HE Decision.pdfIf", Y
F E . . S MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH a EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 o fax (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. ADB2010-54
NO. CU2010-53
Dale Pinney on behalf of )
Columbia Bank ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
For Design Review and )
a Conditional Use Permit )
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for design review approval and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow drive
through teller lanes at a proposed new Columbia Bank building at 96xx Edmonds Way in
Edmonds, Washington is GRANTED subject to conditions.
Request:
Dale Pinney, on behalf of Columbia Bank (Applicant), requested design review approval and a
CUP to allow drive through teller lanes at a proposed new Columbia Bank building at 96xx
Edmonds Way in Edmonds.
Hearing Date:
The City's Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on October 7,
2010.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Gina Coccia, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Dale Pinney, First Western Development Svcs, Inc., Applicant Representative
3. Alvin Rutledge
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
Exhibit 1 City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report & Recommendation to the
Architectural Design Board, dated September 8, 2010, with the following
attachments:
1. Zoning and vicinity map
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53 page I of 12
1n(�oq.)�.-rrntc,d August 11, 1890
2. Land use application
3. Criteria statement
4. Plans and Elevations
5. SEPA DNS & Environmental Checklist
6. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
7. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design: General Objectives
8. Public Notices
9. Public Comment Letter: James Martin
Exhibit 2 Sign Plan
Exhibit 3 Proposed Site Plan Alternate A, submitted September 15, 20101
Exhibit 4 Applicant's photos
Exhibit 5 ADB's redlined landscape plan
Exhibit 6 Applicant's revised landscape plan
Exhibit 7 Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, dated September 28, 2010, with the
following attachments:
A. Draft ADB meeting minutes, September 15, 2010
B. Notice of public hearing
Exhibit 8 Correspondence from Dale Pinney, Applicant representative, dated October 4,
2010, with attached executed access easement, witnessed September 24, 2010
Exhibit 9 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, dated July 18, 2010
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted, the Hearing Examiner enters the
following fmdings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested design review approval and a CUP to allow drive through teller
lanes at a proposed new Columbia Bank building at 96xx Edmonds Way in Edmonds.'
Exhibit 1, Attachment 2; Coccia Testimony.
1 The alternate site plan was required to address site traffic flow in the event that the shared access easement was not
obtainable; however, the shared access easement was in fact obtained and the alternate site plan is not needed. See
Exhibit 8; Coccia Testimony.
' The subject property is known as Lot 10 of the K. Elise Plat and as Tax Parcel Number 00937900001000. Exhibit
7, page 2.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 2 of 12
2. The subject property has a Community Business Edmonds Way (BC -EW) zoning
designation. Service businesses such as banks are allowed in the BC -EW zone without
permits, but a conditional use permit is required to operate a drive-in business the BC -
EW district. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.50.010. C. 6. The
project's scope of work triggered review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), which in turn triggered design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB):
Because design review is consolidated with CUP review pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13,
the ADB evaluated the project for compliance with applicable design criteria and
forwarded a recommendation to the hearing examiner. Both requests will be decided in
the instant decision. Exhibit 7, pages 1-2; Coccia Testimony.
3. The 1.1 -acre subject property is undeveloped. It is predominantly flat with a steep slope
in the northern portion. The steep slope was evaluated and determined to be a landslide
hazard area pursuant to Title 23.80 of the City's critical areas ordinance. The parcel is
bare except for the slope which is vegetated with non-native shrubs. Some existing trees
along the northwest and eastern site boundaries would be retained. The site is not within
shoreline jurisdiction. Exhibit 7, page 3.
4. Parcels to the east share the site's BC -EW zoning designation, while parcels west are
zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). Edmonds Way is State Route 104, which is
considered to be a Principal Arterial. The site is surrounded by commercial uses along
Edmonds Way, some of which include drive-in uses, including a car wash, a bank, gas
stations, and a drive-in pharmacy. There is a single-family residential neighborhood to
the north, separated from the site by the steep slope. Directly across the street, parcels
are zoned with multifamily designations. Exhibit 7, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment 1.
5. The project consists of a new 4,000 square foot bank building, three drive through teller
lanes, parking for 20 cars, a retaining wall at the base of the slope, and approximately
2,000 cubic yards of cut and 800 cubic yards of fill. The Applicant asserted that the
drive-in function generally aids the flow of traffic by reducing transaction time, helping
people move quickly through the corridor. The Applicant has caused a mutual access
easement onto Edmonds Way to be created at the shared boundary with the adjacent
(currently undeveloped) parcel, minimizing driveway interruptions on the arterial.
Exhibit 1, Attachments 3 and; Pinney Testimony, Exhibit 8.
6. The property has a Comprehensive Plan designation of "Edmonds Way Corridor".
Applicable Comprehensive Plan land use goals and policies for the project include:
Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of
portions of Edmonds Way between the 1000' Avenue West intersection and Highway
99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link
between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of
the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies
along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near
intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 3 of 12
along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of traffic or intrude into
adjoining established communities.
F.1. Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments
that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
F.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
F.3. 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 should not be provided
from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative.
F.4. 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. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible
development whenever possible.
Exhibit 1, pages 3-4, as excerpted from the 2009 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan,
page 75.
7. Additional Comprehensive Plan goals and policies apply to development on sites with
steep slopes:
Goals for soils and topography are provided to show how development on steep slope
or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in
accordance with the following policies:
C. l .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 any 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.1.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
Exhibit 1, page 4, excerpted from the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, page 79.
8. The ADB concurred with Planning Staffs analysis that the project would comply with the
Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design chapter with recommended conditions. The ADB
modified and included the recommended conditions in its recommendation to the
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia BankADB2010-541CU2010-53 page 4 of 12
examiner. Staffs analysis, in the record at Exhibit 1, pages 4-5, is incorporated in this
finding by this reference. Exhibit 1, pages 4-5; Exhibit 7, Attachment A, page 9.
Zoning
9. The BC -EW zone requires a 15 -foot setback adjoining any residentially zoned parcels.
The required setback must be landscaped with trees and ground cover permanently
maintained by the owner of the BC lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid
hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. Maximum base building height
allowed is 35 feet. ECDC 16. 50.020.A and .O.O.E.
10. The site's north lot line abuts an R-8 zone, triggering the 15 -foot building setback from
the northern lot line. As proposed, the nearest structure to the north lot line would be the
retaining wall at the foot of the steep slope, set back approximately 50 feet from the
boundary. Compliance with structure height restrictions would be ensured through the
building permit process. Exhibit 1, page 6; Coccia Testimony; Exhibit 1, Attachment 4.
11. The Applicant commissioned a professionally prepared preliminary geotechnical
engineering report to address the proposal in relation to the on-site slope and the
conceptual feasibility of the retaining walls. The geotechnical report stated:
The preliminary plans for the project indicate that a short retaining structure will be
required adjacent to the drive through lanes and a taller retaining structure will be
required at the back of the east parking lot. The maximum anticipated retaining
structure height is on the order of 8 to 10 feet at the rear of the parking lot. The
retaining structures will be constructed at the toe of a slope which ascends to the
north and becomes a steep slope outside the proposed building area. The maximum
slope behind and within the area of influence of the currently envisioned retaining
structures is slightly flatter than 30%.
Based on these slopes and the reported geotechnical conditions, it is our opinion that
the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and that the proposed
retaining structures would be successfully designed and constructed on this site. We
anticipate that gravity walls constructed of large modular blocks ... can be used for
the anticipated retaining structures provided that wall heights remain at or below
currently proposed levels.
Exhibit 9.
12. Banks must provide one parking stall for every 200 square feet of gross building area.
ECDC 16.50.020,B.4. At 4,000 square feet, the bank requires 20 parking stalls, which
have been provided. Exhibit 1, page 7, Exhibit 1, Attachment 4.
Design Review
13. The proposal is subject to General Design Review. ECDC 20.11.010. Because the
project also includes quasi-judicial land use review, design review has been consolidated
with CUP review, both to be decided by the hearing examiner. Planning Staff presented
the design review application with a recommendation to the ADB, which body made
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 5 of 12
recommendations for alterations to the project and a final recommendation to the
examiner. Planning Staffs analysis of applicable design objectives, in the record at
Exhibit 1, pages 7-8, as modified by the ADB's recommendation in the record at Exhibit
7, Attachment A, page 9, are adopted and incorporated in their entirety in this finding.
Some details of design review analysis will be specifically called out in the findings that
follow. Exhibit 1, pages 7-8, Exhibit 7, Attachment A; Caccia Testimony,
14. After review, the ADB recommended approval of the proposed design with several
conditions:
• Either an easement shall be obtained to allow access over the adjacent property to the
west or the project will need to be revised to meet code. If the revision is substantial,
then the project may need to go before the ADB once more for review.
• The street tree species shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department for
compliance with the Street Tree Plan.
• Additional "Type 11" landscaping shall be provided near the east property line in
accordance with ECDC 20.13.030.
• Additional landscaping in and around the parking lot shall be provided in accordance
with ECDC 20.13.030.
• Grading shall be minimized in north portion of the site to the maximum extent
feasible and verified through a geotechnical report that is compliant with the critical
areas ordinance (Title 23 ECDC) as well as Section 20.11.030.13.1 ECDC and the
Comprehensive Plan.
• The 25 -foot tall light poles shall be replaced with low-rise light poles (sheet A1)
consistent with ECDC 20.11.030.13.8.
Exhibit 7, Attachment A.
15. The Applicant addressed ADB's concerns at the land use hearing on October 7th. The
shared access easement was executed and provided at hearing. The Applicant indicated
an intention to be guided by the Parks Department with regard to street tree species. The
initially proposed 25 -foot light poles have been replaced with 20 -foot poles to address the
ADB's concerns regarding a more "human scale" development and minimizing light
impacts to nearby development. Exhibit 8, Pinney Testimony.
16. Regarding site grading: the volume of grading proposed results from the natural
difference in elevation on-site, with the east end being three to five feet higher than the
west end. After consideration of several alternative designs, the proposal selected would
retain the slope in an undisturbed condition behind a retaining wall and would grade the
flatter portions of the site to the required level. The proposed parking lot would keep a
five percent grade change, in order to minimize slope impacts. Exhibit 7, Attachment A;
Pinney Testimony.
Landscaping
17. Type I landscaping is required to separate significantly different land uses, such as a
drive through bank facility and single-family residential development. ECDC
20.13.030.A; Exhibit 1, page 8. Type II landscaping is required along the site's east and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 6of12
west boundaries between the project and uses that are similar to the proposal. ECDC
20.13.030.B.
18. Type I landscaping would normally be required along the northern boundary abutting the
R-8 area; however, the significant slope there already provides a dense sight barrier.
Required additional plantings would have to be placed either at the top or the toe of the
steep slope. At the top, they could affect slope safety. At the toe, they would offer
minimal to no sight barrier benefit. Exhibit 1, page 8, Coccia Testimony.
19. The slope, and other portions of the site, are densely vegetated with Himalayan
blackberry and Scotch Broom, non-native invasive species that remain green much the
year. In the original landscape plan, the Applicant proposed to retain much of the
existing non-native greenery to serve the purposes of vegetation and slope stabilization.;
Coccia Testimony; Exhibit 4, Site Photos.
20. The ADB objected to the retention of the non-native blackberry and Scotch Broom for
the purpose of satisfying Type I or Type II landscaping requirements and provided a
redlined copy of the original landscape plan with suggested alternative landscaping.
Exhibit 7, Attachment A, pages 7-8; Exhibit 5.
21. The Applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan that addressed the ADB's concerns.
Changes include removal of significant portions of the non-native species and
replacement with lawn, landscape beds including shrubs, and additional trees. Exhibit 6,
Exhibit 7, page 5; Coccia Testimony,
22. Addressing the Type II landscaping required along the east and west site boundaries,
Planning Staff noted that trees may not be appropriate along the shared access easement.
Existing mature trees along the eastern boundary would be retained, but are located in a
utility easement over which the Applicant doesn't enjoy total control. In the revised
landscape plan, additional plantings were provided along the eastern site boundary near
Edmonds Way. Exhibit 1, page 8, Coccia Testimony; Exhibit 6.
23. The street trees indicated on the landscape plan are not the species indicated in the
Edmonds Street Tree Plan. Street tree species must be approved by the Parks
Department. Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7, pages 3, S.
General Findings
24. The City of Edmonds was designated lead agency for review of the project's impacts
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). After evaluating the application
materials and the Applicant's Environmental Checklist, the City issued a Determination
of Non -Significance on August 27, 2010. No appeals were filed. Exhibit 1, Attachment
5; Exhibit 7, page 2.
25. The proposal was considered by the City's Engineering and Building Divisions, Public
Works and Parks Departments, and the Fire District. The City's Engineering Division
noted that the proposed western driveway was located partially off-site. All reviewing
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 7of12
departments noted that compliance with specific development standards and codes would
be reviewed during the building permit process. The Applicant addressed the
Engineering Division's concern by obtaining the easement in the record. Exhibit 7, page
2; Exhibit 8.
26. Planning Staff recommended approval of the CUP with conditions. Regarding the issue
of CUP transferability, Planning Staff recommended that the drive through lanes be
transferable to future owners of the site, as the corridor is characterized by several drive
through uses and the instant review would adequately protect surrounding uses against
foreseeable drive through impacts. Coccia Testimony; Exhibit 7, page 6.
27. Notice of application and public hearing was posted, mailed to neighboring property
owners within 300 feet, and published in The Herald, consistent with the notice
provisions of ECDC 20.03. Exhibit 7, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment 8, Exhibit 7,
Attachment B.
28. At the hearing, public comment focused on concerns about parking, traffic flow, and safe
pedestrian access. Rutledge Testimony.
29. Staff noted the nearest cross walk is at 96th. Coccia Testimony.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide CUP requests pursuant to ECDC
20.100.010.A.3 and 20.05.010. The Examiner has jurisdiction to decide design review
applications when such items are consolidated with quasi-judicial matters also before the
Examiner, pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13.
Criteria for CUP 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
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 8 of 12
D. Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether the
conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
Criteria for Design Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.030, in order to obtain general design review approval, the decision
making body must be able to enter findings that Applicant has demonstrated compliance with the
following:
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.
1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets;
2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that
would enhance the character of the area;
3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings
should be screened from view from the street level;
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
found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous.
a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the
following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion:
i. Windows with architectural fenestration;
ii. Multiple rooflines or forms;
iii. Architecturally detailed entries;
iv. Appropriate landscaping;
v. The use of multiple materials;
5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development.
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.
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.
2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and
other site improvements.
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.
4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be
protected by curbing or similar devices.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 9 of 12
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.
6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer.
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.
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.
C. Other Criteria.
1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not
conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area.
2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility
poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals,
guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans)
should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby
area.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposal would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies related to the Edmonds Way Corridor, to development of slopes, and to the
general urban design goals. The bank would be accessible via the Edmonds Way
sidewalk. The mutual access easement would reduce driveways onto the arterial,
reducing traffic impacts. The proposal retains undisturbed and makes use of the existing
slope to buffer the residential uses to the north. The Applicant has worked with a
geotechnical firm, architects, and the ADB to retain as much of the existing natural
topography intact as possible, focusing site improvements on the flattest portions of the
property. As revised and with conditions, the project would be consistent with the
applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,
and 16.
2. The project would be consistent with the purpose and the development standards of the
BC -EW zone. Pursuant to ECDC 16.50.005, the purpose of the BC — EW zone is to
reserve areas for those retail stores, offices, service establishments and amusement
establishments which offer goods and services to the entire community and to ensure
compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly
within buildings. Banks are allowed in the BC -EW zone, and drive through lanes are
allowed upon CUP approval. As proposed and conditioned, the project would comply
with the BC-EW's setback, building height, parking, landscaping, and other applicable
development standards. Findings 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.
3. As conditioned, the proposal would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare and would not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses. The revised
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53 page 10 of 12
landscaping proposal in the record at Exhibit 6 satisfies the intent of the City's
landscaping code. The building and revised landscaping plan would enhance the
appearance of the vacant graveled site. The height of the steep slope, the mature trees
and additional landscaping, the retaining walls, and overall site design would shield the
residential district adjacent to the north and existing commercial uses to the east and west
from the new commercial activities. A condition of approval would restrict the light
poles to 20 feet in height, limiting off-site impacts. The retaining wall structures have
been determined to be preliminarily feasible as proposed and the project is not anticipated
to have any impact on slope stability. The City's reviewing agencies reviewed the
proposal and had minimal comments or concerns, other than street tree selection. The
project was reviewed pursuant to SEPA and a DNS was issued. Compliance with all
building, engineering, street tree, and fire requirements would be ensured through
building permit review. Findings 3, 4, 5, and 26.
4. Conditional use approval should be transferable to future uses on-site. The specific
impacts of a bank with drive through lanes were reviewed prior to this decision, but there
are many other types of drive through businesses on the corridor, uses with differing
traffic patterns, volumes, and overall activity levels. A future change to a different type
of drive through business is not anticipated to have greater impacts than the other existing
and permitted drive through uses in the vicinity, given the location of the site. Findings .
5. The project was thoroughly reviewed for compliance with design review criteria by both
Planning Staff and the ADB, and both recommended design review approval with
conditions. The Applicant significantly altered the landscaping plan to address design
concerns raised by the ADB. The Examiner concurs that appropriate design elements
have been implemented such that design review requirements are satisfied. Any
discretion regarding the selection of the street tree species should be left to the Parks
Department. Findings 3, S, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for design review approval and a
conditional use permit (CUP) to allow drive through teller lanes at a proposed new Columbia
Bank building at 96xx Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington is GRANTED subject to the
following conditions:
1. The selection of the street tree species shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks
Department for compliance with the Street Tree Plan.
2. Grading shall be minimized in the north portion of the site to the maximum extent
feasible and may be verified through a geotechnical report that is compliant with the
critical areas ordinance (ECDC Title 23) as well as ECDC 20.11.030.B.1 and the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The light poles on-site shall be limited to 20 feet in height.
4. This conditional use permit shall be transferable to subsequent property owners.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 11 of 12
5. By this condition, the Applicant is advised that the design review approval granted herein
shall be subject to the time limits established at ECDC 20.12.090.
6. By this condition, the Applicant is advised that the conditional use approval granted
herein shall be subject to the time limits established at ECDC 20.05.050.C.
DECIDED this 21 st day of October 2010.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of 'Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Columbia Bank ADB2010-541CU2010-53
page 12 of 12
CATY F EDMONDS MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH > EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 a fax (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
It, c.. i. DC7
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
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 consult the relevant ordinances and/or contact the Planning
Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
ECDC 20.06.010 contains the procedures for requesting reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner
decision. Requests for reconsideration must be filed with the City Planning Director within 10
calendar days of the Hearing Examiner's decision no later than 4:30 p.m. on the last business day
of the reconsideration period. Only parties of record (i.e., the applicant, any person who testified.
at the open record hearing on the application, any person who individually submitted written
comments on the application, or the City of Edmonds) may file a request for reconsideration.
The grounds for reconsideration are limited to errors of procedure, errors of law or fact, errors of
judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not in the exercise of
reasonable diligence have been discovered. Reconsideration requests must contain the
information specified in ECDC 20.06.010(D) and be accompanied by the required filing fee.
APPEALS
Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.090(A)(3) and ECDC 20.19.050, appeals may be taken from the
hearing examiner's decision to the city council under the provisions of Chapter 20.07 ECDC.
An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body's written decision.
The city council's decision on appeal shall be final. A request for reconsideration is not a
condition precedent to an appeal. Judicial appeals must be filed within 21 days from the date of
the city's final decision in a given matter pursuant to the procedures established in the Land Use
Petition Act.
EFFECT OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON APPEAL DEADLINE
The timely filing of a request for reconsideration stays the Hearing Examiner's decision until
such time that the Hearing Examiner issues a decision on reconsideration, and the appeal period
commences on the date of issuance of the decision on reconsideration.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
ECDC 20.05.020(C) 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 Assessor's Office.
1nccvp<; r atee'1 Aaagtist l l , .1 890
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 • fax (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
In the matter of the application of
Columbia Bank
For Design Review and )
Conditional Use Permit )
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
No. ADB2010-0054
No. CU2010-0053
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
1. 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; and 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; and that on
October 20, 2010 I served a copy of the decision in case ADB2010-54/CU2010-53 upon the
following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail:
Hugo VanderWaal, Columbia Bank
5210 - 74th Street West
Tacoma, WA 98499
Dale Pinney, FWDS, Inc.
8129 Lake Ballinger Way, Ste 104
Edmonds, WA 98026
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
BZ Zenczak, Zenczak & Partners
4545 Union Ave, Ste 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
1.21 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
James Martin
9514 - 228th Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jerry Isakson, Zenczak & Partners
4545 Union Ave, Ste 200
Tacoma, WA 98409
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct, this 20th day of October 2010, at Edmonds, Washington.
Sharon A. Rice, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Inco rpora te(I August 1 .i, 1890