Hearing Examiner Decision (2).pdfI
2
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Jenkins Lane
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary Plat OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
PLN20170028
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide a 33,177sf property located at 720 13th Way
SW into five lots. The preliminary plat application is approved subject to conditions.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Jen Machuga, Edmonds Associate Planner, summarized the proposal.
In response to Examiner questions, Jean McConnell, City Engineering Program
Manager, noted that no trip generation study was required because the proposal didn't
generate enough traffic for the study threshold.
In response to Examiner questions, Ms. Machuga clarified that students would have
to cross 13th to get to sidewalks located only on the other side. In response to a
question from Ms. Po, Ms. Machuga responded that no sidewalks were required of
the Applicant for 13th
Ken McIntyre, Applicant's Engineer, noted that 13th Way SW would be widened.
Access to the plat will be off a single driveway cut off of 13th and then a shared
driveway. Stormwater management will be provided on site through infiltration of
good soils.
Preliminary Plat P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Tom Wolfe, neighbour, inquired whether there would be construction in the private
road west of Lots 4 and 5. Tom Eichelbarger, applicant, responded there was no
intention of going into the western road. He noted he has rights to use the road but
there's no proposal to use it. In response to another question from Mr. Wolfe, Mr.
Eichelbarger responded that the project wouldn't be connecting to the public drainage
system but would rather be infiltrating into the ground.
Bill Westgard, neighbour, noted the proposal would increase traffic. He noted that
13th would not be the same along the project frontage as the rest of 13th. He believed
that the street would be marked as a fire lane, which would prevent people from
parking, which means a loss of parking for area residents. He also noted that the fire
apparatus turning radius for the project doesn't meet code. He noted that many
neighbors have seen owls and eagles using trees at the project site.
In rebuttal, Ms. McConnell stated that there were no fire lane requirements for 13th,
that those standards only applied to interior streets. She noted that the improvements
made by the Applicant to 13th would not reduce the amount of parking currently
available on the street in the sense that no on street parking is designated now for 13th
and none will be with the improvements. Mr. Westgard asserted that the reduced
pavement width along 13th was inconsistent with City objectives in having a uniform
street system. The City Engineer noted that the width along project frontage is less
than other portions of 13th but that this width reduction furthers City objectives of
limiting impervious surface and also, in response to Examiner questions, that the
proposed width meets City street standards and no waivers of those standards is
involved.
In response to questions from Mr. Wolfe, Mr. Eichelbarger noted that there would not
be a need to close any surrounding street for construction activity. Mr. Eichelbarger
also noted that trees located within required road improvements will have to be
removed. In response to questions from Ms. Po about the trees located on the
northeast corner of the property, Mr. Eichelbarger noted that there are seven trees
there and three are scheduled to come down. Three trees in the middle of the property
will be removed. Three of nine trees near Mr. O'Neal's property on the south
property line will also be removed.
Ms. Po asked about how one lot would access 13th. Mr. Eichelbarger noted that
access would be through the curb cut shown on the plat map.
EXHIBITS
Ex. 1: Staff report with 24 attachments
Ex. 2: October 6, 2017 Letter from Snohomish County PUD No. 1
Ex_ 3: Email from Michael O'Neal, received 10/9/17
Ex. 4: Email with Attached Letter from Michael O'Neal, received 10/9/17
Ex_ 5: Email from Michael O'Neal, received 10/12/17
Preliminary Plat p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ex_
6:
Staff Response to Michael O'Neal, sent 10/12/17
Ex.
7:
O'Neal Comments Received 10/13/17 and 10/16/17
Ex_
8:
Applicant email response from Tom Echelbarger dated October 17, 2017
Ex.
9:
October 17, 2017 Letter to Examiner from Edmonds Staff
Ex.
10:
Order Extending Staff and Appellant Reply Deadline to October 26, 2017
Ex.
11:
October 26, 2017 Email from City Staff to Examiner with 6 attachments
Ex.
12:
Applicant's Cover letter, dated 10/18/17
Ex.
13:
Revised Preliminary Plat, dated 10/17/17
Ex.
14:
Revised Preliminary Development Plans, dated 10/18/17
Ex.
15:
Revised Engineering Requirements, dated October 23, 2017
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant/Owner. The property owner is Annette Kessler, PR of Leo
William LeFevre Estate. The Applicant is Echelbarger Investments, LLC.
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on October 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Public Safety Complex in the
Council Chambers. The hearing was left open through October 19, 2017 to enable
hearing participants an opportunity to comment on Exhibits 2-6. By Order dated
October 18, 2017, the response deadline was extended to October 26, 2017 to provide
an opportunity to respond to an error in the Applicant's application materials.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide a
33,177sf property located at 720 13th Way SW into five lots. An existing single-
family home will be demolished. Vehicular access to Lot 1 is proposed to be directly
off of 13th Way SW, while Lots 2 through 5 would gain access via a shared vehicular
access tract.
The following tables summarizes the dimensions of the proposed lots:
Required
Lot Area
Proposed
Gross Area (sq. ft.
Proposed
Net ?heals . ft.
Lot 1
6,000
6,360
6,360
Lot 2
6,000
6,077
6,077
Lot 3
6,000
6,150
6,150
Lot 4
6,000
6,049
6,049
Lot 5
6,000
6,121
6,121
Tract 999
0
2,420
2,420
I\ote: \et lot area excludes the area of any vehicular ingress; egress easements.
Preliminary Plat
p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4. Characteristics of the Area. The site is located within a single-family
residential neighborhood in Edmonds. The subject property and the surrounding area
are zoned RS-6 (single-family residential; 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). The
subject property is developed with an existing single-family residence and associated
structures, including a pool and two sheds. Surrounding properties are much smaller
in size than the subject site, but are also developed with single-family residences.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts created by the
proposal. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas on the project site.
B. Views. Adjoining neighbors expressed concern over the loss of views due to
landscape alteration and the change in density (Ex. 4). The surrounding area is
developed with single-family residences. The proposal will also develop
single-family residences. There is no identified view feature that would be
blocked by the development. The Applicant is limited to a 25-foot building
height by the RS-6 zoning district, which is a legislative determination of
what height is reasonable for this area. Any view impacts created by the
proposal that conform to the 25-foot height limit must be considered
nonsignificant for purposes of project mitigation. At any rate there are no City
regulations that specifically regulate impact on views, other than to require
that impacts to views be minimized. In the absence of any specific guidelines,
the Applicant should have a reasonable opportunity to develop their property
just as the neighbors did with their property.
C. Street. Tract 999 will intersect with 13th Way SW. All of the lots except Lot 1
will access Tract 999. Lot 1 will directly access 13th Way SW. Traffic impact
fees consistent with Chapter 18.82 ECDC will be collected with building
permits for each individual lot to mitigate system -wide traffic impacts. No
hazardous impacts are anticipated from the low volume of traffic generated by
the new subdivision and it is not expected to impact congestion on streets and
highways.
D. Grading. The proposal minimizes grading because all but one (Lot 1) of the
proposed residences will gain access via the proposed private drive shown as
Tract 999 on the preliminary plat map, and the future home sites generally
conform to the existing topography. The access for Lot 1 will not result in a
significant amount of increased grading.
E. Hazardous Conditions. The staff report notes that there are no known
hazardous conditions, such as flood plains, steep slopes, or unstable soil or
geologic conditions at the project site. Given that there is no evidence to the
contrary, the staff finding is taken as a verity.
Preliminary Plat p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
F. Trees. There are 37 trees on the subject site. 16 of these are evergreen trees
within the roadway dedication along the northern property line. These 16 trees
will likely be removed in order to widen 13th Way SW (Ex. 1, Att. 21 and Ex.
15). The majority of the trees are evergreen and are located near the
northeastern corner and along the southern side of the site, while a few of the
trees are fruit trees located near the middle of the site. Outside of the
dedication area, some of the trees are in locations that could be retained during
future development of the proposed lots. The Applicant presently intends to
preserve nine trees near the southern property boundary (Ex. 12). Tree
retention will be reviewed with the civil improvement plans for the
subdivision. A condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit a tree
cutting plan for approval with the civil permits. During the civil construction
plan review phase of the process, the Applicant will need to revise the
development plans such that the clearing limits are consistent with tree
retention requirements.
Mr. O'Neal contends removal of trees along the southern property boundary
will create a "wind tunnel" during storms that could cause damage to
remaining trees and surrounding houses (Ex. 4). There was no expert
testimony regarding the health of the on -site trees or the affects that might be
caused by removal of some or all of the trees. As noted above, the Applicant
will provide a tree cutting plan. As part of the condition of approval, the
Applicant must provide an arborist report describing the general hazards
represented by each tree and by the cumulative effect of removing the trees.
Only trees that will be impacted by the civil improvements or that are
hazardous may be removed during the civil construction plan review phase of
the process. Any other tree removal that is proposed would be reviewed
during the building permit application review process for the future single-
family residences.
G. Construction Noise. Mr. O'Neal expressed concerns about the duration and
level of construction noise (Ex. 4). The Staff response (Ex. 10) correctly noted
that construction noise must comply with the City's noise ordinance, ECC
5.30. ECC 5.30.110.13 exempts sounds originating from temporary
construction sites as a result of construction activity during the hours of 7:00
am to 6:00 pm on weekdays and 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays, excluding
Sundays and federal holidays. Construction will be required to comply with
this schedule to minimize impacts from noise. These standards set a legislative
standard of what has been determined to be acceptable construction noise
impacts and therefore compliance is not found to create any significant
adverse noise impacts. The City has established a procedure for citizen
complaints for violation of the above code (ECC 5.30.140) and penalties for
confirmed violations (ECC 5.30.150).
H. Dust. Dust will be mitigated. Mr. O'Neal expressed concern regarding the
amount of dust coming from the property during construction (Ex. 4). The
Preliminary Plat p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Applicant will be required to prepare a temporary erosion and sediment
control plan as part of the civil construction plan review stages and during
subsequent building permit review. The City requires dust control measures
consistent with Best Management Practices pursuant to ECC 18.30.
I. Propegy Line. Mr. O'Neal contends that the existing fence line defines the
property line, even though the fence is approximately 1.3 feet north of the
surveyed southern property boundary of the subject site (Ex. 4 and 9). The
examiner has no authority to adjudicate boundary line disputes — Mr. O'Neal's
likely recourse should he choose to pursue it would have to be a quiet title
action in superior court. See Halverson v. Bellevue, 41 Wn. App. 457 (1985).
Staff note the Title Report shows no pending quiet title actions against the
subject property (Ex. 1, Att. 13 and Ex. 9). Staff further notes that even if Mr.
O'Neal were to prevail in a claim of adverse possession, the proposed lots
would still contain the minimum required area per ECDC 17.40.030(D). The
Applicant intends to leave the existing fence line in place (Ex. 12).
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. As conditioned by this decision,
adequate and appropriate infrastructure will serve development as follows:
A. Drainage: The City's drainage standards impose detailed requirements that
mandate that the development maintain pre -development off -site stormwater
flow volumes and velocities. Consequently, no adverse impacts to adjoining
properties are anticipated. A preliminary drainage assessment, Ex. 1, Att. 9,
has been completed for the project and reviewed by engineering staff. Based
on the preliminary assessment, the general preliminary plat design can
accommodate the stormwater facilities necessary to control drainage. More
detailed engineering and construction of required improvements will be
installed prior to approval of the final plat. The Applicant plans to infiltrate
stormwater at the site. However, a condition of approval in the Engineering
Memorandum of Compliance (Ex. 15), requires the Applicant to connect all
impervious surfaces to storm systems which may or may not be required to
connect to the public system, depending on the feasibility of infiltration.
B. Transportation: Vehicular access to Lot 1 is proposed to be directly off of
13th Way SW, while Lots 2 through 5 would gain access via a shared
vehicular access tract (Tract 999), which will not be a hi hway, arterial or
collector street. Tract 999 will enter the site from 13t Way SW. Trip
generation is designated under City standards as not significant enough to
require a traffic impact study. Given the moderate trip generation and that
Tracts 2-5 access Tract 999 and only Lot 1 accesses 13th Way SW directly,
transportation impacts are minimized and access and congestion are
adequately addressed.
C. Parks and Open Space: According to ECDC 20.75.090, before or concurrent
with the approval of the final plat of any subdivision, the subdivider shall
Preliminary Plat p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu of dedication, or do a combination of both, for
park and recreational purposes. With the adoption of Ordinance 3934 in 2013,
park impacts are now addressed through the assessment of park impact fees in
accordance with Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 3.36. No park dedication
or fees are required with the subdivision. Park impact fees will be assessed
with issuance of the future building permits on the new lots consistent with
ECC 3.36.
