HE Decision.pdf11, C . 1 ?)()V
(.'�"11`17y' OF E.T)IMONE)S
121 5111 AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
I �' MIJ [T 111W11 �m �q 11�rll)"iMIJIFJWJ'r - y�OVIII
OFTHE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANTS: Thomas & Yvonne McG-raw
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
CASE NO.: CU -03-182/V-03-183
LOCATION: 20120 — 76"' Avenue W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an office in a
Multiple Residential zone, and a Variance to allow parking at 13
feet to 76"' Avenue W., within the 15 -foot required street setback
(see Exhibit A).
RE WE W PROCESS: The Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes a final
decision on Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request.
MAJOR ISSUES: Compliance with the following:
1) Section 16.30, Multiple Residential
2) Chapter 20.05, Conditional Use Permits
3) Chapter 20.85, Variances
4) City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Recommendation
Hearing Examiner Decision:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve with conditions
Approve with conditions
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 McGraw application was opened at 10:10 a.m., January 15, 2004, in the City
Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at, 10:50 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.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
In( orporob!d A ulqto'�11, 1""'90
From the City:
Meg Gruwell, Project Planner: Provided an overview of the project, noting a
medical office was allowed in the RM -3 zone with a conditional use approval, and
summarized the concerns raised in two comment letters (Exhibit A, Attachment 4, and
Exhibit B). Ms. Gruwell reviewed the criteria for variances and conditional uses and
provided staff's analysis and recommendation (see Exhibit A).
From the Applicant:
Thomas McGraw: Explained he was trying to provide a home -like setting for his
patients (he is a chiropractor), noted there appeared to be other small businesses in former
single family structures in the area, and that he did not feel that, with the improvements
they were making on the site, there would not be a negative impact on property values.
He explained that he had essentially a low volume practice, rarely had more than two
patients on-site at a time, and the hours of operation were compatible with a residential
neighborhood.
Yvonne McGraw: Reviewed the details of how they were improving the exterior
landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the project. These included an upgraded
fence/arbor that would planted with evergreen species to screen their site from the
adjacent condominium, screening of the parking lot, and noted the setback variance from
76th allowed for the required number of parking spaces without intruding into the setback
adjacent to neighboring residences.
From the Community:
The following individuals spoke during the hearing:
Arlyn Jones
Mark Brewer
Bernice Kenney
Patrick Daily
The primary concern raised pertained to traffic and parking on 76th. Those who spoke
noted the amount of traffic combined with the parking on either side made 76th made for
a potentially hazardous condition. It was noted that left turns out of the subject property
could add to the problem. It was suggested that a'right turn only' sign be installed at the
exit from the parking area. The other concern had to do with insuring adequate
screening/buffering of the parking area from adjacent residences. Adjacent residents did
indicate they thought the McGraws had been conscientious about including them in the
planning and thought they would be good neighbors.
1. The Facts presented in the Site Description on page 2 and 3 in Exhibit A, Planning
Division Advisory Report, January S, 2004, accurately reflects the site circumstances and
zoning requirements, and are hereby adopted by reference.
N
2. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with conditional use criteria on page 3
and 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 8, 2004, are accurate and
are hereby adopted by reference,
3. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with SEPA review on page 4 in Exhibit
A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 8, 2004, are accurate and are hereby
adopted by reference,
4. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with critical area review on page, 4 in
Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 8, 2004, are accurate and are
hereby adopted by reference.
5. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with the variance criteria on pages 4
through 6 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 8, 2004, are accurate
and are hereby adopted by reference.
6. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan on pages 6
and 7 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 8, 2004, are accurate and
are hereby adopted by reference.
7. As noted in the hearing, 76"' is has one lane each direction and parking on either side of
the street. The narrow roadway combined with reduced sight distance from parked
vehicles does contribute to a potentially unsafe condition. This condition is systemic to
the neighborhood and needs to be addressed through a more comprehensive process than
is provided here. However, to the extent that this project may exacerbate the existing
condition, the suggestion for aright turn only' sign appears to be appropriate.
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a chiropractor's office, and the Variance to allow a reduced setback for parking from 76'h
are approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with e recommended conditions set forth on page 2 of Exhibit A, Planning
Division Advisory Report, January 8; and,
2. A'right turn only' sign shall be installed at the exit to the parking area.
Entered this 26th day of January, 2004, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Donald B. L arg
Hearing E amine'r Pro Tom
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
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
s 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
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.
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
n,1 a w.r.:f,T
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 variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
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 Assessor's Office.
EXHIBITS
A. Planning Division Advisory Report dated January 8, 2004.
B. An e-mail comment from Rod & Jane Hansen, dated January 14, 2004.
C. Six color photos of the fencing separating the adjacent condominiums from the subject
property.
PARTIES OF RECORD
M
Thomas & Yvonne McGraw Planning Division Arlyn Jones
20305 — 73' Avenue W. Public Works Division 7606 201 St. SW, #C
Lynnwood, WA 98036 Engineering Division Edmonds, WA 98026
Mark Brewer Bernice Kenney Patrick Daily
7803 202 Pl. SW 7606 201 St. SW, #B 7608 202 St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026