Loading...
CU0803 HE Decision.pdf4"'? C. 1Sgv CITY OF EDMONDS GARYHAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98420 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER In the Matter of the Application of } NO. CU -2008-3 Olympic View Water and Sewer District ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION For a Conditional Use Permit. ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for a conditional use permit to change a local public facility use from an Administration and Operations Center to an Equipment and Materials Center within the RM -1.5 zone is GRANTED, subject to conditions. SUMMARY OF RECORD Request: Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Applicant) is a local public facility that operates an Administration and Operations Center at 23725 Edmonds Way SW. The Applicant requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to change the use of the subject property into an Equipment and Materials Center. Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner viewed the site and conducted an open record hearing on the request on June 5, 2008. Test._ imony: At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Kathleen Taylor, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Carni Anderson, Shockey Brent, representing the Applicant 3. Robert Eberhart, P.E., Olympic View Water & Sewer District, representing the Applicant 4. Nicole Price, Landscape Architect, Nakano Associates, representing the Applicant 5. Alvin Rutledge Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report dated May 28, 2008 2. Zoning and Vicinity Map 3. Land Use Application filed January 17, 2008 Findings,. Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic idem Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU -2008-3 page 1 of 8 • Incorporated August II, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan .4. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Criteria Statement 5.. Environmental Checklist, with Appendix A (Legal Description) and Appendix B (Traffic Impact Analysis) 6. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance published April 28, 2008 7. Letter from Carni Anderson to Kathleen Taylor dated May 15, 2008 (Re: SEPA Compliance) and Letter from Jon Brown to Roger Eberhart dated April 30, 2008 (Re: Equipment and Materials Center) 8. Comment email from Tony Shapiro dated March 5, 2008 9. Comment email from Jeanie McConnell, City of Edmonds Engineering Department dated February 28, 2008 10. Notice of Application and Notice of Hearing Examiner Hearing documents, with notice affidavits 11. Plan set received January 17, 2008 (Cover Sheet, Site Development Plan, Topographic Survey, TESL and Demolition Plan) 12. Request for Comment Forms from Parks Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department 13. Applicant's exhibits submitted in response to Planning Division Report & Recommendation (cover sheet, photo key plan, 11 photos, fence detail, and elevation drawings "A" and "B") Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS i . The Applicant is a local public facility that operates an Administration and Operations Center at 23725 Edmonds Way SW (subject property). The Applicant requested a CUP to change the use of the subject property into an Equipment and. Materials Center. Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Exhibits 3 and 4. 2. The subject property is zoned RM -1.5 (Multiple Residential — minimum lot area 1,500 square feet). Exhibit 2. One of the purposes of the RM zone is "to provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses." ECDC 16 30.000(14). "Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan" are allowed in the RM zone with approval of a CUP, provided that the use is consistent with the standards of ECDC 17.100.050. ECDC 16.30.010(C). ' ECDC 17.100.050 contains the following standards that are applicable to the proposed Equipment and Materials Center: B. General — Parking Requirements. 1. Local public- facilities shall meet any applicable minimum parking requirements set forth in ECDC 17.50.030(C).... 2. All on-site parking lots shall be screened from adjacent residential properties in accordance with ECDC 20.13.025 and any additional conditions or requirements imposed pursuant to ADB review as required by Chapter 20.10 ECDC. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU -2008-3 page 2 of 8 "Storage and associated maintenance buildings and yards" are local public facility uses. ECDC 21.55.070. The proposed Equipment and Materials Center is not included in the City of Edmonds Capital Improvement Plan and therefore requires CUP approval in the RM -1.5 zone. Exhibit 1, page 5. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is "Edmonds Way Corridor." Exhibit 1, page 4. The Comprehensive Plan contains goals for development within the Edmonds Way Corridor, including the following: F.1: Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. F.3: Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR -104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner... F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods.... Exhibit 1, page 4; Exhibit 4, page 3; 2006 Comprehensive Plan, page 59. 4. The subject property is a 0.81 -acre parcel that is developed with two structures. The Applicant proposes to demolish the smaller of the two structures, a 1,426 -square -foot building used as office space; and retain the larger of the two structures, a 7,600 -square - foot building used for vehicle and equipment storage. Exhibit 4, pages 1-2; Exhibit 11, Topographic Survey and Site Development Plan. 5. As part of the current Administration and Operations Center use, the Applicant stores all of its vehicles on the subject property and dispatches work crews from the subject property. There are 12 employees on site. The Applicant proposes to move the Administrative and Operations Center (including the staff and most of the vehicles) to a new site located on 228"' Street SW. For the Equipment and Materials Center, the Applicant would store its less -frequently used vehicles in the existing vehicle and equipment storage building; store materials such as piping, valves, and trench boxes in an outdoor storage yard; and store soil materials such as gravel, spoil dirt, washed rock, asphalt, broken paving, and green yard waste in outdoor soil bins. The Applicant also proposes to place two Vactor truck decant stations on the site. The soil bins and the Vactor stations would have six -foot -tall concrete walls to provide screening from the C. General — Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and directed so as the direct the light away from adjacent residential uses. D. General — Screening. Electrical substations, water/sewer pump stations, maintenance and storage yards shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties with a solid wall or sight -obscuring fence not less than six feet in height. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU. -2008-3 page 3 of 8 street and adjacent land uses. Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 11; Testimony of Mr. Eberhart. 6. Surrounding land uses are multi -family residential, except for an orthodontic office to the northwest of the subject property and a single-family residence to the northeast of the subject property. Exhibit 1, pages 3-4; Exhibit 2; Testimony of Ms. Taylor. 7. The subject property is accessed via two driveways off Edmonds Way (SR -104): Edmonds Way is a Class 4 managed access facility with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. The existing access points to do not satisfy. Class 4 design standards, which limit access points to one per owner, and require minimum access point spacing of 250 feet. Exiting the site is dangerous with the current access configuration. The Applicant proposes to replace the two driveways with a single driveway located as far north along the subject property frontage as possible, approximately 245 north of 238' Street SW. The new access location would improve intersection spacing along Edmonds Way and reduce the risk of vehicle conflict. It would also satisfy applicable sight distance standards. Exhibit 5 (Checklist and TIA); Exhibit 7 (Brown Letter); Exhibit 9; Exhibit 11; Testimony of Ms. Taylor. 8. The proposed use would generate less vehicle trips than the existing Administration and Operations Center. Based on a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by a traffic engineer, the average daily traffic to and from the site is expected.to decrease by approximately 16 trips per day, and the PM peak hour traffic is expected to decrease by two trips per day. Exhibit 5 (TIA). 9. The Equipment and Materials Center would not be manned; instead, employees would travel to the site intermittently'to exchange or drop off/pick up vehicles. The parking requirement applicable to maintenance yards for local public facilities is one parking space per two employees (ECDC 17.5 0.020 (C) (10)). Although no parking is required for the use based on this calculation, the Applicant proposes,four parking stalls. Exhibit 1, page 6; Exhibit 11. 10. The proposed outdoor storage area would be in the southern portion of the subject property. Views from the north (a residential use) would be screened by the existing vehicle and equipment storage building and an existing ten -foot -tall photinia hedge. The photinia hedge provides a solid screen. Views from the east (a residential use) would be screened by an existing retaining wall and fence, and existing evergreen and deciduous trees. The wall is at least eight feet tall, and the fence (located on top of the wall) is four feet tall. The City planner submitted that the existing fencing and vegetation along the northern and eastern property lines would adequately screen the use from adjacent residential uses consistent with ECDC 17.100.050(D). Views from the west (a non- residential use) would be screened by an existing chain link fence with privacy slats, and a wood fence and buffer of trees and shrubs located behind the chain link fence. The Applicant proposes new fencing and landscaping along the subject property's Edmonds Way frontage, and new landscaping along the northwest property line. For the northern Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU -2008-3 page 4 of 8 portion of the property frontage, views from Edmonds Way would be screened by a six- foot -tall chainlink fence with vinyl slats (the result would be sight -obscuring) and a planting bed containing large deciduous trees (katsura), large evergreen shrubs (myrtle), small evergreen shrubs (barberry, cotoneaster, and viburnum), and groundcover. For the southern portion of the property frontage, views from Edmonds Way would be screened- by creenedby a six -foot -tall wall (the back of the soil bins) and a planting bed. Exhibit 13; Testimony of Ms. Price; Testimony of Ms. Taylor. 11, The City has not reviewed the proposed landscape plan for compliance with the landscaping standards of ECDC 20.13 because the project still requires design review. Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010(A), the Architectural Design Board "shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy. Act." Z Testimony of Ms. Taylor. 12. The Applicant does propose any new exterior lighting. Testimony of Ms. Anderson. 13. Public comment on the application related to traffic safety. The witness requested that the Applicant be required to keep records of vehicle trips to provide information in the event of an accident. Testimony of Mr. Rutledge. The Applicant objected to this request. Testimony of Ms. Anderson. 14. Olympic View Water and Sewer District acted as lead agency for review of the environmental impacts of the proposal, and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on April 28, 2008. The MDNS contains two conditions addressing grading/filling and access. The access condition requires replacement of the two access points with a single access point. The MDNS was not appealed. Exhibits 6 and 7. 15. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to properties within 300 feet of the site on May 21, 2008, posted on site on May 22, 2008, and published in The Herald. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 10. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide CUP requests pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010.A.3 and 20.05.010. Criteria for Review: Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010, the Hearing Examiner may not approve a CUP unless the following findings can be made: A. That the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan; 2 A threshold determination was issued in this case. Exhibit 6. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU -2008-3 page 5 of 8 B. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance; C. 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; and D. Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether 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 may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County 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. Conclusions Based on Finding: 1. With conditions of approval, the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The use is designed to minimize traffic, and will eliminate an access point onto SR - 104. The conditions of approval require the Applicant to complete the design review process.3 Findings 3, 7, 8, and 11. 2. With conditions of approval, the proposed use in the proposed location is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the RM zoning district, and will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. The use complies with the standards for local public facilities set forth in ECDC 17.100.050, which are designed to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The proposed parking will be adequate for the use. The existing and proposed fencing and landscaping will adequately screen the use from adjacent residential properties. No new exterior lighting is proposed. The conditions of approval require the Applicant to complete the design review process. Findings 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12. 3. As conditioned, the use will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements. The use will result in fewer vehicle trips entering and exiting the site, and the Applicant proposes access improvements to ensure that the remaining trips can enter and exit the site safely. For these reasons a special record-keeping requirement is not warranted. The existing and proposed landscaping will screen the storage yard from adjoining land uses and from Edmonds Way. Findings 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 14, 3 ECDC 20.11.010 requires design review to occur prior to the Hearing Examiner hearing for those projects subject to Hearing Examiner review. It is not clear why the prescribed process was not used in this case. Although normally the Architectural Design Board (ADB) makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, in this case it appears that the ADB will be making a final decision that is appealable to City Council (ECDC 20.11.040(B)). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU -2008-3 page 6 of 8 4. Because approval of the use is based on the Applicant's identity as a local public facility, the CUP shall be personal to the Applicant, and not transferable to future users of the property. Findings I and 2. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a conditional use permit to change a local public facility use from an Administration and Operations Center to an Equipment and Materials Center at 23725 Edmonds Way is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall obtain Architectural Design Board approval of the landscape plan, the fence detail, and the exterior elevation views. The Landscaping Plan dated October 2007 (Exhibit 11) shall represent the minimum. landscaping required for this development (i.e., the Applicant may not seek ADB approval of a substantially lesser width or density of new plantings). 2. The facilities shall be screened on all sides by a minimum six -foot -tall solid wall or sight - obscuring fence. The use of existing fences/walls/hedges along the northwest, north, and east property boundaries as depicted on the Landscape Plan dated October 2007 (Exhibit 11) is acceptable. 3. The owner shall act on this conditional use permit within one year from the date of approval or the conditional use permit shall expire and become null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the City approves the application. Only one one-year time extension is available. For this conditional use permit, filing a complete application for a subsequent review step (such as Architectural Design Board review) shall constitute sufficient action for vesting the permit. 4. This conditional use permit shall be personal to the Olympic View Water and Sewer District and shall not be transferable to future users of the property. DECIDED this 10 day of June 2008. Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: LeAnna C. Toweill Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU -2008-3 page 7 of 8 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and appeals. An_y_person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial 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 must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be fled with the Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee. TIME LINIITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for fling an appeal is stopped until a� decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is fled on day five of the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05,020(C) of the ECDC states: "Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building permit 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." NOTICE TO 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 Assessors Office. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Olympic View Water & Sewer District CUP, No. CU. -2008-3 page 8 of 8 CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 88020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER C. 1S9" In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. CU -2008-3 Olympic View Water and Sewer District ) DECLARATION OF SERVICE For a Conditional Use Permit ) DECLARATION I, LeAnna C. Toweill, the undersigned, do hereby declare: 1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity; 2. That I am now and at all.times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Idaho, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; 3. That on June 190.200$,j did serve a copy of the decision in case CU -2008-3 upon the following individuals at the addresses stated and in the manner indicated: 1. Roger Eberhart Olympic View Water & Sewer District 23725 Edmonds Way SW Edmonds, WA 98026 2. Laura Brent/Cami Anderson Shockey Brent 2716 Colby Avenue Everett, WA 98201 3. City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. Attn: Diane Cunningham 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 4, Edmonds City Council 121 5th Avenue Nortji - 1St Floor Edtrionds,' WA 98.020 _ _ . 5. Jon Brown. 8912 -238th Street SW Edmonds,'WA 98026. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City Hekinan, Japan 6. Tony Shapiro A.D. Shapiro Architects 624 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 7. Alvin Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way Edmonds, WA 98026 8. Nicole Price Nakano Associates 2300 Seventh Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Service v�= made to each party above by: ❑ By facsimile transmission. ❑ / By electronic transmission (e-mail). �Y By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US I" Class Mail. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing is true and correct: DATED THIS _ L = A\ day of , 2008 at Boise, Idaho. LeAnna C. Toweill Toweill Rice Taylor LLC Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington.