Loading...
Hearing Examiner decision.pdf41nC.1S9v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS GARY KENSON �CYOR *011 APPLICANT: Bank of Washington, represented by architect Michael Perry, Dimensions, Inc. CASE NO.: CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 LOCATION: 202 5a' Ave. S (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: A consolidated application for Design Review of a new bank and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive through for the bank. REVIEW PROCESS: The Architectural Design Board has completed design review of the project and has submitted a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner conducts the public hearing on the consolidated application and makes the final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a.. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.50 (Community Business). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits), c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.10 (Architectural Design Review), d. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:40 pm. November 2, 2006, in the City Council • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 2 Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for oral arguments and comments at 4:25 pm. The Examiner held the hearing open administratively until close of business on November 9, 2006, The Examiner requested a memorandum from the Traffic Engineer regarding sight -distance on the subject alleyway, and requested a legal analysis from the City Attorney regarding access to the subject property. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record as Exhibit A. He then responded to Exhibit B and noted that while the site now has three curb cuts and the applicant wants two curb cuts for the proposed project, the code only allows one curb cut. From the Applicant: Mike Perry, Architect, discussed the design of the proposed building and entered drawings of the building on a CD as Exhibit C. He said the applicant proposes ingress and egress on 56' and ingress on Dayton. Staff is proposing one ingress on Dayton Street and egress on the alley. Mark Funk, Attorney, referred to the Applicant's Response to the Planning Division Advisory Report (Exhibit B) and said: • The applicant has vested rights to three curb cuts as the rights to those curb cuts travel with the land. The applicant is only requesting two curb cuts. • Application of ECDC 1.8.80.060 in this case creates an unsafe situation with egress only on the alley. He referred to the photos of the alley, which are attached to Exhibit B and said drivers can't see oncoming traffic on the alley due to lack of sight distance. • The proposed ingress curb cut on Dayton Street will be further from the intersection than the existing curb cut on Dayton. • A right -in, right -out curb cut is proposed on 5h Avenue South and a median could be installed so there would be no cars allowed to cross 5t' Avenue South. Gary Schmitt, Bank of Washington CEO, said: • The bank will have limited hours of operation and the bank would work with the City to allow public parking on the site when the bank is not open. • A curb cut on 5t' Avenue South would encourage public access to the parking area. From the Community: Bob Gregg said: • He supports the design of the building. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 3 • The ADB required large awnings, but he doesn't feel large awnings are appropriate on a one-story building. • He recommended more flexibility to allow staff to approve the awning. • He felt awnings could be designed that may be more appropriate to the building that is being proposed. • He would like to see the project be successful and would like to see some sort of curb cut on 5'h Avenue South. He feels the proposal is better than what the City has proposed and he felt some type of compromise should be considered. He recommended a single lane in on Dayton Street and a single lane out on 5th Avenue South. Al Rutledge said: • He thought a ramp to a parking garage should be considered. Response from the City: Lyle Chrisman, Development Engineer, said: • The City controls what goes on in the right-of-way and believes there is no grandfathering of curb cuts. He did not believe right-of-way access is vested to a property owner. • 5'h Avenue South is too narrow for a median and people will still turn left from a right turn only exit. • There is a bus stop in front of the subject property now and when the bus stops, the back of the bus extends into the travel lane. By eliminating the curb cut on 5t' Avenue South the bus will be able to be pulled entirely off the drive lane. Don Sims, Traffic Engineer, said: • Fewer curb cuts result in a more pedestrian friendly area, more on -street parking, and increased capacity for traffic. He too felt there is no vested right to the number of access points when there is a change of use occurs. The applicant is now starting from scratch and he must comply with the code. Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, said: • The Comprehensive Plan and Design Standards require awnings. The ADB did anticipate some flexibility in the design of the awnings and staff would have the responsibility to approve the final design of the awnings. Staff will work with the applicant's architect to insure the intent of the ADB is followed, but some flexibility will be allowed. • The code has a limit of one curb cut per lot. The City Council may make some changes to the code in the future, but staff can only allow what is in the code. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 4 Response from the Applicant: Mark Funke, Attorney, reiterated that there is a vested right to access. Mike Perry, Architect, said: • 80' is needed for a bus stop and since one of the existing two curb cuts on 5"' Avenue South will be given up there will be 90' available for the bus stop. • The alley goes for 3 blocks before it reaches a street and if traffic from this project is required to use the alley, there will be a lot of pressure placed on the alley. It is too narrow to accommodate the additional traffic. CORRESPONDENCE: During the administrative continuance, the City Attorney and the Traffic Engineer submitted memorandums as requested by the Hearing Examiner. The hearing was held open administratively so the City could submit written answers to questions raised at the hearing. The Examiner requested a memorandum regarding sight -distance relative to the nearby alleyway and a memorandum regarding vested access. Those memorandums have been entered into the record as Exhibits D and E. The Applicant's Attorney submitted a Supplemental Response to the Staff Report, which the Examiner did not request. The Applicant's Attorney did not make a request to submit additional material at the hearing. Therefore, the Applicant's Supplemental Response was not considered by the Examiner and was not entered into the record. Exhibits D & E are summarized below: The City Attorney wrote in part in Exhibit D: The right of access to an abutting property owner to a public right of way is a property right which if taken or damaged or a public use requires compensation under article I, section 16 of the Washington State Constitution. Keier v. King County, 89 Wn.2d. 369, 572 P.2d 408 (1977). However, not all impairments of access to property are compensable. Id. Likewise in this case, if enforcement of regulations would result in compensable diminution in access, then enforcement of regulations would be unconstitutional. But if enforcement would result in mere noncompensable diminution, then the code should be enforced The City Attorney concluded by stating. Enforcement of City regulations must be compatible with State laws. The City should only enforce its one point access regulation if it will not result in an unconstitutional act. The City Trak Engineer wrote in part in Exhibit E: The following design guidelines would apply in this case: Desirable entering sight distance is 75 feet and minimum entering sight distance is 50 feet. Due to the significant sight triangle restrictions created by the two existing buildings along the alleyway on each side of the subject property, the following available sight distances were measured. Available sight distance looking North (right) is 20 feet and available sight distance looking South (left) is 30 feet. The sight distances do not meet what would normally be either minimum or desirable standards for egress. The Traffic Engineer's memorandum went on to note that: Due to the fact that alleys have both low design speeds (approximately 10 mph) as well as relatively low vehicular volumes (typically between 30 and 200 trips a day), both the potential for conflict as well as the severity of a potential accident are relatively low. Finally, the Traffic Engineer's memorandum stated: It should be noted that typically half of the existing alley access points or more do not meet what would be considered minimum sight distance requirements, yet they typically function year after year without incident. However, along those lines, it should also be noted that most of these other approaches serve either residential properties or employee parking lots for businesses — both of which can be assumed to be comprised of driver's that quickly become familiar with sight distance limitations due to daily use of the alleyway. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SPIE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size: The subject property is irregular in shape site with approximately 135 feet of frontage along 5th Ave. S on its east boundary and another 65 feet of frontage along Dayton St. on its north boundary. The total site area is approximately .26 acres (see Exhibit A, Attachment 13). (2) Land Use: The property used to be the site of an AM/PM mini mart and gas station but is currently vacant. (3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is "Community Business", BC (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is flat with relatively no vegetation. b) Conclusion: The proposed development can be reasonably accommodated on the site. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The property is entirely surrounded by properties that are zoned and developed under the BC zoning provisions. (2) Off the southwest comer is one property that is zoned multi -family, however, it is across the alley from the subject property and unlikely to be impacted by the proposed development. b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding development. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 6 B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Compliance with ECDC Section 16.50.010 (Community Business — Uses) a) Fact: ECDC 16.50.010 allows commercial buildings as a permitted primary use. Drive-throughs are permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. b) Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the BC zone. 2. Compliance with ECDC Section 16.50.020 (Community Business -- Site Development Standards) a) Facts: (1) Maximum height of a building in the BC zone is 25 feet. (2) No setbacks are required (3) All elements of the proposed site plan meet the minimum setback and the maximum height limit requirements. b) Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the development standards for the BC zone. 3. Compliance with ECDC Section 17.50 (Off Street Parking Regulations) a) Fact: ECDC 17.50 states that in the downtown area all new buildings are required to provide one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft_ of building area. The proposed building will require five parking stalls. The proposed site plan indicates that 11 parking stalls are provided. b) Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the parking requirements of the code. 4. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits) a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: • Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. • Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. • 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. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 7 • Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. (2) The Conditional Use Permit is to allow a drive-through in the BC zone. (3) See Section B.1-5 of this report for a discussion on this project's compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. (4) See Section C of this report for a discussion on this projects compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. (5) The applicant's declarations regarding the project's compliance with the Conditional Use permit criteria are stated in Exhibit A, Attachment 2. (6) ECDC 18.80,060.13.5 — Driveway and curb cut requirements, states that in the downtown area vehicular access needs to be taken from alleys. This is in support of Comprehensive Plan policies that are designed to encourage the pedestrian and retail nature of the downtown area. It reduces conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles by reducing and eliminating curb cuts across public sidewalks. It also re - enforces the city's desire to have buildings and retail or commercial space along sidewalks. There is a provision in this section that gives the City and the applicant the ability to allow for one curb cut if certain criteria are met. First, access can be provided from a relocated curb cut that enhances on street parking. Second, the proposed application does comply with all other elements of the code. And third, no reasonable alternative exists for the allowance of the bank's drive through. In Exhibit A, Staff supported the curb cut onto Dayton St. to allow for the drive through and other vehicular access to the site. Staff s position on the curb cut located on 5a' Ave. S. is that since this code section specifically allows only one curb cut per lot, the second curb cut is not allowed. Staff recommended that the site plan be adjusted and landscaping added to address the curb cut issue and the ADB's recommendation. However, in Exhibit E, staff noted that most of the current users of the subject alleyway are drivers who either live or work in the area and are familiar with the limitations of the alleyway. In this case, bank patrons will be occasional users of the bank and will not be as familiar with the alley as they would be if they lived and/or worked along the alley. (7) Staff generally agreed with the applicant's position that the proposed drive through will not be detrimental and that the permit should be transferable. (8) The City Attorney provided legal analysis in response to the applicant's arguments regarding access (see Exhibit D). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 8 b) Conclusions: (1) Comprehensive Plan: Based on the Findings in Section C of this report, the proposed project appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because of the type of use, its location and its intensity. (2) Zoning Ordinance: Based on the Findings, Conclusions and recommendations in Section B of this report, the proposed project appears to be consistent with the intent of the zoning code. (3) Not Detrimental: The proposed drive through should be allowed because due to its design and location it would not be detrimental to adjacent residences or properties. Furthermore, in order to provide a safe and reasonable traffic flow for bank patrons, right -in ingress and right -out egress should be allowed on 5'h Avenue South. If egress were to be allowed only onto the alleyway, a potentially unsafe situation would be created due to the existing lack of sight distance. Bank patrons would typically not be accustomed to the limitations of the alleyway as are the majority of existing alleyway users who either reside or work along the alleyway. (4) Transferable: The proposed drive through should be transferable because it allows for construction of improvements that result in the same impact regardless of the type of use that uses the drive through. 5. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.10 (Architectural Design Review) a) Facts: (1) The Design Board reviewed the proposed development on September 6, 2006, and forward their recommendation on to the Hearing Examiner as follows: Boardmember Michel moved, seconded by Boardmember Schaefer, to recommend approval ofADB-06-99 to the Hearing Examiner with the following recommendations: I. Individual elements of the project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits and demonstrate compliance with all those codes and approvals (i. e. ADB approval); 2. If the curb cut is closed it should be replaced with plantings; 3. The landscape plan shall indicate street trees to be installed at 3 inch caliper with four foot by four footADA accessible tree grates; 4. The applicant is to provide a final planting plan with their building permit, which will he approved by staff, S. An awning shall be added along the east side of the building, along 51h Avenue South, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, extending a minimum of six feet over the sidewalk; Because with these conditions the Board fangs that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted citypolicies, the staff hasfound the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes ofECDC section 20.1 D, ADB Criteria. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-95 & ADB -06-99 Page 9 Motion carried unanimously. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 14) b) Conclusions: (1) The Architectural Design Board finds the proposed site and building development to meet the criteria of the Architectural Design Review chapter of the ECDC as long as the above stated conditions are placed on the project. It should be noted, that the requested curb cut on 5th Avenue will be allowed and therefore, no landscaping should be required at that location. The recommended requirement for awnings is viewed by the Examiner to be reasonably flexible and Staff will have the ability to review and approve the final awning design. C. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN One of the underlying purposes of the Comprehensive Plan to "promote the public health, safety, order convenience, prosperity and general welfare and values of the community." The subject property is located in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. It is also further described as being in the Downtown Mixed Commercial district. The following policies and descriptions appear to apply to this project. C. Goals for the Downtown Waterfront Area. To achieve this vision, goals for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center include: • Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. E. Plan Policies and Implementation Strategy. The vision and goals for Downtown Waterfront Activity Center are designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. To implement this vision, a series of policies and an implementation strategy are intended to guide future public and private actions. 4. Upgrade secondary downtown streets for pedestrians. Implement the city's public urban design plan and street tree plan while expanding public amenities and streetscape improvements in areas where these do not already exist. These improvements are particularly needed along Main and Dayton Streets in the area between downtown and the waterfront in order to improve pedestrian connections between downtown and the waterfront area. Pedestrian improvements should be combined with traffic improvement projects where applicable. Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies. The following policies are intended to achieve the goals for the downtown waterfront area: E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed- use development and pedestrian -oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an l Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 10 architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR -104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards. E.6. Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. E.11. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown, which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. E.14. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment, which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources. These historic structures are a key component of the small town character of Edmonds and it's economic viability. Height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of this quality of life, and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines. E.16. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. E. 17. Provide pedestrian -oriented amenities for citizens and visitors throughout the downtown waterfront area, including such things as: • Weather protection, • Street trees and flower baskets, • Street furniture, • Public art and art integrated into private developments, • Pocket parks, • Signage and other way -finding devices, • Restrooms. E.19. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. E.22. Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. Downtown Waterfront Districts. In addition to the goals and policies for the downtown waterfront area, the Comprehensive Plan Map depicts a number of districts in the downtown waterfront area. These districts are described below. i Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page t 1 Downtown Mixed ComrnerciaL To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses., with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal ofachievingpedestrian scale development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially -designated property, floor area that is beyond 90 feet from the commercial street frontage can be used for residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the house can accommodate both a business and a residence as principal uses. b) Conclusions: (1) If approved as conditioned below, this proposal will comply with the goals, policies and underlying purpose of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The Examiner concludes ingress from Dayton Street and right -in ingress, right -out egress on 5a` Avenue South will provide safer traffic flow for the project than ingress from Dayton Street and egress only to the alley (due to the limited sight distance on the alley). The Examiner considered the City Attorney's legal analysis when arriving at his decision and based on that analysis, believes he has the authority to make his decision, as conditioned below.. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Design Review of the proposed Bank (ADB -2006-99): a) Individual elements of the project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits and demonstrate compliance with all those codes and approvals (i.e. ADB approval); b) The landscape plan shall indicate street trees to be installed at 3 inch caliper with four -foot by four -foot ADA accessible tree grates; c) The applicant is to provide a final planting plan with their building permit, which will be approved by staff; d) An awning shall be added along the east side of the building, along 5th Avenue South, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, extending a minimum of six feet over the sidewalk; 2. Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Through (CU -2006-98): a) The project shall be constructed as shown in the site plan (Exhibit A, Attachment 3) with the exception that the driveway access on 5h Avenue South shall be limited to right -in and right -out only and that all the conditions associated with the Design Review approval be complied with. The design for the right -in, right -out access on 5t" Avenue South shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. b) The conditional use permit is transferable. Entered this 27th day of November 2006 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. -Z' Lfi--eol�� Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS: Section 20.105,020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU -06-98 & ADB -06-99 Page 13 TEVIE LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. FAR IRITIS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 10/26/06, with 6 attachments B. Applicant's Response to the Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 10/31/06, with attachments C. CD of Architectural Drawings for the subject project D. Memorandum of Law from the City Attorney, dated 11/9/06 E. Memorandum from the City Trak Engineer, dated 11/9/06 PARTIES of RECORD: Michael Perry Dimensions, Inc. 3006 Northup Way, #302 Bellevue, WA 98004 Gary Schmitt, CEO Bank of Washington 1942 58th Place West Lynnwood, WA 98036 Mark Funke 1411 E Olive Way Seattle, WA 98122 Bob Gregg 201 5'h Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020