Public Hearing

AGENDA Public Hearing Meeting 3:00 PM - Monday, January 29, 2024 200 East Scott Avenue - Woodland, Washington Page CALL TO ORDER I. PUBLIC HEARING A. Logan's Landing Appeal Hearing (WLD-2023-006/SEP-22-003/SPR-22- 2 - 88 001/CAP-22-001) Item-24-0018 Supporting Packet - Pdf II. END MEETING City of Woodland is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Public Hearing January 29, 2024 Time: Jan 29, 2024 03:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/94255682907?pwd=V0dSRHZLSW5UQk4zN0JvTW8yYzhVdz09 Meeting ID: 942 5568 2907 Passcode: 948852 Dial by your location • +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) • +1 253 205 0468 US • +1 669 444 9171 US Page 1 of 88 Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: Public Hearing - 29 Jan 2024 Department: Building/Planning Staff Contact: Travis Goddard, Community Development Director Subject: Logan's Landing Appeal Hearing (WLD-2023-006/SEP-22-003/SPR-22- 001/CAP-22-001) Summary Statement: A public hearing for the appeal of the Logan's Landing decision issued on December 21, 2023. Financial Impact: Cost of Item: $0 Amount Budgeted: $0 Bars Code description: Unexpended Balance: $0 Attachments: WLD-2023-006 APPEAL STAFF REPORT WLD-2023-006 APPEAL NARRATIVE 122923 NOD Logans Landing WLD-2023-006 NOAppeal Logans Landing 010924 Page 2 of 88  Community Development Department Wb'bDLAND VVASHINGTON Building | Planning I Code Enforcement P.O. Box 9, 230 Davidson Avenue (360) 225-7299, www.ci.wood|and.wa.us Staff Report Logan's Landing Appeal Land Use SPR 22001 (Site Plan Review), CAP 22—O01(Critical Areas Permit), SEP 22- Application Nos.: 003 (SEPA Checklist) Now: WLD—2023—O06 Applicant & Belmont—LewisHoldings, LLC Property Owner: Attn. Shayne Olsen PO Box 1940 Bend, Oregon 97709 Additional Wyndham Enterprises, LLC Representative: Attn. Ed and Judy Greer 13023 NE Hwy 99, STE 7—126 Vancouver, WA 98686 Site Location: Franklin Loop off of Belmont Loop in Woodland, WA 98574. Parcel No. & Size: 50680023, 50729, and 50730. Parcel 50714 will also be impacted. Approximately 20 acres. Zoning Highway Commercial (C-2), Light industrial (i-1) Designation: Notice of Complete Last submittal on August 22”“,2023 Application Issued: Notice of Application & NOA issued September 6, 2023 Likely DNS issued: Comment Period Published September 13, 2023 & SEPA Appeal Comments due September 27 ,h ,2023 for SEPA Period Ended: Staff Report December 21, 2023 Issued: Date ofappeal: December 28, 2023 APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-O01 CAP-22-O01,SPR-22-O01,SEP—Z2—003) WLD»2023-006 Page 1 Page 3 of 88 I. RESPONSETO APPEAL ISSUES APPEAL ISSUE #1 — Interpretation of whether ground floor parking is a commercial use. Staff Response: l.Commercia| parking versus parking for commercial uses. Staff and the applicant's consultants have agreed to disagree on this issue since the preapplication conference. Staff's logic is laid out in the staff report starting with Finding 20. In the C-1 zoning, WMC 17.32.020(37) "Public and Private off—streetparking facilities” are a permitted use. Staff has been consistent in stating that there is a difference between a ’’commercial parking facility” and parking that is required by code. Required parking is a development standard. Required parking is NOT a mandate that a developer provide a use (i.e. a parking facility). The code requires parking because it mitigates for the impact of the development and provides a standard by which the city can find a development meet its own needs or demands. If the city were to agree with the applicant's interpretation, the city would be in the position of dictating that developers use their property in a specific way and for a specific use. Staff does not have the authority to mandate a property be used for a specific use. In this case, we cannot force a developer to develop their property as a parking facility. And if we had the authority, any project which added parking, would also have to be treated as a change in use. For example, if staff received an application for a fast-food restaurant site plan, using the applicant'sinterpretation, by requiring on—site parking, staff would in fact be conditioning the developer to build two uses: A) a fast-food restaurant, and B) a commercial parking facility. By logical extension, staff would have to calculate impact fees based on the size of the restaurant building AND the size ofthe parking structure. (Because the parking is a separate use?) There is a difference between a USE and a physical development standard. Physical standards apply to a variety of uses independent of that use. i|.Residentia|above a commercial use. If required parking is not considered a commercial use, then the buildings as designed would only be able to have residential uses at either end of the building because there is only ”commercial” space at either end ofthe structure. Instead of making the change as requested when this issue was raised upon the first application submittal, and the applicant revised their buildings plans to go from 972 APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-001 CAP-22-001, SPR—22~001, SEP-22-003) WLDA2023-006 Page 2 Page 4 of 88  square feet of commercial space per building (see Attachment A) to the current proposal of 5,080 square feet of commercial space (see Attachment B). While this may not be a de facto admission of staff's argument, it appears to recognize the argument because there was also a corresponding reduction of parking spaces from approximately 38 parking spaces to 21 parking spaces. But there is presumably still residential development above the parking spaces, not just the commercial use space. The revised plans also went from three—storiesof residential use, to two-stories of residential use. Presumably because there was not enough parking on the site to accommodate parking for commercial spaces in the building. It appears that the only way to add space in the building for commercial uses (in the commercial zone), was to eliminate residential units and thus free up the residential parking spaces intended for those units. This would seem to be supported by the fact that there is virtually no change between the first site plan design, and the second site plan design. In my opinion, that shows that the design was intended for a residential apartment building and that they had to modify the building plans simply to accommodate commercial uses to make it look like a mixed-use in the commercial zone. At best, the project is a tortured interpretation ofthe downtown Central Business (C-1) zoning district standard which was intended for the downtown core to have street level commercial uses with apartments above. As the applicant points out, during the two years this project has been marking time, the code has changed. The city council considered whether the applicant'sinterpretation or the staff's interpretation was what is intended by code, and the council clearly sides with staff. So much so, that they rejected the staff's proposed mixed-use code language, and instead backtracked and eliminated ALLresidential uses in the C-2 zone. .Parking as a commercial use. As noted in Finding 25, the applicant can apply to build a commercial parking facility, but those parking spaces would not be available to count as required parking spaces under WMC 17.56. The applicant would essentially have to provide three parking calculations. One for how many spaces are required for the commercial space; one for how many spaces are needed for the residential unit count; and one for the parking use (which I presume would be zero required parking spaces, or maybe one required space for an on-site attendant). (Finding #27) There is no clear narrative addressing the attribution of parking spaces or the location of those spaces by use for the entire site. (The revised ground floor plan (Attachment B) does show a per building parking summary, but there is no site wide or clearly phased parking plan for the project that would allow us to draw conclusions prior to final site plan and final engineering.) APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR~22-001 CAP—22-001,SPR—22~001,SEP-22~003) WLD-2023-006 Page 3 Page 5 of 88  Staff has to concludes that the applicant is counting on using the in—buildingparking to provide spaces for commercial uses. (Possibly making them commercial parking spaces as opposed to a commercial parking facility? Otherwise, the residential parking on the bottom floor wouldn't meet the ’’residential above a commercial use" standard.) The problem with that is the ADA spaces are clearly positioned to provide access to the residential elevators and not for the commercial spaces. In fact, the applicant points out that the plaza entries to the commercial uses are at the outside corners ofthe building. If the internal parking spaces could be restricted to serve the commercial uses, the entrances to the commercial spaces would enter internally to the garage and not outwards at the remotest corners of building, far from the ADA spaces. The design isn't conducive to ADA access to any of the commercial space. This clearly seems to imply that the in-building parking is intended to serve as private parking for residential use. And again, if it's residential parking, it can't be considered as a ’’commercial use” and therefore can't have residential above it. (Finding #28) There is barely enough site plan information to clearly identify the entries of the commercial spaces. And if you can identify them, it’s hard to even evaluate whether there are adequate ADA spaces that meet the standards for the commercial uses. Again, the site plan appears to locate all the ADA spaces where they can best access the residential elevator. Another design consideration that implies the building will be for all practical purposes a residential building and not commercial. |V.Viab|e commercial space or iust empty space to build residences above? Staff's primary concern is that the applicant is setting up the site to have full residential occupancy, but no practical commercial spaces. (Thus, the leap from 900 sq. ft. to 5,000 sq. ft. in commercial space per building.) Staff also had to add conditions asking for clear identification for entrance plazas and for how the building will meet the commercial entry treatment standards. (To be discussed below.) Such a residential development with no commercial activity wouldn't meet the city's goals and policies. (The main reason why staff had issued a Determination of Significance for the original submittal.) Without the interpretation staff uses, the original site plan and building design would meet the applicant's definition, and the applicant could in fact eliminate the commercial use altogether based on the idea that because they are going to operate the apartment as a commercial business, therefore the building itself is commercial above commercial. They also try to mitigate this effect by projecting that a large number ofthe apartments will be used by people working from home or operating home occupations. Staff has to presume that it justifies calling them "commercial activity” above commercial uses in a commercial zone. APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-001 CAP—Z2-001, SPR-22-001, SEP-22-003) WLD-2023~006 Page 4 Page 6 of 88  You could even argue that the property is at a higher elevation than Davidson Avenue, which is in the C-1 Central Business district. Therefore, by definition, the project site is ’’located above a permissible C-1 commercial use”. Not to mention that WMC 17.36.020(10) actually says: 10. Dwellingunits; provided residential uses are located above a permissible C-1 commercial use and adequate of/'—street parking is provided pursuant to chapter 77.56. Lobbies for residential uses on upper floorsmay be located on the ground floor.; By strict interpretation, it says that only ”|obbies” can be located on the ground floor. it does not say that parking for the residential units can be located on the ground floor. Conclusion: The purpose ofthe zoning code is laid out in WMC 17.04.040 and WMC 17.04.070 and provides guidance for interpreting the code. The authority to administer the zoning code is laid out in code and that duty has been assigned to myself as the Community Development Director. So, deference has to be given to staff. The responsibility for interpreting code is not delegated to applicants, generally because those interpretation could tend to be in their se|f—interest as opposed to the pub|ic’s interest. The appellant argues that there is no interpretation necessary when reading the parts of the code that supports their position yet they at the same time argue that staff has no authority to impose certain conditions that support staff's interpretation, specifically, the second sentence of Condition #12. This would only be true if the Examiner finds that the staff's interpretation has no merit and that the applicant'sinterpretation of the code is the only one with merit and fully meets the zoning code’s purpose of protecting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Staff points out that the city council, in the time since this application was submitted, has in fact considered this very issue and found the argument to not only be lacking, but wrong to the point that code had to be amended to eliminate the very possibility of having residential units in the C-2 zone because they deemed it to be inconsistent with the public's welfare. Therefore, staff finds it difficult to imagine a scenario where the examiner can find it is in the pub|ic’s interest to ignore staff and the council's interpretation, and find that the merit lies with the applicant'sinterpretation. Staff recommends that the Examiner uphold the decision in regards to this project and Appeal issue #1. APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-001 CAP-22-001, SPR-22-O01, SEP»22-003) WLD-2023-006 Page 5 Page 7 of 88 APPEAL ISSUE #2 Interpretation of architectural facadestandards. — Staff Response: Assuming that the parking is allowed to stay on the ground floor... Architectural and Site Design Standards (Starting at finding 38) The architectural and site design standards in WMC 17.36.130 are intended to produce development that emphasizes buildings and landscaping rather than parking lots, driveways, or signs. The proposal includes 18% clear vision glass, and a large portion of opening (42% by the appeal |etter’s calculation) to the street. However, the intent is not to ensure that there is adequate vision into the parking lot, the actual intent is the opposite. It would serve to provide more than twice the view into a parking facility lot as it would the commercial space itself. That is not conducive to creating a lively commercial experience nor will it provide a pedestrian friendly experience. Transparency The transparency standards in (H) are intended ”to reduce the apparent bulk of buildings over twenty feet in height or width and maintain pedestrian scale” and, ”to create a unifying concept through composition of building’s larger masses and elements” (WMC 17.36.130(H)). Simply putting holes in the building so that pedestrians and commercial shoppers can have a view into a concrete colored, artificially lit parking garage cannot be reasonably found to meet the intent ofthe adopted architectural standards. In addition, under the Location of Parking Lots code (WMC 17.36.130(L)), the code includes an intent to locate parking lots behind or beside buildings in a way that ensures parking lots would be as visually unobtrusive as possible. This is to ensure that there is a contiguous and active pedestrian realm along the street. The argument that the proposal meets the "visibility” standard in (H) does so by providing visual corridors into the parking garage. Which by definition, acknowledges that they meet (H) by making the parking more obtrusive. Ill. This leads to the staff's position that the bottom floor cannot be parking and what it means to the facadeissue. Assuming that the parking is NOT allowed to stay on thgground floor... The introduction of ground floor commercial uses will make a substantial difference to the design, which is why there are conditions related to the submittal of revised designs and building elevations with the final engineering plans and final site plans. As part of APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-O01 CAP-22-001, SPR-Z2—O01, SEP—22-003)WLD-2023-O06 Page 6 Page 8 of 88  this process, staff will need to fully re-review the revised submittals for compliance with virtually all ofthe architectural and site design standards. Commercial spaces commonly have more than 30% vision glass and break up the building facadewith entryway treatments, plazas, ground—|eve| architectural treatments, canopies, etc., as required by WMC 17.36.130. Staff has argued all along that when the ground floor is properly designed as commercial space, the revised elevations will Conclusion: Whether the ground floor is allowed to have parking or not, the final site plans and building elevations will need to meet the architectural standards laid out in WMC 17.36.130. Staff attached numerous conditions of approval clarifying that the final site plan and final engineering plans would need to contain additional information in order for staff to approve the final plans. These conditions were added partially because the submitted plans provided minimal information to make the determination as part ofthe preliminary review. They were also necessary because the applicant's proposal did not include modifications or updates in response to the staff's comments throughout the process. An example ofthis can be seen by the fact that the original site plan and the revised site plan are virtually identical, with the only real change being the floor plan of the building. (Although they did change the Franklin Loop connection to Old Pacific Highway from a gravel connection to the existing driveway, to a half street. Although the critical area report shows that there will be no impact to the wetland. So even that shows an inconsistency between their site plan and the environmental reports. Thus, the addition of Condition #8. See Appeal issue #3 below.) So, there are numerous findings and conditions which will have reverberating impact during the final engineering process. Staff recommends that Examiner NOT find the proposal to meet WMC 17.36.130(H) as requested by the applicant. There are too many outstanding questions and issues for that finding to be made at this time. APPEAL ISSUE #3 - Street frontage improvements. Staff Response: The appellant may be confused about the frontage to be completed. There is about 130- feet of Old Pacific Highway that will need to be completed when the project completes the connection of Franklin Loop to Old Pacific Highway. Because Old Pacific Highway was recently rebuilt by the city, the only improvements needed will be curb, gutter, and sidewalk, plus possibly the edge of pavement to connect the curb with the edge ofthe pavement. The final design for those improvements will be determined as part ofthe final engineering plan review process. APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR—22-001CAP-22-001,SPR-22-001, SEP-22-003) WLD-2023-006 Page 7 Page 9 of 88  But the appeal letter appears to argue that there is a question about the on—site improvements from the existing end of Franklin to Old Pacific Highway. Again, there appears to be a difference in interpretation between what the staff and applicant think. The appellant appears to assume that they are not required to provide a second access for the project to Old Pacific Highway, or they may think that a gravel access will be adequate and that they do not need to meet city street standards. Part of this confusion is manifested in their application materials. The original site plan showed a gravel access while the revised plan shows a half~street design. For staff, the confusion comes from the fact that their site plan is to build a two building ”first phase” on the north end, then they want to phase the buildings based on market demand. The obvious problem being that staff cannot property evaluate when the street will be built, let alone being sure of when each phase will occur, hence the conditions. Staff has been clear that there needs to be a city street that connects Old Pacific Highway to the stub of Franklin off of Belmont Loop. This connection is identified in the city's transportation improvement plan although it is not in the 6-year funding plan. Regardless, the act of developing the property will trigger the need for emergency vehicle access as well as city street improvements. The fact that the applicant disagrees with staff that a street is needed, does not mean that they can call the property ”undeve|oped.” The critical area report also says there will be no impacts to the wetland on Parcel #50714, but it would appear that is only because the applicant does not believe that improvements will be needed on the parcel. By definition, the development of even a fire access, let alone a full city street, will be development. Therefore, the proposal will develop Parcel #50714 because the proposed site plan already proposes impacts to the wetland on #50714, which means the submitted critical area report does not adequately consider the impacts of the proposal. Either they were cutting corners on the application materials, or their consultant doesn't recognize that there will be impacts to the wetland. Either way, the existing report is inadequate and needs to be revised. Staff is already way out on a limb by approving the proposal, even with Condition #8, because it postpones the true review of the environmental impacts to the wetland until final site plan and final engineering review. Staff only did this because they believe that the impacts from the public street can be mitigated prior to final occupancy of the building. The applicant's consultants just need to do the work to analyze the impacts and develop a mitigation plan the meets the city's critical area code. The idea that the applicant thinks they can do the development without meeting the city's street codes is flawed. The fact that they can revise their final site plan to meet city code is however, possible. Therefore, rather than denying the application based APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22~001 CAP-22—001,SPR-22—001, SEP-22-003) WLD—2023-006 Page 8 Page 10 of 88 upon the applicant not wanting to provide access, staff instead added conditions of approval allowing the applicant to proceed to the final engineering stage where they can either amend their plan to meet code, or not. The fact that they can meet code but don't feel they need to, is not a code problem. It's a design problem. The other conclusion would be that either they do not plan to continue past the first phase of this development and there will never been anything more than a gravel driveway, OR, they do not plan to build on parcel #50714, so the road will never have to be built. (Justifying the definition of on-street improvements.) Both are real possibilities and will significantly prevent the city from either getting needed circulation improvements, or meeting the goals and policies ofthe comprehensive plan. The city cannot accept that the development of a city street on a four—parce| site plan constitutes ”off-site” improvements. If this were a subdivision, an applicant would not propose stopping the street improvements short of connecting to adjacent streets stubbed to the site for cross circulation. The fact that the consultant modified the original submittal to include a half—street design, shows a de facto acceptance that the project needs a city street to be viable. Should the decision be made to uphold the staff's interpretation about having commercial uses on the bottom floor, staff points out that Buildings A & B in the first phase alone, will have approximately 14,000 square feet of commercial space, PLUS 34 residential units per building, for a total of approximately 28,000 square feet, and 68 residential units. There is no realistic way that the applicant can justify building that much commercial space on a site with a single access point, let alone adding what would be a large residential development on top of that kind of commercial development. While their Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) ignored our advice to look at a full commercial ground floor build—out,it does clearly look at PM Peak Hour turning movement from the extension of Franklin (Figure 4 on Page 13). On it's face, that seems to negate the argument that the street is not needed. Conclusion: Staff recommends that the Examiner uphold the findings and conditions and require that the project build the public improvements required by the staff decision. APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-001 CAP-22-001, SPR-22-001, SEP~22-003) WLD-2023-006 Page 9 Page 11 of 88  In the event the examiner needs more information to make this call, at a minimum staff would request that the applicant be required to update the TIA,the critical area report, the preliminary site plan, and the SEPA checklist, so that staff could reevaluate the impacts of the development, prior to the Examiner ruling on the appeal. APPEAL ISSUE #4 — Duplicative Signing & Striping Plan Staff Response: The appellant has raised the issue of signing and striping for pedestrian circulation. Staff notes that there is an error in the notice of decision Finding 43. This finding, cited by the appellant, refers to Condition 32.e but should also refer to Condition 32.f. Condition 32 requires the submittal of a revised site plan to be submitted as part ofthe final engineering process, with sufficient detail to show the project meets the Architectural and Site Design Standards in WMC 17.36.130. Condition 32.e says, ”Bui|ding elevations and site plan details showing and how each building will meet the ‘Curb Cuts and Driveways’ section (K)” while fsays, ”Bui|ding elevations and site plan details showing and how each building will meet the ’Pedestrian & Bicyclist Connections’ section (M).” The intention of this condition is to ensure that there is sufficient detail in the final site plan so that staff can ensure that there is adequate detail to ensure that there is pedestrian (including ADA access) from the parking areas to the buildings. For example, sidewalks are typically separated from streets and parking lots by curbs and gutters. Commercial structures are typically built at grade with parking tire—stops and bollards to separate pedestrian areas from parking and drive isles. Commercial access allows ADA compliant entry to the business establishment with virtually no separation between the parking lot and the business. Meanwhile typical residential developments have parking areas that are physically separated from structure. There are ADA parking spaces but no indication of whether there is an ADA ramp or at grade access to the building. In this case, the commercial/residential character of the building blurs the line between how the building will function. There is insufficient detail in the site plan to show whether there will be a grade separation between the parking and the commercial establishments on the first floor, and the majority ofthe parking which can/could function as a parking lot for the apartments. (Related to the discussions above and how the ground floor will be occupied and interact with pedestrian traffic and parking.) APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-O01 CAP—22~001, SPR-22-001, SEP—22-003)WLD~2023-006 Page 10 Page 12 of 88  Conclusion: Whether the conditions require a separate ”signing and striping plan" could be subject to debate. Staff is willing to consider the revised site plan and the accompanying final engineering plans as adequate in lieu of a specific striping and circulation plan if the final site plan and final engineering plans provide the detail needed to show that there will be adequate circulation for pedestrians and bikes. ll. RECOMMENDATION Per WMC 19.08.030, staff is responsible for providing a staff report and recommendation to the examiner. Staff recommends the Examiner uphold the APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONSissued by the City of Woodland on December 215‘,2023. Staff Contact: Travis Goddard, Community Development Director City of Woodland P.O. Box 9 230 Davidson Ave Woodland, WA 98661 goddardt@ci.woodland.wa.us 3'4 1/23/2024 Signature: f" ' ‘/ 7%;/i Travis Goddard, Community Development Director cc: Applicant Planning Commission Property Owner City Council Ryan Walters, P.E., Gibbs & Olson Mayor Parties of Record File Department Heads Counter Copy Building Official Website Fire Marshal ATTACHMENTS A. Floor Plan (First Submission Attachment A) B. Floor Plan (Revised Submittal Ground Level Floor Plan) — C. Site Plan (First Submission Document #27) (4 pages) — D. Site Plan (Revised submittal Preliminary Site Plan) — APPEALSTAFF REPORT Logan's Landing Site Plan (SPR-22-001 CAP-Z2»0O1, SPR~Z2—001, SEP-22-O03) WLD-2023-006 Page 11 Page 13 of 88 was 3.2 m 3 5 3 5 Page 14 of 88 g Page 15 of 88 Page 16 of 88 Page 17 of 88 Page 18 of 88 Page 19 of 88 Page 20 of 88  E-Q NASH MILLER LeAnne M. Bremer, P.C. " Admitted in Washington and Oregon leanne.bremer@mi||ernash.com 360.619.7002 (direct) December 28, 2023 VIAHAND-DELIVERY Hearing Examiner c/o of Travis Goddard, Community Development Director City of Woodland 230 Davidson Avenue Woodland, WA 98661 goddardt@ci.wood|and.wa.us Subject: NOTICEOF APPEAL WLD-2023-006 Notice of Decision —— Logan's Landing Site Plan To the City of Woodland Hearings Examiner: On behalf of Belmont—LewisHoldings, LLC,owner and applicant for Logan's Landing (Applicant), i am filing this appeal of the enclosed Staff Report and SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance dated December 21, 2023 (Notice of Decision), issued by the City of Woodland. A party may appeal a Notice of Decision under WMC 19.08.030 and 19.06.040. This appeal is timely filed within 14 days of December 21, 2023. This Notice of Appeal must include the following: A. Name and address of the party or agency filing the appeal: Applicant and Owner: Contact Person: Shayne Olsen LeAnne Bremer Belmont—LewisHoldings, LLC Miller Nash LLP PO Box 1940 500 Broadway Street, Suite 400 Bend, OR97709 Vancouver, WA 98660 (541) 306-1611 (360) 619-7002 shayne@saceinc.com leanne.bremer@millernash.com California I 4862-4779-1001.1 Oregon Washington 500 Broadway St, Ste 400 | Vancouver, WA 98660 MlLLERNASH.COM l Page 21 of 88  ‘::‘:‘::'“.os Page 2 ' ESNASH MILLER B. Identification of the specific administrative interpretation or determination of which appeal is sought: Belmont-Lewis Holdings is appealing the enclosed Notice of Decision associated with the Logan's Landing project: Site Plan Review, Critical Areas Permit, and SEPA Checklist dated December 21, 2023. C. Statement of the particular grounds or reasons for the appeal: 1. Appeal Issue #1: Ground Floor Parking is an Allowed Use and May be Counted to Meet Parking Minimum Reguirements The Appellant identifies the following findings relevant to this appeal issue: a. Finding 19, page 11: Finding 19: During the initial review of this case in 2022, staff indicated that having parking on the ground floor did not constitute a ground floor commercial use for the purposes of building residentials uses above. b. Findings 20 21, page 12: ~ Finding 20: The applicant counter argues that the parking in the building is commercial in nature and that the apartments on the second and third floor are therefor above a commercial use. Finding 21: The applicant further argued that in the C-1 zone under "(37) Public and p/ivate of/vstreet parking facilities‘is a permitted use in the zone. Again, making those residential units ahmm 2 rnmmnrrial um c. Finding 22, page 12: Finding 22: Staff does not agree with this interpretation. Staff interprets (37) to apply to public parking facilities like those for City Hall and Horseshoe Lake, which are located in the C-1 district and allowed as a permitted use. Furthermore, (37) could allow for a commercial parking facility like a commercial garage structure or a commercial surface lot. Something like: [photo] 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 22 of 88  Travis Goddard MI ER._ ' December 28, 2023 Pages NASH d. Finding 23, page 13: Finding 23: The applicant proposes commercial spaces on portions of each ground floor with the provision that the ground floor parking within the building will be the parking associated with those commercial spaces. e. Finding 24, page 13: Finding 24: Again, staff disagrees with this interpretation of commercial parking as a commercial parking structure under (37) as discussed above. The fact that the plan earmarks those spaces for commercial users instead of for the residential uses, does not make it meet the subsection (37). f. Finding 25, page 14: Finding 25: Those parking spaces could be specifically designed for use as a separate commercial parking facility. But that is counter-productive for this proposal because those parking facility spaces could not count toward parking for the other uses on the Site. [additional text in Notice of Decision also incorporated in this appeal statement] g. Findings 26, 27, 28, page 14: 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 23 of 88  Page 4 ' lr-V-'_.q MILLER NASH Finding 26: Required parking also cannot be considered as a commercial parking facility because as a listed use in the C-1 zone, it would automatically be an unlisted use in all other zones and become a prohibited use by default in those zones. it seems highly illogical that the intent of the city was to only allow for parking to be a permitted use in the C-1 zone. This alone seems to exclude the idea that parking required by the development regulations, should be interpreted as a stand-alone use. Finding 27: Based on the above analysis, the parking spaces within the building cannot be counted toward the required parking spaces for either the commercial or residential units. A condition of approval has been added requiring that the parking be recalculated without those spaces. (See Condition #12) Finding28: with the loss of commercialparkingwithin the structure, the proposal can nolongerclaim that heunitsabove theparkingarecompliantwithsubsection (10) above.The ntireground to commercial floorwillneedto converted spacefora commercial usepermissiblebyzoning.This change willfurther theparkingcalculations forthesite.Aconditionofapproval hasbeenaddedrequiringthattheparking be witha fullground recalculated floorofcommercial space.[SeeCondition #12) h. Finding 53, pages 20-21: Finding 53: The revised ground floor plan shows a building footprint of approximately 244 feet by 60 feet for a gross foot print of 14,640 and a 3-story total building mass of 43,920. Per code, at ratio of 1 space per 300 gross square feet, each building would require 146.4 spaces per building. As stated above, the proposal includes parking within the building, which is a point of disagreement between the staff and the applicant. The proposal does not give a total space count, nor does the site plan include a complete parking analysis. i. Findings 61, 62, 63, and 65, page 22: 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 24 of 88  $:‘:;:.i:f::":m3 Page 5 ’ E MILLER NASH Finding 61: The revised parking count means that each building would have to have 49 parking spaces for the commercial use, and 51 parking spaces for the residential units, for a total of 100 parking spaces needed per building. The proposal appears to propose 47 parking spaces per building. Staff could not consider this request to be reasonably ?exible under WMC 1756.020. Finding 62: The final site plan must be revised to accommodate compliance with the parking standard as part ofthe final engineering review process. (See Condition #12.) Parking spaces are required to have a minimum area of 180 sq ft and be 9 ft wide per WMC 1756.060. Finding 63: The provided site plan identifies proposed parlting spaces but does not clearly identify dimensions, The preliminary site plan includes compact spaces which are not allowed in the commercial zone. in this case, flexibility in administration of the parking code should accommodate the use compact parking spaces. (See Condition u12.) Finding 65: The ground floor of each structure shall have parking calculated using full ground floor commercial uses, unless a commercial parking facility is being proposed in the building in which case, the spaces within the building itself will be excluded from the required parking calculations. Those commercial spaces can be considered a separate use and may include compact or be smaller by design. in that case, those spaces must be subtracted from the total calculation as discussed above. (See Condition #12.) Related to the findings above, the Appellant appeals Condition of Approval #12: 12. A final site plan showing parking calculations shall be submitted with the final engineering plans. Said calculations shall consider the ?ndings above and reflect the exclusionof parking that is internal to the buildings as discussed above. The site plan shall show the size and number of spaces, as well as the location, phase and/or building for which they are dedicated to. The use of up to 17% of compact spaces may be accepted for the final parking plan. The plan must show how ADAparking standards can be met by phase. Contrary to some of the above findings and to the condition of approval, ground floor parking to serve the uses in the same building are permitted uses. On page 8 of the Notice of Decision, staff acknowledges that this application vested to the prior version of WMC 17.36.020. This prior version can be found at: 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 25 of 88  i:‘:‘::'°‘...3 Page 6 ' E NASH MILLER s https2//libraQ/.municode.com/wa/woodland/codes[code of ordinances/401771?node|d=W0O DLANDMUNICIPAL CODE T|T17ZO CH17.36HlCOD|C- l7.36.130ARSlDEST1 The project site is located in the City's C-2 zone. The allowed uses in the C-2 zone under the vested code include all uses in the C-1: 17.36.020 - Permitted uses. The following uses only are permitted in the C-2 districts; all other uses are not permitted or are permitted as a conditional use pursuant to this chapter. *** 5. Commercial parking lots and garages; 29. Uses permitted in the C-1 central business district; This takes one to the permitted use list in the C-1 central business district, which includes the following permitted uses: 17.32.020 - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the central business district (C-1). Other uses may require a conditional use or temporary use permit or be prohibited in the C-1 district. *7k* 10. Dwelling units; provided residential uses are located above a permissible C-1 commercial use and adequate off-street parking is provided pursuant to Chapter 17.56. Lobbies for residential uses on upper floors may be located on the ground floor.; * =k * 37. Public and private off-street parking facilities; The City does not dispute that residential uses are allowed on the upper floors of the proposed buildings but takes issue with parking on the ground floor as being the "permissible C-1 commercial use.” Permitted commercial uses in this case are ones allowed both in the C-1 and 1 Note, at the top of the page it states VERSIONwith a drop down menu to locate prior versions of the code. 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 26 of 88  Travis Goddard December 28, 2023 MILLER Page 7 NASH C-2 use lists. One such commercial use in the 01 use list is "public and private off-street parking facilities.” The conditions for allowing residential uses in the upper floors of the building are a permissible commercial use on the ground floor and adequate off-street parking, both of which are met in the proposed project with the provision of parking on the ground floor. in other words, the parking in this case meets dual requirements. Even without the residential uses, the parking facilities are allowed in the building under the code in both the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. Moreover and significantly, the code, in using the term ”public and private off-street parking facilities” does not distinguish between parking generally available to the public or parking associated with particular uses. Off-street parking facilities within a building to serve uses in that building are permitted by clear, ambiguous language of the code, most notably in WMC 17.32.020(37). ”Facility" means something designed, built, installed, etc., to serve a specific function? Secondly, there is nothing in code that prevents an applicant from counting the parking spaces in a building towards the minimum parking requirements for a use. WMC 1756.005 generally requires, in part: Every building hereafter erected shall be provided with parking spaces, and such parking spaces shall be made permanently available and be permanently maintained for parking purposes and, except for parking areas used for playground purposes in connection with schools, shall be used only for the parking of automobiles or trucks. Any areas used to provide required off-street parking shall be of such size and shape and so designed that the area will accommodate the number of cars to be provided for. There are no restrictions in code on where the off-street parking to serve a use must be, whether in a building or on a surface lot. The City's argument appears to be twofold. First, ground-floor parking in the buildings is not the type of commercial use that would allow residences on the upper floors. Second, even if parking is allowed on the ground floors, that parking must be considered a separate, stand- alone use and cannot be counted towards the parking requirements for the uses in the same 2 https2//www.dictionarv.com/browse/facility 4862-4779-1001 .1 Page 27 of 88  ‘::f‘::'°.o.3 Page 8 ' E NASH MILLER buildings. In that case, the Appellant must meet additional parking minimums elsewhere. While this may be the City's desire, there is no support in code for either position. The decision on this appeal should include a conclusion that ground floor parking in a building is a permitted use in the C-2 zone as a private off-street parking facility. Further, Condition of Approval #12 should be revised to eliminate the second sentence. 2. Appeal Issue #2: The proposed facade meets the architectural standards This appeal issue concerns the following finding on page 18: For transparency, there is a requirement for 30% of the ground floor facadeto be windows with clear vision glass. The proposal does not include any calculations for the building frontage or the window presence on the buildings that can be seen from streets or public open spaces. with the conversion of the ground floor to commercial, this standard will need to be revisited. Final architectural designs will need to accompany the final engineering submittal in order to ensure that the final designs meet these standards. Related to the finding is Condition #32.c. on page 34, both of which the Appellant challenges in this Appeal: c. Building elevations and site plan details showing and how each building will meet the "Articulation and Massing" section (H). The relevant code, WMC 17.36.130.H.4.,states: 4. Transparency. (See Figures 37 and 38.) Intent: To provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside of buildings, and encourage pedestrian activities on the fronting public streets. a) A minimum of thirty percent of any ground floor facade‘ 1 that is visible from any public street, public space, or residential zone shall be comprised of windows with clear "vision" glass’ 1. b) A minimum of forty percent of any ground floor facade” located closer than sixty feet to a state highway, major arterial, or minor arterial shall be comprised of windows with clear "vision" glass‘2 . 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 28 of 88  Travis Goddard December 28, 2023 MI R Page 9 NA S H c) A minimum of sixty percent of any ground floor facade“ located closer than twenty feet to a state highway, major arterial, or minor arterial shall be comprised of windows with clear, "vision" glass". Display windows may be used to meet this requirement d) A minimum of twenty percent of any upper floor facade that is visible from any public street, public space, or residential zone shall be comprised of windows with clear "vision" glass. e) For facades that do not have windows, see WMC 17.36.130.H.5, Blank Wall Treatments. f) Energy efficient windows should be used. ‘ 1 The portion of the facade between three feet and seven feet above grade. ' 2 Clear "vision" glass shall be transparent, and shall not include translucent or reflective glass. In this case, for the proposed project, the entire ground floor facade that is visible from the street comprises 18% clear vision glass for the retail/officeportions, and 42% of openings with no windows to provide vent openings along the parking structure portion of the facade. Transparency means the ability to see-through the wall and openings without glass meet this requirement. The intent of the code is to not have solid walls with less than 30% windows or openings. The buildings more than meet this intent with 60% transparency of the qualifying portion of the facade. The Appellant requests a ruling that the proposed plan meets the requirements of WMC 17.36.130.H.4. 3. Appeal Issue #3: The Applicant should not be required to improve streets in front of undeveloped property Finding 5 on page 4 states: 4862-4779-1001 .1 Page 29 of 88  Travis Goddard December 22, 2023 MILLER Page 10 NAS H Finding 5: Frontage improvements along Old Pacific Highway will require construction of half-street improvements, attached sidewalk, landscaping, and street lighting consistent with City of Woodland Engineering Standards (Standards) and applicable Woodland Municipal Code (WMC). The Franklin Street extension and any private roads and driveway approaches shall be designed per the Standards and WMC. A condition is added that all improvements in the public right-of-way shall be completed in accordance with the Standards and WMC. Additionally, dedication of Right—of-Wayshall comply with the Standards and WMC. (See Condition :33.) Condition 3 states: 3. All improvements in the public right-of-way shall be completed in accordance with City of Woodland standards per Title 12. This will include street trees and improvements along Old Pacific Highway. Appellant challenges both the finding and the condition. Not only is this requirement vague in nature, but it would require the Applicant to make costly and extensive improvements to nearly 1,000 lineal feet of pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and landscaping in front of undeveloped property. Tax Parcel No. 50714 is not yet slated for development, so a requirement for half—street improvements along a future street that connects Franklin Street with Old Pacific Highway on Tax Parcel No. 50714, and along the parcel's frontage on Old Pacific Highway would not be proportional to the impacts of the development. The Appellant challenges this requirement as unlawful under the nexus and rough proportionality doctrines rooted in constitutional law, and under RCW82.02.020, in addition to other applicable law, because it is a requirement that is not reasonably necessitated as a direct result of this development. A 20' wide temporary access road in compliance with the fire code should be adequate emergency use until development occurs on Parcel 50714. The Appellant requests that Condition 3 be revised to exclude any requirements to make half—streetimprovements related to Tax Parcel No. 50714 along a future street and along the frontage with Old Pacific Highway. 4. Appeal Issue #4: A separate striping and circulation plan is duplicative and unnecessary Finding 43 on page 19 states: 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 30 of 88  Travis Goddard December 28,2023 MILLER NAS H ‘.‘ Page 11 Finding 43: Curb Cuts and Driveways (WMC 17.36.130lK)) and (WMC 17.36.130(L)) Location of Parking Lot To enhance pedestrian safety and activity, driveway access and — parking lot circulationwhile also providing for adequate vehicular and service vehicle access. Accordingly the gre|imlna_;y_site gl_z_sn does include adequate information for pedestrian circulation routgs, bike routes. Turning movements appear to provide for saf circulationof service vehicles includin arba e trucks and emer enc vehicles but additional information ma be needed as art of the final en ineerin rocess. The ?nal engineering plan shall include a striping and circulation plan that would allow for proper evaluation of turning movements and safe pedestrian circulation given the intense parking lot design and distribution of the buildings. (See Condition #32.e) There is no accompanying condition related to the requirement that the final engineering plan include a striping and circulation plan for pedestrians and bike routes. To the extent that this requirement is viewed as a condition of approval, the Appellant challenges it. A separate striping and circulation plan is not required by WMC 17.36.130. Pedestrian and bike routes are already indicated on the preliminary site plan. Any necessary turning movements can be indicated on the civil engineering plans. Conclusion The applicant respectfully requests that the Hearings Examiner require the City to revise the Notice of Decision as not fully supported by the facts or law consistent with the above requests. According to the City's fee schedule effective July 1, 2023, the fee for an appeal is $700, which accompanies this appeal, plus the Hearings Examiner's cost, which will be determined after the appeal is heard. Very truly yours, LeAnne M. Bremer, P.C. Enclosure: Notice of Decision 4862-4779-1001.1 Page 31 of 88 Page 32 of 88 Page 33 of 88 Page 34 of 88 Page 35 of 88 Page 36 of 88 Page 37 of 88 Page 38 of 88 Page 39 of 88 Page 40 of 88 Page 41 of 88 Page 42 of 88 Page 43 of 88 Page 44 of 88 Page 45 of 88 Page 46 of 88 Page 47 of 88 Page 48 of 88 Page 49 of 88 Page 50 of 88 Page 51 of 88 Page 52 of 88 Page 53 of 88 Page 54 of 88 Page 55 of 88 Page 56 of 88 Page 57 of 88 Page 58 of 88 Page 59 of 88 Page 60 of 88 Page 61 of 88 Page 62 of 88 Page 63 of 88 Page 64 of 88 Page 65 of 88 Page 66 of 88 Page 67 of 88 Page 68 of 88 Page 69 of 88 Page 70 of 88 Page 71 of 88 Page 72 of 88 Page 73 of 88 Page 74 of 88 Page 75 of 88 Page 76 of 88 Page 77 of 88 Page 78 of 88 Page 79 of 88 Page 80 of 88 Page 81 of 88 Page 82 of 88 Page 83 of 88 Page 84 of 88 Page 85 of 88  Community Development Department Building | Planning | Code Enforcement (360) 225-7299 www.ci.woodland.wa.us NOTICE OF APPEAL Logan’s Landing Appeal Hearing Date: January 29, 2024 3:00 pm Case number(s): SEP-22-003/SPR-22-001/CAP-22-001 Appeal Case Number: WLD-2023-006 Logan Partners, LLC Applicant and Property Shayne Olsen owner: P.O. Box 1940 Bend, OR 97709 LeAnne M. Bremer, P.C. Miller Nash LLP Contact Person: 500 Broadway Street, Suite 400 Vancouver, WA 98660 Decision and SEPA December 21, 2023 Determination issued: Appeal deadline: January 4th, 2024 Date appeal submitted: December 29th, 2023 January 8, 2024 Notice of Appeal issued: Published in The Reflector January 17, 2024 January 19, 2024 to be in included in the staff report. Comment deadline: End of the public comment portion of the hearing for testimony at the hearing. January 29, 2024 Appeal Hearing: 3:00 pm (Attendance info below) DESCRIPTION OF APPEAL Logan Partners, LLC has appealed the SEPA Determination of Significance for Logan’s Landing, a phased development of 8 buildings in the Highway Commercial (C-2) zoning district. Each building having 5,080 square feet of commercial space, parking, and two floors of residential having 17 units per floor. The project is approximately 20 acres in size and includes multiple property parcels including one Light Industrial (I-1) parcel. Notice of Appeal: Logan’s Landing Page 1 of 3 Page 86 of 88 LOCATION OF PROJECT The property is located at the southern end of Franklin Street (Loop) off of Belmont Loop, and fronts on Old Pacific Highway, and includes tax parcels 50680023, 50714, 50729 and 50730, in Woodland, WA 98674. REVIEW AUTHORITY Per WMC 19.08.030 and 19.06.050, appeal of SEPA actions shall be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner at an open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner will make the decision based upon the case record compiled throughout the hearing process. Enforcement appeal decisions made by the Examiner become final twenty (20) calendar days after mailing of the hearing examiner’s decision unless an aggrieved person initiates an appeal under RCW 36.70C. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR OPEN RECORD Public comments on this Notice of Appeal can be submitted to the responsible official. Given the current health concerns, written comments are recommended to be sent prior to the meeting and will not preclude additional testimony as part of the hearing. Comments must be submitted no later than 5:00 PM on January 19, 2024 to be included in the staff report though testimony may be provided up until the closing of the public testimony portion of the hearing. Comments should be submitted to: City of Woodland Email: goddardt@ci.woodland.wa.us Community Development Department Phone: 360-225-7299 c/o Travis Goddard Fax: 360-225-7336 230 Davidson Ave., PO Box 9 Woodland, WA 98674 The record of documents for this appeal and the agenda for the hearing can be found on-line at the City’s website www.woodland.wa.us by looking on the “City Project” page and/or on the “Public Meetings” page. Please note: The record will continue to be updated until the record is closed by the Examiner as part of the appeal hearing process. Please contact staff for any records submitted less than 24-hours prior to the hearing, during the hearing, or as part of an open record period following the hearing (as required/requested by the examiner). Notice of Appeal: Logan’s Landing Page 2 of 3 Page 87 of 88 APPEAL HEARING NOTICE The Hearing Examiner will hold an open record public hearing on this matter at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, January 29, 2024, at the Woodland City Council Chambers, 200 East Scott Avenue, Woodland, WA. The link to the Zoom is: https://zoom.us/j/94255682907?pwd=V0dSRHZLSW5UQk4zN0JvTW8yYzhVdz09 Date: January 9, 2024 Signature: /S/ Travis Goddard Travis Goddard, Community Development Director Cc: Applicant Owner Appellant Adjacent property owners Parties of Record City Administrator Mayor Department Heads Posted (City Hall, Post Office, Police Station) City of Woodland website Notice of Appeal: Logan’s Landing Page 3 of 3 Page 88 of 88