HE Decision.pdfC TFY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH ® Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
C, J S9
In the Matter of the Application of
Sound Transit
For a Conditional Use Permit and
Consolidated Design Review
NO. CU -08-065
AD13-08-01s.
FAJ�, 9
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a conditional use permit (CUP) and consolidated design review to allow
development of a temporary commercial parking lot in the Community Business zone at 102
Main Street in Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to conditions.
" I 1 0 1]
Adil RAIA112111XV " 1"I
Request:
Sound Transit (Applicant) requested a CUP and consolidated design review to allow
development of a temporary commercial parking lot at 102 Main Street in Edmonds.
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on
March 19, 2009, after conducting a site visit.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Paul Cornish, Applicant Representative
3. Robert Gregg, owner of subject property
4. Ken Kime, Diamond Parking, representative of current site tenant
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted hi the record:
Planning Division Staff Report, dated March 10, 2009, with the following attachments:
1. IWIITMT%M-�
1. Zoning and vicinity map
2. Land use application
3. Applicant's criteria statement and proposed work schedule
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page I of 10
lncokporo�ed Ai-v,P,ist 11, 1890
4. Subsequent Applicant's submittal with attachments:
a. Parking layout map
b. Drainage plan
c. Parcel map
d. Signage example
e. Sign sample language
f Streetlight and catch basin plan
g. City Engineering memorandum, with attached gravel/pavement location plan
S. SEPA EIS Addendum
6. Lease agreement
7. Photos of the site (taken by Applicant)
8. Public notices (to date)
B. ADB Draft Meeting Minutes
C. Notices and Affidavits of Public Hearing
2. Staff PowerPoint presentation
Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell, City Engineering Program Manager, dated March
24, 2009'
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits admitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions.
FINDINGS
I The Applicant requested a requested a CUP and. consolidated design review to allow
development of a temporary commercial parking lot in the Community Business zone at
102 Main Street in Edmonds.' Exhibit 1, page 1; Exhibit I.A. 2, Application.
2. The 0.37 -acre subject property is located at the prominent downtown intersection of Main
Street and Sunset Avenue (State Route 104), adjacent to the Amtrak and freight railroad
line and near the Edmonds ferry dock. Surrounding development includes a mix of retail
and office uses, including several restaurants. Currently the site contains the vacant
Skippers restaurant building and a commercial parking lot operated by Diamond Parking
1 On the record at hearing, the Examiner determined additional comment was needed from Engineering to address
the Staff recommendation to approve the permit for longer than the one-year period contemplated in the code
governing temporary parking lots. The record was held open until March 26, 2009 for Engineering comments,
which were timely submitted and are admitted as Exhibit 3. The record was held open until April 2, 2009 for
responsive comments, if any, from the Applicant. None were submitted. The record closed on April 2, 2009.
2 The subject property is known as Tax Parcel Number 00-4548-003-007-00. Exhibit], Attachment A, page 2.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08,65ISDB-08-66 page 2 of 10
(CU -07-97), approved March 20, 2008. 3 Exhibit 1. page 1; Testimony of Ms. Coccia;
Exhibit 1, Attachment A, pages 2-3; Site Visit.
3. The site is flat. There is some existing landscaping within the site, as well as some
landscaping within the adjacent City right-of-way along Main Street and the rounded
comer onto Sunset Avenue. Exhibit 1, AttachmentA.4a. A critical areas reconnaissance
report indicated that the site contains a seismic hazard area; however, no structures are
proposed with the application and therefore no further studies are required for the
proposed use relating to geologic hazards. The property is not within shoreline
jurisdiction of any water of statewide significance. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 3.
4. The application was submitted on October 30, 2008 and deemed complete on the same
day. Exhibit], Attachment A.8.
The proposal includes removal of the existing restaurant building and development of
approximately 25 additional parking stalls (for a total of 50 spaces) within the site for
Sound Transit commuter parking during construction of the Edmonds Commuter Rail
Station. After demolition of the vacant commercial structure, the Applicant proposes to
finish the exposed surface to the grade of the existing paved parking lot (as necessary)
and install a gravel surface in the footprint of the removed structure and associated
building pad. No new structures are proposed. The existing paved portion of the site
would not be altered. Parking stalls would be defined by striping and wheel stops in both
the gravel and paved portions of the site. One-way ingress, egress, and internal
circulation would be established consistent with City requirements. Exhibit 1, pages I-
2; Testimony of Mr. Cornish; Exhibit 1, Attachment A; Exhibit 1, Attachments A. 3 and
A. 4.
6. The project would have minimal impact on views from surrounding properties. The
existing vacant building would be removed and existing landscaping would be enhanced,
improving the view of the site itself. The current parking use would be doubled in area,
but no structures would be added. The temporary parking use is proposed to last only
during construction of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, between 16 and 24 months
from date of CUP issuance. Exhibit 1, pages 1-2; Testimony ofMr. Cornish; Exhibit 1,
Attachment A; Exhibit 1, Attachments A.3 and A.4.
7. Temporary parking lots are allowed by CUP approval in all commercial zones. Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 17.50.090. Because no new structures are
proposed, zoning code setback, floor area, and height calculations are not required. The
exact number and layout of parking stalls would be determined during civil engineering
review after preliminary approval., Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 5; Testimony of Ms.
Coccia.
3 CU -07-97 was approved March 20, 2008 for one year and no extension had been filed as of the time of public
hearing. See CU -07-97; Testimony of Mr. Dime.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 3 of 10
I
8. The proposal's design elements were considered at a public meeting of the architectural
design board (ADB) on March 4, 2009. Of the 14 site design objectives contemplated in
the Comprehensive Plan, Staff identified the following as applicable to the proposed
temporary use: vehicular access; location and layout of parking; pedestrian connections
off-site; weather protection; lighting; signage; utilities, trash, and mechanical; significant
features; and landscape buffers. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 4; Tetimony of Us.
Caccia.
9. Vehicles access the site from Railroad Street to the west and Sunset Avenue to the east.
The existing driveway approaches are paved and would not be altered. The site contains
an existing pedestrian path connection between the sidewalk and the area surrounding the
vacant restaurant building. Both Sunset Avenue and Main Street are developed with
existing sidewalks. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 4; Attachment A. 4; Attachment A. 4. a.
10. The site contains approximately 25 parking stalls currently. Demolition of the structure
and site preparation would make room for approximately 25 more. The project is
intended to prevent interruptions in available commercial parking during construction of
the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. Exhibit], Attachment A, page 4,-AtiachmentA.4;
Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
11. No structures are proposed and no pay stations would be installed. Users of the
temporary parking lot would park vehicles and walk to the train station to wait for trains.
No weather protection is proposed. No new utilities would be needed for the temporary
parking use. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 4, Attachment A. 4.
12. There are three existing streetlights near the site: one along the south property line; one
near the northeast corner of the site; and one across Sunset A -venue to the east. The site is
133 feet wide at its widest point. No additional street lighting is proposed. Exhibit 1,
Attachment A, page 4; Attachment A. 4. Staff stated that the existing lighting appears to
be sufficient. Exhibit 1, Attachment B, page 6,- Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
13. The Applicant submitted a photograph of a typical sign at another of their parking
facilities, as well as sample sign language. No application for sign permit has been
submitted. Sign permits are required. Information on the Applicant's typical parking lot
signs includes guidelines on dissuading break ins and a list of prohibited activities, which
include (but are not limited to): camping in vehicle; dumping; litter; leafleting and
unauthorized sales or advertising; panhandling; skateboarding and rollerblading; vehicle -
for -sale activity; storing disabled vehicles; auto repair; RV and trailer parking; and
leaving vehicles unattended for 24 hours or more. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 4,
Attachments 4d and 4e.
14. The site currently contains some landscaping, including: a mature hedge along the
southern property line; some shrubs and low plantings around the existing building within
the proposed development envelope; and shrubs and low plantings within the City right-
of-way adjacent to the proposed development envelope. Of the existing landscaping,
only that within the proposed development envelope would be removed; the mature
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 4 of 10
hedge at the south lot line and all plantings within the right-of-way would be retained.
The Applicant proposed no additional landscaping. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 5;
Attachment A. 4; Attachment A. 4. a, "Conceptual Parking Layout".
15. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.030.E, parking areas with up to 50 stalls are required to provide
17.5 square feet of landscaped area per parking stall. "Type W landscaping is intended
to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. Type V landscaping requires trees,
minimum planting bed sizes, and beds at the end of each parking row, among other
requirements. ECDC 20.13.030.E and E.2. However, given the temporary duration of
the proposed parking use, Staff suggested that requiring fall compliance with landscaping
standards would be unduly burdensome. Staff noted that the project as proposed without
landscaping would enhance the existing visual site conditions. As a compromise, Staff
recommended to the Architectural Design Board that the Applicant be required only to
retain the hedge to the south and to clean up and add low ground cover -type plantings to
the existing landscaping that would be retained in the City right-of-way. Staff opined
that such "sprucing up" of existing beds would beautify the site and make "the transition
from sidewalk to gravel lot more attractive". In order to achieve the desired landscaping
enhancements, Staff recommended a condition of approval requiring submission of a
revised site plan depicting additional plantings. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 6, -
.Testimony ofMs. Coccia,
16. After completing analysis of design review requirements applicable to the project, Staff
recommended that the ADB recommend design review approval to the Hearing
Examiner. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 6, Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
17. One ADB member expressed a concern that the gravel parking surface be maintained to
avoid potholes and to avoid the tracking of gravel into public rights-of-way. Otherwise,
the ADB discussion focused almost solely on the question of whether and to what extent
to require landscaping improvements for the proposed temporary use. In sum, the Board
agreed that existing site conditions constitute an eyesore; however, several members
hesitated to single out the Applicant with the responsibility of enhancing the visual values
of the gateway to the City, given the fact that the City has not maintained the landscaping
within the right-of-way in question. The Board reached a compromise based on the
premise of a temporary use to last no longer than 24 months. The ADB recommended
design review approval subject to conditions requiring the Applicant to: include low
native plantings in the adjacent landscape beds within the right-of-way; retain and "clean
up" the existing shrubs within the right-of-way; and regularly maintain the landscaped
areas on and adjacent to the site. Exhibit 1, Attachment B.
18. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property is "Downtown Master
Plan", and the site is within the "Downtown Waterfront Activity Center'. City Planning
Staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals of commercial development as
applicable to the current proposal:
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
Cily of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp- Parking Lot No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 5 of] 0
E.10 Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring improved
bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes, and adequate streets and
parking areas.
E.16 Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately
landscaped paved areas.
2006 Comprehensive Plan, page 34
19. The site would eventually be redeveloped, and with permanent development, full
landscaping would be required. Members, of the ADB opined that it is "difficult" to
require the Applicant to plant trees for a temporary use. Exhibit 1, Attachment A, page 3;
Testimony of Ms. Coccia; Exhibit 1, Attachment B, page 6.
20. The Applicant maintains contracts with vendors and retains employees, who together
maintain its other parking lots on a regular basis, including but not limited to: initial
striping; maintenance of striping and parking surfaces; litter control; and landscaping
maintenance. The Sound Transit Facilities Department has already incorporated
maintenance of the instant proposed temporary lot into its budget. If approved, an on-call
vendor would be charged with maintaining the striping in good condition. Exhibit 1,
Attachment B, page 6; Testimony of 'Mr. Cornish.
21. Temporary parking lots are limited to a one-year approval, with a possible one-year
extension to be administratively reviewed and decided based on submission. of a "written
application stating the reasons" for the extension request prior to expiration of the
additional permit. ECDC I 7.50.090A. 1. Because the Applicant's tentative project
schedule ranges up to 24 months (at a projected maximum) and because the one-year
extension can be administratively approved if a written request is filed, with no other
criteria, Staff recommended that the Examiner approve the proposed temporary parking
lot for two years initially. Although temporary parking lots may be operated up to a
maximum of four years by code [see ECDC 17.50.090.A.21, based on ADB concerns
about the longer term impacts of the reduced landscaping requirements, Staff
recommended that the temporary parking lot be limited to a maximum of two years. If
longer temporary parking became necessary, the Applicant would be required to file a
new application for temporary parking lot, at which point the use would be reviewed for
compliance with ftdI landscaping requirements, including trees. Exhibit 1, pages 3-4,
Testimony of Ms Caccia; Exhibit 1, Attachment B, page 6.
22. In its current condition, site runoff sheet flows to an existing catch basin located in the
southwestern quarter of the site. Pursuant to ECDC 18.95.020, parking lots are required
to have hard surfaces; however, the City Engineer may allow temporary parking lots to
have gravel surfacing. Driveways for gravel parking lots are required to have 20 -foot
paved aprons. Upon review of a conceptual parking layout and the Staff recommendation
to approve the CUP for two years, the City Engineer noted that such would be acceptable
on the following conditions: that the gravel area be sloped to direct runoff to the catch
basin near the driveway approach at Railroad Street; that an oil/water separator or other
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 6 of 10
City -approved filtering method be installed in the existing catch basin; and that the
Applicant provide a inspection and maintenance plan. for the oil/water separator or other
filter, to be reviewed and accepted by Engineering prior to construction. Exhibit 3,
23. The Applicant did not object to the additional ground cover in the existing landscape beds
in the right-of-way and in gaps that might remain after removal of the building. The
Applicant would retain the shrubs and maintain all landscaping through employees or
contract vendors. Exhibit 1, Attachment B, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Cornish.
24. The City's Technical Committee, comprised of the Engineering Division and the Fire,
Parks and Recreation, and Public Works Departments, reviewed the proposal. The
Engineering Division had initial questions, which were resolved through communication
subsequent to the Applicant's first submittal. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment
4.g; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
25. The Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station was reviewed for compliance with
the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as part of the Everett, to
Seattle Commuter Rail Project. An environmental impact statement (EIS) was issued in
December 1999. With the instant request, the Applicant submitted an addendum EIS
addressing the role of the instant proposal in the overall scope of the greater project. The
proposed temporary parking lot would not substantially change the project's previously
reviewed impacts or require additional analysis of alternatives to those contemplated in
existing environmental documents, and no new probable significant environmental
impacts would result. The requirements of SEPA have been addressed. Exhibit 1,
Attachment A, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment A. ,Testimony ofMs Caccia.
26. Notice of public hearing was published, posted, and mailed on March 5, 2009. No public
comments were received. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment A.8, Testimony of Ms.
Coccia,
27. An agent for the company currently operating the commercial parking lot on-site attended
the hearing, as did the owner of the subject property. According to the owner's
testimony, the current parking lot operator .had inadvertently been excluded from
communications regarding the current proposal. In public comment, the owner supported
the instant application, and the current tenant did not oppose it. Testimony of Mr. Gregg;
Testimony of Mr. Kime.
28. Staff recommended that approval, as conditioned, be allowed to transfer to subsequent
parties, in the event that the Applicant's need for the project ends prior to the 24 -month
recommended expiration date. Exhibit 1, page 6; Testimony of Ms. Coccia.
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide CUP requests pursuant to ECDC
20.100.010.A.3 and 20.05.010. Design Review approval maybe consolidated with other land
use permits heard and decided by the Examiner pursuant to ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2).
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 7 of t0
Criteria for Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.010, the Hearing Examiner may not approve a CUP unless the
following findings can be made:
A. That the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
B. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in
which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all
applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance;
C. Not Detrimental. That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not
be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to
nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity;
and
D. Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the
conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1 As conditioned, the proposed temporary parking lot would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Removal of the vacant building and clean up and maintenance of
existing landscaping, as well as the additional plantings required by conditions, would
enhance the streetscape. Approval would contribute to prevention of parking congestion
and the concomitant traffic and pedestrian safety issues during construction of the
Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. Findings Nos. 5, 6, 14, 1-5, 18, 19, 20, and 23.
2. Temporary parking lots are allowed in the Community Business zone. No structures are
proposed, rendering setback, height, and floor area calculations moot. Conditions of
approval would address landscaping requirements appropriate to the temporary parking
use. Findings Nos. 7 and 17.
3. With conditions, the temporary parking lot would not result in any detriment to the public
health, safety, and welfare. The project would not increase vehicle or pedestrian traffic in
the downtown area and would prevent parking congestion during construction of the
commuter rail station. No new structures, including pay stations, are proposed. The
existing abandoned commercial building would be removed. Existing mature, healthy
landscaping along the south lot line and within the City right-of-way would be
maintained and, with conditions, expanded through new low, native plantings. Existing
drainage conditions would not be interrupted; as conditioned, the new gravel surface
would be graded to slope towards the existing catch basin and oil/water separation or
similar filtration treatment would be installed. Views from surrounding properties would
not be adversely impacted, while views of the site from surrounding properties would be
(somewhat) improved. With conditions, the temporary parking use would not exceed two
years in duration without undergoing additional review, at which time further landscaping
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 8 of 10
requirements would apply. The Technical Committee reviewed the project and submitted
no adverse comments. The proposal was reviewed for compliance with the requirements
of SEP.A. Findings Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, and .25.
4. The requirement for the Applicant to submit a request for a one-year extension is waved
and the proposed temporary use is allowed for a maximum of 24 months. With a
condition limiting the duration of the use to a maximum of two years, the CUP would be
transferable to subsequent parking lot operators within the 24 months of approval.
Regardless of operator, any extension beyond the initial two-year approval would require
review of a new application. Findings Nos. 21 and 28.
S. Applicable design -review -requirements are enumerated in Finding number 8. The ADB's
recommendation for design review approval is adopted. As conditioned, appropriate
provisions have been made for vehicular access, parking layout, pedestrian connections,
weather protection, lighting, signage, utilities, trash, and landscaped buffers. Conditions
would require submission and approval of a revised site plan including additional
landscaping, ongoing site maintenance of parking lot surface and landscaping, as well as
all appropriate permits, including but not limited to grading, building, and demolition.
Findings Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the requested CUP and consolidated design
review approval to allow development of a temporary commercial parking lot in the Community
Business zone at 102 Main Street in. Edmonds is GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of any construction -related permits, the Applicant shall submit a revised
site plan for review and approval by the City Planning Division. The revised site plan
shall depict the addition of low native plantings (groundcover) within the existing
planting beds to be retained within the right -of way and in gaps around the -removed
structure. All landscaping shall be installed prior to commencement of parking lot
operations.
2. The shrub -type landscaping existing within the adjacent right-of-way and the hedge along
the south lot line shall be retained. All new and retained landscaping within the site and
the adjacent right-of-way shall be regularly maintained in a neat, healthy condition for the
duration of the temporary parking use.
3. The Applicant shall maintain on-site parking spaces and the parking surface in a safe,
litter -free manner, with parking spaces that conform to all City development standards,
and shall not allow gravel to be tracked into the public right-of-way for the fife of the
temporary parking use.
4. Prior to commencement of operations, the new gravel surface shall be graded to direct
runoff to the catch basin near the driveway approach at Railroad Street and an oil/water
separator or other City -approved filtering method shall be installed in the existing catch
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of dmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound.Transit .Iemp. Parking Lot, No. CU-08-65ISDB-08-66 page 9 of 10
basin. The Applicant shall provide an inspection and maintenance plan for the oil/water
separator or other filter, to be reviewed and accepted by Engineering prior to
construction,
S. Approval of the temporary parking use, as conditioned herein, is granted for a maximum
period of two years. Any extension shall require review of new applications for
conditional use and design review.
6. Approval may transfer to subsequent operators of temporary parking uses within the
authorized 24 -month period.
DECIDED this 15"' day of April 2009.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Sound Transit Temp. Parking Lot, .No. CU-08-65/SD 3-08-66 page :10 of 10
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should
contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural
information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within 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.
"PEALS
Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has
submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the
hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires
appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and
the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his
or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be
wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(8), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development
Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal
must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed
before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a
decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his or her
decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was
stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appeal period, an individual
would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on
the reconsideration request.
Section 20.05.020(0) of the ECDC states: "Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if
no building permit is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of
approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the 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.
incoyporated Auqust 11, 1890
'I C. I S9
Applicant
CITY OF' EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH ® Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
Sound Transit
For a Conditional Use Permit and
Design Review Approval
jlll l ill
1, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case Nos. CU-08-65/ADB-08-66
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
I That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. On April 14, 20091 served a copy of the decision in case CU-08-65/ADB-08-66 upon the
following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Don Vogt, Sound Transit Robert Gregg/Splash Properties
401 S. Jackson Street 51 W. Dayton, #304
Seattle, WA 98104-2826 Edmonds, WA 98020
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Engineering
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Paul Cornish, Sound Transit Proj. Mngr.
2632 NW 64h Street
Seattle, WA 98107
Art Eash, HDR Engineering
500 — 108t" Ave. NE, Ste. 1200
Bellevue, WA 98004-5549
City of Edmonds Fire Department, C/O
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct:
DATED THIS 10 day of April 2009 at Shoreline, ashington. D
Sharon A. Rice, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
IncorporatedAuIgust 11, 1,890 "1