D. Water and Sewer: Water and sewer will be provided by the Olympic View
Water and Sewer District. The staff report does not identify whether there is
adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, but given its small scale
it is safe to presume that is the case. Olympic View Water and Sewer District
reviewed the application and raised no capacity concerns (Ex. 1, Att. 23). The
applicant will need to work with Olympic View Water and Sewer District
during the civil construction plan review phase to ensure any applicable
requirements from Olympic View Water and Sewer District have been met.
E. Schools and Sidewalks: The subject parcel is primarily served by three area
schools: Sherwood Elementary School, College Place Middle School, and
Edmonds Woodway High School. Bus service is provided to all three schools.
The bus stop for service to/from Sherwood Elementary School is located at
the intersection of 8th Ave. S and 13th Way SW. The bus stop for service
to/from College Place Middle School and Edmonds Woodway High School is
located at the intersection of 8th Ave. S and 14th St. SW. There is also a bus
stop for service from Edmonds Woodway High School located at the
intersection of 7th Pl. S and 15th St. SW.
Though there are sidewalks in the vicinity, they do not lead from the subject
to all of the bus stops. There are sidewalks along the bus stop to Sherwood
Elementary School. Sidewalks are discontinuous along the route to the bus
stops for College Place Middle School and Edmonds Woodway High School
at 8th and 14th. However, sidewalks are continuous from 8th and 14th to 15th
and 7th.
Sidewalks are not required adjacent to the subject site per the Engineering
Requirements (Ex. 1, Att. 21). Sidewalks are only required on one side of
13th Way SW, and sidewalk alignment has already been established along the
north side of the road. Since the subject site is located on the south side of
13th Way SW, sidewalks are not required along the frontage of the subject
site.
There is no direct evidence in the record on the safety of walking conditions to
the school bus stops. Since the availability of sidewalks to the bus stops is not
continuous, safety is a valid point of concern. The limited evidence in the
record establishes that more likely than not walking conditions to and from the
bus stops are safe. The available evidence shows that vehicular traffic is
Preliminary Plat p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minor and there are no apparent pedestrian hazards present. The aerial
photographs and vicinity map in the stormwater report (Ex. 1, att.9), critical
area documentation (Ex. 1, att. 17) and separate aerial exhibit (Ex.l, att. 24)
show the surrounding streets to only serve single-family development with no
major through streets present. The gaps in sidewalks are fairly nominal and
the fact that street standards don't require sidewalks on project street frontage
evidences a legislative determination that sidewalks on both sides of the street
are not necessary for safety in these types of environments. The staff report,
and engineering conditions don't identify any sidewalks for the interior
private access road, however, the design drawings, Ex. 13, do show a road
cross-section that appears to at least propose a two foot shoulder along the
private access road.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on
preliminary subdivision applications, classifying them as Type III-B applications.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. The subject property is zoned Single -Family
Residential (RS-6).
3. Review Criteria and Application. Chapter 20.75 ECDC governs the
review criteria for subdivisions. Relevant criteria are quoted below and applied
through corresponding conclusions of law.
ECDC 20.7.5.080: General Findings.
A proposed subdivision may be approved only if all of the following general findings
can be made for the proposal, as approved or as conditionally approved:
A. Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter (as listed in ECDC 20.75.020) and meets all requirements of this chapter.
4. The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with ECDC 20.75.020 and the
requirements of the ECDC subdivision chapter. The proposal is consistent with
ECDC 20.75.020 because it will not generate any significant adverse impacts as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and will be served by adequate infrastructure as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. Staff will verify the adequacy of legal
descriptions and monuments during civil review. As to compliance with the
Preliminary Plat p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requirements of Chapter 20.75 ECDC, this decision addresses all pertinent
requirements and finds the proposal consistent with all such requirements.
B. Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, or other adopted city policy, and is in the public
interest.
5. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for all the reasons
specified on Pages 4-5 of the Staff Report (Ex. 1.), adopted herein as if set out in full.
C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning
ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
6. The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance (ECDC 16.20.030) for the
reasons specified on pages 5-7 of the Staff Report (Ex. 1), adopted herein as if set out
in full.
D. Floodplain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code relating to floodplain management.
7. The proposed project is not located within a designated flood plain management
area.
ECDC 20.75.085(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.
Preliminary Plat P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8. The criterion is satisfied. As determined in Finding of Fact No 5, as conditioned
there are no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project and
there are no environmental resources on or near the site. Impacts to trees and native
vegetation are addressed through compliance with the City's native vegetation
retention standards, ECDC 23.90.040(C), as discussed at page 5 of the staff report. As
further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the proposal minimizes grading
through use of a shared private access tract to serve all proposed lots. As determined
in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), there are no adverse view impacts created by the proposal
and the project site has no hazardous conditions (Finding of Fact 5(B) and (E)). A
preliminary drainage plan was submitted with the preliminary plat, (Ex. 1, Att. 9) and
as determined in FOF No. 6(A) the proposed drainage facilities have been determined
to be adequate.
ECDC 20.75.085(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.
9. The criteria quoted above are met. As determined in the staff report, all
proposed lots meet the dimensional requirements of the RS-6 zoning district. Each
lot contains a buildable area as is readily evident from the plat map, Ex. 13, and the
fact that the project site is relatively level without any environmental constraints.
The proposed lots do not front on any highways, arterials or collector streets. The
access road does not meet City road standards and is therefore not required to have
the full frontage profile. The proposal provides for adequate and safe sidewalks for
the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6(E). .
ECDC 20.75.085(C): Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision
for public use.
Preliminary Plat P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication of park land to satisfy the
requirements of ECDC 20.75.090. The council may request a review and written
recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication
of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary
plat.
10. To meet City street standards the Applicant is required to make a 10-foot
roadway dedication along the proposal's northern property line (Ex. 15.). This
dedication is reflected in the preliminary plat map (Ex. 13).
ECDC 20.75.085(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. Chapter 19.71 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.
11. The project has undergone extensive review by the community development
director, the public works director (specifically engineering) and Fire District No. 1.
A number of improvements have been recommended as a result of this review and
they have been incorporated into the conditions of approval (via requiring compliance
with Ex. 15) and have been found to provide for adequate public infrastructure in
FOF No. 6. Further, since RCW 58.17.110 mandates that preliminary plats may not
be approved absent a finding of adequate infrastructure, the criterion above is broadly
construed to require the findings required by RCW 58.17.110 and those findings are
met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 6.
ECDC 20.75.085(E): Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall
comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for
flood plain management.
12. This project is not in a Flood Plain Management area.
Preliminary Plat P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECISION
All subdivision criteria are met, and the subdivision is approved as proposed in Ex. 13
and 14, subject to the following conditions:
1. This application is subject to all applicable requirements contained in the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements.
2. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state, and/or federal permits or
approvals applicable to the proposal.
3. The existing single-family residence and associated improvements must be
demolished prior to final approval of the subdivision. Contact the Building
Division for demolition permit requirements prior to conducting such work.
4. Prior to recording, the applicant must complete the following requirements:
a) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans,
the following must be addressed:
i. Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a
Condition of Subdivision" on Ex. 1, Attachment 21 and as revised by
Ex. 15, the revised requirements memorandum.
ii. Comply with the applicable requirements stated in the Fire District
memorandum in Attachment 19.
iii. A tree cutting plan shall be submitted and approved with the civil plans
for removal of trees impacted by the subdivision improvements. Any
tree cutting proposed on the site that is not a hazardous situation and/or
not necessary as part of the subdivision improvements shall be
reviewed at the time of building permit application or through the
appropriate land use permit application and review process. All trees
that are to be retained during the development process and trees located
on adjacent properties must be protected according to the performance
standards found in ECDC 18.45.050.H. If during construction it is
realized that certain trees that were planned to be retained will be
damaged due to the construction activities, replacement may be
required per ECDC 18.45.050.F.
iv. The Applicant must provide an arborist report describing the general
hazards represented by each tree and by the cumulative effect of
removing the trees.
b) Make the following revisions to the plat:
i. Indicate the locations of all new easements, and provide easement
descriptions and maintenance provisions for all new easements.
Preliminary Plat p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ii. Indicate the gross and net areas of each lot on the final plat.
U] Include on the plat all required information, including owner's
certification, hold harmless agreement, Development Services and
Public Works director's approval blocks.
iv. Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish County
Auditor's requirements for recording.
5. Submit an updated copy of the title report (plat certificate) with the documents
proposed to be recorded. The title report must be prepared within 30 days of
submittal for final review.
6. Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning Division and
Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the documents must be
recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor's office.
7. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a Condition
of Building Permit" in Ex. 1, Attachment 21 and as revised by Ex. 15, the
revised requirements memorandum.
Dated this 9th day of November 2017.
Pluir A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type III-B decision within 14 days
the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal will be heard at a closed record revi
before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.07.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purpose
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Preliminary Plat
p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision