V-19-91 Hearing Examiner decision and attachments.pdfJ'.
8 C5 IZ5
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 57H AVE N. -, EDMONDS, WA 98020 s (206) 771-M2
HEARING EXAMINER
LARRY S NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE U0 INIUM, AL
CITY OF EDMONDS
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE:
OF LEWIS NELSON ARCHITECTS FOR APPROVAL
OF A VARIAVCE
11�iL'��
DECISION: The variances are granted subject to conditions listed.
Lewis Nelson Architects, 2800 Northup Way, Suite 100, Bellevue,
Washington 98004, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) , requested
approval of variances for a reduction of the minimum number of
parking spaces and authority to exceed the maximum permitted
building height by approximately 2 feet 9 inches, on property
located at 21616 - 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of
the City of Edmonds, Washington, on December 19, 1991.,
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
JEFFREY S. WILSON Mark Nelson
Planning Dept. LEWI�S NELSON ARCHITECTXs
City of Edmonds 2800 Northup Way, #100
Edmonds, WA 98020 Bellevue, WA 98004
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding:
Exhibit I Staff Report
11 2 Application
11 3 Vicinity/Zoning Map
4 Proposed Site Plan
5 Elevations
11 6 Elevation Sects ,O',`h,s
A
0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 a
Sister Cities Tntprmitinmil — HpkinAn .1;%nan
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-19-91 1/7/92
Pace 2
Exhibits (Continued)
Exhibit
7
- Existing Condition Site Plan
of
8
- Landscape Plan
9
- Project Description and
Applicant's Declaration
"
10
- Project Description/Site Impact Analysis
"
11
- ADB Meeting Minutes, 10/2/91
12
- ECDC 16.30
"
13
- Decision V-6-91
"
14
- Comments from Engineering Division
"
15
- Comments from Public Works Division
"
16
-- Comments from Fire Department
"
17
- Comments from Parks & Recreation Division
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant,
and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the
decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The application is for the approval of two variances on
property located at 21616 - 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington.
They include a reduction of the minimum number of parking spaces
and authority to exceed the maximum permitted building height by
approximately 2 feet 9 inches.
3. The Applicant is proposing to redesign and develop a medical
office complex on site. The proposal will update an existing
structure and conform it to more updated technology and archi-
tectural design for medical office complexes. The majority of the
development will be an enclosure over an existing walkway and a
slight expansion of office space.
4. The subject property is approximately 147,580 square feet and
is configured as a square. The dimensions of the site are 450' by
302' feet.
5. The property is currently developed with a medical office
complex and developed parking and landscaping. It is the intent of
the Applicant to remodel the building and to expand the parking.
6. The property is zoned multiple zoning, medium density, and
with a designation of RM 2.4.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-19-91 1/7/92
Page 3
7. The topography of the site is flat and includes native
evergreen and deciduous trees.
8. The existing structures on site currently exceed the City of
Edmonds height standards of 25 feet. It is the intent of the
Applicant to put in a stair tower to exceed the maximum permitted
height by an additional 2 feet 9 inches.
9. The properties to the north are zoned as public use and are
developed as part of the old Edmonds High School. The property to
the south is zoned RM 2.4 and is developed with single family
residences. The property to the east is zoned RM 2.4 and is
developed with Stevens Memorial Hospital. The property to the west
is also zoned RM 2.4 and is developed with single family
residences.
10. Admitted at the hearing was a site plan of the proposed
project. A copy of the site plan is attached hereto and by this
reference is hereby incorporated as part of these Findings.
11. The existing parking on site is 195 spaces, one space less
than the required 197 spaces. The standard for determining parking
is one space for every 200 square feet. With the proposed
expansion, and in order to meet the City standards, the applicant
must provide 251 parking spaces. The Applicant has proposed a
parking lot of 232 spaces.
12. In October, 1991, the Applicant received approval from the
Architectural Design Review Board of the City of Edmonds (ADB), for
the proposed project. As part of the approval, the Applicant was
requested to seek a variance for a reduction of the parking spaces
in order to accommodate additional landscaping on site.
13. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist.
Those criteria include:
A. Because of the 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.
B. The approval of the variance would not be a grant of
special, privilege to the property in comparison with the
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-19-91 1/7/92
Page 4
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the
same zoning.
C. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. 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. 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. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vici-
nity with the same zoning.
(ECDC)
14. The City of Edmonds Planning Department submitted that
approval of the reduced parking would be detrimental to the general
public health, safety and welfare. According to the City it would
result in a reduction of on-site parking which would place greater
pressure on public streets to provide additional needed parking.
According to the City, the streets in the area do not allow on
street parking and reduction of the parking would create
significant problems.
The City stated that variances should not be allowed for the
purpose of aesthetics. According to the Planning Department, the
variance must be consistent with the zoning code and the City has
determined that there are no special circumstances for the grant of
the variance for the parking.
15. The Applicant countered by stating that the proposed con-
struction will not create a significant increase in the office use
of the building. According to the Applicant, the net rentable area
that will be increased with the development will be 3,004 square
feet. This, according to the Applicant, will not generate
additional demand for parking and the proposed 237 spaces available
is more than adequate to handle the parking.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-19-91 1/7/92
Page 5
The Applicant also stated that there has never been a situation in
which parking was not available on site and none is contemplated.
17. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds
designates the subject property as high density residential. The
requested variances are consistent with the designation because
they provide an improvement to an existing complementary use that
has not historically proven to be disruptive to the neighborhood.
18. The requested variances are consistent with the purposes of
the RM 2.4 zone as set forth in ECDC 16.30.000. The variances
allow for additional uses in this particular zone which complement
and are compatible with the multiple residential designation.
19. The requested variances will not be detrimental to the public
nor to nearby private properties or improvements. Adequate parking
is available on site and there appears to be no great demand for
increased parking.
20. The requested variances are a minimum variance request.
21. Special circumstances exist for the grant of both variances.
Because the increased height will allow a covered walkway in con-
formity with an existing structure, special circumstances exist for
the height variance. The variance will not restrict views.
Special circumstances also exist for the reduction of parking on
site. The City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board determined
that aesthetically it would be in the best interest to reduce the
amount of parking on site in order to preserve trees and to
preserve the landscaping. Special circumstances are not solely for
aesthetic purposes, but include the location and the surroundings
of the property, including the established landscaping. These
circum -stances warrant the grant of the variance for reduced
parking.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant requested approval of variances for a reduction
of the minimum number of parking spaces and authority for a remodel
of stair towers to exceed the maximum permitted building height by
approximately 2 feet 9 inches, on property located at 21616 - 76th
Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington.
SEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-19-91 1/7/92
Page 6
2. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional
authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the
authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010(B)(2).
3. In order for variances to be granted within the City of
Edmonds the criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 must be satisfied. Those
criteria are satisfied and have been addressed in the Findings of
this document.
4. It is in the best interest of the City of Edmonds, the subject
property, and the adjoining properties for the grant of the
variances. With the grant of the height variance, the structure
can be enclosed in a manner that is consistent with the existing
architecture on site. The variance for reduction of parking spaces
allows development that is consistent with public need, preserves
existing landscaping, and maintains the significant surroundings of
the property.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the requested variances for the development of
improvements on property located at 21616 - 76th Avenue W, Edmonds,
Washington, are granted.
A variance is granted to reduce the minimum amount of required
parking spaces to 232. A variance is also granted to allow the
proposed remodeled stair towers to exceed the maximum permitted
building height by approximately 2 feet 9 inches.
These permits are granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant must secure all necessary permits prior to any
development.
