Decision.pdf.cnc. 1 S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of )
Premera Blue Cross )
For a Conditional Use Permit and }
Consolidated Design Review }
NO. CU -08-063
ADB -08-068
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a conditional use permit (CUP) and consolidated design review to allow
development of a temporary parking lot in the General Commercial zone at 23320 Highway 99
in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Premera (Applicant) requested a CUP and consolidated design review to allow development of a
temporary parking lot at 23320 Highway 99 in Edmonds.
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on
April 2, 2009, after conducting a site visit.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina. Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Cindy Stevens, Applicant Representative
3. Mary Jezierski
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted in the record:
1. Planning Division Staff Report, dated March 24, 2009, with the following attachments:
1. Zoning and vicinity map
2. Aerial photo map
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp. Parking Lot, No. CII-08-63ISDB-08-68 page I of 10
• Incorporated August 1I, 1890 °
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
3. Land use application and authorization letter
4. Applicant's criteria statement
S. Applicant's supplemental information letter
b. Applicant's "site plan"
7. Lighting specifications
8. SEPA documents
9. Technical review comments
40. Public notices
2. Staff PowerPoint presentation
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested a requested a CUP and consolidated design review to allow
development of a temporary commercial parking lot in the General Commercial zone at
23320 Highway 99 in Edmonds.' Community Health Center of Snohomish County owns
the vacant site. Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit 1, Attachment 3, Application.
2. Premera Blue Cross is in the process of building a new parking garage at the Premera
campus, located 1.3 miles from the subject property at 6909 — 220 ' Street SW in
Mountlake Terrace. The construction project will temporarily displace employee
parking. The Applicant requests a conditional use permit to operate a temporary parking
lot at the subject property. Employees would be shuttled to the Premera Campus by the
Applicant's existing shuttle fleet, which would run between the subject property and the
Premera campus during business hours. The parking lot would be used by Premera
employees only. Exhibit 1, page 1; Testimony of Ms. Stevens, Exhibit 1, Attachment 4-
3, The 2.34 -acre subject property is located on Highway 99 and borders unineorporated
Snohomish County to the north. The site is relatively flat, sloping gently upwards from
east to west. No critical areas have been identified on-site, and the property is not located
with the shoreline jurisdiction of any water of statewide significance. There is existing
vegetation around the perimeter of the site, which is sparse along portions of the north
boundary. The site is partially paved and some areas of it still have striping from a
previous parking use. Surrounding development includes a mix of retail and residential
uses, including a tire store to the north and a condominium development to the west.
located within a Multiple Residential (RM -1.5) zone. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1,
Attachment 6; Site Visit.
1 The subject property is known as Tax Parcel Numbers 00-5767-000-020-03 and 00-5767-000-21-04. Exhibit 1,
Attachment 3.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp. Parking Loi No. CU ..118-b31SD1- D8 -b8
page 2of10
4. The application was submitted on October 6, 2008 and deemed complete on the same
.day. Exhibit], Attachment 10..
5. The. proposal includes removal of any existing vegetation within the proposed
development limits (depicted in Exhibit 1, Attachment b) and development of 1.20 to 140
parking stalls for the exclusive use of Premera employees. No structures are proposed.
Access would be from the site's two access points on Highway 99. There are two
existing light poles along the Highway 99 frontage. The Applicant proposes to install
five new light poles in the center and rear of the site. The perimeter of the site is
vegetated to varying degrees with trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. Exhibit 1,
Attachment 6, Testimony of Ms. Stevens, Exhibit 1, Attachment 4; Exhibit 1, page 4.
6. The City's Technical Committee, comprised of the Engineering and Building Divisions
and the Fire, Parks and recreation, and Public Warks Departments, reviewed the
proposal. The Public Works Department submitted comments indicating that the
temporary use must comply with applicable stormwater design standards. The. City's
Engineering Division noted that installation/use of an oil/water separator would be
reviewed at the time of building permit review. The City Building Division submitted
comments including, among others, the following:
2006 International Building Code with State amendments controls (including
accessibility requirements)
• Accessible spaces must have hard paved surfaces and be shown on the final
parking plan with accessible routes and signage
• Cross walks must be provided where accessible routes cross vehicle travel lanes
• An exterior lighting budget must be prepared
.Exhibit 1, page 4; Exhibit 1, Attachment 9, Testimony ofMs Coccia.
7. The subject property has a General Commercial (CG) zoning designation. Temporary
parking lots are allowed by CLIP approval in all commercial. zones. Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC)17.50.090. The five new light poles are the only new
structures proposed. The CG zone requires no side or rear setbacks and a street setback
of four feet. Maximum permitted height is 60 feet. ECDC 16.60.020. As depicted on
the site plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment 6), the pole locations satisfy setback requirements of
the CG zone. An approximate pole height of 25 feet was mentioned at hearing, but in no
case would the proposed light poles exceed 60 feet in height. Exact pole height would be
determined at building permit review. The exact number and layout of parking stalls
would be determined during civil engineering review after preliminary approval. Exhibit
1, pages 5-6, Exhibit 1, Attachment 6; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
S. The CG zone requires administrative (Planning Division Stasi) design review for projects
that remain under the height limit in the zone (as opposed to architectural design board
review). Because the new light poles would be well under the height limit, Staff
reviewed the project for compliance with design guidelines_ Exhibit 2, page 2. The CG
zone is considered a special design review district, and "District Based" design review is
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-63/SDB-08-68.
page 3 of 10
required. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.030.B.2, the proposal must satisfy the bulk and use
requirements of the underlying zoning district and must satisfy the applicable district
specific design objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff identified the
following design objectives as applicable to the instant project: vehicular access; layout
of parking; pedestrian connections off-site; weather protection; signage; lighting; site
Utilities/trash/mechanical; and landscape buffers. Exhibit 1, pages 4-5, 7 Testimony of
Ms. Caccia.
9. Employees and Premera shuttle busses would access the site via Highway 99, which is
classified as a "Principle Arterial". The project would not generate new traffic; the
proposed use would temporarily relocate existing traffic from the Premera campus 1.3
miles away. Traffic volumes to the site are not anticipated to adversely impact
surrounding uses. The City Engineering Division did not require a traffic impact
analysis. Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
10. The proposed 120 to 140 parking stalls would be laid out within the project limits, which
are conceptually depicted in the site plan at Exhibit 1, Attachment 6. Compliance of
individual stalls with applicable local and state standards (dimensions, surfacing,
accessibility, internal vehicle access, etc.) would be reviewed and ensured at time of
building permit. Exhibit 1, page 4, Exhibit 1, Attachment 9; Testimony of Ms Coccia.
11. There is an existing sidewalk along the Highway 99 frontage. No other streets abut the
site. Exhibit 1, Attachment 6; Exhibit 1, page 4.-
12. No weather protection is proposed. Exhibit 1, page S.
13. The Applicant indicated that eventually they would like to post low entry signs at the two
site entrances from Highway 99 to indicate that the lot is not open for general public
parking and to identify the site. As of the date of the public hearing, no application for
sign permit had been submitted. Any future sign must be reviewed for compliance with
the freestanding sign standards at ECDC.20.60.045 and receive permit approval prior to
installation. Exhibit 1, page 4, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
14. The two existing and five new light pole locations are depicted in the site plan. Pursuant
to ECDC 15.60.030.0.3, lights in the. CG zone must be shielded away firom other
properties. The Applicant submitted potential manufacturer light specifications showing
types of cut-off luminaries that may be used. Lighting would be reviewed at time of
building permit. Exhibit 1, page S; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
15. No amenities for utilities, trash, storage, or mechanical equipment were proposed by the
Applicant. Staff did not recommend any alternations to the proposal in this regard
Exhibit 1, page 5. The Snohomish County PUD submitted comments indicating that
while the utility has sufficient capacity to provide electricity to the site, existing PUD
facilities in the vicinity may require upgrading in order to serve the project.. Exhibit 1,
Attachment 8.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner
Premera Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-631SM-08-68
Page 4 of 10
16. The majority of the perimeter of the site is vegetated. The Highway 99 frontage contains
a landscape strip with at least one mature tree, shrubs, ground cover, and some bare areas.
The south lot line has dense herbaceous and low shrub vegetation, as well as some mature
trees south of and adjacent to the project limits. Along the eastern lot line, there are trees,
shrubs and ground cover. The western third of the north lot line contains similar trees,
shrubs, and ground cover, while its eastern two-thirds are largely bare. The Applicant
proposes to add plantings along the Highway 99 frontage in accordance with Type IV
landscaping. Along the remaining property lines, the Applicant proposes weed removal
and retention of existing landscaping. Exhibit 1, Attachment 6; Exhibit 1, Attachment 4;
Exhibit 1, page 6.
17. The design review objective for landscape buffers is to reduce the harsh visual impact of
parking lots and cars, Pursuant to ECDC 20,13:420.C, existing vegetation that
contributes to the attractiveness of the site should be retained. ECDC 16.60.030.A.2.a
requires Type IV landscape buffers four feet wide to screen parking lots from adjacent
streets. Staff s design review analysis contained the recommendation that, due to the
temporary nature of the proposed use, the Applicant be required to "spruce up" the
existing landscape strip along the eastern boundary with low native bushes and ground
cover and recommended street trees not be required. Exhibit 1, page 6; Testimony of Ms.
Coccia.
18. The site's western boundary abuts residential zoning and development. Typically, a Type
I landscaped buffer 10 feet wide providing a dense sight barrier would be required to
screen a commercial use from adjacent residential. development. ECDC 16.60: 030.A. If
Currently, there is an existing six-foot sight -obscuring fence on the -adjacent residential.
property. The Applicant proposes to retain a minimum ten -foot wide strip of existing
vegetation along the shared boundary. Staff recommended that the Applicant not be
required to plant new sight -obscuring vegetation. Staff based this recommendation on
the following: that there is already.a solid :fence, that the parking lot is not going to be
permanent, that the existing vegetation contains some mature trees, and that a 60 -foot
high commercial structure could be approved on-site setback ten feet from the lot line..
Exhibit 1, page 6, Exhibit 1, Attachments 2 :and 6; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
19. A Type III landscaping buffer would be required along the north and south lot lines,
adjacent to other commercial development, three feet wide and continuous along the
length of the shared boundary. Staff recommended that this requirement could be
satisfied by retention of -a three-foot wide swath of the existing vegetation along both
boundaries. The eastern portion of the north lot line contains significant areas of bare soil
along the northern property line. Staff testified at hearing that low native ground cover
plantings could satisfy the Type III landscape buffer requirement along the north lot line,
if additional. landscaping were required. Exhibit 1, page 6, Attachment 6; Testimony of
Ms. Coccia.
20. Staff recommended design review approval. Exhibit 1, page 9, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
Findings, Conclusions, and .Deecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp, Parking LcP4 No. CU-M-63/SDB-" page 5 of 10
21. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property is "Corridor Development'
City Planning Staff identified the following Comprehensive. Plan goals of commercial
development as applicable to thecurrent proposal.:
B.4. The design and location of all commercial sites should provide for
convenient and safe access for customers, employees, and suppliers.
B.5. All commercial developments should be carefully located and
designed to eliminate the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and
other related problems on surrounding land uses.
2-008 Comprehensive Plan, pages 5556.
22. The Applicant anticipates that the proposed temporary parking use would be needed for a
period of one to two years, until constuction of the parking facility on the Premera
Campus is completed. After that, the site would revert to a vacant parcel until it is
eventually developed. With permanent development, full landscaping would be required.
Exhibit 1, page 5; Exhibit 1, Attachments 4 and 5; Testimony of Ms Coccica.
23. As proposed, the Applicant's in-house contractor would provide shuttle service to and
from the parking lot to the Premera. campus Monday through Friday during business
hours. The Applicant maintains contracts with landscaping vendors who would design,
install,. and maintain the required landscaping for the life of the temporary use. Exhibit 1,
Attachment 5; Testimony ofMs . Stevens.
24. Temporary parking lots are limited to a one-year approval, with a possible one-year
extension to be administratively reviewed. and decided based on submission of a written.
application stating the reasons for the extension request prior to expiration of the
additional permit. LCDC 17 50.090A.1 _ Temporary parking lots are restricted toa.
maximum of four years in operation. ECDC 17.50.090.A.2.
25. In its current condition, site runoff sheet flows to one of two existing on-site catch basins
from which it is conveyed into the City of Edmonds storm .drains. The Applicant .
proposed installation of oil/water separators between each catch basin and the public
drains in order to ensure there would be no water quality impacts from the temporary
parking use. Exhibit 1, Attachment 4. The Engineering Division noted that oil/water
separators would be reviewed at time of building permit review. Exhibit 1, Attachment 9.
26. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City of Edmonds was
designated as lead agency for the review of probable, significant, adverse environmental
impacts of the proposal. After reviewing an environmental checklist and the complete
application materials, the City's Responsible Official determined that compliance with
existing development regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and other local, state, and
federal regulations would ensure no probable, significant, adverse environmental impacts
would result from the project. The City issued a determination of non -significance
(DNS) on January 8, 2009, witha. 14 -day -comment period. No comments or appeals
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-63ISDB-08-68
page 6 of 10
were filed and the DNS became final on January 22, 2009. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1,
Attachment 8; Testimony of Ms Coccia.
27. Notice of public hearing was published, posted, and mailed on March 19, 2009. No
written public comments were received. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit], Attachment 10;
Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
28. At the public hearing, one resident in the neighboring condominium project expressed
concern .about impacts to views and to privacy at the adjacent multifamily residential
condominium development. Of particular concern was the proximity of the proposed
parking to the development's swimming pool, which is adjacent to the shared lot line at
the southwest corer of the site. Testimony of Ills Jeziershi.
29. In response to neighbor concerns, the Applicant representative stated that the Applicant
intends to be a good but brief neighbor, that the vegetation along the shared lot line
would be professionally maintained, and that they would comply with all conditions of
permit approval..Staff noted that the existing ,sight -obscuring fence, the retention of the
existing vegetation, and the temporary nature of the use would all help to mitigate any
visual or privacy impacts. Staff further noted that a 50400t tall commercial budding
could be built neat to the shared lot line without conditional use approval. Lights would
be clown -shielded or otherwise preventedfrom glaring to offsite to the west. Testimony
of Ms. Coccia.
30. Staff recommended that approval not be allowed to transfer to subsequent parties, as only
the temporary use of the Applicant has been reviewed for compliance with code
requirements. Exhibit 1, page 8; Testimony of Ms Coccia.
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. Design Review approval may be consolidated with other land
use permits heard and decided by the Examiner pursuant to ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2).
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;
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;
Findings, Conclusions, and .Decision
City of &nonds Nearing Exanimr
Preanera Temp. Parking ,Lot Na Cu-08-63/8DB-08-68
page Tof 10
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 shah run with the land or shall be personal..
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed temporary parking lot would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. No new structures are proposed. The project would not generate
additional traffic, but would reroute existing traffic within the neighborhood. No adverse
traffic impacts are anticipated. Fint Ings :Nos. S, b, 9, and 2L
2. Temporary parking lots are allowed in the General Commercial zone. No structures are
proposed_ Heights of the five new light poles and design of the parking spaces would. be
reviewed for compliance with City design standards at the time of civil engineering at
building permit review. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the Examiner is grantednuthority
to interpret and modify landscaping requirements as they relate to any given site design
subject to examiner review. Staffs recommendation that the Applicant not be required to
install sight -obscuring vegetation along the western lot line is adopted. While the
neighbors have enjoyed the privacy afforded by the vacancy on the adjacent lot, their
property abuts commercial zoning and a full spectrum of commercial uses can developed
on the subject property without conditional use review. The existing sight -obscuring
fence and existing vegetation along the shared lot line; coupled with the temporary
duration of the proposed use, render compliance with fall Type I (sight -obscuring)
landscaping standards unduly burdensome. Any trees planted would likely not reach
sufficient height to provide screening prior to cessation of the temporary parking lot use,
and shrubs or lower plantings would not add .any sight -obscuring value. Similarly, given
the vacant lot to the south and the fact that the north lot line abuts the rear wall of a retail
tire establishment, Staff s recommendation to allow retention of existing vegetation in
three-foot wide north and south buffers is adopted No additional plantings in the north
and south buffers are required. Conditions of approval would ensure that the four -foot -
wide landscape. buffer along Highway 99 is planted with additional native low shrubs :and
ground cover; no trees are required. With conditions, landscaping appropriate to the
temporary parking use would be assured. Findings Nos S, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.
3. With conditions, the temporary use of the site as a parking lot for employees of the
Premera Campus would not result in any detriment to the public -health, safety, or
welfare. The project would not increase vehicle or pedestrian traffic in the area. Existing
healthy vegetation around the entire site.perimeter would be retained in landscaped
buffers, and the landscaped buffer on Highway 99 would be enhanced with new low
shrubs and groundcover. Existing drainage flows would not be altered, except for the
potential addition of oil/water separators to provide treatment for site runoff prior to its
conveyance: to the public stormdrains_ The temporary parking lot would be approved for
Findings, Conclus#ons, and Recision
City of Edmonds Dearing Examiner
Premera .Temp. Parking.Lot, .Alb. CU—M-63IMB-08=68
Pa B 10
one year; the Applicant would have to apply for an extension for any operation of the use
beyond that period. At the time such an extension is requested, impacts would again be
reviewed. The Technical Committee submitted no adverse comments on the project.
The proposal was reviewed for -compliance with the requirements of SEPA and a DIES
was issued. The Applicant would be required to obtain approval of all necessary permits,
including but not limited. to grading and building permits, and review at the time of those
permits would ensure compliance with the City's technical and engineering standards.
Findings Nos..5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 29
4. Applicable design review requirements are enumerated in Finding number 8. Staffs
recommendation for design review approval is adopted. As conditioned, appropriate
provisions have been made for vehicular access, parking layout, pedestrian connections,
weather protection, lighting, signage, utilities, trash, and landscaped buffers: Findings
Nos. 8,9,10,11;12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,and 20.
5.. Conditional use approval isnot transferable.
DECLSIUN
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the requested CUP and consolidated design
review to allow development of a temporary parking lot in the General Commercial zone at
23,320 Highway 99 in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions.
1. A Iandscaping plan shall be required with the building permit, which will show the
existing landscaping to be. retained as well as the size, type, spacing, quantity and
location of proposed new plantings.
2. The existing landscaping along the west property line shall be retained and shall be a
minimum of 10 feet in width in order to maintain screening from the adjacent Multiple
Residential {ice zone.
3. The existing landscape bed along the east property line shall be maintained and be
supplemented by the addition of low (native) drought tolerant bushes and ground cover.
This street frontage landscaping shall be a maximurn of three feet in height, a minimum
of four feet .in width, and ,continuous in length except at ingressfegress points.
4. The existing landscaping along the north and south property lines shall be retained in a
buffer a minimum of three feet in width and continuous in length in order to provide a
buffer between properties in the same zone. JNote. no additional plantings along the
north and south property lines are required.]
5. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all on-site vegetation in healthy, tidy
manner for the life of the project. Likewise, the parking lot shall be maintained in a safe,
well lit, .and clean state for the life of the .use.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp. Parking Lot, No CU-08-631SDB-08-68
page 9 of 10
6. New lighting details shall be reviewed with building permit application for the parking
lot paving/striping. The Applicant shall utilize light fixtures consistent with the
requirements at ECDC 16.60.030.C.3.c.
DECIDED this 16'fi day of April 2009.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds hearing Examiners
By:
SI
• '
FIRM,
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Premera Temp_ Parking Lot, No. CU 08-G3/SDB-08-68
page 10 of 10
`nc 18q�
CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Anyyerson wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should
contact the .PlanniLag Division of the Development Services D, g"rtg1ent for further procedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.0W(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 tea (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 ofthe 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 filed 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 LIMITS 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 filing an appeal is stepped 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 filed 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 abuilding 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 tune 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.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
1"?c.189v
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Applicant )
Premera Blue Cross )
For a Conditional Use Permit and )
Design Review Approval _.._
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case Nos. CU-08-63/ADB-08-68
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
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; and that I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a
citizen of the United States, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and
competent to be a witness and make service herein; and that on .April 15, 2009.1 served a copy of the
decision in case CLT- 08-b31ADB-08-68 upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class
US Mail:
Kenneth M. Green, CHC Executive Dir. City of Edmonds Planning Division
PO Box 1.3060 121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Everett, WA 98206 Edmonds, WA 98020
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth. Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Gerry Riddle, Premera Blue Cross
PO .Box 3048
Spokane, WA 99202
Scott Rivas, DCI Engineers.
601 W. Riverside, Ste_600
Spokane, WA 99201.
Tom Jeffers, Edmonds Landscaping Inc.
22319 --- 7e Avenue W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
C/O Planning. Division: Doug Mitchell, AIA, LEED-AP
City of Edmonds Engineering Dept. Madsen. Mitchell Evenson. & Conrad PLLC
City of Edmonds Public Works Dept. 216 North Howard, Skywalk Level
City of Edmonds Building (Department Spokane, WA 99201
Cindy Stevens Mary Jezierski
7001-22e St. SW 8021— 230 PL SW #203
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Edmonds, WA 98026
I hereby declare under penalty of.perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and
correct, this 15"` day of April 2009 at Edmonds, Washington.
Sharon A. Rice, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Incorporated August 1I, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan