HE Decision P0721 & PRD0720.pdflhc.189v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of )
EMERALD PACIFIC HOMES )
For Approval of a Formal Subdivision )
and a Planned Residential Development. _
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
���' �#ItTid.�F����1��tIf7►lf�•Li]
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND DECISION
(Stonebridge Plat)
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
The request for approval of a formal subdivision to subdivide 1.85 acres of land into 10
single-family residential lots and three tracts to accommodate open space and stormwater
detention is GRANTED, subject to conditions. The request to approve a Planned
Residential Development is REMANDED for compliance with ECDC 20.35 in regard
to perimeter design. The Applicant's request for alternative development standards is
GRANTED in part, MODIFIED in part.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request:
Emerald Pacific Homes (Applicant) requested approval of a formal subdivision and a
planned residential development (PRD) to subdivide 1.85 acres of land into 10 single-
family residential lots and three tracts to accommodate open space and stormwater
detention. The subject property is located at 7723 and 7807 — 220' Street SW, Edmonds,
Washington, and is identified by Snohomish County Assessor Tax Parcel Numbers
00461000201500, 00461000201600, and 00461000201701.
Hearing Date; and Procedural Background:
An open record hearing on the applications was held before the Hearing Examiner for the
City of Edmonds on August 2, 2007. The Hearing Examiner left the record open until
August 9, 2007 for receipt of additional information pertaining to stormwater drainage,
schools, and code requirements.
Information pertaining to stormwater drainage and code requirements was received on
August 9, 2007.
On August 22, 2007, the Hearing Examiner issued an order staying the date of issuance
of the final decision in this matter (Stay of Decision) due to the fact that no information
had been received in regard to school impacts.
On August 27, 2007, information pertaining to the Edmonds School District was received
and the Record was closed.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
On August 28, 2007, the Hearing Examiner notified the City and the Applicant via e-mail
that the decision in this matter would be issued no later than September 11, 2007.1
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Michael Clugston, Planner — City of Edmonds
2. S. Michael Smith, Land Use Planner — LSA Engineers Inc., Applicant's
Representative
3. Kathy Lester
4. Colleen McDonald
5. Larry Simonson
Exhibits:
At the open record hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official
record:
EXHIBIT A: City of Edmonds Staff Report, dated July 31, 2007, including the
following attachments:
Attachment 1 Zoning Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 Preliminary Plat and PRD Site Plan, received June 15,
2007
Attachment 3 Stonebridge PRD Criteria Narrative Statement, dated
March 9, 2007
Attachment 4 Stonebridge Preliminary Covenants, dated March 6, 2007
Attachment 5 Architectural Design Board Staff Report, dated July 18,
2007, with 12 attachments
Attachment 6 Architectural Design Board Draft Minutes, dated July 18,
2007
Attachment 7 Conceptual Landscape Plan, dated February 26, 2007
Attachment 8 City of Edmonds Engineering Requirements for
Plats/PRDs
' This date represents 10 working days from the date the Record was closed.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes {Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 2
Attachment 9 Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet, received March 9,
2007
Attachment 10 Land Use Applications — Plat and PRD, dated February
28, 2007
EXHIBIT B: Enlarged Site Plans:
1. Preliminary Plat and PRD
2. Conceptual Landscape Plan
3. Preliminary Landscape Plan
4. Preliminary Engineering Plan
EXHIBIT C: Correspondence from Edmonds School District
EXHIBIT D: Preliminary Drainage Assessment for Stonebridge, dated August 2007
EXHIBIT E: City of Edmonds, Code Interpretation -- ECDC 20.35.050(C)(2), dated
August 8, 2007
EXHIBIT F: Stay of Issuance of Final Decision, dated August 22, 2007
EXHIBIT G: E-mail correspondence to City and Applicant, dated August 28, 2007, RE:
close of Record and date for issuance of decision
EXHIBIT H: Affidavits of Public Notice --- Mailing, Posting, and Publication
Based upon the testimony and evidence admitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a Formal Subdivision (Plat) to subdivide
1.92 acres of land into 10 single-family residential lots and three open
space/stormwater tracts. The subject property is located within the City of
Edmonds at 7723 and 7807 — 220` Street SW, and is identified by Snohomish
County Assessor Tax Parcel Numbers 00451000201500, 00461000201600,
00461000201701. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2; Exhibit A, Attachment 10,
Land Use Applications; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
Z City Staff and the Applicant denote the total acreage as 1.85. However, according to Snohomish County
Records, the three tax parcels total 1.92 acres: Parcel 004116000201500 (0.88 acre), Parcel
00461000210600 (0.96 acre), and Parcel 0045I000201701 (0.08 acre). For the purpose of all required
calculations (i.e. open space) total acreage will be based on 1.92 or 83,635.2 square feet (43,560 sq
feet/acre).
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes {Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-21/PRD-2007 20
Page 3
2. In conjunction with the request for plat approval, the Applicant seeks to develop
the site as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) pursuant to Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.35. A PRD may be located
in any residential zoning district with the purposes of a PRD being to promote
flexibility and creativity in the layout and design of new developments so as to
protect the environment and critical areas through the use of permanent open
space; provide for a variety of housing with a combination of architectural styles;
promote the efficient use of land; integrate development with the existing
community and maintain existing neighborhood character and natural site
amenities; and cluster development to preserve or create open spaces and provide
more efficient street and utility systems. ECDC 20.35.010, ECDC 2035. 020(A);
Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 2 and 6; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, the City of
Edmonds acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the
proposal. The City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)
on July 3, 2007. The MDNS set forth only one condition pertaining to traffic
impact fees. The MDNS was not appealed. Exhibit A, Attachment 5(2), ADB Staff
Report - MDNS.
4. The subject property is located within the city limits of Edmonds and is zoned
Residential Single Family — 8000 square feet minimum lot size (RS -8). The
purpose of the RS zone, in addition to serving the general public health and
safety, is to provide for and regulate areas primarily for single-family living so as
to: afford for a range of densities; preserve light, privacy, views, open spaces,
nature features; and minimize the impact on infrastructure such as roads and
utilities. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2; ECDC 16.20 000; ECDC 16.20. 010,
ECDC 16.00 010
5. Development standards within the RS -8 zone include: minimum lot size of 8,000
square feet, 70 foot lot width, front, side, and rear setbacks of 25 feet, 7.5 feet,
and 15 feet, respectively, 25 foot building height, and 35 percent maximum lot
coverage. ECDC 16.20.030, Table of Development Standards.
6. No PRD may permit a density in excess of the established maximum. Maximum
density permitted within. the RS -8 zone is 5.5 dwelling units per acre or 10.56
units for a 192 acre parcel. The Applicant proposed 10 units. ECDC
20.35.030(B); ECDC 16.20.030,- Exhibit B1, Preliminary Plat.
7. If a PRD seeks to establish alternative development standards, the Applicant must
satisfy afl of the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.35.040, which includes:
• The proposal is compatible with the surrounding properties by providing:
landscaping and greater buffering of structures
safe and efficient site access, on-site circulation, off-street parking
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007 2l/PRD-2007-20
Page 4
- architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials
• Exterior setbacks correspond with the underlying zoning district
• Visual impacts have been minimi d through reduced building volumes,
landscape, of buffering techniques
• Preservation of unique natural features
• Reduction of impervious surfaces through use of on-site or common
parking facilities
The Applicant has presented a landscape plan which emphasizes placement of
vegetation along the borders of the PRD to buffer and minimize visual impacts; a
new internal cul-de-sac roadway designed to City standards would provide
efficient access and circulation and safe pedestrian walking; all lots would
provide up to four parking spaces (incorporates garage parking); exterior setbacks
would be maintained; residential structures are designed in accord with City urban
design standards and emphasizes a "single -story" look, thereby reducing volumes;
10 significant trees would be retained; and two shared driveways reduce
impervious surface. ECDC 20.35.040, Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 7-8, Exhibit
A, Attachment 3, Project Narrative.
8. In order to be considered for approval, a PRD must provide for at least two of the
following design features (ECDC 20.35.050(A)):
• Architectural design consistent with ECDC 20.35.060 (Single -Family)
• Improved circulation patterns through connectivity to city streets or
alternative transportation methods (bikeway/pedestrian path)
• Minimal use of impervious surface materials through use of alternative
materials or methods including shared driveways
• Open space or recreational facilities in excess of the minimum required by
ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6) (10 percent)
• Preservation, enhancement, or rehabilitate of significant natural features,
historic or landmark structures, or other unique features
Of these features, the Applicant has satisfied three. Architectural design, subject
to ADB recommendations, is consistent with ECDC 20.35.060; two shared
driveways have been provided (serving Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), the Applicant is
providing 11.1 % open space, in excess of that required, and would preserve 10
significant trees. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 8, Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6,
ADB Report/Minutes; Exhibit B1, Preliminary Plat.
9. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.050(B) -(D), the PRD must also provide that:
• adequate public facilities (streets, bike/pedestrian ways, fire protection,
water, stormwater, sanitary sewer, and parks/recreation) are provided to
serve the development
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 5
if alternative bulk zoning standards are sought, then a landscape buffer,
open space, or passive use recreational area equal to the depth of the rear
yard setback shall be provided
a minimum of 10 percent of usable open space and recreational facilities
integrated into the development is provided
As noted infra, public facilities would be developed to City standards and, as
stated in the Conditions of Approval, the Applicant must demonstrate that
facilities (particularly water, sewer, and transportation) have adequate capacity to
serve the proposed development. In addition, as noted infra, the Applicant has
provided the requisite open space and recreational facilities. The provision of the
perimeter buffer is discussed below.
10. As permitted through the PRD process (ECDC 20.35.030), the Applicant
proposed to vary the RS -8 development standards as follows:
Required
Lot Area: 8,000 sq feet
Lot Width: 70 feet
Setbacks
Street. 25 feet
Side: 7.5 feet
Lot Coverage: 35 percent
Prosed
5,296 to 6,445 sq feet (5,927 average
3)
55 - 65 feet
10 feet
5 feet
55 percent
Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 7, Exhibit A, Attachment 3, Project Narrative;
Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Testimony of Mr. Smith.
11. The Applicant stated that the sizing of lots was based on the design of proposed
homes, each of which was designed for a particular lot and designed to have small
yards, master bedrooms on the first level, and marketed to `empty nesters.' In
addition, the Applicant testified that the proposed increase in lot coverage was
needed in order to accommodate the design of the homes and that the design was
a market-driven factor. Exhibit A, Attachment 3, Project Narrative; Exhibit A,
Attachment 6, ADB Minutes; Testimony of Mr. Smith.
12. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.050(C), a PRD must either comply with the applicable
bulk zoning criteria (i.e. front, side, rear yard setbacks) for all lots adjacent to the
perimeter of the development or the PRD must provide a perimeter buffer. All of
the proposed lots border on the exterior lot line. The Applicant's preliminary plat
does not denote such a perimeter buffer. ECDC 20.35.050(C); Testimony of Mr.
Smith.
s The Applicant's Preliminary Plat states that the average lot size is 7,125 square feet. However, this
calculated is based solely on the gross acreage of the site less road area and does not take into account the
open space/storrawater drainage tracts_
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examinerfor the City of Edmonds
Emerald PacificDomes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-Z]/PRD-2007 20
Page 6
13. The Applicant stated that the perimeter buffer was provided through enhanced
landscaping in the rear yard setback of each lot and within the open space areas.
The Hearing Examiner questioned whether ECDC 20.35.050(C) actually required
a separate and distinct buffer or whether the rear yard setback could satisfy this
requirement. The Applicant stated that the City had never required a separate
buffer during review/approval of prior development proposals. The Record of
this matter was left open for the submittal of a code interpretation from. the City's
Development Services Director.
The Director's interpretation was received on August 8, 2007 (Exhibit E). The
Director stated that requiring a perimeter buffer such as was suggested by the
Hearing Examiner would "effectively mean a doubling of the rear yard perimeter
setback which would most likely result in no one ever constructing a PRD with
such a burdensome standard." In addition, the Director concluded that ECDC
21.75.030 defines open space as being "any part of a lot unobstructed from the
ground upward" and therefore a PRD would meet the intent of both the open
space definition and the perimeter buffer requirement if the PRD prohibited
construction of structure within the rear yard setback.
Testimony of Mr. Smith, Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page
8; Exhibit E, Director's Code Interpretation.
14. The subject property is currently developed with two single-family residences and
several accessory structures. All these structures would be demolished to
accommodate the new development. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 4, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston.
15. Adjacent land uses to the north, east, and west are single-family residential with
similar RS -8 zoning. To the south, across 220' Street SW, is unincorporated
Snohomish County. Nearby zoning also includes Multiple Residential (RM 2.4)
to the north, General Commercial (CG -2) to the east, and Medical Use (MU) to
the northeast. Residential development within the surrounding community is on
large lots (8,000 square foot or more). Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 4; Testimony
of Mr. Clugston.
lb. The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Area for the City of
Edmonds and is designated as Single -Family Urban 1 (SFU -1) on the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan Map. The RS -8 zoning classification corresponds to this
comprehensive plan designation. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not
provide a definition or purpose for the SFU -1 designation but does set forth goals
seeking to maintain high quality residential development and a broad range of
housing types and densities. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map, Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Goals B and C, Pages 53-54.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007 21/PRD-2007-20
Page 7
17. The City's Comprehensive Plan provides guiding principles and objectives for the
community's development with an underlying strategy of "design infill" so as to
preserve the residential character of the community. Several policies and
objectives support such high quality residential development including, but not
limited to: Land Use [LU] Goal B (high quality residential development); LU
Policies B.1, B.3, B.5, and B.6 (harmonize design to add to community identity
and desirability; minimize encroachment on views; protect areas from
incompatible land uses); LU Goal C (range of housing types and densities); LU-
C.La (encourage single-family homes in PRD configuration); Open Space [OS]
Goal B (open space as element to character and quality of urban/suburban
environment); VW Policy B.3 (minimize removal of trees); Urban Design [LTD]
Goal B (high quality, well-designed projects); UD Objective C. (streetscape,
vehicle access/parking, pedestrian connectivity, building design, landscape etc.);
UD Objective D (building form — height, roof and wall modulation, variations).
City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Plan; Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 4-5;
Testimony of Mt: Clugston.
18. ECDC 20.35.050(D) requires that the Applicant set aside at least 10 percent of the
gross area of the proposed plat as usable open space. As noted supra, for the
purpose of all required calculations total acreage will be based on 1.92 or
83,635.2 square feet. The Applicant proposed three landscaped open space tracts
— Tract 997 (535 sq ft), Tract 998 (4,367 sq fl), and Tract 999 (4,364 sq feet) — for
a total of 9,266 square feet, or 11.1 percent 4 Tracts 998 and 999 would provide
for recreational opportunities with a three foot wide crushed rock path, picnic
tables, and a BBQ area. Tract 997 would provide benches. ECDC 20.35.050;
Exhibit B(I), Preliminary Plat; Exhibit B(2) Conceptual Landscape Plan.
19. The project is located within the Edmonds School District. In Washington State,
ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty of the state.
This requirement is fixrther stated in the laws of the State. RCW 58.17.110
requires that subdivisions make appropriate provisions for the general welfare of
the community, including provisions for schools and for safe walking conditions
for students. ECDC 20.75.020 states that a subdivision roust make adequate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including schools. The
proposed plat would be served by Chase Elementary, College Place Middle
School, and Edmonds-Woodway High School. All students attending these
schools would walk to school. The proposed subdivision would include
sidewalks on both sides of the internal roadway in addition to constructing
sidewalks along the plat's frontage with 220th Street SW, thereby providing
4 ECDC 20.75.090 requires dedication of park land, subject to City Council approval, or payment of an
impact fee in -lieu of dedication. The City's Park Plan notes that the City does not utilize the park impact
fee funding mechanism at this time. City of Edmonds, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive
Plan, Page 104. Nothing in the record denotes that the City seeks dedication of park land from this
Applicant.
5 Washington State Constitution, Art. 9, § 1
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007 20
Page 8
connection to the sidewalks currently existing on both sides of 220'h Street SW.
These sidewalks would provide safe -walking for school -aged children. Plat
Exhibit F, School District Comments; Exhibit A, Attachment 8, Engineering
Requirements.
20. The Applicant proposed to connect all residential lots to the City of Edmonds
water and sewer systems. Although documentation was provided in regard to
engineering fees for these services (stormwater development charge, sewer
LID/connection fees, water meter/connection fees, etc), no documentation was
submitted into the Record in regards to adequate capacity of these public services.
Conditions of approval will require that the Applicant demonstrate that the City
has both the capacity and the ability to provide service. Exhibit A, Attachment
5(2), Environmental Checklist; Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 8, Exhibit A,
Attachment 8, Engineering Requirements.
21. Access to the plat would be from 220th Street SW with all proposed individual
lots within the plat accessed from a new internal public cul-de-sac roadway. The
internal roadway would be designed to City standards including a 40 -foot right-
of-way
ightof way (22 foot paved); a 90 -foot cul-de-sac right-of-way (35 feet paved); curbs
and gutters, five foot sidewalks, and street illumination. Exhibit A, Attachment 8,
Engineering Requirements; Exhibit B(4), Preliminary Engineering Plan.
22. LSA Engineering prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed
development which was reviewed by the City's Engineer. Generally, a TIA will
delineate the proposed development's expected impacts, average weekday trips,
PM peak hour trips, impacts on intersection within the area, and an analysis of
Level of Service (LOS) standards so as to determine whether the development
would cause LOS standards to fall below applicable City of Edmonds standards.
However, despite repeated requests by the Hearing Examiner, all that was
submitted of the TIA appears to be Page 1, a page which denotes that a traffic
impact fee is required for mitigation, a vicinity map, and a reduced version of the
proposed plat map. Since the City has adopted a standardized road impact fee,
based on project type, the proposed mitigation of $6725.76 is deemed to
adequately address any expected impacts.6 Conditions of approval will require
submittal of a complete TIA for the record of this proceeding. ECDC
18 82.120(D), Impact Fee — Single-family detached; Exhibit A, Attachment 9,
TM; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
23. Sight distance was analyzed for the proposed access point through visual field
inspection. Based on AASHTO sight distance criteria, the existing horizontal
and vertical alignment of 220th Street SW allows for over 400 feet of east -west
6 AIthough ten lots are proposed, traffic impact fees were based on the creation of eight new single-family .
homes since the subject property currently maintains two single-family residences.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 9
sight distance due to the relatively straight and constant street grade, which is in
excess of the 200 to 350 feet generally required. Exhibit A, Attachment 9, TLA.
24. The site is flat to rolling, with an average slope of less than 10 percent and the
steepest slop being approximately 15 percent. The subject property is located
within the Halls Creek Watershed with on-site mapped soils of Alderwood --
Urban Land (a Type "C" hydrologic soil) with moderately rapid permeability to a
hardpan depth of up to 40 inches. Grading of the site would occur to
accommodate development with approximately 2200 cubic yards of cut and 3000
cubic yards of fill. A Temporary Construction Sediment and Erosion Control
Plan (TSECP) utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as silt fencing,
dust control, and temporary seeding of exposed areas, would be employed to
reduce erosion. Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 4; Exhibit A, Attachment 5(2),
Environmental Checklist, Exhibit D, Drainage Report.
25. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.080(3), the City's Architectural Design Board (ADB)
reviews a PRA application for compliance with urban design guidelines,
landscaping, and/or the Single -Family Design Criteria in ECDC 20.35.060' and
forwards its recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for consideration.8 in
reviewing the proposal, the ADB considered zoning, building design (i.e.
character, entries, materials, garages), and site design (i.e. landscaping, open
space, street design, natural features (trees)). The ADB concluded that the
proposed PRD was consistent with ECDC 20.35 and unanimously recommended
approval of the PRD, subject to six conditions regarding landscaped walkways,
garages, retention and/or replacement of trees, and building materials/forms.
ECDC 20.35; Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 6-7; Exhibit A, Attachments 5 and 6,
ADB Report and Meeting Minutes.
26. ECDC 20.35.060 provides single-family design criteria which include:
• Building Design
-Single-family characteristics
-Entries and porches
-Materials
-Garages
• Site Design
-Retain significant features
Vehicular access
-Garages locations
7 ECDC 20.35.060 sets forth specific design criteria for single-family PRDs so as to ensure that the
development will maintain a single-family character.
s Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.80(A)(3)-(4), the ADB makes a recommendation to the hearing examiner who
issues a final decision.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pack Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 10
-Landscaping and buffering
-Building entrances
-Open space
-Street design
Review of the attachments to the ADB Report support the ADB's conclusion that
the PRD's design is consistent with ECDC 20.35.060. Architectural renderings
of proposed residences include a total of five floors plans that include the use of a
variety of sidings types including horizontal siding, shingles, stonelbrick facings
and a variety of architectural details such as porches, varied roof elevations,
columns, and window trims. Garages do no appear to be greater than 50% the
width of the residence with some designs providing for garages to be set to the
rear of the structure or offset (garage door faces side yard). Walkways are
provided from the street to the porch except for Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 which have
shared driveways. Applicant's conceptual landscape plan provides for a variety
of trees, shrubs, and groundcover throughout the PRD, both for residential lots
and common areas. Ten significant trees would be retained and useable open
space/recreational areas have been provided. The new internal cul-de-sac
roadway shall conform to City design standards and includes sidewalks,
illumination, and street trees. Exhibit A, Attachment 6(8), Architectural
Renderings; Exhibit A, Attachment 6, ADB Report, Exhibits B2 and B3,
Landscape Plans.
27. As noted supra, the Applicant testified that the proposed increase in lot coverage
(from 35 percent to 55 percent) was needed in order to accommodate the design
of the homes and that the design (square footage, layout) was a market-driven
factor. The Applicant's environmental checklist notes that building and
impervious surface coverage would not exceed 60 percent of the total site.
(Exhibit A, Attachment 5, Environmental Checklist, at 3). The Applicant's
proposed residences' footprints range from 36.3% to 44.7% in lot coverage with a
request for the maximum lot coverage to be increased to 55 percent. The
Applicant stated that total impervious coverage (footprint plus driveways, patios,
walkways, etc) would not exceed 60 percent.9 Nothing in the record supports
approval of an increase in lot coverage. The Hearing Examiner calculates the
individual lot coverage as follows:
h The Hearing Examiner notes that despite the request for a substantial increase in lot coverage, no mention
of it was made in the City's Report to the ADB (except through exhibits) nor does the Hearing Examiner
find discussion of it during the ADB's duly l e meeting. Exhibit A, Attachment 5, ADB Report.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-21/PRD 2007-20
Page 11
Lot ::
Lot size
35% Allowed
Covera e10
Residence Footprint
Proposed Lot Coverage
;1 `:
6,187 sq feet
2,165 sq feet
2,768 sq feet
443%
2' `
6,082 sq feet
2,129 sq feet
2,443 sq feet
40.2%
3:.:.':l
5,300 sq feet
1,855 sq. feet
2,435 sq feet
45.9%
4
6,445 s feet
2,256 sq feet
2,426 sq feet
37.6%
:,5:.. '
5,609 sq feet
1,963 sq feet
2,054 sq feet
36.6%
:6 `
5,666 sq feet
1,983 sq feet
2,054 sq feet
36.3%
<T
6,408 sq feet
2,243 sq feet
2,426 sq feet
37.9%
8"
5,296 sq feet
1,854 sq feet
2,435 sq feet
459%
9;' `
6,086 sq feet
2,130 sq feet
2,443 sq feet
140.1%
10
6,187 sq feet
2,165 sq feet
2,768 sq feet
144.7%
Table based on Exhibit B i (Preliminary Plat — lot square footage); ECDC 1620.030 (RS -8 development
standards — 35% lot coverage); Exhibit A, Attachment 5, ADB Report — Architectural Renderings
(residence footprint, includes living space and garage).
28. ECDC 20.35.040(C) provides that PRI)s shall minimize the visual impact of the
development by reduced building volumes as compared with what is allowable
under the current zoning or through landscapelbuffer techniques. Although it was
noted during ADB deliberations that the proposed designs incorporated second
floors into the roof structure, thereby keeping the scale of the homes down and
creating a single -story feel in an area of single -story, single-family homes.
Exhibit A, Attachment 5, ADB Report; Testimony of Mr. Smith.
29. The Applicant retained Arboricultural Consulting to prepare a Tree Impact
Assessment (Tree Assessment) for the subject property. The Tree Assessment
notes that on-site trees are in good condition and health with trees located along
the northern border (Lots 6 and 7), the southwest corner (Tract 999), and the
northwest border (Lots 3 and 4) good candidates for retention. Other significant
trees are located within the interior of the subject property and would require
removal in order to accommodate development. The Tree Assessment addresses
22 "trees of interests" located along the western border (Lots 3 and 4) with
species ranging from Douglas Fir to Big -Leaf Maple." Of these 22 trees, the
arborist concluded that although some trees could have been retained within Lots
3 and 4, however, that excavation occurring within these trees' root driplines
would damage large anchoring roots and compromise the stability of the trees. Of
all the on-site trees, the arborist determine that due to the Applicant's
development plan only 10 could be retained (two on Tract 999, three on Lot 6,
16 ECDC 21.15.110 defines "coverage" as "the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site
measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in
from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area." From this definition, it
would appear that the City regulates total building coverage and not total impervious coverage (i.e.
residence, driveways, walkways, etc).
11 Tree Assessment mapping also denotes fruit trees (Apple and Cherry) located at various locations.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes {Stonebridge Plat) P-2017 21/PRD-2007=20
Page 12
and five on Lot 7). Exhibit A, Attachment 6, ADB Minutes; Exhibit A, Attachment
5(12), Tree Assessment.
30. Substantial discussion occurred during the ADB's July 18, 2007 meeting in
regards to the retention of significant trees on the subject property since the
Applicant's proposal called for removing almost all of the existing trees and
mitigating these impacts by providing approximately 70 replacement trees (16
around perimeter of new internal road and 54 on individual lots/tracts). ADB
members raised concerns about visual impacts from the removal of the trees and
the size and types of replacement trees. Recommendations from the ADB include
the retention of the 10 significant trees noted on the landscape plan, the addition
of four to six coniferous trees of 10 to 12 feet in height within Lots 3 and 4, and a
greater variety of street trees. Exhibit A, Attachment 6, ADB Minutes.
31. One of the purposes of the PRD is to "encourage the preservation of existing
natural site amenities such as trees..." (ECDC 20.35.010(H)) with design and
decisional criteria fiirther citing to the need to preserve trees (ECDC 20.35.040(D)
— preserve unique natural features; ECDC 20.35.050(A)(5) — preserve significant
nature features, such as woodlands and unique features; ECDC 20.35.060(B)(1) —
retain significant trees). 12 As noted supra, the Applicant intends to retain 10
significant trees ands seeks to mitigate these impacts by providing replacement
trees measuring 3 -inch caliper and ranging in size from six to eight feet. The
recommendations of the ADB do not appear to completely be reflected on the
Landscaping Plans submitted to the Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.35; Exhibits B2
and B3 —Landscape Plans.
32. ECDC 18.30.060 requires that any new development with more than 2,000 square
feet of new impervious surfacing shall be required to provide stormwater quality
control. The Applicant retained LSA Engineers/Surveyors Inc. to prepare a
Preliminary Drainage Assessment (Drainage Report). Excerpts of the Drainage
Report were submitted into the Record. Stormwater runoff generated by the
proposed plat would be collected in a system of catch basins and underground
piping and detained on-site in an underground detention/water quality vault
located within Tract 998 for biofiltration prior to release into existing public
stormwater system at the southern border of the site. The detention vault was
sized based on computer modeling (Stormshed Version 6.1.6.8) and based on the
Washington State Department of Ecology 1992 Stormwater Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basin and applicable distribution types and curves. ECDC
18.30.060(A); Exhibit A, Attachment 5(2), Environmental Checklist; Exhibit D,
Drainage Report.
12 The City does maintain a "Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code" — ECDC 18.45 --- in order to preserve
significant trees. However, pursuant to ECDC 18.45.035, projects requiring approval of the ADB (under
ECDC 20.10) are exempt for the application and procedural requirements of ECDC 18.45. ECDC
20.35.080(3) requires that a PRD be reviewed by the ADB who issues a recommendation to the hearing
examiner.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Dearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-21/PRD2007--20
Page 13
33. Currently, a drainage ditch traverses the site from north to south allowing for off-
site, upstream stormwater runoff to discharge into an existing drainage culvert
under 220' Street SW. This drainage ditch would re-routed through an
underground system following the new internal roadway and bypassing the
proposed on-site drainage facility before discharging into its current discharge
point. The Applicant is providing a 10 foot wide storm easement between Lots 5
and 6 in order to accommodate the stormwater line. Exhibit A, Attachment 8,
Engineering Requirements; Exhibit Bl, Preliminary Plat; Exhibit D, Drainage
Report.
34. ECDC 20.35.070(A)(8) requires that Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) relating to the operation and maintenance of the development be
provided. The Applicant submitted a memorandum stating that a Homeowners'
Association would be formed and CC&Rs would be recorded which provided for
the maintenance of commonly -held areas including Tracts 997, 998, and 999 and
enforcement of neighborhood aesthetics by the association. Conditions of
Approval will require submittal of a more complete delineation of the CC&Rs
prior to building permit issuance. Exhibit A, Attachment 4, CC&R memorandum.
35. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to properties within 300 feet of the
site and posted on site on July 18, 2007, and was published in The Herald on July
yl 9, 2007. Exhibit H, Affidavits ofNotice.
36. Public transportation (Community Transit) does not currently serve the subject
property. However, transit service is available within walking distance,
approximately one-half mile, to the east along State Route 99. Exhibit A,
Attachment S, Environmental Checklist
37. Public comment on the application related primarily to stormwater drainage,
sizing of houses, and the retention of significant trees. Testimony submitted
stated that houses within the surrounding community ranged in size from 1,400 to
1,600 square feet in contrast to the 2,500 to 3,000 square foot homes proposed by
the Applicant. Mr. Simonson, a real estate broker, noted that although the floor
plans are large that there is a current market demand for first floor master
bedrooms. In addition, members of the public noted that trees had been lost due
to recent storms as well as road improvements projects and therefore the need to
retain significant trees was important to maintain neighborhood character.
Testimony of Ms McDonald, Testimony of Ms. Lester, Testimony of Mr.
Simonson.
38. No critical areas, as defined by ECDC 23.40, were identified on the subject
property. The subject property is not located in a FEMA -designated flood plain.
Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 9.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner far the City ofEdmonds
Emerald Pack Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PItD-2007 20
Page 14
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Dearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to review and make a final decision on
applications for formal subdivision, pursuant to ECDC. 20.100.010(B)(5) and to review
and make a final decision on applications for a planned residential development, pursuant
to ECDC 20.35.080(4).
Criteria for Review: Subdivisions
To approve a preliminary plat for formal subdivision, the Hearing Examiner must find
that the following general findings set forth in ECDC 20.75.080 can be made, as
approved or as conditionally approved:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC
Chapter 20.75, and meet requirements of the chapter;
B. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or other adopted city
policy, and is in the public interest;
C. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or a modification
has been approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20.75;
D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain
management.
The following criteria for review, set forth in ECDC 20.75.085, shall be used to review
proposed subdivisions:
A. Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to
the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid
impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways
and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the
land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep
slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land
shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with
paragraphs A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimise off-site impacts on drainage, views
and so forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 15
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area
would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless
special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the lot is
developed properly.
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is no
other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways,
turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks,
public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access isnot adequate.
C. Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision for
public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the
requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written
recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of
land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary plat.
D. Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs,
pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines,
sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the
requirements of-
a.
£a. ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
b. ECDC Chapter 19.75, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and
access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions
are met:
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Fxaminer for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 16
a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed
subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the
land to be divided.
b. The land to be divided is zoned RS -20.
c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil,
drainage and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all
requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met.
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria
set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
Criteria for Review: Planned Residential Develo ment
To approve a Planned Residential Development with alternative standards, the Hearing
Examiner must find that the following criteria for review set forth in ECDC 20.35.040
and 20.35.050 are satisfied:
ECDC 20.35.040 Criteria for establishing alternative development standards.
Approval of a request to establish an alternative development standard using a PRD
differs from the variance procedure in that rather than being based upon a hardship or
unusual circumstance related to a specific property, the approval of alternative
development standards proposed by a PRD shall be based upon the criteria listed in this
section. In evaluating a PRD which proposes to modify the development standards of the
underlying zone, the city shall consider and base its findings upon the ability of the
proposal to satisfy all of the following criteria, if applicable:
A. The proposed PRDs shall be compatible with surrounding properties in the
following respects:
1. Provide landscaping for projects seeking to cluster lots under ECDC
20.35.030(A)(1)(b) through the design review process and greater buffering of
buildings, parking and storage areas than would otherwise be provided through
the subdivision process,
2. Providing safe and efficient site access, on-site circulation and off-street
parking, and
3. Architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials as
determined by the ADB in accordance with ECDC 20.35.060;
B. No setback from the exterior lot limes of the PRD may be reduced from that
required by the underlying zoning unless a variance or subdivision modification is
approved;
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-2I/PRD-2007-20
Page 17
C. Minimize the visual impact of the planned development by reduced building
volumes as compared with what is allowable under the current zoning or through
landscape or other buffering techniques;
D. Preserve unique natural features or historic buildings or structures, if such exist on
the site; and/or
E. Reduction of impervious surfaces through the use of on-site or common parking
facilities rather than street parking.
ECDC 20 35.050 Decision Criteria for PRD
Because PRDs provide incentives to applicants by allowing for flexibility from the bulk
zoning requirements, a clear benefit should be realized by the public. To ensure that there
will be a benefit to the public, a PRD which seeks alternative bulk standards shall be
approved, or approved with conditions, only if the proposal meets the following criteria:
A. Design Criteria. The project must comply with the city's urban design guidelines
set forth in subsection (A)(1) of this section and provide two or more of the results set
forth in subsections (A)(2) through (A)(5) of this section:
1. Architectural design consistent with the city's urban design guidelines for
multifamily projects or ECDC 20.35.060 for single-family projects for the design,
placement, relationship and orientation of structures;
2. Improve circulation patterns by providing connections (a) to the city's street
system beyond those which may be compelled under state law, or (b) to the city's
alternative transportation systems, such as bike or pedestrian paths accessible to
the public;
3. Minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials through the use of alternate
materials or methods such as grasscrete or shared driveways;
4. Increase through the addition of usable open space or recreational facilities on-
site above the minimum open space required by ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6);
5. Preserve, enhance or rehabilitate significant natural features of the subject
property such as woodlands, wildlife habitats or streams, historic or landmark
structures or other unique features of the site not otherwise protected by the
community development code.
B. Public Facilities, The PRD shall be served by adequate public facilities including
streets, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, fire protection, water, stormwater control,
sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation facilities.
C. Perimeter Design. The design of the perimeter buffer shall either:
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007 20
Page 18
1. Comply with the bulk zoning criteria applicable to zone by providing the same
front, side and rear yard setbacks for all lots adjacent to the perimeter of the
development; and/or
2. Provide a landscape buffer, open space or passive use recreational area of a
depth from the exterior property line at least equal to the depth of the rear yard
setback applicable to the zone. If such a buffer is provided, interior setbacks may
be flexible and shall be determined pursuant to ECDC 20.35.030. When the
exterior properly line abuts a public way, a buffer at least equal to the depth of the
front yard required for the underlying zone shall be provided.
D. Open Space and Recreation. Usable open space and recreation facilities shall be
provided and effectively integrated into the overall development of a PRD and
surrounding uses and consistent with ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6). "Usable open space"
means common space developed and perpetually maintained at the cost of the
development. At least 10 percent of the gross lot area and not less than 500 square
feet, whichever is greater, shall be set aside as a part of every PRD with five or more
lots. Examples of usable open space include playgrounds, tot lots, garden space,
passive recreational sites such as viewing platforms, patios or outdoor cooking and
dining areas. Required landscape buffers and critical areas except for trails which
comply with the critical areas ordinance shall not be counted toward satisfaction of
the usable open space requirement.
Conclusions Based on Findines:
Conclusions Based on Findings- in re and to the preliminary plat Lor ormal subdivision:
1. The purpose of the ECDC 20.75, the Subdivision Ordinance, is to promote
the public health, safety, and general welfare, to prevent overcrowding of
land, to lessen congestion on roadways, to facilitate the adequate provision of
water, sewer, utilities, parks and recreation, and other public requirements,
to provide proper ingress and egress, and to require uniform monumenting.
The Applicant's proposal substantially satisfies the purposes of ECDC 20.75.
The proposed residences will be connected to potable water and sanitary sewer;
stormwater drainage has been designed to accommodate runoff generated by the
proposed development and allow for the movement of off-site drainage via
underground and easement provisions; impacts to roadways have been addressed
and mitigated through the imposition of impact fees; recreational space has been
provided for residents of the subdivision; a pedestrian -friendly streetscape will
provide safe walking for school -aged children and residents; and open space has
been preserved. Access to the plat provides for safe sight -distances and efficient
movement to major thoroughfares. Public transportation is available within a
reasonable walking distance. Findings of Fact Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33,
36.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) 82007 21/PRD-200720
Page 19
2. The proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policy of
"Urban Infill." The Applicant's proposal will preserve the single-family
character of the city by providing for infill development. The accompanying use
of a PRD allows for efficient use of land to accommodate allocated growth while
providing high quality residential development that is supported by a variety of
comprehensive plan goals and polices. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the
need to provide housing within the community in fulfillment of the City's duty
under the GMA to accommodate allocated population growth. The general
welfare of the public, which is noted as a purpose of the comprehensive plan, is
by planned, coordinated growth that maintains the residential character of the city
and is served by adequate public facilities (water, sewer, roads, emergency
response, etc). The Record adequately reflects that these public services are
available. The GMA permits a local jurisdiction, at its discretion, to weigh and
balance the goals and policies set forth in that jurisdiction's comprehensive plan,
which serves to guide development of the community. RCW 36.70A.3201.
Findings of Facr Nos. 2, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22.
3. With conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision will meet all of the
requirements of the zoning ordinance, as modified by the PRD alternative
standards provisions. ECDC 16.20 sets forth the requirements for Single -
Family Residential development. Single family dwelling units are permitted
outright in this zoning district. Application of the PRD process permits
modifications of the development standards established for the RS -8 zoning
district subject to review and approval of any alternate development standards.
Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, S, 9, 10.
4. With conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision has been designed to
minimize significant adverse impacts to environmental resources. The
proposal has been reviewed pursuant to SEPA and a MDNS was issued. No
critical areas are located on the subject property, The design of the plat retains
several large trees. Conditions of approval require that a certified arborist
delineate the root systems of retained trees to be protected. The stormwater
infiltration system will contain run-off on the site, thereby minimising off-site
impacts. Due to the design of the proposed residences, the bulk or volume of
residential units will be reduced, thereby minimizing any visual or aesthetic
impacts. Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 11, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 33.
5. With conditions of approval, lot and street layout conform to ECDC
requirements. All lots, as modified by the PRD alternate standards and
conditions of approval, provide for an adequate building envelope. All lots will
be accessed via the new internal road, with several lots sharing driveways. Off-
site
ffsite parking will be provided at each residence. On -street parking spaces will be
provided on the internal road except for within the cul-de-sac itself so as to ensure
emergency vehicle access and movement. Road design conforms to city
standards for providing emergency vehicle access, sidewalks and lighting for
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pae& Homes (SYonebridge Plat) P-2007-211PRD-2007-20
Page 20
pedestrian safety. All AASHTO sight distance requirements have been satisfied.
Each lot, as modified by PRD alternative standards and conditions of approval,
shall comply with the applicable dimensional requirements of the RS -8 zoning
district. Findings of Fact Nos. 10, 21, 22, 23, 2 7.
6. No dedication of land is proposed. ECDC 20.75.090 requires that before or
concurrent with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the Applicant,
for park and recreational purposes, shall dedicate land, pay an impact fee in -lieu
of dedication, or do both. The City is not currently utilizing the impact fee
funding mechanism and has not required any dedication of land. Findings of Fact
No. 18, Footnote 4.
7. Improvements necessary to provide for health, safety, and welfare of the
residents of the plat are provided. All proposed residences will be connected to
sanitary sewer and domestic water service provided by the City of Edmonds. No
septic systems are proposed. Conditions of Approval will require the City has
adequate capacity available to serve the development. All proposed residences
will be served by a new internal road built to City standards, including curbs,
gutters, illumination, and sidewalks. The internal road will be constructed to
ensure safe ingress/egress, emergency access, and a pedestrian -friendly
streetscape. Internal sidewalks will link to existing sidewalks so as to ensure
safe -walking for school children being bussed or walking to area schools. The
plat will provide open space and recreation facilities, including a walking trail,
open lawn area, benches, and picnic area. Off-site traffic impacts will be
mitigated through the payment of fees to the City of Edmonds. Stormwater runoff
will be collected by a series of catch basins and conveyed via underground piping
for treatment and detention in an on-site underground infiltration vault. All
proposed infrastructure must comply with applicable city codes specifically Title
18 Public Works and Chapter 19.75 Fire Code. As proposed, the plat is consistent
with the City of Edmond's Comprehensive Plan pertaining to high quality
residential infill development. Public transit is available within a reasonable
walking distance. Findings of Fact Nos. 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33, 36.
S. The subject property is not located in a Flood Plain Management Area.
Finding of Fact No. 38.
Conclusion based on Findings in regard to the PRD
1. The propose supports the purposes of the Planned Residential Development
as set forth in ECDC 20.35.010. The proposal provides for a variety of housing
styles with a site layout which promotes flexibility and creativity, while providing
both open space and recreational opportunities, protecting some of the significant
trees, and maintaining the single-family residential character. The application of
PRD alternative standards, as modified, allows for efficient use of the land and
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) 82007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 21
integrates the site with the surrounding area. Findings of Fact Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.
2. The proposal, as conditioned, complies with the urban design guidelines for
single-family projects contained in ECDC 20.35.060. Findings of Fact Nos. 25,
26.
3. The proposal satisfies two provisions of ECDC 20.35.050(A)(2) - (A)(5). The
Applicant proposed to minimize impervious surface through the use of two shared
driveways. Access to proposed Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will gain access through
the use of these driveways. The Applicant is providing open space in excess of
the required 10 percent. The Applicant proposed to preserve 10 of the significant
trees located on the site. Conditions of approval will require the planting of
replacement trees throughout the landscape, including street trees, and the
protection of retained trees under the supervision of a certified arborist. Findings
of Fact Nos 8, 18, 21, 29, 30, 31.
4. The proposal is served by adequate public facilities, including streets, fire
protection, water, stormwater control, sanitary sewer, and park and
recreational facilities. The City of Edmonds will serve the proposed PRD with
potable water and sanitary sewer services. Conditions of approval require that the
Applicant demonstrate that the City has adequate capacity to serve the
development. A stormwater infiltration system has been designed to
accommodate run-off generated by the proposed development and off-site runoff
will be diverted underground and discharged off-site. The system has been
designed to conform to City standards including pre -development and storm event
criteria. An internal roadway will be constructed to City standards and impacts to
off-street transportation infrastructure have been mitigated through the imposition
of fees. On-site recreational facilities and open space have been provided.
Findings of Fact Nos. 18„ 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33.
5. The proposal fails to provide a perimeter design in conformance with ECDC
20.35.050(C). Although the Applicant has indicated that enhanced landscaping
will be planted along the exterior boundary, this does not satisfy the requirement.
ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires a buffer that is distinct and separate from rear yards
so as to buffer the higher density development from the surrounding community.
Findings of Fact Nos. 9, 12, 13.
ECDC 20.35.050(C) provides: (Emphasis added)
C. Perimeter Design. The design of the perimeter buffer shall
either:
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007--20
Page 22
1. Comply with the bulk zoning criteria applicable to zone by
providing the same front, side and rear yard setbacks for all lots
adjacent to the perimeter of the development; and/or
2. Provide a landscape buffer, open space or passive use
recreational area of a depth from the exterior property line at least
equal to the depth of the rear yard setback applicable to the zone.
If such a buffer is provided, interior setbacks may be flexible and
shall be determined pursuant to ECDC 20.35.030. When the
exterior property line abuts a public way, a buffer at least equal to
the depth of the front yard required for the underlying zone shall be
provided.
The language under review is the requirement to provide an area "at least equal to
the depth of the rear yard setback13" with the question presented being whether
the required rear yard setback itself could be utilized to satisfy ECDC
20.35.050(C) 's perimeter buffer requirement.
The City and Applicant assert that the required perimeter buffer can be satisfied
by the rear yard setback itself so long as an added requirement is made that the
construction of any accessory structures (i.e. storage sheds, porches, etc.) is
prohibited within this area — meeting the City's definition of open space (see
infra). Testimony was submitted that this has been how the City has historically
applied the code provision. Although a department's interpretation of its own
code provision is entitled to great weight, especially if the department has adopted
and uniformly applied such interpretation as a matter of policy (either officially or
unofficially) (see Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 815,
828 P.2d 549 (1992)), a department's interpretation will not be accorded
deference if the interpretation conflicts with the intent of the relevant code.
Cowiche Canyon, 118 Wn.2d at 815.
The question then becomes — what was the City Council's intent in regard to the
perimeter buffer. Washington Courts have long held that if an enactment is
unambiguous, then it is enforced in accordance with its plain meaning. State u
Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106, 100, 156 P3d 201 (2007); State v. Nolan, 141
Wn.2d, 620, 625, 8 P3d 300 (2000). Under the "Plain Meaning Rule," the entire
statute, in which the provision at issue is found, as well as related statutes or other
provisions of the same act, are examined. Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell v. Gwinn
LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 10-12, 43 P.3d 4 (2002). The enactment must be read as a
whole and give effect to all language used. State v. Young, 125 Wn.2d 688, 696,
is The rear yard setback applicable to this matter is 15 feet, the minimum required by the RS -8 zoning
district which must be maintained for a PRD (see ECDC 20.35.040(B) --- no setback from exterior lot line
may be reduced from that required by underlying zoning).
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 23
888 P.2d 142 (1995). No construction should be accepted that has "unlikely,
absurd, or strained consequences." State v. Elgin, 118 Wn.2d 551, 555, 825 P.2d
314 (1992). When determining the meaning of a legislative enactment, the
fundamental objective is to ascertain and carry out the legislative intent and, if the
enactment's meaning is plain on its face, then its plain meaning must be given
effect as an expression of the legislative intent. Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell V.
Gwinn LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10,43 P.3d 4 (2002).
Looking first to the plain meaning of the code provision, in particular the phrasing
"at least equal to the depth of the rear yard setback " the Hearing Examiner does
not conclude that the code provision is ambiguous. According to the Miriam -
Webster Dictionary, the term "equal" is commonly defined as meaning the same
measure, quantity, or amount; being equivalent. Slack's Law Dictionary defines
"equivalent" as meaning equal in value or amount. Therefore, applying a plain
reading to the wording, in context of the perimeter buffer, the requirement would
be as follows:
A PRD seeking alternative development standards shall provide a
perimeter buffer from the exterior property line of, at a minimum,
15 feet.
ECDC Chapter 2.0.35 is the PRD ordinance. ECDC 20.35.010 sets forth the
purposes of the PRD ordinance. Of particular reference to this matter are .010(E)
- coordinating with the value, character, and integrity of surrounding area and
.010(F) - integrating the development into the existing community while
protecting and preserving the value of the surrounding neighborhood.
ECDC 20.35.040 provides criteria for establishing alternative development
standards and includes a requirement for the PRD to be compatible with the
surrounding properties by providing greater buffering (.040(A)(1)) and
minimizing visual impacts through buffering techniques (.040(C)). ECDC
20.35.050 states that "[B]ecause PRDs provide incentives to applicants by
allowing for flexibility from the bulk zoning requirements, a clear benefit should
be realized by the public."
With a few exceptions, ECDC Chapter 20.35 does not provide definitions of
terms. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.060(C)(2), a perimeter buffer is defined as a
landscape buffer, open space, or passive use recreational area. Definitions of
terms utilized by the ECDC are contained in ECDC Chapter 21.00 which provides
that "all words used in the code shall have their normal and customary meanings,
unless specifically defined otherwise in this code." ECDC 21.00.000(A). The
words buffer, landscape buffer, or passive use recreational area are not defined
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Exam inerfor the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PAD-2007 20
Page 24
although the word open space is defined as "any part of a lot unobstructed from
the ground upward." 4 ECDC 21.75.030.
In determining the meaning of a legislative enactment, other related enactments
can be examined. The Hearing Examiner looks to the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the Community Development Code, in particular the Critical Areas
Ordinance, for this purpose. The Comprehensive Plan, the City's overarching
guidelines for land use development, seeks to provide high quality residential
development with a balance of economic and aesthetic considerations. Reference
is made to harmonizing development with the surroundings, protecting
neighborhoods from incompatible additions and land uses, nrnizing
encroachment of views, and protecting residential privacy and property values.
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, Goal B_
The Hearing Examiner further notes that the terra "buffer" is most readily used in
conjunction with critical areas and is designed to provide an area of relatively
undisturbed land in order to protect the values and functions of the critical area.
Although ECDC 23.40.320 defines a "buffer" as being the designated area
immediately next to and a part of a critical area, ECDC 23.40.280 provides that
buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the
edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no
buffers are required. Turning to the common meaning of the word "buffer," the
Miriam -Webster Dictionary provides several definitions including something that
serves as a protective barrier; materials used as a means of cushioning from
shock. Black's Law Dictionary, particular to land -use planning, defines a
"buffer -zone" as an area of land separating two different zones or areas to help
each blend more easily with the other.
Therefore, based on the plain meaning of words utilized within ECDC
20.35.050(C) and the legislative intent of harmonizing new and existing
development so as to protect neighborhoods from incompatible development 13
and to protect residential privacy demonstrated both by the PRD ordinance itself
and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the
required perimeter buffer is a separate and distinct area measuring at least 15 feet
from the exterior lot line and that the rear yard setback may not be utilized to
satisfy this requirement. The Hearing Examiner notes that the perimeter buffer
14 ECDC 20.35.060(D) defines "usable open space" a common space development and perpetually
maintained at the cost of the development.
15 The Hearing Examiner notes that although a PRD provides for single-family residential development
within a single-family residential zoning district that does not exceed the maximum density established by
the zoning code, due to requirements not normally required under the City's subdivision ordinance (ECDC
Chapter 20.75) and the ability to modify bulk development standards, the density of such developments are
generally inconsistent, or incompatible, with the surrounding neighborhood's density and therefore the
incompatibility stems for the visual/aesthetic impacts of the smaller lot configuration and reduced setbacks.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing. Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-211PAD2007 20
Page 25
area does not need to be a separate tract with common ownership (i.e.
Homeowners Association) but can be incorporated as part of an individual lot's
square footage just so long as the area is adequately delineated from the rear yard
setback and proper notification made to fixture property owners, via a deed
restriction, that states that the area is a buffer area to be maintained in the
appropriate form (i.e. landscape buffer, open space, or passive recreational area)
for perpetuity and is not subject to further development by the property owner.
The Hearing Examiner concludes that the application of the City's interpretation
is strained in that it unduly burdens future property owners in the reasonable use
and enjoyment of their rear yard by limiting the placement of any type of structure
including storage sheds, decks, and children's play equipment. In addition, the
Hearing Examiner concludes that the City's interpretation effectively negates one
of the City Council's two methods of satisfying the perimeter requirements and
permits applicants to satisfy this through a requirement — the rear yard setback —
that already must be met.
6. The proposal provides usable open space and recreational facilities which are
integrated into the overall development of the PRD. A PRD must provide a
minimum of 10 percent useable open space. The Applicant has provided several
areas throughout the PRD, totaling 11.1 percent, which include landscape and
recreational areas. These areas are located so as to provide easy access for
residents and will have open lawn areas, walking trail, benches, and picnic tables.
Findings of Fact Nos. 18.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a
formal plat to subdivide 1.92 acres of land into a 10 -lot single family lots and three
tracts to provide for open/recreational space and drainage facilities on property located
within the City of Edmonds at 7723 and 7780 220" Street SW, Edmonds, Washington is
GRANTED, subject to the conditions listed below and the Applicant's
demonstration of compliance with ECDC 20.35.
1. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner
generally concurs with the recommendation of the ADB in regards to the design
of the PRD. However, the alternative development standards, are GRANTED as
follows:
Lot Area: 5,300 to 6,445 sq feet
Lot Width: 55-65 feet
Setbacks:
Street: 10 feet
Side: 5 feet
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007 211PRD-2007 20
Page 26
Lot Coverage: 45 percent maximum (building footprint)
2. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a
Planned Residential Development on property located within the City of Edmonds
at 7723 and 7780 220th Street SW is REMANDED, for the purpose of the
Applicant demonstrating compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.35,
Remand Requirements
A. ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires that a perimeter buffer be provided.
The buffer is not required if the proposal provides for the same front,
side, and rear yard setbacks applicable to the RS -8 zone for all lots
adjacent to the perimeter of the development. However, the Applicant
has sought to modify the RS -8 required setbacks for this proposal and
therefore is required to provide a landscape buffer, open space, or passive
use recreational area of at least 15 feet (rear yard setback of RS -8 zone)
along the exterior property line. Exhibits, testimony, and Preliminary
plat maps do not depict this required buffer.
B. If substantial modifications to the proposal are needed to address
the need for a perimeter buffer and the modification to the total lot
coverage, for example lot or street layout and design of homes, then the
revised design shall be submitted to the ADB for review of the revised
proposal and subsequent recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
ADB review shall be conducted pursuant to ECDC 20.35.080(3) with no
public hearing or comment required.
C. Remand of the PRD application does not impact the Hearing
Examiner's decision to conditionally approve the subdivision of the
subject property. Review of the formal plat application is subject to
criteria specified in ECDC 20.75.085 and was based on a total of 10
dwelling units, the maximum available under the RS -8 zoning district.
Since the PRD may not provide for more density than that permitted
under the zoning district, impacts have been reviewed at maximum
development capacity.
Conditions of Approval
A. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the City
of Edmonds' has adequate ability and capacity to provide domestic water and
sanitary service to the proposed platlPRD. The proposed water and sewer system
shall be designed in accordance with the standards and specification of the City of
Edmonds, as utility purveyor. All water and sewer plans are subject to review and
acceptance by the utility purveyor.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
.Hearing Examiner for the City of Ed►nonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-2I/PRD-2007-20
Page 27
B. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the "City of Edmonds
Engineering Requirements for Plats" submitted as Exhibit A, Attachment 8.
Required conditions pertain to rights -of -ways for public streets, easements, street
improvements, street turnarounds, sidewalks, street lights, water system
improvements, sanitary sewer system improvements, storm sewer system
improvements, on-site drainage, underground wiring„ excavation and grading,
signage, survey monumentation, as -built drawings, and other requirements.
These requirements shall be met prior to recording of the final Plat/PRD.
C. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a full and
complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Record of this proceeding to the
City's Development Services Department. The TIA must demonstrate that
impacts generated by the proposed Plat/PRD do not lower the adopted Level of
Service standards for the area's transportation network.
D. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a full and
complete copy of the Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Plan for the Record of
this proceeding to the City's Development Services Department.
E. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit revised
Landscaping Plans which accurately depict the retention of on-site significant
trees as well as the inclusion of the ADB's recommendation in regard to addition
conifers within the area of Lots 3 and 4 and variation amongst street trees.
F. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape
Plan which provides for a subdivision entry sign with appropriate landscaping.
G. A certified arborist shall delineate a root zone around each tree proposed for
retention with temporary fencing which is intended to protect the critical root
zone during excavation and construction so as to maintain the integrity of the
retained tree. The fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping is
installed on the lot containing the retained tree. If any of the retained trees are
damaged during construction, the Applicant shall replace that tree with a
coniferous tree of 10 to 12 feet minimum in height.
H. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the City's
Development Services Department a complete representation of the proposed
Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which future homeowners
would be required to adhere to. All deeds shall contain reference to said CC&Rs.
The CC&Rs shall clearly demonstrate maintenance of the stormwater drainage
system and common areas.
1. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions set forth by the ADB during its
July 18, 2007 as shown on Exhibit A, Attachment b.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Nearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) 82007-2]/PRD-2007-20
Page 28
J. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.35 --- Planned
Residential Development. Compliance with this section of the ECDC may result
in remand of the Plat/PRD for design consistent with the developments standards
of the R -S zoning district.
K. Fire hydrant installation and spacing shall comply with ECDC Chapter 19.25.
L. All street names and address numbering shall comply with ECDC Chapter 19.75
M. 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 as well as state and/or federal laws.
N. The Applicant shall comply with all of the conditions set forth in the Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance, issued July 3, 2007, including payment of the
required traffic impact fees prior to building permit issuance.
0. Prior to Final P1atlPRD approval and recording, the Applicant shall complete the
following requirements:
a. Civil plans must be approved prior to construction and recording. In
completing the civil plans, the Applicant shall address the following:
(i) The Applicant shall complete the Engineering Division conditions
listed as "Required prior to Recording" (See Exhibit A,
Attachment 8).
(ii) All PRD improvements including perimeter and street landscaping,
entry landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and signage
should be included in the civil plans. These improvements shall be
installed or bonded for prior to requesting final plat and PRD
approval.
P. The Applicant shall submit copies of the recording documents to the City for
approval. These documents shall have the following information included:
a. The following statements shall be placed on the face of the plat mylar:
"The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested under this
PRDIFormal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in the indicated
setback areas without a variance being approved. "
b. The following statement shall be placed on the face of the Plat:
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-2]IPRD 2007-2D
Page 29
"Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final
approval far the subdivision located in files P-2007-17 & PRD-2007-
18.
RD-200718. "
C. Include on the plat all required information, including owner's
certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks.
i. Provide emergency access requirements, fire hydrants and fire
suppression to the specifications required by the Engineering
Division and the Fire Department.
ii. Designate joint driveways as "No Parking" areas that are required
to remain clear for use as fire apparatus access turnarounds.
iii. Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with
the requirements of ECDC 20.75.130(B) for any required
improvements, including landscaping, which have not been
completed.
iv. 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.
d. After recording the plat, the Applicant shall complete the following:
i. Provide the City Planning Division with three (3) copies of the
recorded plat with the recording number written on them.
ii. Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required
with Building Permit" found on Exhibit 8, Attachment 8.
Q. Prior to any construction for the plat improvements or issuance of individual
building permits for each lot complete the following:
a. Consistent use of materials or building forms must be used on all sides of the home.
b. Building plans must be consistent in type and style with those submitted
with the PRD.
C. Garages for homes proposed on Lots 1 and 10 should provide for more
visual interest, such as trellis or other types of detailing. Treatments are
at the applicant's and City reviewer's discretion.
R. Approval of the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant from compliance
with all other local, state and/or federal approvals, permits, and/or laws necessary
to conduct the development activity for which this permit is issued. Any
additional permits and/or approvals shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pacific Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P-2007-21/PRD-2007-20
Page 30
S. All development on the site shall be in substantial compliance with the approved
plat/PRD. Any alteration of this site plan will require approval of a new or
amended plat/PRD.
T. The Applicant shall comply with best management practices for the minimization
of track out and windblown dust. Provisions shall be made to minimize the
tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved, public roads. If
sediment is deposit, the area should be cleaned every day by shoveling or
sweeping.
U. Erosion control measures, including source control best management practices,
shall be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. Control measures
shall be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other
pollutants (including sand, silt, clay participles, and soil) into surface water or
storm drains that lead to waters of the State of Washington. Cut and/or fill shall
be designed to minimize erosion.
V. Any stockpiled soil shall be stabilized or protected with sediment -trapping
measures to prevent soil loss. Clearing limits and/or required buffers shall be
identified and marked in the field, prior to the start of any clearing, grading, or
construction.
Decided this 11th day of September, 2007.
Dice Taylor
ie Ainsworth -Taylor
Examiner, City of Edmonds
Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Emerald Pack Homes (Stonebridge Plat) P 2007-21/PRD-20X}7-20
Page 31
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Application of )
EMERALD PACIFIC HOMES )
For Approval of a Formal Plat and a )
Planned Residential Development.
No. P-2007-21 & PRD -2007-20
Declaration of Service
(Stonebridge Plat)
DECLARATION
1, Julie Ainsworth -Taylor, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
I That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a
professional services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision
of Hearing Examiner services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States
and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to
be a witness and make service herein;
3. That on the 11th day of September, 2007, 1 did serve a copy of the "Findings,
Conclusions, and Decision" — Applications P-2007-21 and PRD -2007-20 upon the
individuals at the addresses stated:
Emerald Pacific Homes
c/o S. Michael Smith
LSA Engineering
19400 — 33'd Avenue W., Suite 200
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Diane Cunningham, Admin Assist.
City of Edmonds — Planning Dept.
121 — 5" Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Robert Chave, Planning Director
City of Edmonds
121— 5' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Michael Clugston, Planner
City of Edmonds
121 — 5' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Colleen McDonald
22028 — 77d' Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Larry Simonson
300 NE 97'
Seattle, WA 98115
Clerk of the City Council
City of Edmonds
121— 5" Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
4. Service was made by:
Bryan Briscoe
21820-77 tb Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Kathy Lester
21905 —80" Avenue W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
❑ By facsimile transmission to (Phone)
❑' By electronic transmission (e-mail) to (e-mail address).
NBy mailing to the person named at the address of service via US 1St Class
Mail.
I hereby declare under penalty of penury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct:
DATED THIS 11th day of September, 2007 at Kirkland, Washington.
Juli Ainsworth -Taylor v �--
Bill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
-1,q C. 1Sgv
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH •Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. An ptrson wishing to file or respond to a Lqquest for reconsideration or an Weal should
contact. the Planning Division of the Development Services Department or an attorney for further
procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Section 20.100.010(G) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires the Hearing
Examiner to reconsider his or her 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.
APPEALS
The Hearing Examiner's decisions on preliminary plat applications, preliminary PRD applications, and
appeals of SEPA threshold determinations may be appealed. The appeal procedures vary according to
decision type.
Preliminary Plat
The Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary plat may be appealed to the Edmonds City Council
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC (see ECDC 20.105.010(B) and ECDC
20.100.010(B)(5)). Pursuant to Section 20.105,040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the
Applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the
application prior to or at the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections
20.105.020(A) requires appeals to be in writing and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the
project applicant, and the date of the decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group)
appealing the decision, and his or her interest in the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing
believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to Section 20.105.020(5), the appeal must be fled with the
Director of the Development Services Department within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision
being appealed. The appeal must be accompanied by any required appeal fee.
Preliminary PRD
Appeals of the. Hearing Examiner's decision on a preliminary PRD must be taken to superior court under
the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) (Chapter 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)) (see
ECDC 20.35.080(A)(4), ECDC 20.105.030(D), and ECDC 20.105.070). Appeals must be filed within 21
calendar days of the final decision. Please refer to the applicable statutes for additional procedural
information.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For appeals to City Council, 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 or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal
Ogice of the Hearing Examiner -- City of Edmonds
Reconsideration and Appeals
Page I of 2
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of
the appeal period, an individual would have nine more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing
Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
In regard to the appeal period for filing a LUPA action and the impact of a request for reconsideration, the
parties are advised to refer to RCW 36.70C or consult an attorney for guidance.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Preliminary
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.100, preliminary plat approval shall expire and have no further validity if the
applicant does not obtain final plat approval within five years of the date of decision (or, if appealed, the
date of final confirmation by the appeal body).
Preliminary PRD
Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.090, preliminary PRD approval shall become void if the applicant does not
apply for final approval within five years of the date of preliminary approval.
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.
Office of the Hearing Examiner — City of Edmonds
Reconsideration and Appeals
Page 2 of 2