H.E. Decision_Key Bank.pdf1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Key Bank
Conditional Use Permit and
Design Review
(PLN20110061 and
PLN20110062)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant proposes to replace an existing gas station with a new single -story
bank building. The proposal requires both conditional use permit and design review
approval. The conditional use permit and design review are approved.
TESTIMONY
Staff Testimony
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner, stated that this project is located in a neighborhood
business zone (BN zone). She noted that properties in this type of zone that propose
a drive-through (such as a bank with a teller window) require a conditional use
permit. City staff reviewed ECDC 20.05.010 and had a public meeting with the
Architecture Design Review Board in December to evaluate the design of the
proposal. Ms. Coccia commented that staff made a recommendation to the Design
Review Board, and the Board then made a recommendation to the Hearing
Examiner. She noted that banks are permitted in the BN zone.
Ms. Coccia testified that the bank would be one story, thus it would meet the 25 foot
height limit. The setbacks are 8 feet from the north property line and 5 feet from the
west property line, which is a new change based on a recent city ordinance that
allows the building to be oriented at an angle, according to Ms. Coccia. She stated
that the criteria for conditional use permits can be found in ECDC 20.05.010. She
noted that the first criterion is that the proposal must be consistent with the city's
comprehensive plan. The bank will be pedestrian friendly and will keep lighting
Conditional Use Permit
P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
abundant in the area. The second criterion is that the proposal must be consistent
with the zoning ordinance, and, she noted, the proposal does meet all requirements
for zoning. The third criterion is that the proposal must not be detrimental to public
health, safety, welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the
use is a public necessity. In this case, Ms. Coccia testified, there are no views in the
neighborhood, and the Edmonds Engineering Division found no significant issues
with the proposal. She noted that both the parking and teller line will be behind the
building so they will not be significant to people driving by the site. She added that
site clean-up would be dealt with under SEPA review. Ms. Coccia explained that the
applicant had commissioned a traffic analysis impact report which was reviewed by
the Edmonds Engineering Division. The fourth criterion is in regard to
transferability; the hearing examiner must decide if the CUP will run with the land or
be personal to Key Bank. The applicant requested the CUP run with the land, and
staff feels the permit should be transferrable to future banks. However, staff believes
if the property was used for other forms of business, such as restaurants, the
conditions would be different, according to Ms. Coccia. She testified that staff
recommends the conditional use permit be approved and made transferrable to future
banks.
Ms. Coccia stated that staff made four conditions of approval to the hearing
examiner. She noted the first condition of approval is that the street tree species be
reviewed and approved by the Parks Department for compliance with street tree
planning during the building permit review process and be consistent with other tree
species in the vicinity. This condition was reached during the Architecture Design
Review Board review because the Board wanted to ensure a consistent look for the
neighborhood. She stated the second condition of approval is that height calculations
be required with the building permit application to ensure the 25 foot height limit.
Ms. Coccia commented that the third condition of approval is that the building
should have a stone band around its base with brick above in order to appear
pedestrian friendly. Staff has worked with the applicant for the past six months in
order to create a collaborative design for the building that meets Edmonds unique
style, she said. Ms. Coccia testified that the final condition of approval is that the
CUP be transferrable to future bank businesses, but shall be reviewed for other forms
of business.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, Ms. Coccia stated that staff found there
would be no queuing impacts because of the project, and no traffic would back up to
Edmonds Way. She noted there was a traffic analysis report conducted dated July
22, 2011 (exhibit 3). Ms. Coccia testified that the stone band around the base would
make the bank look more quaint and less commercial. The applicant had no issue
with using the stone band.
Applicant Testimony
Joel Howitt, planner for Barghausen Consulting Engineers, stated that the applicant
has objections to the conditions of approval set by city staff.
Conditional Use Permit p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mark Jacobs, traffic engineer, stated he was commissioned to complete a traffic
analysis report for the project. The city of Edmonds criteria would not normally
require a traffic study, but because the site is located on a corner in a major
intersection, the report was requested. He noted that the existing site is used by a
Shell gas station which generates more traffic than the proposed bank would create.
In regard to queuing, Mr. Jacobs testified that he used a worst case scenario
(assuming all customers would use queuing) and found the queues would be
nominal. He noted that fewer people use physical banks because of online
accessibility. The queuing study found that the 95th percentile queue would only be
one vehicle. Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, he stated that the queuing
would remain on site and not extend to the roadway.
Public Testimony
Troy McGuire, 14302 89th Ave SE, stated he is representing the Woos, the property
owners of Chopsticks Restaurant, and the owner of the property behind the
restaurant. He submitted a letter from an attorney about the easement on the Ivar's
property (Exhibit 4). One of the proposed driveways to the bank site would go
through the Ivar's easement to meet Edmonds Way based on the proposal. Thus,
Mr. McGuire said, the people exiting the bank would go through the Ivar's property
to reach Edmonds Way. He stated that the letter to Mr. Woo (exhibit 4) explains that
the easement is owned by Ivar's. He added that this easement should not be used to
accommodate traffic from the new bank. The planned traffic pattern would have
customers go through the drive-through, east through the property, and then
wraparound to the south -end of the property, according to Mr. McGuire. He noted
that the traffic will be impacted more than is planned. Mr. McGuire said that the
parking and traffic flow is bad in the whole area. He noted that, on the southwest
corner property, there is an entrance to the Woo's restaurant, and there is a
possibility for trading parking and entrances here. Mr. McGuire added that the south
exit of Chopsticks is often blocked because of cars sticking out in the way, and
customers are forced to circle around south of the lots.
Dave Stow stated he has lived on the hill behind the proposal site for 50 years. He
testified that there is a prominent traffic issue because of the divided roads at the
intersection. According to Mr. Stow, in order to enter Ivar's there is only a small
turn -lane and you are unable to enter through the west off of Edmonds Way (you
have to be coming from the West, not the East). He noted that the street dividers on
100th Street prevent access to many businesses in the area, and many accidents occur
because of people attempting to make illegal traffic maneuvers. Ferry and rush-hour
traffic also increases the problems. He stated that the shared parking (a gym, Ivar's
restaurant, and fast food) results in heavy traffic and difficulty for cars to pass one
another. Mr. Stow concluded that the intersection only continues to increase in
traffic problems, and more needs to be done to address the problem.
Staff Testimony
Conditional Use Permit
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gina Coccia stated that Mr. McGuire's suggestion of a shared drive-through would
eliminate a large portion of planned landscaping for that area. She testified that this
meeting is focused on the drive-through teller lane. Upon questioning by the hearing
examiner, she noted that she believes the proposed landscaping will help cut down
on the amount of property -line cutting that is done by current traffic.
Applicant Testimony
Joel Howitt stated that the access point to the drive-through is shared by the bank and
Ivar's. The 20ft. access easement that Mr. McGuire referred to is in the center of the
existing Ivar's parking lot, he said. He noted that the applicant's intent is to increase
circulation between the two sites; they do not wish to promote greater amounts of
traffic leaving Chopsticks. Exiting the drive-through facility, the vehicles will most
likely be entering Edmonds Way, according to Mr. Howitt. He added that most
traffic will be retained on site and won't be using the easement across Ivar's.
Mark Jacobs stated that he did a site circulation using national data points, as well as
his own data collection. The national data from the early 2000s gave 71pm peak
hour (about 1 car every minute) entering and exiting the site, and the bulk of the
traffic will be on the main state route 104. He testified that the distribution indicates
that 60 percent of the traffic would be exiting onto route 104 (east -west). He stated
that traffic exiting North -south would be around 40 percent. There would be some
site -adjacent traffic, but the number of traffic is nominal, according to Mr. Jacobs.
He commented that east -west traffic would have to turn right out of the property
because west is blocked by a median, but the traffic could then turn left at the next
traffic signal. For traffic coming from the East, Mr. Jacobs said, vehicles would use
the Ivar's entrance. Mr. Jacobs stated he did a safety analysis for the intersection and
found that it was very safe.
Public Testimony
Mr. McGuire stated that there is contaminated soil under the Chopsticks parking lot.
He noted he has witnessed traffic not follow the pattern Mr. Jacobs described. He
asked that the traffic issues at this intersection be addressed before moving forward
with the project.
Applicant Testimony
Joel Howitt noted that the applicant has conducted a traffic impact study and the city
has reviewed it. He stated that the city has approved the project with the results of
this study. Mr. Howitt added that any existing contamination will be cleaned prior to
the construction of the project. Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, he noted
that the shell station is still in operation.
Conditional Use Permit
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
f w II:
Exhibits 1 and 2 identified at page 2 of the 1/17/12 staff report along with all
attachments were admitted during the hearing. The following two exhibits were also
admitted:
Ex. 9: 2011 traffic report
Ex. 10: 5/14/11 letter regarding Ivar's easement
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Applicant is Key Bank.
2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on January 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds
Public Safety Complex.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. The Applicant proposes to replace an
existing gas station with a new single -story branch building. The proposal requires
both conditional use permit and design review approval. The bank building will be
located at the corner of Edmonds Way and 100th Ave W. The bank building will
include a drive thru lane located behind the building. The building will be angled to
front both 100th Ave W and Edmonds Way. The building features a metal canopy
over a paved pedestrian walkway leading to its angled main entrance. Fenestrations
in the form of windows and doors are located around the perimeter of the building.
Parapets are provided along the roof edges and are capped with a decorative cornice.
Exterior materials and colors compliment the finishes in the Westgate Corridor.
Exterior building finishes include two shades of brick, cultures stone base, pre -cast
horizontal bandings, red fabric awnings, red metal canopy, fiberglass cornice,
composite metal panels and aluminum storefront. Mechanical rooftop units are
concealed from view by rooftop equipment screens. The roof top units are also
located towards the center of the building, so there is reduced visibility from the street
level. Architectural delineation includes varying tower projections, red fabric
awnings above all windows, horizontal bandings around the perimeter of the building,
and a lowered canopy over the drive-thru lanes. Windows providing views into the
interior public areas of the bank are shown on the north, west and east facades. A
condition of approval will require a stone band around the base of the building with
brick above in order to appear pedestrian friendly.
As shown in the landscaping plan, Att. 4 to Ex. 1, the proposal will involve
extensive landscaping both along the perimeter of the building and drive-thru lanes as
well as the perimeter of the lot. The conditions of approval require that the trees used
Conditional Use Permit p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
for the landscaping be consistent with existing trees at the intersection of 100th Ave
W and Edmonds Way.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject property is located in the
Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. The neighborhood surrounding the site consists
of commercial development along Edmonds Way in what is known as the Westgate
neighborhood. An Ivar's restaurant is located on the lot adjoining the subject
property to the east and a Chopsticks restaurant is located on a lot adjoining the
subject lot to the south. An easement on the Ivar's lot, located on west side of the
Ivar's lot running south to north, provides access to Edmonds Way for the subject lot
and the Chopsticks lot. Shopping centers to the west (Bartell's, Starbucks, Safeway),
north, and east, grocery stores to the north and northwest (PCC and QFC) along with
numerous neighborhood commercial businesses. A single family residential
neighborhood (RS -8) surrounds the BN zone. According to the staff report, there are
many bank buildings planned or in the process of being constructed in the immediate
vicinity, many of which will have drive-thru teller lanes.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse
impacts created by the project except for some potential private property circulation
issues, which will be addressed through conditions of approval as discussed below.
The design of the bank building and associated landscaping is excellent overall as
evidenced in the detailed elevations and the fact that the Architectural Design Board
was left with few suggestions for improvement. The project is aesthetically pleasing
and compatible with surrounding uses and it is also pedestrian friendly. The project
traffic engineer has adequately demonstrated that the drive-thru won't create any
queuing backup into the 100th Ave W/Edmonds Way intersection, which would
otherwise be a major concern.
A primary issue of concern to the owner of the Chopsticks property owner and a
nearby residential property owner is conflicts in traffic movements and congestion
created by the use of an easement that traverses the Ivar's property. It is not entirely
clear from the record why Key Bank traffic would need to use the Ivar's easement.
The parties did not identify how far east the median on Edmonds Way extends past
the intersection with 100th Ave W nor did they provide any circulation plans that
clearly identifies why motorists would elect to access the Ivar's easement. The best
that can be inferred from the testimony is that the median on Edmonds Way stops
short of the Ivar's easement and as a result traffic from the east on Edmonds Way can
turn left into the Ivar's easement and that traffic exiting from the easement can turn
left to travel west. If this is correct, this would certainly be attractive to motorists
from the Key Bank property, since the Bank's only driveway to Edmonds Way is
right turn only for both egress and ingress.
The potential utility of the Ivar's easement to Key Bank customers and the
testimony of Mr. McGuire and David Snow establish a reasonable possibility that
there may be problems associated with the use of the Ivar's easement. The
Applicant's traffic engineer, Mark Jacobs, testified that he had looked at the issue and
that apparently traffic would be minor and that he had concluded that the intersection
Conditional Use Permit p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be safe. It does not appear that the traffic study prepared by Mr. Jacobs, Ex. 3,
assessed the adequacy of the Ivar's easement to handle the traffic generated by the
project and it is not immediately apparent whether the report assessed the impacts of
the left turns (if they are possible) to and from the access easement in its intersection
with Edmonds Way. The conditions of approval will require staff to determine
whether further analysis and mitigation is necessary to address these issues.
Mr. McGuire and Mr. Snow also testified about existing traffic problems
associated with traffic at the Edmonds Way/100th Ave W intersection, citing accident,
turning conflicts and circulation problems associated with medians located upon both
roads. The traffic report prepared by the Applicant, Ex. 3, shows that the traffic
generated by the project will not lower the existing level of service below its current
LOS D. Further, the traffic generated by the project will not increase traffic in any
material amount, increasing 2016 intersection capacity utilization from 79.0% to
79.6%. This marginal increase in traffic could not be legally used to justify any
feasible mitigation beyond that already recovered through collection of traffic impact
fees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 provides that the
Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing and issue a final decision on conditional use
permit applications. Design review is consolidated before the Examiner for a hearing
and final decision as required by ECDC 20.01.002(B). ECDC 20.11.010(A)
mandates a public hearing for this application because it was not exempt from a
threshold determination as required by the State Environmental Policy Act.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designations. The subject property is designated as Neighborhood
Business (BN).
3. Permit Review Criteria. ECDC 16.45.010(C)(2) requires a conditional use
permit for drive in businesses in the BN zone. ECDC 20.10.010(C) requires general
design review for the project. The criteria for a conditional use permit are
governed by ECDC 20.050.010. The criteria for general design review are set by
ECDC 20.11.020 and 20.11.030. All applicable criteria are quoted below and applied
through corresponding conclusions of law.
ECDC 20.050.010: No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the
findings in this section can be made.
A. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
ECDC 20.11.020 Findings.
Conditional Use Permit
p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed
development:
A. Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the criteria
listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained
in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the
comprehensive plan. The city has the obligation to provide specific direction and
guidance to applicants. The urban design chapter has been adopted to fulfill the city's
obligations under Washington State case law. The urban design chapter shall be used
to determine if an application meets the general criteria set forth in this chapter. In
the event of ambiguity or conflict, the specific provisions of the urban design chapter
shall control.
4. The staff report analysis of the comprehensive plan, located at Section
II(G) of Ex. 1, is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. In
addition it is noted that Policy C(1)(a) of the Urban Design Element encourages the
reduction of driveways and that the proposal furthers this policy by reducing the
number of driveways from the current use from four to two.
ECDC 20.05.010(0): 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.
ECDC 20.11.020(B): Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use
requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been
approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a
proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given
substantial deference and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
5. The staff report analysis of Zoning Ordinance compliance, located at
Section XI(B) of Ex. 2, is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in
full.
ECDC 20.05.010(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.
6. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the project except for potential problems with the use of the
Ivar's easement. The project will be conditioned to address this issue. With this
condition, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal so it will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and to nearby private
property or improvements.
Conditional Use Permit P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
H
I
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECDC 20.05.010(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.
7. The conditional use permit shall run with the land, but has to maintain the
proposed design and use. In the event of a transfer in user, the Key Bank logo may be
replaced with a similarly sized logo for another bank, but beyond this no changes to
the design would be allowed.
ECDC 20.11.030(A): Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The
building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid
conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of
building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and
mass. The following are included as elements of building design:
1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets;
8. The building features a metal canopy over a paved pedestrian walkway leading to
its angled main entrance. Fenestrations in the form of windows and doors are located
around the perimeter of the building. Parapets are provided along the roof edges and
are capped with a decorative cornice.
ECDC 20.11.030(A)(2): Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or
brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area;
9. Exterior materials and colors compliment the finishes in the Westgate Corridor.
Exterior building finishes include two shades of brick, a base stone band, pre -cast
horizontal bandings, red fabric awnings, red metal canopy, fiberglass cornice,
composite metal panels and aluminum storefront.
ECDC 20.11.030(A)(3): Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof,
grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level;
10. Mechanical rooftop units are concealed from view by rooftop equipment
screening. The roof top units are also located towards the center of the building, so
there is reduced visibility from the street level.
ECDC 20.11.030(A)(4): Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be
avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives
of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All
elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms,
architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is
Conditional Use Permit P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous.
11. Architectural delineation includes varying tower projections, red fabric awnings
above all windows, horizontal bandings around the perimeter of the building, and a
lowered canopy over the drive-thru lanes. Windows providing views into the interior
public areas of the bank are shown on the north, west and east facades. A condition of
approval will require a stone band around the base of the building with brick above in
order to appear pedestrian friendly.
ECDC 20.11.030(B): Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby
area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment.
The following are elements of site treatment:
1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized
where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be
avoided.
12. The site has already been developed and used for a gas station with only a small
amount of landscaping. Beyond the rudimentary landscaping the site is completely
impervious, flat and probably contains no "natural beauty" as contemplated in the
criterion quoted above. According to the environmental checklist, less than 500 cubic
yards of total earthwork will be required for the building replacement. The criterion is
satisfied.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(2): Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the
building design and other site improvements.
13. Staff and the Architectural Design Board ("ADB") have determined that the
proposed landscaping complies with the City's landscaping requirements. The ADB
has recommended a condition, which will be adopted, requiring the proposed trees to
be similar to those in the surrounding area.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(3): Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the
development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking
facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights,
design or color.
14. The perimeters of both the building and the lot are almost completely landscaped
except for entrances and driveways. The project is buffered by landscaping from all
surrounding uses.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(4): Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or
vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices.
15. Concrete curbs are provided between landscaped areas and parking/driveways and
pedestrian circulation.
Conditional Use Permit P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(5): Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may
accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible
with natural materials.
16. The proposed trash enclosure is screened with exterior finishes that match the
main building.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(6): All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the
summer.
17. Fabric awnings adorn all windows and a large metal canopy is proposed over the
main entrance to the building. Landscaping located at the perimeter of the lot shall be
conditioned to be composed of vegetation that provides screening year round.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(7): Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed
to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant
growth.
18. As previously discussed, the project is fully landscaped along all perimeters and
as required by City code.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(8): Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety
and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and
directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible
with the overall design theme.
19. The staff report to the ADB states that the application provides for several options
on lighting and that further clarification is needed. The minutes of the ADB meeting
on the application and the other documents and testimony in the record do not identify
whether this clarification was ever provided. The conditions of approval shall require
the applicant to provide to staff a specific lighting plan that complies with the criterion
above.
DECISION
The conditional use permit and general design review are approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The street tree species shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department
for compliance with the street tree plan during the building permit review process and
be consistent with the vegetation at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100`x'
Avenue West. Trees and other vegetation proposed for the perimeter of the subject
lot shall provide for year-round screening as required by ECDC 20.11.030(B)(6).
Conditional Use Permit P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Height calculations are required with the building permit application in order to
show that the project meets the 25 -foot height limit.
3. The building shall be clad with a stone band around the base of the building with
brick above in order to appear pedestrian friendly.
4. This conditional use permit shall be transferable to future users so long as the
proposal and use, including design, remains unchanged except for the bank logo.
The bank logo may be replaced by another logo of similar size.
5. City staff stall shall investigate whether the Ivar's easement discussed in Finding
of Fact No. 5 has the capacity and can safely accommodate traffic generated by the
project. If left turns from and into Edmonds Way are contemplated for the easement,
safety and traffic conflicts shall be assessed for these movements as well if not
already addressed by the Applicant. Staff shall require additional traffic analysis and
mitigation from the Applicant to the extent reasonably necessary to address any
potential deficiencies. City staff shall provide notice to Mr. McGuire and Mr. Snow
of its final determination on this issue, as well as any other parties of record who
request notice.
6. If not done so already, the Applicant shall specifically identify what lighting it
will use as contemplated in Par. 3(b) of Ex. 1. The lighting plan shall comply with
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(8) as determined by staff.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2012.
P Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council
as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the
issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may
be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by
ECDC 20.06.010.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Conditional Use Permit
p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
DECLARATION OF MAILING
Conditional Use and Design Review
PLN20110061 and 20110062
I, Phil Olbrechts, make the following declaration:
1. I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a
party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. On the 9th day of February, 2012, I mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a
true and correct copy of the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
FINAL DECISION on the above captioned matter to the following:
1. Joel Howitt
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1821572 nd Avenue South
Kent WA 98032
2. Mark Phillips
Key Bank
3300 E 1st Avenue
Denver CO 80205
3. Harry & Rosalie Yourist
935 N 175th
Shoreline WA 98133
4. Vina Anderson
Callison Architects
14205 1h Avenue #2400
Seattle WA 98101-2343
5. Buff Nelson
Nelson Real Estate Management
16508 N 79th Street
Redmond WA 98052
6. David Snow
230303 991h Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98020
7. Diane Cunningham
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
8. Troy McGuire
14302 89"' Ave SE
Snohomish, WA 98296
{PA0827324.DOC;1\13041.900000\ }
DECLARATION OF MAILING
Conditional Use and Design Review
PLN20110061 and 20110062
Page 2
9. Mark Jacobs
26143 91h Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Granite Falls, Washington, this 9th day of February, 2012.
Phil Olbrechts
{PA0827324.DOC;1\13041.900000\ }