Conditional Use and Design Review -- Madrona School Recon.pdf
1
2
3
/L hC 95ahb5{
4
th
121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
5
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION
6
7
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
8
OF EDMONDS
9
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
10
11
RE: Madrona K-8 School FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Replacement OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
12
1
UPON RECONSIDERATION
Conditional Use Permits and
13
Design Review
14
PLN20160027
15
PLN 2016028
PLN 2016029
16
17
18
The applicant has applied for two conditional use permits and design review to
19
replace the existing Madrona K-8 School. One conditional use permit is required
because the school is over 60,000 square feet in area and the other is required to
20
extend the height of the school gym, common areas and a flag pole to heights
21
approaching 35 feet. The conditional use permit applications and design review are
approved subject to conditions.
22
23
24
25
1
By letter dated November 2, 2016 the City requested reconsideration in order to request some
modifications to the conditions staff have recommended in the staff report. The applicant did not
object to the requested modifications. All requested modification have been made to the recommended
conditions.
CU Permits and Design Review p. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Mike Clugston, Associate Planner, summarized the staff report.
1
Stewart Mhyre, Executive Director for Business Operations for Edmonds School
2
District, noted that the existing Madrona building was constructed in 1963 and has
served its useful life. A bond issue has been approved by the voters to replace the
3
building.
4
Joanne Wilcox, Mahlum Architects, discussed the project design. She noted that the
5
development site is located in the wooded portion of the school site. A bus access
6
demolished. The proposal triples the drop-off length for cars, reducing back-ups on
the adjoining road. Parking is above code by 40 stalls. The frontage sidewalk will be
7
connected to interior sidewalks all the way to the front door, providing safe pedestrian
8
access from street frontage. The proposed lighting is for parking and street and will
not involve any spillage into adjoining properties. No athletic field lighting is
9
proposed. Project design is integrated into the heavily treed character of the site
where the roofing is designed to appear as canopy.
10
Corrie Rosen, Mahlum Architect, discussed two staff recommended conditions
11
wetland buffer averaging (Condition 2) and screening (Condition 4). Ms. Rosen
12
introduced Ms. Corbin to discuss buffer averaging.
13
Sarah Corbin, applicant biologist from Shannon and Wilson, discussed the buffer
averaging prepared for the proposal. She noted that she has prepared a buffer
14
averaging plan that Mr. Clugston has agreed meets buffer averaging code
requirements. She noted there are three wetlands are on the project site. Wetlands A
15
and C will not be impacted by the project design. Wetland B is close to the existing
16
school and will also be close to the new school buildings. Wetland B is a Category 3
depressional wetland with a 60 foot buffer. Buffer averaging is allowed to reduce
17
buffer width to a maximum of 25%. Ms. Corbin identified the areas where the buffer
would be reduced.
18
Ms. Rosen noted that the service yard at the northwest corner of the building will be
19
fenced to provide for screening required by Condition 4.
20
Ms. Rosen noted that the proposed building replacement will reduce building space as
21
the existing building is about 86,500 square feet and the replacement building will be
80,000 square feet. She noted that one of the two conditional use permits is for
22
exceeding the 25 foot limit for the gymnasium (34 feet) and common area of the
school. The height for the gym is necessary for gym activities such as volleyball. The
23
commons height is necessary to get daylight into the public assembly space and is
24
limited to 28 feet maximum. A flagpole is also proposed at 35 feet. The structures
exceeding the 25 feet are more than 600 feet from the closest property lines.
25
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Rosen noted that surrounding trees are
CU Permits and Design Review p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
buildings except through the 236th Street SW access points to the school. The
1
capacity of the school will not change as a result of the proposal. The playground area
will be limited to within the track west of the school. The adjoining property line to
2
the west is another school property, so noise from the playground will not be
affecting residential neighbors. The new field at the current building site will be
3
limited to PE class activities. Lights are directed downward for pedestrian and
vehicular access so no light spillage on adjoining properties is anticipated. The
4
district has had community meetings.
5
Taine Wilton, applicant representative, answered examiner questions regarding the
6
construction schedule. A small amount of demolition will commence during winter
break in December 2016. Major construction will commence in May 2017. The new
7
school will be finished in time for the 2018 school year. Demolition of the existing
8
school will also be done in 2018.
9
Mike Clugston noted that the civil plans contain a lighting plan for the project. The
plans show that light spillage on adjoining properties is practically zero. He also
10
noted that school noise is reg.
11
12
The Staff Report and Att. A-H admitted as Ex. 1 during the hearing.
13
power point was admitted as Ex. 2. A City request for reconsideration dated
November 2, 2016 was admitted after the hearing as Ex. 3.
14
15
16
Procedural:
17
1.Applicant and Owner. Edmonds School District
18
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
19
application on October 13, 2106 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds
Public Safety Complex.
20
Substantive:
21
22 3. Site and Proposal Description. The Edmonds School District is proposing
to replace the existing Madrona K-8 School at 9300 236th Street SW. The new
23
school will be built behind the existing school and construction will be timed so that
the students can remain in the existing school until the new school is completed. The
24
new school will use existing access points on 236th Street but will include new
parking and student drop-off as well as a new bus loop with extended queuing. New
25
sidewalks along the south side of 236th are also proposed. Design review of the site
and building and two conditional use permits one for building area in excess of
CU Permits and Design Review p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
60,000 sf and another for the gymnasium, flag poleand commons areato be nearly
1
35 feet in height are requested as part of this project.
2
The Architectural Design Board (ADB) held a public meeting and reviewed the
design of the proposed redevelopment on September 7, 2016. The ADB found that
3
the proposal is consistent with the General Design Review criteria in ECDC
20.11.030, the general design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, and specific
4
elements of the zoning ordinance and recommended approval of the project with
5
conditions (Exhibit 1, Attachments A & B).
6
4. Characteristics of the Area. Residential development surrounds the subject
property on all sides. To the north, east and west is single family development. To the
7
south is multi-family development. The areas to the north, east and west are within
the RS-8 zoning districtThe area to the south is zoned RM-1.5.
.
8
9
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal. A SEPA MDNS was issued for the proposal by
10
the Edmonds School District on June 17, 2016. Impacts are more specifically
addressed below:
11
A.Traffic. The proposal will serve to reduce existing traffic impacts. The proposed
12
project is the replacement of an existing school at the same site. The school will
13
serve the existing school population without increasing the number of vehicles
accessing the site. Safety will be improved by relieving traffic congestion and
14
installing new sidewalks on 236th Street (Exhibit 1, Attachment 5, Sheets C-110
& C-111). An extended interior drop-off driveway will reduce traffic back-ups on
15
th
236 Street. No additional impacts to traffic beyond the construction phase are
16
anticipated.
17
B.Wetlands. Impacts to wetland buffers will be adequately mitigated. There are
three wetlands on the subject site, a Category III wetland (Wetland B) and two
18
Category IV wetlands (Wetlands A and C). No impacts are anticipated to the
wetlands and buffers associated with Wetlands A and C. Wetland B is a Category
19
3 depressional wetland with a 60-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback. Buffer
20
averaging is allowed to reduce buffer width to a maximum of 25% (ECDC
23.50.040). Wetland B is close to both the existing school location and the new
21
location. The buffer for Wetland B will be impacted. The applicant proposes to
22
2
The staff report and conditional use permit application do not expressly identify the student common
23
area as proposed over 25 feet. However, the common area was discussed at length by the school
district during the public hearing. The height is also at least proportionately represented in project
24
drawings that were submitted as part of the application, but the excess height may not have been
immediately apparent to someone reviewing the plans. Given that the commons area 25+ height area is
25
nominal and directly adjacent to the gym , that the common area height impacts are within the scope of
impacts created by the gym height and that there was no opposition to the proposal, the common areas
25+ height is considered part of the application and approved by this decision.
CU Permits and Design Review p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
utilize buffer averaging to ensure Wetland B is adequately buffered, in accordance
1
with ECDC 23.50.040 (Exhibit 1, Attachment 2). The buffer width will not be
reduced by more than 25% of the standard buffer width at any single location.
2
The applicant will also enhance areas outside but contiguous to the buffer to
improve wetland function and mitigate the impact to the reduced portion of the
3
buffer (3,835sf).
4
C.Parking and Interior Circulation. The new design provides for adequate parking
5
and interior circulation as determined by City staff. The frontage sidewalk will be
connected to interior sidewalks all the way to the front door, providing safe
6
pedestrian access from street frontage.
7
D.Lighting. No light spillage onto adjacent properties is anticipated. Lights are
8
proposed for the pedestrian walkways and drives only with no plans to provide
night time field lighting. Lights are directed downward for pedestrian and
9
vehicular access which will prevent light spillage.
10
E.Trees and Landscaping. As conditioned, the applicant will be required to protect
trees in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050.H and the tree protection guidelines in
11
Ex. 1, Att. 12, as amended. The applicant will be required to comply with City
12
landscaping standards during building permit review as well, which incorporates
standards for aesthetic buffering to adjoining uses. Adequate provisions have been
13
made to ensure trees are protected and landscaping is appropriate.
14
F.Noise. Noise levels will not appreciably increase due to the new arrangement of
buildings and playfields. As noted above, the total number of students will not
15
increase due to the proposal. As testified by Ms. Rosen, the playground area will
16
be west of the school. The adjoining property line to the west is another school
property, so noise from the playground will not affect residential neighbors. The
17
new field at the current building site will be limited to PE class activities.
18
G.Compatibility. The proposal is fully compatible with adjoining uses since it
19
ultimately reduces the impacts of the existing school and the bulk and the mass of
the building is almost completely obscured from adjoining uses by the heavily
20
treed perimeter of the project site. In particular, the height of the trees is
21
significantly greater than the 35 foot elements subject to the conditional use
permit application for height, such that the increase in height will have no adverse
22
impact on adjoining uses.
23
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
24
Procedural:
25
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. The design review and conditional use
permits are considered Type III-B decisions under Section 20.01.003 of the Edmonds
CU Permits and Design Review p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Community Development Code (ECDC) and all three permits have been consolidated
1
for review pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B. When consolidated like this, the
Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviews the proposed development at a public
2
meeting and makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing
Examiner then holds a public hearing and makes the final decision per ECDC
3
20.01.002.C.
4
Substantive:
5
2. Zoning Designations. The subject property is zoned RS-8, single family.
6
3. Permit Review Criteria. A conditional use permit is required for the size
7
of the building (PLN20160028) and the height of the flag pole, gymnasium and
8
common areas (PLN20160029). Primary schools are permitted primary uses in the
9
approval of a conditional use permit (ECDC 17.100.050.G.2). The proposed school is
80,000sf. ECDC 17.100.050.I requires schools with structures (flag poles) over 25-
10
feet in height to acquire conditional use permit approval, provided the height does not
exceed 35 feet. The flag pole, common areas and gymnasium are proposed to be in
11
excess of 25-feet in height. The criteria for a conditional use permit are governed by
12
ECDC 20.050.010. All applicable criteria are quoted below and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law. Design review was addressed by the Architectural
13
Design Board.
14
ECDC 20.050.010:
No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the
findings in this section can be made.
15
16
A.That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
17
4. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing
18
Plan. Primary schools are a permitted use with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation and the zoning district. This criterion is satisfied for the school use as a
19
whole and for the portions of the proposed project that require conditional use permit
20
approval.
21
ECDC 20.05.010(B):
Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is
consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone
22
district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all
23
applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance.
24
5. The staff report analysis of Zoning Ordinance compliance, located at
Section V, pages 5-6, is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in
25
full.
CU Permits and Design Review p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
ECDC 20.05.010(C):
Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally
1
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.
2
6. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse
3
impacts associated with the project. As a consequence, the proposal will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or to nearby
4
properties or improvements.
5
ECDC 20.05.010(D):
Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether
6
the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with
the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner
7
may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County
8
auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit
may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property.
9
7. The conditional use permit shall run with the land. The impacts of the
10
proposal are not dependent upon the owner.
11
DESIGN REVIEW
12
The findings and conclusions of the planning division on design review, Ex. 1, att. B,
13
were adopted by the Design Review Board and are adopted by this decision as well. In
addition, this decision adopts the conditions of approval recommended by the Design
14
Review Board.
15
DECISION
16
The design review (PLN20160027) and conditional use permits (PLN20160028 and
17
PLN20160029) associated with the Madrona K-8 School replacement project are
approved, subject to the following conditions:
18
1.Trees must be protected and removed in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050.H
19
and the tree protection and mitigation guidelines found in Exhibit 1,
20
Attachment 12, as amended.
21
2.Development must occur in accordance with the geologically hazardous areas
code in ECDC 23.80. The geotechnical report (Exhibit 1, Attachment 10)
22
must be updated to address specific elements of the proposed development
relative to the standards in Sections 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
23
24
3.Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, must be
screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural
25
materials.
CU Permits and Design Review p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
4.The proposed landscaping shown on Sheets L-100 and L-101 of Exhibit 1,
1
Attachment 5 meets the intent of Chapter 20.13 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Automatic irrigation is not required.
2
5.-of-way dedication along the south side of 236th Street SW is
3
4
6.Staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land
5
use permit conditions through review of building and engineering permits.
Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of
6
building permit without further design review by the Architectural Design
Board as long as the design is substantially similar to that originally approved.
7
8
7.1,
Attachment 11) must be submitted with the building permit application in
9
order to be able to verify stormwater code compliance.
10
8.The conditional use permits shall run with the land and be transferable.
11
th
12
Dated this 13 day of November 2016.
13
14
15
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
16
17
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
18
19
This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council
as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the
20
issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may
21
be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by
ECDC 20.06.010.
22
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
23
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
24
25
CU Permits and Design Review p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision