Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 330CITY OF MEDINA RESOLUTION NO. 330 DENYING A HISTORIC USE PERMIT REVISION FOR THE MEDINA GREEN STORE AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS. WHEREAS, Mrs. Hae Lee is owner of the Medina Green Store located on Evergreen Point Drive and NE 8th, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Lee has applied for a revision to her historic use permit for the Green Store to allow commercial office and storage uses, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an open record hearing to consider the application and has made a recommendation to the City Council and adopted findings of fact and conclusions and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's recommendation at the July 23, 2007 City Council meeting and directed staff to prepare a Resolution which denied the requested revision, now therefore, THE MEDINA CITY COUNCIL HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION AS FOLLOWS: 1. The applicant is requesting a Historical Use Permit to modify the previously -approved uses (HUP 2003-01) associated with the "Medina Store" project. This permit allows a total of 3979 square feet for revenue producing floor area. 2. The upper floor (1468 square feet), which was previously approved for storage leasing and storage / bookkeeping in support of the market, is now proposed for leaseable office space. 3. The eastern portion of the main floor (695 square feet) is proposed for the additional use of commercial office space in addition to the uses allowed by HUP 2003-01. 4. The eastern portion of the basement, which was previously approved for storage and bookkeeping in support of the market, is now proposed for storage accessory to the commercial office spaces. 5. The former Medina Store retail establishment was in operation from 1910 to 2000. While there were a variety of incidental and associated uses on the property over the years, the main activity was a grocery store. Sometime prior to Medina's incorporation a small post office occupied the Resolution No. 330 eastern portion of the first floor. The property has never been leased or used for office uses as a doctor, lawyer, accountant, real estate sales or other independent, commercial enterprises. The City was incorporated in 1955. 6. The applicant's traffic engineer has testified that the additional traffic generation from the additional uses proposed will be 10 trips a day and the peak hour will increase by two trip per hour which he characterizes as insignificant. The engineer also estimated the maximum peak parking will increase by 4 parking stalls and the available parking is sufficient for the expected parking demand with the two additional stalls proposed in the application. 7. Neighbors to the project have testified that the increased traffic and increased parking demands will have an adverse impact on their property due to the increased noise and other impacts from the proposal. The neighbors also disputed the availability of street parking for the store due to beach park users, residents and the post office. 8. The Council concludes that the proposed revision does not meet the criteria for approval set forth in MMC Section 17.56A.030 in several respects. 9. MMC Section 17.20.010(G) states that "historical uses are limited to nonresidential uses which were in existence at the date of incorporation of the city. Historical uses shall not be allowed on any lot where the use was not operated at the date of incorporation of the city." 10. Other than the grocery, the only other commercial use of the property at the date of incorporation was as a small post office. While this is a commercial use, it is not an commercial office use that is contemplated by the applicant's proposal. Moreover, the historic use of the property was as a grocery store with some incidental uses. Under the proposal it is possible for the store to have a total of 2163 square feet used for commercial office space, out of a total 3979 square feet of revenue producing floor area. This would convert the majority of the revenue producing floor area from a grocery store to commercial office space. This is not in keeping with the historical character of this property. 11. The applicant's analysis of the traffic and parking impacts from the proposal was focused on the incremental effects of the change which were characterized as insignificant. The cumulative effects of the traffic and parking from all uses on the property must properly be considered. 12. The City Council had previously approved HUP 2003-01 in 2003 after a lengthy and often contentious process. That approval was a careful balance of the rights of all, including Mrs. Lee, the neighbors as well as Resolution No. 330 the citizens at large. The extent of retail use approved was as requested by Mrs. Lee and fit the historical character of the Green Store. 13. The requested expansion of allowed uses, together with the impacts from the prior approved uses will cause material detrimental effects on the neighbors and the increased retail use is not in keeping with the historical uses of the property. 14. For the above reasons, the request is denied. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS 81" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007, AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS P SSAGE ON THE 81" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007. Miles R. Adam, Mayor Approved as to form: t ayn . Tanaka, City Attorney Attest: L*YVA,1 R chel Baker, City Clerk Resolution No.