Loading...
126 4TH AVE N.pdfIN W LL 10 I 14" z D U 0 a LU ui LL 8 z . ......... rk BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Applicant: Marvin Smith File No.: ADB-96-131 & AP-96-148 i 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. 0 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. 09116M WSS170424.ISX/OW6.9= gg Y5 17, 77, lo, 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. 11 i 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 .. .7 arbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk 09/16197 WSS170424.1SX10006.90000 -2- Q 10 i Approve Minutes of (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9,1997 919/97 (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 CDaumlain" 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 REGARDING A MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE Fact M.s Sort DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN File No. AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE 9c.148 FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILD,ffG,,(pp 'cant: Marvin Smith; Property Location: 126 4th Avenue North, File NosDB 9(r131` d AP-96-148) Medical self li (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH HEALTH CARE insurance - 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 services ANNEXATION CENSUS -TAKING SERVICES Transfer (1) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A TRANSFER SWITCH FOR EMERGENCY Switch for wwTP POWER AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FROM RUSSELECTRIC ($32,379, Including Sales Tax) (J) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT Bella Place OF BELLA PLACEProperty 9 LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION File No. P-96-140; FileP-9&140 Location: 9332 220th Street Southwest / Applicant Dearl Royce and Chuck Warner) Final Plat of (K) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT Classiw's Addition OF CLASSIC, O'S ADDITION, 6 LOT SUBDIVISION (File No. P-97-65; Property Location: Fite P•96-65 20605 Maplewood Drive / Applicant: Classico Homes Accounting (L) APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE ACCOUNTING MANAGER Manager POSITION Position Elector- (M) APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE ELECTRO-MECHANICAL Mechanical Position SPECIALIST POSITION LandinE 911'sso. (N) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE BRACKETT'S LANDING g Park SOUTH PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (0) RESOLUTION NO. 887 INITIATING A STREET VACATION AND SETTING A Street sss7 HEARING DATE FOR THE VACATION OF EDMONDS STREET BETWEEN STH sane Vacation AVENUE NORTH AND SIX AVENUE NORTH (Applicant: City of Edmonds / Fife No. ST- 97-108) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15,1997 Page 2 MA 4�C6/�M",Vv�-ems EDMONDS CITE' COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15,1997 0-The Special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Mayor Barbara Fahey in p; the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. (n to w 4=^ . O� ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT g Barbara Fahey, Mayor Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor D Roger L. Myers, Council President Pro Tem Noel Miller, Public Works Manager N John Nordquist, Councilmember James Walker, City Engineer s Jim White, Councilmember Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director ZDick Van Hoilebeke, Councilmember Sandy Chase, City Clerk Z p; Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Jeannie Dines, Recorder z i—: s s ABSENT Dave Earling, Council President Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Mayor Fahey welcomed the four Scouts in the audience who were working on their Citizenship Badge. Councilmember Haakenson advised Item 4 should read "Report on Council Committee Meetings of September 9, 1997." i COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT j PRO TEM MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. A CONSENT AGENDA IT MS Addidoa to consent COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER Q ApC7da HAAKENSON, 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 CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: C® (A) ROLL CALL Approve Minutes of (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2,1997 9W97 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 15,1997 t Page 1 .. ;�� C"" t"""n`» to i n, ®.`u <<� �� ��, �LU LU rn '0 � of S W; Z Ni ,. 0 LU W': �a = U� Z L) o~ Z EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: For Action: X For Information: 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 `i Clearances: Department/Initials Admin Svcs/Finance- Community Svcg - or P, 1,t� City Attorney Engineering City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Public gr� Personnel Public Works Fire City Council Police Mayor j 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: 0 Approve Revised Findings of Fact. Council Action: 0 L/Temp/Admire/c96148fidoc. 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. ! t-: `� Itnitlative Rich Demeroubs, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, expressed concern with the City Attorney's review of the Z Petition petition at the Juli29.0997, Council meeting and his comments.that it would not hold up in court. Mr. Demeroutis pointed oufbc,casions 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 V) p Councilmember White's comments .regarding the petition, noting he did not specialize in municipal law. i' Further, he urged the Council to refrain from making comments about citizens who were working for w i-- their community. w0: Me Jack Bevan, 19210 94th W, Edmonds, asked the�following questions: (1) whether Medicare paid for g m : Lz• mnrt jTd4..7 transport, (2) whether an insurance company would pay if a person did not have Medicare, (3) who LL Fees would pay if a person were unable to pay, and (4) whether. ;the additional $.05 in the EMS levy rate zw would cover the shortfall. In response to Mr. Bevan's questionsi,Mayor Fahey advised Medicare and Z3 Medicaid pay for transport fees although a 20% co -pay is requiredc:.,,If a person's insurance covered pj ambulance service, transport fees would usually be covered and the ordinance the City adopted last week w- addressed the inability to pay for transport fees. The $.05 would not cover costs if transport fees were w o not assessed.?, Mr. Bevan said the City's budget book indicated the assessed value of the City had U (nil increased 1327% over the past 20 years. o �- w LU Riehl)emeroutis asked why the Mayor requested the City Attorney draft an opinion regarding transport t- F fees if they were created by the Medic 7 Board. As Mr. Demeroutis' time to address the Council had `—` o: expired, Mayor Fahey invited him to come to her office to discuss this matter. Z' w ur U = 4. CONTINUED MEETING ON AN APPEAL OFT DECISION I C TED BY THE Z LAP-96-IiO RCHIrECTU L DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PA_RMG SPAC ES IN TH FRONT OF APP .ICANT'S BUILDIN (Applicant: Marvin Smith: PropeM Location: 126 4th Avenue North: File Nos, PiDB9 j"and AP-96-14$) 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 August 5,1997 Exhibit 1 Page 3 r NaLU tL S uJ' z_ r=— F- o z W LU: o , ca cn{ 0-- in i-- UJ = vl u- p; Z ui (n U =. o ~� z +u r (:i,., .. ._ �w�. ...:id.., �. ..H=�wu+t .U,x::a:; H..,. :.�_. ;, ..w�.cw n rv._ce+xa„ ..:, .: ,�u ....,.v .,,.,. _;._ _. .._•___,. «.. r,... r _. ,_.. ........... ......... C) 0 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. Ms. Hyde pointed out the ADB's Findings and Conclusions were not supported by the record and were in conflict. She referred to paragraph 2.4 of the ADB's Findings which indicated the applicant's proposal to j buffer development from the street satisfied the requirement of ECDC 20.10.070(B)(2), (3), and (4). 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, successful examples of the design criteria contained in 20.10.070 were incorporated in the building design and treatment criteria and interim guide and the Council had previously found that guide was not x applicable to this matter. Another conflict existed as the ADB found the application failed to satisfy the 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 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 ti with landscaping. She noted in Anderson v. Issaquah, it was determined a City cannot deny an application on this basis. Ms. Hyde summarized Mr. Smith requests the Council approve his application and allow him to park two vehicles on the asphalt area in front of his building subject to either the landscape plan submitted or 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 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 Iandscaping 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 , 4 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 j modification, parking stall dimensions were deeper (18 feet); the dimensions could now be reduced to x 16.5 feet in length. He noted the parking dimensions were engineering standards and declined to z �( comment on turning movement requirements. z Z: UJ! Councilmember 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 N o for entry of written findings. V)w LU � I Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council had the authority to determine what was in conflict. w0t Mr. Snyder indicated the decision ultimately was whether the applicant complied with the criteria of the � Code and its application. J D ( Councilmember Myers noted the ADB's Findings were not dated and were signed by only one member. : City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the additional signature was obtained and was dated June 18, 1997. zO :r Copies were sent by certified mail to the Mr. Smith and Ms. Hyde. Z O, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO w un APPROVE THE PARKING PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL OF THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPE U G Nt STRIP.UJ t F(i v Councilmember Myers referred to the ADB decision which indicated "the parking proposed fails to u- 0: provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property owners and the adjacent ZI LU 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 south side. He hoped the applicant and the church could reach an agreement o E— 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 y 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. A 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. 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. z } Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5,1997 Page 5 „. ,L _ 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. z �� Ms. Hyde said her understanding was that the width of the landscaping could be negotiated with the w;`; 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. cWJi pi Councilmember Nordquist clarified that his motion stated the buffer would be 5 feet. Mayor Fahey Cn W; clarified if the church did not want the landscape buffer, the buffer would not be provided. There was no J �;. option in the motion for negotiating the amount of the buffer. ,,,,t �� 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 LL q would allow Ms. Hyde to obtain a letter from the church specifying {{ sp Eying their decision on the buffer. He to a i 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 z r: could be provided, the Council could modify its decision. ro w taw! COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCMMEMBER pi HAAKENSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND DECISION TO THE AUGUST 19, 1997 v tn! COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. 0-1 i vlj. 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 "—' z! a letter from the church. w to O_ 5 MEETING ON AN APPEAL nE A TNG EXAiVtTNxttI. ra. R= u �TF.. DECISION TO, RANT z 11 Appeal APPROVAL OF A RFQLtFST FOu A CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN AP-.87 ACCE ORY DWELLING UNIT TO LOCAIN A NEW ADDITION TO �)�+��G J.No*uist SIN ai+* TViTfPY,.RESIDENCE T.orATrn AT 9dtn-7 -1ATU AVVWT c• UYVZ ? __ai...-a. r_u— f, i Mayor Fahey indicated Councilmember Nordquist had stepped down from his position on the Council for this matter. Mr. Snyder explained normally when a Counethzz er stepped down, he/she would be encouraged to } Fig • leave the Council Chambers. In this instance;"doing so wottd4derive him of his rights under appeal; ® therefore, he would be allowed to be present. He recornme ckd 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. to Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained on May 15, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on w4dquest 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 34, 1997, the Hearing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5, 1997 Page 6 w F w O D) z r z z w 2 D U O O w S. LL U 0 z c® d BEFORE TBE EDMONDS CITY 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 Architectural Design Board, these findings, conclusions and decision small control. r F, 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, a 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. II. ADD OT_�, NAL CQKLUSIW S OF AW 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 18 of the Architectural Design Board are specifically not adopted by the City Council. WM4/ 7 ws5170414.1sxr000a.9 M I. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT -I- Exhibit 2 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. U1. DECISM The application as herein conditioned is approved. The parking tot 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 ATTESVAUTI IENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk 09104/97 w3s17a24.1SX=W.9M L.LQ T zI-- ; P z LULU �o U o- Lu o� z :U -: r I BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY 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 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. 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. 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 dirminition 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. 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 landscaping shall be required for the lot beyond landscaping of the three (3) feet adjacent to the north property line. DATED this 3rd day of September , 1997. OF EDMONDS Barbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: 'Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk 09/25197 WSS170424.1SX/0W6.NW s Claim for (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DAVID L. Damages GOTTSCHALK (Amount Unknown) Approve (F) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15950 THRU #19303 FOR THE WEEK OF wants AUGUST 4, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT 'OF $377,751.54; APPROVAL OF CLA CLAM z j� WARRANTS #18954 THRU #19461 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 11, 1997, IN THE x': AMOUNT OF $601,488.99; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #17252 THRU w: #17497 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 16 THRU JULY 31, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF Q� $391,101.34 J U 0' V a 11997 Water 1 (I) REPORT ON FINAL. CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1997 WATER LINE N tu; Line Program REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT C/) LL I O' Storm (� REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 4, 1997, FOR THE 92ND AVENUE Wl220TH to Drainage Improvements STREET SW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO GREEN RIVER CONSTRUCTION ($132,726.58, Including Sales Tax) (n MI d City Park Aga (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT :, Improvements WITH SVR DESIGN COMPANY FOR THE EDMONDS CITY PARK ACCESS Z IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT z Councilmember White advised he pulled Agenda Items C, G, and H to abstain from the vote as he was D'. absent from the August 4 Council meeting. O -i F. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, a FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS C, G, AND H. MOTION CARRIED, = v, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEMS C, G, AND H; r — 1—, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEM H. The items U- approved are as follows: LU M sus (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 5,1997 O 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-46-148 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. pplicant: Marvin Smith; Property Location: 126 4th Avenue i North; File Nos.ADB-96=Iand AP-96-148) Findings of (H) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A Ar s7-s7 MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING .�• (I.Nordquist) EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO 0 LOCATE IN A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 24107 76TH AVENUE WEST (Appellant: John Nordquist, File No. AP-97- 871 Applicant: Amir Ashoori, Fite No. CUA7-21) 3. AUDIENCE Treatment Lester Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, distributed information regarding the Treatment Plant to t a rianc Councilmembers. He explained his discussions with King ' County 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 fixture spills. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 19,1997 Page 2 V)LL WQ J, u_ _ { cn C 1 = W, r z, z r; r C)' z r., W W1 g D a F-' LU = U rr Uj to U = O~ z EG Addition to Agenda Approve 7/29 Minutes Approve 8/12 Minutes 2. The Edmonds City Council meeting Library Plaza Room, was called to order at 7:02 p.m, by Mayor Barbara F 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ahey in the 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 Paw 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 CO UNCILMEMBER HAAI{ENSON MOVED TO ADD DISCUSSION OF E ' SECONDED BY CUUNCILMEMBER 1VIILLER, AND 11 ACCORD MS MEDIC 7 AS ITEM 9 AND AGENDA ACCORDINGLY. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS 9,10, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCII MEMBER ADD IE EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER L ZMMITEM 7A, MOTTO CARRIED. MYERS, TO N FOR COUNCILAPPROMEVAMBERL HAAKENSON MOVED: OF THE AGE NDA SECONDED BY COUNCII MEMBER MyE AS ADJUSTED. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember White pulled Agenda Items C, G and H. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED HOLLEBEKE,FOR APPROVAL OF SECONDED BY COUNCIL MOTION CARRIED, The agenda itemT REMdINDEfollows: � CONSENT MEMEER VAN AGENDA ITEMS. (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCILMEETING MINUTES OF JULY 29,1997 (D) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINCJTTES OF AUGUST 12,1997 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 19,1997 Page 1 -j H-', to O LU J{{ U- �i to 0, _ w Z 1=- —O z E—'. w Lu' a U -1 0 H- 1 N� u. O —Z U cn O� Z 191 U 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. Initiative 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 Transport transport, (2) whether an insurance company would pay if a person did not have Medicare, (3) who 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 IN 4. CONTIMP MEETING ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSITFD By THE Record ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO ON TR T T T O Appeal • ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF THE APPLI NT'S R T1INC AP•4&148 M. Smith (Applicant: Marvin Smith: Property Location: 126 4th Avenue North, File Nos. di#f hi „a AP-96-148) - 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 August 5,1997 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. s Ms. Hyde pointed out the ADB's Findings and Conclusions were not supported by the record and were in I--w: rr 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(B)(2), (3), and (4). Ui O o 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, � � successful examples of the design 1p p gn criteria contained in 20.I0.070 were incorporated in the building J LL design and treatment criteria and interim guide and the Council had previously found that guide was not 1 Oj applicable to this matter. Another conflict existed as the ADB found the application failed to satisfy the 2 criteria of landscaping requirements of 20.12 adopted pursuant to 20.10. However, the ADB found the ga 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. w' ZFx- Ms. Hyde stated the Code provision that required the 10-foot wide landscape area was not applicable as z O this parking lot did not meet the State's definition of "abut". The ADB also denied the application as W ,y they felt it did not maintain a desirable and aesthetic environment of the City of Edmonds and failed to = o, minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight by buffering the proposed parking U in; o with landscaping. She noted in Anderson Y. Issaquah, it was determined a City cannot deny an r-. application on this basis. w u�� LLLy 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 6i tni 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. C® 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 ki V.) Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson advised the proposed parking dimensions would use the entire 64-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 parking dimensions were engineering standards and declined to W:, comment on trading movement requirements. tr g; Councilmember Haakenson asked what the ADB's responsibility had been upon remand. Mr. Snyder v o: referred to the Council's Findings and Conclusions which indicated the matter was remanded to the ADB w= for entry of written findings. w U.1 Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council had the authority to determine what was in conflict. - g Mr. Snyder indicated the decision ultimately was whether the applicant complied with the criteria of the a Code and its application. tL = j a', Councilmember Myers noted the ADB's Findings were not dated and were signed by only one member. s! City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the additional signature was obtained and was dated June 18, 1997. rl-- Copies were sent by certified mail to the Mr. Smith and Ms. Hyde. z E-. LU UP COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCH,MEMBER MYERS, TO O (ni. APPROVE THE PARKING PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL OF THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPE H STRIP. = v: „- O! Councilmember Myers referred to the ADB decision which indicated "the parking proposed fails to z provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property owners and the adjacent Fstreet" 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 south side. He hoped the applicant and the church could reach an agreement Z 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 i 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 W. 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. w 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. 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5,1997 Page 5 ! 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. z y Ms. Hyde said her understanding was that the width of the landscaping could be negotiated with the r- UJ' 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. J V U U W;I Councilmember Nordquist clarified that his motion stated the buffer would be 5 feet. Mayor Fahey 41. � 1 clarified if the church did not want the landscape buffer, the buffer would not be provided. There was no J U) option in the motion for negotiating the amount of the buffer. LU O Mr. Snyder advised the Findings would be prepared for the August 19 Council meeting. He LL < 1L aC recommended the Council continue the hearing and decision to the August 19 Council meeting which ors d would allow Ms. Hyde to obtain a letter from the church specifying their decision on the buffer. He s w disagreed with the Council deferring the outcome to a third party. Ms. Hyde agreed to provide a letter z tom-' from the church. Mr. Snyder pointed out if the church agreed to the 5-foot buffer but only 3 - 4 feet of could be provided, the Council could modify its decision. ww COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER y tni, HAAEENSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND DECISION TO THE AUGUST 19, 1997 a � " COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. t F- 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 z; di rn' a letter from the church. u =: z~Closed g, M + TING ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINE IS DECISION TO GRANT ALLOW AN Record I APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ApWl ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO LOCATE IN A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ATED 24176TH AVTi NITI+ WEST John J. Nordquist S G E—FAMI v RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 07 (Appellant: Nordquist, File No. AP-97-871 Applicant: Amir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 ' 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; Q 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 August 5, 1997 Page 6 t 0 �; N di = w' z h' z w w. to u_h UJ F- r; u- O, _z U N o~ z 01 to # r� Item #:% EDIVIONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo 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 �v,- PX City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: July 15,1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec Court Planni GJ Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works 1. Vicinity Map Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council _ 2. Memorandum from Scott Snyder (7/10/97) Mayo 3. ADB Findings of Fact from 3/19/97 Reviewed by Council Finance Meeting Committee: Community Services 4. ADB Minutes from 3/19/97 Meeting Public Safety Approved for Consent Agenda: 5, Transcript from 3119/97 ADB Hearing 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. #� O I z QLU =i "tO U 0 V2 W J h fn LL �a tL = = w; z= h 0{ z hi LU LJJI o N o�- h� �- a _z U= o~ z k4al"I >f + DATE: TO: FROM: RE: P. L. L. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2100 W tsibice Center Tower • 1601 F1hh Avenue • Semtie, WA "101-16R6 • (206) 447.7000 • Fax (106) "7.0215 July 11, 1997 Mayor Barbara Fahey City Council, City of Edmonds W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney Continued Hearing • Marvin Smith, Applicant. MEMORMDUM The Architectural Design Board'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 ADB's decision must be based entirely upon its record and since the closed record contains no evidence or testimony regarding front yard parking at adjacent sites, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the finding. The City Council has an number of 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. 01 Q002 t a i 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 1 support a granting of a modification. Approve the application based upon the presentation of the Applicant's representative. BIT EXHI Wenatchee OCficc • Rivorfmnt center • 2 Fifth Street • Suite 2W . Wenatchee, WA 9U07 • (509) 662;1954 • Pas (509) 66.5•2553 q S5'Fks�f:`iai�tuinaEi:.F,..� � of s w` z i--: ~O z� LULU va o �- LU Ul W pl z� ui cn' vT o ~; z PROCEDURAL MSTOR This matter was originally heard by the Architectural Design Board on December 4, 1996. Following the Board's decision to deny this matter. it was appealed to the Edmonds City Council for a closed record appeal on December 17, 1996. The Edmonds City Council upheld the applicant's appeal and remanded this matter back to the Architectural Design Board with instructions to the Board to continue its deliberations based on the existing closed record and to enter its Findings of Tact and Conclusions of Law. In particular, the City Council found than the provisions of the Design Manual which explicate the Comprehensive Plan policies formerly found in Chapter 15.15 of the Edmonds Community Development Code are no longer applicable. The City Council found that the provisions of Chapter 15.15 were ;repealed as part of the Comprehensive Plan revision and that until readopted cannot forth 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, meeting, and the procedural record and argtutient before the City Council, the Architetxural Design Board finds and concludes as follows: 1. FINDINGS 1.1 The applicant Iviarvin Smith proposes to convert the front yard of a commercial building located at 126 - 4th Avenue Notch, Edmonds, Washington, to a parlcing 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 cant. The proposed landscaping as shown in an Exhibit to the Architectural Design Board's first heating 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. 29 Cno W LJ Da =W r:C Z t- �o Z va � o i✓ LU w� _z v u: o� Z 00,�18;9T WED 11:44 FAX 200 ;�I 0215 c OXW SEATTLE :;) 1.2 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. 1.13 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 strip 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 five feet in width must be installed adjoining the property line. 1.4 in order to approve a permit, the Edmonds 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 Elan and other adopted City policies. ECDC 20.10.060(A). 1 A.2 The staff finds that the proposal meets 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 project. 1.6 With the exception of the issue noted in paragraphs 1.2 aad 1.3, the staff finds that the proposal complies with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. in particular, the engineering staff finds titer the curb curt 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 cut upon downtown parking. 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 Bayard funds the following 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 Treatment (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." 11. 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 referenced at ECDC 20.10.070(B) above. 2.3 The landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.12.025(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 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 satisfios the requirement of ECDC 20A0.070(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 applications does not include 0 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 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 �i `J9't P �.�,%#.i...M?L`J4r��.yy: A J, 06/18/97 WED 12:33 PAx 2o7`x 7 021S WIN SEATTLE 1@002 adjacent Properties, The adJaCerlt Properties do not have front yard parldng and therefore should be buffered. 2.7 Purthcr, the application does not provide ten feet of buffering beatween the p Lu lot and Avenue North and there arldul d Fourth Lul therefore violates the Provisions of ECDC 20,12.025(A)(2). The application therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.12 adopted pursuant to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. a! 2. 8 Modification of landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.10 would be inconsistent with Lul r i � I = the purposes set forth In Chapter 70. 10 because the application does not maintain a desirable and LL 0 aesthetic environment Of the C4 of Edmonds and fails to minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight by buffering the proposed parking with landscaping. -J DECISION UJI 51 The application is therefore denied, The Parking lot as proposed fails to provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property owners and the adjacent street. LU :51 " DATED this day of 1997. Cal Lin), ARCHITECTURAL ESIGV-Bo� !t=: '9D LWU Ly 1 0 Z11 By: J (WLef.-B-didd Y/tuber a Lu, cc wO �U U O' cn Cn w; -J F t!i iL U.) -J U) DI Zd F- w Z F- H O. Z ut w' O p' U tni LU n � =U u- O rZ ui to U� O� Z 2- to t E� l 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, I52 - 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 rksign Board (} March 19,1997 Page 4 1.+ EXHIBIT 4 R 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. wLL p! 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 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 d f know what that is. = w' z h Mr. Snyder said he is present to advise the Board, but not become involved as a party to the issue. Mr. Bissell and Z O, Ms. Hyde are the two party representatives. He referred to Page 4 of the distributed document which describes the w w. 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 U Findings of Fact for the Board. The Board shall confine its deliberation to the written record previously a 0 —I �; developed and to the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be w w}, taken and no additional argument permitted by any party." Mr. Snyder advised that these are the rules governing = v. this deliberation. He advised that any additional arguments or testimony from either Mr. Bissell or Ms. Hyde w 0: would be inappropriate, and that is why they are not receiving a staff report on this item. z U N Mr. Snyder referred to the packet of information he distributed and explained that Items 2 and 3 contain the record h as it exists. The first item contains the three alternative forms of decision. Ms. Hyde suggested that the minutes Zfrom 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 i 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. Q 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, 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 t ® 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 March 19, 1997 Page 5 (n w- LU z -j F w of CE J U. =1 z W. H x: Z i— f. O Z w w; U O— H w� = u- p Zi ui C U O� Z t0 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 application 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 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 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 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 permissible. Mr. Snyder said that he would have agreed to Board Member Young's suggestion that the Board review the ECDC if it had been limited to Chapters 20,10 and 20.12, because these are the 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 no 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 to 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 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 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, 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 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 r , Page 6 101 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. 1— `w Mr. Snyder indicated that Board Member Pierce is correct. The Board did not make a decision about whether m �• landscaping was sufficient. He cautioned the Board that they have the following options: They can find that L) modifications are necessary for the landscaping to comply, or they can find that the application does not comply U p with the landscaping requirements and deny the request. The Board may find that it is appropriate to modify the U) LU standards because of size, location, and the surrounding area, but this must be based upon existing record. He � F--, explained that because the Board did not make a finding on the landscaping requirements, Ms. Hyde's appeal was wof successful. The Council remanded the issue back to the Board so that they could establish a finding as to whether LU 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 LL Q ordinance and the ECDC. Because the Board turned down the application based upon the Comprehensive Plan cn d element, they did not make findings on the other two items. X LW ZIS- Ms. Hyde said that her understanding is that before the Board can deny an application, they must find that is r O inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and identify the sections where inconsistencies occur. They must also 1', find that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance or identify what is wrong with the application. The last w 2 M, area they must consider is whether the application satisfies the criteria of the ECDC. U tni O - 1 Board Member Young said the bottom line is that the applicant has the obligation in the permit application process a H to persuade the Board to grant approval. The Board was not persuaded. Whether they were not persuaded based = v upon one item or all three, makes no difference. In the opinion of the individuals making the motion to deny the LL0' application, there was no good reason to grant approval for this application. He is concerned that the Board not — Z: consider any new information which would alter this persuasion. His feeling is he would be more comfortable Vcn = 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 Zspirit 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. i 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, 0 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 r J Page 7 MEN 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. z (j Board Member Young said it is the Board's responsibility to follow the ECDC when responding to this remand = action. There are any number of provisions (none of which are Chapter 15.15) which pertain to the consideration �- 51 of parking. All of these Chapters are under the purview of the design guidelines, and in turn, are within the advisory capacity of the Board. What the Board prefers to see when they have an application before them is not a V�, question of property owner's rights, which are a given. This request goes beyond the property owner rights when Ln p they requested modifications to the regulations. The Board is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the va W Council to protect the City's interest to the best of their ability, and they do this fairly objectively by going � h: through regulatory criteria which applies to each particular application. They must find whether each application 0� w} meets the criteria found in the zoning ordinance, the ECDC and the Comprehensive Plan. F- J Mr. Snyder referred to Chapter 20.10.060(B), which contains the wording which is to be used for Board findings. Q When this section was drafted it was intended to limit the Board's charge so that they were not having to oversight in C; the staffs administration of various technical provisions of the Code. The parking lot provisions are issues = w' covered by Chapter 18.20 which is under the capacity of the Engineering Department to review. The City ZH Engineer's report was that it complied with the parking lot design criteria. Whether they feel that the staff rightly Oi or wrongly made the decision, is not at issue. If an applicant or member of the public felt the staff made the w wrong decision, they could appeal this decision to the Hearing Examiner and then the City Council. cn Ofit. Board Member Oaklief inquired if while reviewing this application, the Board should look at the entire lot, or just that portion that is being modified. Mr. Snyder said they should focus on the lot in front. He assumes that the O ~ LU back lot has been either previously approved or grandfathered, so they should only be concerned with the front lot. l- P! Board Member Pierce' suggested that the Board must decide whether to pass this issue to another evening for —0 Z; review or evaluate the application at this time based upon the landscaping requirements found in Chapter LU cn' 20.12.025 and make a decision to close the matter tonight. t=- H 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 carry 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, i and Board Member Young stated that he is not even comfortable with the exhibits provided by the City Attorney. �, .. 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 p 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, 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 March 19,1997 _i!. 4 Page 8 public hearing, it would be inappropriate for him to participate this evening. If the issue is continued, Board z Member Chalupnic could take the opportunity to listen to the record and be prepared to participate at the next Q { z meeting. Board Member Young noted that Board Member Chalupnic is not commenting on anything in the E-- record, but merely stating Board policy. The Board's policy is that if the landscaping does not meet the criteria, it m uj is not the Board's responsibility to make suggestions for changes. Therefore, he sees no problem with Mr. UJ O Chalupnic's comments being included in the record. U 0 wW: Board Member Chalupnic said it seems the real issue is that the Board did not pinpoint all of the reasons this J 1. ;; application was denied. However, applications only require one reason for denial. If the Board can come up with LO LL 0 any reason why this should be denied, that is all that is necessary. He inquired if Mr. Snyder agreed. Mr. Snyder w said the Board needs to make three findings. If only one of the criteria cannot be met, the application must be q denied. He agreed with the concept of not designing for applicants. But, Ms. Hyde is requesting that the Board to the landscaping LL make modifications standards to meet the needs of this application. The Board must determine N d' if the modifications can meet the criteria and establish findings as such. Ms. Hyde concurred that on behalf of her u,t client, she is seeking modifications to the landscaping requirements. The Board is not being asked to design the H parking lot, but it is within their authority to determine whether or not modifications to the standard are H p appropriate. Z jo Board Member Oaklief recalled that he asked Mr. Snyder if there was anything within the spirit of the Code U N (Chapter 20) which had to do with this application. He referred to Chapter 20.12.025(A), which lists three 0 criteria. One of these criteria states that where a parking lot abuts any street a landscape area of 10 feet is required. This is similar to the discussion regarding parking Iot orientation in relation to the street. This section = v also requires a five foot planting strip around the parameter of the parking lot and a five foot planting area along LLC the property line where the drive way abuts the property line. He is most concerned about the criteria which states — Z that where a parking lot abuts any street, a landscape area of 10 feet is required. He said he would feet u.i cr comfortable making a decision based upon this section of the code and voting to deny the application. Board Member Pierce inquired if the. Board could choose to clarify their position of denial based upon 20.12.025 Z as reviewed by Board Member Oaklief. He understands that the Board can choose to relax the landscape standards, but can they also choose to uphold the landscape 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 that it does not comply with the code, they should also make 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. The Board has been asked by the Council to conduct their review through the closed record process. His opinion 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 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 the Board could make a motion to continue this issue to a date certain. Board Member Pierce concurred with Board Member Young's suggestion. He also suggested that the Board be clear as to what information will be used for their deliberations. Board Member Pierce agreed that they should { ® keep the discussion to the original information with no 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 should 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. Architectural Design Board 5 March 19,' 1997 Page 9 7 n7l, z ur, U 0� (n LLI w O' z LL �{ CV = ut H X. Z i_ 1.- p Z 1-1 w ur'. V rh 0 1_' �U LL p —Z pia in U= o~ z t 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, 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 0 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 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 [� March 19, 1997 i t i Page 10 vvj4 �'1. t sr,*?i�i?'.{rX(�c,'l,�tt'rS"}rv'};,}J, �ii-. "iiS��•:.c�rs y'Y.rP. y Yr a4^w» xz 53,rAi }',7 tti t'�22,}e- ,+�f": ;,zf�"s ;,y.Y ��i �l�s r '3t +.?r`�2"!��`w :!} f ,: ���t v,;, r` rr �.y t) "ct i z � K. ti-�K t� 1� ��3•ky�� ��. j .+�.ia.�74 �. 4 r� t`'t.,t-.•�wk` u"`"i�' ✓ i'tv?{ "g,.v. r' yt mt,� . `C �'r3 F'��"brast (` k �k 4 x'. t® 1.2 The Applicant filed a timely appeal from the staff determination alleging that: -1- y. v EXHIMT 6 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 . Community Development Code and the criteria of Chapter 20.10 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. See ECDC 20.10.060 Findings. -2 .il.:J z r! t0 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. H. 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 th-e 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 theoriginal record created before the Commission. No additional testimony shall be taken n-or additional argument received. -3- 20. z E-I N- of z �- �a 0- 0 H LL Q Z UZ 0 z III. DECISION The appeal of the Applicant is upheld. This matter is remanded to the Architectur Design Board for the entry of written findings. The Applicant and the staff may submi proposed written Findings of Fact one week in advance of the continued deliberation and en of the decision of the Architectural Design Board. The City attorney or his designee is directe 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 shal confine its deliberation to the written record previously developed before it and to these Finding of Fact and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and n additional argument permitted by any party. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Attorney' provision of legal advice. The Architectural Design Board shall not consider for any purpos the criteria of Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtow area. s 0 s e n -b d 1 r 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 y 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-- 21 7T FA 'I circumstances prohibit the Board from hearing this matter- and return ,a -decision within 30 days, a written report is requested. DATED this 25th day of February 1997.1, CITY OF EDMONDS Barbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk WSS154473.IX/0006.150.071 -5- 4f z w U a ra Ui LL -a w} � J L� -d � w z l=— 1.- 0 Z ww 2:) U0 N p l— � F u. p —z ui to Uy o~ z rol i Mayor Fahey opened the audience participation portion of the hearing. Brian Comstock,11.07 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. Appea6. APPEAL OF THE HEARING AMINER' DECISION REGARDING FILE NO V 96-1t9, TO Height- DENY THE REQUEST FORA HEIGHT VARIANCE OF APPR MMATEL Y 12- , E Height - Q - ' � ,T_I'O Variance ALLOW THE CONSTRIIC2M OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A AP•9&144 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 37-FEET ABQVE AVERAGE GRADE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 16008 75TH PLACE WEST AND IS ZONED RS-12, (Appellan / _phi cant: Dr. Al Ansari and Dr. BOtoul Modarress / File No AP 46 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 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Ito Rri TO DENY THE Two APPLICATION EUD UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96431 TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL Additional PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF = BUILDING. LOCATED AT 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH Parking Spaces (Appellant/ piicant: Marvin Smith /Fite No AP-96-148) AP•9&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 .) eN Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes 40 February 4,1997 Page 7 EXHIBIT 7 s .. : 7 be considered based on those ordinances. He pointed out the ADB may need additional training on establishing a record and more detailed findings. t jj Mr. Snyder pointed out Ms. Hyde's appeal letter indicates the City, as a property owner of interest, may ¢ tI X be in violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He explained RCW 42.36.090 provides that if a U challenge to the quasi judicial body would destroy its quorum, the members may continue to participate 2 and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge would be without weight. LU v o` Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the staff report could be considered as information contained in the V) W; record. Mr. Snyder advised the staff report could be considered as long as it did not contain any new � information. LU & 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 Nordquist's LL Q W =) participation. Cl w ` Sally Hyde, Attorney WT Marvin Smith, indicated she challenged the entire Council as the property is z adjacent to her client's property and City employees use the'on-street parking. She did not wish to waive . l— O; z any of those objections on an issue of appeal if this matter were to proceed to Superior Court. W W. a Mayor Fahey stated there were no objections to Councilmember Nordquist's participation. o �-1 Associate Planner John Bissell, ADB Liaison, said on December 4, 1996, the ADD held a hearing on w ur�` Marvin Smith's application to add two parking stalls to his site on 4th Avenue North. The ADB X L considered the evidence and concluded the application was not in compliance with the standards of the 'i- o Design Guidelines and requirements of the Landscape Ordinance and denied the application. z UJ s Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the agenda memo was a summary of information contained in the a>— record. Mr. Bissell answered, to the best of his knowledge, it was. 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. -- j 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 noncortrpliance; 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 Q based on the landscape buffer., ' w 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 L 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 ADD. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 4, 1997 1 3 ,f Page 8 0 ® g U) L� 0 w} FQ- i id ZLL Z U a— F- LU LLI u+ p Z: w to U = o ~' Z t0 w Ms. Hyde stressed a closed record appeal is limited to the information and arguments provided to the y 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. Ms. 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. Hy&-. had three minutes remaining for rebuttal. W. 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 we.-e 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 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 r„ February 4,1997 Page 9 0 1 LL w� g Ji w Qi LU z t- zo ul w v tni Q -z v= o r. Z C t® i S 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. Ms. Hyde reiterated the issue before the Council is whether there was sufficient basis to deny the permit and, as there wasn't, Mr. Smith's permit should be granted. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Responding to Councilmember White's questions, Mr. Snyder 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 on two of the required findings for issuing a permit. He advised the required findings are contained in Chapter 20.10.060—find ngs must conclude the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted policy, . that the zoning ordinance requirement has been met or that a variance or modification has been approved, and that it satisfies the criteria of the Chapter. He agreed the Comprehensive Plan does not provide sufficient detail (under Anderson vs. Issaquah) to be applied. 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 Guidelines are not to be considered. 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. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE� TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL, OVERTURN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DECIFON 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. o Mr. Snyder advised Findings would be prepared for the next regular Council meeting and would include i direction to the ADD 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 r �+ Page 10 ti Li ,- Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL (. , A , Agenda li g a Memo LU G Q. Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: V) uwj Subject: APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD w-J TO DENY THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96.131 TO p! CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE g BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 4TH AVENUE NORTH. LL (APPELLANTIAPPLICANT: MARVIN SMITH / FILE NO. AP-96-148) sn d 1{ zz 3: Clearances: Department/initials ,� Agenda Time: 40 min t— Admin Svcs/Finance _ Community Svcs Agenda Date: February 4 1997 City Attorney Engineering o ry City Clerk Parks & Rec y' Court Planning o Exhibits Attached: a ~}; Personnel________ Public Works y �1, I. Vicinity Map Fire �Treatment Plant _ 2. ADB Hearing Transcript Police City Council � p vz_ Mayor N' 3. ADB Staff Report, including plans Reviewed by Council Finance submitted by the applicant z Committee: Community Services 1 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 Required: $ 0 Budgeted: $ 0 Appropriation Required: $ 0 Funding Source: ' N/A 21 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 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. EXHIBIT 8 uu.h e1 i et*: . Jim 1 NLLo w� J LL._ cn Zw z t- �- o w= �o v to CF wW s c; u. C LUu Oh z {0 C � 1 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: 0) Z zi__ U 0 a LU LL Ui z to I-,BU-H7 3:28PM WWEN ULRPHY W 2067710221:* 2/19 ZMIXG TRUSCRIPT ADB-96-131 - Marvin Smith Now parking Axe& for au axinting office [VAPE 1. SIDE Al Will you please came to the front desk and a I tate your name and address for the record. Sally Hyde: Yes. My name is Sally. Hyde and I'm here on behalf of Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith has a hearing PrQblem, 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 whatsoever and have had no discussions on it. Okay? Jeff Okliefi Actually, I have to second that. I also know Marvin, Smith, go if there is anyone that has any objections'with me staying on the board for this discussion-- iTim. Young Since we're all bearing our souls here, Ms. Hyde and I happen to be In Rotary together, so, you know-- Alan, it's yours. ?(ma) I'm innocent. ? (man) You're clean? Youngs Steven and %Teff and I,are go ing to go out: f or a beer — Oklief: So, are there, any objections? . None? Okay. (multiple vmkoes) Did you get the address and everything down? ?{woman) Xt10 152 Third Avenue South, Ste. 101, Edmonds. I have a -- John Bissell., He s probably goihg to ask me for a staff report Oklieft Right. If YOU watt 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 start report? U.Exhibit2'., (nO W LL a s ,,,,; Z F=- h- O� z y" gLUI (_i 0 HI MU u- O z U(n o~ z to Bissell: WS315Md.1WFW.Mv9r OD& okay, this is staff report for ADB 96-112, which is a proposed addition of two parking stall to an existing offico development at 1126 Fourth Avenue Forth. The existing development ie, 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 stalls would access from the front of the property off of Fourth Avenue North. Alter the projects complete, Men 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 a use is either a I to $00 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 Boo square feet. Assuming that it's g 1600 square feet with one parking stall required f for 400 square foot, then this this use would require no more than four parking, otalle,. There's currently 24 parking otalls on site so the, and the applicant wants to add two parking stalls. If the property were to change use and a 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 l6 parking stalls on site. so, it appears the applicant is proposing to have substantially more parking than is required by the Code of the City of Fdmonds, 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 rourth Avenue north of the walkway out the front of the building off of Fourth Avenue North to get to the front of the building. The 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 there. The proposed parking lot would allow for a four -foot landscaped buffer between the two 6 w!W1S2LM.1S)UK X7y gg99g/g)ppy. 4 k '? parking stalls on the street. The Community Development Code, Section 20.12, requires a five. toot buffer. There have beer_ 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 City design guidelines encourage parking to be placed at the rear of 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 engineering 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 has commented that the application cannot be approved as proposed because according to the Washington State Barrier Free Code, otherwise known as the ADA Code, one handicapped accessible parking stall is going to be required with this 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 ono parking stall. if the application were modified, the only wa.y the applicant could do it would be by eliminating a parking stall in the rear in order to change two parking 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 pedestrians facilities and Providing Parking off-street share " parking is available. ' The prepos3a DEC 342 Z I— F_ R LULULU 0— LLJ U La ff U!i Z to ... . . . .. SENT BY: 1-30-37 ; 3:31FM ;OGDM MIRM W U4CE-4 2067710221;# 5/13 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. Oklief; Any questions for the staff report? ?(man); Just a point of clarification. I'm not sure 3: understand how what the threshold was that there's an ADA-required stall. Because of these, is it because of these two? Bissell: That's correct. Because of the modification of the parking lot. In other words, addition of stalls, ?(man: go, but the other what fourteen spaces don't have disabled parking now? Bissell: That's correct. The site was developed prior to the existing ?(man); O.K. M right. Bissell: — barrier -free standards. And according to the barrier -free standards, when you modify or increase the Size of a pa:Fking 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. ?(man): o,K. So it' a not the number. It Is just the fact Bisselle Thatle right. And then thenumber comes, the number comes into it. The number of barrier-ftee 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 bazed an what's on sitc. - 4 - i x 1 SENT BY: 1-30-97 f 3,32PM ;OMEN MUBPHY N CEO 20677102214 6/19 ?(man): O.R. Thank your ?(man)- O.K. ,Any other questions for staff? ? (man) '. I just have one real � quick one, John. Uii, there's nothing in the code other than our design guidelines that say that you cannot park in the of front setback. Oi Rissall: The only place where you cannot park in the front X! setback is in the RM zones. And this is a HC U. zone. o i °(man) O.X. So that the parking adjacent to this is — S ?(man): I'm sorry. w ?(man): The parking that's adjacent to this bailding in H legal parking? ?(man): Yeah, it's all accessed. It's not accessed wl through a curb cut — N ! ?(man): As far as setbacks go, it's legal. There are - you're talking about the lot to the south. ?(man): Yeah. Right. so what I'm trying to — Z� ? (man) : Yeah, . r would imagine the lot to the south _ probably has turning radius violations, but it's �r a legal nonconforming lot. . ? (man) : O.X. So in other words ?(man): So the people head in and back straight out on to the street -� -a ?(man): Right and that's not -- - j ?(man): -- and that would not be, that would not be ' permitted .according to , engineering standards ' because they have to have a certain amount of rack -out room that is not provided on that site. © ? (man) c 0. K. d Oklief: O.X. Any other auestions? x'm assuming no. O.R. Do you have anything to add to the; staff report? r� ® Hyde: Yeah. [inaudible) wu�sz�sa.tsx�e000�,s»rnr000ao. - 5- �: r . f�y _. � SR. w S! J F: V) LL Oi w� LL = wj z I' E- O W W g � c 0— aLU ~� tom- LLO iz Uj y U = O z 11 n t® Hyde: (inaudible] the staff` report. And 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 City.'s. My first point has to do with the recommendations of the staff with respect to landscaping requirements. Uh, I have attached to my letter a new plan where in fact it has been drawn to allow for the five -font buffer, landscape buffer_ Uh, apparently, Mr. McClung who draw this up was under the impression that this fire -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-foot buffer. I know that the Cbairma.n. 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 sit 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 fact, add landscaping 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 already commented, that can be accommodated by putting a barrier-froe 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 [inaudible] and that ]can to do with the two on -street parking tonee. The City of Edmonds is now EMW OF SIDS A OF TAPE] [BE DIMING OF SIDE E OF TAPE] Hyde- (continuing) — propertAnd two lots down from Mr. Smith's property L the new Edmonds Floral and Arts Building. Neither one: of those sites. wsstts�e.iewwoos.aoaoan�pG. .6- 33 5 swr BY, Oklief ; W"OMA&VMX9""40M. 1-3o-97 ; 8:3WM ;OGDeN NU;WHY WAelCE- 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 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 there is on -street, it's never available because it's 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 Chose facilities. Uh, as the chairman pointed out, the building directlyto the south of Mr. Smith's building in fact bag a curb cut 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 access, 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 or -her concern which causes Mr. Smith a groat deal of concern in the City feels that YAr. Smith does 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 Deed this parking. It's his decision and it's his private property. He would like to utilize that asphalt frontage in front of his building for parking. And it's his own privato 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? -7- 3 63 (silence] Oklief: 1-30-07 ; 8:84PM ;MEN NLRPHY WALLAcE, 2067710221;# 8/1e O.K. Seeing as there is no One in the audience, I'll go ahead and ask it. Is there anyone in tha audience that would like to participate? There is no one there. So we'll close the public portion, Uh, we'll go ahead and go to Board discussion. Steve? Cn 01 I ?(man}; Well, I have a question for John. It they (n UJI Lu 3: provided parking in the rear of the building _J }-! where the barrier, the ADA there, then do they V) LL 0 have to provide a ramp to access the building or LU is providing parking meet that requirement? I if mean, they just provide a handicapped stall, do U. then they have to make, Chen does the building U. have to be accessible. a C) Lui X Bissell: I'm gonna, I'm gonna tell the applicant that they z P! need to check that with the Building Official ; i P� z after I give my assumed answer, not being the ADA LU Uji person at the City. I believe that the an r is Is Dithat ofbuilding. they would have to provide access to the T(" I think they would have to provide a ranv- 0 �_ft LU 7J .?(man): So — "L_ 0! Z Bissell: I'm not positive of that but I know that the TVs Ili Cn1 people don't. If somebody comes in and does an interior remodel, they have -to provide a ramp. 0 And wo had one guy do a parking stall addition z recently, and I know that they had to do a ramp. Bo, ray guess is that they probably would need to do a ramp, but that would be somethingr they need to check with the Building Official. (man): 0. K. Mother 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 0 two spaces specifically for the residential portion? Bissell: I don't know the answer to that gucstion. Oklief. 0. X. Did you have any other items that strike your fancy? ?(man): No, no. Not at this time. 0, 1 AM MOR SENT BY: ? (mazy) Youngs Bissell: Young:. Bissell: Young; Bissell: ? (man) : ? (man) ?(man); ?(man): 7 (man) . 7 (man) 2 (man) ; ? (man) : Young: 7 (man) Bissell: Young: 1-80-87 O;OWM ;Q(DLN MtFJW WAr 2067710221;#10f18 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 cmwanity to call them disabled stalls, so 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 the Code. The barrier -free stall. Now, I'm in the planning business, sort of, but I'm not to the resign end of it. Those not only have to have some other amenities but they also have to be wider, 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. So if you are have, are required to have one, that has to be van -accessible. O.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 now, I'm trying to verbalize this. Uh, approval of this application would require acme restructuring of the parking of the fourteen spaces that currently exist in the back to be thirteen. O.K. That's correct. Mather it's 13 feat , wida or whether: it's 16 feet wide is kind of academic. You are going to lose n! a} cn W J F� Ui Q J LL = z 01 z W =j 2 ai Cm aLL �- _O z cW.t si ar z Ek SENT BY: Bissell: Oklief: ?(man): Young: Ryde Young: Hyde: ? (man) : ?(man):. 7 (man) ; ? (man) : Young: c1-80-97 ; 3:86PM ;BEN iNURPHY AA 2487710221;411/18 :4 a space in the back. So what we're really being asked to consider here is one parking space, a net gain of one parking space. That's correct. Well, I would think that actually though wo need to consider it two just because there are going to be two going in the front. I mean, there's not like you'ro jueb 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 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. Hers 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, hasowned this .building and boon there longer than I think zrve been alive. So he -was there before the code in and he is not required to have any parking spaces. He 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 think Well, yes. O.R. 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 D. l ,. .. i.r.L...nSx.s:..,..u.�`cs�nx,iuw.,,.., .: .. .,'_.. .. .... .... ........+:,...,v�...� .•:.w,w....,.. .....,........._..-:......__. .. .:t.. _...,..........v....._ SENT BY: 1-80-07 : MUM ;OGDEN MI1RPfiY A y 2487714221;#12f18 something here, onto the public thoroughfare, which is going to be a curb cut and will, as T understand it John, eliminate the parking space or a two parking spaces, depending on how it's a striped, out in (rant of the building on the UJ street. w C3� Bissell: At least two parking spaces on the street will be �''j Oj eliminated. _ (n Hyde: Yes, the -public parking spaces, right. 41 LU �! $ CI) LL O ?(man): O.K. ►a d� _J' Hyde: As I commented earlier, it's not Mr. Smith's LL obligation to provide those. I don't see it as a vyd question of how many spaces should he have or have `. x „ u whether he's wise to that many spaces or t' 2 Configured in that way. It'a does he comply with Z I' the requirements of the design, and I think he z does by placing the five-foot landscape barrier w u,; in front of the building. I don't know if you're = p familiar with the building. And as I indicated, ucn; it's all asphalt now. Hypothetically, I think it o r,. would be an improvement because rather than just r LWU �, ; sidewalk and asphalt all the way to the building, _ now there's going to be a division with executed LL Di landscaping betwaen the sidewalk and the asphalt. _ zf uiCa Oklief: Normally, Jim, we'd do all this under questions or additions to the staff Report, but in this j o case, that's fine. Uh, is there anything else z you'd Like to add here before we continue the i Board discuesionP j ?(mnzt}: Let's try to clarify the content. } oklief: Yeah, that's fine. 0.1t. Alan Bylsma: A question for John. I have before me something that says the design guidelines aren't a rsauirament of code. Uh, but I thought our design guidelines have been codified. Is that 1 A correct? f Bissell: Yee. oklief: 0.1t. Any other discussion? O.K. Uh, 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, tbare is one item of concern I have and that is with the design guidelines and � wsat�ssxoaaws�nooassga�sooae. -li- r � y fs L�,w3 �1l`tiw'a ZNNVl d}L'v4m �i4�,.+..+i_.5��r�1 .r V'.x.f:,, !,. ■.�..i?, SENT BY: z_ z w U O 0 w s r U. ui U 0 z 1-30-37 ; 3:3WM WMEN MURPMY WAUefZ4 2067710221;#13f19 that's that we normally do try and get the parking in the back of the building versus, you know, especially in the downtown aroa. X 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. 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 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 note, 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 reauce 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 being 16 feet 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. M, so I guess the Hoard has to decide, you know, where the balance point of this is. There's some drawbacks; there's acme benefits_ The other thing is that if wo 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 normally require this 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 Q 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 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 gives him complete control of it. C ?(man), Might. He would always have two free spaces in front. wosts4n5s,tsxr�ooa,wa9cta000s. -12 - 1 ® ' ®,,_, !fit �,r,'�p i z r z W D U 0 0 W S F- U_ ui c� 0 z u y S . .. ... eu:ewti..tti iaaS�u..�s-.vaay.w�+.vr.+rnmw waw..r..-.. .��.v_ ..... ... .:........ :.r.nth.nnmvA'is.Y�.e•N.fou.uow:.....w«., ._�. �......,. •:'. SENT BY: 1-30-97 ; 3.8WM ;OGDEN MURM W , GE-• C, 20677102214141 M ?(man); Might. It find 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. 4(man) : you know, I personally don't have a problem with loosing 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-street parking duo to their, you know, their access, I believe. Does that not clear that alley of access? ? (man) : What that [inaudible] . Just part of the alley. Oklief: O.K. Just off of the alley. ? (Mari) _ well, I stand corrected on that. But, you knew, a lot of new developments, and many that I've worked on in the City do have curb cuts 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 is when we make decisions, is consistency. And we have denied projects in the past where they've, within the last year, where they wanted parking in front of their buildings similar to this and we've denied It. Oklief: 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 lake I indicated before. Bylsma: But do we [inaudible], you know, do we not approve it one time and then sometime else, you know, when there's a nonconforming parking situation next to the Zito, we say, well., we'll let it go again? When do you — that'e very inconsistent, in my opinion. You know, the guidelines were set up, you know, to try to develop a certain standard. [inaudible] Okliet: Jim. 3 ;3 r� f a s� Bissell: Young: Bissell= Young: ? (man) : 2(man)s 7 (stsan)': ?(man); ? (man) e Bissell: ? (man) ? (man) c ? (mart,) ? (man)_- ? (man) s Okliofs ?. (man) s Young: 1-80-97 ; 3s40PU ;OGDEN NLRPHY W - 2067710221 416M Smith's frontage, and I don't know just exactly how Edmonds law functions. Rul, I mean is it his, that apace an the street frc tape, his sidewalk or is that sidewalk that you know gets maintained by the City? That sidewalk belongs to the City of Edmonds. And his property line is, x don't know how you say it, the the sidewalk is in the public right- of-way. That's what you're a king. The sidewalk is or is not? Is in the public right -of way. O.R. That's what we're wond sing, we had that debate downtown quite freque tly, so uh that's what T thought. O.K. Another interesting thing here is that we'don't actually have landscape drawings .far this, I . don't believo. Do we have landscape — Yeah, landscape drawings were submitted. On the submitted application. There's two site plans. The second one is a landscape one. rinaudible) . If you're missing it, the Iancape's up on the board. Yup, thereit is. AS a mat er 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 l a fine. That was all I wanted to. But the applicant has, I mean, hOw much right for lack of a better term does thapplicant.hava, you know, to cut across, you pan w, to cut across. i w ?(man)a Yeah. 2(man): Well, I think 1 think that "right" is a difficult woad to use. ?(man); I knew this is not the correct form to ask that, but I mean, you know, what's the policy? Bissell: 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. Thin City has not done that. The Engineering Division has had a policy to reduce the number of curb cuts where possible. There's an establishers policy. It's dealt with in subdivision applications when when you're doing, You know, for instance, flag lots. somebody can enter oft of two; bring driveways into one, and things like that. so wherever a reduction in curb outs is possible, that's what will happen. There was a parking lot Proposed for the old Edmonds Financial Center Building several hears 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 FiftW 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 ijsfc=ed 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. ?(man): We1Z, 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 design guidelines — 7 (van) ; Right. wssusasa.18X/ W.s+"wWW, -15- 1: �..;., --, x +i srirt cst: 1-34-87 ; 8:41PN ;OGDEN MURPHY"W cE- 2067710221;#17I18 ?(man)t Where normally we don't allow the parking in the front, but here we're 'getting some additional landscaping that we wouldn't get otherwise, so — �( Bissell: Can I addreso a few issues? LIU--'. oc g� aklief: Sure. 'j' L4q v Bissell: [iuduCliblel There're some things that were CY discussed, Uh, one thing that Alan brought up w1 uh, the applicant's representative has stated LU H1 that the design guidelines are ,not a requirement, cn o but in fact the design guidelines have been w incorporated in the code, in two different places in the code. And that the Architectural Design :3 Board is specifically with interpreting and LL M enforcing those design guidelines. So so I would O say that that is an inacr..urar,.y in the applicant's LU �_- z, representative's statement. Uh, the applicant z h` has stated that the situation would be no, not O really any different when there's parking there z}'1 as opposed to the existing asphalt, and I would gMi agree that the amphalt from the aesthetic standpoint is M Nj not as nice as if there were 0 —, landscaping there, but from the pedestrian t o 1M, standpoint, there is a difference between i � crossing a parking area where cans are moving or +- r LL are, potentially moving and crossing asphalt where cars would not be moving. $o, from a pedestrian d;z� standpoint, there is a difference between the to = two, and that should be noted because in the o design guidelines, pedestrian access is an issue• z that you're supposed to be considering. ?(man): But in this case, really, the pedestrian access wouldn't be the curb cut itself. Really, the pedestrian access is the fact that it would be ; through the parking and then [inaudible] f building — Bissell: I'm discussing getting from the sidewalk so X'm ' not talking necessarily about the curb cut. The ,{ curb out is an issue for pedestrians pasning the building. The more curb cuts you have, the lees © pedestrian -hospitable a site is. 8o the curb out 4 creates a pedestrian problem for people passing the building. But I'm #peaking 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 �- wsafq�4t6.taxt[r00000.7rr�wauooa. -16- 45. n y LL Q . N C1 x ,,, r Oklief i � s z r Bissell: z0. w Lui V N off; LU x � U. pf z 7(Man): tL N. a z ?(man). (man) . 7 (Man) s 7(man): 7(man): ?(man): s = 1-W-W i 8:41YM ;(KiiW.MUKr11T WALLACE- carp as opposed to crossing asphalt where there are cams. It'a 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 fact that they believe that the Staff's 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 Aui.lding which will be the new City Hall. Uh, first oft, the Architectural Design Board 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 .ray parking was calculated on each of those buildings was the same as the way the parking has been calculated an every other building in downtown Edmonds. So, so it's it's t ,. first political issues, and second, slightly, somewhat, let's say, misguided. so, I think the Board should just disregard it. Well, I agree that, I''agree that that portion of that should be disregarded. Although, you know, 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 should take that into account. I would agree that off-street parking — finaudible] x 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 { ® board issues-- `� ' wssiszasa isiuFooas.omoco3, -17- 46 r �i � \ E6 W J r. W 0� LL LL Q1 �d z W; F- Zr ro z W W' 0 -' rI LL._ �i rI-- Wp Z U _ o~ Z to Marvin Smith Sally M Hyde o 126 4th Avenue North 152 3rd Avenu ue South Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds, WAS 98020 B. Site Location: 126 4th Avenue North C. Introduction: The applicant has proposed to construct 2 ne--w parking stalls between the street and the existing building, accessing off 4th Avenue Norrth. The building currently provides 14 parking stalls which access off the alley. After th Jae completion of the proposed project the property would provide 16 parking stalls. The exissting office use requires no more than 4 parking stalls to meet the requirements of the Edrxnonds Community Development Code. D. Background: 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 p(BC). 3. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is exemppt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). E. Staff Analysis: I. 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 proposinng 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 frrom t of the lot. The existing use appears to be an office with on site cu lstomer 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 tcn be approximately 1,600 48 Exhibit 3 Y, �,-�;;.: ., ,, ..4.:.., .... �.ui e:x .v a.4+»u,n, _._ .:..�" .: ".:...... ........ :. ae e,ex v.:�...... ..:...�..,... _,_.._.:: __._ .::' ._..._... _...... ... w► ADB-96-112 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 retail/service 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 w remove at least two on street parking stalls. o In addition, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Washington State LU Barrier Free Code, in'that the installation of the two proposed parking stalls requires � '; the installation of one on -site barrier free parking space. U. OT b) Pedestrian Access The existing site development provides pedestrian access directly off 4th Avenue Q North. The proposed parking stall installation would change the site so that all a , pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. = Therefore, this proposal would remove all direct pedestrian access. r c) Landscaping: wl ,W ; The installation of the two proposed parking stalls would reduce the amount of = of landscaping between the building and the public street. Section 20.12.025 of the v_s{ Edmonds community development code requires a minimum 5 foot landscaping 0 o t, buffer around the perimeter of all parking lots. The applicant has proposed a 4 foot LU i buffer between the parking stall and the sidewalk, and no buffer between the It— of 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.I2). In the past, the U =' ADB has granted waivers where the applicant had no design alternatives to meet the 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: 1 Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance requires small parking areas . j 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. • 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. r 44 2 + 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 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 requirements must be integrated into the plan and approved by the ADB prior to the approval or issuance of a building or development permit. F. Summary: The proposal is inconsistent with the landscape requirements 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 reducing the pedestrian facilities and by providing parking off the street where parking off the alley is available In addition, the proposal does not provide the required barrier free 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. 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 should be denied. Attachments: 1 Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's declarations, elevations and site plan 50 3 N LL _Q Do FT w S Z F- F. O Z ww Cl 0- o f- LA: Q 'z U tr O� Z M® E ;i, SALLY M. HYDE ATTORNEY AT LAW 152 THIRD AVENUE S.. SURE 101 1 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 771-4846 • FAX (206) 774-9842 I I- w', December 4, 1996 w �) J LU Architectural Design Board � �'. City of Edmonds (n U. 250 5th Ave. N. w O. Edmonds, WA 98020 4 Re: November 15, 1996 Staff Report/ Marvin Smith Applicant LL d '' Architectural Design Board: w i- 3: ZF- Mr. Smith is the owner of the property located at 126 4th Ave. Z o, N., Edmonds, WA 98020. uw tu. n The recommendation of the staff appears to be mis-guided for U �� a -. the following reasons: _ l�i (a) design guidelines are not requirements of the code, 'y o (b) Mr. Smith is not required to provide public on street w W, parking; v= (c) the community services dept. does not have the authority 2 to determine what constitutes private benefit to Mr. Smith or his property; (d) the plan does not reduce pedestrian facilities, nor does f it create a pedestrian hazard. j The recommendations that are legitimate concerns and merit M a response are as follows: (a) The recommendations of the staff with respect•to Q 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 53 Exhibit-4 Sru } i. } t � �+r3fi tfrz�Xk,4-Ln. xxGtyitt r)c9 uC x X. 2r i � �r : � %}�,� �� � � +9� g f U� d�{ ( "'7� Fllr. c 2 J t ay t+4 gflc ti! ts� '�. 4 y. {7 c.. Tff�tf i� 6�c 1 47�4 s at 4 t7�s r'tr 3 t. 11, 1��'Yt� �.i S.:-{+ t M l� % } i IT l 5 {t42 S �'2 2`1' t -'+ it i � t } w° rt• ��i k t. }r � 4. t 4. � � �{1. t t j 4 � W 1 >�c :>tt -+ t-M7tYJ"i �} i4 t. 1 r 3 r 01 ►-LU property, due to their own inadequate parking facilities. The 21 inability to, park in front of his building - due "to I parking congestion is one of the reasons Mr. Smith wants to develop the v o; area in front of his building. Mr. Smith, ' however, is not required U) w; to provide parking for the City of Edmonds employees, or it's -i �j community arts facility. . U)a LU U. dj z H� p Sally M.' Hyde �z►-� Representative for. Marvin Smith LU 2 DI C: Marvin Smith• Ca D rn! of _; u. p _Z Tn �O Z 1 t` � Y p I S Z. W. dS � J O'', U O. W J W U. - o: W �:3 LL cn O, :C W E- _, z r: O Z ' W LU oCA — o 1—i LU WI 3: V �- o —z LUU) o~ z Edmonds Community Development Director 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Notice of Appeal 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 #" the City of Edmonds, who incorrectly and improperly stated that the "ADB Guidelines" were t p 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 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. t0 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: J �j N al z uj Z F- �o Z � w w w4 OLU —0 _Z w(j) o~ Z ri 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 did not meet the criteria and purposes of 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, c ® Sally M. Hy e Representative for Marvin Smith `y enclosures cc: M. Smith 57 TM n t k 21r z I--, Z,ul alml 0 a t LU Uj x (x t- p LL C) z LU L) 0 z ------•--— +�a.aa ..ua rruuar aaau vnwFavua raaFu aanav acaaFauary uv;, A3FL AL..FV Vl• ;;;}:I NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE PARKING LOT. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOARDMEMBERS GOODRICK AND CHALUPNIK ABSTAINING. i� =i ADB-97-34 NEW WALL AND FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT !! U. cn :} Arnie's Restaurant z W 300 Admiral Way i-' s pSteve Zamberlin and Jeff Cooper, both with National Sign Corporation, 1255 Westlake Avenue North, Seattle, the applicant's representatives, were present. 'S M' BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER CHALUPNIK, TO o L— PARTIALLY APPROVE ADB-97-34 AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE WALL SIGN BE APPROVED, w w BASED UPON THE REVISED DRAWINGS SUBMITTED AT THIS MEETING, BECAUSE IT = ta: — MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ECDC, SECTION 20.10, AND WITH THE LL O CONDITIONS THAT ALL EXISTING ARNIE'S SIGNS BE TAKEN OFF THE BUILDING AND Zi THE APPLICANT APPLIES FOR AND RECEIVES A ZONING VARIANCE AS w N' U x RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. �F Z ADB-97-41 NEW WALL MOUNTED SIGN FOR THE EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB Edmonds Boys and Girls Club 310 6th Avenue North I Ruth Cassidy, Edmonds Boys and Girls Club, 310 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, was present BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF, TO ` APPROVE ADB-97-41 AS SUBMITTED, BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT IT MEETS THE ZONING ORDINANCES AS SPECIFIED, G, THAT THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA, AND THAT WHILE THE BOARD NOTES THAT THE SIGN IS HIGHER THAN ALLOWED IN SOME BUSINESS ZONES, IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUILDING DESIGN, AND IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE STAIRWAY THAT LEADS UP TO THE SIGN WILL KEEP IT IN A GOOD LOCATION. MOTION CARRIED. PRELE%MARY REVIEW: None. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 Aptii 2,1997 a CITY OF EDMONDS . BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 6TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 1206) 771.0220 • FAX (206) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT loc.1890 Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Letter of Transmittal Date: February 25,1997 To: Marvin Smith 126 4th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: AP-96-148 Transmitting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law For Your Information: XX As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane, Cunningham, Administrative Secretary cc: Sally M. Hyde x . Y • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan,"Japan � , U)o W} L Q D) zUJ � W s Z t- r0 wW �a U V7 pLLJ F- LU tt 0 h Z r=- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith i 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 36.70B 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. C0 F'i L°t 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 Community Development Code and the criteria of Chapter 20.10 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. See ECDC 20.10.060 Findings. E® -2- .✓.1:..,- 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. H. 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 fmdings 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 J purpose of entering written fmdings, and conclusions based upon the original record created before the Commission. - No additional testimony shall be taken nor additional argument received. J y. y I y '. ter�ecnvtxkAYliHn t .,., w,.,....u,,.0 a.w.......-. ......,. aun ..... ., _._.... ........ .. _.. _.........u.+awa�A VAIt'4NYtaWaMlwu.Mnw+rb+w...._............_...........J ......� ._.. ..,.. �... ... �....... 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 W t J proposed written Findings of Fact one week in advance of the continued deliberation and entry 01 N of the decision of the Architectural Design Board. The City attorney or his designee is directed i J F-MI w o� 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 Cn confine its deliberation to the written record previously developed before it and to these Findings x Fo;' of Fact and Conclusions of the City Council. No additional testimony shall be taken and no WF. W :3 of additional argument permitted by any party. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Attorney's o ' —7 o provision of legal advice. The Architectural Design Board shall not consider for any purpose „off the criteria of Chapter 15.15 nor the impact of the application upon parking in the downtown z v = area. o" 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 pP p y p written Findings and Conclusions from the Board whose experience and expertise in the Q 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— - my i 4 IN �7 ��j{ he.. .,.. _ .,.. > .. .. ®.�. :h �4.i. �'I _. w........... ... : . ... ......... ., i claims 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, C (Amount to be Determined), LIBBY D. BRADY-GRANGE ($345.83), JAMES KURT d �:{ HENNIG (S10,000), DAWN LUCILLE GRAHAM (Amount to be Determined), AND ALICE ANDAHL ($90,000) rr �' Q Tractor (E) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE U O' Mower lAttachment TO PURCHASE AN ALL FLEX MOWER ATTACHMENT FOR THE FORD TRACTOR MOWER W ($8,824) u LU J F- - Relocate (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH CONCEPTION p Telecommu- COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO RELOCATE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM w System ys ons Sys TO THE RENOVATED CITY HALL BUILDING u- 3j, Temporary (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH EVERGREEN d, Telecommu- UTILITY CONTRACTORS, INC. TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY TELE- h = ' nnors COMMUNICATION CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE RENOVATED CITY HALL Z F; Connections co BUILDING AND EXISTING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING E— O w to Ord. nslso (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3130 AMENDING PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY 2 =O Nuisances DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.110.030(B) NUISANCE TO CLARIFY THE v N; APPLICATION OF THE NUISANCE PROHIBITION TO REFRIGERATORS AND O — FREEZERS IN RESIDENTIAL YARDS AND VACANT LOTS f = U i•— Findings of m APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM THE CITY u Fac0ite No. IAP.9&148 COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 1997, REGARDING AN APPEAL OF THE — Z DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY THE V 2 APPLICATION FILED UNDER FILE NO. ADB-96-131, TO CONSTRUCT TWO 1— 1— ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE°BUILDING LOCATED AT 126 Z 4TH AVENUE NORTH. (Appellant/Applicant: Marvin Smith/ File No. AP-96-148) 3. AUDIENCE Carol Hahn, 1031 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, pointed out wheelchair accessibility to the Library FDriftwi Plaza Room requires more than 12 inches behind the chairs in the back row. In addition, she urged the Playeers�d 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. Mud Slide Bruce Andahl on behalf of his mother, Alice Andahl, 15605 75th Place W, Edmonds, stated that Q Area 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. ® Tram Safety c°"ce"'a Mel 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 w � Hi to w O w} J— LL j (0C, S w; Z 1•7 F- O w w'! m. = Q, V OI z �1 >L p', _ Z v= O~ Z to EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 18,1997 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 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 (arrived 7:29 p.m.) Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Gary Haakenson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Robbie Cuningham, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator Debbie Dawson, Parking Enforcement Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Revision to A$C1� COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO MOVE ITEM #8 TO ITEM #5A ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (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 COUNCMMEMBER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) The agenda items passed are 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 Waants & rrants WARRANTS #15156 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 1 152 THIRD AVENUE S., SUITE 101 20 ��,,oqI ,�.�xxpp y' p� (206) 71771 4846 • FAX 206) 774-4842 R I t 4 x K I iI E D F %C ! 11996 December 16, 1996 Edmonds Community Development Director 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Notice of Appeal = w" z Dear Sir or Madam: h O': W W: This is a notice of appeal of the ADB decision dated December 4, 1996, of applicant Marvin � a 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. o F- U , Mr. Smith believes that the denial of ADB-96-131 was in error for the following reasons: LL O. Z The basis of the denial is stated to be "That the plan includes parking in front of the applicant's Ubuilding 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 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. c 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: � /` ...... . .... .. .. r.. n;r, k .wyr.l..:t .�.�i. '.x ...nee -........ .{.(... .. 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 N a{ ordinance, the ADB was required to identify what specific ordinance and it's requirements that �LU =, the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. z F- z C. Criteri . "That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the 2 _ criteria and purposes of this chapter." If the proposal did not meet the criteria and purposes of N chapter 20.10.070, the ADB was required to identify with specificity what, criteria or purpose v L'; of chapter 20.10.070, the proposal failed to meet. The ADB failed to do this. W w �U—. The ADB's failure to identify specific sections of the Code, zoning ordinance, or comprehensive z plan, that are inconsistent with application ADB-96-131, renders such denial arbitrary and tij 0' capricious, and should be overturned. The applicant is requesting that the City Council grant i his appeal and approve application ADB-96-131. 0 z 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 t 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 s Edmonds is apparently a property owner of interest (see attached list of affected property 4 owners). For the City Council to hear this matter would seem to violate the "Appearance of 0 Fairness Doctrine". How do you want to handle this issue? Sincerely, Sally M. Hy e c Representative for Marvin Smith enclosures cc: M. Smith M 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 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 EXISTING PARKIW-i Z M u 0 a w U 0 z cst 1$gv CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 260 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EOMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.0220 • FAX Q06) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15,1996 TO: Architectural Design Board Applicants FROM: John Bissell, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Architectural Design Board Agenda and Staff Report Your application is complete and has been scheduled for the November 20, 1996 Architectural Design Board (ADB) Meeting. Enclosed are an agenda and staff report for the ADB meeting of November 20, 1996. Please find your item on the agenda. A representative must be present for each item, including the Consent agenda. The Board often moves items off the Consent agenda and onto the regular agenda. If a representative is not present, the Board will not act on the item. Please note the statement at the top of the agenda. You must obtain sign permits, building permits and any other required permit from the Building Division in addition to obtaining approval from the ADB. The review by the ADB is not a substitute for review of building permits, and an approval by the ADB does not grant construction approval. Please carefully read the staff report pertaining to your item. If you find any errors, missing information or if you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220 before the meeting. It is important that items going to the Board be as complete and clear as possible in order to avoid confusion during the meeting. If the Board does not understand your project, they may not approve it. t® ADB-96-112 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL 2 NEW PARKING STALLS 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: The applicant has proposed to construct 2 new parking stalls between the street and the existing building, accessing off 4th Avenue North. The building currently provides 14 parking stalls which access off the alley. After the completion of the proposed project the property would provide 16 parking stalls. The existing office use requires no more than 4 parking stalls to meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. D. Background: 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). E. Staff Analysis: 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 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 I,600 �t 7,1 ` ADS-96-112 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 retail/service uses allowed in this zone, a total of eight of the existing 14 parking a jj stalls would be required. Further, the installation of the two parking stalls would T remove at least two on street parking stalls. H oc g; � o In addition, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Washington State U o Barrier Free Code, in that the installation of the two proposed parking stalls requires LO W the installation of one on -site barrier free parking space. J U_ b) Pedestrian Access 04 LU The existing site development provides pedestrian access directly off 4th Avenue 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. o Therefore, h . this proposal would remove all direct pedestrian access. UJI z f c) Landscaping: o: The installation of the two proposed parking stalls would reduce the amount of W wi landscaping between the building and the public street. Section 20.12.025 of the o, Edmonds community development code requires a minimum 5 foot landscapingu 0 0; Y P 9� U W buffer around the perimeter of all parking lots. The applicant has proposed a 4 foot o buffer between the parking stall and the sidewalk, and no buffer between the LU _ parking stalls and the side property lines. The ADB has the sole authority to waive or alter the requirement of the Landscape Ordinance (ECDC 20.12). In the past, the w ADB has granted waivers where the applicant had no design alternatives to meet the F minimum code requirements for parking and landscaping. In this case the applicant o has provided more than three times the code requirement for parking in the rear of z 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: Section 15.15 of the City Design Guideline Ordinance requires small parking areas 5 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. ,l 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 g 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. i 2 , i r t- �� �f s�� A f '' }. S t rt i t> t J w, i S� Tr t� Y y y s � i'� [ r ,....s"..a...lo.u..:na�..•.«......v..., ...w .,_._.._.., -.. .;«a,..`.ardnu.««naev,uswuti_mriaa,e.......:"++.:..._,.. .nr_...i ,. S .._ ..._._............,. '. w:.. _ _...._....._.. ADB-96.112 t • One (1) handicapped accessible parking stall is required Note: The Board and the applicant should be aware that the comments of the zz ; 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 g requirements must be integrated into the plan and approved by the ADB prior to the DI approval or issuance of a building or development permit. c� p' r Cn w I J 1 F. Summary: The proposal is inconsistent with the landscape requirements because an ;, o 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 a reducing the pedestrian facilities and by providing parking off the street where parking off T d the alley is available In addition, the proposal does not provide the required barrier free h =� parking stall. Further, the proposal would eliminate an amount of public parking at lest ai equal to the amount of private parking proposed with no apparent public or private benefit. F. z t-; Therefore Staff believes that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the � j Comprehensive Plan, The Zoning Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines and the application �( should be denied. Attachments: Fz 1. Vicinity Map LL z 2. Applicant's declarations, elevations and site plan cWs =� o~ z 3 rn U) Lu -i to N. ul 0 0)0 D LU z z Lil LLI — 0 0t: wF W UJ LL. z w ff z i� �o,,,�� Date: 10-19 96'Sfieet. No.: P— MARVIN SMITH PARKING Seale: f —20, of: I Lo LL 0 Z UJ cc < LU -j U 0 to 0 (n UJ LU -j 0LL LIJ :E �� < LL < D i za -F z i,- j— 0 Z �— Uj LIJ 0— L.0 LL1, LL 0 z LU 0 F. IN PARKS 032MATION ROUTED TO: RETURNED' All mL Engineering Engineering Fire, 10/30/96 Fire, -- Public Works —A 0130/96 Public Works. / -1/ 4S /Ono ParksTax-�# MIL Sr- Parks at Rec. q!wr. Staff Comments: caffm kri (w L&3 CICA'11;— ix- r I CA J *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application A *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review J • Owner MARVIN SMITH • Property Address 126 4TH AVE, N. Date of Application 10/30/96 Type ADD 2 OFF-STREET PARKING Hearing RequIred:Yes—X— No Date. of Hearing (if known). X _Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision'(8.5 x 11) Fee X Site Plan (I I x 17) APO List ---�egals (Existing & Proposed) —Title Report EnVir6nmental Assessment X —Vicinity Map Proof, of 2-Year Occupancy (Aw Elevations —Declarations (Variance &C..U.P.), Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental Checklist Critical Areas Determination 0 x] ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD COMP PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT t STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER FILE # AWCA-13/ ZONE'' DATE 1=t-'C REC'D BY FEE - RECEIPT# HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB A ADB ❑ CC ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant Marvin E. Smith Phone (206) 778-1181 Address Property Address or Location 126 4th AvenpP Nnrrh Fdmands, Wa 000911 Property Owner Marvin E. Smith & Agnes R. Smith Phone (206) 778 1181 Address Agent rr% 4 "M Phone —771`Y��G Address _ I'St 3np ham` 5� L- >7r��OS Tax Acc # (See Tax Statement attached) Sec. Twp. Rng. Legal Description (See Tax Statement attached) Details of Projector Proposed Use Provide 2 Off street parking spaces for commercial building zoned BC The undersigned applicant. ano his: lied its neirs and assigns. in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release. indemnify. defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney s fees. ansmc from any action or infraction based to whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees The undersigned applicant grants htsl ner? its oermssion for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of Inspection ano posting attendant to this application SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGEN n Ash ALLE""r. < FL bol ato l d,& to Lup LU Ln uo- U- U) uj 3: EXISTING PARKING z I--j of o fo% Lu LL 0 .. z! LU to EXISTING 5L-bG. 126 4th AVE.'N. 1 4- FAWMD LW Ca ft NEU) PAWING mw W EXT. cum WW ACM AD Mov NU LAVOCA-M mw am wr 24'70' 4th A N. Date: 20=29, 96 She NO.: p MARVIN SMITH PARKING Re le:1"=20" of: f: 'el q -TU®9i MARVIN SMITU nti e: U-29-96 Sheet No.,: P-2 Scalea"=20,', of-2 So -Ell oQ z < Z LU cc LLI U 0 En a tn LLJ LLJ LU It LL D Ln 0 m z 1.- 0 Z LULU 0 tn. 0- 0 1- LU LUU� , LL z LU to 0 z 01 t 0 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE: AOB -Q6-131 AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING ROUTED TO: OCT 3 11996 RETURNED. En1Inee,rIng-- 49 10.1 Fire Public Wor 0/30196 Public Works Parks 8x Rec. 10130196 Parks ex Rec. Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT -BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information, Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review Owner MARVIN-SMITH Property Address--L26 4TH AVE. N. Date of Application- 10/3 6 Typ Hearing Required:Yes--X- No Date of Hearing. (if known) X —Application ------�Site Plan for Short Subdivision, (8.5 x 11) Fee -�X Site Plan (111 x 17), APO List -,-��Legals (Existing &Proposed) Title Report _�-LEnvirohrriental Assessment X Vicinity Map ---�-LProof of 2-Ye4:.Occupancy (ADU) Elevations L,--Declarations (Variance & c., u., P.). —Petition (Official Street Map) ---LLL�.gn4ironmental,Checklist, Critical Areas Determination , j 'k i.— r Z rW U U 0 U) a Lf) LU LLJ Uj LL < T) sw r 0 Z �- L.0 LU 0— a LIJ X U LU LL C z LU (:r. 0 z APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE,:,. ADEI-96_1 3f. AND'CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING Q96POWit. OCT 31 ROUTED TO:. RETU her L I Engineering 10/ 0/96 Engl doz- if NRMIE�IqOYN6119 - Fire— AMP- �7'vk Public Works ---JDL3DL26-- Public Works ' Parks ex Rec. 10/30/96 Parks ex Rec. Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Information Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review • Owner, MARVIN SMITH ± Property Address 126 4TH AVE. N. t Date of Application 10/30/96 • Type ADD 2 OFF-STREET PARKING • Hearing Required:Yes X No Date of Hearing (if known) X_Applicafion Site Plan- for Mbrt Subdivision (8.5 x 11) Pee X Site Plan, (I I x 17) APO List -----Legals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Enviro rimental Assessment X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADP Elevations Declarations (Variance & C. U. P') —Petition (Official Street Map) J:' Environmental Checklist Critical Areas Determination 10 0 0 APPLICATION ROUTING FORM FILE ADB-96-131 AND CHECKLIST FROM. 'PLANNING RF-GE"' OCT 3 1 1996 ROUTED TO: PUBLIC WORKS DEPI RETURNED Engineering 10/30/96 Engine ering_�_ Ail— 1996 Fire 10/30196 Fire, fybil Public Works CLIjr, -J Parks ex Rec. 10/30/96 Parks ex Rec. Staff Comments: *PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE? *COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED *Additional Infomnation Required for Complete Application *Additional Studies Required to Complete Review afi • Owner MARVIN SMITH • Property Address—_126 4TH AVE. N. • Date of Application 10/30/96 • Type ADD 2 OFF-STREET PARKING • Hearing Required:Yes X 'No_ Date of Hearling(if known)r, X Application Site Plan for Short Subd n (E1.5 x 11) Subdivision Fee X Site Plan (11 x 17) APO List _�_�egals (Existing & Proposed) Title Report Environmental Assessment X -Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU} Elevations __-Declarations (Variance & C. U. P.) Petition (Official Street Map) Environmental Checklist Critical Areas Determination A 0 10 0 U) of U) w _5 Hi U) QLLJ LL =� 9)d y Wi z 1-i Z w to �o v Ni o LU i LLo —z z t® Applicant Marvin E. Smith Phone (206) 778-1181 Address Property Address or Location 126 4th Aypniie NnrYh-'rlmnnrlg. .1a QR49n Property Owner Marvin E. Smith & Agnes R. Smith Phone , (206) 778 11_81 Address Agent �' Phone �-t Address /S c' '`� / � ,y2n 5, IVA 99 Tax ACC # (See Tax Statement attached) Sec. Twp. Ring. Legal Description (See Tax Statement attached) Details of Project or Proposed Use Provide 2 Offstreet Parking spaces for commercial building zoned BC The undersigned applicant, ano hiss her/ its heirs. and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release. indemnify. defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable arorneys fees. arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees The undersigned applicant grants his,, her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City,of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection ano posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGEN 3 0 �Q z w' z r � o) z 1996 REAL ESTATE TAX STATEMENT ° k ~pS ACCOUNT NUMBER SEE REVERSE SIDE / �RUrvi (U PTt i559 R A��O it Fj 4344-001-008-00008B58 957857 7300 o KEEP = 241.300 .. pZ, THIS 55.98 ', .112 1.60 2N0 21 799.76 �19M6.PORTION r9r47 2 799 761��' , „�� . . � a 791).711 SMITH HAtV SN. - _•' -- 126 411i AVENUE. NORTH 900 LO ry 041-11 EUM;;NDSr HA ' EJM JNJS� PLAT Jqx� C .ILKJOL D U) - EJT 8 $1 035.91 UR 37% OF CURRENT TAXES VOTER APIRUVED -- J t®'. i ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT November 15, 1996 ADB-96-112 _REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL 2 NEW PARKING STALLS FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE A. A"licant/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: The applicant has proposed to construct 2 new parking stalls between the street and the existing building, accessing off 4th Avenue North. The building currently provides 14 parking stalls which access off the alley. After the completion of the proposed u project the property would provide 16 parking stalls. The existing office use requires no more than 4 parking stalls to meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. A Background: I. 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). ? 9 3. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). E. Staff Analysis: r I. Site Design: Q 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 '7"`' "'gk�.re w o1 LL¢ Ln d' 1-' i Z I= Na Z 1— ww �i N_; ar iU u. p Z U= o~ Z oil ADB•96-112 i 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 retail/service 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. In addition, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Washington State Barrier Free Code, in that the installation of the two proposed parking stalls requires the installation of one on -site barrier free parking space. 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 pedestrian access to the existing building would be required to cross a parking area. Therefore, this proposal would remove all direct pedestrian access. c) Landscaping: 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 Edmonds community development code requires a minimum 5 foot landscaping buffer around the perimeter of all parking lots. The applicant has proposed a 4 foot buffer between the parking stall and the sidewalk, and no buffer between the parking stalls and the side property lines. The ADB has the sole authority to waive 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 minimum code requirements for parking and landscaping. In this case the applicant 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: 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 20.10A70(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 Division • Compliance with the State Barrier Free Code requirements must be met. 2 �tr rz 4{tli a ^` I t, i C .� z S r k 7, Pik d \ t 1It s a f ....2fvalt;\ it f .. �xF- r A-v { •.., \ .:i:l.•,M.ro„•... UtU.,.t..U0.N:l3fLh "JE:NYv1miKL'+ui.e.i ( _n { . ,. y.; t S l . ..S _ _. ........... .. _� .. ...5....�_.-« w•. +AYr<ul�up,p' ...r.r«..... `Wr,-......_'Cd ,..` ......, Si .__.�....,...�a ....m«.a.. ADB-96-112 o 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 i at the time of the building permit application. If those requirements effectdesign, those gj requirements must be integrated into the plan and approved by the ADB prior to the approval or issuance of a building or development permit. coif o, i U) W F. Summary: The proposal is inconsistent with the landscape requirements because an W o 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 d reducing the pedestrian facilities and by providing parking off the street where parking off U) d the alley is available In addition, the proposal does not provide the required barrier free r = parking stall. Further, the proposal would eliminate an amount of public parking at lest Z 1—I equal to the amount of private parking proposed with no apparent public or private benefit. z o' Therefore Staff believes that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the 2 W' o` Comprehensive Plan, The Zoning Ordinance, and the Design Guidelines and the application 5 should be denied. U� o F- r Attachments: LU LU LLo' 1. Vicinity Map — ZI 2. Applicant's declarations, elevations and site plan -i v o~ - Z b j6 {{iEM 1! IIRRZ! ``,