Request for reconsideration.pdfMEMORANDUM
Date:
March 15, 2012
To:
Emily Terrell, Hearing Examine
From:
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner v—
Subject:
Woodway Elementary Plat/PRD
P-07-17/PRD-07-18 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final
Decision
Request for Reconsideration
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.06. 010 allows parties of record to request
reconsideration. Reconsideration is limited to:
1. Error(s) of procedure;
2. Error(s) of law or fact;
3. Error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. The discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not, in the exercise of
reasonable diligence, have been discovered.
The City of Edmonds staff generally concurs with the findings and conclusions included in the
Final Decision regarding the Woodway Elementary Plat/PRD; however, there appear to be some
discrepancies in the decision that staff feels should be clarified.
1. Testimony of Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Manager: The Hearing Examiner asked
Mr. Shuster how the proposed stormwater infiltration system for the plat would interact with
the public infiltration systems that he just spoke about (Hickman Park, system and the system
south of 107th Ave, both of which are owned by the City). Mr. Shuster responded that if it
(the plat infiltration system) is designed, constructed, and maintained properly, the water
from the development will be infiltrated on the private properties in this development and
will not be connected to the City system.
Infiltration systems are always designed with an overflow in case the design storm is
exceeded (in this case the 100 -year recurrence event). Mr. Shuster's response to the Hearing
Examiner's question was directed at the Hickman Park infiltration system only. The
connection of the plat's infiltration system overflow will be resolved during final design and
will not include a direct connection to the city's Hickman Park infiltration system, but the
overflow may be connected to the City's overall stormwater system.
2. Conclusion of Law 45: Under conclusion of law # 5 it is noted that the application is vested
to the 2007 stormwater management regulations and references ECDC 18.35. The correct
Page 1 of 2
reference to stormwater regulation should be ECDC 18.30. There is no Chapter 18.35 in the
Edmonds Community Development Code.
3. Conclusions of Law Ws 9, 10, and 11 - Perimeter buffer/setback: The logic underlying the
characterization of this issue is reversed. The requirement of a perimeter buffer is triggered
when the setbacks of perimeter lots vary from the standard setbacks normally required in the
zone. The revised application chose to apply the standard RS -8 zoning setbacks to the
perimeter lots. Since standard setbacks were applied, a perimeter buffer is not required
pursuant to ECDC 20.35.050.C. Thus, by applying standard RS -8 zoning setbacks, the
application is compliant with ECDC 20.35.050.C.1 and the perimeter buffer identified in
ECDC 20.35.050.C.2 is not required. This is different than saying the perimeter buffer was
eliminated, thereby resulting in a change in the perimeter lot setbacks.
Cc: Parties of Record
Page 2 of 2