Loading...
2004-05-20 Hearing Examiner MinutesEdmonds Hearing Examiner May 20, 2004 File No. ADB-04-1/CU-04-2 Verbatim Transcript Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell: The next item on the agenda is a request from the Edmonds Public Facilities District for a Conditional Use Permit for approval of a master plan for the Edmonds Center of the Arts and design review approval for Phase 1 improvements of that project. Looks like we've got a show coming in. Senior Planner Steve Bullock: If you could set up your easels maybe right along there so the Examiner can see them and also so the audience can see them. Thanks. Unknown: And how about the audience? Steve Bullock: That's what I said. Ron McConnell: Are we ready? Steve Bullock: I think we can get started while they continue to get set up. Ron McConnell: All right. Steve Bullock: Thank you Mr. Examiner. My name is Steve Bullock, I'll be representing the City on this matter. As the Examiner was noting, this is a public hearing for two permits — a Conditional Use Permit to review a master plan for the Edmonds Center for the Arts which is being proposed by the Edmonds Public Facilities District. The Conditional Use Permit for the master plan is going to be addressing height of the ultimate development on the site as well as the maximum lot coverage allowed for the site. They are also requesting approval of their design review for the Phase 1 improvements. The Design Board reviewed those improvements and has forwarded a recommendation on to the Examiner related to those matters. First of all, getting back a little bit more to what the Conditional Use Permit is about and what the master plan is for, the project, in fact I'm going to, I don't need to put it on an overhead, it's right up there. The drawing on the far left labeled site plan shows the existing auditorium building in the center of the site. It shows the existing south gymnasium in the southeast corner of the site, the music building is the white building shown in the southwest corner of the site and then where the parking is located along the northern portion of the site is where the original Edmonds High School building was which is in the northeast corner of the site and then the northern gymnasium and some other additions done to the original high school building on both the east and the west sides of the original high school building. Steve Bullock: The proposal by the Edmonds Public Facilities District for the Center for the Arts is to eliminate the original high school building and the additions that were done to that as well as the northern gymnasium building to allow for the construction of the surface parking garage here in Phase 1. It will include the refurbishment of the auditorium building in the center Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 1 of this site and then the gymnasium too in the southeast corner of the site. The Phase 1 improvements wouldn't require a Conditional Use Permit at all; there is currently an active and valid Conditional Use Permit for the actual uses on the site and they are going to be continuing those uses in the same or even a lesser manner than what they're currently being done. But in looking to their ultimate development of the site, they are planning to add a parking structure which will come close to doubling the amount of parking that they're going to have available on the site as well as adding a conference, meeting, gathering space on top of that structure which will add additional usable meeting space back to the site, probably consistent to what is there now, maybe not even as much. Steve Bullock: In the Public Use zone which is where this facility is located, the standard height limit is 25 feet and the standard lot coverage allowance is 35%. However, both of those allowances can be modified through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The height can be increased up to 60 feet and certain Conditional Use Permit criteria have to be addressed as part of that expansion. And lot coverage can be increased to whatever the Examiner ultimately deems necessary. Again, both of those are through the vehicle of a Conditional Use Permit as opposed to a variance. The Conditional Use Permit has in the, excuse me, in the Public Use zone district, it actually outlines the very specific criteria that need to be met for those increases in both the height allowance and the lot coverage allowance to be approved. It specifically references those in that section of the code. Steve Bullock: So what the applicant is trying to do in this case is acknowledge what is on the site now and make some provisions for what they ultimately want to do with the site and get that approved all at this point in time or in the absence of it being approved, know exactly what their limits are right now before they commit to something. The current high school building has already been identified as being a building that's 47 feet tall and the current lot coverage of this site is already approximately 50% lot coverage. With their master plan request to the Examiner, they are willing to limit the height of their ultimate development of the site, the northern parking garage/meeting structure, to the same 47 foot height limit that the existing high school building has and they're willing to limit the total lot coverage of the site to 52%. Steve Bullock: Some details in regards to the height limitation, they are more specifically limiting just the eastern portion of the garage building to the 47 foot height limit. The western portion of the building will comply with the standard 25 foot height limit that's allowed in the zone. Pages 4 and 5 and 6 of the report go through in great detail the extra criteria that are required in the Public Use zone to justify the additional height allowance and lot coverage allowance. We've gone through that in detail as part of our report. Page 6 and 7 discuss Comprehensive Plan policies and goals that the city's current adopted Comprehensive Plan state and analyze how this project does comply with that or not. Steve Bullock: When the Architectural Design Board reviewed the project for the Phase 1 improvements, they looked at the proposed demolition of the northern, the replacement of those buildings with the parking structure, looked at the new landscape plan and also the refurbishment of the auditorium and gymnasium buildings by repainting, refinishing, cleaning up and restoring some of the original finishes. In the end, the Design Board recommended approval to the Examiner and that is shown on pages 7 and 8 of the staff report and then were included as Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 2 recommended conditions related to the design review aspect of the project which is back on page 3 of the report. I think with that I'm going to just point out to you on page 3 of the staff report, city staff has included our recommendations on both the Conditional Use Permit request and on the design review approval. We'll turn it over to the applicant for a more detail explanation and presentation of their project. Ron McConnell: All right, who's speaking on behalf of the applicant? Kjris Lund: I'm here representing the Public Facilities District. My name is Kjris Lund and I'll be available to answer questions or to fill in some details. We have with us today Sherrill Myers who is our architect with LMN Architects and he'll give an overview of the project. Ron McConnell: Great. Steve Bullock: Mr. Examiner, if I might, I'm sorry, pardon me, I forgot one thing too. There's a couple of items that need to be entered into the record. Ron McConnell: I'll enter the staff report as Exhibit 1 and it has I don't know how many attachments I've got here, let me take a quick check and see, nine attachments. Letter from Natalie Shippen dated May 17th with attachments 1-6 will be Exhibit 2. Letter from Richard Fergander dated May 171h will be Exhibit 3 and letter from Steven Matheson dated May 18th will become Exhibit 4. Steve Bullock: I could address those really quickly as well. Ron McConnell: Sure. Steve Bullock: Exhibit 2, the letter from Natalie Shippen, has some concerns related to the adequacy of notice and feeling like there wasn't enough notice provided; there wasn't enough opportunity for the public to comment on this project. The city considers this to be a major project both for the design review and the Conditional Use Permit. We provided notice for this as we always provide for any project that crosses those thresholds. I think the applicant may want to talk too about how they've complied with or provided for public input through meetings and things like that. Items 1-6 of Ms. Shippen's letter address some of the historic nature of this site and some other things related to architectural style. Steve Bullock: Exhibit 3 from Mr. Richard Fergander has some concerns related to the parking on the north side of the side. He would like to see the exit on the northeast corner of the site either eliminated or maybe reduced down to a one-way exit. Staff s position on this, and I have not had an opportunity to confirm this with our Engineering Department and I guess that's why my position is as it is, we would not support that until our Engineering Department had an opportunity to review that and confirm it was okay. My understanding in reviewing the traffic report was that was done for this project and is also included as an element, one of the attachments in the report, is they need to have the exit on 61h Avenue North as they've shown it. And then Exhibit 4, the letter from Steven Matheson, he is from the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation for the State and indicated his position on the project which is he's okay Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 3 with moving forward on it. He would like to see, and this is probably something that if we had gotten this comment prior to the SEPA comment period ending and the appeal period ending, we probably would have tweaked our SEPA determination some but he is recommending that a, what does he call it here, a HABS report, a Historic American Building Survey Report be done for the site in its current configuration to document what the site is and its historic significance before the original Edmonds High School is torn down and is no longer available for study or looking at. So that's what I'd like to add on that. Thanks. Ron McConnell: Could I get your name and address, sir? Sherrill Myers: My name is Sherrill Myers, LMN Architects. My business address is 801 2na Avenue, Seattle 98101. Ron McConnell: Okay. Sherrill Myers: The major purpose of the first phase of the project is to renovate and upgrade this theater that has been in use for community arts organizations for a number of years. The project is primarily in the first phase, the project is primarily one of interior renovation. In addition to the interior renovation, there's a small addition on the north side of the building that will provide dressing rooms that will meet the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as provide public restrooms for the audience members who attend performances. The Public Facilities District made a commitment when they undertook to do the project to provide onsite parking although presently these activities are going on in the building with no onsite parking whatsoever. We have prepared a plan that would provide parking onsite and some parking in nearby public lots that would accommodate what would be required by the zoning code if this were a new building. To do that necessitated demolishing the buildings north of the theater on the site which includes the old high school and a gymnasium building. Sherrill Myers: Phase 2 of the project aims to provide public meeting room space, conference space, the kind of space that would provide for banquets for fundraising events, wedding receptions and a wide, wide range of functions that every community needs and presently is not housed adequately in this community. We have found in our projects in various communities that there's a very positive relationship between performing arts facilities and meeting room facilities of this sort which are mutually supportive. They are supportive both for events before performances for lectures and educational aspects of the experience as well as events after the performance for entertaining and that kind of function. Additionally for meetings in the community and small conference activities, having a theater next door with a stage and the technical advantages that that brings to presentations that proves to be a very good combination as well. Sherrill Myers: So what we have set out to do in the request for the Phase 2 zoning envelope is to work within the heights and the kind of density on the site that presently exist. We are confident we could design the kind of facility that would be of benefit to the community within this envelope and provide the kind of parking need that would occur for those additional functions, those additional kind of events. The project is one we're very pleased and excited about ourselves as professionals and very proud to have the opportunity to serve the community Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 4 in this regard. That's the essence of the two phases and I'm very pleased to answer any questions. Ron McConnell: Let's see what the citizens have to say. We've received some letters and I see a number of people here. Who would like to speak first from the community? Anyone? Ray Martin: I'm Ray Martin. 18704 94th Avenue West. I've got a few questions on that parking lot on the north end. What's the height of the buildings in that area now, currently? Sherrill Myers: In the area presently, the old high school is 47 feet high above the first floor datum and the gymnasium is roughly 24 feet high I believe at its lowest point. Ray Martin: In other words, it's an existing building now today are 47 feet high in there? Sherrill Myers: Yes. Ray Martin: Okay and then if I heard you correctly, you'd have a parking floor and a second floor and that's going, that total's going to be 47 feet? Sherrill Myers: Well it's a future phase and it hasn't been designed. What our anticipation is that there would be below grade parking and parking up to a level of 25 feet above the existing datum which is the ground floor of the existing school building. Ray Martin: How many floors is that, of parking? Sherrill Myers: That's in the range of two and a half to three floors of parking. Two floors at least under grade. On top of that would be the meeting room and its support functions. A room of that sort would be in the range of 18-20 feet clear in height and on top of that would be room for mechanical duct work, structure, things of that nature and that's how you get to the total height of 47 feet. Ray Martin: I was trying to relate to that and it looks like each floor of the parking would give you up to 90 parking stalls. Am I right or is that 60? Sherrill Myers: It's in the range of 80 or more. Ray Martin: 80 or more? Sherrill Myers: Yes. Ray Martin: So that would give you 270 plus so you'd have four floors then ultimately at 47 feet? Sherrill Myers: We put a number in here of the spaces we anticipate and I believe the number... Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 5 Ray Martin: Here's where I'm going, a parking floor you don't need 10 or 12 feet, you can do it a lot less. The only reason really to justify 47 feet is because there's currently part of that area that's 47 feet. I would suggest you could do everything you want to do in well less than 47 feet, more likely almost to the point of complying with the current building height standard of I guess 30 feet. I guess that's what it is now, it's very confusing. Ron McConnell: 25. Ray Martin: It's 25 but then you've got this 30 foot thing with modulations and nobody knows what a modulation is yet. Steve Bullock: Not in this zone, Ray. Ray Martin: Not in this zone? Okay. Oh so it's 25 feet. Ron McConnell: 25 feet. Ray Martin: I'm suggesting 47 feet, that's kind of like a number picked out of the air as far as this site. I don't think you need 47 feet. I think you could come down substantially because parking requires a lot less than say this building here. We don't need the clearance, we don't need 8 feet of clearance. Is it 7 feet here, 7'/2 feet, we don't need that much to park at car. Go downtown and look at the parking garages and you'll see what I mean. You might not be able to park a motorhome in there or a 4-wheel drive SUV or something but the standard pickup truck and car would fit. I'm sure that the people probably hundreds of them would benefit from that particular thought. Ray Martin: And indeed Mr. McConnell the first gentleman that spoke here I believe mentioned it would be far better if the citizens could attend the meeting like a Monday to Thursday meeting between 6 and 7, no earlier than 6 pm, more like 7 pm for the citizens. I'm retired as I think you noted or somebody noted. Most of us are and that's the reason we're able to attend this meeting. That's one of my complaints and I think you'd have a lot more people in here if this meeting had been held when the citizens could attend. I'm sure there's widespread support for this particular subject and I think it's well needed and the thought of having a community meeting room is attractive as well as providing the parking but I think it can be done using the 47 foot level, it's always been done that way so that's why we're going to keep it at 47 feet. I don't think that's real logical, I think it should be built probably within the specifications that these folks would like with 3 stories of parking and the meeting room and still come out considerably less than 47 feet. And that's about what I suggest. Thank you. Ron McConnell: Thank you. Sherrill Myers: Excuse me, do I get to respond to that? Ron McConnell: I'll give you a chance to respond. Let's listen to everybody and then you can respond all at one time. Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 6 Sherrill Myers: Okay. Ron McConnell: Hi, can I get your name and address. Norma Bruns: Yes, Norma Bruns, 960 5th Avenue South, Edmonds. Ron McConnell: Bryant is it? Norma Bruns: Bruns, B R U N S. Ron McConnell: Okay. Norma Bruns: I would echo Ray Martin's view that I think Mr. Hobbs was very brave because I think it is very difficult for a citizen who works all day to come. I think four professionals who were part of the proponents of that and as he mentioned, all of us old folks who are able to get out in the afternoon but that said I will go on. I'm speaking now because I did want to say first that I attended several meetings of the PFD before and I'm impressed by their hard work and I know they've done a lot to encourage people to come to their meetings. I wasn't able to come recently and I'm sorry about that but I see some of the same people who have stayed with it and I applaud you. I will say this though for citizens, it's much easier when you have a public forum like this to react to an entire project I think than it is in a meeting where there aren't a lot of public just to talk about little aspects of a plan. So if we seem as if we're coming late into the game, I think that's the reason. We've had time to maybe think about it and look at some of the pictures. Norma Bruns: I'm speaking now after Mr. Martin because that was the area in which I wanted to talk. I would like to see Phase 2 delayed and perhaps not included at this point in the master plan since I understand the design has yet to be made. I think I'd like to see more reason that we need another conference room and perhaps that it is necessary that we need a restaurant up there. I guess at a time when the City Council has hired an Economic Development person who is concerned about economics in the City of Edmonds, I'm not sure that we need another restaurant there to compete with all restaurants. That's a difficult occupation and site to have anyhow. I would suggest that we consider, that you I'm sorry, consider Phase 2 as separate if we need to agree to that or you need to agree to that separately. Let's see how Phase 1 works out, see how the money rolls in and everything. Norma Bruns: Another thing I will say, when I think of an old building being torn down to put parking in, it grieves me as much as it did several years ago when we tore down a church to put parking. So let's think about that too. Okay, thank you. Ron McConnell: Thank you. Who wants to speak next? Natalie Shippen: I'm Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid Avenue, Edmonds. I think this whole project has given the historic aspect of the old building a very short shrift. So I'd like to readjust a paragraph called, from a short statement called Depression Modernism to try and fit the historic site which is I think totally neglected in this plan into both the time and the style that it represents Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 7 and one of the reasons why it's on the historic register. Bridging the gap between international style simplification of forms and the modernistic ornamented forms of the 1920s was a compromised moderne period of design. Although frequently included in discussions of art deco as one in the same, this particular building style is more a reaction against the excesses of art deco than it is a later evolution from it. Post 1930 architecture has been called variously depression moderne, jazz moderne, streamline moderne, modernistic and horizontal art deco. Although concurrent with some of the later art deco buildings, these buildings were stylistically different. And this begins a description of the old junior high, well it's depression moderne, they call it art deco. They were long, low and horizontally oriented, sometimes with a central tower breaking up the major axis. They often had rounded edges and bands of horizontal windows that a streamlined effect. There was little or no ornament. One of the more popular devices was a series of two or three horizontal bands etched into or raised on building surfaces to accentuate the steamlining. This streamlined moderne was a variant of the international style with much of that movement severity and commitment to the aesthetics of the machine age. However, it sought relief from the starkness of the box through the use of organic lines. It combined flat and curved walls, topped these walls with silvery handrails and terraces and made frequent use of glass blocks, which that one has, metal and stucco. The streamlined moderne came to be identified with the up-to-date style and consequently became the prototype for new industrial and commercial buildings in America before the Second World War. It replaced the art deco designs of the 1920s and early 30s and functioned in the hiatus between their construction and the construction of the new office towers that characterize the contemporary American metropolis. Natalie Shippen: So I think that describes the auditorium and gym. You'd never know it as you look at it now because it was destroyed 50 years ago. I'd like to read a statement, the historic and architectural significance of the auditorium and attached gymnasium was ignored in the preparation and discussion of the Phase I design plan. The visual quality of this, of the historic monument was neglected because the Phase 1 proposal is totally driven by a desire to accommodate a Phase 2 building that may never be constructed. The result is a design plan that focuses on what might be instead of what is. The music building remains standing although it can't possibly comply with any design or site standard ever developed. It was an eyesore when it was built 50 years ago and it's still an eyesore. No quality standard is presented to support retaining the music building. By blocking the view of the gym, it only succeeds in destroying the streamlined effect of the architectural style. Natalie Shippen: The design plan fails to comply with the site design standards of the ECDC FIA, that's in the staff report to the ADB and the building design standards because those standards aren't applied to the music building. In other words, it never sustained any critical review by anyone. The Phase I alterations require no additional parking, yet the north gym is to be demolished to make way for a 90 car parking lot. The parking lot serves only to stake out the dimensions of a Phase 2 three or four story garage conference structure which may never be built. Because the north gym is to be destroyed for parking, the music building is allowed to remain to absorb the uses once supplied by the north gym. The recommendations for the Phase I design are all based on an assumption that a Phase 2 plan will become a reality. It focuses upon what might be instead of what is. Emphasis on a future development at the expense of the Phase 1 design only ensures that nothing on the cramped site will be first rate. Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 8 Natalie Shippen: The goal of redeveloping the old junior high site should be a first rate restoration of a historic monument and a first class theater. I suggest that the following revisions be made to the Phase 1 plan: the music building should be removed to better display the design of the historic buildings and to provide space for a terrace. Uses now provided by the music building can be moved to the south gym. No walls should be built to again obscure the lines of the auditorium and gym. They have been hidden for too long. The historic buildings might better be painted a color which it had for many years, a light tan with darker brown stripe. Tarting up a depression age building is hardly in keeping with historic restoration or the spirit of the depression which was drab. The north gym should remain to provide any athletic uses or other uses now offered by the south gym. Natalie Shippen: Edmonds has a one shot chance to construct a theater that is excellent in every respect. I would support a fly loft that is 60 feet which would be 20 feet higher than now. A one time relaxation of the height limit in order to improve the quality of a public theater operation serves a public purpose. The Phase 1 design provides for a 90 car parking lot although no additional parking is required for the Phase I alteration. In fact, less parking is needed because the theater is smaller. The only purpose of the parking lot is to stake out the dimensions of a future structure which may never be built and it makes the best development of Phase I impossible. On -street parking was sufficient for a 900-seat auditorium and should be capable of handling a smaller need. Public streets provide public parking for the public. They should be used before paving a limited amount of good land for unneeded parking. For the reasons above, I ask that the Phase I design plan be remanded to the Public Facilities District Board for reconsideration with the recommendation that greater public involvement be solicited. Finally I ask that the request for a Conditional Use Permit be denied because it doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That section of the code which is cited as support for Conditional Use approval and it's mentioned here, refer only to the support for the retention and rehabilitation of historic buildings and landmarks in the city. The CU report is not for any action related to the Phase I alterations of historic buildings, the citation isn't pertinent. Natalie Shippen: Conclusion three states that the 47 foot height and 17% increase in lot coverage of the garage/convention structure won't be detrimental to any adjacent properties. The requested approval of the CU permit is for ten years. I don't believe a permit should be granted on the prediction of circumstances ten years from now. The request for a ten year Conditional Use Permit is untimely. Really, to ad lib, the upshot of the garage and convention focus is that the garage and convention center, they get the roof garden and the historic building gets the eyesore. The parking garage and the convention center get the big terrace and the historic buildings get the eyesore which is the music building. So I hope that you'll review this closely. Ron McConnell: Could I have a copy of that? Natalie Shippen: Yes, I have a copy here. Ron McConnell: I'll enter that as Exhibit 5. Natalie Shippen: Pardon? Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 9 Ron McConnell: I'll enter that as Exhibit 5. Natalie Shippen: Okay. I also have a parking study for the Puget Sound Christian College which provides 378 on -space parking. Ron McConnell: I think that's attached... Natalie Shippen: And also by the way, this article or letter from the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, I think again points out, he urges you, destroying the old 1909 building, if that's absolutely necessary and it's only necessary because of this addiction to a 3-story parking garage and again it's a Phase 1 project that's driven the Phase 2 hope for a building. Thank you. Ron McConnell: Thank you. Steve Bullock: I'll go make some copies of this so the applicant can see it. There's a letter from Natalie... Ron McConnell: That's her presentation, that'll be number five. Steve Bullock: Right and then there's a submittal, a parking study for Puget Sound Christian College that we'll call Exhibit 6 and I go make copies of that. Natalie Shippen: Did you have an opportunity to look at the buildings Mr. McConnell? Ron McConnell: Yes. Natalie Shippen: I won't show you my pictures then. Ron McConnell: No, I've been there. Natalie Shippen: Because you won't give them back I'm told. Ron McConnell: That's right, once you show them to me... Natalie Shippen: I don't give away pictures that I can't get back. Ron McConnell: I'll tell you what, if you want to give them to me, he can make copies for the file. Natalie Shippen: But they're dark, these are... Ron McConnell: Oh, they're dark? Natalie Shippen: Yes, they don't show up what they're supposed to show up. Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 10 Ron McConnell: I've been out to the site. Natalie. Okay, thank you. Ron McConnell: Who'd like to speak next? Anyone else? Betty Mueller: Well I came to speak but I think it's all been said. Ron McConnell: Okay, could I get your name and address. Betty Mueller: Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds. I can't see that we should sign off on a future phase that hasn't even been designed right now. The garage on the side, there was land there at one time, we could have had that land for parking and they decided to sell it. I think they needed the money of course. There was a building in back of this building that could have been removed and made ample parking. I think that would have been cheaper in the long run than what they're proposing to do. I agree with Natalie with everything she said and Mrs. Bruns and Martin. It started out to save the old high school and it is turning into a convention center and what else? We don't know, we want to know. I don't know, were letters sent to the people in this neighborhood surrounding here that this meeting was going to be here today? I really feel like there should be more input from the citizens. I don't know how to get them out but I'd be willing to help. I was going to make flyers and take them to all the doors but I thought well let's wait and see if you do mail those out to all the people. Ron McConnell: Apparently they did. How many hundred feet around? Steve Bullock: Within 300 feet as well as we posted on all three streets, on 4th, on Daly and on 6th Betty Mueller: Does that go down to my house? Steve Bullock: No, not that far. Betty Mueller: The parking comes down to my house. It will impact the whole neighborhood down to Casper Street. It does now but we put up with that. It was a church, it was a school, we were used to that. We want to get used to a lovely theater too but let's not sign off on something that hasn't even been designed yet, that scares me. So we'll keep watch and we'll keep attending the meetings and hopefully it'll turn out well and I'm sure it will. Thank you. Ron McConnell: Okay. Betty Mueller: Can I add something? Ron McConnell: Sure. Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 11 Betty Mueller: I don't know if they've tested the ground on the north side of the school but that has a lot of water underneath the surface. The houses on that side, I think the first house north has a basement full of water all the time. It's draining out of the house, over the curb and into the street and into the drain in the street. The new houses that were built there ran into a lot of water, once they hit that, it shot up like something in the parks down in California. They want to dig down two levels for parking, they're going to run into money, I mean, oh I hope so, run into water. Our fire and police buildings up there on that lot has a marsh land and they ran into a lot of water. They thought they would build a garage underground and I told them that they couldn't do it because it was a marshland. At present, they ran a consultant on that and found out, nope you can't do it. They have three pumps under the fire and safety buildings, the new ones up there now, pumping water night and day down to 4th Street into a drain or something down there. So think if you dig down for a garage, they're going to have the same monumental problem. Ron McConnell: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, response. Kjris Lund: My name is Kjris Lund. Do you need my address? Ron McConnell: Well I think we've got it right here on the application. Kjris Lund: Okay, great. I wanted to speak to two of the points that have been raised. The first about public notice, the second about historic preservation. The PFD complied with all the public notice requirements that the city has but in addition to that, we have been engaged in an extensive public involvement effort for the last two years. We have made numerous presentations in front of the City Council, we've made presentations in the community, we have had press releases issued on a regular basis and we went above and beyond the requirements for this hearing by hosting a neighborhood meeting last week where we mailed notices to all the property owners, we put a press release in the newspaper. We had a wonderful turnout and an open house and a presentation about the project and discussion with the neighbors. So as far as public notice goes, the PFD has been very interested in being engaged with the community and we know that it's important to be a part of the community in order to be successful with this kind of facility. Kjris Lund: With respect to historic preservation, I used to be the Historic Preservation Officer for King County and I know the historic preservation rules quite, in a detailed way. I've read the letter that was sent in by the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. So first of all, this property is listed on the State Register and not the National Register. The way the property was listed is the 1909 structure was listed with the 1939 structure being a contributing feature. The music building was not listed; however, in the letter from the State, they indicate that all portions of the property are now potentially eligible including the music building. And so the State noted they failed to reply during the timelines that were set, they did not respond to the SEPA notification and their letter came in after the fact. The Historic American Building Survey process, HABS as they call it, is very expensive and quite a bit of effort in terms of documenting the architectural drawings if you will for the building. However, we do have and the architects have found the as -built drawings I think they're called for the building and we have a lot of Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 12 records that we would be glad to retain and provide to the local historical society as part of retaining the history of this property when we're finished with the renovation. Kjris Lund: The interesting thing with Natalie's comments about the art moderne is in fact that is what we are saving is the auditorium and the south gymnasium and those are the 1939 structures that are the art moderne which Sherrill Myers can talk about in more detail. With respect to the music building, we would love to tear it down. It is not proposed at this stage because we were looking to it to house alternate uses potentially on the site and there is a cost of demolition and we're trying to be as efficient as possible with our budget. We agree with Natalie and in fact saw the rendering she had in her packet and the building's quite beautiful with the south gymnasium when that music building is not there but I guess that's really not a part of our application. We will be dealing with the future of the music building at a later time but we don't see it as an asset to the property at this point. Kjris Lund: The other points about historic preservation are that we have worked closely with LMN Architects who is a highly regarded firm so that we are not altering the facade of the building, we are preserving the features that are in the 1939 structures and Sherrill can talk a little bit to why the choices were made that were presented to the Design Review in terms of colors and how that relates to the historic period. I'll also let Sherrill speak to the decision and recommendation for demolishing the 1909 portion in terms of some of the structural issues and costs associated with retaining those and the seismic problems that we face. That's the extent of my comments right now and I'll turn it over to Sherrill. Sherrill Myers: Thank you. I think maybe the best way for me to proceed perhaps is to start with the first gentleman and then the subsequent speakers. It seemed to me a significant question that was raised was whether it was necessary to have the 47 feet height or whether that was an arbitrary selection on our part. My colleagues and I personally did a number of studies of parking configurations and conference room heights and structure for a facility of the type that's described in the application. We came to the conclusion that this was a height we could work within; it is certainly not an excessive height for the kind of project envisioned and was not in any way arbitrary. So rather than ask for the 60 feet which we could have applied for under the zoning ordinance, we elected to try to show sensitivity to the neighborhood by going no higher than it presently is. Sherrill Myers: The second speaker spoke of the question of whether it was appropriate to have a restaurant in this location. There's not a restaurant proposed. If I gave the impression, I'd like to go back and explain what I suggested when I said their might be banquet type functions go on there. It's very common for art organizations and any not -for -profit organizations in community to need places where they can hold functions where there is food and beverage served as part of that activity. That is typically catered in by local restaurants. That's the kind of function we had in mind and it would in fact bring business to local restaurants and caterers. Sherrill Myers: The third speaker raised a question of whether we had made the choices that we did in terms of what got demolished and what got saved on the basis of the future phase. Clearly we were thoughtful about the future phase because it was something that the PFD regards as fundamental to their mission; however, it was, we were charged with providing onsite parking Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 13 because a perception was and I believe a promise was made to members of the neighborhood that we would do our utmost to get parking off the street and not compete with their own parking needs in the residential streets but get that parking onto the site. That was one major factor in deciding what buildings was it absolutely essential to save on the site to be able to continue the performing arts activity and to make the conditions for the neighborhood much more pleasant in terms of traffic disruption. Sherrill Myers: The decision to retain the music building although it's, there's not a lot of financial resources to do this, is because of the need for musicians in the community and other performers to have a place to rehearse. The music building in fact has two rehearsal spaces in it that are presently used for that purpose and it's a need that would have to be or would need to be served somewhere if not in that building. The suggestion that it occur in the south gymnasium, while in fact the south gymnasium is not at all suited for rehearsal for either large or small music groups, it does not have the kind of acoustics that are appropriate for that kind of a function and there are other needs in the community that compete for the use of that particular facility. Sherrill Myers: Our firm does convention centers from Hawaii to Baltimore and north and south in this country and I can assure you this is not a convention center. It is not that level of facility at all either in scale or in terms of the kind of use that's anticipated. It's very much envisioned that Phase 2 will be a community facility that will primarily support the activities in the community that right now are having to be housed outside. I think that rather than being wordier, I'll stop there because I think that covers the points that it seemed to me especially needed refine. Ron McConnell: Okay, thank you. Anything further from you, Kjris? Kjris Lund: No. Ron McConnell: Any further ... yes? Ms. Shippen? Natalie Shippen: I would never argue with an artist about color but I do think a two tone building. It's just an old depression thing and that's what it reflects is drab depression and a particular style and that's why I thought what it used to be would be a good color for the future. But I'm not going to make a major point of that, it's just my artistic expression. The music building retention really does worry me because I don't think that's driven by lack of space. You do have the south gym and you also retain the north gym. If you wanted to get music into another building, that's where it could go. I think that the fact that the music building is being removed is because it's driven by Phase 2 desires to have that big parking lot which means you have to remove the north gym. To me that's the whole thing, looks like you focus on Phase 2 and what follows from that is well, you mentioned it yourself I think, the performing arts community, the Public Facilities District had talked with the neighbors so your direction was accommodate the neighbors in effect and I think that is one of the things that has been wrong with this project is that there are people who have a valid special interest, they're members of the performing arts community and they're the neighbors and they're the ones who show up at the Public Facilities Board and the rest of us who don't have that tenacity of interest don't get there until we get before the Hearing Examiner. So I still think if you did nothing else, get that music Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 14 building out of there. It's just, I mean it's an atrocity and it's been there for years and years. I think the goal of this whole thing should be a first rate restoration of the historic site and a first rate theater and everything else I think is secondary. I don't know that the community has really had an opportunity to voice their priorities like we have here today. Thank you. Steve Bullock: Mr. Examiner? There is one gentleman from the public who came in right after you had first closed the public that I think would like to... Ron McConnell: Okay. Chris Guitton: My name is Chris Guitton. I'm the Executive Director for the Greater Chamber of Commerce. Ron McConnell: Spell you name sir. Chris Guitton: G U I T T O N. Ron McConnell: And how do you spell your first name? Chris Guitton: Chris, C H R I S. Ron McConnell: Okay, got it, okay. Chris Guitton: I am the Executive Director for the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce located in this building. Ron McConnell: In this building? Chris Guitton: Yes, first floor. 121 5th Avenue North. I'm here to read a statement on behalf of the Chamber Board and on behalf of the 320 business members we represent in the Edmonds area. The Edmonds Center for the Arts contributes to the rich quality of life that makes Edmonds so special to us. It makes Edmonds an even better destination for cultural tourism by attracting visitors who are interested in quality entertainment, interested in the arts and family activities. In the long term, the Edmonds Center for the Arts and our waterfront should be connected for cultural and artistic programs that will create a bridge between the two areas which is very attractive for us business people. The Edmonds Center for the Arts as presented in the master plan will also preserve a beautiful art deco building with a theater of 750 seats and the new parking structure included in the project at a later stage will also improve parking in the area. Last but not least, the Edmonds Center for the Arts is within walking distance of the heart of downtown Edmonds with many restaurants and retail businesses that will benefit from the programs there. So the economy potential for city and the business community is extremely positive. For all the above reasons, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce is a strong supporter of the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the Chamber recommends the master plan for the Edmonds Center for the Arts be approved as submitted. Thank you. Ron McConnell: Thank you. Could I have a copy of that? I'll make that... Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 15 Inaudible comment Ron McConnell: That's fine. Great, thank you. Your comments become Exhibit #7. All right, anything further from you? Anything further from the staff? Steve Bullock: Just one brief thing. There's a couple members of the public that made the point that they feel uncomfortable approving a Conditional Use Permit when final plans haven't been developed and specifically referring to the Phase 2 proposed improvements. While I understand some of their concern, at the same time whenever a Conditional Use Permit is required to do some certain things for a site, to get additional height or to gain additional lot coverage, if you require them to go through the exercise of developing a full plan before they actually even come in and apply for their Conditional Use Permit, you're exposing them to a great deal of risk and cost in having to go prepare all that stuff ahead of time and potentially get it shot down. This is an opportunity for them to, and this is fairly common for us, we quite often review Conditional Use Permit to set some of these limits ahead of time so that they know what their design parameters are before they go and spend all the money on their final decisions. In this case I think they have done a fairly good job in documenting how tall are the existing building out there and what is the lot coverage of the site and we're going to try to maintain that even with our new development. For those reasons, staff continues to support our recommendations regarding the Conditional Use Permit. Ron McConnell: Okay, is there anything I haven't heard. Yes? Inaudible comment Ron McConnell: I need you at the microphone if you want to speak. If you just have a question, that's okay. Betty Mueller: How long is this conditional use going to be? I heard ten years. Steve Bullock: Right, we recommended to the Examiner in talking with the applicants, we've been told they're looking at probably 4-7 years before they implement Phase 2. Even in our recommendation for approval, we're still conditioning it on still having to go through the design review process. They're still going to have to take their final design through the Architectural Design Board, through that whole public hearing process to get people to have an opportunity to review it and make their comments related to that. But knowing this is a long term thing, we're recommending to the Examiner that this Conditional Use Permit would be good for a period of ten years. If they chose not to act on it by applying for design review of their project, it would then expire at the end of ten years. Betty Mueller: What is it usually? Steve Bullock: Most Conditional Use Permits and granted when you apply for a master plan it's a little bit different. A straight Conditional Use Permit is eligible for one year plus two one-year extensions so for three years. The few other times that we've done Conditional Use Permits for Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 16 master plans we have done them for longer periods of time; it's a little bit more tailored to the specific situation in those cases. Betty Mueller: I think that's too long for that. Ron McConnell: Okay, thank you. Betty Mueller: There's still a lot of money to be raised yet. I think that's too long. Ron McConnell: All right. Betty Mueller: Thank you. Ron McConnell: Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'll close the hearing and I'll have a written report out within two weeks. I appreciate your coming and participating and anybody who has spoken today or signed the signup sheet will get a copy of my report in the mail. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Jeannie Dines, Transcriber Date Verbatim Transcript May 20, 2004 Hearing Examiner Page 17