Ordinance 34400006.90000
WSS /gjz
2/6/03
ORDINANCE NO. 3440
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, EXTENDING A SIX MONTH INTERIM
ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC 20.35.080 IN ORDER TO
CLARIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF THE
HEARING EXAMINER, SHALL MAKE FINAL DECISIONS
ON PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code currently has
conflicting provisions as to the review authority of the hearing examiner on Planned Residential
Development (PRD) applications in that ECDC 20.35.080(A) provides that the hearing examiner
makes final decisions on PRD's and ECDC 20.100.010(A)(3) provides that the hearing examiner
only makes recommendations to the City Council on PRD's; and
WHEREAS; PRD's have been judicially construed to constitute rezones, the final
decision of which cannot be delegated to another body by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted an interim zoning
Ordinance No. 3416 which is about to expire, and expects the recommendation of its Planning
Board within the next few months, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.35.080 is
hereby amended to provide as follows:
{WSS536971.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
20.35.080 Review process.
A. An application for a PRD has two stages. The first stage,
the Preliminary PRD, includes the following:
1. Pre - application Staff Review. The preliminary
plans of the proposal shall be submitted to the Planning Manager
for review and comment. This provides an opportunity for the
developer to work with the City staff to design a total plan which
best meets the goals of the City and the needs of the developer.
Such potential problems as drainage, topography, circulation, site
design and neighborhood impact should be identified and
addressed before the proposal is submitted for formal review.
2. Optional Pre - application Neighborhood Meeting. If
the project contains unusual or severe environmental problems or
unusual compatibility problems with adjoining properties, the
Planning Manager may require the applicant to host a public pre -
application neighborhood meeting to discuss and receive public
comment on the conceptual proposal. Should the applicant desire,
they may choose to host a public pre - application neighborhood
meeting even though one is not required by the Planning Manager.
While this meeting will allow immediate public
response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments
submitted during this meeting are not binding to the applicant or
staff. However, staff may make general recommendations to the
applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from
this meeting to the extent that said comments are consistent with
the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development
Code and Comprehensive Plan.
3. Review by the Architectural Design Board. The
Design Board will review the project for compliance with the
Urban Design Guidelines and/or the Single Family Design Criteria
in Section 060 of this chapter and forward their recommendation of
the site and building design on to the Hearing Examiner for his
consideration. Their review will be at one of their regularly
scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the
ability for the public to comment on the project.
4. A Public Hearing With the Hearing Examiner. The
Hearing Examiner will review the proposed PRD for compliance
with this section and make a recommendation to the City Council
on the Preliminary PRD (see ECDC Section 20.100 and 20.105 for
the review process).
(WSS536971.DOC;1/00006.900000/) - 2 -
If the proposal is denied, a similar plan for the site
may not be submitted to the development services department for
one year. A new plan which varies substantially from the denied
proposal, as determined by the development services director, or
one that satisfies the objections stated by the City Council may be
submitted at any time.
An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for
sale as part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval in
accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building permit
or authorization to begin construction is issued, and before sale of
any portion of the property. The preferred method is for the
applicant to process the subdivision application concurrently with
the Planned Residential Development proposal.
B. The second stage of the PRD process, the final PRD,
consists of the City's review of the final plans for consistency with
the preliminary PRD approved by the City Council. The decision
at this stage will be made by City staff unless the final PRD is
submitted as a consolidated application with a permit that requires
City Council review, i.e., a Formal Plat. The final PRD will be
subject to the following review:
1. The applicant shall submit the final development
plan to the development services director, conforming to the
preliminary plan approved by the City Council, and all applicable
conditions of that approval. The Planning Manager shall review
the plan along with the City Engineer and make a final decision.
The plan shall contain final, precise drawings of all the information
required by ECDC 20.35.030. The applicant shall also submit all
covenants, homeowner's association papers, maintenance
agreements, and other relevant legal documents.
2. If City staff finds that the final development plan conforms
to the preliminary approval, and to all applicable conditions, staff
shall approve the plan and its accompanying conditions as a
covenant which touches and concerns the subject property,
incorporating by reference all maps, drawings and exhibits
required to specify the precise land use authorized. A file shall be
maintained by the development services department containing all
maps and other documents or exhibits referred to in the approval.
The approval shall also contain a legal description of a boundary of
the proposal. The covenant shall be recorded with the county
auditor if no subdivision plat is to be recorded. -
3. The provisions of approval shall be restrictions on
the development of the site. Revocation of approval or
{WSS536971.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 3 -
abandonment as provided in this chapter shall eliminate all
requirements imposed under the Planned Residential Development
plan and shall cause the old underlying zoning requirements to be
in full force and effect.
Section 2. As required by RCW 35A.63.220, this ordinance shall expire six
months from the date of adoption. In the meantime as further required by RCW 35A.63.220, the
City Clerk is directed to schedule a public hearing on this ordinance within sixty days of its
adoption and the planning board is requested to make a recommendation on a final version of
this ordinance to be adopted by the City Council prior to its expiration.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAY GAR AAKENSON
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ( &—c5t�&
W. Scott Snyder
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 02/14/2003
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 02/18/2003
PUBLISHED: 02/23/2003
EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/28/2003
ORDINANCE NO. 3440
{WSS536971.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3440
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 18th day of February, 2003, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. 3440. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING A SIX
MONTH INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING ECDC 20.35.080 IN ORDER TO CLARIFY
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF THE HEARING EXAMINER, SHALL MAKE
FINAL DECISIONS ON PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2003.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS536971.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 5 -
--- ... — 1...... ». a..vuc
to the *department of community development by September
30, 1990.
On or before June 30, 1991, each municipality that
plans and zones under this chapter shall have adopted an
ordinance or ordinances that are necessary to implement the
findings of this review, if the findings indicate that such
changes are necessary, or shall notify the *department of
community development as to why such implementing
ordinances were not adopted. [1989 c 335 § 5.]
*Reviser's note: Powers, duties, and functions of the department of
community development and the department of trade and economic
development were transferred to the department of community, trade, and
economic development by 1993 c 280, effective July 1, 1994.
Findings — Purpose— Severability -1989 c 335: See notes following
RCW 35.63.170.
Definitions for RCW 35A.63.210: See RCW 35.63.170.
35A.63.215 Family day -care provider's home
facility —City may not prohibit in residential or commer-
cial area. No city may enact, enforce, or maintain an ordi-
nance, development regulation, zoning regulation, or official
control, policy, or administrative practice which prohibits the
use of a residential dwelling, located in an area zoned for
residential or commercial use, as a family day -care
provider's home facility.
A city may require that the facility: (1) Comply with
all building, fire, safety, health code, and business licensing
requirements; (2) conform to lot size, building size, setbacks,
and lot coverage standards applicable to the zoning district
except if the structure is a legal nonconforming structure; (3)
is certified by the office of child care policy licensor as
providing a safe passenger loading area; (4) include signage,
if any, that conforms to applicable regulations; and (5) limit
hours of operations to facilitate neighborhood compatibility,
while also providing appropriate opportunity for persons who
use family day -care and who work a nonstandard work shift.
A city may also require that the family day -care
provider, before state licensing, require proof of written
notification by the provider that the immediately adjoining
property owners have been informed of the intent to locate
and maintain such a facility. If a dispute arises between
neighbors and the family day -care provider over licensing
requirements, the licensor may provide a forum to resolve
the dispute.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a
city from imposing zoning conditions on the establishment
and maintenance of a family day -care provider's home in an
area zoned for residential or commercial use, so long as such
conditions are no more restrictive than conditions imposed
on other residential dwellings in the same zone and the
establishment of such facilities is not precluded. As used in
this section, "family day -care provider" is as defined in
RCW.74.15.020. [1995 c 49 § 2; 1994 c 273 § 16.]
35A.63.220 Moratoria, interim zoning controls —
Public hearing — Limitation on length. A legislative body
that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, with-
out holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or
interim zoning ordinance, shall hold a public hearing on the
adopted moratorium or interim zoning ordinance within at
least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the legislative
body received a recommendation on the matter from the
[Title 35A RCW —page 641
planning agency. If the legislative body does not adopt
findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then
the legislative body shall do so immediately after this public
hearing. A moratorium or interim zoning ordinance adopted
under this section may be effective for not longer than six
months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work
plan is developed for related studies providing for such a
longer period. A moratorium of interim zoning ordinance
may be renewed for one or more six -month periods if a
subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are
made prior to each renewal. [1992 c 207 § 3.]
35A.63.230 Accessory apartments. Any local
government, as defined in RCW 43.63A.215, . that is planning
under this chapter shall comply with RCW 43.63A.215(3).
[1993 c 478 § 9.]
35A.63.240 Treatment of residential structures
occupied by persons with handicaps. No city may enact
or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning
regulation or official control, policy, or administrative
practice which treats a residential structure occupied by
persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential
structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals.
As used in this section, "handicaps" are as defined in the
federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
3602). [1993 c 478 § 21.]
35A.63.250 Watershed restoration projects — Permit
processing —Fish habitat enhancement project. A permit
required under this chapter for a watershed restoration
project as defined in RCW 89.08.460 shall be processed in
compliance with RCW 89.08.450 through 89.08.510. A fish
habitat enhancement project meeting the criteria of *RCW
75.20.350(1) shall be reviewed and approved according to
the provisions of *RCW 75.20.350. [1998 c 249 § 6; 1995
c 378 § 9.1
*Reviser's note: RCW 75.20.350 was recodified as RCW 77.55.290
pursuant to 2000 c 107 § 129.
Findings— Purpose— Report— Effective date 1998 c 249: See
notes following RCW 77.55.290.
35A.63.260 Planning regulations— Copies provided
to county assessor. By July 31, 1997, a code city planning
under RCW 36.70A.040 shall provide to the county assessor
a copy of the code city's comprehensive plan and develop-
ment regulations in effect on July 1st of that year and shall
thereafter provide any amendments to the plan and regula-
tions that were adopted before July 31st of each following
year. [1996 c 254 § 4.]
35A.63.270 General aviation airports. Adoption and
amendment of comprehensive plan provisions and develop-
ment regulations under this chapter affecting a general
aviation airport are subject to RCW 36.70.547. [1996 c 239
§ 4.]
35A.63.280 Adopted by Reference
applications b3 Ordinance # jYgD on 48 -03
department of so
ment of correctia
City Clerk
y
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHONHSH
SUMMARY _0E
ORDINANCE- N.0.3440
of the City of Edmonds,
Washington
On the 18th day of Febru-
ary, 2003, the City Council of
the City of Edmonds, Passed
Ordinance No. 3439. A
summary of the content of
said ordinance, consisting of
the title, Provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASH-
INGTON, EXTENDING A SIX
MONTH INTERIM ORDI-
NANCE AMENDING ECDC
20.35.080 IN ORDER TO
CLARIFY THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL, INSTEAD OF
THE HEARING EXAMINER,
SHALL MAKE FINAL DECI-
SIONS ON PLANNED RES-
IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS, AND FIX-
ING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME,
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordi-
nance will be mailed upon
req.
DATEuestD this 19th day of
February, 2003.
SANDRA S. CHASE
CITY CLERK
Published: February 23,
2003.
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly swom on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk
of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
City of Edmonds
Summary of Ordinance No. 3440
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not
in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
February 23, 2003
and that said newspaper wasregularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this \ \
24th
n, WOLIC
OP k,, WASktAG_% :-
A >MyrettMVE D Account Number: 101416 Order Number. 0001007493 Invoice Number. 101007493- 02232003
FEB 2 7 2003
EDMONDS CITY CLERK