2. The variances are the maximum variances allowed. Any deviation
in excess of these variances must be approved by the Hearing
Examiner.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-19-91 1/7/92
Page 7
Entered this 7th day of January, 1991, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under apter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of E mo ds.
('71
J M. DRISCOLL
ea ing Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on January 21, 1991.
� m I z
z
U3 i• # WWUJ
Lr7.n WOz- =sr
1 # Fav
' r
SgS;I! r 1153111 211NRAV.H19L _ j�a iA it
J
it
X..
li ! I i � s . ` �� 'e... ,:.p. .... , f;.� f•� . i-r�a .�.pi rA .�+i .oras _ tr+�, A -R Ira
}
It � I
care m CK.L w
A 14i
4
i
,q. -r_ N r-,�� . •; : ' W TAI ,3 . k a, • �• �
� � j � � 3 Q R � � ,4 .lam` � .q /FF ; - � •' �} � < i
I
ATTACHMENT 3
FILE NO. V-19-91
'CITY OF EDMONDS
2,50 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DITISIO21
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO: JIM DRISCOLL, HEARING EXAMINER
FROM:
Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP
Current Planning Supervisor
DATE: December 13, 1991
FILE: V-19-91
HEARING DATE, 'TIME'® AND PLACE: DECEMBER 19 1991 at 9:00 AM
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
section Page
Application................................................. 1
Recommendations............................................. 2
SiteDescription ............................................ 3
History.. . .................................................. 4
State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) ..................... 5
Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance ......... ...... 5
TechnicalCommittee... .................................... 8
Comprehensive Plan ........................................... 8
Appendices................................................... 8
Partiesof Record ........................................... 8
1. INTRODUCTION
A. APPLICATION
1 ADPlicant: Lewis Nelson Architects, on behalf of
Edmonds Professional Associates (see Attachment
1) .
V1991/12-11-91
Edmo; � Prof. Center
File No. V-19-91
Page 2 of 8
2. site Location: 21616 76th Avenue West. The
southwest corner of 216th Street Southwest and
76th Avenue West (see Attachment 2).
3. Requests:
a. Variance to reduce the minimum amount of
required parking spaces (see Attachments 3
through 9).
b. Variance to permit the proposed remodeled
stair towers to exceed the maximum permitted
building height by approximately 2 -feet 9 -
inches (see Attachments 3 through 9).
4. Review Process: Variance, Hearing Examiner
conducts public hearing and makes final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.30 (RM - MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES).
C. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER,
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW).
Based on Statements of Fact, conclusions, and
Attachments in this report, we recommend:
1. Approval of the variance request to allow in
increase in building height, subject to the
following conditions:
a. 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. Attachments
13 through 16 are provided in this report to
familiarize the applicant, with some of the
additional development regulations. These
attachments do not include all of the
additional regulations.
b. The applicant must obtain a building permit
prior to the start of any work on the site.
V1991/12-11-91
Edmoi 3 Prof. Center
File No. V-19-91
Page 3 of 8
2. Denial of the variance to, reduce the minimum
amount of required parking on the subject
property.
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is
approximately 147,580 square feet (3.4
acres) in area. The site is generally
configured as a square, with property
dimensions of approximately 450 -feet by
302 -feet, with a small portion of
property to the south (see Attachment
3).
(2) Land Use: The subject property is
currently developed with a medical
office complex and associated parking
and landscaping (see Attachment 6).
(3) Zoning: The existing zoning is Multiple
Residential - Medium Density (RM -2.4),
(see Attachment 2)®
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: Generally the
topography of the site is flat. Site
vegetation includes native evergreen and
deciduous trees and other site
landscaping (see Attachments 6 and 7').
b. Conclusions:
(1) The existing buildings were constructed
at a time when maximum building heights
were greater. The requested increase in
building height would not change the
character of the buildings, but rather,
allow for a compatible construction
design.
(2) Medical office complexes tend to require
more parking than conventional office
developments. The applicant has not
provided sufficient evidence to support
a lesser parking standard, given the
current site development.
V1991/12-11-91
Edmoi .s Prof. Center
File No. V-19-91
Page 4 of 8
REMERVIVINPOMEng Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1)
North: The
old Edmonds High School
parking lot.
The site is zoned Public
Use (P), (see Attachment 2).
(2)
South. Developed
with single-family
residences in
an Multiple Residential -
Medium Density
(RM -2.4), (see Attachment
2).
(3)
East: Developed with Stevens Memorial
Hospital, and
Multiple Residential -
Medium Density
(RM -2.4), (see Attachment
2).
(4)
West: Developed with single-family
residences in
an Multiple Residential -
Medium Density
(RM -2.4), (see Attachment
2).
b. conclusions:
(1) Approval of the requested variance for
an increase in height would not result
in development which is incompatible
with the surrounding uses or
development.
(2) The surrounding developments include
several intense uses which can and do
generate significant parking demands.
Approval of the applicant's request for
a reduced parking standard may
exacerbate an existing parking problem
in the area, and thus would result in a
negative impact to the surrounding
developments (see Attachment 12).
•
1. Fact: The applicant has received approval from
the City's Architectural Design Board (A.D.B.) for
the proposed development under File No. ADB -80-91
(see Attachment 10).
2. Fact: The applicant has received approval for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow site grading in
excess of 500 cubic yards, associated with the
proposed site development (File No. CU -69-91).
V1991/12-11-91
M
IM
Edmoi 3 Prof. Center
File No. •
Page 5 • 8
1. a. Fact: A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on October
29, 19,91, under File No. CU -6991. The
Environmental checklist, Determination and
additional Environmental Information can be
found in File No. CU -69-91.
b. Conclusion: The applicant and City have
satisfied the requirements of SEPA.
NIONOR 11111 �LWI:151
1. a. Facts ' : The fundamental site development
standards pertaining to a medical office
complex development in an RM -2.4 zone are set
forth in ECDC Chapter 16.30 (see Attachment
11).
b. Conclusion: The
lot and dimension
zone as set forth
discussed below.
proposal complies with the
regulations for the RM -2.4
in Chapter 16.30, except as
2. Fact: The proposal does not comply with the
height limitations in the RM -2.4 zone, pursuant to
the development standards in Chapter 16.30 (see
Attachment 11).
3. Fact: Chapter 20.85 sets forth the mechanism
whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a
case-by-case basis if the application of the
provision would result in an unusual and
unreasonable hardship.
4. a. Facts•
(1) Section 20.85.0,10 establishes the
decisional criteria with which a
variance request must comply in order to
be granted by the Hearing Examine.
(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.
(b) Special Privilege. That the
approval of the variance would not
be a grant of special privilege to
V1991/12-11-91
Edmoi s Prof. Center
File No. V-19-91
Page 6 of 8
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.
(2) The applicant's response to these
criteria can be found in Attachment 8,.
b. conclusions:
(1) The subject property does not appear to
have special circumstances related to
its shape and topography which would
support either of the requested variance
applications.
(2) Approval of the height variance request
would not be a grant of special
privilege. other properties in the area
are developed institutional, office and
multifamily developments, some of which
exceed the current height regulations
(Stevens Hospital and existing High
School). In addition, the School
District has received a new variance
request for the proposed new High School
(File No. V-6-91), (see Attachment 12).
V1991/12-11-91
Edmo., :,, Prof. Center
File Noi. V-19-91
Page 7 of 8
Approval of the requested variance for a
reduction in the required parking would
be a grant of special privilege. it
does not appear that any similar request
have been granted to any of the other
adjacent institutional and office
developments.
(3) Approval of the proposed height varianc
would allow for the continue
development and use of the site
oin
manner cnsistent with the inteo
nt f th
Comprehensive Plan. I
(4) Both of the requested variances would
not be consistent with the intent of the
zoning code. However, the variance for
height would not be inconsistent with
the surrounding development.
Approval of the parking variance would
however result in a decision which would
have a precedent value in the area which
would be contrary to the zoning code
requirements.
(5) Approval of the height variance would
not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare.
Approval of the parking variance would
be detrimental to the general public
health, safety and welfare. Reduction
in on-site parking would place greater
pressure on the public streets to
provide parking. Currently the public
streets do allow on -street parking in
the vicinity of the development,
however, this may change in the future
to accommodate the transportation needs
of the community.
(6) The requested height variance does
appear to represent the -minimum variance
necessary for the reasonable use of the
property.
The requested parking variance does not
meet this test, since the applicant
would be requiring the public rights-of-
way to accommodate any parking demands
on the site in excess of the requested
reduced parking standard.
V1991/12-11-91
EdmonL Prof. Center
File No. V-19-91
Page 8 of 8
E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
1 a. Fact: Comments and requirements placed on
the proj;ect by other departments are found in
Attachments 13 through 16.
b. conclusion: The applicant must follow the
requirements of other Departments as set
forth in Attachments 13 through 16.
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property and adjacent
properties are designated as, "High Density
Residential".
b. conclusion: As conditioned, the proposed
conditional use permit appears to be
consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments I through 16 are attached.
1. Application
2. Vicinity / zoning map
3. Proposed Site Plan
4. Elevations
5. Elevation Sections
6. Existing Conditions Site Plan
7. Landscape Plan
8. Project Description and Applicant's Declarations
9. Project Description - Site Impact Analysis
10. Architectural Design Board Meeting minutes re: File No.
ADB -80-91 (10/2/91)
11. ECDC Chapter 16.30 (RM - Multiple Residential)
12. Hearing Examiner Decision re: File No. V-6-91 (5/2/91)
13. Comments from Engineering Division (12/6/91)
14. Comments from Fire Department (12/3/91)
15. Comments from Public Works Division (12/4/91)
16. Comments from Parks & Recreation Division (12/4/91)
Applicant
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Public Works Division
Fire Department
Parks & Recreation Division
city of edmona-
land use application
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
COMP PLAN CHANGE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FORMAL SUBDIVISION
HOME OCCUPATION
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP
REZONE
SETBACK ADJUSTMENT
SHORELINE PERMIT
SHORT SUBDIVISION
STREET VACATION
VARIANCE
RESUBMITTAL FILE#
Applicant
Lewis Nelson Architect's
FILE # - AL q t ZONE
DATE 11 J- REC'D BY A
FE= RECEIPT #
HEARING DATE f04irlIriI
bM�HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
ACTION TAKEN:
❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEAALED
APPEAL #
Phone 827-5602
Address 2500 North u p Way Bel I evue , WA 98004 Suite Ino
Property Address or Location 21616 76th Ave. Edmonds Wa.
Property Owner
Edmonds Assoc.
Phone 624-0974
Address 6:01 Columbia Center 70.1. FIfth Ave.Seattle,, Wa 98104
Agent
Lew i.s : Ne [son. -Architects
Prone 827-5602
Address See Above
Tax Acc # See Attached Sec. Twp. Rng.
Legal Description See Attached
Details of Project or Proposed Use
See Attached
The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information famished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter
the subject property for the purpose of inspection a posting attenda this application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNER/AGENT
ATTACHMENT 1
FILE N0. V-19-91
5 N
• M E I E 2
f 1
• , • ] ,
Q � • f< CEA TL N i
1 Rr2•4 y VISIDY
i►' »
ou
CGBNZ
• _ Z"- I - M EL
•
—
4 a
'
• w
SCIVIO4
]
fkA[TS
S 0 L Ni
1 LI4 TN n..
S.
s: . OD
W
!
4
w
n
tt w
OT
u r •
e
•
-O
w
�v
2I ST
PA N,
4,
rr .
,
}
`
• n
PN
v.
a
WISPT
'"••••
'
'+
WILLOWS x
WOOD
» ff
V Ir
,"�•'RM�1.5
IN MA"
•
"o.s
RMK 244
N.•
.Mi
1
5 N
• M E I E 2
f 1
• , • ] ,
Q � • f< CEA TL N i
1 Rr2•4 y VISIDY
i►' »
ou
CGBNZ
• _ Z"- I - M EL
•
4 a
'
SCIVIO4
]
fkA[TS
S 0 L Ni
1 LI4 TN n..
S.
4
ff
•TH,
H/GH SCHOOL
2I ST
t'',.
PN
v.
2R.
» ff
V Ir
,"�•'RM�1.5
,H•..,
b"
HASE
H$Ti 1.,1.rrv..,.
iYE'
ACRE
LAKE
LEMENTARY'JOT
i�•
'
+
•
Is
SCHOOL
I•
F ilnZ
{ = T
f
F
'
N
,r
iF
4•1
RM -2-4
TRACTS
;.
is
33
K0v4.s
0
30
42
40
w
PA
R a,A"H
1! TS T, SML
N
RS -S
�
. ,
TIM d
s
' 220Tws
...-�
W
CG
PL
222 Nb
fT. tTL
3— •
,H
<.
� E
S P E R A Y C r
!s
Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT 2
FILE N0. V-19-91
7 - w
±� o
uU1W
Fav
r
e'opl isam nnN3AV.H-L9L
wwyw.
i I I Wtor m ,iFf ,o — — v�
I
Ig
wjf—
s
yy i
l �r
IRV � � .�-Ri Y .ao-,YI m ..°'N= .r'{+� b , v;s," o-,ero - - P•A' 1� ,a -pa , -
i�,, i.
F Ali �
Ica r m, t,os .IM
a
M1 kt
1 a r
Lj
,V
11 3
IEI ATTACHMENT 3
FILE NO. V-19--91
FWAW
5
pq
w
z
0
ATTACHMENT 5
FILE NO. V-19-91
ZOW
H
Fad
�
r�•1< g��
�d2
�
�
�l�S
�
5
pq
w
z
0
ATTACHMENT 5
FILE NO. V-19-91
sannoaeev oritrNi oavti�Di 1 I�Ua�i.=J �
u�Nt
So
n..
ATTACHMENT 6
FTI F NO- 11-1A_41
E eoa
s,a eoe�
;�1VIOOSSV tRIUM Otll'/3•1N
vlmtl
a
(DODO I a
read
ATTACHMENT 7
FILE NO. V-]9-9]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
November 26, 1991
The basic elements of the facility improvement program are to enclose 7,700 sq.ft. of
existing covered corridors, add up to 3,416 sq.ft. of additional net rentable space, and
significantly remodel the exterior of the building. Under the proposal, existing stair shed
roofs would be removed and replaced with a vertical parapet and flat roof. The new
building shell enclosure would receive an exterior acrylic finish system.
Under this proposal, required parking would be extended into the newly -acquired property
to the south of the existing facility. There would be minor changes in existing parking
areas. This would serve to minimize disruptions in the parking while building construction
is underway.
A new landscape scheme would be introduced which would utilize smaller deciduous trees
to improve building visibility and brighten the site interior. Existing conifer trees will be
either selectively removed or pruned.
VARIANCE APPLICATION INFORMATION
We are submitting this application for variance concerning two City of Edmonds zoning
code requirements. The variance request is made with the clear understanding that the
hearings examiner can approve one or both items submitted and that they are not considered
interdependent.
A. Building Height
We are proposing to enclose 3 existing stair towers as shown on attached sheets A-2 and
A-3. The enclosures would involve removing the existing shed roof form and constructing
a new parapet roof structure, at a lower height, over each of the three stairways. The new
parapet height would be flush with the existing mansard roof peak. Based on current
zoning laws, the maximum height for the proposed vertical design is 25', our submittal is
to match the existing roof height of 27-9".
B. Required Number of Parking Stalls
The existing medical clinic is 39,475 square feet. Current code requires one stall for every
200 square feet of building area, which would require 197 parking stalls. There are 196
parking stalls at the present time.
The renovation project involves adding some new office space and enclosing existing
covered circulation space. Our request for a variance is to exclude from the calculation of
needed parking spaces that square footage which merely encloses existing covered
corridors. The enclosure of existing covered corridors will not add to the number of
vehicles using the facility.
We previously submitted a parking plan to the Architectural Design Review Board which
contemplated the provision of 248 parking spaces, which would be the number required if
we are required to provide parking spaces for existing covered corridors. The Architectural
Design Review Board, after visiting the site, came to the conclusion that certain large trees
and landscape areas which were deemed desirable could be saved if this variance is
granted. Several members of the Architectural Design Review Board were familiar with the
facility as they or members of their families had a patient -doctor relationship with
physicians at the clinic. The ADB concurred with the owners that there is no current
parking problem, and the requirement of providing parking spaces for covered corridors is
detrimental as it would require the destruction of valuable trees and vegetation without any
corresponding benefit.
ATTACHMENT 8
FILE NO. V-19-91
VARIANCE APPLICATION INFORMATION
11/26/1991
We are submitting with this variance application a proposed site plan, dated 11/12/1991,
which provides:
232 parking spaces.
3,016 sq.ft. of new leasable space.
7,700 sq.ft. enclosing existing covered corridors.
50,191 sq.ft. total facility area.
Depending on potential tenant changes, the final project scope may vary.
DECLARATIONS OF THE APPLICANT
please answer all questions
1. What are the physical characteristics which create a hardship for you in regard to
the development of your property?
A. Building Height
A portion of the existing building facade is buried by a 7-0" rockery built within
5-0" of the exterior wall which lowers the perceived building height along the
North, West, and South elevations.(see sheets A-2, A-3, dated 11/12/1991).
Although the rockery significantly reduces the visual height of the building, the
code does not recognize its value thru building height calculations as it is not in
direct contact with the structure.
B. Parking Stalls
The site contains a number of significant trees 6" caliper and greater. Through the
ADB review process, the broad members have identified a number of these
existing trees as contributing to the attractiveness of the site and therefore should be
retained (see attached sheet L-1 "existing conditions" dated 9/10/91). In order to
save the existing trees shown in areas labelled A,B,C,D,E, and F, we need to
provide a greater number of large landscape islands which are created by reducing
parking stalls.
2. How does your property differ from other property in the same area?
A. Building Height.
The Stevens Professional Center was constructed in 1972 and is one of the older
medical office buildings to have been have developed in the surrounding
neighborhood. The facility is bounded by the following development:
North: Edmonds School District - 3 story Auditorium
East: Stevens Memorial Hospital - 9 story
West Multi - Family - 2 story
South Single and Multi -Family - 2 story
These adjacent facilities establish a building height level in which the existing and
remodeled Stevens Center height is contextually appropriate.
B. Parking Stalls
The existing parking lot at Stevens Professional Center is an excellent example of
how a building complex can integrate existing vegetation into the landscape
design. Through the development of large planted areas, the facility has been able
to retain a number of large specimen trees.
1
DECLARATIONS OF THE APPLICANT
please answer all questions
11/26/1991
The owner, members of the ADB, users, and a traffic engineer have indicated that
the building currently provides ample parking facilities. As other properties in the
area have developed, they have supplied parking facilities to meet the size of the
building. As the Stevens Professional Center intends to grow in size, the facility
would like to expand the parking to meet those growth demands without being
taxed for the corridors which already exist.
3. Will this variance be detrimental to the public or damaging to other
property or improvements in the vicinity?
A. Building Height.
The existing building is characterized by a sloped mansard roof with a height of
27'-9" above finished grade and there are four existing stair towers with shed roofs
which are 30'-6" above finish grade. Our proposal involves removing the shed
roofs over the stair towers and constructing a vertical parapet wall with a finish
height of 27'-9" which is 2`-6" lower than the current form.
The current zoning code establishes building finish grade by calculating an average
of grades at the corners of 4 sided form overlaid on the building foot print. Our
height calculation dictates that any vertical projection of the building be no higher
than 25', unless it is a sloped roof structure greater than a 4:12 pitch.. However A
portion of the existing building facade is buried by a 7-0" rockery built within
5-0" of the exterior wall which lowers the perceived building height along the
North, West, and South elevations.(see sheets A-2, A-3, dated 11/12/1991).
Although the rockery significantly reduces the visual height of the building, the
code does not recognize its value thru building height calculations as it is not in
direct contact with the structure.
The building site and surrounding neighborhood is reasonably level and heavily
wooded with many older trees. The current facility does not appear to block any
available view corridors, prevent access to sunlight, or impede visual lines of site
which create safety problems or affect adjacent properties from benefits not
otherwise available. Because our proposal further reduces the height of the
building we believe the variance will not adversely affect the community.
B. Parking Stalls
The proposed reduction in parking would have a neutral affect on the community
for the following reasons:
1. The scope of the proposed facility expansion involves enclosing primarily
existing corridors, the project would generate approximately 14 additional
peak hour trips (see attached traffic study by Transpo dated 10/25/1991).
According to Board members who use the facility, the owner, and the traffic
study, the additional 14 trips would have little effect on an what is already
understood to be an ample parking area.
2. We would be providing the required number parking spaces for new
leasable space.
3. Any future development of leasable space, including use of the existing
corridor system or the creation of new corridors, would provide
parking facilities per current C.O.E. code requirements.
3
DECLARATIONS OF THE APPLICANT
please answer all questions
11/2{/1991
4. What hardships will result to you if the variance is not granted? Will these
hardships have been caused by your own action?
A. Building Height
Our project is essentially a revitalization program which has been undertaken to:
1. Retain existing tenants who are considering moving to
newer office buildings.
2. Attract new tenants to the facility.
The proposed stair parapet design is a hard monolithic form which attempts to relate
to contemporary medical buildings and provide an interesting contrast to the older
wood siding. We could lower the parapet 2'-9" to meet current code, but by
building flush with the existing building roof line the new enclosure exhibits a
stronger relationship to the older structure and improves the image of the facility.
B. Parking Stalls
We are pursuing the parking variance to save large specimen trees as requested
by the ADB. If the variance is not granted, then the ADB board will allow us to
remove those trees and install the required stalls. However, we believe
removing the trees may not be in the best interest of the community.
5. Can you make reasonable use of your property without the variance?
A. Building Height.
Yes, we can lower the parapet design, but we believe the proposed version
1. is aesthetically better.
2. does not grant special privilege.
3. does not deny adjacent property owners from benefits or create safety
concerns.
B. Parking Stalls.
Yes, we will be able to proceed with the proposed project without the parking
variance.
