|
with City standards at EMC 19.26.060. A clear and grade plan would be submitted
<br />and reviewed during the civil engineering phase for compliance with EMC
<br />19.26.080 and all applicable standards. The project would be required to provide
<br />all easements as required by the City engineer consistent with EMC 19.56.090. All
<br />utilities are proposed and can be provided consistent with EMC 19.26.110 and other
<br />applicable standards. As proposed, the project would include creation of a
<br />homeowners association to maintain all commonly held areas including the drive
<br />aisle and stormwater tracts and all common landscaping. Findings 6, 10, 11, 16, 17,
<br />24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36.
<br />d. The subject property is not located with the 500-year floodplain. Finding 4.
<br />e. Frontage improvements along W. Mukilteo Boulevard would include all required
<br />elements to meet the local street standard, including sidewalk, curb, landscaping,
<br />and gutter, as determined by the City Engineer. Findings 10, 11, 13, 18, and 24.
<br />f. Based on the Planning Department's interpretation of EMC 19.34.025 Table 34-2,
<br />the project requires a total of 50 off-street parking stalls. While the EMC's parking
<br />standards may be subject to other potential interpretations, Washington courts have
<br />held that when a code is ambiguous, deference is owed to the interpretation by the
<br />agency (in this case, Planning Department) charged with its application and
<br />enforcement.3 The proposed 50 parking stalls within unit garages and four guest
<br />parking stalls along the private internal access drive satisfy the applicable parking
<br />standard. The record is not clear as to whether any of the driveways also provide
<br />dimensionally adequate parking. Findings 6, 12, 21, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 36.
<br />g. The record does not contain a landscape plan. The site plan appears to contain
<br />adequate room for the required Category B landscaping. A condition of approval is
<br />added to ensure all required landscaping is provided. Findings 6, 18, 34, 35, and
<br />36.
<br />5. The record submitted demonstrates the project contains steep slopes and a Category IV
<br />wetland with a habitat score of 3 under 4,000 square feet in size. The Applicant
<br />submitted the required wetland and geotechnical studies, which were accepted by the
<br />Planning Department. The US Army Corps of Engineers determined that the onsite
<br />wetland is not a water of the state, and therefore the proposed purchase of wetland
<br />mitigation credits can support the proposed fill of the consistent with EMC Chapter
<br />19.37. The record contains geotechnical engineering recommendations addressing
<br />development of the site's slopes, as required by EMC Chapter 19.37. The project's
<br />environmental impacts were reviewed as required by the State Environmental Policy Act
<br />(SEPA) and determined that to be mitigated to a point of non -significance through
<br />mandatory compliance with applicable codes. Findings 17, 19, 20, 29, rand 36.
<br />6. The City has reviewed and tentatively accepted a preliminary stormwater drainage report.
<br />Geotechnical reports in the record demonstrate that the Applicant is well aware of onsite
<br />s IVasle Management gfSealile, Inc. v. Uiililies & Tramp. Com'n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 628, 869 P.2d 1034 (1994);
<br />Hama Hanna Co. v. Shorelines Hearings 13r1., 85 Wn.2d 441(1975); Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275 (1956).
<br />Everett Hearing Evanriner
<br />Findings, ConchlsiOms, and Decision
<br />Sage Homes Na7hwesi LLC (REIII122-001)
<br />page 19 of 22
<br />
|