HE Decision Plat & Appeals.pdfrh c 1 S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of
BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO.
For Approval of a Formal Plat
And Planned Residential Development
In the Matter of the Appeal of
LORA PETSO,
Appellant
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
In the Matter of the Appeal of
HEATHER MARKS and CLIFF SANDERLIN,
Appellants
Of a SEPA Threshold Determination
NOS. P-2007-17
PRD -2007-18
NO. APL -2007-1
NO. APL -2007-2
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
and DECISION
(Woodway Elementary Plat)
SUMMARY OF DECISION
The request to approve a Preliminary Plat for the Formal'Subdivision of one parcel of land into
27 single-family lots and five tracts 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 appeal of the April 19, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by Lora Petso is
-DENIED. The appeal of the April 19, 2007 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
AppealAPL-2007-I (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page I of 43
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin is DENIED. From the Record. presented to the Hearing
Examiner, evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the City evaluate the proposed development's
probable environmental impacts, that these impacts were adequately considered, and that
proposed mitigation measures, including compliance with state and local laws, are reasonable
and capable of ensuring that these impacts will not have more than a moderate effect on the
environment.
Although the Applicant's request for plat approval is subject to further review of the Tract E
open space, as it pertains to the adjacent Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, the
Hearing Examiner does not conclude that the- City's evaluation in this regard was fatal to the
MDNS. It is clear from the Record thatthis information was before the City and that the City
considered the impact of the proposal on this area: A condition of approvalin this regard will
ensure further environmental analysis as to the impacts of the proposal on the functions and
values of the adjacent critical area.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request
Burnstead Construction Company (Applicant), requested approval of a Formal Plat for the
division of one parcel of land, totaling approximately 5.61 acres, into 27 single-family lots and
five tracts to provide for open space/recreation, private driveways, and drainage. Residences
would be connected to domestic water and sanitary sewer provided by the Olympic View Water
and Sewer District. The subject property is located within the City of Edmonds at 23708 —140th
Avenue West. In conjunction with this application, the Applicant seeks to utilize the City's
Planned Residential Development provisions, ECDC Chapter 20.35, in order to alter certain
development standards.
Anneal
The City of Edmonds reviewed the environmental impacts of the proposed development as
required by the _State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA] and issued a Mitigated Determination of
Non -Significance WNS] on April 19, 2007.
Two appeals of this determination were timely filed. Lora Petso filed an appeal of the MDNS
on May 16, 2007. Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin filed an appeal of the MDNS on May 17,
2007.
Hearing and Procedural History
An open record public hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
on June 21, 2007. The Record for the hearing was left open dor the limited submittal of
information pertaining to the Edmonds School District, availability of water and sewer, notices
of the. public hearing, and 2003 Southwest Edmonds Drainage Plan. This information was
received and the Record was closed on June 28, 2007. On June 28, 2007, documents were
In the Mauer of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project.P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Peiso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 2 of 43
received from Appellants Marks and Sanderlin. These documents included reference sources to
support Appellant Marks' testimony, a Google EarthTM aerial photograph, and a August 2005
Wetland Delineation Report for property located in Jefferson County, Washington. Admission
of these exhibits is DENIED; the Record for the hearing remained open for the limited purpose
of the submittal of the documents requested by the Hearing Examiner.
After receiving relevant information to facilitate a better understanding of the property and
surrounding neighborhood, the Hearing Examiner conducted a site visit on June 23, 2007.;
Preliminary Matters
In conjunction with the SEPA appeals, exhibits and testimony were presented in regard to the
transactional history of the "Old Woodway Elementary School" site. The Old Woodway school
site is approximately 11 acres in size and encompasses three parcels: Parcel A (3.73 acres),
Parcel B (1.83 acres), and Parcel C (5.61 acres). The Edmonds School District closed the
school several years ago and the ball fields, located on Parcel C, have since been utilized by the
public for recreational purposes pursuant to several Interlocal Agreements [ILA] entered into by
the School District, the City, and Snohomish County.
In 2006, the School District elected to sell Parcels A and B to the City of Edmonds and Parcel C
to the Applicant. As sole property owner, this was well within the School District's rights.
Appellants and members of the public asserted that this transaction was in violation of the City's
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan which identifies the site as a park and that the
subsequent termination of the ILA was not legally executed. In addition, Appellant Petso asserts
that the property, is still subject to the terms of the ILA, which requires that it be maintained as a
park until 2009 and, therefore, the Applicant should not be permitted 'to develop the site with
residential units. According to Appellants, the subject property should be retained as a city park.
See generally, SEPA Appeal Exhibit D, Petso Brief; SEPA Appeal Exhibit E, Marks Brief.
The public's dissatisfaction with the School District's and the City's actions in regards to the
subject property is evident. However, the Hearing Examiner notes that the City has granted her
limited jurisdiction and that this jurisdiction does not encompasses the authority to determine
whether or not the County's, City's, or School District's actions in regard to the sale of Parcel C
and the subsequent termination of the ILA were legally executed. This determination is for the
Washington Courts and neither the Appellant nor any other member of the public submitted
1 The Hearing Examiner acknowledges that ECDC 20.100.010(C) labels the site visit as a "pre -hearing" activity.
However, due to the public involvement in this matter and in actions taken by the City preceding this action, the
Hearing Examiner believed that a site visit was best conducted after receiving information from the members of the
public who best understood the area — the neighboring property owners. It should be further noted that ECDC
20.105.050 provides that no procedural irregularity or informality shall affect the final decision unless substantial
rights of a person with demonstrable beneficial interests are adversely affected. Therefore, any "pre -hearing"
irregularity was cured by the subsequent visit.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 3 of 43
evidence that a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled that these actions were improper.2
Given this, the sale of the property and the termination of the ILA are presumed valid. The
Hearing Examiner further notes that although Parcel C may have been encumbered by the ILA at
the time the Applicant purchased the site, any encumbrance was extinguished upon termination
of the underlying ILA which, as noted supra, is an action presumed to be valid.
Therefore, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the Burnstead Construction Company is the
legal property owner of Parcel C and is permitted to seek development of the site pursuant to the
laws and regulations in place at the time of filing of its completed development application. All
portions of exhibits and testimony received in regard to the transactional history of the property
shall be deemed irrelevant and stricken.
Testimony and Exhibits
Due to the fact that this was a combined hearing for determination of the Formal Subdivision,
Planned Residential Development, and SEPA Appeal, all testimony and exhibits were
incorporated into each request and/or appeal.
Testimony
At the open record public hearing conducted on June 21, 2007, the following individuals were
present and/or provided testimony under oath:
1. Tiffany Brown, Burnstead Construction
2. Jerry Lutz, Attorney for Applicant — Perkins & Coie
3. Nicole Hernandez, Civil Engineer — The Blue Line Group
4. Louis Emenhiser, Sr. Wetland Ecologist — Wetland Resources Inc.
5. Blaine Chesterfield, City of Edmonds-Stormwater Engineer
6. Jeanie McConnell, City of Edmonds -Acting Engineer
7. Patrick McGrady, Reid Middleton, Transportation Engineer
8. Karen Stewart, Reid Middleton — Project Planner
9. Diane Cunningham, City of Edmonds — Planning Department
10. Brian McIntosh, City of Edmonds - Parks & Recreation
11. John Westfall, City of Edmonds — Fire Marshall
12. J. Scott Kindred, Soils Engineer — Associated Earth Sciences Inc.
13. Don Fiene, City of Edmonds — Assistant City Engineer
14. Lora Petso, Appellant
15. Heather Marks, Appellant
16. Richard Miller
17. Kevin Clarke
18. Cliff Sanderlin, Appellant
19. John O'Leary
2 It is further noted that the sale of the property and the termination of the ILA occurred in 2006. Pursuant to RCW
36.70C.040, a challenge to a final land use decision is barred unless filed within 21 days of issuance.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 4 of 43
20. Roger Hertrich
21. Colin Southcote-Wait
Exhibits
At the open record public hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official
record.
Plat and Planned Residential Development:
Exhibit A: Staff Report dated June 13, 2007
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Project Narrative
Attachment 3: Preliminary Plat Map/PRD
Attachment 4: Preliminary Maps (Plat/PRD, Existing Conditions, Grading and
TESL, Utility, Road Profile)
Attachment 5: Preliminary Storm Drainage Report, prepared by The Blue Line
Group, dated February 28, 2007
Attachment 6: Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Transportation Engineering
Exhibit B: Agency Comments: Edmonds School District, dated June 27, 2007, RE:
School Impacts
Exhibit C: Olympic View Water & Sewer District Availability
Exhibit D: Affidavits of Posting, Mailing, and Publication with copies of postings and
publications
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Petso) and APL2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 5 of 43
Northwest LLC, dated January 30, 2007
Attachment 7:
Steep Slope Map
Attachment 8:
Correspondence from Edmonds School District, dated February 6,.
2007, RE: Termination of Interlocal Agreement
Attachment 9:
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, issued April 19,
2007
Attachment 10:
City of Edmonds' Architectural Design Board Staff Report, dated
April 25, 2007
Attachment 11:
City of Edmonds' Architectural Design Board Decision, May 2,
2007, RE: Plat and PRD application
Attachment 12:
Correspondence from The Blue Line Group, dated May 7, 2007,
RE: Front yard setbacks
Attachment 13:
Agency Comments: City of Edmonds' Fire Department, dated
September 26, 2006
Attachment 14:
City of Edmonds' Engineering Requirements for Plats, dated June
6, 2007
Attachment 15:
Correspondence from Reid Middleton, dated June 18, 2007, with
attachment from Transportation Engineering NorthWest LLC, RE:
Traffic study comments
Attachment 16:
Listing of Parties of Record
Exhibit B: Agency Comments: Edmonds School District, dated June 27, 2007, RE:
School Impacts
Exhibit C: Olympic View Water & Sewer District Availability
Exhibit D: Affidavits of Posting, Mailing, and Publication with copies of postings and
publications
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Petso) and APL2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 5 of 43
SEPA Appeal:
Exhibit A: Staff Report dated June 8, 2007
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Preliminary Plat Map
Attachment 3: Existing Conditions Plan
Attachment 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Attachment 5: Environmental Checklist, prepared by The Blue Line Group, dated
February 23, 2007_
Attachment 6: Steep Slope Map
Attachment 7: Mitigated Determination of Non-Sigaif tante, issued April 19,
2007
Attachment 8: Lora Petso Appeal of MDNS, received May 16, 2007
Attachment 9: Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin Appeal of MDNS, received
May 17, 2007, with four attachments:
a. Site Plan — Plat at Woodway Elementary
b. Site Vicinity Map from Traffic Impact Study
c. 2007 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes from
Traffic Impact Study
d. Google Site Aerial Map
Exhibit B: Applicant's Response to Appeal of MDNS, prepared by Perkins Coie, dated
June 11, 2007, with attachments
Attachment 1: Correspondence from Associated Earth Sciences, dated June 8,
2007, RE: Response to SEPA review comments
Attachment 2: Correspondence from Wetland Resources Inc., dated June 7, 2007,
RE: Response to SEPA appeal
Attachment 3: Temporary Demolition Easement, recorded September 14, 2006
Attachment 4: Correspondence from Transportation Engineering Northwest,
dated June 8, 2007, RE: Response to SEPA Appeal
Attachment 5: Interlocal Agreement, recorded December 28, 2006
Attachment 6: City of Edmonds' Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan, Table 6.1 Proposed Neighborhood Park
System with Facilities Plan Map
Exhibit C: City of Edmonds' Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report, dated March 20,
2007
Exhibit D: Appellant Lora Petso's Brief with 60 attachments3
3 Appellant Petso did not provide a copy of this briefing or the exhibits prior to the June 21, 2007 bearing. After a
cursory review at the hearing, neither the City nor the Applicant objected to the submittal of these exhibits.
Therefore; these documents were admitted into the Record with the notation that they will be accorded the necessary
weight and relevance based on the issues presented on appeal. See Appendix A for a complete determination as to
the relevance of each attachment.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PAD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and API, -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 6 of 43
Exhibit E: Appellants Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin Brief with one attachment
Attachment 1: E-mail correspondence, dated between November 2006. and
February 2007, RE: C -Curb (Roads)
Exhibit F: Southwest Edmonds Drainage Plan, dated March 2002
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the record developed at the open record hearing of June 21, 2007, the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions are entered in support of the decision of the Hearing Examiner:
F1NDlNGS
1. The Applicant requests approval for a formal subdivision [Subdivision or Plat] to
subdivide one parcel of land (approximately 5..61 acres) into 27 single-family residential
lots and five tracts to provide for openlrecreation space, private driveways, and drainage
facilities. The subject property is located at 23708 — 104th Avenue West in Edmonds,
Washington .4 Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, pages 1-2, 5, 13; Plat Exhibit A(2), Project
Narrative, Plat Exhibit A(3); Testimony of Ms. Stewart
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. The purposes of a PRD are 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 20.35.
020(A); Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 9; Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
3. Pursuant to the Washington's State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA], RCW 43.21C, the
City, acting as lead agency for identification and review of environmental impacts caused
by the proposal, issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance [MDNS] on April
19, 2007. The MDNS was based on the Environmental Checklist which incorporated the
following documents: Preliminary Plat Plans, Planned Residential and Conceptual
Utility Plan, Wetland Determination, Stormwater Infiltration Testing and Steep Slope
Assessment, Traffic Impact Study, and Preliminary Storm Drainage Report. Thc. MDNS
4 The subject property is referenced by Tax Parcel Number 27033600303200 and is located in Section 36, Township
27N, Range 3E, W.M. Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks%Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 7 of 43
set forth six mitigating measures including mitigation for the protection of vegetation on
Open Space Tract E, landscape screening, and impacts related to traffic. The City
determined that any potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed Plat/PRD
would he addressed through the mitigation measures included in the MDNS and the code
requirements and processes the City has in place. The deadline for commenting on the
MDNS was May 3, 2007 and the appeal period closed on May 17, 2007. There were two
appeals. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 2-3, 5, 8, and 14, Plat Exhibit A(9), MDNS;
SEPA Exhibit A(5), Environmental Checklist; SEPA Exhibit A(8) — (9), Appeals of Petso
and Marks; Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
4. From the documents presented (SEPA Appeal Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 9, SEPA
Appeal Exhibit A(8) and A(9)), Appellants cite to impacts on earth (grading), air, water
(drainage), flora and fauna, environmental health, critical areas, recreation,
transportation, and public services. The Hearing Examiner views the appeal issues as
follows:
Appellant Marks alleges that the City has failed to adequately consider the
impacts of the proposal. The Appellant asserts impacts to transportation
infrastructure caused by the additional residences are not adequately mitigated.
Appellant Marks also points to the impact on the surrounding community during
the construction period including truck traffic (volume), airborne pollution
(exhaust emissions, dust from excavation; disbursement of herbicide/pesticide
residue), and noise. In addition, Appellant Marks states that environmental
review omitted a complete listing of on-site flora and fauna that would be
impacted as well as the loss of a recreational area. This Appellant also asserts
that property taxes in the surrounding area would be adversely impacted.
Appellant Marks requested that the MDNS be invalidated. SEPA Exhibit E and
SEPA Exhibit A(9), Marks Appeal.
Appellant Petso alleges that the City failed to accurately describe the
environmentally significant features of the site, specifically in regard to the
alleged critical area (Fish and Wildlife Habitat) and drainage ditch
(wetland/intermittent stream).5 In addition, the Appellant asserts that the City
has failed to comply with ECDC 23.40 and 23.90, as applied to the alleged .
critical area. Appellant Petso further argues that the City's environmental
assessment does not adequately address the drainage of storrnwater and loss of
recreational use nor does it adequately mitigate for transportation and
5 Appellant Petso further asserts that the site is an 11 -acre city park, and equates this to an environmentally sensitive
area. As noted supra, the subject property is not a city park but privately -owned land.. In fact, both Appellants point
to the Environmental Checklist's statement that there are "no environmentally sensitive areas" on the site. SEPA
Exhibit A(5), Checklist, Page 11. The ECDC does not define "environmentally sensitive areas but reference to
such areas within the code generally relates to wetlands, geological hazardous areas, or frequently flooded areas.
No reference is made to parks as environmentally sensitive and the Appellant failed to provide citation to any
section of the ECDC that would support this assertion.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (MarWSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 8 of 43
visual/aesthetic impacts (i.e. buffer, underground utilities, loss of trees). Like
Appellant Marks, Appellant Petso requests that the MDNS be invalidated.
SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal, SEPA Exhibit A(8),
In addition, the Appellants asserted that the City erred when it issued the MDNS and that
an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] be required. Appellants argue that the City
failed to give full and adequate . consideration to all of the required elements of the
environment. SEPA Exhibit D, Paso Appeal, SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal; Testimony
of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms. Marks.
5. The site is currently developed with a baseball field on the northern portion of the parcel
and a soccer field on the southern portion. These fields were formerly part of the Old
Woodway Elementary School which was closed by the Edmonds School District.6 Plat
Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2; Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative.
6. 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. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, .Page 2, ECDC
1620.000; ECDC 16.10.100,- ECDC 16.00.010
7. The RS -8 zone permits single-family dwelling units outright so long as it does not exceed
5.5 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). For a PRD, density is calculated as total Gross
area/minitnum lot size of the RS -8 zone or, for this proposal, 224,22718,000 for a density
of 30.53 or 30 lots. The Applicant proposed 27 lots. ECDC 1620.010(A)(1); ECDC
16.20.030 Table of Site Development Standards; Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 2 and 5,
Exhibit A(3), Site Plan; Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
8.. The subject property 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.
9. The City's Comprehensive Plan seeks to provide a broad range of housing types and
densities under a guiding policy of "Design Infill." A PRD is seen as a way to provide a
6 The "Old Woodway School' is approximately l I acres in size and encompasses three parcels of land: Parcel A
(3.73 acres), Parcel B (1.83 acres), and Parcel C (5.61 acres). The Edmonds School District surplused the site and.,
in 2006, sold Parcels A and B to the City with Parcel C was to the Applicant. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 2.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
in the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 9 of 43
variety of housing choices. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.030, alternative development
standards7 may be established through the PRD process but these alternatives are limited
to certain bulk development standards including building setbacks, lot size, lot width, lot
coverage, street and utility standards, and enhanced design standards provided in Title 20.
ECDC 20.35.030(A); ECDC 20.35.030(A) (1) (a)-(9. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages
2, 7, and 9, Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, LU
Goal C, Page 54; Testimony ofMs. Stewart.
10. Through the PRD process, the Applicant proposes to vary the RS -8 development
. standards as follows:
Required Proposed
Lot Area: 8,000 sq feet 5,700-8,361 sq feet
Lot Width: 70 feet 60-70 feet
Setbacks
Street: 25 feet 15 feet$
Side: 7.5 feet 5 feet
No additional alternatives have been requested by the Applicant. In order to receive
approval of alternative development standards, the proposed PRD must provide (1)
greater landscaping and buffering; (2) safe and efficient site access, on-site circulation,
and off-street parking; and (3) harmonious use of materials as to architectural building
design. The PRD must also (4) maintain exterior lot line setbacks; (5) minimize visual
impact; (6) preserve unique natural features existing on-site, and (7) reduce impervious
surfaces. ECDC 20.35.040, ECDC 20.35.030; Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat
Exhibit A(4), Site Plan; Testimony of Stewart, Testimony of Ms. Brown.
11. Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.080(3), the City's Architectural Design Board [ADB] reviews a
PRD application for compliance with urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the
Single -Family Design Criteria in ECDC 20.35.0509 and forwards its recommendation to
the hearing examiner for consideration. 10 In reviewing the proposal, the ADB considered
ECDC 16.20.030 sets forth the development standards applicable to detached single-family development within
the RS -8 zone.
s The Applicant originally requested a modification of the front yard setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. However,
based on the colloquy at the May 2, 2007 ADB meeting, the Applicant requested that in addition to the originally
requested PRD alternative standards, the front yard setback be reduced. to 15 feet. AppellantlPublic asserted that the
ADB would not have suggested this. However, the minutes of the ADS meeting demonstrate such colloquy. It
should be noted that at the ADB meeting, this reduction to 15 feet was supported by the ADB but limited to porch
columns and projections of porch roofs, not to the exterior wail of the building. Plat Exhibit A(12); see also Plat
ExhibitA(11), Page 11.
9 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.
