Ordinance 4006ORDINANCE NO.4006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, THAT REMOVES THE SUNSET CLAUSE
FROM THE REGULATIONS 1NITALLY ADOPTED WITH
INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE 3992, REMOVING THE
SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO
DEEMED WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASE OF
IRRECONCILABLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND
RECODIFICATION OF THE SECTION RELATED TO
RESUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AFTER
DENIAL.
WHEREAS, the Washington courts have stated that land use applications are subject to
the legal doctrine of res judicata which affords every party one, but not more than one, fair
adjudication of his or her application, We= v. Clallarn County, 64 Wn. App. 257, 266, 823
P.2d 1144, 1149 (1992); and
WHEREAS, it would not be in the public interest for the city staff to process multiple
irreconcilable applications to develop the same property when it would be physically possible to
construct only one such development; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code had been silent on the legal
effect of filing multiple irreconcilable applications to develop the same property; and
WHEREAS, in fairness to both the city and future applicants, the city council sought to
clarify the legal effect of filing a subsequent irreconcilable application for development; and
WHEREAS, the city council adopted interim zoning ordinance 3992 on March 17, 2015,
which adopted regulations clarifying the legal effect of submitting multiple irreconcilable
applications to develop the same property; and
WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on interim ordinance 3992 on June 2,
2015; and
WHEREAS, the city council adopted findings of fact justifying interim ordinance 3992
with Resolution 1336, which was adopted on June 2, 2015; and
1
WHEREAS, the planning board considered these regulations during a work session
on June 10, 2015 and a public hearing on July 8, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2015, the planning board voted unanimously to recommend that
the city council adopt the irreconcilable applications regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 20.02.004 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property," which was initially adopted with
interim ordinance 3992 is hereby re -adopted without a sunset clause to read as follows:
ECDC 20.02.004. Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property.
A. If an applicant submits an application that cannot be reconciled with a previously
submitted application on the same property, the previously submitted application shall be
deemed withdrawn by the applicant and it shall be rendered null and void. The director shall
notify the applicant that the previously submitted application has been deemed withdrawn and
will not be processed any further. Withdrawal shall be deemed to occur even when the city has
finished processing the previously submitted application.
B. Many inconsistencies between applications can be reconciled through corrections
that are made during the development review process. This section is not intended to treat all
inconsistencies as effecting a withdrawal of the earlier application.
C. Without limiting the generality of subsection A, above, the following examples
are intended to illustrate whether a subsequent application shall be deemed irreconcilable with an
earlier application.
1. Examples of irreconcilable applications that result in withdrawal.
a. Applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particular
property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three -lot short
plat on the same property. Assuming there is not enough land area for seven
2
lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct
both short plats. Hence, the four -lot short plat is deemed withdrawn.
b. Applicant submits a design review application for a twenty -unit multi -family
housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is
submitted for a thirty -unit multi -family housing development whose footprint
would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the
twenty -unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially
the same space they are irreconcilable and the twenty -unit application would
be deemed withdrawn.
2. Examples of applications that may be inconsistent but are not irreconcilable
resulting in withdrawal.
a. Applicant submits an application for a four -lot short plat on a particular
property. Subsequently, a building permit application is submitted for a
single-family home the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as
measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit
application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications
are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application.
b. Applicant submits a landscaping plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant
way with civil site -improvement plans that are submitted for the same
property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected
version of at least one of the two plans, then city staff would seek corrections
and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur.
Section 2. Section 20.07.007 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled
"Resubmission of application," which was initially recodified as Section 20.02.006 with interim
ordinance 3992 is hereby recodified without a sunset clause to read as follows (new text is shown
in underline, deleted text is shown in Strike watig ):
ECDC 20.02.006. Resubmission of application after denial.
3
Any permit application or other request for approval submitted pursuant to this title that
is denied shall not be resubmitted or accepted by the director for review for a period of twelve
months from the date of the last action by the city on the application or request unless, in the
opinion of the director, there has been a significant change in the application or a significant
change in conditions related to the impacts of the proposed project.
Section 3. Scverabilily. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APR V ED:
V�' 4
A YOR DAVE EARLING
ATTES17 1ITl-PCI ;ICATED:
CITY CLERIC, SCOTT ASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: August 14, 2015
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: August 18, 2015
PUBLISHED: August 23, 2015
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 28, 2015
ORDINANCE NO. 4006
4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4006
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 18'h day of August, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 4006. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, THAT REMOVES THE SUNSET
CLAUSE FROM THE REGULATIONS INITALLY
ADOPTED WITH INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE
3992, REMOVING THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE
PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEEMED
WITHDRAWAL IN THE CASE OF IRRECONCILABLE
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND
RECODIFICATION OF THE SECTION RELATED TO
RESUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
AFTER DENIAL.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 19'h day of August, 2015.
CI ERK SC P
sworn before a on this
of
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH653322 ORD 4005 &
4006 as it was published in the regular and
entire issue of said paper and not as a
supplement form thereof for a period of 1
issue(s), such publication commencing on
08/23/2015 and ending on 08/23/2015 and that
said newspaper was regularly distributed to its
subscribers during all of said period.
The amount of the fee for such publication is
$46.44. f
J• �1
Subscribed and
day
V
n1 15
-
Washington.
City of Edmond, -LEGAL ADS 1 14101416
SCOTT PASSEY
DEBRA ANN GRIGG
Notary Public
State of Washington i
My Commission Expires
October 31, 2017
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCES 4-
dt in* City of Edmonds, Washington
On 11+e 1 Bib day a Aupu&I, 2015 the Oily Gov n01 of Iho C11Y Of
Edmonds, pasaad the tpflowinI brdinanees. Semmerles d1 she
Content of aQld 0rol na Fred& coligstin0 Of Iltles are pr ovide0 a
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHING
AMENDING EGO SECTION 2.15,040 RELATING TO
SALARY FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURTJUDGE; SETTING
BY
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EUMOND13, WAUMNU IUN.
THAT REMOVES THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE
REGULATIONS INITALLY ADOPTED WrrH INTERIM 7ONINO
ORDINANCE 3092, REMOVINS THE SUNSET CLAUSE FROM
THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEEMED WITHORAWAt IN
THE CASE OF IRRECONCILABLE DEVELOPMENT
APPLIGATIONS AND RECODIFICATION OF THE SECTION
RELATED TO RESUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATIONS AFTER DENIAL
The full text of these Ormnances will be mailed upon request,
D A T E D I h I s 1 9 t h
day of August, 2015.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY