BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH In the Matter of the Application of ) No PRD ) Robinett Brothers, LLC ) Sweetwater Landing PRD ) ) For Approval of a Planned Residential ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, Development and Preliminary Plat ) AND DECISION SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval of a preliminary plat to create a 16-lot subdivision, with associated improvements, as a planned residential development on approximately 4.91 acres, at 2019 Weaver Road, is APPROVED. Conditions are necessary to mitigate specific impacts from the proposal. SUMMARY OF RECORD Hearing: The Hearing Examiner held an open record hearing on the request on October 30, Testimony: The following individuals presented testimony under oath at the open record hearing: Brooke Eidem, City Associate Planner Andrew Sics, City Engineering Department Marty Robinett, Applicant Representative Merle Ash, Project Engineer Gordon Cole, Property Owner Victoria John Harold John Exhibits: The following exhibits were admitted into the record: 1. Staff Report, dated October 22, Planned Residential Development and Land Use Applications, received February 9, 2018; Legal Description of Property 3. Project Narrative, Land Resolutions, dated February 15, Guarantees, Chicago Title Insurance Company, No Update 3, effective January 26, Declaration of Adjacent Property Owners List, dated March 27, Conceptual Building Elevations and Floor Plans, received June 19, 2018 Page 1 of 18

2 7. Planned Residential Development Plat (Sheet 1 of 1), dated August 23, Civil Site Plans, dated August 22, 2018: a. Civil Site Plan (Sheet C1 of C12) b. Construction Notes (Sheet C2 of C12) c. Clearing & TESC Plan (Sheet C3 of C12) d. Grading Plan (Sheet C4 of C12) e. Grading & TESC Details (Sheet C5 of C12) f. Site Cross Sections (Sheet C6 of C12) g. Road Plan and Profile (Sheet C7 of C12) h. Frontage Improvements Plan (Sheet C8 of C12) i. Stormwater Management Overview Plan (Sheet C9 of C12) j. Stormwater Management Plan and Profile (Sheet C10 of C12) k. Bio-Retention Cell Plan and Profile (Sheet C11 of C12) l. Stormwater Management Details (Sheet C12 of C12) m. Sewer and Water Plan (Sheet SW1 of SW4) n. Sewer and Water Plan and Profile (Sheet SW2 of SW4) o. Sewer and Water Plan and Profile (Sheet SW3 of SW4) p. Sewer and Water Plan and Profile (Sheet SW4 of SW4) 9. Landscape and Tree Retention Plan (Sheets L-1 and L-2 of 2), revised June 19, Civil Site Plan (Sheet C1 of C11), received March 23, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Sondergaard Geoscience, PLLC, dated January 20, Stormwater Site Plan Report, Land Technologies, Inc., dated August 3, Sweetwater Landing Traffic Impact Analysis, Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., dated February Critical Area Study and Buffer Mitigation Plan, Wetland Resources, Inc., revised June 15, from Michael Muscari, Environmental Science Associates (ESA), to Brooke Eidem, dated April 4, 21018, with Annotated Critical Area Study and Buffer Mitigation Plan Map (Sheet 1 of 1), dated February 13, 2018; Memorandum from Michael Muscari (ESA) to Brooke Eidem, dated June 28, Notice of Incomplete Application, dated February 9, Vesting Status Letter, dated March 5, Determination of Complete Application, dated March 26, Notice of Application; Declaration of Posting (Application), dated March 27, 2018; Declaration of Mailing (Application), dated March 28, 2018; Affidavit of Publication, Everett Daily Herald, dated March 28, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Materials: a. Determination of Nonsignificance, issued August 16, 2018 b. SEPA Checklist, dated February 5, 2018, with Staff Annotations, dated August 14, 2018 c. Certification of Public Notice (Posting), dated August 16, 2016; Certification of Public Notice (Mailing), dated August 16, 2018; from Katie Hoole to Page 2 of 18

3 Distribution List, dated August 16, 2018; Affidavit of Publication, Everett Daily Herald, dated March August 16, Design Review Analysis, dated October 3, from Brooke Eidem to Carey Clay, dated October 9, 2018, with string 23. School District Request for Review, received April 4, Letter from Jason Zyskowski, Snohomish County PUD, to Katie Hoole, dated April 17, Memorandum from Sharon Pettit, Building/Fire Official, dated September 17, Memorandum from Andrew Sics, Engineering Department, dated October 16, Determination of Concurrency, dated October 9, Notice of Public Hearing, dated October 15, 2018; Certification of Public Notice (Posting and Publication), dated October 15, 2018; Certification of Public Notice (Mailing), dated October 15, 2018; Ad Proof, Everett Daily Herald, published October 15, from Justine Bennett to Brooke Eidem, dated October 29, 2018 The Hearing Examiner enters the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and exhibits admitted at the open record hearing: FINDINGS Application and Public Notice 1. Robinett Brothers, LLC (Applicant), requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide approximately 4.91 acres into 16 single-family residential lots, with associated improvements, including grading, installation of utilities and stormwater facilities, street improvements, and mitigation and enhancement of critical areas impacted by development. The plat would involve a planned residential development (PRD) because critical areas present on-site would otherwise result in a reduction in the developable density by normal subdivision action by at least one dwelling unit within the proposed development project boundary under Snohomish Municipal Code (SMC) Accordingly, the proposal would involve smaller lot sizes and widths than with traditional development but increased areas of open space, as required by Chapter SMC. The property is located at 2019 Weaver Road. 1 Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 1 and 4; Exhibit 2; Exhibit The City of Snohomish (City) determined the application was complete on March 26, On March 28, 2018, the City posted notice of the application on the property, published notice in the Everett Daily Herald, and mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of the project. On October 15, 2018, the City published notice of the open record hearing associated with the application in the Everett Daily Herald, mailed notice to the Applicant and adjacent property owners, and posted notice on the property. As discussed in greater detail below, the City received two public comments from area 1 The property is identified as Snohomish County Tax Parcel No Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. A legal description of the property is included as part of the application. Exhibit 2. Page 3 of 18

4 residents in response to its notice materials. The City did not receive any substantive comments from applicable agencies. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 4; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 22; Exhibit 28; Exhibit 29. State Environmental Policy Act 3. The City acted as lead agency and analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposal as required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington (RCW). City staff reviewed the Applicant s environmental checklist and other information on file, and determined that the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Accordingly, the City issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on August 16, 2018, with a comment and appeal deadline of August 31, Also on August 16, 2018, the City mailed notice of the DNS to adjacent property owners and agencies of jurisdiction; posted notice on the property; and published notice in the Everett Daily Herald. The City received no comments specific to the DNS, and the DNS was not appealed. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 4; Exhibit 20. Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Surrounding Property 4. The City Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and surrounding property as Single Family Residential. The City identified goals and policies from the Comprehensive Plan relevant to the proposal, which include: supporting innovative zoning models to increase density without adversely affecting the character of existing neighborhoods; applying adopted design standards; planning for single-family neighborhoods that provide quietness, privacy, safety, and land use stability and compatibility; ensuring stable single-family neighborhoods at appropriate densities; creating visually accessible home sites, providing efficient circulation for pedestrians and vehicles, and exhibiting an orderly lot pattern that minimizes irregularly shaped lots; providing for street trees; providing alley access to minimize curb cuts and the prominence of garages; allowing clustered housing; planning for neighborhood amenities; ensuring that adequate residential capacity is maintained to accommodate population targets for the city; requiring professional studies to confirm the presence of regulated critical areas and compliance with critical area regulations; ensuring that buffers of native vegetation are adequate to preserve the functions and values of wetlands, lakes, and stream corridors; allowing no net loss of wetland functions and values on a basin-wide basis; requiring park impact fees; ensuring development does not cause levels of service for transportation facilities to decline below adopted levels; and requiring underground placement of all new utilities for new developments. 2 The City determined that the proposed use is consistent with the property s Comprehensive Plan 2 City staff identified the following Comprehensive Plan sections as relevant to the proposal: Land Use Goal LU 3 and Land Use Policies 2.1 and 2.5; Single-Family Land Use Policies SF 4.1 through 4.6; Housing Goal HO 4 and Policies HO 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, and 4.2; Environmental Protection Goal EP 1 and Environmental Protection Policies EP 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9, and 3.1; Park Policy PRO 1.5; Transportation Policy TR 24; and Utilities Policy UT 1.9. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Attachment A. Page 4 of 18

5 designation of Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3 and Attachment A. 5. The site is located within the City s Single Family Residential (SF) zoning district. The purpose of the SF district is to maintain and develop single-family areas that provide suitable living environments for individuals and families and that have the following characteristics: quietness, privacy, safety, and land use suitability and compatibility. SMC Development of single-family detached residences is a permitted use within the SF zone. SMC Residential Land Use Table. 6. Property to the north, south, and west is zoned SF and is either vacant property or developed with single-family residences. Property to the east is zoned Business Park; it has one commercial self-storage building and is otherwise vacant property. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 14. Existing Site, Proposed Plat, and PRD 7. The site is an irregular-shaped parcel, currently consisting of undeveloped, vacant land, bounded to the west by North Ludwig Road and to the north by Weaver Road. The site is generally flat, with a moderate slope to the southeast and a berm along the road frontage. The site is predominately pasture grassland in the center and south, with moderately dense evergreen trees on the north side and blackberries and heavy undergrowth on the east. As discussed in greater detail below, Category II and Category III wetlands are present in the eastern portion of the site. Cemetery Creek crosses the site in the northeast corner, within the wetland areas. The proposal includes a tract for active open space (Tract 999); a tract for critical areas and open space (Tract 997); and a shared access tract (Tract 998). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 2 and 3; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 11; Exhibit Sondergaard Geoscience, PLLC, prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Study (GES) for the Applicant, dated January 20, The GES determined that construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The GES includes several recommendations, including recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, foundations, seismic design, slab-on-grade floors, and drainage. Exhibit The PRD provisions of the Snohomish Municipal Code apply to single-family detached residential developments proposed on property within land use areas designated Single Family Residential, such as the subject property, where critical areas cause a reduction in the normal developable density by at least one dwelling unit. SMC A. The PRD form of development is available as a mutually exclusive alternative to traditional preliminary plat development under Chapter SMC. 3 SMC B. 3 SMC provides that, if the proposed PRD will have separate lots, a preliminary subdivision or short subdivision application and final plat application must be processed concurrently with the PRD. SMC Page 5 of 18

6 Development of single-family detached housing is a permitted use within a PRD on property within the SF zone. SMC The PRD provisions include allowing development of land subject to critical areas while preserving the natural characteristics of the site; creating or preserving useful open space for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment of residents; permitting developers to use innovative methods and approaches not available under conventional Land Use Designation methods; providing for choices in layout of streets, utility networks, and other improvements; and encouraging infill within areas of the city that already have existing development. SMC The minimum allowed lot size within a PRD is 4,000 square feet. The minimum lot width at the road frontage is 40 feet, but lot width at road frontage may be reduced to 20 feet, at the City s discretion, provided that the minimum lot width at the building line is 40 feet. The minimum front yard building setback within a PRD is 10 feet, and the minimum setback for a front or side yard garage door is 20 feet. The minimum rear yard setback in a PRD is 12 feet. Each side yard must be a minimum of five feet wide if adjacent to another lot or to open space; each side yard adjacent to a public or private street must be at least 10 feet wide. The City may approve reduced side yards and setbacks on a case-by-case basis to provide flexibility for innovative housing types and use of common areas. SMC The smallest lot size in the PRD would be 4,001 square feet, and the average lot size would be 4,510 square feet. Lot width at the setback line would generally range from 40 feet to approximately 75 feet. 4 Lot widths at road frontage would range from 21 feet to approximately 80 feet. New structures would meet the front (10-foot), side (5-foot), rear (12-foot), and garage (20-foot) setbacks; the maximum floor area to land ratio of 0.5; and the maximum building height of 35 feet. SMC through.330. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4 and 5; Exhibit City code provides for a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre within a PRD in the SF zone. SMC The proposed development of 16 single-family residential lots on approximately 4.91 acres would result in a development density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre, consistent with this requirement. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 4, 11, and 12; Exhibit 2; Exhibit The City performed a Design Review Analysis and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet applicable design standards and guidelines and address the intent of PRDs to achieve a high level of design and foster architectural variety within the development. Conditions specific to the Design Review Analysis require that proposed 4 One lot, Lot 13, would not meet the 40-foot width requirement. As noted above, however, under SMC C the City has discretion to allow the minimum lot width at the road frontage to be reduced to 20 feet, provided that the minimum lot width at the building line is at least 40 feet. Here, a condition of approval would require that the setback of the building line on Lot 13 be depicted on the final plat consistent with this requirement. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 5 and 14; Exhibit 8. Page 6 of 18

7 Page 7 of 18 homes include architectural elements consistent with the character of the city, such as knee braces, covered porches, dentil molding, and siding material changes; that surface materials have the appearance of traditional building materials; that vinyl siding is not be permitted; that window and door trim has a minimum width of 3 inches and is consistent on all sides of buildings; that Lots 5 and 6 have primary pedestrian access from Ludwig Road, with vehicular access from Tract 998; that homes meet standards for floor area ratio (FAR), minimum window area, and garage location; that a pedestrian walkway is provided from the sidewalk to each front entry; and that a low hedge or similar delineating element is provided on lots to create private outdoor space. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 21 Critical Areas 14. The Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, requires the City to designate environmentally critical areas and adopt regulations to ensure conservation of such areas. The provisions of the City s Critical Areas Code include protecting ecologically sensitive areas while allowing for reasonable use of private property; implementing the natural environmental goals of the Comprehensive Plan; protecting the public from landslides, seismic events, and flooding; protecting citizens and the environment, including fish and wildlife habitats; preventing adverse and cumulative impacts to critical areas; and protecting threatened or endangered species. SMC Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) prepared a Critical Area Study and Buffer Mitigation Plan for the proposal, revised on June 15, 2018, assessing critical areas on-site. 5 WRI determined that there are two wetlands that impact the site: Wetland A, a Category II depressional slope wetland, and Wetland B, a Category III depressional wetland, both situated in the eastern portion of the site. In addition, WRI determined that Cemetery Creek, a Type F stream, crosses the site in the northeast corner of the site, within the wetland areas. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 14; Exhibit Under SMC B.2, a 100-foot buffer would be required for both wetlands and Cemetery Creek. However, a buffer reduction of up to 25 percent is allowed if restoration or enhancement occurring in the remaining buffer area would result in no net loss of buffer function and buffer averaging of up to 50 percent is allowed so long as the total area contained after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer and wetland functions and values are not reduced. SMC E. Here, the Applicant would use a combination of buffer averaging and buffer reduction with enhancement to align the buffer boundary with the rear property lines of Lots 9 to 13. The total area proposed for buffer reduction is 6,994 square feet, with 15,291 square feet of buffer area proposed for enhancement. At no point would the amount of buffer reduction be greater than 25 percent of the buffer width. The proposed buffer averaging totals 739 square feet of reduction with 921 square feet of added buffer. 5 WRI revised its report (initially dated February 13, 2018), following review by the City s third-party reviewer, Environmental Science Associates (ESA) on April 4, Exhibit 15.

8 WRI analyzed the proposal and determined that it would satisfy the requirements of SMC Specifically, WRI determined that the proposal would result in an overall improvement to buffer function. Exhibit In addition, as part of the proposal, two stormwater outfall trenches and nine spreader trenches would be installed. The two outfall trenches would be located within the outer 50 percent of the buffer. Stormwater management facilities are allowed in the outer 50 percent of buffers under SMC H. The proposed stormwater outfalls and dispersion trenches would not extend more than 50 percent into the buffer at any point and WRI determined that the stormwater management system would not negatively impact critical areas. Specifically, WRI determined that no on-site aquatic resources would be impacted by the project and that, although buffer alterations must occur in certain areas, the mitigation plan would compensate for these alterations because the stormwater outfall trenches would designed with the smallest footprint feasible, would be placed in areas that would not result in significant vegetative impacts, and would provide direct input and return of stormwater and runoff to the adjacent wetland and stream system. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 10 to 11; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15. Open Space 18. Open space and recreation areas are required for approval of a PRD, under RCW and SMC The proposal includes a tract for active open space (Tract 999), a tract for critical areas and open space (Tract 997), and a shared access tract (Tract 998). Ultimately, open space in Tracts 999 and 997 would be over 50 percent of the gross site area, well beyond the 20 percent required by SMC Under SMC , an area of 3,200 square feet (200 x 16) of open space is required. There would be 6,868 square feet of usable open space provided on Tract 999, with an open play area. Tract 999 would also serve as the stormwater bioretention facility for the development, as detailed below. In addition, the Applicant would pay park impact fees prior to recording the final plat. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3, 5, and 6; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 11; Exhibit 12. Stormwater Management The site is located in the Cemetery Creek sub-basin of the Forbes Hill Area Basin in the Snohomish watershed (WRIA-7-Snomohish), which ultimately drains into Puget Sound. The Applicant provided a Stormwater Site Plan Report, prepared by Land Technologies, Inc. (LTI), dated August 3, 2018, addressing on-site stormwater management. The Applicant would treat all stormwater from pollution generating pervious surfaces (i.e., roads) by routing such runoff to a bioretention cell (in Tract 999) where it would be detained and treated for water quality, through infiltration in amended soils and plantings, at a controlled rate, and ultimately discharged to the wetland and Cemetery Creek. In addition, the Applicant would employ Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, including collecting and conveying stormwater from roofs on lots 8 through 16 to dispersion trenches within the wetland buffer to provide hydrologic recharge to the Page 8 of 18

9 wetlands. An infiltration trench would also be installed near the road edge to convey runoff from Ludwig/Weaver Road into the wetland for treatment. Standard best management practices (BMPs) would be employed to control potential adverse impacts to adjacent properties, including a temporary construction entrance, silt fencing, existing catch basin protection, dust control, and temporary seeding of disturbed areas. A detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared during constructiondrawing plan-set preparation. The City engineering department determined that the proposal would meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and would be consistent with applicable municipal stormwater regulations. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 8 and 9; Exhibit 12; Exhibit 26. Access and Traffic Impacts 19. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. (GTC), prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposal, dated February GTC determined that the development would generate 160 average daily trips, with 13 AM peak-hour trips and 17 PM peak-hour trips. The level of service (LOS) analysis shows that the intersection of Bickford Avenue at Weaver Road currently operates at a deficient level of LOS F. The intersection, however, is scheduled for improvement under the City s 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and the City will shortly begin the design of a new traffic signal as part of future development. Signalizing the intersection would allow it to operate at acceptable levels (LOS B). As specified by Chapter SMC, payment of traffic impact fees would be required. Currently, traffic mitigation fees would be $1,603 per new PM peak-hour period trip as determined by the Planning Director. The Planning Director determined that the proposal would meet traffic concurrency requirements. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 13; Exhibit The plat includes improvements to the streets and utilities. A new internal public roadway is proposed, measuring 50 feet in width, with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and planter strips on both sides and a cul-de-sac at the terminus. A 20-foot-wide private driveway (Tract 998) is proposed to serve Lots 5 and 6. Lots 5 and 6 adjoin Ludwig Road, but would have vehicular access from Tract 998. Improvements are proposed to the Ludwig Road and Weaver Road frontage, including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, planter strips, and road widening. City engineering staff determined that the proposed road improvements would meet the City development standards. Specifically, the Applicant would install sidewalks on the east side of Ludwig Road and south side of Weaver Road, adjacent to the plat, and connecting to the planned sidewalks at the Weaver Road Senior Housing project northeast of the site. Staff also determined that no off-site improvements or dedications of land to the public would be required to mitigate development impacts. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7, 8, and 9; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 26; Exhibit 27. Page 9 of 18

10 Utilities and Services 21. The City would provide water and sewer service to the property. A 10-foot utility easement is proposed along the front property line of all lots for installation of underground utilities, such as electricity, cable, etc., to serve the lots. A 12-inch main exists in Weaver Road adjacent to the site. The Applicant would run a main extension into the development. The City Engineering Department determined that these improvements typically provide adequate water supply and fire protection, but recommended a condition requiring a flow test be conducted prior to final plat approval. A sanitary sewer manhole is present north of the site on Weaver Road. The Applicant would extend the sewer main across the property frontage and into the plat. The main extension would cross a culverted section of Anderson Creek that runs under Weaver Road. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) may be required for this work; the Applicant would obtain necessary permits or exemptions prior to beginning such work. Exhibits 8; Exhibit Chapter SMC requires mitigation of school impacts as a condition of development, or as a condition of building permit issuance. Payment of school impact fees would be made at the time of building permit issuance. Snohomish School District #201 responded to the City and determined that established school mitigation fees are acceptable to the School District. The School District determined that students would walk to the nearby elementary school (Riverview), middle school (Centennial) and high school (Snohomish High). A new bus stop would serve the development. Proposed sidewalks would create a continuous sidewalk system providing safe pedestrian conditions for students. Exhibit 23. Additional City Review 23. Sharon Pettit, the City s Building/Fire Official, reviewed the proposal and determined that conditions would be necessary to ensure that all development complies with the municipal buildings codes and that the Applicant provides a fire hydrant within 250 feet of the residences facing Ludwig Road, a fire flow analysis, and revised construction plans and geotechnical report for any proposed retaining walls within the development. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit Andrew Sics, City Engineering Department, also reviewed the proposal and determined that conditions would be necessary to ensure that a third-party fire flow test is performed, that the water main is extended along Ludwig Road property frontage to terminate 10 feet from the south property line, and that the final plat includes language to address the shared ownership and continued maintenance and operations of all private facilities and to prohibit fencing within the sight distance envelope on Lots 1 and 16. Exhibit 26. Written Comments 25. The City received two public comments on the application in advance of the open record hearing. Area resident Carey Clay wrote the City with concerns about impacts to critical Page 10 of 18

11 areas, including mitigation and enforcement. City staff responded that successful implementation of mitigation activities is a prerequisite of a final plat and that a financial security would also be required. Staff noted that the bond would be in place for the life of the monitoring period, to be released only after final conformance of the landscaping plan is verified, and that annual monitoring reports must be submitted throughout the 10- year period following plat development. Area resident Justine Bennett wrote the City with concerns about the intersection of Weaver and Bickford. As discussed above, the City is aware that the intersection currently operates at LOS F but is seeking to address this issue through signalization of the intersection. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 4; Exhibit 22; Exhibit 29. Testimony 26. Associate Planner Brooke Eidem testified generally about the proposal and how it would comply with the City s Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, and critical areas ordinances. She explained the circumstances that allowed the Applicant to apply for a PRD and detailed how the proposal would meet the specific requirements for PRD approval, noting that the requirements for the PDR are more stringent than those for a preliminary plat. She noted that, to allow for the critical areas buffer reduction, the Applicant would combine buffer reduction/enhancement with buffer averaging. She also noted that the City is aware that the level of service (LOS) at the intersection of Bickford Avenue and Weaver Road currently operates at deficient level of LOS F, but that the intersection is scheduled for improvement, including a traffic light, which would bring the intersection up to LOS B by 2020 to Testimony of Ms. Eidem. 27. Applicant Representative Marty Robinett testified that the Applicant, having spent significant time and effort reviewing the wetlands and critical areas on-site, concurs with proposed conditions related to fencing the Native Growth Protection Area. Testimony of Mr. Robinett. 28. Neighboring property owners, Victoria and Harold John, testified about their concerns about traffic during construction and about the protection of private water lines (the Schulter Water System) that serve several area residents, specifically the pipes on Weaver to the hydrant on Bickford and along Ludwig and Weaver roads. Testimony of Mr. and Ms. John. 29. Project Engineer Merle Ash testified generally about the proposed stormwater management techniques, stressing that low impact development (LID) techniques would be used to the maximum extent feasible. He also testified, in response to the Johns concerns, that the project involves only 16 lots and that impacts would be minimal on the known and approved truck routes on Ludwig Road. Testimony of Mr. Ash. 30. The owner of the property, Gordon Cole, testified that he believes the pipes for the Schulter Water System are within the City right-of-way and do not encumber the subject Page 11 of 18

12 property. He noted that nothing in the recorded plat documents indicates that the site is encumbered. Testimony of Mr. Cole. 31. City Engineer Andrew Sics testified about the route to be used by construction vehicles and equipment, stating that the route to be taken from Ludwig to Weaver Road is only temporary and would create no undue traffic impacts and that the conditions address such impacts. He also explained that the Applicant would be required to obtain a right-of-way permit to perform any work within the City s right-of-way and that such permits are, generally, conditioned to ensure that new development does not adversely impact existing utilities within the right-of-way. Testimony of Mr. Sics. 32. In response to the Johns concerns about construction traffic, Mr. Robinett noted that most traffic would access the site from the north. Testimony of Mr. Robinett. Staff Recommendation 33. Recommending approval, City staff, including the City s Engineering Department, determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet the requirements of the City code and would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Robinett testified that the Applicant would adhere to the conditions of approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 3 through 14; Testimony of Mr. Robinett. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide requests for preliminary plats and Planned Residential Developments. Snohomish Municipal Code (SMC) ; SMC ; SMC Criteria for Review Preliminary Plat SMC B contains the criteria for approval of a preliminary plat, including: 1. The criteria stated in RCW If the property is in the NE Sewer Area, a showing that the criteria in SMC will be satisfied. 3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Consistency with this Development Code and the adopted City of Snohomish Engineering Standards Manual. 5. Consistency with the concurrency requirement of SMC Provision of off-site improvements or dedications of land to the public which are needed to mitigate the development s impacts and which are proportional to those impacts. 7. Compliance with the requirements of SMC Title 15, entitled Sewer, Water, and Stormwater. Page 12 of 18

13 RCW (2) requires that a proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the Hearing Examiner finds that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and schoolgrounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Planned Residential Development In addition, a Planned Residential Development (PRD) must meet the requirements of Chapter SMC, including specific requirements related to density, lot area, setbacks, FAR, building height, open spaces, and landscaping. The criteria for review adopted by the City Council are designed to implement the requirement of Chapter 36.70B RCW to enact the Growth Management Act. In particular, RCW 36.70B.040 mandates that local jurisdictions review proposed development to ensure consistency with City development regulations, considering the type of land use, the level of development, infrastructure, and the characteristics of development. RCW 36.70B.040. Conclusions Based on Findings Preliminary Plat 1. With conditions, the development would be consistent with RCW Appropriate provisions have been made for the public health, safety, and general welfare. The City acted as lead agency, reviewing the proposal under SEPA, and determined that the proposal would not have any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The determination was not appealed. The Applicant would provide a tract for active open space (Tract 999); a tract for critical areas and open space (Tract 997); and a shared access tract (Tract 998). Ultimately, open space in Tracts 999 and 997 would entail over 50 percent of the gross site area, well beyond the 20 percent required by SMC Under SMC , an area of 3,200 square feet (200 x 16) of useable open space is required. There would be 6,868 square feet of usable open space provided on Tract 999, with an open play area. The City would provide water and sewer service to the property. The proposal includes stormwater outfall trenches that would provide direct input and return of stormwater and runoff to the adjacent wetland and stream system, providing hydrologic recharge. A portion of the stormwater (the portion affected by the road) Page 13 of 18

14 would be collected on-site and conveyed to a bioretention cell in Tract 999, where it would be detained and treated for water quality, through infiltration in amended soils and plantings, at a controlled rate, and ultimately discharged to the wetland system and Cemetery Creek. The City engineering department determined that, with conditions to ensure continued maintenance of private facilities, the proposal would meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Standard best management practices (BMPs) would be employed to control potential adverse impacts to adjacent properties, including a temporary construction entrance, silt fencing, existing catch basin protection, dust control, and temporary seeding of disturbed areas. A detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared during construction-drawing plan-set preparation. The plat would include internal sidewalks and construction of improvements along Weaver and Ludwig Roads to ensure safe walking conditions for students walking to and from school bus stops. School impacts would be mitigated through payment of impact fees. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposal complies with general requirements for preliminary plat/prd approval as well as specific, requirements, including: a thirdparty fire flow test be performed prior to issuance of a site civil construction permit for the site; the Applicant obtains Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) or an appropriate exemption from WDFW prior to construction of the sewer main in Weaver Road; a Native Growth Protection Area easement over the critical areas and buffers is declared on the final plat; the water main is extended on Ludwig Road; a fire hydrant is installed along the Ludwig Road extension within 250 feet of the future residences for Lots 5 and 6; the main extension and fire hydrant location is included in the construction plans; the Applicant submits construction plans and a revised geotechnical report for any proposed retaining walls; the primary pedestrian entries and addressing for Lots 5 and 6 are from Ludwig Road; the final plat includes language addressing the shared ownership and continued maintenance and operations of all private facilities; traffic impact mitigation fees and park impact mitigation fees are remitted; the final plat includes language prohibiting fencing within the sight distance envelope on Lots 1 and 16; the front building setback line for Lot 13 is at the point that the lot is 40 feet in width, and the increased front setback line is depicted on the final plat; designated standards for design review of individual units appear on the final plat; all work is consistent with the project narrative, plans, and recommendations of the professional studies and reports; and all administrative review fees for processing the preliminary approval are remitted. Findings 1, With conditions, the development would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development of single-family residential dwellings is consistent with the property s Single-family Residential designation under the City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development of 16 single-family residential lots on approximately 4.91 Page 14 of 18

15 acres would result in a development density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, the proposed plat/prd would do the following: enhance critical area buffers as mitigation for a proposed reduction in the critical area buffers, provide for treatment of stormwater runoff, utilize City PRD development provisions for innovative single-family residential housing development, and provide sidewalks within the proposed plat and sidewalks to connect with existing sidewalks to the north. As detailed above in Conclusion 1, conditions are necessary to ensure the proposal complies with all municipal code requirements and requirements for approval of a PRD. Findings 1, With conditions, the development would be consistent with the Development Code, and City s Public Works Engineer Standards Manual. The City provided reasonable notice of the application and opportunity to comment. Single-family residences are an allowed use within the SF zone. The Applicant would modify the wetland buffers along Lots 9 to 13 with a combination of buffer averaging and buffer enhancement, which would remove critical areas buffers from the platted lots. To mitigate for the buffer reduction and buffer averaging, the Applicant would enhance 15,291 square feet of the existing buffer through planting native trees and shrubs, as well as replanting the temporary impact areas, and add 921 square feet of additional buffer. No on-site aquatic resources would be impacted by the project. The City code allows a proposed preliminary plat to include a Planned Residential Development (PRD) where critical areas cause a reduction in the normal developable density by at least one dwelling unit, as is the case here. A PRD allows for alternative design, shape, and orientation to better utilize a site containing critical areas. The development would meet the setback and other dimensional requirements for a PRD within the Single-Family zone. The proposal would provide 3.3 dwelling units per acre. The City Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and determined that, with conditions, the proposal would meet water service requirements and stormwater, sewer, access, and frontage improvement minimum requirements. As detailed above in Conclusion 1, conditions are necessary to ensure the proposal complies with all municipal code requirements and requirements for approval of a preliminary plat. Findings 1 3, The development would be consistent with the concurrency requirement of SMC The proposed project would generate 13 AM peak-hour trips and 17 PM peak-hour trips. The level of service analysis shows that the intersection of Bickford Avenue at Weaver Road currently operates at deficient LOS F, but the intersection is scheduled for improvement under the City s 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan, which would allow it to operate at acceptable levels (LOS B). City engineering staff determined that the traffic impact fees would adequately mitigate the additional trips generated by the development. The Applicant would pay all applicable impact fees prior to final plat approval. Findings 19 and 20. Page 15 of 18

16 5. No off-site improvements or dedications of land to the public are required to mitigate development impacts. Finding 20. Planned Residential Development 6. With conditions, the Planned Residential Development (PRD) would meet the requirements of Chapter SMC. The City provided reasonable notice of the PRD and preliminary plat applications and provided reasonable opportunity to comment. The property is eligible for a PRD due to the presence of two wetlands on-site and Cemetery Creek, which reduce the number of lots by at least one. City water and sewage are available to the site. The Applicant would provide for treatment of stormwater runoff, utilize City PRD development provisions for innovative single-family residential housing development, and provide for sidewalks within the proposed plat and sidewalks to connect to existing sidewalks west of the proposed plat. The proposed plat and PRD would be developed at a density consistent with the property s SF zone and PRD standards. Each of the proposed lots would comply with the dimensional standards of the PRD ordinance. The requested dimensional and lot size modifications from standard Single Family Residential zoning district requirements, available through PRD provisions of the Snohomish Municipal Code, would provide flexibility for innovative housing, street, and sewer system layout within the proposed plat while preserving wetland and buffer areas of the site and active and passive open space within the proposed plat. The proposed buffer reduction and associated mitigation would meet Chapter SMC critical area requirements and Chapter SMC wetlands requirements. As proposed, the PRD and plat would provide approximately 55 percent the property as open space. The Applicant would pay park, school, and traffic impact fees to mitigate impacts of the proposed development. The City acted as lead agency, analyzed the environmental impact of the proposed PRD and plat, and determined that the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The SEPA determination was not appealed. As detailed above in Conclusion 1, conditions are necessary to ensure the proposal complies with all municipal code requirements and requirements for approval of a preliminary plat and approval of a PRD. Findings DECISION Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, the request for approval of a preliminary plat to create a 16-lot subdivision, with associated improvements, as a planned residential development on approximately 4.91 acres at 2019 Weaver Road is APPROVED, with the following conditions: 6 1. A third-party fire flow test shall be performed prior to issuance of a site civil construction permit for the site. 2. The Applicant shall provide the City written evidence that they have obtained Hydraulic 6 This decision includes conditions designed to mitigate impacts from the proposed project as well as conditions required by the City code. Page 16 of 18

17 Project Approval (HPA) or an appropriate exemption from WDFW prior to construction of the sewer main in Weaver Road. 3. A Native Growth Protection Area easement shall be declared on the final plat over the critical areas and buffers present on the development site. As part of site development, the outer edge of the buffer shall be marked with signage approved by the City and fenced in a manner that allows periodic access and maintenance of the stormwater facilities. 4. The water main shall be extended on Ludwig Road, terminating 10 feet south of the southernmost property corner (Lot 6). A fire hydrant shall be installed along the Ludwig Road extension, located within 250 feet of the future residences Lots 5 and 6. The main extension and fire hydrant location shall be included in the construction plans for site/civil review. 5. As part of site/civil permit review, the Applicant shall submit construction plans and a revised geotechnical report for the proposed retaining walls that are not part of a dwelling unit s foundation. 6. The primary pedestrian entries and addressing for Lots 5 and 6 shall be from Ludwig Road. 7. The final plat shall include language addressing the shared ownership and continued maintenance and operations of all private facilities, including portions of the stormwater system. The obligation shall be an equal and undivided interest of all property owners of the plat. 8. Traffic impact mitigation fees shall be remitted prior to issuance of building permits for individual homes for the net increase of sixteen trips. The rate charged shall be the rate in place at the time of building permit issuance. The current rate is $1,603 per PM peak hour trip. However, the total fee may change if the rate changes before a building permit is issued. 9. Park impact mitigation fees shall be remitted prior to approval of the final plat for the development of sixteen new single-family dwelling units. The rate charged shall be the rate in place at the time of final plat submittal. The current rate is $4,150 per singlefamily dwelling unit. However, the total fee may change if the rate changes before the final plat is submitted. 10. The final plat shall include language prohibiting fencing within the sight distance envelope on Lots 1 and The front building setback line for Lot 13 shall be at the point that the lot is 40 feet in Page 17 of 18

18 width. This increased front setback line shall be depicted on the final plat. 12. The following standards for design review of individual units shall appear on the final plat: a. Individual designs and materials shall be submitted for Design Review with application for building permits. b. Surface materials shall have the appearance of traditional building materials. Vinyl siding shall not be permitted. c. Window and door trim shall have a minimum width of 3 inches and shall be consistent on all sides of the buildings. d. Proposed homes shall include architectural elements have are consistent with the Snohomish character, such as knee braces, covered porches, dentil molding, siding material changes, and wide window and door trim. 13. All work shall be consistent with the project narrative, plans, and recommendations of the professional studies and reports relating to geotechnical, stormwater drainage, critical areas, etc., as approved by the City. 14. Prior to issuance of a permit for site development, all administrative review fees for processing the preliminary approval shall be remitted. DECIDED this 14 th day of November ANDREW M. REEVES Hearing Examiner Sound Law Center Page 18 of 18