10 Pursuant to ECDC 20.35.80(A)(3)-(4), the ADB makes a recommendation to the hearing examiner who issues a
final decision.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Peiso) and APU2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 1.0 of 43
zoning, critical areas, building design (i.e. character, entries; materials, garages), and site
design (i.e.' landscaping, open space, street design, significant natural features). The
ADB concluded that the proposed PRD was consistent with ECDC 20.35 and
unanimously recommended approval of the PRD, subject to four conditions regarding
building forms/materials, maximum impervious coverage, and landscaping. ECDC
20.35.060; Plat Exhibit A(10) and A(11), Staff Report and ADS Recommendation;
Testimony ofMs. Stewart, Testimony ofMs. Brown.
12. The Applicant submitted architectural renderings of proposed residence which depict a
strong connection between the street and the house by utilizing architectural elements
such as walkways, porches, main entrances oriented to the street, and modulation of roof
lines and building fronts so as to visually diminish garages. The new internal roadway
would provide sidewalks, illumination, and street trees. Several lots would be served by
shared driveways. Site design retains the only wooded portion of the site (Tract E) as a
separate and distinct open space tract. The Hearing Examiner concurs with the ADB's
recommendation, subject to the stated conditions. Plat Exhibit A(10), Staff Report to
ADB; Plat Exhibit A(11), ADB Recommendation; ECDC 20.35.060.
13. Home designs would vary in size from 2,855 to 3,421 square feet with variations in
design styles/features including front porches. Due to the size of the proposed lots
(5,700 to 8,361 sq feet), the houses would vary in size with most having significantly less
bulk than allowed under RS -8 standards. The ADB reviewed the design of the proposed
homes and appeared to find these designs acceptable, subject to secondary evaluation at
the time of building permit application. Plat Exhibit A(4) — Site plan; Plat Exhibit A(2),
Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(10) ADB Report.
14. The Applicant's proposal includes lots ranging in size from 5,700 square feet (Proposed
Lot 15) to 8,361 square feet (Proposed Lot 6), with an average lot size of 6,376 square
feet. Lot widths range between 60 to 70 feet. The RS -8 zone provides for maximum lot
coverage of 35 percent.l � ECDC 16.20.030; Plat Exhibit A(4) -- Site plan; Plat Exhibit
A(2), Project Narrative.
15. A Conceptual Landscape Plan was submitted which shows street trees throughout the
development. All residential lots would be landscaped with a stated goal of creating an
aesthetic and park like pedestrian -oriented neighborhood. A mixture of coniferous and
deciduous trees would be planted throughout the site, including at various points along
the exterior boundary. Open space areas (Tracts A, C, and F) would also be landscaped.
Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4) --- Conceptual Landscape Plan.
u Testimony was submitted that the Applicant's proposal amounts to 35.8% coverage. This figure, taken from the
Environmental Checklist, pertains to all impervious surfaces (i.e. roadways, structures). The 35% coverage
limitation is based on individual lots and not on the projectas a whole. Conditions of approval will require the
Applicant to conform to this standard.
In the .Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the .hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 11 of 43
16. The surrounding area is similarly zoned RS -8 and is developed with single-family
residences along the subject property's southern and western borders. Adjacent to the
eastern property line is the now -defunct Old Woodway Elementary School site and is
proposed for redeveloped as a city neighborhood park. A Bonneville Power
Administration [BPA] easement extends along the northern side of the site with single-
family residences abutting the northern edge of the easement. Existing single-family
development within the surrounding area is generally large lot development (i.e. greater
than 8,000 square feet). Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Page 5; Plat Exhibit A(1), Vicinity
Map; Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative.
17. Testimony was received asserting that the proposed lot sizes were not compatible with
the surrounding community. The RS -8 zoning district sets a minimum 8,000 square foot
lot area or 30 lots for the subject property under standard subdivision regulations.
Application of the PRD alternative standards permits reduction of this required square
footage. The Applicant is proposing 27 lots, three lots less than what would be permitted
under standard development requirements. ECDC 16.20.03; ECDC 20.35.030;
Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
18. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the State's Growth Management Act [GMA], the City has
adopted a Comprehensive Plan to provide 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 the
Applicant's proposal including, but not limited to: Land Use [LU] Goal B (high quality
residential development); LU Policies B.1, B.3, B.5, and 13.6 (harmonize design to add to
community identity and desirability; minimize encroachment on views; protect areas
from incompatible land uses; development compatible with natural constraints); LU Goal
C (range of housing types and densities); LU-C.l.a (encourage single-family homes in
PRD configuration); Open Space [OS] Goal B (open space as element to character and
quality of urban/suburban environment); Soils and Topography [ST] Policy B.1 (flexible
procedures, such as PBDs, in areas with steep slopes); Vegetation and Wildlife [VW]
Goal B (ensure woodlands/natural vegetation preserved); VW Policy B.3 (minimize
removal of trees); VW Policy BA (restrict grading to preserve vegetation); Urban Design
[CTD] Goal B (high quality, well-designed, and sensitive 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 6-8,
Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
19. Appellant Petso asserted that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
pointing to various statements pertaining to a need for open space, parks, and wildlife
habitat. Testimony of Ms. Petso; SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal, Testimony ofMs Petso.
20. Testimony was submitted in regard to the demolition of the school buildings on the city -
owned property (Tax Parcel 270336.003-032-00) adjacent to the eastern border of the
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007 2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 12 of 43
subject property and the potential for airborne pollutants. Based on the Existing
Conditions Plan, it appears that 2.7 feet of an obsolete one-story concrete school building
encroaches into Proposed Lot 19. The bulk of this structure is located on city -owned
property and must be demolished prior to issuance of building permits for this specific
lot. The City and the School District have entered into a Temporary Demolition
Easement [TDE] for the City's property. The TDE contains language pertaining to the
proper demolition and disposal of all on-site improvements in compliance with federal,
state or local law so as to limit the disbursement of hazardous substances and materials.
Plat Exhibit A(4), Sheets 1 and 2; SEPA Appeal Exhibit B(3), TDE; Testimony of Ms.
Marks.
21. Appellants and members of the public testified that development of the site would result
in the loss of recreational space for the community and that this loss was not adequately
addressed during SEPA and Plat review.12 Appellant Petso points to the City's Park
Need Assessment, contained within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan [Parks Plan], and to a Park Inventory within the same document to
support her assertion. The Parks Plan notes that, in regards to neighborhood parks, the
City needs approximately seven additional sites.13 SEPA Exhibit D(26), City's Parks
Plan; Testimony of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Mr. Southcote-Want; Testimony of Ms.
Marks.
22, The Applicant proposed a 7,350 square foot recreational area within Tract C. The
proposed recreation area would contain playground equipment (`tot lot'), picnic tables,
benches, open lawn area, and a paved walking trail. Due to the central location of this
area, access to this area would be available from both the eastern and western portions of
the Plat. Plat Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Sheet 1 and Conceptual
Landscape Plan.
23. Additional open space is provided within the plat. Tract A (4,913 square feet) and Tract
F (3,466 square feet) are located at the entrance to the Plat. These areas would be
landscaped and may provide for additional recreational area.. Tract E (9,356 square feet),
located in the northeast corner of the site, would remain a natural vegetative state. flat
Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Conceptual Landscape Plan.
24. A BPA easement runs the entire length of the northern border of the subject property.
This easement is vegetated with mature trees and serves to provide both a buffer between
12 ECDC 20.75.090 requires dedication of park land, subject to City Council approval, or payment of an impact fee
in -heir 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
13 Formulation of this need was based on the City's desire to provide a neighborhood park within walking distance
(one-half mile) of most residences. Parks Plan Page 4-4.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (MarblSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 13 of 43
single-family residences to the north and a wildlife habitat corridor. Plat Exhibit A(2),
Project Narrative.
25. Located in the northeast corner of the subject property is a cluster of mature Douglas Fir
and Western Red Cedar trees. A majority of these trees would be retained within Tract E
with some removed to accommodate development on proposed Lots 17 and 18. A
rockery would delineate the boundary of the open space with Proposed Lot 17 and assist
in stabilizing the slight slope within this area. Resident access to this area would provide
for passive recreation and continued wildlife habitat adjacent to the BPA easement. Plat
Exhibit A(2), Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Sheets 1 and 2; Plat Exhibit A(10),
ARB Report.
26. Public testimony was submitted that a portion of the property (Tract E) is encumbered by
a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area [FWHCA]. Applicant's Project Narrative
and Environmental Checklist supports this assertion. ECDC 2390.010(10) defines
"urban open space and land useful or essential for preserving connections between
habitat" as FWHCA for the City. Tract E appears to satisfy this definition due to its
linkage with the BPA easement along the subject property's northern border. ECDC
23.90. does not preclude development within a FWCHA rather it permits alteration so
long as the alteration, or proposed mitigation, does not degrade the quantitative and
qualitative functions and values of the habitat. ECDC 23.90.030(,4); ECDC 23.40;
ECDC 23.90, Plat Exhibit D, Petso Brief SEPA Exhibit D(2) — FWHCA Maps overlay;
SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Brief (Aerial photo with overlay); Testimony of Ms. Petco;
Testimony of Mr. Southcote-Want; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
27. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.010(A), the Edmonds Development Services Director
[Director] has the responsibility to enforce Title 23. ECDC 23.90.010(0) provides that
the City's critical areas inventory (i.e. map) designates the approximate location and
extent of FWHCA and is to be used as a guide rather than a final critical areas
designation. A Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report [CARR] was prepared by the City
based on the application, file review, and inspection of the subject property. The City
determined that there was a wildlife habitat conservation area on the.parcel to the north
but not on the subject property itself. ECDC 23.40.060(B) states that if the proposed
project is adjacent to or is likely to impact a critical area than a Critical Areas Report
[CAR] is required. The City determined that the Applicant's proposal would not impact
the adjacent FWHCA and, therefore no Critical Areas Report was required. ECDC
23.40.010, ECDC 23.40.060, ECDC 23.90.010; SEPA Exhibit C, CARR
28. The Existing Conditions Plan denotes 51 `significant trees' with 35 of those trees
proposed to be retained. With the exception of this tree removal and the installation of a
rockery to stabilize a slope, the Applicant does not propose any development within Tract
E. MDNS Condition No. 1 states that tree rcmovalfreplanting shall be supervised by a
certified arborist. Plat Exhibit A(4), Existing Conditions; Plat Exhibit A(9) MDNS .
In the Matter ofthe Application.ofBurnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Mader of the Appeals of Peiso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1(Petso) andAPL-2007--2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edinonds
Page 14 of 43
29. Appellant Petso asserted that Tract E, as a FWCHA, requires a buffer but fails to cite to
the section of the ECDC that makes such a provision. ECDC 23.40.040(D) provides that
areas adjacent to critical areas are considered to be within the jurisdiction of ECDC 23.40
so as to ensure protection of the functions and values of the critical area. Although other
sections of ECDC Title 23 mandate buffers (i.e. ECDC 23.50.040(F) Wetland Buffers),
ECDC 2390.030(E) states that buffers are established by the Planning Director, when
needed, to protect FWHCA. ECDC 23.40.280 provides that all buildings and other
structures shall be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edge of all critical areas, if no
buffer is required. The rear yards of all lots (proposed Lots 11 thru 17) would provide a
15 foot rear yard. Side yards for both Proposed Lots 17 and 18 abut Tract E and the
Applicant seeks a PRD alternative standard so as to reduce this required setback to 5 feet.
In order to protect this open space_ from encroachment, thereby ensuring protection of the
adjacent FWHCA located within the BPA easement, conditions of approval will require
that the Applicant provide a 15 foot building side -yard setback for proposed Lots 17 and
1S where these lots border Tract E. ECDC 23.50, 23.90; 23.40; Plat Exhibit A(5), Site
Plan; Testimony of Ms. Petso.
30. The Fire Marshal for the City of Edmonds evaluated the proposal based on the 2003
International Fire Code and ECDC Title 19. The Fire Marshal provided requirements
for fire hydrant installation, roadway design (including no parking areas), and street.
name/house numbering which are included as conditions of approval. Plat Exhibit A(13),
Fire Marshal Comments; Plat Exhibit A(14).
31. Testimony was received in regard to stormwater drainage issues, both on the subject
property and within the surrounding community. All parties — the Applicant, the City,
and members of the public — stated that public infiltration facilities within the area have
historically had problems with handling the stormwater conveyed to it. Testimony of Mr.
Miller; Testimony of Mr. Clarke, Testimony of Mr. Sanderlin; Testimony of Mr. Fiene;
Testimony of Ms_ Brown; Testimony of Ms. Hernandez, Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
32. Associated Earth Sciences [AES] conducted infiltration testing based on the 2005 King
County Surface Water Design Manual. The subject property is relatively level but slopes
to the south and west. The Natural Resources Conversation Service [MRCS] depicts
mapped soils to include Alderwood Urban and Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam. The
Geologic Map of Edmonds East and Part of Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington
indicates that the area is underlain by Vashon Advance Outwash Sediments [Vashun
Outwash]. On-site exploration pits denoted poorly developed, surficial organic topsoil
with a thickness of up to 0.5 feet above approximately three feet of fill consisting
generally of loose to medium dense, moist sand with variable silt and gravel contents,
which is then underlain by Vashon Outwash. Plat Exhibit A(5), Appendix — AES
Stormwater Infiltration Testing; Testimony of Mr. Kindred.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 15 of 43
33. AES determined that both the topsoil and fill was not suitable for foundation support,
structural fill, or infiltration. The Applicant anticipates approximately 20,000 cubic yard
each of cut and fill would be required for development. Public concern was raised in
regard to the volume of trucks entering and exiting the site during construction and
airborne pollutants resulting for construction (particularly grading). The Applicant
testified that soils suitable for non-structural portions of the site would be retain on-site
with unsuitable soils removed, thereby reducing the total number of trucks. Compliance
with City rules and regulations and the application of Best Management Practices
[BMPs] would assist in controlling airborne pollutants and lessening impacts. Plat
Exhibit A(4), Preliminary Grading Plan, Plat Exhibit A(5); Appendix -- AES Stormwater
.Infiltration Testing, Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Mr. Sanderlin; Testimony of
Mr. Kindred; Testimony of Mr. Miller;
34. Exploration pits provided measured infiltration rates ranging from 11.4 inches per hour to
14.4 inches per hour. AES determined that based on the soil composition, measured
infiltration rates, and applying a 3.5 safety factor for infiltration and 80 percent for
capacity, an infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour may be utilized for stormwater design.
The Applicant retained the Blue Line Group to prepare a Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan [DECP]. The proposed stormwater collection, infiltration, and treatment system
would conform to the 1992 DOE Manual with all on-site and upstream runoff from
landscaped areas, roads, and driveways being treated and conveyed to an on-site
underground infiltration facility located in Tract C. A s�stem of catch basins and piping,
to collect and convey stormwater runoff is proposed. The vault would be sized to
infiltrate the 100 -year, 24 -year storm event at a rate of 10 inches per hour with a safety
factor of 3.5, consistent with ECDC 18.30.060. Roof and footing drains would be
infiltrated on each individual lot. Hyrdological modeling, based on group "B" soils and a
Type 1A storm, demonstrated a required storage volume of 15,673 cubic feet for a 100 -
year storm event. The storage capacity of the proposed vault is 15,840 cubic feet. Based
on this design, subsurface explorations, and infiltration testing, AES opined that the
potential for standing water and uncontrolled runoff would be significantly reduced. Plat
Exhibit A(4), Utility Plan; Plat Exhibit A(5), Section 3; Plat Exhibit A(14); SEPA Exhibit
B(1), AES Comments; Testimony of Mr. Kindred.
35. Water quality treatment would be provided via a Vortechs System which provides for 80
percent or greater of Total Suspended Solids [TSS] removal, including floating
hydrocarbons, from the on-site and off-site tributary stormwater runoff. Plat Exhibit
A(5), Section 3; Plat Exhibit A (14).
la The Applicant and the City have discussed the possibility of designing a joint -use facility which would be located
on the adjacent City -owned site. Although this option is still under consideration, the analysis contained in the
DECD is for an on-site facility sized to accommodate the impacts of the proposed plat and the tributary upstream
basin. Plat Exhibit A, Attachment 5, Page 4.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Peiso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 16 of 43
36. In conjunction with the preparation of the DECP, the Applicant performed analysis of
both the downstream drainage path and the upstream basin. An off-site tributary drainage
basin was delineated to contain adjacent properties to the. north. (both city and privately -
owned) with stormwater runoff from this area include within the drainage analysis.
Current downstream flow follows grass lined drainage swales that are located along the
western and southern property lines and, if not fully infiltrated, continues southwesterly
along the fence line of two privately -owned parcels to a public storm system located at
237th Place. This storm system drains west/south along 107th Place .to a public
infiltration facility just beyond the road's terminus at a cul-de-sac. Plat Exhibit A(5),
Section 2; Testimony of Ms. Stewart, Testimony of Mr. Fiene; Testimony of Ms.
Hernandez; Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Mr: Kindred
37. Testimony was submitted as to the presence of wetlands and 'a stream on the subject
property. According to Appellant Petso, the existing drainage ditch qualifies as an
intermittent stream which, over the years, has become a wetland, and this is demonstrated
by the Southwest Edmonds Drainage. Plan [SW Edmonds DP] and, according to
Appellant Marks, certain plants. SEPA Exhibit E, Petso Appeal,- SEPA Exhibit F, SW
Edmonds DP; Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms.
Marrs
38. The SW Edmonds DP, dated March 2002, was developed to evaluate drainage problems
and recommend/develop solutions to mitigate these problems within a 300 -acre area
located in SW Edmonds. The subject property is depicted on Figures 2.1 and 4.11. The
SW Edmonds DP terms the drainage ditch as a "drainage swale" which collects runoff
from the playground area and adjacent residential yards and dissipates the water via
infiltration. No reference to a stream is contained within the document. The SW
Edmonds DP recognizes the significant drainage problems experienced in this area and
sets forth several recommendations including, the installation of drywells, catch basins
with overflow pipeline connections, or a new infiltration facility. The SW Edmonds DP
notes that on-site soils are suitable for infiltration rates between 2 to 10 inches per hour,
with 6 inches per hour considered sustainable. SEPA Exhibit F, SW Edmonds DP, Pages
4-2 — 4-4, 4-9 — 4-11; Figures 2.1 and 4.11.
39. Wetland Resources Inc. [WRI] conducted a wetland determination based on the 1997
Washington State Dept. of Ecologv Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
WRI performed a site investigation on November 20, 2006, in order to locate and
evaluate potential wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the subject property.
Based on its investigation, including core samples, WRI determined that there were no
wetlands or streams located on the subject property. WRI noted that grass -lined drainage
swales run along the western and southern property lines but determined that these swales
do not meet the criteria for a stream. Plat Exhibit A(S), Preliminary Storm Drainage
Report; Plat Exhibit A(S), Appendix — Wetland Reconnaissance Report, SEPA Exhibit
B(2), WRI Comments; Testimony of Mr. Emenhiser.
In the Matter of the Application ofBurnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/S°anderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 17 of 43
40. Concern was raised as to the maintenance responsibility for the proposed stormwater
system. The Applicant developed Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions [CC&Rs] for
the Woodway Elementary site which provides for maintenance of common areas and
facilities, such as the stormwater system, by the homeowners' association [HOA] and
includes provisions for the collection of homeowners' dues. Appellant Petso asserted
that the HOA would not adequately maintain the system based on the schedule set forth
in the SW Edmonds DP and overflow would adversely impact the surrounding
neighborhood. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal; SEPA Exhibit D(45), CC&Rs; Testimony
of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Ms. Hernandez.
41. The DECP includes an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan [ESCP] in order to minimize
erosion and sedimentation during and after construction. Protective measures include, but
are not limited to, the installation of filter fabric fencing, a rock construction entrance,
catch basin protection, and sediment traps. Plat Exhibit A(S), DECP, Page 8; Plat
Exhibit A(4), Sheet 3 --- Preliminary Grading/TESC Plan; SEPA Exhibit A(5),
Environmental Checklist.
42. AES prepared a Geotechnical Report in regard to a steep slope located on the adjacent
BPA easement to the north. AES determined that the slope was about 30 feet high with
an average slope gradient of 2.211A V or roughly 45 percent. The toe of the slope is
approximately five feet from the rear property line of proposed Lot 11. Vegetation is
disturbed in the upper 10-15 feet of the slope, the remainder consists of mature second
growth coniferous and deciduous trees with undergrowth. Observations made by AES
concluded that there were no indications of past or on-going slope movement or ground
water seepage. Based on these observations, AES determined that the risk of landslides
and surficial debris flow -type failures is low. Plat Exhibit A(5) — Appendix, AES Report,
Plat Exhibit A(7), Steep Slope Map.
43. ECDC Chapter 23.80 addresses geologically hazardous areas, such as steep slopes.
ECDC 23.80.070(A)(1) provides that the Director, consistent with the recommendations
provided in the geotechnical report, shall determine the size of the buffer. AES
recommended a combined building setback and buffer of 15 feet from the toe of the slope
unless a retaining wall is utilized. The City determined that due to the large size of
proposed Lot 11 (8,050 sq feet), a 15 foot building setback on both the west and north
exterior property lines should be provided. Application of this requirement would still
provide for an adequate building envelope. Plat Exhibit A(5) — Appendix, AES Report;
ECDC 23.80.050(0)(4); Plat Exhibit A(7), Steep Slope Map -
44. Both Appellants and several members of the public voiced concerns regarding
transportation impacts. Testimony was submitted asserting that the proposed mitigation
fee was "totally inadequate" to solve traffic problems in the area, that already congested
intersections would be adversely impacted by the development, and that the Applicant, in
conducting its transportation study, failed to perform the study during a period of time
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2067-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Page 18 of 43
that best reflects traffic flow. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal, SEPA Exhibit E, Marrs
Appeal, Testimony of Mr: Clarke; Testimony of Mr. Sanderlin; Testimony of Mr.
Southcote-Want,• Testimony of Mr. O'Leary; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich, .Testimony of
Ms. Marks.
45. The Applicant retained Transportation Engineering NorthWest LLC [TENW] to prepare
the Traffic Impact Analysis [TIA]. The proposed development is expected to generate
approximately 20 new AM peak hour trips and 27 new PM peak hour trips, representing
less than a two percent increase in traffic volumes. The T1A also conducted a capacity
analysis to determine the Level of Service [LOS] for the four major intersections
impacted by the proposed development. This analysis determined that the LOS would
not be impacted, maintaining either a LOS A or LOS B at impacted signalized and
unsignalized intersections. TENW's analysis evaluated intersections using standard
engineering practices and were based on weekday PM peak hour .conditions. The
analysis was conducted on December 12, 2006 and January 9, 2007, with no abnormal
traffic patterns identified. Plat Exhibit A(6), TLI -- Tables 2, 3, and 4, Plat Exhibit
A(15), TM Comments; SEPA Exhibit B(4), TENW Comments.
46. Pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.82 — Traffic Impact Fees, a payment of $22,699.55
[$840.72 per residential unit — ECDC 18.82.120(D)] is required to mitigate anticipated
impacts. All new developments are charged a road impact fee applicable to the type of
development proposed. The rates established in ECDC 18.82.120 were adopted by the
Edmonds City Council pursuant to a rate study (See Ordinance 3516 (2004)) and
determined by the Council to adequately mitigate potential impacts.15 Modification of
this fee structure is the province of the City Council. 16 The required impact fee is
provided as Condition 5 of the April 19, 2007 MDNS. Plat Exhibit A(6), TU, Page 19;
Exhibit A(9), MDNS, SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal, Testimony of Ms. Marks.
47. Access to the development would be via 237h Place SW with all residences gaining
access from a new internal road C'l05a' Place West"). Proposed Lots 1, 2, 3, and 12
would be served by joint -use driveways connected to the proposed internal roadway. The
internal roadway, designed to City standards, would be a developed 50 foot right-of-way
terminating in a cul-de-sac sized to accommodated emergency vehicles. The roadway
would provide rolled curb/gutters, five foot wide sidewalks, street lighting, and 31.5 feet
of pavement with an 8.5 foot wide parking lane providing 14, on -street parallel parking
spaces along the roadway's frontage with Proposed Lots 22 to 26. Plat Exhibit A(2),
's These rates may be reviewed and adjusted by the Council as it deems necessary and appropriate. ECDC
18.82.110
" ECDC 18.82.130 does provide that if in the judgment of the Director of Development Services no fee category or
amount accurately captures the impacts of a proposal, the Applicant may be required to conduct independent fee
calculations and the Directormay impose alternative fees on a specific development based on these calculations.
The Director did not require this.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1(Petso) and APL -2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing .Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 19 of 43
Project Narrative; Plat Exhibit A(4), Road Profile, Plat Exhibit A(6), T1A, Pages]] and
18; Plat Exhibit A(14); Testimony of Ms. Stewart.
48. Testimony was received in regard to the proposed access point. Appellants and members
of the public asserted that due to the curvature of the road and illegal on -street parking,
safety was a concern. An analysis of Site Access Sight Distance determined that the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASTHO] sight
distance standards are met at the proposed site access point. AASHTO requires 200 feet
of stopping sight distance and 335 feet of entering sight distance for a 30 mph design
speed. TENW conducted field measurements and determined that sight distances onto
237th Place are in excess of the required distances, with a sight distance of approximately
350 to the southwest and 485 feet to the east of the proposed access point. Entrance
radius improvements at the internal roadway's intersection with 237th Place must meet
required geometries. In addition, the monument proposed for the entrance to the
subdivision must not impact sight -line distances. Plat Exhibit A(6), TIA, Page 18; Plat
Exhibit A(14); Plat Exhibit A(150 SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal; Testimony of Mr.
McGrady; Testimony of Mr. Clarke; Testimony of Ms. Brown; Testimony of Mr.
Sanderlin; Testimony of Ms. Petso; Testimony of Ms. Marks; Testimony of Mr.
Southcote-Want; Testimony of Mr. Hertrich.
49. Public transit service is currently available within a reasonable walking distance. A
Community Transit stop is located approximately 113 mile cast of the subject property at
the intersection of I OOth Avenue W and 238th Street SW. Plat Exhibit A(6), TM, Pages 11
and 18.
50. The proposed development would be connected to Olympic View Water and Sewer
District [OVWS] for the provisions of domestic water and sanitary sewer. OVWS issued
a file number indicating that capacity is available subject to the Applicant providing a
development extension and payment of fees (facility, meter, R.O.W., and sewer). Plat
Exhibit C, OVWS Confirmation, Plat Exhibit A(14).
51. 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 further 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. RCW
36.70A.020(12) states that when a County is plans for growth, it is to ensure that public
services, such.as schools, that are necessary to support development are adequate to serve
the development. ECDC 20.75.020 states that a subdivision must make adequate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including schools. The proposed
plat would be served by. Sherwood Elementary, College Place Middle School, and
17 Washington State Constitution, Art. 9, § 1
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007--2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 20 of 43
Edmonds-Woodway High School. All students attending these schools would_ be bused.
A school bus stop is located east of the subject property at the site of the Old Woodway
Elementary School. The proposed subdivision would include sidewalks on both sides of
the internal roadway connecting to the sidewalks currently existing on 237' Place SW.
These sidewalks would provide safe -walking for school -aged children. Plat Exhibit B,
School District Comments, Testimony of Mr. Clarke.
52. As part of the SEPA Appeal, Appellant Marks alleges that the "residents of the area will
be impacted by the increased property taxes this development will cause to support
additional public services for the 27 homes." This assertion is based on the economic
interests of the residents. SEPA Exhibit E, Marks Appeal
53. ECDC 20.35.050(D) requires that PRDs provide usable open space and recreation
facilities of at least 10 percent of the gross lot area. For this 5.61 acre parcel, the
Applicant must provide a minimum of 24,423 square feet of open space. The Applicant
has proposed four tracts to satisfy this requirement — Tract A (4,913 sq feet), Tract C
(7,350 sq feet), Tract E (9,356 sq feet), and Tract F (3,566 sq feet) -- for a total of 25,185
sq feet. In addition to open space, Tract C would serve as a recreational area (tot lot,
walking trail, etc). Appellant Petso asserts that critical areas may not be counted towards
satisfaction of this requirement — specifically Tract E — which the Appellant alleges is a
FWHCA. Although Ms. Petso is correct in her assertion, as noted supra, the City
determined that Tract E is not to be a FWHCA and, therefore, the PRD's design for open
space satisfies the City's requirement. ECDC 20.35.060(D); SEPA Exhibit A Petso
Appeal.
54. ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires that a PRD shall either conform to the bulk zoning criteria
for the underlying zone (front, side, and rear yard setbacks) for all lots adjacent to the
perimeter or it shall provide a buffer (landscape, open space, or passive recreational)
equal to the rear yard setback which, for the RS -8 zone, is 15 feet. The Applicant seeks
alterations to the bulk zoning criteria (front and side yard) for lots adjacent to the
perimeter but fails to provide a perimeter buffer designed in conformance with ECDC
20.35.050(C). City Staff stated a "proposed 15 foot setback around the perimeter of the
site would help to separate and buffer the proposed PRD from the surrounding
neighborhood." The Applicant's Preliminary Plat Map does not denote this distinct
setback requirement. Plat Exhibit A, Staff Report, Pages 5-6. Plat Exhibit A(4),
Preliminary Site Plan, Conceptual Landscape Plan.
55. A neighborhood meeting about the project was conducted on November 14, 2006.
Written notice of the development application was sent to interested residents and
property owners and published in The Herald on April 19, 2007. Written notice of the
public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet and posted on the site,
in the Civic Center, and in the Library on June 6, 2007. Notice of the public hearing was
In the Matter of the Application of Purmtead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Fxaminer for the City of Edmon&
Page 21 of 43
published in The Herald on June 7, 2007. ECDC 20.91.010, Plat Exhibit A, Staff
Report, Page 5, Plat Exhibit D, Affidavit ofNotice.
56. Appellant Petso asserted that the posted notice was inadequate and failed to include a
description of the alleged critical area that might be affected as required by ECDC
23.40.080. The section Appellant quotes is applicable only if the Director determines
that critical areas may be affected and a critical area report is required. ECDC
23.40.080(C). For this proposal, the notice issued on April 19, 2007, denoted a "Critical
Areas Determination" under the permit information heading, providing sufficient notice
to members of the public regarding potential on-site critical areas. As for the. on-site
posting, the Hearing Examiner performed a site visit and observed the signage,
concluding that it was posted on the subject property and adjacent to the public right-of-
way.
ight-ofway. SEPA Exhibit D, Petso Appeal, Plat Exhibit D, Notice.
57.1f not stated elsewhere in these findings, the Hearing Examiner notes the following
concerns raised generally by members of the public during testimony and considered by
the Hearing Examiner in formulating her decision: stormwater drainage, view and
aesthetic impacts, resident traffic, site access, grading/filling, construction traffic,
lighting, water quality, neighborhood compatibility, lot size/width, critical areas, open:
space, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Testimony of Mr. Miller, Mr. Clark Mr. Sanderlin,
Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hertrich, A& Petso, Ms. Parks, and Mr. Southcote-Want.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to review and make a final decision on applications
for preliminary plats for formal subdivision, pursuant to ECDC 20.100.010(B)(5); to review and
make a final decision on applications for a planned residential development, pursuant to ECDC
20.35.080(4); and to issue a finaldecision on the appeal of an environmental threshold
determination, pursuant to ECDC 20.15.A.240(C).
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;
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) andAP.G2007-2 (Uarks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examinerfor.the City of Edmonds
Page 22 of 43
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 minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views and so
forth.
B. Lot and Street Layout.
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 is not 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.
In the Mauer of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the AppealsofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petco) and APL -2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 23 of 43
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. 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:
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 Development
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:
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction.
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007 18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Markr/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and RPL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 24 of 43
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 lines of the PRD may be reduced from that required by
the underlying zoning unless a variance or subdivision modification is approved;
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 PRl)s 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;
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 25 of 43
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:
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 lure 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.
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(8)(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.
Criteria for Review: SEPA Appeal
A determination of non -significance is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, which
means that the Hearing Examiner must be left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake
has been committed. Cougar Mountain Assocs. v King County, 11 l Wn.2d 742, 765 P.2d 264
(1988); RCW 43.21C.090. The Hearing Examiner will not substitute her judgment for that of the
lead agency, but will examine the record in light of public policy contained in the legislation
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat). and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petco) and APL 2007 2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edinon&
Page 26 of 43
authorizing the decision. Moss v. Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 13, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). In
deciding this appeal, the Hearing Examiner must accord the City's SEPA determination
substantial weight. RCW 43.21 C. 090.
A MDNS will be upheld under the clearly erroneous standard if (1) environmental factors were
adequately considered in a manner sufficient to establish prima facie compliance with SEPA, (2)
it is based on information sufficient to evaluate the development's probable environmental
impacts, and (3) the mitigation measures are reasonable and capable of being accomplished.
Anderson v Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 936 P.23d 432 (1997).
Conclusions Based on Findings in regard to the preliMhM plat for formai 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 accommodate an off-
site tributary area; impacts to roadways have been addressed and mitigated through the
imposition of impact fees; recreation 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 with areas protecting adjacent
wildlife habitat areas. The design of the subdivision takes into account the only wooded
portion of the site and preserves this area, limiting impacts to the removal of trees along
the border but providing for re -vegetation to preserve the integrity of the area. Grading
and filling will be limited to ensuring that the residences will be constructed on soils
suitable for supporting structural foundations. Public transportation is available.
Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31; 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
40, 41, 44, 45, 56, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 43, and 57..
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 with design standards ensuring that the new
development will conform to the single-family residential character of the surrounding
neighborhood. The 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. Although the Comprehensive Plan
does recognize a variety of park, open space, and wildlife needs; as Appellant Petso
points out, the Plan also recognizes the need to provide housing within the community in
fulfillment of the City's duty under the GMA to accommodate allocated population
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner far the City ofEdmonds
Page 27 of 43
growth. The general welfare of the public, which is noted as a purpose of the
comprehensive plan, is not served solely by the provision of parks and open space. It is
served 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 Fact Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34-35, 37-39, 40, 42-43, 44-48, 50, 51, and 53.
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. Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 22, and 23.
4. With conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision has been designed to
minimize significant adverse impacts to environmental resources. The design of the
plat retains a grouping of large trees in the northeast corner (Tract E) in an open space
tract. Conditions of approval require that a certified arborist supervise tree removal, root
systems of retained trees be protected, a planting plan for the re -vegetation of disturbed
areas be prepared, and fencing and signage of the area to prevent encroachment and
deposition of debris. Protection of future residents from the adjacent steep slope area
will be provided. The stormwater infiltration system will contain run-off on the site,
thereby minimizing if not eliminating off-site impacts. Although adjacent property
owners view of what was a previously open field will be impact; however, no evidence
was submitted that any property owner owns view rights or that such views are of the
type to be protected by this provision. It should be noted, that due to the impervious
coverage requirement applicable to this site and the reduced lot size, the bulk or volume
of residential units will be reduced, thereby minimizing any visual or aesthetic impacts.
Findings of Fact Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 54,
and 57.
5. With conditions of approval, lot and street layout conform to ECDC requirements.
All lots, as modified by the PRD alternate standards, provides for an adequate building
envelope. All lots will be access via the new internal road, with several lots sharing
driveways. Off-site parking will be provided at each residence. Fourteen on -street
parking spaces will be provided on the internal road. Road design conforms to city
standards for providing emergency vehicle access, sidewalks and lighting for pedestrian
safety. All AASHTO sight distance requirements have been satisfied. Each lot, as
modified by PRD alternative standards, shall comply with the applicable dimensional
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)'
In the Matter of the Appeals of P.etso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APD -2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 28 of 43
requirements of the RS-8 zoning district. Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 44,
45,56,47,48.
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. 21, Footnote 12.
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 Olympic Water and Sewer District. No septic
systems are proposed. The District has indicated that adequate capacity is available.
All proposed residences will be served by a new internal road built to City standards,
including curbs, gutters, 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 to area schools. The plat will provide open space and recreation facilities,
including a walking trail, playground, and picnic area. Off-site traffic impacts would 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. 12, 20,
21, 22, 23, 30 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, and 53.
8. The subject property is not located in a Flood Plain Management Area.
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 significant trees, and maintaining the single-family
residential character. The application of PRD alternative standards allow for efficient use
of the land and integrate the site with the surrounding area. Findings of Fact Nos. 7 and
9.
2 The proposal complies with the urban design guidelines for single-family projects
contained in ECDC 20.35.060. Findings of Fact Nos 10,. 11, 12, 13, and 14.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals qfPeiso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL-2007-1(Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examine for the City of .Edmonds
Page 29 of 43
3. The proposal satisfies two provisions of ECDC 20.35.050(A)(2) — (A)(5). The
Applicant proposed to Minimize imperious surface through the use of shared driveways.
Access to proposed Lots 1, 2, 11, and 12 will gain access through the use of two shared
driveways. The Applicant proposed to preserve 35 of the significant trees located in the
northeast corner of the site. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval will require
re -planting of disturbed areas and protection of this area. Findings of Fact Nos. 12, 25,
and 28.
4. The proposal is served by adequate public facilities, including streets, fire
protection, water, stormwater control, sanitary sewer, and park and recreational
facilities. Olympic View Sewer and Water District has indicated that adequate capacity
is available to serve the proposed PRD with potable water and sanitary sewer services.
A stormwater infiltration system has been designed to accommodate run-off generated by
the proposed development and the off-site tributary area to the north. The system has
been designed to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 hour storm event. 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 12, 20, 21, 22, 23,
30,33,'34,35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50 5.1, and 53.
5. The proposal fails to provide a perimeter design in conformance with ECDC
20.35.050(C). Although the Applicant has indicated that trees will be planted at points
along the exterior boundary, this does not satisfy the requirement. ECDC 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. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15; 16, 17, and 54.
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 subdivision which include landscape areas, native vegetation areas, and recreational
areas. The primary recreational area is centrally located with access provided from both
sides of the subdivision. Findings of Fact Nos. 22, 23, 25, and 53.
Conclusion based on Findings_in regard to SEPA Appeal
The State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA], RCW 43.21C, seeks to "promote the policy of
fully informed decision making by government bodies when undertaking 'major actions
significantly affecting the quality of the environment."' Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Assn v. King
County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 272, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). Contrary to popular belief, "SEPA
does. not demand a particular substantive result [i.e. preclude development] in government
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner far the City of Edmonds
Page 30 of 43
decision making"; rather, it ensures that environmental values are given appropriate
consideration. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290, 300, 936 P.2d 432 (1997).
Before a local government processes a permit application for a private land use project, it must
make a "threshold determination" of whether the project is a "major action significantly affecting
the quality of the environment." RCW 42.31C.030(2)(c). The lead agency must make its
threshold determination based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the
environmental impact of a proposal. WAC 197-11-335. The decision whether or not to require
an EIS is based on an evaluation of the environmental consequences of a. proposal to determine
whether it is likely to have any probable, significant adverse environmental impacts. An EIS is
required if mitigation would not reduce environmental impacts to a non-significant level. WAC
197-11-782 defines "probable" as "likely or reasonably likely to occur." WAC 197-11-794
defines "significant" as a "reasonable likelihood or more than a moderate adverse impact on
environmental quality" and speaks to both context and intensity. Generally, if all significant
impacts have been or will be mitigated to a non-significant level through the requirements in
local, state, or federal regulations, or with the use of SEPA substantive authority (i.e. mitigation
measures), an EIS is not required. A MDNS is an alternative threshold determination that
involves changing or conditioning a project to eliminate its significant adverse environmental
impacts. Anderson, 86 Wn. App. at 301; WAC 197-11-350.
In February 2007, the Applicant submitted an environmental checklist that described the project
in detail and discussed its impacts on the earth, air, water, plants, animals, energy and natural
resources, environmental health, land, housing, light and glare, recreation, historic and cultural
preservation, transportation, public service and utilities. The environmental checklist and
supplemental documentation was submitted to the City for its review. A copy of this checklist
was mailed to state and local agencies including Washington State (Dept. of Ecology, Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife, Dept. of Natural Resources, Dept. of Transportation, etc.); Snohomish County
(Public Works, Planning & Development Services, Health District, etc); Regional Agencies
(Puget Sound Regional Council, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, etc); Municipalities
(Cities of Lynwood, Shoreline, Woodway, etc), for their review and comment.
The City based its threshold determination on information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the proposal, including reports addressing stormwater, transportation,
and critical areas. The fact that the environmental checklist may have contained some errors
(i.e. incomplete listing of flora/fauna) does not warrant reversal of the threshold determination as
this document was only one piece of information the City used to assess the impacts of the
development.
Transportation .Impacts
Traffic generated by the development has been thoroughly reviewed, and significant mitigation
is required by the MDNS and the ECDC. The mitigation has been determined by the City
Council to be adequate for ensuring that the traffic would not have a probably, significant
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
.In the Matter of the Appeals of Peiso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007--2 (Marks/Sanderiin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page.31 of 43
adverse effect on the environment. Traffic analysis — both as to volume and sight distances —
were based. an industry -accepted methodology.
Stormwater Management
The Applicant reviewed soil types, infiltration rates, topography, and drainage basin flows prior
to developing a proposed stormwater infiltration system based on standards established by the
City of Edmonds and on industry -accepted methodology. The Record reflects that drainage
issues pertained to the flow of stormwater off-site. With the proposed design, stortnwater runoff
will be retained on-site, thereby potentially eliminating off-site impacts.
ECDC Chapter 18.30 sets forth the rules and regulations for stormwater management within the
City with ECDC 18.30.100 providing maintenance requirements. The Applicant's proposed
design meets standards required by the City and is designed for a 100 -year, 24-hour storm event.
with infiltration at 10 inches per hour, which is in excess of the rate recommended by the SW
Edmonds DP. Utilization of the Vortechs Water Quality System will add in the removal of
sediment, thereby permitting better performance of the system.
The concerns of the public and the Appellants as to the future maintenance of the stormwater
system are noted. However, although ECDC 15A5.000(C) states that "Edmonds Drainage
Basin Studies" are incorporated by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan, this does not
transform the recommendations provided for in the SW Edmonds DP in to mandatory
requirements. The Hearing Examiner notes that maintenance of a. stormwater facility by a HOA
is common and it must be presumed that the HOA, acting to protect the property interests of its
members, will act in accordance with the ECDC in regard to proper maintenance of the facility.
Open Space and Recreation
Although the Hearing Examiner concurs with Appellants that the City could have provided better
information as to the wooded area contained within proposed Tract E, a review of the record
indicates that the City considered sufficient environmental factors in analyzing the application
and environmental checklist, and in formulating mitigation measures. Further study of wooded
area in Tract E, in addition to conditions of approval, will ensure that the area is afforded the
protection required under ECDC Chapter 23.40.
In addition, it should be noted that the determination of the Director as to the lack of the presence
of a FWHCA on the subject property should be accorded substantial weight by the Hearing
Examiner and her judgment will not be substituted for the Director's professional knowledge and
expertise. Although, on the surface, it would appear that the northeast corner of the site meets
the City's definition of FWHCA, the site does not provided linkage to any other woodland
habitat. Aerial photographs depict forested areas along the northern border of the site and
continuing onto the city -owned parcel to the east. However, the area denoted as Tract E does not
serve to provide connectivity to habitat rather this is accomplished by the east -west corridor
spanning the northern border of both the subject property and the city -owned parcel to the east.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderrin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Nearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 32 of 43
Land south of Tract E is developed with single-family residences and related infrastructure and
does not meet the definition of a FWHCA for which wildlife connectivity should be preserved.
Development of the site will result in the unavoidable loss of an area that has been utilized for
recreation. However, the Hearing Examiner notes that this site was never a city -owned park but
was merely School District property which the public was permitted to utilize for recreation
purposes until the School District made a decision on the future of the property. Reference to the
site within the City's Parks Plan was simply an error by the City and does not act to transform
the property into a city park. The concerns of the residents are understandable, and have been
voiced to the City Council on many occasions, but SEPA does not operate to preclude
development based on citizen dissatisfaction. The Record demonstrates that the City has stated
its desires in regard to providing parks for its citizens but nothing denotes that the City has
defined concurrency standards for parks. Due to the history of this site, it is unfathomable to
conclude that the City did not consider the impact on recreational use during its SEPA review.
Property Values
As part of the SEPA Appeal, Appellant Marks alleges that the "residents of the area will be
impacted by the increased property taxes this development will cause to support additional
public services for the 27 homes." SEPA Exhibit E. Marks Appeal. The Washington Supreme
Court has defined the "zone of interests" protected by SEPA:
SEPA is concerned with `broad questions of environmental impact, identification
of unavoidable adverse environmental effects, choices between long and short
term environmental uses, and the identification of the commitment of
environmental resources.
Kucera v. Washington State Dept. of Transportation, 140 Wn. 2d 200, 212-13, 995 P.2d 63
(2000), quoting Snohomish County Property Rights Alliance v. Snohomish County (Property
Rights Alliance), 76 Wn. App. 44, 52-53, 882 P.2d 807 (1994).
Economic interests are not within the "zone of interests" protected or regulated by SEPA. Harris
v. Pierce County, 84 Wn. App. 222, 231, 928 P.2d 1111 (1996). Purely economic includes
include "the protection of individual property rights, property values, property taxes, [and]
restrictions of the use of property." Property Rights Alliances, 76 Wn. App. at 52 (emphasis
added).
Intermittent Stream
Nothing within the Record supports the assertion that the drainage swales located along the
western and southern edges of the site can be classified as an intermittent stream. Rather, both
evidence and testimony characterized the swales as drainage ditches that were constructed in an
attempted to remedy drainage issues occurring on the site and impacting the surrounding
community. The SW Edmonds DP, the Applicant's Sformwater Design, and testimony of
Senior Wetland Biologist Louis Emenhiser support this finding. In fact, even public testimony
supports the `drainage ditch' nature of these swales. Although these swales will be removed to
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007'-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarksfSanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Dearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 33 of 43
accommodate development, the stormwater drainage system will retain run-off formerly
channeled through these swales.
Miscellaneous Allegations (i.e. Noise, Airborne Pollutants, Aesthetics)
Most, if not all, of these impacts will be mitigated through the application of both state and local
laws and best management practices. The City has ordinances in place pertaining to noise
control, land clearing and grading, sediment control, and limitations on construction hours which
are intended to mitigate these unavoidable impacts. See e.g. ECDC 5.30, 17.50, 18.30, 18.40,
18.45, 19.10. Although residents immediately adjacent to the subject property have enjoyed an
open area behind their residences (what they term as "their view), it should be noted that
application of the alternative PRD standards will result in residential units with significantly less
bulk then would have been permitted under standard RS -8 zoning.
Conclusion
A review of the Record adequately demonstrates that the City considered evidence which was
sufficient for the City to evaluate the probable impacts of the proposal and to mitigate those
impacts so that they will not have more than a moderate effect on the environment. Although the
Appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to
cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project, as mitigated, will cause
significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS. Rather, Appellants simply disagree with
the methods of mitigation proposed in response to those impacts and, more generally, the
development of what they view to be a city park.
The Appellants failed in demonstrating that the City's action in issuing the April 19, 2007
MDNS was clearly erroneous.
DECISION
1 Based .upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the appeal of the April 19, 2007
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by Lora Petso is DENIED.
2. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the appeal of the April 19, 2007
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance by Heather Marks and Cliff Sanderlin is
DENIED.
3. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the request for approval of a formal
plat to subdivide 5.61 acres of land into a 27 -lot single family lots and five tracts to
provide for open space, private driveways, and drainage facilities on property located
within the City of Edmonds at 23708 —104x' Avenue West is GRANTED, subject to the
conditions listed below.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -200718 (PRD).
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Petco) andAPL-2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Fxaminer for the City ofEdmonds
Page 34 of 43
4. Based upon the preceding Findings and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner concurs with
the recommendation of the ADB. The alternative development standards, except as
modified by conditions of approval, are GRANTED as follows:
Lot Area: 5,700 — 8,361 square feet
Lot Width: 60-70 feet
Setbacks:
Street: 15 feet
Side: 5 feet
5. 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
23708-100 Avenue West is REMANDED, for the limited purpose of the Applicant
demonstrating compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.35.
Remand Requirements
1. ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires that a perimeter buffer be provided. This
may be satisfied by providing the same front, side, and rear yard setbacks
applicable to the RS -8 zone for all lots adjacent to the perimeter of the
development. 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. Preliminary
plat maps do not depict this.
The Hearing Examiner further finds that the intent of this perimeter buffer
is to screen the PRD from lower density residential development. Given
this, the Hearing Examiner concludes that such a buffer would not
necessarily be required along the northern border of the site, due to the
BPA easement serving this purpose, or along the eastern border of the site,
adjacent to the city -owned parcel.
2. The City/Applicant has failed to provide adequately documentation in
regard to the potential for impacts to the off-site Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area located along the northern border of the subject
property. The City, as lead agency for the review of environmental
impacts, shall submit adequate documentation to ensure that the functions
and values of the adjacent FWHCA are protected
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APE -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007--2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 35 of 43
Conditions of ARproval
1. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.35 — Planned
Residential Development. Failure to comply with this section of the ECDC will result in
remand of the formal plat for design consistent with the developments standards of the R
S zoning district.
2. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the "City of Edmonds
Engineering Requirements for Plats" submitted as Plat Exhibit A, Attachment 14.
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.
3. Fire hydrant installation and spacing shall comply with ECDC Chapter 19.25.
4. All street names and address numbering shall comply with ECDC Chapter 19.75
5. In order to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access, joint -use driveways shall be
designated as "No Parking" areas by providing striping and signage for these areas.
b. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City in regard to demolition of the obsolete one-
story school building that encroaches into proposed Lot 19. This building shall be
demolished, at least in regard to that portion which encroaches onto proposed Lot 19,
prior to issuance of building permits for proposed Lot 19.
7. The Applicant shall provide a 15 foot side yard setback for proposed Lot 17 and proposed
Lot 18 along those lots border with Tract E.
8. The Applicant shall delineate the border of proposed Lots 17 and 18 with Tract E by
installing a two -rail fence (minimum height of four feet) along the property lines. The
fence shall not prohibit access to Tract E. Signage denoting that this is open space
intended to provide for wildlife habitat shall be posted conspicuously on the fence,
9. No individual lot shall exceed 35 percent impervious lot coverage. Impervious coverage
includes the residence's footprint, driveways, patios, and sidewalks.
10. Proposed Lot 11 shall provide a 15 foot building setback on both the northern and
western exterior property lines in order to ensure protection to and from the adjacent
steep slope. Final building design should endeavor to locate the residence to the
southern portion of the lot.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -20071 (Petso) and APL -2007 2 (Marks/Sanderhn)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 36 of43
11. A certified arborist supervise tree removal, root systems of retained trees be protected, a
planting plan for the re -vegetation of disturbed areas be prepared, and fencing and
signage of the area to prevent encroachment and deposition of debris.
12. 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.
13. The Applicant shall comply with all of the conditions set forth in the Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance, issued April 19, 2007.
14. The Applicant shall submit an approved landscape plan for the subdivision entry signage,
landscaping and street trees. These features shall be maintained by a Homeowners'
Association consistent with the recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions.
15. Prior to Final Plat/PRD 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) During the construction of the required plat improvements temporary
fencing must be installed between the construction areas and the protected
grove of trees in open space Tract E. The Planning Division must approve
these protection measures prior to any clearing or grading.
(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.
b The Applicant shall submit copies of the recording documents to the City for
approval. These documents shall have the following information included:
(i) The following statement shall be placed 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. "
(ii) A "no disturbance" fifteen (15) foot building setback line on both the
north and west is established for the northwest corner of the site depicted
as Lot 11 on the May 3, 2007 Preliminary P1atlPRD site plan.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 37 of 43
(iii) A secondary street setback for non -habitable portions of the residences to
allow porches and other entryway type features to be subject to a
minimum 15 foot setback and garages to a minimum 18 foot setback from
the street property line.
(iv) The maximum lot coverage is 35 percent.
(v) The following statement shall be placed on the face of the plat mylar:
"All construction on the site, both plat improvements and home
construction must comply with the Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
geotechnical report dated 2/13/2007. "
(vi) The following statement shall be placed on the face of the Plat:
"Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final
approval for the subdivision located in files P-2007-17 & PRD -2007-
18. "
(vii) Include on the plat all required information, including owner's
certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval blocks.
(viii) Provide emergency access requirements, fire hydrants and fire suppression
to the specifications required by the Engineering Division and the Fire
Department.
(ix) Designate joint driveways as "No Parking" areas that are required to
remain clear for use as fire apparatus access turnarounds.
(x) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the
requirements of ECDC 20.75.130(3) for any required improvements,
including landscaping, which have not been completed.
(xi) 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.
16 -After recording the plat, the Applicant shall 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" found on Attachment 14.
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Pelso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (P. -Iso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the hearing Fxaminer for the City of Edmonds
Page 38 of 43
17. 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.
18. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in the Architectural Design Board's
recommendation of May 2, 2007 and incorporated as Plat Exhibit 11.
19. 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.
20. All development on the site shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plat. Any
alteration of this site plan will require approval of a new or amended plat.
21. 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.
22. 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 slopes shall be designed to minimize erosion.
23. 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 20th day of July, 2007.
G
/T/Oweill Rice Taylor LLC °J
Oy: Julie Ainsworth -Taylor
Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals ofPetso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007--2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 39 of 43
APPENDIX A
The following documents were submitted as attachments to SEPA Appeal Exhibit D — Appellant
Petso's Brief. The relevancy of each document is provided in the table below.
Document
Relevance
Basis
1. Figure 4.11 SW Drainage
Already included within the Record
Full document Relevant as SEPA
Basin Study
Appeal Exhibit F
2. Maps of Fish & Wildlife
Relevant
Habitat Conservation Area
3. City of Edmonds
Irrelevant
Superseded by City's current
Comprehensive Park Plan,
Comprehensive Park Plan
dated Set 1967
4. Excerpt of 1993 Park Petition
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Determination
5. 1993 correspondence RE:
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Potential sale of Woodway
Determination.
Elementary
6. 1997 Interlocal Agreement
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
(ILA) between City and
Determination
Edmonds School District
7. Listing of Sno-King Youth
Relevant
Soccer Fields
8. 1999 ILA between City,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Edmonds School District, and
Determination
Snohomish County
9. E-mail correspondence
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
between Appellant Petso and
Determination
Snohomish County, July 2006
RE: ILA
10. Memo between City
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
/Snohomish County, dated
Determination
8/2/06 RE: ILA
11. E-mail correspondence
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
between Appellant Petso and
Determination
Snohomish County, Nov 2006
RE: ILA
12. E-mail correspondence to City,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
13. Ismail correspondence to
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Cour , Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
14. E-mail correspondence to
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
County, Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
15. E-mail correspondence to
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
County, Nov 2006 RE: ILA
Determination
16. Minutes of Snohomish County
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Council 12/13/06 meeting, RE:
Determination
ILA
17. Excerpts of 3/20/07 Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council Minutes, RE:
Determination
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
-in the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslS'anderlin
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 40 of 43
ILA
18. Mayor's Column for
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Enterprise, dated 6117105 RE:
Determination
ILA
19. Memo between Mayor and'
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council, dated 6/24/05
Determination
RE: Woodway Elementary as
a park site
20. Excerpts of 1/18105 Edmonds
Irrelevant_
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council Minutes, RE:
Determination
Sherwood Park site
21. Excerpts of 4/11106 Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
City Council Minutes, RE:
Determination
Woodway Elemen School
22. Statutory Warranty Deed,
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
recorded 9114/06 RE: Sale of
Determination
`Parcel B' to City of Edmonds
23. Statutory Warranty Deed,
irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
recorded 9/21/06 RE: Sale of
Determination
`Parcel A' to Burnstead
24. Title Insurance Policy for
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Burnstead Property, dated
Determination
9/21106
25. Minutes of 1214106 Snohomish
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
County Council Committee
Determination
Meeting, RE: lLA
26. Excerpts of City's Park,
Relevant
Recreation, and Open Space
Comprehensive Plan (undated)
and Edmonds Park and
Recreation Plan (2001
27. 9/9/04 Edmond Beacon article
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
RE: Sherwood Park
Determination
28. Cites in Attachment 20
Irrelevant
29. Correspondence between City
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
and Edmonds School District,
Determination
dated 7/16/05 RE: Potential
urchase of Woodway site
30. E-mail correspondence 6/16/06
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
and Brief of Appellant Petso
Determination
RE: Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
31. Correspondence to City, dated
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
6/23/06 RE: Comprehensive
Determination
Plan School Overlay
designation
32. Notice of Comprehensive Plan
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Amendment, dated 7/24106
Determination
33. Correspondence to City, dated
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
3/24/06 RE: Acquisition of
Determination
Sherwood Park
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction,
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-I8 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APL -2007--1 (Pelso) and APL -2007-2 (MarkslSanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City ofEdmonds
Page 41 of 43
34. Photograph of Cherry Tree on
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Old Woodway, undated and no
Determination
tax parcel reference
35. Excerpts of Edmonds City
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Council Minutes 3121/06, RE:
Determination
Potential purchase of
Woodway site
36. Edmonds City Council
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Minutes 3/25/06 RE: Potential
Determination
urchase of Woodwa site
37. Excerpts of City's 2005
Irrelevant
Current version of Comprehensive
Comprehensive Plan
Plan is dated December 2006
38. No document provided
39. No document provided
40. Permit Information for Permits
Relevant
2/13107 correspondence is included
PLN20070017/PL,N20070018
as Plat Exhibit A(5)
with attached 2/13/07
correspondence from AES
41. Edmonds City Council
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Minutes 6/7/05 RE: Potential
Determination
purchase of Woodway site
42. Map — Public Needs for
Relevant
Neighborhood Parks and
Traits, undated/Grant
Application
43. City's Planning Department
Irrelevant
Consultant Listing (i.e.
Wetlands and Stream
Consultants) as of 7/2006
44. Appellant Petso's Request for
Relevant
Public Records, dated 6112-
14107 RE: Critical Areas
Report
45. Covenants, Conditions, and
Relevant
Restrictions for Woodway
Elementary Site (Burnstead)
46. Correspondence to Edmonds
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
School District, dated 7/7183,
Determination
RE: Maintenance of
Woodway School Site
47. E-mail correspondence to City
Relevant
from Appellant Petso, dated
6/12/07 RE: Critical Arm —
Fish & Wildlife Habitat
48. Notice of Development
Relevant
Application — Burnstead for
Woodway Plat, dated 4119107
49. Wetland Resources Inc. —
Relevant
Correspondence is included as Plat
Wetland Determination, dated
Exhibit A(5)
11/21/06
50. Excerpts of Architectural
Relevant
Final Minutes of 5/2107 meeting are
In the Matter of the application of Burnstead Construction
Project P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -.2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and Marks/Sanderlin
Appeal APD -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007-.2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 42 of 43
Design Board Meeting, dated
included as Plat Exhibit A(11)
5/2107 TLaftj RE: PRD
51. Photograph A-7 from Drainage
Already included within the Record
Full document relevant as SEPA
Basin Study
A eal Exhibit F
52. Development Standards — Fish
Relevant
& Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas —
Compliance Requirements
53. Excerpts of Edmonds City
Relevant in Part, Irrelevant in Part
Relevant as to public comments
Council Minutes, dated 8/1/06
received pertaining to Critical Areas
RE: Critical Areas Checklist
Checklist
and ILA
Irrelevant as to public comments.
received ertaining to the ILA
54. Site area photographs (1983,
Irrelevant
1984, and 1986) RE: Drainage
Ditch
55. ECDC 21.90.150 — definition
Relevant
Official Notice of ECDC
of structure
56. ECDC 21.15.110 — definition
Relevant
Official Notice of ECDC
of covers e
57. "Miller Memo", undated RE:
Irrelevant
Irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Acquisition of Woodway
Determination
Elemen
58, Correspondence from
Irrelevant
irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Appellant Petso, potentially
Determination
dated 11/15/06 RE: No
trespassing signs and access to
Woodway Elementary site
59. Correspondence from
Relevant
Appellant Petso, dated
11/14/06 RE: Potential
development of Woodway
Elementary
60. SEPA Comments filed with
Irrelevant
irrelevant to SEPA Threshold
Edmonds School District
Determination
918/06 RE: DNS in connection
with School District's CFP
2006-2011 and Excerpts of
Edmonds City Council
meeting of 8/24/04 RE:
Potential acquisition of
Woodway ElementTy site
In the Matter of the Application of Burnstead Construction
Project. P-2007-17 (Plat) and PRD -2007-18 (PRD)
In the Matter of the Appeals of Petso and MarkslSanderlm
Appeal APL -2007-1 (Petso) and APL -2007 2 (Marks/Sanderlin)
Before the Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
Page 43 of 43
1141c. -IBV
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98024 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Any person wishing to file_or respond to a. request for reconsideration or an appeal 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(8)(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(B), the appeal must be filed 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.
Prelim_inM PRD and SEPA Appeal
Appeals of the Hearing Examiner's .decision on a preliminary PRD or an appeal of a SETA threshold
determination 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 20.3S.080(A)(4), ECbC 20.15A.240(0), ApCDC
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 LD41TS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For appeals to Citi Council, if a request
for reconsideration is fled 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 clack for filing an appeal
Office of the Hearing Examiner City ofEdmonds
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 Plat
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