Exhibit_7-SR+AttachmentsAB.pdf11) C. I SSM
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 . Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
Project: New Columbia Bank building with drive-through teller lanes
File Number: PLN20100053 (Conditional Use) & PLN20100054 (Design Review)
Date of Report: September 28, 2010
From: m pnw
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
Public Hearing: October 7, 2010 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
250-5 1h Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION:
In order to best understand the background of this project, one may wish to first review the staff
report to the ADB (Exhibit 1) including its attachments. Then, read through the draft ADB
minutes from the 09.15.2010 meeting (Exhibit 7 — Attachment A). The complete list of
"Exhibits " and "Attachments " to the Exhibits
is found on Page 7 of this staff report. This
staff report to the Hearing Examiner is
considered "Exhibit 7" as it is the 7`h Exhibit
entered into the record.
To summarize, there is a large vacant parcel
along Edmonds Way upon which Columbia
Bank proposes to locate a new single -story
branch building, complete with parking,
landscaping, and drive-through banking lanes.
The scope of work (grading, parking, and building area) triggered the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) so the Architectural Design Board (ADB) was required to review this project. The
drive-through banking lanes require a conditional use permit in the Community Business
Edmonds Way (BC -EW) zone. For consolidation, the ADB has made a recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner on the design of the project and the Hearing Examiner will decide on both the
design and use of the proposal. The public provided no oral testimony at the ADB meeting (as
no one from the public chose to attend the meeting), and to date we have only received one
public comment letter (Exhibit 1: Attachment 9). The following is staff's analysis on the project.
Exhibit 7
PLN20100053/PLN20100054
Columbia Bank
Conditional Use Permit
File No. PLN20100053/PLN20100054
Il. GENERAI, INFORMATION:
1. Owner: Columbia Bank.
2. Applicant: Dale Pinney of First Western Development Services, Inc.
3. Location: 96xx Edmonds Way (Exhibit 1: Attachment 1).
4. Tax Parcel Number: 00937900001000.
5. Zoning: Community Business Edmonds Way (BC -EW), subject to Chapter 16.50 ECDC.
6. Lot Size: 47,923 square feet / 1.10 Acres (lot 10 of the K. Elise plat).
7. Request: The applicant is seeking design approval and conditional use permit approval for a
new bank branch with associated drive-through teller lanes.
8. Review Process: The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional use permit
applications as Type III -B decisions as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. Design review is being
consolidated with the conditional use permit pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, so the ADB has
made a recommendation on the design to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will
decide on both the design and the use of the proposal.
9. Maior Issues:
a. Compliance with ECDC 16.50 Community Business Edmonds Way (BC -EW)
b. Compliance with ECDC 20.11 General Design Review
c. Compliance with ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
d. Compliance with ECDC 20.05 Conditional Use Permit Criteria
10. Existing Use: Commercially zoned vacant lot.
11. Proposed Use: New drive-through bank building with associated site improvements.
111. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION:
Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required and a determination of
non -significance (DNS) was issued by the City on August 27, 2010 (Exhibit 1: Attachment 5).
No appeals were received. Both the City and the Applicant have complied with the SEPA
requirements.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
A Notice of Application and Public Hearing was published in the Everett Herald Newspaper,
posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Development Services
Department and the Library. Notices were also mailed to owners within 300 feet of the site. The
City and applicant has complied with the noticing provisions in ECDC 20.03 (Exhibit 1:
Attachment 8 and Exhibit 7: Attachment B).
V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE:
The applications were reviewed and evaluated by Fire District #1, Engineering Division,
Building Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department.
Acknowledging that most of the review will be conducted during the building permit phase of
this project, there was one issue that arose and had since been addressed.
The Engineering Division noted that the driveway access on the west side of the development is
located partially on the property to the west, which would require an easement. The Applicant
explained at the ADB meeting that they were hopeful of securing an easement for access, and
Page 2 of 7
Columbia Bank
Conditional Use Permit
File No. PLN20100053/PLN20100054
offered Exhibit 3 into the record which illustrates how the project could be accomplished without
an easement. Both staff and the ADB affirmed that the "Proposed Site Plan `Alternate A"'
(Exhibit 3) does not significantly alter the design of the site should it need to be used.
Rich Lindsay in the Parks Department reviewed the street tree species for compliance with the
Street Tree Plan and will require the landscape plan to show the species "Chanticleer Pear"
which is very similar in color and shape to the species originally chosen by the Applicant, but has
no known problems and we have used this species in the past with great success.
VI. NATURAL, ENVIRONMENT:
1. Topop-raphy: Mostly flat with a very tall steep slope along the north of the site.
2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, this site
consists of "Pits" (map unit symbol 51).
3. Critical Areas: It was determined that there are critical areas on or adjacent to this property,
specifically a landslide hazard area subject to ECDC 23.40 (report requirements) and ECDC
23.80 (geologically hazardous areas). A geotechnical report to address the building's
location in relation to the slope, as well as grading, retaining walls, and landscaping
proposed may be required with the building permit.
4. Wildlife: None noted upon site visit.
5. Vegetation: The site is mostly bare, while the hill side is vegetated by brush and shrubs.
There are some trees along the NW and east sides of the site that are proposed to be retained.
6. Shoreline: It has been determined that this project is not within State Shoreline jurisdiction
because it is approximately 1.5 miles from the nearest shoreline.
VII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
This property is located in the Community Business Edmonds Way (BC -EW) zone. The
neighborhood surrounding the site consists of commercial development along Edmonds Way
with a single-family residential neighborhood to the north. There are drive-through uses in the
vicinity. Edmonds Way (SR -104) provides access to the site which is considered a "Principal
Arterial."
VIII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Edmonds Way Corridor. " Refer to Exhibit
1, Section G for a detailed analysis on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as
Exhibit 1: Attachment 7 for the Urban Design General Objectives that this site was reviewed
against.
The issue raised at the ADB meeting was related to keeping the natural topography of the site
intact with the large amount of grading proposed. The Applicant assured the ADB that the
grading figures were so large due to the overall size and slope of the site, and that the walls
proposed will be minimal. The Applicant demonstrated with visual aides where the retaining
walls will be located and expressed their desire to keep away from the slope as much as possible
while still meeting the development standards.
Both Staff and the ADB feel that the proposal is consistent with the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 3 of 7
Columbia Bank
Conditional Use Permit
File No. PLN20100053/PLN20100054
IX. PUBLIC CONCERNS:
To date, one public comment was received (Exhibit 1: Attachment 9) from James Martin. No
oral testimony from the public was provided at the ADB meeting (as no one from the public was
in attendance) and nobody from the public signed the "sign in" sheet. Copied from Exhibit 1:
James Martin: To summarize, Mr. Martin lives in the neighborhood three lots east of the
proposed development and has voiced several concerns with the project. He has traffic concerns
for Edmonds Way and land use concerns with the bank use. He wonders what the bank will
contribute to Edmonds and would like to see a better proposal at this location. He correctly
notes that there are several financial institutions along Edmonds Way as it travels down west
towards downtown and turns into 5`h Avenue.
Response: The land use of the project will be reviewed at the public hearing. The ADB will only
review the design of the project. Owners of real property may propose projects for review
against the current codes in place at the time of submittal. A bank is an allowed (permitted) use
of the site, however the drive through aspect requires special review through the conditional use
permitting process which is decided on by the Hearing Examiner. The traffic impact is reviewed
by the Engineering Division and appropriate traffic impact fees are assessed and required at the
time of business license submittal.
X. APPLICABLE CODES:
1. ECDC 16.50 — Community Business Edmonds Way (BC -EW)
A. Development standards were reviewed and analyzed in the staff report to the ADB
(Exhibit 1: Page 6).
B. Both staff and the ADB feel that the proposal is consistent with the BC -EW zoning and
site development standards, noting that this will be confirmed through the building
permit review.
2. ECDC 20.11 General Desisn Review
A. Since the project is located within the BC -EW zone and triggers the SEPA threshold, the
proposal is subject to general design review pursuant to ECDC 20.10.010.C. Design
review is being consolidated with the conditional use permit pursuant to ECDC
20.01.002.B, so staff has made a design recommendation to the ADB who have made a
design recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
B. Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, the ADB must find that the proposal is consistent with the
criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as meets the bulk
and use requirements of the zoning ordinance.
C. The ADB has found that, with conditions, the project is consistent with ECDC 20.11.
The draft ADB meeting minutes from September 15, 2010) are included for review
(Exhibit 7: Attachment A).
3. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping
A. Landscaping was reviewed and analyzed in the staff report to the ADB (Exhibit 1: Pages
8-9).
B. The ADB reviewed the landscaping and found it to be inconsistent with ECDC 20.13
(Exhibit 7: Attachment A). The ADB was concerned with the applicant's efforts to
preserve the scotch broom and Himalayan blackberries and, after a long discussion,
thoroughly redlined the originally submitted landscape plan to reflect their desires. The
ADB's redlined landscape plan is included as Exhibit 5. The ADB included in their
Page 4 of 7
Columbia Bank
Conditional Use Permit
File No. PLN20100053/PLN20100054
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner a condition that, "The Applicant will submit
an updated landscaping plan to staff prior to going to the Hearing Examiner that reflects
the Board's discussion and some of the direction shown on Exhibit S (the ADB's redline
landscaping plan). "
C. The Applicant quickly revised their landscape plan (Exhibit 6) and staff feels that it is
consistent with the ADB's discussion and condition.
D. Staff confirmed with the Parks Department that the chosen street tree shown in the
landscape plan is inconsistent with the Street Tree Plan. The required street tree is called
"Chanticleer Pear." ADB's "Condition 2" (Exhibit 7: Attachment A, Page 9) could be
amended to include this species. Alternatively, the Hearing Examiner could leave this
condition "as is" just incase the chosen species is not available for purchase at the time
of construction. This way, the Parks Department may be able to approve an alternate
species if problems arise.
E. ECDC 20.13.000 allows the Hearing Examiner to interpret and modify the requirements
of the landscaping requirements contained within ECDC 20.13.
F. Staff feels that the proposed landscaping in Exhibit 6 (except for the street tree species
shown along Edmonds Way) is generally consistent with the requirements of ECDC
20.13 and the City of Edmonds Street Tree Plan.
XI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
1. Pursuant to ECDC 16.50.010(C), the use maybe permitted if the proposal meets the criteria
for conditional uses found in ECDC 20.05.
2. Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010, no conditional use permit maybe approved unless all of the
following findings can be made:
A. That the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Refer to Section VIII of this report for a discussion on consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, as well as Exhibit 1: Attachment 7. The development was designed
to remain completely on the flat portion of the site with a few retaining walls needed
near the slope for stability and landscaping. Both the Comprehensive Plan and the
general design review chapter encourage projects that keep with the natural lay of the
land with minimum alterations to slopes. The Applicant provided testimony at the ADB
meeting that even though the grading figures were significant, that the project was
intruding minimally into the slope and that the retaining walls would be minimal (Exhibit
7: Attachment A, Pages 4-5 and 7-8). Staff feels that the proposal 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 zone district in which the use is
to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
Banks with drive-through tellers are a permitted use in the BC -EW zone if a conditional
use permit is first obtained. Refer to Section X.1 of this report for a discussion on how
the proposal meets the development standards of the BC -EW zone, as well as Exhibit 1:
Page 6. Staff has observed several drive-through buildings in this neighborhood. Staff
feels that the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the zoning ordinance (with
development standards, such as height, verified during building permit review).
Page 5 of 7
Columbia Bank
Conditional Use Permit
File No. PLN20100053/PLN20100054
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.
The site is quite wide (approximately 285 feet) and the Engineering Division has not
raised any issues with sight -distance. The topography of the site and the situation of the
drive-through lanes at the rear of the site behind the building make it so any noise from
the speakers should be shielded away from the residential neighborhood to the north at
the top of the slope. Also, the ADB recommended that the light fixtures be changed
(lowered) in height, which staff feels is more appropriate in scale to the site and to
nearby property. The proposed bank and drive-through teller do not appear to be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or to nearby property owners.
D. Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine wither 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 by
used by a subsequent user of the same property.
The applicant has requested that the conditional use be able to be transferred to future
property owners. The site is large and the queuing lanes and their location at the back of
the site feel appropriate for other future uses. Staff does not see any reason why the
permit should not be transferrable.
3. Staff feels the proposal is consistent with the conditional use criteria for approval listed in
ECDC 20.05.
XII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the
building permit application for development.
Based on the analysis within and the attachments included with this report, staff feels the
proposal is consistent with the conditional use criteria for approval listed in ECDC 20.05 and
design of the building and site are consistent with district based design review criteria and ECDC
20.11 and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and recommends that the Hearing Examiner
APPROVE both the conditional use (PLN20100053) and design review (PLN20100054) for the
Columbia Bank branch with the following conditions:
1. The landscape plan shall show the required street tree species "Chanticleer Pear" in
compliance with the Street Tree Plan. The street tree species shall be reviewed and
approved by the Parks Department for compliance with the Street Tree Plan.
2. Grading shall be minimized in the north portion of the site to the maximum extent
feasible and may be verified through a geotechnical report that is compliant with the
critical areas ordinance (ECDC Title 23) as well as ECDC 20.11.030.13.1 and the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed 25 -foot tall light poles shall be replaced with 20 -foot light poles.
4. This conditional use permit shall be transferable to subsequent property owners.
Page 6 of 7
Columbia Bank
Conditional Use Permit
File No. PLN20100053/PLN20100054
XIII. PARTIES OF RECORD:
1. Dale Pinney I First Western Development Services, Inc.
8129 Lake Ballinger Way — Suite 104, Edmonds WA 98026
2. Hugo VanderWaal ( Columbia Bank
521074 1h Street West, Tacoma WA 98499
3. James Martin
9514 2281h Street SW, Edmonds WA 98020
4. BZ I Zenczak & Partners
4545 South Union Avenue — Suite 200, Tacoma WA 98409
5. Jerry Isakson I Zenczak & Partners
4545 South Union Avenue — Suite 200, Tacoma WA 98409
XIV. EXHIBITS:
1. Staff report to the ADB with the following "Attachments":
Attachment 1—
Zoning and vicinity map
Attachment 2 —
Land use applicatio
Attachment 3
— Criteria statement
Attachment 4
— Plans and elevations
Attachment 5 —
SEPA DNS & Environmental Checklist
Attachment 6 —
ECDC 20.13 Landscaping requirements
Attachment 7—
Comprehensive Plan (Urban Design: General Objectives)
Attachment 8 —
Public notices
Attachment 9 —
Public comment letter: James Martin
2. Sign plan
3. Proposed site plan "Alternate A" (submitted at the 09.15.2010 ADB meeting)
4. Applicant's photos (submitted at the 09.15.2010 ADB meeting)
5. ADB's redlined landscape plan (created at the 09.15.20 10 ADB meeting)
6. Applicant's revised landscape plan (submitted via email 09.21.2010)
7. Staff report to the Hearing Examiner with the following "Attachments":
• Attachment A —Draft ADB meeting minutes (09.15.2010)
* Attachment B —Notice of public hearing
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 15, 2010
Chair Kendall called the September 15, 2010 meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:10 p.m., at the City
Council Chambers, 250 - 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present
Valerie Kendall, Chair Rick Schaefer, Vice Chair (excused) Gina Coccia, Planner
Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recorder
Steve Bullock
Bryan Gootee
Michael Mestres
Bruce O'Neill
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The September 1, 2010 minutes were modified to indicate that Board Member Broadway was excused.
BOARD MEMBER MESTRES MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 BE APPROVED
AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER GOOTEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER BULLOCK MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER MESTRES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
No one in the audience indicated a desire to provide comments during this portion of the meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA:
There were no items on the consent agenda.
MINOR PROJECTS:
File Number PLN20100053/PLN20100054: Columbia Bank. Concurrent design review and conditional use.
permit review of a new 4,000 square foot bank building with a drive-through window (Columbia Bank) at 96xx
Edmonds Way in the Community Business Edmonds Way (BC -EW) zone.
Attachment A
Draft ADB Meeting Minutes
Gina Coccia presented the Staff Report. She advised that the application is before the Board for a consolidated design
review and conditional use permit review of a proposed new single -story drive-through building for a Columbia Bank
Branch. She explained that a drive-through use requires a conditional use permit (PLN20100053) and because the scope
of work triggers review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design
Board is also required (PLN20100054). She noted that a Determination of Non -Significance was issued by the City on
August 27, 2010 and no appeals were received.
Ms. Coccia advised that the Engineering Division noted that the driveway access on the west side of the development is
located partially on the property to the west, which would require an easement. No easement has been obtained to date
and additional information is requested on this item. If easements have not or will not be obtained for access, the plans
will need to be significantly revised and this could affect the overall design of the project.
Ms. Coccia noted that a large amount of grading has been proposed, and it is not clear how this will affect the natural
topography of the site. She noted that Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are clear that property owners should
maintain the natural topography as much as feasible. She suggested the applicant address this issue as part of the
presentation
Ms. Coccia pointed out that no details were provided related to site utilities, storage, trash and mechanical other than the
footprint of a trash enclosure on the landscape plan. She said the applicant should provide additional information about
how the refirse area would be screened.
Ms. Coccia reviewed that the subject property is located at the bottom of a slope, and the residential neighborhood to the
north of the subject property is on top of the slope. It is her impression that the new development would be screened
fi•om view fi•om the residential neighborhood because of the slope height. She noted that the landscape code requires
landscaping for screening purposes, and the Board should discuss if additional landscaping is needed near the parking
area in order to meet this objective. The current plan indicates that some existing trees would remain, and this is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages the retention of healthy trees and landscaping.
Ms. Coccia advised that the proposed exterior lighting consists of several 25 -foot tall arm -mounted light poles, similar to
what can be observed at grocery store parking lots. The need for these tall light poles is not expressed in the application.
Staff recommends that the lighting be changed from unnecessarily massive 25 -foot poles down to low-rise lighting
compliant with ECDC 20.11.030.B.8, which states that exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and
security. It further states that excessive brightness should be avoided and the lighting should be compatible with the
overall theme. Since this is the only building on the site, the overall design theme is whatever is proposed by the
applicant.
Ms. Coccia referred the Board to the applicant's signage site plan (Exhibit 2), and said she briefly discussed with the
applicant how the City calculates sign area. In this instance, the applicant is proposing applied lettering on the east
elevation over the entry and on the entry elevation, as well. It appears there will only be two wall signs proposed, but the
applicant should clarify their sign plans. She advised that sign area is calculated based on the tinier length of the building
fayade that contains the primary entrance. If the linier length is 50 feet, then 50 square feet of signage would be allowed
on site. The sign design would be reviewed as part of the building permit, but the applicant would like the Board's
acceptance of the overall look of the wall signs proposed. She noted that no monument sign is being proposed.
Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions and attachments to the Staff Report, Ms. Coccia recommended the Board
recommend approval of the design of the Columbia Bank Building to the Hearing Examiner with the following
conditions:
1. Either an easement shall be obtained to allow access over the adjacent property to the west or the project will
need to be revised to meet code. If the revision is substantial, the project may need to go before the ADB once
more for review. The Board can talk about this condition more after the applicant's presentation. The purpose
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 2 of 10
of the condition is to prevent a situation where the applicant finds that an easement cannot be granted after the
design has been approved since this would require the applicant to redesign the project.
2. The street tree species shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department for compliance with the Street
Tree Plan. This condition is based on the fact that the trees shown on the landscape plan do not match with the
City's Street Tree Plan. The applicant will need to work with the Parks Department to identify an appropriate
street tree.
3. Additional "Type IT' landscaping shall be provided near the east property line in accordance with ECDC
20.13.030.
4. Additional landscaping in and around the parking lot shall be provided in accordance with ECDC 20.13.030.
5. Grading shall be minimized in north portion of the site to maximurrt extent feasible and verified through a
geotechnical report that is compliant with the Critical Areas Ordinance (ECDC 23) as well as ECDC
20.11.030. B.1 and the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Coccia explained that a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on the Conditional Use Permit is tentatively
scheduled for October 7"', and notice will be sent out next week. At this time, the Board should ask questions of the staff
and then allow the applicant to make a presentation. At the end of the meeting, the Board will make a recommendation
to the Hearing Examiner and staff will send a report to all parties of record before the Hearing Examiner hearing.
Board Member Bullock explained that the point of the Board's review is to send a recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner related to the design of the proposal. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code
for the BC -EW zone encourages joint access points. What the applicant is showing on the site plan is consistent with
both the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and what the code calls for as far as joint shared driveways. Therefore,
Condition 1 relates to an issue that would best be addressed by the Hearing Examiner. He did not feel it appropriate for
the Board to address the easement issue as part of their design review. Ms. Coccia said she would like the applicant to
explain how the overall design of the site would change if the easement is not obtained.
Dale Pinney, First Western Development Services, Inc., indicated he was present to represent the applicant. He
concurred with the Staff Report. He explained that he would provide a brief overview of the project and then address
each of the issues raised by staff. He advised that the site is located along the Edmonds Way Corridor next to the Quick
Clean Car Wash. It is a gravel site at this time, and their plan is to primarily operate on the lower level gravel area. They
will use the existing curb cuts for access, but the access would need to be improved. They are planning a full in/out
access on the east for the main parking area. They are also proposing an access on the north side of the site and that is
where the easement issue comes into play. He said it is important to note that the easement is not a requirement of the
project, but something they are doing as a future benefit of the site. The building would be constructed slightly above the
existing grade, and some minor grading would have to occur. They would take material fi-om the east and move it to the
west. Some type of retaining structure would be constructed at the back of the property. It would be about 8 feet tall at
its highest point and would taper off on each end. He summarized that the retaining wall would be considered relatively
minor for commercial development. He noted that a car wash is located on one side of the subject property, and
residential uses are located to the north. There is also an older residential neighborhood located adjacent to the site, and a
power substation is located across the street.
Boleslaw Zenczak, Zenczak and Partners Architects, AIA, said his firm has had the privilege of working with
Columbia Bank since they first opened in 1993, so they have learned what they are looking for in their bank structures.
He said he, personally, has been working on Columbia Bank projects since 1993. He explained that, from the start,
Columbia Bank has been looking for a nice comfortable relationship with their customers and buildings. With that in
mind, the buildings are designed with more of a human scale with a timeless nature. The interiors are designed to be very
warm and comfortable, as well. In the 17 years they have designed for Columbia Bank, they have never used a cookie
cutter design. The buildings are designed to fit in with the character of the surrounding area. However, they do use
similar materials, such as the blue metal roof. He provided a colored drawing of the proposed design and briefly
described the various features. The roof is a hip -roof structure, with some cap ends incorporated to enhance the entrance
and specific features such as the drive-through. Brick wainscoting is used as an accent in conjunction with stucco siding
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 3 of 10
and exterior glass. The building is designed as a one-story structure of approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposed
height is approximately 25 feet. Because of the natural counter clockwise flow of the bank and the elevation change
from east to west, the entrance was created on the east side of the building, with associated parking. The drive-through
was placed in the back in an attempt to control the noise that is typically associated with drive-through service.
Jerry Isaksen, Zenczak & Partners Architects, AIA, said he has also been working with Columbia Bank since 1993,
and he agreed that the bank does try to create a more comfortable feeling within the neighborhoods they are located. As
part of that, they like to incorporate a lot of the neighborhood feel into the landscaping that surrounds their buildings. He
referred to the Landscape Plan and noted there are a number of existing mature trees on the site that would be retained,
and they are proposing to add new plantings around the perimeter of the building to enhance its overall look. He referred
to the colored rendering, which also identifies a rock garden immediately in front of the entry to the building that allows
for visual access to the fi•ont doors for security. A large number of three-man rocks would be located in this area, as well
as a number of street trees as required by City code. He indicated the applicant would work with the Parks Department
to identify a tree species that is consistent with the City's Street Tree Plan,
Mr. Isaksen said that, as the code requires, a number of buffer areas would be provided around the perimeter of the
property, specifically between the subject property and the adjacent residential neighborhood to the north where a 15 -
foot setback is required. The City requires a fairly substantial landscape buffer along the hillside, and the applicant is
proposing to maintain the existing condition around the perimeters of the site. There are a number of very mature trees
on the north side, and the applicant would like to maintain the hillside as it currently exists because of the maturity of the
existing vegetation. There is a 50 -foot utility easement that runs the entire length of the east side of the property. There
are a number of mature trees along the eastern property line that create a wall, and they would like to maintain this
vegetation. However, the utility providers may require them to trim it at some point.
Mr. Isaksen pointed out that a trash enclosure is identified on the site plan, and he has an exhibit that describes its design.
It would be located to the far left of the building and would be difficult to see because it would be behind a brick wall
and a number of shrubs would be planted in front of it.
Mr. Isaksen submitted Alternative Site Plan—Alternate A (Exhibit 3) and explained that the applicant originally
contemplated a one-way access on the west side off the site for the bank. However, they understand the City's desire to
have joint access. The applicant decided to pursue the easement so that a road could be installed at the time of bank
construction so it is not an inconvenience for the bank customers in the future. Constructing the road would be a
relatively minor aspect of the project. They have presented the easement request to the owner of Lot 9, which is between
the car wash and the subject property and have received their initial support. However, they would like to see the
corners of the easement located so they can visualize where it will be. Based on their initial contact with the adjacent
property owner, they have a high level of confidence that the site plan that was originally submitted will be the one that
is built. However, because there is some chance that the easement will not be granted, they would like the Board to
recommend approval of the alternative site plan so the process can move forward either way. He emphasized that the
easement is not a necessary element of the proposed project. It is an additional benefit and meets the City's intent, but
they do not want the project to be held up if the easement is not obtained. He noted that the issue would likely be
resolved before the application is presented to the Hearing Examiner for review.
Mr. Pinney addressed each of the issues raised in the Staff Report as follows:
Development on steep slopes and how the proposed development fits the natural topography. Mr. Pinney
explained that the topography has been changed in the recent history of the site. The applicant has gone to great
lengths to keep the project on the flat portion of the site. The east side of the site is three to five feet higher than the
west side so some cut and fill will be required to make the site truly flat. They went through a number of
configurations for the parking lot, but they found that most required them to cut too far into the slope. This would
have required a significant retaining wall on the hillside. They determined they could achieve the parking
requirements with the current proposed parking configuration. He noted that a designated steep slope was
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 4 of 10
established on the site during the platting process, and this requires a steep slope buffer and steep slope setback from
the buffer. None of the project would be located within the steep slope or steep slope buffer area. However, as
allowed by code, a small portion of the project (back corner where the retaining wall is located) would intrude into
the setback area. The applicant believes they are meeting the intent of the code by leaving the hillside intact and
staying away fi•om the steep slope. Most people who drive by the site after construction will not recognize that the
topography of the site has changed, and the applicant has taken action to minimize the impact on the hillside. The
raised portion of the parking lot on the north side goes up to 5% grade in order to minimize the cut required in the
back of the property. They made a concerted effort to keep the development on the flatter portions of the property.
Mr. Pinney explained that as part of SEPA, the applicant solicited input from a geotechnical engineer related to the
retaining wall design, but the retaining wall has not been fully designed. This would occur during the permitting
process. However, the geotechnical engineer indicated the wall they are proposing would be appropriate for the
subject site. Board Member O'Neill asked what type of retaining wall the applicant is proposing. Mr. Pinney
answered that they would likely propose a gravity or modular block wall rather than a cast -in-place wall. Their
engineer has indicated that a rockery may be possible, depending on the support that is required behind. This option
would be evaluated during the permit process. If possible, a rockery would be their desired option.
• Refuse area design and screening. Mr. Pinney noted that this issue was addressed earlier by Mr. Isaksen. The
trash enclosure has been screened so well, it is difficult to see on the proposed plan.
Landscaping and buffers. Mr. Pinney provided photographs to illustrate the existing vegetation that is located
within the required buffer areas. The photographs were identified as Exhibit 4. He explained that the northeast
corner of the parking lot is completely outside the steep slope buffer area and its required setback. The only portion
of the development that would be within the setback area is directly behind the proposed drive lanes. He said the
applicant understands that a landscape buffer is required between the proposed commercial development and the
residential development to the east. The code requires Type lI landscaping, which typically consists of Douglas fir
or deciduous trees and lower shrubbery beneath. He noted there are significant mature trees and landscaping on the
west side of the northern buffer that far exceed what the applicant could plant in the next several years, and there are
large deciduous trees, as well as large blackberry and scotch pine shrubbery near the center. There are fewer trees
along the eastern side of the north buffer, but the sheer size of the native shrubbery is significant. The applicant
believes the existing native vegetation would meet the Type II landscaping requirements for buffer areas.
Mr. Pinney provided pictures to illustrate the existing landscaping on the eastern boundary of the property. He noted
that most of the vegetation behind the existing telephone pole would stay intact, which would meet the intent of the
Type II landscape requirements. He noted that while some people do not like scotch broom, in this case, it provides.
an absolute buffer. The applicant is requesting that the Board find that the existing vegetation would replace any
required Type H landscaping within the buffer area on the eastern property line.
Mr. Pinney observed that no issues were raised in the Staff Report regarding the internal landscaping. They are
proposing typical Type II landscaping that is high quality as required by the Code. He noted that, with the existing
landscaping, there would be far more than required by the code.
Height of light poles. Mr. Pinney said he surveyed nearby properties and found the height of the light poles on the
Key Bank property is 23 feet. The light poles at the PCC are 26 -feet tall, but he acknowledged the PCC to be a
much larger project. He said the applicant understands there is a general desire to reduce lighting and agrees that the
light poles could be reduced to a height of 20 feet to address the staff's concerns. Based on the type of lighting
proposed and the existing topography of the site, the applicant does not anticipate the adjacent residential
neighborhood would be impacted by lighting from the site. He requested the ADB approve light poles at 20 -feet in
height.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 5 of 10
• Selection of street trees. Mr. Pinney advised that the original landscape plan identifies the Bradford Flowering
Cherry as the street tree, and they thought it was a species included in the City's Street Tree Plan. However, they
agree to work with the Parks Department to identify an appropriate street tree species.
Signage. Mr. Pinney referred to Exhibit 2, which is the applicant's signage plan. He advised that the applicant is
proposing two signs on the building, one at the main entrance and one on the western wall that faces towards the
Ferry on Edmonds Way. The western wall sign would be fairly prominent so they do not believe there is a need to
add an additional monument sign. Because the main enhance wall would be 50 feet in length, the applicant would
be allowed a total of 50 square feet for signage. The proposed signs should be consistent with the sign code
requirements, and they would like the Board to recommend approval of the sign plan as presented.
Conditional Use Permit for the drive through. Mr. Pinney noted that information regarding the drive through
design was presented as part the application. He observed that drive throughs are utilized extensively by businesses
located along the corridor. The street is auto oriented and the main corridor to the ferry terminal. Drive throughs are
very common functions for banks, and they do not believe the proposed drive through would be a detriment to the
surrounding neighborhood. He said the applicant is requesting a positive recommendation from the Board regarding
the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
Board Member Broadway referred to the proposed sign plan (Exhibit 2) and asked if the existing grass bioswale would
remain across the front of the site. The drawing suggests that new grass would be planted. She asked if stormwater from
the site would utilize this bioswale. Mr. Pinney answered that the bioswale was constructed to serve the residential
development on top of the hill. It is of low quality at this time, but the applicant proposes to improve its quality and
function by planting the proper grass and cleaning and maintaining it.
Board Member Broadway asked if wheelchair ramps would be provided where the sidewalk connects with each of the
proposed driveways. Mr. Pinney answered that the proposed project would meet all of the ADA requirements. Board
Member Broadway observed that, as proposed, the only ADA access to the bank would be across the driveway. Mr.
Isaksen agreed and added that they chose the path of travel that would best meet the ADA requirements.
Board Member Broadway suggested that the proposed location for the ATM appears to be in a less defensible location
for evening hours. She asked if the applicant would consider placing the ATM on the east side of the building near
parking stalls 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Isaksen answered that the soffit lighting would illuminate the ATM area for security
purposes. The applicant has also discussed the option of adding a walk up ATM near the main entrance. Mr. Zenczak
added that people who use the ATM at night feel more secure if they can access the machine without getting out of their
vehicles.
Board Member Broadway referred to Illustration A.2 of Attachment 4, which indicates that the highest point of the roof
ridge would be at approximately 25 -feet. While the illustration includes light fixtures at a height of 25 feet, the applicant
is now proposing a height of 20 feet. She asked if the light fixtures would be powder -coated, shielded boxes with only
the lights exposed. Mr. Zenczak answered affirmatively.
Board Member Broadway referred to Illustration L.1 of Attachment 4 and noted that a concrete pad is shown just outside
of what appears to be an exit door. Mr. Isaksen said this is an access door for the mechanical room and not an exit door
for the building, itself.
Board Member Broadway referred to the utility easement and noted that the applicant is proposing to plan new grass
within the bioswale area. However, it appears they are proposing to leave the existing brush in place. Mr. Isaksen
explained that many of the utility providers do not want them to disturb the easement area. Mr. Zenczak added that the
utility easement is relatively shallow. In addition, overhead power lines make it difficult to plant trees in this location. At
this time, they are not proposing to change the ground cover in this location.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 6 of 10
Board Member Gootee expressed his belief that merely extending the grass in this area makes the project appear
somewhat incomplete. Mr. Isaksen explained that the applicant would need to have more discussions with the utility
providers regarding this easement. There are very strict requirements about the type of landscaping that is allowed
within easement areas. Based on these restrictions and because the utility lines are very shallow, the applicant cannot do
a lot of grading or planting. He summarized that additional negotiations would have to take place with the utility
providers before more landscaping could be added to this area. Board Member Gootee suggested that grass would be an
acceptable alternative. Mr. Zenczak agreed, as long as the utility providers allow them to install an irrigation system.
Board Member Mestres recalled that the east side of the northern buffer (hillside) was cleaned out several years ago.
Prior to that time, the area had numerous Douglas fir trees. The blackberry and scotch broom are manifestation of the
trees being removed, and he considers them to be weeds. While he understands they can provide a natural buffer, they
do not look good. He said he is having a hard time reconciling the applicant's proposal that the landscaping above the
retaining wall would be scotch broom and blackberries. Mr. Pinney said the applicant is aware that the trees were
removed from the hillside, but they are not excited about disturbing the hillside by planting new vegetation. The existing
vegetation works well for erosion control and as a buffer. He suggested that given the retaining wall and the landscaping
proposed around the parking lot, it is not likely that the landscaping above the retaining wall would be prominently seen.
The green on the hillside would be a backdrop for the cosmetic landscaping around the parking lot. The existing
landscaping effectively addresses the City's buffer requirements given the slope of the hillside and the intensity of the
existing landscaping. He referred the Board to the pictures he provided to illustrate the view from the residential areas
above the subject property.
Board Member Mestres inquired if the applicant considered the option of terracing the hillside. Mr. Pinney answered
that disturbing this stable, steep slope would require a whole new level of environmental review. The applicant
purposely avoided this additional work by keeping development away from the slope.
Board Member Mestres pointed out that because cars approach the site quickly, the proposed wall signage may not be
adequate. He suggested it may be necessary for the applicant to provide a small monument sign near the drive through
entrance. Mr. Pinney explained that there is a 15 -foot easement off the back of the curb, with some landscaping. With
the exception of one shrub that blocks the view from the road, the applicant believes the wall signs would be visible and
no monument sign would be necessary. The applicant would likely propose to replace this one shrub with a low -
growing species to open the view corridor to the main bank entrance. Mr. Zenczak added that the entrance to the bank
was purposefully placed at an angle to capture people's attention as they come around the corner. They believe the
proposed wall signs would be adequate to meet their needs in this regard.
Board Member Mestres agreed that the 20 -foot light poles would be consistent with security requirements for the bank.
The significant slope would likely do a lot to reduce light pollution from the site. He said he believes the easement is a
good idea, but three points of access would be challenging.
Board Member Bullock said he is excited to see the site cleaned up and developed. He said he likes the proposed
building architecture, although he is not so fond of the blue roof. He especially likes the wainscoting. He said he
supports the proposed landscaping plan for the portions of the site that will be developed, but he would like more
information about what materials would be used for the retaining wall. He emphasized that the applicant must work
with Parks Department staff to determine the appropriate species of street trees, and he reminded the applicant that the
Street Tree Plan calls for three-inch caliper trees. While he recognized this is a significant requirement, the larger trees
would add a lot more visibility for the building.
Mr. Bullock noted that scotch broom and blackberries are natural growing, but they are not native to the area. He said he
has a problem with the applicant's proposal to leave some of the blank areas as they currently exist. At the same time, he
agreed that the existing vegetation provides a big separation with a lot of green. With that in ;mind, he said he would
like the applicant to plant some low -growing ground cover around the perimeter of the drive isles and parking areas, on
top of the retaining wall, and around the perimeter of the site. There are some natural evergreen trees in the northwest
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 7 of 10
corner of the site, and he would like these to be supplemented with shrubbery between the parking area and the slope.
Above the ground cover, he would like the applicant to plant trees that will screen some of the other green stuff that
looks like weeds. In the far southeast corner, he would like the applicant to plant lawn further back, or perhaps some
type of wildflower mix. He said he would really like to see a lot of the blackberry and scotch broom vegetation pulled
back as far north as the edge of the parking lot and replaced with something different. He suggested they pull back the
retaining wall at the north corner from the parking lot so they can plant trees in fi•ont of it. He said that, in his opinion,
this would reduce the appearance of the overall size of the wall. He provided a redlined copy of the applicant's
landscaping plan to illustrate his proposed changes. The redlined plan was identified as Exhibit 5. He recommended the
applicant update their landscape plan prior to forwarding their application to the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Pinney referred to the large site plan provided by the applicant and explained that they would like to retain the
existing dense vegetation as the functional buffer within ten feet of the property line. However, he agreed that the
changes suggested by Board Member Bullock could be implemented, as well.
Chair Kendall agreed that the building design is very attractive. She also agreed that the blue roof is bright. However,
compared to the red roof they recently were asked to consider, it is acceptable to her. She said she is very interested in
saving the significant native trees on the site, and she appreciates the applicant's efforts in that regard. The subject
property is located at the "gateway" to Edmonds. She pointed out that blackberries and scotch broom are considered
invasive species, and she would love for them to be replaced with native trees. However, she understands the applicant's
concern about disturbing the slope. It would be wonderful to see some trees planted in this area over time, but this
should be considered more of a request than a requirement.
Board Member Mestres recalled that the landscape plan for the Point Edwards Project included certain species of
vegetation that would maintain and stabilize the hillside. He concluded that it is not necessary to plant Douglas fir trees
on the hill side, but another type of vegetation could be used to stabilize the hill side yet be more attractive than
blackberries and scotch pine. He said he understands that these species provide an excellent barrier but other species can
serve the same purpose.
Board Member Gootee said he supports the changes Board Member Bullock proposed for the landscape plan. He felt
they represent a good compromise to encourage the project to move forward without adding a lot of cost. He reminded
the Board that development of the site will benefit the City, so it is important not to place impractical requirements on the
applicant. He said he supports the applicant's desire to avoid disturbing the steep slope. He expressed his belief that the
parking lot and the structure will become the focus on the site, and not the steep slope.
Board Member Bullock said he finds the applicant's proposed sign plan acceptable and to scale, as long as they can
confirm that it is code compliant at the time of building permit. Board Member Broadway added that she supports the
two proposed wall signs, but she would discourage the use of a monument sign. She observed that because of the speed
of passing traffic, introducing a monument sign along the roadway may make it more challenging for drivers to see the
entrance to the site. Chair Kendall agreed. Board Member Gootee expressed his belief that the two proposed signs are
subtle and very suitable for the site.
For clarity, Ms. Coccia reviewed the exhibits as follows:
• Exhibit 1— Staff Report
• Exhibit 2 — Applicant's proposed sign plan.
• Exhibit 3 — Applicants proposed site plan, Alternative A.
• Exhibit 4 — Photographs submitted by the applicant.
• Exhibit 5 — Board's redlined landscape plan.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 8 of 10
Ms. Coccia emphasized that the Engineering Department has not reviewed Exhibit 3, but it appears that no significant
changes would be required. She said she supports the applicant's alternative site plan (Exhibit 3) if the easement is not
obtained. She also agreed with the applicant's proposal to reduce the height of the light poles to 20 feet. She reminded
the applicant that exposed neon lighting is not permitted, and Mr. Isakson indicated that the signs would be internally
illuminated and not neon.
Ms. Coccia reviewed that height is measured from the average original grade. However, height calculations are not part
of the Board's review. Height would be addressed as part of the building permit, and the building official would require
the applicant to submit surveys for this purpose. She encouraged the applicant to contact the City Engineer for additional
information about the City's requirements for rockeries. She thanked the Board for creating Exhibit 5 to illustrate their
proposed changes to the applicant's landscape plan. Mr. Penney said it is the applicant's intent to submit an updated
landscape plan to staff prior to the hearing before the Hearing Examiner,
BOARD MEMBER BULLOCK MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD FILE NUMBERS PLN20100053
AND PLN20100054 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. HE
FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD AGREES WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE
STAFF REPORT (EXHIBIT 1) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. EITHER AN EASEMENT SHALL BE OBTAINED TO ALLOW ACCESS OVER THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY TO THE WEST OR THE PROJECT WILL NEED TO BE REVISED TO MEET CODE.
IF THE REVISION IS SUBSTANTIAL, THEN THE PROJECT MAY NEED TO GO BEFORE THE
ADB ONCE MORE FOR REVIEW.
2. THE STREET TREE SPECIES SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREET TREE PLAN.
3. THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT AN UPDATED LANDSCAPING PLAN TO STAFF PRIOR TO
GOING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER THAT REFLECTS THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION AND
SOME OF THE DIRECTION SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 5 (THE ADB'S REDLINE LANDSCAPING
PLAN).
4. GRADING SHALL BE MIND41ZED IN NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT FEASIBLE AND VERIFIED THROUGH A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT THAT IS
COMPLIANT WITH THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (ECDC 23) AS WELL AS ECDC
20.11.030.B.1 AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
5. THE 25 -FOOT TALL LIGHT POLES SHALL BE REPLACED WITH 20 -FOOT LIGHT POLES AS
PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Penney expressed concern that the Board's motion did not address the applicant's alternative site plan (Exhibit 3).
Board Member Bullock pointed out that the easement issue must be addressed by the Hearing Examiner. The Board's
charge it to review the proposed design, and the easement is not really an issue they are required to address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS:
No public hearings were scheduled on the agenda.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
No consolidated permit applications were scheduled on the agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 9 of 10
Ms. Coccia read a letter from Mayor Cooper into the record, recognizing Board Member Bullock for his outstanding
service as a City employee and as a volunteer. On behalf of the Architectural Design Board and Planning Division staff
she presented him with a plaque and thanked him for his service.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Members thanked Board Member Bullock for his set-vice on the Board and wished him well. They agreed that his
depth of knowledge would be difficult to replace.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2010
Page 10 of 10
(L) O ..: cn
0
- c c
o
>>c
U
c
c
Cn
c (v
O_ (� � -0
N O >
O
OU v- n Q 0O
E
_
`n co
U
M ti
�
a)
a)
Q
W
W
n aa)
C U
ate)
L
-
W
v
Oa)
M Z v
O
M
U)O
O
-t-1
(Dc O
0
—
—
Q E O
U)
Vi
T
a)
�O
O a)
Oa)
>
f
(CS
NL
>
a)
U 51
)
U O
o
E W
.
OQ
IleO�
a)
2
>0)
c O
Ly -
L
U N
O
'CD 0 W a) CnO
Q_
0
C)O
CD
O
c(n
U
c W -0 �,
a)
0
0
0
0
0
N
� c c o�
E>
.- E +�
CD-
a) O a W 0
c
E(LS
Q m cc O O
CL
.sN- c
.a)
m
L
_ O L •.- �
N
C�
ccu
E o
c
=
U
-0 00
0 (ccD
t—
(DQ)
O a) ,
CO
W
E
Ua)
-CO
"O
m
a
-
N o(D
ECO-
p
Cr p
Cn
U
c
W
CU6
E
C
.>.
+U-- C N
N(n o a) -O e '' O
, M O.(D U Q
N
O CD
Q
O >,
U
s_
a
-a N
L
O
O
�
L :�•-
a) a)
a)
N
. i
N
Z
�— o
°) o a) �-
�.L U Q
E
U
•9
c
Q .- c M
Q G
a) N
(D
nc
Q)
•� •O
> O O
C3CU
tLS
L
Q) 4) U
=
4i
co
'� sz
E E c a
O c ^
c E
14
0 IE
LO
iE
zz
m
w
O
cn
c 'O >
N�
C�
U O� o
o
y_
(D
CO
O-
�
(3) O
-0
.
w DOc
CD
a)
a)
yN.
O
LL
0
a) 0� E
(n�>a)>
•0
c— c
Qc
�
O
o
UCr
W
'
Eo
v
C6
O
Ln
O� 0,
E L
C
O
O
E
�
Q
a)
a)(D
O
OVO
Mn
_(LU)
Ui
zCO
E'
OHM
>
LO
) OC
U)
O O
L
O
-0
�
U>Q
�
. N
��
U MO
O
p
—E
O
CDL D -c
n W
>,
r
C)
N
'0
c
�
cn
0)
(CS (D N N
N 0-0
E
a) a)
a)
C)
C9
O
0-0
= O
y) N
-a-� —
Z
> O () —I
O
Ca
V)W
(D
U LO
E O
O- CDT
ca
•Q,
O
Q
c)
Z
0--0 C O
0 0
E U E
is
E
CD
.=
i= Q N
O
Q
fi
0
0
0
0
�
C) am)
Q o
r
c O Q O
V
L
0--
z� v > E
.�
�--%
c
c
U
'O (D
a) (L6 W C/)
F-
c O O
Q
.c LZ L - T
o
Q
Q
CCS
V
U
U
c
15
Q
O
c
p Exhibit
7
O
Q Q
U
U
f
L
a)
E
(D
�? E
a)
°'
'
Q- Attachment
B
(es
M
(a o
Z
0
0 0
a_
CL
Q Notice of Public Hearing