Hearing Examiner Decision.pdf.`-4 C. 1 .8 9'J
CITY OF EDMUNDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of ) NO. V-2409-28
Edmonds Associates, }
Applicant ) Stevens Professional Center Variance
}
For a Street Setback Variance ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
} AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request for a variance from the street setback standard of the Multi -Family Residential (RM -
2A) zone is GRANTED, subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request;
Morns Piha, on behalf of Edmonds Associates (Applicant), requested a variance from the 15 -
foot street setback standard of the RM -2.4 zone to allow placement of an emergency generator,
propane supply tank, and enclosure one foot from the property line abutting the right-of-way of
2 1 e Street SW. The subject property is located at 21616 — 76t' Avenue W, in Edmonds,
Washington.
Hearing Date:
The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on
June 18, 2009.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Kernen Lien, Planner, City of Edmonds
1 Alan Lambert, Connell Design Group, Applicant Representative
3. Cindy Kang, Connell Design Group, Applicant Representative
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record:
1. Staff Report dated June 10, 2009, with the following attachments:
1. Land Use Application
2. Applicant Criteria Statement
3. Site Plans
4. Zoning and Vicinity Map
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, N. V 200 28 page I of 8
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
5. Hearing Examiner Decision V-2002-196
6. Notice affidavits
7. City of Edmonds Department/Division Review Sheets
8. Critical Area Waiver CRA -2002-0201
9. Wilcox Construction letter, dated September 26, 2002
2. Affidavit of Publication, Notice of Application and Hearing, dated May 29, 2009
3. Full Size Plan Set, 6 Sheets, prepared by Connell design, dated received June 9, 2009
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested a variance from the 15 -foot street setback standard of the RM -
24 zone to allow placement of an emergency generator one foot from the right-of-way of
2 1 e Street SW. The emergency generator is required for the operations of an existing
medical center. The subject property is located at 21616 — 76th Avenue W, in Edmonds,
Washington.' Exhibit 1, pages 1-2, Exhibit 1, Ailachment 1.
2. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the subject property is Mixed Use Commercial,
and it is also located within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. City Planning
Staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as being applicable
to the proposal:
Commercial Land Use Development
B. Goals for Commercial Development: Commercial
development in Edmonds shall be located to take advantage of
its unique locational opportunities while being consistent and
compatible with the character of its surrounding neighborhood.
All commercial development should be designed and located
so that it is economically feasible to operate a business and
provide goods and services to Edmonds residents and tourists
in a safe, convenient and attractive manner, in accordance with
the following policies:
B.4. The design and location of all commercial sites
should provide for convenient and safe access for
customers, employees and suppliers.
B.S. All commercial developments should be carefully
located and designed to eliminate or minimize the
adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other
related problems on surround land uses.
' The subject property is also known as Tax Parcel Nwnber 00461000100101. Exhibit 1, page 2.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No V-2009-28
page 2 of 8
MedicaUHiahway 99 Activit Center and Highway 99 Corridor
The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the
development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two
master planned developments., Stevens Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway
high School, with a related high-intensity development corridor along
Highway 99 ... the overall character of the mixed use activity center is
intended to be an intensively developed mined use, pedestrian friendly
environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by
centralized parking and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian
activity and park -like atmosphere.
A. Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
• To expand the economic and tax base of the city of
Edmonds by providing incentives for business and
commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center.
• Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and
residential community consisting of a mixed use,
pedestrian friendly atmosphere of attractively designed
and landscaped surroundings and inter -connected
development.
Exhibit 1, pages 6-7
3. The subject property is zoned Multi Family Residential (RM -2.4). The minimum street
setback in the zone is 15 feet. Exhibit 1, pages 2-3; Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) 16.30.
4. The subject property is 133,167 square feet in area and is developed with a medical office
complex and associated parking. The site is basically level and contains no critical areas.
Exhibit 1, pages 2-3.
5. The site's north boundary abuts 216'h Street SW. Across the street, property to the north
is zoned Public Use and contains the Edmonds-Woodway High School ball fields.. To the
west and south, parcels are zoned multifamily residential and developed with both single
and multifamily residential development. The site's eastern boundary abuts 76& Avenue
W; across this street, the land is zoned Medical Use (MU) and developed with the
Stevens Hospital Complex. Exhibit 1, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment 4.
6. In 2003, previous applicants were granted variance approval to place a generator, propane
supply tank, and enclosures within the street setback along the northern property
boundary. Permit V-02-196 authorized placement of the existing generator and fuel
supply within enclosures 2.21 feet from the north property line. At the time of the
previous application, the site was already fully developed with the office buildings and
parking. State regulations enacted after site development required installation of a
backup generator and fuel supply tank to allow continuous operation of medical
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No. V-2009--28
page 3 of 8
equipment during power outages; the same regulations dictated building setback
requirements for the devices. Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment S; Testimony of
Ills Machuga; Exhibit 1, Attachment 9.
7. The instant application arises from the request of a new tenant to install an additional
delivery driveway off of 2 1 e Street SW. In order to accommodate the existing site
development and the proposed driveway, the generator and propane supply tank must be
relocated. Because of Fire Code requirements regarding building setbacks and the
location of existing site development, the only area that can accommodate the state -
mandated emergency backup utilities remains within the street setback typically required
in the RM -2.4 zone. The Applicants seek approval to relocate the generator, propane
tank., and associated enclosures 28 feet to the west. Exhibit 1, page 2, Exhibit 1,
Attachment 1, Application.
8. The proposed location of the utilities would be setback one foot from the property line
and eight feet from the sidewalk along 216'h Street SW. Testimony of Ms. Kang.
9. The City's architectural design board (ADB) reviewed the placement of the utilities in
2003. The ADB's approval in 2003 was based on a screening enclosure of chain link
fence and arborvitae plantings. The approved fences were installed; however, there is no
arborvitae near them, meaning they either didn't survive or were not planted. Exhibit 1,
page 4, Testimony ofMs. Machuga.
10. The Edmonds Community Development Code requires Type III landscaping for the
proposed generator and fuel supply tank in the proposed location for the purposes of
providing visual separation of the use from the street and softening the appearance of the
mechanical devices. Type III landscaping can include shrubs plus groundcover, earth
mounding, or a combination of the above plus opaque fencing. ECDC 20.13.030. C.3;
Exhibit 1, page 4.
11. Relocation of the generator, tank, and enclosures would not result in removal of any
mature vegetation. Construction of the driveway may result in tree removal, but this
would be reviewed with the right-of-way and building permits for that use. Exhibit 1,
page 4; Testimony of Ms. Kang.
12.. As proposed, the new locations for the utility devices would be screened by plantings
including Oregon grape, heavenly bamboo,. and Hicks yew, in addition to two types of
ground cover. These species would be planted between the enclosures and the nearby
sidewalk. A beech tree and mature rhododendron from the area of the proposed driveway
would also be relocated to the proximity of the new utility placement. Exhibit 3, Sheet L-
2, landscape plans.
13. At the time that the 2003 variance was reviewed, then Applicants considered the option
of reducing available on-site parking to accommodate the required utilities outside of
zoning setback areas. The existing medical offices require 248 parking spaces; only 248
parking stalls exist on-site. Exhibit 1, page 6, Exhibit 1, Attachment 9.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No. Y-2009-28
page 4 of 8
14. The setback the Applicant seeks to reduce is a street setback. The street is not adjacent to
residential uses, but rather open recreational fields. Exhibit 3, Site Plans; Exhibit 1, page
7.
15. There is no evidence of detrimental impacts resulting from the existing placement of the
generator and propane tank. Exhibit 1, Attachment 2; Testimony of Ms -'Kang, Testimony
of Mr. Lambert.
16. The Technical Review Committee, consisting of representatives of the City Fire, Public
Works, Engineering, and Parks Departments and the City Building Division reviewed the
variance application and submitted comments that did not oppose approval of the
requested variance. The Building Division comments noted that a building permit would
be required for construction of the driveway and that a mechanical permit would be
required for the relocated generator. Engineering indicated that a right-of-way permit
would be reviewed prior to final driveway approval. Other departments indicated no
comment. Exhibit 1, Attachment 7.
17. The proposed variance is exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act.
Exhibit 1, page 2; WAC 19711-800.
18. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners and published
in The Herald on May 29, 2009. Exhibit 1, Attachment 6; Exhibit 2. There was no public
comment on the application. Testimony of Ms. Machuga.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide variance requests pursuant to
Edmonds Community Development Code 20.100.010(B).
Criteria for Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.85.010, the Hearing Examiner may not grant a variance unless the
following findings can be made:
A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating .to the
property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner
of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and
uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as
vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats.
2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor
personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may
be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the .ability to secure a
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No. Y-2009-28
page 5 of 8
scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor
any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the
same property;
B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the comprehensive plan;
D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is
located;
E: Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will
not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone;
F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to
allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. Due to the special circumstances of the existing full site development and to the Fire
Code requirements for separation between the generator, supply tank, and structures,
there is no other area on-site to which the utilities could be relocated. On-site parking
was previously reviewed and determined not to provide excess area for utilities. Strict
enforcement of the street setback requirement would deprive the owner of rights and
privileges (i.e., a reasonable new delivery access to existing professional offices)
permitted to other properties in the vicinity and within the RM -2.4 zone. The
combination of the State requirement to provide emergency power back up and Fire Code
standards about placement of fuel tanks and generators nearer structures, in the context of
the fully developed site, satisfies the variance criterion regarding special circumstances.
Findings Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 13.
2. The previous variance approved a street setback reduction. In light of the regulations
driving placement of the generator and supply tank, the instant request for an additional
one -foot reduction would not be a grant of special privilege in the context of the fully
developed site. Findings Nos. 6, 7, and 13.
3. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would not
adversely impact convenient, safe access to the site, would not inhibit pedestrian
mobility, and would not affect traffic volumes. The proposed landscaping would
improve site aesthetics, which accommodating the driveway project is consistent with
goals and policies relating to expansion of the economic and tax base of the City.
Findings Nos. 2, 5, 8, 12, and 1.3.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No. V-2009-28
page 6 of 8
4. The variance would be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. As stated in
ECDC 16.00.010, the purposes of the zoning ordinance include:
A. To assist in the implementation of the adopted comprehensive plan for
the physical development of the city by regulating and providing for
existing uses and planning for the future as specified in the
comprehensive plan; and
B. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of
residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the city, and to
ensure the orderly and beneficial development of those uses by:
1. Preserving and retaining appropriate areas for each type of
use;
2. Preventing encroachment into these areas by incompatible
uses; and
I By regulating the use of individual parcels of land to prevent
unreasonable detrimental effects of nearby uses.
There is no evidence in the record that approval of a variance from the RM -2.4 street
setback would be inconsistent with the enumerated purposes of the zoning. code.
Findings Nos. 1 through 16.
5. The variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and within the RM -2.4 zone. The
record contains no evidence of detrimental impacts of the existing placement of the
utilities within the street setback. Approval would result in virtually unnoticeable
reduction in the existini setback, and the relocated utilities would be placed 8 feet from
the sidewalk along 216 Street SW. The proposed landscaping would soften the
appearance that the generator and supply tank present in their existing locations. The
reduced setback is adjacent to a street that does not abut residential development, but
rather open recreational fields. Findings Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16.
6. The variance would be the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by
other property owners. No other siting options were discovered upon review. Relocation
of the generator and supply tank to the proposed location is the minimum necessary to
allow the property owners the right to upgrade access for customers, employees, and
vendors. Findings Nos 4, 5, and 13.
DECISION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for a variance from the street
setback standard of the RM -2.4 zone to allow placement of an emergency generator, propane
supply tank, and ass6ciated enclosures one foot from the property line abutting the 216'' Street
SW right-of-way at the existing Stevens Professional Center is GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions: ,
1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No. V-2009-28 page 7 of 8
2.The Applicant must obtain all applicable permits for the proposed generator, and the
applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits.
3. The Applicant shall install landscaping as proposed in Exhibit 3, Sheet L-2 as soon as
possible after relocation has been completed.
DECIDED this 2nd day of July 2009.
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
.JPJ2����
Syron A. Rice
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Stevens Medical Center Variance, No. V-2009-28
page 8 of 8
rh C. 189v
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for
reconsideration and appeals. An person wishing to file or res and to a request for
reconsideration or an Weal should consult the relevant ordinances and/or contact the Planning
Division of the Develoment Services Department for further procedural information
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.06.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contains the
procedures for requesting reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner decision. Requests for
reconsideration must be filed with the City Planning Director within 10 calendar days of the
Hearing Examiner's decision. The filing deadline is 4:30 p.m. on the last business day of the
reconsideration period. Only parties of record (Le., the applicant, any person who testified at the
open record hearing on the application, any person who individually submitted written comments
on the application, or the City of Edmonds) may file a request for reconsideration. The grounds
for reconsideration are limited to errors of procedure, errors of law or fact, errors of judgment, or
the discovery of new evidence that wasnot known and could not in the exercise of reasonable
diligence have been discovered. Reconsideration requests must contain the information specified
in ECDC 20.06.010(D) and be accompanied by the required filing fee.
APPEALS
Pursuant to ECDC 20.05.020(B), appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variances shall be to
the Snohomish County Superior Court as provided in ECDC 20.07.006, in accordance with the
Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70C). Appeals mush be filed within 21 days of decision
issuance. Filing a request for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to filing an appeal.
EFFECT OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ON APPEAL DEADLINE
The timely filing of a request for reconsideration stays the Hearing Examiner's decision until
such time that the Hearing Examiner issues a decision on reconsideration, and any judicial
appeal must be filed within 21 days of the decision on reconsideration.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020(C) of the ECDC states: "Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on
by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null
and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and
the city approves the application."
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.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
-ine.189v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT )
Edmonds Associates }
)
For a Variance
I, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. V-2009-28
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
1. That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. On July 1, 2009, I served a copy of the decision in case V-2009-028 upon the following
individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Edmonds Associates
C/O Morris Piha Management Group
14100 SE 36" St, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98015
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alan Lambert/Cindy Kang
Connell Design Group
22002 60 Ave W, Ste. 2C
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
trine and correct:
DATED THIS I" day of July, 2009 at Edmonds, Washington.
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan