250 4TH AVE S (2).pdf71
A
8
C a You." I e our k`
'n peas r6spondto: r6�Uesithisvee 'as,wenee q: proc
Ahisbroject,
itter:
Thahk you f6tvoui itte6ii6n,t t i� time,y,�hc,
S I
indei e y
V Q_I,��.:�,�,�,;�'
,4Z -,d
ra B tterf "'V
VZ
.�Enclosure
ce.
..... .....
�IM 7
z
LU LU
0
a
LIJ Lij
LL c
E
E
Ak
]�*asia.
File No.� CU-98-3V
PW26N
:2. Coi ciusioni
a) The extension should be granted.
Z
III.I.
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
F- MI
the, following is a summary of the deadlines and prqced ilin'g re'cohiidiraiion's, and appe y
uresTor f als. An
cc
person wishing to file or respond toa. recommendation otalipeal should contact theplanning Department
LU
for further procedural information.
t .1 01
A. Request for Reconsideration
Cn
Ui
_J
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
Cn U.
—0
LU
recommendation if a written request is filed Within teri (10) vvorldrig.days.of the date of the initial
I
decision by any person who attends the public hearing',and sips the attendance register a rid/or
,
presents testimony or by any person -holding an ownership �interest in a tract of land which is the
i : 're' 'must
LL <�
d
subject of such decision orrecommen ation.:The consideratiori request tite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the'ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
z 1k
Appeals
0;
UJ Ui.
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner de�ision or
recommendation shall be made.. Th e rit I ing, and shall include e
appeal shall be made inl.w ,, th
U co;
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and.the date of the decisiork,�the name
0
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest irithe matter,,and reasons why1he
ULI Uj
appellant believes the decision'to:be wrong—lbe appeal must befiled vn*th theCommupity
Development Director within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appeale&
0
z
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
LU (a
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless.the, owner obtains abuilding peiinit or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one, �earfr6m the date of ap val, the conditional use,,
pro
z
permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the,owner files an application for an extension of the time
before the expiration date,'
V.
APPENDICES
Attachments I throu 47.
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Extension request
0
VI.
PARTIES OF RECORD
Brad Butterfield B. Bruce Nicholson Engine'erting 'Division Planning ivision
Butterfield Design Group 9829 Cherry St. 1�ire . Dep;uftent, Public WorlisDivision,
400 Dayton St. Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 Parks Division
Edmonds, WA 98020
e"
E�'
2
9 it 17,
epo
703IXtn.d-/J�lyll��,�!"���/&���'���'
0
"T
�Q-
z F-
01
Z
W UJ,
U D
t
LU W
Uli
LL 0
w to'
L)
Nq
ki -, ol�
73-1
mmmil,
Won I'
LU LU
U.
0
z
w
h 61,
zt
Q2202P
P. 01
z
F- rat 42976 5746
July 1 S. 1998
LU
VIA FW. 425f771-0221'
W U.
�U-
Mr. JLeff Wilson
Community Services DePartMnt
U.
(a 0 12jLFMAvanueN0r1h-
Fdmqnds, Washin0on ?8020
Olt Re.- Nickolson, office Building at 2,50 Fourth Avon South
LU LU
Dear Jet..
0
Our ADB application wa3 submitted to the City on May 30,1998. We are still awaiting
W Thi Prqee, wa
the letter. ofcompletenesd and a heAring date. a s issued a.,SEPA DNS at
the previous CUP stage.,
0
z
LU
As I mentlo4d In my 'War Of Yflitsr*, my client is anxious to move ahead on this
project. Can we expad a "$Bring date SOOn?
z
Thank you, Jeff, for your assistarica-in this matter,
Sincerely,
Bradley I Elutleff101d
0_ jh
Mr. Bruce Nickoison
4--
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
260 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 * 1206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
t
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF. EDMONDS.
APPLICANT: Butterfield Design Group
CASE NO.: CU 97-31
LOCATION: 250, 4th Avenue South (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
REVIEW PROCESS: Conditional - Use Permit; Environmental Review; Hearing
Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision on the
Conditional Use Permit.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with, Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section. 16.30.010 (MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - USES).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS).
c. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions'
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with modified conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
0. hearing on the application was opened at 0:03 a.m., June 19, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds
Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:07 am. Participants at the public hearing and
the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is
avaflable in the Planning Division.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.:
From the City:
John Bissell presented the staff report and recommended approval of the applicatiori, with
conditions. He noted the design issues would be addressed by the Architectural Design
Board.
