P0846 & SM0847 HE Decision.pdf4JnC.IS9v
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 )
}
Laurie Hill }
}
}
For a Formal Plat and Shoreline }
Substantial Development Permit }
NOS. P-08-46
SM -08-47
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISION
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The request for a formal plat to subdivide approximately 2.21 acres into eight single-family
residential lots and a shoreline substantial development permit to allow development of three of
the lots within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Ballinger at 24223 — 24227 -- 7e Avenue West
in Edmonds, Washington is APPROVED, subject to conditions,
Request:
Laurey Tobiason, of Tobiason & Company, on behalf of Laurie Hill (Applicant), requested
approval of a formal plat to subdivide approximately 2.21 acres into eight single-family
residential lots, and a shoreline substantial development permit to allow development of three of
the lots within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Ballinger, at 24223 through 24227 - 76th
Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington;
Hearing Date:
The Edmonds Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on October 2, 2008.
Testimony:
At the open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Michael Clugston, Planner, City of Edmonds
2. Laurey Tobiason; Applicant Representative
3, Lynn Yarnall
4. Ken Pierce
S. Scott Boye
b. Alvin Rutledge
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM--08-47
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
page 1 of 19
Exhibits:
The following exhibits were admitted in the record:
1. City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report
2. Preliminary Plat Map (11x17 and 2406) (referred to as Plat Map)
3. Preliminary Utility plans (11x17 and 2406)
4. Shoreline Permit Site Plan
5. Title report, dated July 3, 2008
6, Wetland Report, dated June 18, 2008
7. Edmonds School District 15 Safe Walk Form
8. Preliminary Drainage Report, dated duly 155 2008
9. Environmental Checklist, dated July 10, 2008
10. Determination of Non -Significances dated. August 12, 2008
11. Snohomish County PUD Comments, dated August 21, 2008
12. Department of Ecology Comments, dated August 13, 2008
13. Engineering Division Requirements Form, prepared August 13, 2008
14, Affidavits of publication, posting, and mailing
15. Traffic impact Worksheet
16. City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program, Plate #6
17. Comment letter from Scott Boye
18. Comment letter and materials from Robert Boye
19. Aerial photo of subject property
20. City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation comment form
21. Applications and trust amendment
22. Comment letter from Wen-fong Chang
23, Tree retention plan, submitted by Applicant
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted in the record, the Hearing Examiner
enters the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS
L The Applicant requested formal plat approval to subdivide approximately 2.21 acres into
eight single-family residential lots between Lake Ballinger and 7e Avenue West. The
Applicant also requested shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) approval to
a11ow development of three of the lots within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Ballinger.
The subject property is located at 24223 — 24227 — 7e Avenue West in Edmonds,
Washington.' Exhibit 2, Plat Map; Exhibit 1, page 2; Exhibit 21, Applications.
2. The subject property is comprised of four lots, three of which are developed with single-
family homes. The project site abuts Lake Ballinger to the east and 7e Avenue W to the
west. The large lot closest to the lake is vacant. Surrounding parcels to the north and
south are developed with single-family residences. Parcels west of 7e Avenue W are
developed with commercial uses, consistent with commercial zoning designations. All
' The subject property is comprised of four tax parcels: 00488800501503, -1502, -1501, and 00488800702000. The
legal description of the location of the tax parcels is a portion of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of
Section 32, Township 27 North, Range 4 E, W.M. Exhibit 2, PlatMap.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Play No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 2of19
three existing residences on-site would be removed, while an existing dock at the
waterline would be retained. Exhibit 1, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Tobiason:
3. The site slopes gently from west to east (to the lake) and is vegetated with typical
residential landscaping, including several large trees. The edge of the site adjacent to the
lake contains a large lawn. Exhibit 1, page 2, Testimony of Mr. Clugston,
4. During preliminary project review, a wetland was identified in the shorelands area
adjacent to the lake at the east end of the site. The Applicant submitted a professionally
prepared Critical Areas Report, which delineated and rated the wetland consistent with
the requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) section
23.50.010.2 The on-site portion of the lake fringe wetland was rated as a Class 4 wetland,
because it scored 25 on the city of Edmonds wetland field data form. Exhibit 6, Critical
Area Study, ECDC 23.50.010. A minimum 35 -foot buffer must be provided for the
wetland. ECDC 23.50.040. F.1. d.
5. The existing 35 -foot area adjacent to the wetland edge is dominated by a maintained
lawn. Cattails, rush, and hardhack grow at the water's edge. The lawn in the area of the
standard buffer width provides good stormwater storage and also water quality treatment
for surface runoff; however;water quality functions are limited by typical lawn care
practices including fertilizer and pesticide application. The Applicant proposes to retain
the lawn in its existing condition within a native growth protection area, to be noted as
such on the final plat. The City did not require any changes to existing vegetation. The
City currently has no regulations prohibiting the application of lawn care chemicals
within critical area buffers. Exhibit 6, Critical Areas Study; Exhibit 1, page 7, Testimony
of Mr. Clugston.
