Loading...
SM-08-60 & ADB-08-61 Hearing Examiner Decision.pdf"I? C. 1 B913 crry OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA NOW - (425) 771.0220 - FAX (426) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER In the Matter of the Application of Edmonds Yacht Club For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Design Review A)proval. NO. SM-2008-60/ADB-08-61 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION GARY HAAKEN!SON MAYOR The request for a shoreline substantial development permit and design review approval to develop a 14,398 -square -foot yacht club building at 326 Admiral Way is GRANTED, subject to conditions. Request: The Edmonds Yacht Club (Applicant) requested a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) and design review approval to develop a 14,398 -square -foot yacht club building at 326 Admiral Way in 11dmonds, Washington. Hearing Date: The City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing on the request on February 19, 2009. Testimony: At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath: 1. Jennifer Machuga, Planner, City of Edmonds 2. Emic Collins, Management Performance Group, Project Manager for Edmonds Yacht Club 1 Shawn Parsons, Pacland, Landscape Architect for Edmonds Yacht Club 4. Christopher Keuss, Executive Director of Port of Edmonds (property owner) In addition to those individuals listed above, Chevy Chase qfCG Engineers and Steve Butterfield of 'TC B Architects were present at the hearing on behaq'of the APPlicant. Exhibits: At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted into the record: Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City oft Hearing fi-,xaminer Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos, SA4-2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page I of 16 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, wJapan A. Staff Report to Architectural Design Board with Attachments: 1. Land Use Application 2. Zoning and Vicinity Map 3. Lease Agreement (Port of Edmonds and Edmonds Yacht Club) 4. Email from Steve Butterfield dated 116109 5. Edmonds Yacht Club Narrative 6. Site Plan received 9119108 (Note: This site plan is provided to show the existing parking and landscaping that is proposed to be eliminated with the project) 7. Environmental Checklist 8. Email from Chris Keuss dated 9/22/08 9. SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) 10. Adjacent Property Owners List 11. Public Notices and Affidavits 12. Review Comments from Public Works Department 13. Memo from Steve Fisher dated 11/12/08 14. Review Comments from Parks and Recreation Department 15. Letter from Rich Lindsay dated 1113/09 16. Review Comments from Engineering Division 17. Approved Traffic Impact Analysis 18. Review Comments from Fire Department 19. Review Comments from. Building Division 20. Critical Areas Determination 21. Geotechnical Report 22. Exterior Light Fixtures 23. Email from Steve Butterfield dated 119/09 24, Parking Study dated 5/2/97 25. Response from Applicant received 11/21/08 26. Addendum to City's Street Tree Plan 27. Port of Edmonds Master Plan 28. Packet of Color Drawings (containing 15 sheets) 29. Email from Steve Fisher dated 1/16/09 with Trash Enclosure Diagram Attached (added to record by staff at ADB meeting on 1/21/09) 30. Diagram of Required Fire Access (added to record by staff at ADB meeting on 1/21/09) 31. Updated Landscape Plan (added to record by applicant at ADB meeting on 1/21/09) 32. Trash Enclosure Details (added to record by applicant at ADB meeting on 1/21/09) B. Letter from Snohomish County PUD dated 1127/09 C. Draft Meeting Minutes from Architectural Design Board Meeting on 1121109 D. Affidavit or Publication for Notice of Hearing E. Notice of Hearing and Affidavits of Posting and Mailing F. Email from Jeanie McConnell and Jerry Shuster dated 219109 G. Email from Mike Smith dated 2/10/09 with Attached Fire Access Requirements H. Applicant's Response to Staffs and ADB's Recommended Conditions of Approval received 2/10/09 I. Updated Utility Plan received 2/10/09 J. Updated Landscape Plan received 2/10/09 K. ECDC 23.10.155 (Use Regulations - Mixed -Use Commercial) Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos, SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 2 of 16 L. View Corridor Diagram received 2/10/09 Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions: FINDINGS The Applicant requested an SSDP and design review approval to develop a 14,398 - square -foot yacht club building at 326 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington (APN 27032300401400). Exhibit A, Attachments I and 4; Exhibit M, pages 1 and 2. 2. The subject property is an 11,000 -square -foot portion of a parcel that is owned by the Port of Edmonds and part of the Port's 64 -acre Master Plan. The subject property is the Applicant's lease area, and it is currently used as a parking lot. The subject property is situated between Admiral Way to the east and Puget Sound to the west. Exhibit A, Attachments 3, 6, and 27. 3. The subject property contains or is adjacent to a Seismic Hazard Area. In accordance with City critical areas standards, the Applicant submitted a geotechnical report that addressed the seismic hazard. The conclusion of the report was that the project site is suitable for development as long as certain recommendations are followed. Compliance with these recommendations would be addressed at the time of building permit review. Exhibit A, page 4; Exhibit A, Attachments 20 and 21. 4. The subject property is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Exhibit A, Attachment 2. Marine -oriented services are primary permitted uses in the CW zone. ECDC 16.55.010. The maximum building height in the CW zone is 30 feet, and the minimum setback from the bulkhead is 15 feet for buildings and 60 feet for parking areas. ECDC 16.55.020. 5. The proposed development would satisfy CW standards in that the building height would be approximately 29.5 feet (exclusive of a metal decorative cap that was originally proposed) and the building setback from the bulkhead would be at least 18 feet. Although the Site Plan depicts parking spaces within 60 feet of the bulkhead, these parking spaces are only a reconfiguration of parking spaces already located within the setback. The number of parking spaces within the shoreline would decrease, rather than increase, as a result of the proposal. Consistent with ECDC 23.10.140 (Shoreline Master Program parking regulations), no parking spaces would be located between the building and the bulkhead. Exhibit A, Attachments 6 and 28 (Site Plan and Elevations); Exhibit M, page 11; Exhibit H. 6. The Comprehensive Plan designations of the subject property are Master Plan Development and Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Exhibit M, page 7. The proposed use is consistent with the Port of Edmonds Master Plan, which identifies an Edmonds Yacht Club building as a potential use within the Port's waterfront mixed-use area. Exhibit A, Attachment 27, pages 4 and 7. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan polices for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center, which Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. sSM-2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 3 of 16 support the Port of Edmonds Master Plan; encourage "a more active and vital setting" for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses; and provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. Exhibit M, page 7. The ground floor of the proposed building would provide space for the Yacht Club's business meetings and social events and would also serve as a rental event facility, and the second floor would be leased to another business. The building would eliminate a large paved area from the waterfront. Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6. 7. The building would be located within 200 feet of the Puget Sound shoreline. Consequently, the development is subject to the requirements of the State Shoreline Management Act and the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. The subject property is within an "Urban Mixed Use I" shoreline designation. Mixed-use commercial activities and developments are primary permitted uses in the Urban Mixed Use I designation. The proposed building would house a mixture of uses, including a "water - related use" as defined in ECDC 23.10.045(B)(540).' The building height and setback standards applicable to the Urban Mixed Use 1 shoreline designation are the same as those applicable to the CW zone. Exhibit M, pages 16 and 18; Exhibit A, Attachment 5; Exhibit A, Attachment 28, Plate 1 (shoreline designation map); Exhibit K; ECDC 23.10.155(13). 8. As required by ECDC 23.10.155 (shoreline regulations for mixed-use commercial development), the Applicant proposes to maintain a view corridor that is 30 percent of the average parcel width.' In this case the average parcel width is 1,775.5 feet, and the minimum view corridor is 532 feet. For parcels with shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, such as the subject parcel, only two-thirds of the view corridor must be continuous.3 The Site Plan provides a 374 -foot -wide view corridor to the north of and adjacent to the proposed building, and two view corridors in excess of 177 feet to the south of the proposed building. ECDC 23.10.155; Exhibit L; Testimony of Ms. Machuga. 9. Consistent with ECDC 23.10.075 (public access goals and policies), ECDC 23.10.095 (urban design goals and policies), and ECDC 23.10.145 (public access regulations), the proposed use would not diminish — and would likely improve - public access to the shoreline, and would preserve the public's opportunity to enjoy the scenic qualities of the 1 A water -related use provides a service supportive of water -dependent uses. ECDC 23.10.045(B)(540). 2 "Parcel" in this case refers not to the Applicant's lease area, but to the underlying Port -owned parcel. 3 "The view corridor must be in one continuous piece.... This view corridor must be adjacent to either the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third of the required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south property lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of Puget Sound." ECDC 23.10.155(E)(1). The City interprets this provision as meaning that only one-third (rather than two-thirds) of the required view corridor must be continuous. Exhibit M, page 21. The project complies with the view corridor requirement under either interpretation. Although there is no view corridor constituting two-thirds of the view corridor requirement immediately adjacent to either the north or the south property lines, this is due to the location of existing development on the property and not due to the proposed development. There is a view corridor constituting two-thirds of the view corridor requirement adjacent to the north side of the proposed building. Exhibit L. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 4 of 16 shoreline. There is an existing boardwalk between the project area and Puget Sound, and a sidewalk along Admiral Way. These features would not be affected by the development. The proposed site design includes new sidewalks between Admiral Way and the boardwalk on both the north and south sides of the building. Exhibit M, pages 19 and 20; Exhibit J. 10. Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020, the parking requirement for the proposed use is one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, or 29 parking spaces. The existing uses of the Poll property require 541 parking stalls during the day and 569 parking stalls during the evening. On the Port property there are 626 parking stalls available for daytime use and 666 parking stalls available for evening use, not including the spaces available for cars with trailers (65 during the day and 43 during the evening). The proposed development would eliminate 36 parking stalls from the project site. Even with that loss, the total parking available on the Port property would exceed the minimum required for the existing and proposed uses. Exhibit M, page 12; Exhibit A, Attachment 24; see also Exhibit A, Attachment 25. 11. The Shoreline Master Program contains policies to protect water quality (ECDC 23.10.060). The proposed development is expected to improve water quality by replacing some of the existing parking lot runoff with cleaner roof runoff. Runoff from the site would be discharged into the Port's existing storm drainage system. The project's compliance with the City's stormwater regulations, including those relating to water quality, would be evaluated at the time of building permit review. Testimony of Mr. Collins; Exhibit F. 12. The proposed development requires design review approval pursuant to ECDC 20.10.020 and 20.11.010. The City Planner thoroughly reviewed the proposed building and site design against the design review criteria set forth in ECDC 20.11.030 and the Downtown Design Objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plano and issued a recommendation to the City's Architectural Design Board (ADB) on January 14, 2009 (see Exhibit A). The City Planner's recommendation was that the design be approved, subject to conditions that the Applicant modify the landscape plan to ensure compliance with ECDC 20.13, provide a trash enclosure as requested by the Public Works Department (see Exhibit A, Attachment 13), remove a decorative element from the roof to ensure that the height does not exceed 30 feet, and obtain all other necessary permits. Exhibit A, page 14. 13. The Architectural Design Board (ADB) conducted a design review hearing on January 21, 2009, and recommended approval subject to the conditions identified by staffs, as well as conditions that the Applicant use (at a minimum) portable landscaping to define the western edge of the plaza area, include additional plant species in the landscape plan to provide height of up to five feet, and add a four to five-foot planting bed along the southern side of the building to allow for taller plantings. Exhibit C. " These are similar to the urban design objectives referenced in ECDC 20.11.020(A), 5 It should be noted that the ADB liked the decorative element proposed for the roof, and encouraged the Applicant to seek a zoning code amendment that would allow the feature to be retained. Exhibit C. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SH -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 5 of 16 14. Subsequent to the ADB hearing, City staff reviewed a revised landscape plan dated February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J) and other exhibits, and prepared an updated design review analysis and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner incorporating the new conditions recommended by the ADB. Exhibit M Based on a review of the evidence, the Hearing Examiner concurs with and adopts staff's analysis of the project's compliance with the various design criteria (see Exhibit M, pages 7-14) and the ADB's recommendation except as described in the Findings that follow. 15. Although the regulatory basis for the ADB's recommendation that the Applicant dune the western edge of the plaza area with plantings is not clear from the ADB meeting minutes (Exhibit C) or the testimony submitted at the Hearing Examiner hearing, the requirement is consistent with the Urban Design objective that "landscape buffers should reinforce pedestrian circulation routes." Comprehensive Plan, page 77 (Design Objective C. 14. d). However, the Applicant's ability to include plantings (whether permanent or portable) on the western edge of the plaza area is limited, and the Applicant's landscape plan as revised on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J) does not show plantings in that area. In correspondence dated February 10, 2009, the Edmonds Fire Department confirmed that it will require unobstructed access along the west side of the project site from the southern site boundary north to the fire hydrant across from the "P" dock. The Fire Department has approved a Site Plan showing the required fire access, and it encumbers