Council appeal decision.pdfBEFORE THE EDONDS CITY COUNCIL
Applicant: Sequoia Ridge Partners File Nos: S-98-108
Appellant: Charles Warner V-98-109
AP -99-224
This matter came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council on January 18, 2000.
The City Council heard this matter as a closed record appeal based upon the record contained in
the Council packet as Item No. 5, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
APPEAL ISSUES
On appeal, the Appellant raised the following issues:
1. The Hearing Examiner erred in his evaluation of flag lot status for the plat and
codified street end requirements;
2. The Hearing Examiner failed to address in supplemental written findings the
Applicant's concerns regarding the specificity of the variances requested in particular the criteria
that the requested variances be the minimum necessary and did not constitute a grant of special
privilege;
3. The Hearing Examiner erred in his finding that all critical area variances noted
were required and his assertion hat ECDC 20.15B.120 applies only to Category I Streams;
4. The Hearing Examiner erred by ignoring the provisions of ECDC 20.15B.080.B.2
governing buffer averaging;
5. The Hearing Examiner failed to address in written findings the contradictions
raised from the City record regarding subdividing property under the Critical Areas Ordinance;
and
6. The Hearing Examiner erred in not acknowledging the need for a reasonable use
exception regarding the stream.
DECISION
For its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council adopts the decision set
forth by the Hearing Examiner. In so doing, the City Council notes that issues 1, 3, 4 and 6 are
conclusions of law and the City Council specifically adopts the Hearing Examiner's
interpretations of City ordinance.
With regard to appeal issue 2, the City Council finds that while the Applicant always
retains the burden of proof and to establish that all review criteria have been met, the City
Council finds adequate support in the record as it exists.
{ W SS422816.DOC;1 /00006.900000/}
Finally, with regard to appeal issue 5, the City Council finds no basis in the record to
determine a conflict with prior decision making and application of the City's Critical Areas
Ordinance.
Therefore, the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Edmonds
Hearing Examiner dated November 4, 1999. Such decision, as conditioned therein, is hereby
incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.
DONE THIS b (� I"', day of 1" 2000.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Ma or Gary(#hakenson
{ WSS422816.DOC;1 /00006.900000/}