23125 HIGHWAY 99 (2).pdfAPPLICANT
CITY OF EDMONDS
HEARING EXAMINER
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
ARCHIE BUTLER
rill _-:z
DATE - -/-,: z A P
21
FEE-- y
RECT
APO'S
HEARING DATE:
ADDRESS 23125 Hiway 99,
CITY & ZIP Edmonds, WA 98020 PHONE 775-9022
INDICATE TYPE OR DEGREE OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY Contract Purchaser
LOCATION OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 231.25 Highway 99, Edmonds, WA 98020
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot 3 of Edmonds Short Plat S-32-83 (sketch
attached). (Being a portion of Tract 14 Skelton's Lake McAleer Five
Acre Tracts, as per plat, records of Snohomish County.)
To eliminate or reduce landscaping requirments
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
reauested bv Planning Department as a condition of the Short plat.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: USE ZONE: Commercial General (C.G.)
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: (N/A, but:) 15 foot front line setback
to be fully landscapted.
Release/Hold Harmless Agreement
The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration for
the City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and
hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for
damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from any action
or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete
information furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees.
Permission to Enter Subject -Property
The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its permission for public
officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subJect property
for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
I'll. I � PA . "
Sigffi-atu-re of Applicant, Owner or
Representative
0
DECLARATIONS OF APPLICANT
Please answer all questions
1. 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?
Use of existing improvements will be grossly impaired or eliminated
if landscaping requirmeents by planning are not eliminated.
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same
vicinity?
Other properties with existing improvements can continue use without
addition of landscaping.
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the publi'd or damaging to
other property or improvements in the vicinity?
No
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted?
Will these hardships have been caused by your own action?
Important improvements which were a part of the value in determining
a November 1983 price will not be available; these improvemients were
located prior to my purchase and are not of my actions.
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
The use and alternatives available to me will be substantially reduced
but the property would not be rendered useless./g/56 "o7yk-l" il
1
to L= Lrt-& t-
k
t
E
_C42.
I
.7.. -7
.. ... .. ...
77�
�l 14
t-I
0
4 1 4
1
z
M:50
�l
Ll
1%0
I Iko
I
0
k
E XH IB 17 4
a
:.I a
7 7
7.r
. ....... ..
a
777.7-
7
7" 7.
.. ..... ..... 13
I d .
'77 7 p
7 7.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
�7 �7=
-0 77 6 7r 1-3
7 T' . . . . . . . . . .
t-A
0
1-3
H
L �0
ail
I a
aoo
to;fr�p
tD S C A P IE [k.
L
4.�
rl
.., e A . 7
tj
I
117
a*'
14 -
ps
all
Z
t)..t
INN
Mel
k
0
,.50
CA
Li
0
1A
5p SID
I
k
44 t
/r 1�t2
\9
0,
rr)
IV
/U*
Lo
Kil
-7
Aj
Z-9
p
INC.
MEYR,ING ASSOC,
ay .99'
'2M23 I-liphw
cz)
k 98020.
)B�. 32 ".:.:Lynn W00d I" -WA 98036
L L
k
j6
IF
. a a 0
Ual c
cac
coo
me L r OcUluccul
'"W%` V ..�
OF c ".
r
X %N X
NI . � a
41 N U It:
I 1 40
IN
SM
M
IMEMS
Li
IM T-
IN440 L
Ah
t"M
dd
CIO.
YIN 6
quo,
WIN.
A
A L L
k
. . . . . . . . . .
Archie Butler
23125 Highway 99
Edmonds, WA 98020
Oscar Sodorft
4716 N.E. 103rd
Seattle, WA
John F. Biehl
1101 8th Ave.
Seattle, WA
Occupant
23123 Highway 99
Edmonds, WA 98020
Michael Mastro
510 Rainier Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98144
Albin Management
Attn: Ed Hanson
11811 N.E. Ist St., Ste. 203
Bellevue, WA 98005
INTF'n-OFFICE COMMUNICf,- `10NS
DATE January 4, 1984
TO James E. Adams, City Engineer FROM Teresa Quigley, Planning Secretary
Gary McComas, Fire Marshal I
SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS CONDITION OF
SHORT SUBDIVISION #S-32-83 (V-19-83) HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1984
Please review the attached application and return your comments to Duane Bowman
by January 23.
Thanks!,
001111
P1-
k
SUBJECT: (,v - I q - g E), �:B CU" 9cl
REC,
VEO
/L )o JAN 0 1984
Ct7-Y
'tal 9 T Ur CLAVI%jilLjo
2 �7
1
THE HEARING EXAMINER -WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAYj FEBRUARY 2j. 19 84 ON THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION:
FILE NO. V-19-83
VARIANCE TO ELIMI-NATE OR REDUCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS
-32-83.
CONDITION'OF SHORT SUBDIVISION #S
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND LOCATION 23.125 HIGHIVIAY 99
ZONE DISTRICT CG
THE HEARING WILL BEGIN AT 7!30 P-M., IN THE PLAZA MEETING ROOM, LIBRARY
BUILDING, 650 MAIN STREET, 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 VIEWS
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 OF THE CONTINUED HEARING WILL BE ANNOUNCED ONLY
AT THE MEETING.
ADD ITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 250 FIFTH AVENUE
NORTH, EDMONDS (PHONE 771-3202, EXTENSION 252).
THE REMOVAL, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
CONCEALMENT OF THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE
'WAmn"'NING'. OF THE HEARING IS A MISDEMEANOR PUI41SHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
THIS NOTICE MAY BE REMOVED AFTER FEBRUARY 2., 1984
_."C 2
4
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
Duane V. Bowman
FILE NO. V-19-83
APPLICANT Archie Butler
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER
being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
and says:
That on the 20th day of Januany 19 84 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
19 -4.
Notary Public i nd fo the S-t-& of
Washington.
Residing at
k
FILE NO. V-19-83
APPLICANT Archie Butler
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
Teres-a S. Quigley being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes and says:
That on the 20th day of January 1984 the attached
Notice of Public Hearing was mailed as required to adjacent property owners,
the names of which were provided by the applicant.
Signed
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ---�?,94*-,day of
19 tj
C'4
Notary Pu li...c
State of Wa in o.n.
Residing at_
4
. tL'
.7HIS PACKET MAILED TO HEARING EXAMINER_
1/26/84
EXHIBIT LIST
FILE #V-19-83
1). Staff Report
2)- Application and Declarations,
3) Plot Plan
4) Recommended Site Plan
I
. ... ..... .
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
FILE #V-19-83
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1984
I. REQUESTED ACTION:
Variance from the required 151 landscaped street setback require-
ment at 23125 Highway 99.
I -I. APPLI'CANT/OWNER:
Applicant - Archie Butler Owner - American Discount Corp.
23125 Highway 99 P.O. Box 24003
Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98124
IJI'. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
See Exh.ibit 2.
IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Descri*ption of Subject Prope ty and the SurrounqjTq Area
The subject property contains approximately 30,108 square feet
of land area. There is- a former gas station building with two
former pump i'slands located on the site (see Exhibit 3). The
applicant presently runs a upholstery repair business out of
the buildi'ng.
Surrounding development to the north and west is commercial in
nature. To the east is undeveloped land. South of the subject
property is a 174-unit apartment building.
B. Related Actions
The 151 landscaping requirement was originally required as a
condi.tion of approval of Short Subdivision #S-32-83. The
Heari'ng Examiner, under Appeal Decision #AP-10-83, removed this
requi'rement from the subdivision approval, but required the ap-
plicant to apply for a variance to determine the landscaping
requirement.
C. Official Street M�p Proposed R/W Existing R/W
Highway 99 100, 100,
k
I
0 .
I
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit l/File #V-19-83
Page 2
D. Conformance to Section 20.85.010
1. Special Circumstances
Special circumstances do not exist to eliminate the entire
landscaping requirement. Reasonable use of the property
will not be precluded by the requirement outlined under the
staff recommendation.
2. Speci'al Privilege
As conditioned, the variance will not result in the grant
of special privilege.
3. Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map designates the subject
property as commercial/business.
Subsection 15.15.030(B)(3)(a) calls for a large-scale buffer
of landscaping between the highway and uses, to visually
decrease the appearance of paving. As conditioned, this
goal will be achi'eved.
4. Zoning Ordi'nance
The subject property and the surrounding area are zoned
general commercial.
As conditioned, the variance will be consistent with the
purposes of the CG zone and the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Not Detrimental
As conditioned, the proposed variance will not be detri-
mental to the public health, safety, or general welfare,
nor to nearby private property or improvements.
6. Minimum Variance
The variance, as conditioned, is a minimum variance request.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
As pointed out in the amended staff report to the Hearing Examiner
in the matter of AP-10-83, staff does recognize that total compliance
with the 15' landscape requirement will pose an undue hardship on the
applicant.
Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibi.t l/File #V-19-83
Page 3
Therefore, staff recommends approval of V-19-83, subject to the
following conditions:
1. There shall be 13' of landscaping and a 5' concrete sidewalk
located between the existing curb and the pump islands.
2. The applicant shall submit the landscape plan for review and
approval by the Ci'ty of Edmonds Architectural Design Board.
PLEASE.PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW If YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM
ARCHIE,�BUTLER
VARIANCE TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS AS A
CONDITION OF SHORT SUBDI'VISION #S-32-83 AT 23125 HIGHWAY 99.
NAME
%)T L(5�
HEARIAG DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1984
ADDRESS
32-T lue. ) '�s ,
SoV-77-7, /9—,)
Rgc
FINDINGS AND DECISION D
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS 6 7,9
L)
C -0g.
C Rx
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-19-83
OF ARCHIE BUTLER FOR APPROVAL OF
A VARIANCE
DECISION: The variance is granted subject to the
conditions listed.
INTRODUCTION
Archie Butler, 23125 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, and herein-
after referred to as Applicant, has requested approval of a variance for
property located at 23125 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington, and is more
particularly described as:
Lot 3 of Edmonds Short Plat, S-32-83 (being a
portion of Tract 14, Skelton's Lake McAleer 5
acre tracts, as per plat, records of Snohomish
County.)
The specific request was for a variance from the required 15-foot landscaped
street setback requirement.
A hearing on the request was held before the'Hearing Examiner of the City of
Edmonds, Washington, on February 2, 1984.
At the public hearing the following presented testimony:
Duane Bowman
Planning Department
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
Archie Butler
23125 Highway 99
Edmonds, WA 98020
The following exhibits were introduced and admitted at the hearing:
Exhibit I - Staff Report
2 - Application and Declarations
3 - Plot Plan
4 - Recommended site plan
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence
elicited during the public hearing; and, as a result of the personal inspection
of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the
following findings of fact and conclusions constitute the basis of the
decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Applicant has requested a variance from the required 15-foot land-
scape street setback requirement for property located at 23125 Highway 99,
a
Findings and Decisi'L,., of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-19-83
Page 2
Edmonds, Washington, and is more particularly described as set forth above.
2. The property was the subject of an administrative appeal of approval of a
short subdivision. In the short subdivision appeal the Applicant requested
the deviation from the required street setbacks but the Hearing Examiner
ordered the Applicant to apply for a variance to determine the landscaping
requirements.
3. The subject property consists of approximately 30,108 square feet. On the
subject property is a building that was once used for a gas station but is
now used as an upholstery repair business. In front of the building are
two pump islands that are not used for gas purposes at the present time.
4. The properties to the north and west of the subject property are commercial
in nature. The property to the east of the subject property is undeveloped.
To the south of the property is a 174-unit apartment building.
5. The property fronts on Highway 99 which is a major highway going north and
south in Snohomish County.
6. In order for a variance to be granted in the City of Edmonds the Applicant
must meet all the standards and criteria as set forth in Section 20.85.010
of the Edmonds Community Development Code. These standards and criteria
include:
A. Special circumstances relating to the property must exist necessitating
a variance;
B. The requested variance must not result in a special privilege being
granted to the Applicant;
C. The variance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan
Map of the City of Edmonds;
D. The variance must be consistent with the purposes of the zone district
in which the property is located;
E. The variance must not be significantly detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improve-
ments in the vicinity of the same zone; and,
F. The variance must be the minimum necessary to allow the same rights
enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone.
7. The property is zoned General Commercial as established in the Community
Development Code.
8. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds designates the
subject property as Commercial Business.
9. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has reviewed the criteria
for the allowance of variances and has determined -that total compliance
with the 15-foot landscape requirement would pose an undue hardship on
k
V
Findings and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-19-83
Page 3
the Applicant. Therefore, the Planning Department has recommended
approval of the variance subject to the following conditions:
A. There shall be 13 feet of landscaping and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk
located between the existing curb and the pump islands.
B. The Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval
by the City of Edmonds Architectural Des,ign Board.
10. Based upon the recommendations of the Planning ' Department the Applicant
would be required to landscape 10 feet of the property. The remaining
3 feet of landscaping would be on highway right of way.
11. If the recommendation of the Planning Department is adopted the land-
scaping will extend all the way to the edge of the existing pump island.
12. The Applicant objected to the proposed landscaping as recommended by the
City. The Applicant claimed that the pumps could be used in the future
for gas purposes and such landscaping would make them ineffective.
13. Accordin ' g to the Applicant, there are pillars in the structure that make
parking within it difficult and would necessitate a greater area to
maneuver a vehicle. The Applicant stated that because of the need for
greater area for parking..and. m - aneuvering of vehicles less of the pro-
perty should be landscaped.
14. No opposition testimony was received.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The application is for the approval of a variance from the required 15-
foot landscaped street setbacks for property located at 23125 Highway 99,
Edmonds, Washington, and more particularly described as set forth above.
2. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of Edmonds the
criteria as listed in Section 20.85.010 of the Community Development
Code must be met.
3. Special circumstances do appear to exist for the elimination of part of
the landscaping requirement. The structure that exists on the subject
property is an old structure and was developed prior to any landscaping
requi rements.
4. The variance will not result in the granting of a special privilege if
a portion of the landscaping requirement is eliminated. The Applicant
will still be required to landscape a portion of the property and this
will have the same effect as complete landscaping.
5. A partial reduction in the landscaping requirement will not be adverse
to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds, nor to the zoning
ordinance and in particular CG zones.
0
Findings and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-19-83
Page 4
6. With a less requirement for landscaping the variance will not be detri-
mental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor to nearby private
property or improvements.
7. The variance as granted will be the minimum variance allowed.
8. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has recommended approval
of the requested variance subject to the conditions listed in Finding
#9.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding findings of fact and conclusions; the testimony
and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and, the impressions of the
Hearing Examiner upon a site view, it is hereby ordered that the requested
variance be granted. The specific -variance is for a reduction in the 15-foot
landscaped street setback requirement at 23125 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington,
and is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be 11 feet of landscaping and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk
located between the existing curb and the pump islands.
2. The Applicant shall submit the landscape plan for review and approval
by the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board.
It is noted that the decision allows for a reduction of two feet of landscaping
from that as proposed by the City of Edmonds. With the elimination of this
two feet of landscaping there shall be sufficient landscaping to allow for an
adequate landscaped area from Highway 99 and the subject property. Further,
the additional two feet will allow the Applicant to walk between the land-
scaped area and the gasoline pumps should he ever decide to use them for
gasoline purposes.
Entered this 9th day of February, 1984, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Develop-
ment Code of the City of Edmonds.
a
Findings and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds
Re: V-19-83
Page 5
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds 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 matter, any appeal must be received by the Department prior to
p.m. on February 23, 1984.
is
a
�rk& 14,-*6 '1984
C, g R
,y of, KDM9 D—Sj
Planning Department
City of Edmonds
Civic Center
Edmonds, WA 98020
February 22, 1984
Re: The variance appeal in the landscaping matter
at 23125 Highway 99, Edmonds, Washington.
Dear Sirs:
I would like to appeal the decision that was made on
February 9, 1984 regarding the landscaping variance which I had
applied for on the property located at 23125 Highway 99, Edmonds,
Washington.
I hereby give the following reasons which I feel are valid
and extremely important to the welfare of our business. The
main reason for the application for the variance i s to enable us
to make use of the gasoline pumps and islands, already installed
and used by a former business.
We are planning a complete automotive care center at the
above mentioned location; dealing in auto upholstery, auto
detailing, and also gasoline service. The gas pumps will be
used to attract and serve customers. Without the existing pumps
and the use of the space on each side of the pumps , we do not
feel that we are being given the opportunity to be competitive with
other businesses.
Without the additional space it will create much difficulty
maneuvering cars in and out of the garage. It is imperative
that we have a minimum of eight feet on the west side of the
pumps.
Our proposal would be, five f eet of sidewalk and five feet of
landscaping. This would create a green belt and would also allow
us to continue operating and expanding our business.
These are the reasons I am requesting a variance for the
minimum variance already allowed.
Respectfully yours,
0
THESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO MARCH 6 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 28, 1984
(Work Meeting)
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by
Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present
joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Jim Adams, City Engineer
Jo -Anne Jaech Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Jack Wilson Art Housler, Finance Director
Laura Hall Steve Simpson, Parks & Recreation Director
John Nordquist Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Supt.
Bill Kasper Mary Lou Block, Planning Director
Steve Dwyer Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Lloyd Ostrom Jim Jessel, Property Manager
Brian Stewart, Student Rep. Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (E), (H), (I), and (J) were'removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER
MOTION: HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Kasper was not present for the voting on any
of the Consent Agenda items.) The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the
following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of February 21, 1984.
(C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed for right-of-way (Hutchinson).
(D) Approval of purchase of artworks for City's portable artworks collection.
(F) Authorization to accept utility easement (Strickland).
(G) Final approval of 6-lot plat at 18924 88th Ave. W. (Bidarca Estates/P-4-82).
AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ORDINANCE TO REVISE SECTION 18.95 OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE [Item CE) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Jaech did not think.this was an appropriate item for the Consent Agenda.
She said the Council previously s�tated this should go to the Planning Board for
hearing, recognizing that changes to Title 18 are not required to go to the Planning
Board. She noted that the cover memo stated the only changes proposed were the sizes
of parking stalls, but in fact, there were several other changes. Councilmember
Ostrom had thought it would be fairly straightforward, but he had received a call by
someone who was concerned about going to smaller stalls. Another suggestion he had
been given was that since this section was being revised some consideration should be
given to a definition of guest parking stalls. He thought this should be given a
MOTION: hearing. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, THAT ITEM (E)
BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION 581 SETTING DATE OF MARCH 20, 1984 FOR HEARING ON VACATION OF A
PORTION OF 68TH AVE. W., BETWEEN MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD AND 174TH ST. S.W. (ST-4-83)
and
SET DATE OF MARCH 20, 1984 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING
A VARIANCE TO STREET LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT AT 23125 HIGHWAY 99 (V-19-83/BUTLER)
and
SET DATE OF MARCH 20, 1984 FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MEADOWDALE MORATORIUM
REGARDING SUBDIVISIONS [Items (H),AI), and (J) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Jaech stated that the information being provided when a hearing date is
proposed is not adequate because the Council President does not know what the time
frame is for setting up that hearing. She said she should know the last possible
date that the hearing can be held so when there are full agendas proper scheduling
can be accomplished. She noted that if these three items were added to the March 20
agenda there would be five hearings for that meeting. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran
said she needs 13-14 days lead time for osting and publishing the hearings. City
Attorney Mark Eames advised that Item (H� must be heard no sooner than 20 days or
MOTION: later than 60 days after the passage of the resolution. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO PASS RESOLUTION 581, WITH A HEARING DATE OF
APRIL 17. 1984. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: COUNCILMEMBER JAECH
THE CONSENT AGENDA.
but that there would
continued, depending
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE ITEM (1) ON
It was the consensus that this date would be scheduled as proposed,
be the possibility that on the night of the hearing it may be
on available time that evening. MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding Item (J), Councilmember Jaech proposed that it be tabled as the Council was
not yet ready to take action regarding the moratorium. Councilmember Dwyer said this
had been discussed at the Community Services Committee meeting, and the committee
decided to wait until after the Meadowdale meeting before making a decision in order
MOTION* to get input from the people who live there. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HALL, To TABLE ITEM (1) UNTIL THE MEADOWDALE PROJECT PROCEEDS AND THE
COUNCIL HAS MORE INFORMATION. Councilmember Hall noted that the contractor is not
yet mobili'zed and the soils are not stable. Mr. Adams responded that every day he
receives calls from people in that area who ask when the decision will be made, and
he would only like to be able to tell them when the Council will discuss it. Council -
member Nordquist had discussed this with Dr. Hyatt of the Snohomish Health District
who indicated that under the current program Edmonds is not to issue any permits but
if the construction is started then it will be under a new program. THE MOTION
CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER VOTING NO, SAYING IT IS NOT A PLAN.
At this time Mayor Naughten suggested moving Item 5 on the Agenda, the discussion on
MOTION: the Woodway fire service contract, to follow Item 2. COUNCILMEMBER HALL SO MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM. MOTION CARRIED (Councilmember Kasper not present).
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING
Jim Bannerman, representing the Municipal Finance Officers Association of the United
States and Canada, made the presentation of the Certificate of Conformance in Financial
Reporting to the City of Edmonds. He noted that this is the third consecutive year
that Edmonds has received this award, which is rather rare. He also noted that this
certificate is an accepted qualifier for bond ratings. He presented the award to
Mayor Naughten who thanked him and commented that Edmonds is one of only four cities
in Washington who received this award and it reflects on the Finance Department and
its director, Art Housler. Mr. Housler added that it is reflective of the work put
in by his accounting personnel, Jeff Ristau, Elaine Werner, and Conni Curtis. (During
this presentation Councilmember Kasper arrived, at 8:00 p.m.)
DISCUSSION ON WOODWAY FIRE SERVICE CONTRACT
Fire Chief Jack Weinz and Finance Director Art Housler discussed the proposal from
Woodway, noting that Woodway Councilman Brady had indicated that the contract charge
should be based upon building values instead of total property values and that total
costs be distributed on the basis of one-half population and one-half building values.
Chief Weinz and Mr. Housler were concerned about that, saying the fire protection
Edmonds offers is not just for buildings but for all property including forest,
vehicles, etc, and also that it differs from Woodway's originaally expressed desire
of sharing costs equally on a partnership basis which is consistent with the method
used by all governmental agencies in charging its citizens. They reviewed their
recommendation which eliminates the 10% charge, provides credit for the previous
year's actual cost, and distributes the cost equally to Edmonds and Woodway on the
basis of total property values.. This was their definition of an equal partnership.
They,provided comparative figures of the Edmonds proposal and the Woodway proposal
and explained the computations. The total figure proposed by Edmonds for 1984 was
$57,932, which Mr. Housler noted is $7,000 less than Edmonds' original proposal, and
he said he thought this was equitable and consistent with the partnership concept
which Woodway expressed a desire to have. The $7,000 reduction was the result of
eliminating the 10% surcharge and giving them prior year's credit. The Woodway
proposal was $41,946 based on population and building assessed value ratios. Mr.
Brady said there was a difference of opinion as he thought population to be an
important issue and that it should be included. Councilmember Kasper felt that
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 - February 28, 1984
March 15, 1984
MEMO TO: Larry S. Naughten
Mayor
FROM: Mary Lou Block
Planning Director
SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING A
VARIANCE TO STREET LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT AT 23125 HIGHWAY
99 (V-19-83/BUTLER)
The appellant is seeking to modify the Hearing Examiner's decision re-
garding his variance request to reduce the amount of landscaping re-
quired to be located in the street setback for his business at 23125
Highway 99.
The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on this matter on
February 2, 1984. He issued his decision on February 9, 1984. At-
tached are a copy of the Hearing Examiner's report, the appeal letter,
a vicinity map, and site plan.
After considering all public testimony, the City Council may uphold,
modify, or overturn this Hearing Examiner decision.
DVB/tq
attachments (4)
cc: File #V-19-83
HAMM
.3114,1 Pj/
07-
City Clerk Date
4
the cost of installation is $25-30 plus replacement and maintenance. He also said
the speed limit in the city is 25 mph unless otherwise posted and the policy of the
City is to limit the number of signs used throughout the City. Mr. Adams said there
is no question that it will be more convenient for people to use the interesection at
80th and 196th once the light is installed. Discussion concerning the use of white
lines on the street produced the idea that the line might be removed after the light
is installed and traffic is reduced.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO LEAVE THE STOP SIGNS
AT DELLWOOD DRIVE AND 78TH AVENUE WEST. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING A VARIANCE TO STREET
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT AT 23125 HIGHWAY 99 (V-19-83/BUTLER)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block said the appellant is seeking to modify the Hearing
Examiner's decision regarding his variance request in which he requested a reduction
in the amount of landscaping required to be located in the street setback for his
business at the above address.
Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiners Report. His recommendation was for approval
of the variance, subject to the following conditions:
l.- There shall be 11' feet of landscaping and a 5' concrete sidewalk located
between existing curb and the pump islands.
2. The Applicant shall submit the landscape plan for review and approval by the
. City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board.
Ms. Block described the variance request and showed the dimensions involved on an
overhead projection. She said the applicant received a variance from the Hearing
Examiner and is requesting an additional variance.
Archie Butler, 23125 Highway 99, said it would be unfair and would cut down on
business if he were not allowed to use both sides of the gasoline pumps.
He said the gasoline pumps are used to attract people to the upholstery business. He
also plans to add a detail shop behind the main building and will need more parking
space. He has placed a bond for construction of the sidewalk. He stated no other
businesses north or south of him have a sidewalk. He would like to have the side-
walk, but less landscaping, to allow him to use both sides of the pumps. It is his
contention that -the beautification program is to beautify but not to harm local
businesses. He has just recently purchased the property and feels that loss of use of
the pumps will lower its value. In response to a question from Councilmember Dwyer,
Mr. Butler said he had received no benefit from the Hearing Examiner.
Council President Jaech commented that the benefit received was a reduction in the
landscaping Code requirement from 15' feet to 11', which allowed use of one side of
the pumps rather than having to take them out completely.
Mr. Butler said that it is not only the monetary consideration, but the space is
needed on both sides of the pump island to access the working areas of the building.
He said because they had done a short -subdivision when he purchased the property, he
was now being made to comply with the code when no other businesses near him are
having to do so. Ms. Block said the short -subdivision was the occasion for imposing
the code. Since there was no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was closed.
Council President Jaech noted in checking gas stations within the City limits, almost
all have over 20' feet between the pump islands and the roadway. The majority of
these stations were not on an arterial such as Mr. Butler is. In response, Mr.
Butler asked if there were not some type of grandfather clause to protect existing
structures such as his. Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. Butler had approached the
City prior to purchasing the property. Mr. Butler said he had purchased it as a
service station, for which it had been used for the last 30 years.
Ms. Block responded to a question from Councilmember Hall, that sidewalks are being
imposed as property develops. Property to the south has a sidewalk that greatly
enhances the area and provides a safe walking area for pedestrians. She said that is
what the City is trying to do all along there. She commented that the decision by
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 - March 20, 1984
the Hearing Examiner provided landscaping and allows the pumps to be used from one
side. In response to a question from Councilmember Dwyer, she said there is 8' in
the right-of-way to the curb line; then there is 10' to the pump island. A 9'-wide
car parked 2 feet from the pump island would be into the right-of-way by 1 foot, 7
feet from the highway and 2 feet from the sidewalk. She added that City regulations
supercede any State regulations.
In response to a question from the Council, Mr. Eames said the applicant had asked
for approval of a particular subdivision. At that time, the Code requires that the
property be consistent with the Zoning. He is asking for a variance, which is a
special exception that, if it is granted, must meet specific criteria set out in
state law. Essentially, the purpose of the variance is to recognize that uniform
application of a particular law to everyone may deprive a particular person in a
particular circumstance of rights to property development that others would have. In
terms of granting a special exception, the City may not attach timing conditions. It
is required that only the minimum amount of variance required be granted to give the
property owner the same rights to use of property as another would have. The special
criteria are listed by the Hearing Examiner in his report.
Discussion followed concerning whether the landscaping requirement would be for
beautification or safety. The staff was requested to provide information whether
allowing cars on both sides of the pump island would pose a safety hazard. Ms. Block
commented that safety was not the issue for the variance, it was from a landscaping
requirement.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THIS ITEM BE
CONTINUED TO THE APRIL 3 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER
Mayor Naughten introduced Susan Moore, Chairman of the Task Force for the County -wide
visitor information centerp a function of the Tourism Committee of the South Snoho-
mish Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Moore reported that a site had been selected at 164th
St. S. W. and 17th W. She said the County Prosecutor's Office had redrafted the
interlocal agreement. Councilmember Dwyer stated he had read through the new agree-
ment and the language which.had been questioned by the Council at their last meeting
had been eliminated. Ms. Moore explained that the percentages were determined by a
volunteer for the task force and were an attempt to determine financial responsi-
bility equitably for all of the cities and the county. As an aside, she noted that
most of the population and hotel rooms are located in unincorporated areas so the
County will be responsible for a large portion of the budget. Mayor Naughten
commented that the City has protection since the agreement will require yearly
approval. He said the $1600 investment by Edmonds should result in an economic
asset. Ms. Moore reiterated that the interlocal agreement needs to be signed. Many
legal matters are being handled by the Task Force; however, the Task Force wishes to
get an interlocal board seated to assume that responsibility. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BE ADOPTED AS
PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO REPLACEMENT VEHICLES rItem (G) on Consent Agenda
Councilmember Kasper questioned whether the vehicles would be purchased or leased and
what kind of vehicle would the City get? Acting Public Works Supervisor Bobby Mills
replied they would be leased and the type is not known since they will take the best
vehicle for the money. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL,
TO APPROVE ITEM (G). MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO REPLACEMENT VEHICLES AND ONE ADDITIONAL VEHICLE FRO14
THE STATE CONTRACT r1tem (H) on the Consent Agendad
Councilmember Kasper asked for clarification of this item also. Mr. Mills said this
would be a purchase on the State Contract and the vehicle would be a Chevrolet.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT ITEM (H) BE
ACCEPTED. There was discussion as to the color of the vehicles. COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER ADDED THE PROVISION THAT THE COLOR OF THE VEHICLES BE EDMONDS BLUE IF POSSI-
BLE. MOTION CARRIED.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 - March 20, 1984
March. 29, 19.84
MEMO TO: Larry S. Naughten
Mayor
FROM': Mary Lou Block.
Planning Director
SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARI'NG EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING A
VARIANCE TO STREET LANDS'CAPING REQUIREMENT AT 23125 HI-GHWAY
99 (V-19-83/BUTLER). (-CONTINUED'FROM"MARCH 20, 1984)
During the March 20th hearing on this matter, the Council raised the
issue of safety and the use of the pump i's-lands.
The attached memo from the Ci'ty Engineer indicates that there is no
potenti'al increase in safety hazard if both sides of the pump islands
are used.
Therefore, this issue remains the. request for a variance from the
Code requirement for landscaping in CG zones, and the staff recommends
concurrence with the Hearing Examiner's decision on this matter.
MLB/tq
attachment
cc: File #V-19-83
94Z
City Clerk Date
a
IJ
March 29, 1983
MEMO TO: Mary Lou Block
Planning Director
FROM: James E. Adams
City Engineer
SUBJECT: BUTLER APPEAL -23125 HIGHWAY 99
(V-19-83)
I inspected the site and considered the option of
allowing vehicles on both sides of the gasoline
pump islands. In my opinion there would be no
increase in safety hazard. if both sides of the
islands were used and the curb cuts were installed
in accordance with code requirements.
JEA/cr
it is consistent for the Council to apply the same Code to Harbor Square
as in the rest of the Bowl area. He did not understand why this matter
was continued in the first place and saw no reason to continue it further.
Councilmember Kasper responded that this is a PRO matter and that the
useage is different from that for which the Code was drafted; he said
the sign Code does not address the problem and stated that unless a good
look is taken at this specific case now, it will be difficult to forestall
future problems when there will be considerably more building. He
reiterated his desire to continue the hearing.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON COUNCILMEMBER KASPER'S MOTION: THE MOTION
FAILED,WITH COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND KASPER VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
JAECH, NORDQUIST, OSTROM AND DWYER VOTING NO.
Councilmember Jaech indicated that she had visited areas in Oregon and
California recently where there are developments similar to Harbor Square.
There were multiple -uses there, houses, stores, and the like, but the
areas were not overly signed. The signing that was there was small and
unobtrusive, and no one appeared to have any trouble, nor did she, in
locating the businesses or buildings. She believes that the existing sign
Code is adequate; further, that those persons who design a building should
make allowance for areas on the buildings for signing that conforms with
the sign Code. Councilmember Jaech does not believe greater signage
should be allowed than is provided for in the Code.
Councilmember Ostrom feared that the Council would be setting a precedent
that would be di*fficult to break in the future if it approved the signs
for Sailor's. City Attorney, Mark Eames, listed the criteria that the
Council should take into consideration: Is the sign consistent with the
comprehensive Plan and other city policies? Is it consistent with zoning?
Arethere other criteria upon which a motion could be based? Councilmember
Ostrom said he did not believe these signs were consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan or zoning, and felt that approval would be granting a
MOTION: special privilege. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DWYER, THAT THE COUNCIL DENY APPROVAL OF THIS SIGN. A ROLL CALL VOTE
WAS TAKEN WITH FOUR MEMBERS VOTING YES AND TWO MEMBERS VOTING NO: (Jaech,
O�trom, Dwyer and Nordquist voted 'yes'; Kasper and Wilson voted 'no'.) MOTION
C RRIE
HEARING (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 7) ON APPEAL FROM ADB APPROVAL OF TWO
SIGNS ON NORTH FACE OF PROPOSED EDMONDS NATIONAL BANK BUILDING AT 125, 137
and 145 THIRD AVENUE SO. (ADB-113-83) (APPELLANT: HERTRICH).