Incorporated August 11, 1890'e
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
I
'n
� 6'1j� "�
q"'
Heating Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 2
From the Applicant:
Z Brad Butterfield, architect for the applicant, reviewed the application documents. He
said:
LUI
He looked at the property for use as a condo and as an office building.
LU
51
The next property to the south is a PUD substation. Therefore, the office use was
W chosen as it was felt an office would be better than a condominium next to a
-j �I substation. He felt an office building would provide a buffer between the condos
(n LL
W 0 to the north and the substation.
There are 18 businesses within 300 feet of the property.
LL
M
4 49 condos in the area have access to 0, Dayton and Walnut.
Z
oi Parking for this proposal exceeds parking requirements.
I-- S L
LU UJI
M Parking is proposed for both employees and clients.
0—
a 1Z 0 They know of the concerns about the alley. The alley is a dead end alley and is
LU
narrow. It has a 15 foot right-of-way and 24 feet is desirable for two way traffic.
It is not possible to expand the width of the alley, however, due to existing
U-
.. Z improvements.
W M
U
85 0 Underground parking will be provided and the City Engineering staff wants
Z access to the parking to be off the alley. Pedestrian access will be off of 4!h Ave.
The proposed building will be two stories tall, but if access off 0 is required the
height of the building may have to be raised.
• If a condo were to be built here it would probably be three stories tall.
• This proposal will have minimum impact on nearby condos.
Peter Bennett, attorney for the applicant, reviewed the Conditional Use Permit criteria.
He said:
• Under the new Comprehensive Plan this type of use is encouraged.
• The Zoning Ordinance allows offices as a primary use in a multifamily residential
zone, with a conditional use permit.
• This proposal will not be significantly detrimental to the neighborhood.
• If a Conditional Use Permit for an office is not approved, then a 6 un
it condowith
a minimum of 12 parking stalls could be built on the site.
• An office will have no activity on weekends or evenings.
W
Z
U
0
Q
LU
U-
z
0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 3
The, proposed building has been scaled down and is not proposed to be built at the
maximum allowed height.
Bruce Nicholson, applicant, submitted Exhibit M into the record and explained which
properties in the area are condos, single family or commercial. He also discussed which
properties have access to the street and which ones have access to the alley.
From.the Community:
Cliff Barlament, neighbor, reviewed Exhibit M and said information on several of the'
properties is wrong. He also said he felt access to is better then on a narrow dead end
alley.
John Rutter, neighbor, said:
While there are businesses in the neighborhood, this is a residential block.
The PUD substation is well landscaped and is more like a park than a substation.
He doesn't understand why a buffer is ifeeded.
The applicant has the burden of proof to show the proposal meets the. code. A
mixed use such as an office building in a residential area should be allowed on a
showing of need.
The addition of 23 parking spaces and approximately 200 vehicle trips per day
will create a problem in the alley. A driver practically has to stop where the alley
accesses Walnut due to the dip in the pavement.
Despite some problem with topography, access to 0 would be better than access
to the alley.
Ray Metter, neighbor, said he supported the comments of John Rutter and also said:
• The alley is narrow, not well maintained, congested, and is a tough area to drive.
• If the building is approved, it should have access to
• In every direction, there are homes and condos.
• The closest businesses are on 4th and Dayton.
• It doesn't make sense to allow an office building right in the center of a residential
area.
Robert Noack, neighbor, said:
• He moved into his condo in 1984 because it was a beautiful residential area.
• This is the only dead end alley in the City.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 4
The substation is underutilized and he feels it could someday be a park.
Now the neighborhood has residential uses surrounding the'substation. An office
building is not needed as transition between the substation and the residences.
The condo he lives in would look right into the proposed parking garage. The 23
car parking area would be twice as many than if a condo were to be built on the
property.
The zone downtown allows retail on the ground floor, with residential above.
Why are we looking at an office in the close in residential area when the City
Council is encouraging more residences downtown.?
Offices should be kept closer to Dayton.
He didn't think there is a demand for more offices.
The alley is only 15' 4" wide at the entrance to Walnut due to the existing
telephone/power poles. Parking is allowed on Walnut right up to the poles so a
car exiting the alley on Walnut has little or no sight distance.
He is concerned that only 5 feet of landscape buffer is proposed.
There is no evidence of a traffic study. What type of offices will be located there -
doctors with many clients or uses with a few clients?
He disagreed that Comprehensive Plan Policy A-5 encourages offices in this
location.
Response from the Applicant:
Peter Bennett, responded that:
• This building makes sense on this street.
• The code has no need requirement.
,Brad Butterfield, responded that:
• Between Dayton and Walnut there are 18 businesses including 2 south of the
property.
• The applicant is willing to take access off of 0. They just followed the
requirement of the Engineering Department.
• While there is no requirement to show a need, most of the new office, space
Edmonds is occupied.
Ui Lui
FJ CAI
LU UJ
LL 0
Z
LLI U)
0
Z
ME
0 They will meet or exceed the landscape requirement for this zone.
Response from the City:
John Bissell, responded that-
• The alley is not the only dead end alley in the City.
• The Zoning Code allows increased residential density downtown.
Comprehensive Plan Policy A-5 supports a mix of uses downtown without
encroaching on single family neighborhoods. This is a downtown multifamily
neighborhood and therefore he believes a mix of uses is encouraged here.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Correspondence was received from the following:
Nancy Smuck: Exhibit B
Duane & Donna Stewart: Exhibit C
Phyllis Finn: Exhibit D
John Rutter: Exhibit E
Ray Metter President, Atrium Condominium Association: Exhibit F
Mr. & Mrs. Marvin 0 Rooneby: Exhibit G
Michael and Ardeth Hilton: Exhibit H
Gayke Crawford: Exhibit I
Carole Scott: Exhibit J
Elizabeth Henricks, et a], owners At the 325 Third Avenue Condominiums: Exhibit K
Carol Elwell: Exhibit L
Two of the letters (Exhibits D & L) supported the proposal to locate an office building on the
subject property although a concern was expressed in Exhibit D about providing vehicular access
to the proposed building via the alley.
The remainder of the letters were all written in opposition to the application. Objections and
concerns expressed included the following:
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 6
The area is primarily residential and an office building should not be allowed to
locate in the middle of it.
The City is encouraging more residences downtown and there is no need for
additional office space in Edmonds. A condominium in this location would be
more preferable to an office building.
The office building will create too much traffic in the area, particularly on the'
narrow dead-end alley.
Traffic from the office building will create additional noise and air pollution.in the
alley. Many of the bedrooms of the nearby condominiums have windows opening
onto the alley.
If the office building is allowed, then vehicular access should be by way of
Ave.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) Size: The subject property is rectangular with 75 feet of street frontage
and 130 feet in depth. (see Exhibit A, Attachments I & 4).
2) Land Use: The property is currently developed with a building
originally constructed as a house, and converted to an office.
3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Multiple -Family
Residential, 1,500 square feet of lot area required per dwelling unit
(RM-1.5) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is nearly flat with mixed
ornamental landscaping and grass.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
1) North: Developed with a multiple family condominium building, and
zoned RM-1.5.
2) South: Developed with an electrical substation, and zoned RM-1.5.
East: Developed with single, family residential buildings and a multiple
family condominium building, and zoned. RM- L5.
4) West: Developed with multiple family condominium buildings, and
zoned RM-1.5.
b. Conclusion: The proposed use as conditioned would create a transition
from the electrical substation to the adjacent residential units.
M 1,
, Uk,,,VA,:I�av ,
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 7
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COM1PLL4LNCE
Z 1. ECDC Section 16.30.010 MULTIPLE FAMMY RESIDENTIAL - USES)
a. Fact: ECDC 16.30.010 allows offices as apermitted primary use in the
RM-1.5 zone subject to conditional use permit
J U, b. Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria for application for a
conditional use permit in die RS-8 zone.
UJ
-J IN- 2. Compliance with Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE
U) U.
W PERMITS)
a. Facts:
U.
SN1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for
X. Conditional Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code
Z t section, "No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all the
E el findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is
consistent with the purposes of theZoning Ordinance and the
purpose of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and
that the proposed use will meet all the applicable requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Not Detrimental - That the use, as approved or conditionally
approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements
unless the use is a public necessity.
Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether
the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be
personal.
2) The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Powntown/Waterfront
Activity Center, Policy A.5. states "Support a mix of uses downtown
without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. " Since 4th
Avenue South, between Dayton and Walnut is zoned RM 1.5, and is
developed with Multiple Family buildings, as well as single family
buildings this section of the Comprehensive Plan appears to encourage
the proposed development.
3) ECDC 16.30.010 allows offices as a permitted primary use in the RM-
1.5 zone subject to a conditional use permit.
4) The proposal will be located between the existing PUD. electrical
substation and an existing condo building.
5) The proposed development will not create I a traffic de I triment in' the
general area since it will not reduce the level Of service at.:,*any.
9:.11
4
LAJ
0
a
LU
Q
8
Z
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 8
intersection. However, the alley which is proposed to provide access
to the subject office building dead -ends just to the, north of the subject
property. The entrance to the alley off Walnut has telephonelpower
poles located on either side just over 15 feet apart. In addition, a shrub
exists on the east side of the alley entrance and further reduces the
width of the alley entrance to less than 15 feet. Furthermore, cars are
allowed to park up to the poles which obscure visibility from vehicles
exiting the alley. The table of street standards found in ECDC Section
18.80.010 specifies the pavement width in the RM zone for 3 or more
lots or dwelling units shall be 22 feet. It is acknowledged that this
standard is the standard for a street serving the units, however, in this
case,.the alley provides the only public vehicular access for over 30
existing condominium parking spaces, and if the CUP is approved as
proposed the alley Would provide the only public vehicular access for
the 23 space parking garage for the subject office building. It is also
acknowledged that two of the condos also have private access drives to
3"' Ave. S and one condo has a private access drive to 4th Ave. S.
6)
The proposed development might create an aesthetic impact if the
building design is not sensitive in scale and mass with the surrounding
uses and buildings along 4th Avenue South. Therefore, a condition
should be imposed to mitigate this potential impact.
7)
The applicant's declarations are found as Exhibit A, Attachment 3.
b. Conclusions:
1)
A conditional use is a use that has been legislatively determined to be
allowed within a given zone if appropriate conditions can be imposed
to ensure compatibility with those uses which are permitted as a matter
of right within that zone. A conditional use thus carries a fairly heavy
assumption of acceptability within the zone it is located in. In
consideration of any conditional use permit application, the Exaniiner
is required to consider the degree of compatibility which would exist
between the use and its particular surroundings and may impose such
conditions as are necessary to ensure compatibility. N compatibility
can be ensured, then the permit should be approv ed.
2)
The proposed office building is in compliance with the requirements of
the Comprehensive Plan.
3)
The zoning ordinance allows for offices in a inuIti-family zone if a
Conditional Use Perinit is approved.
4)
The proposed office building does not appear. to create any new
detriments, particularly is access to the proposed parking garage is
provided both to 0 Ave. S and to the alley. Access to both e Ave. s
D
Hearing Examiner ecision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 9
and the alley will spread the traffic flow and will lessen any impact of
the office building on the surrounding residences. Any impact to.
pedestrian traffic. on 0 Ave. S should be more than offset by
minimizing the use of the narrow alley for additional vehicular traffic.
5) The proposal, as conditioned below, meets the criteria for application
for a conditional use permit in the RM-1.5 zone.
3. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A (State Environmental Policy Act)
a. Facts:
1) The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist with their
application.
2) Staff reviewed the Environmental Checklist and issued a
Deterrmination of Nonsignificance for the application.
3) No appeals of the Determination of Nonsignificance were received.
b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the
requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.
4. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15B (Critical Areas)
a. Facts:
1) The applicants submitted a Critical Areas Checklist and received a
Determination as required prior to the issuance of any permit.
2) The Critical Areas Detennination indicated that no further Critical
Area studies would be required to develop these,lots.
b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the
requirements of ECDC 20.15B.
C. EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
1. Land Use
a. Fact: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Downtown(Waterfront
Activity Center, Policy A.5. states "Support a mix of uses downtown
without encroaching into single family neighborhoods." Since 4th Avenue
South, between Dayton and Walnut is zoned RM 1.5, and is developed
with Multiple Family buildings as well as single family buildings this
section of the Comprehensive Plan appears to encourage the proposed
development
b. Conclusions:
The proposed office is in compliance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 10
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1. The proposed Conditional Use Pennii has been reviewed and evaluated by
other Departments/]Xvisions of the City.
Engineering Division: The applicant should be aware that there is a late-
comers agreement in place to provide reimbursement to the constructor of
the water main in 4th Avenue South.
