21420 HIGHWAY 99 (3).pdf6
I
CITY OF. EDHONDS.
HEARING EXAMINER
AP-?-LICATION FOR VARIANCE
APPLICANT Alan BMW Saab, Inc.
CITY & ZIP Edmonds 98020
2
D ATE /--o!V /
FEE--
RECT 41,
, 7W Z47
APO' S V �
HEARING DATE: ZIP
ADDRESS 21420 Hwy 90
PITONE-771-7100
INDICATE TYPE OvL\. DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY owner
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 21420 Hwy 99 Edmonds
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY "see attached"
VARIANCE REQUESTED: Modify the landscape depth at,the front of the property
on Highway 99, from 15' to 9', with 5' planting strip inside sidewalk and
4' planting strip next to street. Eliminate land'scape at rear of propert
on /zna bu.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: 0& z
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRE-,,1E NNT: 1 0 )-AN0-5CAJ))A)& W --5-Trz--,S1.
I
R--1-_eas_e-/ Hold Har-mless Agreement
The undersigned aoclicazic, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for
th e C i - v p--r-oces---sing- zhe apolication aarees to release, indemnify, defend and
h 0 1 d e Ciz-17 0-- 'L-La---,,i"-,--ss 7rom any and all damages and/or claims for
i-LicL reasonable actorneys fees, arising from any action
damages, 1-1 1 �::" -
C-)On f
or inac�--io-n is '---::sed in wl.,ole or in Dart L, L alse, misleading or incomplete
information 10,7 the applicant, his agents or employees.
Permission co Enter Subject Property
The undersi-7,ed -�---poliican- grant:s his, her or its permission for public
-c'ic--"als and s of tL-e City of Edmonds to enter the subject pr6�perty
O.L L
for the pu--rpose insoect-i-on and oostin,, att[ViAant to this application.
Signature of Applicant, O�%Tner or
Representative
4
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
Please answer all questions
What are the physical characteristics, (i.e. topography, shape
of lot, etc.) which create a hardship for you in regard to
development of your property?
Usage of property is a new car dealership. Front area is used
for vehicle display. A full 15' planting strip will eliminate
a full row of cars approximately 300' long or 30 cars. Would
like to use special display pads & some planting. (continued on back)
2. liow does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
Only frontage on Highway 99 that will have sidewalks, curbs,
and planting strips.,in same block.
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging tc
CD
other propert:y or improvements in the vicinity?
No. We will actually have quite an improvement to what is in
the immediate vicinitv.
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is no-- aranted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own. action?
Greater costs and loss of valuable display area.
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property wir-liout the variance?
The code is not reasonable for this type of business.
k
EXHIBIT 3
RLRhi
M04
Legal Description:
County of Snohomish, State of Washington
All that portion of Lots 21 and 22, Solner's Five Acre Tracts,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 7 of Plats,
page 25, records of the Auditor of the county of Snohomish,
State of Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 22 of said plat, thence
South along the West line of said lot a distance of 243.76 feet;
thence East 138 feet; thence South 63 feet; thence East to the
Westerly margin of Highway 99; thence Northeasterly along the
Westerly margin of said Highway to -the North line of Lot 21,
of said plat; thence West along the North line of said Lots 21
and 22 to the Point of Beginning.
.. -0 V-94 IV=
21420 HIGHWRY 99, EDMON135, WM5MINU I UM =0U=U - r' "s L" - - - - —
k
4,
EXHIBIT 4
VICINITY SKETCH for ALAN BMW SAAB
�- I I U. I 1 -1 1 1 j I I I I I I I
L - 210 TH T s.w
to
I
DIVISION
!F
3 4
N-
clt/4
's
III`
I
10
FOUR
1
8
7
6
Il
4
3
5 CACC- : , 0
I' JA Tj 2
011 7
I Tvi NO.3
2
10 FIVE
TRACTS
29
30
NUPMEw,11
k
6
21
ACRE
216 1
32
//33
11447
WIM
s "i Lm —=�
10
TH
S T.
S.W
9
uj
4j
w
W
47-+L,,0q
,
7
so
I to
o
to
V
THREE
to
p
z
75
41911202,
x
m
7
I
I I
t 4
23
I
a I
ko
to
to
or
I /0� I
*eel
T 7 a
0 4
VjT
t RoFost >
VARIA,tV
20 19
34 1 35
31211
*-t— 27 ME14
ILi
> is t4
UL16 It
14
Is
171 is a 21
..00
D1 ONE
0 6 -lO
00,
�j
216 T H
Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc.
trq�s - 5�eym - pl�s
171 51h A.. 4 �1. 200 1� WA 08020
0
41
PAF
J�
ELEVATIONS
CLC-
3;:
E X HIBIT 5
At
AN RA4W SAAS
J
\---il If
I N
w E..
+
s
v
t
Ji
qr.sIS OF BE4ANGS
iz -lq
LEGEND
6'.
4 ME
DATUM
CA, w
LEGAL DESCPIPTIO.V
I'll V.� ... C's.
cc'5 a :� �.' I w ft"%
'." --- mcc�vs v I� 4�14W IN C�" 0
IXSZ4.EC S '�LC-S
C�. 'w ... 27 w 1.0 ft.'* 1.
-Is, IN S.0 LCI . Ml�.E � 2.3 11 M
I.Itcl.
L :-'l JIM u
-W,ft . ..... I,
..� v S-0
I0 S-0 ft.,.
Es . ft� �'. L� " 1-0 Lots b 22
�i oW fc�
0
0 c
0
o
c A
a
C.
U) 6 0 21 0 'a C<
Lon I<
6. me
V 1 2 a b . I b - :Col. C. mommol,
a. all elected M
10.0, me. it. so. 0�, *14 :2 1 .M.: M CM+ moomi,
.. ..... (p) 0 domm-o' No .
I & . . 1 0 . .. A a
)-to""Ot.
:.I I. IS so. I.Vom It a 1 1.91, ..a U4)
a 1. (D Ln
I so. a I I
Ales as I I I I
or.*.
I'm OF
1 40. at to f\ r4s)
so 446 *10., 64.6.0 �16:1 Pl. A 0 - 11,46,14 6 1 1<
..9 as its... he. Y. so CD
I.e. Is 4.
11 01.10 1 f I 6m. momon
em: .0.48 V.51101.11 1 .1
0.1.6 1 or 9
Mo
or No 1.' 00
I.e. .,..a .... 'I *ft..j 0
0 a.. 0 1- to I'd C CD
*..a. .4..M.a
-91 .0111. .1 6 .11 -1 It
so.-Illo as I I . I . . 6 or 1. 7 1 1
v- lose-
ollsoom .1.
so 1 111
-1, .)Ie 0. a 1 0
to., 406,0. 1&., 1
1.8
do.) 8.6 r
V 6 solo, 8 f
ear to 019 a- it Y'.9 a I .:, .: C: M M
4 1 Is 4 1 1 .0,41 0
I.." lot I M D> I'M
We",... all 9 *1 3>
A90"t'. 1 ". It,.* am, 6 a 4 ,
Ill (.4.
:do, a �rx.-.ftm M :z
test a.. * 0. a.., 1 4. Led) M
)a,
It a 1. a.. at, 0. a Y.1b," UD M car) CO
cw")
�6 ... of of ...
X.141:.71 I, M rE: M
Ago 2 1 . f 9 M
14.- at ad
so Imj. F Ij C/) Lamm) immommob
to Is. I .9.4.10
I 1 .1 ... 1 00 1-0 cn D>
I Ore. 9
too, *its. I'm
No . 4%
to IP
14APs' Idoem 4.40.0 C) M M
-to . -11* r I
vast. do 10 is- Sm.
2 s -'o a
. - I I fel I w
0 1 . (,m- C)
6.
oil %.%11. �117-
114.
1 0 Pat 14 A.". o a
8. Is I .. me
2 $619 ;,.4.: of a :E: c..1
so... 8. 11.�,
'64. a*. I, 1� :z M
poll .501,4461.1. 1
16 l0000mi
so me*, Is . 9 . . ." I . I
.1.6 a . . I . . . Ism C)
Is- i.e M (D
'14 1 ' 4 ' to 1 0
'1 796*
I to .41, Ill. =
1. - lose a, I O`60:a, 6-o or Ill .0-66. oo V a. 44--:1 r\) CD
1, 1 0 . 96, ell
Oall'� F.6641.,'s . ........ .1 V, 0 . omm^
4 1 6, fast 1 so. .0 C) C)
at" to 9. o -60
% 0 . 11 " I v 1.9 . I cz add
k. Ott. %..a$. ..I
14F ad felt, 91 Poe,
1 41 1 tea A omm000t imoommi
I, N, 0
ON O.o*
a -.44
I see t 'tot I a
14 1.. Iso M M 1
14 got. so. ve a- I to-* C) 00
off rn :E::
a I'— am. s I's , ?1 :9 M
- 1% It to. rD
a. .1 t; It 11 .0.i M c:;;
Ole -.11 1. 0. 1 M
4i
I. a.. I .. ......
60 -,-1- 1-- "s 1. 4 moo ;10 C)
).*a
a. mew So. 06
Clla. 1. 1 ... Lee) �,D Um)
�aa
'%I A. % I I . . I r p .1 , .. . I , .. q I de:"I, I% rm000t
a- it It f -..I'
s I I a I most. son co momm-mod. 0;
.C.44 .%A4 es!. slool'.1451s tl.,;. .0.
1* 1.0 4 a Met , . I at t 1 0 1 a - . I . I. . . I. I . 1 9 . I .. I P CD
4 ll-t's so .... to., - .
I so . I . d.i ........... 6, me I
1.8 .,Pl 06l Is-,$ .. - . 0. M co Ile --- i
�a I . 4 6. me..
..a." Pswmm*1o.8l*.p , I. 1 1 1 . rooms
I@% mom 00 %....Joor Go)
.%t-lot I �
4, Ise .1 L'� to a model .. 4 .4. met IV me I.% M mommodoj kz� C)
.69 or, ...... of
I 1.%t or rp :z
leg 1-%*1 4. ....... I
I I ". , . a .. .. 'a's 0
jk�, , . r �gl see a 9 6 ., I o I %mm..mm,r Log) M
to %to Vt Is I p' I
%, lied ... 11 ao. to old me I's, M C)
p
f so 1. 1 iopp"..O. - 1: M cz
w * 0 1 . 1'. 46 1. Pre 1 4 0 . I q I I f 9 1 r , . .1 6 4 foommool
lot% .0. -4 M poommIJ
i't - 0. ,
.a
t Jr.. , I 1.,*.Ot I.e .1
Poo , - I tl$l-t is "I.
a me. vr.41 1 6 1 1 , I .. I - I I I , 0 , I I T f , D> M
Y."...'d �4,004.-. , . .9 ;u M
kt. 0% a I v *;. ! ..1 v 1 0 0 10
%jA.,--qf .,Mo... mt, .0. 1... bommomoi M
.0 4f.1.0 0.11 ..g. so%
4. me. of 4 O-al
toddles 9,17, I.e dmlll� ..a too @,%1. 4...
s 4 a I I a I I fall. 9 4
at. - 1.
is. -,\.a
4, . Ill
966,1 '4400 4
It Is \4
II, I do &I T so M
do I
46%4.61" do k
M t *tell ..I t moon
070 a a 4. Ar so C)
.1.4sto
1.4 1
If seems Of )860
*,a.. oboal'aaRp. M Fr
told, so ..
o8affsa*1 I
'0,�,
.for Iti,od.lets m, 4% A's
a. I's tool..ad. asset 0
1telet'so 0 1$...
.1 of
1*10.11,01t a It I p I LTI rri
I . a . . 0 . . . 0 6 V
let' ed..o.0l a 0 1 0 4 ad I , all 0 o 6 4 a 6 - a 0 . . . . P.- - mm%mm,., d"ev 00 ao
oneal 0 ... I.,I l. 0.4 ... 0 1.19
........ Sol,- am: a, 1 .14.1 ml.a gp'%�A
a. 4111119610-11. 7841'.\ "SOL Ifluls.01 .1
,a ... go
Isto'. ... .
Idt'N' I..
1.1.1.1119.1 sees. a . ..1 0
ease .0%, "1 .a Poe
?solo, 111117.7089VIV7 611111. It%. I I.. amber.-P. 00
Pa. lose ml 084.116 .#Is.- a
... I ol... 19 Irlo.,f
fos4.116.100,08. to 11 iteo.- . I
eelo Be 6 mmeo 0
00 1 ...
.00, as ... Vt.,' f"486 ..... 4 .*.#.met
legal,, 4 P.
,:a 612 1 dAlsoolo# "of a'.
?I .... 1.0-li- .9.40 ... 4.. m, d, sees.
8 11 0. 1 b.e 0 -1-4. 0 1$816 06 fill ;.So 4.
a
.111.1 ....... so., 0 set, 0"60
0.a..1.111.1111 I . sea.." I % LA
a
... %Delta
ease@41., 0 *to me a % .. 9 1 9 9
10I.V1..10.0 1. 1
I ..... 0 ... 1 .11 1 A 11
9. assesses"" a *a, Is
I I G-40011-1. $Isom still deep
4 1 a %I a if 8 -4 's. I so. to I a
W.It t to a I.
.:so "lloo" ,rommed,
s a I I I . V k -I . "some Yale I a.. ol .01 1.'. 1 1.
ol-
_7
9
1.1 a I to I I . . . 6
9 . to
Is I
4 pilot
It P I I I POP a I I I I t
. . . OIL s to 0 . . . . . .
.68 s
. it .
low
Pit,
4 1 . i OPP
1*0 1 .
GOP. 10,
I , 1.
60
I. to k' "Am% ter;-'%'o-G it ... 60"s, 60,00"d
-49 1-4% ... 0, ta"B'sot ...
to t ONF-opol. is
I
If I I
0 fie .1 . e 0 0 1 . I . A
co LLJ co I b I I . I I I 1 9
a-F-0 *.OF P-8,40"84 6 0,
cr3 Ica b P .01. to, 4P 0 4 . . . . . .
Ilse) f . .
if It .
Go . it .
04
N
It I
cez CD .....
It & I - I , I
a' for 0% Go lot -fa, 44, 4 4 4.
6110'. .k,qt,s #61.
. YO.
. I..
181086.4.8 ) #&#a
408,01
680.164h. .1184 tiff 416111468% 9 t ill I
LL) 1' 0 0 It - - PP,P 0 A. - PI v 0 & I a I . I . . , 0 0 0 . f q a , a A 0 . 0 a 0 .1 14 1 1. a . . 1# 4 -
fimm. 01. qR..flta"v1 11.41.1 1., .1%
.5 . #-III "op$ . I I 1. 1. I.P.11
< C) .00.0% a . 4 $..to
f.a. -saik
.5 Go 4 too of Got I
4 9
6 6 1 1 L' to
LLJ 44 op... * 0
LOOP) L.)
1.14 9. 1 1 1
is. I's
F-
c of 0/106. t a
Z: a I . . I - . I . I . a , . 1 4 . . I
LLI L..P_PG PC, .4. Con 11 'j, . I I . t
of. ..I I I I a I 1 0
If .41.'. 1 W. 4
LLI: c0 s 4. 1 0 1
LLI c::C Z: CD of q L . I @#.I
i if 01 11 'o 0 0 9 VP
If a I >1 wriff"'O"
I . - ,
F If P. 00
LLI LLF.
Cr LLJ
UP
LLJ V) .... ..
Z: LIJ LLJJ cm t I I
CD
C.D
34. P
PPPGP ...
CD
tit".
Cl. u u CD I .1i .
cz
co
cj j
Ln all L/) LIP L t- ii
PIP I I.
0 cm m Clip s I f t 0 it I
C::c 0 If of I I I
4 .,§ It
CC >- uj . t .
jccc P If I,
All it to I..;
It *64
I IN
PGGiPPP 00 C) I P. .6 1.0&. lop
GO s
u
CD u INOS
tGPPPPi tPOPPOPPoi cp.�: IGPOOGG . .....
ism- of'. L I, 'I I I s
'Pin I PIT
1P.- 6 to., :6
Pit I I
C) co C) t . it
C> fliffill' It
. I . 'ITP Of- .1 o I
A sm., a
I I 1 1. .."69661. If 44 -fi- 1:0
iiiii-to I I
It I a... to ... I
LAM LLJ 0 1 .01 67 1 1 .0 4 .1 1 4 . , I . . . . . I % 0 1
I 1 0 to I ..IZ O..q
1 11 0
Z: i- CD Pill. t . 4 t , 9
LL. off ,to .
I OF I
C) . if V� %
I Is sw li- I to if
0 u Z: I MO 4 9
/,it sy *1 .1 two,
row" I A
P :P CC LOU LLJ C) rill. 0 If 60 'Y Us.44
I P ' Pit' F,
<3: V) co I
C:3c (n .4 1149.1
POP,
UPI tiii-i- t :.0::. 61st I ..... 4
j. fift
ui :3 W A of,
`IPPL'PPPPP Lj M: IPM_ dit 1 9
bill
LLJ m V) Go .6 4
Z: co P.00"
IPPIPP-1 Ln 6.
< uj
rk� < ui Z:
C: 4 ;to 'G.'.1
< Cr ct W *ON!. ISLI's, 0.1.
it S."t 'T to
'I If
to.
04
61 0
so 6.0,9, :Fit
qo.$ & .4 . IF 1. 0.
Po*s' I t' to , .'. 6 ALI 4 to.,
L I S. ... , . Of'o
to . .. . .6. ...4
G I , ..., . 8--to I.,
OP 6 1. .41 Pit
'L F GO.,. tit, all
rZ5 rill, s a It f
offill POPPOPP, co .6 W."01914 a
IPPIPPOP ois 1 0
LL. O.is 4
C:)
dI
16
bl* GOP. s
Ln a) .6. 1 1 0 if I I I I a
I
I
Ln ro lot -9 a '1 0 .4, to., .6. .*:1
4
tiffiff- '46% ,
PIPP.. to 1. a . 1 .1.4
PPI tiff-ii- 0 POP
LU of. III
UGo... t a,
aln . .q of,.
I It
11 61#68`14
>)p
>) U) If.,. .1, ."bow.,
0
COD M
A
Of 0
;S'
tool sht
so
. % j
it
L
66 1
VA
A so
. Lt
1 0.6 .016 -X4
tj
t
at. Us
Is,
$lot%
Is o'
If
of 4.
%
to
t toll
4 t -
No
Op. Is o .
, % , 4 AI 41—
Gott , . I I 1 -1 Co.
V
. 40
1 1 to
;:too I , 6 1 0 , 0 1 1 r 0 . Ir 0 9 4 1
6 a off
If 1 6 1
$
o7v o
. . I I . . I . . I
It.
4 Ims"C6, XV:11.04 of
fo. I I I_
to 10.1.6
Nor
to. I bo 9 1 1
� ..:. t # .
0
0
I
a
to
o
tov so of . I . . . . .
I so. vok .4
as 1 6
Is:
A I
14
to i
#,P't
so I
6,f 1. .4
of . I
ej
p I
00 1., 1 0.... . .
I to :0
it
4 S . .
go a
9,6 , t $ 1
so*
t
A to
so so It
oo.
ot.
1 6 1 woo o -
OF. g No 0
to 1.
I
I,P I—
V I
-or. A , 4
Is 0 1 2 1 1 0
IV
7A
to' -4
. I . It
\o,
'of*
Ln
ko
rn
(.D V)
co I-0
111.4 CD
CD
m
0
Clot
cn --I c7m
c 0 (on r,<
co a :K
C_
m CM+ cm)
0
Come En
fD U)
C) 1<
00
(D
C+
=70 M
m m r000f D>
�> oCD D> ;a m
= :z 1 =3
m
L/M)
GM) --i
:E: rrol
C:)
:> Loom) tmmmot
_q Ln :1> :a
m rri :>
n cc n
--A C) 0
F--i D> =
C.mmmol CD --A =
C: :z m
m
0
..mmmmml r\) C:)
co :1:2 C:) m
i 2.�
.mpm.J D> U 0
too m C) __mq C: I
CC)
"'I.J rm
cu
t.0 C) 0 m
:E
too Um)
—i roll.) 0
z
C)
V) M
M CD m
m C:
tq z
m 0
M
—4
cm�) L/M)
m
000n
C) >
__4
m
Ln b5
N
Q\)
4 Is"'i
1 1.
fooloolooll
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Duane Bowman
and says:
FILE NO. V - 2 0 - 8 7
APPLICANT Al an BMW
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
That on the -f t h day of June , 19 87 , the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event,
in the Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or near
the subject property.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
190-)
I
Washington.
Residing at
MVi COMMISSION EXPIRES 646-89
0
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
Susan Painter
deposes and says:
FILE NO. V - 2 0 - 8 7
APPLICANT Alan BMW
being first duly sworn, on oath
That on the Sth day of June - ----,lg 87 , the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners,
the names of which were provided by the applicant.
Signed Lam- pzzzl�*
Subscribed and sworn to before me this— day of
19
C
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington.
Residing at
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 646-89
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
rgr�'J
WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION Ift - -
ZONE DISTRICT
all M., IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM OF THE COMMUNI-
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT
TY SERVICES BUILDING, 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IF YOU WISH TO COMMENT
ON THIS PROPOSAL YOU MAY COME TO THE HEARING AND SPEAK. YOU MAY ALSO WRITE A LETTER
STATING YOUR VIE��S WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING. PLEASE ADDRESS THE LETTER TO
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND INCLUDE THE ABOVE FILE NUMBER.
IF THE ITEM IS CONTINUED TO ANOTHER HEARING BECAUSE THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED, OR
FURTHER INFORMATION IS NEEDED, THE DATE OFTHE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY
AT THE MEETING. 1:
ADDITIONAL INFORM ; ATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE
NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252).
1 THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
HL n EL E
EL m CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
W., ARN I N G 1 OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTERA440���
7
A
'ADB-47-87 NEW BUILDING ADDITION FbR ALAN BMW SAAB, INC.
Alan BMW Saab, Inc./David Gi-iffittl�(tfit-it-CII-SL)Ztlki Architects)
21420 Highway 99 (CG Zone)
Preliminary Approval
A. Site
1. Nature of Site - There is currently a 7,000 sq. ft. wood
frame building on the site being used by the automobile
dealership. The site is relatively flat with the steepest
slope about 2.6%. The site measures 338.9 ft. on the east,
243.8 ft. on the west and 478.9 ft. on the north. The site
area is about 115,500 sq. ft.
2. Surrounding Property and Zoning - There is commercial
development to the south, commercial and offices to the east
and a nursing home to the west across 72nd Avenue W. There
is vacant land and commercial use to the north.
Zoning to the south is General Commercial (CG). Zoning to
the west across 72nd Avenue W. is Multiple Family
Residential (RM 1.5). Property to the north and to the east
across Highway 99 is outside the Edmonds City limits.
3. Access to Site - Vehicular and pedestrian access to the
site will be from Highway 99 and 72nd Avenue W.
4. Off -Street Parking - 240 parking spaces are required for
an automobile dealership with 'the subject lot size. The
building addition will not increase the required amount of
parking since it is based on lot area. If the existing
amount of parking is maintained, no additional parking is
required.
5. Official Street Map and Existinq Street M22 - The Official
Street Map calls for a 60 ft ' . right-of-way fo,r /Znd Avenue
W. The existing right-of-way is 60 ft.
6. Site Development Information - The proposal dioes not meet
the set * back requirements of the Community Development Code.
A 15 ft. fully landscaped street setback is r'equired on
Highway 99 and on 72nd Avenue W.
B. Building
1. Use and Size - A 6000 sq. ft. building addition to be u.sed
for automobile service is planned.
2. Height - 18 ft.
3. Exterior Details
a. Metal cladding on sides of building. Color will be
white to match the existing siding.
b. Wood shingle roof to match the existing roof.
C. 24" diameter concrete columns.
d. Fully glazed overhead doors on north and east
elevations.
C. Lighting, Trash, Miscellaneous
1. Exterior Lightinq - 4 new light standards are planned
near the middle of the north property line. Four new
lights are planned on the proposed building.
ADB Minutes.
June 3, 1987
Page 18
'FF
I
2.
Trash A trash dumpster location is noL
indicaLed oil
the plans.
3.
Electric Meter - The electric meter location
is not
indicated on the plans.
4.
Roof Mounted Equipment - No roof Mounted
equipment i s
indicated on the plans. If there is such
equipment, i t
must be completely screened from view.
D. Landscaping and Fencing
1.
The existing and proposed landscaping is
shown on the
Landscape Plan. It appears sparse.
2. There is an existing 6 ft. high chain link fence on all
but the east side of the property.
E. Signs
No additional signs are proposed.
The existing freestanding sign is 160 sq. ft. in area and
has a height of 35 ft. from the top of the sign to the
ground. The sign, including the 10 ft. variance in height
and lack of landscaping at the base of the sign, was
approved by the Architectural Design Board. Landscaping is
proposed at the base of the sign.
F. Engineering Department Requirements
1. Curb and gutter, planting strip, and sidewalk
improvements are required on Highway 99 frontage per
field discussions.
2. Curb and gutter, sidewalk and asphalt roadway
improvements are required on 72nd Avenue W. to match
existing.
3. A drainage plan is required if there is over 2,000 sq.
ft. of new impermeable sur-Face.
4. Bonding is required per Code.
5. Underground wiring is required.
G. Fire Department Requirements
Requirements will be made at time of review for Building
Permit.
Staff Findings
The staff finds the following:
Comprehensive Plan
The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and other adopted City policies.
2. Zoning Ordinance
The subject proposal does not meet the street setback
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is
requesting a variance of these requirements from the Hearing
Examiner.
AO8 Minutes
June 3, 1987
Page 19
4
3. C:- i ter i a
The sutiect proposal satisfies the cri Leria and purposes of
Chapter 20. 10 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code.
DISCUSSION
David Griffith, 20516 - 61st Pl. W., Lynnwood, the applicant, was present.
Board member Parsons inquired why the proposal does not meet the 15 foot setback
requirement. Mr. Griffith said he displays a row of automobiles adjacent to the
roadway and that row of advertising space would be lost if the setback requirement
was met, which would place a hardship on the business.
Board member Birch inquired about the color scheme of the building addition. Mr.
Griffith replied white with medium gray trim.
Board member Parsons recommended that 5 to 6 columnar trees be planted adjacent to
Highway 99 and deciduous trees, 30 ft. o.c., be planted on 72nd Avenue West to
provide a more aesthetically appealing entry to the business. Mr. Griffith said
grass is proposed because is it durable and customers often do not respect where
they walk and destroy plantings. He expressed concern that street trees would
obstruct viewer visibility from the highway. Board member Parsons said a deciduous,
columnar -shaped tree would create an aesthetically appealing environment and would
not create visual obstruction. Board member Herman suggested that street trees be
planted behind the front row display on Highway 99 because he also thought
visibility would be impaired if trees were planted in front of the display area.
Dis'cussion ensued regarding the type of planting material that would be desirable,
as well as the location.
ACTION
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WAYMIRE, TO APPROVE ADB-47-87
AS SUBMITTED AND INCLUDE STREET TREES ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 99 AND 72ND. AVE. W.
MOTION FAILED WITH BOARD MEMBER PARSONS AND BOARD MEMBER WAYMIRE IN FAVOR; BOARD
MEMBER BIRCH, BOARD MEMBER BECK, AND BOARD MEMBER HERMAN OPPOSED.
BOARD MEMBER HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE ADB-47-87 AND INCLUDE FOUR STREET TREES
ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 99, TWO STREET TREES ON THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH
CORNERS, TWO STREET TREES ON THE INTERIOR ROAD ENDS OF THE PARKING ISLAND, AND TWO
STREET TREES ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WAYMIRE, TO APPROVE ADS-47-87
AND INCLUDE SIX STREET TREES ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 99 AND FOUR STREET TREES ADJACENT
TO 72ND. AVE. W. WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE TREES MAY BE REMOVED, WITH BOARD
APPROVAL, AFTER A NINE MONTH REVIEW PERIOD, IF THEY CAUSE VISUAL OBSTRUCTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH BOARD MEMBER PARSONS, BOARD MEMBER WAYMIRE, BOARD MEMBER BECK Im
FAVOR; BOARD MEMBER HERMAN AND BOARD MEMBER BIRCH OPPOSED.
The meeting recessed at 9:43 p.m. and reconvened at 9:54 p.m.
ADB-48-87 AS BUILT MODIFICATIONS TO EASTERLY COMMERCIAL BUILDING,
MODIFICATIONS OF SITE PLAN AND LAINDSCAPINGPLAN FOR
"THE BUTLER U10 11 T
Archie Butler James Irwin, Architect)
23125 Highway 99 (CG Zone)
Final Approval
At the November 7, 1984 meeting of the ADB, the Board approved plans
for an addition to Butler's easterly corisnercial building at 23125
Highway 99. The addition was not constructed in conformance with ADB
approved plans. This application seeks approval of the as built
modification of the easterly building. Also, the applicant seeks
approval of a modified site plan and a proposed landscaping pl;n.
ADB Minutes
June 3, 1987
Page 20
k t
virginia Evans, 76104 - 2060 S.W. , said she buyS antiques and was pleased that an
antique mall was proposed it-, Edmonds. She said only two antique ir.31 15 Wel'C local 1Y
located; one in Snohomish and one in Redmond. She said many patrons of inLique
stores are leisurely people and will more than likely contribute to the economy Of
other local businesses. She reiterated that sales are handled through a centrally
located desk in the mall rather than by individual antique deale.rs.
Mr. Spangler said he proposed vented windows on the top floor in order to comply
with the Code. lie said the octagonal windows are characteristic of the 1850 era.
Board member Waymire inquired if a building existed to the south of the proposed
project. Mr. McCreary replied affirmatively. He said that building is an Italian
restaurant.
Board membec Parsons recommended that the landscaping plan be more detailed. He
referred the applicant to the ADB landscaping standards.
Board member Birch noted that the revised plan and original plan indicate the same
number of poles. Mr. Spangler clarified that a row of poles was eliminated from the
plans very recently but were not reflected in the earlier plans sent to the Board.
Board member Waymire said a wood shake roof would be more appropriate than a metal
roof but recommended that a darker shade of brown, i.e., slate brown, be utilized if
the metal roof was constructed.
Board member Herman recommended that a colored rendition of the project depicting a
true representation of the colors to be used be submitted to the Board along with a
detailed landscape plan.
Board member Koenig expressed concern with respect to the lack of continuity of
window design.
ACTION
BOARD MEMBER PARSONS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BIRCH, TO APPROVE ADB-46-87 FOR
FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN ONLY; THAT THE DESIGN AND LOCATION OF THE WINDOWS
IS REVISED; A DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STANDARDS IS SUBMITTED; A COLORED RENDERING DEPICTING A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE
COLORS TO BE UTILIZED IS SUBMITTED, AS WELL -AS COLOR CHIPS; THAT THE ROOF IS PAINTED
A DARKER SHADE OF BROWN. MOTION CARRIED.
ADB-47-87 NEW,BUILDING ADDITION FOR ALAN BMW SAAB INC.
C
Chur-h-Suzuk! Arc
d G r T; TA h—T—� -ujr—c
'u"' " ELr hitects)
Alan BMW Saab, Inc./DaviHT—iffith
21420 Highway 99 (CG Zone)
Final Approval
At the meeting on June 3, 1987, the Architectural Design Board gave
preliminary approval to the subject proposal on the condition that
trees be added along Highway 99 and 72nd Avenue W. Six thornless
Honey Locust, 2" caliper, have been added to the plan along Highway
99. Four Flame Ash, 2" caliper, have been added to the plan along
72nd Avenue W.
A. Site
1. Nature of Site - There i.s_.currently a 7,000 sq. ft. wood
frame buil�Ldng on the s1te being used by the automobile
dealership. The site is relatively flat with the steepest
slope about 2.6%. The site measures 338.9 ft. on the east,
243.8 ft. on the west and 478.9 ft. on the north. The site
area is about 115,500 sq. ft.
2. Surrounding ProDerty and ZoELnq - There is commercial
the east
development to the soutT—,commercial and offices to
and a nursing home to the west across 72nd Avenue W. There
is vacant land and commercial use to the north.
ADB Minutes
July 1, 1987
Page 15
Z o n i i i g t o L I 10 s o i i L I i i s G e i i e ra I C 0 if r 11 V r c i a I ( C G ) . Zoning to
the west ncross 72nd Avenue W. is M1110PIC F,1111"Y
Residential (RM 1.5). Property to the north and to Lhe east
across Highway 99 is outside the Edmonds City limits.
3. Access to Site - Vehicular and pedestrian access to the
site will be from Highway 99 and 72nd Avenue W.
4. Off -Street Parking - 240 parking spaces are required fol
an automobTle -dealership with the subject lot size. The
building addition will not increase the required amount of
parking since it is based on lot area. If the existing
amount of parking is maintained, no additional parking is
required.
5. official Street Map and Existing Street Map - The Official
W ri�fi- �f-wa; for 72nd Avenue
"g-treet Map calls for aSL66D.
W. The existing right-of-way is 60 ft.
6. Site Development Information - The proposal does not meet
fhe -setback requiremenTs Fof the Community Development Code.
A 15 ft. fully landscaped street setback is required on
Highway 99 and on 72nd Avenue W.
B. Building
1. Use and Size - A 6000 sq. ft. building addition to be used
for automobile service is planned.
2. Height - 18 ft.
3. Exterior Details
a. Metal cladding on sides of building. Color will be
white to match the existing siding.
b. Wood shingle roof to match the existing roof.
C. 24" diameter concrete columns.
d. Fully glazed overhead doors on north and east
elevations.
C. Lighting, Trash, Miscellaneous
1. Exterior Liqhtin_q - 4 new light standards are planned
near the middle of the north property line. Four new
lights are planned on the proposed building.
2. Trash - A trash dumpster location is not indicated on
the plans.
3. Electric Meter - The electric meter location is not
indicated on the plans.
4. Roof Mounted EqujLR�j �nt - No roof mounted equipment is
indicated on the! plans. if there is such equipment, it
must be completely screened from view.
D. Lands:aping and Fencing
1. The existing and proposed landscaping is shown on the
Landscape Plan.
2. There is an existing 6 ft. high chain link fence on all
but the east side of the property.
AQB Minutes
July 1, 1987
Page 16
a
I
S i qns
,No additio[131 Sigf's '11-e proposed. sq. ft. in area arid
reestanding Sig" is 160
The existing f 0111 the top of the 5ign to the
has a height of 35 ft. fr ng the 10 ft. variance in height
ground. The !sign, includi
arid lack of landscaping at the base of the sign, was
approved by the Architectural Design Board. Landscaping is
proposed at the base of the sign.
F. Enqineerin Department Requirements,
1. Curb and gutter, planting strip and sidewalk
improvements are r quired on Highway 99 frontage per
field discussions.
'dewalk and asphalt roadway
2. Curb and gutter, si uired on 72nd Avenue W. to match
improvements are req
existing.
3. A drainage plan is required if there is over 2,000 sq.
ft. of new impermeable surface.
4. Bonding is required per Code.
5. Underground wiring is required.
G. Ll —re— —DeJ Lar —t�—e —nt— —R e—q —u—r e m —en t S
Requirements will be made at time of review for Building
Penmi t
Staff Findings
The staff finds the following:
1. ComprehensivePlan the Comprehensive Plan
The subject proposal is consistent with
and other adopted City policies.
2. Zoning Ordinance etback
The subject proposal does not meet the street s
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is
requesting a variance of these requirements from the Hearing
Examiner.
3. Criteria teria and purposes of
The subject proposal satisfies the cri unity Development Code.
Chapter 20-10 of the City of Edmonds Comm
DISCUSSION
David Griffith, 20516 - 61st Pl. W.-e-Lynnwood, applicant, was present.
Mr. Finke pointed out that a variance was necessary to allow less than the required
landscaped street setback. Mr. Griffith said the Hearing Examiner will render his
decision tomorrow. ndscaped areas be irrigated throughout.
Board member Parsons recommended that the la
ACTION )NDED BY BOARD MEMBER BECK, TO APPROVE ADB-47-87 AS
BOARD MEMBER WAYMIRE MOVED, SEC( OSCAPING RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED (SEE ABOVE
SUBMITTED AND TO INCLUDE THE LAN
OISCUSSrON). MOTION CARRIED.
ADB Minutes
july 1, 1987
Paqe 17
FM
a
11 1 MINIMUM
THIS PACKET SENT -TO HEARING
EXAMINER ON JUNE 12, 1987
EXHIBIT LIST
V-20-87
EXHIBIT 1 - STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT 2 - APPLICATION/DECLARATIONS
EXHIBIT 3 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT 4 - VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT 5 - SITE PLAN
4
lr'� , ,
EXHIBIT 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE: V-20-87
HEARING DATE: June 18, 1987
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance to reduce the required 15' street landscaping
requirement to 9' along Highway 99 and eliminate the requirement
along 72nd Ave. W. for the property located at 21420 Highway 99,
Edmonds.
II. APPLICANT/OWNER:
David Griffith
21420 Highway 99
Edmonds, WA 98020
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
See Exhibit 3
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Descri tion of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area
The subject property is located on the west side of Highway
99. The lot contains 2 . 6 acres of area and is developed as
a new car dealership with outside storage.
The applicant is planning a major addition to the existing
building to add a service area for the car dealership. He
is asking for a variance from the required 15' street
landscaping requirements for both Highway 99 and 72nd Ave.
W.
Surrounding development is commercial to the east, north,
and south.
B. Official StretL_Mak Proposed R/W Existing R/W
West - 72nd Ave. W. 60' 60'
South - Main Street 100, 100,
C. Conformance to Chapter 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
4
Staff Report
V-20-87
Page 2
The subject property presently has no landscaping along
either Highway 99 or 72nd Ave. W. The applicant's
proposal would add nine feet landscaping along Highway
99, with a four foot planter strip in the right-of-way.
2. Special Privilege
As conditioned, the proposed variance does not appear
to represent a grant of special privilege.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan map designates the
subject property as Highway 99 Commercial Area/High
Rise Node, as are the adjacent commercial properties to
the north and south. To the west, the nearby
properties are designated High Density Residential.
As conditioned, the proposed variance does not appear
to conflict with the purposes of the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The subject property, as well as the surrounding
properties to the north and south, is zoned CG2.
As conditioned, the proposed variance does not appear
to conflict with the purposes of the zoning ordinance
or the CG2 zone district.
5. Not Detrimental
As conditioned, the proposed variance does not appear
to pose any significant impact to the public or to any
near by private property or improvement.
6. Minimum Variance
As conditioned, the requested variance does appear to
represent a minimum variance request.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of V-20-87, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The landscaping comply with all Architectural Design Board
requirements.
2. A five foot wide planting strip be placed along the inside of
the fence along 72nd Ave. W.
0
lim Elio
July 15, 1987
Mr. Duane Bowman
Planning Department
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
Dear Mr. Bowman,
REL-i6-IVED
JUL 15 1987
PLAWNG DEPT.
The enclosed letter is a Motion of Re -Consideration
for Mr. James M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner to review
his decision for the variance request that I made at the
hearing on June 8, 1987. His decision is dated July 1, 1987.
The variance received while appreciated is still not
adequate for my landscaping needs and what was accepted
by the City's Architectural Design Board.
Sincerely,
David A. Griffith
President
DAG/se
enclsoure
PH13NE [2061 771-710d
214213 HIOHWRY 99, E13MONOS, WRSHINrjTl3N 98020 1
July 15, 1987
TO: Mr. James M. Driscoll
Hearing Examiner
Since my variance request covered both the frontage area
on Highway 99 and the rear of the property on 72nd Ave.
West, I will address the two areas separately.
Highway 99 Frontage
our needs are for a 6 feet setback that will be landscaped.
I was counting this 6 feet of landscaping and the 4 feet
curb landscaped strip as 10 feet total of landscaping. Some
of the facts I would like you to reconsider.
1. The intent and purpose of my plan is to go from a zero
amount of landscaping, sidewalks, and curbs to a level of
compliance that will both improve the appearance of my
property and satisfy the city's requirements. All of which
being necessary to be permitted to expand my service
department.
2. The intent of the 15 feet setback in the code, besides
beautification is to provide screening of parked automobiles
which is appropriate for most businesses. We are in the
business of automotive sales, hence the need for the most
display area possible. To break up the monotony of a solid
row of cars across the entire frontage, I proposed several
raised concrete pads to display separate vehicles in
varying positions (unique to the general automobile
industry in the Highway 99 area).
3. The shape of my property (see plan that was previously
submitted) narrows to the South because of the angle of
Highway 99 and the building setback. This means that any
setback from the front effects the overall lot display as
it will limit the number of vehicles that can be displayed.
A full 15 feet setback would cause the loss of display
space of about 30 cars. I had fine tuned the total lot
display area to settle on the 6 feet setback depth. The 10
feet setback would be disruptive to the total lot display
plan.
21420 HIGHWRY 99, EDMONDS, WRSHINGTON 98020 - PHONE t20Gj 771--7100
-2-
4. The reference to "some landscaping" has me concerned
in as much as the plan that was submitted was also
approved by the Architectural Design Board. The plan
includes trees that were not indicated on the presented
plan due to the variance hearing submission time being
ahead of the ADB meeting.
5. A landscaped setback that is 6 feet by 280 feet (not
including ends and rounded corners) is quite substantial
in size.
6. Possibly your interpretation of the size of the setback
that I need and requested was due to an error on my part
on how I explained my needs (see #14) and that I should
have requested a 6 feet setback.
72nd Ave. West Frontage
Regarding the rear property border on 72nd Ave. West, we
have a different problem from the openness and high
visibility required on Highway 99. The issue on 72nd Ave.
West is security, with a need to block vehicles from public
view. The variance given was for 5 feet of landscaping
inside the fenced area where I had suggested no landscaping.
Some areas of review are as follows:
1. Mr. Bowman said the City would like to see "some green".
An approach I have no problem with as the ADB suggested some
trees which has been agreed to.
21420 HIGHWRY 99, EDMON13S, WRSHINGTON 980?-U - F-HUNt: Ie-UU2J 111- ff IUU
-3-
2. Since the suggested landscaped area of 5 feet is inside
a fence, which has plastic slats the visibility of any
landscaping would be very limited.
3. To take advantage of the inside landscaping the slats
should be removed (which I would agree to) and a hedge,
vine or similiar type of planting would offer "some green"
and give us the necessary security. This type of planting
would require less than half of the 5 feet suggested in the
variance.
The above is respectfully submitted on July 15, 1987
David A. Griffith
President
214 20 HIC HWRY 99, EDMONDS, WRSHINGTON SHUZU - Pmum= I'MU01 I I I - ff Nuu
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5th AVE. N. * EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771-3202
HEARING EXAMINER
JJ,'1NDTNGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
DAVID GRIFFITH FOR APPROVAL, OF' A
VARIANCE
DE", C -1 10 "4 1 -1 0 V 1 1L C_� d
conditions listed.
!NTRODUCTION
LARRY S. NALIGHTEN
MAYOR
FILIE,: V-20-87
David Griffith, 21420 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington 98020, (here-
inafter re ' ferred to as Applicant) has.requested appro�Tc-.Ll of a
variance to reduce the street landscaping requirement along Highway
99 and to eliminate- the street landscaping requirem"e'nt. along 72nd
Avenue West for property loca.ted at 21420 HighWELY 99, r-�,dmonds,
Washington 98020.
A hear-ing on the t:ecju(--t wa�; hold
of the CLLy of EchnonQ-1-s or, J1.1110.
At the heari.ng th(-:1 11_(:)Ilowirl�j 0r d
, . 0, E! 1-1 t_ 0 J L 0 S 1-1 Y Z-1 11 V
Duane Bowman T)axr.id Griffith
Planning Department 21420 Fligbway 99
City of Edmonds Edmond's, WA 98020
E,dmonds, WA 9802'0
21L Lhe hea:ciriq Unc_
as part of the official record of -this proceeding:
Exhibi� 1 Staf F. Report
lo 2 Appl.iccAt De c I ELI ::.I
3 Legal Descript-:T.or:
4 Vicinity Map
5 sit-e- Plan
After due considera.L.ion of the evidence pro.,sented by tile tApplicant;
evidence clicited during Lfte -)ub.lic hearing: zind, a rei-salt
of the personal oi subject pi:*ap,-:!r!-.v and surrounding
aroas by the flearinq EX�U11.2-11CI':r, Ulle f0.1.1owing of Fact
-:tnd Conclusions c0listitc-to ttIc. t-If -1-ho decisio-n ol- the llc_:a�.-Iring
Exanlincr -
4
HEARING EXAMINE(, �E: V-20-87
Page 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant has requested approval of a variance to reduce
the landscaping requirement along Highway 99 and to eliminate
the landscaping requirement along 72nd Avenue West for property
located at 21420 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
(Staff Report)
2. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG2).
The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.60.020A
establishes minimum street setbacks of 15 feet for CG2 zoned
property. In addition this section of the code requires
that street setback areas shall be fully landscaped. The
applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the required land-
scaping in -the minimum street setback from 15 feet to 10
feet along Highway 99, and eliminating -the requirement entirely
along 72nd Avenue West. (ECDC and Staff Report)
3. The subject property is located on the west side of Highway
99. -It is a 2.6 acre parcel of land -that is developed as
a car dealership with outside storage. It is the intent
of the Applicant to add on to the existing building that
is used for the car dealership. (Staff Report)
4. The surrounding development of -the subject property is commer-
cial. (Staff Report, Bowman Testimony)
5. In 'order for a variance to be granted in the City of Edmonds,
criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied.
That criteria include:
A. Special circumstances relating to the property must
exist that necess itate a granting of the variance.
B. The*granting of a variance must not be the grant of
a special privilege to the property in comparison with
the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
with -the same zoning.
C. The variance must be consistent with the comprehensive
plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. The variance -must be consistent with the purposes of
the zoning -ordinance of -the zone district in which the
property is located.
E. The requested variance must not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other
property or improvements in the vicinity in the same
zone.
�� I
a
HEARING EXAMINER( V-20-87
Page 3
F. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity with -the same zoning.
(ECDC)
6. The subject property has no landscaping on Highway 99 or
72nd Avenue West. With the proposed addition -to the existing
building on site and the requested variance, landscaping
would be provided on the frontage of Highway 99.
7. A 15 foot planting strip will result in the elimination of
area for display of approximately 30 cars. With -the variance,
the landscaping as required by the ECDC would be reduced,
but,without the variance it appears -that no improvements
can be made to the property. Thus the special circumstances
that appear to exist here are -that a variance will allow
building expansion and the creation of some landscaping along
Highway 99. (Bowman Testimony, Griffith Testimony)
8. The variance will not be the grant of a special privilege.
The Applicant will be providing some landscaping for the
frontage along Highway 99. (Staff Report, Bowman Testimony)
9. The comprehensive policy plan map of the City of Edmonds
designates -the subject property as Highway 99 commercial
area/highrise node. The properties to -the north and south
have similar designations. The properties to the west are
designated as high -density residential. (Staff Report)
10. The landscaping along Highway 99 will consist of 4 feet of
new lawn immediately adjacent to Highway 99, a 5 foot
concrete sidewalk'and a 6 foot area for planters. The
proposal of the Applicant is to use the area in which -the
variance is requested, for rows of cars and also for a display
pad. Within the display pad there is proposed a planter
for additional landscaping. (Exhibit 5)
11. A new 5 foot concrete sidewalk is proposed along 72nd Avenue
West. The concrete sidewalk will be disrupted in.order -to
provide an access gate to the subject property on the west
side of the proper - ty. No landscaping is proposed in this
area. (Exhibit 5, Gr-iffith Testimony)
12. The frontage of the subject property along 72nd Avenue West
is disrupted due to a change in right of way of the street
HEARING EXAMINER( 3: V-20-87
Page 4
13.
in this area. A 15 foot street setback requiring landscaping
would be uneven and would be disruptive of the general aesthetics
in the area. (Declarations of Applicant)
The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended
approval of a variance subject to the following,conditions:
1) The landscaping must comply with all architectural design
board requirements.
2) A 5 foot wide planting strip shall be placed along the
inside of -the fence along 72nd Avenue West.
14. At the public hearing the Applicant submitted that the requested
variance is not for a reduction of the 15 foot street landscaping
requirement to a 9 foot landscaping requirement, but was
a reduction of -the landscaping requirement to a 10 foot require-
ment.
15. No testimony in opposition or in support of this request
was submitted.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance to reduce
-the required street landscaping along Highway 99 and to elimi-
nate the landscaping along 72nd Avenue West for property
located at 21420 Highway 9.9, Edmonds, Washington 98020. The
requested variance is for a reduction of the required 15
foot landscaping on Highway 99 to a 10 foot landscaping require-
ment.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must be
satisfied. With conditions, the proposal satisfies that
criteria.
3. Special circumstances exist for -the granting of a variance.
Thereis no landscaping on the property at the present time.
With the variance, the Applicant can expand his operations
and perform construction on site. This will result in some
landscaping being available along the Highway 99 frontage.
4. The comprehensive plan of -the City of Edmonds has been reviewed
and the proposed variances are consistent with ECDC 15.15.030
d3, and ECDC 15.20.010 b.
5. The subject property is zoned CG2. The requested variance
is consistent with the purposes of the CG zone as set forth
in ECDC 16.60.005. The variance will allow areas to be used
for outdoor display while providing some landscaping for
Highway 99.
0
HEARING EXAMINER( V-20-87
Page 5
6. The requested variance is not detrimental to nearby private
property or improvements, and does not impact the public.
7. With conditions, the requested variance appears to represent
a minimum necessary.
DECISION
Based upon -the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the
testimony and evidence submitted at thle public hearing; and., upon
-the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, the Appli-
cant is hereby granted a variance for the reduction of the land-
scaping requirements along Highway 99 and the elimination of the
landscaping requirements along 72nd Avenue West for the property
that is located at 21420 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
This variance is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The landscaping along Highway 99 is reduced from the required
15 foot street setback landscaping to a 10 foot street setback
landscaping requirement.
2. The Applicant is to comply with all architectural design
board requirements for the landscaping of the subject property..
3. A 5 foot wide planting strip shall be placed along the inside
of -the fence along 72nd Avenue West.
4. The landscaping of Highway 99and the 5 foot wide planting
strip along the inside of the fence on 72nd Avenue West shall
be completed prior to any occupancy of any proposed additional
building on site.
Entered this 1st day of July, 1987, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of -the Co.nuliunity
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
0
S M. DRISC �,77a=ng Examiner
written appeals alleging spec . ific e6( of fact or other 'ground s I for appeal May
be filed with -the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds,
Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's
final action.. -
In this ffattec. any.appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m.
on July 15, 1987.
to
k
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 5th AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 771-3202
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NALIGHTEN
MAYOR
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF FILE: V-20-87
DAVID GRTFFITH FOR APPROVAL OF A
VARIANCE
DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
on July 15, 1987, the Applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration of the conditions of approval of the variance
granted in the above -captioned matter.
The variance granted the Applicant allows for relief from various
landscaping standards along Highway 99 in the City of Edmonds. It
is the Applicant's contention that any landscaping is an
improvement and that the landscaping required by the decision of
the Hearing Examiner will impact his car sales operation.
A variance is not a tool of compromiser but is a method of
development of land if zoning standards cannot be totally
satisfied. Relief was granted from the landscaping standards in
this case based on the facts as set forth in the decision. This
relief is reasonable and does grant the Applicant reduced
landscaping in a manner that will still provide aesthetic quality
to the City of Edmonds. Thereforer the reconsideration of the
decision in this matter is denied and the variance remains as
stated.
Done and dated this 17th day of July, 1987.
/cb
4
MES M. DRISCOL
aring Examiner
CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NALIGHTEN
MAYOR
250 5th AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 * (206) 771-3202
HEARING EXAMINER
July 17, 1987
Mr. Duane Bowman
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
250 5th Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020
SUBJECT: orders for Hearing Examiner (SM-1-87, CU-33-87 &
V-20-87)
Dear Duane:
Attached are two orders that Jim asked me to send to you
so that you could mail them out to the parties of record.
One copy is an original for Jim to sign when he returns
from his vacation.
If you have any questions please call.
Sincerely,
Colleen R. Betteridge
Attachments
W
July 21, 1987
TO: The Edmonds City Council
JUL 2 2 1987
PLANNING DEPT.-
On July 1, 1987, 1 received a variance on my property at
21420 Hwy 99, Edmonds, Wa., that was granted for the
reduction of the landscaping requirements along Hwy 99
and the elimination of the landscaping requirements along
72nd Ave. West with certain conditions. I wish to appeal
the conditions that the variance was subject to.
Variance Conditions
1). The landscaping along Hwy 99 is reduced from the
required 15 feet street setback. landscaping to a 10 feet
street setback landscaping requirement.
I had requested a 6 feet landscaped setback.
2). The applicant is to comply with all architectural
design board requirements for the landscaping of the
subject property.
Agreed.
The originally submitted landscape plan, including
the 6 feet setback was approved by the ADB.
3). A five foot wide planting strip shall be placed along
the inside of the fence along 72nd Ave. West.
My original plan called for elimination of the
landscaping. The hearing examiner's approach is
acceptable but could be improved if the security
fence slats were removed. With the increased exposure
the planting needed could be accomplished in 2 and
one-half feet.
4). The landscaping of Hwy 99 and the planting strip along
the inside of the fence on 72nd Ave. West shall be completed
prior to any occupancy of any proposed additional building
on site.
Agreed.
21420 HIGHWRY 99, EDMONDS, WRSHINGTON 90020 - PHONE JZUBJ -7-/]--/]Uu
M:
-2-
Since my variance request covered both the frontage area
on Hwy 99 and the rear of the property on 72nd Ave. West,
I will address the two areas separately.
Highway 99 Frontage
Our needs are for a 6 feet setback that will be landscaped.
This 6 feet of landscaping and the 4 feet curb landscaped
strip will total 10 feet of landscaping, separated by a
new sidewalk. Some of the facts I would like you to
consider.
1. The purpose of my plan is to go from a zero amount of
landscaping, sidewalks, and curbs to a level of compliance
that will both improve the appearance of my property and
satisfy the city's requirements. All of which being
necessary to be permitted to expand my service department.
2. The intent of the 15 feet setback in the code, besides
beautification is to provide screening of parked automobiles
which is appropriate for most businesses. We are in the
business of automotive sales, hence the need for the most
display area possible. To break up the monotony of a solid
row of cars across the entire frontage, I proposed several
raised concrete pads to display separate vehicles in
varying positions (unique to the general automobile
industry in the Hwy 99 area).
3. The shape of my property (see plans) narrows to the South
because of the angle of Hwy 99 and the building setback. This
means that any setback from the front effects the overall lot
display as it will limit the number of vehicles that can be
displayed. A full 15 feet setback would cause the loss of
display space of about 30 cars. I had fine tuned the total
lot display area to settle on the 6 feet setback depth. The
10 feet setback suggested by the hearing examiner would be
disruptive to the total lot display plan.
214 20 HIG HWRY 99, EDMONDS, WRSHINGTON 98020 - PHONE t2061 771-71OU
-3-
4. The plan that is being submitted was also approved by
the Architectural Design Board as well as supported by
the planning staff.
5. A landscaped setback that is 6 feet by 280 feet (not
including ends and rounded corners) is quite substantial
in size, not to mention cost considerations.
6. The most recent examples of what other automobile
orientated businesses are doing is the Lynnwood Auto
Center at 216th and Hwy 99 and the soon to be opened,
September, 1987, Accura dealership also at 216th and Hwy
99. The Accura dealership is directly across Hwy 99 from
my location. Both of these businesses have landscape plans
that include a 4 feet curbside planting strip, sidewalks,
and a 6 feet landscaped setback which is identical to my
proposed plan.
72nd Ave. West Frontage
Regarding the rear property border on 72nd Ave. West, we
have a different problem from the openness and high
visibility required on Hwy 99. The issue on 72nd Ave.
West is security, with a need to block vehicles from public
view. The variance given was for 5 feet of landscaping
inside the fenced area where I had suggested no landscaping.
Some areas of review are as follows:
1. The planning staff suggested that they would like to
see Itsome green". An approach I have no problem with as the
ADB suggested some trees which has been agreed to.
2. Since the suggested landscaped area of 5 feet is inside
a fence, which has plastic slats, the visibility of any
landscaping would be very limited.
21420 HIGHWRY 99, EOMONOS, WRSHINGTON 98020 - PH13NE 1205J 7-71--7100
3. To take advantage of the inside landscaping the slats
should be removed (which I would agree to) and a hedge,
vine or similiar type of planting would offer "some green"
and give us the necessary security. This type of planting
would require less than half of the 5 feet suggested as
a variance condition.
The above is respectfully submitted on July 21, 1987.
David A.
Griffith
President
21420 HICHWRY 99, EOMONBS, WRSHIN13TON 98020 - PHONE 1206J 771-7100
a
Oriqinator: Planning Division For Action: X -- For Information:
SUBJECT: SET DATE FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING
VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET LANDSCAPING AT 21420 HIGHWAY 99
(V-20-87/ALAN BMW SAAB)(SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 18, 1987)
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
AGENDA TIME: Consent.
AGENDA DATE: August 4, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Appeal Letter
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY STR-VICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS & ECREATION
PLANNING
PUBLIC WOR �S
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
EXP DITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On June 8, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the
variance request of Alan BMW SAAB to reduce the required street
landscaping from 15' to 61 along Highway 99 and to 0' along 72nd Avenue
West, in conjunction with a major remodel project at 21420 Highway 99.
The Hearing Examiner issued a decision granting a variance to reduce the
required landscaping to 10' along Highway 99 and five feet along 72nd
Ave. W. The Applicant asked the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his
decision and when that request was denied, he then filed an appeal of the
Hearing Examiner's decision.
Attached is a copy of the appeal letter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Set August 18, 1987 as the date to hear this appeal.
SETAPBMW/COUNCIL
a
ESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
AUGUST 11, 1987 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 4, 1987
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
lute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Jack Wilson, Council Pres.
Steve Dwyer
Laura Hall
Jo -Anne Jaech
Bill Kasper
John Nordquist
Lloyd Ostrom
Scott Tracy, Student Rep.
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Barnes, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr.
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Peter Hahn, Community Svc. Director
Jerry Hauth, Hydraulics Engineer
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Bobby Mills, Public Works Director
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (G) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM-
BER HALL, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on
the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1987
(C) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2630 VACATING A PORTION OF UNDEVELOPED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 1ST AVE. S.
';V_� LYING SOUTH OF SR 104 (ST-2-87/SEAWOOD HOMES)
(D) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2631 ESTABLISHING PREANNEXATION ZONING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 212TH ST. S.W. AND 72ND AVE. W., INCORPORATING EXECUTION OF
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS ASSOCIATES
(E) APPROVAL OF DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE AND RELEASE OF INSURANCE COVENANT - SHORT PLAT
.614;1 S-5-86 (PINE RIDGE PARK)
(F) SET AUGUST 18, 1987 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING
VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET LANDSCAPING AT 21420 HIGHWAY 99 (V-20-87/ALAN BMW
SAAB)
(H) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM EDWARD PEMBERTON (AMOUNT NOT STAT-
ED)
(1) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWAGE FLOW METERING STATIONS PROVIDED BY MARSH-MCBIRNEY
(J) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 28, 1987 FOR THE 1987 PAVEMENT OVERLAY PROGRAM AND AWARD OF
'?S 7' CONTRACT TO LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES, $139,337.50
K) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2632 VACATING ALLEY RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 307 - 5TH AVE. S.
(ST-5-85/RAINIER BANK)
(L) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 29, 1987 FOR ANDERSON CENTER GYMNASIUM FLOOR AND AWARD OF
CONTRACT TO QUEEN CITY INDUSTRIES, $24,051.26
APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY CONCESSION STAND PERMIT FOR SOUTH SNOHOMISH DOLPHINS SWIM CLUB AT YOST
0_-e��,�Counc i I member Dwyer inquired if the Council had the ability to waive the $50 or 10% fee provision
in the contract with the South Snohomish Dolphins Swim Club. He said the concession stand was
more of a service to the City, and he did not feel that the City should require that monetary
consideration. Councilmember Wilson concurred.
a
I t
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO
Oriqinator: Planning Division For Action: X
Item number:
For Information:
SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION R�GARDING
VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET LANDSCAPING AT 21420 HIGHWAY 99
(V-20-87/ALAN BMW SAAB)
Clearances: De t./Indiv./Initials
AGENDA TIME: 30 Minutes
AGENDA DATE: August 18, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Appeal Letter
2. Hearing Examiner Report
3. Site Plan
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK A. �;
COMMUNITY S RVICES — M/,I/
ENGINEERING
PARKS & RECREAT ON
PLANNING
PUBLIC WOWP����_
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
EXPENDIT—URE-- AMOUNT APPR)PRIATION
REQUIR:D: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On June 8, 1987, the qearing Examiner held a public hearing on the
variance request of Alan BMW SAAB to reduce the required street
landscaping from 15' to 6' along -Highway 99 and to 0' along 72nd Avenue
West, in conjunction with a major remodel project at 21420 Highway 99.
The Hearing Examiner issued a decision granting a variance to reduce the
required landscaping to 10' along Highway 99 and five feet along 72nd
Ave. W. The Applicant asked the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his
decision. When that request was denied, the applicant filed an appeal of
the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Attached is a copy of the appeal letter, the Hearing Examiner's report
and the proposed site plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision.
SETAPBMW/COUNCIL
I
k
2;9.1
LAI 04
oz
(01)
0
Cl)
�4 C�
.
CY)
CO)
11
=r
CA)
CL)
CL) C
i
en
< N
CD C
=) X,
0:)
to
CD fl)
(n 0'
:3
0 :r
c =
(D
CD
Co
g
.0,
41
�l
v N
six months to do a thorough Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. North feels this will be an
environmental plus and they want to be sure that the trade is beneficial to the City of Edmonds.
Councilmember Kasper, referred to a rather curt letter the Council received from the Ronald Sewer
District this past week. He inquired as to whether they have said that they will not pay for
environmental improvements to the West Point plant to make it reasonably adaptable to the neigh-
borhood which it is in. Ms. North said that she has heard nothing from the Ronald Sewer District
except support. Councilmember Kasper felt from reading the letter, that the Ronald Sewer Dis-
trict is objecting to the environmental improvements to the West Point plant.
Mr. Hahn pointed out that the letter from the Ronald Sewer District was a response to a question
of whether or not they would be willing to participate in the additional costs of either moving
the Edmonds treatment plant to another site or paying for additional mitigation at the present
site. The letter stated that they wanted to be consistent with West . Point in which they are
seeking a cost effective solution. They are basically saying they are using the cheapest alterna-
tive and they don't want to pay for Edmonds to do anymore than they are doing themselves.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the possibility that this swap could present some major cost
savings for Edmonds. He thanked Ms. North for coming to the meeting tonight and encouraged her
to move ahead with the project and keep the Council as informed as she possibly can.
Councilmember Hall also thanked Ms. North because in the past she has gotten the impression that
Metro was not interested in this type of exchange.
Kirby White, 639 Eighth Avenue South, said that he is on the Secondary Sewage Committee and would
like to meet with Ms. North at a later time. Mr. White read a newspaper article written by Mayor
Naughten entitled, "KEEP IT CLEAN, CANDIDATES." He felt this article was important and wanted to
see it incorporated into the minutes. (Article is attached on page 8.) Mr. White explained that
he read the article for a purpose, and went on to say that he would respect, as a citizen of
Edmonds, anyone who comes forward and produces himself as a candidate in honesty and integrity.
if a person comes forward and does not respect the citizens thoughts and integrity, Mr. White
will, as an individual, do his most to see that this person is not voted onto the Council.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE TU KLU�
LANDSCAPING AT 21,12111 11 H, oll'' 111, 11 P_77_1121�-87
Ms. Block pointed
ad proposal before the Council.
Ms. Block prov i ded background on the project ai
out the current Code requirements for setbacks and the changes the applicant is seeking in his
request for a variance. Ms. Block pointed out that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) approved
nd the Hearing Examiner granted a variance, but not for the
of the applicant's design concepts a The applicant then filed an appeal to the Hearing
entire amount requested by the applicant. n be upheld. A copy of
Examiner's decision. Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner's decisio
the appeal letter, the Hearing Examiner's report, and the proposed site plan were included in the
Council packets. in looking at the statement given to the Council by the applicant, inquired
Councilmember Dwyer, e
what the situation was for ADB approval. He obs rved that this appeared to be another situation
in which the ADB had approved a plan which requires the obtaining of a variance. Ms. Block an-
Swered that was correct and that there is nothing in the Code that states that the applicant must
obtain a variance before going before the ADB.
Councilmember Dwyer asked what the practical effect would be of the Council upholding the Hearing
Examiner's decision and would the applicant have to seek ADB approval of his design again. Ms *
Block replied that if the Council viere to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision, it would be her
interpretation from reading the minutes from the ADB and their recommendations, that the ADB did
not have a problem with the landscape material. They added some street trees and a review after
nine months to make sure that it was a good installation that did not obscure the visibility of
the cars oil the lot. They have approved a concept of how the landscaping shoul.d be. Whether the
setback was 6 or 10 feet, it would not have to go back to the ADB for approval.
Councilmember Kasper asked if the applicant's request was for a six-foot setback or for a
ten -foot setback. Ms. Block answered that the applicant's request was for a six-foot setback
behind the sidewalk and a four -foot setback in front of the sidewalk.
Councililiember Kasper asked what the applicant was requesting for setbacks along 72nd Street.
Ms. Block said that the applicant was requesting that there be no required street landscaping
along 72nd. The Hearing Examiner granted a variance requiring five feet of landscaping inside
the fence along 72nd.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 August 18, 1987
TT_
Councilmember Kasper inquired whether the Planning Department made a recommendation to the ADB.
Ms. Block said that since 1974 when the ADB was established, the
Ms. Block said -they did not. unend anything to the ADB regard -
city staff has felt that it wasn't appropriate for them to re Con a requ e st.
ing a design issue and whether or not they should approve or deny
lson inquired about the statement in the applicant's report that the Planning
Councilmember Wi said that the Planning Staff supported tile
Department staff supported his request. Ms. Block
ten -foot planting strip. a berm, or just a plant-
Councilmember Hall asked whether this landscaping would be some type of
Ms. Block answered that it was just a planting strip. Councilmember Hall pointed out
ing strip. ame effect as a planting strip and use less space. She
that sometimes a berm can create the s e they need the display space. Councilmember
felt that this type of business was unique becaus
Hall wondered whether the applicant had considered a berm.
Councilmember Wilson asked what the staff recommendation was for 72nd Street. Ms. Block an-
swered that staff recommended a five-foot planting strip, which would include the slats on the
fence being removed. commends. Ms. Block
ilson asked what type of landscaping the Planning Staff re
Councilmember W end the type of landscaping to be used. Basically, the
answered that her staff doesn't recomm
applicant wants to place grass and street trees there.
Ms. Block posted a map displaying the landscaping design proposed by the applicant for the Coun-
cil to use as a reference in discussing the landscape design. e made to a landscaping plan that
Mr Snyder pointed out for the record that those references wer
& ADB had already placed in the record of this proceeding.
Councilmember Dwyer had three questions for Ms. Block. three words of the
ing Examiner's conclusions number five, the first
1. In looking at the Hear, to the requested varianc;. Is that the request made by the
second sentence, refers
applicant? Ms. Block indicated that was correct.
2. In reference to conclusion number seven, is the Council talking about any more than a
disagreement over what is the minimum variance necessary?
3. Where did the idea of tile conditions listed under the decision section come from, if they
were not part of the applicant's proposal?
Ms. Block answered that tile conditions were initiated by the Hearing Examiner based on the discus-
sion from the hearing and are fairly consistent with what he normally does.
Councilmember, Dwyer inquired what the basis was for the Hearing Examiner determining that these
conditions were the minimum necessary. Ms. Block said that it was based on the staff recommenda-
tion. was the disagreement over what the
Ms. Block felt that the only issue before the Council tonight
minimum necessary variance would be. t, Lynnwood, wanted to clear up the discussion as to whether
David Griffith ' 20516 61st Place Wes 1. Mr. Griffith was under the impression prior to the ADB
or not he had ADB and staff approva to his variance request. Mr. Griffith felt that
hearing that the Planning staff was not opposed
the Hearing Examiner came up with the recommendation of 10 feet.
Mr. Griffith said that his plan is to use concrete curbing and he plans to set tile cars back from
the curb. er Kasper inquired if some of the greenery could be placed along *72nd Street rather
Councilmemb explained that right now there are rumors that
than planted behind the fence. Mr. Griffith there will be no room for plantings on the other
72nd street will be widened. if this happens, at he is not trying to display anything along the
side of the fence. Mr. Griffith pointed out th ere should be some green -
fence, but is concerned with security- The Hearing Examiner said that th When the growth is
ery in the.back of his business, but it should be located behind the fence.
larger he would remove the slats. cussed putting the greenery out on the right-of-
councilmember Kasper inquired if anyone had dis said that he was waiting to see whether the
way rather than behind the fence. Mr. Griffith
street is widened first and that, eventually, the sidewalks to the north and south will be con-
nected.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 August 18, 1987
a
Councilmember Jaech asked if the sidewalks were included in the applicant's ten -foot landscaping
request. Ms. Block answered that the sidewalk would not count as part of the ten feet. Mr. Grif-
fith pointed out that the sidewalk along 72nd would probably include a planting strip between
the street and sidewalk similar to what is already on Highway 99.
Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Griffith if his request is the minimum necessary variance to allow
him the same rights as others enjoy in his same area and why. Mr. Griffith answered that he
believes he has asked for something that is appropriate. Mr. Griffith said that his application
was finely tuned to his property and business. Because of the angle of Highway 99, the lots are
all pie shaped. The south end of the property tapers to a point, and that is why he initially
approached the City for a variance. Mr. Griffith explained that the car sales businesses across
the street from him in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace are set up similarly to his proposed design.
Councilmember Kasper pointed out that Mr. Griffith is conforming with the newer dealerships in
his area. Mr. Kasper's concern was for the rear of the business. He asked if there is not any
space left for even a five-foot planting strip. Mr. Griffith said that right now there is
street from sidewalk to sidewalk.
City Engineer Bob Alberts did not see why there could not be street trees that protrude onto the
sidewalk.
Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Griffith had spoken to anyone at the retirement home and pre-
sented them with his proposed design. Mr. Griffith answered that he had not. Ms. Block added
that she did not feel this proposal would really affect the retirement home.
Councilmember Wilson commented on Mr. Griffith's statement referring to the substantial loss of
display space if the Council were to uphold tile Hearing Examiner's decision. He asked what that
loss would be. Mr. Griffith answered that he would lose quite a few spaces on the front and
side, but in tile back it did not really matter whether it is two or five feet. Mr. Griffith was,
however, concerned about the Hearing Examiner's request to put greenery inside of the fence.
Councilmember Hall asked what started this whole process. Mr. Griffith said that it was his
desire to build a new service department. The service department represents between 40 and 50
percent of his business. With the additional square footage it would be more than that.
Tom Belt, 917 Ninth Avenue South, owns the property adjacent to the SAAB dealership. Mr. Belt
pointed out what portion of 72nd Street was right of way, what portion would be sidewalk, etc.
Mr. Belt said that 72nd Street would be developed right up to the SAAB dealership property.
Mr. Belt also felt that the slats should be left in the fence to hide the cars being repaired
from public's view.
Mr. Belt felt that the requirements to get a permit to add on to an already existing business are
quite harsh. Mr. Belt said that there are not very many places along Highway 99 where people
have landscaped 24 feet in from the street. Mr. Belt felt that Mr. Griffith's plan was made to
conform with the design of the dealerships across the street, and that Mr. Griffith should try
to conform with what businesses in his area are doing. fie asked why Mr. Griffith should have to
put in so much more landscaping than people across the street. He said they are in business to
make money, yet, they are concerned with beautifying the City as well.
Mr. Belt felt that Mr. Griffith's request was fair and recommended that the Council approve the
proposal and eliminate any improvements along 72nd Street until the street has been improved.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, felt that the City needs to stick with the rules, yet, he can
sympathize with the conditions on Highway 99. Just because the businesses across the Highway in
Lynnwood are similar to what Mr. Griffith is requesting, Mr. Hertrich did not feel that the City
had to follow that rule. He said it is, however, something to think about. When the plan for
Highway 99 was studied, Mr. Hertrich did not remember any discussion regarding parked cars in car
dealerships. Mr. Hertrich felt that a car lot was a special, but changing use and if the car lot
is moved and any other type of business is placed there, the requirements sho.uld be the same as
they are now in the Code.
Because the property is at an angle, Mr. Hertrich felt there should be some adjustments to change
the widths by adjusting setback to square off tile property.
Mr. Griffith addressed Mr. Hertrich's suggestion regarding expanding the landscaping on the
north end of the property and decreasing on the south. The north end is also used for display
and he does not want to place the cars any farther in from the street than he would on the south.
Councilmember Wilson asked about the sidewalk along the rear of the business --if there is a strip
of property between the sidewalk and fence. Mr. Griffith said that the architectural drawing was
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 August 18, 1987
E
not quite clear as to the width of the street, but that actually, there would be no room for a
planting strip between the fence and sidewalk. Any plantings would have to go inside the fence.
Councilmember Kasper wanted to know how much of the right-of-way along 72nd Street would be side-
walk, plantings, pavement, etc. He felt that if there is room, there should at least be three or
four feet between the sidewalk and the property. If there is room, Councilmember Kasper would
rather have the slats left on the fence and the greenery placed on the outside of the fence.
This would be an asset to the community.
Ms. Block said that if the sidewalk is extended along 72nd Street, there will not be space be-
tween the sidewalk and the existing fence for plantings. In order to retain the planting strip
on the outside of the fence, the fence would have to be moved.
Councilmember Wilson felt that if that is the case, then maybe the applicant should move the
fence back and put the landscaping on the other side of the fence.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL OVERRIDE THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S DECISION AND:
1. ALLOW THE SIX-FOOT GREENBELT INSIDE THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE FOR THE REASON THAT THE NEW COM
PETITIVE MODE ALREADY CAST IN THE TWO CITIES ACROSS FROM EDMONDS ALREADY HAVE THIS, AND
2. MOVE THE FENCE IN THREE FEET TO THE REAR IF IT CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SO
THAT GREEN CAN BE PLANTED OUTSIDE THE FENCE.
Councilmember Hall commented that the Hearing Examiner did his job but the Council has the prerog-
ative to modify his decisions. She feels that there has been a lot of give and take by the
applicant. Councilmember Dwyer, on the other hand, felt there was no support for the Hearing
Examiner's decision and conclusions. He questioned whether the Hearing Examiner really did do
his job.
MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD tAADB DECISION R GARDING PROPOSED 84-UNIT.
APARTMENT BUILDING AT 72T7 211-INI E11:1ET AP-9-87/APPLLLANT: WILLIAM TSAO)
Mr. Tsao was not present to represent himself. Mayor Naughten asked if the appellant understood
that his hearing was extended to tonight. Ms. Parrett indicated that he was sent a notice.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE COUNCIL DENY THE APPEAL.
Mayor asked what would happen legally.
Mr. Snyder asked, for the record, if Mr. Tsao or anyone representing his interest was in the
audience. No one responded.
Mr. Snyder then said that if there was no one at the meeting to represent the appellant's re-
quest, it would be difficult to find in his behalf. Mr. Snyder felt it was not necessary to
present evidence if there is no one to represent tile case. The Council can deny the appeal.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder commented on the ADB minutes from the meeting in which this issue was discussed. Mr.
Snyder felt that someone should express to the ADB that they need to give some grounds for their
decision other than the building was "ugly." There were eight criteria that the ADB referred
to. They need to state a reason for their decision.
Mr. Snyder also pointed out that there were a number of planning concerns*such as, traffic,
street signs, etc., expressed by citizens at that ADB meeting. Planning concerns are not ADB
concerns and should not be part of their decision criteria. In reading the records, Mr. Snyder
felt the ADB had no relevant testimony in support of their decision. Mr. Snyder suggested that
someone get back to them about some of their decisions.
Councilmemb'er Kasper did not see how denying this request is going to solve the situation. The
ADB didn't mention any specific evidence for their denial. fie said this is something that needs
to be resolved.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 August 18, 1987
a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO Item number:
Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL
OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION ON VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET
LANDSCAPING AT 21420 HIGHWAY 99(V-20-87/DAVID GRIFFITH)
Clearances: De)t./Indiv./Initials
AGENDA TIME: Consent
AGENDA DATE: October 6, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Findings of Fact
2. City Council Minutes
8/18/87
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS I 'ECR—EAT—ON
PLANNING OPA�_
PUBLIC W
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMIT
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION
-REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: ED: $0
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
On August 18, 1987, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal
of David Griffith to the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding his
variance application to reduce the required street landscaping for his
property at 21420 Highway 99.
The Council voted to modify the Hearing Examiner's decision and directed
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary findings.
Attached is a copy of the findings as drafted by the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:.
Adopt the findings of fact.
a
;E MINUTES SUBJECT TO
b(ABER 13, 1987 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 1987
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
ABSENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Bill Kasper
Jack Wilson, Council President
John Nordquist
Steve Dwyer
Laura Hall
Jo -Anne Jaech
Lloyd Ostrom
STAFF PRESENT
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Jerry Hauth, Hydraulics Engineer
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Chris Beckman, Engineering Coord.
Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Jim Barnes, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr.
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Mayor Naughten arrived during discussion of Item #4, Hearing Regarding Elimination of On -street
Parking on 76th Ave. W. Council President Wilson presided over the meeting during the Mayor's
absence.
CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following items:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
VAA,c t tZ��(C) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING
EXAMINER DECISION ON VARIANCE TO REDUCE REQUIRED STREET LANDSCAPING AT 21420 HIGHWAY 99
(V-20-87/DAVID GRIFFITH)
10�"3,J,(D) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL
;'�— DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON FREESTANDING SIGN FOR 7-ELEVEN FOOD STORE AT 21920 HIGHWAY 99
6r"W_�' (ADB-52-86/APPELLANT:, SOUTHLAND CORP.) .1
�Z,�)(E) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING HEARING EXAMINER
AT 7600 - 212TH ST.
Is RECOMMENDATION ON HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR EDMONDS HIGH SCHOOL STADIUM
(V-21-87/ EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 15)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ALLAN K. RAUDENBUSH ($1,209.13)
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR TRACTOR/MOWER FOR EDMONDS CEMETERY ($10,000)
(H) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2640 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY CODE CHAPTER 18.05 RELATING TO
LC C
UTILITY WIRES
1) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM DEAN C. AND CHARLENE JACKSON FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-
e-L WAY AT 7828 - 206TH ST. S.W.
ILJ) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM ROBERT D. AND MARY BRUDVIK, PUGET SOUND MUTUAL
SAVINGS BANK, AND HOUSEHOLD FINANCE INDUSTRIAL LOAN CO. FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 8620
200TH ST. S.W.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Pro Tem Wilson opened the ppblic portion of the meeting.
ed Laurine, 1233 - 7th Ave. S., read a letter into the record addressed to Mayor Naughten which
t
ated, in essence, his wife's and his desire to nominate Olson's Food Store at Westgate for a
0
A
0 t
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Before the Edmonds City Council
Application No.: V-20-87
Following notice given in accordance with law and ordinance,
the Edmonds City Council heard the appeal of David A. Griffith,
president of Allen BMW/Saab to reduce landscaping requirements
for a major remodeling of his retail sales operation located at
21420 Highway 99 within the City of Edmonds. On August 18, 1987,
the City Council held a hearing on an appeal from the conditional
grant of the applicant's request by the Edmonds Hearing
Examiner. Based upon the record of the proceeding before the
Hearing Examiner, his Decision, Findings of Fact and Conclusions,
and on the hearing held before the Edmonds city Council, the
Council enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions:
Findings of Fact
1. City Council adopt Findings of Fact 1 through 11 and 13
of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner as contained in his
decision of July 1, 1987.
2. The Council further finds that no testament or evidence
has been offered to contradict the testimony of appli-
cant Griffith that his proposed variance represents the
minimum necessary variance as required by the provisions
of ECDC 20.85.010(F).
Conclusions
1. The Council finds that the applicant's proposal as con-
ditioi�ed by this decision, satisfies the purposes and
criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code and
specifically the requirements of ECDC �0.85.010.
WSS50124F
-1-
a
The variances requested by the applicant are granted subject to
the following conditions:
1. The landscaping along Highway 99 is reduced from a
required 15 foot street setback landscaping to a 6 foot
greenbelt along the frontage of Highway 99, in addition
to a sidewalk and four foot planter strip in the right-
of-way.
2. Applicant has complied with all Architectural Design
Board requirements for the landscaping of the subject
property.
3. The applicant shall first attempt to plant the rear yard
landscaping along the outside of the fence to be located
along 76th Avenue West and within or immediately adja-
cent to the street right-of-way. If the landscaping
cannot be reasonably accommodated within the defined
area, the applicant is instructed to move his fence 3
feet further from the right-of-way and to put the
required landscaping in front of the fence and adjacent
to the street right-of-way.
DATED this day of &Cto_,�V� 1987.
APPROVED:
ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED:
WSS50124F -2-
a
September 19, 1988
Mr. Duane Bowman
planning Department
city of Edmonds
205 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
Subject: Landscape Variance
V2087
Dear Duane,
Due to circumstances beyond our control, I must request
a continuance of the above captioned variance for an
additional Twenty Four (24) months. A combination of
economic forces and BMW of North America's not accepting
our original expansion plans has caused me to put my new
building project on hold.
Sincerely,
David A. Griffith
President
DAG/se
r%vaim r!mn=l 17171-'7inn
21420 HIGHWRY 55, 1ELIMUNLRas WnWili"Li i Will L---I -
a
M E M 0 R A N D U M
September 23, 1988
TO: Mary Lou Block
Planning Division Manager
FROM: Duane V. Bowman
Assistant City Planner
SUBJECT: Extension Request V-20-87
David Griffith has submitted a request for a two year extension to his
variance that was granted under file #V-20-87. Attached is a COPY Of
his letter requesting the extension.
The basis for his request is a combination of rejection of his original
plans by his parent company and current economic forces.
I have reviewed Section 20.85.020 (D) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Nothing in that.code section prohibits granting more
than a one year extension to a variance approval.
I can find no reason not to grant the extension request. I recommend
the extension request be approved, subject to the Applicant complying
with all the original conditions of approval for V-20-87.
or
Concur:
21 100b
Date *a r 'YaLo JuB Alo:cak 6 )— �D �t
4
;IOTICE OF
DECISION
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING
DETERMINATION: ARM
............
..............
.... .... ..............
S�NCC-r ...... dSr=wT8ACw-Wm .... LmWAASCAPIA).6
I.. LeA?r-
. . .. ...............................................
PROPERTY 6aDREaS OR DESCRIPTION: .......... . .......
.?/ 1 111
9
.. .. .......
...................................................................
FILE #V�26-e--I? 7 POSTED.1/ . �r?
ANY PERSON WISHING TO APPEAL THIS DECISION MUST DO SO IN WRITING, CITING
or WORKING
REASONS, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.BY (10 DAYS
FROM POSTING DATE)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 250
FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. 771 -3202 EXTENSION 252
THIS POSTER MAY BE REMOVED AFTERn ... 1% f2 .... I!PA M 97
. ...... ....... .. ...............
The removal, mutilation, destruction, or
concealment of this notice prior to the
date above is a misdemeanor punishable by
WARNINGS fine and imprisonment.
Kenyon Ptinling - Edmonds. WA - 775-9494
FILE NO. V-20-87
APPLICANTALAN BMW SAAB, INC.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
Joan Farnen being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
and says:
That on the 26th day of September —, 19 88 the attached
Notice of Decision was mailed as required to adjacent property owners, the
names of which were provided by the applicant.
VA L
Signed QV0
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1-e�
I 9-,T. r
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
Residing at
a
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
FILE NO. V-20-87
APPLICANT ALAN BMW SAAB, INC.
Duane Bowman being first duly sworn, on,oath, deposes
and says:
That on the 26th day of September 19 88 the attached
Notice of Decision was posted as prescribed by Ordinance, and in any event,
in the Frances Anderson Center and Civic Center, and where applicable on or
near the subject property.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26 day J
19
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
Residing at
a
J!�
PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS
ITEM AND/OR WISH TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS
OF FACT
V-20-87 ALAN BMW/SAAB
Variance to reduce the required 15' street landscaping
to 91 along Highway 99 and eliminate the requirement
along 72nd Avenue W. for the property located at 21420
Highway 99.
NAME ADDRESS
(Include city and zip code)
I
0