The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-07-25 Planning Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 25, 2018, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing Permit Decision Making - Quasi-judicial Processes B. Public Hearing on Rezone at 9107 and 9111 236th St. SW from RS-8 to RM-1.5 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda July 25, 2018 Page 1 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/25/2018 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Report is attached Attachments: Director. Report.07.20.18 Packet Pg. 2 5.A.a MEMORANDUM Date: July 20, 2018 To: From: Subject Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Director Report "We're all in the same canoe, and we have got to learn to paddle together." - Billy Frank Jr. (Nisqually tribal leader) Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board meets next on July 25. Its agenda includes a public hearing on updating the code for permit decision -making, pursuant to a resolution by the City Council. REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) The PSRC Regional Staff Committee met July 19. The agenda included: ❑ Housing work session de -brief ❑ VISION 2050 Outcomes and Regional Growth Strategy Objectives ❑ Regional Growth Strategy Update. Washington State Ferries Washington State Ferries (WSF) submitted a progress report on its Long -Range Plan to the state legislature on June 29. The report outlines WSF's long range planning process, summarizes community outreach efforts and early public feedback, and offers preliminary findings and possible strategies that will be included in the Long Range Plan. The agency plans to release the draft plan for a 45-day public comment period and more public meetings in Fall 2018. LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB has no meeting scheduled in July. The next ADB meeting is scheduled for August 1. The agenda will be posted on-line when available. 1 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 3 5.A.a Arts Commission The Arts Commission meets next on August 2. The agenda will be posted on-line when available. Cemetery Board The Cemetery Board met last on July 19. The agenda included: ❑ Board member updates ❑ Cemetery sales and burials ❑ Financial report ❑ "Walk Back in Time" preparation Climate Protection Committee The Climate Protection Committee meets next on August 2. The agenda will be posted on-line when available. Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission's meeting for July 4 was cancelled. The commission is scheduled to meet next on August 1. An agenda will be posted on-line. Economic Development Commission (EDC) The Economic Development Commission met last on July 18, with an agenda that included: ❑ Board member updates ❑ 2018-2019 Priorities ❑ Development Feasibility, Arts/Tourism ❑ Affordable Housing, Dayton Street Project ❑ Business Attraction Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner has no meeting scheduled for July 26. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The Historic Preservation Commission met on July 12 for a public hearing to determine the eligibility of the house located at 645 Fir St for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The commission forwarded its recommendation for approval to the City Council for a final determination. Tree Board The Tree Board meets next on August 2. An agenda will be posted on-line when available. City Council The Council's July 17 meeting included: ❑ Yearly report from Students Saving Salmon ❑ Gateway sign replacement at SR 104 and 5t" Ave S. ❑ Presentation of Economic Development Commission memo on civic facilities ❑ Discussion of potential city requirement for safe storage of firearms. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 4 5.A.a The City Council's July 24 meeting agenda includes: ❑ Presentation from Edmonds Bicycle Advisory Group ❑ Public hearing on adding 658 Maple Street house to Register of Historic Places ❑ Introduction to Draft Housing Strategy ❑ Update on Critical Areas ❑ Senior Center lease amendments COMMUNITY CALENDAR • July 21-22: ARTSplash, free annual art show held at 201 Dayton, 10 — 5 pm • July 22: City Park concert, "The Merry Wives of Windsor, begins at 3 pm • July 24: Sand sculpting contest, Marina Beach at 10 am • July 24: Hazel Miller plaza, Tears of Joy puppet theatre's "Stellaluna" at 12 pm • July 26: Edmonds Police Foundation Open House, public safety parking lot at 5 pm • July 26: Hazel Miller Plaza Evening Concerts begin at 5 pm • July 27: Edmonds Outdoor Movie Nites (Moana), Frances Anderson Center at 9 pm • July 28: Low -Tide public beach walk, Olympic Beach Visitor Station, 11:30 am • August 1: Marina Beach summer cleanup, 9 am - noon 31Pane Packet Pg. 5 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/25/2018 Public Hearing Permit Decision Making - Quasi-judicial Processes Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History The Planning Board heard an introduction to this topic at the May 23, 2018 Planning Board meeting. Staff Recommendation Forward recommendation to the City Council to adopt the code amendments related to permit decision processes. Narrative Introduction The Edmonds' City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial Decisions The distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial decision -making in zoning practice is an important one. The basic difference between the two categories is that legislative decisions establish policies for future application, while quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions are the application of those policies. In quasi-judicial proceedings the decision -making body must follow stricter procedural requirements (the term "quasi-judicial" literally means court -like; implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings). If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process, including: Proper notice of the hearing Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (i.e., no ex parte contacts) An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest Decisions based on the facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition Packet Pg. 6 6.A City Council Quasi-iudicial Decisions The city council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following applications and appeals (see ECDC 20.01.003): Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; ad Site specific rezone. In addition to the Type IV applications, pursuant to ECDC 17.00.030.C, the City Council also sits in the quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. As the City Attorney summarized in his memo to the Council on this subject (excerpt from May 10, 2016 Council Agenda Memo): "For the city council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma. On the surface, being able to decide the outcome of a land use hearing offers the lure of being ultimately responsible for what could be a controversial land use application or appeal. One can imagine the city council coming heroically to the side of its constituents to make whatever appears to be the most popular decision on the matter. The reality, however, is fraught with danger (in the form of potential liability) and difficult choices. This reality is rooted in the fact that the city council has significantly less discretion when hearing a quasi- judicial matter than it has when hearing a legislative matter. It cannot simply decide the matter however it wants to. The city council, like any other land use decision -maker, must apply the decision criteria to the facts surrounding the application or appeal. While those criteria are legislatively adopted, they cannot be changed during the quasi-judicial hearing. So, if the adopted criteria do not allow the council to address a particular issue of public concern, the council could be forced to choose been making a legally defensible, but unpopular decision and making a decision that feels right in the short term only to have that decision overturned by a court. In extreme cases, the court's reversal might be combined with liability to pay a significant damage claim for having made a decision that was later deemed to be arbitrary and capricious. The closed record nature of these hearings presents another limiting factor because the evidence that can be presented to the city council is generally limited to that which was presented during the open record hearing (usually before the hearing examiner). Councilmembers have expressed frustration with the ex parte contact prohibition that comes along with the quasi-judicial process. The appearance of fairness doctrine does limit the interactions that councilmembers can have with constituents when quasi-judicial action is pending." As a result of its discussions on this subject, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council. Packet Pg. 7 6.A Quasi-judicial Code Amendments Modifying the City Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions in the Edmonds Community Development Code primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Attachment 3 contains a modified ECDC 20.01.003 which includes tables for permit type and decision framework, and procedure for development project permit applications. Type III-B have been moved into the Type III -A column and removed the "-A" and "-B" qualifiers. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the Edmonds Community Development Code for "Type III" and removed all the "-A" and "-B" qualifiers from the text. An electronic search for terms such as "appealable to council" was also conducted and references updated. Other amendments included eliminating the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests, and modifications to the subdivision chapter (ECDC 20.75) and planned residential development chapter (ECDC 20.35) that discuss Council review of final approvals. Related Code Amendments In reviewing the code to address quasi-judicial decision making by the City Council, other items were identified that logically should be addressed concurrently with this update. Chapter 20.06 ECDC - Open Record Public Hearing & Chapter 20.07 ECDC Closed Record Appeals The distinction is not clear between these chapters as appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decision are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. As part of this amendment, Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC are proposed to be combined into a single chapter to remove this confusion. As part of this combination, detail on the appeal format and procedures before the hearing examiner are also being addressed. ECDC 20.100.040 Review of approved permits ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of approved permits, is a problematic code section in that it is likely noncompliant with state law. See the City Attorney's memorandum in Attachment 2 detailing potential legal issues with this section. Given these concerns, staff is proposing to delete ECDC 20.100.040. To ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) has been added to Chapter 20.110 ECDC - Civil Violation Enforcement Procedure. Development Agreements ECDC 20.01.003, currently identifies the approval process for development agreements (Chapter 20.08 ECDC) as a Type V legislative actions. As part of this update, the City Attorney is proposing to modify the approval process of development agreements to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board which would then make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the development agreement proposal in a closed record hearing format. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with a development agreement. The site specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought Packet Pg. 8 6.A in conjunction with a development agreement. So, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process. It only makes sense to process development agreements as legislative if they are being processed in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment, which seems less likely. Public Comments The City has received one written public comment on the proposed amendments which is included as Attachment 8. Attachments: Attachment 1: Resolution No. 1367 Attachment 2: May 23, 2018 City Attorney Memorandum regarding ECDC 20.100.040 Attachment 3: Chapter 20.01 ECDC Proposed Amendments Attachment 4: Chapter 20.02 ECDC Proposed Amendments Attachment 5: Proposed New Chapter 20.06 ECDC (Combination of current Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC) Attachment 6: Chapter 20.75 ECDC Proposed Amendments Attachment 7: Related amendments throughtout ECDC Attachment 8: Gary Nelson June 10, 2018 Email Packet Pg. 9 6.A.a RESOLUTION NO. 1367 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO REMOVE THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHER VOLUNTEER CITIZEN BOARDS FROM QUASI-JUDICIAL PERMIT PROCESSING TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW UPON ADOPTION OF THE REVISED EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the city has undertaken a comprehensive review of the city's land use permit processing regulations; and WHEREAS, the city council has played a quasi-judicial role in certain land use permits for many years; and WHEREAS, the city council has been deliberating whether to continue serving in that role; and WHEREAS, the city council understands that many citizens want the city council to serve in a quasi-judicial role, believing that the council would be more responsive to the desires of the public than a hearing examiner who is not elected; and WHEREAS, that desire of some of the public underscores one of the main difficulties with theLJ council serving in that role, namely, that the council may be pressured to make a decision that as may be contrary to the standards that the council has adopted to govern such decision -making; a and c� M WHEREAS, that difficulty also increases the legal risk to both city and to the councilmembers themselves; and WHEREAS, council engagement in quasi-judicial decision -making also prevents the city council from being able to freely discuss pending land use matters with constituents and suggests that councilmembers should not testify before the hearing examiner out of concern that they might later need to recuse themselves in the event of an appeal to the city council; and WHEREAS, the city council believes that it can adopt additional procedures that will ensure that the city council stays abreast of pending land use applications and that the public interest in access to justice is adequately addressed; now therefore THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council intends to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the city council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. Packet Pg. 10 6.A.a Section 2. The city council hereby requests that city staff and the planning board prepare and forward to the city council revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code that are consistent with this resolution. RESOLVED this 9ch day of August, 2016. ATTEST: CITY CLERK, S OTT SSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. F EDMONDS YOR, DAVE EARLING August 5, 2016 August 9, 2016 1367 ti to M Packet Pg. 11 6.A.b Date: May 23, 2018 To: Edmonds Planning Board Copy: Kernen Lien From: Jeff Taraday Re: Legal basis for repeal of ECDC 20.100.040 This memo sets forth a legal rationale for the repeal of ECDC 20.100.040. The History of this Section This code section was last amended by Ordinance 3112 in 1996. The code does not indicate what ordinance originally adopted this section. We do know that it existed in a i98o version of the code. Based on this date, we know that it significantly predates the state's adoption of the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.7oB RCW) and the Land Use Petition Act (chapter 36.70C RCW), which were both adopted in 1995• This helps explain the inconsistencies between this section and those state laws. Ordinance 3112 adopted significant amendments to the code in 1996. The ordinance contains 44 pages and 40 sections. The whereas clauses mention the Regulatory Reform Act (chapter 36.7oB RCW) generally, but they do not provide any meaningful legislative intent related to the ECDC 20.100.04o amendments. Only subsection C was amended at that time. And due to the lack of strike -through and underlining, we cannot easily discern what changes were made. The drafters of the 1996 ordinance could have identified the inconsistencies between this section and state law at that time. Their review was so broad, however, that the difficulties in harmonizing this section with the recently adopted state laws probably escaped their attention. And, in defense of the drafters, the courts did not make their reading of these new laws, particularly LUPA, clear until several years later. 1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 12 6.A.b Most of chapter 20.10o ECDC was repealed in 2009 with Ordinance 3736. For reasons that are not yet clear, ECDC 20.100.040 was not repealed at that time. Difficulty Harmonizing with the ReMulatory Reform Act The Regulatory Reform Act requires cities to provide a consolidated permit review process. "The review process shall provide for no more than one consolidated open record hearing and one closed record appeal. If an open record predecision hearing is provided prior to the decision on a project permit, the process shall not allow a subsequent open record appeal hearing." RCW 36.7oB.o6o. Any review of an approved permit under ECDC 20.100.04o necessarily involves review of a permit that has already gone through the City's permit review process, including any applicable opportunity for appeals. Where that process already included a hearing, another hearing under ECDC 20.100.040 could violate the hearing number limits set forth in the Regulatory Reform Act. The Act also states that "[e]ach local government shall adopt procedures to monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions." RCW 36.7oB.16o(3). But that enforcement authority should not necessarily be read as authority to conduct additional hearings, notwithstanding the hearing limits contained in RCW 36.7oB.o6o. The City's enforcement procedures are contained in chapter 20.110 ECDC. Additionally, the City has a process to address nuisances in chapter 6.2o ECC. So, the public interest sought to be protected by ECDC 20.100.040 is largely protected via other provisions of the code, with one notable exception discussed below. Difficulty Harmonizing with the Land Use Petition Act Another problem with ECDC 20.100.040 is that it could suggest to the public that collateral attacks on approved permits are available when they are not. Such collateral attacks conflict with the finality requirement of the Land Use Petition Act. "A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served ...." RCW 36.70C.040(2). The strength of this finality requirement was emphasized in Chelan County. v. Nykreim,146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P•3d 1,15 (2002). In that case, Chelan Country tried to argue that "a county cannot be prevented from revoking an improperly issued land use approval under res Packet Pg. 13 6.A.b judicata or in the interest of administrative finality." Id. The court rejected that argument. Leaving land use decisions open to reconsideration long after the decisions are finalized places property owners in a precarious position and undermines the Legislature's intent to provide expedited appeal procedures in a consistent, predictable and timely manner. As amici curiae point out, if this court allows local government to rescind a previous land use approval without concern of finality, innocent property owners relying on a county's land use decision will be subject to change in policy whenever a new County Planning Director disagrees with a decision of the predecessor director. Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim,146 Wn.2d 904, 933, 52 P•3d 1,15 (2002). We know from the Nykreim case that even an erroneous decision is entitled to finality under LUPA if that decision is not timely challenged. Against this backdrop, one can imagine many situations where application of ECDC 20.100.040 would be impossible to square with LUPA's finality requirement. Whether or not one likes the holding of Nykriem, it is the law of the land and the city's code should be drafted to be consistent with that law. The current code creates unrealistic expectations. There are still situations (where permit conditions are not being met and other means of compliance have failed) where the City would be entitled to revoke a permit. Even so, the revocation language in ECDC 20.100.040 should be revised and relocated to the enforcement chapter. Packet Pg. 14 6.A.c Edmonds Page 1/7 Sections: 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. 20.01.001 Types of actions. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. 20.01.007 Exempt projects. 20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures, decision criteria, public notification, and timing for development project permit application decisions made by the city of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to: 1. Promote timely and informed public participation; 2. Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeals processes; 3. Process permits equitably and expediently; 4. Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors; 5. Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably; and 6. Result in development that furthers city goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan. These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land use permit process. The procedures integrate the environmental review process with land use procedures, decisions, and consolidated appeal processes. B. The provisions of this title supersede all other procedural requirements that may exist in other sections of the city code. When interpreting and applying the standards of this title, its provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where conflicts occur within provisions of this title and/or between this title and other city code provisions and regulations, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text of this title and the zoning map ensue, the text of this title shall prevail. C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city's development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action the deadline shall run until the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed day. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010]. 20.01.001 Types of actions. There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed under the provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by the decision making body, the level of impact associated with the decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type of appeal opportunity. A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are administrative decisions made by the development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director"). Type I permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are clearly enumerated. Type II permits are administrative decisions where the director makes a decision based on standards and clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.97.00406.040.. B. Quasi -Judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of Type II and Type rrr (B only) decisions are quasi- judicial decisions that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of each specific application. Quasi- judicial decisions are made by the hearing examiner, the architectural design board, and/or the city council. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 15 6.A.c Edmonds Page 2/7 C. Legislative Decisions. Type V actions are legislative decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish policies and regulations regarding future private and public developments, and management of public lands. 1. Planning Board. The planning board shall hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing itself on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. 2. City Council. The city council may consider the planning board's recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW 36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council desires to hold a public hearing on area -wide rezones to implement city policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the proposed decision to the planning board for a hearing. 3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in Chapter 20.03 ECDC. 4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010]. 20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type. A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the proper procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher numbered procedure. B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application that involves two or more procedures may be processed collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any part of the application or may be processed individually under each of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The applicant may determine whether the application will be processed collectively or individually. If the applications are processed individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence from the highest numbered to the lowest. C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance with subsection (B) of this section which have the same procedure number, but are assigned to different hearing bodies, shall be heard collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner, architectural design board or planning board, as applicable, and then the director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be processed according to ECDC 20.06.001020. Concurrent public hearings held with the architectural design board and any other decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 16 6.A.c Edmonds Page 3/7 TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TVPE HI-B TVPE IAI A- TYPE IV-B TYPE V Zoning compliance Accessory dwelling Contingent critical area Outdoor dining Essential publie Final €ewmal plat-s Site specific rezone Development letter unit review €ae-ilities agreements Lot line adjustment Formal interpretation of Shoreline substantial Technological Design review (3y were Final planned Development Zoning text the text of the ECDC by development permit, impracticality waiver publi�T agreements amendment; area -wide the director where public hearing for amateur radio .,..ehiteetural design zoning map not required per ECDC antennas bow amendments 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA determinations Critical area variance Comprehensive plan determinations amendments Shoreline exemptions Preliminary short plat Contingent critical area Annexations review if public hearing requested Minor amendments to Land clearing/grading Shoreline substantial V a fia ees Development planned residential development permit, regulations development where public hearing is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Minor preliminary plat Revisions to shoreline Shoreline conditional Home oeeupation amendment management permits use hearing by hearint- Staff design review, Administrative Shoreline variance Preliminary fofma4-plat including signs variances Final short plat Land use permit Essential public Preliminavy planned - extension requests facilities- reside. ial aeve',.pmen Sales office/model Guest house Design review (where public hearing by (ECDC 17.70.005) architectural design board is required Final formal plats Innocent purchaser Conditional use permits (where public hearing determination by hearing examiner is re wired Final planned Variances residential development Home occupation permit (where public The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. C C O .A 0 d G E L d a C E C d E a d y O CL O a` V V W 0 C N L d CL M t V ih C d t 10 r Q r-� C d E t U ca Q Packet Pg. 17 6.A.c Edmonds Page 4/7 hearing by hearing examiner is required) Preliminary formal plat PreliminM planned residential development The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. C C O .A 0 d G .r E L d a y C E C d E a y O CL O L a t� 0 v w r O O N L d Q M t�♦ V M C d t <.i a d E L V a Packet Pg. 18 Edmonds Page 5/7 6.A.c B. Decision Table. N r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 19 6.A.c Edmonds Page 6/7 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I — IV) LEGISLATIVE TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE 11-B TYPE 111-A TVPE H1 B TVPE A' TYPE IV-B TYPE V Recommendation by: N/A N/A N/A N/A NfA N/A Planning board Planning board Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City e0uneil City council City council examiner/ADB examinerADB Notice of application: No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Open record public No Only if appealed, (1) If director Yes, before hearing Yes, before hearing No Yes, before planning Yes, before planning hearing or open record open record hearing decision is appealed, examiner or board to examiner or board board which makes board which makes appeal of a final before hearing open record hearing render final decision render final decision recommendation to recommendation to decision: examiner before hearing council council or council examiner could hold its own (2) If converted to hearing Type III -A process Closed record review: No No No No Yes, e are the No Yes, before the eaaneil council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 20 C C O .A 0 d G E L d a C E C d E a d y O CL O L a t� 0 v w r O O CV L d Q M t�♦ V M C d t <.i a d E L U a 6.A.c Edmonds Page 7/7 C. Any reference to "Type II" in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as "Type II-B" shall be construed to mean Type II -A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. [Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted. Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city's comprehensive plan, or the city's development regulations as part of the annual revision process. [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.007 Exempt projects. A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: historic register designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under ECDC Title 18. B. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city's SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.7013.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures: 1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the permit decision; 2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional consolidated permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B)); 3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.894020); 4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.002060(C)); and 5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06..00920.02.007). [Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 21 6.A.d Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Sections: 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. 20.02.004 Effect of irreconcilable applications on the same property. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. 20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. 20.02.007 Notice of Final Decision Page 1/4 20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference. A. Prior to filing applications for Type II actions requiring a preliminary plat and Type III and IV actions, applicants are encouraged to participate in a preapplication conference. Preapplication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to discuss the proposal in general terms, identify the applicable city requirements and the project review process including the permits required by the action, timing of the permits and the approval process. Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are nonbinding and do not "vest" an application. B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request, upon payment of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution. C. The development services director or his/her designee (hereinafter the "director") shall provide the applicant with the following during the conference: 1. A form which lists the requirements for a completed application; 2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application; 3. The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to approval of the application; and 4. The city's design guidelines. D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the information on the form provided by the director to the applicant under subsection (C) of this section shall bind the city in any manner or prevent the city's future application or enforcement of all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types of applications will be considered on a time -available basis by the director. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.002 Permit application requirements. An application shall consist of all materials required by the applicable development regulations and shall include the following general information: A. A completed land use application form; B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with the consent of all owners of the affected property; C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all applications, as required by the applicable development regulations; D. The applicable fee; and The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 22 6.A.d Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Page 2/4 E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies the applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development regulations. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an application, the director shall mail or personally deliver to the applicant a determination which states that either: 1. The application is complete; or 2. The application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the determination of completeness. C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the applicable development regulations. The determination of completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently complete for review, even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the director's ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project. D. Incomplete Applications. 1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section. 2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the application, which had been previously determined under subsection (A)(1) of this section to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the city prior to the end of the initial 90- day compliance period. 3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the application, and that if the applicant does not make arrangements to pick up the application materials from the planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30 days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be destroyed. 4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city's determination of completeness. E. Director's Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An application shall be deemed complete under this section if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (A) of this section. F. Date of Acceptance of Application. Permit applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing. G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the application. Under no circumstances shall the city place any application on "hold" to be processed at some later date, even if the request for the "hold" is made by the applicant, and regardless of the requested length of the "holding" period. This subsection does not apply to applications placed on "hold" upon determination by the city that additional information is required in order to make a decision. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 23 6.A.d Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Page 3/4 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) of this section, 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 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 20-unit multifamily housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a 30-unit multifamily housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the 20-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space they are irreconcilable and the 20-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. [Ord. 4006 § 1, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 1, 2015]. 20.02.005 Referral and review of development project permit applications. Within 10 days of accepting an application, the director shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment, including those responsible for determining compliance with state and federal requirements. [Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.006 Resubmission of application after denial. 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 12 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. [Ord. 4006 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3992 § 2, 2015; Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009. Formerly 20.07.007]. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 24 6.A.d Edmonds Chapter 20.02 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS Page 4/4 the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a description of any available administrative appeals. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded: 1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the additional information is provided to the city; 2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply; 3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chanter 20.15A ECDC: 4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 dayspen record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a loneer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant: 5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing- C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application: 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation; 2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or 3. Is a Type IV permit process identified in ECDC 20.01.003.A. 4. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 20091. a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Packet Pg. 25 6.A.e Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPEALS Sections: 20.06.000 Genefal. 20.06.000 General 20.06.010 Consolidated appeals 20.06.020 Joint public hearings 20.06.030 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal 20.06.040 Appeals of permit decisions or recommendations 20.06.050 Prehearing conference 20.06.060 Responsibility of director - Open record public hearing 20.06.070 Conflict of interest 20.06.080 Ex parte communications 20.06.090 Disqualification 20.06.100 Burden and nature of proof 20.06.110 Order of proceedings - Predecision open record public hearing 20.06.120 Procedure for an open record appeal hearing 20.06.130 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal 20.06.140 Decisions 20.06.150 Reconsideration of decision 20.06.160 Judicial appeals 20.06.000 General. Page 1115 A. An open record public hearing is a hearing conducted by an authorized body or officer that creates the ems- record_pon which the outcome of a decision or appeal is based through testimony and the submission of documents and other evidence . A public hearing may be held prior to the city's decision on a dev project permit application; this is an "open record predecision hearing." A public hearing may be held on an appeal if no open record predecision hearing was held for tea pefa+4d ision on a project permit application; this is an "open record appeal hearing." B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all gppeals of Type II decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city hearing examiner shall also be subject to the hearing examiner's rules. CA. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal to the city council. Such appeals are decided based on the Dreviouslv created record. i3ermit ^ i3li ation when the While such appeal proceedings g je r ^ra ,�do not allow new testimony, documents or other evidence to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.067-.805130 B).; and a are allowed based upon the record. c 0 .y m E L d IL U U W ti 0 0 N C O to R 0 N L d a M V c d 0 c 0 c E O t� V C V w m 0 0 N L CD a c� z U 3 d z d N O C. O L a m E z U c� Q c d t c� r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 26 Edmonds Page 2/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS shall be as c allowed and described in the matrix set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. N G. Unless other -wise provided, appeals ef Type 11 deeisiens shall be initiated as set fei4h in ECDC 20.07.004. m . 2 nMr 206 n4- n Coosa.,¢ a ^^ice E N IL ,. the ai3f)eal o ^, ure for the 1.iahest t- .^ ,.^ mit ., .,1:,..,ti..n fll.-,1 3917 R ti 2010; • Ord. 3 716 8 A lF..h V W 3817 § c 2010; Ord. 3 736 c n (Exh A), 2009 Foi:...,^,-1 y 20 06 001 ti O N 20.06.0"020 Joint public hearings. A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The development serviees difeeter eF his/her- designee (heFe ^afteF the c � city may Vie -jointly conduct any public hearing on a project permit application with any hearing that o may be held -conducted by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, on the proposed action, as long as N the requirements of subsection (C) of this section are met. L d B. Applicant's Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may request that the city conduct a joint public hearing C with another agency, as described in subsection (A), above, ^n a refrait application be eombined as long as the joint � hearing schedule e would allow a decision to be issued within the applicable time periods set forth in this ehapterTitle 20. rn t-he -A'*^rfia i elf the joint hearing schedule would not allow a decision to be issued within the ` applicable time periods, the applicant may agree in writing to a p -tie 1., . sehe ule if additional time is nee an � extension of the applicable time periods in order to ^^mph^'^ the heaFingsallow a joint public hearingto be conducted. ,F 0 c 0 C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing may be held with another local, state, regional, federal or other agency and the city, when: E 1 The etheF agree - Doing so is not expressly prohibited by statute r~�; V 2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencyies' applicable notice V C requirements as set forth in st « es ^,.,1:.,ances or rules; w 3. The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant in enough R time to hold its hearing at the same time as the city hearing; o and N 4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the city. Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010]. L 2 AGAMM06.030 Standing to initiate an administrative anneal. U A. Standing Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may file an administrative anneal. z B. Definition. The term "parties of record," for the purposes of this chapter, shall mean: d N 1. The applicant: 0 CL 0 L 2. Any person who testified at thean open record public hearing on the subject application, a 3. Any person who ' submitted written comments concerning the subject application -ate „blie w^arinT (or to stag ifa a ^.,1 of a TvBe rr PROVIDED THAT. P-persons who E have only signed a petitions are not "parties of record:" and/or U c� 4. The city of Edmonds. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. Q 20AGAW06.040 Anneals of project permit decisions mendAtions. E An administrative a gals of a decision on a project permit deeisia gpplication- on a ^fmit a -Blue lie shall be governed by the following: r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 27 6.A.e Edmonds Page 3/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Standine. O i.. narties of record have st dine to a-Di3eal the hears,,g body's deeision[reserved]` o An B. Time to File. An anneal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the heafififf bo&'swritten decision on 0 a project permit application. The anneal period for determinations of nonsignificance, shall be extended for an m additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 43.21 C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as -9^f' of the ^-peal Mein relation to the applicable project permit E desisieaMplication. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city's development services department by d a mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were V mailed or postmarked. V w ti C. Computation of Time. For the poses of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday. Sunday, legal holiday designated N by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city's development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed on the next day that is not a Saturday. Sunday, holiday or closed day. to 0 N D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required anneal fee as set forth in the city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information: L a M 1. Appellant's name. address, email address, and phone number- V 2. A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal: d 3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal- L 0 4- 0 4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based c to the faets in the r-efer-enees feeefd; 5. The specific relief sought• E 0 6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and believes the contents to be true, followed by the 0 a pellant's signature. V C 7. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by w 11 inches), with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller m than 12-point), single sided. 0 N E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the ecision on the project permit qPplication until L such time as the anneal is resolved or withdrawn. cad z U F. Notice of Appeal. The deve op ,irector (hereinafter the "direeter!�)7shall provide niaiWwritten_ 3 notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07,00306.020. [Ord. 3 & 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 & d z 4 (Exh. A), 20091. d N G. Multiple appeals. More than one appeal maybe filed concerning the same decision on a project 0 CL permit application. o a 20.06.050 Prehearing Conference 'n A. The Hearing Examiner may on his or her own order, or at the request of the city, applicant or appellant, hold m E cone or more conferences prior to the hearing to consider: c� 1. Identification, clarification, and simplification of the issues; Q 2. Disclosure of witnesses to be called and exhibits to be presented; d 3. MetieesThe scheduling or hearing of motions that any party would like to have considered; E t c� r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 28 Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 4/15 4. Other matters deemed by the Hearing Examiner appropriate for orderly and expeditious disposition of the c proceedings. .y 0 B. Prehearing conferences may be held by telephone conference all. p C. The Hearing Examiner shall ,give notice to all parties of record of any prehearing conference to be held. Notice E may be written 9. a) IL D. All parties of record shall be FemesenleAparticipate atin any prehearing conference unless they « aive the r to be presen4 E)r _eigesen* era they are granted permission by the Hearing Examiner not to a#exdparticiapate. � Failure to participate without such permission may result in that party's waiver of issues adjudicated during the w prehearing conference and/or dismissal of the appeal.- c E. Followine the nrehearing conference. the Hearine Examiner shall issue an order reciting the actions taken or N ruline on motions made at the conference. 20.06.003060 Responsibility of director for hearing - Open Record Public Hearing. The director shall: A. Schedule project permit applications for review and public hearing; B. Verify compliance with notice requirements; C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a single report which sets forth all of the decisions made on the proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations on project permit applications in the consolidated permit process that do not by themselves require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city's development regulations or SEPA authority. If the threshold determination, other than a determination of significance, has not been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or append this determination; D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by this chapter to receive the decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.06.003070 Conflict of interest. The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics, prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of fairness doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36 RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.06.004080 Ex parte communications. A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or her, other than to participate in communications regarding procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly process, unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue. B. If, before serving as -on the hearing body in a quasi-judicial proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication of a type that could not properly be received while serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose the communication as described in subsection (C) of this section. C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place in the record: 1. All written communications received; 2. All written responses to the communications; 3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all responses made; and The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 29 6.A.e Edmonds Page 5115 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. The identity of each person from whom the member received any ex parte communication. c An The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Upon request made after 0 m notice of the ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on the record. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. L 20.06.005090 Disqualification. IL a A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure to the audience of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearing room. V U B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members w present, after stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be prequalified and deliberations shall proceed. [Ord. R 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. N 20.06.006100 Burden and nature of proof. A. Except for Type V actions and; appeals ^v r.Te rr .,^«:^ns and elesea Fecera .,..peal the burden of proof is on the proponent. The devehTfaer#-project permit application must be supported by convincing pfee gvidence in the record that it conforms to the applicable elements of the city's development regulations and eempf-eheasive plan (review criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant adverse environmental impacts have been adequately mitigated. B. In an appeal of Type rr actions of elose r^e^r-a appeal, the appellant has the burden of proof with respect to points raised on appeal. r-egar-ding deeisio review within its o pei4ise and con4ained : its deeis ons. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.06.W110 Order of proceedings — Predecision Open Record Public Hearing. The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by administrative procedures and/or hearing examiner rules as appropriate. A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue, the following shall be determined: 1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on the record and if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed or terminate the proceeding; 2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined. B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly known and accepted information, such as: 1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted development standards, and state and federal law; 2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law. C. Order of presentation. The order of presentation for predecision open record public hearings shall generally proceed as follows: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 30 6.A.e Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Hearing Examiner's or hearing body's introductory statement; 2. Departme�Staff presentation; 3. Applicant's presentation; 4. Public eewAmentstestimony on proposal; 5. Response from staff (if any); 6. Rebuttal from applicant (if an)); 67. Questions of staff, applicant, or other persons submitting testimony; -78. Deliberation by hearing body if applicable; Page 6/15 D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection C, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order established if the hearing body deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the hearing body's approval. E. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presumptions(s) established by applicable law(s). GF. Information officially noticed need not be proved by submission of formal evidence to be considered by the hearing body. Parties requesting official notice of any information shall do so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of matters listed in subsection (B) of this section at any time. Any information given official notice may be rebutted. PG. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or planning area with or without notification to the parties, but shall put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and circumstances of the site visit and any relevant observations made during the visit. EH. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons attending -participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, many such questions will be asked of per-sns submitting to through the presiding officer. EI. When the presiding officer has closed the public ant estimony portion of the hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting informationtestimony. An opportunity to present rebuttal testimony shall be provided if new information is presented in -through the questioning. When all evidence has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the presiding officer shall officially close the record and end the hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. c 0 An 0 am E L d IL The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 31 6.A.e Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 20.06.120 Procedure for open record appeal hearing. Page 7/15 A. Appeal hearings shall have a structured format and shall be conducted in a manner deemed by the Hearing_ Examiner to make the relevant evidence most readily and efficiently available to the Hearing Examiner and to provide the parties a fair opportunity for hearing_ B. Where the code provides that the appellant has the burden of proof to overcome the City decision being_ appealed, the order of hearing is generally as follows: 1. Hearing Examiner's introductory statement; 2. Parties' opening statements (pptienalif allowed by hearing examiner); 3. Appelant's presentation of evidence and argument; 4. Department's presentation of evidence and argument; 5. Applicant's presentation of evidence and argument (if applicant is not the appellant); 6. Appelant's presentation of rebuttal evidence and argument; 7. Closing argument of parties (if allowed by hearing examiner); C. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection B, the order of hearing may be modified or a different order established if the Hearing Examiner deems necessary for the clear and fair presentation of evidence. The order of the hearing may also be modified as agreed upon by the parties with the Hearing Examiner's approval. D. The order of presentation at hearing shall not alter or shift any burden(s) or presl=tions(s) established by applicable law(s). E. Information shall be received from the staff and from proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her discretion, permit persons participating in the hearing to ask questions of other participants. Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, appreyed-questions will be asked of per-sens submitting - testa,^.... bythrough the presiding officer. 2M6.1307-.W Procedure for closed record hearings, A. Closed record ap»ealshearinQs shall be argued and decided based on the record established at the open record hearing before the he rine i..o&'oFa^or whose decision ; appealed, which shall include the written deeisioxrecommendation of the hearing bodv/officer. conies of anv exhibits admitted into the record. and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings. 1. At his/her own expense, a party of record may have the official tape recording of the open record hearing transcribed; however, to be adw,44ed in4e the r-eeeF considered during the closed record hearing, the transcription must be peffaggoprepared and certified by a court reporter or a transcriber that is Are- a proved by the city. In addition. the ^mod-transc6ption must be received by the city directly from the transcriber at least 16 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record revie hearing. It shall be each party of record's responsibility to obtain a copy of the transcription from the city. 2. The director shall maintain a list of pre -approved transcribers t a are eetH4 apple ed; and if needed, shall coordinate with parties je4he7appefl4of record so that no more than one official transcription is ,.d-mit.oa iin'^'n^ d )laced before the city council. B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the city council except: (1)new information required to rebut the substance of any written or oral ex parte communicationreyidedthat is placed on the record during an appearance of fairness disclosure: ^^a 2) relev n4 information that i the opinion of t1h ^ * ^' imr-oi3erly excluded by the hearing body�offieen _ O .y m E L d IL U U w ti 0 0 N _ M to 0 0 N L d a M U c d L 0 _ 0 c E O U U C U w m 0 0 N L c� z U 3 d z d N O a O L a m z U M Q c d E t c� r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 32 Edmonds Page 8/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS .,t the information . xelu e.l h., the he.,rine hodv/o ffieer and the reason w-h., the heerine h...l to ff:eer erred in _ 0 ..eh,.line the information.2. fq d in determinine whether- the i forfna4 on should he admitted. the e;tv e e;l o es;,le«t fn e est ether ...,.-ties eF to s «ts reh„tting the se by the e;ty e e;l Non fivewer-kin fespo submit written above president within ,..1.,..s of the initial,- est that the i f:.Fm tion he fna e ,3ert of the r e ,lershalle t:tt.,Fth „s„e ^ eetign e c�c L &wRe. N a C. Parties tozhe appcalof record may present written arguments to the city council. Arguments shall ,leser e address the applicable decision criteria with specific references to U the administrative record. w eivti e e e r th,1 R c N D. While written arguments are not required. appeU ^tparties of record may submit hi"ff4wf-written argumentno later than 12 working days before the date scheduled for the closed record Feviehearing. Parties of recorder _ M fee the appell^„t. may submit written arguments or respond in writing to ^^HH opening arguments no R later than seven working days before the closed record reiewhearing��tParties may rebut in writing to responses submitted by parties of record no later than four working days before the closed record rehearing. If N L he e ere e tha- two . e ,lsthe elese,l r ,1 r Q- afki ys fete M M E. Written arguments, responses. and rebuttals and s,.rreh,.ttels must be received by the city's development services Q department by mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 p.m. of the date due. Late submittals shall not be accepted. d Submittals received by mail after 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the appeal period will not be acceptedno matter when such submittals were mailed or postmarked. it shall he the r sib lit., of the s^rt;e^ ; .elyod to ehte;« f6f their 0 c 0 F. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11). with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12). single sided. double spaced and without exceeding 12 pages in length, including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not E E already in the record shall not be allowed. 0 V G. The review shall commence with the resolution of appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the V C opportunity for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records, including the appellant. After the 0 presentations, the city council may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of record, with an w opportunity for the director, appellant and/or applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council shall not request information outside the administrative record. If the city council believes that it needs information not N contained in the record to make a proper decision on the application, it may remand the application to have the record reopened for that limited purpose. Q- c� z If information outside the administrative record is offered (in written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of V record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide d justification in support of the objection. Objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought Z before the city council begins deliberations. The party offering the information shall have the opportunity to show w where in the record said information is contained. 0 a H. The city council shall dete...,,;re whether the aereview the 64enrecommendation by the hearing body/officer i-s- 0 a eleafiv eFfelaeousde novo giyMbased on the evidence in the record. The 64V a e;l shall affifffl. adifV of e e e Ln e .leersion of the he.,rine hs,.i to ff;eer s or -di eW U-no , written s e„t by the applicant to waive the h., d reauiremen4 for a decision within the time-Deriods set forth i RCW 36.70B.080. as all -wed RCW E 36 ''n As it deems necessary, tnstructions to the hearing body to reopen the hearing to obtainfer additional information on a subject that is relevant to the decision criteria_1. Q Notiee of Final Deeision oft Closed Reeofd A-Bi3eal. The difeetoF shall issue a natiee of final deeision on elesed c d ..Fd s eel i the m a et feAh and to the i3efsefis ;.le«t;f:e.l ;.. L`!'Tll� 20 nti 00902 997 rn,-d 3 1'7 R K In n. Fee OF& 3 736 R n ( xh n4 20 v cv r r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 33 6.A.e Edmonds Page 9/15 Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS 20.06.008140 Decision. a 0 A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC 20.06.007110, or-ECDC 20.06.120, or ECDC 20.06.130, the N hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing body shall affirm, reverse or; prohibition against two er-d he^^^^s, remand the decision for additional information. 'E L d B. The hearing body's written decision shall be issued within 10 working days after the close of record of the a hearing and within 90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is agreed to by the parties. Where the record is voluminous, the hearing body inform the parties during the hearing that more than 10 working p days will be necessary to render a decision. V w ti C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in ECDC 20.0602.0096. 0 N D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an application within the time limits provided for in this section, it shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons M to why the time limits have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of decision. [Ord. 3817 § 5, R 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. c N E 20.06�.009—Notleeo* final deeision-. [RELOCATE TO ECDC 20.02.0071 +; A. The dir-eetor shall issue a notioe of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the detefmination of a M on a pr-elifainar-y plat shall be 90 days, fer- a final plat 30 days, and a final shoft plat 30 days. The netiee shall inehidee the SEPA thfeshold deter-minatien for- the proposal and a deser-iption of any available administfative appeals. For - Type 11, M and 1V pemiits, the notiee shall eantain the r-eqiiir-ements set fafth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affeeted property owners may r-eqiiest a change in pr-apeFty tax valuation not -withstanding any program of r-eva �. c d L V 1, ..t;on. 0 1. The notice of final deeision shall be mailed or other -wise delivered to the applicant, to any per -son who- 0 ++ C Cetinty- assessef. E 0 ci decision,B. in calculating the 120 day period for issuance of the notice of final or other decision period specifiedV subsection (A) of this section the following per-iods shall be excluded: W W O 1. Any period dtifing w-hiek the appliean4 has been r-eqiiested by the dif:eetar- to eeFFeet plans, perform requir-ed O N L studies,shall notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director deter -mines �+ Q. M that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the z 3 aD z M �11 apply• toshallshall 0 Q. 0 3. Any period during w-hieh an environmen4al impaot statement (EIS4 is being prepared ptffsuan4 to Chapter L a . ...te a - ---.. --- �.��•"Y .�.� �... �..� - ...,--.... a--., ..��.. Y.....,.� -..- Y--r----.,.- ..- ».- -a._. ..., b...-1 Chapter 20.15A ECDC; Ln C d be than 90 days for 60 days for v permits, which shall not more open reeord appeals and closed reeord M „less ., longer period agreed to by the director and the ., „1;oant• +�+ Q 5. Any extension of time nwtually agreed to by the director and the applicant in Vffiting. C E C. The time limits established in this title do net apply if a appliemiew t per-mit v to r r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 34 Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 10115 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation; c 0 An 3. is substantially revised by the applicant, inv�,hieh ease the tifne period shall start from the date diat a ++ determination of eompleteness foF the revised applioation is issued by the diFeetoF pufsttant to ECDC 20.02.003 E tea R-CW 36 menu .- non rna 381'7 § c 2010; O -a 3 7 6 § n (Ex n ) 2009] d ., 20.06.040150 Reconsideration of decision. A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.00306.020 as having standing to file an administrative appeal may request reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues immediately after the open record public hearing on a permit application described in this chapter. (There shall be no reconsideration of a decision of the director (staff), ADB or city council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to: 1. Error(s) of procedure; 2. Error(s) of law or fact; 3. Error(s) of judgment; and/or 4. The discovery of new evidence that was not known and could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered. B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including reconsideration fee, must be filed with the director within 10 calendar days of the issuance of the hearing examiner's written decision. Such requests shall be delivered to the director before 4:00 p.m. on the last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for reconsideration that are received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked. C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the hearing examiner's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the reconsideration is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration may be filed on the next business day. D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required reconsideration fee, and contain the following information: 1. The name, address, email address, and phone number of the requestor; 2. Identification of the application and final decision which is the subject of the request for reconsideration; 3. Requestor's statement of grounds for reconsideration and the facts upon which the request is based; 4. The specific relief requested; 5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the request to be true, followed by his/her signature. 6. All written submittals should be typed or electronically formatted on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one -inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided. E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration shall stay the hearing examiner's decision until such time as the hearing examiner issues a decision on reconsideration. F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration has been filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.0036.020. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 35 Edmonds Chapter 20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 11115 G. Hearing Examiner's Action on Request. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration c without a hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record. A decision on the request for N reconsideration shall be issued within 10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by the city. 1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the same for all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a motion for reconsideration. a`) IL 2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is waived. ., U 3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded to the hearing examiner by the city council is not subject to a motion for reconsideration. H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration. The hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration based on the administrative record compiled on the application up to and including the date of the hearing examiner's decision. The hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and the hearing examiner's decision. The reconsideration decision issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the hearing examiner's decision. I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.062.009007. �0.8 &"06.160 Judicial apa e T-Having exhausted any available administrative gpl2eals, the cit 's final decision on an application may be a ealed by a ...... v of record with stand r^ 4by fAec ommencing a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be f4edcommenced .., hif '" a...,-; after- issuance as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 & 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. ot1]. r-eeensider-atien was tifnely filed, then anyjudioial appeal must be filed within 21 days after- issuanee of the deeision The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 36 Edmonds Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Page 12/15 _ O .y d E L d IL U 20.07.0033 Standing to initiate .. administrative a ea U . W 0 20.07 006 1adicial appeals— G 20.07 007 n, e i a (f tiye until September 13, 01) N 20.07 007 Resubmission ,.v.,..pliea4ion (f tiye a ter r �.Mb e 13, 201 s) _ c0 to 20.07.001 Appeals of decisions. c u appeal" theN L d ++ M ar-gidm@nt all- i t F �rr�r �n ni nn� [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. L 0 0 c� _ €arm ci U C W c m 0 0 N L Q. M z Z , 29944 f/! O C. O L. (L W) m z M Q E z c� r Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 37 Edmonds Page 13/15 Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 38 Edmonds Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Page 14/15 Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 39 Edmonds Chapter 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS Page 15115 20.0700 7 Resubmission September 13, 2015). of application (effective until O n z-rnC 203992 a § 2736 § n 2009] eedifi d t 02 00 [OFd. 3817 6, 2010; OF4. (Ex ) y 20 n-7 00 7 Resubmission Sept ,..,beF 13, 2015). •Ci of application (effective until n �GDG n n6 x„ 0r n ' [O -a 381 �7 § rcBE6L�JtB£Z �6}vcoc��l-vz�vvvy--�T-c��-r� � 2nl n. 0f 3 736 § n ( x n � 2009i p , , , E L d Am. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 40 6.A.f Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Sections: 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. 20.75.020 Purposes. 20.75.025 Scope. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. 20.75.035 Compliance required. 20.75.040 Application. 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. 20.75.055 Lot combination. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit. 20.75.075 Modifications. 20.75.080 General findings. 20.75.085 Review criteria. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. 20.75.105 Repealed. 20.75.107 Preliminary approval — Time limit extension for previously approved short plats. 20.75.110 Changes. 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. 20.75.155 Review of final plat. 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. 20.75.175 Court review. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. 20.75.185 Penalties. Page 1/14 20.75.010 Citation of chapter. This chapter may be cited as the City of Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance and shall supplement and implement the state regulations of plats, subdivisions and dedications found in Chapter 58.17 RCW. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017] 20.75.020 Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are: A. To regulate the subdivision of land and to promote the public health, safety and general welfare in accordance with state standards to prevent overcrowding of land; B. To lessen congestion in the streets and highways; C. To facilitate adequate provisions for water, utilities, sewerage, storm drainage, parks and recreation areas, sites for schools and playgrounds, and other public requirements; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 41 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 2/14 D. To provide for proper ingress and egress, while minimizing impervious surfaces; E. To require uniform monumenting of subdivisions and accurate legal descriptions of subdivided lots; F. To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development; G. To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources including solar and geothermal; H. To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and sidewalks. [Ord. 4085 § 18 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.025 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all divisions of land for any purpose except those set forth in RCW 58.17.040, including but not limited to: A. Divisions for cemetery plots or other burial plots; B. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or by the laws of descent; C. Divisions for the purpose of lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land and the city of Edmonds has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with this chapter. Divisions under subsections (A) and (B) of this section will not be recognized as lots for building purposes unless all applicable requirements of this chapter are met. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.030 Subdivision defined. A. "Subdivision" means a division of land into lots of any size for the purpose of sale. The term subdivision includes all resubdivisions of land, short subdivisions, and formal subdivisions. The term "lot" includes tracts, parcels, sites and divisions. The term "sale" includes lease gift or development or any purpose not excepted in this section. When reference to "subdivision" is made in this code, it is intended to refer to both "formal subdivision" and "short subdivision" unless one or the other is specified. B. "Formal subdivision" means a subdivision of five or more lots. C. "Short subdivision" means a subdivision of four or fewer lots. D. "Unit lot subdivision" means a subdivision or short subdivision of land under ECDC 20.75.045 where compliance with the development standards is evaluated with respect to the parent lot, not the unit lot. E. "Parent lot' means the lot with legal lot status which establishes the exterior boundary of a unit lot subdivision. F. "Unit lot' means a portion of a parent lot, the fee of which may be independently transferred upon recording of a unit lot subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.035 Compliance required. Any person wishing to create a subdivision or lot line adjustment must first comply with this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.040 Application. Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the community development services director on forms provided by the community development department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 42 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 3/14 A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat and the number of prints required by the community development department; B. Title report; C. A survey map, if required by the eonmiunitydevelopment services director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option; D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC; E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant; F. Source of water supply and name of supplier; G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used; H. Other information that may be required by the eemm*nityLdevelopment services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 62, 2009; Ord. 2379 § 1, 1983]. 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of ECDC Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouse, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: multiple residential, general commercial, and Westgate mixed -use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. C. Association with Site Development — Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a development site plan as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC, or in the case described in ECDC 20.10.020(B)(3) submitted in conjunction with or subsequent to a building permit. D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 20.75.030(E)) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16. As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turn-arounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such requirements, and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards. E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 43 6.A.f Edmonds Page 4/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS F. Homeowners' Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners' association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners association must be submitted for recording with the final plat. G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance agreement must require equal participation by all owners within any one building and must be recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes. H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat. I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot must be noted on the final plat. J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.050 Lot line adjustment — Application. A. Lot Line Adjustment Defined. A lot line adjustment is an alteration of lot lines between platted or unplatted lots or both, which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division. B. Lot Line Adjustment Exempt from Subdivision Review. Except as otherwise provided in this section, lot adjustments shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter. C. Lot Line Adjustment Review. All proposals for lot line adjustments shall be submitted to the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee for approval. The Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee shall approve the proposed lot line adjustment unless the manager or his/her designee certifies in writing that the proposed adjustment will: 1. Create a new lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 2. Reduce the setbacks of existing structures below the minimum required by code or make existing nonconforming setbacks of existing structures more nonconforming than before; 3. Reduce the lot width or lot size below the minimum required for the applicable zone; 4. Transform a nonbuildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division into a buildable lot, tract, parcel, site or division; 5. Would otherwise result in a lot which is in violation of any requirement of the ECDC. D. Application. A lot line adjustment application shall be submitted on forms provided by the city and shall at a minimum contain the following information: 1. One copy of dimensioned plans on the official city of Edmonds lot line adjustment form. The dimensioned plans shall be prepared and stamped by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington and shall conform to city of Edmonds survey requirements, as promulgated by the Edmonds planning division. Information on the plans shall include the following: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 44 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 5/14 a. Legal descriptions of the existing lots and proposed lot line adjustment(s); b. The location of all existing structures on the subject parcel(s), including dimensioned setback information from all existing and proposed lot lines and ingress/egress easements; c. Locations of all existing ingress/egress and utility easements; d. Gross lot area for the original parcels and the proposed parcels (gross lot area does not include any lot area devoted to vehicular ingress/egress easements); e. The existing zoning of the subject parcel(s); f. Location of all existing driveways on the subject parcel(s); and g. The lot lines of adjoining properties for a distance of at least 50 feet. 2. A title company certification which is not more than 30 calendar days old containing: a. A legal description of the total parcel(s) sought to be adjusted; b. A list of those individuals, corporations, or other entities holding an ownership interest in the parcel(s); c. Any easements or restrictions affecting the property(ies) with a description, purpose and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; d. Any encumbrances on the property; and e. Any delinquent taxes or assessments on the property. E. Fee. The application fee shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. F. Expiration. An application for a lot line adjustment shall expire one year after a complete application has been filed with the city. An extension up to an additional year may be granted by the Edmonds planning manager or his/her designee upon a showing by the application of reasonable cause. G. Review. A certified determination of the planning manager or his/her designee may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision as set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 63, 2009; Ord. 3211 § 1, 1998]. 20.75.055 Lot combination. A. Lot Combination Defined. A lot combination is the combination of two or more legal, illegal, or nonconforming lots into one or more lots, all of which comply with the provisions of this code in effect at the time of said combination. B. An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments. C. Lot combinations shall be approved as a matter of right unless the development services director finds that the combination of lots would: 1. Not result in legal conforming lot; and/or 2. Not be in compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The director shall, as a part of his decision, determine whether or not the lots, as combined, negatively impact compliance with the city's urban density requirements as established pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, comprehensive plan and the Snohomish County planning policies. D. The director's decision shall be issued in writing and shall be mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the site. Appeal may be taken from the director's decision within 10 working days of mailing of the decision and posting The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 45 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 6/14 thereof in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 64, 2009; Ord. 3296 § 2, 20001. 20.75.060 Required information on preliminary plats. A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an 8-1/2-by-11-inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat: A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision; B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; D. A vicinity sketch; E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number; F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot; G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any; H. Lot dimensions and numbers; I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site; J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property; K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the eemmunit development services director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision; L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets; M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any; N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the plannin development services director; O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed; P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas; Q. A statement of improvements to be installed; R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 46 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division; T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision; Page 7/14 U. Other information that may be required by the development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3296 § 1, 2000. Formerly 20.75.055.]. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The development services director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise. B. Notice of Hearing. 1. When the director of development services has accepted a subdivision for filing, he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC 20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision: a. One publication in a newspaper of general circulation within Snohomish County pursuant to Chapter 1.03 ECC and posting notice in three conspicuous places within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed formal subdivision not less than 10 working days prior to the hearing. b. Mailing to a city if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent or within one mile of the city's boundary, or the proposed subdivision would use the utilities of the city. c. Mailing to the county if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to the city -county boundary. d. Mailing to the State Department of Highways if a proposed formal subdivision is adjacent to a state highway right-of-way. e. The notice must include a legal description and either a vicinity location sketch or a location description in nonlegal language. C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 120 days from the date of filing. D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of development services shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the conununity development services director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3783 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 1983]. 20.75.070 Formal subdivision — Time limit. The city eouneil shall make its final decision on a proposed formal subdivision within 90 days of the date of filing, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time. Where applicable, additional time needed to prepare and circulate an environmental impact statement shall not be included within said 90 days. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3783 § 13, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 13, 2010]. 20.75.075 Modifications. A. Request. Request for a modification to a requirement of this chapter shall be made on the regular subdivision application form. The applicant shall state reasons to support the approval of the requested modification. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 47 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 8/14 B. Notice. The notice of the public hearing at which the applicant's proposed subdivision will be considered shall contain a description of the proposed modification. C. Consideration. The proposed modification shall be considered in the same manner as the proposed subdivision. The modification may be approved, or recommended for approval, only if all of the required findings set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC (Variances) can be made. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 6, 1998]. 20.75.080 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. 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. C. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter. D. Floodplain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code relating to floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2466, 1984]. 20.75.085 Review criteria. The following criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: 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 floodplains, 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 subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section. 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. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 48 6.A.f Edmonds Page 9/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS 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. 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 ECDC, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access. This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the eemnTanity-development services director, the public works director, and the fire chief. 3. The use of septic systems may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: a. It is more than 200 feet, multiplied by the number of lots in the proposed subdivision, from the nearest public sewer main to the nearest boundary of the land to be divided. b. The land to be divided is zoned RS-20. c. The public works director and city health officer determine that soil, drainage and slope conditions are satisfactory for septic use and that all requirements of WAC 248-96-090 are met. E. Floodplain Management. All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for floodplain management. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 7, 1998; Ord. 2466, 1984]. 20.75.090 Park land dedication. A. Dedication or In -Lieu of Fee Required. 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. B. Proposal of Dedication. Either the applicant or the city may propose dedication of a portion of the land to be divided in order to meet the regulations of this section. Payment of in -lieu fees is required unless dedication is proposed and approved. C. Review of Dedications. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed at the same time as the subdivision proposal. Any short subdivision containing a dedication proposal shall be reviewed as if it were a formal subdivision. D. Factors for Review. Dedication proposals shall be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan, and the Recreational Walks Plan. Other factors to be considered include size, usability and accessibility of the land proposed for dedication, and the possibility of coordinating dedication by owners of adjacent land. E. In -Lieu Fee. In -lieu park fees shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 49 Edmonds Page 10/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS 20.75.100 Preliminary approval — Time limit. A. Approval of a preliminary plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of the time period established under RCW 58.17.140, unless the applicant has acquired final plat approval prior to the expiration date established under RCW 58.17.140. The time period for subdivisions shall commence upon the date of preliminary plat approval by the issuance of a written decision by the Edmonds hearing examiner. In the event that the decision of the hearing y examiner is appealed to the Edmends eiyy eouneil anE 4or Snohomish County superior court, the time period shall 0 commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary plat decision by the ^' r-judiciary. a B. Approval of a short plat shall expire and have no further validity at the end of seven five years ifpFelim naFy 2 issued on or- after- r.,n,,ary , 2n, n unless the applicant has acquired final short plat approval within the specified � time period. The time period for short plats shall commence upon the issuance of a final, written staff decision. In the event that the decision of staff is appealed to the Edmonds hearing examiner and/or Snohomish County superior M CY court, the time period shall commence upon the date of final confirmation of the preliminary short plat decision by , the hearing examiner or judiciary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3925 § 1, 2013]. c Y 20.75.105 Extensions of time. Repealed by Ord. 3190. [Ord. 2379 § 4, 1983]. 0 20.75.107 PFeli al Time limit extension fof! pf!eviously appr-oved short plats effeefive date of the ordinanee eedified in this seefien shall have theif prmehminafy appr-ovals automatieally extend m sueh shaft plats shall expir-e and have no f4ther—validity at the end of t-we years ftem the effeetive date of the E L d - - a time period. Notiee of the two year- extension ftem the eff-eetive date of the ar-dinanee eedified in this seetion shall be provided to the pafties Of FeeE)Fd of sueh pFelifninar-y shoFt plats. [04 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), ; c 2013]. 20.75.110 Changes. c E A. Preliminary Plats. The conmiunity development services director may approve as a Type II decision (Staff Q decision — Notice required) minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, or its conditions of approval. If the d proposal involves additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding property, or c other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application. Application fees c shall be as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. a B. Recorded Final Plats. An application to change a final plat that has been filed for record shall be processed in the V V same manner as a new application. This section does not apply to affidavits of correction. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), w 2017; Ord. 3736 § 66, 2009]. LO 20.75.120 Review of improvement plans. 0 cL A. Timing. If improvements are required as a condition of preliminary approval of a subdivision, the applicant shall a submit the improvement plan to the director of public works for review and approval, allowing sufficient time for proper review before expiration of the preliminary plat approval. t� B. Engineered Design. All improvement plans shall be prepared, dated, signed and sealed by a licensed engineer co registered in the state of Washington, unless the public works director determines that engineer plans are not necessary. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. t 20.75.130 Installation of improvements. Q A. Timing and Inspection Fee. The applicant shall not begin installation of improvements until the public works director has approved the improvement plans, the public works director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an inspection fee, as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. M B. Completion — Bonding. The applicant shall either complete the improvements before the final plat is submitted Q for city mil -approval, or the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 50 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 11/14 the improvements within one year of the approval of the final plat. The bond or surety shall be based on the construction cost of the improvement as determined by the director of public works, and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 17.10 ECDC. C. Acceptance — Maintenance Bond. The director of public works shall not accept the improvements for the city of Edmonds until the improvements have been inspected and found satisfactory, and the applicant has posted a bond or surety for 15 percent of the construction cost to guarantee against defects of workmanship and materials for two years from the date of acceptance. D. Short Subdivision — Deferred Installation. If the development services director determines that installation of improvements will not be needed at the time of the approval of the final plat of the short subdivision, the improvements shall be installed or guaranteed by bond before issuance of any development permit for any lot shown on the preliminary plat. This condition shall be stated on the final plat, and shall be binding on all later owners of lots created by the subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.135 Preparation of final plat. A final plat is a final, precise drawing of a subdivision which conforms to the approved preliminary plat, and meets all conditions of the preliminary approval and all requirements of this chapter. It shall be prepared in accordance with the following: A. Surveyor. A professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington shall prepare, or supervise the preparation of, the final plat. B. Survey. The surveyor shall survey the land to be divided, and as much of the section(s) in which the land is located as is needed to properly orient the land within the section(s). C. Monuments. The surveyor shall set monuments at street intersections, lot and block corners, boundary angle points, points of curbs in streets, controlling corners on the boundaries of the land, and other points as required by the public works director. The type of monuments and the method of setting shall be as specified by the public works director. D. Standards. The public works director shall set standards for the preparation of final plats. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.140 Final plat — Required certificates. The following certificates shall be shown on the final plat. Subsections (A) through (G) of this section shall be signed by the indicated person before the final plat is submitted for review. Subsection (G) of this section is required for formal subdivision only. A. Surveyor. The surveyor shall place his seal and signature on the plat along with: 1. A statement certifying that the plat was prepared by him, or under his supervision; 2. A statement certifying that the plat is a true and correct representation of the land surveyed; 3. A full and correct description of the land to be divided. B. Owner. The owner shall certify that the subdivision has been made with his free consent and according to his desires. Owners of other interests shown on the title report shall certify that they have notice of the subdivision. C. Dedications. A certificate of dedication by the owner for all areas to be dedicated to the public, acknowledged by a notary. D. Waiver of Claims. A statement by the owner waiving all claims for damages against any governmental authority which may arise from the construction, drainage and maintenance of required improvements. E. Waiver of Access. If required by the conditions of the preliminary approval, a waiver by the owner of direct access to any street from any property. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 51 Edmonds Page 12/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS F. Roads Not Dedicated. A statement or other clear indication by the owner if any street is not to be dedicated to the public. G. Health Officer. A statement by the city of Edmonds health officer certifying that the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply are adequate. H. Director of Public Works. The following statements to be signed by the director of public works: 1. A statement approving the survey date, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way, design of bridges, sewage and water system and other structures; and approving the final plat or short subdivision. I. y-Development Services Director. The following statements to be signed by the community development director: 1. A statement that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval; and approving the final plat or shore subdivision. c L •eatmeil plat of a formal s4division or- a short s0division with a . a K. Taxes. A statement to be signed by the county treasurer that all taxes and delinquent assessments for which the U) land to be divided may be liable as of the date of the signing of the statement have been paid. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. c m 20.75.145 Final plat — Accompanying material. E The following material shall be submitted to the director of public works with the final plat: < A. Review Fee. A review fee for the final plat as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC shall be paid for each check or recheck d o of the final plat. c L a B. Survey Notes. Complete field and computation notes of the plat survey showing the original or reestablished C) corners with descriptions and the actual traverse showing error of closure and method of balancing. A sketch V showing all distances, angles and calculations required to determine corners and distances of the plat shall w accompany this data. The allowable error of closure shall not exceed one foot in 5,000 feet. LO C. Title Report. A title report showing that ownership and other interests in the land described and shown on the CM final plat is in the name of the person signing the owner's certificate. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. a 20.75.150 Waiver of survey. V The director of public works may waive the requirement of a survey for the final plat in the following circumstances if there will be no adverse effect on the public interest: if the boundaries of the lot proposed for short subdivision have sufficient existing monuments to define the proposed lot lines. E If the director of public works waives the survey requirements, the applicant shall prepare a final plat that meets all t M other requirements of this chapter and which contains legal descriptions of each proposed lot. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. Q 1), 2017; Ord. 3211 § 9, 1998]. c m 20.75.155 Review of final plat. E A. Submission. The applicant may not file the final plat for review until the required improvement plans have been submitted for approval to the director of public works. Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 52 Edmonds Page 13/14 Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS B. Time Limit. A final plat shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant for correction within 30 days of its official filing with the director of public works for review, unless the applicant agrees to extend the time limit. This time period shall not include required environmental review. to C. Staff Review. The director of public works and the development services director shall conduct an N administrative review the final plat of a formal subdivision and either sign the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such action, stating their reasons in 0 writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior a court. to .2 statements r-equifed by ECDC 20.75.140 oF attaching theif r-eeennflendation foF . D. City Gatmeil Review. if the cit-y eatmeil finds thm the p4lic use and in4er-est will be served by the proposed y subdivision and 4ia4 all r-equifements of the pr-ehfnifiafy approval in this ehapter- ha-ve been met, the final pla4 shall 7 t o --—A —A 41— ,,, __ —A ..r....lo,-L A-11 ., +h- .,£rl,o ..r.....,,,,,..1 _1 .,,, +h- r; 1 _1l + CY ED. Acceptance of Dedication. Dedication of any interest in property contained in an approval of the formal tM E subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the formal subdivision. City eouneil approval of the final plat constitutes acceptance of all dedication shown on the final plat. 0 [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 67, 2009; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. 2 m 20.75.158 Short plat — Staff review. Theeemfn�unity se es aire^*er thr- .ttgh his,Lho.. desig ees *The director of public works and the eeRuflunity E development services director shall conduct an administrative review of a proposed short subdivision and either sign a) the statements required by ECDC 20.75.140, if all requirements of this chapter have been met, or disapprove such -- action, stating their reasons in writing. Such administrative action shall be final subject only to right of appeal to the Snohomish County superior court . Dedication of m any interest in property contained in an approval of the short subdivision shall be forwarded to the city council for E formal acceptance on its consent agent; provided, however, that such acceptance shall not stay any approval, time period for appeal or the effective date of the short subdivision. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3736 § 68, 2009; E Ord. 3211 § 10, 1998; Ord. 2991 § 1, 1994]. Q d 20.75.160 Final plat — Filing for record. c The city clerk shall file the final plat or short plat for record with the county auditor, and arrange for a reproducible 0. 0 copy to be sent to the public works department and the applicant and a paper copy to be sent to the county assessor a and the community development department. The plat or short plat shall not be considered "approved" until so filed V with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. V w 20.75.165 Effect of rezones. 'O The owner of any lot in a final plat filed for record shall be entitled to use the lot for the purposes allowed under the o zoning in effect at the time of filing for five years from the date of filing the final plat for record, even if the property cL is rezoned; provided, that all requirements of the community development code, other than lot area, are met. [Ord. a 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. V 20.75.170 Further division — Short subdivisions. A further division of any lot created by a short subdivision shall be reviewed as and meet the requirements of this c chapter for formal subdivision if the further division is proposed within five years from the date the final plat was filed for record; provided, however, that when a short plat contains fewer than four parcels, nothing in this section t shall be interpreted to prevent the owner who filed the original short plat, from filing a revision thereof within the five-year period in order to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries. [Ord. Q 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 2623 § 1, 1987]. am 20.75.175 Court review. E Any decision approving or disapproving any plat or short plat shall be reviewable for unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or corrupt action or nonaction by writ of review before the Superior Court of Snohomish County. The action may be Q brought by any property owner in the city, who deems himself or herself aggrieved thereby; provided, that application for a writ of review shall be made to the court within 30 days from any decision so to be reviewed. The The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 53 Edmonds Chapter 20.75 SUBDIVISIONS Page 14/14 cost of transcription of all records ordered certified by the court for such review shall be borne by the appellant. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. 20.75.180 Development of lots not divided according to this chapter. No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit shall be issued for any lot unless: (1) the subject property is a lot of record as defined in ECDC 21.55.015; or (2) the property owner is determined to be an innocent purchaser in accordance with subsection (A) of this section. Where this section authorizes a lot to be developed even though such lot does not meet the definition for "lot of record" in ECDC 21.55.015, any development on said lot shall comply with the city's development regulations, including any applicable development regulations regarding nonconforming lots. A. "Lot of Record" Status for Innocent Purchasers. An owner of property may obtain "lot of record" status for a parcel that does not meet the "lot of record" definition. To obtain this status, the applicant must submit an affidavit with sufficient supporting documentation to demonstrate that: 1. The applicant did not have actual notice regarding the subdivision of the property in question. If the applicant had knowledge of the subdivision (e.g., knowledge that two parcels in question were once part of the same parcel), but not of its illegality, the innocent purchase status may not be granted; 2. The purchase price of the parcel is consistent with an arm's length transaction; 3. The owner did not purchase the property from a relative; 4. At the time of purchase, there was some existing deed, record or survey showing the subject parcel as a separate lot; and 5. The parcel had a separate tax ID parcel number prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant. B. The innocent purchaser status may be approved subject to conditions of approval requiring the applicant to make improvements to the property that would likely have been required by the city had the property been properly subdivided, unless it is determined that such improvements have already been constructed. C. An affirmative determination of innocent purchaser and "lot of record" status shall be recorded with the county auditor. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3982 § 3, 2014]. 20.75.185 Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter relating to the sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of any lot is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties of ECC 5.50.020. Each sale, offer for sale, lease or transfer of each separate lot in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In addition to these criminal sanctions, the city shall have the right to bring an action to restrain and enjoin any subdivision, sale or transfer, compel compliance with the provisions of this chapter and obtain other injunctive relief. The costs of such action shall be paid by the violator and shall include the city attorney's fees. [Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 54 Edmonds 6.A.g Page 1/19 16.20.050 Site development standards — Accessory buildings. A. General. Accessory buildings and structures shall meet all of the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 except as specifically provided in this section. B. Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their supporting structures. Garages or other accessory buildings attached by a breezeway, hallway, or other similar connection to the main building which results in a separation exceeding 10 feet in length may not exceed the 15-foot height limit. The separation shall be determined by the minimum distance between the outside walls of the main building and accessory building, exclusive of the connecting structure. C. Rear Setbacks. The normally required rear setback may be reduced to a minimum of five feet for accessory buildings covering less than 600 square feet of the site. D. Satellite Television Antenna. A satellite television antenna which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in diameter shall comply with the following regulations: 1. General. Satellite television antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform Building and Electrical Codes as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be required in order to install any such device. 2. Setbacks. In all zones subject to the provisions contained herein, a satellite television antenna shall be located only in the rear yard of any lot. In the event that no usable satellite signal can be obtained in the rear lot location or in the event that no rear lot exists as in the case of a corner lot, satellite television antennas shall then be located in the side yard. In the event that a usable satellite signal cannot be obtained in either the rear or side yard, then a roof -mounted location may be approved by the staff; provided, however, that any roof - mounted satellite antenna shall be in a color calculated to blend in with existing roof materials and, in the case of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, shall not exceed nine feet in diameter unless otherwise provided for by this section. In no event shall any roof -mounted satellite television antenna exceed the maximum height limitations established by this section. 3. Aesthetic. Satellite television antennas shall be finished in a nongarish, nonreflective color and surface which shall blend into their surroundings. In the case of a parabolic, spherical or dish antenna, said antenna shall be of a mesh construction. No commercial advertising of any kind shall be displayed on the satellite television antenna. 4. Size and Height. Maximum size for a ground -mounted parabolic, spherical or dish antenna shall be 12 feet in diameter. No ground -mounted antenna shall be greater than 15 feet in height unless otherwise approved for waiver as herein provided. The height of roof -mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed the lesser of the height of the antenna when mounted on a standard base provided by the manufacturer or installer for ordinary operation of the antenna or the height limitation provided by the zoning code. 5. Number. Only one satellite television antenna shall be permitted on any residential lot or parcel of land. In no case shall a satellite television antenna be permitted to be placed on wheels or attached to a portable device for the purpose of relocating the entire antenna on the property in order to circumvent the intentions of this section. E. Amateur Radio Antennas. 1. The following applications for the following approvals shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC): a. Requests to utilize an amateur radio antenna dish which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in diameter; b. Requests to utilize an antenna which: i. Would be greater than 12 feet in height above the principal building on a site. The height of the antenna shall be determined by reference to the highest point of the roof of the principal building, The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 55 Edmonds Page 2/19 exclusive of the chimney or other roof -mounted equipment. The request to locate a 12-foot antenna on a building is limited to buildings whose height conforms to the highest limit of the zone in which the building is located. ii. Would exceed the height limit of the zone when mounted on the ground or on any accessory structure (see subsection (E)(2)(d) of this section). 2. The application shall comply with the following regulations: a. Definition. "Amateur radio antenna" means an antenna, or any combination of a mast or tower plus an attached or mounted antenna, which transmits noncommercial communication signals and is utilized by an operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Guy wires for amateur radio antennas are considered part of the structure for the purpose of meeting development standards. b. General. Amateur radio antennas must be installed and maintained in compliance with the Uniform Building and Electrical Codes, as the same exist or are hereafter amended. A building permit shall be required to install an amateur radio antenna. c. Location. Amateur radio antennas may be ground- or roof -mounted, however, these devices shall: i. Be located and constructed in such a manner as to reasonably ensure that, in its fully extended position, it will not fall in or onto adjoining properties; ii. Not be located within any required setback area; and iii. Be retracted in inclement weather posing a hazard to the antenna. d. Height. The height of a ground -mounted tower or roof -top antenna may not exceed the greater of the height limit applicable to the zone or 65 feet when extended by a telescoping or crank -up mechanism unless an applicant obtains a waiver (see subsection (F) of this section). i. Only telescoping towers may exceed the height limits established by subsection (E)(1)(b) of this section. Such towers shall comply with the height limit within the applicable zone and may only exceed the height limit of the applicable zone and/or 65-foot height limit when extended and operating and if a waiver has been granted. ii. An antenna located on a nonconforming building or structure which exceeds the height limit of the zone in which it is located shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus 12 feet. e. Aesthetic. To the extent technically feasible and in compliance with safety regulations, specific paint colors may be required to allow the tower to blend better with its setting. F. Technological Impracticality — Request for Waiver. 1. The owner, licensee or adjacent property owner may apply for a waiver if: a. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the owner of a satellite television antenna to receive a usable satellite signal; b. Strict application of the provisions of this zoning code would make it impossible for the holder of any amateur radio license to enjoy the full benefits of an FCC license or FCC protected right; or c. An adjacent property owner or holder of an FCC license or right believes that alternatives exist which are less burdensome to adjacent property owners. 2. The request for waiver shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner as a Type III -A decision and may be granted upon a finding that one of the following sets of criteria have been met: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 56 Edmonds Page 3/19 a. Technological Impracticality. i. Actual compliance with the existing provisions of the city's zoning ordinance would prevent the satellite television antenna from receiving a usable satellite signal or prevent an individual from exercising the rights granted to him or her by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by license, law or FCC regulation; or ii. The alternatives proposed by the property owner or licensee constitute the minimum necessary to permit acquisition of a usable satellite signal by a satellite television antenna or to exercise the rights granted pursuant to a valid FCC license, law or FCC regulation. b. Less Burdensome Alternatives. The hearing examiner is also authorized to consider the application of adjacent property owners for a waiver consistent with the provisions of subsection (F)(1)(c) of this section without the requirement of a finding that a usable satellite signal cannot be acquired when the applicant or adjacent property owner(s) establish that the alternatives proposed by the applicant are less burdensome to the adjacent property owners than the requirements which would otherwise be imposed under this section. For example, adjacent property owners may request alternative or additional screening or the relocation of the antenna on the licensee's property. In the interactive process described in subsection (17)(3) of this section, the hearing examiner shall attempt to balance the impact of the tower on the views of adjacent properties, as well as the impacts of alternative screening and relocation in order to equitably distribute any negative impacts among the neighbors while imposing reasonable conditions on the antenna, its location and screening that do not impair the rights granted by the FCC to the licensee. 3. The process shall be an interactive one in which the hearing examiner works with the licensee to craft conditions which place the minimum possible burden on adjacent property owners while permitting the owner of the satellite antenna or holder of an amateur radio license to fully exercise the rights which he or she has been granted by federal law. For example, the number of antennas and size of the array shall be no greater than that necessary to enjoy full use of the FCC license. Conditions may include but are not limited to requirements for screening and landscaping, review of the color, reflectivity and mass of the proposed satellite television antenna or amateur radio facilities, and other reasonable restrictions. Any restriction shall be consistent with the intent of the city council that a waiver to the antenna owner be granted only when necessary to permit the satellite television antenna to acquire usable satellite signal or to allow the licensee to exercise the rights granted by Federal Communications Commission license after consideration of aesthetic harmony of the community. The process employed should involve the interaction of the licensee or owner and the neighborhood. Certain issues have been preempted by federal law and shall not be considered by the hearing examiner. Such issues include, but are not limited to, the impacts of electromagnetic radiation, the potential interference of the amateur radio facility with electronic devices in the neighborhood and any other matter preempted by federal law or regulation. Impact on view and on the values of neighboring properties may be considered in imposing reasonable conditions but shall not be a basis for denial of a permit to construct the antenna. 4. The application fee and notification for consideration of the waiver by an owner of a satellite television antenna shall be the same as that provided for processing a variance. No fee shall be charged to the holder of a valid FCC amateur radio license. 5. In the event that an applicant for waiver is also obligated to undergo architectural design review, the architectural design board shall defer any issues relating to the antenna and/or other amateur radio equipment to the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may, at his or her discretion, request the architectural design board review and comment regarding required screening and landscaping and its integration into sight and landscaping plans. No additional fee shall be required of the applicant upon such referral. G. The provisions of subsections (D), (E) and (F) of this section shall be interpreted in accordance with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission including but not limited to PRB-1. In the event of ambiguity or conflict with any of the apparent provisions of this section, the provisions of federal regulations shall control. [Ord. 3736 §§ 8, 9, 2009; Ord. 3728 § 3, 2009; Ord. 3547 § 1, 2005]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 57 Edmonds Page 4/19 17.00.030 Application of regulations. A. Code Compliance Required. All land in the city shall be used, and all buildings shall be built, structurally altered, or moved onto a site, only in compliance with all regulations of this zoning ordinance. B. Setbacks — Density. 1. Any setback, yard, minimum lot size, or open space required by this zoning ordinance for one use may not be used to meet minimum requirements of this zoning ordinance for any other use. 2. When an existing lot is subdivided, or is the subject of a lot line adjustment, the new lot lines will not make any existing improvements nonconforming to the regulations of this zoning ordinance. C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. r" this ease the action of the hearing examiner chaff be n ndntion to the e t y i.i..mei 17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure. G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met: 1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or structure. "Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches, and similar features; and provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and is found by the city staff to be substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with current codes. 2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or reconstruction. 3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures. 4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original style and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type II staff decision„ exeept that any appeal of the staff deeision shall be to the APB m4her than to the heafi — The decision of the APB -hearing examiner shall be final and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.00620.06.160. 17.40.025 Vested nonconforming or illegal accessory dwelling units. A. Illegal or nonconforming accessory dwelling units which registered with the city during the registration period which ended October 16, 2000, at 5:00 p.m. are hereby declared to be legal nonconforming detached and attached accessory dwelling units (ADU). Accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is defined in Chapter 20.21 ECDC. B. Once registered, a formerly illegal or nonconforming ADU shall enjoy all the protections and privileges afforded to a nonconforming building under the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020; provided, r, that such ADU shall bo subject to the permit review requiremen4 of ECDC 20.100.040 to the end that the city council reserves the right to impose additional conditions on the eontinued use and occupaney of the formerly illegal ADU if it is fo�d to constitute a * . sent a hazardous condition, or to revoke such registration and permit if a i anee or hazardous condition relating t the ADU r : t abated. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 58 Edmonds Page 5/19 C. Legal nonconforming units which received a permit certificate confirming such status and listing the physical dimensions and other characteristics of the structure may be continued in accordance with such permit certificate, provided, however-, tha4 the fegistfa4iaa and per -Fait of a fefmer-ly illegal ADU may be revoked an&lor- eendifiefled in aee9r-danee A4th theprorisiens of ECDC 20.100.04 0. D. Failure to register a structure within the time period established by the provisions of this section shall be considered to be presumptive proof that such a unit is an illegal unit and subject to abatement. The owner of such structure may overcome such a presumption only by presentation of substantial and competent evidence which establishes the legal nonconforming nature of such building by clear and convincing evidence that the structure was permitted by Snohomish County or the city of Edmonds, was permitted by such agency and was in complete compliance with the applicable provisions of state law and county or city ordinance, at the dates such construction was initiated and was completed. [Ord. 3696 § 1, 2008]. 17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit. Outdoor dining not meeting the requirements of ECDC 17.75.010 shall be a secondary use requiring a conditional use permit within the zones stated in ECDC 17.75.010(A). This use shall be established and maintained only in accordance with the terms of a conditional use permit approved by the hearing examiner as a Type III -A decision under the procedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a minimum, the conditions considered for imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buffering of the noise and visual impacts related to the outdoor dining seating. All seating permitted pursuant to the conditional use permit shall be located outside of public rights -of -way. If outdoor seating is approved under these provisions, no additional parking stalls shall be required for the outdoor dining. [Ord. 3871 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3783 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 5, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 19, 2009; Ord. 3628 § 4, 2007; Ord. 3312 § 1, 2000]. 17.100.030 Conditional use permits (CUP) — Community churches and schools requiring a CUP. A. All new churches and schools and any nonconforming church or school whose review has been triggered pursuant to ECDC 17.40.050 shall register with the staff on a form developed for its use. The staff shall determine which churches qualify as neighborhood churches; churches failing to register shall be presumed to be community churches. B. Decisions to approve, condition, or deny a CUP; to review a CUP; or decline to renew a CUP shall be a Type III - A decision. [Ord. 3783 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 6, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 23, 2009; Ord. 3353 § 12, 2001]. 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. I. Section 105.5, Permit expiration and extension, is amended to read: 1. Every permit issued under ECDC Title 19 shall expire by limitation 360 days after issuance, except as provided in ECDC 19.00.025I(2). 2. The following permits shall expire by limitation, 180 days after issuance and may not be extended, unless they are associated with a primary building permit for a larger construction project, in which case they may run with the life of the primary permit: Demolition permits; Permits for Moving Buildings required by Chapter 19.60 ECDC; Mechanical permits; Tank removal, tank fill, or tank placement permits; Grading, excavation and fill permits; Water service line permits; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 59 6.A.g Edmonds Page 6/19 Plumbing permits; Gas piping permits; Deck and dock permits; Fence permits; Re -roof permits; Retaining wall permits; Swimming pool, hot tub and spa permits; Sign permits; Shoring permits; Foundation permits. 3. Prior to expiration of an active permit the applicant may request in writing an extension for an additional year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector prior to the extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 4. If the applicant cannot complete work issued under an extended permit within a total period of two (2) years, the applicant may request in writing, prior to the second year expiration, an extension for a third and final year. Provided there has been at least one (1) required progress inspection conducted by the city building inspector after the previous extension, the permit shall be extended. Permit fees shall be charged at a rate of one quarter the original building permit fee to extend the permit. 5. The maximum amount of time any building permit may be extended shall be a total of three (3) years. At the end of any three (3) year period starting from the original date of permit issuance, the permit shall become null and void and a new building permit shall be required, with full permit fees, in order for the applicant to complete work. The voiding of the prior permit shall negate all previous vesting of zoning or Building codes. Whenever an appeal is filed and a necessary development approval is stayed in accordance with ECDC 29.07.00420.06.040 the time limit periods imposed under this section shall also be stayed until final decision. 6. The building official may reject requests for permit extension where he determines that modifications or amendments to the applicable zoning and Building codes have occurred since the original issuance of the permit and/or modifications or amendments would significantly promote public health and safety if applied to the project through the issuance of a new permit. 20.05.020 General requirements. A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review and decide on conditional use permit applications as Type III -A decisions as set forth in ECDC 20.01.003. B. Appeals. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the Land Use Petition Act. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 60 6.A.g Edmonds Page 7/19 C. Time Limit. Unless the owner obtains a building permit or, if no building permit is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration date. D. Review of Extension Application. An application for any extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision. E. Location. A conditional use permit applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other property. F. Denial. A conditional use permit application may be denied if the proposal cannot be conditioned so that the required findings can be made. [Ord. 3783 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 37, 2009; Ord. 2270 § 1, 1982]. 20.08.040 Approval procedure for development agreements. A development agreement is a Type IV development project permit application and shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public hearing. [Ord. 3817 § 7, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.11.010 Review procedure — General design review. A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision. When design review is required by the ADB, proposed development shall be processed as a Type II1-9 decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows: 1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications: a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B). b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which the ADB serves as the sole decision -making authority. c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which all decision -making authority is exercised both by staff, pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by the ADB. The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications. 2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings without a public hearing and make recommendations to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a public hearing on the proposal. 3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter. 4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in which the city is the applicant, the action of the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall be a recommendation to the city council. B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 39, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 61 Edmonds Page 8/19 developments may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type IIl-l3 decision. [Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.11.040 Appeals. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. appealable to the eity eouneil as idea i GhapteF 2007ECDr [Ord. 3736 § 40, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007]. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.appealable to the eity eatmeil as idea in Chapter- 20.07 ECDC. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW Ja the eity eauneil as "de in Chapter- 20.07 ECDC C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.16.110 Reconsideration and appeal. Reconsideration of the hearing examiner's ruling shall be governed by ECDC 20.06,OW150. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chanter 36.70C RCW.A-Bi3eal of the hear -in^ exafnifter-'s. [Ord. 3736 § 48, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003]. 20.16.130 Building permit application. A. Any building permit for an EPF approved under this chapter shall comply with all conditions of approval in the conditional use permit. In the event a building permit for an EPF is denied, suspended or revoked due to a failure to comply, the department shall submit in writing the reasons for denial to the project sponsor. B. No construction permits may be applied for prior to conditional use approval of the EPF unless the applicant signs a written release acknowledging that such approval is neither guaranteed nor implied by the department's acceptance of the construction permit applications. The applicant shall expressly accept all financial risk associated with preparing and submitting construction plans before the final decision is made under this chapter. C. Building permits for an EPF which fail to comply with the conditions of approval shall be suspended and a report made to the director. The director shall institute a proceeding before the hearing examiner to permit the EPF's sponsor a hearing at which to show cause why its conditional use permit should not be revoked or further conditioned. Such hearing shall be conducted as if it were a Type III -A decision in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 3736 § 49, 2009; Ord. 3572 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3474 § 1, 2003]. 20.35.080 Review process. A. An application for a PRD has two stages. The first stage, the preliminary PRD, includes the following: 1. Pre -Application Staff Review. The preliminary plans of the proposal shall be submitted to the planning manager for review and comment. This provides an opportunity for the developer to work with the city staff to design a total plan which best meets the goals of the city and the needs of the developer. Such potential problems as drainage, topography, circulation, site design and neighborhood impact should be identified and addressed before the proposal is submitted for formal review. 2. Pre -Application Neighborhood Meeting. The applicant shall host a public pre -application neighborhood meeting to discuss and receive public comment on the conceptual proposal. The applicant shall provide notice of this meeting to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site by depositing written notice in the U.S. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 62 6.A.g Edmonds Page 9/19 Mail postage paid at least 14 calendar days in advance of the meeting to all persons and entities shown as having an ownership interest in the land records of Snohomish County. An affidavit of mailing shall be provided to the city by the applicant attaching its mailing list. While this meeting will allow immediate public response to the proposal in its conceptual form, comments submitted during this meeting are not binding to the applicant or staff. However, staff may make general recommendations to the applicant as part of the formal application based on the input from this meeting to the extent that said comments are consistent with the adopted provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code and the comprehensive plan. As a courtesy, the applicant shall provide summary minutes of the meeting to all of those in attendance within two weeks of the date of the meeting. 3. Review by the Architectural Design Board. The design board will review the project for compliance with the urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060 and forward their recommendation of the site and building design on to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Their review will be at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the ability for the public to comment on the project. 4. The Public Hearing with the Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner shall review the proposed PRD for compliance with this section as a Type III-B decision. If, after all appeals are exhausted, the proposal is denied, a similar plan for the site may not be submitted to the development services department for one year. A new plan which varies substantially from the denied proposal, as determined by the development services director, or one that satisfies the objections stated by the final decision -maker may be submitted at any time. An applicant who intends to subdivide the land for sale as part of the project shall obtain subdivision approval in accordance with Chapter 20.75 ECDC before any building permit or authorization to begin construction is issued, and before sale of any portion of the property. The preferred method is for the applicant to process the subdivision application concurrently with the planned residential development proposal. B. The second stage of the PRD process, the final PRD, consists of the city's review of the final plans for consistency with the preliminary PRD as approved. The decision at this stage will be made by city staff final PRD is submitted as a oonsolidated application with a permit that requires city council review, i.e., a for -Mal subdivision iyisio plat. The final PRD will be subject to the following review: 1. The applicant shall submit the final development plan to the development services director, conforming to the preliminary plan as approved, and all applicable conditions of that approval. The planning manager shall review the plan along with the city engineer and make a final decision. The plan shall contain final, precise drawings of all the information required by ECDC 20.35.030. The applicant shall also submit all covenants, homeowners' association papers, maintenance agreements, and other relevant legal documents. 2. If city staff finds that the final development plan conforms to the preliminary approval, and to all applicable conditions, staff shall approve the plan and its accompanying conditions as a covenant which touches and concerns the subject property, incorporating by reference all maps, drawings and exhibits required to specify the precise land use authorized. A file shall be maintained by the development services department containing all maps and other documents or exhibits referred to in the approval. The approval shall also contain a legal description of the boundary of the proposal. The covenant shall be recorded with the county auditor if no subdivision plat is to be recorded. 3. The provisions of approval shall be restrictions on the development of the site. Revocation of approval or abandonment as provided in this chapter shall eliminate all requirements imposed under the planned residential development plan, such as alternative bulk development standards, and shall cause the old underlying bulk development standards to be in full force and effect. [Ord. 3822 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3787 § 3, 2010; Ord. 3465 § 1, 2003]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 63 Edmonds Page 10/19 20.45.050 Review of changes to Edmonds register of historic places properties. A. Review Required. No person shall change the use, construct any new building or structure, or reconstruct, alter, restore, remodel, repair, move or demolish any existing property on the Edmonds register of historic places or within a historic district on the Edmonds register of historic places without review by the commission and without receipt of a certificate of appropriateness, or in the case of demolition, a waiver, as a result of the review. The review shall apply to all features of the property, interior and exterior, that contribute to its designation and are listed on the nomination form. Information required by the commission to review the proposed changes are established in rules. B. Exemptions. The following activities do not require a certificate of appropriateness or review by the commission: ordinary repair and maintenance which includes painting or emergency measures defined in ECDC 20.45.000 (K). C. Review Process 1. Requests for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Waiver. The building or zoning official shall report any application for a permit to work on a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historic district to the commission. If the activity is not exempt from review, the commission shall notify the applicant of the review requirements. The building or zoning official shall not issue any such permit until a certificate of appropriateness or a waiver is received from the commission but shall work with the commission in considering building and fire code requirements. 2. Commission Review. The owner or his/her agent (architect, contractor, lessee, etc.) shall apply to the commission for a review of proposed changes on an Edmonds register property and request a certificate of appropriateness or, in the case of demolition, a waiver. Each application for review of proposed changes shall be accompanied by such information as is required by the commission established in its rules for the proper review of the proposed project. The commission shall meet with the applicant and review the proposed work according to the design review criteria established in rules. Unless legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or publication requirements for action on the application, but all such actions shall be made at regular meetings of the commission. The commission shall complete its review and make its recommendations within 30 days of the date of receipt of the application. If the commission is unable to process the request, the commission may ask for an extension of time. The commission's recommendations shall be in writing and shall state the findings of fact and reasons relied upon in reaching its decision. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. If the owner agrees to the commission's recommendations, a certificate of appropriateness shall be awarded by the commission according to standards established in the commission's rules. The commission's recommendations and, if awarded, the certificate of appropriateness, shall be transmitted to the building or zoning official. If a certificate of appropriateness is awarded, the building or zoning official may then issue the permit. 3. Demolition. A waiver of the certificate of appropriateness is required before a permit may be issued to allow whole or partial demolition of a designated Edmonds register property or in an Edmonds register historical district. The owner or his/her agent shall apply to the commission for a review of the proposed demolition and request a waiver. The applicant shall meet with the commission in an attempt to find alternatives to demolition. These negotiations may last no longer than 45 days from the initial meeting of the commission, unless either party requests an extension. If no request for an extension is made and no alternative to demolition has been agreed to, the commission shall act and advise the official in charge of issuing a demolition permit of the commission's decision on the waiver of a certificate of appropriateness. Conditions in the case of granting a demolition permit may include allowing the commission up to 45 additional days to develop alternatives to demolition. When issuing a waiver the commission may require the owner to mitigate the loss of the Edmonds register property by means determined by the commission at the meeting. Any conditions agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval of the permits granted. After the property is demolished, the commission shall initiate removal of the property from the register. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 64 Edmonds Page 11/19 4. Appeal of the Commission's Decision on a Waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The commission's decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 20.06 ECDC ffhay wo erreate ., rho eiPf ,.eugea within 14 calendar days. The appeal must state the grounds upon which the appeal is based. The appeal shall be Feviewed by the eotmeil only o the or-ds of the e . Appeal of ova ^shearing examiner's decision regarding a waiver of a certificate of appropriateness may be appealed to superior court. [Ord. 3397 § 1, 2002]. 20.50.060 Permit requirements. A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct or modify a wireless communication facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a permit issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18. B. Applications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility requires the appropriate type of project permit review, as shown in Table 20.50.060(B)(1). In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall have the authority to determine what permits are required for the proposed facility. The conditional use permit types referenced are described in Chapter 20.01 ECDC. Table 20.50.060(B)(1) — Permit Requirements for Wireless Communication Facilities Permits Required Building Permit Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Right -of -Way Permit Type of Wireless Communication Facility Building -mounted facilities or facilities co -located on an existing X X (as applicable) structure or monopole New structure -mounted facilities involving structure replacement X (as applicable) X (Type II) X (as applicable) to obtain additional height New monopole facilities (pole complies with height requirement X X (as applicable) of the underlying zone in ECDC Title 16) New monopole facilities (pole exceeds maximum height of zone X X (Type 111-13) X (as applicable) in ECDC Title 16) C. Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects located on public or private property shall be reviewed and evaluated by the director, or his designee. The director of public works or his/her designee shall review all proposed wireless communication facilities that are located partially or fully within the city rights -of -way. Regardless of whether the director or the director of public works or their respective designees are reviewing the application, all applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. D. All applications for wireless communication facilities shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards by the director or his designee. E. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Federal Aviation Administration, etc.) F. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless communication facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code. G. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible for variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 65 Edmonds Page 12/19 H. Third Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third party expert may be needed to review the engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its discretion require third party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process. The costs of the technical third party review shall be borne by the applicant. 1. The selection of the third party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and be a site -specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed wireless communication facilities and/or a review of the applicants' methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert review, the city may require changes to the proposal. The third party review shall address the following: a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions; b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies; c. The validity of conclusions reached; d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the applicant; and e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city. I. Any decision by the director or the director of public works shall be given substantial deference in any appeal of a decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any application for a wireless communication facility. J. No alterations or changes shall be made to plans approved by the director, director of public works, or hearing examiner without the approval of the city. K. Co -location of additional antennas on permitted nonconforming monopoles is not considered to increase the nonconformity of the structure and is therefore allowed; provided, no increase to the height of a nonconforming monopole is allowed. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.080 Review time frames. A. Co -Located Facilities (Building- and Structure -Mounted). 1. For new or replacement wireless antennas mounted on existing structures requiring a building or engineering permit, the city shall issue a final decision on the project within 90 days of the date the application is determined to be complete. The city shall have 30 days from the date of filing to determine whether the application is complete; if deemed incomplete, the city shall inform the applicant in writing of the documentation needed to make the application complete. The city shall have 14 days from the receipt of the additional information to issue a letter of completeness, or request additional information as appropriate. Such decision shall be final and appealable only to superior court under the Land Use Permit Act. 2. The 90-day time period for a decision may be extended by mutual written agreement of the city and the applicant if circumstances warrant. For purposes of this section, "co -located facilities" includes any of the following types of facilities: a. Facilities that are mounted or installed on an existing monopole, building or structure; or b. Facilities that do not involve a substantial increase in the size of a monopole. For purposes of this section, "substantial increase in the size of a monopole" means: The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 66 Edmonds Page 13/19 i. The mounting of the proposed antenna on the monopole would increase the existing height of the monopole by more than 10 percent or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater; provided, however, that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; ii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; iii. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the monopole that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the monopole at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subsection if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the monopole via cable; or iv. The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current monopole site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site; or c. Facilities that are a part of a distributed antenna system; provided, that the distributed antenna system connects to an existing tower or antenna. B. New Monopoles. Wireless communication facilities requiring a Type III-B conditional use permit shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.05 ECDC. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011]. 20.50.110 New monopole facility standards. A. New monopoles are not permitted within the city unless the applicant has demonstrated that: 1. Coverage Objective. There exists a gap in service and the proposed wireless communication facility will eliminate such gap in service; and 2. Alternatives. No existing structure, building, or other feasible site or sites, or other alternative technologies not requiring a new monopole in the city, can accommodate the applicant's proposed wireless communication facility; and 3. Least Intrusive. The proposed new wireless communication facility is designed and located to remove the gap in service in a manner that is, in consideration of the values, objectives and regulations set forth in this chapter, this title, and the comprehensive plan, the least intrusive upon the surrounding area. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 67 Edmonds Page 14/19 f Acceptable Monopole WCF (Possible Co -Location Opportunity) Acceptable Monopole WCF B. All monopole facilities shall conform to the following site development standards: 1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities. 2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in order to help conceal the facility. 3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must be underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(1). 4. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 68 Edmonds Page 15/19 C. Review Criteria. The hearing examiner shall review an application for a new monopole exceeding the maximum height of the zone as a Type III-H conditional use permit (per Chapter 20.05 ECDC), and shall determine whether or not each of the above standards is met. Examples of evidence demonstrating the Type III41 conditional use permit requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. That the monopole height is the minimum necessary in order to achieve the coverage objective; 2. That no existing monopoles, structures or alternative site(s) are located within the geographic area that meet the applicant's engineering requirements to fulfill its coverage objective (regardless of the geographical boundaries of the city); 3. That existing monopoles or structures are not of a sufficient height or could not feasibly be extended to a sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements to meet its coverage objective; 4. That existing structures or monopoles do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and ancillary facilities; 5. That the applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with antennas on the existing monopoles or structures, or the antennas on existing structures would cause interference with the applicant's proposed antenna; 6. That an alternative technology that does not require the use of a new monopole is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new monopole or antenna development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable; and 7. The applicant demonstrates other limiting factors that render existing monopoles and structures or other sites or alternative technologies unsuitable. Engineering and technological evidence must be provided and certified by a registered professional engineer and clearly demonstrate the evidence required. D. Zoning Setback Exceptions. 1. Generally, wireless communication facilities placed on private property must meet setbacks identified in ECDC Title 16. However, in some circumstances, allowing modifications to setbacks may better achieve the goal of this section of concealing such facilities from view. 2. The director or hearing examiner, depending on the type of application, may approve modifications to be made to setbacks when: a. An applicant for a wireless communication facility can demonstrate that placing the facility on certain portions of a property will provide better screening and aesthetic considerations than provided under the existing setback requirements; or b. The modification will aid in retaining open space and trees on the site; or c. The proposed location allows for the wireless communication facility to be located a greater distance from residentially zoned properties. 3. This zoning setback modification cannot be used to waive/modify any setback required under the State Building Code or Fire Code. 4. A request for a setback exception shall be made at the time the initial application is submitted. [Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Art. A), 2011]. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000 and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 69 Edmonds Page 16/19 for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the hearing examiner. 1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety: a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter; b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter; c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood. B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed in subsection (B)(1) of this section and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section. 1. The ADB shall review any sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that arise from one of the following two situations: a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography; b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. 2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria: a. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity; b. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent. C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the ^' c4hearing examiner pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to: a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 70 6.A.g Edmonds Page 17/19 c. Material/color samples; d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight -and -one -half -inch -by- 11 -inch format to include a description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee; and e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated historic district. 3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include: a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no fluorescent paints; b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering. Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 4064 § 1 (Att. A), 2017; Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.85.020 General requirements. A. Review. The hearing examiner shall review variances as Type 111-A decisions in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. B. Appeals. Appeals of hearing examiner decisions on variance shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with Chanter 36.70C RCW.asi3rovided in ECDC 20.07.0 . C. Time Limit. The approved variance must be acted on by the owner within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of time before the expiration and the city approves the application. D. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the community development director as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). E. Location. A variance applies only to the property for which it has been approved and may not be transferred to any other property. [Ord. 3783 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3775 § 14, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 70, 2009]. 23.40.195 Contingent review procedure for certain types of development. A. Scope. The procedures set forth in this section shall apply to the following types of critical area restoration projects as allowed by ECDC 23.40.215: 1. Restoration projects involving anadromous fish streams; 2. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II wetlands; The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 71 Edmonds Page 18/19 3. Restoration projects involving Category I or Category II estuarine wetlands. B. Notice of Application. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be processed as a Type II application, unless the process is altered according to subsection (D) of this section. In addition to the notice provided pursuant to ECDC Title 20, notice of application for all such development shall also be sent to the city council by email. C. Contingent Review Process. Development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section shall be escalated to a Type III -A process when: 1. The city receives a request from any person for a public hearing within 14 days of the date of the notice of application; and 2. The public hearing request is accompanied by a hearing fee in the amount of 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III -A application fee. D. Effect of Contingent Review. When the contingent review process is triggered pursuant to subsection (C) of this section, the project applicant shall pay the other 50 percent of the difference between the Type II and Type III -A application fee, on top of the previously paid Type II application fee. The applicant shall pay this fee within 30 days of notice from the city that the fee is due. If the applicant fails to pay the additional fee within the required 30-day period, the application for the project shall be deemed withdrawn. The city shall not schedule the public hearing until the additional fee has been paid. For these public hearings, the cost of the hearing examiner shall be borne by the city. E. Notice of Decision. Whether development activity within the scope of subsection (A) of this section is processed as a Type II application or escalated to a Type III -A application, notice of decision shall be sent by email to the city council in addition to any other notice that may be required by ECDC Title 20. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 72 Edmonds Page 19/19 J NEW SECTION 20.110.045 Suspension or revocation of permit. The city shall retain the right to suspend or revoke a permit issued under this development code that fails to comply with any conditions of approval of said permit, or which operates in a manner inconsistent with representation made in the application. The suspension or revocation of a permit may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.06. ECDC. Upon receipt of a timely appeal under Chapter 20.06 ECDC, suspension or revocation shall by stadpending decision on the appeal: provided that such a stay shall affect any stop work order issued by the Director. Q The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4098, passed February 20, 2018. Packet Pg. 73 6.A.h From: Gary Nelson (garynelsonsmail@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:51 PM To: Nathan Monroe (Planning Board) Cc: Monillas, Adrienne; Teitzel, Dave; Buckshnis, Diane; Kristiana Johnson; Nelson, Michael; Tibbott, Neil; Mesaros, Thomas Subject: Hearing Examiner Appeals Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Board: I am submitting remarks which address the Edmonds City Council Resolution 1367 and the Edmonds Development Services Staff who have submitted to the Planning Board the issue regarding the implementation of quasi-judicial HEARING EXAMINER APPEALS. The proposed change in procedure would require that citizen appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions on Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) issues (See RCW 36.70C attached) would go to the Snohomish County Superior Court. Currently, appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions are submitted to and heard by the city council. The contemplated change impacts both applicant appeals and appeals by interveners, such as abutting property owners, neighborhood groups, and interested citizens who wish to address Hearing Examiner decisions on land use applications that have been approved or denied. These are some of the impacts to Edmond's citizens. 1. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FILING FEES WOULD BE IMPOSED FEE CATEGORY REFERENCE $240.00 Land Use Petition RCW 36.70C.040; RCW 36.18.020(2,5) 2. CITIZENS WILL REQUIRE REPRESENTATION BY AN ATTORNEY Typically, most attorneys will charge $200.00 to $500.00 per hour for time involved. 3. THE FILED APPEAL WILL CAUSE DELAYS IN RESOLVING EACH CASE As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months, dependent on case loads of Superior Court Judges 4. HEARING EXAMINER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IS QUESTIONABLE Packet Pg. 74 6.A.h Since the City Council will be bypassed and unaware of current appeals, any observations of hearing examiner performance are lost. The hearing examiner decisions together with city staff submissions to the examiner or the court are sheltered from oversight by the Mayor or City Council. The yearly Hearing Examiner Report will no longer be a timely evaluation procedure for review of these decisions and appeals. 5. ADDITIONAL TIME AND EXPENSES BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF Appeals of the Hearing Examiner decisions will require that the City of Edmonds be represented by the City Attorney together with planning staff at the court hearing. The City Attorney will submit additional hours for reimbursement. The staff will be diverted from their normal job functions in preparing and appearing in court. 6. A CHANGE CREATES AN UNFRIENDLY APPEAL PROCESS Citizens are subjected to a process where the hearing examiner can issue any ruling and an Edmonds citizen is not allowed to present overlooked facts to the local elected officials. Representation has been sabotaged by the proposed change in process. Most citizens object to this departure from what is expected from the city council members. It should be noted, that on November 8, 2016, a ballot measure embodied as Snohomish County Charter Amendment Proposition 4, proposed this same quasi-judicial approach such that Hearing Examiner Appeals would be submitted to the court. The results from Edmonds residents on this ballot measure was 57.7% NO It is recommended that the Planning Board report to the City Council that the current appeals process should be retained. Submitted by: Gary Nelson, 9710 Wharf Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 425-778-83625 gMnelsonsmail@p-mom *RCW 36.70C Definitions "(2) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on: Packet Pg. 75 6.A.h (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and similar types of public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area -wide rezones and annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in a court of limited jurisdiction, a petition may not be brought under this chapter. Where a local jurisdiction allows or requires a motion for reconsideration to the highest level of authority making the determination, and a timely motion for reconsideration has been filed, the land use decision occurs on the date a decision is entered on the motion for reconsideration, and not the date of the original decision for which the motion for reconsideration was filed." These are typical issues that would need to be filed in the Superior Court: 1. Subdivision applications 2. Critical area delineation 3. Zoning applications 4. Comprehensive plan designation 5. Conditional use permit 6. Special use permits such as tree removal, hydraulic permits, etc 7. Variances 8. Boundary line adjustment Packet Pg. 76 6.A.h J Cm C O y u N r E L a) a. E W 00 r O N O N C 3 C O N N Z 00 c N E t u r Q r C a� E t lC Q Packet Pg. 77 6.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/25/2018 Public Hearing on Rezone at 9107 and 9111 236th St. SW from RS-8 to RM-1.5 Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Brad Shipley Background/History This rezone application is subsequent to a Comprehensive Plan map designation change that Planning Board and Council heard in 2017. Council made a motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan map designation change; however, the amendment was inadvertently left off the Ordinance adopting the 2017 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Council is scheduled to take action on the 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments on August 21, 2018. Once adopted, this proposal will be consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Planning Board forward a recommendation of APPROVAL to City Council. Narrative The applicant proposes to rezone the subject sites from Single-family Residential (RS-8) to Multi -family (RM-1.5). The subject site consist of two parcels (9107 and 9111 236th St. SW) which are currently developed with a single-family residential use and legal non -conforming multi -family use. If adopted, this proposal would bring the non -conforming multi -family use into compliance with the zoning ordinance. The site is located within 300 feet of SR-104 (Edmonds Way), a major arterial served by public transit. The surrounding area has been developed with multi -family and commercial uses since the late 1970's. Madrona Elementary School and single-family uses are west of the site. Staff has reviewed the application for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. The attached staff report provides detail of this analysis. Attachments: Staff Report +Attachments Packet Pg. 78 6.B.a ,') C. I S9%J CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.EdmondsWA.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Aq�dmonds Planning Board From: a pley, Ass File: PLN20160044 Project Summary: A Type IV-B rezone application initiated by property owners, Frasier Fir, LLC and Pinewood Management, LLC. to change the zoning designation of properties located at 9107/9111 — 2361h Street SW from Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Multiple Residential (RM-1.5). Public Hearing: Jul' 25, 2018 at 7:00 PM Edmonds City Council Chambers / Public Safety Complex 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Page I of 6 Packet Pg. 79 6.B.a Pinegrove Properties Rezone: File PLN20180044 I. INTRODUCTION A. Applicant: Property owners Frasier Fir, LLC. & Pinewood Management, LLC. B. Site Location: Two parcels located at 9107 and 9111 — 2361h Street SW (Attachment A). C. Request: To change the zoning designation from Single Family Residential (RS- 8) to Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) (Attachment B). D. Review Process: A rezone is a Type IV-B application. Staff makes a recommendation to the Planning Board. The Planning Board conducts a public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. M The application was submitted on September 12, 2016 and determined to be complete on October 10, 2016. A combined Notice of Application and Public Hearing was issued (mailed/posted/published) on July 10, 2018. This application has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.02 (Development Project Permit Applications). E. Major Issues: Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones). II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Site Description: The site contains two parcels comprised of a total of approximately 0.75 acres or 33,000 square feet. The site addressed 9111 — 236th St. SW is developed with single family home and legal non -conforming multi- family building. Currently, the zoning designation is Single Family Residential "RS-8." B. Neighboring Development & Zoning: The neighborhood is mainly developed with multi -family homes (north, south, and east), with a less intense single family zoning and development pattern west of the site. The properties to the north, south, and east are zoned RM-1.5 (Attachment A) while the properties to the west are zoned RS-8. The neighborhood is conveniently located near Edmonds Way, Highway 99, with public transit available along Edmonds Way. The adjacent "RM-1.5" zoned properties to the north and east are developed with a 120-unit affordable housing apartment complex, owned and managed by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), and four buildings, each containing four units for a total of 16 units. The three adjacent "RS-8" zoned properties are developed with two single family homes and a legal non -conforming duplex. C. State Environmental Policy Act: A Determination of Non -significance (DNS) was issued for the subject properties on September 11, 2017 for the preceding comprehensive plan map amendment (Attachment J). The DNS was adopted for the purposes of rezone on June 25, 2018 (Attachment I). Page 2 of 6 Packet Pg. 80 6.B.a Pinegrove Properties Rezone: File PLN20180044 D. Technical Review Committee: This application was reviewed by the City of Edmonds Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and Snohomish County Fire District #1. Engineering provided a Memorandum of Compliance, noting that a transportation analysis shall be completed, as required, with future development of the property (Attachment H). No comments or conditions were noted by Snohomish County Fire District #1. E. Public Comments: To date, no public comments have been received on the rezone proposal. r F. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance: The Planning Board and City Council shall review the proposed rezone and the following factors shall M be considered pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones): A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the a, comprehensive plan; The Comprehensive Plan map designation change from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor was heard by City Council on October 17, 2017, under file AMD20160008. Council made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan map designation change; however, the amendment was inadvertently omitted from the ordinance adopting the 2017 comprehensive plan amendments. Council is scheduled to take action on the 2018 comprehensive plan amendments on August 21, 2018. Once adopted, this proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The compatible zoning classifications for Edmonds Way Corridor plan map designation are BP, BN, BC, or similar commercial zone, or RM zones. There are several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for the Multi Family designation (p. 68 of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan), most of which are policies of how new multi -family buildings should look in relation to neighboring single family developments. A discussion on building design would be premature at this point, but the following policy is still applicable: C.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. The proposal is located along 236th Street SW, approximately 300 feet from SR- 104, which is considered a major arterial. B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; The current zoning designation allows one single family home per lot. The proposed new zoning designation of RM- 1.5 would allow a density of six (6) dwelling units on property addressed 9107 — 236th Street SW and 14 dwelling units on property addressed 9111 — 236th Street SW. The change from single family (RS-8) to multiple residential (RM-1.5) would mean a potential increase in dwelling units. Below is a comparison of site development standards between the existing single family zone and the applicable compatible zoning classifications for the Multi Family Medium Density plan map designation. Page 3 of 6 Packet Pg. 81 6.B.a Pinegrove Properties Rezone: File PLN20180044 Zone Street Side Setback Setback RS-8 25' 7.5' Rear Height Lot Setback Coverage 15' 25' 1 35% C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; Surrounding uses in the subject area are primarily multi -family and single family residential. There is some light commercial at the corner of 2361h Street SW and SR-104. The subject site is bordered on three sides by multi -family (RM-1.5) zoning. Single-family (RS-8) zoning abuts the subject site to the west. The proposed rezone is compatible with the surrounding area. 15' 1 25' 1 45% 23429 235 Qp 7351 RS•8 Z 9115 G m d• P 236111 s f sw D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; T N CO) N The proposed zoning is justified as the area is already developed with multi- family residential — which has existed since the late 1970's. In fact, a rezone of the property would bring a current legal non -conforming multi -family use located at 9111 — 236th Street SW into compliance. E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; The neighborhood comprising the subject properties has long been developed with either single family homes or apartments. The site is located approximately 300 feet from a major arterial so the traffic impact to the neighborhood would be minimal. If rezoned for multi -family use, a future development application would be required to submit a traffic impact analysis. Also, a SEPA review would need to be conducted for any proposal with more than four (4) dwelling units. A thorough design review by the Architectural Design Board would also be required. F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. There is a potential increase in value to the applicants, because if the rezone is approved, then the property could eventually be re -developed with multiple dwelling units, whereas now the zoning constraints require only one house per lot. Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 82 6.B.a Pinegrove Properties Rezone: File PLN20180044 Al§o, all of the RM-zones would allow an applicant to propose an office use (through the conditional use permit process, which requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner). The greatest impact of a future development would be for the single family homes to the west; however, no questions or comments about this rezone application have been received to date. III. CONCLUSIONS A. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan once amended. City Council is scheduled to take action on the 2018 comprehensive plan amendments on August 21, 2018. B. The proposal is consistent with proposed zoning district, in that multi -family residential uses already exist on one of the properties and single family homes are still permitted primary uses in multiple residential zones. C. The proposal is appropriate given the surrounding area, given that the subject site is bordered on three sides by multi -family zoning (RM-1.5). D. The surrounding area has been developed with multi -family uses since the late 1970's. E. The neighborhood appears to be both economically and physically suitable for the proposed zoning designation, as the property is flat and is located near a major arterial and bus stops. F. There does not appear to be a gain in public health/safety/welfare compared to the potential increase in value to the property owners. There would be an increase in the tax base if we allowed a potential for more dwelling units, which would benefit the City as well as the property owner. G. After taking into consideration the above rezone factors, the rezone should be approved. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings of facts, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the requested rezone from Single Family Residential (RS-8) to Multiple Residential (RM-1.5). Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 83 6.B.a Pinegrove Properties Rezone: File PLN20180044 V. ATTACUMENTS A. Zoning map B. Land use application form C. Applicant Cover letter D. ECDC Chapter 20.40 (Rezones) E. ECDC Chapter 16.30 (RM — Multiple Residential) F. Multi -family Residential Land Use Policies, Comprehensive Plan, 2017. Pg. 68. G. City Council Meeting Minutes, October 17, 2017. H. Engineering Division Memorandum of Compliance, dated July 10, 2018. I. SEPA Adoption Notice J. SEPA DNS and Environmental Checklist K. Public Notices VI. PARTIES OF RECORD A. Frasier Fir Tree, LLC. — 433 Sprague St., Edmonds WA 98020 B. Pinewood Management — 433 Sprague St., Edmonds WA 98020 C. Martin Reimers — 1712 Pacific Ave., Suite 107, Everett, WA 98201 D. City of Edmonds Planning Division Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 84 '*-'City of Edmonds Zoning & Vicinity Map 23414 17 23422 25 23430 131 23508 3507 - .23516 515 529 9205 2341 r1 23423 23429 23507 23515 4 t 9115 Q1'$ En rV 0 tn' rn rV 23415 23419 23429 23417 _ -� N r Legend r r 0 ReZones 0) -a PRD RoW 0 Zoning r C1 RS-6 to 1 RS-B � Subject Sites 9017 in � � �• RS-10 N s 23509 --- �>� RS-12 9111 90 1 5-_ U; ® RSW-12 0 I rye RS-20 t 9011 ,�� ' 23523 E] RS-MP m RM-3 = PO RM-2.4 1 0107 1 :9011. ■ RM-1.5 3 8923 * RM-EW d BD1 C c C 5TH aT� BD2 E BD3 t V BD4 Q Q BD5 Z OR r- co r o Q WMU a ON !j BP t�� 4 ■ BN ++ JQ / ® FVMU �i[]f]'8 2 M BC �� ;(:1:1 1:2,257 E Notes U 0 94.04 188.1 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is fc reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurat( WGS-1984_Web-Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIOI Q ATTACHMENT A Packet Pg. 85 6.B.a City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW X COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION X REZONE fiNZOi6004q ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: FILE#L ZONE, 4 DATE I Z REC'D BY FEE 1 7—/ 00 . U RECEIPT# HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF (APB ❑ ADB k;�dCC • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 9107 and 9113 236th Street SW PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) The Pinegrove Properties Rezone Fraser Fir Tree, LLC an PROPERTY OWNER_ Pinewood Mgpt. I -LC PHONE # ADDRESS 433 Sprague St, Edmonds, WA cchuckbi7@gmail.com TAX ACCOUNT # 00555300100102, 00555300100104 FAX # SEC. 31 TWP. 27 RNG. 04 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Rezpne and C=rebeasiYe Plan Amendment DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT ADDRESS E-MAIL Alan Sze PHONE # 206.919.4612 FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Martin Reimers AIA PHONE # 425.377.8786 ADDRESS 1712 Pacific Avenue, Suite 107. Everett, WA 9 201 E-MAIL mreimers@conceptarchitecture.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, hisfher/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT Property Owner's Authorization 1, Alan Sze Washington that the following is a it subject land use application, and gran subject property for the purposes of in. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DA =rlify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of nt: Ihave: • tt¢horized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the I pb`ic of cials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the t n to l Fs application. DATE Revised on 8/11/I2 B - Land Use Page 1 of I ATTACH Packet Pg. 86 6.B.a CONCEPT ARCHITECTURE, L.I_C 6 September 2016 City of Edmonds okt'-Cel Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue N `st�l� 1 U) Edmonds, WA 98020 N RE: Rezone 9107 and 9111 236th Street SW N Dear Edmonds Planning: Attached please find our application for processing a rezone of the two above referenced properties. We believe the zone change will be beneficial and acceptable to the city. When viewing the zoning map of the area of our properties, it is immediately evident that the properties in question would be included in our desired zone had a straight line been used to define the limits of the zones. We are currently an RS-8 and desire a change to RM-1.5. Further, the 9111 property is currently a legally non -conforming multi -family use. A zone change would place this property in the proper zone for its current use. There are six criteria to be considered for your decision as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan. The project will require a concurrent application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The current Comprehensive Plan Designation is Single Family Urban 1. This designation is consistent with the current zoning of RM-1.5. The subject property is surrounded on three sides with land that is designated Edmonds Way Corridor which allows RM zoning that we seek. The designation boundary lines are the same as the zoning boundary lines in this vicinity. Attached please find a project description which addresses the Comprehensive Plan directly. Because the goals of the Comprehensive Plan would be met by approving this modification, we believe this is a reasonable request. 2. Zoning Ordinance. The current zoning is RS-8 which allows single family residences on lots with a minimum lot size of 8,000 SF. The subject properties are surrounded on two sides as well as across the street by Multi -Family zoned properties RM-1.5. Changing the zone in which our properties reside, would be consistent with current zoning in the area as it tends to simplify the boundaries of the zone and creates a more logical boundary. 3. Surrounding Area. The property to the north of the subject property contains apartment units, the property to the east of the subject property contains condominiums, and the property across the street to the south contains a 4-plex multifamily building. One property to the west contains a duplex and the other single family zoned property to the west contains a single family dwelling. Properties radiating in the various directions from the subject property are consistent with their zoning. 4. Change. The immediate area has been stable with the apartments to the north being newest, built in 1987. The neighborhood is made up of older structures and will be in need of updating or re -developing in the near future. A re -zoning of this property may result in new development which could spark a revitalizing of this area. 1712 Pacific Avenue - Suite 107, Everett, VVA 98201 - 425.377,8786 1005 Terminal Way - Suite 245, Reno, NV 89502 - 775,247.7889 %,Aaw.conceptarchitecture com ATTJ Packet Pg. 87 6.B.a 5. Suitability. The neighborhood and especially the immediate vicinity includes a great many multifamily units. The zoning of the subject properties to multi -family would be very suitable to the area that is already largely multifamily. 6. Value. The re -zoning of the subject property would enable new residential units to be developed in the city. By virtue of the new regulations in place, the new units would be more efficient and sustainable. This adds value to the city as a whole. New development would add to the property value of each property in the immediate vicinity as the financial investment shows confidence in the neighborhood. U) If you have any questions or comments on the above or the attached, please do not hesitate to N contact me. M N Sincerely, r M Ma*.eimers, AIA o Packet Pg. 88 7/20/2018 Chapter 20.40 REZONES Chapter 20.40 REZONES Sections: 20.40.000 Scope. 20.40.010 Review. 20.40.020 Contract rezones. 20.40.030 Notice. 20.40.000 Scope. The requirements of this chapter apply to proposed rezones, which are changes in the zone districts by amendment to the official zoning map that apply to parcels of property. 20.40.010 Review. ............................................................ The planning advisory board shall review the proposed rezone as provided in ECDC 20.100.020. At least the following factors shall be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone: A. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; B. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; C. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; D. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone; E. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. 20.40.020 Contract rezones. An applicant may propose conditions to be imposed by contract on a rezone. If the applicant wishes to take this approach, the proposed conditions shall be reviewed at all public hearings on the rezone. 20.40.030 Notice. ......................................................... Notice of rezone hearings (and text change) before the planning board shall be the same as set forth for proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan in ECDC 20.00.020 for newspaper publication, and pursuant to ECDC 20.03.003. [Ord. 3817 § 11, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 56, 2009; Ord. 3112 § 14, 1996]. http://www.codepublishing.comiWA/Edmonds/ ATTACHI Packet Pg. 89 7/20/2018 Chapter 20.40 REZONES The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. T http://www.codepublishing.comiWA/Edmonds/ I Packet Pg. 90 7/20/2018 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.000 Purposes. ............................................................................................................................... The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.010 Uses. ............................................................................. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; 3. Retirement homes or congregate care facilities, assisted living facilities; 4. Group homes for the disabled, foster family homes and state -licensed group homes for foster care of minors; provided, however, that halfway houses and group homes licensed for juvenile offenders are not permitted uses in a residential zone of the city; 5. Boarding houses and rooming houses; 6. Housing for low income elderly in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25 ECDC; 7. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020; 8. Primary schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 9. Local public facilities that are planned, designated, and sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. All permitted secondary uses in the RS zone, if in conjunction with a single-family dwelling; 2. Home occupations, subject to the requirements of Chapter 20.20 ECDC; 3. The following accessory uses: http://www.codepublishing.comNVA/Edmonds/ ATTACHM Packet Pg. 91 7/20/2018 Chapter 16.30 RM - MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL a. Private parking, 6.B.a b. Private swimming pools and other private recreational facilities, c. Private greenhouses covering no more than five percent of the site in total; 4. Commuter parking lots containing less than 10 designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. Any additionally designated parking spaces that increase the total number of spaces in a commuter parking lot to 10 or more shall subject the entire commuter parking lot to a conditional use permit as specified in subsection (D)(2) of this section, including commuter parking lots that are located upon more than one lot as specified in ECDC 21.15.075. C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Offices, other than local public facilities; 2. Local public facilities not planned, designated, or sited in the capital improvement plan, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050; 3. Day-care centers and preschools for 13 or greater children; 4. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums, and assisted living facilities; 5. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033; 6. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers; 7. High schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R); 8. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Day-care facilities or preschools of any size to be operated in a separate, nonresidential portion of a multifamily residential dwelling primary permitted structure operated primarily for the benefit of the residents thereof; 2. Commuter parking lots with 10 or more designated parking spaces in conjunction with a church, school, or local public facility allowed or conditionally permitted in this zone. [Ord. 3988 § 8, 2015; Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.030 Site development standards. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A. Table. http://www.codepublishing.comiWA/Edmonds/ I Packet Pg. 92 7/20/2018 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Subdistrict Per Dwelling Unit3 Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Height Coverage (Sq. Ft.) Setback2 Setback2 Setback RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25" 45% RM-EW 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25'4 45% RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10, 15' 25" 45% RM-3 3,000 15' 15' 15' 25" 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See definition of townhouse. 4 The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 35 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: (a) At least two of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: (1) Achievement of at least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification; (2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units proposed; (3) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. B. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to buildings within the RM-EW zone: 1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio- based or indigenous. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. A. Maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet. B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. C. Setback Encroachments. 6.B.a 1. Eaves and chimneys and bay windows, utility lines and meters, and "similar minor improvements," etc., may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. http://www.codepublishing.comiWA/Edmonds/ I Packet Pg. 93 T N t M N r rn c 0 r Cn M m c 0 N d c 0 M c �L c� a� 2 0 d U) c m E z U 0 r r Q 0 Q. a� c m E z U 0 r Q 7/20/2018 Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 6.B.a 2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. 3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side setbacks. [Ord. 3943 § 2 (Exh. 1), 2013; Ord. 3652 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3627 § 1, 2007]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4112, passed May 15, 2018. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. http://www.codepublishing.comiWA/Edmonds/ I Packet Pg. 94 6.B.a Consider at ac ie - , units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to 1111171p - ii1ig. B.2 Multiple. The City's development policies encourage sustainable high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. B.2.a Location Policies. B.2.a.i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets B.2.b Compatibility Policies. B.2.b.i RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. B.2.b.ii The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. B.2.b.iiiThe design of RM buildings located next to RS zones should be similar to the design idiom of the single family residence. B.2.c. General Design Policies. B.2.c.i The nonstructural elements of the building (such as decks, lights, rails, doors, windows and window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a unified design concept. B.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. B.3 Mobile Homes. Update design standards to ensure quality parks heavily landscaped both for screening exterior and for appearance of interior. Commercial Land Use ,al. Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been oriented primary serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a unique array of personalized s ecialty type shopping opportunities for the public. In the downtown area, the Milltown shopping de is an excellent example of this type of development. It is essential that future commercial develo its continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character of Edmonds that its citi so strongly desire to retain. By the same token, the City should develop a partnership with business, cite nd residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various requirements of the City's c❑ nd policies. The Highway 99 arterial has been recognized historically as a c rcial district which adds to the community's tax and employment base. Its economic vitality is impor0dmonds and should be T z M N Land Use 68 ATTA Packet Pg. 95 6.B.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 17, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor (arrived 9:00 p.m.) Thomas Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember CALL TO 0RDERIFL.AG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT S. Gagner, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The E nds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council President Mesaros in the Council G hers, 250 51' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CA City Clerk Scott Passey c d the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. DOMESTIC 1 MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED Council President Mesaros read a proclamation proclaiming Octob 2017 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and the third week of October as YWCA Week Witho Violence in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to YWCA Executive Director Mary Anne Dillon d Corporate Relations Officer Alicia Crank. On behalf of the YWCA, Ms. Dillon thanked the City Council and Mayor Earling for ra . - ig awareness about domestic violence through this proclamation. The YWCA is on a mission to elimi e racism, empower women, help families and strengthen communities. For more than 20 years, YWCAs III ughout the country have designated the third week of October as Week Without Violence. Domestic violent is an all -too -common thread in the lives of people the YMCA serves as well as neighbors, friends, relatives ,ind Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 1 ATTA Packet Pg. 96 6.B.a Taraday clarified the motion was to approve the ordinance in the packet and Councilmember Buckshnis %Llhat was her intent. UPO LL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCK S AND TEITZEL AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS VOTING YES; COUNCILME S NELSON AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABSTA Council President Mesaros declared a 'ecess. Mayor Earling announced due to the late hour, the nciI would consider Agenda Items 8.2, 8.3 and 9.1 and the remaining agenda items would be continued to a-TW4i e meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SE D BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER ❑NL NDA ITEMS 8.2, 8.3 AND 9.1 AND CONTINUE THE REMAINING ITEMS TO A FUTURE MEE OTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COt'.NClI-W#4NjBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIE.I) . ), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 2. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 9111 AND 9107-236TH ST. SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 SFU1 TO LDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR EWC Associate Planner Brad Shipley reviewed: • Process: Type V Legislative Action o Application o Public hearing before Planning Board o Public hearing before City Council o City Council takes action on all Comprehensive Plan amendments collectively o If Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved, applicant may submit for a rezone to a compatible zoning classification • Aerial map of subject site - 236" St SW & Edmonds Way, between Edmonds Way and Madrona School • History: o Currently developed with a SFR and legal, non -conforming multi -family residence 0 9107 236th St. SW Developed in 1960 0 9111 236th St. SW Developed in 1958 and 1970 o Parcels were annexed into the City in 1997 ■ Proposal o Change Comp Plan designation from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor o If a change to the Comp Plan designation is approved, the applicant indicated that they would seek a rezone to RM-1.5 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Compatible Zoning Classifications Designation Type Edmonds Way Corridor Commercial BP, BN, BC or other similar commercial zone; RM Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 20 Packet Pg. 97 6.B.a • Planning Board reviewed the criteria on April 26, 2017 and made the recommendation to approve the proposed Comp Plan amendment. ■ Today, we are seeking approval to continue with the process with the understanding that final approval will occur at a later date. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Ms. Hope had answered all her questions. Councilmember Tibbott asked how many parcels would be allowed if the property were rezoned to RM 1.5. Mr. Shipley said RM 1.5 allows 1 unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area so approximately 21 units would be allowed. Councilmember Tibbott commented 21 units appeared to be compatible with other multifamily in the area. Mr. Shipley agreed there was multifamily development on three sides and one of Cn z the sites is currently developed multifamily although it is a legal non -conforming building. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation. N COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO APPROVAL CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES AT 9111 AND 9107-236TH ST. SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 (SFUI) TO EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR (EWC). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT City neer Rob English explained this is a request for additional funding for the fishing pier. It was presented he Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee who recommended it be presented to the full Council. The ect began in spring 2016, the bulk of the improvements were built between spring and December. Impro ents were made to the top of the pier deck (shelters, railing, benches, lighting and other amenities) as as structural repairs to the underside of the pier structure. In May 2016, staff requested additional fun due to the condition of the edge on both sides of the pier. He displayed photographs of the deter iorat oncrete and rebar, described the edge repair and displayed a photograph of the alternate edge repair. The e oint repairs met contract requirements. This funding request is related to the cente nt repairs. He displayed a cross-section of the pier illustrating the two piers coming out of the water at an an nd a pile cap on top with two T-cross sections on the pile cap that abut to a joint in the center of the pier. Rep of that joint was part of the contract and the contractor attempted to make those repairs. He displayed a phut h of the demolition of the existing concrete and prepped for the new concrete patch. The contractor woul n have placed a form board under the pier and bottom and poured high strength concrete through bored hole ' ito the void. He displayed a photograph of the finished product showing the deficient center joint repair. J'ng bond strength testing, the first pier bay passed but all subsequent pier bays failed the bond strength tes ut of 12 total bays, only #3 passed the bond strength test. Mr. English reviewed: Construction timeline Feb 2016 Contract awarded to Razz Construction March 2016 NTP provided to Razz April 2016 Edge repairs unforeseen condition May -August 2016 Alternate edge repairs completed, center joint repairs co eted August & September Contractor notified of failed tests on center joint Aug -Dec 2016 Contractor completes remaining impioVee11 July 2017 Razz remobilized onsite July & Sept 2017 Razz performs testing on center joint repairs Oct 2017 Razz submits epoxy injection submittal C Contractor's submittal is currently being reviewed. One of the advantages is it would b quicker repair than removing the concrete patch. Likely the contractor will do one pier Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2017 Page 21 Packet Pg. 98 6.B.a MEMORANDUM Date: July 10, 2018 To: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PLN20160044 — Rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 Fraser Fir Tree, LLC and Pinewood Mgmt 9107 and 9113 236' St SW Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. It is requested that the following be included as a condition of project approval. A tranpsortation analysis shall be completed, as required, with future development of the property. Thank you. City of Edmonds ATTI Packet Pg. 99 6.B.a u1- FDA, v �G CITY OF EDMONDS zli. F Sn,� 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-965 Adoption Notice ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption of (check appropriate box) NJ DNS ❑ EIS ❑ Other Description of current proposal: Rezone two parcels 9107 and 9111 — 2361h St. SW from Single Family (RS-8) to Multi -family (RM-1 5). Proponent: Frasier Fir Tree, LLC. & Pinewood Management, LLC. Location of proposal, including street address if any:_9107 and 9111 — 236th St. SW, Edmonds. WA Title of document being adopted:�Pinegroye Properties Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Environmental Checklist and DNS Agency that prepared document being adopted. Pine Wood Management, LLC (rep. Martin Riemers Date adopted document was prepared: July 25 2016 checklist and September 11 2017 DNS Description of document (or portion) being adopted: Environmental determination for the Comprehensive Plan amendment associated with the same site (file AMD20160008). There will be no additional environmental impacts from rezoning the site If the document being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: The Pinegrove Properties Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment DNS was not timely appealed. The document is available to be read at (place/time): The document is available on the City's website (file PLN20160044) and for review during business hours at the Development Services permit counter, 2na Floor, City Hall, 121 5:h Ave. K Edmonds. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker. Name of agency adopting document: City of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Phone: 425-771-0220 Responsible official: Rob Chave Position/Title: Planning Manager Phone: 425.771,0220 121 51h Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: l_� • `L .20 (2( Signature: T N t m CO) N WAC (4/15/98) ATTACHMENT I �%LDMsvR-DEMS' ili&+nLng�srrAKLITEMrftAmPumn KcviewsTlara,+ag Pem'4 11 Packet Pg. 100 6.B.a STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 • (360) 725-4000 v,3v.:v. c ommerce.wa.gov U) May 15, 2018 U) Robert Chave Planning Manager CO) City of Edmonds r 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 a Dear Mr. Chave: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Edmonds - Proposed text amendments to the comprehensive plan to reference adopted Highway 99 subarea plan. These materials were received on May 11, 2018 and processed with the Material ID # 24916. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106. If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty days following the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048. Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services Packet Pg. 101 6.B.a at EU,y7 y r��I 4 N CITY OF EDMON DS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Application for a 'Type V Comprehensive Plan amendment for a proposed § change in plan map designation from 'Single Family Urban 1' to 'Edmonds Way Corridor' for two v) properties located in the Single Family Residential Zone (RS-8). A public. hearing is scheduled before the N City Council on 10/03/2017. m Proponent: Fraser Fir Tree, LLC and Pinewood Management, LLC N Location of proposal, including street address if any: 9107 and 9111 236t'' Street SW, Edmonds, WA rn Tax Parcel Numbers: 00555300100104 (9111), 00555300100102 (9107) -2 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 9/26/2017. Project Planner: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: ri Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than 10/02/2017. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on 9/11/2017, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAtinit e" cy_wa gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at httes:/loermits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20160008. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION 9i8i17 SEPA ATTJ Packet Pg. 102 6.B.a Notice Mailed to the following XX Community Transit XX Environmental Review Section Attn.: Kate Tourtellot Department of Ecology 7100 Hardeson Road P.O. Box 47703 Everett, WA 98203 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Email: SEPAunit(o)ecy.wa.gov XX Olympic View Water &Sewer District 8128 2281h St. SW XX COMCAST Edmonds, WA 98026 Outside rlant Engineer, North Region 1525 75` St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1G XX A Center DNR SEP A Center Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 P.O. Box d 2rvid.matulichCa7�pse.com Olympia, WA 98504-7015 SEPACENTER DNR.WA.GOV XX Applicant: Martin Reimers 1712 Pacific Ave., Suite 107 XX Tulali Tribal Council p Everett, WA 98201 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX Department of Archology & Historic Preservation XX Seattle District, U.S. Arm Corps of Y p P.O. Box 48343 Engineers Olympia, WA 98290 P.O. Box 3755 Kristin@futurewise.org Seattle, WA 98124-3755 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 Attachments pc File No. AMD20160008 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION 9/8/17.SEPA Packet Pg. 103 6.B.a 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 EDH776518 SEPA DNS 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 09/11/2017 and ending on 09/11/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $53.32. ary Subscribed and sworn b ore me on this day of N ary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 BRAD SHIPLEY Linda Phillips Notary Public State Of Washington LMyppointment Expires 08/29l2021 Packet Pg. 104 6.B.a 4 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNFICANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Clty o1 Edrnonds has f8sued a DelcrnHnabon QM Non nileanme for the fdildwing project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appllcailon lar a 'Type W Comprehensive Plan amendnrenl rcposinr} aComp Plan map elgn daation change Irom'Single fpamlty Urban 1' lo'Edmonds Way Corrldor' Ior twoprop jroparrtres located in the Sin to Family R.Ihegoily Coura ah 161M. 117r�&[ Ito No,aAM820 600p8Is Schad ) before PROJECT PROPONENT: City 0f Edmonds DATE DNS ISSUE D:SWWmbw 11, 2017 PROJECT I.00ATtON: 9107 and 9111 236th Stieel SW, Edmonds, WA TAX PARCEL NIJMBENS]: 00555300100104(911W 00555300100102(9107) SEPA COMMENTS: SEPA comments are due by September 26, 2017, APPEAL PERIOD: You may appeal this date rminalion by filing R wgrriilWn apppperal citing the Specific reasons for aopBat with the SEPAuk TER}ALS: W leaTh later SEPAACheck is?s telm$p 4a00 PIA. nd DNS are RvaIlabiR at ww �QY Ihraugh the Parmil6 Online link. Search or Mile A 201 G[IO A These matanals are also available Ior review ai the Pianwngg Divialan. Iocatod mt the second floor at Edmonds City }call, 121 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020. CITY CONTACT: Brad Shipley, ASanC le Pin nnur 425-7 1-0 20 llllo Mswa_arx d25.771-0 20 uuilshed. September 11, 2017. EDH776518 4a co z co M N C t4 ti O M l;V C O N 4) W a Packet Pg. 105 6.B.a STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE - PO Box 42525 - Olympia, WashwWon 99504-2525 - (360) 725-4000 WWW.c0mmerce.wa.g0v U) October 25, 2017 r N Robert Chave Planning Manager CO) City of Edmonds r 121 - 5th Avenue North r Edmonds, Washington 98020 °' n Dear Mr. Chave: Thank you for sending the Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) the following materials as required under RCW 36.70A.106. Please keep this letter as documentation that you have met this procedural requirement. City of Edmonds - Proposed comprehensive plan amendment to change land use designation from Single Family Urban 1 (SFU1) to Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC) to allow for a future proposal to change the zoning. The site is located at 9111 & 9107 236th St. SW, Edmonds. These materials were received on October 20, 2017 and processed with the Material ID # 24268. We have forwarded a copy of this notice to other state agencies. If this submitted material is an adopted amendment, then please keep this letter as documentation that you have met the procedural requirement under RCW 36.70A.106. If you have submitted this material as a draft amendment, then final adoption may occur no earlier than sixty days following the date of receipt by Commerce. Please remember to submit the final adopted amendment to Commerce within ten days of adoption. If you have any questions, please contact Growth Management Services at reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov, or call Dave Andersen (509) 434-4491 or Paul Johnson (360) 725-3048 Sincerely, Review Team Growth Management Services Packet Pg. 106 6.B.a 10 C Department of Commerce ' Innovation is in our nature. Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment 60 Days Prior to Adoption Indicate one (or both, if applicable). El Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑ Development Regulation Amendment Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106, the following jurisdiction provides notice of intent to adopt a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and/or development regulation amendment under the Growth Management Act. Jurisdiction: Mailing Address: Date: City of Edmonds 121 5 h Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020 October 20, 2017 Contact Name: Rob Chave Title/Position: Planning Manager Phone Number: 425.771.0220 E-mail Address: Rob.chave@edmondswa.gov Brief Description of the Proposed/Draft Amendment: If this draft amendment is provided to supplement an existing 60-day notice already submitted, then please provide the date the original notice was submitted and the Commerce Material ID number located in your Commerce acknowledgement letter. Is this action part of the scheduled review and update? GMA requires review every 8 years under RCW 36. 70A.130(4)-(6). Public Hearing Date: Proposed Adoption Date: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use designation from Single Family Urban 1 (SFU1) to Edmonds Way Corridor (EWC) to allow for a future proposal to change the zoning. The site is located at 9111 & 9107 236th St. SW, Edmonds. Yes: No: X Planning Board/Commission: April 26, 2017 Council/County Commission: December 2017 December 2017 REQUIRED: Attach or include a copy of the proposed amendment text or document(s). We do not accept a website hyperlink requiring us to retrieve external documents. Jurisdictions must submit the actual document(s) to Commerce. If you experience difficulty, please contact reviewteam@commerce.wa.c�ov. T Rev 03/2015 Packet Pg. 107 #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6.B.a 'Itckrz-1 A �PI'?'? D 01s Purpose of Checklist: Cn The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with M probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help cl you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. an Instructions for Applicants: 16 This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer Cn T the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer c N the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if W a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may o avoid unnecessary delays later, a� c Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. _ The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you a submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there �— may be significant adverse impact. U) c m Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: E For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the leasd agency may U r exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of Q the proposalFor nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Q. a� tr A. BACKGROUND M 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pinegrove Properties Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment r m E t U 2. Name of applicant: Pine Wood Management, LLC—Alan Sze Q 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: nlicant —Alan Sze. 433 Sprague St., Edmonds, WA — 206.919.4b12 Contact— Martin Reimers, AIA, Concert Architecture, 1712 Pacif c Ave, Suite 107, Everett,_ WA 98201 4. Date checklist prepared: 712512016 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds Revised on 4115114 P71_ =EPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 108 6.B.a 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): We propose to complete the re -zone and amendment by -October 2016 if possible. u (STAFF COMMENTS) e J 'r- C d T>C V 4E 14A CO-- r d Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS)_1 a t d-6 d t,� I)T?q � 7=o {B "Ads"sL 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No environmental information pmared (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Noneknown (STAFF COMMENTS) AiOla C - Q Revised on 4115114 P71_ =SEPA CheoMist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 109 6.B.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Rezone and Cam rehensive Plan Amendment (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The project includes the rezone of 2 lots from single family zoning (RS-8) to Multifamily Housing (RM 1.5). (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your '� proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal = would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, 0 vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the Z agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related a to this checklist. N r The 12roiect is located at 9107 and 91 11 230 Street SW Edmonds WA E Section 3 ] Township 27, Range 04. NW '/a c� a 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) M c d E z TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT a B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Gently sloping Revised on 4/15V14 P71_ =,EPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 110 6.B.a b. C. d. e. f. (STAFF COMMENTS} V What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The site slo es consistently to the east. The steepest pordoD is U12rox. 13% co z m M N (STAFF COM M ENTS) CD c c� ti What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you CD know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of longterm commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. c Alderwood Urban Land Complex is the soil type of the site. This classif ation taken from the USES Soil Data o N C O C (STAFF COMMENTS) x Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No unstable soils are evident on site or in the immediate vicinity. (STAFF COMMENTS) Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No grading or land disturbance are proposed with this project. (STAFF COMMENTS) Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No erosion can occur as no earthwork is proposed. Q Revised on 4115114 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 111 6.B.a 2. 9. h. AIR b. C. (STAFF COMMENTS) V -11 About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The site is full developed. No changes to impervious surfaces proposed. Cn co z 1 (STAFF COMMENTS) V M N CD 13 c ca Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: o None needed. as 0 0 c 0 N 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) o a� c 0 a) x 2 0 What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and a industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. No changes proposed. Existing site has auto parking for residential use. M a (STAFF COMMENTS),_ _ o 0. _ 0 Cn Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c E None z M Q (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None proposed. Revised on 4/15i14 P71_ SEPA Checidist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 112 6.B.a (STAFF COMMENTS} 3. WATER Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No surface water is located in the immediate vicinity. (STAFF COMMENTS) V (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 0. No earthwork proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) Y (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No (STAFF COMl1'iENTS)______ Q Revised on 4115114 P71_ =BEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 113 6.B.a (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. The project is not in the floodplane. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No changes to existing situation. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ O N O C O b. Ground: c M (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a = general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. a No well is proposed. City water is already on site. d E z M a O 0. (STAFF COMMENTS) Y _ M (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if c d any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; E etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be 0 served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into a septic system. Sewer is available and in use. Q (STAFF COMMENTS) ReWsert on 4115114 P71_ _SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 114 6.B.a C. J Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The existinpsite includes roof and driveway and flatwork runoff. The roof runoff is collected in gutters and directed to the ground with downspouts. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste materials are currently able to enter surface waters and no chaiige to this will occur with the project. (STAFF COMMENTS} (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinityof the site? If so, describe. No chances are proposed to the toposranhy or drainage system. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, ii any: No modifications proposed The site is fully developed. (STAFF COMMENTS) i/ 4. Plants Q Revised on 4/1Y14 P71 =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 115 6.B.a a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:_ X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain U) Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops N wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: W N other types of vegetation: r r rn (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 r Cn fC d C O N b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? o No chanees,proposed to vegetation on site. c L :i IL N d E (STAFF COMMENTS )_�I �. � (�.i 4'T 0 `t u, U r r Q O Q. a� U) c m E z U 2 r Q Revised on 4115114 P71_ _SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 116 6.B.a C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ r N t Y m M N r d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, r if any: No landscaping proposed. c r Cn Y fC d C O N (STAFF COMMENTS) �I d O c L CU e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known. 3 n_ U) c m E t U (STAFF COMMENTS) I�L..[.1 Bahr 1 ti Q O Q. a� Y 07 5. Animals r c m a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near E the site. Examples include: U birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: small birds Y Y Q mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, othermone fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, othermone Revised on 4/1 &14 P71_— SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 117 6.B.a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known U) r N t m CO) N r r Cn (STAFF COMMENTS) r- 0 r Cn fC d C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 0 0 N d None known. W c 0 a� c �L (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 n_ U) c m d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: t No measures proposed. U r Q 0 Q. a� (STAFF COMMENTS) i) c m E z U e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 0 Q None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) V Revised on 4115114 P71_ _SEPA Cheoldist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 118 6.B.a 6. Energy and Natural Resources b. C. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Project alread serviced with electrical natural as for heat power and lights, No changes to ener needs proposed or anticipated as part of the proposed project. (STAFF COMMENTS) Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO No physical changes to the site are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: No new conservation features_prop�sed. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Environmental Health Q a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No. No changes to site Hazards. Revised on 4/15i14 P71_ =SEPA Checldist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 119 6.B.a (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None known (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes undergrand hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. No such conditions are known to exist. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. No project development or construction proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Only normal public services needed which are already provided. (STAFF COMMENTS) T N z m CO) N r r Cn C R O rn M m c O N d C O M C .L CU o_ U) c m E t U r Q O Q. a� CU c m E z U 2 r Q Revised on 4115114 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 120 6.B.a b. (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No new measures are proposed No known environmental health hazards exist. (STAFF COMMENTS) Y Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Regular traffic noise exists. (STAFF COMMENTS) V/ (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. No changes to noise levels proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1/ (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. No noise impacts. (STAFF COMMENTS) Q Revised on 4/15V14 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 121 6.B.a 8. Land and Shoreline Use What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Single family and multi -family uses are adjacent to the �iic. F� co (STAFF COMMENTS) m M N G7 b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result ti of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest 5 land tax status will be converted to nonfrom or nonforest use? No The site has not been used as a farm or working forest. -- c O N O D! C O 0) C O (STAFF COMMENTS) V/ c N r C (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business E operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If u so, how: a Not at all No such surrounding uses exist. + V- O a d M (STAFF COMMENTS) c d E z c� C. Describe any structures on the site. Q 9107 — Single Family Residence 9111 — Multi-Fmnily Residential Buildings. (STAFF COMMENTS) lI Revised on 41IY14 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 122 6.B.a d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No No structure changes proposed. e. (STAFF COMMENTS) What is the current zoning classification of the site? RS-8 — Single Family (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single Family Urban 1 _ m _ _ 2 (STAFF COMMENTS) _ a N r C d E t t) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? a N/A + V- 0 0. d (STAFF COMMENTS) M c d E z _ h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. c� Q Not to our knowledge. (STAFF COMMENTS)�� Revised on 4115114 P71_ -SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 123 6.B.a i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No change to exist. Currently approx. 8 units plus 1 unit_ (STAFF COMMENTS) Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. CD (STAFF COMMENTS) ti 0 V- aD M k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: m 0 None Needed. c 0 aM c (STAFF COMMENTS). CD IL N 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: E The 2roRosal is consistent with existing uses as the site is suiTounded on 3 sides by multi-fainfly zoned land. t M a 0 om (STAFF COMMENTS) CD M .r c d In. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long- E term commercial significance, if any: 0 None nearby. No measures proposed. r a (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 411Y14 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 124 6.B.a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No cbange.s to existing proposed. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Cn z m M N b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income a� housing. 3 c� No changes to exist. Proposed. c CD 0 m c (STAFF COMMENTS) 0 0 W c 0 a� c C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: m x Proposal does not impact existing conditions. .2 IL N r C d E t t) (STAFF COMMENTS) Q 0 a d 10. Aesthetics M a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle d exterior building material(s) proposed? E z No construction proposed. r Q (STAFF COMMENTS] Revised on 4/15114 P71_ =SEPA CheckJist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 125 6.B.a b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None No construction proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No construction is.pro posed so no measures proposed. (STAFFCOMMENTS) i/ 11. Light and Glare What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No change to existft li h6nt . (STAFF COM M ENTS) / b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. All neighboring ro erties are developed and no problems exist. (STAFF COMMENTS) V T N t m CO) N r r Cn c 0 r Cn M d C 0 N d c 0 M c L CU :i 0 o_ Revised on 4115114 P71_ =BEPA Cheddist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 126 6.B.a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: No measures are proposed (STAFF COMM ENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None known. (STAFF COMMENTS] b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. f (STAFF COMMENTS) V C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No measures proposed as no impacts anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS} T r N t m M N r r Cn c 0 r Cn M d C O N d C O a� c �L :i a U) c N E z U M r r Q O Q. a� c m E z U M r Q Revised on 4115114 P71_ =SEPA Cheddist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 127 6.B.a 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. No historical buildings on site. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resou rces. C. d. None known The site is fully developed and located in an existing neighborhood. (STAFF COMMENTS} Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. No assessment of already developed site was conducted. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. No changes to site proposed, therefore no resources can be affected. (STAFF COMMENTS} Q Revised on 4/15114 P71_ =EPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 128 6.B.a 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is accessed by 236"' St. $W which intersects Edmonds way which is also State Hwy 104. Edmonds Way � m M N CD � 1 (STAFF COMMENTS). � c� ti 0 V- aD M b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, c what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? N There is a public transit stop apKox. 350' from the site at the corner_ of Edmonds Wayand Steet„SW: 0 � _236" 0 a� c M m x (STAFF COMM ENTS) "G H a. -t a - G1 t) M C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How Q many would the project or proposal eliminate? + V- Existing narking totals approx. i5 spaces. None wilt be added or eliminated with this prpiect. 0 _ d M c d E z / (STAFF COMMENTS) Q d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilityes not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No improvements needed. Revised on 4115114 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 129 6.B.a C. f. 9. h. (STAFF COMMENTS) . Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. The project will not Use nor is in the vicinity of air transport. Rail and Water transport are available in downtown Edmonds. Our project will not use these per se. ti (STAFF COMMENTS) How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and anpassenger vehicles). What data or transporation models were used to make these estimates? No change to Lmftic patterns will result from this project. Number of current trips are unknown. (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Not at all. (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No transportation impacts are anticipated., Q Revised on 4115114 P71 _SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 130 6.B.a (STAFF COMMENTS) 15. Public Services Cn t a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police N protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. r No There will be no change in need for public services. CD 13 c c� ti 0 aD M (STAFF COMMENTS) V c 0 N P V b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: M None proposed. _ 2 IL N r C d (STAFF COMMENTS) E M a 16. Utilities Q. d a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: N Electricity. Gas Water Trash Phone and Sewer are available to the site. E z M Q (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 41IY14 P71_ SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 131 6.B.a b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No changes to utilities are progosed. No construction is proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declar and r penalty of perj ury laws t at the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that th lead a� ncylis relying on, a ft to make its decision. of Date Submitted T r z m CO) N r r Cn C 0 an M am c O N d C O a) c �L :i Q_ N r- N E t V Q L O NN� LPL d E t U 2 Q fbdsed on 4/15N P71 =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 132 6.B.a La / 1. /2. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? W z The project will have no impact on these items. No changes to site are proposed. M Proposal measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: No measurps proposed. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Project will not affrect plants, animals, fish, etc. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Na measures proposed. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The project will have no impact on enemy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None l2roposed. Q Revised on 4/15114 P71 =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 133 6.B.a 15. j 7. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal is not near or will not use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None proposed. _ How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The project is not near the shoreline nor will it affect these areas. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: None proposed. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No changes to demands on transportation, public services, or utilities. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None proposed. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The porposed project does not conflict with environmental protection requirements. Cn Q Revised on 4/1 5t14 P71_ =SEPA Checklist Pinegrove Packet Pg. 134 6.B.a FILE NO.: PLN20160044 APPLICANT: Fraser DECLARATION OF POSTING NOTICE OF APPLICATION & PUBLIC HEARING On the 9 day of July, 2018 the attached Notice of Application and Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Jennifer Machuga hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9 day of July, 2018, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: - {BFP747892 DOC;1\00006.900000\ } ATTA Packet Pg. 135 6.B.a FILE NO.: PLN20160044 APPLICANT: Frasier Fir Tree, LLC. and Pine Wood Management, LLC. DECLARATION OF MAILING CO) On the 9" day of July, 2018, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property N r owners within 300-feet of the property that is subject of the application referenced above. The Cn names were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9" day of July, 2018, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: I fa;u"�'3 Packet Pg. 136 6.B.a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NAME OF APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION FILE NUMBER: CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING Application for a rezone from Single Family (RS-8) to Residential Multi -family (RM-1.5) for two properties located at 9107 and gill — 236th St. SW. Fraser Fir Tree, LLC. + Pinewood Management, LLC. 9107/9111— 236th St. SW, Edmonds WA. PLN2o16o044 DATE OF APPLICATION: 9/12/2o16 DATE OF NOTICE: 7/10/2o18 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: 8/7/2016 REQUESTED PERMIT: Rezone OTER REQUIRED PERMITS: SEPA review REQUIRED STUDIES: None EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Environmental Checklist (adopted from AMD2o160008) COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: July 25, 2oi8(see public hearing information below) Any person may comment on this application up to the time of the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have sanding to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this proposal can be viewed or obtained by contacting the City of Edmonds Development Services Department at 121 — 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98o2o. Office hours are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday from 8:oo am to 4:30 pm, and Wednesdays from 8:oo am to noon or online through the City's website at www.permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen through the "Online Permits" link. Search for the above referenced permit file number. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made in person at the public hearing. CITY CONTACT: Brad Shipley, Associate Planner 425-771-0220, brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held before the Planning Board on July 25, 2o18 at 7 p.m., in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Packet Pg. 137 6.B.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. RECEIVED in 2 1 2018 :DEVELOPMENT SERVICES U) r U) On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties M located within 300 feet of the subject property. r Sign itur�o# +pplicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this'"! day of d otary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at r/lti .•�� MO N rQ� !,Po 9. e401 We. NOT : _= PUBUC 0" 0 + WA�N�� Revised on 9130111 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List I Packet Pg. 138 6.B.a 00655300100200 6/19/2018 EATON BRAD G & ANNA W or RESIDENT 563 8TH AVE MENLO PARK, CA 94063 00944200000400 6/19/2018 SHEEHAN GLEE V or RESIDENT 1443 GRANT AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133-3303 00463300400302 6/19/2015 WALKER WILLIAM P & DIA or RESIDENT 10201 RIDGEVIEW DR GRASS VALLEY, CA 95945 00447000100300 6/1912018 00447000200300 6/1912018 00504800000200 6/19/2015 TAYLOR JAMES & SANDRA or RESIDENT GUTIERREZ LAURA N or RESIDENT WHITEMAN LOWELL & CYNT or RESIDENT 23422 92ND AVE W 23429 92ND AVE W 23619 92ND AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 _ 07 00555300100101 6/19/2018 00555300100102 6/19/2018 00555300100104 6/19/2018 r G7 PINE GREEN MANAGEMENT or RESIDENT FRASER FIR TREE LLC or RESIDENT PINEWOOD MANAGEMENT or RESIDENT 433 SPRAGUE ST 433 SPRAGUE ST 433 SPRAGUE ST CO) EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 r r O� C 00555300100201 6/19/2018 00556300100502 6/19/2018 00572300200100 ell912018 LAMMERSDORF VICKI L or RESIDENT WARD PATRICIA C or RESIDENT SHEPARD RANDOLPH C or RESIDENT 0 9792 EDMONDS WAY PMB #320 23411 92ND AVE W 23431 93RD AVE W M EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 m c O N 01 00944200000001 6/19/2018 0090200000800 6/1912018 27033600111600 6/19/2018 MILLER BEN or RESIDENT MILLER BENJAMIN D & DI or RESIDENT ORVIS JAMES W & MARY H or RESIDENT 22703 105TH AVE W 22703 105TH AVE W 23529 93RD AVENUE W EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 L :i 27033600111700 6/19/2018 27033600111800 6/19/2018 00447000100200 6/19/2018 MESLER KRISTIN or RESIDENT TODD JULIET ANGELINA/S or RESIDENT SINGKEO LA & KEOGH E or RESIDENT d 23507 93RD AVE W 23515 93RD AVE W 23414 92ND AVE W �— EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 In c m E t v 00447000100400 6/19/2018 00447000200200 6/19/2018 00447000100500 6/19/2018 r NICHOLAS JESSICA E or RESIDENT SHIPLEY CHRISTOPHER A or RESIDENT RAYBURN EVELYN C or RESIDENT Q 23430 92ND AVE W 23423 92ND AVE W 23508 92ND AVE W + EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5603 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5604 0 O sZ 0) 00447000100600 6/19/2018 00447000200400 6/19/2018 00504800000300 6/1912018 PORTUGAL ESTEBAN or RESIDENT BANDY JEFFERY A or RESIDENT CURRIE CHRISTINE or RESIDENT 23516 92ND AVE W 23507 92ND AVE W 23621 92ND AVE W c EDMONDS, WA 98020-5604 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5604 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5605 E t v r Q 00504800000400 6/19/2018 27033600111500 6/19/2018 00463300400300 6/19/2018 HOLMES AMY or RESIDENT ANDERSON-TAYLOR J F or RESIDENT RADOVICH DARWIN or RESIDENT 23627 92ND AVE W 9205 236TH ST SW 5327 157TH PL SW EDMONDS, WA 98020-5605 EDMONDS, WA 98020-5679 EDMONDS, WA 98026 00837000000200 6/1912018 00898400000100 6/19/2018 00898400000200 6119/2018 FIEDLER ASTRID I or RESIDENT HSIUNG YI KAI or RESIDENT LEE SUMI or RESIDENT 9025 236TH ST SW # 2 9020 236TH STREET SE UNIT 1 9020 236TH ST SW UNIT 2 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Packet Pg. 139 6.B.a 00944200000002 6/19/2018 FISCHER SHERRILL F or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT C EDMONDS, WA 98026 00944200000003 6/19/2018 GAAL JENNIFER L or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT G EDMONDS, WA 98026 00944200000100 6/19/2018 ARZUMANOV ALBERT & ANZ or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT A EDMONDS, WA 98026 00944200000200 6/19/2018 00944200000300 6/19/2018 009442000006W 6/19/2018 BUTLER SUSAN or RESIDENT FISCHER SHERRILL F or RESIDENT MONILLAS AMARA & JONAT or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT B 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT C 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT E EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 G7 00944200000700 6/19/2018 00463300400101 6/19/2018 00463300400400 6/l9/2Uld N GAAL JENNIFER L or RESIDENT PERRAULT JEAN or RESIDENT MORRIS KIMBERLY or RESIDENT 23616 EDMONDS WAY UNIT G 9006 236TH ST SW 9120 236TH ST SW t° CO) EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8924 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8925 N r r On 00504600000100 6/19/2018 00837000000100 6/19/2018 00837000000300 6/19/2018 m R SANDERSON WILLIAM W or RESIDENT ANDERSEN REGGIE A/ KUJ or RESIDENT SCHAMEL STACY M TTEE or RESIDENT c 9118 236TH ST SW 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 1 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 3 rn EDMONDS, WA 98026-8925 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 m c O N 00837000000400 6119/2018 00837000000600 611912018 00837000000700 6/1912018 SANDOZ JULIE M or RESIDENT GARTON GARY L & LAURA or RESIDENT CROTTS STEPHEN J & TRA or RESIDENT 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 4 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 6 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 7 O EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 L :i 00837000000800 6/19/2018 00837000000900 6/19/2018 00837000000500 6/19/2018 .2 GARTON GARY & MARTHA / or RESIDENT DAVIS TONI K or RESIDENT GRACE CYNTHIA A or RESIDENT 7 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 6 9025 236TH ST SW UNIT 9 23632 HWY 99 STE F d EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8934 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9205 c m E t 00898400000300 6/1912018 00447000200500 6/18/2018 27033604600 6/19/2018 040 V R FELSENSTEIN MICHAEL Z or RESIDENT AGASSIZ SARA JOYCE & R or RESIDENT EDMONDS SCHOOL DIST 15 or RESIDENT Q 9020 236TH ST SW UNIT 3 979 HIGHWOOD DR SW 20420 68TH AVE W + EDMONDS, WA 98026-9512 ISSAQUAH, WA 96027 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-7405 - sZ 0) 00555300100109 6/19/2018 00555300100110 6/19/2018 00463300400103 6/19/2018 m BIN LIN AND YU HONG LU or RESIDENT BIN LIN AND YU HONG LU or RESIDENT DOMAR ACACIO M or RESIDENT U) 20817 NE 15TH STREET 20817 NE 15TH ST 2233 NW 59TH ST APT 105 SAMMAMISH, WA 98074 SAMMAMISH, WA 98074 SEATTLE, WA 98107 m E t u r Q 00944200000004 6/19/2016 00944200000600 6/19/2018 00463300400200 6/19/2018 KIM HAEBIN/SEAMAN SLOA or RESIDENT KIM HAEBIN/SEAMAN SLOA or RESIDENT PAYNE GREG or RESIDENT 1537 NW 51ST ST 1537 NW 51ST ST 8837 29 NW SEATTLE, WA 98107 SEATTLE, WA 98107 SEATTLE, WA 98117 00463300400202 6/19/2018 00463300400204 6/19/2018 0046330D400301 6/19/2018 PAYNE GREG or RESIDENT PAYNE GREGORY or RESIDENT 9108 DOUGLAS LANDING L or RESIDENT 8837 29 NW 8837 29TH NW PO BOX 4188 SEATTLE, WA 98117 SEATTLE, WA 98117 EVERETT, WA 98204 Packet Pg. 140 6.B.a 00555300100300 6/19/2018 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF S or RESIDENT 12711 4TH AVE W EVERETT, WA 98204-5783 00463300300603 6/19/2018 NOVAK RANDALL C or RESIDENT 26424174TH ST SE MONROE, WA 98272-9200 00447000200100 6/19/2018 JWA INVESTMENTS LLC or RESIDENT PO BOX 8085 YAKIMA, WA 98908 T N t m CO) N Packet Pg. 141 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/25/2018 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Board's current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 07-25-2018 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 142 np EbAf � -ter OHO 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change FLAKH S o OO ARD Extended July 25, 2018 Meeting Item J U LY 2018 July 25 1. Public Hearing on Rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 (File No.PLN20160044) 2. Public Hearing on Code Update for Permit Decision Making 3UST 2018 August 8 1. SMP Periodic Review August 22 1. SMP periodic Review TEMBER 2018 September 12 1. September 26 1. -OBER 2018 October 10 1. October 24 1. LIEMBER 2018 November 14 1. November 28 1. DECEMBER 2018 December 12 1. December 26 1. CANCELLED DUE TO HOLIDAY r a Packet Pg. 143 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2018 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) Topics 2. Election of Officers (1St meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) Packet Pg. 144