STF20140006_180second_zoneconf.pdf'lie. 10"
May 21, 2014
CIT IIIi:° "mm N
1215 1h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 o Web: w\y edmondswa,,Lmy
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION
Liz Haynes
Massey Consulting Group
PO Box 12851
Oklahoma City, OIC 73157
Subject: Zoning Confirmation Letter 180 — 2ic1 Avenue South, Edmonds
Edmonds Landing Senior Living Facility
Dear Ms. Haynes,
This letter is in response to your inquiry received by the Planning Division on May 9, 2014
regarding the Edmonds Landing Senior Living Facility located at 180 — 2"d Avenue South in
Edmonds. Specific answers to each of your questions follow:
1. What is the zoning designation of the above-mentioned property
The current zoning of the property is BD4 — "Downtown Mixed Residential." Please
refer to Id?,dmow ds C'ownu11���mit)� J�R.:��c. n 1 1 Co(k,,, '�" t °p .16.4-_�� for information on the
allowable uses and applicable devilment regulations.
2. Is the current use of this property as a senior living center a permitted use?
The Edmonds Landing Senior Living Facility is a permitted primary use within the BD4
zone pursuant to ECDC 16.43.020 (convalescent homes or rest home). The subject
property was granted a conditional use permit in 1999 (file no. CU -1997-115). At the
time of the conditional use permit application, the site was located in the BC zone which
requires a conditional use permit for convalescent homes as a primary use. Therefore, a
conditional use permit for the assisted living facility was required. A copy of the
conditional use permit is attached. Now that the property is located in the BD4 zone,
convalescent homes are a permitted primary use without the need for a conditional use
permit.
3. Are there any special permits variances or planned unit development restrictions that
affect the site? If so, will you please provide copies?
The property does not have any variances and was not a plamled unit development. As
noted above, a conditional use permit was granted for the facility under file number
CU -1997-115 which is attached.
4. Are there any outstanding building or zoning code violations affecting this property
No code violations are showing in the City's permitting database.
5. Will you please provide a copy of the approved site plant (if readily accessible)?
Site plan is attached.
6. Are there any legal nonconforming issues affecting the property
No nonconforming issues have been identified at this time. The structure on the subject
property was constructed consistent with the requirements of the BC (Community
Business) zone. Since the zone has since changed to the new BD4 zone, it is possible
that there are now nonconforming issues on the site because the BD4 zone has different
site development standards than the BC zone. Since the site was approved and
constructed consistent with the BC zone, any discrepancies would be considered legally
nonconforming.
7. Will you please provide a copy of the certificate(s) of occupancy?
A copy of the certificate of occupancy is attached.
8. Are you aware of any current or future plans for roadway construction, easement,
condemnation, or other such activity that would affect the immediately_ surround roads
and/access to the property?
I am not aware of any construction activity, easements or planned condemnation that
would affect the property.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220, extension 1223
or dcenig�Oic..a..(t�'::�.��puulw�.iia�
Sincerely,
I ernen Lien
Senior Planner
Encl: CU -1997-115
Certificate of Occupancy
Site Plan
111:.St 1gg�"
CITY OF EDMONDS g BARBARA FAHEY
250 STH AVENUE NORTH + EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX {206) 771-0221 � � t i�B R
HEARING EXAMINER APR D 6 1999
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Julie Brockman / NW Care Management, Inc.
CASE NO.: CU 97-115 and ADB 97-116
LOCATION: 141 Dayton St.
DEFT.
APPLICATION: Consolidated Permit Application for a Conditional Use Permit for
an 83 -bed "Assisted Living Care Facility" and compliance with the
City's Architectural Design Board Design Criteria. (Exhibit A,
Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 6).
REVIEW PROCESS: Conditional Use Permit: Hearing Examiner conducts public
hearing and makes final decision. The Architectural Design Board
(ADB) has reviewed the proposal and has made a recommendation.
MAJOR ISSUES:
(1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Section 16.53 (Community Business - BC).
(2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: 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 application was opened at 10:55 a.m., April 1, 1999, in the City Hall, Edmonds,
Washington, and closed at 12:08 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 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Attachment 5
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115fADB 97- t 16
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record (Exhibit
A). He noted this is a consolidated review for both design and use. He also noted that
after the Architectural Design Board (ADB) review of the proposal, the applicant
redesigned the roof to provide modulation in accordance with the ADB motion.
From the Applicant:
Julie Brockman, Applicant, reviewed the proposal and discussed the assisted living
concept.
Charlie Wright, Johnson Architects, explained the revised plans and said they had
attempted to mitigate view impacts.
From the Community:
Shirley Faris, neighbor, asked questions about the ratio of employees to clients, hours of
construction, length of construction, noise, access to the trash area, and deliveries to the
site. She also expressed concerns about traffic and parking related to the proposal.
Sterling Jensen, neighbor, said he too was concerned about parking (including visitor
parking) and had a strong objection to the loss of Landau parking, which now uses the
site. He asked where the mechanical equipment would be placed.
Merrill Younkin, neighbor, took exception to the view analysis that was submitted with
the revised plans. He expressed concerns about loss of views from the El Capitan
condominiums and he expressed concerns about loss of parking in the area.
Response from the Applicant:
Julie Brockman responded that there will be maximum of 15 staff on site during any shift.
She also said after construction 24 parking spaces will be provided to Landau and that
Edmonds Financial will provide the other 12 spaces.
Jeff Saboda, Johnson Architects, discussed the parking issue and responded to questions
about the location and design of the trash enclosure. He said construction would take
place over a period of 12 to 14 months and noted that parking may be able to be staged on
site during construction. He said they plan to locate much of the mechanical equipment
in the garage.
Dale Watkins, Traffic Engineer, said the use will be a low traffic generator and only 14
trips are expected during the PM peak. He said he doesn't foresee any congestion
problem.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE:
Two letters, with attachments, were submitted by Karen Wiggins (Exhibits B & Q. She
expressed an issue about the parking easement her firm (which leases to Landau) has which
needs to be addressed prior to commencement of construction.
REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
The ADB met on March 17, 1999 to review the request and adopt a recommendation to
the Hearing Examiner (Exhibit A, Attachment 2). The following recommendation for
approval was made:
Boardmember Sullivan moved, seconded by boardmember Chalupnik, to recommend
approval of ADB -97-116 and CU-97-II5 to the Hearing Examiner, because the
Board finds that:
• The applicant has successfully met the requirements of ECDC section
20.10.070.A.6, that all sides of the building be adequately modulated;
• Although the proposal does not meet the requirements of ECDC section
20.10.070.A.6 and 20.10.070.C.3, in discussions with the applicant, it
appears that it could be modified to meet these requirements;
• It should be noted that the roof as proposed does not meet the roof
modulation requirements;
With these modifications the application is found to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies, it meets the
requirements of the zoning ordinance, and satisfies the criteria in the
Edmonds Community Development Code. Motion Carried
The Board's major concern was that the ridgeline of the roof that runs north and
south the length of the building be broken up to allow for view corridors of Puget
Sound to the west to be maintained for properties to the east of the proposed
building. In discussion between the applicant and the Board it appeared that the
applicant could make some changes to their proposal to address the Boards
concern. Drawings have been submitted which reflect the Board's request
(Exhibit A, Attachment 7). With this design, the Board would recommend
approval of the roof as a modulated design.
All other element of this proposal met with the approval of the Architectural
Design Board, including landscaping and materials.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page 4
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
a)— Facts:
(1) Land Use: The subject property contains a single warehouse type
structure.
2 Zoning: The subject property is located in a Community Business
(BC) zone (Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The site is relatively flat with a slight slope
from east to west side of the property.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
1 Fact: The property is surrounded on the north, east and west by the
BC zone and commercial and mixed-use development. The property
across the street to the south is the City wastewater treatment plant.
2 Fact: The ferry holding lines are adjacent to the property on the west.
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 November
13, 1997, based on a submitted traffic study. No comments or appeals were
received_
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (E CDC) 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 -97-170) was submitted and the
requirement for a study waived.
bJ Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical
Areas Ordinance.
2. Compliance with the Community Business (BC) Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to
development in the Community Business (BC) zone is set forth in
Chapter 16.50.020.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-115
Page 5
(a) Street Setback: 0 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 3 -in -12 pitched
roof or an approved modulated
design)
b Conclusion: The applicant has provided a proposal, which complies
with the Community Business (BC) zone standards.
3. Compliance with Requirements for a Cond'it'ional 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 4):
(a) The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it
is in Edmonds, and it is zoned Community Business.
(b) The project is consistent with the Zoning Code in that the BC
zone states as one of its purposes: "To allow for multiple
dwelling units(s) as a secondary use to the business uses.
(c) The project will not be detrimental in that the proposed use
does not put a great burden on surrounding properties or uses.
The typical resident will be 84 years old, not drive their own
car and have occasional visitors. The pleasing look of the
building will help ensure that it will not be detrimental to the
community.
(d)
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page 6
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
Downtown Activity Center with a Mixed Use Designation. The
application is in compliance with the following Comprehensive Plan
policies -
A. 1.
olicies:
A.I. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline
by positive mixed-use development as well as by convenient
pedestrian routes.
A.5. Support a mix of uses downtown without encroaching into
single family neighborhoods.
A.6_ Encourage opportunities for new development and
redevelopment, which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small
town pedestrian oriented.character. Existing height limits are
an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect.
A.7. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal
services within the downtown, especially to accommodate
needs of senior citizens.
A.11. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and
inadequately landscaped paved areas.
(2) The proposal will comply with all aspects of the Community 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 in a mixed
use area with its potential access to transit. If approved with
conditions addressing parking during construction and visitor parking
after construction, the use should not be significantly detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare, or to nearby private property or
improvements.
(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. No
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page 7
department has any concerns that will significantly change this
proposal.
b) Conclusion: No technical problems have been identified_
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC)
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a)- Fact:
(1) The Comprehensive Pian identifies the site as part of the Downtown
Activity Center with a Mixed Use Designation. The application is in
compliance with the following'Comprehensive Plan policies:
A. 1. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline
by positive mixed-use development as well as by convenient
pedestrian routes.
A.5. Support a mix of uses downtown without encro&ching into
single family neighborhoods.
A.6. Encourage opportunities for new development and
redevelopment, which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small
town pedestrian oriented character. Existing height limits are
an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect.
A.7. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal
services within the downtown, especially to accommodate
needs of senior citizens.
A.I1. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and
inadequately landscaped paved areas.
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 and
Architectural Design to allow and assisted care facility to be constructed 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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page S
(3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction
parking plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The parking plan shall
address:
(a) How and where alternate parking for the 36 spaces now allocated to Wiggins
Properties will be provided, and
(b) How and where parking for construction workers will be provided_
(4) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a visitor parking
plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The plan shall address how visitor
parking can be readily provided during visiting hours at the facility.
(5) The permit shall run with the land and be transferable.
Entered this 5"' day of April, 1999, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
fz MX�,
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
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
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page 9
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.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report
B. Letter from Karen Wiggens, dated 3126/99
C. Letter from Karen Wiggens, dated 3/29199
D. Modified site plans
PARTIES of RECORD:
Thomas Johnston
Northwest Care Management
385 Ericksen Ave., Suite 123
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Julie Brockman
NW Care Management
285 Ericksen Avenue, Suite 123
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Shirley Faris
200 James St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Charlie Wright
385 Ericksen Ave., Suite 123
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Sterling Jensen
200 James St. #101
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jeff Saboda
375 Ericksen Ave., Suite 222
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Merrill Younkin
200 Jaynes St. #104
Edmonds, WA 98020
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116
Page 10
Dale Watkins
Lovell Sauerland
1940033 rd Ave. W
Lynwood, WA 98036
Karen Wiggins
Wiggens Propeties, LLC
1523 rd Ave. South, Suite 102A
Edmonds, WA 98020
OTHER PARTIES REQUESTING A COPY OF THE DECISION:
Roger Hertrich
1020 Puget Dr.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mark Kuhlman
T4 Engineering
5823 NE Minder
Poulsbo, WA 98370
�I o
O
LL
111 W
h �
IL
OT
F-
h z
za
lu
ul 0
oc z
Q:3
u [i
of 0
= U.
1--o
hO r
O
i/II N
9
m
DAYTON STREET
I iv
. ... - ------------- ---- ----
------ ------- -11 ------ -
- - - - - - ------------ --- -------------- -- - - - - .............
- --- — - - ----- ---- -
EXISTING �N� -WACRE-13 �nIVE
- ----------- - -- - ------------------ - ---- - ------
h
Alll.lTll UllNG COMMUNITY
MI Mttdt BIM
x ,
7-
0 z
A
m Tx
9
z C)
m �3
THE JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES INC.
ARCHITECTS �A.T.A- I�INOTERIIOR �DESIGNERS
�,Rc T
37 EN�$EN AVEWE WITE 222
BAMMM lg,N. WAM�TON
I