6. The City of Edmonds' Shoreline Master Program designates Lots 6, 7, and 8 as located
within the Suburban Residential N Shoreline Environment along Lake Ballinger. A
shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) is required for the construction of more
than one detached dwelling unit in this shoreline environment. Exhibit 16, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston; Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC} 23.10.120.
7. None of the proposed development would occur waterward of the ordinary high water
mark. No bulkhead, breakwater, dredging, filling of shorelands; new dock; or moorage
z ECDC 23.50.010.F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a
lacustrine (lake) environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing
along the periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in the Washington
State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication No. 96-94, 1997) and updated guidance
provided in Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington — Revised (Ecology Publication No.
04-06-025, 2004). Consistent with guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the
existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of
persistent emergent vegetation in shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake
Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline
master program_ (Ord. 3527 § 2, 20041.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 3 of 19
facility is proposed. Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Testimony of Mr. Tobiason, Exhibit 2,
Plat Map.
8. Planning Staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as
applicable to development of the subject property:
Residential Development, Goal B: High quality residential development which is
appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained
and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of
housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic
and aesthetic consideration; in accordance with the following policies:
B.1. Encourage those building homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines that enable them to harmonize with the surroundings...;
B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings
that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area;
B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new
construction... ;
BA. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing ...when
economically feasible;
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development.: , based on these principals:
B5a Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by
local government;
B5b Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must
be discouraged;
B5c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or
land use encroachments;
B5d Private property must be protected from adverse environmental
impacts of development; including noise; drainage; traffic, slides,
etc.
B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints of slopes; soils; geology; vegetation, and drainage.
Exhibit 1, page 3, citing City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
9. The proposed increase in density would be consistent with the densities prescribed for the
area in the Comprehensive Plan. By keeping all development activities outside the
delineated wetland and its buffer area, the project would avoid adverse environmental
impacts. Due to the low elevation of the subject property and its east -west orientation;
the proposal would not significantly impact the views of existing uses. The project
would not bring in new traffic not associated with the proposed residential units. Exhibit
1, pages 3, 5, Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Testimony of Mr: Tobiason,
10. The site contains two zoning designations. Roughly the western half of the site, along
7e Avenue W, the site is zoned single-family residential RS -8, while the eastern half of
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 4 of 19
the site adjacent to the lake is zoned single-family RSW-12. Single-family dwelling units
are allowed uses in both zones. The RS -8 zone requires a minimum lot area of 8,000
square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The maximum density allowed in this
zone is 5.5 dwelling units per acre. Construction in the RS -8 zone must be set back 25
feet from streets, 7.5 feet from side lot lines, and 15 feet from rear lot lines. The RSW-12
zone requires a minimum lot area of 12;000 square feet and frontage on the ordinary high
water line. Structures in the RSW-12 zone must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from
streets; 10 feet from side lot lines, and 35 feet from rear lot lines. The maximum density
allowed in the RSW-12 zone is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. There is no minimum density
required in either zone. Overall lot coverage by structure on the new lots would be
limited to 35%. Each proposed lot would be required to provide a minimum of two off-
street parking spaces. Exhibit 1, page .2; Exhibit 2, Plat Map, Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) 16..20.010, .030.
11. As proposed, the site would be divided into eight single-family lots. Five of the lots
would fall within the RS -8 portion of the site. Each would be at least 8,000 square feet in
area and at least 70 feet wide, except for proposed Lot 5, which is depicted on the plat
map as 69.59 feet wide at its widest point. The lots are irregularly shaped. The
remaining three lots are proposed within the RSW-12-zoned portion of the site. Each of
these lots would exceed 12,000 square feet in area, Lots 7 and 8 front the lake directly;
while Lot 6 has a panhandle frontage of 14.38 feet along the site's southern boundary.
The overall density for the project is proposed to be 3.7 dwellings per acre. The plat map
depicts a building envelope in each proposed lot that could accommodate construction a
residence with a garage outside of required setbacks. Exhibit 2, Plat Map; Testimony of
Mr. Tobiason; Exhibit 1, page 5.
12. The record contains conflicting evidence regarding the eastern boundary of the subject
property. According to the Applicant's Plat Map, based on a privately commissioned
survey, the boundary of the plat ends west of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) by
17 feet at the southern site boundary and 25 feet at the northern site boundary.
Snohomish County Assessor records show the subject property extending approximately
80 feet east of the OHWM. At time of hearing, the Applicant had been unable to verify
exact property boundaries. However, no development is proposed within any area east of
the western edge of the proposed wetland buffer. The total area of each proposed lot
excludes any property east of a point slightly west of the OHWM. Exhibit 2, Plat Map,
Testimony of Mr. Tobiason; Exhibit 19, Exhibit 18, Exhibit 1, page 8.
13. The existing residences on-site take access from a private road or shared driveway in the
middle of the subject property's frontage on 76`x' Avenue W. The proposal would remove
that access point and replace it with a single access located along the north boundary of
the site. The new access road, proposed as 243�d Place SW, would be built to City Road
Standards established in ECDC 18.80, providing a 30 -foot right-of-way, 20 feet of paved
road width, curbs, and gutters. It would be dedicated to the City as a new public road,
terminating in a hammerhead at its east end to provide emergency vehicle access. A
sidewalk along the south side of the road would provide pedestrian connection for all lots
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 5 of 19
to 7e Avenue W. Exhibit 2, Plat Map; Exhibit 1, page 5. Property frontage along 76h
Avenue W is already improved with curb; gutter; and sidewalk. Exhibit 8, page 1.
14. The Applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis worksheet (worksheet), prepared by
Tobiason & Company. The worksheet described sight distance at the proposed ingress as
"good", explaining that the road is straight, without topographical variations that result in
blind spots. Detailed traffic impact analysis was not required because the project would
generate fewer than 25 new peak hour trips. The worksheet proposes payment of traffic
impact fees in the amount of $4,203.60. Exhibit 15. The City accepted the worksheet as
addressing required traffic impact analysis. Testimony of Mr. Clugston:
15: Existing transit service to the site consists of a Community Transit stop on 7e Avenue
W, Metro bus service at the nearby intersection of 76" Avenue W and State Route 104,
and two park and ride facilities within one mile of the subject property (the Shoreline
Park & Ride and the Aurora Village Transit Center): Exhibit 1, page 6.
16. Because the project would create more than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface,
storm water quality controls are required. The project would be required to limit peak
runoff rate (where stormwater runoff discharges off-site during and after storm events) to
be equal to or less than the pre -developed condition. ECDC 18.30.060.1. Roof drain
runoff from structures on proposed Lots 7 and 8 would be dispersed at the edge of the
wetland, in order to maintain hydrology of that natural feature. Runoff from the other
new impervious surfaces would be collected in a series of catch basins and directed
through underground pipes to on-site stormwater detention and water quality vaults.
Runoff from the public road would be treated by a filtered catch basin. The
detention/treatment vault would be designed to accommodate storm flows and to provide
treatment via filter systems prior to discharge to Lake Ballinger, mimicking the pre -
developed condition as required. Maintenance and performance bonds would be
submitted at time of construction plan review or construction permit issuance. The
Applicant would be responsible for ensuring that an operations and maintenance manual
is prepared and made available for ongoing maintenance of the stormwater facilities,
which would be privately maintained and operated by a homeowners' association.
Exhibit 8, pages 3-12; Testimony of Mr. Tobiason; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
17. Lake Ballinger is identified by the Washington State Department of Ecology as a surface
water with a water quality improvement plan or total maximum daily load (TMDL)
addressing phosphorus. The project's stormwater facilities would be required to provide
phosphorus control and treatment consistent with Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Manual for
Western Washington, as was noted as a requirement by City Engineering Staff during
engineering reviews Exhibit 12, Department of Ecology Comment, Exhibit 13,
Engineering Review, page 2.
18. The on-site shorelands of Lake Ballinger in the vicinity of proposed Lots 7 and 8 have
been identified as a Zone A Floodplain, according to the Federal Insurance Rates Map
(FIRM), Panel 1215. The FIRM Zone A identification means that the land is known to
be a special flood hazard area inundated by the 100 -year flood but where no base flood
Findings, Conclusions, and .decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM--08-47
page 6 of 19
elevations are determined. However, the City of Edmonds has defined the base flood
elevation for this portion of Lake Ballinger shorelands at 282.5 feet. According to
information in the file, the 282.5 -foot elevation falls within the on-site wetland. No
residential structures would be placed at the identified base flood elevation. The lowest
elevation residential structures would be placed at on Lots 7 and 8 would be 288 feet.
The elevation difference would minimize impacts to new structures on the two lots;
however, Staff indicated that site-specific flood studies and assessments would be
required during building permit review for both lots. Exhibit 1, page 6; Testimony of Mr.
Clugston.
19. The Applicant proposes to connect each lot to City of Edmonds municipal sewer and
water service. Potable water would be extended to the site from existing facilities in 76h
Avenue W. Municipal sanitary sewer traverses the subject property in an existing
easement east of the proposed development envelope; immediately west of the proposed
35 -foot wetland buffer. Individual connections to municipal utilities would be reviewed
during civil engineering review. Requirements the plat must satisfy are identified in the
record at Exhibit 13. Exhibit 1, page 6; Exhibit 3, Preliminary Utility Plan (2 sheets);
Exhibit 8, page 3; Exhibit 2, Plat Map, Exhibit 13, Engineering Division Review
Comments.
20. City Engineering, Fire, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation Departments all reviewed
the applications for compliance with applicable requirements of each department. Public
Works and Fire consolidated their comments in the Engineering Division's review
document, in the record at Exhibit 13. The Engineering Division's review considered
such areas as: right-of-way dedication; public road improvements; private access
(driveway) requirements; street turnaround standards; utility and access easements; street
lighting, required landscaped areas; potable water and sewer improvements; stormwater
management; underground wiring; excavation and grading; signage, if any; survey
monumenting; as -built drawings; engineering fees; and other requirements. No agency
identified issues that would result in a recommendation of denial or in significant
alterations to the project as proposed. Compliance with Fire, Public Works, and
Engineering requirements would be reviewed at time of construction permit issuance.
Exhibit 13; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
21. Snohomish County PUD submitted comments that it has capacity to serve the five
proposed new residences. The PUD indicated that the Applicant would be required to
provide a 10 -foot easement and eight feet of clearance between any structures and any
utility transformer/switch cabinets. Exhibit 11.
22. No open space or parkland dedication was required for this project. Parks and Recreation
submitted a document indicating that the agency had no comment on this proposal.
Exhibit 1, page 6, Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 20.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edwondy Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM 08-47
page 7 of 19
23. In Washington State, ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty
of the state? Subdivisions in Washington State are required to make appropriate
provisions for the general welfare of the community, including provisions for schools and
for safe walking conditions for school -aged children. RCW 58.17.110. Edmonds
Community Development Code contains the same requirement. ECDC 20.75.020.
Children living in the proposed plat would attend Woodway Elementary, College Place
Middle School, and Edmonds-Woodway High School. Edmonds School District 15
submitted comments indicating bus stop locations as follows: 76'h Avenue W and 240
for elementary students; 7e Ave. W and 242°a for middle school students; and
community transit stops for high school students. The District's comments indicate that
safe walking routes to the identified bus stops are needed. Exhibit 7, Edmonds School
District 15 Comments. Planning Staff noted that the proposed sidewalk along the new
internal public road would connect to existing sidewalks on the walking routes to the bus
stops indicated. Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 2, Plat Map.
24. The existing dock, if retained, would be subject to the 10 -foot side yard setback required
in the RSW-12 zone and in the Suburban Residential N Shoreline Environment, pursuant
to the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Because the plat map does not show
the bounds of the subject property extending all the way to the OHWM, it is not possible
to tell if the existing dock would comply with the side yard setback from Lots 7 and 8.
Staff noted that the dock would need to be removed if it would not comply with the
setback. Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 2, Plat Map; Exhibit 1, page 7. The
Applicant indicated that the dock would comply with the side yard setback, and that the
lot boundary between Lots 7 and 8 could be shifted if necessary. The Applicant also
clarified that no new docks are proposed as part of the project. Testimony of Mr.
Tobiason.
25. Initial application materials indicated no trees would be retained. Planning Staff strongly
encouraged retention of mature trees, especially along the south of proposed Lot 6. The
Applicant submitted aXlan showing the location of seven mature trees that would be
retained: two along 76 Avenue W; one within Lot 1; two on the shared boundary
between Lots 5 and 6; and two along the southern boundary of Lot 6. Exhibit 23;
Testimony of Mr. Tobiason:
26. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City of Edmonds Planning
Division was designated lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the
proposal. In reaching the environmental threshold determination, Planning reviewed an
environmental checklist and application materials submitted by the Applicant, as well as
other materials on file with the City. Upon completion of review, the City determined
that compliance with all applicable City, State, and Federal regulations would adequately
address the impacts of the project and a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was
issued on August 12, 2008, which became final on August 26, 2008. No appeals were
filed. Exhibit 1, pages 3-4; Exhibit 10; Testimony of Mr. Clugston.
3 Washington State Constitution, Article 9, § 1.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 8 of 19
27. The open record public hearing on the formal plat was advertised consistent with the
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Exhibit 14, Testimony of
Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 1, page 4.
28. The City received public comments on the applications expressing concerns summarized
as follows. Neighboring landowners wished the project to be limited to the one existing
dock as a joint use dock for all three waterfront lots. Other comments addressed historic
and potential future flooding for the waterfront lots. The neighbor to the south has
engaged in a salmon recovery practice in the lake in which he releases Chinook and Coho
fry into the lake, and he expressed concern that if the future owners of Lot 6 constructed a
dock on their 14 feet of waterfront it could adversely impact fry habitat. Other public
comments related to safe sight distance at the plat access intersection with 76th Avenue W
and road improvements required for the internal road. Neighbors adjacent to the north of
the east end of the subject property (Yarnall) inquired about impacts of the proposed
public road on their access to their property. There was also concern expressed about
whether the public road would impact the trees along the north boundary of the subject
property. The Lake Ballinger Community Association submitted concerns about
accessory dwelling units; depth to ground water; how stormwater runoff would be treated
anchor discharged to the lake; and how maintenance of the stormwater quality treatment
facilities would be ensured. Finally, public comments addressed. impacts of the new lots
on public safety and police force availability; the possibility of requiring the developer to
contribute to a crime victims' fund; and concerns about lake levels and flooding. Exhibit
17; Testimony of Scott Boye; Exhibit 18, Robert Boye letter; Exhibit 22, Chang letter;
Testimony of Ms. Yarnall; Testimony of Mr. Pierce; Testimony of Mr. Rutledge.
29. Planning Staff and the Applicant representative responded to public concerns at hearing.
The Applicant confirmed that no new dock or moorage facility is proposed with the
subdivision, and Staff noted that any future proposal by owners of Lots 6, 7, or 8 would
reviewed for compliance with all shoreline and other applicable criteria at the time,
including required side setbacks. Staff noted that with only 14 feet of waterfront, Lot 6
would not be able to build a dock. Staff also noted that joint use docks are not allowed in
a Conservancy 11 environment, which is the designation of Labe Ballinger in the City of
Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Regarding flooding, Staff noted that Lots 7 and 8
would be required to provide site-specific scientific studies regarding flood hazard prior
to building permit issuance, consistent with ECDC 23.70.020. The Applicant indicated
that the public road proposed for access to the new lots would have no impact on the
Yarnall driveway, located north of the shared property boundary, and that no off-site
trees would be removed during road construction. All stormwater infrastructure would
be reviewed for compliance with applicable local and state requirements during civil
engineering review prior to building permit issuance. Runoff from the new impervious
surfaces would receive water quality treatment prior to discharge. Staff indicated that
presently the City relies on private owners of group stormwater facilities to provide
satisfactory ongoing maintenance for such facilities. Staff indicated that subdivisions are
not reviewed by the police department and that there is no code -based authority for
requiring the developer to contribute to a crime victims' fund, Testimony of Mr.
Tobiason, Testimony of Mr. Clugston; Exhibit 1, pages 7, 8,
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 9 of 19
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide formal plat and shoreline substantial
development permit requests pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
20.100.010(B)(3) and (5) and ECDC 20.55.030.
Criteria for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Review:
The criteria for review of an SSDP are set forth in Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
173-27-150. In order to approve the permit, the Examiner must find that the development is
consistent with:
A. The policies and procedures of the State of Washington Shoreline
Management Act;
B. The State of Washington shoreline regulations (WAC 173-27); and
C. The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program.
The City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program contains goals, policies, and regulations that are
applicable to the proposed development. Pursuant to ECDC 23.10.040, the regulations are
mandatory, whereas the goals and polices "are :intended to form the policy for shoreline uses,
developments, and activities, as the basis of the regulations ; .. and to assist the city in
determining whether to grant, modify and grant, or deny each proposed use, development, or
activity." ECDC 23.10.040. The goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program are
established in ECDC 23.50.050 -.095. This detailed :information informing the City's policies
will not be included in this document but can be read in full in the Code. Following are the
shoreline regulations that apply to the instant application for shoreline substantial development.
23.10.130 General re tions — Environmentall sensitive areas and critical areas.
A. Location.
1. Environmentally sensitive areas include steep slopes; marshes, bogs, and
swamps; floodplains; streams; spawning beaches; and other areas
exhibiting serious constraints on development and/or significant
possibility of biotic productivity.
2. Critical areas include fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
frequently flooded areas; geologically hazardous areas; streams; and
wetlands.
B. Development Limitations. All uses, developments, and activities on sites
containing environmentally sensitive areas and/or critical areas must comply
with all applicable local, state, and federal laws pertaining to development in
these areas. In addition, the site must be specifically designed so that the
hazards from or impact on the environmentally sensitive area and/or critical
area will be mitigated.
C. Additional Authority. In addition to any other authority the city may have; the
city is hereby authorized to condition or deny a proposed use, development, or
activity or to require site redesign because of hazards associated with the use,
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P 08-46ISM 08-47
page 10 of 19
development or activity on or near an environmentally sensitive and/or critical
area; and/or the effect of the proposal on the environmentally sensitive area
and/or critical area. [Ord. 3318 § 3, 2000].
23.10.140 General regulations — Parking.
A. Off -Street Parking Required. All uses must provide sufficient off-street
parking spaces in order to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of
vehicles that will be coming to the subject property. Specific parking
standards for uses are identified in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, as now or hereafter
amended.
23.10.145 General regulations _Public access.
A. Except as provided in subsections B through D of this section; shoreline
substantial developments or conditional uses shall provide public access
where any of the following conditions are present:
1. Where development or use will create increased demand for public access
to the shoreline; the development or use shall provide public access to
mitigate this impact.
2. Where development or use will interfere with an existing public access
way, the development or use shall provide public access to mitigate this
impact.
3. Where a use which is not a priority shoreline use under the Shoreline
Management Act will locate on a shoreline of the state, the use of
development shall provide public access to mitigate this impact.
4. Within the Edmonds shoreline jurisdiction, where a use or development
will interfere with a public use of lands or waters subject to the public trust
doctrine, the development shall provide public access to mitigate this
impact. The shoreline permit file shall describe the impact, the required
public access conditions, and how the conditions address the impact.
23.10.150 Use regulations - Detached dwelling units:
A. General. This section contains regulations pertinent to the development and
use of a detached dwelling unit. These regulations are founded on the goals
and policies established in Part H of this chapter. Please see the chart
contained in ECDC 23.10.120 to determine in which shoreline environments
detached dwelling units are permitted.
B. Permitted Use.
1. The principal use permitted is the use of the subject property for a
detached single-family dwelling unit.
2. In addition to the principal use listed above, "normal appurtenances" as
specified in WAC 173-27-040(1)(g), as now or hereafter amended and as
modified by ECDC 23.10.045 (B)(030), as normally associated with a
detached dwelling unit and residential occupancy are also permitted,
including grading of the subject property which does not exceed 499 cubic
yards. This chapter also contains specific regulations on bulkheads and
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-0846ISM--0847
page 11 of 19
other shoreline protective structures, moorage facilities, and other uses,
developments and activities which may be conducted accessory to the
principal use.
3. In addition to the uses listed above in subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2) of this
section, in the suburban residential I, II and III environments, the
installation of storm drainage lines to convey storm water resulting from
the use of the subject property as a detached dwelling unit, down the face
of a slope for dispersal into the existing storm drainage system within the
railroad right-of-way shall be considered a normal ancillary development
activity, provided the subject property owner has received written
permission from the railroad and subject to approval by the city engineer.
C. Lot Size.
1. The minimum lot sizes established below are based on the entire area of
the subject property landward of the ordinary high water mark; not just the
portion of the subject property within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act and this chapter.
2. Except for pre-existing lots, the minimum lot size for a detached dwelling
units is as follows:
a_ In the suburban residential I shoreline environment, the minimum lot
size is 20,000 square feet of lot area landward of the ordinary high
water mark.
b. In the suburban residential II and IV shoreline environments, the
minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet of lot area landward of the
ordinary high water mark.
c. In the suburban residential III shoreline environments, the minimum
lot size is 6,000 square feet of lot area landward of the ordinary high
water mark.
D. Required Yards — Overwater Structures Prohibited. The regulations of this
subsection establish the required setbacks for all buildings and other major
structures associated with this use. No building or other major structure may
be located within the following required setbacks:
Environment/ Setback
Street
Rear
Side
Suburban Residential I
25
25
10 feet min./ total 35 feet
feet
feet*
Suburban Residential H
25
25
10 feet
feet
feet*
Suburban Residential III
20
15
5 feet
feet
feet*
Suburban Residential
15
35
10 feet
IV**
feet
feet*
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City ofEdmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-08-47
page 12 of 19
The rear setback for accessory buildings covering less than 600 square
,et of the site may be located within five feet of the rear property line.
A 35 -foot setback is required from the OHWM in all suburban
,sidential IV environments.
E. Height. In all suburban residential shoreline environments, the height of a
detached dwelling unit may not exceed 25 feet above average grade level and
accessory buildings may not exceed 15 feet above average grade level. [Ord.
3318 § 3, 20001.
Criteria for Formal Plat Review:
Pursuant to ECDC 20.75.080 and ECDC 20.75.085, formal plats may be approved if
the following findings can be entered:
ECDC 20.75.080:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance, ECDC
Chapter 20.75, and meets requirements of the chapter;
B. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or other adopted city
policy, and is in the public interest;
C. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, or a modification
has been approved as provided for in ECDC Chapter 20:75;
D. The proposal meets all requirements of the ECDC relating to flood plain
management.
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 tominimize 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.
Findings, Conclusions, and .Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No_ P-08-46ISM-08-47
page 13 of 19
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage,
views and so forth.
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.
C. Dedications.
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.
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. ECDC 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
E. Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria
set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain
management.
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM--08-47 page 14 of 19
The ECDC criteria for plat approval are similar to those set forth in the state subdivision statute.
Section 58.17.110(2) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) states as follows:
A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city,
town, or county legislative body makes written findings that:
a. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and
general welfare and for such open spaces; drainage ways, streets or
roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water
supplies; sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds,
schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including
sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking
conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and
b. the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such
subdivision and dedication.
Conclusions Based on Findings- Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
11 As conditioned, the application satisfies the criteria for approval of a shoreline substantial
development permit.
a The proposed residential development would be consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA). The policy of the SMA, as set forth in RCW 90.58:020,
is to "provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for
and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses." This policy "contemplates
protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation
and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting
generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto" RCW
90.58.020. The proposed development is a reasonable and appropriate use for the
Suburban Residential N Shoreline Environment. The project includes
storrawater improvements for water quality and peak discharge protection. The
project would not have any impacts on navigation. Findings Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and
16.
b. The project would be consistent with WAC 173-27. This development is being
reviewed under the criteria for approval for shoreline substantial development
permits set forth in WAC 173-27-150. Additional regulations applicable to
shoreline substantial development include:
WAC 173-27-140 Review criteria for all development.
(1) No authorization to undertake use or development on
shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government
unless upon review the use or development is determined to be
consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline
Management Act and the master program
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No P-0846/SM-08-47
page IS of 19
(2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or
structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on
shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial
number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except
where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only
when overriding considerations of the public interest will be
served.
WAC 173-27-190 Permits for substantial development....
(1) Each permit for a substantial development .. issued by local
government shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to
the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one
days from the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and
WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within
twenty-one days from the date of such filing have been terminated;
except as provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b).
