Loading...
Anglers Crossing HE Decision.pdfCHIT OF EDWNDS l� 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020. (425) 771.0220. FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER '4111, C. 10 APPLICANT: The McNaughton Group, Inc. GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR CASE NO.: P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 LOCATION: 7704 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1), APPLICATION: To divide a lot with approximately 244,000 sq. ft. into 27 lots in a Single -Family Residential zone, RS-8, and nine height variances ranging from 1.5' to 6' (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 1 - 11). REVIEW W PROCESS: A consolidated Formal Plat, PRD application and requested Variances shall be processed as follows: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes recommendations to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then conducts a public hearing and makes a final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20, RS- Single Family Residential. b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.40, Rezones (Contract). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18, Public Works Requirements. d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA). e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.40-90, Critical Areas. lm:orporated Augist 11, 1,1p190 11 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 2 f. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.35, Planned Residential Development's (PRD's). g. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75, Subdivisions. h. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.85, Variances. i. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100, Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory Board and City Council Review. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision: PUBLIC HEARING: Approve with conditions Approve with conditions After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:03 p.m., January 18, 2007, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 5:23 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following people offered comments at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager Planning staff reviewed the staff advisory report at the outset of the hearing. From the Applicant: Brian Holtzclaw, Attorney Craig Krueger, Chief Planning Officer Sue Jensen, Landscape Architect Edward Koltenowski, Traffic Engineer Comments offered by the Applicant include the following: • The original proposal was approved by the ADB, but neighbors were not happy with the proposed through road and the amount of grading that would occur. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 3 • After meeting with neighbors, the proposal was redesigned to allow an emergency vehicle connection, but no through road. • The revised proposal also would significantly reduce the amount of grading on the site. • The redesign will result in less roadway surface and more open space. • The proposed variances will allow 25' high houses to be built. The variances are needed due to the way Edmonds calculates height (from original grade). • No height variances were requested with the original plan, but are now necessary due to the revised road layout. • The code requires a PRD to have 10% open space. 26% open space is proposed here. • The code allows 35% lot coverage, but only 21% is proposed here. • The PRD code allows reduction of lot widths and setbacks. Lot widths will be reduced to 50' and interior lot setbacks will be reduced. However, no perimeter setbacks will be reduced. • Landscape treatments will be provided at each entrance. • The landslide hazard areas will be protected. • Storm drainage from the site will go into a 24" pipe that will discharge directly into a 60" catch basin before it drains into the native growth protection associated with the Woodscreek Place development across Olympic View Drive. • It was requested that recommended condition 3a)(4) be revised to allow more flexibility in the design of the fence. From the Communi Duane Farmen Warren Henderson Pam Van Sweringen Rowena Miller Robert Deigert Lori Haugh David Johnson Chaunte' Kashiwa Brian Furby Comments offered by neighbors include the following: • The applicant has met with neighbors and has revised the plan several times in response to neighbors' concerns. The current plan is a much improved alternative over the original proposal and was generally acceptable to those neighbors in attendance. • No one objected to the requested height variances and some felt the request was a reasonable tradeoff for the reduction in grading that would now occur. • Traffic and pedestrian safety were the main concerns expressed (a petition with 69 signatures was included in Exhibit 13, which discussed the traffic safety issue at length) • 80t' Ave W is a blind hill and sight distance at the crown is inadequate. The crown should be re -graded to increase safety. The additional traffic expected as a result of this proposed development will exacerbate the situation and increase the potential for accidents. • There is another crown on 184th that also prevents good sight distance. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 4 • Sidewalks should be installed in the neighborhood to improve pedestrian safety. There will be a number of children from the proposed development who will be walking to the nearby parks and school. • Funding of the safety improvements could come from contributions from the applicant, traffic impact fees associated with the subdivision and proceeds from the sale of the city owned property to the applicant. • Usable open space calculations were questioned, especially as it related to the proposed trail. Some felt there should be more usable open space and one person suggested making the emergency roadway more usable as an open space feature. • The existing mature trees should be protected during and after construction. • Evergreen trees should be planted for visual relief along 80t' Ave. W in the area just north of proposed lot 1, due to the loss of trees that will occur in the adjacent area due to development. • Many of the neighbors have been apathetic and have not involved themselves because they feel they wouldn't be listened to. Response by the Applicant included the following: • Several traffic studies were conducted relative to this proposal, • The original proposal would have added significantly more trips to 80th Ave. West and 184t' St. SW • Now, only six lots will access onto 80th Ave. W. A complete traffic study was done and showed that the LOS would be met, sight distance requirements for traffic entering the roadway was met, and requirements relative to all intersections in the area were met. • The sight distance problem at the crest of the hill on Wh Ave. W is due to the existing driveways accessing the roadway near the crest. • Most of the traffic from the six lots accessing 80t' from this development will flow to the south and not to the north of the development. About one (1) pm peak hour trip is expected to go north on 80t' Ave. W. There are 120 existing pm peak hour trips now so the proposed development would result in a worst case 1% to 2% change over the traffic that is there now. • Sidewalks will be provided along the frontage of the property on 80th Ave. W. • The mature trees in the designated open space areas will be protected, but hazardous trees could be removed. • The trail area was shown to be 15' wide because it will include some landscaping and benches. Response by City staff included the following: • Recommended condition 3a)(1) referred to Engineering Division conditions and now that should refer to the "revised" Engineering Division conditions. In addition, the words "or as otherwise approved by the City" should be added. • A new condition should be added that would require the Homeowners Association to be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape and open space areas. • A PRD requires 10% of the site to be set aside as usable open space. There is no requirement in a PRD to set aside landslide hazard areas. Here, approximately Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 5 29,000 square feet of open space will be provided over and above what is required. Some of the site is set aside as open space and some is set aside as usable open space. INTRODUCTION: In 1998 a contract rezone was approved on the subject property. Conceptually, that contract approved a change in zoning from RS-12 to RS-8 with the following major conditions: a connection would be made from Olympic View Dr. (OVD) to 80"' Ave. W. to comply with the City's Official Street Map enhancing emergency vehicle response times to the Seaview neighborhood, the property would be developed by means of a PRD, the lot coverage for the site would be limited to 21 % in an attempt to make sure that development on the site would not be incompatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The proposed application is in response to this contract rezone. It is submitted as a Plat and PRD and the following report reviews the application's compliance with the Plat and PRD approval criteria. One of the most significant elements of this site and also the contract rezone relates to the topography of the site. Between OVD and 80'h Ave. W there is an elevation change of approximately 50 feet. This is the area where the contract rezone requires that a road connection be made. In another part of the site, the elevation difference reaches about 75 feet. This elevation change is the difference between the most developable portion of the site and its main access to OVD. Trying to resolve the many issues associated with this application has been a major endeavor for both the applicant, the neighborhood and city staff. These concerns ranged from accommodating the density that the City Council authorized when the rezone was approved to retaining the established character of the neighborhood, which many see includes the existing large mature vegetation on the site. Some other issues included providing the emergency vehicle access that was required by the contract and the City's Street Map while at the same time trying to be sensitive to the neighborhood's desire to not entirely disrupt and change the established vehicle routes in their neighborhood. The applicant's solution to these problems, after much discussion with both City staff and the neighborhood, is to propose a 27-lot subdivision and PRD that has two cul-de-sacs. The first one will meet Olympic View Dr. on the sites east property line and provide access to 21 homes on the southern plateau of the property. The second cul-de-sac will come off of the western property line at the intersection of 80ffi Ave. W. and 184ffi St. SW. and provide access to 6 homes. An emergency vehicle road will connect the two roads at the center of the site. In building the roads as required by the contract rezone on a site that has as much change in topography as this site does, a large amount of grading will be required. In some cases, homes will be located either on steeply sloping lots or lots where a substantial amount of grading was required. The applicant has come to the conclusion that on 9 of their proposed 27 lots height variances are needed because of the sloping nature of the lot or Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 6 because of the fill that was required to build the road and have a reasonable relationship between the road and the lot. This report will focus on the revised plan now under consideration and will not address the original plan submitted by this applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Size: The subject property is irregularly shaped with frontage along Olympic View Drive and 80"' Ave. W. It covers 244,193 sq. ft. and is large enough to accommodate the proposed 27-lot plat (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 1 and 2). b) Land Use: The site is underdeveloped with three small houses on a property that is zoned to allow lots with a minimum size of 8,000 sq. ft. c) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential, RS- 8, however it is subject to a contract (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). d) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is encumbered by significant topography. Slopes on portions of the property exceed 40% and the elevation change from the highest point on the site to the lowest point is approximately 75 feet. Mature native vegetation covers a majority of the site. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Surrounding Development and Zoning: The subject property is surrounded on the north, south and west by residentially zoned and developed properties (they are RS-12, RS-8 and RS-10 respectively). Directly to the east is a US Post Office on property that is zoned Neighborhood Business. b) Consistency with neighboring development: A single-family residential neighborhood is proposed where the individual lots range in size from 4,600 sq. ft. to 7,100 sq. ft. Although neighboring lot sizes range in size from 8,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. the proposed dedicated open space of almost 56,000 sq. ft., much of it located around the perimeter of the site, will assist in making sure the proposed residential neighborhood is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The steepest portions of the site with the most valuable native vegetation, the large evergreen trees, are for the most part protected by the open space tracts. B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT REZONE, R-97-28 The property and the proposed PRD application are subject to a Contract Rezone approved as R-97-28. In approving the contract rezone, the City Council and the applicant at the time signed a concomitant agreement. This was recorded along with the ordinance approving the rezone, which documents the conditions of the contract (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 13). These are summarized as follows: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 7 1. Uses on the property are limited to Single Family Residential. 2. Lot coverage for the entire site shall not exceed 21%. 3. There shall be a landscape plan for each entrance that is maintained by a Homeowners association. 4. The owners shall pay for the improvements of the roadway and provide a connection from 80 Ave. W to Olympic View Dr. 5. A cul-de-sac shall be connected to 184th St. SW. 6. All residential structures shall be designed and constructed consistent with a style/theme approved through a PRD. 7. The contract and the PRD do not authorize any structure over 25' in height. (Any need for additional height would have to be reviewed and approved through the variance process.) 8. Sidewalks, gutters, streetlights and signs will be required as described in the code. The applicant has submitted declarations for how they believe they comply with the conditions listed above (see Exhibit 1, Attachments 4 & 5). The Examiner generally agrees with the applicant's statements. 1. All the proposed uses on the property are single-family residential homes or permitted associated secondary uses. 2. The applicant will comply with the 21 % lot coverage limitation. City staff will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with this requirement through the building permit process. At this point, it is most appropriate to indicate the 2 1 % limitation as a statement on the plat. 3. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that provides entrance plantings at both the east and west entrances of the site. The ADB has also reviewed this and recommended conditions related to this. 4. The applicant has proposed a 44' right-of-way on the western cul-de-sac and a 50' right-of-way for the eastern cul-de-sac. There will be a connecting emergency access road between the two cul-de-sacs. The Examiner believes the emergency access road complies with the intent of the contract condition. 5. As indicated above, the cul-de-sacs will be connected and allow for emergency access from 184t' St. SW to Olympic View Drive. 6. The Examiner believes the current PRD application complies with the PRD requirement. 7. The applicant has submitted separate height variance requests for nine lots, where additional height is needed due to the way the City calculates height. The applicant has applied for the variances in conjunction with their PRD so that everyone understands from the beginning what the total project is going to include. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 8 8. The Engineering Division has indicated what the required improvements for the site will be. See Exhibit 4. C. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which appear to apply to this project. Residential Development B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines, which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. B.S. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: C.1 Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C.l.a Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc.). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 9 Soils and Topography B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Grading and Filling. C.1.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. C.1.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.1.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. C.l.d. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction. C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 10 C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep-rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, pages 16-23 review the land capacity of the City and address the City's strategy for meeting the population and employment targets set for us by the County and the State. The preferred strategy is called "Design Inrill". Due to the overwhelming feedback to the City from its citizens which stated generally "Preserve the single family character of Edmonds. Don't rezone areas to higher densities." the City adopted this strategy. At its core, Designed Inrill encourages infill development under the existing densities with design controls to ensure that new development will fit into existing neighborhoods. PRD's are an identified tool to allow this to be implemented. This project, a PRD, allows a property to be developed to its full potential while at the same time protecting natural features and taking significant steps to ensure its compatibility with the neighborhood. 2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Typical elevations of proposed residences, as shown in Exhibit 1, Attachment 14 illustrate high quality homes that should fit into the neighborhood. The orientation of the homes and yards should also protect the privacy of adjacent properties. Also, the use of the PRD has allowed the applicant to set aside the environmentally sensitive portions of the site and protect them while still achieving the density they are allowed based on the size of the lot and the underlying zoning. 3. Compliance with the Soils and Topography goals and policies: The application appears to meet the goals of the soils and topography section of the Comprehensive Plan. D. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.15A, ENVHtONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City's SEPA Responsible Official on November 161', 2006. When the applicant submitted revised plans for the subdivision which changed the circulation pattern of the project and significantly reduced the amount of grading required they also submitted a new checklist to indicate how the project had changed. The City in response adopted the initial SEPA determination because the impacts of the new proposal were equal or less than that anticipated under the original determination. The Determination is included as Exhibit A, Attachment 16. No appeal of the Environmental Determination was filed. The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 11 E. COMPLIANCE WITH 23.40-90, CRITICAL AREAS REVIEW: 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-1994-197 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: A "Study Required" Determination was issued to establish the degree and extent of steep slopes on the property and precisely locate them as well as to determine the presence and classification of wetlands on the property. The applicant completed the study requirement by submitting both a wetland study, a geotechnical report and a surveyed topography map which identifies the steep slopes on the property. The proposed development plan leaves the north slope of the ravine that runs east and west across the property in primarily its natural state. On the east side of the property, adjacent to OVD, the top of the steep slope will be removed to a point where there will be no slope where the new road enters the subdivision off of OVD. The reduction of both the height of the slope and the weight of soil at the top of the slope will reduce the potential for slides in the future. In response to the City's Critical Areas codes the applicant has submitted several geotechnical reports to document the soil and slope conditions on and adjacent to the property. The City's Landslide Hazard section of the Critical Areas Ordinance is not set up to outright prohibit development on steep or landslide prone slopes. Rather, it is designed to require an applicant to include the correct professionals in designing a project to ensure that any construction is done in a safe and responsible manner. In this case, the geotechnical consultant has determined that the existing soils are appropriate for development and in many cases the risk will be reduced from the current condition in that the height and weight of a slope will be reduced thereby significantly lowering the landslide potential (particularly for the slope on the southeast side of the property). The slope on the northern portion of the site is steep, but development is not proposed to encroach into that slope. Regarding the wetland on the site; trying to rectify the requirements of building a road between OVD and 80th Ave. W. and preservation of wetland has proven to be difficult. The applicant and City staff have considered a number of options related to the connecting road required by the contract rezone. In all of those options, the location of the existing wetland and the grading required to build the road are mutually exclusive. The current proposal eliminates the wetland with the both the excavation and filling that is proposed in that area of the site. The wetland report submitted by the applicant confirms the presence of a category 4 wetland approximately 400 sq. ft. in area. A category 4 wetland has the lowest level of value and functions as described by the Critical Areas codes. The City had a peer review of this report prepared which ultimately confirmed the findings of originally submitted report. ECDC section 23.50.040.I gives the Development Services Director the authority to exempt certain category 3 and 4 wetlands from the Critical Areas codes. Two of the four criteria that must be met for a wetland to Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 12 be exempt are not in dispute. The wetland is a category 4 wetland that is under 500 sq. ft. The remaining two criteria address the value of the wetland to wildlife and the overall development's habitat benefits. There are differing opinions on this matter, however, the amount of open space and significant native vegetation that is being preserved with the proposed development, in the City's opinion justifies the proposed filling. Therefore, the City recommends approval of this element of the proposal. 3. Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following things should be done to ensure compliance with ECDC chapters 23.40-90 Critical Areas: a) A statement should be placed on the face of the plat to ensure that the Landslide Hazard Area will remain as an undeveloped area. b) Fencing and signage should be placed around the Critical Areas tracts to prohibit dumping and other activities that are prohibited in the Critical Areas. Split rail fencing is appropriate. c) Civil plans and construction of the plat improvements and all single family building permits must comply with the conditions of the LUI geotechnical report dated 9/12/05 including times of construction. d) Building Permit applications for all homes proposed within 25 feet of the adjacent landslide hazard area to the north and the east must submit a project specific geotechnical and/or structural report, which confirms compliance with general parameters of the LUI report dated 9/12/05. F. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.35, PRD'S 1. Architectural Design Board review of the PRD The ADB reviewed the proposed project on September 6, 2006, and recommended approval of the project (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 14 & 15). BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF PRD-2005-137 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) CONSISTENT USE OF MATERIALS OR BUILDING FORMS MUST BE USED ON ALL SIDES OF THE HOMES; 2) BUILDING PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS MUST STILL BE RESOLVED WITH THE SITE PLAN; 3) REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE MUST STILL BE DEMONSTRATED; 4) A SIDEWALK WILL BE REQUIRED ON AT LEAST ONE SIDE OF THE ACCESS ROAD; Hearing Examiner Decision Case No_ P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 13 5) A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED FOR BOTH ENTRANCES. BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED POLICIES ANDTHE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.060, PRD — SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Items 3-5 have been resolved with additional material the applicant has provided the City since the Architectural Design Board reviewed the project. Items 1 and 2 should be included as a condition on the plat that informs potential builders of their obligation to work with staff on their final home designs to ensure compliance with these issues. 2. Modification of Standards, ECDC 20.35.030 a) The proposed PRD / Plat application proposes to modify the following development standards, interior building setbacks, lot sizes and lot width (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). (1) Density for a PRD is determined as follows: Gross Lot Area/Min Lot size of underlying zoning and round down to the nearest whole number. In this case 244,193/8,000=30.5. This conceivably would allow the applicant to propose a 30 lot PRD. They are proposing a 27 lot PRD and Plat. (2) The proposed setbacks match or are greater than the required setbacks for the underlying zone around the perimeter of the site. The interior setbacks, those setbacks between the proposed buildings and their proposed street, will be as shown on the submitted map. (3) Lot width is proposed specifically for each lot dependant upon the size of the house proposed for that lot. While the underlying zoning requires 80 feet in width for each lot, the variable lot width is entirely appropriate for a PRD. b) Conclusion: All of the proposed modifications are permissible if the modification approval criteria are met. 3. Modification Approval Criteria, ECDC 20.35.040 a) The PRDs compatibility with surrounding properties related to (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 3): (1) Providing more landscaping and greater buffering: A landscape plan is submitted with the proposal, which is more than is required with a standard subdivision. Additional buffering and landscaping is provided along the north, south, east and west property lines. Street trees have been introduced into the design of the development. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 14 (2) Efficient and safe circulation: Having an emegency through connection between the two cul-de-sac roads (which connects Olympic View Dr. with 80"' Ave. W) enhances the City's Public Safety units in accessing the Seaview neighborhood. At the same time, having two cul-de-sacs allows the existing traffic patterns to continue without radically alternating traffic in the neighborhood. (3) Architectural Design: The Architectural Design Board reviewed the proposed homes for compliance with the PRD single-family design criteria. As indicated in their recommendation, they find the proposed buildings to meet these criteria. (4) Exterior setbacks: All standard exterior setbacks have been maintained and enhanced landscaping is proposed. (5) Reduced visual impact: With a standard 8,000 sq. ft. lot, a building with a footprint of over 4,000 sq. ft. could be approved. Due to the size of the proposed lots and the height limitations, the proposed houses would have significantly less bulk than is allowable under RS-8 standards. (6) Preservation of Natural Features: The Landslide Hazard Areas to the north and east along with the significant mature vegetation in those areas are being preserved and protected. (7) Reduction of impervious surfaces: Minimization of the road area and building footprints has resulted in a reduction of impervious area. b) Conclusion: All of the modification approval criteria have been met. 4. Decision Criteria, ECDC 20.35.050 a) A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria to be approved: (1) Design Criteria: The design criteria are met if the Single Family Design Criteria and at least 2 or more of the specified criterion are met. See Exhibit 1, Attachment 2 for the applicant's declaration on these items. The ADB has reviewed the proposal and recommended the project be approval. (2) Public Facilities: This Plat / PRD is served by all public facilities in the area. (3) Perimeter Design: Native growth areas will screen and buffer the project to the north and the east. An enhanced landscape area with fence will assist in providing separation from the developments to the west and the south. The landscape plan submitted (Exhibit 1, Attachment 2) appears to adequately address the concerns voiced by one of the neighbors relative to screening in the area along 80t' Ave. West, north of Lot 1. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 15 (4) Open Space and Recreation: For a PRD with more than 5 lots at least 10% of the site must be set aside as usable open space. This site is approximately 244,193 sq. ft. in size. Therefore, at least 24,419 sq. ft. needs to be developed as usable open space. The plans indicate 26,620 sq. ft. will be provided provided. The current proposal includes a recreation area at the eastern entrance of the plat as well as in the center of the site. A more native/natural area with a path and benches meanders through the natural open space area along the northwest portion of the site. This area will provide some passive open space. All of the open spaces will be connected to each other and the individual lots though the sidewalk along the street. Another 29,329 more sq. ft. of the site will be set aside and protected as a Critical Areas / Open Space Tracts. The retention of the existing native vegetation in this area as well as its shear size will continue to preserve the wooded character of this area. (5) Street and Sidewalks: The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and indicated any requirements that will be made of the applicant as part of Exhibit 4. The Examiner believes the proposal, as conditioned below, will comply with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Traffic and pedestrian safety problems that now exist should be addressed by the neighbors and the City through means other than requiring this applicant to correct those existing problems. b) Conclusion: The proposed PRD meets the decision criteria. Conditions recommended by the Engineering Department should be included in any approval. G. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.75 SUBDIVISIONS 1. Subdivision Review Criteria a) Environmental Resources (1) The Critical Areas ordinance will ensure that Environmental Resources are being protected in the City of Edmonds. b) Lot and Street Layout (1) This criterion requires staff and the Examiner to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section each of the lots appear to be buildable. (2) Lot sizes and dimensions: This criterion doesn't apply to individual lots in a PRD. (3) Setbacks: Setbacks from perimeter lot lines are proposed as follows: Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 16 Street setback from OVD and 80th Ave. W: 25' (minimum 25' is required). Side setbacks from all remaining property lines: 15' (minimum 15' is required). All remaining perimeter setbacks are larger than required due to the location of ravine areas, open spaces and road and landscape areas. Interior setbacks are typically as follows: All Rear setbacks adjacent to Critical Areas or Open Space tracts: 10' for buildings and 5' for decks and other accessory structures. All Side setbacks between buildings: 5' All Street setbacks from new street: 10, All of the proposed setbacks are acceptable through the PRD process. However, because people tend to park cars in front of their garages a condition requiring garages to be setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk would seem justified. Furthermore, the plat should be vested with the proposed setbacks. Therefore, it would be appropriate to place a condition on the subdivision that would require a statement to be placed on the face of the plat which reads: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." (4) Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots: (a) This is limited by the contract rezone to 2 1 % of the net buildable area of the site. City staff will monitor and track this condition through the issuance of building permits on the lots. c) Dedications (1) See City Engineer's Report (Exhibit 4). d) Improvements. (1) See City Engineer's Report (Exhibit 4). e) Flood Plain Management This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. 2. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan a) The Examiner finds this project complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. See section B of this report for details. 3. Compliance with the Zoning Code a) This project to complies with the provisions of the Zoning Code, See section F of this report for details. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 17 4. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions a) This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain. H. COMPLIANCE WITH 2O.85 VARIANCES 1. Variance Review Criteria ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85. Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application demonstrates compliance with stated criteria. a) Facts (1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary. (2) The applicant has addressed each of these criteria in Exhibit 1, Attachment 6. A site plan that shows proposed grades and building footprints has also been submitted, which demonstrates the relationship between the road and the proposed building footprint. In concept the applicant's desire is to have a house that is 25 feet above finished grade on each of the lots. (3) The PRD approval authorizes the use of three different types of home designs with variations on each type for the development. Specific plans are not required to be used on specific lots. (4) Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that the proposed road grade was designed in a manner to minimize the amount of grading required and to reflect as close as possible the existing topography while at the same time complying with Engineering Department requirements for road slopes. (5) In an effort to make sure their variance request was the minimum necessary, the applicant has carefully evaluated the slopes on each of their lots and even moved the footprints closer to the street in some cases to reduce their request to the minimum necessary in their opinion. b) Analysis: (1) Special Circumstances The Angler's Crossing PRD site plan was developed in response to the varied topography, the approved contract rezone and in collaboration with the neighborhood. Because of the amount of grading associated with it, the road design and construction is the most significant aspect of the project. There are very few options for the location of the road and they all result in adjacent lots that have significant slopes or fill associated with Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 18 them. These multiple factors qualify as a special circumstance for each of the requests. (2) Special Privilege The variance will allow for the construction of residences that are consistent with the house designs approved through the PRD process. These approved designs are consistent with the Single Family Design Criteria found in ECDC 20.35, which ensure that homes consistent with the aesthetic values of this community and neighborhood are built. No additional views or other benefits are being permitted by the approval of this height variance. (3) Zoning Code The zoning code allows for single-family residential development. The proposed residences are consistent with single-family development. In addition, the variance will allow a house that is consistent with the design of the houses reviewed and approved through the Angler's Crossing PRD process. (4) Comprehensive Plan See section B of this report for how the proposed variance complies with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. (5) Not Detrimental No views will be blocked or privacy invaded from the proposed development onto existing development by the approval of the proposed height variance. The proposed variance is not detrimental or injurious to any adjacent property owners. (6) Minimum Required The applicant has submitted a site plan with existing and proposed contour lines. The applicant also submitted height calculation analysis for each of the lots that height variances are requested for. Each request was tailored to the physical characteristics of the specific individual lots thereby making the request the minimum necessary for each lot. The proposal for height variances is as follows: • Lot 1 2.5' • Lot 2 3.5' • Lot 3 2.7' • Lot 4 6.0' • Lot 5 5.7' • Lot 7 3.0' • Lot 10 1.5' • Lot 11 3.2' • Lot 12 2.2' Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 19 c) Conclusions: (1) The Examiner believes that the variance criteria for all nine of the height variance requests have been met and should be approved as submitted. I. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS: After review of the subject proposal, the Examiner has concluded the following conditions of approval are directly related to the impacts of the development and are roughly proportional to those impacts. There was much discussion relative to traffic and pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. However, those problems are existing problems and were not caused by the proposed development. Furthermore, no substantive information was submitted to indicate that the proposed development would have any significant impact on that existing situation. Therefore, the Examiner has no authority to require the applicant to re -grade 80'h Ave. W or 184t' St. SW to reduce the height of the crowns on the hills. However, the Examiner believes the City has discretion over where traffic impact fees from this development are spent, and the City may choose to use those fees coupled with other monies to address both the sight distance problems on the roadways and the lack of pedestrian walkways in the area. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions the: The Subdivision and PRD, P-2005-137 and PRD-2005-136 are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination (see Exhibit A, Attachment 16). 3. Prior to Final Plat/PRD approval and recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements: a) Civil plans must be approved prior to construction and recording. In completing the civil plans you must address the following: (1) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed in Exhibit 4, or as otherwise modified and approved by the City Engineering Division. (2) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary fencing must be installed between the construction areas and the protected open space areas. These protection measures must receive Planning Division approval prior to any clearing or grading. (3) All PRD improvements including perimeter landscaping, entry landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and signage should be Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 20 included in the civil plans. They will also need to be installed or bonded for prior to requesting final plat and PRD approval. (4) Permanent fencing should be installed along those portions of Lots abutting Tracts 997 and 999. The fencing shall be split rail or other similar non -solid fencing. b) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents shall have the following information included: (1) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved." (2) Place the following statement on the face of the plat: "Net buildable area for the entire site shall not exceed 21%. (3) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "All construction on the site, both plat improvements and home construction must comply with the LUI geotechnical report dated 9/12/2005. Further, building permit applications for all homes within 25 feet of an adjacent Landslide Hazard area must submit a project specific geotechnical and/or structural report, which confirms compliance with the general parameters of the LUI report dated 9/12/2005. (4) Add a statement on the face of the plat that protects Tract 997 and those portions of Tract 999 that slope up to the north as a Critical Areas Landslide Hazard area. No work is allowed in these areas without a City approved plan. These areas must be protected during construction of plat improvements and homes with temporary or permanent fencing. (5) Add to the face of the Plat "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final approval for the subdivision located in File P- 2005-136 & PRD-2005-137." (6) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks. (7) Install fire hydrants and fire suppression to the specifications required by the Engineering Division and the Fire Department. (8) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the requirements of ECDC section 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements including landscaping which have not been completed. (9) Submit to the Planning Division a title report, which verifies ownership of the subject property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the subdivision documents. (10) Add to the face of the Plat "The Homeowner's Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the landscape and open space areas." Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 21 (Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have been approved.) 4. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following: a) Provide the City Planning Division with three copies of the recorded plat, with the recording number written on them. b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building Permit" on Exhibit A, Attachment 18. 5. Prior to any construction for the plat improvements or issuance of individual building permits for each lot complete the following: a) Prior to the start of any construction on the site, fencing must be installed along the edge of the landslide hazard areas to protect the Critical Area throughout the plat and home construction process. b) Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the home. c) Building plans must be consistent in type and style with those submitted with the PRD. Ramblers with daylight basements on down sloping properties. Tuck -under garage plans for those sites with up sloping properties. d) Building permits for each lot must demonstrate that the garages are setback 18 feet from the back of the sidewalk (or curb if there is no sidewalk). Height Variance, V-2005-141: the requested 2.5' height variance for Lot 1 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-142: the requested 3.5' height variance for Lot 2 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-143: the requested 2.7' height variance for Lot 3 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-144: the requested 6' height variance for Lot 41 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-145: the requested 5.7' height variance for Lot 5 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-146: the requested 3' height variance for Lot 7 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-147: the requested 1.5' height variance for Lot 10 is approved. Height Variance, V-2005-148: the requested 3.2' height variance for Lot 1 lis approved. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 22 Height Variance, V-2005-149: the requested 2.2' height variance for Lot 12 is approved. Entered this 22nd day of January 2007 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. r Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for riling reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. P-05-136, P-05-137 and V-05-141-149 Page 23 was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. 1. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 24 attachments 2. Packet of letter submitted prior to the final proposal now under consideration 3. Site sections 4. Updated Engineering Requirements, dated 1/18/07 (supercedes those dated 1/11/07) 5. Letter from Engineering to The McNaughton Group, dated 1/17/07 6. Letter from Charles D. Farmen, dated 12/29/06 7. Letter from Marshall Collen, dated 1/16/07 8. Letter from Nonnan and Sally Barringer, dated 1/16/07 9. Letter from Severt/Roy family, dated 1/18/07 10. Letter from Hillstrom, et. al., dated 1/18/07 11. PowerPoint presentation by the applicant 12. Proposed revision to recommended condition 3.a)(4), submitted by the applicant 13. Traffic safety information, submitted by Charles D. Farmen PARTIES of RECORD: The party of record list is quite long and is available in the Planning Division.