CU 98-58CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARAFAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Thomas Johnston/NW Care Management, Inc. (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
CASE NO.: CU 98-58
LOCATION: 724 & 728 Edmonds Way (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: Consolidated Permit Application for a Conditional Use Permit for
a 41-bed "Congregate Care Facility" (Alzheimer's care facility)
and compliance with the City's Architectural Design Board Design
Criteria. (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3).
REVIE'vV PROCESS: Conditional Use Permit: Hearing Examiner conducts public
heal-ing and makes final decision. The Architectural Desig-n Ooaxd
(ADB) has reviewed the proposal and has made a recommend.:ori.
MAJOR ISSUES.
(1) Cornpiiance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section
16.53 (Planned Business - BP).
(2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS).
(3) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.1.5a (SEPA),
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recom;nendation: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and
after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The
hearing on the Northwest Care Management application was opened at 10:33 a.m., September
17, 1998, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 11:35 a.m. Participants at the
public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording
of the hearing is available in the Planning Division.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
The following is a staff report for the hearing of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
congregate care facility in the Planned Business (BP) zone. The ADB has reviewed the
proposal for consistency with the Design Guidelines and has made a recommendation of
approval to the Hearing Examiner.
A. REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
The ADB met on August 5, 1998 to review the request and adopt a recommendation to
the Hearing Examiner (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). The following recommendation for
approval was made:
BOARDMEMBER SULLIVAN MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER
GOODRICK, TO RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER THAT ADB-98-
70/CU-98-58 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED, RECOGNIZING THAT THE
PROPOSAL INCLUDES USE OF TEXTURED MATERIALS, APPROPRIATE
LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE, AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report and recommended approval with
conditions. He said:
• The proposal was reviewed by the ADB on August 5 and they recommended approval
of the facility, with conditions.
• The proposed project meets all of the bulk standards under the code.
• The proposal is consistent with a single family neighborhood.
• The proposal is for an Alzheimer's facility, but it's use is not limited to that. It could
be used for some other sort of congregate care facility.
• The applicant has submitted a report from a geotechnical engineer which indicated
that it would be safe to build up to 25 feet from the toe of the slope.
• The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and approved it.
From the Applicant:
Jeff Saboda, Architect for the Applicant,
• The goal is to create a comfortable living environment for people with Alzheimer's
Disease.
• The building will be less than 17,000 square feet in size and it will be one story in
height.
• The landscaping goes well beyond the regulations for the flat area of the site.
• A fair amount of the site will be fenced with a 6 foot high fence.
• They are staying away from the slope with any of the construction.
• They feel the project meets the Westgate Corridor goals.
• Edmonds Way is a gateway into the Edmonds and this project will be and
enhancement.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 3
Julie Brockman, Northwest Care Management, said:
• There are over 1,000 people who have Alzheimer's within a three mile radius and
there are only 131 beds in Alzheimer facilities to serve them at the present time.
From the Community:
Martha Bell -Hart said:
• She is not opposed to the congregate care facility, but she is concerned about the steep
slope.
• The hillside is relatively stable, but she feels that is partly due to the trees on the
slope. She recommended that an arborist examine the trees to determine if there are
any in danger of falling on the new building. She wants to keep as many trees on the
hillside as possible.
• She would like a fence to be placed at the toe of the slope or at the building line
setback to provide extra insurance that the slope will not be affected.
• There are chipmunks on the hillside which may provide some viewing enjoyment for
the Alzheimer's patients.
Dennis Brooks said:
• He has concerns and questions about access to the site and about the future of the
median in Edmonds Way.
• His property backs up to the site and he would like an 8 foot high fence between his
property and the congregate care facility.
• He would also like more vegetation behind his house.
• He is not opposed to the facility.
Mary Bates said:
• She has no objection to the proposal, but is concerned about the slope.
• She would like additional study to be done on the slope and the vegetation.
Susan Brooks said:
• She likes the idea, but had questions on access to the site.
Robert DeYoung submitted Exhibit B and said:
• He is concerned about increased traffic, and is particularly concerned with the
location of the median on Edmonds Way which he said will force people to turn
around in tough locations.
• He is also concerned about noise from the sirens of emergency vehicles which will
probably visit the site quite frequently.
• He is also concerned that one of the patients may get out and may get trapped on
Edmonds Way.
Ron Kidder said:
He is concerned about the non binding part of the proposal. He said while the
intention is to have an Alzheimer's facility, other types of congregate care may be
located there.
0 He too is concerned about patients getting out and getting caught in heavy traffic.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 4
Response from the Applicant:
Mark Kuhlman, Engineer for the Applicant, responded that:
• Traffic was reviewed by Gibson Traffic Consultants and the study shows that
Edmonds Way carries an average of 19,000 vehicles per day. The proposed facility is
expected to generate 58 trips per day.
• The median on Edmonds Way was discussed at length with the City. As a result this
will be a right -in right -out facility. Emergency vehicles will likely come from the
northwest and a right -in maneuver will work fine. There are numerous places in the
vicinity for visitors to the site to turn around in.
• The Gibson Consultants said that the level of service on Edmonds Way is "A".
• Sight distance is a concern at the entrance and the sign and landscaping will have to
be place so sight distance is not affected.
Wade Gilbert, Geotechnical Engineer for the Applicant, responded that:
• The site has similar conditions to where Landau used to be located just a short
distance away on Edmonds Way.
• Loading the top of the slope or cutting into the bottom of the slope could both affect
the stability of the slope.
• A full analytical analysis of the slope is very expensive and is generally not used.
• Alder trees do not have a good root structure and those on the site may have to come
down to prevent blowdowns. An arborist will look at the trees.
Jeff Saboda responded that
• Security of the facility will be very high and patients will have a difficult time getting
out.
• The fence on the southwest portion of the site is limited to six feet in height by the
City, but they will put lattice on top, if allowed.
• They are also willing to adjust the location of some of the landscaping to
accommodate the neighbors.
Julie Brockman responded that drug rehab centers, etc. are not allowed as congregate
care.
Response from the City:
Steve Bullock responded that:
• The maximum height allowed for a fence is 6 feet.
• No work will be allowed in the steep slope area.
• The applicant would need to get a special permit for any tree removal.
• A congregate care facility is basically a rest home and he concurred with Julie
Brockman that drug rehab centers, etc. would not be permitted to replace the congregate
care facility.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Correspondence was received from the following members of the general public:
Barbara and Robert DeYoung (Exhibit B) wrote that they have no objections to an Alzheimer's
Care Facility, but:
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 5
• They have concerns about the facility being used as a half -way house for recovering
drug addicts.
• They also have concerns about increased night-time noise and ever increasing traffic.
Robert and Mary Bates (Exhibit C) wrote that:
• They have concerns about maintaining integrity of the slope.
• They would like to have the toe of the slope fenced off during construction.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
a) Facts:
(1) Land Use: The subject property contains a single family structure.
(2) Zoning: The subject property is located in a Planned Business (BP)
zone (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The site is relatively flat where the
development is proposed; the ground rises rapidly in a steep slope at
the back (south end) of the property.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
1 Fact: Single family homes are at the top of the slope, south of the
property, in an area zoned Single -Family Residential (RS-8).
2 Fact: Neighborhood Business and Planned Business zoning exists to
the east and west along Edmonds Way and is partially developed with
businesses.
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
1. Fact: SEPA is required of any project which requires a Conditional Use
Permit. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued August 31,
1998, based on a submitted traffic study. No comments or appeals have been
received to date.
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Critical Areas Compliance
a Facts:
(1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B
(Critical Areas Ordinance).
(2) A Critical Areas Checklist (CA-94-220) was submitted and a study
completed.
b) Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical
Areas Ordinance.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 6
2. Compliance with Planned Business (BP) Zoning Standards
a Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to
development in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone is set forth in
Chapter 16.45.020.
(a) Street Setback: 15 feet
(b) Rear Setback: 0; 15 feet from residentially zoned property
(c) Side Setbacks: 0; 15 feet from residentially zoned property
(d) Height: 25 feet (up to 30 feet with a 4-in-12 pitched
roof)
b) Conclusion: The applicant has provided a proposal which complies with
the Planned Business (BP) zone standards.
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit
a Fact:
(1) Chapter 20.05 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby the
following findings and criteria must be met. The criteria are as
follows:
(a) The proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
(b) The proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone
district in which the use will meet all applicable requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
(c) That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless
the use is a public necessity.
(d) The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional
use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal.
b) The applicant has submitted the following declarations with their
submittal which address the decisional criteria (see "Exhibit A, -
Attachment 2" of Attachment 3):
(a) The property lies within the Westgate Corridor and is zoned
consistent with its land use designation. The property has direct
access to SR-104, a major arterial.
(b) The use is an allowed primary use, and is consistent with the
commercial uses along Edmonds Way.
(c) "The building is residential in appearance and allows for a
good transition between commercial and residential zones.
There is a great need for senior services of this type as our
population grows older and this project would provide a
positive addition to the local community and surrounding areas.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 7
In addition, we feel there is less impact to the surrounding
properties as the building is one-story and approximately 40%
of the site will be undeveloped (the steep sloped area of the
site)."
(d) The applicant has requested that this Conditional Use Permit
"run with the land" and be allowed to transfer if necessary.
c) Conclusions:
(1) The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is part of the
Westgate Corridor and is zoned Planned Business. The area is
designated to provide small scale, service oriented business for the
local residents. As part of the Westgate Corridor, the project will not
impact the landscape boulevard affect along Edmonds Way. The
application is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies:
F. Goals for the Westgate Corridor. The Westgate Corridor is
generally located between the 9th Avenue/Edmonds Way
intersection and where Edmonds Way turns north to enter the
downtown area. By virtue of this location, this corridor serves
as both a key transportation corridor and as an entry into the
downtown. Long-established neighborhoods lie near both sides
of the corridor. The plan for this corridor is to recognize its
multiple functions by providing opportunities for small-scale
businesses while promoting compatible development that will
not intrude into established neighborhoods.
F.1. Development within the Westgate Corridor should be
designed to recognize its role as part of an entryway into
Edmonds and the downtown. The overall effect should be a
corridor that resembles a landscaped boulevard and median.
The landscaped median along SR-104 should remain as
uninterrupted as possible in order to promote traffic flow and
provide an entry effect.
F.2. Permit uses in planned business areas that are primarily
intended to serve the local neighborhood while not
contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
F.s. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development.
F.4. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of
driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in
order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient
manner.
F.S. Use design review to ensure that development provides a
transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in
transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use
design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched
roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and
tIearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 8
landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family
development.
(2)The proposal will comply with all aspects of the Planned Business
development standards of the ECDC.
(3) The type of use proposed generally does not generate as much traffic
as a typical residential use, and is appropriate to be located along a
major arterial for potential access to transit.
(4) Staff recommended that the permit be allowed to transfer to future
owners of the property.
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
a Facts:
(1) The ADB and Conditional Use Permit application has been reviewed
and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division,
Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division.
(2) The Fire Department has concluded that because the facility will be
fully sprinkled and first and third apparatus approaches will allow
immediate turn -in to the facility from Edmonds Way, the median will
not cause any delayed access to the site for emergency vehicles.
h) Conclusion: No technical problems have been identified.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a Fact: The subject property comprehensive plan designation is Planned
Business within the Westgate Corridor.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
DECISION
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a conditional use permit is
approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The applicant must obtain all necessary permits and pay the required traffic mitigation fee
(required in the MDNS) prior to any construction.
(2) All landscaping per the approved landscape plan must be installed prior to Certificate of
Occupancy.
(3) The permit shall run with the land and be transferable.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 9
Entered this 23rd day of September, 1998, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings
Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should
contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 98-58
Page 10
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
B. Letter from Barbara and Robert DeYoung, received 9/11/98
C. Letter from Robert and Mary Bates, received 9/16/98
D. Letter from Martha and Peter Hart, received 9/16/98
E. Perspective of similar project
F. Photos of similar project (3 boards)
G. Materials samples
PARTIES of RECORD:
Thomas J. Johnston
Northwest Care Management, Inc.
385 Ericksen Avenue, Suite 123
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Jack Mahre
6650 N.E. Bayview Blvd.
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Barbara and Robert DeYoung
1508 7ch Place South
Edmonds, WA 98020-5149
Martha Bell -Hart
Peter Hart
10415 228`h St. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Julie Brockman
N.W. Care Management
385 Erickson Avenue
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Ron Kidder
1506 7`h Place South
Edmonds, WA 98020
Edmonds Planning Division
Edmonds Public Works Division
Edmonds Engineering Division
Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division
Edmonds Fire Department
Mark Kuhlman
Team 4
5823 Minter
Poulsbo, WA
Robert and Mary Bates
10411 228" St. S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jeff Saboda
5416 Diamond Place
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Dennis and Susan Brooks
10406 2261h Place S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Wade Gilbert
Landau Associates
130 2nd
Edmonds, WA 98026