The requirement of WAC 173-27-140(1) is addressed through the SSDP review
criteria. WAC 173-27-140(2) would be satisfied because the Shoreline Master
Program, as ECDC 23.10.150.E, prohibits structures over 25 feet in height in the
suburban residential shoreline environments. Compliance with this height
limitation would be ensured by condition of approval. The requirement of WAC
173-27-190 is addressed by ECDC 20.55.060 (no construction until 30 days after
decision). This limitation is incorporated into the conditions of approval.
C. The proposal would be consistent with the goals, policies and regulations of the
City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Single-family detached residential
dwellings and "normal appurtenances" are permitted uses in the suburban
residential shoreline environments. No bulkheads or other shoreline protective
structures, moorage facilities, or any other uses waterward of the OHWM are
proposed. No development of the on-site critical area is proposed; a 35 -foot
buffer would be protected in perpetuity in a native growth protection area. Off-
street parking consistent with ECDC 17.50 is proposed. Each lot would provide
parking inside a garage, as well as in driveways. Public access to the shoreline
would not be affected by the development. Lots 6, 7, and 8 would all be at least
12,000 square feet in area. Each of the lots contains a buildable area outside of all
required setbacks. The Applicant has indicated that if the existing dock is
determined to straddle the proposed lot line between Lots 7 and 8, the boundary
would be reconfigured such that the dock can comply with the side setback. As
noted above, a condition of approval would ensure no structures on Lots 6, 7, and
8 would exceed 25 feet in height. Findings Nos. 4, 5, 6, 11, and 24.
Formal Plat Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. As conditioned, the proposed plat is consistent with the purposes of the Subdivision
ordinance, which are established at ECDC 20.75.020 as: to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM-0$-47
page 16 of 19
land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to facilitate adequate provisions
for water, utilities, sewerage; storm drainage; parks and recreation areas, sites for schools
and playgrounds, and other public requirements; to provide for proper ingress and egress;
and to require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of
subdivided lots. Through increasing density consistent with the underlying zoning,
retaining mature trees where possible; and complying with the requirements of the critical
areas ordinance, the proposed land use is consistent with applicable goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan. As proposed; all lots except Lot 5 comply with the appropriate
bulk dimensional standards of the two underlying zoning districts. Lot 5 is very slightly
less than 70 feet in width on the plat map; a condition of approval would require the lot to
provide the full 70 feet in width Although proposed Lots 7 and 8 are within a Zone A
Floodplain according to FIRM Maps, each lot's proposed development envelope would
extend to 288 feet as its lowest elevation, which would be above the City -identified base
flood elevation of 282.5 feet. To finther protect future owners and nearby residents; a
condition of approval would require special studies of Lots 7 and 8 prior to building
permit issuance. Findings Nos. 8, 9, 11, 18, and 20.
2. With conditions, all necessary protections would be afforded to the on-site wetland and to
Lake Ballinger. A 35 -foot no -disturb buffer would be maintained in perpetuity westward
of the delineated wetland edge. A condition of approval would ensure that the dative
growth protection area is noted on the face of the final plat. Any ongoing maintenance;
such as noxious weed removal would be conducted by the homeowners' association, No
development is proposed waterward of the wetland. Conditions would ensure that Lots 7
and 8 are specially studied for flodd hazard assessment prior to construction permit
issuance. Conditions would ensure that all stormwater facilities as designed and built
would comply with City standards, as well as with the Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, and that best management practices for phosphorus control are
implemented through construction and into the future, consistent with applicable City and
State requirements. Off-site views would not be significantly impacted by residential
development in a residential zoning district. Some mature trees would be retained,
including two along the site frontage on 76"' Avenue W. Structures on Lots 6, 7, and 8
would be limited to an overall height of 25 feet. Findings Nos. 4, 5, 9, 10, 16, and 17.
3. Each lot would contain sufficient buildable area outside of required street, side, and rear
setbacks. All lots would front on the new internal public road. A condition of approval
is necessary to ensure that proposed Lot 5 provides the full 70 feet of lot width, because
as proposed it is slightly less than 70 feet, A sidewalk along the south side of the new
internal road would provide pedestrian connection to existing sidewalks in the vicinity.
The 30 -foot right-of-way, to be called 243nd Place W, would be dedicated to the City. No
parkland or other dedications were required. Findings Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, and 22.
4. All infrastructure, including potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater collection, the
public right-of-way, and any other civil requirements have been fully reviewed and
preliminarily determined to be feasible as proposed. Compliance with Fire, Public
Works, Utility, and Eingneering technical requirements would be ensured through civil
engineering and construction permit reivew after preliminary plat approval. Conditions
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing F camfner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No_ P-08-46IS 08-47
page 17 of 19
would ensure that Lots 7 and 8 undergo all necessary flood hazard analysis prior to
construction permit issuance. Findings Nos. 13, 16, 18, 19, and 20.
5. As conditioned, all appropriate provisions for public health, safety, and welfare are
addressed. Transit service is available in the area. There is capacity in the pertinent
facilities of Edmonds School District 15, and the proposal provides adequate safe
walking for, school children. Subdivision consistent with the densities and bulk
dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning districts is consistent with the public
use and interest. The project was reviewed for compliance with the requirements of
SEPA and a DNS was issued and not appealed. At least seven mature trees would be
retained. Conditions would ensure that a homeowners' association is established for the
maintenance of all communal areas and facilities, to include (at a minimum) the on-site
stormwater management facilities and the wetland and buffer area: Should the tidelands
and any portion of Lake Ballinger bottomlands be determined to be part of the subject
property, that portion not subdivided into individual lots would be jointly owned as a
common area, to be maintained by the homeowners' association, if any maintenance is
required. Findings Nos 9, 15, 20, 23, 26, 28, and 29.
DECLSION
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions; the request for a formal plat to subdivide
approximately 2.21 acres into eight single-family residential lots, and a shoreline substantial
development permit to allow development of three of the lots within the shoreline jurisdiction of
Lake Ballinger, at 24223 — 24227 — 7& Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington is APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The instant SSDP and formal plat applications are subject to all applicable
requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility
of the Applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in
applicable ordinances.
2. As required by ECDC 20.55.060, no construction authorized pursuant to the instant
SSDP may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal.
3. The Applicant shall implement best management practices to limit phosphorus
entering TMDL-limited Lake Ballinger. [Note: please review the resources identified
in Exhibit 12 for assistance in identifying appropriate BMPs.]
4. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant must accurately determine the location of
the eastern boundary lines of Lots 6, 7, and 8. if the existing dock would not be
setback the required ten feet for the shared lot line between Lots 7 and 8, the dock
must be removed or the boundary line relocated.
5. Two permanent signs shall be installed at the western edge of the wetland buffer, one
each on Lots 7 and 8, consistent with ECDC 23.50.040.6.2. No alteration of the
existing condition of the 35 -foot wetland buffer shall be allowed during or after
Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat, No. P-08-46/SM 08-47
page 18 of 19
construction of the project. The buffer and wetland shall be placed in a recorded
natural growth protection area and noted on the face of the final plat.
6. At time of building permit review, single-family residential development on Lots 7
and 8 shall require flood hazard study and assessment performed in accordance with
the requirements found in ECDC 23.70.
7. Any future dock or moorage facility along the OHWM on-site would be required to
comply with the Shoreline Master Program requirements for such proposals.
Additional permits may be required.
8. Prior to final plat submittal, the Applicant must:
a. Complete the improvements identified on the approved civil plans.
b. Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These
documents shall include on the plat all required information, including but not
limited to, owners' certification, hold harmless agreement, and staff approval
bucks.
c. Submit to the Planning Divisions an updated title report verifying ownership of
the subject property on the date that the property owners sign the subdivision
documents.
9. Prior to final plat approval, a homeowners' association shall be formed for the
perpetual maintenance of the stormwater facilities and the natural growth protection
area. The association formation documents shall indicate by what mechanism
necessary costs of such maintenance will be accumulated.
10. Prior to final plat submittal, Lot 5 shall be widened to a minimum width of at least 70
feet.
11. Residences on Lots 6, 7; and 8 are limited to an overall height of 25 feet.
DECIDED this 16" day of October 2008.
Findings, Conclusions, andDecision
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
McArthur Patterson Plat., No. P-08-46/SM 08-47
Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiners
By:
Sharon A. Rice
page 19 of 19
CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
C. 189 -
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing requests for reconsideration and
appeals. Anerson wishing to file or Mond to a r nest for reconsideration or an Meal should contact the
Planning Division of the Development Services Department or an attorney for further_ procedural_ 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
20100.010(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.
TBW LDHTS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
The time limits for reconsideration and appeal run concurrently. For Weals to C'y Counci 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 appeal 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 further 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 property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
Incorporated August I1, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
rne'.1S9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
HEARING EXAMINER
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT )
Laurie Hill )
)
For a Formal Plat and a Shoreline )
Substantial Development Permit )
Nos. P-08-46
SM -08-47
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
1, Sharon A. Rice, the undersigned, do hereby declare:
1. 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; and 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 make service herein;
2. That on October 15, 2008 I did serve a copy of the decision in case P-0846/SM-0847 upon the following
individuals at the addresses below by first class US Mail.
Laurie Hill
24223 — 7& Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Clerk of the Edmonds City Council
121 Fifth Avenue North, First Floor
Edmonds, WA 98020
Alvin Rutledge
7101 Lake Ballinger Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Robert and Peggy Boye
23425 — 7e Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Lynn & StThen Yarnall
24213 — 76 Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
City of Edmonds Fire, Public Works, Engineering,
and Parks & Recreation Departments
o/o City of Edmonds Planning Division
Laurey Tobiason, Tobiason & Company
20434 — I& Place SW
Seattle, WA 98166-4106
Scott Boye
PO Box 2265
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
Ken Pierce
24005 — 74`h Avenue W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Wen -Fong Chang
7510 — 24rd place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and
correct:
DATED THIS 19TL&y of [)CTL[')kr?-, , 2008 at,51xe he. , Washington.
Sharon A. Rice, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan