city of stanwood council agenda staff report item … · 2017-02-03 · attachments: a. letter from...

CITY OF STANWOOD COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT

ITEM NUMBER: 9b DATE: February 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Collins Cottages Plat Extension Request CONTACT PERSON: Ryan C. Larsen, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter from Nick Collins dated January 4, 2017 B. Hearing Examiner’s Decision – April 11, 2007 C. Approved Preliminary Plat Map – Collins Cottages

ISSUE The issue before the City Council is to review and discuss the requested plat extension request for Collins Cottages. RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and discuss the requested plat extension request for Collins Cottages

from Nick Collins. 2. Approve the proposed plat extension request. SUMMARY STATEMENT The City of Stanwood received a request for plat extension of Collins Cottages (PRD) from Nick Collins. Mr. Collins is requesting a one-time extension of two years. Collins Cottages is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of 70th Avenue NW and 276th Street NW. The Hearing Examiner approved the preliminary subdivision on April 11, 2007. DISCUSSION Nick Collins is requesting a plat extension for the Collins Cottages Planned Residential Development (PRD). The project consists of 14 single family residential cottage lots utilizing the City’s PRD standards for cottage development. The project sits on 2.5 acres and is designed to have a single loop road connecting to both 70th Avenue NW and 276th Street NW. The project also includes 37,953 square feet of open space.

The City allows for plat extension, however the City Council needs to grant the approval. Stanwood Municipal Code subsection 16.15.140(3) states:

(3) An applicant who files a written request with the community development department 90 days prior to the expiration of the plat approval may be granted one additional extension for not more than two years by the city council.

The applicant has made a sufficient request for a plat extension and made the necessary payment as well. This size of project for 14 lots, necessary infrastructure, and underground detention vault would take in the range of three to four months to construct and would take up to about two months to have approvable construction plans. The applicant would likely need to begin construction next summer in order to complete prior to the expiration date. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION This item has not been before any City Council Subcommittee. No recommendation is provided. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS 1. Support the preliminary plat extension request submitted by Nick Collins for

Collins Cottages PRD. 2. Do not support the preliminary plat extension request submitted by Nick Collins

for Collins Cottages PRD. 3. Delay recommendation until any questions City Council has are addressed. RECOMMENDED ACTION “I MOVE TO ARPPOVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR COLLINS COTTAGES PRD SUBMITTED BY NICK COLLINS FOR A ONE TIME TWO YEAR EXTENSION. THE NEW EXPIRATION DATE OF THE PLAT SHALL BE APRIL 11, 2019.”

s:\community development\project files\subdivisions - prds - prelim & final\lppa06-4 collins cottages\collins prd\collins prd decision 2007.doc

BEFORE the HEARING EXAMINER of the

CITY of STANWOOD

DECISION

FILE NUMBER: LPPA06-4

APPLICANT: Nicholas J. & Agnes M. Collins

TYPE OF CASE: Consolidated: 1) Preliminary subdivision (Collins PRD); and 2) Major

Development Permit for a subdivision utilizing Planned Residential

Development standards

SUMMARY OF DECISION: APPROVE subject to conditions

DATE OF DECISION: April 11, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Nicholas J. & Agnes M. Collins (the Collins), 7017 276th

Street NW, Stanwood, Washington 98292, seek

preliminary subdivision approval of a 14 lot single family residential “cottage” subdivision of a 2.5 acre site

utilizing the Planned Residential Development (PRD) standards. Major Development Permit (MDP)

approval is also required by Stanwood Municipal Code (SMC) 17.95.465 for developments utilizing the

PRD standards, regardless of the number of lots the PRD will create.

The Collins filed the consolidated application on April 27, 2006. (Testimony) The Stanwood Department of

Community Development (DCD) deemed the application to be complete as of June 14, 2006. 1 (Testimony)

The subject property occupies the northwest quadrant of the 70th

Avenue NW/276th

Street NW intersection.

The Stanwood Hearing Examiner (Examiner) viewed the subject property on April 3, 2007.

1 The development review “clock” stopped awaiting additional information on a number of occasions since the application

was deemed complete. (Testimony)

HEARING EXAMINER DECISION

RE: LPPA06-4 (Collins PRD)

April 11, 2007

Page 2 of 11


The Examiner held an open record hearing on April 3, 2007. DCD gave notice of the hearing as required by

the SMC. (Exhibit 15 2)

The action taken herein and the requirements, limitations and/or conditions imposed by this decision are, to

the best of the Examiner’s knowledge or belief, only such as are lawful and within the authority of the

Examiner to take pursuant to applicable law and policy.