Ell
ansportat;-- _-i Traffic Engineering
CAN,'; ';5.0ESIGN
,
October 25, 1991
Edmond: associates
c / o Mr. Colin Baden
Lewis Nel`on Architects
2800 Nc.hup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue. ,VA 98004
The
Transp®
Group
TG: 91351.00
SUBJEC':: STEVENS PROFESSIONAL CENTER - SITE 31PACT.ANALYSIS
Dear Mr. 3aden:
This letter summarizes TRANSPO's analysis of potential impacts as a result of the proposed
Stevens Professional Center expansion and site improvemer_z_s in Edmonds. You may sub-
mit this 'e -.ter to the City of Edmonds to comply with the E^nzineeriang Coordinator's request
for a site =pact analysis.
Project Description
The Ste< -ms Professional Center is an existing medical office building complex located in
the soutzwest quadrant of 216th Street SW and 76th Avenue W in Edmonds. The site is
situated across from Stevens Memorial Hospital and Edmonds High School as shown in the
vicinity map in Figure 1 (attached).
The pro cGsal would consist of expanding the center's tenant leasable space by an addi-
tional 3..4'-1 gross square feet (gsfl. The proposal also consists of enclosing 6,694 gsf of
existing walkway/corridor space. Currently, the center coitsists of four separate buildings
connected by open-air walkways. These walkways, although covered, do not provide
weatherproof enclosures for patrons and staff walking from one building to the. next. For
improved comfort and aesthetics, the owners of this center propose to completely enclose
these walkways.
The on-site pedestrian amenities that currently exist will be enhanced by this proposal.
The site is currently fronted by sidewalks and has on-site lighting as well as street lighting
on the site perimeter. The current open-air walkways between buildings will be enclosed,
further enhancing the comfort of pedestrians. The architect has made provisions for the
site improvements to include a pedestrian walkway, in the on-site parking median between
the office buildings and the perimeter sidewalks to enhance pedestrian safety.
Project Vehicle Trip Generation
and Pedestrian Activity
Project traffic generation associated with the expansion was determined based on standard
procedures in the Institute of Transportation Engineers UTZ), Trip Generation, 5th Edition,
1991. Traffic generation was determined based on the tenant space and does not include
The TRANSM Croup, Inc. 14335 N.B. 24th Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washingtcn X007 FAX: 206/747-3688 206/641-3881
ATTACHMENT 9
FILE N0. V-19-91
Edmonds Associates
October 25, 1991
Page 2
The
Trans ®
Group
the space for enclosures of walkways. This is because the walkways currently exist and are
simply being enclosed. No additional office space would result from these enclosures and
furthermore, does not contribute to generating any traffic. The proposed expansion com-
prises 3,-31 gsf. Using the ITE vehicle trip generation rate for medical centers, the project
would result in an additional 14 PM peak hour trips (4 entering and 10 exiting) and 118
daily trips. This is a relatively small amount of additional traffic and is not eiTected to
have signfficant impacts on traffic operations in the vicinity of the site.
Additional pedestrian activity associated with this proposal is expected to be very minimal.
The site is situated in an urbanized area with the hospital immediately across from the site
and trarsit service adjacent to the site. The expansion mayminimally increase pedestrian
activity entering and leaving the site. The pedestrian activity would be a percentage of the
14 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Typically, no more than 20 percent of the trips for this type
of use would be non -vehicle related, resulting in a maximum of three pedestrians visiting
the site (leaving 11 vehicle trips).
Conclusion
The traffic and pedestrian -related Impacts resulting from this proposal are expected to be
very minimal. No mitigating measures are suggested.
If we can be of further assistance, please call.
Very truly yours,
The TRA.. SPO Group, Inc.
Kurt A Last
Transportation Engineer
KAL/gap
Attachment
WAL191351L1
3esponding to Board Member Bylsma`s request to resolve the issue of landscaping along the
alley, Mr. Somers noted that the Code requires more landscaping; that this proposal does not
.urrently meet the Code requirements.
Mary Ritcher, 543 Dayton, relayed to the Board that her main concern with this project is
_he potential noise created by the mechanical equipment, since family homes are located across
-he street and to the south of this site.
ACTION
:OARD MEMBER BYLSMA MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ADB -79-91 WITH THE ADDED COMMENTS THAT THE
-1NDSCAPING BE BROUGHT UP TO MINIMUM CODES; THAT A ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SOLUTION FOR SCREENING OF
IgAT EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR THE NEXT MEETING; THAT THE BOARD
2ECOMMENDS A WAIVER FOR THE FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK BE GRANTED; AND THAT THE COLORS AS SUBMITTED
ARE APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS CARRIED.
ABB -80-91 STEVENS PROFESSIONAL CENTER ADDITION
Lewis Nelson Architects
21616 76th Ave. W
Preliminary Approval
-he site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 76th Ave. W., and 216th
street. The site has approximately 441 ft. of frontage on 216th St. S.W., and 301 ft. along
'6th Ave. W. The site includes an existing 39,475 sq. ft. medical office building and parking
=or 196 spaces. The applicant proposes enclosing existing walkways and constructing a new
addition that would add 10,125 s. ft. of space to the building. The applicant proposes to
•estripe and reconfigure the entire parking lot, and 52 parking spaces would be added to
ncrease the parking to 248 stalls.
A. Site
-he site is an RM 2.4 zoned property that has 145,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Professional
offices are a conditional use in RM zones, and the applicant needs conditional use approval
=or the proposed office expansion.
1. Access - Access to the site exists via 216th St. and 76th Ave. W.
2. Off -Street Parking - The entire parking would be restriped and reconfigured and
the site relandscaped. Parking for 52 vehicles is required for the proposed office
expansion, and 52 additional spaces will be provided.
3. Building
1. Height Height allowed is 25 ft., and the proposed additions would be 27 ft. 9
inches. The proposal needs to be revised to comply with the height limitations of
the zone.
2. Exterior Details:
a. Walls - drivet. Colors will be submitted at a future meeting.
b. Roof - Standing seam metal roofing. Colors will be submitted at a future
meeting.
Lighting, Trash, Miscellaneous
1. Exterior lighting: No exterior lighting is shown on the building.
2. Trash: A trash enclosure is shown on the south side of the parking lot, and a
aF zardous waste shed is shown in the south west corner of the site.
3. Miscellaneous - Rooftop equipment would need to be screened. Utility meters must
e painted to match the building.
]. Landscaping, Fencing, Rockeries
1. Landscaping - The proposed reconfiguration of the parking lot would result in
modifications to the landscaping. The items listed below are areas where the
landscaping plan does not comply with the Code landscape standards:
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 18
ATTACHMENT 10
Section 20.12.020 c indicates that "Existing vegetation
the attractiveness of the site should be retain. Existing that contributes to
and shrubbery (6 " caliper or more Extst�ng significant trees
Pian and saved and incorporated intothee shown
non the
reasonably attractive and of Proposed Landscape
good quality. landscapePlan, if they are
The existing parking lot at Stevens Medica] Ce
how new developments can integrate existing venter is an excellent example of
design. The new proposal asks that 77 existing
into the landscape
removed to gain four or five parkin s g large specimen trees be
Parking paces in the northeast parking lot.
- The parking area for the medical Center including the new area to be added has
a vehicle use area of over 90,000 sq, ft.
7% of the vehicle use area must be
According to Ordinance 20.12.035-c,
approximately 6,300 + s in landscaping, That would be
dedicates only 4 q• t. (minimum) of planting bed. The
y ,750 sq. ft. to planting areas.
appropriate. proposed design
The Beard needs to review the standards and may waive the standards if
2. Fencing _ No fence is shown.
3• Rockies_ [Pone shown.
E. Signs - No sign change is proposed.
F. Other Reuirements
1. The following is required with a building permit:
--a utility development plan.
bonding to City code.
2. Underground wiring is required.
3. A conditional use permit is required from the Edmonds Hearing Examiner
if grading
Of more than 5oo cubic yards is proposed.
4. The Engineering De
partment ndicated
High traffic load drivewayshareas �required,that and ahtraffic
6th study will be s
exit only. All two-way driveways need to be twenty-four feet minimum w required.
all parking stalls overhanging sidewalks require wheel stops.approach needs to be an
detention is required., and
Storm drainage
DISCUSSION
Mark Neisvn, architect for this
Architects, 2arc Noect project and representative of the firm of Lewis and Nelson
was the p Nay, Bellevue, described the
better compete with otherthe s officerevitalize
din this
bbuildheir ing
eaand brie
project. Mr. Nelson stated that it
existing tenants had left the buildin to g it up to current standards to
had outgrown the space or g go on to more modern sbuiildaid in bat uildings,
the of the
the space didn't meet their standards. g s either because they
Mr. Neiman stated that upon his clients' request to improve the visual appeal
his firm noted several things that could be done.
is very thick and partially obscures the building from 76th as well as from
He said that the landca nof the building,
that is one area they would like to Im p g, as it exists,
prove. 216th. Ne said
Mr. Nelson noted that the large fir trees on the site had become a nuisance a
nd a problem; that the owners recently had to replace the roof and are concerned about thensafetye
remove these trees.
ness the trees create
hazards presented by tree materials failing and the dark. He said the
owners would like to
Mr. Nelson said that the buildin
g. asheight limitation, and those Particular
it currently exists, has certain areas
Proposing to restructure the roof7tolmakelitemorehcve been
oraedesigned. that exceed the
around the stairwell, y in design Hand ato add id ylighting
Mr. Nelson stated that the number of trees that will actuals
and that three of those trees are dead. He said 53
y be removed from the site is 62,
new trees will be added, making the total
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 19
area of landscaping to be removed 9,300 square feet, with 6, 263 square feet to be added back
in. Mr. Nelson stated that the total new area would then equal 31,967 square feet.
Mr. Nelson further stated that 52 parking stalls will be added to this site. He said with
this new addition, they will have a total of 114 spaces. Mr. Nelson noted that a house to the
south of this site will be demolished to allow for a parking lot, creating 30 new stalls.
Mr. Nelson pointed out that they are only gaining 3,431 square feet of net rentable space. He
said that the only reason they are having to add the number of parking stalls proposed is
because of the definition of the Code regarding the enclosure of the open corridors.
Mr. Nelson challenged the need for a traffic report. He said that only four more doctors will
be added to this site, and the impact would not be substantial enough to warrant such a
report. Mr. Nelson also noted that there was a discrepancy in the amount of required
landscaping in the parking area between his calculations and those of staff. He stated that
according to his calculations the area should be 5,779 square feet, and they have provided
6,983 square feet.
In the ensuing discussion between Board Members regarding this proposal, Board Member
Butterfield commented that the site as it currently exists is oppressive, and that the large
fir trees up against the building are bad. He further commented that the parking, as
proposed, appears to be less confusing than the current parking arrangement. Board Member
Beck agreed that the building was dated and hidden by 19 years of tree growth. he added that
the owners were making the right step in redesigning this structure.
Board Member Birch voiced his opinion that people are motivated to see a good physician, not
the building. He added that he did not have a problem with the basic design of the building,
but that he did have a problem with the removal of the amount of trees proposed to upgrade
this facility, especially in light of its location in a primarily single-family environment.
Board Member Birch stated that cutting down established Douglas firs at a height of 120 feet
in a community which values it trees needed further consideration, and that if he lived in
this neighborhood, he would be appalled that these trees were being cut down just to afford a
wider range of visibility for this building. Board Member Birch stated that this is not
Lynnwood, and that he would like to preserve the quality style living currently enjoyed by the
citizens of Edmonds.
Mr. Nelson responded that although he agreed that people go to see the physicians and not the
building, he said that good physicians are leaving because they want to work in a place that
is modern and can provide them with the good services that makes them feel good about
practicing in a particular building. He further responded that most of the zoning around the
site is multi -family; that some of the perimeter trees are being retained, and that some of
the trees must come down to meet Code requirements for parking.
Patty Reedy, 21706 76th Avenue west, said she has been a resident at this address for almost
31 years, and that her current concern was whether the property where the house is to be
demolished, abutting the back of her property, is zoned for a parking lot. She also raised
questions about traffic impacts on the shared four -family driveway which, after the demolition
of the house, could be utilized by people parking in this proposed parking lot. She requested
that access to this driveway be blocked.
John Reedy, 21706 76th Avenue West, raised his objection concerning the removal of the big fir
trees, and suggested they remove instead the smaller ornamental trees surrounding this
building to increase the site visibility. He added that after tagging the trees to be removed,
the project members had inadvertently tagged one of the trees on his property. Mr. Reedy then
reiterated his wife's concern about the shared driveway.
Steve Bullock, 9403 234th Street Southwest, said he had no problem with the design of the
building, but also objected to the removal of so many of the old trees. He agreed with Mr.
Reedy's suggestion to remove the smaller ornamental trees.
Malcolm Edwards, attorney for the owners of this site, 6501 Columbia Center, said that he
wanted to come forward to debunk the tree problem. He stated that he had worked as a lawyer
for the building owners for the past 15 years, and that they have tried to be good citizens in
the community regarding their plans for this building.
Mr. Edwards asked the Board Members to look at their submittal, specifically L2, and noted
that the only trees to be removed were those butting up against the building, and the few
trees out in the parking area necessary to meet the Code requirements of the City when the
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 20
corridors are enclosed. Mr. Edwards stated the landscape plan as implemented would create
little difference in the appearance from the street at all.
Mr. Edwards, in addressing the issue of shared driveway access raised by Mr. and Mrs. Reedy in
earlier testimony, pointed out to the Board that the plans show this access to be deadended;
that there will be no access to this property through that driveway. Mr. Edwards pointed out
that the net effect, then, would be a reduction in the number of vehicles accessing this
driveway, and, therefore, a benefit to these neighbors.
Mr. Edwards stated that the owners, all of whom are citizens of Edmonds, were only trying to
improve the quality of their building to retain good physicians for the community and their
building.
Collin Baden, 1520 Northeast 75th Street, Seattle, went before the Board to answer landscape
questions. Mr. Baden said he couldn't answer Mr. Beck's question as to how many of the
trees to be removed were ornamental since he had not quantified them. He said of the 54 trees
to be installed, the species varied, and therefore ranged in height. Board Member Beck said
that he did not have any trouble with granting preliminary approval for this project, but
suggested that the Board make a site visit to get a better understanding of the impact the
tree removal would make in order to reach an informed decision.
Responding to a question from Board Member Birch, Mr. Somers noted that the owners could apply
for a variance to reduce the amount of parking required because of the enclosed corridors.
Board Member Birch said that would be his recommendation: to apply for a variance so they
could keep some of the trees in the parking area that would not affect the new construction of
the building. Board Member Beck concurred.
ACTION
BOARD MEMBER BIRCH -MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ADB -80-91, AND THAT THE APPLICANT
INVESTIGATE, FOR THE NEXT HEARING DATE SCHEDULED, THE POSSIBILITY OF A VARIANCE FOR THE
CORRIDORS; THAT THE BOARD ENCOURAGES THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE VERSES THE REMOVAL OF THE
TREES IN THE OUTER AREAS; AND TO FLAG THE TREES WITH ENGINEERING TAPE SO THE BOARD CAN MAKE A
SITE VISIT OF THE TREES TO BE REMOVED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS CARRIED.
ADB -83-91 NEW POST OFFICE AT PERRINVILLE
Hewitt Isley Architects, Mic ael Anderson
Olympic View Drive at 76th Ave. W.
Preliminary Approval
The applicant has indicated that this project is exempt from City of Edmonds review since it
is a Federal project, but has voluntarily submitted the application for ADS review of the site
lay -out and building colors. The landscape plan will be submitted at a later date.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new post office building on a triangular site at the
intersection of Olympic View Drive at 76th Ave. W. The site contains a deep ravine that has
been partially filled and the stream at the base of the ravine has been culverted at the
north side of the ravine. The applicant is proposing to fill the existing ravine on the site
and move the existing stream into a new stream bed that would run along the east side of the
site. The new post office building would be constructed at the center of the site, and a
Public parking lot would be located on the south side of the building and a post office
employee parking lot and truck loading area would be located on the north side of the
building. The existing stream enters the site through a culvert and runs through the base of
the ravine before entering a culvert at the north side of the site. The applicants propose
daylighting the stream on the south side of the site and running the stream through an open
channel along the east side of the site, and then through a culvert that would connect to the
existing culvert at the north end of the site.
The Postal Service is claiming lead agency status for environmental review, and is claiming
that the proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, but the project
is not exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. To this date the City
has not received the NEPA determination.
The Fire department has reviewed this proposal and has concluded that two fire hydrants are
required, one near the main access points on both Olympic View Drive and on 76th Ave. W.
DISCUSSION
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 21
CHAPTER 16.30
RM - MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
16.30.000 PURPOSES
16.30
The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to
the general purposes for residential zones of Sections 16.00.010
and 16.10.000:
A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types,
and a range of greater densities than are available in the
single-family residential zone, whale still maintaining a
residential environment.
B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are
compatible with multiple residential uses.
16.30.010 USES
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Multiple dwellings.
2. Single-family dwellings.
3. Retirement homes.
4. Group homes for the disabled.
5. Boarding houses and rooming houses.
6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 20.25.
7. Bus stop shelters.
[Ord. 2820 §1, 1991].
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in
conjunction with a single-family dwelling.
2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter
20.20.
3. The keeping of one domestic animal.
4. The following accessory uses:
a. Private parking.
(05/31/91) ATTACHMENT 11
FTI F NO. V-19-91
10.30.010
b. Private swimming pools and other private
recreational facilities.
C. Private greenhouses covering no more than five
percent of the site in total.
C. Primary Uses ReqMirin a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Offices.
2. Community facilities, including buildings used for
community activities and services, such as:
a. Schools, colleges, universities.
b. Preschools, day care centers.
C. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums.
d. Churches, temples, synagogues.
e. Fire houses, police stations.
f. Electric substations, pumping stations, water
storage, drainage facilities, transmitting and
receiving antennas.
g. Parks, playgrounds, pools, golf courses, tennis
clubs, lodges.
h. Museums, libraries, art galleries, zoos, aquariums,
planetariums.
i. Counseling centers and residential treatment
facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers.
[Ord. 2820 §2, 1991; Ord. 2818 §1, 19911.
D. Secondary Uses RecMiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Family day care homes.
2. Mini -day care facilities, provided that:
a. Mini day care facilities shall not be operated from
or within a multiple family dwelling unit or combination
of units, but
b. A permit may be issued for a mini day care facility
to be operated in a separate, non-residential portion of
a multi -family residential dwelling
98 05/31/91
16.30.020
structure operated primarily for the benefit of the
residents thereof.
(Ord. 2673 §2 (1988); Ord. 2458 §2, 1984; Ord. 2283 §3, 1982;
Ord. 2283 §2, 1982.1
16.30.020 SUBDISTRICTS
There are established three subdistricts of the RM zone, in order
to provide site development standards for areas which differ in
topography, location, existing development and other factors.
These subdistricts shall be known as the RM -1.5, RM -2.4, and RM -3
zones.
16.30.030 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Table.
MINIMUM LOT MINIMUM3
AREA PER MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MAXIMUI+*,-PARKING
SUB DWELLING UNIT4 STREET SIDE REAR MAXIMUM COVERAGE (Spaces
DISTRICT (Square feet) SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHTI,5 M per unit)
RM -1.5 1,500 15' 10' 15' 25' 450 2
RM -2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25' 45% 2
,M-3 3,000 15'2 15'2 15' 25' 45% 2
1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height
limit if all portions of the roof above the stated
height limit have a'slope of 4" in 12" or greater.
2 RS setbacks may be used for single family homes on
lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or less in all RM zones.
3 See Chapter 17.50 for specific parking requirements.
4 See definition of townhouse.
5 Maximum height for accessory structures if 15'.
B. Signs and Design Review. See Chapter 20.10 and 20.60 for
regulations.
C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located.within
the street setback. (Ord. 2559, 1986; Ord. 2424, 19843.
16.30.040 SITE DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS
A. Housing for the Elderly. Housing projects for the elderly
are eligible for special parking and density provisions. See
Chapter 20.25.
(8/30/88) 99
16.30.040
B. Setback Adjustments. Chapter 20.50 contains a procedure for
adjusting setback distances and locations in special
situations.
C. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas
shall be regulated as set forth in Section 16.20.050 and
reviewed by the Architectural Design Hoard.
D. Setback Encroachments. Eaves and chimneys may project into a
required setback not more than 30 inches. Uncovered and
unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into
a required setback not more than one-third (1/3) of the
required setback, or. four feet, whichever is less, provided
that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level
at any point.
E. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all
setbacks other than the street setbacks shall be side
setbacks. [Ord. 2559, 1986; Ord. 2526 §4, 1985.1
100 (8/30/88)
890.19y
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.3202
HEARING EXAMINER f
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOF
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: V-6-91;
OF EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR
APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE
DECISION: The variance is granted as requested.
INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds School District, 7600 - 212th Street SW, Edmonds,
Washington 98020 (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), requested
approval of a variance from the height limit for structures in a
public use/school zone. The permitted height limit for such
structures is 25 feet. The Applicant desires to build a 65 foot
high building and seeks a variance.
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of
the City of Edmonds, Washington, on April 18, 1991.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
ED SOMERS
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
JOHN REED
Edmonds School District
3800 - 196th SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
DANIEL CLANCY, Agent
2021 - 3rd Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98121
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding:
ATTACHMENT 12
• Incorporated August II, 1890 • FILE N0. V-19-91
n•
-- r. 1 1 r r I - r
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-5-91 5/1/91
Page 2
Exhibit 1 - Staff Report
11 2 - Application/Declarations
to 3 - Plot Plan
to 4 - Elevations
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant,
and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the
decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a variance from the
permitted height limits for property located in a public use/
school zone in the City of Edmonds. The property is located at the
corner of 76th Avenue W, and 212th Street SW, Edmonds, Washington.
2. The subject property is zoned public use/school. Currently on
site is the Edmonds High School. It is the intent of the Applicant
to demolish the Edmonds High School and construct a new Edmonds-
Woodway High School.
3. The subject property is a large parcel of land that contains
an existing high school, a stadium and football field, a baseball
field, tennis courts, parking lots, and soccer and softball fields.
4. The proposed new high school will have a maximum height of 65
feet.
5. The Edmonds City Council has adopted a map that depicts the
subject property as a public use and school zone. The Council,
however, has not adopted an ordinance zone that establishes a zone
that is designated public use/school zone. Accordingly, there are
no specific site standards to control development in these areas
that are designated on the map. ECDC 17.00.020(D) requires that
all lands not classified according to the established district
classifi-cations on the official zoning map shall be classified as
RS -12.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-5-91 5/1/91
Page 3
6. ECDC 16.20.030 establishes the maximum height of structures as
25 feet. It is from this standard that the Applicant seeks a
variance.
7. In order for a variance to be granted within the City of
Edmonds, the criteria as set forth in ECDC 20.85.010 must exist.
Those criteria include:
A. Because of the 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.
B. 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. The approval of the variance will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
D. 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. 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.
E. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow
the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
(ECDC)
8. The subject property has been used for many years as a high
school site. The high school has exceeded the normal height of
single family residences in the area and has been harmonious with
the other properties. These are special circumstances that warrant
the redevelopment of the site with a new high school structure.
These are circumstances that allow the permitted height limit of
the RS -12 zone to be exceeded.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE; V-5-91 5/1/91
Page 4
9. The grant of the variance will not be the grant of a special
privilege to the Applicant. It will result in the continuation of
a use that has historically occurred on site.
10. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds
designates the subject property as public facilities. The proposed
high school and the requested variance are not in conflict with
this designation, nor the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
11. Because of the significant setbacks that are proposed for the
school, and because of the historical use of the site as a high
school, the approval of the variance will not create an impact to
the public nor to nearby private properties or improvements.
12. The school will provide education for the majority of the
Edmonds area high school students. The need for the school is
significant and the height is a minimum variance request.
13. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds recommended
approval of the variance subject to conditions as set forth in the
Staff Report.
14. No adverse testimony was received at the public hearing.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a variance from the height
standards of RS -12 zoned property in order to allow a public high
school to exceed the 25 foot height limit at 7600 - 212th Street
SW, Edmonds, Washington. The specific request is to allow the high
school building to have a height of 65 feet.
2. Because the subject property is designated on the zoning maps
of the City of Edmonds as a public use/school zone, it is subject
to review under these standards. However, there are no official
standards for development of public use/school zoned property.
Accordingly, the provisions of the general classification zoning
standards as set forth in ECDC 17.00.020 apply. Under subsection
D of this ordinance the standards for RS -12 zoned property are
applicable for review of this project.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-5-91 5/1/91
Page 5
3. A variance is needed because the maximum height allowed in an
RS -12 zoned district is 25 feet.
4. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional
authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the
authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010.
5. In order for a variance to be granted, the criteria of ECDC
20.85.010 must be satisfied. A review of that criteria has been
made and addressed in the Findings. The criteria are satisfied by
this application.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the requested variance to allow a 65 foot high
structure as part of a new high school at 76th Avenue W and 212th
Street SW, Edmonds, Washington, is granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Applicant must secure all necessary permits from the
City of Edmonds prior to any construction. In securing the
permits, the Applicant is also required to comply with all permit
conditions.
2. The Applicant must obtain approval of the design from the
Architectural Design Board of the City of Edmonds. This approval
must be secured prior to development of the site.
3. The variance must be acted upon within one (1) year or it
shall expire and be null and void. An extension may be granted if
applied for prior to the expiration date.
Entered this 2nd day of May, 1991, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of EdmoAds.
S M. DRISCOLL
ing Examiner
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: V-5-91 5/1/91
Page 6
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action.
In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior
to 5:00 p.m. on May 16, 1991.
APPLIr ION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST"" FILE# V-19-91
FROM: Wilson
INPUT: Yes
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 12/2/91 RETURNED _
FIRE 12/2/93 RETURNED ti:
PUBLIC WORKS 12/2/91 RETURNED
u t -C -6 1991
DEPT
PARKS & REC 12/2/93 RETURNED
COMMENTS: ND toMw«It ft. 13 vs-� � aaj k/F 4 j(,+
�par
�� NtR.�C.Fy►W m Lx 11
PC., Parkes -q � LU�.(e cpT��ovS (�S e�.lar +� 1-�•S• � �l-""th �+�t
W`G(/� AS S o +� [. �a . ` G. cZA i-ef tl1 } A,
� 9 e �
/ 5 �� a � ✓a r �c�i•..cC -N�' '�'dccc� �t :,.. �
Owner Lewis Nelson Architects
Doa
Type
Property Address 21616 76th Ave. W.
11/26/91 pate of Hearing 12/19/91 Return
Variance for Building Height & Parking Stalls
By 12/6/91
X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11)
X FEE SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4))
X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
TITLE REPORT ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable) �X DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
Comments
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL
Date
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
�e�nk�r��r�k�r�krnkw�kyc�c�rYcxc�c��r�cYr��c�c�eYcxc �r� �rkYexnrcxcYr�k,rYrxe�r*ir�rr*�r�c*��r�r�r�ew�rwxr�r�r�r�c�r*�r�rrr,rycrr�rx�rw�wxc�rrr�*����r*
APPEAL #
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD DENIED
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 13
FILE NO. V-19-91
MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT----------__--
APi . 'ION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLi3f
FILE# V-19-91
FROM: WiIson
INPUT: Yes
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 12/2/91 RETURNED
FIRE 12/2/91 RETURNED__A4 3/cif
PUBLIC WORKS 12/2/91
RETURNED
PARKS & REC 12/2/91 RETURNED
COMMENTS:
i/A GZ l A,,u G 5..
/19
Owner Lewis Nelson Architects Property Address 21616 76th Ave. W.
Doa 11/26/91 Date of Hearing 12/19/91 Return By 12/6/91
Type Variance for Building Height & Parking Stalls
X APPLICATION
X FEE
X APO LIST
TITLE REPORT
X VICINITY MAP
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map)
Comments:
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
APPEAL #
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD DENIED
- SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11)
X SITE PLAN (1111 x 17" (4))
LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
___X DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
POST & MAIL
Date
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 14
FILE N0. V--19-91
MAILED FINDINGS OF FArT
ROUTED TO:
COMMENTS:
APPL TION ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIf FILE## V-19-91
FROM: Wilson
INPUT: Yes
ENGINEERING 12/2/91 RETURNED
v
FIRE 12/2/91 RETURNED��
PUBLIC WORKS 12/2/91 RETURNED
�2•-3-`fit
Owner Lewis Nelson Architects Property Address
Doa
Type
RETURNED
RECEIVED
DEC 2 1991
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
21616 76th Ave. W.
11/26/91 Date of Hearing 12/19/91 Return By
Variance for Building Height & Parking Stalls
X APPLICATION
X FEE
X APO LIST
TITLE REPORT
X VICINITY MAP
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map)
Comments:
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
APPEAL #
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD DENIED
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT
MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT
12/6/91
SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/211 x 11)
j( SITE PLAN (11" x 1711 (4) )
—�C LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
x DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
POST & MAIL
Date
ATTACHMENT 15
FILE NO. V-19-91
APPLIC— iON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# V-19-91
FROM: Wilson
INPUT: Yes
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 12/2/91 RETURNED
FIRE 12/2/91 RETURNED
DC Q 1 PUBLIC WORKS 12/2/91 RETURNED
PARKS & REC 12/2/91 RETURNED_` yll j t .
COMMENTS:
Owner Lewis Nelson Architects
Doa
Type
Property Address
21616 76th Ave. W.
11/26/91 Date of Hearing 12/19/91 Return By,
Variance for Building Height & Parking Stalls
X APPLICATION
X FEE
X APO LIST
TITLE REPORT
X VICINITY MAP
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map)
Comments:
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
12/6/91
SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11)
xSITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4))
LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
POST & MAIL
Date
APPEAL #
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD DENIED
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ATTACHMENT 16
FILE N0. V-19=91