Planning Director, Mary Lou Block indicated that appellant Hertrich was
unable to attend the meeting, and that the applicant for the sign, Mike
Medea, understood that the Council members wished to continue the hearing,
so he was not in attendance either. Mr. Medea understands that the
meeting is to be rescheduled for May 15 or recommended for rescheduling
to May 15.
MOTION: COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE
HEARING THIS MATTER TO MAY 15. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 20) ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
REGARDING A VARIANCE TO STREET LANDSCAPING REQUIRE14ENT AT 23125 HIGHWAY
99 (V-19-83/BUTLER).
Mary Lou Block. Planning Director, directed the attention of the council -
members to their information packets. The City Engineer inspected the
site in question after the issue of safety was raised at the March 20
hearing. His Memorandum indicates that there is no potential increase
in safety hazards if both sides of the pump island are used. The use of
one side was addressed and deemed not to be a problem from a safety
standpoint. The issue is the'request of a variance from the Code
requirement for landscaping in CG zones. Staff recommends concurrence
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Page 5 - April 3, 1984
with the Hearing Examiner's decision on this matter in the interest
of providing the landscaping and making improvements on Highway 99.
Councilmember Dwyer called the Council's attention to page 2 of the
Hearing Examiner's report which sets forth criteri4 that must apply
as stated in Section 20.85.010. It is undisputed that the criteria set
forth in sub -paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) have been met, he stated.
Mr. Butler indicated that he did not think Section (f) had been met.
This section provides that the variance must meet a minimum "necessary
to allow the same rights enjoyed by other property owners". It was
Mr. Butler's feeling that the variance given him did not provide him
with the same rights enjoyed by other property owners because it did not
allow him to use both sides of his pump. Councilmember Dwyer agreed with
that contention. He thought that only Paragraph (e) was to be determined
whether or not there was a reason not to give the applicant the benefit of
u sing both sides of the pump. Paragraph (e) provides that the variance
11must not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
of the same zone". Councilmember Dwyer did not recall any claim being made
that to allow Mr. Butler to use both sides of the island to pump gasoline
would be "significantly detrimental to the public health". Based on a
letter from Mr. Adams, the City Engineer, he concluded that it would not be
significantly detrimental to public safety to allow Mr. Butler to use
both sides of the pump.
Councilmember Jaech interjected that this was an example of
matters the sign Code should address. When a sign changes, or ownership
changes, the Council wants the new user or owner to modify or attempt to
try to come within the Code. She indicated that that was what the
Council was trying to do on Highway 99 now. She noted that if the Council
was going to change policy each time ownership changed and be lenient,
having a Code was of no avail. She thought the Hearing Examiner was
trying to compromise. Technically, under existing Code, the pumps could not
be used at all. Mr. Butler was given a variance so he could at least use
one side of the.pumps and reduce the landscaping requirements to some extent.
Councilmember Kasper said he had asked the City Attorney to address the
problem, but that he had not heard from him yet regarding whether there
was any alternative temporizing this action; that is, could it be made
temporary? Was there any way the Council could give a 5-year clause as a
forbearance on a temporary basis.
City Attorney, Mark Eames, responded that it was important to keep in mind
that the matter comes before the Council as a short plat. That is how
Mr. Butler came before the City originally, asking for a short plat under
the subdivision ordinance. Short plats are allowed by State law, Mr.
Eames said, and are much less formal than for a long subdivision or formal
subdivision.. State law gives the City a lot of latitude as to approval
of short plats. The section of the City Code that applies to subdivisions
in general, whether short plat or formal subdivisions, lists the improve-
ments that can be required. One of these requirements is street land-
scaping. -Then, there is a provision in the Code entitled, "Installation
of Improvements", which puts a time limit on when these improvements must
be put in - either before final approval, or by bonding. Mr. Eames read
that portion applicable to bonding: "Where the applicant shall post a
bond.or other suitable surety to guarantee the COMDletion of the improve-
ments within one year of approval of the final plai". If the City
wanted to establish a longer period of time, such as the 5 years suggested
by Mr. Kasper, special provision would have to be made for it.
Planning Director Block indicated that Mr. Butler had asked for the oppor-
tunity to bond for the installation of his sidewalk and had already
done so in lieu of installinq the sidewalk immediately.
Mr. Eames, City Attorney, repeated that if the Council wanted to give
anyone more time, they would have to make a change to the subdivision
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Page 6 - April 3, 1984
code. The variance process determines requirements for improvements.
Currently, the Code calls for 15 feet and Mr. Butler is asking for a
variance from that requirement.
Councilmember Dwyer felt that Mr. Butler was entitled to some relief
and that the question before the Council was what degree of relief they
were willing to give. Mr. Dwyer said that Mr. Butler is entitled to what
the Code now provides, unless he will be given benefits later on. Where
grandfather rights are involved, Councilmember Dwyer said, we are trying
to give greater benefits to those property owners to achieve something
new. He did not believe in speculating on how the problem might be
avoided in the future at this point, and said there was existing criteria
to be applied to Mr. Butler's case.
The City Attorney responded that the Grandfather Clause was a technique,
a tool, for dealing with nonconforming uses which were legal at the
time they were put in but because of later changes in the Code and zoning
requirements became illegal. He noted that it is a mechanism for bringing
nonconforming uses into conformance at some point down the road. In this
case, it appears the Council is wondering how to give Mr. Butler more
time, and still determine at what point it can require the landscaping
criteria be met. If the Council is attempting to give some time here,
the adjustment should be made in the subdivision ordinance, he stated.
Councilmember Ostrom said that it appeared to him that the only way
Mr. Butler could comply would be to move his building; he did not see how
that could be "grandfathered". At the present moment, Councilmember
Ostrom said, he did not see how Mr. Butler could be expected to comply with
Code. The only way that could be accomplished, he felt, was to state that
if at any time in the future the building is torn down and a new building
constructed, then at that time the landscaping should be done.
MOTION; COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO MODIFY
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SO AS TO ALLOW MR. BUTLER THE USE OF
BOTH SIDES OF THE GASOLINE PUMPS. Councilmember Jaech asked if that
meant there was to be no landscaping. Councilmember Dwyer said it was
his impression,that there was at least 5 feet of sidewalk and 5 feet of
landscaping. Planning Director Block said that it was her understanding
that if the sidewalk was put in, and Mr. Butler permitted to use both
sides of the pumps, there would be insufficient room for landscaping.
She added that the sidewalk here was on the state right-of-way; inside
there would be 11 feet of landscaping, then 2 feet to the pump island.
The total distance there is 18 feet, she observed. Councilmember Wilson
asked if it was intended for purposes of a motion that the Staff determine
the exact footage of the space needed to use both sides of the pump.
He asked if the Staff would determine what is necessary so there would be
no argument.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON COUNCILMAN DWYER'S MOTION. MOTION CARRIED,
with Councilmembers Kasper, Wilson, Ostrom and Dwyer voting "yes" and
Councilmembers Jaech and Nordquist voting "no".
After some discussion about the footage involved, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER THAT THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE
MOTION: FOOTAGE SHOULD ALLOW FOR NO LESS THAN 5 FEET OF SIDEWALK AND 5 FEET OF
Withdrawn LANDSCAPING. Planning Director Block indicated that would not leave
enough space for the pump island; that 11 feet are needed for the island.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF SPACE GIVEN FOR THE USE OF
ONE SIDE OF THE PUMP, THE SIDE CLOSEST TO HIGHWAY 99, NOT EXCEED 11 FEET;
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER SECONDED.* Further discussion ensued concerning the
necessary amount of footage to allow for the island, the traffic lanes,
the sidewalk and the landscaping. The island requires 11 feet, vehicles
are 8 feet wide on the average, and at least I foot was needed between
the pump and the vehicle, Mr. Adams, City Engineer, advised.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 - April 3, 1984
MOTION: COUNCILME14BER DWYER WITHDREW HIS PREVIOUS MOTION AND MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER TO DETERMINE WHAT THE NECESSARY FOOTAGE SHOULD BE. MOTION
CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ON MATTER OF SHORELINE
PERMIT NUMBER SM-3-83, PORT OF EDMONDS MID -MARINA EXPANSION PROJECT,
INCLUDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NUMBER CU-58-83, AND VARIANCE NUMBER
V-18-83. (APPELLANT- HE
Planning Director Mary Lou Block recounted progress to -date on this matter.
The Hearing Examiner conducted his hearing on the Shoreline Management
Master Permit 3-83 on January 18, 1984, regarding the Port of Edmonds'
r2quest for the proposed mid -marina expansion, along with the Conditional
U s e Permit for grading, and a variance to reduce the parking setback from
the bulkhead. On February 22, 1984, the Hearing Examiner issued his
findings; subsequently, on March 6, 1984, Roger Hertrich filed an appeal
to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Mayor Naughten observed that the appellant was not present, but they had
a letter from the Port of Edmonds, written by William E. Auerswald,
stressing the urgency of a decision on the matter. He also noted that
representatives from the Port of Edmonds were present.
At this point, Planning Director Block said she would like to summarize the
points from the Hearing Examiner's decision for the benefit of those who
were not familiar with the contents. Since it is a ten -page document,
Mrs. Block read the final Order: "Based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions, testimony admitted at the public hearing and the evidence
submitted subsequent to the hearing, and the impressions of the Hearing
Examiner upon a site visit, it is hereby Ordered that the p requested Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit for additional moorage sli s within the
Port of Edmonds be granted. In addition, the requested variances to
reduce the required aisle width within the parking lot from 24 feet to 22
feet, is granted. Also, the Conditional Use Permit for dredging 84,000
cubic yards of material is granted. The permits are granted subject to
the following conditions: (1) The amount of existing transient moorage
of 430 lineal feet should be retained. In additioni, 14 percent increase
in transient moorage is required. The new lineal feet of transient moorage
will be 60 feet for a total of 490 lineal feet of transient moorage within
the marina; (2) the two floating piers located west of the restaurant and
yacht club are to be open to the public and are not to have gates; (3)
the pier located southeast of the restaurant is to be used as a public
viewing area; (4) A lo-foot walkway is to be provided along the water-
front. This 10-foot walkway will be part of the setback for the bulkhead
parking; (5) a minimum of 20 feet of paved area, designated as a fire
lane, is to be provided west of the restaurant; (6) standpipes and a
fire hydrant,as required by the Fire Department, will be provided; (7) an
oil separator, as required by the Department of Public Works, will be
installed; (8) the applicant shall maintain the existing boat launcher or
shall provide for at least one boat launcher within the marina; (9) the
applicant shall take incentives of acquiring, developing and maintaining
other public recreational facilities to meet the public demand for boat
launching and transient moorage and other enjoyment of the shoreline;
(10) no construction or improvement may begin without approval of the
Department of Fisheries, Department of Ecology and other State agencies
for permits to improve the marina. Without these permits, the granted
land use permits are invalid; (11) these pemits are conditioned upon the
State of Washington approval of the City of Edmonds amended Shoreline
Master Program.
Planning Director Block said that the Hearing Examiner did find that
the proposed use was consistent with the intent of the Edmonds Shoreline
Master Program, the policy plan and the CW zoning.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 - April 3, 1984