|
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, and 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 /> 3 Waste Management ofSeattle, Inc. v. Utilities& Transp. Comnr'n, 123 Wn.2d 621,628,869 P.2d 1034(1994);
<br /> Hama Hama Co. v.Shorelines Hearings 13d.,85 Wn.2d 441(1975);Morin v.Johnson,49 Wn.2d 275(1956).
<br /> Everett Hearing Examiner
<br /> Findings, Conclusions, and Decision
<br /> Sage Homes Northwest LLC(REV1122-001) page 19 of22
<br />
|