ISSUES

Does the application meet the criteria for preliminary subdivision and Major Development Permit approval

as established within the SMC? Does the proposal properly comply with adopted tree retention standards?

Only one person submitted any comments regarding this application. (Exhibit 11) That person had one

concern: Tree retention. This decision will focus on that one issue.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Collins propose to subdivide the approximately 2.5 acre rectangular site into 14 single family

residential cottage lots using the City’s PRD standards for cottage developments. Minimum lot size

for cottage lots is 3,000 square feet, with a maximum residence size of 1,200 square feet allowed per

lot. The project is required to provide a minimum of 1 acre of open space area; Collins proposes to

refurbish an existing barn on site into a community center to meet the recreational facility

requirement of SMC 17.147.040. (Exhibits 1, 3, 14, and 17) The layout has been designed to

maximize privacy, minimize intersection impacts, and preserve maximum recreation opportunities

for the residents. (Testimony)

2. The site consists primarily of pasture sloping gently from the west. The property is fronted by 70th

Avenue NW along its eastern boundary and 276th

Street NW along its southern boundary. It is

abutted by the plat of Cedarhome Vista to the north and a single family lot to the west. Five trees

ostensibly meeting the City’s definition of “significant tree” are located on the property. (Exhibits 1,

13, and 18).

3. The Stanwood Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property Medium Density Residential

(MDR) with a maximum gross density of 10 units per acre. Collins PRD conforms to the MDR

designation by yielding an approximate gross density of 5.6 units per acre. The site is zoned SR 7.0,

Single Family Residential. Collins PRD was designed utilizing PRD standards for cottage

2 Exhibit citations are provided for the reader’s benefit and indicate: 1) The source of a quote or specific fact; and/or 2)

The major document(s) upon which a stated fact is based. While the Examiner considers all relevant documents in the

record, typically only major documents are cited. The Examiner’s Decision is based upon all documents in the record.



April 11, 2007

Page 3 of 11


developments. PRDs allow more flexibility in lot size and dimension in return for additional open

space. (Exhibits 1, 3, 14, and 17)

4. The City issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)

on February 27, 2007. (Exhibit 4) The DNS was not appealed. (Testimony)

5. The SMC generally requires preservation of not less than 50% of all significant trees on a

development site. [SMC 17.145.040(1)] A “significant tree” is “an existing, healthy tree” with a

minimum breast height diameter of eight inches. [SMC 17.20.2237] “In the event that enough

significant trees cannot be preserved and accommodate a reasonable development as determined by

the planning director,” a developer may either move one or more significant trees to other locations

on site or plant one new tree for each significant tree removed. [SMC 17.145.040(3)]

6. The tree retention plan identifies five significant trees on site: Four large cedars near the center of the

north property line and one large deciduous tree near the existing residence. (Exhibit 13) A small

clump of immature Douglas firs is located in the northwest corner of the site. (Exhibit 18)

Two of the four cedars are single trunk trees which split into multiple trunks about four feet above

ground level. Both exhibit damage from human activities (tree houses, etc.). The three closest to the

property line also exhibit wilting, insect infestation, and possible root damage (possibly caused by

development on the north side of the property line). (Exhibit 18 and testimony)

7. The Collins propose to remove all five of the identified significant trees and replace them with 20

site perimeter trees, nine perimeter trees around the “pea patch” in the northwest corner, and

numerous street trees. (Exhibit 16 3) The Planning Director has determined that tree removal is

justified under SMC 17.145.040(3). (Testimony)

8. The Planning Commission held a public meeting on August 14, 2006, to hear a report from City staff

and to take public comment on the application. The Planning Commission recommends approval of

the preliminary plat application for Collins PRD with five conditions, four of which have already

been fulfilled, the fifth of which is partially incorporated into the Staff’s recommended Conditions of

approval. (Exhibit 1 and testimony; see Finding 9.B, below.)

9. The DCD Staff Report (Exhibit 1) contains a very detailed, comprehensive analysis of the proposal’s

conformance with all applicable review criteria. In view of the fact that the application is

substantially without controversy, no need exists to provide separate analysis of the criteria within

this Decision. The Staff Report is incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, subject to the

following additions and/or corrections:

A. Pages 4 and 7: Street references to “267th

” should be “276th

.” (Testimony)

3 DCD has not yet approved the proposed landscaping plan. (Testimony)



April 11, 2007

Page 4 of 11


B. Page 6: The Planning Commission desired lighting bollards and wrought iron fencing along

the property’s frontages on both 276th

Street NW and 70th

Avenue NW although its minutes

do not reflect the latter portion of the request. (Testimony)

C. : Recommended Condition 3(a) needs to be modified to incorporate the full extent of

the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

10. Traffic impact mitigation will include fees to Stanwood (under City code), Snohomish County

(pursuant to an interlocal agreement), and the Washington State Department of Transportation

(WSDOT) (pursuant to an offer made by the Collins within their traffic impact report). (Exhibits 5 –

7 and testimony)

11. Any Conclusion deemed to be a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

Authority

Both a preliminary subdivision and a Major Development Permit are Type III applications which are subject

to an open record hearing before the Examiner. The Examiner makes a final decision on the applications

which is subject to the right of closed record appeal before the Council. [SMC 17.80.160]

Review Criteria

The review criteria for a preliminary subdivision are set forth at SMC 16.15.090:

Preliminary plats shall be reviewed:

(1) To assure conformance of the proposed subdivision to the general purposes of this

code, the Comprehensive Plan and to development standards, specifications and policies

adopted by the City Council.

(2) To inquire into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the

establishment of the subdivision and/or dedication. Appropriate provisions shall be made for,

but not limited to, the following:

(a) open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water

supplies, sanitary waste, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and school grounds, safe

walking conditions to schools, fire protection, and shall consider all other relevant facts and

determine whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. …

Dedication of land to any public body may be required as a condition of subdivision approval

and shall be clearly shown on the final plat.

(b) Prevention of Overcrowding. Consideration shall be given to the physical

characteristics of the land in relation to the number of persons, buildings or sites proposed to

be located thereon, and also to the availability of public facilities such as water, sewers, fire

protection, streets, schools, parks, etc., if not adequately provided for within the subdivision.



April 11, 2007

Page 5 of 11


(c) Traffic Circulation on the Streets and Highways. Proposed streets must be

aligned or built in such a way as to best facilitate the movement of traffic and reduce the

possibility of accidents. This shall include a consideration of the alignment of intersections,

width and surfacing of streets, proper curbs, sidewalks or paths, radii of curves and sight

vision at intersections, hills and private easements.

(d) Adequate Light and Air. There shall be assurance that the plat is arranged

in such a way that all lots have adequate light and air.

(e) Proper Arrangement and Provision of Easements and Pathways and Other

Bicycle-Pedestrian Paths, Etc. There shall be assurance of conformance with existing layout

of pathways and streets and also to adopted plans for such. Adequate provisions for pathways

connecting various parts of a subdivision shall be considered in such a way that most of the

pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular traffic is diverted away from streets. There shall be

consideration given to providing trail systems in areas conducive to such (along creeks,

rivers, scenic areas, etc.).

(3) To consider the physical characteristics of the proposed subdivision site, including

flood, inundation or swamp conditions. The hearing examiner may recommend the

construction of protective improvements be required as a condition of approval, with such

improvements to be noted on the final plat in order to assure that:

(a) All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.

(b) All public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water

systems, are located, elevated and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage.

(c) Adequate drainage is provided so as to reduce exposure to flood hazards.

The review criteria for a Major Development Permit are set forth at SMC 17.80.120:

A land use development permit shall be granted if the city finds, based on substantial

evidence in the record, that the development complies with each of the following:

(1) The development is consistent with the goals, policies, requirements, and

performance standards of this code, the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable laws and

regulations;

(2) The development project as proposed incorporates, to the maximum extent

feasible, mitigation measures to substantially lessen or eliminate all adverse environmental

impacts of the development; and

(3) The applicant has presented certification that the applicant has filed and paid all

taxes, penalties and interest, and that the applicant has satisfactorily made agreement to pay

the taxes.

The Local Project Review Act [Chapter 36.70B RCW] establishes a mandatory “consistency” review for

“project permits”, a term defined by the Act to include “building permits, subdivisions, binding site plans,

planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review,



April 11, 2007

Page 6 of 11


permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones authorized by a

comprehensive plan or subarea plan.” [RCW 36.70B.020(4)]

(1) Fundamental land use planning choices made in adopted comprehensive plans and

development regulations shall serve as the foundation for project review. The review of a

proposed project’s consistency with applicable development regulations or, in the absence of

applicable regulations the adopted comprehensive plan, under RCW 36.70B.040 shall

incorporate the determinations under this section.

(2) During project review, a local government or any subsequent reviewing body shall

determine whether the items listed in this subsection are defined in the development

regulations applicable to the proposed project or, in the absence of applicable regulations the

adopted comprehensive plan. At a minimum, such applicable regulations or plans shall be

determinative of the:

(a) Type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed

under certain circumstances, such as planned unit developments and conditional and

special uses, if the criteria for their approval have been satisfied;

(b) Density of residential development in urban growth areas; and

(c) Availability and adequacy of public facilities identified in the comprehensive

plan, if the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as

required by [the Growth Management Act].

[RCW 36.70B.030]

Vested Rights

Subdivision and short subdivision applications are governed by a statutory vesting rule: such applications

“shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use

control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application …has been submitted ….”

[RCW 58.17.033]

The vested rights doctrine applies to various types of land use applications:

Washington does adhere to the minority rule that a landowner obtains a vested right to

develop land when he or she makes a timely and complete building permit application that

complies with the applicable zoning and building ordinances in effect on the date of the

application. Our vested rights rule also has been applied to building permits, conditional use

permits, a grading permit, and a [shoreline management] substantial development permit.

[Norco Construction v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 684, 649 P.2d 103 (1982), citations omitted] The

requested Major Development Permit application has characteristics analogous to a conditional use permit: It

proposes a specifically designed use for a specific site.



April 11, 2007

Page 7 of 11


Therefore, both components of this consolidated application are vested to the regulations as they existed on

June 14, 2006.

Standard of Review

The standard of review is “substantial evidence.” [SMC 17.80.120] The applicant has the burden of proof.

[SMC 17.80.060(2)]

Scope of Consideration

The Examiner has considered: all of the evidence and testimony; applicable adopted laws, ordinances, plans,

and policies; and the pleadings, positions, and arguments of the parties of record.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The evidence in the record and the analysis provided by DCD shows that Collins PRD complies with

all applicable criteria for both preliminary subdivision and major development permit approval.

DCD’s conclusions within the Staff Report are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The proposed manner of compliance with the tree retention requirements of SMC 17.145.040 is

consistent with the provisions of that code section. It must first be noted that authority to determine

whether significant trees need to be removed in order to allow a reasonable development is expressly

granted by the SMC to the Planning Director. The Planning Director has exercised that authority.

Second, while the large cedars are visually imposing, they are in reality not very healthy. In fact,

depending upon how unhealthy they actually are, they may not even qualify as significant trees in the

first place: Not every large tree is a significant tree; by definition sick trees are not significant trees.

Finally, the Collins plan a significant amount of landscaping of the site, including many perimeter

trees. More trees will exist on site after development than presently exist on site.

3. The recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit 1 are reasonable, supported by the

evidence, and capable of accomplishment with the following exceptions:

A. The reference to Exhibit 3 will be incorporated into a numbered condition rather than placed

in the preamble to the conditions.

B. The conditions should reflect that traffic impact mitigation fees are payable to Snohomish

County by virtue of an interlocal agreement and to WSDOT by virtue of an applicant offer.



April 11, 2007

Page 8 of 11


C. A few minor, non-substantive structure, grammar, and/or punctuation revisions to

Recommended Conditions First 3 – 5 and Second 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 will improve parallel

construction, clarity, and flow within the conditions. Such changes will be made.

4. Collins PRD meets the consistency test: Single family detached residential is the desired land use

type in this area; the proposed density falls within the desired range; and the subdivision will be

served by adequate public utilities.

5. Any Finding of Fact deemed to be a Conclusion is hereby adopted as such.

DECISION

Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the

open record hearing, and the Examiner’s site view, the Examiner APPROVES the requested preliminary

subdivision and Major Development Permit for Collins PRD SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED

CONDITIONS..

Decision issued April 11, 2007.

\s\ John E. Galt (Signed original in official file)

John E. Galt

Hearing Examiner

PARTIES of RECORD

Kimberly Williams Ann Skinner

Agnes Collins Scott Lankford

Brian Fleming

NOTICE OF RIGHT OF RECONSIDERATION

This Decision is subject to the right of reconsideration pursuant to Hearing Examiner Rule of Procedure 504.

Reconsideration may be requested by the applicant, appellant, a party of record, or the City. Reconsideration

requests must be filed in writing with the City Clerk/receptionist within seven (7) calendar days of the date

of mailing of this Decision. Any reconsideration request shall specify the error of law or fact, procedural

error, or new evidence which could not have been reasonably available at the time of the hearing conducted

by the Examiner which forms the basis of the request. Any reconsideration request shall also specify the



April 11, 2007

Page 9 of 11


relief requested. See Hearing Examiner Rule of Procedure 504 for additional information and requirements

regarding reconsideration.

NOTICE of RIGHT of APPEAL

This Decision becomes the Examiner’s final and conclusive action as of the eighth calendar day after the

date of mailing of the Decision unless reconsideration is timely requested. If reconsideration is timely

requested, the order granting or denying reconsideration becomes the Examiner’s final and conclusive

action. Any party of record may appeal to the Stanwood City Council in accordance with the procedures of

Chapter 17.80 SMC within 14 calendar days following the date of the Examiner’s final and conclusive

action. See SMC 17.80.140 for additional information and requirements regarding appeals.

The following statement is provided pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130: “Affected property owners may request

a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.”



April 11, 2007

Page 10 of 11


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Collins PRD

LPPA06-4

This consolidated preliminary subdivision and Major Development Permit is subject to compliance with all

applicable provisions, requirements, and standards of the Stanwood Municipal Code, standards adopted

pursuant thereto, and the following special conditions:

General Conditions

1. Exhibit 3 is the approved preliminary plat. Revisions to approved preliminary plats are regulated by

SMC 16.15.150.

2. All common public spaces within the plat shall be owned and maintained by a homeowner’s association

created in conformance with City requirements for such.

3. The homeowner’s association covenants shall include a clause that restricts parking by the residents or

their guests to designated parking areas, including private garages, driveways, and the designated parking

strip only. Cars shall not be permitted to block the side walk or be parked on the street shoulder in non-

designated areas.

4. A City-approved Site Development Permit shall be obtained prior to initiation of any clearing, grading,

or otherwise disturbing the site and shall provide for the following:

a. Plat construction plans shall ensure compliance with City PRD open space planting and facilities

requirements and City recreation standards. A minimum of 43,560 square feet of open space area

(total) and one recreational amenity is required. In addition to the above, the open space plans

shall include period street lights, lighting bollards, and wrought iron fencing along 276th

Street

NW and 70th

Avenue NW.

b. The open space landscaping plan shall include the planting of at least three native significant

trees meeting the requirements of SMC 17.145.040(3)(b).

c. Plat construction plans shall include provisions for the installation of two crosswalks across 70th

Avenue NW, as requested by the Stanwood-Camano School District and depicted on Exhibit 10.

d. Plat construction plans shall include “No Parking” signage and/or striping along the internal plat

road. The design shall be approved by the City Engineer.

5. City impact fees shall be paid pursuant to the City impact fee schedule in effect at the time of final plat

approval, or at the time of building permit issuance. Traffic impact fees shall be paid to Snohomish

County as required by the interlocal agreement and to WSDOT as offered by the applicants.

6. A minimum of six different cottage house plans that conform to the designs submitted as Exhibit 14 are

required to be constructed within the plat. The floor plans shall not exceed 1,200 square feet in building

area pursuant to SMC 17.95.450. Any amendments to the proposed designs must be approved by the

Community Development Director.

Prior to approval and recordation of the final plat:

7. Water, sewer, and stormwater improvements necessary to serve the site shall be designed and installed

pursuant to City standards.



April 11, 2007

Page 11 of 11


8. Fire hydrant placement and installation shall be designed and installed pursuant to City standards.

9. Continuous street frontage improvements including required street tree plantings shall be constructed

along public streets.

10. Open space improvements, including at least one recreational amenity and the minimum number of trees,

benches, and garbage receptacles required by SMC 17.95.460(7), shall be installed.

11. City right-of-way located on the inside corner at the intersection of 70th

Avenue NW and 276th

Street

NW shall be vacated.

12. Final street names and lot addresses shall be approved by the City and recorded on the final plat map(s).

13. The developer shall submit copies of the homeowner’s covenants, rules, and restrictions to the City for

review and approval.

city of stanwood council agenda staff report item … · 2017-02-03 · attachments: a. letter from...

Documents