HE decision ABD-01-170, CU-01-171, V-01-172 thru 179.pdfthe 1S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
1 1 1 1 1 1
OF THE HEARING
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
APPLICANTS: Bartell Drug Co., Nelson Properties and Gary Jones (Westgate
Village)
CASE NO.: ADB -2001-170, CU -2001-171 and V-2001-172 through 179
LOCATION: SW corner of Edmonds Way and 100th Ave. W (See Exhibit A,
Attachment 1)
APPLICATION: Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive
through and for eight Variances to allow structures to be located in
the street setbacks, additional sign height and additional sign area.
REVIEW PROCESS: Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances; Hearing
Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.45.010 (Neighborhood Business - Uses).
b.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.45.030 (Neighborhood Business —
Development Standards).
c.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits).
d.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.10 (Architectural Design Review).
e.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review - SEPA).
f.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.15B (Critical Areas).
g.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.60
(Sign Code).
h.
Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (Variances).
i.
Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
® Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 2
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the Westgate Village application was opened at 9:36 a.m., December 20, 2001, in
the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:40 a.m. Participants at the public hearing
and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing
is available in the Planning Division.
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, entered the staff advisory report into the record as Exhibit A
and said recommended condition #9 should be revised to indicate a 0' setback.
From the Applicant:
John Bissell, agent for the applicant, concurred with the staff advisory report, as revised.
From the Community:
No one from the general public attended the public hearing.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is actually four lots. They form a large, irregularly
shaped site with approximately 300 feet of frontage along Edmonds Way on
its north boundary and another 300 feet of frontage along 100th Ave. W its east
boundary. The total site area is approximately 2.9 acres (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 13).
(2) Land Use: Five commercial buildings occupy the current site. Four of the
buildings will be eliminated and the remaining building, located in the
northeast corner, will be remodeled.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 3
(3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is "Neighborhood Business", BN
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is relatively flat on the
portions of the property that front on Edmonds Way and 100th Ave. W.
Approximately 200 back from both Edmonds Way and 100th, the land slopes
up sharply to the southwest with slopes greater than 40%. Mature trees, both
evergreen and deciduous, cover the slope.
b. Conclusion: The size of the property along with the required setbacks, slopes
with existing and proposed vegetation will assist in making the proposal
consistent with the surrounding development.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) North: Properties across Edmonds Way are zoned and developed under the
BN standards.
(2) East: Properties across 100th Ave. W. are zoned and developed under the BN
standards.
(3) South: Properties to the south are zoned and developed under the BN
standards.
(4) West: Properties to the south and west are zoned and developed under the RS -
8 zoning classifications.
B. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding
development.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Compliance with ECDC Section 16.45.010 (Neighborhood Business — Uses)
a. Fact: ECDC 16.45.010 allows commercial buildings as a permitted primary use.
b. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the BN zone.
2. Compliance with ECDC Section 16.45.020 (Neighborhood Business — Site
Development Standards)
a. Facts:
(1) Maximum height of a building in the BN zone is 25 feet.
(2) Setbacks of 15 feet are required for buildings and structures from street
property lines. No other setbacks are required unless the project is adjacent to
a Single Family zone in which case a 15 setback is required.
(3) The applicant has submitted five variance requests to allow structures in the
street setbacks.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 4
(4) All other elements of the proposed site plan meet the minimum setback and
the maximum height limit requirements.
b. Conclusion: If the variances are approved, the proposal will be consistent with
the development standards for the BN zone. If they are denied, some minor
changes will be required.
3. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits)
a. Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional
Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional
Use Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be
made." The findings are as follows:
® Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan.
® Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent
with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone
district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will
meet all the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
® 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.
® Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the
conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
(2) The Conditional Use Permit is to allow a drive-through in the BN zone.
(3) See Section I.B of this report for a discussion on this project's compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
(4) See Section I.0 of this report for a discussion on this projects compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan.
(5) The applicant's declarations regarding the project's compliance with the
Conditional Use permit criteria are stated in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. They
are summarized as follows:
® The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Community Commercial.
This is an Auto Oriented area that is supposed to serve both local and
regional customers. The proposed drive thru is consistent with this.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 5
® The BN zone is reserved for retail service establishments. The proposed
drive thru is an element of a proposed pharmacy, which is a permitted use
in this zone.
® The drive thru will be located adjacent to another commercially zoned and
used property. Also, the design of the drive thru includes a retaining wall
between the facility and the adjacent property that puts the driveway 12
feet below the existing grade of the adjacent lot. The project will also
include a roof over the drive thru area to further screen the facility.
Therefore it will not be detrimental to any adjacent commercial or
residential properties.
® The applicant requests that the permit be transferable and run with the land
because it allows for construction of improvements that result in the same
impact regardless of the type of use that uses the drive thru.
(6) Staff agrees with the applicant's position that the proposed drive thru will not
be detrimental and that the permit should be transferable.
b. Conclusions:
(1) Comprehensive Plan: Based on the Findings in Section I.0 of this report, the
proposed project appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
because of the type of use, its location, its intensity and the existing and
proposed vegetation.
(2) Zoning Ordinance: Based on the Findings in Section I.B of this report, the
proposed project appears to be consistent with the zoning code.
(3) Not Detrimental: The proposed drive thru should be allowed in that due to its
design and location it is not detrimental to adjacent residences or properties.
(4) Transferable: The proposed drive thru should be transferable because it
allows for construction of improvements that result in the same impact
regardless of the type of use that uses the drive thru.
4. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.10 (Architectural Design Review)
a. Facts:
(1) The Architectural Design Board completed a preliminary review of the
proposal in August of this year. At that time, the Board directed them to
strengthen the pedestrian connection between the project and the sidewalk.
They also directed the applicant to unify the project better.
(2) The applicant modified their initial application and submitted a consolidated
permit application for the final design, the Conditional Use Permit, and eight
variances in response to some of the Design Board's direction (see Exhibit A,
Attachments 12-13).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 6
(3) The Design Board reviewed the final design of the building and the eight
variances on December 5, 2001, and forward their recommendation on to the
Hearing Examiner as follows:
BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED, SECONDED BY
BOARDMEMBER GOODRICK, TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL TO
THE HEARING EXAMINER APPLICATION ADB -2001-170, IN THAT
THE TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT WAS
CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT AS TO WILY THE VARIANCES SHOULD
BE GRANTED, THAT IT ALSO SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT THE
RENDERINGS SHOWED THE SIGNAGE IN ITS APPROPRIATE
OFFICIAL INTENT AS TO WHERE IT WOULD BE LOCATED, AND SHE
BELIEVED THAT THE PACKAGE, AS PRESENTED, WAS IN KEEPING
WITH WHAT CURRENTLYEXISTSINTHE WESTGATE COMMUNITY.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1; BOARDMEMBER BYKONEN OPPOSED).
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 14)
b. Conclusions:
(1) The Architectural Design Board finds the proposed site and building
development to meet the criteria of the Architectural Design Review chapter
of the ECDC.
(2) The Architectural Design Board finds the proposed variances to allow three
pedestrian trellises in the street setback, two freestanding signs in the street
setback, two wall mounted sign height variances and one sign area variance to
be consistent with the Design Review Criteria of ECDC 20.10 and the Sign
Code provisions of ECDC 20.60.
6. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review — SEPA)
a. Fact:
(1) The size of the proposed project mandates that the City and the applicant
complete the SEPA review process. The applicant submitted an
Environmental Checklist and supporting traffic report and soil analysis. After
reviewing all of the submitted information the City issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance with the mitigation measure being $20,500
for traffic mitigation (see Exhibit A, Attachment 15).
b. Conclusion:
(1) The City and the applicant have complied with the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 7
7. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15B (CRITICAL AREAS)
a. Facts:
(1) The applicants submitted a Critical Areas Checklist. The City issued a
Determination that a Study was required due to the steep slope on the
southwest portion of the property.
(2) The applicant has submitted a study and requested an exemption, which will
allow development on steep slopes. The study confirms that the slope is made
up of soil types that make it eligible for a Steep Slope Exemption.
(3) The study is undergoing a peer review by one of the City's consultants.
b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of
ECDC 20.15B. The project should be conditioned upon the final approval of the
Critical Areas Steep Slope Exemption.
7. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.60 (Sign Code)
a. Facts:
(1) The ADB must review any sign proposals that request an allowance for sign
area or height that are over what is stated in the Sign Code.
As shown in the chart above:
Lot A needs a variance to allow a wall mounted sign to be located 21 feet
above the ground where 14 feet is permitted. Two signs are proposed at this
height and are located on prominent entry or accent features on the building.
The ADB reviewed this, considered it appropriate, and recommended it
approval.
Sign Area
Permitted
Sign Area
Proposed
Sign Height
Permitted
Sign Height
Proposed
Lot A
148 sq. ft.
148 sq. ft.
Wall Mount
148 sq. ft.
124 sq. ft.
14 ft.
21
Freestanding
24 sq. ft
24 sq. ft
14 ft.
10
max.
Lot B
120 sq. ft.
152.5 sq. ft.
Wall Mount
120 sq. ft.
120 sq. ft.
14 ft.
<14
Freestanding
48 sq. ft
32.5 sq. ft.
14 ft.
11
max.
Lot C
177 sq. ft.
177 sq. ft.
Wall Mount
177 sq. ft.
145 sq. ft.
14 ft.
23'-8"
Freestanding
48 sq. ft
32 sq. ft.
14 ft.
10
max.
As shown in the chart above:
Lot A needs a variance to allow a wall mounted sign to be located 21 feet
above the ground where 14 feet is permitted. Two signs are proposed at this
height and are located on prominent entry or accent features on the building.
The ADB reviewed this, considered it appropriate, and recommended it
approval.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 8
Lot B needs a variance to allow additional sign area. Their building is going
to be modified significantly at the request of the ADB to provide a second
public face to the building on the west. This results in the tenants having
entrances from the parking lots on both the east and west sides of the building
and a need to identify themselves on both sides of the building.
The applicant states that they can provide adequate signage on both sides of
their building within the sign area allowed for their building but they would be
unable to retain their existing freestanding sign. The freestanding sign does
not advertise any single business but rather the center as a whole. They further
commit to using only individual letter signs and graphics on the building. The
ADB reviewed this, considered it appropriate, and recommended it approval.
Lot C needs a variance to allow a wall mounted sign to be located 23'-8"
above the ground where 14 feet is permitted. Two signs are proposed at this
height. They are located on prominent entry features on the building. The
proposal also indicates that only individual letter signs will be used. The ADB
reviewed this and also considered it appropriate and recommended it approval.
(2) Although the Sign Code requires the ADB to review any proposal that requests
a variance to the standards of approval for signs and implies that the ADB can
approve that, the last provision of the Sign Code, ECDC 20.60.100.E states
that variances to the Sign Code must be reviewed and approved by the
Hearing Examiner. The ADB reviewed the proposal and recommended it
approval.
B. Conclusion:
(1) The ADB supports all of the sign variances from a design perspective.
(2) If the variances are approved, the project will be consistent with the Sign Code
for the City of Edmonds. If the variance is not approved, minor changes will
need to be made.
8. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances)
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would
result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship.
a. Facts:
(1) Eight variances have been applied for, file numbers V-2001-172 through 179.
The applicant submitted eight separate declarations to address each of the
variance applications (see Exhibit A, Attachments 4-11).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 9
(2) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a
variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner.
These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege
is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum
necessary.
(3) V-2001-172 is an application for a variance to increase the sign height for a
wall mounted sign from 14 feet to 21 feet on lot/building A (see Exhibit A,
attachment 4). The Examiner concurs with the applicants regarding how the
proposed sign height variance request meets the variance criteria.
(4) V-2001-173 is an application for a variance to reduce the required street
setback from 20 feet to 0 feet for the location of a freestanding sign on
lot/building A (see Exhibit A, attachment 5).
The Examiner does not agree with the applicants that a variance is not
required to allow a freestanding sign over three feet to be located in the
setbacks. The definition of structure describes that structures must comply
with setbacks except for fences up to six feet in height and other minor
landscape type features, which are exempt.
Regarding the variance criteria for this request, the Examiner generally
concurs with the applicants regarding how the proposed sign setback variance
request meets the variance criteria. However, it does not appear to be the
minimum necessary. The applicants are requesting a 0 foot setback on their
application and in their declarations. But their drawings show the sign to be
2-4 feet from the property line. It appears that the minimum necessary is
probably around 3 feet.
(5) V-2001-174 is a request to allow a pedestrian trellis to be located in the street
setback by reducing the setback from 20 feet down to 0' on lot/building A (see
Exhibit A, attachment 6). The Examiner concurs with the applicants
regarding how the proposed setback variance for the pedestrian trellis meets
the variance criteria.
(6) V-2001-175 is a request to allow a pedestrian trellis to be located in the street
setback by reducing the setback from 20 feet down to 0' on lot/building B (see
Exhibit A, attachment 7). The Examiner concurs with the applicants
regarding how the proposed setback variance for the pedestrian trellis meets
the variance criteria.
(7) V-2001-176 is an application for a variance to increase the sign area allowed
for lot/building B (see Exhibit A, attachment 8). The Examiner concurs with
the applicants regarding how the proposed sign height variance request meets
the variance criteria.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 10
(8) V-2001-177 is an application for a variance to increase the sign height for a
wall mounted sign from 14 feet to 23'-8" on lot/building C (see Exhibit A,
attachment 9). The Examiner concurs with the applicants regarding how the
proposed sign height variance request meets the variance criteria.
(9) V-2001-178 is an application for a variance to reduce the required street
setback from 20 feet to 0 feet for the location of a freestanding sign on
lot/building C (see Exhibit A, attachment 10).
As stated for V-2001-173, a request for a 0 foot setback does not appear to be
the minimum necessary. The minimum necessary appears to be around 3 feet
rather than 0 feet. Otherwise the Examiner agrees with the applicant's
declarations.
(10-) V-2001-179 is a request to allow a pedestrian trellis to be located in the
street setback by reducing the setback from 20 feet down to 0' on lot/building
C (see Exhibit A, attachment 11). The Examiner concurs with the applicants
regarding how the proposed setback variance for the pedestrian trellis meets
the variance criteria.
b. Conclusions:
(1) Variances V-2001-172, 174, 175, 176, 177 and 179 have met all the variance
criteria and should be approved.
(2) Variances V-2001-173 and 178 have met all of the variance criteria except for
the minimum necessary. If the setback request is modified from 0 feet to 3
feet, staff would support the variance request as complying with all the
variance criteria.
C. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The subject property is located in the area identified as Community Commercial and the
Westgate Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan also has the following stated goals and
policies for Commercial Development, development within the Westgate Corridor and
development within areas of sensitive soils and topography all of which appear to apply
to this project.
Commercial Development
D. Goals for Community Commercial Areas. Community commercial areas are
comprised of commercial development serving a dual purpose: services and shopping
for both local residents and regional traffic. The intent of the community commercial
designation is to recognize both of these purposes by permitting a range of business
uses while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character.
D.1. Permit uses in community commercial areas that serve both the local
neighborhood and regional through -traffic.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 11
D.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to
accommodate automobile traffic.
D.3. Provide for the pedestrian -scale design of buildings that are two stories or less
in height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian
activity.
D.4 Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community
commercial area.
Westgate Corridor
F. Goals for the Westgate Corridor. The Westgate Corridor is generally located between
the 9th Avenue/Edmonds Way intersection and where Edmonds Way turns north to
enter the downtown area. By virtue of this location, this corridor serves as both a key
transportation corridor and as an entry into the downtown. Long-established
neighborhoods lie near both sides of the corridor. The plan for this corridor is to
recognize its multiple functions by providing opportunities for small-scale businesses
while promoting compatible development that will not intrude into established
neighborhoods.
F.1. Development within the Westgate Corridor should be designed to recognize its
role as part of an entryway into Edmonds and the downtown. The overall effect
should be a corridor that resembles a landscaped boulevard and median. The
landscaped median along SR -104 should remain as uninterrupted as possible in
order to promote traffic flow and provide an entry effect.
F.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
F4. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access
points by development onto SR -104 in order to support the movement of traffic
in a safe and efficient manner. Site access shall not be provided from residential
streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
F.S. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single
family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades,
pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and
landscaping to provide designs compatible with single-family development.
Soils and Topography
B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 12
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the
natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies:
C.1. Grading and Filling.
C. 1. a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
C.1. b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent
property.
C.1. c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved.
Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property.
C.L d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
C.2. Building Construction.
C. 2. a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
C.2. a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they
should be small and should not support construction of improvements,
which do not conform to the topography.
C.2. a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff
at predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C. 3. a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C. 3. b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce
erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
C.3. c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep-rooted vegetation and mulch, or
other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways.
b. Conclusions:
Plans submitted with this proposal demonstrate its compliance with the above stated
Goals and Policies of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
The proposed Permits have been reviewed and evaluated by other
Departments/Divisions of the City.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 13
a. No comments concerning the proposal were submitted. All departments will look
at the project in more detail at the building permit submittal.
II. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, Architectural Design Review, a
conditional use permit and variances to allow construction of the proposed retail center are
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Design Review of the proposed Retail Complex, ADB -2001-170 is approved, subject to
the following conditions:
a. The building permit will be subject to $20,500 in traffic mitigation as identified by
MDNS issued by the City.
b. A Lot Line Adjustment must be completed and recorded prior to final occupancy.
c. The Critical Areas exemption for construction on Steep Slopes must be approved.
d. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
2. Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru, CU -2001-171 is approved, subject to the
following conditions:
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
b. The conditional use permit is transferable.
3. Variance for increased wall mounted sign height up to 21', V-2001-172, on lot A is
approved, subject to the following condition:
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
4. Variance for reduced street setback for a freestanding sign down to 0', V-2001-173, on lot
A is approved, subject to the following condition:
a. The freestanding sign shall be setback 3 feet from the property line and the project
shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
Variance for a reduced street setback for a pedestrian trellis/arbor down to 0', V-2001-
174, on lot A is approved, subject to the following condition:
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
6. Variance for a reduced street setback for a pedestrian trellis/arbor down
to 0', V-2001-175, on lot B is approved, subject to the following condition:
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
7. Variance to allow the sign area to be increased from 120 sq. ft. to 152 sq. ft., V-2001-176,
on lot B is approved, subject to the following condition:
Clearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 14
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
8. Variance for increased wall mounted sign height up to 23'-8", V-2001-177, on lot C
subject to the following condition:
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
9. Variance for reduced street setback for a freestanding sign down to 0', V-2001-178, on lot
C is approved, subject to the following condition:
a. The freestanding sign shall be setback 0 feet from the property line and the project
shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
10. Variance for a reduced street setback for a pedestrian trellis/arbor down to 0', V-2001-
179, on lot C is approved, subject to the following condition:
a. The project shall be constructed as shown in the plans (Exhibit B).
Entered this 3rd day of January 2002 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
V� �A 'A -c) --� � - (10
Ron McConnell, FAI
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact
the Planning Department for further procedural information.
I. 1 1,` 1 1
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. 2001-170 through 179
Page 15
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
ID .
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 21 attachments
B. Site Plan, dated 11/28/01.& Landscape Plan, dated 10/8/01
John Bissell
19239 Aurora Ave. N
Shoreline, WA 98133
Carol Wingfeld
9918227 1h Place SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Pauline (last name unreadable)
No address given
Barbara Gordon
510 Forsyth Lane, #407
Edmonds, WA 98020
Evelyn Bishop
633 Main St., #203
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jean Barry, Lea Bates, & Lorraine Bass
8615238 th SW, #C301
Edmonds, WA 98026
Sylvia Stuckens
1067 5th Ave. S, #101
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds Planning Division