the widest portion of the plaza area. Exhibit G. 16. Although portable planters could be placed along the western edge of the plaza area to the north of the fire hydrant, as recommended by City staff (see Exhibit M, page 22), the Applicant is concerned that portable planters would be stolen, and proposes to keep the planters indoors except when events are scheduled. Testimony of Mr. Collins. However, even without the planters the area north of the fire hydrant would not be devoid of landscaping. The Applicant proposes a narrow strip of landscaping along the building foundation in that area. Exhibit J. 17. Based on the evidence submitted, the Hearing Examiner finds that the landscape plan is adequate without a condition that the Applicant provide planters along the western edge of the plaza. With respect to the southern half of the plaza, planters would not be feasible due to fire access requirements. Exhibit G. With respect to the northern half of the plaza, planters would have limited value because they would not define the entire pedestrian route and would be used only temporarily. The attractive, nautically themed building would not need to be screened from view. According to the Port of Edmonds' Executive Director, the landscaping as proposed is consistent with the Port's landscape plan. See Exhibit A, Attachment 28; Exhibit G; Exhibit J; Testimony of Mr. Collins; Testimony of Mr. Keuss. 18. With respect to the height of plantings, members of the ADB expressed concern that there were too few plants of "medium" height. The Applicant's landscape plan as revised on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J) includes a mixture of shrubs, perennials, and grasses. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 6 of 16 Five species of plantings are expected to reach five feet in height, consistent with the recommendation of the ADB. Exhibit J; Testimony of Mr. Parsons. 19. The landscape plan that the Applicant submitted to the ADB provided minimal landscaping along the south side of the building. The planting standards contained in ECDC 20.13.025 include requirements that "trees and shrubs should soften the building elevation" and that "planting areas should be at least four feet wide." The Urban Design objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan include a requirement that "landscaping should be used to soften edges of buildings and parking areas." Comprehensive Plan, page 80 (Design Objective F.S. a). Because there is a row of parking stalls along the south side of the building, the Applicant's representatives expressed concern to the ADB that increasing the amount of landscaping would result in inadequate space for vehicle overhang, or would require the parking to be reconfigured. Exhibit C. However, the Applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan (Exhibit J) that includes a narrow planting bed along the base of the south side of the building. The narrow width allows a sidewalk to be maintained between the landscaping and the parking stalls. Although only a short segment of the planter is four feet wide, the additional length softens the building elevation consistent with the intent of the design standards. The Hearing Examiner finds that with respect to the south fagade, the landscaping depicted on Exhibit J is adequate and appropriately responds to the ADB's recommendation. Exhibit J. 20. The design review conditions recommended by staff and adopted by the ADB included a requirement that the Applicant provide 507.5 square feet of Type V landscaping within the parking areas, with a minimum of 150 square feet per planter, based on ECDC 20.13.030(E)(1), which requires 17.5 square feet of landscaping per parking stall (29 are required in this case). Based on the Hearing Examiner's measurements, the parking lot landscaping would exceed 507.5 square feet. Each planter would contain at least 150 square feet. Exhibit A, page 14; Exhibit M, page 15; Exhibit J. 21. The design review conditions recommended by staff and adopted by the ADB included a requirement that the Applicant provide additional trees within the parking lot landscaping beds such that there is one tree per planter and/or one per 150 square feet of planter, based on ECDC 20.13.030(E)(2)(g). The landscape plan as revised on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J) shows at least one tree per planter except for the planter in the northwest corner of the parking area, adjacent to the boardwalk. The Applicant does not want to place a tree within that planter because it would obstruct water views. Testimony of Mr. Collins. The Applicant's request is consistent with the Urban Design objective for waterfront landscaping that "landscaping should not obscure waterfront views." Comprehensive Plan, page 80 (Design Objective F. S. c). Further, it appears that the number of trees proposed (four) satisfies the one tree per 150 square feet of landscaping standard. To the extent that more detailed measurements show that the standard is not satisfied, the Hearing Examiner modifies the standard pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000 to approve the Iandscaping as proposed. Exhibit J. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & IDB -08-61 page 7of16 22. The design review conditions recommended by staff and adopted by the ADB included a requirement that the Applicant provide a trash enclosure on site. The landscape pian as revised on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J) depicts a trash enclosure within the parking lot on the south side of the building, with the gate location preferred by Sound Disposal. The trash enclosure would be screened from the street by landscaping. Exhibit A, page 14; Exhibit A, Attachments 29 and 32; Exhibit J. 23. The design review conditions recommended by staff and adopted by the ADB included a requirement that the Applicant use an automatic irrigation system in the landscape beds, based on ECDC 20.13.020(E). Exhibit A, page 14. The Iandscape plan as revised on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J) includes a planting note that "all landscaped areas are to be watered via automatic irrigation system." Exhibit J. 24. The design review conditions originally recommended by staff to the ADB included a requirement that the Applicant "provide street trees adjacent to the eastern side of the building or provide additional landscaping in order to compensate for the lack of street trees." Exhibit A, page 14. Although the proposed street tree spacing is irregular, it conforms to the recommendation of the ADB that no trees obscure views of the building's distinctive lighthouse feature (northeast corner of building). Exhibit C Not placing street trees in the landscape bed adjacent to the lighthouse feature is also consistent with the recommendation of the City Parks Manager, who expressed concern that planting trees too close to the building would create maintenance problems and would not allow proper tree growth. Exhibit A, Attachment 15. In lieu of street trees along a portion of the building, the Applicant proposes an open trellis with potted plants. Exhibit J. The ADB approved this feature. Exhibit C Based on this information, City staff no longer recommends changes to the landscaping along the east side of the building. Exhibit M, page 15. To the extent that the proposed street tree spacing does not conform to City landscaping standards, the Hearing Examiner modifies the standard pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000 to allow the landscaping as proposed. 25. The City of Edmonds acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. The City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on January 7, 2009. Only one comment letter was submitted in response to the DNS, and that was a letter from the Snohomish County PUD stating that there is adequate electrical system capacity to serve the development, although some facilities might require upgrading. Exhibit B; Exhibit M, pages 2-3. 26. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site, and posted on site, at the Civic Center, and at the library on February 4, 2009, and published in The Herald on January 13, 2009 and January 20, 2009. Exhibits D and E. CONCLUSIONS Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 8 of 16 Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for shoreline substantial development permits pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010. Criteria for Review: SSDP The criteria for review of an SSDP are set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-150. In order to approve the permit, the Hearing Examiner must find that the development is consistent with: A. The policies and procedures of the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act; B. The State of Washington shoreline regulations (WAC 173-27); and C. The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program contains goals, policies, and regulations that are applicable to the proposed development. Pursuant to ECDC 23.10.040, the regulations are mandatory, whereas the goals and polices "are intended to form the policy for shoreline uses, developments, and activities, as the basis of the regulations ... and to assist the city in determining whether to grant, modify and grant, or deny each proposed use, development, or activity." ECDC 23.10.040. The applicable regulations are set forth in ECDC 23.10.155, 23.10.130, and 23.10.140 and are reproduced below. The applicable goals and policies will not be reproduced in full, but those with particular relevance are discussed in the above bindings. 23.10.155 Use regulations — Mixed-use commercial. A. General. This section contains regulations pertinent to the development and use of mixed-use commercial facilities upland from the ordinary high water mark. These regulations are founded on the goals and policies established in Part II of this chapter. Please see the chart contained in ECDC 23.10.120 to determine in which shoreline environments mixed-use commercial developments are permitted. B. Permitted Uses. In the urban mixed-use I and II shoreline environments, the following are permitted uses, developments and activities: 1. The principal uses permitted are mixed-use commercial activities and developments, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics and drive-in businesses. 2. In addition to the principal uses listed above, accessory uses, developments, and activities normally associated with mixed-use commercial development are also permitted. This chapter also contains regulations on bulkheads and other shoreline protective structures, moorage facilities, marinas, and other uses, developments and activities which may be conducted accessory to the principal use. C. Lot Size. In the urban mixed-use I and 11 shoreline environments there is no minimum lot size. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 9 of 16 D. Required Yards. The regulations of this subsection establish the required yards for all buildings and other major structures associated with this use. No building or other major structure may be located within the following required yards: Environment/Setback Street OHWM1 Side2 Urban 0 feet 15 feet landward of bulkheads for buildings. 0 feet Mixed -Use 1 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking.3 Urban 0 feet 15 feet landward of bulkheads for 0 feet Mixed -Use I1 buildings.4 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. 1 The yards/setbacks shown under the column "OHWM" refer to bulkheads. If a bulkhead is not present, the ordinary high water mark shall be used. 2 See subsection E of this section for view corridor requirements. 31n the urban mixed-use 1 environment, the 60 -foot landward setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the bulkhead. The setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet (i.e., the setback for parking shall be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead). 4Existing buildings may be reconstructed within their existing footprint provided there is at least a 25 - foot walkway waterward of the OHWM. A minimum 15 -foot setback is required from lot lines adjacent to suburban residential shoreline environments (RS and RM zoning districts). This area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six-foot high fence or hedge. E. Required View Corridors. The regulations of this subsection establish the required view corridors for all buildings and other major structures associated with this use. No building or other major structure may be located within the following required view corridors: 1. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The view corridor must be in one continuous piece. Within the view corridor, structures, parking areas, and landscaping will be allowed; provided, that they do not obscure the view from the adjacent public right-of- way ight-ofway to and beyond the Puget Sound. This view corridor must be adjacent to either the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third of the required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south property lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of the Puget Sound. 2. Waterward of the ordinary high water mark, view corridors which are required pursuant to this section must be maintained starting at a width equal to the adjacent upland view corridor and expanding in a conical fashion 30 degrees from the prolongation of the view corridor waterward of the OHWM (see ECDC 23.10.245). Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 10 of 16 F, Overwater Structures Prohibited. The location of structures over water shall be prohibited except as provided below... G. Height. 1. Upland of the OHWM: a. The maximum permitted height of structures in the urban mixed-use I and Il shoreline environments is 30 feet above average grade Ievel, except as specified below: i. Bridges and overpasses may exceed the maximum height limit with a shoreline variance. 2. Waterward of the OHWM... 23.10.130 General Regulations — Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Critical Areas B. Development Limitations. All uses, developments, and activities on sites containing environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in these areas. In addition, the site must be specifically designed so that the hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical area will be mitigated. 23.10.140 General regulations — Parking. A. Off -Street Parking Required. All uses must provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in order to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will be coming to the subject property. Specific parking standards for uses are identified in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, as now or hereafter amended. B. Access. The city will determine the number, location, and design of all curb cuts and other points of ingress and egress between the subject property and public rights-of-way. C. Design and Layout. Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access. Whenever possible, parking should be located out of the shoreline area. Parking should not be located between the building or buildings on the subject property and the shoreline. Exterior parking areas, other than for detached dwelling units must be attractively landscaped with vegetation that will not obstruct views of the shoreline from adjacent public areas or adjacent public rights-of- way. ights-ofway. [Ord. 3318 § 3, 2000]. Criteria for Review: Design Review Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, design review approval may be granted if the proposal "is consistent with the criteria 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 comprehensive plan" and if the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, unless a variance or modification from the ordinance has been granted. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 11 of 16 The urban design objectives, which are found on pages 73 to 81 of the Culture & Design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, are too lengthy to reproduce here. The criteria of ECDC 20.11.030 are as follows: A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level; 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturally detailed entries; iv. Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials; 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. 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. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. 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. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 12 of 16 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. 7, Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. [Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007]. Conclusions Based on Findiggs: 1. With conditions of approval, the application satisfies the criteria for approval of a shoreline substantial development permit. a. The development would be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), The policy of the SMA, as set forth in RCW 90.58.020, is to "provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses," This policy "contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." RCW 90.58.020. The proposed development is a reasonable and appropriate use for the urban mixed- use shoreline. The project includes stormwater improvements for water quality protection and a view corridor for the public. The project would not affect navigation. Findings 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11. b. The development would be consistent with WAC 173-27. The regulations of the Department of Ecology contained in WAC 173-27 address the procedures and permitting requirements applicable to the various types of shoreline permits. This development is being reviewed under the criteria for approval for shoreline substantial development permits set forth in WAC 173-27-150. Additional regulations applicable to shoreline substantial development are as follows: WAC 173-27-140 Review criteria for all development. (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program, (2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thii-ty-five feet above average grade level on Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 13 of 16 shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. WAC 173-27-190 Permits for substantial development, conditional use, or variance. (1) Each permit for a substantial development, conditional use or variance, issued by local government shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty- one days from the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty- one days from the date of such filing have been terminated; except as provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b). The requirement of WAC 173-27-140(1) is addressed through the SSDP review criteria. WAC 173-27-140(2) is satisfied because the proposed building would be less than 35 feet tall. The requirement of WAC 173-27-190 is addressed by ECDC 20.55.060 (no construction until 30 days after decision). This limitation is incorporated into the conditions of approval. Finding 3. C. The proposal would be consistent with the goals, policies and regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. The proposed use is allowed in the Urban Mixed Use I shoreline environment. The proposed building would comply with the applicable height and setback standards of the Urban Mixed -Use I shoreline designation and the Commercial Waterfront zone. The site plan provides for a view -corridor that is more than 30 percent of the property width, and sufficient parking to satisfy City standards. None of the parking stalls would be between the building and the shoreline. Public access to the shoreline would not be affected by the development. Potential impacts associated with the Seismic Hazard Area would be mitigated. Findings 3, 4, S, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. 2. With conditions of approval, the proposal satisfies the criteria for design review approval. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including the design objectives. The proposal satisfies the criteria of ECDC 20.11.030. In particular, the landscape plan proposed by the Applicant (Exhibit J) adequately enhances the building design and other site improvements, and adequately buffers the parking area from the street. The deviation from the City's street tree requirement is consistent with the design review purpose to "encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features." ECDC 20.10.000. A buffer of planters between the western edge of the site and the boardwalk is not necessary for compliance with the design review criteria. Although such buffer would be attractive and would be consistent with the urban design objectives referenced in ECDC 20.11.020, due to the limitations imposed by fire access requirements, the buffer could not be installed along the portion of Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 14 of 16 the pedestrian route most needing definition. The Applicant is certainly encouraged to provide moveable planters outside of the fire access. However, a condition requiring moveable planters would be impossible to enforce. Since the Hearing Examiner was not able to locate any regulation specifically mandating landscaping along the western edge of the plaza area, no condition is imposed by this decision. Findings 12-24. DECISION Based on the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for a shoreline substantial development permit and design review approval to develop a 14,398 -square -foot yacht club building at 326 Admiral Way is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site design and landscaping shall conform to the landscape plan revised on February 9, 2009 (Exhibit J). 