HE_decision.pdfI
0
'/)c.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1,
Z
'ti
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE HE HEARING 4K fi
OF EDMONDS
RE: McDonalds
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Conditional Use Permit
(PLN20130002,
PLN20130003,
PLN20130006)
1+ f
The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to replace an existing
McDonald's restaurant located at 10124 Edmonds Way. The conditional use permit
includes a request for extended hours of operation. Design Review is also requested
along with some minor modifications to applicable landscaping standards. The
conditional use permits and design review are approved with conditions. A petition
was presented by Maya Taylor requesting that the applicant include a play area in its
design. Although Ms. Taylor made a very articulate and compelling argument for
this amenity, the City does not have the legal authority to require it. The applicant is
highly encouraged to incorporate a play area as suggested by Ms. Taylor.
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner, stated that the application is for three peirnits related to
the redevelopment of a McDonald's restaurant located at 10124 Edmonds Way. The
three permits are a design review, conditional use for a drive-thru, and a conditional
use for extended operating hours. Per ECDC 20.01.002, the three permits are being
CU Permit and Design Review P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
consolidated under a single review. The redevelopment project will construct a new
1 4,270 sq ft McDonald's restaurant building, dual lane drive-thru facility, and a
2 parking lot. The site is 1.91 acres, and there is an existing McDonald's building
located on it now. The existing McDonald's will be demolished. The Architecture
3 Design Board reviewed the project and made a recommendation to the hearing
examiner. This recommendation is included within the staff report. The criteria for a
4 conditional use permit include (1) consistent with the comprehensive plan, (2)
consistent with zoning ordinances, and (3) not detrimental to surrounding properties.
5 The application meets these criteria. In regard to landscaping, the Architecture
6 Design Board made a recommendation that the applicant increase the variety of
shrubs and grasses in the area between the parking lot and the sidewalk. Currently.
7 much of this area is covered with gravel. Planning staff agree with this
recommendation, and, additionally, recommend a greater barrier between the
8 sidewalk and traffic areas. There is a possibility of a shared driveway with the
adjacent property owner to the south, and the city is generally supportive of this
9 proposal. The shared driveway would reduce the number of driveway cuts along
10 Edmonds Way and should not cause any negative impacts. This shared driveway is
not shown on the site plan, and it does not affect the criteria use permit criteria. The
11 Architectural Design Board noted that they did not review signage as part of this
application, and it will be reviewed in subsequent permits.
12
In regard to the shared driveway, the city recommended the one -drive aisle possibility
13 because of potential traffic congestion and accidents on Edmonds Way. It allows
14 more ability for vehicles to enter the drive-thru lane. The city's proposed flow would
still allow two-way travel through certain areas on site. In the city's plan, vehicles
15 would not be able to turn up a drive island, thus limiting the ability to enter the drive-
thru aisles. Traffic will still be entering and exiting the site internally with two-way
16 traffic in the current proposal. Engineering staff recognizes that city code cannot
require the applicant to change their current plan. The city's recommendation is
17 based on its past experiences with other parking lots and exiting onto Edmonds Way.
18 The current proposal creates the potential for congestion because of vehicles exiting
pull-thru stalls. Larger cars, like trucks, will attempt to back up near the entry to
19 Edmonds Way because they won't be able to pull-thru to the exit provided. This may
create traffic congestion at the entrance off of Edmonds Way. With the city's
20 recommendation, the pull through stalls will still have two-way traffic on the east
21 side. Currently, the applicant is not planning on changing from the plan provided in
the original application, despite city recommendations. If the McDonald's
22 experiences issues with their proposed driveway plan, the applicants could pursue the
city's drive aisle solution at a later time. In regard to impacts to Edmonds Way, the
23 only issue is traffic backing out of the pull-thru areas on site into the entry point to
Edmonds Way.
24
25 Public Testimony
Maya Taylor, seven years old, testified that she would like the new McDonald's to
include a play area. She and her sister enjoy visiting the McDonald's and believe the
CU Permit and Design Review p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
addition of a play area would make their experience even better. She submitted a
1 petition with close to 50 signatures of McDonald's patrons asking for the McDonald's
2 to include a play area.
3 Maya's mother noted that she has been visiting the existing McDonald's for over 14
years. The McDonald's is a great community gathering area, and the addition of a
4 play area would only expand this community potential.
5 Alvin Rutledge stated that he sees nothing wrong with the application as there is
6 already an existing McDonald's at the location.
7 11 Applicant Rebuttal
8 Brian Mattson, McDonald's USA Corporate, noted that he will inform corporate of
the community wish that the McDonald's include a play area.
9
EXHIBITS
10
11 The staff report and attachments 1-13 identified at page 10 of the staff report was
admitted at hearing as Exhibit 1. A petition requesting a play area for McDonalds
12 was admitted as Exhibit 2.
13 FINDINGS OF FACT
14 Procedural:
15 1. App licant McDonald's USA, LLC.
16 2 Owner. McDonald's USA, LLC.
17
3_ Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
1 g application on April 25, 2013 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds
Public Safety Complex.
19
20 Substantive:
21 3. Site and Proposal Description. The applicants are proposing to redevelop the
McDonald's restaurant site located at 10124 Edmonds Way. The McDonald's
22 redevelopment project proposes to construct a new 4,270 square foot McDonald's
restaurant building, dual lane drive-through facility, and associated parking lot on a
23 1.91 -acre site. The existing McDonald's restaurant will be demolished as part of this
redevelopment (Attachments 1 - 6). Redevelopment will occur entirely within the
24 previously developed footprint. The existing site is approximately 53% impervious.
25 1 In the redeveloped condition, the impervious surface will be reduced to 47%.
CU Permit and Design Review p•
3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The proposal triggers three permit requirements. The proposed drive-through use
I requires a conditional use permit (PLN20130003). Another conditional use permit is
required for extended hours as McDonald's is proposing to operate 24 hours a day
2
(PLN20130006). A design review permit (PLN20130002) is required because the
3 scope of work triggers review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA.
The proposal also involves some modifications to landscaping requirements, which
4 1 are identified at I(4) of the staff report to the ADB (att. 13 to Ex. 1).
5 The developed portion of the site is mostly flat. West of the developed portion of the
6 property, the slope rises sharply with a slope of approximately 50%. All work will
occur within the previously developed footprint. The slope west of the developed
area is forested with mature trees including western red cedar, Douglas fir, maple and
alder trees. The developed portions of the site are minimally landscaped.
0 4. Characteristics of the Area. This property is located in the Neighborhood
9 Business (BN) zone. The neighborhood around the site consists of commercial
10 development along Edmonds Way in what is known as the Westgate neighborhood.
Surrounding uses include shopping centers (Bartell's, Starbucks, Subway, etc.) and
11 grocery stores (PCC and QFC) along with numerous neighborhood commercial
businesses. A single family residential (RS -8) neighborhood surrounds the BN zone
12 and is directly west and south of this site (Attachment 7). Access for the proposed
development will remain off of Edmonds Way (SR -104) while one of the three
13 entrances will be eliminated. Edmonds Way (State Route 104) is considered a
14 "Principal Arterial."
15 5 • Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse
associated with the proposal. This is to be expected since the proposed McDonald's
16 simply replaces an existing McDonald's within the fully developed portions of the
existing lot. The only critical areas on site are geologically hazardous areas. Slopes
17 along the western property boundary slope to the east at approximately 50%
18 according to the City's LiDAR information. The steepness of the slope identifies the
site as containing potential landslide hazard area pursuant to ECDC 23.40 and 23.80.
19 All redevelopment will occur within the previously developed footprint. A
geotechnical report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. addressing the City's critical
20 area regulations has been submitted. It concludes that the proposal will not have any
adverse impact on the geologically hazardous area and will reduce the geological
21 hazard by relocating the McDonald's building fin-ther way from the steep slopes and
22 retaining wall on the west side of the project site.
23 The only impacts of concern would be those associated with the noise and lights of
vehicles driving through the drive-thru along the western side of the development.
24 There are homes adjoining the project to the west so the noise and light generated by
25 vehicles in the drive-thru should be considered. Those impacts are not specifically
addressed in the administrative record except to the extent that the ADB staff report
notes that extensive vegetation along the western slopes serves as a Type I landscape
buffer to buffer the adjoining residential uses. The geotech report notes that there is a
CU Permit and Design Review p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
ten foot retaining wall along the western side of the drive-thru and the steep slopes
I extend above that at slopes up to 70% along with mature trees and other heavy
2 vegetation. It is unclear from the record how high the slope reaches above grade, but
more likely than not the separation caused by the retaining wall/slope/vegetation will
effectively buffer the adjoining residences from noise and light impacts.
4 An increase in landscaping within the parking lot and frontage of the proposal will
serve as an improvement over current aesthetic impacts along the other sides of the
5 project area. All landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles will
6 be protected by curbs. A gated trash enclosure will be utilized to screen view of the
waste and recycling containers. All season landscaping is also provided around the
7 trash enclosure. Light standards will be designed to limit spillage off-site and the
light standards may be no higher than 25 feet.
8
Maya Taylor made a compelling presentation on the need for a play area in the
9 redeveloped McDonalds. Such a play area would clearly serve as an asset to the
10 Edmonds community and the applicant is highly encouraged to add such an area to its
design. Unfortunately, the Washington State Constitution and the United States
11 Constitution only authorize a city to require a permit applicant to mitigate impacts
that the applicant's project creates. See, e.g., Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App.
12 505, 516-17 (1998). The play area is a great idea, but it is not something that can be
13 legally required by the City of Edmonds.
14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15 Procedural:
16 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 provides that the
Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing and issue a final decision on conditional use
17 permit applications. ECDC 16.45.010(C)(2) and (3) require conditional use permits
18 for drive in businesses and businesses open to the public between 11:00 pm and 6:00
am in the BN zone. ECDC 20.01.002(B) requires consolidation of the design review
19 permit with the hearing examiner review of the conditional use permits.
2011 Substantive:
21 2. Zoning Designations. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood
22 Business (BN).
23 3. Permit Review Criteria. The criteria for a conditional use permit are
goveined by ECDC 20.050.010. The criteria for general design review are set by
24 ECDC 20.11.020 and 20.11.030. All applicable criteria are quoted below and applied
25 through corresponding conclusions of law. In addition, ECDC 20.13.000 allows the
ADB and hearing examiner to modify the landscaping standards of Chapter 20.13.
Landscape modifications are addressed below as well.
CU Permit and Design Review p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
ECDC 20.050.010: No conditional use permit may be approved unless all of the
1 findings in this section can be made.
2 A. That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3
ECDC 20.11.020 Findings.
4
The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed
5 development:
6 A. Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the criteria
7 listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained
in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the
8 comprehensive plan. The city has the obligation to provide specific direction and
guidance to applicants. The urban design chapter has been adopted to fulfill the city's
9 obligations under Washington State case law. The urban design chapter shall be used
10 to determine if an application meets the general criteria set forth in this chapter. In
the event of ambiguity or conflict, the specific provisions of the urban design chapter
11 shall control.
12 4. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report
analysis of the comprehensive plan, located at Section VII, is adopted and
13 incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. In addition, the staff report
14 analysis of the comprehensive plan to the Architectural Design Review Board, att. 13
to Ex. 1, Section G, is also adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in
15 full.
16 ECDC 20.05.010(B): Zoning Ordinance. That the proposed use, and its location, is
17 consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone
district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all
18 (I applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance.
19 ECDC 20.11.020(B): Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use
20 requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been
approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a
21 proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given
22 substantial deference and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
23 5. The staff report analysis of Zoning Ordinance compliance, located at
Section X(A) and (B)(1)-(2), is adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set
24 forth in full.
25 ECDC 20.05.010(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.
CU Permit and Design Review p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 6. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse
2 impacts associated with the project. As a consequence, the proposal will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or to nearby
3 properties or improvements.
4 ECDC 20.05.010(D): Transferability. The hearing examiner shall determine whether
the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. If it runs with
5 the land and the hearing examiner finds it in the public interest, the hearing examiner
6 may require that it be recorded in the form of a covenant with the Snohomish County
auditor. The hearing examiner may also determine whether the conditional use permit
7 may or may not be used by a subsequent user of the same property.
8 7, The conditional use permits shall run with the land, but has to maintain the
9 proposed design and use.
10 ECDC 20.11.030(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
11 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
12 mass. The following are included as elements of building design:
13 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets;
14
15 8. All exterior design elements are integrated into the McDonald's design theme
typical of McDonald's establishments.
16
ECDC 20.11.030(A)(2): Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or
17 brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area;
18
9. The proposed color scheme is muted with accent elements in the traditional
19 McDonald's yellow.
20 ECDC 20.11.030(A)(3): Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof,
grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level;
21
22 10. As conditioned.
23 ECDC 20.11.030(A)(4): Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be
avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives
24 of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All
25 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.
CU permit and Design Review p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11. Bulk and mass are reduced in both horizontal and vertical articulation of materials
and protrusions on all four sides of the building.
ECDC 20.11.030(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.
The following are elements of 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.
12. Redevelopment will occur entirely within the previously developed footprint.
The existing site is approximately 53% impervious. In the redeveloped condition, the
impervious surface coverage will be reduced to 47%.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(2): Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the
building design and other site improvements.
13. The type and density of landscaping as well as the relocation of the sidewalk will
enhance the overall aesthetics. Considerable on-site landscaping will also be provided
to further enhance the appeal of the site.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(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.
14. The property is surrounded by property zoned BN except to the west, which is
zoned R8. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, a retaining wall and a significant
amount of trees and heavy vegetation buffer the adjoining R-8 residential uses. As
noted in the staff report, this buffering serves as Type I landscaping, which according
to ECDC 20.13.030 is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to separate uses
and land use districts.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(4): Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or
vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices.
15. Concrete curbs are provided between landscaped areas and parking/driveways and
pedestrian circulation.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(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.
16. A gated trash enclosure will be utilized to screen the view of the waste and
CU Permit and Design Review p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recycling containers. Landscaping is also provided around the trash enclosure.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(6): All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the
summer.
17. The proposed landscaping and screening will be effective in all seasons.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(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.
18. There are no areas of wood, brick, stone or gravel in lieu of landscaping proposed
as part of this project.
ECDC 20.11.030(B)(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.
19. The proposed project includes parking lot lighting, lighting along the walkways
and accent lighting along the building fagade. These are the minimum areas to be
lighted for safety and security. The lighting has been designed to limit spillage off-site
and lighting standards will be limited to 25 feet in height.
ECDC 20.13.000: The landscape requirements found in this chapter are intended for
use by city staff, the architectural design board (ADB) and the hearing examiner in
reviewing projects, as set forth in ECDC 20.11.010. The ADB and hearing examiner
shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained herein; provided
such modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000.
20. The landscape modifications identified at I(4) of the staff report to the ADB (att.
13 to Ex. 1) are consistent with the purposes of ECDC 20.10.000 and should be
authorized. The staff analysis, findings and conclusions of I(4) are incorporated by
this reference as if set forth in full.
DECISION
The conditional use permit for the McDonald's drive-thru (PLN20130003) and 24
hour operations (PLN20130006), as well as design review (PLN20130002) and
landscape modifications identified in Conclusion of Law No. 20 herein, are all
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Height calculations are required with the building permit application in order to show
that the project meets the 25 -foot height limit.
2. The light standards installed in association with the project cannot exceed 25 feet in
height.
CU Permit and Design Review P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3. All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or
buildings shall be screened to mitigate the view impacts from street level. Screening
could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing.
4. Street tree species, location and spacing shall be determined during civil design
review.
5. The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. The application is
subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
It is up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in
these ordinances.
6. Signage is subject to the requirements ECDC 20.60 and the proposed signage has not
been reviewed for compliance by the Architectural Design Board or the Hearing
Examiner. Signs will be reviewed for compliance with ECDC 20.60 during building
permit review.
7. The applicant should increase the variety of shrubs and grasses in the area between
the parking lot and the sidewalk.
8. The conditional use permits for the drive-through (PLN20130003) and 24-hour
operation (PLN20130006) shall run with the land, but has to maintain the proposed
design and use.
Dated this 9th day of May, 2013.
Phil Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to closed record appeal to the City Council
as authorized by ECDC 20.01.003. Appeals must be filed within 14 days of the
issuance of this decision as required by ECDC 20.07.004(B). Reconsideration may
be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by
ECDC 20.06.010.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
CU Pcnnit and Design Review P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision