Loading...
HE verbatim transcript sm-05-94.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Mr. McConnell: Good afternoon. I am Ron McConnell, the Hearing Examiner for the City this afternoon. We have one item on the agenda. It's an application by Viadan Milosavljevic to replace or repair portions of the Meadowdale Marina Pier. Now, I have received a number of letters already, and I'll read the exhibit list I have received so far. The staff report will be Exhibit 1, and that had ten attachments. Then there's a letter from Tung Bui dated November 9, 2005. A letter from Gerald Bernstein and his wife dated November 11, 2005. That would be Number 3, and Number 4 is a letter from Nick and Renee Blattner dated November 12, 2005. Number 5 is an email from David Pater of DOE or DNR, one of the two, dated November 14, 2005. Number 6 is a letter from John Quast dated November 14, 2005. Number 7 is a letter from Sky Young that was received on November 16'h, and then any comments that we get in writing will be added to that list as we go today. Mr. McConnell: One thing I might just mention, the request today, as you are well aware, is a request for the Shoreline Management Permit. I know there are a lot of concerns beyond that, but all that's going to be heard today is the application for the permit the Shoreline Management Permit—that's it. Any future uses, if there are other uses that are intended by the applicant, that will have to be done in a future hearing. By law, I am pretty well shackled. I can only do what's been advertised, and what's been advertised is this one application. That's all that's before me. I know there are a lot of concerns beyond that, but if anything is proposed by the applicant beyond that, that will be separate hearings, separate approval processes. So with those preliminary remarks, I'll turn it over to staff. Mr. Bullock: Thank you Mr. Examiner. For the audience, my name is Steve Bullock. I am a senior planner with the City of Edmonds and will be giving you a brief synopsis of the staff report. I hope that most of you, if not all of you, have received copies of the staff report, which includes exhibits of what the applicant's proposing to do. I have also included a couple of letters from some concerned citizens. Is there anybody that hasn't gotten a copy of the staff report? Okay, I'll be able to get that for you as soon as I am done with my presentation. I'll see about getting some extra copies over here. I know I had given out a bunch before today's hearing and then I had about 10 or 15 in the stack over there. So I'll see what I can do about getting some more copies. Mr. Bullock: The permit application that's before the Hearing Examiner today is a request to reconstruct the existing timber portion of the Meadowdale Marina Pier. As I am sure most of you are aware, the original portion of the pier was put on the site a long time ago. It was done entirely with creosote timber piles, with timber pile caps and timber decking. It has the old timber frame structure on it, as well. More recently, in the early 70's, the entire pier was probably expanded by approximately a third to the south and has the big metal warehouse building on it. That entire pier is all constructed with concrete piles. My understanding is that it is concrete decking and then the metal building. That pier, the building covers the entire footprint of that concrete portion of the pier. And then the northern two thirds of the pier, which is the previous timber pier, has the timber frame structure on it, which covers, I would say, roughly a third of the northern portion of the site. The application today is to allow the applicant to completely remove all the creosote timber piles, pile caps, and timber decking and replace them all with a concrete structure—concrete and steel piles, cast in place concrete pile caps and pre -cast concrete decking. Mr. Bullock: At this point in time, the applicant is not proposing any uses out there, and the staff's position is that it's just continuing to maintain the uses that it already has on the site or what has historically been on the site. It is awkward, though, because I think everybody has an impression that if somebody is going to be spending this kind of money on doing a repair, they are going to be wanting to introduce some new uses to the site at some point in time in the future. I have tried to, with my report, both let the applicant know about future permit requirements that are going to be necessary for introducing new uses to the site and also to let the public know about that, as well. Just again, by way of trying to make sure that everybody understands, a future Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to consider a new use on the property is going to have a number of significant issues that would have to be resolved prior to it ever getting approved—many of them dealing with new traffic coming to this site, needing to get approval from Burlington Northern for having more traffic crossing the railroad crossing, noise, other things like that. Those would all be reviewed as part of an entirely separate Substantial Development Permit if and when an application is made. But again, as the Examiner mentioned, today's hearing is only to consider the replacement/repair of the existing timber portion of the pier. Mr. Bullock: My understanding, and maybe the applicant will want to address this in some of their presentation to the Examiner today, is that the entire timber frame building is going to have to be removed to allow for all the old timber piles and decking to be removed and for the new piles and decking to be installed. One of the difficulties with this, as well, is that the City's current Shoreline Master Program, which is the code that the City has in place that regulates all development on the Shoreline, specifically prohibits over -water structures, meaning buildings. What that means, in this case, is that we have two over -water buildings, and they are both non -conforming. They can both be maintained, but they cannot be expanded in any way. The non -conforming provisions of the Shoreline Master Program indicate that if a non -conforming building is removed, it cannot be reestablished unless it is reestablished consistent with code. When the code says that it is prohibited, once the building comes down, it is not going to be able to be rebuilt on the site. Again, that's something that we wanted to make sure was abundantly clear to both the applicant and to the neighborhood in regards to this. Mr. Bullock: The staff report documents on Pages 3 and 4 the conditions of the neighborhood and of the site; the zoning that's out there, the things that are allowed under that zoning both for the subject parcel and adjacent property. Then starting on Page 5, moving on to Pages 6 and 7, it goes into more detail about the Shoreline Master Program for the City and how the project does not doesn't comply with the Shoreline Master Program. The Shoreline Master Plan designates the subject property as the Urban Mixed -Use II Shoreline Environment. This is a commercial shoreline environment that allows commercial uses. It is, on the upland side, surrounded by a single-family designation; and on the water -ward site, both to the north and south, conservation areas—meaning that in a single-family designation of the Shoreline Master Plan only single- family development is allowed and in the conservation portions that are adjacent to this, no development is allowed. It is meant to preserve the natural environment as it is and allow it to be maintained, Again though, the subject property is commercially identified on the Shoreline Master Program, and the staff report, specifically on Pages 6 and 7, attempts to document the compliance or non-compliance of the subject project to the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Bullock: One of the difficult things with this, is the City adopted its Shoreline Master Program back in 2000. It actually was a fairly lengthy review process. The City worked on that from approximately 1996 through 2000 before it was ultimately approved by the City Council. So that's fairly recently that the Haynes Wharf or Meadowdale Marina site was identified by the City as a commercial site, and included in the Shoreline Master Program as a place where commercial activity would take place and could continue to take place. Mr. Bullock: The Shoreline Master Program also oftentimes mixes in its descriptions of what's allowed and what isn't allowed; discussion of both structures and also of proposed uses. In other places in our code, I think our code is a little bit more clear in really dealing non -conforming structures separately from non -conforming uses; meaning if you have a building that is non -conforming, meaning that it's built into the setback or it is higher than it would be allowed to be under current codes, as long as the use that's proposed inside the building is consistent with that zoning designation, you are going to be allowed to continue to use that building as long as you don't expand that building in any manner that's consistent with the zoning code for the particular zone that it's in. Similarly, if you have a non -conforming use, you are going to be able to maintain that non -conforming use, but you are not going to be able to expand it in any way. If you abandon that use, any new uses are going to have to comply with the code. Now, one of the things that's again a little bit awkward in this situation, is we've got definitely non -conforming buildings on the property. The two structures that are located on the pier are non- conforming buildings. The Shoreline Master Program specifically says buildings over water are no longer allowed. There's a few very minor situations where a building is allowed over water. Mr. Bullock: Also, one of the major goals of the City's current Shoreline Master Program is to make sure that access to the waterfront, both physically and visually, is maintained for the public. Okay. So with that as kind of a premise of the Shoreline Master Program, that is one of the big reasons why no new buildings were allowed out over the water because that Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts Fife Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 2 would block people's visual access to the water and to the mountains across the Sound. That's why many activities wouldn't be allowed over water because that would potentially block people's both physical and visual access to the waterfront. In this case, where we have existing structures over the water and they are, by our Shoreline Master Program, allowed to continue and be maintained, however not expanded, then we have some things to debate sometimes regarding what uses are allowed out there. The Urban Mixed -Use 11 Shoreline Environment does allow a number of different uses. Because it's trying to protect the public's access to the shoreline, it limits the number of uses that can happen out over the water. In this case, we've got two buildings and the applicant has relayed to me that they are used to store boats and ultimately, the whole facility is there to support the local recreational fishing industry in Puget Sound. There is likely to be some discussion today about what uses are allowed in the future. Just by way, again, of trying to let the applicant and the general public know about what might happen in the future. Mr. Bullock: The Shoreline Master Program in regards to the pier, itself. In the Shoreline Master Program, there's some specific regulations for moorage facilities in the Urban Mixed -Use II Environment, and also for public access and recreation piers. When you ready through all the regulations related to moorage facilities, it seems to imply in -water storage of boats; you know, boats being tied to docks. It seems to imply docks that are floating on the water, and it had some limitations about how high a dock can be above the water three feet. Again, that kind of responds to the fact of floating docks. In fact, I was part of the Shoreline Master Program rewrite, and it specifically talked about how that applied to places like the Edmonds Marina, where we've got floating piers and boats that are moored to those docks and the limit of those docks, how high it can be above the water is three feet and very limited type of structures could be allowed on future docks like that in the future. It doesn't seem to apply very clearly to a fixed type pier, as we have here in Haynes Wharf—a fixed pier where it's got to be located at a level where the tides can rise and fall below it and not flood it, things like that. The regulations related to a fixed pier like structure seem much more specifically addressed in the section that deals with the public access and recreation pier where it talks about a fixed pier. Another example of that would be like the fishing pier down in Edmonds where it's out there over water, it doesn't rise and fall with the tides, and the City's Code (the Shoreline Master Program) limits the height of those piers to 15 feet above the ordinary high water mark. In this case, the pier that the applicant is proposing is only going to be approximately a little bit less than 7 feet above the ordinary high water mark, and therefore, is consistent with staff's review of the regulations for fixed piers. Mr. Bullock: The applicant has submitted with their application a very extensive biological evaluation, and that's something that has also been submitted to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, to the Department of Ecology, to the Army Corps of Engineers, to the National Marine Fishery Service for their review and ultimate permit, as well. All of those other jurisdictions are going to have to review this application and issue their own permits on this project. The biological evaluation has a number of things associated with it that are recommended actions for how this work needs to take place, for how the piling driving needs to happen to minimize impact to the environmental community. At the same time, if that's followed, it's also going to have a positive impact on how it's going to impact the residential community. The applicant has stated, both through their biological evaluation and through their application materials, that all the pile driving will be done with a vibratory pile driver, which is going to vibrate the piles into place. The only impact pile driving that will be used will be to potentially drive the last ways, if needed. Even if impact pile driving is required, some other sound attenuation techniques have to be used to minimize the impact of pile driving to the environmental resource that we have out there. Mr. Bullock: The Army Corps initial response to their biological evaluation is that they were going to require any conditions... Or anything that the biological evaluation included as recommended actions, they are going to include that as a condition to a permit. And City staff, in our recommended conditions for this project, have basically echoed that, as well. We want all the conditions that are recommended by the biological evaluation to be maintained and used through this process. Mr. Bullock: The staff's recommendation for this project is to approve the repair and replacement of the pier structure. The recommended conditions that we have are noted on Page 3 of the staff report. Some things that have kind of come to our attention since the notice on this has gone out and the staff report has been written, is that there does seem to be some activity taking place out on the pier. The City has placed a stop work order out there to make sure the owner understands no construction activity, including demolition is allowed out there without any proper permits being issued. The City is not going to issue any building permits until this discretionary permit has been resolved. And there may need to be some remediation or repair work done, or clean up done related to some of the work that's taken place out there over the last couple of weeks because debris has fallen into the water, and most of it is creosote and other hazardous materials encased or treated. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 3 That is washing up on the beaches in this area. There may need to be some effort taken to clean that up. We are in the process of trying to coordinate with both the Department of Natural Resources as well as the Department of Ecology to make sure that the proper steps are taken to make sure that happens. Along with that, if I can call your attention to Exhibit 5. The first page is an email; it's something that we received from a gentleman from the Department of Natural Resources. Attached with it is a standard practice memorandum from the Department of Natural Resources, which talks about what the standard practice is for the removal of treated wood and pilings. It talks about a number of things as far as what the best management practices are, essentially, for removing creosote treated materials and other hazardous treated materials in a shoreline environment to make sure that additional hazardous materials are not introduced into that ecosystem and cause damage. I think we would probably like to recommend that an additional condition be placed on the project that requires the conditions outlined in the DNR Standard Practice Memorandum be followed and that there be maybe even some kind of acknowledgement from DNR that they have reviewed the applicant's proposal for complying with the memorandum and that they find it to be acceptable. Mr. Bullock: I think with that, I'm sure the applicant has a fairly detailed presentation that they'd like to make. Unless you have any further questions of me, I would be happy to turn it over to the applicant. Mr. McConnell: Okay, at this time, then, let's turn it over the applicant and get that presentation. Following the applicant's presentation then I'll open it to citizens that might want to speak. One thing I might just note. If you do wish to speak, I'll need to get you at the podium so that you can speak into the microphone. The hearing is being taped. Our official record of the hearing is the tape recording of the hearing, and that's what you saw Mr. Bullock doing ahead of time, getting everything set up so that we make sure that we do get a good recording. So, if you do want to speak, I'll ask your name and address and you will become a party of record. Anybody who signs the sign up sheet back there also will be a party of record, as will people who have submitted letters also be parties of record. That just means that anybody who signs the sign up sheet, speaks today, or has submitted a letter or any of the above, will get a copy of my written report in the mail. With Thanksgiving in here, the City gives me a couple of weeks, but with Thanksgiving, it will probably be a little over two weeks before I get a report out on this. With those preliminary remarks, I will turn it over to staff or to the applicant. Who is speaking on behalf of the applicant? Mr. Layton: I'll do the initial presentation. Jeff Layton, from Layton and Sell Consulting Engineers, 12537 Willows Road Northeast, Kirkland. My presentation is really going to be fairly short. Staff did a good job of summarizing our position. Really, what we are here today to ask, Mr. Examiner, is your approval to repair an existing pier structure that is located at the project site—what we have called the Meadowdale Marina Facility, which is also commonly known as the Haynes Wharf facility. This structure that we are talking about today is a platform that is basically located all on tideland and sub -tidal property. Most of the property is fee owned by the applicant; there is a small section that is subject to a DNR lease, and it is my understanding that DNR lease is in effect and is up to date. There's approximately 66,000 square feet of existing over water structures. Of that total, about 2/3 of it, some 40,000 square feet, is what we are asking to do repairs to today. Most of the facility that is going to be repaired consists of creosote treated timber support piling that are attached on the top with, again, creosote treated pile caps, and then a simple system framework of creosote treated stringers and then deck materials on top. The useful end of its life is near for most of this material, and it is time to replace it. Mr. Layton: The proposal is to remove all of the existing timber portions of the pier and replace them with new modern materials: steel piling and some concrete piling may also be used in there, cast in place pile capes, and then precast concrete panels that would be brought in by barge. All of the activity would take place in the water from water born commerce, principally barges will be brought into this site. The intent is to remove all of the existing creosote piling, and the most likely method would be to use a vibratory hammer to extract them. Then they would then be removed from the water, cut up into the specified amount that is typically four foot sections, and then they will have to be disposed of on the uplands. The same would occur for the other treated materials that would be removed: the pile caps and stringers. Most of the decking is not treated with creosote, but it would probably be disposed of in the same way. Mr. Layton: The existing concrete structure that's out there now, the boat shed building, we'll probably do some minor repairs. There's some very minor amount of repair work that needs to be done to some of the piling. They will need some patching work as well as some of the underside decking is exhibiting some rust that will probably needs some repair work to that. But it's very minor compared to the existing timber platform. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November t7, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Layton: As part of mitigation for the structure, the approach pier that is approximately 20 feet wide and 200 feet long, we plan to put in some centerline grain to allow light penetration in the near shore zone, which was a recommendation as part of the biological evaluation. That's a critical area where the juvenile salmonids migrate along the shoreline next to the abutment where the rock protects the shore and the adjacent railway lines. There will also be a pedestrian walkway, again graded and separated from the driving lanes. As part of the overall design of the deck structure that would come in through a building permit process, there would be a storm water collection system on the deck to collect any type of run off that might be associated with parking. That run off would then be treated appropriately before discharging it into the water. Mr. Layton: The question about the existing building that is located on the timber portion of the site, and the applicant may also want to add some of this to my testimony. It's my understanding that that structure was originally barged into the site in two halves and then it was rolled off the barge and placed onto that pier. The intent is for repairing the facility, the first half that would be repaired would be the portion of the timber pier that doesn't have the building on it. That would be rebuilt to current standards: concrete deck, new piling. Then the intent is to roll this building, using house moving techniques, roll it off from its existing site over to the new pier area, temporarily storing it there while the other section of the pier is rebuilt. Then it would be put back in its same spot. Mr. Layton: I think that's pretty much my presentation. Do you have anything else that you would like to say at this point? No, that summarizes our presentation. Mr. McConnell: Anybody else speaking for your group at this time? Mr. Layton: We may save some comments for the end. Mr. McConnell: Certainly. Certainly. All right. Who would like to start first from the neighborhood? Yes Mame. Get to a microphone. Can I get your name and address? Ms. Clay: Yes, Diana Clay, 2002 — 196`h Street Southwest, Lynnwood, 98036. I just have a couple of comments and a couple of questions. I was wondering from staff, you indicated that there are a lot of different uses available in the shoreline codes, however over water it is very limited. My question would be, are there any uses other than the existing and past uses of this facility that might be allowed in a non -conforming over water structure? Mr. Bullock: That's an excellent question, and it's one that would ultimately be decided in a future Substantial Development Permit. But I will throw out some scenarios and give you what I think the answer would be. If somebody had a pier with no building on it and they wanted to build a restaurant out on that pier, basically build a building and install a restaurant, there would be no way under our current Shoreline Master Program that that would be allowed. When somebody has an existing non -conforming building, this becomes a little bit more of an argument because the Shoreline Master Program right now says that you couldn't establish that kind of use out over water, but it's kind of mixed both the structure and the use together. In this case, we have a structure out there, and the whole intent of that code is to, again, minimize impact to the public's access to the waterfront visually and physically. Having buildings out over water minimizes our access to the waterfront. In a case where you already have a building out there establishing a use that's permitting in an Urban Mixed Use Zone is something that I think would probably ultimately be part of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The conservative answer is that it probably wouldn't be allowed, but I don't know that I would want to commit to that until it has gone through a permit process because it's kind of subject to interpretation somewhat. I was going to say one other thing, but it slipped my mind. So I will leave it at that. Mr. McConnell: Does that answer your question? Ms. Clay: Basically. The other question that I had is more of the applicant and just kind of... Mr. McConnell: I'll tell you what. We are probably going to be getting a lot of questions. What I think I will do is ask the questions, and then when we get all the questions for everyone, I would like to have the applicant and staff jot those down and I'll jot them down and make sure before we Ieave we get them all answered. Why don't you ask your question? It won't be answered right now, but we will try and get everything answered before we leave today. How's that? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Clay: Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. I have heard them testify and also read in the application that the plan is to remove all of the existing piles and creosoted piles and all that material to an upland location that is an approved location. The question that I have is being that this facility is completely over water, they have no property other than what is over water and the tidelands. So everything around the area is a small public right-of-way and then all private property. There's no parking, there's no staging area. I wonder how they are going to accomplish this when they have no property to park dump trucks and equipment and that type of thing on to transport the materials to an upland situation without impacting private properties because there's a very small limited public right-of-way and there's really no parking area, So that would be my question is how can they physically accomplish this without severely impacting private property? Those are my questions. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Clay: Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Good Afternoon. Mr. Quast: Good afternoon. I'm John Quast, and I live at 15714 --- 75th Place West, and I previously submitted a letter to you November 14, 2005. Mr. McConnell: Yes, and it is Exhibit 6. Mr. Quast: I would like to make an addendum to that letter if I may please. Mr. McConnell: Certainly, Mr. Quast: Although the applicant classifies the existing structure as a commercial boat storage with a retail outlet, the facility has not been used in this fashion for ten years. In fact, because of its continuing deterioration over this period, it has become an attractive nuisance to children and a liability to the neighborhood. I believe the application, as submitted, is incomplete in this meeting. Conspicuously missing from the application is any reference to the salmon bearing stream located only 800 meters north, located in Lund's Gulch, it's called Meadowdale Community Park. The impact that this project will have on that stream is missing. Currently, creosote soaked debris from this project is littering the mouth of that salmon bearing stream, and the salmon are attempting to return to spawn as we speak. Meadowdale Beach Park is a very popular recreation area, as is the beach adjacent to this project. It's widely used by hikers, fishermen, beach comers, bird watchers and many, many children and pets. It's also visited vigorously and regularly by migrating wildlife. The application at no point references the close proximity of this project to the Meadowdale Critical Area, which is prone to slides. Directly east of this project, a significant slide occurred there earlier this year. The use of pile drivers in this area may induce further slides on an already fragile environment. Mr. Quast: The applicant's most obvious disregard for codes and environmental concerns were readily apparent only this morning when, despite the project being red tagged because they had been working for four days on this project already (demolition), they had been red tagged with a stop work order. The applicant's employees were observed continuing to work on the project. This lack of respect builds distrust in a neighborhood and it indicates the applicant's unwillingness to observe any permit and code restrictions and indicates a need for intense scrutiny and monitoring by state, City and shoreline authorities, at the applicant's expense I might add. Mr. Quast: In addition, the applicant must be required to cease all work until booms are in place and maintained to contain the debris that is being dropped in the water. The applicant should be required to post a bond ensuring adjacent homeowners for damages incurred as a result of this application's actions or lack there of to prevent any damage. The applicant should also be required to reimburse Snohomish County for past clean up that has been performed to remove hazardous debris, creosote debris, at least twice and for any future clean up. We want to reinforce our statement that we are not against demolition. We are not against the renovation of this facility. We only want to ensure that any work that's done is in compliance with all code of the local, state and federal codes and in a manner to protect the environment and quality of community life, including the health and safety of residents, visitors, and wildlife. This application should be denied until these concerns are addressed. Thank you. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 6 Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Could I get a copy of that? Mr. Quast: Yes sir. Mr. McConnell: Mr. Quast's hearing presentation notes will become Exhibit S. Mr. Quast: Thank you sir. Mr. McConnell: Who would like to speak next? Okay. Ms. Young: Hi there. My name is Sky Young. I am at 16131 — 75's Place West. You have my letter. Mr. McConnell: Exhibit 7. Ms. Young: I live right across the road from the marina. I just have questions, and I have quite a few. Mr. McConnell: Well, go ahead and ask and we'll get the applicant and staff to do their best to answer them before we all leave. Ms. Young: Who will do the monitoring? Who absorbs the cost of the monitoring? What is the penalty for the work already done? What is the penalty for working after the red tag? What is the penalty for all the debris that has already fallen into the water? What is the penalty for work already done at 2 a.m. in the middle of the night? That's it. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Okay. Who else would like to speak? Yes. Mr. Vuladinovic: My name is Marko Vuladinovic and I am representing 7?& t r' se: LLG at 16006 — 75h Place West. We are definitely in favor of the marina being granted permits to update and fix the area. This is a charming plus to the waterfront and character of the area. Again, we would urge you to vote for granting a permit. Mr. McConnell. What was your address again, sir. Mr. Vuladinovic: 16006 — 75a' Place West. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Who would like to speak next? Mr. Hertrich. Mr. Hertrich: Good afternoon. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive. I am also a member of a local organization called ACE. We had a discussion on this subject the other evening, a very limited one. Mr. McConnell: What does ACE stand for? Mr. Hertrich: We'll call it the local activists association. Mr. McConnell: Oh, all right. Okay. Mr. Hertrich: That's as close as I can come. Sorry about that. I personally have visited this site after it had closed down and had a little difficulty getting across the wood deck because there were holes here and there and it was a bit of a mess. I have always felt that once that structure was there, it would certainly be nice if that were to become a public structure. Unfortunately, our parks department decided not to acquire it. The impression I get from the number of people here is that the owner has started off on the wrong foot. You don't make everybody mad and then come in and ask for things. It's a very poor way to proceed, and apparently, there are some real problems. I haven't viewed them myself, but I have heard of them. I would suggest that there be some enforcement action as far as the clean up goes before anything starts and that you don't even continue this request until those things are complied with. In other words, I suggest that you put this whole procedure on hold until those things are satisfied and the people can come in and say, okay, they have done their job, now let's hear what they want to do. Verbatim Bearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Hertrich: Personally, I don't think there should be any new facility on the water unless it has a large degree of contribution to the public use. That facility served the public in a very unique way for many years, and it certainly, like the fishing pier, provides an opportunity to be out over the water. Any construction of any new uses there should be heavily weighed in favor of the public. Mr. Hertrich: I am concerned that our Shoreline code talks about parking. The emphasis is that we don't park on the water or near the water. It's hard for me to understand how any development of this particular facility can, in light of the restriction on parking near the water, .that you can actually create parking over the water. I would hope that we ended up with a total public facility again, but it's probably not going to happen. I think that adherence to all of the... I wouldn't want to do it. Satisfying the Corps of Engineers, satisfying our Shoreline Master Program, those are all very difficult. Unless there is compliance with all of those, this thing is not going anywhere. So my main concern is what happens to all the debris and the deteriorating structure. Once this process is started, I think it is the responsibility now; no matter what, for the applicant to do a total clean up of the site. And that means, maybe not development, but he's taken on the liability for taking care of what's deteriorating. Whether you allow it to be replaced, that's another story. Thank you very much. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Who would like to speak next? Ms. Dresslar: Hello. I am Laurie Dresslar. I live at 15714 — 75a' Place West in Edmonds, within view of Haynes Wharf. A couple of clarifications. ACE stands for Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds, and I believe that the address that the speaker prior to Mr. Hertrich gave is a property that is empty and is owned by the applicant. I think there may be a little bias in his request. Ms. Dresslar: I bought my first couple of tide tables at Haynes Wharf at the bait shop when I first moved up here. That bait shop hasn't been in existence, so I haven't been able to buy my tide tables there for at least the last ten years. It's a shame because for the length of time, the facility has deteriorated. It has fallen apart, and it has fallen into the Sound. The owner has shown complete disregard for any repair. I believe in the presentation it was said that it had reached a point in its lifespan where it needed repair. Trust me, if you went and looked, you would see that it has long since passed that point in its life. There are huge holes in the deck, except what has recently been replaced without permit. The building, itself, was partially demolished about a year ago. Again, I belief that was without permit, so there's a gaping hole in the structure, the wooden structure. It's not intact. The County has at least on two occasions had to send out crews to clean up decking that has fouled the beaches, the County beach. On Friday, with no permit, I from my deck observed someone actually not dropping, not mistakenly dropping, but throwing debris into the Sound. When I walked on Saturday morning I found it collecting on the beach. I don't know, I am not a chemist and I don't know whether there is creosote or hazardous chemicals in the debris that's there, but I do know that there's cabling and metal pieces and things that are very dangerous to the health and safety of the children that play on that beach and to the people like me who walk on that beach. That's a very, very highly populated County park; it's very popular. It is a health and safety issue. The dock, itself, is a health and safety issue because it's falling apart. I don't believe that would fall under the heading of repair. It would fall under the heading of reconstruction. I strongly urge you to deny any permit to do any kind of repair until the questions of this flagrant disregard for the law have been addressed and the health and safety issues have been addressed. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Who would like to speak next? Yes. Ms. White: Hello. My name is Theresa White, and I am here representing our Armando and Sina Chilelli. They reside at 16414 — 75"' Place West. Mr. McConnell: What were there names? Mr. Bullock: They have a letter in the record as part.of the staff report. Chilelli I think, Also, I apologize for interrupting. There's a bunch more staff reports on the table over there for anybody that hasn't gotten one yet. Thank you. Ms. White: I just have two questions. Forgive me, I kind of came in at the last minute because the hearing got moved to the 17'h and Mr. Chilelli is out of town, so I just kind of got enlisted. But my two questions are number one is along the same lines that Ms. Clay had suggested. From what I understand it's commercial waterfront zoning currently right now, so that in Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 8 order to do business there, I am not sure I understand if there needs to be another permit applied for after the repairs are done or if he can immediately just get a business license and immediately start to do business as an existing use. Or since there's buildings there, I am not sure what falls under commercial waterfront, could he change those buildings into another use, and would that require a permit or would it not require a permit? I am not exactly clear on this, and it wasn't clear in the staff findings. Mr. McConnell: Okay. We'll try and get answers for that before we all leave today. Ms. White: Then the second question is from reading this, it sounds to me like that repair and maintenance are allowed under the code, however, removal and replacement is not allowed under the code. If I understand correctly what's going to be happening here, everything needs to be removed and new piles need to be installed in order to repair it. So doesn't that really constitute removal as opposed to... Mr. McConnell: The issue is on the building. Ms. White: The pier is a different issue, then. So that has a different standard than the building, itself? Mr. McConnell: Right. The code will not allow buildings any longer. It used to allow buildings, but no longer. Ms. White: But the code does allow the pier. So it allows the actual replacement of the pier as opposed to just repairing it and so forth? Mr. McConnell: Right. Ms. White: Then my second question goes to the building. If you have to actually pick up and move an entire building, doesn't that pretty much constitute removal? Mr. McConnell: That's what I have to figure out. Ms. White: Okay. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. Mr. McConnell: Who wants to speak next? Yes sir. Mr. Henderson: I am Don Henderson and I live at 15825 — 75�' Place West. Mr. McConnell: 15825? Mr. Henderson: Yes. 15825 — 75h Place West. Like John, I would like to see the pier repaired, but I am concerned about the fact that their non -conforming building is a non -conforming use, but the use has not been in effect for ten years plus. So basically, I would feel that it should be starting over and any previous use should be irrelevant. It's the current allowed use that should be looked at and not the use as a boat storage facility or fishing pier, which it hasn't been for a long, long time. Mr. McConnell: Okay. Ms. Curtis: My name is Margaret Curtis. My husband, Allen Curtis, and I have been out here since 1949 in the area. Mr. McConnell: What's your address? Ms. Curtis: 21811 Highway 9 Southeast, Woodinville, now. I applaud this gentleman that's trying to fix the dock. I am for it. He hasn't had it but a few years, and it was run down when he got it. He's gone through extensive efforts to try and find the right people to design something better. Edmonds needs something that looks good, and I think he can do it. Everybody complains about its disrepair, and that's true, it's terrible, the condition. But he has plans in the making, I am sure, that will make it look much better and be an asset to Edmonds. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 9 Mr. McConnell: The zip code there, is that 98011? Ms. Curtis: 98072 Mr. McConnell: 98072. Okay, I'm glad I asked. Thank you. Who would like to speak next? Mr. Ruggiero: My name is Phil Ruggiero, R U G G I E R O. Mr. McConnell: Yeah, I think I have a Ietter from you that was attached to the staff report. Mr. Ruggiero: I reside at 16010 — 75a' Place West in Edmonds. Steve, following up on Diana's question about uses sometime in the future. I know that's not what this hearing is about, but it seems to me that maybe just mention that there seems to be some plans for what's going to be happening there. Maybe that should be shared with the community here. Mr. McConnell: That doesn't matter to me because all I am looking at and will address in my report is the application before me. Anything that comes after that will be ... Mr. Ruggiero: All right. The other question I have then Steve is has it been made clear that ... It's clear to me from reading the code that there's about four things you can do there. You can sell fish bait, you can store boats, you can sell a minimal amount of gasoline {I guess for the boats} and you can have lockers. Other than that, I don't know anything else that you can do out there. Mr. McConnell: That will be one of the questions that will be answered. Mr. Ruggiero: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Ms. Kelly: Hi. My name is Christine Kelly with Windermere Real Estate. I have lived in Edmonds for about 10 years now and own several properties here. My address is 21228 — 80 Avenue West, Edmonds, 98026. 1 have researched this quite a bit, as well, because I do own investment property in the area. To improve that site and improve the condition would actually be a good thing for everybody in this room and everybody in Edmonds, really, because it's going to enhance the area. It's going to increase property values. I don't think anyone's thought about or even considered that. But to not have the eyesore in front of your home and looking at that driving by everyday is going to increase your value. It's not going to hurt you. Also, condition wise, debris if falling into the water obviously, and there are problems there. Well, how are you going to take care of that if you don't let them go in there are do some repairs? Do you think that is going to improve on its own overnight? You have got to allow him to get in there and do some work on it or it's not going to happen. So that's what I have to say. Okay. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Who else would like to speak? Okay so now we can get some answers. Who wants to start? Mr. Layton: To address Ms. Clay's question. Mr. McConnell: Just state your name again. Mr. Layton: This is Jeff Layton, Layton and SeII. A question was basically, how would we do the construction work for this project is how I interpret her question. All of the construction activities will basically be taking place from the water side. From the standpoint of mobilizing equipment to the site, there most likely will be a tugboat with a derrick barge that will come in that will have a crane on it that will have an attachment for the pile driver and other types of mechanical apparatus used to remove the existing facilities. Then there will probably be another barge that they will store all the debris on. All of that material will then be barged out of the area and will be the responsibility of the marine contractor who is doing that to take it to an off loading site and the off load it onto the uplands. Then it will be processed and taken to an approved landfill. This is all part of the regulatory process that we'll go through with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 10 and the Army Corps of Engineers. They will regulate where that material will go and it will be disposed of in a landfill, probably the Rabanco landfill in Eastern Washington is where a lot of this will end up. Mr. Layton: So in summary, other than the possibility of having some of the workman come down and park their cars next to the shoreline, all of the activity should be done with water born commerce. Mr. McConnell: If you are concerned about the number of workman and how many cars would be parked, and how much traffic would be generated during reconstruction. Mr. Layton: I can only give you a general sense of that from my experience of having done this before. You will probably have a crew that will have five or six people. Most likely, they would store their equipment at the site, assuming that the weather is cooperating and that they would drive down and park and walk onto the structure that way. I might ask the applicant to discuss this a little bit further to see if he has any other questions. We haven't, frankly, got to that level of detail of discussing how it's going to be built yet from the standpoint of that. We haven't applied for a building permit. Mr. McConnell: Okay. That's one of the things that people are concerned about and I think you have heard their concerns about parking and impact on the neighborhood. That would be for construction. I think they are concerned about what might happen after construction, also. Mr. Layton: That's what I was trying to address. Most of the activity it going to be taking place off of the barge and work boats, but I would expect that the crew that would come to work there would probably want to drive there most of the time. Mr. Milosavijevic.: My name is Vladan Milosavljevic, and I am the general manager of Meadowdale Marina. Most of the people who will be working is going to be a minor crew. If there are problems with them parking their cars, we can facilitate that on some other off-site parking and bring them on the bus. We can work so there won't be any parked cars for example. Mr. McConnell: Staff. Mr. Bullock: Great. That's one question I won't have answer. I want to answer some of Ms. Young's questions about monitoring, cost of monitoring, penalty of working after the red tag. First of all, in regards to monitoring. City staff, there is no City staff that really has a great deal of expertise, being that they are marine biologists or anything like that, to really do a great job of monitoring the activity that is happening out there other than to say, yeah, we see something happening. The Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, those guys have a lot of staff that are experts in dealing with this kind of stuff. This project is going to have to get permits from them. The City is going to rely a lot on them doing some of that monitoring and things like that. I don't have a great answer for you on that because it's not the type of permit that we deal with on a day-to-day basis, and we haven't got a really regimented schedule of how this work. That's something that we will do a little bit more looking into for you on that and try and get some more concrete answers, but that's what I would expect to happen. Mr. Bullock: In regards to the working under a stop work order. The stop work order is something that is initiated by the City's Building Official, and it will be up to our Building Official to decide if any fines are warranted. I know they had a conversation with the applicant this morning, and I don't have anything else to tell you in regards to that at this point in time. Mr. Bullock: Another question that was asked, this one by Mr. Hertrich, was about parking. Because we are not dealing with any new proposed uses at this point in time, the City didn't do a really thorough evaluation of parking. We are considering that the site is an established use and is ongoing so the parking is there for what's been there and nothing new is required. Whatever's there is adequate. If the existing building, if one of the existing buildings is removed and not allowed to be reestablished there, that potentially provides even more parking. Ultimately, the City's understanding is that all parking is going to have to be provided on the pier. There will be no parking allowed for this site on public right-of-way landward of the right-of-way. All of the parking is going to have to be accommodated out on the pier. Mr. Bullock: Another question by Ms. White regarding another permit, if further permits would be required. Depending what it is, definitely new substantial developments would be required if a new use was going to be proposed out there. If somebody was trying to propose establishing some commercial offices out there or a significant, I'll call it a boat Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page ll manufacturing facility, or something like that, you know, they wanted to establish a new use out on the pier, that is something that would require a new substantial development to evaluate that proposed use for compliance with the City's Shoreline Master Program, to evaluate that proposal for compliance with our parking requirements for that use, for public access, all those types of things. One of the points that Mr. Hertrich brought out was the idea that some substantial public access should ultimately be provided to the public on this pier. I think that any future Substantial Development Permit that comes in on this site is going to require the applicant to establish that use on the pier. There's going to have to be some element of public access out there unless... There's a whole section in the City's current Shoreline Master Program that talks about and requires public access to be part of Substantial Development Permits. The only reason we're not reviewing that more closely with this application is that this is a repair and replacement application and not a new use being established. So anyways, again, any future Substantial Development Permit that would be establishing a new use out there would definitely require some kind of public access element, and that would have to be incorporated into the ultimate design of it. Mr. Bullock: The one related question to that that I don't have a perfect answer for is the idea of establishing what his current use is and what changes to that we're going to allow without a new Substantial Development Permit. We're going to have to review on a case-by-case basis what they want to do and decide each time when we're going to say that a new Substantial Development Permit is required. And I am song I can't give you a more definitive answer than that, but that's going to be difficult and something that takes a good deal of discussion in our Planning Department, depending on what it is they are doing out there and what they want to do in the future. Mr. Bullock: Mr. Ruggiero asked about what uses are allowed. I think there's some very basic uses that are very obviously allowed out there, and you addressed in your statement. The fact that boat storage and moorage is allowed, a small bait shop is allowed, a fueling facility is allowed. Those are very simple and straightforwardly addressed in our Shoreline Master Program, and they're things that are allowed over water in the Urban Mixed Use II Environment. There's other uses that are allowed in the Shoreline Urban Mixed Use 11 Environment. They're specifically called out in our current Master Program as being allowed upland, not being water ward. So that puts us in a rather precarious predicament as to how we apply it to this site. Again, I don't have an answer for you at this point in time. If an applicant wants to come in ... A restaurant... And I keep coming back to this example only because it's a simple one to potentially imagine, and not because the applicant has told me that they want to do something like this or that they potentially might. A restaurant is something that is allowed in the Urban Mixed Use II Environment. It is something that the current Shoreline Master Program specifically says is allowed in the upland portion of the Shoreline Mixed Use II Environment; not allowed waterward of the ordinary high water mark. But a case could be made. I am trying to be as up front to the public and to the applicant as I can be. A case can be made that we have a non -conforming building here, the building is allowed to be there and to be maintained, and commercial uses are allowed in the Urban Mixed Use II Environment. The applicant could come in a try to make a case to the Examiner, through a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, that they're trying to establish a permitted use in an existing non- conforming building and would like to get a ruling from him if that's an expansion of a non -conformity or not. flight now, I don't want to make a commitment either way that that's allowed or not allowed. It's something that the City would ultimately do through a separate development permit action. Mr. Bullock: I think... Is there any questions that have not been answered. Yes. If you could come up and give your name for the record, please. Ms. Becker: My name is Lourdes Becker, and I live at 15908 -- 75th Place West in Edmonds. I am very excited about anything that gets done. I am sick and tire of looking at that horrible thing. It would be wonderful if something gets done. I know it's going to be a pain in the neck for all of us. I hope that what is done doesn't affect us seriously. I know it's going to be a two-year project. I am already concerned about the changes on our water areas. When my husband and I moved into our place about 20 years ago, there were clams on our beach. There were moon snails, and we don't have them any more. We don't have any clams. We have some horse clams, but not butter clams. So something has already happened on our beach, and I know that all the debris that is being thrown into the water, I mean the stuff just floats in front of us everyday, and I say oh my gosh, this is terrible! When my husband and I moved in, we picked up every piece of garbage on the beach. My husband and I took tires and garbage that had been accumulating for about five or ten years in there. My boys grew up in there on that beach and I love it. I don't want anything to affect it any longer. When you mentioned the upland usage, I am questioning that you are going to put a restaurant where? I mean... Mr. McConnell: There is no upland in this case. That's why we ... Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 12 Ms. Becker: Yes, I know, so that kind of threw me for a minute. Anyway, so a restaurant might be in question whether it is going to be allowed or not. Mr. Bullock: Absolutely. Ms. Becker: So, would we have boating and fishing and restaurants and you know mini stores, you know a 7-11 type thing? Where are you going to put the parking? So that's ... Unless he builds a two or three floor parking area, I don't know how in the heck is going to comply with parking for all those buildings. Anyway, this is just a question. Like I said, I would love to see a change. I would like it to be quickly. I hope that everything comes for the best. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Mr. Hertrich. Mr. Mann: Mr. Examiner, I would like to make one comment. My name is David Mann from Gendler and Mann, Seattle. One comment on one of the questions raised today. Mr. McConnell: Okay, we have got one more speaker. He's standing there. As soon as ... Mr. Hertrich: Thank you. I am sorry to come back again, but this is the first opportunity I have had to read this. I was going through Attachment 6, which is from the Department of Army, the Corps of Engineers. I find it interesting in the final page it says, if you find a project is likely to adversely affect a listed species, this letter will serve as our request to initiate a formal consultation. The evidence that has been given today is that the debris is floating, the toxic debris is floating freely in the water and landing on the beaches. I think that action, itself, would require that this formal conference happen. That involves the Corps of Engineers and the parties that are part of this project. I think that if the City is looking for help in managing the problems that are already stated to have occurred, then they should rely on this Corps of Engineers document and get them out here real quick. Thank you very much. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Mr. Mann. Mr. Mann: Thank you. A couple of comments. David Mann, Gendler and Mann, 1424 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. Mr. McConnell: 1424 Fourth? Mr. Mann: Correct. 98101. lam here for the applicant today, but I really only want to address a couple of quick point. Mr. McConnell: Sure. Mr. Mann: First, I mean recognize and the staff recognizes the application before you is a narrow application to repair the existing structure out there. I throw in an aside. One of the comments came up on public use. If you look at the plans that have been pulled together and submitted, there is a pedestrian walkway that will be separated from the road portion, and that's graded out. There will be access on this pier, one that's safe and in a better condition. Mr. Mann: But I want to address is I think your decision needs to be very clear on the moving of the building, the existing wood building. What the applicant has proposed is taking this building, which was originally just brought on by barge, rolling it off of the current location while it finishes the repairs underneath, the flooring underneath it, and then rolling it right back to that same exact location. We see that as consistent with the non -conforming use provision within the Shoreline Master Program and the City Code. I am not quite sure from staff if that's their position, but we think it is consistent. If you look at the non -conforming use provisions in the Shoreline Master Program, it's 23.10.220, it talks about a non -conforming development which is moved any distance. It doesn't say much more other than that; it's fairly vague. What we submit to you, we are not moving this thing any distance; we're moving it out of the way and moving it back to its same location. It's not moving. That carries over into the City's regular development code for non -conforming buildings, Chapter 17.40.020, which actually goes on an gives a little more explanation. It has the same language about a building moved any distance has to then comply with applicable setbacks in the code. Again, sure that's the intent. If you are going to move something, if you can move it and you are going to move it, go ahead and comply with setbacks. But that provision goes on and says, but Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 13 if you are moving something, just because you are moving it, doesn't mean you have to change the shape, change the size, or change the overall location, or whether or not you can have a building there. So we would submit, again, that the real intent there is the structure could be moved but would have to comply with setbacks, but you don't have to remove that structure completely just because they're temporarily moving it out of the way. So we would ask that you address that in your decision so that it is very clear that it can be rolled out of the way and moved back to the exact same location. It is not a proposal to expand it in front of you. It will be fixed up in doing it, but there's not a proposal for any expansion of that use. That's all I really wanted to address. Mr. McConnell: Yes sir. Mr. Quast. Just state your name again for the record. Mr. Quast: John Quast, 15714 75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. For a point of clarification, the part of the facility that was brought in by barge is the metal part of that facility that was brought in. It was placed on concrete piers. It is not the wooden part of that structure. That wooden part of the structure was never brought in by a barge. It was constructed on site. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Mr. M: Mr. Examiner, Vladan Milosavljevic. General Manager from Meadowdale Marina. When I purchased the property several years ago, four years ago to be exact, inherited a book, a borrowed book from Ron Hansen, which has been in his family since 1939, actually it will go back to 1920, there was a pier established with some fishing company from back east. It was sold to Ron Hansen's family in 1939. The barn building was brought from Sequim on a barge, and I have the documents and the pictures, in two pieces. The pad was built and then they rolled over a barn building and you can even see today, it's been cut in half and placed and just sitting on the deck Therefore, we don't see any problem with moving that building and putting it back in its present location of where the pad was built. Mr. M: I wanted to address the question of many people concerns that debris is floating all over. In my knowledge, there was nobody throwing anything overboard. There were minor repairs, patch and normal routine maintenance to patch a few holes here and there. There were a few new boards installed. It is nothing to concern or major. The City put a stop work order and we obeyed that. We have complied with that. When the time comes, this is only a temporary fix to continue the use. We're still operating. We still have our boats there stored. People pay the rent. We still have our tackle shop, if anybody comes to look at the shop or buy bait or fishing boots or things like that, you are welcome to it. We are still in the business. Mr. M: We have a good plan to rebuild and replace the wood dock with a steel pile and concrete deck, and also to be used for many people in the area to store their boats and to come and buy fishing gear and bait and to use the facility as it was done previously. Mr. McConnell: Yes mame. Just state your name for the record. Ms. Dresslar: Laurie Dresslar. I assure you that what was just said is completely untrue. There has been no access to that dock in a good long time and no commercial retail establishment there. Also, I think it would be very difficult to move a building that has been partially demolished unless you rebuilt the building. I don't believe that there's any way in the world that that building could be rolled off of where it is and rolled back on as it has been partially demolished, again, as I believe without permit. There's a huge hole in the building. A huge part of the roof is gone, and the few boards that have been repaired without permit in the last week or so amount to probably 500 square feet. I invite you, I urge you to go out and take a look at it. It's painfully obvious, this huge amount of decking that's been replaced. Another huge amount of decking has been pulled up as recently as this morning. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Yes mame. Ms. Lowe: I am Reba Lane and I have lived in Edmonds for 29 years. Mr. McConnell: How do.you say your last name again. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number 5M-05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 14 Mr. Bullock: Your name please. Ms. Lowe: My name is Reba Lane and I live at 1127 — 2 Avenue South in Edmonds Mr.. McConnell: Thank you. Ms. Lowe: I have been in real estate 30 years and I have sold a lot of commercial property, as well as other. It seems that this property would be an asset to the area because the values would go up if this is improved. In the meantime, I suspect there's teenagers and people drinking to the detriment of this property. It is quite dangerous down there, and they are probably throwing stuff around and everything and drinking and carrying on. It would be in the best interest of all the property owners for this gentleman to get his permit and improve the property and go ahead. Thank you. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Ms. Bernstein: I'm Sarah Bernstein. I live at 15912 — 75t' Place West, and we did send a letter. Mr. McConnell: Yes, I've got it. Ms. Bernstein: My concern is who addresses or when does the City address the impact that more traffic on the road and parking will have and also the crossing of the railroad tracks. We already have a lot of traffic there in the summer on good days and the railroad track crossing is dangerous as you know because a couple of people have died in the last few years. I'm surprised more haven't. When I called the City or tried to get in touch with Burlington Northern, they have been very unresponsive. But the impact of the traffic, just because of the way the road is constructed, is going to be great. I would like to see an improvement of my view, but I would also like to be safe walking on the road and crossing the tracks if it is possible. Mr. McConnell: Thank you. Anyone else? Anything further from the City then? Mr. Bullock: I just wanted to thank the applicant's representative that brought up the issue about the building moved and your decision really specifically addressing that. It wasn't until they talked about it today that I understood, and maybe I just missed it in the application material, I am not sure, but I didn't realize that they were planning on moving the building and then moving it back. At this point, I don't know that staff has an opinion on that. That's not what we understood it was going to be. It sounded like it was going to have to be entirely removed to ... Mr. McConnell: I'll tell you what. We've got Thanksgiving coming up here quickly, and I have already announced that I'm probably not going to get a decision out in two weeks on this; it's going to go longer than that. Would you like a little time to respond to that? Of course, you can look at the response, and I would certainly like you to respond to anything the City comes up with. But do you want to take a look and have the Building Official take a look at that from the standpoint of moving the building, as they're proposing as part of a non -conforming use, and whether or not that's allowed according to staff. Mr. Bullock: I would be happy to write something up. At this point in time, I am not sure what my position is. I would be happy to forward it on to the applicant and their representative and give them a chance to respond. Mr. McConnell: How long do you need? Mr. Bullock: Today's Thursday. How about if I have something out by next Monday and you get him to .. . Mr. McConnell: The following Monday? Mr. Layton: That would be fine. Mr. McConnell: Let's get the dates down so we know what we are talking about here. So that would be ... Mr. Bullock said he'll need until the end of day of the 21", so I will give you until the end of the day on the 28h, then, to get a response Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts Pile Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 15 back. So we'll keep it open administratively until that time. And then I have to scratch my head, it looks like. Okay, anything else that I haven't heard. Okay. Thank you very much for coming and participating. I'll have a decision out within two weeks after the 2e I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber 1-3 Date Verbatim rearing Examiner Transcripts Dile Number SM -05-94 November 17, 2005 Page 16