2. Unobstructed emergency access shall be provided to the "P" dock and fire hydrant from the south side of the site as depicted on the site plan approved by the Fire Department on February 10, 2009 (Exhibit G). 3. The metal decorative cap on the top of the "lighthouse" portion of building (see Exhibit A, Attachment 28) must be removed unless it can be shown that is satisfies the CW height limit during building permit review. This condition should not be interpreted as precluding the addition of the metal cap to the building in the future if the code is amended to allow greater building height, subject to applicable building permit requirements. 4. This decision authorizes, but does not require, the Applicant to use planters to define the western edge of the plaza area north of the "P" dock and fire hydrant, to the extent such planters do not conflict with emergency access requirements. 5. Development of the site shall be consistent with the recommendations of the March 5, 2008 geotechnical report (Exhibit A, Attachment 21) for mitigation of seismic hazards. 6. The Applicant must obtain all necessary building permits prior to commencing development. 7. This project is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).1t is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances and to obtain all necessary permit approvals. 8. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining any applicable permits/approvals from other local, state, or federal agencies, 9. Pursuant to ECDC 20.55.060, "No construction authorized by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final city decision on the proposal." DECIDED this 9"' day of March 2009. Toweill Rice Taylor LLC City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners By: ' r LeAnna C. Toweill Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-61 page 15 of 16 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for ding requests for reconsideration and appeals. Any person wishing; to file or respond to a request for reconsideration or an appeal should contact the Planning Division of the Development Services Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010(6) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his or her 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 Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC contains the appeal procedures for Hearing Examiner decisions. Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing, and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(B), the appeal must be filed with the Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeal 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 or her 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 five of the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. 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. Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner Edmonds Yacht Club, Nos. SM -2008-60 & ADB -08-6I page 16 of 16 CITY OF EDMONDS 121-5"rH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020,- (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER C. In the Matter of the Application of Edmonds Yacht Club For a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Desian Review Avvroval, DECLARATION 1, LeAnna C. Toweill, the undersigned, do hereby declare: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR NO. SM-2008-60/ADB-08-61 DECLARATION OFSERVICE That I am a Partner in the firm ofToweill. Rice Taylor I.LC, 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 Idaho, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness and make service herein; 3. That on March '.A-, 2009, 1 did serve a copy of the decision in case SM-2008-60/ADB- 08-61 upon the following individuals at the addresses stated and in the manner indicated: 1. Ernie Collins Management Performance Group 8127 — 212"' St. SW, #1 Edmonds, WA 98026 2. City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. Attn:,I)iane Cunningham 121 - 5'h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 3. Edmonds City Council 121 - 5t" Avenue North -- I" Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 4. Port of Edmonds Attn: Christopher Keuss 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 5. Steve Butterfield 'FGB Architects 21911 76"' Avenue W, Suite 210 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Clity -- Hekinan, Japan Edmonds, WA 98026 6. Shawn Parsons Pacland 21911 76th Avenue W, Suite 208 Edmonds, WA 98026 7. Mike Jones 11535 Makah Road Woodway, WA 98020 8. Chevy Chase CG Engineering 250 4th Avenue South, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 Service was made to each party above by: ❑ By facsimile transmission. ❑ By electronic transmission (e-mail). By mailing to the person named at the address of service via US I" Class ¢ Mail. h 14/Bs�,:,t,ci^s ic',�rJti{ t? ls�ii $Y�di(; i 49ktn{ar jtic3�:i�i'� !�]�/� t`1h�tLd; Z +5 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Idaho that the foregoing is true and correct: ,), DATED THIS f day of March 2009 at, f rcr; LeAnna C. Toweill Toweill Rice Taylor LLC Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington