P-08-16 HE Decision on Reconsideration.pdflac ISC) V
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
In the Matter of the Application of )
Steve Smith Development LLC }
)
For a Formal Plat for a )
Townhouse Subdivision )
NO. P-2008-16
DECISION ON REQUESTS
FOR RECONSIDERATION
BACKGROUND
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Steve Smith Development LLC (Applicant) requested formal plat approval for the subdivision of
1.26 acres into 35 single-family townhouse units on real property located in a Multifamily
Residential (R M 21.5) zone at 23800 — 23824 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington (File
No. P-2008-16). After conducting a public open record hearing on May 15, 2008 and after due
deliberation, the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner (Examiner) denied the above -referenced
application on May 22, 2008.
Three requests for reconsideration were submitted to the Examiner:
1. Rutledge Request: On May 27, 2008, Alvin Rutledge submitted a document entitled
request for reconsideration, It states:
Re: Findings
#28
City Stormwater -- Hearing
Re: (A)(Public) Applicant Not Present.
(B) Olympic View Water and Sewer District serves area City of Edmonds.
(Plan from District)
(C) Public hearing held, City of Edmonds
To reconsider item, Alvin Rutledge
District should have at or presented (sic)
Plan per site, and or City of Edmonds hearing (sic)
2. City request: On June 4, 2008, City of Edmonds Planner Michael Clugston submitted a
request for reconsideration (3 page memorandum) with the following four attachments:
a. City of Edmonds Interpretation File No. 2003-01, dated June 12,2003;
b. City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. P-2007-50, dated
September 203 2007;
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page I of 10
* Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
c. City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. P-2003-66, dated
October 30, 2003; and
d. City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. P-2204-112, dated
January 3, 2005,
3. AMplicant request: On June 4, 2008, the Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration
(18 pages), with the following 16 attachments:
a. City of Edmonds Interpretation File No. 2003-01, dated June 12, 2003;
b. File No. P-2008-16 project site plan;
c. City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. P-2007-50, dated
September 20, 2007;
d. File No. P-2007-50 project site plan;
e. "Figure 18;2 — Turning Clearances for Access of Fire Fighting Equipment",
f "City of Edmonds Standard Detail Multifamily/Business/Commercial Access —
Grades' ;
g. Traffic Impact Analysis for Arbor Court Townhomes, prepared by William Popp
Associates, dated June 3, 2008;
h. Email correspondence from George Chambers, Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT), dated June 4; 2008;
i. "Requirements and Procedures for an Access Connection Permit to the State
Highway; WSDOT Northwest Region";
j. "City of Edmonds Planning Division Request for Comment Form, signed by
Brian McIntosh, Parrs and Recreation", dated March 13, 2008;
k. "City of Edmonds Planning Division Request for Comment Form, signed by Noel
Miller, Public Works", dated March 17, 2008;
1. "City of Edmonds Planning Division Request for Comment Form, signed by
Acting Fire Marshall M. Smith, Fire Department"; dated March 28, 2008;
m. File No. P-2003-66 project site plan;
n. File No. P-2004-112 project site plan;
o. Decision in the above captioned matter, P-2008-16, dated May 22, 2008;
p. Correspondence from the Edmonds School District, dated June 4, 2008.
The Hearing Examiner finds that the all three requests for reconsideration were timely filed
pursuant to ECDC 20.100,010(G) and that each party has standing to bring such a request.
Because of substantial overlap in the issues raised on reconsideration, the requests are jointly
addressed in this decision.
JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.100.010(G):
G. Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall reconsider his decision or
recommendation on any matter before him if a written request is filed within 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. Any such reconsideration request shall cite
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 2 of 10
specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
The hearing examiner shall promptly review the reconsideration request and
within 5 working days issue a written response, either approving or denying the
request. If the reconsideration request is denied, the 10 working day appeal
deadline of the hearing examiner's decision shall recommence for the remaining
number of days. I� upon the review of the request for reconsideration, the hearing
examiner believes that an error or omission is significant and may alter his or her
decision or recommendation, he or she may at his or her discretion:
1. Amend the decision to incorporate any omitted material and/or fact or to
correct the error; or
2. Elect to present a brief to the city council outlining the error or omission
and its anticipated impact on his or her decision:
DISCUSSION
I. Rutledge Request for Reconsideration
Although Mr. Rutledge cites Finding 28 in the subject header of his submission, it is not clear
what error he assigns to that finding. The request does not assert that any assigned errors lead to
erroneous conclusions or decision.
U. City Request For Reconsideration
Attached to its request for reconsideration} the City offered a June 12, 2003 code interpretation
by former Planning Director Steve Bullock (the interpretation) in response to a specific request
for interpretation, apparently by someone desiring to build a garage. The document, entitled
"Interpretation regarding townhouse subdivisions" addresses Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) Sections 21.100.040 and 21.60050. The interpretation states:
1. ECDC 21.100.040 authorizes subdivision of multiple family developments provided
that none of the proposed dwelling units in such a development will vertically
overlap any of the other dwelling units.
2. The maximum number of dwelling units per building in a townhouse subdivision is
six.
3. Because no minimum number of dwelling units is stated in ECDC 21.100.040, a
proposed development of detached dwelling units may be subdivided as a
townhouse subdivision.
4. In order to individually subdivide attached units in townhouse subdivisions,
internal lot lines may be placed along party or common walls.
5. For detached units in townhouse subdivisions, internal lot lines maybe placed
along the edge(s) of exterior walls of the dwelling units or anywhere between the
dwelling units.
Order on Reconsideration .Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 3 of 10
6. Building setbacks need only be measured from a proposed townhouse subdivision's
exterior property lines, not from the proposed interior lot lines_ A permit for an
accessory building may not he approved if the accessory building is not going to be
used for the most part by the permitted primary use of the property.
The City also offered three previous `townhouse subdivision' formal plat approvals as new
exhibits for the record in this matter:
• City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. 82007-50, Michel
Construction Inc., Applicant, dated September 20, 2007;
• City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. P-2003-66, Tony
DiPangrazio, Applicant, dated October 30, 2003; and
• City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner decision in File No. P-2204-112, Doug
Herman, Applicant; dated January 3; 2005.
In its request for reconsideration, the City argues that the 2003 interpretation is binding on
current development applications because the 14 -day appeal period expired in 2003_ The City
alleges that the Examiner erred in conclusions I A2, 1.C, B.2 and C because the interpretation
controls and does not require interior or street setbacks. See City's Request, page 3.
The City argued that previously approved `townhouse subdivisions', especially the Michel
Construction plat (P-2007-50) approved in 2007, have allowed the substandard lot sizes and zero
setbacks upon which the Examiner bases the present denial, and the Examiner erred in not
following the previous approvals. City's Request for Reconsideration, page 1.
The City also argued that the Examiner erred in concluding the RM -1.5 zone requires a
minimum lot area of 1,500 square feet in conclusions 1.A.1 and 1.13.1. The City asserted that the
language in the column heading of the development standards table for the RM zones differs
from the language in the column heading for the RS zones because the RM zones are not
intended to have a minimum lot area, and that the RM language "is used to specify a density cap,
not a per -structure lot size." City's Request for Reconsideration, page 2.
III. Applicant Request for Reconsideration
In requesting reconsideration, the Applicant submitted an 18 -page legal brief (Applicant
Request) and offered 16 additional exhibits into the record of this matter! The Applicant assigns
i The number of new items appears to be 14. Offered item o is the May 22, 2008 Examiner decision and offered
item b appears to already be in the record at Exhibit 2. What follows is a brief overview of the offered items, called
exhibits to the Applicant request: Exhibits a (the interpretation) and c (Michel Construction formal plat decision, P-
2007-50) were offered by the City in its request for reconsideration. Both were available at the time of hearing but
not offered by the parties. Exhibit b (project site plan) may already be in the record of the above captioned matter at
Exhibit 2. It is not clear whether Exhibit b reflects any revisions of the site plan subsequent to the May 22, 2008
decision, because it is not possible to read the notes on the site plan due to its size (8.5 x 11). Exhibits d, m, and n
are the site plans of the `townhouse subdivisions' approved by the City between. 2003 and 2008. They existed at the
time of hearing and were not offered by either party. Exhibit a is titled "Turning Clearances for Access of Fire
Fighting Equipment" and is presumably a City of Edmonds document, dated revised June 2006. It was not offered
by either party before the close of the record. Exhibit f is a City of Edmonds roads standard detail for development
of multifamily/ commercialibusiness accesspoints, dated July 24, 2001. It was not offered in the record by either
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 4 of 10
error to findings 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 25, and to conclusions 1, 1.A.1, 1.B.1,
1:B.2, I .B.3, 1=C, 1.D, and 2. In the submitted briefing, the Applicant offers a rationale for
amending the findings and conclusions based on legal argument and newly offered evidence.'
The Applicant's arguments can be summarized as follows:
1. The Examiner is bound by the legal theories of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and
silent acquiescence to apply the City's interpretation to the present application.
2. Based on new evidence submitted with the request for reconsideration, which the
Applicant asserts was omitted because it did not know such information was required,
the plat as proposed satisfies criteria for approval in the City's zoning and subdivision
ordinances.
Please see the brief itself, which provides a thorough description of the errors assigned.
IV. Examiner Response
A. Newly offered evidence.
One primary purpose of a land use hearing is to identify the complete body information on which
a local government's final decision on an application for land development is based. The parties
were reminded at the outset of the hearing that the record would close at adjournment unless
arrangements were made on the record for submission of additional information. The nature of
questioning from the Examiner should have alerted the City and the Applicant that the Examiner
was not satisfied with the evidence provided. The City could and should have offered the
interpretation into the record in response to the Examiner's questions. The Applicant, who bears
the burden of proof, could and should have offered to provide all of the items that existed at the
time of the hearing in response to the Examiner's questions and could have asked that the record
be held open to allow for submission of additional new information such as the revised traffic
impact assessment and additional input from WSDOT 3
.party. Exhibit i is entitled "Requirements and Procedures for an Access Connection Permit to the State Highway",
which by its header was prepared by WSDOT Northwest Region. It is undated and was not offered by either party
before the close of the record. Exhibits j, k, and 1 are City of Edmonds Planning Division Request for Comment
Forms prepared for the above captioned matter: j is from City Parks and Recreation; k is from public works; and 1 is
from Fire. All three existed at the time of hearing but were not offered in the record by the parties. Exhibit b is an
email from George Chambers from the Northwest Region of Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), dated June 4, 2008. Exhibit g is a traffic impact analysis prepared for the Applicant on June 3, 2008 by
William Popp Associates. Exhibit o is the May 22, 2008 hearing examiner decision in the above captioned matter.
Exhibit p is a comment containing enrollment figures from the Edmonds School District, dated June 4, 2008.
z The brief also contains proffered factual information for which no supporting documentation was submitted,
including the proposed set backs between certain structures and the internal access easement and the number of and
distance to available off-site parking spaces. Such facts, although material, could not be included in amended
findings without additional documentation (outside of legal briefing).
3 The Applicant representatives were present during the first item on the May 12'b docket during which the
Applicant offered to submit additional evidence if the record could be held open.
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-15
page 5 of 10
In its brief, the Applicant concedes that significant evidence was omitted from the record below
and seeks to extend the record on reconsideration to correct the omissions. Since the May 22;
2008 denial of the plat, the Applicant has gathered considerable evidence that existed at the time
of the hearing but was not offered and also new evidence created since the hearing date to
address the lack of evidence that formed part of the basis for the denial of the plat. This newly
offered evidence would go a considerable distance towards addressing the Examiner's
unanswered questions on the previous record. No party would be unduly prejudiced if the record
were reopened to admit the newly offered, material evidence.
However, the new evidence would not result in plat approval if the Examiner's conclusions
regarding the interpretation of the townhouse definition were to remain unchanged because the
lots proposed would remain inconsistent with the requirements of the zoning and subdivision
ordinances.
B. The Examiner is not bound by previous `townhouse subdivision' approvals.
Each application for land development must be decided on its own merits. Land use permit
decisions do not constitute precedent in the way that decisions made by courts constitute
precedent. The Examiner respectfully submits that the City's and Applicant's assertions to the
contrary are mistaken. Not even the courts are permanently bound to conform to a previous line
of decisions when faced with circumstances that force the conclusion that the precedent
contained therein is incorrect. See In re: Estate of Yand, 23 Wn.2d 831, 837 (1945), etc.
The City specifically asserts a concern about the differing outcomes between the Michel
Construction plat approval (P-2007-50), granted by this Examiner in 2007, and the present plat
denial. The two applications are distinguished by their facts.
The Michel Construction plat created 17 units on 49,920 square feet (approximately 1. 17 acres)
in the RM -2.4 zone. It provided two points of access for 17 lots. The private access easement
was in a separate tract, rather than encumbering a significant portion of each proposed lot. The
internal access road provided sidewalks. Seven off-street parking stalls were provided outside of
garages, and on -street parking is permitted along the street on which the site has frontage (212'
Street SW).
The instant proposal would create 35 lots on 1.26 acres. It would provide one access point for 35
units, accessing a state highway. No sidewalks are provided in the 24 -foot -wide internal access
road intended to serve 70 parking spaces inside garages. The access tract encumbers a
significant portion of each lot. The lots intended for sale are proposed to be as small as 1,123
square feet_ No off-street parking is provided for the 35 units within the project or within an
unknown distance from the project; and no off-street parking is allowed on SR 104. These facts,
among others, distinguish the two projects.
C. The Examiner respectfully concludes that the interpretation_issued in 2003 does not
control.
Where a statute is ambiguous, the agency's interpretation is accorded great deference in
determining legislative intent. Absent ambiguity, however, there is no need for the agency's
expertise. Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wn.2d 621,
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat No. P-2008-16 page 6 of 10
628 (1994). Assuming ambiguity, an administrative determination will not be accorded
deference if the agency's interpretation conflicts with the relevant statute. Cowiche Canyon
Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wm2d 801, 815 (1992), citing Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Cowlitz Cy., 109
Wn.2d 363, 371-72 (1987). Because municipal ordinances are the equivalent of a statute, they
are evaluated under the same rules of construction. McTavish v. City of Bellevue, 89 Wn. App.
561; 565 (1998):
The City and the Applicant impliedly argue that the footnote in the minimum lot area column of
the RM -1.5 zone development standards table (which refers the reader to the townhouse
definition) reflects legislative intent to create an entirely new type of subdivision process in
which residential development on the smallest lots allowed under City Code would be exempt
from any but perimeter setbacks. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, on the grounds that such
an interpretation of the footnote goes beyond "filling in the gaps" and crosses the line into
amending both the zoning and subdivision ordinances. See Hama Hama v. Shoreline Hearings
Board, 85 Wn. 2d 441, 448 (1975). To the extent that the footnote creates any ambiguity; the
Examiner concludes said ambiguity is limited to the issue of minimum lot area. (Please see
section D below for a discussion on minimum lot area.)
The Examiner respectfully submits that the subdivision code and zoning code are not ambiguous
with regard to street setbacks. The Community Development Code defines a street as "the public
orni'vate right-of-way or access easement which provides vehicle access to five or more lots."
ECDC 21.90.120 (emphasis added). Thus, for subdivision purposes, in the instant plat the
proposed access easement is a street, and street setbacks must be provided! In the RM -1.5 zone,
the minimum street setback is 15 feet: ECDC 16 30.030(A). The townhouse definition is silent
on the subject of any setback except that it allows zero lot lines between adjoining units. ECDC
21.100.040, The 2003 interpretation is the only source of ambiguity regarding setbacks.
The Examiner respectfully reasserts that the drafters of the Community Development Code
would have outright established the process being called a `townhouse subdivision' had they
intended for one to exist. As evidence of this, the Examiner points to the City's planned
residential development (PRD) expressly established in the City Code at ECDC 2035. The
drafters explicitly established that PRD projects are allowed to modify the bulk dimensional
standards of the underlying zoning district subject to requirements to: 1) visually screen denser
development from surrounding land uses and 2) provide a clear benefit to the public in exchanue
for design flexibility (among other requirements). Means of providing public benefit stated in
the PRD provisions include, but are not limited to, preservation of on-site natural areas,
provision of more open space or recreational opportunities than are required in the zone, and
provision of additional transportation connections beyond the minimum required. ECDC
20.35.040 and. 050. Bulk development standards of the underlying zone that may be modified
through the PRD process include building setbacks, lot size, lot width, and lot coverage, among
others. Finally, the PRD process requires approval of both a PRD and a subdivision, showing
that the legislature intended such projects to be reviewed for compliance with both sets of
4 Pursuant to ECDC 21.90.140, street setback means the minimum distance required by this code for a building or
structure to be set back from the street lot line.
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edinonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 7 of 10
criteria. ECDC 20.35.030. The PRD provisions are evidence of a legislative intent to allow
flexibility regarding bulk standards only in exchange for a public benefit and only through a well
established; codified process.
Finally, the subdivision code provides a process for modifications to the development standards
of the underlying zone. The process requires notice, public hearing; and compliance with
variance criteria. ECDC 20.75.075. The Planning Division's uncodified `townhouse
subdivision' policy nullifies and/or circumvents this process and is inconsistent with the
purposes of the subdivision ordinance.
Both the City and the Applicant argue that because the interpretation issued in 2003 was subject
to appeal and was not appealed, it now has the effect of law. The Examiner respectfully
disagrees, because administrative interpretations are only given deference when they do not
conflict with the relevant regulation: See Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d
801, 815 (1992).
The Examiner is not persuaded by the Applicant's collateral estoppel and res judicata arguments.
The requirements for application of collateral estoppel are: (1) identical issues; (2) a final
judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted must have been a party to
or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) [applying] the doctrine must not work
an injustice on the party against whom the doctrine is to be applied. Willapa Grays Harbor
Oyster Growers v. Moby Dick Corp., 115 Wn. App: 417, 423 (2003). Res judicata requires: (1)
same subject matter; (2) same cause of action; (3) same persons and parties; and (4) same quality
of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Norco Constr., Inc. v. King County, 106
Wn.2d 290, 293 (1986). The required privityP same party' elements apply to the parties, not the
decision maker, and the Applicant does not share privity with the previous case. Neither do the
situations present identical factual issues.
The Examiner is likewise not persuaded by the Applicant's "silent acquiescence" argument.
"Silent acquiescence" applies in the arena of rule making rather than in that of contested cases,
such as quasi-judicial land use hearings. Skagit Surveyors v. Friends, 135 Wn.2d 542, 566
(1997). The City's Hearing Examiner has approved only three `townhouse subdivisions' since
the interpretation was issued in 2003. There is no evidence in the record that any of these were
appealed to City Council; and no other basis was offered to show the Council knows of or had
ever officially considered, much less approved, the `townhouse subdivision' prior to date of the
complete application.
D. Minimum lot size conclusion mahave been wrote.
The City argued that the Examiner misapplied the language of the RM -1.5 zone development
standards table regarding minimum lot area applicable to the proposed plat. The RS (single-
family) development standards table header says: "Minimum lot area (square feet)."
The heading for the RM (multi -family) development standards table says: "Minimum Lot Area
Per Dwelling Unie (Sq. Ft.)." Footnote 4 says, "4 See definition of townhouse." The definition
of townhouse says, in relevant part: "E. Lot area per unit for purposes of subdivision may be as
small as the coverage of the individual unit, so long as the overall density meets the zoning on
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16 page 8 of 10
the site. Portions of the site not subdivided for individual units shall be held in common by the
owners of the individual units." ECDC 21.100.040(E):
The City argued that the difference in language is intended to convey that the definitive
minimum lot area is required in the RS zone, but that the multi -family development is subject to
a density cap.
The language of ECDC 21.100.040(E) is arguably ambiguous to the extent that it purports to
explain the minimum lot area required in townhouse dwellings in multi -family zones. Where an
ordinance is ambiguous, deference is appropriately given to the agency charged with its
application and enforcement. Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n,
123 Wn.2d 621, 628 (1994).
The Examiner agrees that the Community Development Code may not require a strict minimum
1,500 square foot lot area in the RM zones, but may instead have intended a density cap. This
would modify. Conclusion 1.B.1 by removal of the following language: "The minimum lot area
in the RM -1.5 zone is 1,500 square feet:" It would modify Conclusion 2 by removing the
following language from the second to last sentence: "of which number 17 would be smaller
than the minimum lot allowed in the zone". With these two amendments, the 35 proposed lots
would still be substandard for failure to provide required street setbacks, and the ultimate denial
of the application remains unchanged.
The Examiner notes that the 2003 `townhouse subdivision' interpretation does not speak to lot
area and the interpretation is not implicated in the reconsideration of minimum lot area
requirements.
All subdivisions are required to set aside adequate land for roads, whether private or public.
ECDC 20.75.085(B) (3), (B) (4), (C) (3), (D) (1), and (D)(2). The Examiner fin-ther notes that
shared improvements such as roads, critical area preservation, or open space/landscaping tracts
would all be appropriate uses for areas in multi -family townhouse developments that are not
included in individual lots, but are held in common by all owners. ECDC 21.100.040(E).
ORDER
1. The Rutledge request for reconsideration is denied. The material submitted by Mr.
Rutledge fails to cite specific errors or omissions in finding number 28 and does not
allege failure of the Examiner's May 22, 2008 decision to address the criteria contained
in Edmonds Community Development Code governing approval of formal plats.
2. The City's and the Applicant's requests for reconsideration are granted in limited
part and denied in part. Reconsideration is granted to the limited extent that language
concluding the 17 lots smaller than 1,500 square feet fail to satisfy minimum lot
requirements is removed as shown below. Both requests for reconsideration are denied in
all other respects.
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
page 9 of 10
3. Conclusion 1.13.1 is amended in that the following language from the second to last
sentence is removed:
4. Conclusion 2 is amended in that the following language from the second to last
sentence is removed:
...,
of whieh number- 17 would he smalLef than the niinimum let aWwed
Vie. ...
5. The examiner is not persuaded that the June 2003 interpretation of the townhouse
definition controls in the matter of the instant plat application. With due respect to
the parties, the interpretation is not adopted on reconsideration. The Examiner
expects this denial to be appealed to the City Council and will stand by for further
direction on remand should the legislative body reverse the May 22, 2008 decision.
6. Because the Examiner does not adopt the 2003 interpretation, the May 22, 2008 denial
will stand. No new findings or conclusions addressing the new evidence submitted by
the Applicant (detailed above) are entered, because to do so would be futile. However,
should the parties appeal and the May 22, 2008 Examiner decision be reversed and
remanded by City Council, there are no parties who would be prejudiced by admitting the
newly offered evidence.
DECIDED this 30* day of June 2008.
Order on Reconsideration Requests
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Arbor Court Townhomes Plat, No. P-2008-16
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
<L a oNc�
Sharon A. Rice
page 10 of 10
1-�c.189v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARE"iG EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT )
Steve Smith Development LLC )
For a Formal Subdivision -
1, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
Case No. P-2048-16
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
RECONSDIERATION DECISION
I That I am a partner in the firm of Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, which maintains a professional
services agreement with the City of Edmonds, Washington for the provision of Hearing Examiner
services, and make this declaration in that capacity;
2. That I am now and at all times herein mentioned have been a citizen of the United States, a
resident of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen (18), and competent to be a witness
and make service herein;
3. That on June 30,2008 1 did serve a copy of the decision on reconsideration in case P -2008-
16 -upon the following individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Northwest Townhomes, LLC
1316 NE 80t` Street, #203
Seattle, WA 98115
Steve Smith Development, LLC
9500 Roosevelt Way NE, #300
Seattle, WA 98115
Jean Morgan
Morgan Design Group LLC
11207 Fremont Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
Roger Hertrich
1.020 Puget Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Cleric of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
City of Edmonds Planning Division
City of Edmonds Building Division
City of Edmonds Engineering Division
City of Edmonds Fire Department
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is
true and correct. _
DATED THIS day of 2008 a C�2i Washington.
Sharon A. Rice
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
Serving as Hearing Examiner for Edmonds, Washington
lnC. 18g"
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (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 Develo meet Services D artment or an attompy for further pLocedural 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 decision on a preliminary plat may be appealed to the Edmonds City Council
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.105 of the ECDC (see ECDC 20.105 010(B) and ECDC
20. 100. 010(B)(5)). Pursuant to Section 20.105.040(A), persons entitled to appeal include (1) the Applicant; (2)
anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at
the hearing; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing. Sections 20.105.020(A) requires appeals
to be in writing and state (1) the decision being appealed, the name of the project applicant, and the date of the
decision; (2) the name and address of the person (or group) appealing the decision, and his or her interest in
the matter; and (3) the reasons why the person appealing believes the decision to be wrong. Pursuant to
Section 20.105.020(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.
TIME LEMTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For appeals to City Council, if a request for
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal
is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued
his or her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point
it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day five of the appea1 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.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75. 100, preliminary plat approval shall expire and have no finther 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).
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 properly by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Incorporated August 11, 1840
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan