Hearing Examiner Decision -- Bracketts ReserviceI
l4C. 10"
611
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Brackett's Reserve
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary Plat OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
PLN20210037
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.47-acre site located at 9105, 9109, 9125
240th Street SW into eleven single family lots. The application is approved subject to
conditions.
Several neighbors expressed numerous concerns over the project. Their concerns are
understandable, as they have enjoyed a peaceful existence in a heavily wooded and
quiet area served by narrow streets and intermittent sidewalks. The concerns
expressed in both several letters/emails and testimony at the hearing have been
addressed individually in the Findings of Fact below, pages 2-8. As local and state
land use controls have evolved over the past decades, the controls have become
effective at addressing any concern that a neighbor could have over a proposed
development. The way those concerns are addressed isn't always welcome, since the
regulations must include state mandates that are sometimes contrary to the interest of
existing homeowners and the regulations also cannot violate the constitutional
property rights of developers. To the extent that the courts and the regulations will
allow, the concerns of the neighbors have been addressed.
One issue that potentially may not have been apparent during engineering review of
the project is the combined interplay of narrow road, limited site distance, no
sidewalks and no shoulder for on -street parking. As testified by neighbors, cars often
park along 240th, narrowing the roadway to one lane. This will cause children
walking to school and others to have to walk on the road in areas with poor site
distance. The proposal could exacerbate this situation by adding to the amount of
parking on 240th and the number of people having to walk along the road. At the
Subdivision 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
least, these conditions may merit the installation of no parking signs to prevent this
from happening. The conditions of approval require the City Engineer to investigate
this situation if he hasn't already done so.
ORAL TESTIMONY
A computer -generated transcript of the reopened hearing has been prepared to
provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for
informational purposes only as Appendix A.
EXHIBITS
The staff reports and 19 attachments identified at page 1 of the staff report were
admitted during the hearing. Attachments will be referred to as exhibits in this
Decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant/Owner. John Mirante, Pacific Ridge DRH LLC, 17921 Bothell -
Everett Highway, Suite 100, Bothell WA 98012.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the application on December 9,
2021 at 3:00 pm via Zoom, Meeting ID No. 842 7405 7639. A site visit was
conducted by the examiner on December 15, 2021.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide a
2.47-acre site located at 9105, 9109, 9125 240th Street SW into eleven single family
lots. The Applicant proposes to use the provisions of Conservation Subdivision
Design, ECDC 20.75.048, which allow for lot and site layout flexibility to retain
significant trees on the property. Two open space tracts are proposed: one for
retained trees, the other for stormwater detention. All lots will use a new plat road
and cul-de-sac off 240th Street SW. Three existing houses and related improvements
will be removed.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site is in a quiet, heavily wooded,
single-family neighborhood southeast of the Madrona School campus (Ex. 5). It is a
little more than'/4 mile west of Edmonds Way (SR-104) on 240th Street, which dead -
ends just west of the project site. Madrona and a large apartment complex to the
southwest of the project site do not take access from 240th Street.
Subdivision 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
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts created by the
proposal. The City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the
proposed project on November 17, 2021. Impacts are more specifically addressed as
follows:
A. Critical Areas. The proposal will not adversely affect any critical areas. The
only critical areas that the project could potentially affect are wetlands and a
steep slope, each addressed separately below.
1. Wetlands. There is a wetland west of the project site on the Madrona
School parcel that was mapped during the redevelopment of the school in
2017. The buffer around that wetland falls outside of the subdivision site
and is 16 feet from the project site so no impacts to that wetland would be
anticipated.
Another wetland south of 240th Street was identified during public
comment. A small portion of the buffer extends into the project site, but
due to the separation created by 240th Street the City's critical area
regulations exempt that portion of the buffer from enforcement. The
wetland is located on private property so the Applicant's wetland
consultant did not have direct access to assess the wetland. However,
from roadside observations the consultant was able to estimate that the
wetland qualified as a Class III wetland with an 80-foot buffer that
extended three feet north of 240th into the project site. The consultant
found that with that separation and existing site conditions, the small
portion of wetland buffer extending into the project site served no wetland
functions. See Ex. 13, p. 4-5. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40220(C)(4),
adjacent areas that are physically separated from a stream or wetland due
to existing, legally established structures or paved areas may be exempt
from the prescribed buffer widths when it is demonstrated that the
interrupted buffer area is functionally isolated. The wetland consultant
determined this standard was met by the proposal.
In Ex. 8 Thom Ireson questioned the accuracy of the wetlands assessment
because it was done during a period of low rainfall. However, as in all
Washington cities, wetland delineation in Edmonds is done in
conformance with the federal wetland delineation manual and applicable
regional supplements. See ECDC 23.50.010 and WAC 173-22-035. The
delineation manual and its supplements were written by the Army Corps
of Engineers, involving leading wetland and other scientists throughout
the country. The delineation manual factors used to assess the presence of
wetlands takes into account dry seasons and specifically provide for
hydrology monitoring when a dry season makes it difficult to accurately
assess wetland hydrology.
Subdivision
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
The wetland assessment prepared by the Applicant, Ex. 12, was prepared
by an ecologist and professional wetland scientist who assessed the project
site using the federal delineation manual as required by ECDC 23.50.010.
There is no contrary expert opinion in the record refuting the Applicant's
conclusions that wetlands are not affected by the project or that the dry
season necessitated any hydrology monitoring to ensure that wetlands are
not present. There is also nothing in the Applicant's wetland report that
suggests any inaccuracies in the assessment of the project site. There is
evidence anywhere in the record that wetlands may be present at the
project site. Given these factors, the Applicant's wetland report is found
to accurately assess the presence of wetlands.
Mr. Ireson also notes that the SEPA checklist incorrectly states that no
work will be done within 200 feet of a wetland. That may be correct, but
the impacts of the wetland within 200 feet were thoroughly and
appropriately assessed in the Applicant's wetlands report, Ex. 13.
2. Steep Slopes. There is currently a small slope that would be considered a
potential landslide hazard area along portions of the south property line.
Most of that area will be regraded for the plat road and frontage
improvements along 240th Street. The graded area will no longer be
considered to be a potential landslide hazard area after development of the
project. There are additional steep slopes along the western edge of the
property but those will remain undisturbed since Tract 999 is to be set
aside for tree retention.
3. Wildlife. One of the Ex. 8 public comment letters, from Matthew George,
identified that the project site serves as a wildlife corridor for several
animal species such as deer, coyotes, rabbits, ducks, frogs and bees'.
The City's critical areas ordinance identifies what type of species habitat
must be protected and none of the wildlife identified by Mr. George are
included. See ECDC 23.90.010A. The City's critical areas ordinance is a
legislative determination of which wildlife areas must be protected and
which do not. Since the project site contains no such qualifying species,
any impacts caused by the proposal to the species identified by Mr.
George are not found to be environmentally significant.
1 Mr. Ireson asserts in his Ex. 8 comment letter that the project area could "potentially" serve as habitat
for endangered birds. In the absence of any mapped habitat for endangered species at the project site
by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or any specific sightings of endangered species,
there is no basis to conclude that endangered species are present or should be evaluated. Mr. Ireson's
reference to the Pacific Flyway does not merit any further evaluation since the flyway by itself is not
protected by the City's critical area regulations and beyond that no evidence has been presented that
there's a likelihood that endangered birds would be part of that flyway in the project area.
Subdivision
p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
B. Hazardous Conditions. According to the staff report, no known hazardous
conditions exist at the site. While there are small steep slopes around the
property, the geotechnical report (Ex. 14) indicates that the project can be
constructed safely, consistent with standard engineering practices and the
requirements for geological hazards in Chapter 23.80 ECDC.
C. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate protection of trees
because it complies with the City's tree retention standards.
Chapter 23.10 ECDC regulates tree retention. As required by that chapter,
the Applicant submitted an arborist report and tree retention and protection
plan. See Ex. 10 & 11. The Applicant is choosing to use the phased review
process for trees allowed in ECDC 23.10.060.B.3. Under this process,
updated tree retention and protection plans will be required at each subsequent
development phase, including civil improvement plan review and building
permits.
R etenti nn
ECDC 23.10.060.C.1 requires that new subdivisions retain at least 30% of all
significant trees in the developable site. Significant trees are those at least 6
inches DBH (trunk diameter at 4.5 feet from the ground) and the developable
site includes the gross site area of the lot minus any critical areas and buffers.
As noted above, there are steep slope areas located on the site but no streams,
wetlands, or their buffers. The number of trees located within these areas has
been subtracted from the gross site area below.
According to the arborist report and tree retention plan, there are 244
significant trees on the 107,474 sq. ft. developable site that are identified as
viable and not hazardous and that fall into the Priority One and Two retention
categories in ECDC 23.10.060.D. To meet the 30% tree retention requirement
per ECDC 23.10.060.C, 74 viable trees were originally proposed to be
retained along the west edge of the site within proposed Tract 999. Due to a
stormwater vault revision, three additional trees are proposed to be removed at
the southwest corner of the site, which results in falling below the 30% tree
retention threshold. The tree retention deficiency can be resolved by
considering opportunities to retain three existing viable trees elsewhere on the
site, by planting new trees on site, and/or with payment of fees in lieu of
planting per ECDC 23.10.060.F.
Replacement
In addition to planting trees to meet the 30% tree retention requirements per
ECDC 23.10.060.C(1), every significant tree in fair or better health that is
removed must be replaced onsite in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080. Based
on the number and size of significant trees less than 24 inches DBH in fair or
Subdivision 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
better health proposed for removal, at least 328 replacement trees are required,
consistent with ECDC 23.10.080.A. It is likely that some of these can be
installed in the open space tracts and on the individual residential lots, but it is
unlikely that all 328 can be replanted onsite. If that is the case, a payment of
in -lieu fees would be required per ECDC 23.10.080.E.
The Applicant has assumed that the fee -in -lieu payment for replacement trees
would exceed the maximum fee -in -lieu of $2.00 per square foot of lot area or
$214,948 (107,474 sq. ft. * $2.00). That may end up being the case, however,
but the Applicant miscalculated the number of replacement trees that are
required since replacements for trees with a DBH of 24" or larger were
included. Trees with a DBH of 24" or larger that are removed are subject to a
fee -in -lieu based on the assessed value of the tree according to ECDC
23.10.080.E.3, but not required to be replanted according to the replacement
ratios in ECDC 23.10.080.A. The Applicants calculated 403 replacement
trees, where the code would require 328 replacement trees. Should the
Applicant find space to plant 115 trees or save more trees, thereby lowering
the number replacement trees, the fee -in -lieu based on lot area may not be
met. Given the phased review approach, the exact fee -in -lieu will be
determined as the project progresses in subsequent phases of development.
ROW and adiacent trees
Three trees are located within the 240th Street right-of-way by the south end
of the project site. Those are proposed to be removed with construction of the
plat road and improvements and do not have to be replaced.
There are an additional 15 trees near the eastern property line of the project
site on adjacent property that could be impacted by the grading associated
with the proposed subdivision. For property line trees, the developer must
obtain permission from the other landowner to remove the trees. For
boundary trees, the developer is encouraged to notify the neighbors who are
potentially affected by any work on the subdivision site.
The owner of any property that includes trees identified for retention and/or
protected by an easement or tract must, as a condition of permit issuance,
record a notice on title pursuant to the requirements in ECDC 23.10.085.
Climate Change.
Emails from Killy Keefe and Thom Ireson, Ex 8, expresses concern over the
loss of trees and how it affects the aesthetic environment, wildlife and climate
change. The City's tree retention standards, as outlined above, have been
legislatively designed to mitigate against aesthetic impacts. The City's critical
areas ordinance, as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, address wildlife
impacts. Ms. Keefe also noted that removal of trees would exacerbate climate
Subdivision
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
change. In the absence of any specific evidence and data documenting how
much the proposal contributes to climate change and what reasonable
mitigation measures are available to off -set those impacts, there is no legal
basis to impose additional tree mitigation requirements.
Rnrrler Treec
In his Ex. 8 written comments Mr. Ireson took the position that tree straddling
the property line (border trees) should not count towards the Applicant's tree
retention requirements. The Applicant testified that border trees are tallied
both to ascertain the number of trees that must be retained and then also
counted towards meeting retention requirements if retained.
The Applicant's approach appears to best conform to the City's tree retention
requirements. If the retention of border trees would not count towards
retention requirements, developers would have less incentive to protect them
than the other trees subject to tree protection. Given the important buffering
function that border trees provide to adjoining development, there is no sound
reason to create this type of incentive.
D. Grading. Staff have found the proposal minimizes grading since the proposed
grading is necessitated by engineering and fire standards for right-of-way
width and road grade and excavation for the plat road and cul-de-sac. As
shown in the contoured plat map, Ex. 12, the building sites themselves are
located in the flat portions of the project site, which presumably will not
necessitate a significant amount of grading.
E. Views. Views will not be significantly affected. The maximum height for a
new house in the RS-8 zone is 25 feet from average original grade, which
serves to minimize the negative impact to existing views in the vicinity.
Aside from the height limits, the Edmonds Community Development Code
does not contain specific regulations regarding private view protection within
single-family zones. The examiner's site visit also did not reveal any
significant potential view impacts to neighboring properties. The property
bordering to the west, north and south are heavily treed, blocking any
potential view corridors.
F. Density. At hearing Mr. Burns testified that he didn't think the proposed
density was appropriate for the project site. The City's zoning regulations
authorize a density of 5.5 acres per acre, which as detailed at Page 9 of the
staff report, enable 11 lots for the project site. The City Council recently
amended its subdivision standards to enable the lot sizes proposed by the
Applicant. Since the density and lot size proposed by the Applicant is
authorized by City regulations, those issues cannot be second guessed during
permit review.
Subdivision
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
The City Council's hands have also been tied to a certain in its ability to
reduce density legislatively. The Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A
RCW, requires cities to adopt urban densities such as those allowed in the R-8
zone so that urban sprawl is avoided and infrastructure is used efficiently. As
testified by Mr. Clugston, without the recent amendments adopted by the City
Council authorizing the small lot sizes, the Applicant would have otherwise
graded most of the project site and most of the trees would have been lost. As
testified by Mr. Burns and others, the project area is in a unique, natural
enclave. Given the parameters available to the City, the retention of trees
enabled by the new subdivision conservation standards is probably the best
result that could be hoped for the proposed development.
G. Noise and Light. In his Ex. 8 correspondence Mr. Ireson expresses concerns
over noise and light impacts from the proposal. The plat map, Ex. 12, and site
visit reveal that the residential lots adjoining the project to the east are about
the same size as those proposed. The Madrona school ballfields adjoin the
project to the west. Tract 999 trees buffer the proposal from uses to the north
and 240th separates the project from development to the south. These
surrounding uses show that the proposal, in terms of noise and light impacts,
is the same or lesser intensity than adjoining uses. Given that there is nothing
to suggest that the light and noise of the project will have any significant
adverse impact on neighboring properties, there is no valid basis for making
the Applicant mitigate against those impacts to a greater extent than its
neighbors were or are required to mitigate the same impacts.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. As conditioned by this decision,
adequate infrastructure will serve development as follows:
A. Drainage: The City's drainage standards impose detailed requirements that
mandate that the proposal maintain pre -development off -site stormwater flow
volumes and velocities. Consequently, no flooding impacts to adjoining properties
are anticipated. Stormwater runoff from all new hard surfaces must be mitigated as
required by Chapter 18.30 ECDC and the Engineering Requirements in Ex. 17. The
Applicant has prepared a preliminary stormwater design, and staff has found the
design as integrated into the preliminary plat design to adequately meet stormwater
standards for purposes of preliminary plat review.
Public comments, Ex. 8, identified that 240th floods on a yearly basis. As noted
above, the City's stormwater regulations require the stormwater system for the project
site to not increase any off -site stormwater flows. The Applicant's preliminary
stormwater report, Ex. 15, contains detailed calculations demonstrating compliance
with this requirement that public works staff have found to be sufficient. Given the
absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be concluded that the project will not
add to the drainage problems currently faced by the surrounding neighborhood.
Subdivision 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
B. Transportation: The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
transportation facilities.
The project site fronts 240th Street. Each of the proposed lots will take access from
the proposed plat road (Road A), which connects to 240th at the south edge of the
project site.
As testified by staff during the hearing, since the proposal generates less than 25 peak
hour trips, City regulations do not require any off -site traffic impact analysis. The
proposal's proportionate share impact to the City's transportation network will be
mitigated through the payment of transportation impact fees, due during building
permit review.
One off -site impact mentioned by at least a couple neighbors but not addressed by
staff is added traffic to the 2401h/SR 104 intersections. Neighbors believed this to be
a dangerous intersection needing signalization, with one neighbor noting it has been
the site of fatalities. Edmonds Way is a state road and any signalization and any need
for signalization would likely be a decision for the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) as dictated by RCW 47.24.020(13). WSDOT has detailed
standards for when signalization is necessary. As noted by Jean Salls in her Ex. 8
correspondence, WSDOT has already advised her that there haven't been enough
accidents to warrant any change. Perhaps the WSDOT position will change with the
added traffic (and/or accidents) contributed by the project.
Public works staff have reviewed the proposal for conceptual compliance with the
City's street standards, which assures appropriate and safe access and safe road
design. More detailed review will be conducted prior to final plat approval.
Several concerns over traffic impacts were raised during the plat hearing. The
Applicant honestly responded that there would be temporary impacts during
construction, including numerous truckloads of dirt hauled out for grading of the site.
The Applicant testified that this should take about a month. Construction hours will
be set by the City's noise ordinance and impacts to 240th will be addressed in a
construction plan subject to approval by City staff during final plat review.
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 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 is 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: The Olympic View Water and Sewer District
(OVWSD) is the water and sewer supplier for the project site. OVWSD will be
Subdivision 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
involved in the civil subdivision plan review process and must approve the water and
sewer improvements.
E. Schools and Walking Conditions to Schools: The proposal will be served by
adequate and appropriate school facilities and safe walking conditions to and from
school.
The 2020-2025 Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Edmonds School District shows
adequate funding for capital school facilities without the need for school impact fees
or any additional mitigation from the proposal.
The proposal also provides for safe walking conditions to and from school. As
testified by the Applicant, the proposed interior road of the project will have
sidewalks as will its frontage on 240th. A pedestrian connection to the adjoining
Madrona School is located less a few feet to the west of the project site along 240th
Although this short stretch of road does not contain any sidewalks, it is a short
distance from the dead end of the road and only serves above seven homes, see Kipp
comment letter, Ex. 8. For these reasons, traffic along that portion of the road is
negligible and walking conditions do not appear to be unsafe.
Walking conditions to school bus stops located to the east are a little more
problematical. 240th not only has intermittent sidewalks with narrow shoulders in
portions that don't have sidewalks. Given that 240th is a dead-end street, traffic
would still be anticipated to be minor overall. However, a comment letter from Chris
Fitting, Ex. 8, identifies that cars park along the shoulder, narrowing the road to one
travel lane. Karen Sadler made similar comments. The situation is compounded by a
hill that limits visibility and the absence of any sidewalks on this portion of 240th.
These conditions could force school children and others to walk on the road in what
could be dangerous conditions. The proposed addition of 11 homes to this area could
plausibly increase the amount of parking on 240th, exacerbating what could be unsafe
walking conditions. A condition of approval requires the public works to investigate
the situation for addition of no parking signs or other measures as necessary to assure
safe walking conditions.
Mr. Fitting also identified that students apparently walk though the project site to
access the school when an alternative gated school access point located is closed. Mr.
Fitting was concerned that during construction if the gate is closed school children
will have to walk to school via Edmonds Way, a busy state road. The Applicant
cannot be legally required to mitigate an impact created by the fact that school
children are unable to trespass across its property. It is recommended that the
Applicant and/or City staff consult with school officials to see if the gate can be left
open during construction. Once construction is completed, the access concerns of
Mr. Fitting will no longer be an issue as a condition of approval requires an internal
access point to the school grounds.
Subdivision 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
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 plat applications, classifying them as Type III -A applications.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. ation. The subject property is zoned Single -Family
Residential (RS-8).
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 20.75.080(A): 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 proposed subdivision is consistent with ECDC 20.75.020 and all the
requirements of ECDC 20.75. The proposed subdivision will not create any
significant adverse impacts and will provide for appropriate infrastructure as
determined in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6. For these reasons, as intended by ECDC
20.75.020, the proposal will not negatively impact public health, safety or general
welfare, will not negatively impact congestion on streets and highways, and will have
adequate access to water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage and will provide proper
ingress and egress.
ECDC 20.75.080(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 the reasons identified
at pages 7 of the staff report.
ECDC 20.75.080(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 City's zoning ordinance for the reasons
identified at pages 8-11 of the staff report.
Subdivision P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECDC 20.75.080(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.
8. The criterion is satisfied. As determined in Finding of Fact No 5A, the proposal
does not encroach into any critical areas or their buffers. Impacts to trees are
adequately addressed via conformance to the City's tree retention standards as
outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5C. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the
proposal minimizes grading for construction of the civil improvements by focusing
development on the flat portions of the project site away from steep slopes. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B and E, the proposal will not adversely affect
views and the site has no hazardous conditions. As determined in Finding of Fact No.
6 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.
Subdivision p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9. The criterion is met. As determined in the staff report, all proposed lots meet the
dimensional requirements of the RS-8 zoning district. Each lot contains a buildable
area as is readily evident from the plat map, Ex. 12, and the fact that the proposed lots
are not encumbered by any critical areas. The proposed lots do not front on any
highways, arterials or collector streets. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 6, sidewalks
appear to provide safe walking conditions to and from school. Beyond the adjoining
Madrona school, there are no other parks, public facilities, shorelines or streams within
walking distance of the project site as determined during the site visit.
ECDC 20.75.085(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.
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. According to the Engineering Division requirements (Ex. 17), the proposed plat
road (Road A) must be dedicated to the City; no other dedication is required.
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 19.25, 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 and have
been found to provide for adequate public infrastructure as determined in Finding of
Fact No. 6. Further, since RCW 58.17.110 (applicable to short plats via RCW
58.17.060) mandates that preliminary short plats may not be approved absent a
finding of appropriate infrastructure, the criterion above is broadly construed to
require the findings required by RCW 58.17
detailed in FOF No. 6. Notably, RCW 58.17.
be made for schools and school grounds.
Subdivision
p. 13
110 and those findings are made as
110 requires that appropriate provision
This requirement is not expressly
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
incorporated into the City's subdivision standards but is construed as part of the "but
are not limited to" language above.
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.
DECISION
As conditioned below, the proposed preliminary plat conforms to all required criteria
for approval for the reasons detailed in the Conclusions of Law above. The
conditions necessary to assure compliance and required by this Decision are as
follows:
1. 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. 17.
ii. Show the pedestrian path on the Madrona School site and its
connection to the subdivision improvements.
iii. Provide an updated tree retention and protection plan consistent
with ECDC 23.10.060.13.2. Any tree cutting that is not a
hazardous situation and/or not necessary as part of the subdivision
improvements will be reviewed at the time of building permit
application.
iv. Provide written permission from any property line tree owners if a
property line tree is to be removed.
V. The Applicant is encouraged to notify adjacent property owners
whose trees may be impacted by the proposal.
vi. Implement tree protection measures required in ECDC 23.10.070.
vii. Provide a cost estimate to be used to determine the performance
tree bond required in ECDC 23.10.090.
viii. Provide an appraised value for each removed significant tree
greater than 24 inches DBH as needed to comply with the City's
tree retention standards.
ix. Describe provisions for maintenance within Tract 999.
X. Provide an updated geotechnical report for the civil improvements
consistent with ECDC 23.80.050 which addresses the standards in
ECDC 23.80.060 and .070.
Subdivision p. 14 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
b) Make the following revisions to the subdivision:
(1) Ensure that all existing easements are indicated.
(2) Indicate the locations of all new easements and provide
easement descriptions and maintenance provisions for all new
easements.
(3) Include the addresses for each of the lots on the final
subdivision (new addresses will be assigned following preliminary
approval and provided prior to submitting for final review).
(4) Add to the face of the subdivision: "Conditions of approval
must be met and can be found in the approval for the formal
conservation subdivision located in File No. PLN2021-0037 in the
City of Edmonds Planning Division."
(5) In addition to lot gross and net lot areas, show the zoning
setbacks applied to the lots and lot coverage amounts as
determined through the conservation subdivision process.
(6) Include on the subdivision all required information, including
owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, and Development
Services and Public Works director's approval blocks.
(7) Make sure all documents to be recorded meet the Snohomish
County Auditor's requirements for recording.
c) Submit an updated copy of the title report (subdivision certificate) with the
documents proposed to be recorded. The title report must be prepared
within 30 days of submittal for final review.
d) Submit two copies of the documents to be recorded for the Planning
Division and Engineering Division's approval. Once approved, the
documents will be recorded by the City Clerk at the Snohomish County
Auditor's office.
e) Record a protected tree notice on title for Tract 999 as required by ECDC
23.10.085.
2. After recording the subdivision and in conjunction with future building permit
applications, the Applicant must complete the following:
a) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required as a
Condition of Building Permit" in Ex. 17.
b) Submit an updated tree retention and protection plan with the building
permit application for each lot, as needed.
c) A notice to title for tree retention must be recorded for each lot prior to
certificate of occupancy, as needed.
Subdivision p. 15 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
3. Prior to recording, public works staff shall investigate the potential unsafe
walking conditions of 240th as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6E to determine
if any measures are necessary to provide for safer walking conditions, such as
adding parking restrictions or widening the shoulder.
Dated this 2 day of December 2021.
PhIr A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This is a final land use decision issued by the City of Edmonds, which may be appealed t
Snohomish County Superior Court within 21 days of issuance as governed by th
Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purpo
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Subdivision p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision