9031 11TH PL W 2016-01-01 MF Import

� (� �� , 4. When the Appellant sought a Building Permit from the City, the Everett Planning Department was contacted to determine if the permit could be issued and be consistent with the City zoning requ'srements. On Nr�vember 1, 1999, the Everett Planning Director issued an interpretation tliat the residence is part of a PRD, and an amendment to the PRQ must be approved prior to Building Permits being issued. The Planning Director's reaso�ing was that the PRD process is based on pre-approved site development plans which show location of streets, open space, buffer areas, lot configurations, building locations, building size and building styles. Because the development proposed would differ from the approved development plan, an amendment to the deveiopment plan was required. (exhibits 1 & 4, Palacios testirnony) 5. The PRD (Sundance G�eens PRD)was approved by Snohomish County on March 15, 1985. (exhibit 9) At the time of approval, it was subject to Snohomish County jurisdiction and the County's development codes and regulations. The subject property was subsequenily annexed into the City of Everett in July, 1990. The C;ity has determined that any future development of the PRD must be in conformance with the City of Everett development codes and regulations. (exhibit 1, Palacios testimony) 6. Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 19.32.200 requires that minor changes in the location, siting and heiyht of building structures can be authorized by the City Planning Director, if these changes are required by engineering or circumstances not known at the final plat approval. However, the City submitted that a change in use or rearrangement of the lots of a PRD is not included in this category. According to the City, l�e�ause the subject property is part of the PRD, the proposed changes are not allowed. The AppellanYs proposed addition to the residence would increase the overall ground coverage of the structure on the lot and, according to the City, change the character of the development of the approved PRD. Because of this interpretation, the City determined that tne Planning Uirector was without authority to make alterations to the PRD. (exhibit 1, Palacios testimony) 7. The PRD site plan that was approved by the County (exhibit 11) did provide specific details of lot configuration and dimensions and lot areas. This, according to the City, established strict reyuirements for the development of the PRD consistent with that as originally submitted. However, the Appellant submitted that the original �ite plan of the PRD was no7 specific as to the location of streets, open space, lot dimensions, building locations, property lines and the general shape of the foot print. (Brodhead testimony) (exhibit 1, Palacios testimony) 3/