building off the = o alley, where the parking currently is located, and pedestrian facilities are encouraged as well. The Engineering v Department comments state that the proposed parking stalls would create a curb cut in the street that would r o eliminate at least two, and possibly three, on -street parking stalls. Mr. Bissell stated that the Washington State Barrier Free Code requires that due to the proposed modifications of the — O' existing parking area, one handicapped -accessible parking stall would be required. This handicapped -accessible z "j parking stall has not been included in the applicant's plan, so the proposal cannot be approved by the Building Department as submitted. In order to meet the ADA requirements, two existing parking stalls would have to be t— h' combined to create one stall with the minimum dimensions. He clarified that the net result for the applicant would z be one additional parking stall John Bissell explained that the proposal appears .to be inconsistent with the Iandscape requirements because insufficient landscaping buffers were proposed. It is also inconsistent with the Design Guidelines because it reduces pedestrian facilities and off-street parking when off -alley parking facilities are available, and does not comply with ADA requirements. In addition, the proposal eliminates public parking in an amount at least equal to the amount of private parking being proposed, with no apparent public or private benefit. Mr. Bissell stated that staff believes that this proposal is not in compliance with the Code or Design Guidelines and recommends denial. M Sally Hyde presented a letter and a new drawing which modifies the proposal to allow for the five-foot landscape buffer requirement. She clamed for the Board that currently the area in front of the office building is asphalt with 01 no landscaping, and that the landscape buffer would be an improvement. Site also indicated that Mr. Smith is willing to add the barrier -free parking stall at the rear of the existing parking lot in order to meet ADA requirements. Ms. Hyde expressed Mr. Smith's concerns regarding the other issues which the staff outlined, and stated that he feels they are not legitimate. She stated that Mr. Smith feels that the staff concerns surrounding the two additional on -street parking spaces in the front of the building are politically motivated, due to the fact that neither the new City Hall, located directly behind the applicant's building, nor the new Floral & Arts Building, located two lots ® down from the applicant's property, have sufficient parking. Therefore, Mr. Smith feels that the two proposed on - street parking stalls will be important for him and his customers to be able to park in front of his building. Ms. Hyde stated that all on -street parking is currently being utilized by other businesses and City employees, and will, in the future, also be used by patrons of the Floral and Arts Building. She clarified that Mr. Smith has no requirement to provide parking for these other uses. Regarding the pedestrian access, Ms. Hyde indicated that people already walk across the asphalt to get to the front t Of Mr. Smith's building, so this proposal would not cause any change. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 December 4,1996 � cal = us' H s! z r: ,. 0 z r-, w wi U tn! aF,_-'', a� tt- 0 wouia result in a net gam or only one new parking stall. John Bissell stated that the width would have to be 16 feet wide and van -accessible. He also clarified that two of the existing parking stalls would have to be combined to allow for the barrier -free stall, and that would result in reducing the existing parking stalls by one. With the addition of the two spaces in front of the building, the total number of parking stalls would be 15. Sally Hyde explained that Mr. Smith is not required to have any parking spaces for this building, but rather chooses to provide parking. She stated that the question is not the number of spaces Mr. Smith provides, but rather does the design comply with the requirements of the Code with the five-foot landscape buffer. Boardmember Bylsma asked if the Design Guidelines have been codified. John Bissell stated that they have been. U �F Board Chairman Oaklief stated he feels that a person should be able to add as much parking as they feel is t� z. MO F- necessary, but by adding parking in front of the building, access to the building will be drastically reduced. He also z expressed concern about the fact that the Design Guidelines encourage all parking to be at the back of buildings in the downtown area whenever possible. Mr. Oaklief agreed that the landscape buffer in the front of the building would be an improvement over the existing asphalt area, and stated that the Board will have to look at the advantages and the drawbacks in making their decision. There would also have to be some explanation made, as part of the Board's motion, in the event that this proposal is approved, which would explain the reasons for the Board's decision to go against the Design Guidelines regarding parking being placed at the rear of the building whenever possible. Boardmember Sullivan stated that he feels the applicant is making this request for the two new parking stalls in order to control the parking in front of his building, but expressed concern about the subsequent loss of two public parking spaces if this proposal is approved. A Board Chairman Oaklief clarified that any new developments are allowed to make curb cuts to make their building accessible, and that may result in the Ioss of public on -street parking. Boardmember Young urged the Board to consider being consistent with rulings they have made in the past. He stated that previously, when parking is available to the rear of a building, requests for parking stalls between a building and the street have been denied. �A Board Chairman Oaklief clarified that there have been situations when the Board has approved requests for parking stalls between a building and the street. Boardmember Young asked for clarification regarding the ownership of the front of the building and the sidewalk. Architectural Design Board Meeting page S December 4, t99d 1 ik ; 1 John Bissell clarified that the sidewalk in front of the applicant's building is in the public right-of-way. The City of Edmonds does not currently have an ordinance in effect which would prohibit individuals from making a curb cut in front of their building to provide parking, however, the Engineering Department has an established policy to reduce those curb cuts whenever possible, when rear access is available, Board Chairman Oaklief pointed out the real issue for the Board should be the Design Guidelines, and how they relate to the applicant's request, keeping in mind that the landscape buffer will be an improvement. John Bissell pointed out that the Design Guidelines have, in fact, been incorporated into the City Code, and that the Architectural Design Board is charged with interpreting and enforcing those Design Guidelines. In response to the applicant's statement that the landscape buffer would be an improvement over the asphalt which currently exists, Mr. Bissell agreed, However, he pointed out that from a pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between requiring people to walk across a parking lot where cars may be moving about and having them walk across the asphalt walkway where there are no cars. He feels that this is an important issue, since pedestrian access needs to be considered when interpreting the Design Guidelines, Mr. Bissell clarified that in response to Ms. Hyde's comment about the political motivation of the on -street parking issues, the Architectural Design Board is not supposed to be considering political issues. He also pointed out that the manner in which parking was calculated for the FIoral and Arts Building and the new City Hall is the same which is used for all other buildings in the downtown area. Board Chairman Oaklief stated that the comments made by Ms. Hyde regarding political issues should be disregarded by the Board. He stated that he understands that off-street parking is certainly a concern for the downtown community, however, feels that the Board must consider only those issues which they are charged with. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER YOUNG, TO DENY ADB-96-131 AS PRESENTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THAT THE PLAN INCLUDES PARKING IN FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING AND THIS IS DISCOURAGED IN THE GUIDELINES; AND, THAT THERE WOULD BE A PEDESTRIAN HAZARD CAUSED BECAUSE OF INCREASED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INTERPLAY. MOTION CARRIED. PRELIMINARY REVIEW: None. } 7. DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC SIGNS (Added to Agenda by motion, O Boardmember Young pointed out that if an analog clock was included in a sign, it would be approved. He stated that an electronic clock, which can only be used for temperature and time, and contains no other advertisement, should not be included in the total sign area calculation. John Bissell stated that wall -mounted analog clocks have historically been approved. He cited the following definitions outlined in the Code. Under General Regulations it states that, "the supporting structures which are part of the sign display shall be included in the calculation." Mr. Bissell pointed out that in these instances, the Board has included the supporting structure in the calculation. Under the section entitled Wall Graphics, it states that, "a ® wall graphic is a wall sign in which color and form are part of an overall design on the building," Under Restrictions, it states that, "there are no restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures." Boardmember Young stated that since this time and temperature sign is being provided as a community service, and its location is at a critical pathway for traffic, he feels that it should not be included in the calculation for total sign area. While the applicant may receive some free advertisement when passing motorists view the sign, the applicant could draw attention to his business in other ways, such as having a particular color'on his building. He stated that a sign denotes a business and the service it provides, and a time and temperature unit does not. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 6 December 4,1996 t\ 0 � Zd W J i— N &L W LL Cl �UJ x z 1- iF U. O u' o +: W � LUU of z Y j�qc.1B90 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 99020 • (206) 771.0220 FAN (205) 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering RE: Vesting of Marvin Smith's parking lot application, and return of construction permit application Dear Ms Hyde: I have received your application for a construction permit for a parking lot. Unfortunately the building division is unable to accept your application Luntil all discretionary permits including ADB and appeals of ADB are completed: Since the ADB application and appeal thereof is ongoing, the construction permit cannot be accepted and is being returned to you. I understand the reason for the application for construction permit is to vest your client's rights under ordinances of the Community Development Code prior to the enactment of new ordinances which would prevent the completion of the proposed project. The City has determined that your application is already vested due to the submittal of a fully completed ADB application. That date of vesting was October 30,1996. Therefore the submittal of a construction permit for vesting purposes is unnecessary. Please note that parking lot construction and right-of-way construction permits will be required if the ADB application is ultimately approved and your client chooses to construct the proposed project. If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, 071) SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S., SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-4846 # FAX (206) 774-9842 February lo, 1997 F- Lul CC 2� City of Edmonds Planning Dept. -Jui O' 250 5th Ave. N. U LO 01 Edmonds, WA 98020 Uji Uj jl�-!l I RE: Marvin Smith Permit Application; ADB-96-131 U) LL LU 0 Dear Sir or Madam: Mr. Smith has submitted land use application for the Loa construction of a small parking lot, and at present the denial of his X; application is on appeal. It is my understanding that in the zMLU �-; event his application is ultimately granted, he will also need an 0; approved construction permit application in order to perform the Z LU Lu work required, including any curb cuts. It is also my 2 Mi :3 01 understanding that the City Attorney, Scott Snyder, is recommending that U U);; the City Council adopt an "emergency" ordinance declaring a 0 moratorium on all curb cuts. LWU LUI In the event my client's application is ultimately granted, and in x U� LLP! order to avoid any future argument regarding which ordinances apply with respect to the construction of the 0! proposed parking lot, my client hereby submits his application for a construction permit. Included herein is Mr. Smith's check in the required amount of $53. Mr. Smith's architect, Mr. Warren La Fon, has z already attempted to submit the enclosed application, check and supporting documents, and was told the City would not accept his application. Mr. Smith is more than willing to lose his construction permit application fee, in the event his initial application is ultimately denied. According to Mr. La Fon, the City has indicated that in the event Mr. Smith's initial land use application is approved by the ADB, his right to a construction permit, including any necessary curb cut, is vested as of the date of his original application, ie. Oct. 30, 1996, and therefore he doesn't need to submit his construction permit until after approval by the ADB. Please confirm or deny this in writing. Mr. Smith is trying to avoid any unnecessary confusion and litigationthat may result in the event his land use application is approved by the ADS and the City attempts to block the construction based upon the p 46s4ge of some subsequent "emergency ordinance". I would aPPreci ifp aWritten response sufficiently in advance Of the 'OpW passage of jpy ordinance that would affect the construction of his small parking lot. Sincerely, Sally M. Hyde SMH/ 3 i �° r r s , v° n a ,r, t y, b � i• a i S x 1 t L ls: i c3<,+.4..>...�.au.,.�.uuc+dw�+,.:�:�_. i ,....w-cu+w...rn.•wbwaw..>ia+a.+�4+ev�.rs.emdxuNwevautymwwww:.�..'....:...r+.....'«:�......:..t.I�.�..;':.. t � ...e...�....:.:. ., SAROARA PAHUV MAYOH !!O STi1 AV WUa NOnTN r aDMONOa. WA !!O!a r 1i0!) 171•OiiO r }Ax Inalf 771.pii1 COMMUNITY Public Works + Planning •DParke RTand Recreation Atn9fneoring eeraetion•i»gfnearing t. Z +] - THIr�COP1EF$ COVER PAGIS .. - .. Q ij h•i TO: OAZ•E TRAN48MI`I"'I"EO;t.'r� • /� " �'% J VI NUMSER Oi= PAIQ S:.,.._L_p_f (including Cover Page) 01 U Ptecipianto Teleccpler Number: a tNJ) W� 1%r7 •^ "7�jCJ'?.� PAOSIMILB EQUIPMENT: - J X. AutomamIc3roup 11 (2.3 mine.): 43r4oup Itt t!) FRQMs If tt fete are a problems during transmisaton or W 67 documents are received - d�r Incom fete lease Dell r } t�c0®) ,'20 and sett i gender's Talacoplar Number: (208) 771-0221 t d RIB* SLLJ Z }� 1 � Of `b Lj - V N1 i I ox\o1W eraarta\FaleRarrn U. Q� - e, Incorpamted Auzuat 11. 1890 z - minter Chia! International — ktaklnan. Japan .^^..�.... tL N3 h FS-i O TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT �k COUNTc # 1 kc** SEND 1kNak ; /b 133 E V TOTAL" 0:17'13" 18 x; XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 i NO REMOTE STATION I. D. START TIME -0URATION _ 3tPAt3ES COMMENT 3 O©DEN MURPHY WALLACE 3-16-97 11:41PM 17'" 18' �St.•.,1.$gv. N W Lu ii i=- to LL ua d I-- Lu z 1"' z o oLU I--L U- G v5 ot. z Ci j i OF EDMONDS BARBARAPAHEY MAYOR 280 8TH AVENUE NORTH • EOMONDS, WA 98020 • 1208L771.0220 • FAX (M) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation Engineering Z P a) i None 6. AGENDA FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED ADB-96-150 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW 28 UNIT MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING COMPLEX Robin Miller 7218 208th St SW ADB-96-131 AP -96-148 APPEAL REMANDED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DELIBERATION AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR A NEW PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith 126 4th Ave. N. J, PRELIMINARY REVIEW 0 None 7. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL New awnings and vinyl sign to match previously approved signs at the same location; 101 Main Street. • New individual letter, non -illuminated sign in Harbor Square plaza. 8. BOARD DISCUSSION N Rim N TMIA W SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S., SUITE 101, EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-4846 • FAX (206) 774-9842 March 12, 1997 Architectural Design Board City of Edmonds` 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: March 19, 1997 Meeting/Marvin Smith Applicant Architectural Design board: At the request of the Edmonds City Council, and without waiving the right to argue the appropriateness of this procedure, I have attached Mr. Smith's proposed Findings of Fact arising out of the upcoming March 19th hearing. I assume you have had the opportunity to read the Findings of Fact of the. City Council dated February 25th, that were prepared by Mr. Snyder, counsel for the City of Edmonds, and signed by the Council. According to the City Council's Findings of Fact prepared by Mr. Snyder, Mr. Snyder has the opportunity to give the ADB "legal advice". In fact, by letter dated February 19, 1997, Mr. Snyder intends to have someone from his office "assist" the ADB in reaching it's conclusions. (see attached) Although it seems decidedly unfair to allow the City, through Mr. Snyder, to attempt to influence your decision, without allowing me the same opportunity to present further argument regarding Mr. Smith's application, it may be that I will not be allowed to speak at the March 19th hearing. I will, however, be present. My attached proposed Findings of Fact set forth a reasonable way to grant Mr. Smith's application, however, I want to make it perfectly clear that Mr. Smith is willing to landscape the proposed parking lot in any feasible way possible. If you would prefer to grant the permit with conditions containing a more aesthetic landscaping plan that you believe would better meet the purpose of the landscaping portion of the code, please feel free to conditionally approve Mr. Smith's application. Perhaps someone might think that a more narrow landscape buffer might be more appropriate given the surrounding properties. I have. attached several photos of the property for those of you that are unfamiliar with the specific site. Sincerely, Sally M. Hyde V encl. SMH Q 1. Wj, ccm D1 v v a (n w! w z, (n O w} �2 J LL _�T)d z� z w w. � n U us1 a H- z cw.i �- a 'z z N RPutN-i�r cE i P.L.L.C. 2100 Westlake Center Tower • 1601 FifthAvenue • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • (206) 447-7(XH) • Fnx (206) 447.0215 W. Scott Snyder, s February 19, 1997 Sally M. Hyde Attorney at Law 152 3rd Avenue South, Suite 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Res MARVIN SMITH PERMIT Dear Ms. Hyde: Where did your last letter come from? I have been providing you with courtesy copies of my t opinions to the City and the draft findings for the City Council. Continued deliberation by the Architectural Design Board will be on the record. I assume you would object to any attempt to assist the ADB by Mr. Bissell -- the normal staff contact. Given the prohibition against a second hearing, it appears the only way to provide assistance to the Board in their deliberations is through guidance of the City's legal counsel (meaning my office). I will not allow your "thoughts" to interfere with my effective representation of my client. Affording you and the staff the opportunity to submit findings of fact and having someone from my office assist the Board in reaching a conclusion seems an appropriate, if perhaps, only way to resolve the current dilemma. Obviously, your theories and rationale (within reason and based on the record) can be reflected in your proposed findings. There is nothing in the draft findings which implies a decision one way or the other. The ADB will make a decision based on the existing record. Hopefully from your prospective, you have made an adequate record to support approval. Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. DICTATED BUT NOT REV!::,,`,! . TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY W. Scott Snyder WSS/hlx WSSlS4749.11JF0006.9W001B0006. Wenatchee Office • One Sonth Chelan Street • P.O. Box 1606 • Wenatchee. WA 98807 • (509) 662.1954 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS THIS NOTICE T IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE I 41 -' .. „ J �i 3 I t0 i Proposed Findings of Fact Architectural Design Board City of Edmonds Applicant: Marvin Smith File.No: AP-96-148 This matter carte before the Architectural Design Board for the City of Edmonds, on March 19, 1997. The applicant filed a land use application on October M, 1996. The application was originally considered by this Board on December 4, 1996 and was subsequently appealed to. the City Council on December 17, 1996. After a hearing on the appeal before the Edmonds City Council on February 4, 1997, the Edmonds City Council upheld the appeal and remanded this matter back to the Architectural Design Board with instructions. for the Board to continue deliberations in this matter. After continued deliberation and a review of the minutes of the December 4. 1996 meeting, a'copy.of which is attached hereto, the Architectural Design Board of the City of Edmonds finds as follows: 1. That the proposal submitted by the applicant is consistent with the comprehensive, plan and other adopted city policies, specifically,' ECDC 20.12.000 allows the ADB to interpret and modify the requirements contained within ECDC 20.12 provided such modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. Those purposes are: To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; To encourage and promote development which .. features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting; types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; to. encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; to minimize incompatible and unsightly surrounding and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. The applicants proposal to'provide a five foot landscaped area, as set forth .in the applicants letter of December 4, 1906 (attached) is consistent' with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. Any barrier free parking requirement can be met' ` by the designation of one, stall at the rear of the property for handicap access. 2. That the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In fact, the office of the City of Edmonds Community.Services Dept. does not assert otherwise. 3. That the proposal as approved satisfies ` the criteria and purposes of 20.10.070, specifically this landscape treatment of a five .foot area provides- a .buffer from surrounding property where conflict results and is provided to enhance. the building` design and other.site improvements. This proposal also satisfies any barrier free parking requirements by the designation of one stall at the rear of the property, for handicap access. Findiegs of Fact Page- j !- U) 0 U. LU LL LAJ z I- C LU LLj U 0- C1 H LU U LU tj U 5 OF z �II MINUTES December 4, 1996 The December 4, 1,996, meeting of the Architectural Design Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Oakes at the Library,Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, Edmonds. I. ROLL CALL Present gaff Jeff Onklief John Bissell, Associate Planner Alan BvIsma Lynne Hann, Deputy City Clerk Steve Sullivan James Young Absent Linda Goodrick (illness) Craig Pierce (Work) 2. CORRESPOND ENCEICOMMENTS FROM STAFF John Bissell stated that if any Boardmembers have conimentsron the draft Design Guidelines, he will need to have them returned as soon as possible. 3. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD COMMENTS None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER YOUNG, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6,1996. MOTION CARRIED. S. CONSENT AGENDA ADII-96-132 NEW AWNING WITH SIGNS Waterfront Coffee Co. Jay and Pitt Peterson 101 Main Street ADII-96-127 FACADE CHANGE FOR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING Edmonds Auto Parts 636 Edmonds Way BOARDMEMBER YOUNG MOVED, SECONDED BYBOARDMEMBER BVLSMA'' To APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSISTING. OF ADB,96-132 AND'ADB-06-:1127,: AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. z T t— to O w} LJ Na LU z t�— Z W ILL 7C Ou oL- LULL C. �- e tin to Uj Ot z to V, ti R4. ,f}' ....• ,.:.�:......4»u.w:'u.'.., .r r.e.u..-...:.. .....�......._.::..m.w.www.arw.m..wu.auu+aea.»q.4Nremnec'm.W9M+.4r+..1MfERACLYYkYICCYte.NNtrx4.r+v+nYwwww�uw-iwnwnww.iwwww+.w.-.mn....u.....•.,i.-... •: Y jy r 6. AGENDA _ FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED: a ADB-96-129 NEW AWNING WITH SIGNS AND NEW FREESTANDING SIGN - Sno-King Signs 7629 Lake Ballinger Way Bart Haynes, Amp Art, 12309 15th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98125, was present. John Bissell presented the staff report and explained that this request is for final approval for a new canopy facade and canopy logos, and one freestanding sign for an existing sign shop. The applicant is John Maxin for Sno-King Signs and Bart Baynes for Annp Art Signs. He explained that the canopy will be placed on the front ofthe existing building.a nd will have a blue top with a white sign band lace. The signs on the canopy will be burgundy and blue with a red highlight. The sign area is 33 square feet, which is the maximum allowable, and the sign height is 10 feet, which is shorter than the 14 feet allowed. Mr. Bissell stated that the free-standing sign is a pedestakti,pe sign with a height of 14 feet and a total area of 32 square feet, and the colors will be llte same as on the canopy signs. '17te applicant is also proposing all electronic reader board portion on the sign which will give the tittle and date. fie explained that the code prohibits all electronic reader board signs except those that perform a function. Mr. Bissell stated that staff is recommending approval of this proposal since it is consistent with the design t guidelines, and that the location and style of the sign is appropriate for the area. However, he suggested that the Board discuss further the electronic reader board portion of the proposal. Bart Haynes explained that the building is adjacent to 131' Oil on 205th, lie stated that this proposal is an attempt to clean tip several miscellaneous signs and overgrown landscaping currently on the property, and that the intent of' the time and temperature display, which will be located on the bottom portion of the free-standing sign, is to provide it service to the community. There will not be any other messages displayed other than the time and temperature. I le stated that there are several other free-standing signs in the area and the intent is to make theirs as unobtrusive as possible. There were no audience comments oil this proposal. Board Chairman Oaklief asked about the contents of the existing plant area and what the new landscaping plan includes. He also asked for clarification on the material to be used at the base of the sign. Mr. Haynes stated that there are currently weeds, with some plants and ferns, in the sign area, and showed the Board a photograph of the existing conditions. Ile explained that any plants which are in good condition and earn be retained will be included in the new 6X It) landscaped area at the base.of the sign, and new shrubs and flowers will be added as well. Since the planter is recessed approximately two sect, it will not be visible from the street level. Mr. Baynes also stated that the sign is going to be sandwiched between two square pipes, which will be painted (lark bronze. Along the base there will be all iron cage and will contain siding, with dark brown` trim, which will look like the siding on the building. Boardmenber Sullivan suggested that the wood applied along the, bottom( of the sign be vented and flashed properly, and that pressure -treated wood be used. Boardmember Young requested that a landscape plan, which is consistent with the Landscaping Code; be submitted. Board Chairman Oaklief agreed and stated that flowering shrubs and plants would be recommended, rather than the juniper tams. Boardmenber Young stated that free-standing signs in this location are appropriate. because of visibility issues. Architectural Design Board Meeting Pate 2 December il. 1996 rQ d F- u ZH F- O �a U 0— t: �L u- C wu U � � F Z i Bonrdmember Byssma questioned whether the time and temperature portion of the sign should be included in the overall area calculations, and if so, the total sign size would exceed the maximum allowed. .j John Bissell stated that the Code is not clear on what is to be included in the total area calculations, and suggested that the Board include it stipulation regarding this issue in their motion on this proposal Mr. Haynes explained that in other locations, the electronic portion of their signs have not been included in the calculations because they do not contain advertising. Mr. Bissell clarified that regarding free-standing signs, the Code includes the structure of the sign area in its definition of the total allowable size. This would include the cabinets of the sign. ry Boardmember Sullivan stated that the sign is appropriate for the location and that the time and temperature portion of the sign would provide a service to the community. He suggested that ground covers not be used in the planting 3 areas due to the weed seed which is blown in and becomes difficult to control. Individual shrubs are a better a alternative. Boardmember Yount asked if the Board has the responsibility to determine whether or not the time and temperature portion of the sign should be included in the total sign area calculation. I Mr. Bissell stated that staff would have the responsibility to interpret this 'issue, however, would welcome recommendations on design issues from the Bonrd. 3 Boardmember Young stated that he felt that the time and temperature portion of the sign should not be included in the sigh area calculations. Boardmember Bylsma explained that since the APB is charged.with looking more at the composition of a sign rather than the content, he felt that the time and temperature portion ofthe sign should be included. Board Chairman Uaklief stated that since a sign's purpose is to convey information, he agreed with Boardmember Bylsma a id 1eltthat including the time and temperature portion of the sign would be appropriate. Boardmember Young explained that he is concerned about staff interpretations being available for application in the future. John Bissell explained that interpretations of the. Code are documented and issued within the department so that coil stltencv can be applied at it later date if the same question arises. Ile suggested that perhaps the Board may want to include a stipulation in their motion which Stites that the applicant must comply with the maximum sign area standards of the Code, and that the Board then tmake it recommendation, to staff onthe way' this issue should be interpreted, Board Chairman 0aklief suggested that the Board make a motion, following consideration of this proposal, to add Further discussion on this issue to the end of the this meeting agenda. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER BVLSMA, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN, TO APPROVE ADB-96-129 AS PRESENTED, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT STAFF MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE TOTAL SIGN AREA IS IN COMPLIANCE WiTH THE CITY CODE, AND THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A LANDSCAPE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. ADII-96-131 NEW NARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith 126 - 4th Avenue North Marvin Smith, 126 - 4th Avenue No., Edmonds, and Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law, IS2 - 3rd Avenue So., Suite i01 I'dntonds, were present. , John Bissell presented the staff report and explained that this proposal is for the addition of two parking stalls for an existing 1,600 office building located at 126 4th Avenue No. The existing development has approximately 14 Parking stalls which access the building off the alley in the rear, and the two additional spaces would be located on the street in front of the building. He explained that there would be no vehicle access connection between the two new parking stalls and the existing parking lot. Based upon the size of the office building, the existing number of parking stalls Iar exceeds the minimum parking requirements,' and this would be true even if the building use %were to change. F The existing pedestrian access to the site is from 4th Avenue No. The installation of the two proposed parking stalls `j would eliminate the current pedestrian access and would make it necessary for pedestrians to cross a parking lot in Q order to gain entrance to the building. The proposal allows for a four -foot landscaped buffer between the two UJI, parking stalls on the street, however, the Community Development Code; Section 20.12, requires a five foot buffer. - F— pj Mr. Bissell explained that the Design Guidelines encourage parking to be placed at the rear of the building off the alley, where the parkins current)} is located, and pedesu`imn facilities are encouraged as well. The Engineering �� Department comments state that the proposed parking stalls would create a curb cut in the street that would i eliminate at least two, and possibly three, on -street parking stalls, uld Mr. Bissell stated that the Washington State Barrier tree Code requires that due to the proposed modifications of the v existing parking area, one handicapped -accessible 11,Irking stall would be required. O parking stall has not been included in the applicants plan, so the proposal cannot bclappraved by theThis It and aBiuld nlg Z' Deparunuu Is submitted. In order to meet the ADA requirsoe'ltale two existing u uy� combined to create one stall with the minimum dimensions. He clarified that the net result forthe applicantewo' be would h be one additional parking stall. a pp t !d John Bissell explained that the proposal appears to be inconsistent with the landscape requirements because insufficient landscaping buffers were proposed. it is also inconsistent with the Design Guidelines because it reduces pedesu•uun facilities and off* street parking %eheu ofi=alley parking facilities are available, and does not comply with . ADA requirements. In addition, the proposal eliminates public parking in an amount at least equal to the amount of private parking being proposed, with no apparent public or private benefit. Mr. Bissell stated that staff believes that this proposal is not in compliance with the Code or Design Guidelines and recommends denial. Sally Hyde presented a letter and a new drawing cs•hich modifies tile buffer requirement. She clarified for the Board that currently the area linfront lof thto e officow e building is asphathe rive -foot lswlth na landsciping, and that tite landscape buffer could be an improverinent. She also indicated that Mr. Smith is willing to add the barrier -free parking stall at the rear of the ex Ill b g parking, lot in order to meet ADA requirements. Ms. Hyde expressed Mr. Smith's concerns regarding the other issues which the staff outlined, and stated that he feels they are not legitimate. She stated that Mr. Smith feels that the staff concerns surrounding the two additional on -street parking spaces in the front of the building arepolitically motivated, due to the fact that neither the new City I loll, located direct!, behind the applicant's buildine, nor the new. Floral & Arts Building, located two lots down fiom the applicant's property, have sui'ficient parking• Therefore, Mr. Smith feels that the two ;praposed qn- street parking stalls will be importtrtnt for him .uul his customers to be' able to park in front of his building. Ms. Flyde stated that all on -street arkim� ' p' S is current!, bein�� utilized by other businesses and City employees, and will, in the future, also be used by patrons of the Floral and Arts Building. She clarified that Mr. Smith has no requirement to provide parking for these other uses. Regarding the Pedestrian access, his. Hyde indrrited that people already. walk across the ol'tvh. Smith's building, so this proposal Would nut cause any ch,nge. asphalt to get to "the (rant Architecnrral Design Board Mccting Page A December 4,-199G x �T i7 t iet She also explained that Mr. Smith disagrees with the City's statement that he does not need additional parking and feels thiit this issue should not be of concern to the. City. Mr. Smith feels that it is his private property and it is his ; decision whether or not these on -street parking stalls are needed or are of benefit to Mr. Smith. There were no audience comments on this proposal. {� cr g Boardmember Sullivan asked if a ramp would also be required for the applicant to meet ADA standards. 104 ® John Bissell stated that the applicant would have to clarify that question with the City's Building Official; but felt W that a ramp may be required to provide access to the building. LU -t Hi Boardmember Young asked for clarification regarding the width requirement for the barrier -free parking stall, and wO that a re -structuring of the current parking stalls, resulting in 13 total stalls, would be required for; approval. This would result in a net gain of only one new parking stall, J U- Jahn Bissell stated that the width would have to be 1 G fect ~vide and van -accessible. ,He also clarified that two of the d existing puking stalls would have to be combined to allow for file barrier -free stall, and that would result in = reducing the existing parking stalls by one. With the addition of the two spaces in front of the building, the total Z h- number of parking stalls would be 15. t- 0i w w Sally Hyde explained that Mr. Smith is not required to,have any parking spaces for this building, but rather chooses Oi to provide parking. She stated that the question is not the number of spaces Mr. Smith provides, but rather does the design comply with the requirements of the Code with the five-foot landscape buffer.. w W Boardmember Bylsnia asked if the Design Guidelines have been codified. e - 01 John Bissell stated that they have been. — z rWj N" Board Chairman Oaklief stated he. feels that a person should be able to .add as much parking as .they feel is O t=- necessary, but by adding parking in front of the building. access to the building will be drastically reduced. lie also z expressed concern about the taut than the Design Guidelines encourage all parking to be at the back of buildings in the downtown area whenever possible. Mr. Oaklief a*,reed that the landscape buffer in the front of the building would be an improvement over the cxisting asphalt area, and stated that the Board will have to look at the advantages and the drawbacks in making their decision. 'there would also have to be some explanation made, as part of the Board's motion, in the event that this proposal is approved, which would explain the reasons for the f Board's decision to go against the Design Guidelines regarding parking being placed at the rear of the building whenever possible. Boardmember Sullivan stated that he feels the applicant is making this request for the two new parking stalls in order to control the parking in front of his building, but expressed concern about the subsequent loss of two public parking spaces if this proposal is approved. Board Chairman Oaklief clarified that any new developments are allowed to make curb cuts to make their building accessible, and that may result in the loss of public on -street parking: Boardmember Young urged the Board to consider being consistent with rulings they hove made in the past.' 'Ile stated that previously, when parking is available to the rear of a building, requests for parking stalls between`a building and the street have been denied. C® Board Chairman Oaklief clarified that there have been situations when the Board has approved requests for parking stalls between a building and the street. Boardmember Young asked for clarification regarding the ownership of.the front of the butldmg and the sidewalk. r Architectural Design hoard Mceting Pace ? ` Mcemlici tr19G +�' w c t = dl! Z 1—. z Oi WWI f3 � p f— �F w0 �Z V= O~ 2 t® KI 7. n z tom. John Bissell clarified that the sidewalk in front of the applicant's building is in the public right-of-way. The City of Edmonds does not currently have an ordinance in eftect which would prohibit individuals from making a curb cue in front of their building to provide parking, however, the Engineering Department has an established policy to reduce those curb cuts whenever possible, when rear access is available. Board Chairman Oaklief pointed out the real issue 11or the Board should be the Design Guidelines, and how they relate to the applicant's request, keeping in mind that the landscape buffer will be an improvement. John Bissell pointed out that the Design Guidelines have, in fact, been incorporated into the City Code, and that the Architectural Design Board is charged with interpreting and enforcing those Design Guidelines. In response to the applicant's statement that the landscape buffer would be an improvement over the asphalt which currently exists, Mr. Bissell agreed. However, he pointed out that front a pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between requiring people to walk across a parking lot where cars may be moving about and having them walk across the asphalt walkway where there are no cars. He Ieels that this is an important issue, since pedestrian access needs to be considered when interpreting the Design Guidelines. Mr. Bissell clarified that in response to Ms. Hyde's comment about the political motivation of the on -street parking issues, the Architectural Design Board is not supposed to be considering political issues. He also pointed out that the manner in which parking was calculated for the Floral and Arts Building and the new City Hall is the sane which is used for all other buildings in the downtown area, Board Chairman Oaklief stated that the comments made by Ms. Hyde regarding political issues should be disregarded by the Board. He stated that he understands that off-street parking is certainty a concern for the downtown community, however, feels that the Board must consider only those issues which they are charged with. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER YOUNG, TO DENY ADII-96-131 AS PRESENTED FOR TIIE FOLLOWING REASONS: THAT THE PLAN INCLUDES PARKING IN FRONT of TIIE APPLICANT'S BUILDING AND THIS IS DISCOURAGED IN THE GUIDELINES, AND, THAT THERE WOULD BE A PEDESTRIAN - HAZARD CAUSED BECAUSE OF INCREASED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INTERPLAY. MOTION CARRIED. PRELIMINARY REVIEW: None. DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC SIGNS (Added to Agenda by ,...,uum Boardmember Young pointed out that if an analog clock was included in a sign, it would be approved. He stated that an electronic clock, which cam only be used for temperature and time, and contains no other advertisement, should not be included in the total sign area calculation. John Bissell stated that wall -mounted analog clocks have historically been approved. He cited the following definitions outlined in the Code. Under General Regulations it states that, "the supporting structures which are pall of the sign display shall be included in the calculation." Mr. Bissell pointed out that in these instances, the Board has included the supporting structure in the calculation. Under the section entitled Wall Graphics, it states that, "a wall graphic is a wall sign in which color and form are part of an. overall design on the building." Under Restrictions, it states that, "there are no restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures." Boardmember Young stated that since this time and temperature sign is being provided as a community service; and its location is at a critical pathway for traffic, lie feels that it shouldnot be included in the calculation for total sign area. While the applicant may receive some free advertisement when passing motorists "view the sign; the applicant could draw attention to his business in other wads. such as having a particular color on his, building. He stated that a sign denotes a business and the service it provides, and a time and temperature'unit does not. Architcetaaral Design Board Meeting Nwe 6 December 4. 1996 t x � 9 Board Chairman Oaklief asked for clarification on whether wall graphics or clock -type signs, as outlined in the Code, require Board approval or special permits. z John Bissell outlined the exemptions, as stated in the Code; which do not have to go before the Architectural Design Board. He read from Section 20.10.020, Subsection A-1, which states that, "remodels of buildings that do not result cr-d gi in changing of the building footprint and that involve materials, forms and repetitions of elements consistent with "restriping 5 the existing building design"; Subsection A-2, which states that, and other minor changes to parking lots 0' that do not result in a change to landscaping or reconfiguration of the lot"; and, Subsection A-3, which states that, NC►i "fences that do not require separate development permits." These items do not have to have ADB review. Mr. x! Bissell pointed out that any application which does not fit into one of these exemptions would have to come before U t'J Hi. the Board. He stated that, for example, if a clock is internally -illuminated, and located in the downtown area, the O Board will be asked to review the application. If the same application was for a sign on Highway 99, the Board probably would not be asked to review the proposal { LL d After some further discussion, the following recommendation was made by Boardmember Bylsma and agreed upon to by all Boardmembers present: z Lu l I RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF: 01 w 1W IN THE FUTURE, WHEN PROJECTS ARE REVIEWED WHICH CONTAIN ELECTRONIC OR Di ANALOG CLOCKS, THAT THEY BE TREATED AS A SIGN, BUT THAT THE CLOCK NOT BE Uj INCLUDED IN THE SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS UNLESS THE CLOCK IS A PART OF SPECIFIC OD -i: COMPANY ADVERTISING. THESE PROJECTS SHOULD ALSO BE REVIEWED BY THE e ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. W 7u t- - z 8. BOARD COMMENTS: LU tn: Or' Boardmember Bylsma stated that this is his last meeting, and that he has enjoyed serving on.the Architectural Z Design Board and will miss the association of the other members of the Board. John Bissell thanked Boardmember Bylsma for his contributions to the Board and to the community by serving on the ADB. 9. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL New illuminated wall signs for an ice cream store in the Aurora Market Place, 23632 Highway 99. o } Storefront changes to 101 Main Street. John Bissell reviewed each of the items listed above. There was a brief discussion on staff guidelines for making Q determinations on these issues. 10. ADJOURN BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5:55 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. - Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 7 December 4, 1996 . 'th&it'j� ti,�+'F+K9cAnx� t _..� re , . - ...�e..,i�v`k�ia rrX+,c3 e1Fx7: ff SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S., SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-4846 • FAX (206) 774-9842 4 December 4, 1996 uj' LU Cn 0, Architectural Design Board Cn LWCity of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. a N W Edmonds, WA 98020 LU o{ Re: November 15, 1996 Staff Report/ Marvin Smith Applicant ,Q J (n : Architectural Design Board: z w I- _• Mr. Smith is the owner of the property located at 126 4th Ave. z N., Edmonds, WA 98020. z � u,w The recommendation of the staff appears to be mis-guided for p' the following reasons: U C O—: O H (a) design guidelines are not requirements of the code; LU Us F (b) Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on street P U- o; parking; z' 'j c- (c) the community services dept. does not have the authority 0t- to determine what constitutes private benefit to Mr. Smith or z his property; (d) the plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities, nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. The recommendations that are legitimate concerns and merit ja response are as follows: ,r (a) The recommendations of the staff with respect to landscape requirements, specifically landscaping buffer, can be met and a redraft of the plan is attached hereto providing ® for the additional one foot landscaping. (b) The determination of the staff that the barrier free parking requirement is not met, can be met by designating one stall at the rear of the property for handicap access. The City's concern that Mr. Smith's parking lot will reduce on E® street parking, appears to be connected to the City's own reallocation of it's offices to the rear of Mr. Smith's property and the development of the Edmonds Community Arts Building two lots away from Mr. Smith's property. Mr. Smith is well aware that both the city employee's and the patrons of the Edmonds Arts Building want to utilize the on street parking space in front of his `` D; i0 is i i i OIL- z Lu 0 �!I CITY, OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH * EDMO BARBARA FAHEY Nos, �� 98020 •(206) 77FAX (206) MAYOR, Pommu NITY SERVICES. DEPARTMENT 1-0220 Public Works I orks e Planning • Parks and Recreation• EngineeringI Letter of Transmittal Date: February 25, 1997 TO: Marvin Smith 1264th AVe. N. Edmonds, WA 98620 Subject:.: AP-96-148 Tiransmitt ing . Find, ngs of Fact and Cdn clusibris of Law For Your Information: XX As YOU requested: For Your file: Comment, Note attachments: Sincerely, cc: Sally M. Hyde Diane Cunningham, Administra tive. Secretary lncorpo roted August 11' 1850 Sister Cities International kekiinan, J60 an, MEN' 101 F� 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: AP 96-148 THIS MATTER came on before the Edmonds City Council for a closed record appeal hearing on February 4, 1997. The Appellant is Marvin Smith, an Applicant for Architectural Design Review of his proposal to install two parking stalls on the west side of a building owned by the Applicant at 126 Fourth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Mr. Smith's application was denied by the Architectural Design Board on the stated basis that: r. Deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons, that the guidelines discourage parking in front of the buildings and that this is a noncompliance, that there are pedestrian hazards caused because of the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay ... In its review, the City Council is limited by the State Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70E RCW as codified in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds under Ordinance No. 3112 to consider this matter solely on the record developed by the Architectural Design Board and on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision of the Board. The closed record appeal before the City Council on February 4, 1997 was limited to appellate style argument. I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1.1 The Architectural Design Board announced its decision but did not enter Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. "—'0 w} Q F:3U. T d �w Z F- Z w su �c LU cia ~h W C O F Z 1.2.1 The design guidelines referred to in the announced decision are no longer part of the Edmonds Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan; 1.2.2 Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on -street parking; 1.2.3 Community Services Department did not have the authority to determine what constitutes a private benefit to Mr. Smith on his property; and 1.2.4 The plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. 1.3 At the hearing, Ms. Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law and representative of Mr. Smith, argued that the design manual was flawed in that the Comprehensive Plan elements upon which the Board relied, chiefly Chapter 15.15 ECDC had been repealed by Ordinance 3030 on June 30, 1995. 1.4 The Architectural Design Board's design manual was adopted by a separate ordinance in order to provide explication to the Board's criteria in response to the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals in Anderson v. Issaquah. The adoption of the manual remains in full force and effect but a large portion of the explicated material relates to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that were repealed by Ordinance 3030. 1.5 In order for an application to be approved by the Architectural Design Board the Applicant must establish by a preponderance of substantial and competent evidence, that the application is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Edmonds 4 ,..........«...�:........:t.iavi...n......uA......._..4..fSVYCi1 1.6 The staff alleges that the application does not meet the landscape buffer requirements set forth in ECDC 20.12.025 and therefore fails to meet the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC Chapter 20.12) and ECDC Chapter 20.10. 1.7 The Applicant's attorney responds that the provisions of the landscape buffering provisions are ambiguous and that her client has complied with them. U. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The design criteria relating to and based upon Chapter 15.15 are at best ambiguous due to the repeal of the underlying criteria. The City Council concludes that ambiguities, in the Code must be resolved in favor of the common law property rights of the Applicant and that the criteria of former Chapter 15.15 should not be applied. 2.2 The Architectural Design Board failed to enter written findings and conclusions. In particular, no finding has been made regarding the compliance of the application with ECDC 20.12.025. The City Council concludes that in order to appropriately apply the criteria of the Code, it should rely upon the expertise of the Board given its original jurisdiction over this application and therefore determines it appropriate to remand this matter for the entry of written Findings of Fact and Conclusions to the Architectural Design Board. The Board is directed to enter written findings regarding the required findings of ECDC 20.10.060. 2.3 The Regulatory Reform Act as codified by Ordinance 3112 limits all applications to one open record and one closed record hearing. The City Council's remand is for the sole purpose of entering written findings and conclusions based upon the original record created before the Commission. No additional testimony shall be taken nor additional argument received. -3- x r : Yrr;Y`, {4 }7f jql �Q w� U. w x z h- ;- b z w W_ C v u, aH hF C Uu o} z V M. DECISION Q The appeal of the Applicant is upheld. This matter is remanded to the Architectural Design Board for the entry of written findings. The Applicant and the staff may submit proposed written Findings of Fact one week in advance of the continued deliberation and entry of the decision of the Architectural Design Board. The City attorney or his designee is directed to assist the Board in its deliberation by reviewing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and, if appropriate, submitting alternative Findings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall confine its deliberation to the written record previously developed before it and to these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and no additional argument permitted by any party. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Attorney's provision of legal advice. The Architectural Design Board shall not consider for any purpose the criteria of Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown area. In accordance with the provisions of RCW 36.70B.090, the City Council is required to notify the Applicant of why a final decision was not rendered within statutory guidelines. The City Council notes that in this case, the Applicant requested that the hearing be delayed for the Applicant's personal convenience. That delay coupled with the need to remand this matter for written Findings and Conclusions from the Board whose experience and expertise in the application of code criteria dictate that the statutory guidelines be excluded. The Architectural k I 9 z z LU 0 a uj LL ci u 8 z L*l Ciairm for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DONALD H. Damages HANSEN ($100,000), DENNIS G. OLSON ($2,101.53), CARL PEARSON (Amount to be Determined), TERRY L. OLSON (Amount to be Determined), DOLORES S. DEAN, (Amount to be Determined), LIBBY D. BRADY-GRANGE ($345.83), JAMES KURT 4 �{ HENNIG ($10,000), DAWN LUCILLE GRAHAM (Amount to be Determined), AND w; ALICE ANDAHL ($90,000) cc2 w (E) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE Q; ETracllor— TO PURCHASE AN ALL FLEX MOWER ATTACHMENT FOR THE FORD TRACTOR U W. MOWER($8,824) W x J H Relocate (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH CONCEPTION OI ut Telecomrnu- COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO RELOCATE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM nications system TO THE RENOVATED CITY HALL BUILDING �J! T a1, (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH EVERGREEN Telecom u• UTILITY CONTRACTORS, INC. TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY TELE- X _ ` nication COMMUNICATION CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE RENOVATED CITY HALL Z H Connections BUILDING AND EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING f— O Z W W: Ord. #3130 /y,� l lu ORDINANCE NO. 3130 AMENDING PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY 0' xuisances DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.110.030(B) NUISANCES TO CLARIFY THE D APPLICATION OF THE NUISANCE PROHIBITION TO REFRIGERATORS AND o r` FREEZERS IN RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND VACANT LOTS = tv Findings t''" of {n APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM THE CITY FacUF I. xo. COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1997, REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE —Z AP-96.148 DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY THE v (A APPLICATION FILED UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96-131 TO CONSTRUCT TWO r ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 0 4TH AVENUE NORTH. (Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith 1 File Nor, 96-248) 2 Carol Hahn, 1031 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, pointed out wheelchair accessibility to the Library DriftwPlaza. Room requires more than 12 inches behind the chairs in the back row. In addition, she urged the `y°0ti Council to attend the play at the Driftwood Players, "Lettice and Lovage", as it would be a wonderful, fun evening and also give Councilmembers an idea of old and new buildings. She urged the Council to ' keep the former Christian Science Church in mind when discussing old buildings. Mad slide Bruce Andahl on behalf of his mother, Alice Andahl, 15605 75th Place W, Edmonds, stated that 0 AR° following the mud slide seven weeks ago, the City Engineer told the land owners above his mother's property to cover the hillside as soon as possible and to contact a geotechnical engineer. The City of Edmonds has not yet covered their portion (approximately 70% of the hillside) although other land owners have complied. He questioned the reason for the delay and asked when they can expect this to be resolved. Train Safety Mei Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, continued his comments from the February 4 Council meeting regarding danger on the rails. He asked Councilmembers to imagine they were engineers on a train traveling 50 miles per hour along the Edmonds waterfront, rounding a curve which has no visibility, and encountering a landslide. He described the possible effects of the subsequent derailment of cars containing propane gas. He urged the Council to appeal the faster train speed through Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18,1997 Page 2 All EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Z FEBRUARY 18,1997 Zr.' v�' The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the :n Q; W Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. W =, a r'' en ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT OUj g Barbara Fahey, Mayor Robin Hickok, Police Chief 02 Dave Earling, Council President Paul Mar, Community Services Director John Nordquist, Councilmember (arrived 7:29 p.m.) Art Housler, Administrative Services Director w!`, Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Jim White, Councilmember Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator �- O' Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Debbie Dawson, Parking Enforcement z F"; W w: Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager a's v m ALSO PRESENT Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Robbie Cuningham, Student Representative Jeannie Dines, Recorder ~ H! 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA O, Revision to Agenda m� COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ~ HAAKENSON, TO MOVE ITEM #8 TO ITEM #5A ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. zZ' (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) ' 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ' MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) The agenda items passed are 0 i as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4,1997 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15154 THRU #15499 FOR THE WEEK OF ® Approve FEBRUARY 3, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $174,043.02; APPROVAL OF CLAIM ClaiWarrants & WARRANTS 915156 THRU #15650 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 10, 1997, IN THE Payroll AMOUNT OF $321,433.98; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #14739 THRU warrants #14948 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 16 THRU JANUARY 31, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $431,976.40. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 18,1997 Page i w U. CC J r U� C) S W; i— X ; z r` z � w uw! S Di 5 m, U cn i o F = v' r �+ U- p! — 211 W U)l H 0 z Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM TEE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4,1997, REGARDING AN APPEAL OF TEE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96-131 TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PA.RMG SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 4TE AVENUE NORTH. (Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith / File No. AP-96-148). Clearances: Department/initials Agenda Time: Consent Admin Svcs/Finance— Community Svcs,l City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: February 18,1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planning Exhibits'Attached: _ Personnel Public Works 1. Findings and Conclusions Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council Mayor, _ - Reviewed by Council Finance Committee: Community Services Pubiiesafety Approved for Consent Agenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: NIA Previous Council Action: City Council held a public hearing on the appeal during its February 4th meeting. The Council voted to uphold the appeal and remand the case back to the ADB to determine whether there has been compliance with the provisions of the Community Development Code. ® Narrative: The City Attorney has prepared the findings and conclusions required to implement the Council's February 4th decision; these are contained in Exhibit 1. Appeallatstltipplknt: Marvin Smith M No.: A'1=9&148 THIS MAVER came on before the Edmonds City Council for a closed record appeal hearing on February 4, 1997. The Appellant is Marvin Smith, an Applicant for Architectural Design review of his proposal to install two parking stalls on the west side of a building owned by the Applicant at 126 Fourth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Mr. Smith's application was denied by the Architectural Design Board on the stated basis that: Deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reams, that the guidelines discourage parking in front of the buildings and float this is a noncompliance, that there are pedestrian -hazards causal . because of the irtomsed vehiciilar and pedestrian interplay ... In its review, d a City Council is limited by the State Regulatory Deform Act, Chapter 36.70E RCW as codified in the ordinances of the City of Edmonds under Ordinance No. 3112 to consider this matter solely on the record developed by the Architectural Design Board and on the Findings of F wt, Conclusions and Decision of the Board. Ibe closed record appeal before the City Council on February 4, 1997 was limited to appellate style argument. L FINUMM UN yACT 1.1 The Architectural Design Board announced its decision but did not enter Findings of Pact and Conclusions of law. 1.2 The Applicant filed a timely appeal from the staff determination alleging diet: 02/13/97 THU 15:23 FAX 206 4470215 oxw sEATnz 1.2.1 The deasip guidelines ro?=vul to In the announced decision are no longer part of the Mmonds Community Development Cale or Comprehensive Plan; 1.2.2 Mr. Smith is not required to provide public oa-street parking; 1.2.3 Community Services Department did not have the authority to determine what constitutes a private benefit to Mr. Smith on his property; and 1,2.4 The plan doss not reduce pedestrian facilities nor does it create A pedestrian 1.3 At the hearing. Ibis. Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law and representative of Mr. Smith, argued that the design maanusd was flawed in that the Comprehensive Alan elements upon which 3 the Board relied, chiefly Chapter 15.15 ECDC had been repealed by Ordinanw 3030 on June 1.4 The Architectural )Design Board's design manual was adopted by a separate orliata M in order to provide explication to the Board's criteria in response to the decision of the Washinston Court of Appeals in And, m. ersun v ismaug. The adoption of the manual remains in full famine and effeet but a large portion of the explicaWd mate" relates to provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that were healed by Ordinance 3030. 1.5 3n carder for an application to be appmved by the; Architeeftmd Design Board the Applicant must establish by a preponderance of substantial and competent evidence; that the application is consistent with the provisions of the Compreiteadve Plan, the Edmonds Community Dovelopment Codc and the criteria of Chapter 20.10 of the Edmonds Casnmunity Development Code. See ECCDC 20.10.060 Finding . ' 2- 7 s{ �icR 13.,24 1.6 The staff alleges that the application does not meet the landscape buffor requirements set forth in ECDC 20.12.025 and therefore thils to meet the criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Coda (ECDC Chapter 20.12) and ECDC; Chapter 20.10. 1.7 The Apgllcsutt's attorney r Vonda that they provisions of the landscape buffeting paoe isions are ambiguous and that her client has complied with these. IL CONCLUSIONS QYLLAW -o 2.1 The design criteria relating to and based' upon Chapter 15.15 are at best ambiguous e due to the repeat of the underlying criteria. The City Council concludes that aamb%dties in the s WI M; Code must be resolved in favor of the common law property rights of the Applicant and that the a 0; z criteria of former Chapter, 15.15 Should not be applied. U U)i 2.2 The Architectural Design Board failed to cuter written findings and conclusions. st In particular, no Balding ices been mado regarding the compliance of the application with RMC c� U. z 20.12.025. The City Council concludes that in order to appropriately apply the criteria of the N� Code it should rely u the se of the Board given its ail jurisdiction over this : Y laota expertise gi original ru—, 0 Application and therefore determines it appropriate to remand this matter for the entry of written Findings of Fact and Conclusions to•the Architectural Design Board. The Hoard is directed to enter written findings rewording the requited findings of ECDC 20.10.060. j 2.3 .Ilm Regulatory Reform Act as codified by Ordlnan= 3112 limits all applications to one apen record and one closed record hearing. The City Council's remand is for the sole 0 purpose of entering wriacn findings and conclusions based upon the original record created before the Commission. No additional testimony shall be Wwn nor additional atgament received. 3- ti �Vn _. i_._._._:___ _`_,.�..i..r_�_,. .. ... ., ., ...ih..<.:.s„.x. H,. . t,�,b. F.�._.,� ,.. ,5„t x..Lz .,t���.. ���7Si� ,.�;U<r:4"A► xJ�Yna.e��. .. J 1 l 4 i 1 02/13/87 TEU 18.24 FAZ 206 447 0215 OKW 9EATME The appeal of the Applicant is upheld. This matter is remaatdect to the Architectural !; Design board for the entry of written findings. The Applicant and the staff may submit Lu [ proposed WAtt+en Findings of Fact one week in advance of the continued deliberation and entry v; 'o W 1 of the AwIdtoctural DestP Board. The City attornay or ilia dcsignees is directed to assist the a �+ Findin of Fact and 1 ors if o ,� Board in its delibetation by rtwiewing proposedgfLp _0 apprrciprlate, submitting alwWfive Pindings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall csmfift its G0 deliberation to the written record previously developed before it and to these Findings of Fact z Uj r and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and no additional Oi L =! argument permitted by any party. Nothing hcrcirt shall preclude the City Attorneys provision a cUn' of legal advice. Tate Architectural Design Board -shall not consider for any purpose the, criteria s Wit' of Chaptcr 15. is not the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown ama, U- in accordance with ttte provisions of RCW 36.7aD.090, the City council is requixW to I EU—,_ notify the Applicant of why a Baal decision was. not rendered within statutory guidelines. The 0 2 City Council cotes that in this case, the Applicant requested that the hearing be delayed forto Applicant's personal convenience. That delay coupled with the. creed to remand this matter for written Findings and Conclusions from the Board whose experience and expertise in the application of code criteria dictate that the statutory guidelines be excluded. The Arrititecbttrat Design Board is requested to rneet as a *edidously as possible if' order to consider this matter and to return its decision to the City Council in a timely manner. In the event brat - 7,} A r �Y �, \tt� - C hl } jy`�t� s �,L'��•T x1 �d ,yj+F.l �,. t7n aV n .--tkii}t 1� 4y� q iq.`' y'.h•S �{1.7J i iJ tu.-y ��F;.n d.���� �o'G-4 St" 1 t�i . „Gift r,C•-M �fia 4 � t..f-"`"3"��� j .uY,�,�,w "`i', ,v Gt <`i4 bt`Si{.tj ftitit t f �5 'Eyf'5."t �y d� dry )} t147 7 - M 17 i! i i _,�.,�....,...,.snaz..ms+.ww....,.�f»4"...i.;.....�.._ G �`..�i ;2l13l8T .Tau is.20 PAZ 240 44T Oalo OXW M2TLE o00 rircumwanm prohibit the Board from kmft this matter and retm a decislon wifldn 30 days, a wrlitten report is rquested. z DATED this day of . 1997. LU� �2 CITY OF EDMO aDs d0 LU J X1 N O - - Barbara S. lFa*, Mayor �.i a AT=T/A'xTIMNVCATW-. M'u z I--LU � c Sa dt'a S. C:ba* City Clark . o ty- wsazs�m.�xi0006.fsumt �. of Z LLI �� o~ z t 0 1 Mayor Fahey opened the audience participation portion of the hearing. Brian Comstock, 1107 Daley Place, Edmonds (business at 5th and Main), agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's observation that the pilot program appeared to significantly open up parking spaces. He supported keeping the employee parking permit fee at a reasonable level and urged the Council to make this a permanent program. Mayor Fahey advised the fee is established based on the cost to process the permits. She closed the audience participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER. MYERS, To ENACT THE No RE -PARKING IN THE SAME 100 BLOCK ORDINANCE ON A PERMANENT BASIS AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE. Council President Earling acknowledged the good intentions of this program and its efforts to solve parking problems. However, he was dissatisfied with micro -managing the system and urged the Parking Committee to address the larger problem of solving long-term downtown parking needs. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. Appeal- 6. APPEAL OF THE HEARING. EXANWR' DECISION Height DENY THE REQUST FOR A HEIGHT CE OF Variance ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW JDCE VITH AP-96-144 MI -OF 37-FEE3: A 91W 91" A "W THE STTRTFCT%QEERTY-5 LOC&TED AT CV. WOZT AWn T- (AppellanUARIflisant: Dr. Al Ansari and Dr. Batoul Modarr ss / File No. AP-9fi:144) Mayor Fahey advised this appeal was withdrawn. It remained on the agenda because notices were published and mailed. Mayor Fahey declared a five minute recess. Appeal - 7. APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARACHIIE TWO APPLICATION FILED UNDER FIT. , NO, A 3ONSTRUCT TWO AT)TBT�jONA Additional PARIM—G SJ!ACES IN NJ OF THE BUILDING LOCA Parking AT 126 4M AVENLE NORTH, Spaces (Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith /File No. AP-96-148) AP-96-148 Councilmember Nordquist disclosed that his company is presently doing business with Mr. Smith's firm.' City Attorney Snyder explained this is the Council's first closed record appeal —an administrative process in which the Council is limited to the record created by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He pointed out there is no provision"for public comment and the transcript does not indicate any members of the public appeared to testify to the ADB; therefore, did not reserve an appeal right. He recommended the Council disregard any previous discussions regarding downtown parking. He noted ECDC Chapter 15 was repealed and his review of the Transportation Element did not provide sufficient detail (Anderson vs. Issaquah Court of Appeals ruling) to consider the effect on downtown parking as part of this appeal. Remaining issues include whether the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the ADB chapter that are referenced in the Design Guidelines. He reiterated any questions must be related to the record created by the ADB and cannot elicit new information not contained in the record. The Council may make a decision on the appeal or remand the matter back to the ADB. Mr. Smith is vested in the ordinances as they existed when he applied and his application must Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Februaty4,1997 Page 7 0 be considered based on those ordinances. He pointed out the ADB may need additional training on establishing a record and more detailed findings. Mr. Snyder pointed out Ms. Hyde's appeal letter indicates the City, as a property owner of interest, may Z be in violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He explained RCW 42-36.090 provides that if a _ challenge to the quasi judicial body would destroy its quorum, the members may continue to participate LU! oc g and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge would be without weight. � Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the staff report could be considered as information contained in the cn a' LL'`i record. Mr. Snyder advised the staff report could be considered as long as it did not contain any new LU information. J f- Ca LL p Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers had any disclosures to make. There were no other g disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if there were any challenges to Councilmember Nordquist's R J participation. u- Sally Hyde, Attorney fo'r Marvin Smith, indicated she challenged the entire Council as the property is l' - s' adjacent to her client's property and City employees use the on -street parking. She did not wish to waive 0 any of those objections on an issue of appeal if this matter were to proceed to Superior Court. z r Mayor Fahey stated there were no objections to Councilmember Nordquist's participation. o N', Associate Planner John Bissell, ADB Liaison, said on December 4, 1996, the ADB held a hearing on r o Marvin Smith's application to add two parking stalls to his site on 4th Avenue North. The ADB considered the evidence and concluded the application was not in compliance with the standards of the f Design Guidelines and requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and denied the application. z di cn' Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the agenda memo was a summary of information contained in the r record. Mr. Bissell answered, to the best of his knowledge, it was. 0 Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith, 152 Third Avenue South, objected to any consideration of the narrative on the agenda memo recently issued by the Planning Department as it did not accurately reflect the ADB's decision at the hearing. She pointed out if the Council relied on the narrative, they would be relying on the City's version of what the evidence shows. The narrative also states the ADB denied the application based on its failure to comply with the Architectural Guidelines and landscaping. She read the basis of the denial from the transcript, "I would like to make a motion, I would like to move that we deny 96-131 as submitted for the following reasons: that the .guidelines discourage parking in } front of the building so that this is a noncompliance; that there is a pedestrian hazard caused because of ". the increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay, and that's about it." She stressed there was no denial 0 based on the landscape buffer.. ' Ms. Hyde pointed out the initial staff report referenced Design Guidelines, Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance (requires small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities) which has been repealed. Therefore, it was not a proper basis for consideration by. the ADB. The staff report also referenced Section 20.10.070(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code which is not the same section referenced in the new agenda memo —Section 20.12.025 of the ECDC. Therefore, staff' is urging the Council to deny the appeal on a different basis than was proposed to the ADB. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 8 o Ms. Hyde stressed a closed record appeal is limited to the information and arguments provided to the ADB at the time of the hearing and argument is limited to issues on appeal. The only issue on appeal is whether the basis of the denial was sufficient on Mr. Smith's application. For the ADB to deny the application, they must state the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other Z adopted City policies and refer to the specific sections of the Plan or adopted City policies with which it zis not consistent. This allows the applicant to correct any inconsistencies. Similarly, if a proposal does ¢ _ not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the ADB is required to identify which specific ordinance and its requirement the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to identify which criteria or to o purpose of chapter 20.10.070 the proposal failed to meet. LU`',. Ms. Hyde requested the Council approve Mr. Smith's application as he has met all requirements. She ua u. assumed the ADB's reference was to Section 15.25 and 15.30 which were repealed two years after L, O adoption. If the Council wished to deny the application, they must state why the ADB was correct or F— grant Mr. Smith's application. . (n Mr. Snyder pointed out the staff report to the ADB (dated November 15, 1996) did refer to ECDC x w' Section 20.12. Ms. Hyde agreed but pointed out the ADB did not deny the application on that basis. She Z3: noted the requirement to surround all parking areas with landscaping raises the question of how vehicles o and pedestrians access parking and she urged the Council not to deny the application on that basis. She w W► pointed out consideration is limited on appeal to the basis of the denial —pedestrian hazard. c) in" Mr. Snyder referred to the City's ordinance on closed record appeal (21.05.040) which allows the ® p Council to affirm, modify, or reverse the action or remand for further consideration. He pointed out the w applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion in a permit process' and the City ordinance requires the application to comply with criteria in the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan. He said it appeared the `—` Zi ADB's decision did not consider other criteria because they found it did not meet the Design Guidelines.- W ur He concurred this was not a proper basis for a decision and asked Ms. Hyde her position regarding a remand to the ADB to have these issues addressed. Ms Hyde responded the only appropriate issue for z remand would be the issue on appeal. Mr. Snyder clarified that Ms. Hyde did not agree under Regulatory Reform, an internal administrative or quasi judicial review body had the ability to remand and correct an obvious error in the decision -making process. Ms. Hyde said she was not familiar enough with the Code to comment; she reiterated the i remand is limited to only the issue on appeal. -- Mr. Snyder advised Ms. Hyde had three minutes remaining for rebuttal. } Mr. Bissell said the staff report to the ADB was entered into the record at the hearing. He pointed' out Sections 20.12.025 and 20.12 were cited in that staff report. ECDC Section 20.12.000 states the 0 landscape requirements in the chapter are intended to be used by City staff, the ADB and the Hearing Examiner review projects as set forth in ECDC 20.10.010 giving the ADB the authority to consider this section. It also states the ADB shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained therein. The only way the requirements of the landscape ordinance can be deviated from is if the ADB makes such a motion. ECDC Section 20.12.025 states a minimum 5-foot planting strip is required around the perimeter of all parking lots; a drive aisle is not the parking lot which addresses Ms. Hyde's concern with access. He summarized the sections of ECDC were cited; the only way the applicant could avoid the 5-foot perimeter landscaping surrounding the parking area would be if the ADB stated a waiver or reduction of that requirement which was not done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page 9 c �AT Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council was limited to only the transcript. Mr. Snyder advised the Council was permitted to consider the transcript and all exhibits, including the November 15, 1996 staff report. The staff report dated 2/4/97 contained in the agenda memo should be considered as an argument from the record, not as evidence. Mr. Snyder said City ordinances state that to grant a permit, sets of findings must be made. The record indicates all findings were not made in the ADB's motion. Although he understood Ms. Hyde was requesting the Council apply a limited appeals jurisdictional scope and consider only those issues on appeal, he questioned whether the Council was limited to those findings when an incomplete decision was rendered and the applicant has the burden of proof and persuasion. This could result in the granting of a City permit when the criteria of the code was not met. U. Ms. Hyde reiterated the issue before the Council is whether there was sufficient basis to deny the permit g and, as there wasn't, Mr. Smith's permit should be granted. UMayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. zd. .. Responding to Councilmember White's Mr. Snyder stated this is an internal z questions, appeal and the Council has the obligation to find that all code criteria has been met. In this case, there were no findings z on two of the required findings for issuing a permit. He advised the required findings are contained in 2 � ; Chapter 20.10.060—findings must conclude the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a; other adopted policy, . that the zoning ordinance requirement has been met or that a variance or 0 � , modification has been approved, and that it satisfies the criteria of the Chapter. He agreed the s Comprehensive Plan does not provide sufficient detail (under Anderson vs. Issaquah) to be applied. U} L i= Councilmember Haakenson questioned whether the ADB's denial was based on incorrect information. He preferred the decision be remanded to the ADB with the proper staff guidance that the Design v = Guidelines are not to be considered. 1° Z Councilmember Van Hollebeke agreed with Councilmember Haakenson's comments. He asked if a remand to the ADB was appropriate on this basis. Mr. Snyder answered the City's ordinance reserves the right to remand if findings required by ordinance were not made by a lower body. He agreed the Council was limited in appeal to the issues raised but retained the right to remand. This would benefit the applicant as the issue can be addressed; however, a denial would end their vesting. J COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKEi TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, OVERTURN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN > BOARD'S DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE •FINDINGS MADE, AND REMAND IT BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED. ., t Mr. Snyder advised Findings would be prepared for the next regular Council meeting and would include direction to the ADB that a decision must be returned within a specified period of time as required by Regulatory Reform. Mr. Snyder pointed out this appeal raises some difficult issues as there appear to be gaps in the City's Code —design criteria that need to be supplemented and curb cut provisions in the downtown area do not reserve the authority provided by State law. He distributed and requested the Community Service Committee consider interim zoning regulations and curb cut provisions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 1997 _ Pap 10 r Motion to COUNCILMI' MBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI$ Reconsider FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION REGARDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON : n Parking ADMIRAL WAY. Restrictions i on Admiral t` way Councilmember Myers supported Councilmember Haakenson's intent but noted reconsideration' would 1 delay the effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder advised the Council's motion directed him to draft Luan ordinance which would be considered by the Council in two weeks. If the motion to reconsider CC passed, he would bring back separate ordinances enacting the first three areas in the motion and another v, ordinance which can be considered at the hearing. V o� 1 wCouncil President Earling recommended the hearing be rescheduled for February 18. Mr. Snyder _J i' advised formal publication is not required. — 0 L MOTION CARRIED. U. Q Noting tonight is Councilmember Petrazzi's last meeting serving as a Councilmember, Councilmember D) C . Haakenson thanked Councilmember Petruzzi ''for his service to. the Council and the assistance he has X w n�ank Ynn provided over thellast year', and wished him luck. Z h to Cotmcit M O Councilmember Myers complimented Council President Earlin for his involvement with Community z 01 reWui Y p b ty t,t w Transit and announced Council President Earling was recently elected secretary of the CT Board. He of also thanked Councilmember Petruzzi for being an excellent mentor. { F. Councilmember Nordquist wished Councilmember Petruzzi luck. Further, he recalled Council President w u, Earling's earlier comments regarding parking in downtown and asked if consideration had been given to ---� F mng far providing parking for ferry employees this summer. Community Services Director Paul Mar advised the U.— o, Employees lot for ferry employees was closed last fall; a proposed agreement between Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City of Edmonds for the lot has been reviewed by the City Attorney. F' The agreement requires the City to pay a lease to WSDOT; therefore, negotiations are continuing to Q eliminate or minimize the lease. z Councilmember White commented it has been a pleasure working with Councilmember Petruzzi. Mayor Fahey said she, too, will miss Councilmember Petruzzi. f Councilmember Petruzzi thanked staff for the great job they do for the community, acknowledging the City has the smallest staff per citizen in the surrounding area. He thanked Recorder Jeannie Dines, City, Clerk Sandy Chase and City Attorney Scott, Snyder -•for their assistance. He noted he has particularly enjoyed the last 13 months on the Council and thanked Councilmembers for being a part of his life on the Council. Q r Student Representative Robbie Cuningham echoed the Council's comments regarding Councilmember Petruzzi, congratulated him, and wished him luck in the future. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. [0 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Febmmy4,1997 Pap 127,7 k Ate q4;� ?W� 5wr�t� �K�'kts r\ /Ia .x a°sif' ; „Q 3 t�•4 n!s .i, .E o... t , . - , �,'• , . , ,.:: .:,.. ,.-:'! z0'i l Ni t,*' t !rr� f" Councilmember Haakenson expressed concern with the ADD transcript. Mr. Snyder agreed the ADB should be provided further training regarding establishment of a record. cc ``'` ccMayor �! FEMA Fahey reported there is relief assistance through FEMA for individuals who are on a limited Assistance income and unable to make repairs to their structures, including short term funds to make repairs to 4 allow occupancy. In addition, there are small business loans available at reduced interest rates for small C w; business to repair damage and allow them to reopen their businesses. She stressed applicants cannot J qualify if they do not apply and the claim forms must be returned before a claim can be processed. She o encouraged any individuals or small businesses who believe they may have a claim, to contact City Ww offices for further information. LL (n 9. �OUNCII Councilmember $arling advised it was his intent to complete the retreat agenda by Thursday. He Z ~I O council described the timeline for selecting Councilmember Petruzzi's replacement --deadline for receipt of H Z �-; vacancy applications is the close of business on February 6 (mail postmarked February 6, 1997 will also be iu ` � ai Time Line accepted), applications will be included in the Council packet on February 7, interviews will be held on v at February 17, and a decision made at the Council meeting on February 18 so the appointed p —, Councilmember may attend the Council retreat. To date, 15 applications have been picked up. o LU X c�, Council President Earling thanked Councilmember Petruzzi for his dedication to the City and said it has LL_ �; been an on -going honor to work with him. He noted although they did not always agree on issues, ZI LU Councilmember Petruzzi was always willing to debate an issue and was well reasoned in the decision- t� Ly1 tc Councilmaking process. .. OF Z Member Councilmember Van Hollebeke echoed Council President Earling's comments regarding Councilmember Petruzzi. He pointed out Councilmember Petruzzi was always well prepared for all Council meetings and thanked him for the lessons he's taught and said he will be greatly missed. RECONSID OF PROPOSED CHANGES ERATION TO 3 HOim PA_1RK3NG Councilmember Haakenson recalled the earlier decision separated three of the 3-hour parking issues } from the fourth issue. 'He noted his understanding was the existing 3-hour parking zones were in effect :�. 24 hours a day, 7 days a Gweek but learned the are only m effect Monday throe Friday. Engineering Y� Y Y Y� Y � Y bn g Coordinator Gordy Hyde confirmed the 3-hour parlang restriction is only in effect Monday through e i Friday. • Councilmember Haakenson pointed out the Port's main concern was on -street parking being used by commuters and it may be a disservice to the Port if weekends are not included in the 3-hour parking restriction. Therefore, he requested reconsideration of that portion of the ordinance by the Council at a later date. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised any member who voted on the prevailing side may make a motion for reconsideration. If the motion is approved, a hearing on the reconsideration would be set for a later date and the public notified. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4,1997 Page I I Item #� EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL . Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: Subject: APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96-131 TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH. (APPELLANT/APPLICANT: MARVIN SMITH J FILE NO. AP-96-148) Clearances: Department/Initials Agenda Time: 40 min Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: February 4,1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planning Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works 1. Vicinity Map Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council 2. ADB Hearing Transcript Mayor 3. ADB Staff Report, including plans Reviewed by Council Finance submitted by the applicant Committee: Community Services - 4 Exhibit submitted by the applicant at the Public Safety ADB hearing. Approved for Consent Agenda: 5. Letter of Appeal Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Required: $ 0 Funding Source: N/A Narrative: On December 4 1996, the Architectural Design Board held a hearing to consider an application by Marvin Smith to add two parking stalls on the west side of the existing building with access from 4th Avenue North. The existing parking lot which serves the site is located east of the building and is accessed via the alley. The facts of the case presented at the ADB hearing are as follows: a) The subject lot is 60 feet wide, 120 feet deep and is nearly flat. b) The subject lot contains a mixed use building with one dwelling unit and one 1,600 square foot office. The dwelling unit requires two parking stalls. The office use requires 4 parking stalls, for a total of six parking stalls required. c) The site currently provides 14 parking stalls accessing off the alley. d) The west side of the lot has frontage along 4th Avenue North. The east side of the lot has frontage along a public alley. t r 0, ®-' ,t l0 io e) The addition of the two new parking stalls on the subject site will invoke the requirements of the State Barrier Free Code, requiring one barrier free parking stall. Since there is not sufficient space between the existing building and 4th Avenue North, the required barrier free parking stall would need to be placed at the rear of the building. This would eliminate one of the existing parking stalls. Thus the proposal by the applicant would only result in the creation of one new parking stall. f) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has sidewalks in a pedestrian area. g) In the vicinity of the subject lot 4th Avenue North has on -street parking on both sides of the street. h) The proposal would require the approval of a new curb cut entering 4th Avenue North. The new curb cut would eliminate at least two on street parking stalls. i) The existing site development provides pedestrian access directly off 4th Avenue North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. Therefore, this proposed design would remove all separate pedestrian access to the building. j) Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance encourages small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The proposal would add parking to the front of a building contrary to the adopted design guidelines; and would also result in a pedestrian hazard, also contrary to the adopted design guidelines. k) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith alleged that the design guide was not adopted into code, and therefore could not be enforced. 1) The City Design Guide was adopted under Ordinance 2959. m) At the ADB hearing, Sally Hyde, Attorney for Marvin Smith alleged that the only enforceable section pertaining to this application is the Landscape Ordinance, and that the application could be made to comply by allowing a five foot landscape buffer between 4th Avenue North and the proposed Parking. n) Section 20.12.025 of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires a five foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of all parking areas. The plans submitted by the applicant propose a four foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking stalls and the street, a 3 foot buffer between the parking stalls and the building and no buffer between the parking stalls and the adjacent properties. o) On December 4, 1996, the ADB voted to deny the application of Marvin Smith to install two new parking stalls because the application is discouraged in the design guidelines. p) The ADB did not grant a waiver from the requirement to provide a five foot landscape buffer surrounding the parking lot. Summary The applicant is proposing a net gain of one new parking stall which does not comply with the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC Section 20.12.025). The specific landscape regulation applicable to the proposal requires a five foot landscape area to surround the parking area, not just front on one side of the parking area. The applicant is proposing a new parking area which does not comply with the Design Guide which was adopted by ordinance. The applicant is proposing a net gain of one parking stall in a parking lot which currently provides more than twice the required parking, and which will cause a loss of at least two public parking stalls. Recommended Action: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Architectural Design Board. Council Action: D221:# 2/19 MURING UMSCRIPT ADB-96-131 - Marvin Smith New Pssking Asaa L'ax eta Existing office [TAPE 1, 91DE Al Will you please come to the front desk and state your name and address for the record. Sally Hyde: Yee. MY name is Sa11y Hyde and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith has a hearing Problem, sa he's asked that I represent him. Steve Sullivan: Okay, I'd like to go on record that love worked with Sally Hyde, the it nobody in the audience objects, i will continue to sit on this issue. I'm not familiar with it any way whatsoever and have had no discussions on it. Okay? Jeff Oklief: Actually, I have to second that. I also know Marvin, Smith, so if there is anyone that hag any objections'with me staying on the board for this discussion -- Jim Young: Since we're all bearing our aoulg here, Fb. Hyde and. I happen to be in Rotary together, so, you know-- Alan, it's yours. ?(Man) I'm innocent. ?(man) You're clean? Young: Steven and Jeff and I are going to go out for a Freer- - oklief: 80, are there any objections? None? Okay. (multiple voices) Did you get the address and everything down? 7{womanj It's 152 Third. Avenue South, Ste. 101, Edmonds. I have a -- Jahn Bissell He'ss.probably going to ask me for a staff report Oklief: Right. Dissell:. If you want to have a seat and then I'll make my presentation and you get to do yours. Oklief: All right. Okay. Thanks, John. John, do you have a staff report? weaie2ua.:�urooms„ssmoom. -1. Exhibit 2 M Bissell: WSSISMUMMMMUK Okay, this is staff report for ADD 96-112, which is a proposed addition of two parking stall to an existing office development at 1126 Fourth Avenue North. The existing development ia, has approximately 14 parking stall with about a 1,600 square foot office building and the applicant's proposing to add two additional stalls. The existing parking stalls access to the rear of the property off of the alley and the proposed parking atalls would access from the front of the property off of Fourth Avenue North. After the projects complete, then the applicant would have 16 parking stalls. The parking stalls, the new parking stalls added, would have no vehicle access connection between the proposed new parking stalls and the existing parking stalls so n essence there would be two parking lots on this Property. It appears by looking at the building doing a calculation based on the site plan that the building has approximately 1600 square feet. The office is, the current office use is either a 1 to 800 ratio or a I to 400 ratio, meaning that one parking stall is required for 400 square feet or one parking stall is required for goo square feet. Assuming that it's 1600 square feet with one parking stall required for 400 square fact, then this this use would require no more than four parking' stalls. There's Currently 24 parking stalls onsite so the, and the applicant wants to add two parking stalls. If the property were to change use and require more extensive parking requirements such as a restaurant, this existing building could not require more than eight parking stalls. Again, the applicant's proposing to have is parking stalls on site. 90, it appears the applicant is proposing to have substantially more parking than in required by the Code of the City of 9dmonds. The existing pedestrian access to the site is Primarily off Fourth Avenue North. I mean, one could drive their car into the parking lot obviously off the alley and then enter the rear of the building. But the front of the building faces Fourth Avenue north of the walkway out the front of the building off of Fourth Avenue North to get to tne front of the building. Tride installation of the parking stalls as proposed would eliminate the direct pedestrian access so that any pedestrian accessing the building, whether from the alley or from the street, would . ki have to cross tho n lot in order to get there. The proposed parking lot would allow for a four -foot landscaped buffer between the two ckrc �IK t 0 WSSi52U4-18VKVA9"991BM Parking stalls on the street. The Community Development Code, Section 20-12, requires a five. toot buffer. There have been several Cases, especially in the downtown area, where the Board has allowed a reduction of that required buffer from the required five-foot, but that reduction in all cases has been to allow the required parking. I I'm not aware of a single case where the Board has allowed a reduction of landscape to allow for additional and possibly excessive parking. Uh, the Clty design guidelines encourage parking to be placed at the rear or Lhe building off the alley where the parking currently is located in the proposal. Uh, pedestrian facilities are encouraged and the design guidelines found in the zoning ordinance require a landscape buffer to be provided around the parking stalls. The en sneering comments state that the proposed parking -would create a curb out in the street that would eliminate at least two parking stalls. It's Possible it would eliminate as much as three, but due to a curb cut to the south of this property, it may only eliminate two. So the applicant's Proposed to install two on -site parking stalls at the expense of two on -street parking stalls. Uh, the Building Division hag commented that the application cannot be approved as proposed because according to the Washington State Barrier Pre* Code, otherwise known as the ADA Code, one handicapped accessible parking stall is going to be required with tbia application, and the applicant has not shown any proposed handicapped - accessible parking stalls On Site. So the application cannot be approved by the Building Department as proposed. It would have to be modified to allow that one parking stall. if the application were modified, the only way the ll applicant could do it would be by eliminating a parking stain the rear in order to change two pa rking nq stalls into one ADA handicapped - accessible parking stall. Thus, the applicant would only be gaining one parking stall at the expense of two public parking stalls in the situation where the applicant appears to not need any additional parking stalls. Uh, so in summary, the Proposal appears to be inconsistent with the landscape requirements because insufficient landscaping buffers were provided, The proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines by reducing pedestrian facilities and 0id0 parking in available. e - prdpaNiji: 1"L'I .- WX oklief ; ? (man) Bissell: ? (Mn) : ?(man: Bissell; ?(man); Bissell: ?(man): Bissell: ?(man): ?(man): Sisaall: 0' 0 does not comply with the.ADA requirements. And the proposal would eliminate public parking in an amount at least equal to the amount of private parking provided with no apparent public or private benefit. Therefore, staff believes this proposal is not in compliance with the City of Edmonds, codes or design guidelines and the application should be denied. Any questions for the staff report? Just a paint of clarification. I'm not sure r understand how what the threshold wag that there's an ADA-required stall. Because of these, is it because of these two? That's correct. Because of the. modification of the parking lot. In other words, addition of stalls. So, but the other what fourteen spaces don't have disabled harking.now? That's correct. The site was developed prior to the existing - O.K. All right. — barrier -free standards. And according to the barrier -free standards, when you modify or increase the size or a parking lot, then you mutt comply. O.K., so it isn't the number of stalls. It's the fact that they're altering the the Parking lot. That's right. It is -- Let's say I re -stripe a parking lot and it was not accessible. I would have to then provide accessible parking stalls. d.R. So it's not the number. It's just the fact That's right. And then the number comes, the number comes into it. The number of barrier -free Parking stalls required is based on the total number of parking stalls. on.site. so, there's an addition that triggers the calculation and then the calculation is based an what's on sitc. . ` SENT, BY: _ 1-30-87 LL; 3.32PM ; OGDEN MURPHY , Wa�t.acE 206771aa214 �e/ie ?(man)t O.K. Thank you. Y O.K. Any other questions for staff? i. ?,(man). I Just have one real quick one, John. Uhl i there,s notni.ng in the code other than our dosign guidelines that ea that you cannot park in the p W _` front setback. i OE Biepsll: The only lace where you cannot y P Y park in the front cn setback is in the RM zones. And this is a BC LU a t=-4 sons . (n p to ?(man) O.K. 8o that the parking adjacent to this is — }.41 F- a ? (man) : I'm sorry. U. 9 ?{man): The parking that's adjacent to this bu�:ldin iet 5 x m legal parking? f-j i ? thlan) : Yeah, it's all accessed. It's not accessed z O` through a curb cut -- of ?(man)( As far as setbacks go, it's legal. There are -- UW1 you're talking about the lot to the south. LUJ ,,,(', ? tman) : Yeah. Right. so what I'm trying to — s LL F- ? (man) : Yeah, i woul a imagine the lot to th®. SOuih z probably has turning radius violations, but it's ui U) a Iege.l nonconforming lot. p ?(Mari)= O.K. go in other words — 2 ?(man): 8a the people head in and luck straight out on to the street — ?(man): Right and that's not -- ?(man): v and that would not be, than would not be permitted according to el3ginsezing standards because they have to have a certain amount of ' hack -out room that in not provided on that site. 0 ? (man) : O.K. Oklief: 0.1. Any other questions? I'm assuming no. O.K. Do you have anything to add to the staff report Hyde: Yeah. [inaudible) �® A 7 it ,i ttY+Y'h*ki7, � - WG• .c�r��`�r?i` It 1 t0 oklier: Hyde _ = 1-30 97. ;�3:32PM ;OW Ml7RP1lYLL19A IKE- C R" 2067710221;# 7/19 [inaudiblal the staff report. And I think rather than go in the order that I set my continents in in thia letter, I feel I really better first comment on some of the things that I think are legitimate concerns of the City's. My first point has to do with the recommendations of the staff with remperct to landscaping requirements. uh, I have attached to 9W letter a new plan where in fact it has been drawn to allow for the five-foot buffer, landscape buffer_ Uh, apparently, Mr. McClung who draw this up was under the impression that this five-foot requirement was going to be changed to four feet, so he drew it up thinking that it would comply with the way the Code was going to be changed. Apparently, it hasn't been changed, so if you redrew it allowing for the five -toot buffer. I know that the Chairman. here is familiar,with this particular block, but for those of you that are not, right now, it is asphalt in front of the building- It: is not landscaped in front of the building. There are a few plants that nit right up next to the existing building, but it is asphalt, the entire front of the building is [inaudible] . There is no curb cut, but it is already asphalt. This would, in tact, add landscaping as a buffer that doesn't exist at the present time between sidewalk and the asphalt. Uh, 00 that the City's concern with respect to the four -foot buffer, that's been changed so that there is a rive -soot buffer. The second, as far as the barrier -free parking requirement, that too is a legitimate concern and as the City has already commented, that can be accommodated by putting a barrier -free parking stall in the rear, Uh, Mr. Smith is willing to do that, so that that can be complied with this lawn. The other concerns that the City, Mr. Smith does not feel are legitimate concerns. And I understand that the Board is not political, but there are political concerns that, in arty client's opinion, are [inaudible] and that ban to do with the two on -street parking zones. The City of Edmonds is now - - (MM OF SIDE A OF TAPIR] (SEGIWING OF SIDE 8 OF TAPE] Hydus wssuwy AMP Md.aa AOX, (continuing) — Property. And two lota.down from Mr. Smith's property is the new Edmonds Floral and Arts Building. Neither one of those sites .6- s a t ! l t Ji �1vP" Y. 1=36- "J .39'fi;& IIVµMi1RPFiY'14ALlACE� 06 2Q8771fl221;# 8/10 , 3 has sufficient parking to accommodate all the people, the employees, etc., patrons, that visit those two sites. Therefore, the two on -street parking spot* are important for those buildings. Mr. Smith, however. does not have any sort of -' d requirement imposed upon him to provide parking LUj for the City of Edmonds employees or the Floral �I and Arts Building. Mr. smith would like to have parking on his property so that he and his Qj customers can access the property from the front N n� of the building. Right now, although there is v) �++ on-straet, it's never available becauee it's _j r being taken up by other businesses and other, the as LL City of Edmonds' employees, and in the future, Uj the people who are going to be going to the Edmonds Floral :3 and Arts Building. 90 I ,rant to o�C point out he doesn't have any sort of requirement toplaced upon him to provide parking for those x facilities. Uh, as the chairman pointed out, the 3: building directly to the south of Mr. smith's Z1-i building in fact has a curb out across the entire aj front of the building because they do park in ,,, LL„ front. So this is really already on that side of 2 DI the street, there are people parking in the front Ni. of the [inaudible]. Mr. Smith wants to have o parking in front of his building as well. As fax LU as pedestrian *seers, they said you already cross u1` a, walk across the asphalt to get to the front of r� the building because it is asphalt in front of ZI the building and that was a change. And the Wen other concern which causes Mr. Smith a great deal y = of concern is the City feels that Mr. Smith does r not need more parking. 'While I find that no z different than if you lived in a home and you're a single person and you have three bedrooms and you want to add a fourth, it isn't the City,a concern that you don't need a fourth bedroom. Mr. Smith feels that he does need this parking. It's his decision and it's his private property. lie would like to utilize that asphalt frontage in front of his building for parking. And it's his y--, awn private decision to do that and it isn't up ' to the City to determine whether it's a benefit to Mr. Smith or not. So, once again, the thin o that I think are legitimate concerns of the City ® and that's landocape barrier will be drawn so j that that can be complied with and the ; handicapped parking. That also can be taken care of by adding ahandicapped parking stall in the , rear of the building. Ckli.ef: O.X. Any questions for the applicant? Vt68tSi9t6,397e/D0006.!!97!/8gpp(!. - 7 - Kokxt£;L(� 5 (silence], Oklief 1-80-97 : 3s94PN ;OMEN MIM WALLACE, 20677102214 9119 O.K. Seeing as there is no one in the audience, I'll go ahead and ask it. To there anyone in the audience that would like to participate? There is no one there_ -90 we'll close the public portion, Uh, we'll go ahead and go to Board dissuasion. Bt? ?(man) W®il, I have a question for John. If they provided parking in the rear of the building where the barrier, the ADA there, then do they have to provide a ramp to access the building or is providing parking meet that requirement? I mean, if they just provide a handicapped stall, then do they have to make, then sloes the building have to be accessible. Bissell: I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell the applicant that they need to check that with the Building Official after I give my assumed answer, not being the ADA person at the City. I believe that the answer is that they would have to provide access to the building. I think they would have to provide a ramp. 7 (man) : So — Bissell: I'm not positive of that but I know that the TI's People don't. If somebody comae in and does an interior remodel, they have •to provide a ramp. And we had one guy do a parking small addition recently, and I know that they had to do a ramp. So, my guess is that they probably would need to do a rump, but that would be something they need to check with the Building official. ?(man): O.K. Another question for you, John, to supplement that. One side of this building is actually residential; the other side is business. So does that mean they would have to upgrade with the handicapped ramp to both units or is this specifically for the business side, or are these two spaces specifically for the residential portion? Bissell: r don't know the answer to that question. Oklief: O.K. Did you have any other items that strike your fancy? ?(man): No, no. Not at this time. WOSl�387d.18Xl1oD04'f.4414g11�1106. � � - r BY: ? (man) Young: Bissell: Young: Biese.11 : Young: Bissell: 7 (man) : ? (man) ? (man) : 7 (man) : ? (man) a 7 (man) 7(man) ?(man): Young: 2 (man) Bissell: Young; w�ss:�`eyo.:aavruuve�. 1-30-37 s MOWN ;',-6 1Y N(ItPtiY NAII.ACE� 22 18 2�8171Q221.#IQf19 None. o.K. Go ahead. This is either for staff or one of the architects on the Board. But now if we have a replacement handicapped or we've been re fVested by somebody from that cocmnunity to Ca11 them disabled stalig, SO I'm going to yield to that -- Actually, barrier -free stalls is — Harrier -free, that,g even better. That's the term that's in the Code. The barrier -free stall. Now, I'm in the planning lousiness, sort of, but I'm.not to the design end Of it. Those not only have to have some other amenities but they also have to be wirier, right? That's correct. O.K. The stall size rather than being eight and one half feet wide is thirteen feet wide. Actually, it would need to be van -accessible. It would have to be sixteen feet. Sixteen feet. That is correct. since — And You have to have at least one.van-accessible. Right. go if you are have, are required to have one, that has to be van -accessible. b -K., let's say it has to be, Somewhere between 13 and 16 feet. Now what we're going to have here is' correct me if I'm wrong nQw, I'm trying verbalize this. Uh, approval of this applicatian would require acme restructuring of the parjdag of the fourteen spaces that currently exist in the back to be thirteen. O.R. That's correct.. whether it's 13 teat wide or whether it: s 16 feet wide is kind of acadcmic. You are going to lode �w J (� N wO� J LL To jEw a z t- �g �a 0— in L- wu h� U- C — 2 cwi 0 z 0 Bissell. Okl ief : ?(man): Young: Hyde.- Young. - Hyde: 7 (man) ?(man); 7 (man) : ? (man) : Young: wee:az&"J5X1PO e.V".VW Am 1-30-97 ; 3: WALLACE- 2097710221;#11/19 0 a space in the back. 50 what we're.really being asked to consider here is one parking space, a net gain of one parking space, That's correct. O.K. Well, I would think that actually though we need to consider it two just because there are going to be two going in the front. I meats, there's not like you're just adding one. But I'm trying to think of it, you know, the applicant has said that uh, you know, the property owner feels that they need these parking spaces. Is it that they need parking spaces in the front or is it that they need two more parking spaces? Mr. Smith would, lake parking spaces in the front. Q.K. All right. That was my question, so it's really in the overall scheme of things that were looking at a gain of one parking space for this building. Where he'o gat 14, now he's going to have 15. He's going to have two in front and 11 in the back with one of them being extra wide. Mr. Smith is not required to have any parking spaces for this particular building, Mr. Smith hag owned this building and boon there longer than I think r've been alive, fie, he was there before the code in and he is not required to have any parking spaces. ge chooses to have parking spaces. Right. But, and this is what I'm getting at is what we're being asked to consider is his choice of how many parking spaces he wants. I t?sink -- 'Sell, yes. Q.K. That's fine. I mean, if I'm understanding it. If 1,m not understanding this correctly; you know, then tell me because* we are being asked as part of the applicant making a chance as to how many parking spaces he wants to also provide access across the sidewalk. . And again. correct if I'm missing r . 'c p SENT SY: 1-30-W 3:38P0d`;OMEN �M.�tPtiY WALLACE-4 that's that we normally do try and get the parking in the back of the building versus, you know, aepeeially in the downtown aroa, x realise that iaz some areas, you know, it's been opposite z of that, but that's been in cases where they _ hasn't been alley access to the back. Uh, it P LU! actually is an intbreoting project for me, cc M because in a lot of ways this is an improvement _j v? to what's already there. Like the applicant o; stated, the entire front end of this lot right (A Luj now is asphalt. There's no landscaping at all. J HE The Dory landscaping they have currently is in the back in front of the parking stalls and it's `j p like a foot strip or whatever. Uh, so I think it's uh, you know, an improvement that they're q� putting in five feet of landscaping in the front ,L < of the building. Uh, I do think, you know, on. D d, just a personal note, that you're going to and up :C u,, by -putting these two parking stalls in even �f though I think, you know, you should have the oright to do that and you do have the right to do Z - that, uh, you're going to drastically reduce the � _! accessibility of the front of your building. 593 Because it looks to me like you'll have two feet U W in between the parking and the stairs. Uh and C3 then when you put the one additional van space W �` in, a van space being 16 feet wide, that's going to approximately double the space of one of those U. p1 stalls which will also push that up fairly close zI to the building. Uh, so I guess the Hoard has to decide, you know, where the balance point of this Ox' is. There's some drawbacks; there's some benefits_ The other thing is that if ws do z approve it, I think we're going to have to put something in the motion that is going to state if it isn't approved why would we approve this, you know, because normally, according to Che design development or the design guidelines, we would normally require this to be in the back. So. those are may comments. a ?{man}: ' Well, my thoughts are on it, and I drove down there and took a look at tna site, is that I think the only reason hers doing this is so he 0 can have control of- the parking in front of his i building. I don't know what type of huoinese is run there, but, you know, he probably has people who never can park in front of that building, so he's moving it on site and it is right to do it. It givep him complete control of it, 9(man}: Right. He would always have two free spaces in t front. woaea�ass.toxrcwe.sw®oom. -12 - � 0 tf 1. k Ji sM �, __.. 7My2©677201 #19119.9&# BY1-34-9EN W2 ?(man)s Right. It kind of acts to open up the front of ;= the building. Advertising waste, but yeah. As a s loss of two street stalls, I don't know. I mean, parking is difficult down in -that area. z ¢ M {rntsn}; You }mow, I.personally don't have a problem with UJ' looing the off-street stalls just because any any. ac project that gets developed has the right to put �j curb cuts into access the property. So, any U 0I project that goes in we lose on -street parking, N G 'that's just the way it is, for the most part. I W u' mean, when the Art, Floral and Arts Center went j � F in, they lost off-street parking due to their, LO o you know, their access, I believe. Does that not clear that alley of access? d?(man)- What that. [inaudible]. Just part of the alley. Xxj OklieE: O.K. Just off of the alley. z y t- z F- well I stand corrected on that. But, , you know, u,wj f a lot of new developments, and many that I've MI worked on in the City do have curb cuts that reduce on -street parking. I"w Bylsma: I guess my only comment about, you. know, the z v parking in front of the building is something ►_ U. I've stressed all along is when we mane "- �i decisions, is Consistency. And we have denied d] cn! projects in the past where tney've, within the . 2i lash year, where they wanted parking in front of pF- their buildings similar to this and we've denied z Oklief: Bylsma: Oklief: Young: WN132061euc+ M.9" aoaoa. The thing is, you know, this the other thing, . even though the [inaudible] is not unconforming., I mean, there are instances of parking in the front like I indicated before. But do we [inaudible], you know, do we not approve it ona time and then sometime else, you know, when there's a nonconforming parking situation next to the site, we say, well, we'll let it go again? when do you — that's very inconsiatent, in my opinion. You know, the guidelines were set up, you know, to try to develop a certain standard. [inaudible] Jim - tt k 1 1 i 1 •i r t t i Y vi.sm.ww.rr—w.u. _ .w. .. ..+»...:r........�..=::�:+�.....wr..-� A SENT BY: ..+.�.._........ .. :..:.r. wA... .....��.._..�._..•..:.. ._ � . ...«............«v.. 1-30-97 3:40PM ;OGRE V MURM WALLAcE- 20677102H 416/18 Smith's frontage, and T don't know just exactly how Edmonds law functions. But T mean is it his, that apace on the street frontage, his sidewalk or is :that sidewalk that uh you know gets z maintained by the City? _ Hiaseli: That sidewalk belon $ to the City y of Edmonds. Q And his property line is, I don't know how you say it, the the sidewalk is in the public right- ®( of -way. That's what you're asking. n W Young: The sidewalk is or is not? J Nl U. w k3iseells is in the public right -of way. Young: O.R. That's what we're wondering, we had that U_ < debate downtown quite frequently, so uh that's N 0 what I thought. O.K. ?(man): Another interesting thing here is that we don't Oi actually have landscape drawings for this, 1 z don't believe. Do we have landscape — o?(man): Yeah, landscape drawings were Submitted. a t_' ? {M;z} : On the submitted application. W"''. s Ly A ?(man); There's two site plans. The second' one is a LL_ landscape one. W z ?(man): Iinaudiblej. r hl Bissell: If you're missing it, the landsaape,s up on, the z board. ?(man): Yap, there it is. As a matter of fact, yeah there it is. O.R. ?{man}: O-R, I stand corrected. ? (man) : Ts that cold? It is. 0?(man): Sorry for interrupting you there,' ! Oklief: so, that's fine. ?{man}_, That was all I wanted to. Young: but the applicant has, I mean, how much right for lack of a better term does the applicant have, ®: you know, to cut across, you know, to cut across wesifa tsxrraoaa.v➢9991UOCff6. -14 - i 1 .. _q c t.T.t.�..i. »,... ...t',.k ,(. ..:3.. _....ri ....» w.. �...N; `.3. v V:.v x:Y�S'P'N• .. Hu�4�1 {;15'°. ay __1V1`Y _'... _ _.. 1-30-97 ; 340PM tOG�IIV MURPHY WALLACE-2067710221;#16/19 the sidewalk, cut into the sidewalk and cut the curb down. ?(man); Yeah. i Q ?( )c Well., I think I think that 11right" is a difficult h word to use. $ of ?(man); I know this is not the correct form to ask that, UQi but I mean, you know, what's the policy? ca Uji sissells The City has the ability to pass ordinances, for -jt�- instance, which would limit people's ability to N LL 0 do curb cuts when they had alternatives and so w an, and many cities have done that. Thin City has not done that. The Engineering Aivision has LL < had a policy to reduce the number of curb cute r,M d where possible. There's an established policy. It's dealt in with subdivision applications when when you're doing, you know. for instance, flag zI-] lots. Somebody can enter off of two, bring z a; driveways into one, and things like that. So w wi wherever a reduction in Curb cutq l.g possible, 2 of that's what will happen. There was a parking lot for ,proposed the old Edmonds Financial Center o r1- Building several years ago before the City had : any interest in purchasing that building. That =cu''i parking lot was construn ed and the Engineering A- 8 Division at that time did deny a curb cut — z application to access Fifth Avenue North because LU M the applicant had alley access and the access to Ca s Fifth. Avenue North would eliminate three parking stalls. Uhl the applicant in that rasp agreed z with the City because in that case it was beneficial to the applicant to also access the alley, so there wasn't a legal controversy. in this case the City of Edmonds Engineering Division has informed me that the Code encourages consolidation but Cannot automatically rewire consolidation, So, so in other words, the City -- of Edmonds Engineering Division Cannot say. "no, you may not access," because they don't have an ordinance in place that siaya that, f ' ?(man): Well, to me, you know,, that's probably not an 4 issue that we would be too concerned about. YOU know, to me, still the main Concern is the part of the design guidelines — ? (man.) : Right. t® tf wssuaxia,ia�ctadao6.�v9m000�c. -15- " ,„. • '. - - My i tt�{&rl l �. ::t T Sq 4 r;,��7�,��,sis" ,nxr�ri�''N�XX{� __.•..> .., .. .I .� .;• ,... .4:i11•;r., r= .:.: ": % .r _._ .,, ... '.i) ,. ,. .._ ....s-.,k i,t. �{y a.:.-r.°.5'75iA'kut'�;:A U) 0LL LU LL Ln LU z LU LU U cr, at W LL L L C 09LU U 0 �- I- z Where normally too don't allow the parking in the front, but here we're 'getting some additional landscaping that we wouldn't get otherwise, so Can I address a few issues? Sure. ,[inaudible) There're some things that were discussed. Uh, one thing that Alan brought up 'h, u the applicant's representative has stated that the design guidelines are not a requirement, but in fact the design guidelines have been incorporated in the code, in two different places in the code. And that the Architectural Design Board is specifically with interpreting and enforcing those design guidelines. So so I would say that that is an inaccuracy .1,n the applicant's representative's statement. Uh, the applicant bag stated that the situation would he no, not really any different when there's parking there as opposed to the existing asphalt, and I would agree that the aMPhalt from the aesthetic standpoint is not as nice as if there were landscaping there, but from the pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between crossing a parking area where cars are moving or are. potentially moving and crossing asphalt where cars would not be moving. So, from a pedestrian standpoint, there is a difference between the two, and that should be noted because in the design guidelines, Pedestrian access is an issue. that You're supposed to be considering. But in this case, really, the Pedestrian access wouldn't be the ,"v-lK cut itself. L. WJ.L. Really, the pedestrian access is the fact that it would be through the parking and then [inaudible] building — Bissell: I'm discussing getting from the sidewalk so Xim not talking nocaaaarily about the curb cut. The curb cut is an issue for Pndestriana paF3ging the building. The more curb cuts you have the less pedestrian- hospitable a site is. Sc> the curb out creates a pedestrian problem for people passing the building. But I'm speaking of people getting, Just addressing something that the applicant's representative brought up, that there's asphalt there now. There'll be asphalt there later, so it's not really any different. And the point is that it is different if you're dealing with crossing asphalt where there are no (man) Bissell: ? (man) : 1-30-97 ; 3:42PM ;OLDEN NLRPHY NALLACE- 2067710221;#16t19 carts as opposed to crossing asphalt where there are cars. It's a difference in how pedestrians interact with their environment, Uh, and, the other thing that I just want to touch on is that the applicant's representative has brought up the tact that they believe that the staffs recommendation, for denial is based on some sort of politically driven issue. That they believe that we rigged the parking for the Floral Building and that we are doing something, the City's doing something that we're not supposed to be doing with the parking on the old Edmonds Financial Center 'Building which will be the new City Hall. Uh, first off, the Architectural Design Board is probably not really supposed to be considering the political issues and secondly z LUj Oklief: Correct. z �! Bissell: — uh, the issues brought up by the applicant are 2 Af inaccurate. The wag parking was calculated on w wI each of those buildings was the same as the way j the parking has been calculated on every other ,c! building in downtown Edmonds. So, so it's it's o �' first political issues, and second, slightly, LUW somewhat, let's say, misguided, so, I think the t) Board should just disraga.rd it. ~ U. — z, ?(Man): Well, I agree that, i agree that that portion of that should, be disregarded. Although, you know, —y; I do undermtand that oft -street parking is a o concern for the community -- z ?(man): Right. Mmani: I would agree that off-street parking — 1 But I don't really feel that we should take that into a0count. 7^-7 7 {man} : I would agree that off-street parking — j` P ?(man): finaudible3 © ?(man); I would agree with off-street parking is a concern with this, and where the concerns in the engineering division are coming from on this issue, parking in the downtown area is a general concern for the community. ?(man): I think we should stick with architectural design 0 board issue$-- wesl5zai6tsxrn000as�ov tn0pp6. .17- },`' :t t f ARCMTECTURAL DESIGN BOARD i . STAFF REPORT ¢ November .15, 1996 UJ ADB-96-112 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL 2 NEW w PARKING STALLS FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE �. a cn LL A. Applicant/Property Owner Architect/Representative L o -J Marvin Smith Sally M Hyde 126 4th Avenue North 152 3rd Avenue South LL_Edmonds W WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 01 ' _' B. Site Location: 126 4th Avenue North z t-•: r o z C. Introduction: The applicant has proposed to construct 2 new parking stalls between the LU g �' street and the existing building, accessing off 4th Avenue North. The building currently v provides 14 parking stalls which access off the alley. After the completion of the proposed 0-1 Project the property ywould provide 16 parking stalls. The existing office use requires res no w. more than 4 parking stalls to meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community U4 Development Code. i�- Oi _Z Wi D. Background: o~ z 1. Description of Property: The subject property is a 60 foot wide rectangular lot which fronts on 4th Avenue North, and with alley access to the rear of the property. 2. Zoning: The property is zoned Community Business (BC). 3. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 4 . E. Staff Analysis: © 1. Site Design: W a) Vehicle Access and Parking: The site currently provides 14 parking stalls at the rear of the property which are accessed by way of an alley. The applicant is proposing to retain these parking stalls, and to add two additional parking stalls which will access directly off 4th Avenue North. There will be no vehicle access provided between the 14 stalls in € +� the rear of the lot and the two parking stalls in the front of the lot. The existing use appears to be an office with on site customer service. That use requires one parking stall per 400 square feet of building area. According to the provided site plan, the existing building area appears to be approximately 1,600 9 EANt 3 y 'At ® d a {%k t 3 p 9 /,\�i�Ei:IIiFa square feet. Therefore, only 4 parking stalls would be required. It should also be noted that even if the use changed to a restaurant, which is one of the most intensive retaillservice uses allowed in this zone, a total of eight of the existing 14 parking stalls would be required. Further, the installation of the two parking stalls would remove at least two on street parking stalls. - of In addition, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Washington State 0: Barrier Free Code, in'that the installation of the two proposed parking stalls requires W: LU M, the installation of one on -site barrier free parking space. a (n U. b) Pedestrian Access The existing site development provides pedestrian access directly off 4th Avenue North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all "- M pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. T w : Therefore, this proposal would remove all direct pedestrian access. ►-- a: z ti c) Landscaping: Z The installation of the two proposed parking stalls would reduce the amount of � landscaping between the building and the public street. Section 20.12.025 of the v � Edmonds community development code requires a minimum 5 foot landscaping 0 h buffer around the perimeter of all parking lots. The applicant has proposed a 4 foot w w} buffer between the parking stall and the sidewalk, and no buffer between the NU—t parking stalls and the side property lines. The ADB has the sole authority to waive LL or alter the requirement of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC 20.12). In the past, the ui (n!, ADB has granted waivers where the applicant had no design alternatives to meet the ominimum code requirements for parking and landscaping. In this case the applicant 2 has provided more than three times the code requirement for parking in the rear of the lot. Therefore, the granting of a waiver to the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance would be inconsistent with the code requirements and past decisions. d) Design Guidelines: i Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance requires small parking areas at the rear of buildings and the provision of pedestrian facilities. The proposal - would add parking at the front of a building in opposition to the design guidelines, ' and would create a pedestrian hazard, in opposition to the design guidelines. e 0 Section 20.10.070(3) of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires landscape should be provided as a buffer to surrounding properties and streets. 4. Technical Review: a) Engineering Division: • Permits will be required for the construction of the proposal. ® The proposal would eliminate at least as many on -street parking stalls as it would create off-street, therefore this proposal does not seem beneficial. • Right-of-way construction permits may be required. _ c) Building ivision s • Compliance with the State Barrier Free Code requirements must be met. C 2 t t t y S i hti 1 i NI r F t I t ! 1 ADS-96-112 • One (1) handicapped accessible parking stall is required Note: The Board and the applicant should be aware that the comments of the z technical committee are related to code requirements. Those requirements must be met F� . at the time of the building permit application. If those requirements effect design, those cc 2 requirements must be integrated into the plan and approved by the ADB prior to the u Uj. approval or issuance of a building or development permit. U01 vs �� WIj N F. Summary: The proposal is inconsistent with the landscape requirements because an Ij 0 insufficient landscaping buffer is provided between the proposed parking stalls, the street, J and the adjacent properties. The proposal is inconsistent with the design guidelines by LL reducing the pedestrian facilities and by providing parking off the street where parking off `n o the alley is available In addition, the proposal does not provide the required barrier free UJ =i parking stall. Further, the proposal would eliminate an amount of public parking at lest I--! equal to the amount of private parking proposed with no apparent public or private benefit. F' Therefore Staff believes that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, The Zoning Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines and the application c�i cn should be denied: a r' ; Attachments: i v o{ 1. Vicinity Map U. z 2. Applicant's declarations, elevations and site plan ui vs Fs es z t® to y. 3 �4P 4 SHRU59 LAND5CAFE LEGEND 0 CRo4TAEGU9 P14AENOPYFW1 WASHINGSTON THORN I W'- 21 CAL. 0 OSMAREA BURKWOODII / OSMAREA 21*-24' HT. PERIWINKLE 41 POTS a 24, old T7U-10-29- T6Sheet No.: P-2 Sc le. MARVIN SMITH C=20r l 4 SALLY M.HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S., SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-4846 • FAX (206) 774-9842 December 4, 1996 Architectural Design Board City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 0 Re: November 15, 1996 Staff Report/ Marvin Smith Applicant Architectural Design Board: Mr. Smith is the owner of the property located at 126 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. The recommendation of the staff appears to be mis-guided for the following reasons: (a) design guidelines are not requirements of the code; (b) Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on street parking; (c) the community services dept. does not have the authority to determine what constitutes private benefit to Mr. Smith or his property; (d) the plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities, nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. The recommendations that are legitimate concerns and merit a response are as follows: (a) The recommendations of the staff with respect'to landscape requirements, specifically landscaping buffer, can be met and a redraft of the plan is attached hereto providing for the additional one foot landscaping. (b) The determination of the staff that the barrier free parking requirement is not met, can be met by designating one stall at the rear of the property for handicap access. The City's concern that Mr. Smith's parking lot will reduce on street parking, appears to be connected to the City's, own reallocation of it's offices to the rear of Mr. Smith's property and the development of the Edmonds Community Arts Building two lots away from Mr. Smith's property. Mr. Smith is well aware that. both the city employee's and the patrons of the Edmonds Arts Building want to utilize the on street parking space in front of his EAnibit 4 u •; _f ( t S.k. ,� l Mini a�JtG3 Sy LPL 1 l i t� {�l i �iik Lt J � !f t X.,,'!`�M ! ��5t$l�S�4{,, {� ! C sfFt t _ i .....,-..�wu wa .. .. .... �..._«�t...�..�a.ww+nrnu�w.wv..»..w.r3 ....A � a ��w^-0 ! `.3,�);.tx?..r_J �• .._ �� i:.t I1 .... property, due to their own inadequate parking facilities. The inability to. park in front of his building due' to parking g congestion is one of the reasons Mr. .Smith wants to develop the area in front of his building. Mr. Smith, however, is not required_ to, provide parking for the City of Edmonds employees, or it's community arts facility. . su LL " T)a XW z I-- Sally M. Hyde oI Representative for Marvin Smith Z W LU - C:-Marvin.Smith . a a �'. i cWi' t- F. U. (, �z Ui W� a z ie ri i i i i 152 THIRD AVENUE S.. SUITE 101 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 9802D (206) 771.4646 • FAX (206) 774-9842 Z DEC 1 7 1996 �' ti COUNTER cc 4 -J o` December 16, 1996 uw a Fes-'. (n U. ( Edmonds Community Development Director LU 0. 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 U- < Re: Notice of Appeal F- r z ~ � o Dear Sir or Madam: z LU g ai This is a notice .of appeal of the ADB decision dated December 4, 1996, of applicant Marvin U v Smith. Mr. Smith's address is 126 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. Mr. Smith is the owner o �' of the subject property site. We enclose the filing fee of $100. w Mr. Smith believes that the denial of ADB-96-131 was in error for the following reasons: U-�-111Y1, o: Z The basis of the denial is stated to be "That the plan includes parking in front of the applicant's o F building and this is discouraged in the guidelines; and, that there would be a pedestrian hazard z caused because of increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay." No "guideline" presently exists that prohibits parking in the front of applicant's building. There are no facts to support the finding of a "creation of a pedestrian hazard or increased ' vehicular and pedestrian interplay", nor is there any ordinance, regulation, or code criteria that permits a denial on this basis. .� The ADB's decision was influenced by the representation of John Bissel, Associate Planner of the City of Edmonds, who incorrectly and improperly stated that the "ADB Guidelines" were 0 requirements of the Code. The "Architectural Design Board Guide" is premised upon ECDC t 15.15.030 and ECDC 15.30.000. (See attached "Building Design and Site Treatment Guide" recently given to the applicant by the City of Edmonds) The code sections referenced by the "Guidelines" were repealed by Ord. 3030 on June 30, 1995 and are no longer in effect. There are no Design Board Guidelines in effect that could be ascertained, and no others supplied by the city upon request of the applicant. t ® ECDC 20.10.060 sets forth'.required findings prior to approval of a proposed development. Therefore, the same criteria must be addressed in order to deny a proposed development. These criteria are as follows: Exhibit 5 1-:: 1-- w. < m aU U a Cn a. cn LU; LU _j i WLL pi 2� LL t!? O z LU, 2 1- Z H, a; 0a E-1. LU i h LLa —z U o z Edmonds Community Development Director December 16, 1996 Page 2 A. Comprehensive Plan. "That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies." If the proposal did not meet this criteria, -prior to denial the ADB was required to specifically state that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies, and refer to the specific section of the plan or adopted city policies with which it is not consistent. The ADB failed to do this. B. Zoning Ordinance. "That the staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance." If the proposal did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the ADB was required to identify what specific ordinance and it's requirements that the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. C. Criteria. "That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of this chapter." If the proposal dad not meet the criteria and purposes of chapter 20.10.070, the ADB was required to identify with specificity what criteria or purpose of chapter 20.10.070, the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. The ADB's failure to identify specific sections of the Code, zoning ordinance, or comprehensive plan, that are inconsistent with application ADB-96-131, renders such denial arbitrary and capricious, and should be overturned. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant his appeal and approve application ADB-96-131. Please take notice that the applicant's representative will be out of the country during the remainder of the month of December. Due to the intervening holidays it is unclear when this matter would be heard before the City Council in the ordinary course. The applicant requests that the hearing for his appeal take place no sooner than January 15, 1997, if scheduling of the hearing in the ordinary course would result in a hearing prior to that time. This is not meant to be a waiver of any right to a hearing in an expeditious manner. I point out that the City of Edmonds is apparently a property owner of interest (see attached list of affected property owners). For the City Council to hear this matter would seem to violate the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". How do you want to handle this issue? Sincerely, -< . 'M. € Sally M. Hy e Representative for Marvin Smith enclosures cc: M. Smith I. � Y. S i � V 1 ✓ i : } f A t j 1CITY 2F Ei>NS0r,4nS auawawww Pwteev !so or" AV/LVue. 040a7lt . teatitaNae. WA IDIOM* a ti0e! 77I.Okla w PAX t40e1 771-atte9 MAYOIe COMMUNITY annvlcRe OQP'A! vmuf4lr F t3 Pubda Wawke w Planing w Pewke One NeareaHon w enpinewOng '�E3.6COPiEii COVER PAtfi6i G�ATE"rF`t^ lSM}TISM 1Vl./MBER OP PA<ASS- (Inc{ud{ng Cover Pegs) Recipients 4 eleao{71ar Numbsin PACE E{MIL6Clul6"MSNY: . Autpr»ittlOj/Glroup It ,C,.S m{ns.); Giroup il{ PFtt irriA; gib F(Jl.! '� 'Y .S�`Z�e� it there, are =axnWy problems during transmission Or rdooUments apre received i�n�cpag� 771-e0220 and ask Sencler's Telbtsopier Number: (2048) 771-02 21 RS- O:\ti\WawdgwlwVwrpwms• - .. _ .. •. jncarparated Aws"at is, Sao* e Stater Cttles tnterwuatinnei l4e:ttnan, Japan . TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT COUNT �(ea% SEND >�ttkXc NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION I #PAGES, , COMMENT 1 206 447 0215 1- 2-97 v33AM 4.32" 6. VSt 189v r CITY Y OF ELidlONDS Be4RBARA FA1iEY MAYOR 250 ETH AVENUE NORTH + EDMONDS. WA 98020 • 1208) 771-0220 • FAX 1206177"221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning a Parks and Recreation • Engineering . p v`ni w� I=--' TELECOPIER COVER PAGE — LL d �j TO: Clo ( -; Gt9.t / A DATE TRANSMITTED: �W' 1 z I.. NUMBER OF PAGES: r O' z (Including Cover Page) LU ul } U 01 ! Recipients Telecopier (dumber. FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT: w Automatic/Group li al (2.3 mins,); Group III Lijusf FROM: N 1 S5�ZL if there are any problems 3:1 during transmission or - ~ documents are received incomplete, please call (206) 771-0220 and ask for Sender's Telecopier Number: (206) 771-0221 ' RE: �® rF drn OdOlWarddatalFaxForm• e i if m, Incorporated August 11, 1890 aJ� Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 1 Iti o y F 1 } 1 i yll'*it MEMORANDUM r Lull p 1 Date: January 2, 1997 LU J t--•1To: Scott Snyder, City Attorney W LL W 0 From: John Bissell, AICP, Associate Planner U. = Subject: Ordinance 2959, Adoption of the Interim Design Guide T) C �_. s" The City has received an appeal of an ADB decision denying parking located adjacent to a street. z I--� The Board Denied the application based on design policies found in Title 15 of the ECDC. The z 01 appellant has stated that Section 15 was repealed by the adoption of the Comp Plan, and therefore the decision of the ADB is not enforceable. O Cn On November 1, 1993, the City adopted an ordinance (2959) to create a design guide with a r pictures so that we would be more in compliance with a court decision against the City of: _ LU Issaquah. This guide used the exact text of design policies found in ECDC Title 15 and Section U. F-, 20.10. Ordnance 2959 also recommended that a report regarding the status of new design Z guidelines be brought before the City Council prior to February 28, 1995. It appears staff that v f) the Interim Design Guide would stand alone, and therefore the repealing of Title 15 would have P �' no effect. It also appears to staff that there was no sunset date on the ordinance, but rather, the Z date given is a recommendation. Though Staff believes that this is the way Ordinance 2959 should be interpreted, we feel we need the advice and guidance of our City Attorney. Therefore, please review the attached ordinance and advise us as to the status of design elements form title 15 and the possibility of the expiration . of the ordinance. Since this is going to public hearing before the City Council, we need a written response no later than January 8, 1997. r > Thank you for your attention to this matter. 0 JB E® 7-77771 City of Edmonds cQ Planning Division y,,7 •..'�. S..? .. t.. } ,�.,:. „%, ,_i:. . ;, t. ':.• s:$ j l . �;:.._:... . { ...tf.i ., ,.a'?a'�et,5..''a.�:':. ,•�.,� .rssaimuu siaczxm»xJwAsti�A.. SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S- SUITE 101 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-4846 • FAX (206) 774-9842 DEC 1 11996 PIAMIT COUNTER December 16, 1996 Edmonds Community Development Director 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Notice of AUM1 Dear Sir or Madam: This is a notice of appeal of the ADB decision dated December 4, 1996, of applicant Marvin Smith. Mr. Smith's address is 126 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. Mr. Smith is the owner of the subject property site. We enclose the filing fee of $100. Mr. Smith believes that the denial of ADB-96-131 was in error for the following reasons: The basis of the denial is stated to be "That the plan includes parking in front of the applicant's building and this is discouraged in the guidelines; and, that there would be a pedestrian hazard caused because of increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay." No "guideline" presently exists that prohibits parking in the front of applicant's building. There are no facts to support the finding of a "creation of a pedestrian hazard or increased vehicular and pedestrian interplay", nor is there any ordinance, regulation, or code criteria that permits a denial on this basis. { The ADB's decision was influenced by the representation of John Bissel, Associate Planner of `1 the City of Edmonds, who incorrectly and improperly stated that the "ADB Guidelines" were requirements of the Code. The "Architectural Design Board Guide" is premised upon ECDC 0 15.15.030 and ECDC 15.30.000. (See attached "Building Design and Site Treatment Guide" recently given to the applicant by the City of Edmonds) The code sections referenced by the "Guidelines" were repealed by Ord. 3030 on June 30, 1995 and are no longer in effect. There are no Design Board Guidelines in effect that could be ascertained, and no others supplied by the city upon request of the applicant. t ECDC 20.10.060 sets forth required findings prior to approval of a proposed development. Therefore, the same criteria must be addressed in order to deny a proposed development. These criteria are as follows: 0 a , { r Edmonds Community Development Director December,16, 1996 Page 2 1 A. Comprehensive Plan. "That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies." If the proposal did not meet this criteria, prior to denial the. ADB was required to specifically state that the proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies, and refer to the specific section of the plan or adopted city policies with .which it is not consistent. The ADB failed to do this. B. Zoning Ordinance. "That the staff has found . that the. proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the -city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance." If the proposal did not meet .therequirements of the zoning ordinance,, the ADB was required to identify what specific ordinance and it's requirements that the proposal failed to meet. The ADB. failed to do this.. . C. ri eri . "That the proposal as approved or conditionally approvedsatisfies the criteria and purposes of this chapter." If the proposal did not meet the criteria and.purposes of chapter 20.10.070, the ADB was required to identify with specificity whavcriterfa or purpose of chapter 20.10.070, the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. The ADi3's failure to identify specific sections of the Code, zoning ordinance, or comprehensive plan, that are inconsistent with application ADB-96-131, renders such denial' arbitrary and capricious, and should be overturned.. The applicant is requesting that the City' Council grant his appeal and approve application ADB-96-131. Please take notice that the applicant's representative will be ' out of 'the: country during the remainder of the month of December. Due to the intervening holidays it is unclear when this matter would be heard before the City Council in'the ordinary course.. The applicant'requests that the hearing for his appeal take place no sooner than January 15, 1997, if scheduling of the hearing in the ordinary course would result in a hearing prior to that time.. This is not meant to be a waiver of any right to a hearing in an expeditious manner. I point out that the City of Edmonds is apparently, a property owner of interest .(see :attached list. of : affected property. owners). For the City Council to hear this matter would seem to violate the "Appearance of Fairness Doctrine". How do you want. to handle this issue? Sincerely, Sally M. Hy e Representative for Marvin Smith enclosures cc: M. Smith = Z' f- W M J Q U in U) UJ; � H (1) of LL �) w' q Z ur w l U tA� 0 h' =v F- i- LL0 _Z U= o~ z December 4, 1996 Architectural Design Board City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: November 15, 1996 Staff Report/Marvin Smith Applicant Architectural Design Board: Mr. Smith is the owner of the property located at 126 4th Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020. The recommendation of the staff appears to be mis-guided for the following reasons: (a) design guidelines are not requirements of the code; (b) Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on street parking; (c) the community services dept. does not have the authority to determine what constitutes private benefit to Mr. Smith or his property; (d) the plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities, nor does it create a pedestrian hazard. The recommendations that are legitimate concerns and merit a response are as follows: (a) The recommendations of the staff with respect to landscape requirements, specifically landscaping buffer, can be met and a redraft of the plan is attached hereto providing for the additional one foot landscaping. (b) The determination of the staff that the barrier free parking requirement is not met, can be met by designating one stall at the rear of the property for handicap access. The City's concern that Mr. Smith's parking lot will reduceon street parking, appears to be connected to the City's own reallocation of it's offices to the rear of Mr. Smith's property and the development of the Edmonds Community Arts Building two lots away from Mr. Smith's property. Mr. Smith is well aware that both the city employee's and the patrons of the Edmonds Arts Building want to utilize the on street parking space in front of his ��. 0IL}. ® , 1 0.. - .� � ,_ ... O _;, w z i H w} L.L? N d, = w' z I--; O! z w w; V N- a t� h U �z Lu �z o~ z 6.A FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED: ADB-96-129 NEW AWNING WITH SIGNS AND NEW FREESTANDING SIGN Sno-King Signs 7629 Lake Ballinger Way Bart Haynes, Amp Art, 1230915th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA, 98125, was present. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN, TO APPROVE ADB-96-129 AS PRESENTED, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT STAFF MAKES A DETERMINATION THAT THE TOTAL SIGN AREA IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE, AND THAT THE MOTION CARRIED. APPLICANT SUBMITS A LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA, TO ADD A DISCUSSION REGARDING SIGN TYPES AND SIZES TO THE E THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED, ND OF ADB-96-131 NEW PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE Marvin Smith I26 - 4th Avenue North Marvin Smith,126 - 4th Avenue No., Edmonds, and Sally Hyde, Attorney at Law,152 - 3rd Avenue So., Suite 101, Edmonds, were present. IT WAS MOVED BY BOARDMEMBER BYLSMA, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER YOUNG, TO DENY ADB-96-131 AS PRESENTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THAT THE PLAN INCLUDES PARKING IN FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING AND THIS IS DISCOURAGED IN THE GUIDELINES; AND, THAT THERE WOULD BE A PEDESTRIAN HAZARD CAUSED BECAUSE OF INCREASED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INTERPLAY. MOTION CARRIED. PRELIMINARY REVIEW: None. t ?• ,DISCUSSION ON III (Addtd to Agen a I,v nQ Following a brief discussion on this matter, the following recommendation was made by Boardmember Bylsma and agreed upon by all Boardmembers present: RECOMMENDATION TO STAFF: ® IN THE FUTURE, WHEN PROJECTS ARE REVIEWED WHICH CONTAIN ELECTRONIC OR ANALOG CLOCKS, THAT THEY BE TREATED AS A SIGN, BUT THAT THE CLOCK NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SIGN AREA CALCULATIONS UNLESS THE CLOCK IS A PART OF SPECIFIC COMPANY ADVERTISING. THESE PROJECTS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. SHOULD ALSO BE REVIEWED By THE r Architectural Design Board Mecting Page 2 I}ecem6er 4,1996 4344 001012 0100 Judith & Eddie James 19225 51st Avenue N.E. Seattle, Washington 98155 4344 002 003 00 00 Jeffrey & Michelle Keller 2115th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA. 98020 4344 001010 0128 Resident 116 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 j 434,4 006 910 00 02 Jam a Markezims y 1882 remont Avenue N. S e, A 98133 4344 002 010 00 01 Resident 216 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 434 0010 10103 i�EWA ayoain Street 98020 4344 006 008 00 06 Margaret Miller 12004 25th Avenue S.E. Everett. WA 98208 4344 006 WI 0106 Resident 136 3rd Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 4344 005 003 00 03 Resident 215-217 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 4344 005 00100 05 Edgar J. & Maude B. Hodgson 8401 Frederick Place Edmonds, WA. 98026 4344 001012 0100 Resident 411 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 4344 001010 0128 Lana L. Lally 118 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 4344 006 010 00 02 James & Carrie Markezinis 18826 Fremont Avenue N. Seattie,WA 98133 4344 006 010 00 02 Resident 116 3rd Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 4344 0010010103 Jacque Mayo 417-425 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 i 4344 002 002 0001 Elmer Harris 207 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 43 005 OVOO 05 Edgar Maude B. Hodgson i��ndts, crick Place 98026 4344 005 00100 05 Resident 203 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 4342 021003 0002 Ronald M. & Pamela S. Kaye 506 Bell Street Edmonds, WA. 98020 4344 001010 0128 Resident 114-4th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 4344 001006 0108 Williams & Marts 143 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 4344 002 010 0001 Darrell & Paula Marmion 960 Spruce Street Edmonds, WA 98020 4344 006 00100 03 Jacque Mayo 315 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 4344 00100102 02 „ 4 44 006 0010102 Jacque Mayo JaKonds. 415 Main Street 31eet Edmonds, WA 98020 A 98620 4344 006 008 00 06 4344 00101002 01 Resident Charles & Geraldine Noble 124 3rd Avenue N. 114 4th Avenue N. Edmonds. WA 98020 Edmonds: WA 98020 4342 021028 00 03 Verla L. Allbery P.O. Box 937 Edmonds, Washington 98020 4344 001012 02 09 Jack M. & Gladys L Beal P.O. Box 742 Edmonds, Washington 4342 021028 0003 Resident 523 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 4344 001012 0209 Resident 401-409 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 w 4344-001-011-00-02 4344 006 003 0001 4344 002 0110000 Resident Erlene Benish Anna c. Borisoff 110 4th Avenue N. 117 4th Avenue N. 822 Laurel Way N Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 = ui; Z 1--' 4344 002 0110000 4344 005 0110003 4344 002 01200 09 Z 0` I Resident Lorren E. & Michelle L Brendemuhl Myrtle E. Burke i u w; 210 4th Avenue N. 210 3rd Avenue N. 204 4th Avenue N. � Gi Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 cj 07I z U 4342 02103100 08 4344 006 006 00 08 4342 02103100 08 U. y..; George W. Campbell Gre ry son Resident U. zi 3541 N.E. 92nd Street 133 4 venue N. 100-104 SW Avenue N. cd MI Seattle, Washington 98115 Edmqdds,VA98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Q z 4344 1004 35 4344 001004 00 35 4344 01003 0 36 City of nds Resident City of onds 505 Bell eet 1215th Avenue N. 505 B treet Edmo , ashington 98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Edm nds, Washington 98020 4344 006 012 02 08 4342 021 100 04 4342 02100100 04 ,y Claires Ltd. Cityo onds Resident > 301 Main Street 250 venue: 118 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 on Washington 98020 Edmonds, Washington 98020 9 4342 22 09100 02 434 02 0100 02 434 22 0002 City o onds Resi City o onds 250 5 venue N. 505 a Street L2 5 venue N. Edm Washington 98020 on Washington 98020 onds, Washington 98020 E ® 4342 022 00100 02 4342 021026 00 05 4342 021026 00 05 Resident Sam C. Ewing Resident 505 Bell Street 17522 Talbot Road 525-527 Main Street `- Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Edmonds, WA. 98026 Edmonds, WA.98020 4344 001007 0008 4344 006 007 02 05 4344 006 007 02 05 First Babtist Church Robert & Sandra Gates Resident 404 Bell Street 7614173rd Street SW 134 3rd Avenue N. . Edmonds. WA 98020 Edmonds. WA 98026 Edmonds. WA 0802b 4344 006 0120109 4344 006 012 0109 4344 002 009.00 04 ' Suzie Reynolds Resident David Smith 212 Caspers Street 309-311 Main Street 220 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Wi �j 4342 021029 00 02 ' 4344 001008 00 07 4344 005 012 0002 c a { v O Resident Marvin Smith Douglas & Donna Spee 519 Main Street 126 4th Avenue N. 307 Bell Street Cnn w Edmonds, Wa. 98620 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 -i H U) a w 4344 001009 00 06 4344 001009 00 06 4344 001009 00 06 Richard Steves, Jr. Resident Resident ,Q P.O. Box C 2009 - 120 4th Avenue N. 122 4th Avenuu N. cn d Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 2 LU' �j p 4344 006 005 00 09 4344 006 005 0009 4344 001009 00 06 z F Resident Greg &Deborah Wilson Resident LU LU� 127 4th Avenue N. 133 4th Avenue N. 124 4th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds;WA 98020 0 —1L i U` 4344 002 0010101 4344 002 0010101 4342021030 00 09 QE Arthur Van Der Wel Resident Kathy Walker Z} 3214 W. McGraw Street, #308 2015th Avenue N. 515 Main Street ui �! Seattle, WA 98199 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Z 4344 006 004 00 00 4342 021.029 00 OZ 4342 021029 00 02 Well Partnership Paul Weller Resident 123 4th Avenue N. 922 Cedar Street 519 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, Wa: 98020 T .. S , , N. t 7,