CITY OF BLAINE PLANNING COMMISSION

15 downloads 247 Views 11MB Size Report
Oct 27, 2017 - Blaine Food Bank Expansion – Conditional Use. • Dakota Creek Apartments – Shoreline Substantial. De
PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA City Hall Council Chambers, 435 Martin Street, Suite 4000 Thursday, November 9, 2017 7:00 P.M. Planning Commissioners Chair J Calvin Armerding Vice-Chair Sue Sturgill

1.

CALL TO ORDER

2.

ROLL CALL

3.

AUDIENCE COMMENTS

Richard May

(regarding items not on the agenda)

John LeBrun

4. Kevin Owens Steve Hrutfiord

PUBLIC HEARING 

Blaine Food Bank Expansion – Conditional Use



Dakota Creek Apartments – Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use and Variance

Larry Wonnacott

For information regarding this Agenda, please call: (360-332-8311)

5.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

All proceedings are recorded.

6.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

7.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES



 8.

Tesoro Conditional Sign Permit and Variance

October 26, 2017

ADJOURNMENT

www.cityofblaine.com

STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:

November 9, 2017 – 7:00pm

SUBJECT:

Blaine Food Bank Addition

PROPONENT:

George Keizer – Blaine Food Bank

APPLICATION TYPE(S):

Conditional Use Permit

FILE NUMBER(S):

CUP-7-17

REQUEST:

Proposal to install an exterior walk-in cooler at the existing facility.

PROJECT LOCATION:

500 C Street, Blaine, WA 98230

SUBMITTED BY:

Community Development Services

AGENDA LOCATION:

x 

Public Hearing

 Unfinished Business 

New Business

ATTACHMENTS: A. Application B. Notice of Application and Public Hearing C. Affidavit of Posting D. Appliance Info NOTE: The materials that constitute the official record are on file with the Community Development Services Department and may be reviewed upon request. SUMMARY On October 13, 2017, the Blaine Food Bank submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to add a 240 square foot freestanding walk-in cooler on the east side of the property. The Blaine Food Bank is located at 500 C Street within the Residential Medium Density zoning district. The cooler will be placed in-between the main building on site and St. Martin’s clothing bank container. See Attachment A for the proposed site plan. Since establishment of the Food Bank in 1994, several additions and modifications have occurred. Although the CUP is being requested for the cooler addition alone, staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider an approval encompassing the facility as a whole. This includes the existing St. Martin’s Storage Container Clothing Bank and two storage containers, both additions installed without submittal of a conditional use permit. This is being recommended by staff in order to avoid having multiple CUPs on file for the Blaine Food Bank, and to legally permit the previous additions to the site. See figure one for site configuration.

CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 1 of 7

Previous addition

Approximate property boundaries

Location of proposed cooler St. Martin’s Clothing Bank

Storage Containers

Main Facility

Figure 1 HISTORY Land Ownership: On December 13, 1993, the City Council approved a request to vacate the east 40 feet of the 5th Street right-of-way between B and C Street, to Northwood Alliance Church. The west 40 feet of the right-of-way had been previously vacated to Stafholt Good Samaritan Society. Both the Northwood Alliance Church and Stafholt Good Samaritan Society agreed to deed the south half of the newly acquired right-of-way, below the platted undeveloped alley, for the creation of the Blaine Food Bank. Upon examination of the legal description for the property within the quit claim deeds associated with Blaine Food Bank, and legal description through Whatcom County, the City believes the facility has been partially established on two pieces of property not owned by the Blaine Food Bank. In addition, the Whatcom County legal description appears to be incorrect. Staff discovered the legal description on record with the Whatcom County Assessor, and quit claim deeds, do not account for the portion of right-of-way previously thought to be dedicated to the food bank by the Stafholt Good Samaritan Society. This presents an issue for approval of the entire Food Bank facility because the portion of land previously thought to have been dedicated to the Food Bank appears to not be in their ownership. This is despite development and long established use by the Food Bank. The quit claim deeds state the Blaine Food Bank, in addition to the vacated right-of-way, own the west 10 feet of Lot 32 of block 7 of the City of Blaine Plat. However, according to Whatcom County Assessor’s website, it says the food bank owns the west 32 feet of the lot in question. This is not possible because the lot is only 25 feet in width. This is most likely a clerical error, but does pose a problem for the current proposal. See Figure 1 for approximate property boundaries.

CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 2 of 7

As currently proposed, the cooler would encroach about two feet into the west neighboring property owned by Northwood Alliance Church. Staff is recommending the Commission draft a condition of approval to ensure the land being used by the food bank is either owned by the food bank, or a written agreement is established between the Blaine Food Bank and applicable property owners for use of land not under their ownership. This would result in full approval of the facility. See recommended condition number four below. Conditional Use Permit In 1994, the Blaine Food Bank obtained a CUP to develop a 1,500 square foot commercial space and 300 square foot attached covered front porch at 500 C Street. Within Blaine Municipal Code section 17.92.080, developments approved through a conditional use permit may be granted a time one administrative approval to expand the structure. The current code stipulates any addition is required to be less than 10 percent of the total floor area originally approved. The Food Bank was granted an administrative approval for an addition to the original structure in 1998. The addition is located on the north side of the building.

Nonconforming Structures The 1998 addition appears to be a nonconforming structure because it is too close to the rear property line. The required rear setback for the property is 20 feet, and the addition appears to be within two to three feet of the rear property line. Community Development Services does not have records that indicate why the encroachment was permitted without a variance or property line adjustment. The City does not have record of any permits associated with the two storage containers on the west side of the property. Therefore we are unable to determine if these are nonconforming structures without further information. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission require the structures to obtain retroactive building permits to bring them into compliance, and in order to approve the facility as a whole. Blaine Municipal Code section 17.94.060 governs nonconforming structures and states, “No such structure may be expanded or enlarged until it has been brought into conformity.” The current proposal does not propose any modifications to the non-conforming structure. The walk-in cooler is a standalone structure not connected to the addition in any way. Therefore, approval of the current proposal is not contingent on bringing the addition into conformity. It should be noted that although the Commission can approve the full scope of the “food bank” use on the property, that action does not address the nonconforming addition. In the future the Food Bank will need to resolve the issue of the encroachment. This will most likely involve a variance request, boundary line adjustment, or demolition of all or part of the addition. Nonconforming Uses In 2013 the food bank obtained a building permit for the addition of a 320 square foot renovated storage container for use by the St. Martin’s clothing bank. This is located on the east side of the property, known to be on property owned by the Blaine Food Bank. On the west side of the property, there are two storage containers used for storing of dry and nonperishable items. The City does not have a permit record for addition of the containers, and it is unknown if they are on property owned by the food bank. CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 3 of 7

A CUP should have been obtained prior to addition of the clothing bank and storage containers. However, these uses have been established on the property for a number of years and do not appear to have resulted in a negative impact to the surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the clothing bank and addition of the storage containers as part of this CUP application. Staff has drafted Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval to ensure the entire facility is located on property either owned by the food bank or approved for use by the food bank. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION The Blaine Municipal Code (BMC) grants the Commission the ability to authorize Conditional Use permits pursuant to section 17.02.050.D. Conditional Use permits are Type II-PC permits. The public notice requirements defined in BMC 17.06.100 and 17.06.110 have been met. The proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800-6. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the approval criteria found within BMC17.92.050. The following are the applicable approval criteria and staff’s comments in boxed blue font. 1. Will be harmonious and in accordance with the general and specific objectives of the City of Blaine comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. Upon examination of the Blaine Comprehensive Plan, staff found only one goal and one policy which directly relates to the expansion of the Food Bank. Land Use Goal 10: Establish policies that support an aging population and encourage older

residents to age in place without leaving Blaine. Policy 10.1: Accommodate services and facilities needed by aging residents within Blaine

in locations that are accessible by older residents. Staff Comments: The Blaine Food Bank and St. Martin Clothing Bank provide essential services to the public at either low or no cost. Many senior citizens are on a limited income base, and are often times restricted in mobility due to the loss of driver’s license or health. This means that many senior citizens rely on services like the Blaine Food Bank for access to essential goods. Therefore access to amenities, like those offered at the Blaine Food Bank, can be essential for allowing citizens to age in place. The installation of the walk-in cooler will allow for storage of more food items for the public. Therefore staff believes the proposal is supported by Land Use Goal 10 and Policy Number 10.1. 2. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. Staff Comments: The Blaine Food Bank is an existing facility with a 1,696 square foot main building, 320 square foot converted storage container for use by St. Martin’s Clothing Bank, and two storage CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 4 of 7

containers. The walk-in cooler is proposed for placement in-between the main building and clothing bank container. The cooler directly benefits the amount of food which can be stored by the Blaine Food Bank and is of the same nature as the current uses on the property. The surrounding area is developed with a variety of uses. The property directly to the north and east is owned by Northwood Alliance Church, and is partially developed with a parking lot. The property to the east is owned by the Stafholt Good Samarian Society and has been developed as a rehabilitation, respite, and memory care facility. To the south are single-family residences. Although the uses around the facility are different, the Blaine Food Bank is unique in that the facility is of use and benefit to all of the surrounding uses. Therefore staff believes the facility as a whole is harmonious with the surrounding area. The addition of the walk-in cooler to the existing facility is not significant enough to change the essential character of the area. 3. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. Staff Comments: The Food Bank will function in the same manner as it is now. Staff does not believe addition of the cooler will cause a substantial change in the overall operations, nor result in significantly more traffic. The Food Bank has permission to use the next door parking lot which can accommodate the current parking needs and much more. 4. Will be serviced adequately by essential public facilities such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewers, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services. Staff Comments: The area is serviced by all essential public facilities necessary for the proposal. 5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff Comments: It is staff’s opinion that the addition of the walk-in cooler and expanded capacity at the Food Bank will not result in additional requirements at public cost. It may result in a benefit to the economic welfare of the community. The proposal is a small addition to the existing facility which provides services for the entire community. It is of note that during the holiday’s many families and individuals struggle to provide food and goods due to increased household costs. While the cooler will be of benefit year round and allow for storage of more perishable items, the Blaine Food Bank is planning on installing the cooler right away in order to provide more Thanksgiving dinners. 6.

Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reasons of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.

CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 5 of 7

Staff Comments: The addition of the cooler will not result in additional traffic, smoke, fumes, glare or odor to the general area. The appliance is a self-contained structure which has an exterior cooling unit to be placed on the north side of the structure. The noise associated with the cooling unit is emitted at 73 dBA. The property is within a residential area, which is designated as a “Class A” Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement (EDNA) site by the State. Under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-60, noise from equipment on Class A EDNA properties have a maximum noise limit of 55 dBA during daytime hours, 7am – 10pm, and must be reduced to a maximum of 45 dBA from 10pm – 7am. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission create a Condition of Approval for the cooling unit to be enclosed within a six foot tall cedar fence that is two planks thick, and alternate in pattern to reduce the emission of noise. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets. Staff Comments: This condition does not apply based on existing driveways and access facilities. 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Staff Comments: The walk-in cooler is being placed within the boundaries of the existing facility between two existing structures. No natural, scenic or historic features are present on the property or directly around the area of the facility. Therefore staff does not believe the proposal will result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. PUBLIC COMMENT As of November 3, 2017 the City has received no public comments on the proposal. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Conditional Use application was properly filed, noticed, and processed in accordance with the requirements of the Blaine Municipal Code. 2. The project is not subject to SEPA review under WAC 197-11-800-6. 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 9, 2017 to gather input from the public and then considered the entire application record before making a final decision. 4. The Blaine Food Bank is comprised of multiple amenities, some of which have been added to the site without obtaining a new conditional use permit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission considered the impacts of the proposal and determined the proposal will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 2. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the Conditional Use permit.

CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 6 of 7

3. All of the conditional use approval criteria defined in Blaine Municipal Code section 17.92.050 have been met. 4. The Commission has determined that, subject to conditions, the use of the original facility, addition, St. Martin’s clothing bank, two storage containers, and proposed walk-in cooler may all be permitted though this approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use permit application CUP-7-17 based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval contained within the staff report. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This Conditional Use approval will expire after one year from the date of action by the Planning Commission, if the following conditions of approval have not been completed. The Conditional Use Permit may only be extended pursuant to the BMC. 2. Property owner or agent of Blaine Food Bank will obtain a City of Blaine Building Permit prior to installation of the walk-in cooler. 3. The cooling unit will be enclosed within a six foot tall cedar fence that is two planks thick, and alternate in pattern to reduce the emission of noise. Plans for the fence are to be included in the submission of the building permit. 4. The Blaine Food Bank will provide proof to the City of Blaine, in the form of a deed or title report, that all uses and facilities are established on property owned by the food bank. If this is not the case, the Blaine Food Bank will provide the City proof of permission for use of property not under their ownership in the form of a signed agreement by applicable parties. 5. If Condition Number Three is not met, this Conditional Use Permit shall only apply to the facilities on the property owned, leased, or controlled by formal agreement, by the Blaine Food Bank. 6. The Blaine Food Bank, or other applicable party, will apply for retroactive building permits for addition of the two storage containers on the property and complete any necessary work to bring containers into compliance with current standards.

Submitted by: Signed

Madeline Ottley, Community Planner 1

CUP-7-17 Food Bank Addition

Page 7 of 7

Date: November 3, 2017

Notice of Application Notice of Public Hearing November 9, 2017 Posted October 27, 2017

City of Blaine CDS

Applicant

Project Name File Number(s)

 435 Martin St. – Ste 3000



Blaine, Washington 98230

Blaine Food Bank George Keizer 2487 Loomis Trail Road Blaine, WA 98240 Blaine Food Bank Addition CUP-7-17

Proposal

Notice is hereby given that on October 13, 2017 the Community Development Services Department received an application for a Conditional Use Permit to install an exterior walk-in cooler at the existing facility.

Location

500 C Street, Blaine, WA 98230

Public Hearing

Required Permits Environmental Review Required Studies Public Comments

Staff Contact

The Public Hearing has been scheduled for 7:00pm Thursday, November 9, 2017 in the City Council chambers located at 435 Martin Street, Suite 4000. Conditional Use Permit The proposal is NOT subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C) and the City of Blaine SEPA Guidelines (Chapter 17.80 BMC). An environmental checklist is not required. No additional studies have been requested at this time. Comments may be submitted to assist the Community Development Director in compiling information and formulating a recommendation to the decision makers. Written comments for this formal comment period must be submitted by 4:30 p.m., Thursday, November 9, 2017. Madeline Ottley, Community Planner 1, City of Blaine, 435 Martin St. Suite 3000, Blaine, Washington, 98230. Phone (360) 543-9837, e-mail: [email protected]

Final Decision

A Final Decision on the proposal is made by the City of Blaine Planning Commission. A Notice of Final Decision will be sent to the Parties of Record (those who have commented on the project.)

Appeal Procedure

The Final Decision is appealable pursuant to 17.06.180 of Blaine Municipal Code.

Page 1 of 1

STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:

November 9, 2017 at 7:00 P.M.

SUBJECT:

Dakota Creek Apartments

PROPONENT:

Dakota Creek LLC, Owner 8080 E. Gelding Dr. #109 Scottsdale, AZ 85260

APPLICATION TYPE(S):

Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use, Site Plan Review and Critical Areas Review.

FILE NUMBER(S):

SMP-2-17, CUP-1-17, SPR-1-17 & CAR-1-17

REQUEST:

To approve a Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use applications requesting entitlements to construct 41 multifamily residences.

PROJECT LOCATION:

The property is located at the SW corner of the intersection of Bell Road and Washington Avenue. Section 7, Township 40 North, and Range 1 East of the W.M. Blaine, Washington.

SUBMITTED BY:

Community Development Services Department

Neil Latta, Project Engineer Latta Engineering, PLLC 5970 Birch Point Road Blaine, WA 98230

AGENDA LOCATION: 

Public Hearing

 Unfinished Business 

New Business

ATTACHMENTS: A. Land Use Decision Worksheet B. Proposed Site Plan C. Application Materials D. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance

NOTE: The materials that constitute the official record are on file with the Community Development Services Department and may be reviewed upon request. Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 1 of 21

SUMMARY Project Description The Dakota Creek Apartments project is a multifamily development proposal consisting of 41 units in two buildings located on approximately 2.2 acres. Each building will be 3 to 4 stories high depending on the final approved height limit. On-site parking will be provided for 71 vehicles. Public access along the shoreline will be created. Site Description The property is partially cleared with a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees above the banks of Dakota Creek. The shoreline bluff is heavily vegetated with shrubs and brush. A stand of large coniferous trees exist at the south east corner of the site and within the public right-of-way. There are two large fir trees in about the middle of the property along the shoreline. A few moderately large coniferous trees grow along western property boundary. The rest of the site has been mowed recently and is mostly a level field. Surrounding Uses The neighborhood is a mix of existing land uses.    

To the north and directly across the street on Washington Avenue is the Pacific Building Center. Further north in the same district are multifamily apartments on Runge Avenue; To the east across Bell Road is Steamers Espresso and larger vacant property that runs from Dakota Creek to Burlington Northern Railway; To the south is Dakota Creek, which also is the City limit boundary. The Bell Road Bridge crosses Dakota Creek and heads south into the county and Urban Growth Area. To the west is a vacant property and then one single family home on Dakota Creek. Further west down Runge Avenue are approximately a dozen single family homes and a few undeveloped lots.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 2 of 21

Neighborhood Zoning The property is located in the Planned Commercial District. The Residential Low Density Zoning District abuts the western boundary of the property and extends over the rest of the Montfort Park neighborhood to the west of the project. The Planned Commercial District extends to the north and east of the project all the way to the Burlington Northern Railway. Development Applications There are three land use applications being considered by the Planning Commission. 1. A Shoreline Substantial Development is required because the project is directly on Dakota Creek. 2. A variance application has been requested to deviate from Highway Commercial zoning standards. The variance requests a 5-foot increase in the height limit to 40 feet and a 15-foot reduction in the 20-foot parking setback. The Highway Commercial zoning requires a 35-foot height limit, which is adequate for commercial development but challenging for multistory residential development on property with environmental constraints. 3. A Conditional Use is required because the project is less than five acres, as required in the Planned Commercial District. A Critical Area Assessment prepared by Miller Environmental Services and a Cultural Resource Study provided by Caldera Archaeology has been reviewed by the Critical Areas Administrator. The project has undergone SEPA review and a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance has been issued by the SEPA Official. It should be noted that the applicant originally submitted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application and the project consisted of 43 residential units, but they withdrew the PUD application per their May 3, 2017 letter and reduced the total residential unit count to 41 units. Right-of-Way Dedication A Street right-of-way dedication is being recommended by city staff. Washington Avenue is currently only 30 feet wide, which does not meet the City’s standard for a public right-of-way. A review of the property history shows the City Council approved a 40-foot vacation of Washington Avenue right-of-way to private property on June 5, 1933. The applicant has worked with the City Public Works Department to negotiate a recommended 15-foot right-of-way dedication of private property along Washington Avenue which would bring the final rightof-way width to 45 feet. Fifteen feet of private property would be converted back to a right-of-way with this development. Development Process and Timelines The applicant has elected to submit a Site Plan Review application and Critical Areas Review application. Once the Planning Commission takes action on the Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use and Variance applications, staff will issue a Site Plan Review response and Final Critical Areas Review Determination. Construction may commence with the issuance of a building permit and land disturbance permit. If the Commission approves the applications, the owner will have up to one year to begin construction pursuant to the conditional use and variance timeline standards. The Planning Commission can issue a onetime 6-month extension to the Variance, providing a maximum of 18 months to obtain permits to begin construction.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 3 of 21

PROCEDURAL INFORMATION The Community Development Services Department determined the Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use applications complete on March 6, 2017. The Variance application was determined completed on November 3, 2017. Blaine Municipal Code Section 2.56.050 (D) and 17.02.050(D) states that the Planning Commission is the final review authority for Shoreline Substantial Development, Conditional Use and Variance applications. The State Environmental Review Policy (SEPA) checklist was submitted by the applicant and then processed by the SEPA Official. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued October 20, 2017. Please see Attachment B. The SEPA comment period closes November 9, 2017 at 4:30pm. As of the drafting of this report no public comments have been received. The applicable sections of the Blaine Municipal Code are as follows:  BMC 17.44 Planned Commercial  BMC 17.06.170 Variances  BMC 17.92 Conditional Use  Shoreline Management Master Program (SMP) The Planning Commission should review the applicable sections of the Blaine Municipal Code and the regulations and policies for residential development contained in the SMP. The Commission can approve, approve with conditions, or deny the applications. The Commission can also approve variations of the requested applications. During their review, the Commission may request the applicant modify the proposal or request additional information to facilitate further decision making. ANALYSIS Staff has provided a Land Use Decision Worksheet to assist the Commission in formulating a decision on major land use topics raised by this report. Please see Attachment 1. The project was reviewed by the City’s Technical Review Committee (TRC) on March 23, 2017. During the TRC meeting City staff and the applicant’s team discussed a wide range of issues, including public access along the shoreline, street improvements, right-of-way width, pedestrian connectivity to the trail system in the vicinity, storm water and utilities. In summary, the TRC meeting was a comprehensive review of the proposed project and the applicant was responsive to staff’s comments and amended the proposed plans. The following analysis is based on the most recent drawing dated June 15, 2017. BMC 17.44 Planned Commercial The Planned Commercial (PC) District is intended for large commercial projects that occupy a minimum of five acres. It’s a somewhat atypical zoning district given the two geographic locations are near the edge of the developed City. The PC District requires that large commercial projects be processed as a Planned Unit Development permit, but then states that projects that are less than five acres may be processed as a Conditional Use application. In addition, under the permitted use section (17.44.020), multifamily Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 4 of 21

dwellings less than 18 units per acre are an outright permitted use. If the Dakota Creek Apartments project was being processed as a PUD, the Planned Commercial District states that setbacks, land coverage and height limits would be established by the review authority. Staff and the applicant collaborated to develop a site plan that could be supported by staff and the property owner and also addressed environmental standards associated with the presence of Dakota Creek. However, when the PUD application was withdrawn, the application of setbacks, land coverage and height limits changed. The Planned Commercial District states that Conditional Uses shall conform to the Highway Commercial District standards. The applicable Highway Commercial subzone (A) standards are as follows: Front yard setback Side & rear yard setback Maximum Building Height Lot Coverage Parking setback from ROW

20 feet 10 feet 35 feet 100-percent 20 feet

The Dakota Creek Apartment project meets the Highway Commercial subzone (A) standards with the exception of the Maximum Building Height and Parking Setback from the right-of-way. Parking In the Planned Commercial District the parking requirement is determined by the review authority. BMC 17.124.117(B) states “Off-street parking spaces available for conditional uses and existing uses not part of a planned commercial development shall be determined by the review authority with consideration of this chapter.” When considering the Parking and Loading Chapter of the BMC, typically two parking stalls are required for each residential unit. There are exceptions for the Central Business District for one bedroom and studio units and senior housing (55 and over). The applicant has been encouraged to provide additional justification to support their request to vary from the typical parking standard. Pursuant to the flexible parking standards in the PC District, the applicant is proposing 1.5 stalls per one bedroom unit and 2 stalls per two bedroom unit for a total of 74 stalls. Of the 41 residential units, 16 are intended to be one bedroom units and 25 are intended to be two bedrooms. The average parking supply per unit works out to be 1.80 parking stalls per unit. This is summarized per the following table. Type of Unit One Bedroom Two Bedroom Total

Number of Units 16 25 41

Stalls per Unit 1.5 2.0 1.80

Parking Supply 24 50 74

The Planning Commission should consider the request to reduce the typical parking supply from 2 stalls per unit to 1.80 stalls per residential unit. The Commission should consider if the smaller unit size warrants a reduction in parking. If the Commission wished to require 2 parking stalls for each unit, the applicant would need to revise the site plan to accommodate 7 additional parking stalls, or reduce the number of housing units. Approximately 36-percent of the total units are intended to be one bedroom units. Currently, there is not a restriction or condition of approval that limits the number of bedrooms in the residential units. Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 5 of 21

The Commission may want to consider establishing a Condition of Approval that requires a certain number of the residential units to be one bedroom units. Such a condition could read as follows: 

Condition of Approval X – The project shall be designed to include a minimum of 14-one bedroom residential units.

Or if the Commission wants to require 2 parking stalls per unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms, a condition of approval may look like this: 

Condition of Approval X – The project site plan shall be redesigned to accommodate 2 parking stalls per residential unit.

Density Permitted density in the Planned Commercial District is defined as 18 units per acre and then is “clarified” by stating 6,000 square feet of property is required for the first unit and 2,200 square feet of property is required for each additional unit. Under the permitted uses section of the PC District the BMC reads: Multiple-family dwellings up to 18 units per acre. (First unit at 6,000 each, additional at 2,200 square feet.) Unfortunately this calculation method (6,000 plus 2,200 for each additional) does not equate to 18 units per acre. For larger properties, this calculation method approaches 19.8 units per acre. To complicate the situation, the BMC does not specifically state if the maximum allowed density is determined before or after a dedication of right-of-way. As mentioned earlier, City staff is requiring a right-of-way dedication on Washington Avenue of 15 feet, which equates to 6,184 square feet of property being converted to public right-of-way. The Commission should consider the allowed density according to the provided standards of the Planned Commercial District. Staff believes the Commission could theoretically approve any project unit count between 41 units and 36, based on appropriate findings and conclusions. Typically density is calculated using the original parcel size before right-of-way dedication. This avoids punishing the owner for dedication of land for public purposes. This would result in one of the following two calculations: 94,431 square feet is the original parcel size -6,000 square feet for first unit for the first unit = 88,431 remaining 88,431 square feet divided by 2,200 for each additional unit = 40.2 units, or 40 units rounded down. Maximum density using this method is 41 units Or; 94,431 square feet is the original parcel size 94,431 divided by 43,560 (the square feet in an acre) = 2.17 acres. 2.17 acres x 18 units per acre = 39.02 or 39 units. Maximum density using this method is 39 units

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 6 of 21

However, the Commission could also determine that density should be determined using the final adjusted property size and subtract the dedicated right-of-way from the residential unit calculation. The adjusted parcel size is then 88,247 square feet which accounts for the right-of-way dedication on Washington Avenue. This would result in either 38 units or 36 units for the total project, depending on if incremental methodology approach was used on the flat 18 units per acre methodology was used. If the Commission wished to pursue this option, conclusions of law should indicate a project needs to be evaluated based on the final property dimensions after dedication. Staff believes that the intent of the code is to cap the overall density at 18 units per acre and the incremental methodology is intended to limit multifamily development on smaller parcels. For example, an 8,000 parcel cannot be developed with multiple units because 8,200 square feet would be required for two units (6,000 plus 2,200 for the additional unit). The following table is provided for the Commission’s consideration: Method of calculating density in the Planned Commercial District

Units

Original Parcel size using 6,000 sq. ft. for first unit & 2,200 for each additional

41

Original Parcel size using 18 units per acre

39

Adjusted Parcel size using 6,000 sq. for first unit & 2,200 for each additional

38

Adjusted Parcel size using 18 units per acre

36

The Commission should consider which density methodology should be applied in the Planned Commercial District and staff will utilize this method for future projects. Appropriate findings of fact and conditions of approval would need to be established to capture the Commission’s determination, regardless of which option is chosen. Shoreline Substantial Development Application The Shoreline Management Master Program for the City of Blaine (SMP) is adopted by reference in BMC 17.81, which was last updated by the City in 1996. The Shoreline Management Master Program (1996) (SMP) designates the Planning Commission as the final authority for granting substantial development permits. The SMP states that no substantial development shall be undertaken in the Shoreline area without first obtaining a Substantial Development Permit from the City. The Planning Commission should review the relevant goals, policies and regulations of the Shoreline Management Master Program and if the application is consistent with these standards, approve the application. The Commission can also conditionally approve the application to ensure consistency with the standards or deny the application if the application cannot be determined consistent with the City’s Shoreline Management Master Program. The criteria for approval in the SMP are not itemized, but are stated as being “consistent with the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Blaine Master Program.” (p.39) The SMP has several layers of regulations and guidelines.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 7 of 21

The SMP includes eight general elements with specific goals (section 2.2). The most applicable use elements and goals read as follows: Shoreline Use Element An element which considers the proposed distribution, location and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of the land. Goal: Assure that shoreline development is limited to those activities having a minimal adverse effect on the shoreline development. Conservation Element An element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not limited to scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas for fisheries and wildlife. Goal: Assure protection of those non-renewable resources within the confines of the City of Blaine and make provisions for the use of the renewable resources.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 8 of 21

Staff comments: These elements are addressed in the Dakota Creek Apartments project by maintaining a 90-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and providing public access along the top of the bank above Dakota Creek. Use Regulations by Environment The SMP establishes use regulations by “environment.” There are four upland Environments and one Environment below the Ordinary High Water Mark called the Aquatic Environment. The upland property is within the Urban Environment, which is described as “an area of high-intensity land use including residential, commercial and industrial development”. There is no development proposed below the ordinary high water mark within the Aquatic Environment. Staff comments: Staff recommends that the proposed project is generally consistent with the Urban Environment Designation. The SMP has four General Use Regulations that apply to all environments. The two applicable General Use Regulations are as follows: General Use Regulation 4.1 states: New developments in the shoreline area shall be required to provide landscaping where such landscaping would enhance scenic qualities of the site or mitigate the adverse visual impacts caused by the development. Staff comments: Staff recommends that a shoreline restoration and management plan be required as a condition of project approval. General Use Regulation 4.4 states: Setbacks from the shoreline may be extended beyond the minimum distances defined with the SMP upon a determination by the Administrator that conditions at the development site warrant additional setback. Conditions which could warrant additional setback requirement are: eroding shoreline, steep slope, unstable soils. Staff comments: The Shoreline Administrator has reviewed the shoreline and slope stability and does not recommend additional setbacks. No evidence of an eroding shoreline or unstable soils was observed. The presences of mature vegetation, including a few old, mature trees are indicators of slope stability. A condition of approval is recommended that a geotechnical analysis be performed and submitted to the City for review with a land disturbance permit to ensure the safety of future structures and site improvements. Geotest, a geotechnical firm from Bellingham, reviewed the Dakota Creek shoreline directly to the east as part of the Bell Road PUD project. An analysis of the potential erosional hazard, which included soil investigation, was conducted and submitted to the City in May of 2010. The Geotest report concluded that there is no immediate hazard and the nearby slope is relatively stable.

Policies and Use Regulations The SMP provides specific policies and use regulations for different types of development as listed in the master program. The project proposal qualifies as residential development and staff provides the following comments on the applicable policies and regulations. Policy 1) Developers will be encouraged to use shoreline areas as open space. Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 9 of 21

Staff comments: The project proposes a 90-foot setback which is consistent with the Use Regulations for Residential Development and provides public access and open space along the entire shoreline. The Commission should discuss the amount of open space vs. private development that is occurring within the shoreline area to ensure compatibility with this policy. Policy 2) Developers should submit plans for the control of soil erosion during construction. Staff comments: Erosion control plans are required as part of a land disturbance permit or building permit. Staff is also recommending a shoreline restoration plan to address treatment of the shoreline. Policies 3, 4 and 5 are not applicable. Policy 6) Residential developments proposed for the shoreline area should be developed as planned unit developments. Staff comments: This policy statement is discretionary1 as the term “should” is not a mandatory requirement. The requirement for a Planned Unit Development application should be considered by the Planning Commission, but staff is recommending that a PUD application not be required. A PUD application was submitted by the applicant, but was later withdrawn because the applicant chose not to complete the PUD submittal requirements. For example, a PUD requires the development of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) and the applicant intends to develop the project as an apartment complex (CC&Rs would not typically be utilized for a single owner). In addition, a PUD allows for density bonuses to increase the number of units and an increase in building height and City staff advised the applicant these increases will be challenging to justify and accommodate on the approximate 2 acre property. Consequently the applicant withdrew the PUD application. Use Regulation 1) Setbacks from ordinary high water mark shall be 45 feet for single-family dwellings and 90 feet for multi-family dwellings. Staff comments: The project complies with the 90-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. Use Regulation 2 is not applicable. Use Regulation 3) Provisions for public access along the shoreline should be made by the developer; it shall be provided for all multiple-family dwellings. Staff comments: The project does provide public access along the shoreline but the Commission may wish to consider requiring the property from the Top of Bank waterward be preserved in an open space tract with defined public access. While somewhat unsuitable to construct physical access to the water’s edge, this may allow for public access to the edge of Dakota Creek in the future as part of a larger City project. In addition to the public access along the top of bank of Dakota Creek, staff recommends that public access be provided along the western property boundary. This would create through access for

1

http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/should

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 10 of 21

pedestrians so that they enter from either Bell Road or Washington Avenue, walk along the top of bank, and exit the property from the other street. Use Regulation 4) Height limits shall be 25 feet within 90 feet of the ordinary high water and 40 feet from 90 to 200 feet from ordinary high water, except where additional height up to 45 feet is approved as part of a planned zone master plan. Staff comments: The project is outside of the 90-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and staff recommends a Condition of Approval that all construction is subject to the 40-foot height limit. It should be noted that the Utilities Policy states that after completion of installation and/or maintenance projects on the shoreline (such as a storm water system), the affected area shall be restored to pre-project configuration, replanted with native or pre-existing species, and provided with maintenance care until the newly planted vegetation is established. Staff comments: The project will build a new storm water outfall near the edge of Dakota Creek and staff is recommending a condition of approval that the design include a geotechnical analysis, as-built plans be provided and the disturbed area be replanted with native plants and maintained. Staff is also recommending a condition of approval that the storm water system be designed to manage the storm water flow from the contributing basin. This is important because when the applicant builds the multimodal trail on Bell Road the roadside ditch and existing storm water system will be reconfigured. The project storm water should be combined with the contributing basin and a single storm water management structure be constructed along the shore of Dakota Creek. Natural Systems The Shoreline Management Master Program provides additional protection for Natural Systems and the following section reviews these regulatory standards with comments and analysis from staff. Section 6.1 provides use regulations for marshes, bogs and swamps and includes the following introductory language. Marshes, bogs, and swamps are areas which have a water table very close to the surface of the ground. Formerly shallow water areas, they gradually filled through natural sedimentation. Although considered abysmal wastelands by many, these wet areas are extremely important. Many species of animal and plant life depend on this environment for existence. Wet areas are also important as ground water recharge areas and have flood control value. They should be protected from overdevelopment. Use Regulations apply to marshes, bogs, and swamps over a half acre in size. Staff comments: Staff has reviewed the Critical Area Assessment prepared by Miller Environmental Services and walked the shoreline. Based on a review of the information that is available and physical inspection of the property and Dakota Creek shoreline, staff has determined that a regulated marsh over half an acre is not present. As such, no additional setbacks are required.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 11 of 21

Shoreline Bluffs and Steep Slopes Section 6.4 of the City’s SMP provides guidance and protection for shoreline bluffs and steep slopes. While no formal definition is listed, the following description is provided: A bluff is a shoreline bank or cliff with an almost perpendicular front. Bluffs can be, but need not be, feeder banks. Bluffs are almost always made up of unconsolidated material which is a very susceptible to slides and erosion. A steep slope can be defined as a slope exceeding 50 percent and 20 feet in height. Staff comments: Staff recommends the subject shoreline does not qualify as a regulated bluff or steep slope under the SMP for the following reasons. The subject shoreline is relatively stable and is not subject to slides and erosion. Most of the shoreline is a gradual slope but the gradient does vary with a steeper section towards the western portion of the property. This section of the slope does not gain 20 feet in height AND exceed a 50-percent slope, and as such should not be regulated as a shoreline bluff or steep slope under the SMP. Appendix E of the SMP, the Erosional Bluff Map, supports this conclusion and does not flag this section of the creek as being potentially an erosional bluff. For these reasons staff recommends that the protected features listed under the Natural Systems section of the SMP are not present on the subject property’s shoreline and that this section does not apply. In conclusion, staff finds the proposal consistent with the City’s 1996 Shoreline Management Master Program, including the Residential Use Policies and Regulations.

Conditional Use Application The Dakota Creek Apartments project is a multifamily development that is just over 2 acres, meaning the use is outright permitted but because the project is less than five acres a Condition Use Permit is required. Conditional Use applications must be found consistent with all of the following approval criteria, which are listed below in italics followed by comments from staff. The Planning Commission must determine that the proposal: A.

Will be harmonious and in accordance with the general and specific objectives of the City of Blaine comprehensive plan and zoning regulations

Staff comments: The project is located in an area defined by the City’s Comprehensive Plan as “Commercial”. This commercial designation has a definition of “commercial retail and office land uses” and includes the Highway Commercial, Planned Commercial and Residential/Office Districts; all of which allow multifamily development in one form or another. While the Planned Commercial District is Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 12 of 21

primarily intended for commercial uses, residential multifamily should be considered compatible and harmonious because it is allowed in every district within the City with a Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial. The City’s Central Business District also combines residential and commercial uses. For these reasons, staff believes the City has already determined that some commercial uses and multifamily residential uses are compatible. The project also provides a housing style that is in demand and consistent with several specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal #1 reads: To encourage the development of a variety of housing types and prices, including an adequate supply of housing in a price range affordable to employees at available jobs in Blaine and housing which meets the needs of senior citizens. Land Use Goal 2 reads: Maintain the small town character of the City of Blaine, while allowing sufficient growth in the population and tax base to help finance infrastructure, public services and amenities. Apartments and one and two bedroom condominiums (should the project ultimately be constructed as condominiums) are in high demand in Blaine and even Whatcom County. Numerous reports2 are available that demonstrate low vacancy rates for these types of housing units. For these reasons, staff recommends this criterion has been satisfied and the project will be harmonious and accordance with the comprehensive plan and applicable zoning district. B.

Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity, and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area.

Staff comments: The project will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained as a multifamily development which is an outright permitted use in the district. Multifamily development already exists in the same District and within the general vicinity on Runge Avenue (sees 1622 to 1660 Runge Ave). The City has also approved other multifamily developments in the same District (now expired, see Bell Road PUD authorizing 48 multifamily units on Dakota Creek on the east side of Bell Road in Dec, 2010) which is somewhat precedent setting. To the contrary, the Residential Low Density District abuts the western property boundary which allows single family development. While most of the property in the general vicinity is vacant, future single family homes will be buffered from the development with a 15-foot wide zoning boundary landscaping screen. This landscaping buffer must be planted with 6-foot tall evergreen trees and large shrubs per BMC 17.126.110. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to address this requirement with a detailed landscaping plan. Staff considers the project harmonious with the Planned Commercial District, appropriate for the general vicinity and that it will not change the essential character of the area. For these reasons staff recommends the project, with appropriate conditions of approval, will satisfy this criterion. C.

2

Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses.

Whatcom County Real Estate report by the Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies at the University of Washington, September, 2014.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 13 of 21

Staff comments: When a Planned Commercial District abuts a Residential Low Density District there is likely to be some level of disturbance to the neighbors, either now or in the future. The project mitigates the potential impact to immediate neighbor by setting the westernmost building back from the property line by 30 feet (or approximately 26 for the upper story balconies). The mature native trees and landscaping will be augmented with the addition of the zoning boundary landscaping screen, which will reduce the potential disturbance to the future neighbors. It should be noted that if the project had to be redesigned to accommodate Highway Commercial zoning standards, the western most building would like be closer to the neighboring property, perhaps as close as 15 feet, which could result in greater disturbance to a future single family home. Other issues that could be considered disturbing would be traffic and parking. These impacts are anticipated to be relatively minor. Bell Road is designed to accommodate large volumes of traffic and traffic on Washington Avenue is minimal. Future residents of the Dakota Creek Apartments will not need to drive through an existing neighborhood to access the site. This project should have a negligible overall effect on neighborhood traffic. Some temporary disturbance should be anticipated during the construction process. The project will also create new areas of on-street public parking on Washington Avenue for general public use. This will help accommodate guest parking. D.

Will be serviced adequately by essential public facilities such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewers, and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services.

Staff comments: The property is fully served with public facilities. The project will extend the City’s sanitary sewer system down Washington Avenue to Bell Road. The developer will upgrade Washington Avenue including, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and street lighting. The project will also construct the multimodal “Drayton Harbor Regional Trail” along Bell Road, a state highway controlled by WSDOT. Staff recommends a Condition of Approval that the Drayton Harbor Regional Trail be located in the Bell Road right-of-way to ensure the City has full control over this critical pedestrian and bicycle link. With appropriate conditions of approval, staff recommends this criterion has been satisfied. E.

Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services, and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.

Staff comments: The project is not expected to generate any cost to the public and there should be no detrimental impact to the economic welfare of the community if the proposal is approved. To the contrary, the project is likely to have a positive impact on the economic wellbeing of the community by providing residential housing and developing the City’s tax base. F.

Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reasons of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.

Staff comments: This criterion relates primarily to industrial or commercial uses. Excessive levels of traffic are not anticipated to occur from approving the proposal.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 14 of 21

G.

Will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets.

Staff comments: The only feasible vehicle access to the property is from Washington Avenue. Staff anticipates some use of nearby streets, but not significant interference with existing traffic patterns. H.

Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.

Staff comments: Dakota Creek is located on the property which is a natural, scenic and historic feature of Blaine. However the creek should not be impacted because buffers and setbacks will be observed by the development. Staff does not anticipate any loss or lasting damage to the shoreline or creek. It should be noted a large regional storm water dispersion system will be installed near the eastern part of the project along the shoreline, but the disturbed area will be restored and planted with native plants. Summary of Conditional Use criterion: Staff recommends the project, when appropriately conditioned, meets all approval criterion for a conditional use. Variance Application The Dakota Creek Apartments variance application is requesting deviation from two standards of the Highway Commercial District. These are: 1. A reduction of 15 feet to the 20-foot parking setback from the public right-of-way. 2. A 5-foot increase in the height limit of 35 feet to 40 feet. Variance applications must be found consistent with all of the approval criteria defined in BMC 17.06.170, which states: Approval criteria #1 (17.06.170.B.1) 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; Staff comments: The special conditions in this case are that the property has environmental constraints from being located next to Dakota Creek AND is a smaller property (less than 5 acres) within the Planned Commercial District. As a smaller property, a Conditional Use permit is required for an outright permitted use (Residential Multifamily), which triggers compliance with the Highway Commercial Zoning Standards. This is a peculiar circumstance which is not applicable to other lands in the same district because they are large enough to qualify for a PUD. In addition, the applicant is being required to designate 15 feet of their land as public right-of-way, which further restricts their ability to develop parking between the street and Dakota Creek. Interestingly enough, the parking lot is being proposed exactly 20 feet from their current property line is on Washington Avenue, but with the 15-foot right-of-way dedication the result is a 5-foot setback. The request for the 15-foot dedication is somewhat unique. Staff is not aware of an existing developed public road, such a Washington Avenue, which exists in a 30-foot wide public right-of-way. Approval criteria #2 (17.06.170.B.2) Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 15 of 21

2. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this division would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this division; Staff comments: If the full standards of the Highway Commercial zoning standards were applied, the applicant would have to reconfigure there site and move the parking area closer to Dakota Creek. The SMP strongly discourages parking from being located along the shoreline. It’s prohibited for commercial developments. Requiring a full 20-foot setback for parking creates a strip of land that can only be used for landscaping. While landscaping is important, other commercial development in the same district (see the Pacific Building Center) does not provide this same setback from their property line to the parking area. It should be noted that the citywide landscaping requirement for parking lots is 5 feet, with the exception of the Highway Commercial District and Gateway District. The SMP allows a 40-foot height limit and states that projects processed as PUD are permitted to construct to a 45-foot height limit. The Planned Commercial District allows other properties in this same district to build to a height limit established by the review authority. When the Highway Commercial zoning standards are applied to the Dakota Creek Project, the result is that the buildings would be 5 to 10 feet shorter than other buildings in this same district. Other properties in the Planned Commercial District are large enough to qualify for a PUD and thereby would not be subject to the Highway Commercial zoning standards and the lower height limits. The Dakota Creek Apartments property is just over two acres and does not meet the size submittal requirement for a Residential PUD. Three acres are required for a Residential PUD, but it should be noted the CD Director may allow an exception to the size requirement. Approval criteria #3 (17.06.170.B.3) 3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Staff comments: The applicant is not responsible for presence of Dakota Creek on their property, nor are they responsible for the City requirement to dedicate a 15-foot section of private property as a right-ofway, which was granted to a previous owner by the City Council in 1933. The applicant is also not responsible for the Planned Commercial Zoning District standard that states that a permitted use that is smaller than five acres must be processed as a Conditional Use, and thereby subject to Highway Commercial zoning standards. It should be noted there are several internal conflicts within the Planned Commercial Zoning code and it is challenging for staff and the applicant to work though those during the development review process. Approval criteria #4 (17.06.170.B.4) 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this division to the other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Staff comments: Special privileges would only be granted if the Commission approved this proposal and denied a similar variance request from another property owner. If a development was proposed on a property with similar environmental restraints, right-of-way dedication requirements, and with a similar application of the zoning code, the Commission would have to consider this decision somewhat precedent setting. However staff has confirmed that no such property exists within the City.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 16 of 21

It is also worth noting that an increase in 5 feet of building height will not impact any views of Dakota Creek from neighboring properties. For these reasons, staff recommends the Planning Commission determine the application complies with the Variance approval criteria. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission consider the Findings, Conclusions and Conditions of Approval and direct staff to make any changes deemed appropriate. The Variance public notice runs until November 21, 2017. The Commission may close the public hearing for verbal testimony and keep the written record open until November 21st, or the Commission may keep the full public record open until their next regular meeting scheduled for December 14th. The Commission can also schedule an extra meeting if they wish to finalize the review of the project after November 21st. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Dakota Creek Apartments project is proposed on 2.16 acres. 2. The property is zoned Planned Commercial. Pursuant to BMC 17.44.010 and 17.44.030 permitted uses in the Planned Commercial District that are smaller than five acres are processed as a Conditional Use. 3. Conditional Uses in the Planned Commercial District are subject to the Highway Commercial District standards. The maximum building height in the Highway Commercial District is 35 feet. The setback for on-site parking in the Highway Commercial District is 20 feet. 4. The Shoreline Management Master Program states that buildings that are setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark have a maximum height limit of 40 feet, and that projects processed as a Planned Unit Development have a maximum height limit of 45 feet. 5. The applicant has submitted a Variance application to increase the maximum building height to 40 feet to be consistent with the Shoreline Management Master Program. The Variance application also requests to reduce the 20 setback for on-site parking to 5 feet. 6. The preliminary project design was reviewed in a pre-application meeting by the City’s Technical Review Committee on April 30, 2015. 7. The Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use applications were determined as complete on March 6, 2017. The Variance application was determined complete on November 3, 2017. 8. The project was reviewed by the City’s Technical Review Committee on March 23, 2017. 9. A State Environmental Policy Act checklist for the project was submitted to the City of Blaine SEPA Official and a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued October 24, 2017. 10. The Department of Ecology was provided copies of the application and project notices on October 12, 2017.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 17 of 21

11. Notice of the project was properly provided including publishing a joint Notice of Application and Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation (the Bellingham Herald) on October 6, 2017. A notice was mailed using certified mail to all the property owners within 300 feet of the project and two notices were installed on the subject property using the City’s public notice boards. Supplemental notice was also placed on the City Hall notice board and City website. 12. A notice of application was posted on the Variance application on November 7, 2017. 13. The Public Works Director determined the existing right-of-way width insufficient to support the proposed project and future traffic demands, and requires a dedication of 15 additional feet of right-of-way width. 14. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Project on November 9, 2017. 15. The Planning Commission solicited and considered public input on the project prior to making a final decision. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Planning Commission determined the project consistent with the General Elements of the Shoreline Management Master Program. The Planning Commission determined the project generally consistent with the Urban Environmental Designation and consistent with the Shoreline Policies and the Use Regulations for Residential Development as listed in the Shoreline Management Master Program. The Planning Commission finds project consistent with the approval criteria of the City of Blaine Shoreline Management Master Program (1996). 2. The project is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The project is generally consistent with the applicable zoning, critical areas, shoreline regulations and the Growth Management Act goals and policies, including the State Environmental Policy Act regulations. 4. The intent of the density provisions in the PC zoning district combined with the ROW dedication requirement should not combine in such a way as to reduce unit count and reduce the owner’s ability to use the property as intended by the Municipal Code. 5. The Planning Commission determined the reasons set forth in the Variance application justify the granting of the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. 6. The Planning Commission determined that granting of the Variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 7. The project, with appropriate conditioning, meets the approval criteria of a Conditional Use and Variance as defined by the Blaine Municipal Code. PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General Conditions G1. SEPA mitigation measures, as identified in the project SEPA checklist and SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (SEP-2-17) shall be reflected in the project design and civil Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 18 of 21

construction plans, and are hereby made conditions of this approval. G2. The proposed site plan shall be revised to reflect any revisions or additions noted in the Conditions of Approval. Three full size copies of the revised site plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. One copy of the approved site plan will be returned to the applicant. G3. A complete set of civil engineering plans for the development shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any construction. Final public infrastructure layout will be approved with the review of civil plans. Submittals shall include: 1) A comprehensive storm water management plan prepared by a civil engineer registered with the State of Washington together with a $3,000 deposit to be used for 3rd party storm water review. 2) An electrical plan prepared by an electrical engineer registered with the State of Washington. 3) Construction plans for all municipal utilities and public right-of-way improvements prepared by a civil engineer registered with the State of Washington. G4. Prior to commencing any site work, a Land Disturbance Permit application shall be submitted and approved by Community Development Services. The application submittal shall include a grading plan and temporary erosion and sediment control plan that meets the requirements of the City’s land disturbance regulations contained in BMC 17.84. G5. Public street improvements shall be designed and installed pursuant to City of Blaine Development Guidelines and Public Works Standards, as determined by the Public Works Department. A Public Facilities Construction Agreement shall be completed prior to commencing construction. G6. The applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of 150-percent of the estimated costs for any work in the City right-of-way including all work on City utilities and infrastructure. The bonded scope of work and bond amount shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to issuance of permit(s) for said work. G7. The applicant shall post a maintenance bond of 10-percent of the estimated cost of public improvements for a period of one year after the completed job is accepted by the City. The maintenance bond shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to Final Plat approval. G8. The Conditional Use approval shall be valid for one year from the date of action by Planning Commission. Extensions may be granted pursuant to the Blaine Municipal Code. G9. The Variance approval shall be valid for one year from the date of action by Planning Commission. Extensions may be granted pursuant to the Blaine Municipal Code. G10. No construction shall begin until 21 days after the state receives notice of the Planning Commission action. At the termination of the State's 21-day review period, unless an appeal has been filed, the Administrator shall notify the applicant that construction pursuant to the permit may commence. Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 19 of 21

G11. Construction or substantial progress toward construction must be undertaken within two years after the approval of the substantial development permit pursuant to the City of Blaine Shoreline Management Master Program. Project construction for all work within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be completed within five years from the date of Planning Commission approval. Extensions may be granted pursuant to the City of Blaine Shoreline Management Master Program. G12. State and Federal approvals, as applicable, shall be evidenced by appropriate permits or other qualifying documentation prior to issuance of any City permit for construction. Responsibility for meeting other agency requirements shall be solely the applicant’s. Specific Conditions S1.

The owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the open space areas, water detention and treatment facilities, private drainage infrastructure, private drives and parking areas, landscaping, and other common infrastructure and open space elements of the project. The developer shall provide a storm water system maintenance plan and summary reference shall be created which shall be recorded with the Whatcom County Auditor’s Office on the property’s title. Specific language shall be included insuring inspection and certification to the city by a registered engineer of the adequacy of the storm water treatment and conveyance system every three years. Any required repair or maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owner. The storm water system maintenance plan and the summary reference shall be reviewed and accepted by the City prior to recordation.

S2.

A shoreline restoration and maintenance plan shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. The plan shall contain specific language ensuring inspection and reporting to the city by a qualified biologist/botanist of the condition of the protected shorelands, including identification of corrective measures and maintenance pertaining to landscaping. Such review and reporting shall occur every three years following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any required maintenance or corrective action shall be the responsibility of the owner. A summary reference to shoreline restoration and maintenance plan shall be provided to and reviewed prior to recording with the Whatcom County Auditor’s Office on the property title. A note to this effect will be added to the revised site plan.

S3.

The Drayton Harbor Regional Trail (multimodal trail shown on the eastern portion of the property) shall be located in the Bell Road right-of-way unless determined infeasible by the Public Works Director. In place of the trail along the eastern property boundary, the property boundary shall be landscaped in accordance with the City’s landscape standards. The site plan shall be revised to reflect this condition.

S4.

The storm water system shall be designed to manage the storm water flow from the contributing basin. The storm water system design shall consider the construction of the multimodal trail on Bell Road and the reconfiguration of the roadside ditch. The project storm water shall be combined with the contributing basin and a single storm water management structure shall be constructed along the shore of Dakota Creek, unless determined to be infeasible through documentation accepted by the Public Works Director.

S5.

The design of the project storm water system shall include a geotechnical analysis. As-built plans shall be provided to the City and shall be accepted by the City prior to approval of occupancy.

Dakota Creek Apartments Staff Report

Page 20 of 21

CITY OF BLAINE

Attachment A - Land Use Decision Worksheet

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 435 MARTIN STREET, STE. 3000  BLAINE, WA  98230 PHONE: (360) 332-8311  FAX: (360) 543-9978 WEBSITE: www.cityofblaine.com

Dakota Creek Apartments Land Use Decision Points Worksheet Please use this worksheet to assist you in formulating your decision on the major land use decision points. Please note these are only the primary decision points and there are many aspects of this project that may be discussed.

1. Density Calculation Method – Inclusion of dedicated Right-of-way Summary: Should the required dedicated 15-feet of right be included in the calculation of density?  Yes or  No Notes:

2. Density Calculation Method – Formula used to determine total number of units Summary: Should density be capped at 18 units per acre, or should the formula of 6,000 square feet for the first unit and 2,200 square feet for each additional unit be used?  18/acre or  6,000 plus 2,200 each additional unit Notes:

3. Required Parking – How much on-site parking should be required. Summary: Is 1.5 parking stalls per one bedroom unit and 2 parking stalls per two bedroom unit satisfactory? The Planned Commercial District states that the review authority must decide.  Yes, the proposed amount of parking is ok. or  No, a different amount of parking is required. Notes:

4. Should a PUD be required? – PUD or CUP Summary: The SMP states that residential development should be processed as a PUD. The Planned Commercial District states that smaller projects (less than 5 acres) can be processed as a CUP.  Yes, a PUD should be required. or  No, a PUD should not be required. Notes: This organization is an Equal Opportunity Provider

\\03san\cds\E-DevReview- MJ-AW\3 - Type 2&3 - PC-CC\3-Shoreline Substantial Development\2017\SMP-217 Dakota Creek Apartments\Staff Report\Dakota Decision Points.docx Page - 1 - of 2

5. Conditional Use approval criteria? – Harmonious and appropriate for the District? Summary: While all the CUP approval criteria are important, the primary decision point is if the multifamily family project is harmonious and appropriate in appearance.  Yes, the project is harmonious. or  No, the project is not harmonious. Notes:

6. Variance approval criteria for height? – Does the application meet the variance criteria for a 5foot increase in height? Summary: While all the Variance approval criteria are important, the Commission must decide if the applicant meets the variance criteria to increase the Highway Commercial height limit in the Planned Commercial District to 40 feet, or keep it at 35 feet.  Yes, a 40 foot height limit is appropriate. or  No, maintain a 35-foot height limit Notes:

7. Variance approval criteria for parking setback? – Does the application meet the variance criteria to reduce the parking setback from 20 feet to 5 feet? Summary: While all the Variance approval criteria are important, the Commission must decide if the application meets the criteria to reduce the parking setback from 20 feet to 5 feet.  Yes, a 5-foot parking setback is appropriate. or  No, maintain a 20-foot parking setback. Notes:

-2-

Attachment B - Proposed Site Plan

Attachment C - Applications

C I T YO F B L A I N E C O M M U N I T YD E V E L O P M E N S TERVICES 435 [,4ARflN SrREEr. SurrE3000. BrA]NE, WA. 98230 (360)332 8311. FAX:(360)543 9978 PHoNE: www cityofblaine.com

10R orltctust0[tY TotalFees$

Building Uafiance

Receipl#

Application Project Name:

STAI\4PIN DATE

Dakota Creek Apartments

Applicationsmust be completed and submitled ta Conmunity Developmenl SeNices Applicalionslhat are ncomplete(i e. that do not includea af Ihe infomalianrequtreclbelow)will be relufiecl to the apphcanl. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS c o m pe t e dM a t t e r L a n dU s eA p p l i ( a t i o nR . c p r c s e n t a t i v. u. t h o r l z a to n s r o q ur e d l l a p p L i c a t l oi snn o t s i g n e db y o w n e r . llla

z o n n g c o . l ev a , i o n c -a"p p l i c a t l o fnc c a s s . t f o l t h i n ( h . C i t yo f B l i in € U n i f i e dI c . s c h c d uc .

J rdo n rl l M ( r l . o 6 . r 7 0 . l l ) l L l P e a s ea n s w e rt h e f o l o w n g q u e s t i o n s( :s L r m m a r l z e L. t tow Ls )Joqylyop.rttl ar buLtdLiA dLfft.re^t fraL other lrapettLes lw the sane. ZowL,e t>Lstrlcta

See attached z. aow k your lvolcctbard.ev,.d bU exLessLve $ttth th. zowl^e staAdards? hard,shLlbU caMpLUL^e

See attached 3. now Lsthe LAd fo. a vaiLalxa '^.1r:the resqks af acti"awshrl tha ow'1,ty/applica'*?

See attached 4. tf thevaia,Le applicati"alLsallra'red.,ooqLd, the TropeftAb. vscd,LL awU speciaL vv,aw@y ^,atl,atuaLLj aLtxr.d?

See attached

t he applicanthereby.ettifi p.apasedqne.ftlr|en

thdt the sldtement! .ontdined in th's oppikdtiondre ttue and prcvidedn a..urote reprcsentatio^ot'the

NaL ( APPuc&-.rZ't

o.*t)

11t3t2017 DATE

See attached project descriplion.

LATTA ENGINEERING, PLLC Consulting Civil Engineers

November 2, 2017 Attn: Mr. Alex Wenger City of Blaine – Community Development Services 344 H Street Blaine, WA 98230 Re:

Building Variance Application Dakota Creek Apartments Washington Ave, Blaine, Washington

Dear Mr. Wenger, Latta Engineering, PLLC (Latta) has prepared this narrative letter on behalf of our client, Dakota Creek LLC, to supplement the referenced building variance application pertaining to the referenced multi-family residential project. Description of the Project The 2.168 acre subject property is located at the SW corner of Washington Avenue and Blaine Road, within the City limits of Blaine, WA (TPN 400107-486321). The subject property is located within the Planned Commercial (PC) zoning district and the proposed multi-family residential development is an outright permitted use as defined under BMC 17.44.020(I). The applicant is proposing a 41 unit multi-family residential development (permitted use density for the 94,431 sf property (2.168 acres) based on the zoning code formula of first unit at 6,000 square feet with additional units at 2,200 square feet). Building Variance Application Request The minimum property size for a planned commercial development is five acres per BMC 17.44.040 (Minimum Lot Size) therefore the proposed multi-family residential development, which is an outright permitted use in the PC zone, must be approved as a conditional use per BMC 17.44.030 (Conditional Uses). Under a condition use designation, BMC 17.44.050 (Setbacks, Land Coverage and Height Limits) states that the project is then required to conform to the provisions of BMC 17.24.060 (Highway Commercial Zoning District Subzone A - Peace Portal). The Highway Commercial zoning code significantly constrains the project residential design by requiring an excessive 20 ft front parking setback from Washington Ave and also limits the building height to 35 ft. Parking area setbacks for outright permitted multi-family residential development in the PC zone are typically defined under BMC 17.68.160 (PUD landscape, buffering and setbacks) which requires providing a minimum 5 ft perimeter landscaping area setback and BMC 17.68.160 (Parking lot landscaping requirements) which requires providing a minimum 5 ft landscaping area adjacent to public rights-of-way. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Highway Commercial HCa zoning 20 ft parking setback requirement to allow the parking area setback to be 5 ft (landscaped setback), as currently proposed on our Site Plan application. Building height for outright permitted multi-family residential development in the PC zone is established through site plan review as outlined in Chapter 17.68 BMC (no specified maximum building height). Given this property is located within the Shoreline Master Program area, building height for an outright permitted residential development would be regulated under Section 5.19 (Residential Development) of the Shoreline Master Program which permits building heights up to 40 feet for structures located between 90 ft to 200 ft from the ordinary high water. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Highway Commercial HCa 35 ft building height limit to allow a maximum 40 ft building height limit for the project which is consistent with the Shoreline Management Program.

5970 Birch Point Road, Blaine, Washington 98230 | Ph: (360) 671-7002 | [email protected]

November 2, 2017 Building Variance Application - Dakota Creek Apartments, Blaine, WA __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Submittal Question Responses (per Variance Application Form) Question 1: How is your project difference from other properties in the same zoning District?   

 

The subject project area is too small (below minimum required 5 acres lot size) to develop multifamily residential as an outright permitted use in the Planned Commercial zone. This triggers infeasible additional requirements not are not intended for this type of project. The Highway Commercial 20 ft parking setback requirement uses up a significantly portion of the site and therefore considerably reduces the useable development footprint area (due to the property being below the minimum required 5 acres lot size size) The subject property depth (width) is only 240 ft and the site is located on the Dakota Creek shoreline which is subject to additional Shoreline Master Program regulations (i.e. 90 ft shoreline OHWM setback and a 50 ft geo-hazard top of bank setback). These setbacks also significantly limit the developable area footprint area on the property. A portion of the subject is actually located below the Dakota Creek OHWM. The City is also requiring a 15 ft ROW dedication (Washington Ave) to even further reduce the usable development footprint area. It should be noted that the proposed parking lot design (with a 5 ft setback to Washington Ave) meets the 20 ft HCa setback with respect to the current property line (i.e. prior to the 15 ft ROW dedication being requested by the City).

Question 2: How is your project burdened by excessive hardship by complying with the zoning standards?  

The minimum lot size threshold invokes additional project design constraints (excessive 20 ft parking setback and reduced allowable building height) that is not otherwise required for the outright allowed multi-family residential use in the PC zone. Triggering additional and excess Highway Commercial zoning requirements for a smaller parcel (below 5 acre size threshold) is counterintuitive, especially when the unique property characteristics and shoreline constraints (as outlined in question 1 above) are considered as a whole.

Question 3: How is need for a variance not the result of actions by the owner / applicant? 

None of the issues outlined under questions 1 and 2 above are a result of the applicant’s actions (lot size, Highway Commercial zoning requirements, Shoreline proximity, ROW dedication request).

Question 4: If the variance application is approved, could the property be used in any special manner not allowed?  No. ______________________________________________________________________________________ If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact the undersigned directly at (360) 671-7002. Sincerely, Latta Engineering, PLLC

Neil Latta, P.E. Principal Engineer

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Latta Engineering, PLLC

2

Project # 16048

LATTA ENGINEERING, PLLC Consulting Civil Engineers

May 3, 2017 Attn: Mr. Alex Wenger City of Blaine – Community Development Services 344 H Street Blaine, WA 98230 Re:

Request to Withdraw Pending Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application Dakota Creek Apartments Washington Ave, Blaine, Washington

Dear Mr. Wenger, Latta Engineering, PLLC (Latta) has prepared this letter on behalf of our client, Dakota Creek LLC, to notify you that we are withdrawing the pending PUD application pertaining to the referenced multi-family residential project. We understand that design review for the project moving forward will continue per the other pending application components (i.e. critical areas review, site plan review, SEPA, Conditional Use, and Shorelines Substantial Development). If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please contact the undersigned directly at (360) 671-7002.

Sincerely, Latta Engineering, PLLC

Neil Latta, P.E. Principal Engineer Cc: Derek Stebner – Dakota Creek, LLC

5970 Birch Point Road, Blaine, Washington 98230 | Ph: (360) 671-7002 | [email protected]

Attachment D - SEPA Determination

CITY OF BLAINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 435 MARTIN STREET, STE. 3000  BLAINE, WA  98230 PHONE: (360) 332-8311  FAX: (360) 543-9978 WEBSITE: www.cityofblaine.com

MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Cc:

November 9, 2017 Planning Commission Michael Jones, Community Development Director File

Re:

Tesoro Notice of Decision

Please see attached draft Notice of Decision for the Tesoro Sign Variance and Conditional Sign Permit. I believe it encapsulates your findings and conclusions. It can be edited at the meeting or accepted as drafted when you make a decision. As a reminder, final action was not taken on the application. The Commission needs to make and pass a motion regarding action on the project. Based on the prior meeting, staff presumes that motion will be “to deny the Tesoro Sign Variance and Conditional Sign Permit based on findings of fact and conclusions of law.

P:\E-DevReview- MJ-AW\3 - Type 2&3 - PC-CC\8-Variance\2017\SIGV-1-17 Tesoro 371 3rd Street - Sign Variance\Correspondence\PC Memo 11-9-17.docx Page - 1 - of 1 This organization is an equal opportunity provider.

CITY OF BLAINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 435 MARTIN STREET, STE. 3000  BLAINE, WA  98230 PHONE: (360) 332-8311  FAX: (360) 543-9978 WEBSITE: www.cityofblaine.com

NOTICE

OF

DECISION

TESORO SIGN VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL SIGN PERMIT CSP-1-17 AND SIGV-1-17 PURSUANT TO SECTION 17.06.040 OF THE BLAINE MUNICIPAL CODE, ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PERMITS: APPLICATION TYPE(S):

Sign Variance and Conditional Sign Permit

CONTROL NUMBER:

CSP-1-17 AND SIGV-1-17

REQUEST:

To install a video display sign/electronic message center on an existing freestanding sign structure

LOCATION:

371 3rd Street, APN 415136542126000

SUBJECT:

Tesoro Video Display Sign

PROPONENT:

Robert Reeder PO Box 305 Twin Falls, ID 83303

DECISION:

The Planning Commission denies the Sign Variance and Conditional Sign Permit, (CSP-1-17 AND SIGV-1-17) based on findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein.

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposal is NOT subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act WAC 197-11-800 and the City of Blaine SEPA Guidelines (Chapter 17.80 BMC). NOTE: The materials that constitute the official record are on file with the Community Development Services Department and may be reviewed upon request.

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The proposed sign is determined to be a video display sign as defined by the Municipal Code. This organization is an Equal Opportunity Provider Page - 1 - of 2

2. The maximum height limit is 25 feet and the maximum sign area is 32 square feet pursuant the Municipal Code. 3. The proposed sign would be placed on an existing non-conforming sign structure, which exceeds the height limit for such structure and the sign area for such structure. 4. The proposed sign would reduce the overall signage for the project site by removing a large sign and replacing it with a smaller sign. 5. The Municipal Code includes nonconforming sign provisions that state a sign cannot be enlarged, reworded, redesigned or altered in any way except to conform to the sign code. 6. The Municipal Code states that a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or the premises is vacant for 90 consecutive days or for nine total months during any three-year period, the structure and premises in combination shall not thereafter be used except in conformance with the regulations of the district in which it is located. 7. A video display sign was formerly located on the sign structure at approximately the same location as the proposed sign. That sign was removed sometime in the past several years. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. BMC Sec. 17.122.250 Legal nonconforming signs, precludes altering the sign in anyway except to comply with the code and the proposed change would result in a non-compliant sign and sign structure that are respectively too large and too tall based on the City’s standards. 2. BMC Sec. 17.94.010 Nonconforming Uses, Intent, gives clear direction that nonconforming structures and uses of structures should not be encouraged to continue, and granting the requested permit would be contrary to this section. 3. The application did not meet the criteria for a variance, particularly in that granting the variance would confer special privilege, and that literal interpretation of the code would not deny the applicant a privilege enjoyed by others. 4. The application did not meet the criteria for a conditional sign permit, particularly that the sign does not contribute to and enhance the district in which it is located, nor is it a creative a positive addition to its immediate surroundings, and that it may be disturbing to existing neighboring uses. This is a Type II-PC decision appealable pursuant to Blaine Municipal Code section 17.06. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: X Denial  Approval 

Signed

Chairperson

Date

Tesoro Sign Variance and Conditional Sign Permit – Notice of Decision

-2-