No other substantive comments were submitted regarding this application.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. All future additions are sub ect to approval of a conditional use permit unless the
j
Edmonds Community Development Code is amended to permit an expansion of a
conditional use without a new conditional use permit.
The design of the building shall be modified to reduce the aesthetic impact to the
surrounding area by making the building appearance more compatible with the adjacent
residential uses. These changes should be as part of the required application to the
Architectural Design Board.
3. Access to the proposed parking garage shall be provided both to 0 Ave. S and to the
alley. The design for access shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review
and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The conditional use permit is transferable.
0 Entered this 2nd day of July, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter .20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's
and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal
should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20. 100.0 1 O.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision
LU
or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the
(D U.1
date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs
—0
the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an
ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or
LL
recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the
D
findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
APPEALS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
UJ uJi
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision
or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall
0 U W
�-
include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the .
C,
UJ Ul
1 .1
date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision,
their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to
U.
—01,
z
be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director
within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
APPEALS OF SEPA DETERMINATION APPEAL DECISIONS
z
Section 20.15A.240.0 states that "The decision of the hearing examiner shall be
final and shall not be appealable to the City Council." Further appeals must be
made to Superior Court.
NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may, as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner,
request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's
Office.
0
LAPSE OF APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Section 20.05.020.0 states: "Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building
is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of
approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner
files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date."
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
B. Letter from Nancy Smuck, dated June 9, 1997
�T-NRR_R, NEW
. . . . . . . . . .
q
AD'
Z;%
I
n.
Z
Z
ILI
0
0
LU
LL
Iii
Y
0
Z
El
1 0
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-31
Page 12
C. Letter from Duane and Donna M. Steward, dated June 6, 1997
D. Letter from Phyllis L. Finn, dated June 10, 1997
E. Letter from John E. Rutter, dated June 11, 1997
F. Letter from Ray Metter, President, Atrium Condominium Association, dated June 10,
1997
G. Letter from Mr. And Mrs. Marvin 0 Rooneby, undated, copy received June 10, 1997
H. Letter from Michael and Ardeth Hilton, dated June 14, 1997
L Letter from Gayle Crawford, dated June 16, 1997
J. Letter from Carole H. Scott, dated June 17, 1997.
K. Letter from Elizabeth, M. Henricks, et a], owners at the 325 Third Avenue
Condominiums, dated June 13, 1997
L. Letter from Carol Elwell, dated June 15, 1997
M. Map of business locations in neighborhood, with supporting documentation
PARTEES oF RECORD:
Brad Butterfield
Butterfield Design Group
400 Dayton St., Suite C
Edmonds, WA 98020
Cliff Barlament
233 P Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Robert Noack
317 3"d Avenue South, #103
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phyllis L. Finn, Treasurer
242 0 Avenue South, #3
Edmonds, WA 98020
Gayle Crawford
216 0 Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
B. Bruce Nicholson
9829 Cherry St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
John Rutter
317 3d South, #301
Edmonds, WA 98020
Nancy Smuck
317 Third Avenue South, #201
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mr. And Mrs. Marvin 0. Rogneby
317 P Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Carole H. Scott
251 Fourth Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds Planning Division
Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
Edmonds Fire Department
Peter Bennet
400 Dayton, Suite A
Edmonds, WA 98020
Ray Metter
229 Yd Avenue
Edmonds, WA 98020
Duane and Donna Stewart
2710 Avenue South, #5
Edmonds, WA 98020
Michael and Ardeth Hilton
317 Yd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020
DATE: June 17, 1997
RE: Butterfield Design Group
ADB Public Hearing, June 19,1997,9:00 am
File #CU-97-31
FROM: Carole H. Scott
251 Fourth Ave. So
Ednionds WA
I would like to address a few concerns re this proposed Conditional Use
1) Commercial Space Needs:
With the current and seemingly continuing number of empty commercial/offic I e space in
Edmonds - is the need for even more office space greater than the need for reasonablv vriced
residential units?
Mr. Butterfield's comments during the May 20th Council meeting (- Re: An
Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.50). The minutes ir
favor of more affordable living spaces [ ...... He summarized the proposed Coi
creation of better economic models and create new buildings which bring in
businesses and more affordable living spaces..")
Even though the 200 block of 4th Ave S. is only one block from the BP zone
for'more affordable living spaces'still apply? Can the City hmek]X say,
grant this CU, that WE REALLY NE—SED MORE OFFICE SPACE?
At the same meeting, many citizens voiced concerns over empty office space
more housing (please refer to posted 5/20/97 meeting minutes).
2) Architecture:
Butterfield Design has built several structures in the downtown Edmonds a
designs are pleasant and relate to their immediate areas. I wonder if this pr(
could be redesigned to appear more in keeping with the street's present'resi
since it is still primarily residential - or better yet, be redesigned into living
3) Impact Fees:
2dment to
cate he was in
changes allow
't the need
� they
a need for
and the
;ed structure
tial feel'
Re: street, water im rovements, development and property taxes: Will
p Mr. Butterfield's
proposed structure drive up our taxes for said improvements? I doubt that *� Ave S can
take the additional traffic of 23+ cars in its present condition. Among the residents on this
street and the immediate surrounding areas are a) fixed income seniors and b) 4veraae
income citizens who don't anticipate the means to pay ever -rising developmeilit taxes.
� � I
PSA
z
uj
2
M
u
0
a
LU
U-
z
ONE
WMMFELDMMWAPMM
Ig! 0 on=V= A
PAM"
AOM
U-iper-,
ow
IZ
Edmonds WA 98020
RE:. FILE NO. CU-97-31, Notebook: SEPA
Dear Mr. C�ave:
Regarding the above referenced file, the undersigned
owners of condominium units located at 325 Third Avenue
South, Edmonds, wish to express our strong objection to
alley access for parking, entering and exiting of
vehicles to be served by the proposed of f ice building at
240 Fourth Avenue South, Edmonds, WA 98020.
It is our unaerstanding that the construction plans
include at least 22 parking stalls. 'This alley is a
deadend.and is already congested by Automobile traffic
And pedestrians who are occupants of the adjacent,
condominiums.
We request that vehicle usage of the alley be denied for
the proposed of f ice building at 240 Fourth Avenue South.
Sincerely,
nTA'M='D Q
AVJM
W-M
TV
ul
z
Gayle, Crawfor
"i? �"Z l!":
Jun e, 90 1997
jut
xrzl4ohn Bissell
Planning Division
z
-City� of Edmonds
tth Avenue
250 11: No,
Edmonds, Was 98020
Dear, Mr.. Bissell,
U 01
Recently I received a copy of,the notilawof'Development Application File -#GU
97--�31. Iam interested.in the development of this proper tj since it is located
Co LW,
LU
. i=ediately in back of the )(ifiqldCondominiums. 317-Third Avenue SOL *,.in:wbich
U.
I. live.
Uj
The choice of an office building for that site.greatly concerns me* Fourth Ave*
is very much a.residential'streete At the,. present time -there is limited co'mer-
U.
jalism except on the northlend oll:the street, It.is entirely residentialolwith
X
ths exception of the power transformers, (That may not be the correct term)9-
I feel strongly that the arest,should remain residential.
z Ill -
'Even though undergraound parking is planned.for thetenants of thaproposed
LU W
office L
building,,I forsee a need for parking by clients. The alley is bound
to be used., The,alley was never designed for the amount oftraffio it already
bears. The entrance from'Walnut St. is very narrow. The alley'dead-ends too the
0
north.- Due to parked card on both sides of Walnut St*, particularly during the
'was, exiting from the alley demands�great caution.
Uj Uj
It seems much more in keeping with the present design of the neighborhood that
U-
the property be used for a fourplex4ith underground parking# -or a condomin-
U.1
ium'with the awe kind of parking facility,
U
Unfortunately I will be out of town the morning of June 19th so have chosen
z
this way of expressing my concerns* Thank you*
Respectfully,
Nangy T. Smak
j17 Third Avenue so*, 201
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
a,
ITT Ml Him "Iffia
6 June, 1997
-city of Edmonds
250, 5th Ave. No.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Robert Chave
Planning Manager
We�are writing this letter in opposit ion to the proposed
office building at what you call 250 4th Ave. go.
We oppose an office building in this location. The majority
of this block is single family homes, condos or
apartments. The proposed office building states it will
have 23 parking spaces. We feel there is already enough
traffic on this street which is not a through street and
to add another 23 parking spaces plus however many additonal
cars will be parked on the street would be much too much
traffic.
We do not oppose a condo going in this location but we do
oppose an office building. We realize a condo will create
cars and traffic too but we do not feel nearly as much as an
office building which will start with 23 parking spaces.
In reference to the May 28, 1997 Enterprise, you are wanting
more residences in the downtown area so it doesn't make much
sense to put an office building in this area. It seems
there is already enough empty office space in downtown
Edmonds without creating more.
n c :e
Y-
4d
f*
uan & 2knna M. Stewart ��roper y owners
271 4th Ave. So. #5
Edmonds,,Wa
LU
I--
z
LU
0
0
LU
LL-
LB
0
z
U
0
13
LU
3:
LL.
w
u
8
z
E
Z 1.-!
Z
LU Lu"
2 M
5 a!
U D)
0
,39
X U
�_ r;
!i- 0
Z
UJ (n
0
Z
M
EW
F
�Autterfietd Desigh Group
'F
He No. CU-97�31
Page 2,of6
I. JNTRODUCTION
The following is a staff report for the hearing of a Conditional Use Peimit'to allow th 'd
e construction On use
'of an 8,775 square foot office in a,multiple 6mily residential, zone. th6pi6poied,d6el6pment also,-,
requires the approval of the Architectural Design Board (ADB).. In this,6a:�e, the applicalithas requested
separate hearin , and therefore has not made application to the ADB.
gs
A* Application Information
1. Applicant: Butterfield Design Group (see Attachm , ent.2).
2. Site Location: 250 5th Avenue South (see Attachment 1).
3. Review Process: Conditional Use Permit;.Environmental Review; Hearina Examiner
conducts public hearing and makes, fmal,decision on the Conditional Use Permit.
4.. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community.Development Code (ECDC):Section 16.30.010
(MULTIPLE-FAMUY RESIDENTMLL - USES).
b. Compliance, with: Edmonds Community. DeVelopment Code (ECDCY Chapter'20.051
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS).
C. Compliance with theCity of Edmonds Comprehensive Plain.
11. 11ticommendation
Based on Findings. of Fact, Conclusions, in, and Attachments to this report -we recommend
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed office with the following conditions:
L All future additions are subject to approval of a conditional use permit unless the Edmonds
Community Development Code is amended to permit an expansion of a conditional use
without a new conditional use permit.
The design of the building shall be modified to reduce die aesthetic impact to the surroundings
by makingthe building appearance more compatible with the adjacentresidenti.al uses. These:
changes should be as part of the required application to the Architectural Design Board.
3. The conditional use permit should be transferable.
H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Eize- The subject property is rectangular with 75 feet of street frontage and 130 feet
in depth. (see Attachments I & 4).
(2) Land Use: The property is currently developed with a building originally constructed
as a house, and converted to an office.
(3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject.property is Muldple-Family Residential,'. 1,500
square feet of lot area required per dwelling unit (RM716) (see Attachment 1)'
(4) Terrain and Veretation: The subject property is neiiiIV flat -with mixed 0111
landscaping and grass.
2 CU9731DOCIJurte 13,1997`bSiWR;pbi4.
0
b
'T
Butterfield Design Group
File i46. CU-974 1,
Vage 3 of6
ghb Ang
I., Nei o DeMopment Aydd Ziinfiie:
(1) North., Developed with a multiple family condominiiini building, and zoned RM-1.5.
an c tri
(2) &uth. Developed with lec cal. substation, and zoned R,M-1.5.
.,(3),East: Developed with, single fo.unily" residential buildings , and a multiple, family%,
condominium building, and zoned RM- 1.5.
(4) Aest: Developed with multiple family condominium buildings,' and zoned RM-1.5.
b) Conclusion: T6'proposed use as conditioned would 'create a transition from the
electrical substation to the adjacent residential units.
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. ECDC Sectioii 16.30.010 (AIULWLE FAMMY RESEDENTL4L USES)
a) Lact.. ECDC 16.30.010 allows offices as a pe rinifted primary use in the'RM- 1.5 zone
subject to conditional use permit
b) Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria for application for a conditional use vermit
in the RS-8 zone.
2- Coiaiijiliance with Code (ECDC) Chapter, -20.05, (CONDITIOINAL USE
PERMTS)
a) facts:
(1) ECDC Section,20.05 contains the review 'and I approval criteria for Conditional Use
Permits. According to the aforementioned code se.666m "No, Conditional Use Permit
may be approved unless all the findings in this:section canbe made.','. The findings
are as follows:
Comprehensive Plan - The prdV6�ed use is I compatible with the Comprehensi I v6 I
Plan.
Zoning Ordinance - That the osed d I
prop use, an, J o cation, is consistent with the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. and the. purpose,of the zone district � in which
the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet 0 the a0plicable
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Not Detrimental - That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not
be significantly detrimental r to the public health, safety And welfare,, and to
nearby private property or improvements unless the use is A public necessity.
Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall deterinine whether the conditional..
use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
(2) The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan DowntownfWaterfront Activity Center,.. .
Policy A.5. states "Support a mix pf uses down I town without encroaching, into single.
family neighborhoods." Since 4th Avenue South, between Dayt6wand Walnut is..
zoned RM 1.5, and is developedwith Multiple Family buildings, as well As single'�
fainily buildings this section of. the Cbmowhensive Plan appears to. encourage th el
proposed development.
0 ECDC 16.30.010 allows offices as a
) perraitted:iprim
subject to a conditional use pernut.
. ......... "
3 �-�:—CIJ973LDGC/ June 13 19917,15id Pq)ort
F,
7
0 q;
V
Z
eld D6s,ip Proup,
AleNOXU-97-31,
PW4om ,
The proposal will be.located:between,the c all'substation an an
eiisting PUD ele tric d
existing condo building, acting as:# buifdr
Wi Fnalt.create a' trafft
(5) Tlt�, proposed development I ic detrinient since it will not reduce
Z
the level of service at any.intersecti
ion.
<
UJI
d if th ui gn
(6), The proposed evelopment trug t-creatd,an aesthetic impact i e'b Iding desi is
M
notsensitive in scale and mai;s�vtitfi th ding i
e suffoun ' jses:and,�buildiii along 4th,
Avenu6:South., Ilterefbni,�11 c6fiditiolVsh6uld 66 imposed:to mitigate this potenti ald
U
impact..
U) uj�
.(7) The applicant's declarations are found asAttdchinent 3.�
Conclusions:
(n LL
—0
'in 'the
Uj
2 �:
ML` Th proposed 6ffice� building is comp tance with -the, ieq 6irements of
I
-j
Comprehensive an.
P1
U.
(2) The zoning ordinance allows for offices in a single flunily, zone if a.Conditional Use
Permit is approved..
U!
�3) The proposed office. building dots, not appear to. create any: new detrimentsi and in
Z
fact appears to mitigate the existing idver'se.conditions created bv thezPUD electrical
Z
substation'
Ui UX
15
The proposal meets the riteri
c a i6i� application4or a conditional use permit. in'the
U)
zone.
0
al
3. Compliance with.EeDC Ch pt6r 20.1�A: (State Environmental Policy,
LU
Act),
U. 0
Z
aj. Facts:
LU W
(1) � The applicant submitted an Eiiv�ironmiental Checklist with their application,.",
0
(2y Staff reviewed the Environtrientaf: Checklist and issued a Determination': of
Nonsignificance for the application.
(3) No appeals of the Determination of Nonsignificance werexpceived,
b) Conclusion The applicant* and the City have. complied with the requirements o th State
f
Environmental Policy Act. F,
4� Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15B. (Critic,* re"),
1; rl—
a) Eacts:
(1) The applicants submitted a Critical Men Checklist, and received'a Determination, as
0
required prior to the iss ance o anypermi
u f
(2) The CriticafAreas Determination indicated that, no. ftirther,CriticatArea studi
les
:would be required to develop these I otsl.,,,
b) Conclusion: The applicant and the'City have complW w ith the r of ECDC
20.15B.
C119731 D6016 "1'3
4 C, 1 97 /Staff fto
0,
`7T
7
0
-U
El
0
M. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideratiqn's and appeals. Any
person.wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10j working days of the date of the imitial,
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request musteite specific
references to the findings and/or thecriteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
B. Appeals of Conditional Use Permits
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why.the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The Appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision'being,appealed..,
C. Appeals of SEPA Determination A eal Decisions
Irp
Section 20.15A.240.0 states that "The deciiion of the hearing examiner*shall be finaland shall not
be appealable to the City Council." Further ap
peals must be'made to Superior Court.
CU973 LDOC June 13, 99 /Staff Report;
7
. ...... .
d
0
Q3