PLN200400117 Hearing Examiner Decision.pdflhc.1S9\1
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT: Classico Homes, Inc.
CASE NO.: P-04-117
LOCATION: 8610 202nd Street SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
APPLICATION: Request for a formal plat approval for a 5 lot subdivision (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 2).
REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and issues final
decision.
MAJOR ISSUES: Compliance with the following:
1) Chapter 16.30, RS- Residential Single Family
2) Title 18, Public Works Requirements
3) Chapter 20.75, Subdivisions
4) Section 20.1513, Critical Areas
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner Decision:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve with conditions
Approve with conditions
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report;
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the Classico Homes application was opened at 3:15 p.m., January 20, 2005, in
the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:58 p.m. Participants at the public hearing
and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing
is available in the Planning Division.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
1
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
From the City:
Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner: Described the plat details, noting existing trees,
relatively level site, layout of the five lots and access via a private lane to four of the
proposed lots. Noted also the proposed access would be immediately adjacent to another
private lane, which the applicant proposed to provide a planting strip between the private
lanes. Ms. Gruwell summarized the staffs review and recommendations.
From the Applicant:
Jake Libaire, Higa Burkholder Assoc.: Also described the plat and provided details
regarding drainage, rationale for the plat layout, and landscaping of the planting strip.
John Bissel: Responded to several of the comments offered by neighbors. He noted
that corner stakes were not required until 90 days of the recording of the plat. He
discussed the design of the drainage system and noted it was designed to Department of
Ecology standards. He also raised concerns regarding any more restrictive conditions
relative to tree retention and pointed out that development of a cul-de-sac required the
cooperation of the adjoining property owners.
From the Community:
Mona Fairbanks
Gary Crawford
Kaethe Evans
Elva Erickson
The above individuals all own properties that abut the proposed plat. Issues included a
desire to see only four lots in the plat, concerns over the site's drainage and its effect on
adjacent properties, that there should be an effort to retain on -site mature trees,
construction noise, a desire to have a fence separate the plat from adjacent properties
during construction, and a desire to see the private lanes combined and developed as a
cul-de-sac.
1. The Facts presented in the Site Description on page 3 and 4 in Exhibit A, Planning
Division Advisory Report, January 10, 2005, accurately reflects the site circumstances,
zoning requirements and land use, and are hereby adopted by reference.
2. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Subdivision ordinance on pages 4
and 5 of Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 10, 2005, are accurate
and hereby adopted by reference.
3. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with Edmonds Community
Development Code provisions regarding noise abatement on pages 3 through 5 in Exhibit
A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 10, 2005, are accurate and are hereby
adopted by reference.
4. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan on Page 6
in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 10, 2005, are accurate and are
hereby adopted by reference
2
4. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with the Zoning Code, Flood
Management provisions, SEPA compliance, and Critical Areas review on page 6 in
Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, January 10, 2005, are accurate and are
hereby adopted by reference.
1 1,
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a 5 lot subdivision is
approved, subject to the recommended conditions outlined on pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit A; with
the addition of the following condition #4:
4. A site obscuring construction fence shall be erected to screen adjacent properties
during site development and construction.
Entered this 25th day of January, 2005, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
1-10PW�Zlj L
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.E allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
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 Assessor's Office.
MN1011:110
A. Planning Division Advisory Report dated January 10, 2005.
Kaethe Evans
8526 202"d Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Mona Fairbanks
8622 202"d Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Gary Crawford
8530 202"d Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Elva Erickson
8611 204th Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jake Libaire & John Bissel
Higa Burkholder Assoc.
1721 Hewitt Avenue, Ste. 401
Everett, WA 98201
Planning Division
Fire Department
Engineering Division
0