HEAF)NG EXAMiNER. Attention: Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Ave #604 Everett, WA PDS File No: LU

Transcription

1 Attention: Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Ave #604 Everett, WA PDS File No: LU Subject: Appeal of Snohomish County Examiner Decision 1) Background On February 7, 2013 the Hearing Examiner approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 8,194 square foot Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly church at th Street SE, Snohomish, WA. See proceedings for the details. The decision overturned a previous ruling by the Former Examiner and County Council where the CUP was denied. (File No: ) 2) Appellant's Request: In this appeal the Appellant seeks a County Council decision that reverses the Hearing Examiners decision from "Approve, Subject to a Precondition and Conditions" to "Denied" such that the CUP application is not granted. 3) Identity of the Appellant: The Appellant is Michael Riston, a party of record for file number LU. The mailing address is: th Ave SE, Snohomish, WA The daytime phone number is The Appellant has signed this appeal. 4) Timely appeal, Payment of Fees This appeal has been filed on or before February 21, 2013 as specified in the Examiner's decision. A $ appeal fee has been paid and filed. 5) Definitions The following terms are used in the text below: a. "Examiner" or "Hearing Examiner" i. Reference is to the current Examiner who rendered a decision to grant the CUP application to build the church, unless "Former" precedes it. b. "Former Examiner" or "Former Hearing Examiner" i. References the former examiner who made decisions for file number LU HEAF)NG EXAMiNER Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 1

2 c. "Council" i. References the Snohomish County Council. d. "Current Proposal" i. References Clearview current application file number LU. e. "Former Proposal" i. References Clearview previous application file number LU f. "Clearview" i. References to the Clearview Assembly Church applicant. 6) Statement of Facts a. On February 7, 2013 the Hearing Examiner approved, subject to a precondition and conditions to grant a CUP to build the Clearview Assembly Church. For complete details of decision, facts, conclusion of law see "Decision of the Snohomish. County Examiner" file number LU. Exhibit A. b. On February 4, 2011 the Former Hearing Examiner denied a CUP to build the Clearview Assembly Church at ' Street SE largely on the grounds of substandard lot issues, deemed materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediately vicinity, and the incompatibility of the proposal incorporating specific features, conditions, or revisions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property. For complete details of decision, facts, conclusion of law see "Revised Final Decision and Order of the Snohomish County Examiner" file number LU. c. On March 30, 2011 the County Council amended and affirmed the February 4, 2011 decision on appeal. For complete details of decision, facts, conclusion of law see "Official Notice of Council Decision" Motion: Exhibit B. d. In County Council Motion the County Council affirmed and amended the Former Hearing Examiner's decision in section 14C that the proposed CUP application was materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity. For complete 14C section see Motion e. In Motion the County Council affirmed and amended the Former Hearing Examiner's decision in section 14D that the application that "the impacts that will be generated by the church operations are simply not in keeping with the character of existing uses in the area". For complete 14C section see Motion Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 2

3 f A protest petition was circulated among the property owners within the notification area. More than 55% of the land parcel owners signed the petition opposed to the building of the church and have asked the Snohomish County Council to deny the application. Reference "Petition against Building West Woodland Gospel Hall Assembly Church File Number LU, containing 42 land owner signatures. Exhibit C. g. The new application proposal ( LU) is very similar to the previous proposal ( LU). Below is a list of differences highlighted by Clearview in response to concerns raised in the review of the first application: i. Five additional parking stalls have been added increasing total parking stalls from 56 to 61. ii. The clothing bank has been eliminated. iii. Willingness to install "no parking" signs along 67 t" Ave SE. iv. Willingness to install a locking gate to secure the parking lot during nonbusiness hours. v. Storm water from the project will be routed in the opposite direction from a concerned neighbor's property. vi. Relooked at potential traffic impacts. 7) Arguments The following arguments are presented for the Council to consider: a. In his decision dated February 7, 2013 the Examiner found the proposal ( LU) will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties in the immediate vicinity. The Examiner's primary argument for the decision was While the former Hearing Examiner found, in the course of the review of the original proposal for a church on the subject site, that the proposal would be materially detrimental to the surrounding uses, the current proposal has been modified specifically to address some of those aspects of the original proposal that lead to the former Hearing Examiner's finding. For example, the former Examiner found, "that the church will have some impacts on the surrounding community that are similar to the impacts of a commercial use, " referring to the operation of the then proposed clothing bank distribution center. The former Examiner was particularly concerned with such matters as the daily use of the site, the hours of use and the fact that the clothing bank distribution center would be open to the public at large. With the elimination of the clothing bank function in the current proposal, the nature and intensity of the use of the subject property will have significantly reduced impacts upon the surrounding community. With its Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 3

4 currently proposed limited days and hours of use, the proposal will not have impacts similar to a commercial use. On March 30, 2011 the Council and Former Examiner in file LU and Motion made a decision that the former proposal was materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity. Section C, point 14C paragraph one states: (Paragraph one) The impacts to the surrounding community from the proposed application will arise from a change in the nature and intensity of the use of the subject property. The church will be significantly larger in size than residences on 67` hi Avenue and 180`h Street SE, at over 8, 000 square, feet. The facility is designed to support a congregation of approximately 80, families and individuals, with parking for 56 vehicles on site. The applicant suggests that the current enrollment of 25 families should be persuasive (Exhibit A3); however, their Board President, Todd Brandt, testified that they currently have 100 members. Additionally, the Hearing Examiner must consider the maximum use of the church facilities as designed, because the County lacks the legal authority to regulate the internal workings of the church once it is operating. (Exhibit A3) Church members will visit the site throughout the week and the site will also introduce a new use, a clothing bank distribution center, to the area (which is currently operating in a nearby business zone). The church argues that they are not a commercial endeavor. (Exhibit A3) However, the nature of their use of the subject property is clearly more similar to a commercial use than a residential one, given its building footprint, traffic generation, hours of use, congregation size, and noise generation, and the fact that they intend to allow the property to be used for a low income clothing bank distribution center for the public at large. As such, the Hearing Examiner finds that the church will have some impacts on the surrounding community that are similar to the impacts of a commercial use. (Paragraph Three) The Examiner notes that the subject lot is designed at maximum capacity, meaning that there would be nowhere for additional cars to park except on the surrounding rural roads, should their congregation expand in the future. The change in use will also intensify the noise and traffic coming and going from the site. The traffic study states that the entire site will utilize 67` h Avenue SE to access the surrounding street network. (Exhibit C2) At present, 67 th Avenue SE is a two-lane local rural road without any pavement markings or sidewalks. Ld. Across 180 1h Street, 67`h Avenue SE is a gravel road with a cautionary speed posted at 10 mph. 67`h Avenue SE where it accesses the site is a paved road without a posted speed limit (assumed to be 25 mph). ld. The applicant expects to generate 73 average daily trips at its access point overall traffic on this rural Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 4

5 road without. Residents testified to their concern about the overall impact that this would have on their quiet enjoyment of the area and the to safety of pedestrians, especially children, living in the neighborhood. (Paragraph Five) Here, the Examiner finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the impacts associated with the placement of a church on the subject property (increased traffic, noise, visual impacts), which is located in a rural, largely pastoral, residential setting will be materially detrimental to the properties and uses in the immediate vicinity. The Examiner argues the proposal will not have impacts similar to a commercial use largely based on the removal of the clothing bank from the proposal; however, he did not mention facts or arguments in section E as to why the building footprint, traffic generation, hours of use, congregation size, and noise generation are not similar to commercial use. Therefore; the Appellant asks, does the new proposal offer significant changes over the previous proposal to merit a material detrimental decision? For each fact mentioned in the Council and Former Examiner decision above the Appellant gives a response comparing the reference to the current proposal and Examiners decision. Impacts to the surrounding community will arise from a change in the nature and intensity of the use of the subject property. (Motion , section C, 14C paragraph one) i. The church's recent proposal has increased parking by 5 stalls, and has proposed to install a gate and "No Parking" signs on 67 th Ave SE. It also removes the clothing bank proposed to run 4 hours once a month with a drop box off site. The Examiner does not give reason in section E that the current proposal's use has not significantly "changed in nature" from the previous proposal. Increasing parking by 5 stalls, installing a proposed gate, and adding proposed "No Parking" signs on 67 th Ave SE has been argued to help with the impacts associated with additional church membership growth, but does not fundamentally and significantly change the nature of the church's impact. The church impacts the surrounding community simply by being there. The Appellant respectively asks the Council to consider that the applicants proposed changes are not significantly different from the previous proposal and uphold its previous decision concerning impact to the surrounding community. ii. The new proposal has removed the clothing bank. Clearview has stated in the previous application ( ) that the clothing bank hours would "likely to be used for only four hours on a single day, once per month" and that "the church will not accept donations on the Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 5

6 site". While the clothing bank removal does reduce church member use its impact on the intensity is minimal at 4 hours once a month and considering the drop box was to be off site. The Appellant respectively asks the Council to consider that the proposed removal of the clothing bank does not constitute a significant reduction in use intensity. 2. The change in use will also intensify the noise and traffic coming and going from the site. (Motion , section C, 14C paragraph three) The traffic studies performed by both Gibson Traffic Consultants and DPW for the current proposal are not significantly different from the previous proposal findings, thus implying the traffic impact and noise impacts are very similar between the previous and current proposals. The Council and Former Examiner found the previous proposal had a change in use that intensified the noise and traffic coming and going from the site, yet the Examiner makes no mention of this fact or argued it in section E. The Appellant asks the Council to consider that the new proposal does not have significant changes to merit an improvement in noise and traffic, and to maintain its original decision in Motion , section C, 14C paragraph two. 3. The nature of the church use is clearly more similar to a commercial use than a residential one, given its building footprint, traffic generation, hours of use, congregation size, and noise generation. (Motion , section C, 14C paragraph one) The Examiner argues the proposal will not have impacts similar to a commercial use largely based on the removal of the clo thing b^ from the proposal; however, he did not give facts or argumentso why the building footprint, traffic generation, hours of use, congregation size, and noise generation are not similar to commercial use. The Council and Former Examiner clearly stated "the church will have some impacts on the surrounding community that are similar to the impacts of a commercial use" referring in part to it being different than a residence, building footprint, traffic generation, hours of use, congregation size, and noise generation all of which are considered materially detrimental to use or property. The Appellant respectively asks the Council to reconsider the Examiners decision concerning this decision. 4. The volume of traffic is a significant increase in overall traffic on this rural road without. (Motion , section C, 14C paragraph three) The current traffic studies and review performed by both Gibson Traffic Consultants and DPW are similar in findings when comparing the current and previous proposal's traffic findings. The new average daily trips (ADT) according to the studies have remained at 65 for both the current and previous proposals. The Council and Former Examiner found the increased traffic to be materially detrimental in Motion The Appellant respectively asks the Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 6

7 Council to consider the proposal materially detrimental due to significantly increased traffic on the 67 th Ave SE rural road. Further, the Examiner states in Section E paragraph two: Most, if not all of the activities on the subject property will occur indoors. Primary use of the site will occur on Sundays and Wednesday evenings, with other occasional use at other times. Church leaders are volunteers and there will be no permanent, full time employees on the site during weekdays. In public hearing testimony the Appellant raised the concern that the church could allow the facility to be used or rented by another group or church organization. This use clearly has impact and would if allowed change primary use to other days and hours. The Examiner "did not" mention this fact in his decision, and further did not put a restriction on the CUP to prevent this use. In testimony the Applicant clearly stated they did not want day or hour restrictions. If the CUP is formally approved by the Council neither the county or residents will be able to restrict the intended use. The Appellant respectively asks the Council to consider the impact of this potential use and add restrictions should the Council affirm the Examiner's decision. The record shows numerous residents concerned with the overall impact that the church would have on the quiet enjoyment of the area and to the safety of pedestrians, especially children, living in the neighborhood. These concerns have grown significantly since the previous proposal. 55% of land owners (42 signatures) in the area of notification signed a protest petition opposing the project (Exhibit C). Many of the residents, including the Appellant are concerned with the intensity of use relative to the surrounding properties, the level of traffic generation, the size of the structure proposed, the potential for future growth, and the impact on property values. Does increasing parking by 5 slots or removing the clothing bank proposed to operate 4 hours once a month (with an offsite drop box) remove intensity of use relative to surrounding properties, increased traffic generation, safety concerns, and overall impact the project has the quiet enjoyment of the area? The Appellant asserts that it does not and respectively asks the Council to reconsider the proposed application as having an overall detrimental impact on the neighborhood. During the public hearing the Appellant submitted a concern that the church potentially will advertise events using lighted street side signs. At the church's current location there is a sign placed by Highway 9 advertising the church and its services. By nature the church will continue this practice at the 180 th location. The presence of the sign(s) is out of character for the rural, largely pastoral, Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 7

8 residential setting and is considered materially detrimental to properties and uses in the immediate vicinity. A lighted sign will negatively impact residents near the church. In addition, displaying a sign is considered similar to a commercial use. These concerns were not mentioned in the facts or argued by the Examiner. The Appellants respectively asks the Council to consider the use of advertising sign(s) as materially detrimental. Should the Council affirm the Examiner's decision the Appellant respectively asks the Council to impose a CUP condition restricting the use of advertising signs. Based on the evidence from comments above and of previous Council and Former Examiner decisions the Appellant respectively asks the Council to declare the project materially detrimental to use or property, to reverse the Examiners decision, and to deny the CUP application. b. The Examiner found the proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific features, conditions, or revisions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property. In response the Appellant submits the following arguments. The Comprehensive Plan speaks to other uses in rural areas, including rural businesses and services, and natural resource based industries. (See, Snohomish County Growth Management Plan (GMACP), General Policy Plan (GPP) at Goal LU-6). It states all of these other uses must be small-scale, located in rural business or rural industrial zones designed to serve the immediate surrounding community, and designed to limit impacts on the surrounding rural areas and the natural environment. Our area now enjoys a quiet and rural environment that allows for the community elderly to exercise each day along 67 th Ave safely, horses and riders to walk the area, and small children to play relatively safely. The church's proximity, nature, and having some commercial use characteristics clearly impact our area and would impact the quiet and rural character of our community. In the previous proposal the Council and Former Examiner found "the proposed use of the property will be incompatible with the characteristics of the surrounding properties" ( LU/Motion ). Has the current proposal changed enough to merit reconsideration of this decision? Does adding 5 parking stalls, dropping the clothing bank proposed to operate 4 hours once a month, adding a gate, and adding no-parking signs make the project become compatible with the characteristics of the surround properties? The Appellant asserts that it does not and respectively asks the Council to reconsider the proposed application as incompatible with the characteristics of the surrounding properties. Furthermore, the Examiner writes the following in section F paragraph one: Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 8

9 The proposal exceeds all required setbacks and now includes significantly more (over 45% more) on-site parking spaces than required to meet the minimum requirements of County Code. This change was made specifically to address concerns raised by neighbors so as to make the proposal more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The previous application was for 56 stalls. The new application has added 5 stalls bringing the total stalls to 61. Using the Examiners calculation methods, the previous application contained 33% more parking stalls than required by County Code; therefore, the proposed application increased the parking stalls by 12%. Only 5 parking stalls have been added representing a marginal 12% increase in capacity. By nature churches are designed to grow thereby increasing impacts. The 5 extra stalls offer a small increase of 20 members using the County Code equating 4 members per parking stall. The Council and Former Examiner in Motion have stated in section 14C paragraph three: The Examiner notes that the subject lot is designed at maximum capacity, meaning that there would be nowhere for additional cars to park except on the surrounding rural roads, should their congregation expand in the future. The Appellant is confused as to what the Country terms as maximum capacity. The Examiner uses one method whereas the Former Examiner and Council claimed the previous proposal was "designed at maximum capacity". Using this calculation adding 5 parking stalls gives only a 9% capacity increase which is also considered non-significant. The Appellant respectively asks the Council to consider that the new proposal parking stall increase is "not a significant" increase. c. Clearview has stated a willingness to install "No Parking" signs on 67 th Ave SE to deter the church members from parking on 67 th Ave SE, and a locking parking gate to deter visitation of the property during off hours; however, these proposals are not required as a condition of the CUP. In addition, if church members do park on 67 th Ave SE how will the area be policed? Do the police have the ability to monitor the area for inappropriate parking and give citations for violators? These concerns and restrictions were testified at the public hearing by the Appellant but were not included as fact or argued by the Examiner. The Appellant respectively asks the Council to apply a condition to the CUP that installation of a parking lot gate and "No Parking" signs be required should the CUP be affirmed by the Council. Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 9

10 8) Conclusion The decision concerning this application has a long term impact to our rural area surrounding the proposed property and use. It can't be taken back once the decision is made. Recently, our area has been impacted with heavy developments to the West and the Clearview Commercial Area to the East. Clearview's application is yet another development impact for our area. The Appellant and resident neighbors sincerely want to protect our rural character for as long as possible, and believe granting a CUP to Clearview Gospel will start a decline of the rural lands around us and have detrimental effects to the land owners surrounding the area. Thank you for considering this appeal. Respectfully submitted this 21 st day of February, 2013 Michael D. Riston Resident of 67 th Ave SE and Party of Record for file LU Appeal to County Council Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly CUP February 21, 2013 Page 10

11 A DECISION of the SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER Snohomish. County Hearing Examiner's Office GordonSivley Nearing Examiner M/S 405 DECISION DATE: February 7 ; Rockefeller Ave. Everett, WA PROJECT NAME: Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly (425) FAX (425) APPLICANT! West Woodland Gospel Halt Assembly LANDOWNER: N.E. 177th Place, ##126, Woodinville WA FILE NO. :, ' $0 LU TYPE OF REQUEST:, DECISION (SUMMARY): CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP)" APPROVED, SUBJECT TO A PRECONDITION and CONDITIONS GENERAL LOCATION: 6726 "180 Street SE, Snohomish WA, ZONING: R-5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Resident al (1 duf5 acres basic) PDS RECOMMENDATION: Approve,, subject to the recommended precondition and conditions A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. The Record. The official record for this proceeding consists of the. Exhibits entered into evidence (Exhibits A:.1 through M.2 1),: as well as the - testimony of 'witnesses received at the Open Record Hearing. The entire record was admitted into evidence and considered by the Examine, r in reaching the decision herein. NOTE: For a complete record, an electronic recording of the hearing in this 'case is avalab. le in the Office of the Hearing Examiner. 2. Parties of Record. The Parties of Record are set forth in the Parties. of Record Register and include interested parties who testified at the Open Record. Hearing. 3. Public Hearing. The Hearing Examiner held an Open Record Hearing on. January 23, Witnesses were sworn, testimony'was presented, and exhibits were entered into the record '-Exhibits M,1 and M.2, the traffic reviewer report and the Fire Marshal's 'report, were not included in the initial exhibits submitted by PDS as required by Rules of Procedure 4.3(a). At the public hearing, the Examiner indicated that the record would be left open for submittal of these reports until January 25` h. The reports were submitted by PDS to the Hearing Examiner for the record on January 24, Copies of these documents will be sent to all parties of record along with this decision

12 at the hearing. Notices of the application and public hearing were issued according to the provisions of SCC U5\. (Exhibits F.1, F.2, and F3) Monica McLaughlin and Ann Goetz appeared and testified on behalf of Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS). Appearing for the Applicant was Todd Brandt, President of the Board of Directors of the West Woodland Gospel Hall, David Harmsen, Harrnsen and Associates and Brad Lincoln, Gibson Traffic Consultants. In addition, several interested citizens appeared at the public hearing. The following people offered testimony on the proposal: Michael FUmtnn, Roy Desoto, Keith Abel and Thomas Regney. B. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findi of Fact are su by a preponderance of the evidence presented in the record pertaining to this matter. 1. Application Request. The Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly (the Applicant") has requested a CUP to site a church on a 3.12 acre lot in the R-5 zone. The land is designated as Rural Basic, 5 acres in the County's GMA Comprehensive Plan. The development will include a one-story, 8 ' 194 square foot church, a 61 stall parking ot, a stormwater management system incorporating an above ground detention pvnd, right-of-way improvements consisting of roadway widening and a paved shoulder along the development's road frontages and installation of ornamental landscaping and utilities. Access to the subject development is proposed via an internal driveway off of 67th Avenue SE. A Category 4 wetland at the west side of the site will be preserved and placed within a Critical Area Protection Area (CAPA). Water service is to be provided by the Cross Valley Water District and the development will utilize an on-site septic system. The Applicant previously submitted a CUP application (file number LU) which was initially denied without prejudice by the Hearing Examiner on December 2, A revised decision of denial was issued on February 4, 2011 (Exhibit A5) in response to a petition for reconsideration by the Applicant. The Applicant appealed this decision to the Snohomish County Council and, while the Council revised some of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions in the Hearing Examiner's decision, it upheld the Hearing Examiner's denial on March 30, 2011 (see Exhibit A4). Subsequent to the County Council decision, a section of the County Code related to development on substandard lots was revised (via Amended Ordinance effective February 16, 2013\. The Applicant submitted a new application on June G In response to concerns raised in the review of the first application, the Applicant revised the project to odd more parking stalls and to eliminate a previously proposed clothing bank associated with the primary church use. The revised project is also subject to the new drainage and Land Disturbing Activity (LDA) codes which went into effect on September As of the date of the hearing, 152 days of the 120 day review period had elapsed However, by a letter dated January 16, 2013, the Applicant agreed to waive the 120 day review period and stipulated that the Hearing Examiner's decision could be rendered outside of the usual 120 day review period. (Exhibit K1)

13 2. Site DeScription. The subject property is approximately 3.12 acres in size and is situated at the southeast corner of 180th Street and 67th Avenue SE. It is deemed a "substandard lot because it fails to meet the minimum lot size for the R-5 zone described in the Bulk Matrix within the zoning regulations. The minimum lot size is square feet. (8ee. Table (1)QC}C). A Category 4 wetland is located at the west side of the site. A mobile home formerly occupied the northeast portion of the property, but has since been removed. Vegetation in this area is primarily comprised of lawn and brambles. The remainder of the site is vegetated with mature deciduous trees, young conifers and shrubs. The topography generally descends from north to south with an average grade of 5.5%. 3. Adjacent uses. The site is zoned R-5 and is surrounded by single-family residences and otherruna /subudban uses on properties zoned R-5, including a commercial nursery on the adjoining property east of the subject site. Most of the surrounding lots are also smaller than the minimum lot size permitted in the current R-5 zoning, many significantly smaller than the subject site. 4. State Environmental Policy Act Compliance. PDS issued a Determination of No ' nuiconoe(dn'h)[the original application on October 7, The DNS was not appealed. An Addendum to the original DNS was issued on December 18, 2012 (Exhibit E.2). There was no appeal period associated with the Addendum. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of SEPA have been met. 5. Issues of Concern. A. Public Agency Review. No significant issues of concern were raised by reviewing agencies. B. Citizens. Correspondence was received from seven neighborhood residentm. Four requested to be Parties of Record and the others submitted additional comments (Exhibits H'1 H.3; L.1). Issues of concern related to possible impacts on surrounding property va oem, traffic safety/increased traffic volumes, stormwater runoff, lack of adequate parking at the facility, bags of clothing being left after hours and after-hours use of the parking lot. During the public heohng, concerned neighbors restated their concerns and opposition to the siting of the proposed church on the subject site. These concerns were related to increasing traffic volumes in the rural area and traffic safety issues attributable to turning movements at the intersection of 67th Avenue SE and 180 m Street SE, the incompatibility of a church with the surrounding single-family uses (including the asserted negative impact on property va uas), the potential for growth and intensified use if the church membership should grow in the future; and stormwater runoff concerns from adding impervious surfaces to the subject property, Michael Riston, who lives north of the subject site off of 67 Avenue, testified and presented a written statement of his concerns (Exhibit L.4). He stated that 55% of the landowners within the notification area for the proposal oppose approval of the CUP and he submitted a petition with over 40 signatures of residents opposed to the project (Exhibit L.3). The concerns he raised addressed the intensity of use relative to the surrounding properties, the level of traffic generation, the size of the structure propowed, the potential for future gn}wth, the commercial-like characteristics of the church operations and the asserted negative impact on the value of nearby property

14 Keith Abel, who owns property abutting the subject site on the east, testified and reiterated the concerns he raised in his written submittals (Exhibit H. 1). Thomas Regney, who lives across 180r Street SE from the subject site also testified and emphasized concerns about reduction of property vo uaa, noise and traffic safety. He submitted Exhibits L.5 and LO in support of his testimony. Exhibit L.6 is a print-out of a webpage in which real estate professionals responded in 2008 to a general question about a house next to a church. While concerns about reduced property values were raised by Mr. Regney and other neighbora, no evidence was presented in the form of a prvfeasinnol appraisal or an expert opinion by a real estate professional, that considered the specific proposal now under review. Another neighbor, Roy Desoto, also testified and indicated that he thought the Applicant had done a good job of designing the proposed church to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and he was not opposed to it. 6. testimony. The Applicant presented testimony from David Hmrnnaan, the project manager, Todd Brandt, President of the Board of Directors of the West Woodland Gospel Hall, and Brad Lincoln of Gibson Traffic Consultants. Mr. Brandt testified about the changes that have been made to the proposal in response to the concerns that were raised in the prior review proceedings. He noted that due primarily to the originally proposed clothing bank operation, the previous Hearing Examiner found and concluded that the church's original proposal presented commercial aspects that were incompatible with the rural residential neighborhood. Mr. Brandt stated that the current proposal has eliminated all clothing bank aspects. He indicated that the Applicant would be willing to make this a deed restriction on the property. Mr. Brandt then addressed concerns about growth of the church and potential parking and traffic issues that could arise. He stated that to meet these concerns, the proposal has been modified to add additional on-site parking and he indicated a willingness to install no parking" signs along 67th Avenue SE and that church members would be told that there is to be no off-site parking. With regard to potential noise impacts, Mr. Brandt noted that his congregation does not use a band or amplified music in their een/iueo. only singing by church members. The building will be used primarily on Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings, Wednesday evenings and for other events such as weddings, annivergahes, community suppero, seminars, etc. (Exhibit A.2). The Applicant has also provided a writte response to the concerns raised by surroundin property owners (see Exhibit 1.1). The Applicant has revised the proposal from the previous application to provide additional parking and to eliminate a clothing bank. Stormwater from the project will ba routed in the opposite direction from the concerned neighbor's property. The Applicant also indicated that it will provide locking gates to secure the parking lot during non-business hours. In rebuttal testimony, David Harmsen of Harmsen and Associates addressed the concerns that had been raised about the impact the church will have on property values. He indicated that he did some internet research and found a 1994 study that showed a decrease in values of properties within 50 feet of a church of up to 3%. A 1998 study showed an increase in property values of up to 5.5% associated with nearby churches. A 2003 study

15 by the Church of Latter Day Saints showed no statistically significant impact on property values, either positive or negative. Brad Lincoln of Gibson Traffic Consultants testified concerning traffic safety issues. He indicated that sight distances for the intersection of 67m Avenue SE and 18»m Street SE meet County standards and that turn channelization is not warranted for this intersection. He also indicated that an analysis of collision history for the last five years shows that there has not been a history of a significant number of collisions. To further address turning safety concerns, Mr. Lincoln noted that a future County road improvement project on 180 m Street SE planned for construction in the next few years, which will provide a center left turn lane and paved shoulders that will provide an additional measure of safety at the intersection. 7. Applicable Regulations. A. Approval Criteria. The proposal must meet the requirements of the CUP regulation found in SOC O0. as well as any required miti gation imposed pursuant to SEPA. ^ D/A ^C1UOproviuesLI L ^h^ H^erng Examiner may approve, or approve with conditions, a CUP only when all the following criteria are met: The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan; ^ The proposa complies with applicable requirements of [Title 30 SCC]; The proposal will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity; and The proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific featunes, conditions, or revisions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended chmnacter, appeananpe, quality of deve opmont, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property. B. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (8CC 30.42C100(1)). In the County Council's decision on the App licant's previ ousdluruhcupapp icatonforthesvbieotske. the County Council determined that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Examiner incorporates the pertinent portions of the County Council's findings on Comprehensive Plan consistency into this decision as set forth below: The Comprehensive Plan contains several land use policies relat ing to churches on lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAo), where it is assumed that most will be placed. In mddition, churches may be included in the Public/Institutional Use land use designation on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Hoxvemer, there are no specific land use policies guiding the siting of churches on lands designated as rural in the Comprehensive Plan. As a longterm planning document, the Plan is neutral as to the siting of churches on rural lands; it neither promotes nor discourages their placement on these lands. To determine where churches are permitted, prohibited or conditional uses, one must look to the County's Zoning Code. Evidence in the record supports the finding that the proposed church is consistent with Policy LU 6E of the Plan. Churches are a traditional part of rural communities across Snohomish County. They are part of a rural lifestyle C. Compliance with Chapter 30,42C.100(21 The proposal has been found to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 30 5CC, as described below:

16 Zoning Regulations. The proposed church use is allowed as a conditional use in the R-5 zone. Parking. SCC (1) specifies that the number of required parking stalls for churches is to be determined by PDS on a case-by-case basis. The Applicant has provided a sample floor plan (Exhibit B.6) which indicates that there will be 165 seats in the sanctuary and has calculated the required amount of parking needed for the church would be 42 stalls. This calculation was based on a previous version of the zoning code which required one parking stall for every four seats for churches. This ratio is also widely used by other municipalities and is listed in the 4th Edition of the institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation manual. The amount of parking previously proposed was 54 stalls. The Applicant has now increased the amount of parking to 61 stalls. (Exhibit J). iii. iv. Building height and lot coveraq. According tn Table 30 ^ 3.O3O(1)@CC "Bulk Matrix"), the maximum height limit in the R-5 zone is 45 feet. In accordance with SCC (1), church spires are not subject to the height limit requirements, provided they are located 50 feet or mare from any adjoining lot line. The proposed church is to be one story and approximately 21 feet high as measured from the averaged finished grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof. A church spire is not proposed. The maximum lot coverage allowed in the R-5 zone is 35 percent. (SCC (1)) Proposed lot coverage is approximately 6 percent (Exhibit J). Building Setbacks SCC O(5)requiresUhat churches shall be located at least 25 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. Here the church will be setback 60 feet from 1pnm Street, 96 feet from the east property line, 240 feet from the south property line and 94 feet from 67 tt Avenue. (Exhibit A.2). Landscaping. Landscaping requirements are out lined in Chapter CC. SCC (2) obligates any development permitted as a conditional use in a zone not listed in SCC 18,43.021(1) (perimeter landscaping table) to provide at least 20 feet of Type A perimeter landscaping and 10 feet of Type B road frontage landscaping. In addition to this perimeter landscaping, parking area landscaping (SCC ) and detention facility landscaping (SCC ) must be installed. The proposed landscape plan (Exhibit B.4) complies with all of the landscaping requirements. D. Other Development Regulations. The Applicant must demonstrate that the proposal meets all other applicab le deve lo nt regulations ap plicab le to the proposed use. Each applicable regulation is reviewed below. The Applicant is vested to the regulations in effect on June 8.?O12. (Exhibit J). Traffic Mitigation and Road Design Standards (Title 13 SCC & Chapter 30.66B SCC) The Traffic Review Section of PDS has reviewed the proposal for compliance with Title 13 and Chapter 30.66B SCC, Snohomish County Engineering Design and Development Standards (EDDS), and the appropriate policies and procedures. The subject property is located within Transportation Service Area (TSA) "E." (Exhibit J). (a) Road System Impacts (SCC 30.86B.310 The proposed church will generate a total of ADT (which includes a credit for the existing ADT

17 associated with the prior site use). Under the calculations made by PDS, the Applicant will be required to pay $ for traffic impact mitigation on County roads in TSA "E". (b) Concurrency (SCC 30.66B.120) The County makes a concurrency determination for each development application to ensure the development will not impact a County arterial unit in arrears or cause a County arterial to go in arrears. The subject development has been evaluated for concurrency and has been deemed concurrent as of July 11, The expiration date of the concurrency determination is six years from that date. (c) Inadequate Road Condition (IRC) (SCC 30.66B.210) Regardless of the existing Level of Service (-O3), any development which adds three or more p.m. peak-hour trips to a location in the road system determined to have an existing IRC at the time of imposition of mitigation requinarnents, or development whose traffic will cause an IRC at the time of full occupancy of the development, must eliminate the IRC, The subject proposal will not impact any IRC locations identified at this time within TSA'E` with three or more of its p.m. peak hour trips, nor will it create any. Thanefore, mitigation will not be required with respect to IRCs and no restrictions to building permit issuance or Certificate of Occupancy/final inspection will be imposed under this section of Chapter 30.66B SOC. (Exhibit J). (d) Frontage Improvement Requirements (SCC 30.66B.410) All developments are required to make frontage improvements along the parcel's frontage on any opened, constructed, and maintained public road. The Department of Public Works (DPW) has determined that full rural frontage improvements along the subject parcel's frontage on 67th Avenue SE must be installed which will be composed of asphalt concrete pavement consisting of 18 feet in width from the roadway/right-of-way centerline including a seven foot paved shoulder. The DPW has also determined that full rural frontage improvements along the subject parcel's frontage on 180 m Street SE must be installed which will be composed of asphalt concrete pavement consisting of 20 feet in width from roadway/right-of-way centerline including an eight foot paved shoulder. DPW recommends that these improvements to be installed prior to building occupancy. (e) Access and Transportation Circulation (SCC 30.66B.420). Access to the subject development is proposed via a commercial drive aisle off of 67th Avenue SE, which is a dead end road that terminates approximately 1200 feet south of 180th Street SE. One access point is proposed on 67th Avenue SE, and the plans show a width at the right-of-way of 25 feet, which meets the width parameters of EDDS 2-03 C for a two-way commercial driveway located on a non-arterial road (25 feet minimum/40 feet maximum). PDS and DPW indicate that there are no access point spacing, horizontal, vertical, or grade issues related to the access

18 The subject development will generate 6508 ADT, all of which will access the site from 67th Avenue SE via 180th Street SE; a heavily used Major Collector Arterial. As a result of the previous Transportation review, and concerns raised by citizens; DPW asked the Applicant to provide a warrant analysis on the need for turn lanes and/or an acceleration lane at the intersection of 180th Street SE with 67th Avenue SE for vehicles entering or exiting the site, An updated analysis by Gibson Traffic Consultants was submitted in October (Exhibit C.2). The document analyzed whether a westbound left turn lane is warranted on 180th Street SE at 67th Avenue SE since the improvement that was included in the 2009 to 2014 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by the County was moved out to The County improvement includes a two-way left turn lane at this idtereeotion, which would provide left turn channelization. However, that County improvement would most likely not be completed prior to construction of the church. Therefone, the Applicant prepared an additional analysis of the need for a westbound left turn lane on 180th Street SE at 67th Avenue SE for the weekday p.m peak hour of the generator and the Sunday peak hour of the generator. DPW concurred with the Gibson Traffic Consultant's warrant analysis that a westbound left turn lane is not warranted during the peak hour generation times of the development using added pipeline and project trip volumes. (f) (SCC and.520). A development is required to dedicate, establish or deed right-of-way to the County for road purposes as a precondition of approval of the deve[oprnant, when to do so is reasonably necessary as a direct result of a proposed deve opment, for improvement, use or maintenance of the road system serving the development. 67th Avenue SE is designated as a Local Access Non-arterial and requires a right-of-way width of 30 feet on each side of the right-of-way centerline. Currently, 30 feet of right-of-way already exists on the development's side of the right-of-way. 180th Street SE is designated as a Major Collector Arterial. This requires a right-of-way width of 40 feet on each side of the right-of-way centerline. Thirty feet of right-of-way presently exists on the development's side of the right-of-way. Thenefone, the development is required to deed 10-feet of additional right-of-way. Deeding of additional right-of-way that is tangent to the ultimate right-of-way on 67th Avenue SE and 180th Street SE with a 35 foot radius curve is required per the EDDS table The Examiner has reviewed the analysis and finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the required road and transportation improvements recommended by PDS and DPW. (See, Exhibit J) (g) Impacts to State Highways (SCC 30.88B.710). Comments dated June 13, 2012 (Exhibit G.2) were submitted by the Washington State

19 Department of Transportation that this development will not have a significant adverse impact upon state highways, and no traffic mitigation is requested from the Applicant. (h) Impacts to City Streets and Roads in Another County (5CC ) Mitigation requirements for impacts on streets inside cities and roads in other counties are to be established consistent with the terms of any Reciprocal Traffic Mitigation Interlocal Agreements (ILA) between the County and the other jurisdictions. This development is subject to SEPA and therefore is subject to the ILA between Snohomish County and the Cities of Mill Creek and Bothell. PDS notified both cities regarding the proposed development. The City of Mill Creek indicated via a memo dated June 25, 2012 that no mitigation will be required. (Exhibit G'1) The City of Bothell did not provide a response and under the terms of the ILA between the City and the County, such lack of response is to be construed such that no mitigation for the City of Bothell is required. 0 The County's current adopted County Wid e Bicyc le Facility System Map became effect on February 1, The sub ject development borders on a right-of-way on 190th Street SE that has been identified on the adopted Bicycle Facility System Map. A bicycle path is included as part of the required paved eight foot shoulder that is included in the frontage improvements requirement. ii. Drainage, Clearing and Grading - (Land Disturbing Activity) (Chapters 3063A, 30.63B, and 30.63C SCC). The site lies south of 180th Street SE and east of 67th Avenue SE and west of Highway 9 and is mainly second and third growth forest and understory with a small wetland complex located near the northwest corner of the site that drains to the existing easterly ditch line along 67th Avenue SE. The full drainage report (Exhibit C.3) describes the general drainage conditions onsite. The site soils are underlain by a weathered Vashon lodgement till. This is a soil type that normally is not associated with critical recharge hazard areas. It appears that some fill from construction sites has been placed on this site in prior years. No water table was encountered in the test pits in A Category 3 wetland exists off-site by approximately 50 feet at the southeast corner of the property but no construction is proposed within its buffer. An existing single-family home exists near the southerly boundary of the site and east of 67th Avenue SE. Primary drainage from the site exits the site at the southwest corner of the site into the ditch line along 67th Avenue SE with some or approx imately 1096 of the site sheet flow ing to the wetland near the southeast corner of the site. The site falls within the Cross Valley sole source aquifer, but just north of and outside of the Cross Valley Water District's wellhead protection area as depicted on the County's Aquifer Recharge and Wellhead Protection Area Map dated October 1, The uses being proposed in this R-5 Zone for this site do not include vehicle washing or fueling operations. Parking of vehicles in a parking lot is an allowed use in this zone associated with churches in rural areas of the County. Rainwater runoff from t he site is to be transported via catch basins and pipes to an open detention pond located at the southwest corner of the site. The detention pond will provide dead" or permanent storage of water to allow for sedimentation control 121O4^8O

20 of pollutants. Water in the pond will be released at a controlled rate into the existing drainage system within the 67th Avenue SE right-of-way. Flow in this system travels to the south. The Applicant's engineer states that the drainage system downstream of the site has adequate capacity to handle the storniwater from the proposed church development. The plans indicate that the on-site wet pond is to include an impermeable liner to prevent pollutants from entering the sole source aquifer. This is specified as a 30 m/} PVC membrane liner to be installed per the manufacturer's recommendations. 1.5 feet of soil is to be placed on top of the liner to prevent buoyancy of the liner itself, since it will be submerged as part of the dead storage in the detention pond. This dead storage is a requirement of the site detention facility to provide water quality treatment, since over square feet of impervious surface is being developed or proposed on-site. Discharge from the pond is controlled to mimic the predevelopment discharge flows toward the ditchuno at the southwest corner of the site. Total proposed grading includes 0 ' 700 cubic yards of cu and 4,200 cubic yards of fill. Therefore, an LDA permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with Volume 2 of the Drainage Manual is required. The grading plan indicates that drainage will either remain in its natural drainage uourses, sheet flow or be infiltrated on site. Preliminary findings of PDS's Engineering indicate that this project will meet the requirements of SCC 30.63A and SCC 30.83B and the Drainage Manual and SCC 50.62(}.140 by protecting the sole source aquifer from contamination by installing an impermeable membrane liner, The full drainage plans that were reviewed constitute what is envisioned for drainage control from the subject property. However, these will need to be fully engineered and resubmitted as a full drainage plan and calculations prior to construction plan approval for the development. The Applican proposes greater than 5,000 square feet of new im surface. A full stormwater site plan is therefore required priorto development activity by SCC 30.63A.300CA The project is not exempt from run-off treatment since the project site does exceed the thresholds listed in SCC 30.63A.530. The project is not exempt from flow control since the pr ject exceeds the thresholds listed in SCC 30.63A.555. Special inspection will be required for construction of the stormwater detention pond and liner installation to assure that the liner is installed to the manufacturer's recommendation to protect the subsurface aquifer. A geotechnical engineer is to be involved in the inspection of the construction stormwater pollution prevention plans. iii. Critical Areas Regulations (Chapters 30.62A 30.62B, and 32.62C SCC). A Category 4 wetland is located at the west side of the lot. This wetland has been heavily disturbed and is vegetated with invasive plants. The standard wetland buffer width for a Category 4 wetland is 40 feet. There is anon4ishbearingmtnsarnoff-site, approximately 270 feet away to the southeast and a Category 4 wetland is located approximately 50 feet offsite to the southeast. This project will not impact either of the off-site critical areas. A portion (735 square feet) of the required wetland buffer for the on-site wetland will be impacted by construction of the new access driveway from 67th Avenue SE. Impacts are to be mitigated by the addition of 1,560 square feet of additional forested buffer. Buffer width averaging is also proposed in order to reduce the width of the

21 buffer along the eastern side of the wetland to accommodate the interior access drive. As mitigation for buffer averaging, the Applicant is to provide an additional 105 square feet of buffer- The wetlands, along with their desi notad buffers, will be preserved and designated as a CAPA. iv. International Fire Code (Chapter 30.53A SCC) The application was reviewed and approved by the County's Fire Marshal Office who specified conditions regarding fire a enns, smoke detection, sprinkler system, hydrant requirementa, emergency vehicle access and signage, to be imposed on any building permit for the proposed church. (Exhibit M.2). PDS determined that the fire apparatus access as depicted on the plans meets the minimum requirements of SCC 30.53A.150. PDS has indicated that its inspection staff will insure that prior to the start of combustible conatnuotion, the required fire hydrants will be installed and operational and that approved addresses are to be placed on the new building as required. The projectomnmzmphvviththeden)ooudinndinoornaapondenoeneceivedfnznoflpe District 7 (Exhibit G.7). Two fire hydrants are to be installed on-site. The building will also be provided with a fully monitored fire alarm syotern, with smoke detection and pu l stations at all exita, and a fire sprinkler system. u Utilities. The project will ub!ize a eeoticdreinfek{. The Snohomish Health District has indicated that it has no objections to approval of the CUP, as stated in a memo to PDS dated August 16, (Exhibit G.8). Water service will be provided by the Cross Valley Water District after the Applicant has extended and looped the water mains in accordance with District requirements. (see Exhibits G.3 and G.4). Electrical service is available from the Snohomish County PUD No. I (Exhibit G.6). vi C SCC) This proposal does not meet the definition of "development" as set forth in 8CC30.91r}.220 and, therefore, is not subject to school mitigation fees in accordance with SCC 30.66C.01 0(2). vii A SCC) This proposal does not meet the definition of as set forth in SCC D200 and. therefore, is not subject to parks mitigation fees in accordance with 8CC viii, Land Use Permit Binder (SCC30.42C.200) The Applicant will be required to file a Land Use Permit Binder (LUPB) priortothe nitiatimn of any site work. A condition of approval has been added to ensure that a LUPB is recorded. E. The proposal will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate While the former Hearing Examiner found, in the course of the review of the original proposal for a church on the subject site, that the proposal would be materially detrimental to the surrounding umes, the current proposal has been modified specifically to address some of those aspects of the original proposal that lead to the former Hearing Examiner's finding. For example, the former Examiner found, "that the church will have some impacts on the surrounding community that are similar to the impacts of a commercial use," referring to the operation of the then-proposed clothing bank distribution center. (Exhibit A.5, page 15). The former Examiner was particularly concerned with such matters as the daily use of

22 the site, the hours of use and the fact that the clothing bank distribution center would be open to the public at large. Id, With the elimination of the clothing bank function in the current propooa, the nature and intensity of the use of the subject property will have significantly reduced impacts upon the surrounding community. With its currently proposed limited days and hours of uoe, the proposal will not have impacts similar to a commercial use. K8omt, if not all of the activities on the subject property will Occur indoors. Primary use of the site will occur on Sundays and Wednesday evenings, with other occasional use at other times. Church leaders are volunteers and there will be no permanent, full time employees on the site during weekdays. (Exhibit A.2), Based on the foregoing, the Examiner finds that, as currently proposed and conditioned, the proposal will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties in the immediate vicinity. F. The proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific features, conditions, or revisions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existina or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surroundinq property. The proposal has been desi ned to meet the County's design standards. The Applicant has sought to comply with the County's regulations and has made a significant effort to make the proposed use of the property compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding properties. The proposal exceeds all required setbacks and now includes significantly more (over 45% more) on-site parking spaces than required to meet the minimum requirements of County Code. This change was made specifically to address concerns raised by neighbors so as to make the proposal more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant also proposes to install locked gates to prevent off-hour, non-church-related use of the parking area. The Applicant noted that its proposed use will be an improvement over the prior uses that occurred on the subject property. It was previously used by people to shoot off illegal finevxmrks, ride ATVs and engage in other nuisance activities. The Applicant's plans and building designs make the church structure appear more like a home ond, although significantly larger than surrounding homes, it will fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The site plan and landscaping plan demonstrate the site specific features that will be used to create an attractive church facility with landscaping that will provide for a visual buffer for surrounding properties. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that, with the revisions now proposed and under the conditions recommended by POS, the proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific features, mzmdhiong, or revisions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended ChGra(ter, oppoananoe, quality of development, and physinml characteristics of the site and surrounding property. G. Any Finding of Fact which should be deemed a Conclusion of Law in this Decision is hereby adopted as such

23 C. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner has original jurisdiction over the CUP application pursuant to Chapter 2.02 SCC and SCC As discussed above, the County Council analyzed whether the previous church proposal for the subject site was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and determined that it was consistent. The Examiner has incorporated the County Council's findings on this issue in this decision and now also incorporates the following portions of the County Council's conclusions on this issue: The proposal must be consisten with the ComprehensivePlan. The Comprehensive Plan contains several land use policies relating to churches on lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), where it is assumed that most will be placed. In addition, churches may be included in the Public/Institutional Use land use designation on the Future Land Use Map /FLUK8\. However, there are no specific land use policies guiding the siting of churches in lands designated as rural in the Comprehensive Plan. As a long-term planning document, the Plan is neutral as to the siting of churches on rural lands; it neither promotes nor discourages their placement on these lands. To determine where churches are penm tted, prohibited or conditional uoeo, one must look to the County's Zoning Code. Here, the County Council and the Hearing Examiner found that the proposed church is consistent with Policy LU 6.E of the Plan. Churches are a traditional part of rural communities across Snohomish County. They are part of a rural lifestyle. The prior use of the subject property for single-family purposes with a mobile home was not a positive influence in the community because it frequently was the site of illegal activities such as the ignition of fireworks, noisy ATVs, junk and other problems. The church will provide a stab e, attractive use with architectural features that give it a look and feel that is compatible with the neighborhood. Based on these facts, the Examiner concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Plan. 3. The legislative decision to identify churches as one of the many conditiona uses in the County's zoni system represents a conclusion by the County's legislative officials that churches have different impacts and effects on the neighborhood depending upon the particular proposal and its surroundings. The question here is, as it always is in a CUP app ioat/on, whether the characteristics of this particular proposal on this particular site will be sufficiently compatible or can be made sufficiently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood area to allow issuance of the requested permit The focus is on the characteristics of the specific proposal and the area in which it would be located. Here, the Examiner concludes that the proposal is compatible with the existing character of the area. 4. Several members of the community made the effort to become involved in the process for review of the Applicant's proposal and are to be commended for voicing their understandable concerns and making the effort to participate. It appears that as a direct result of those efforts, the Applicant has significantly modified its proposal to address many of the community's most significant concerns with the original proposal. This has resulted in a proposal that is a much better "fit" for this area. 5. Regarding the concerns about effects upon property values that the location of a church might have on adjacent properties, the Examiner concludes that It has not been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed church is likely to have a significant negative effect on property values. The evidence in the record about property values is non

24 specific and inconclusive. No expert opinion was provided that evaluated this particular proposal. The Washington Supreme Court in Sunderland Family Treatment Services v Pasco, 127VVash.2d 782, 784, 803 P.2d 986 (1905) cautioned about the need for such expert opinion in order to base the denial of a CUP on property value impacts. 6. In evaluating whether to approve or deny a CUP, the Washington Court of Appeals in Hansen v, Chelan County, 81 Wn. App. 133, P2d400 /1996> has provided the following guidance: The effect of a proposed use on its nei ghbors will not support a denial of a [conditional use} permit unless the effect is greater than that of uses permitted in the [zoning] district without a [conditional use] permit. 3 Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning 21.14,at082(3ded1880); see also Baxter v. Gillispic, 60 K8imc2d N.Y.S.2d 290 <1969A; Berlant V. Zoning Hearing,2 PaCommvv. 583 ' 278A.2d4OO(1971). Under the provisionsof3^^ , the following uses would be permitted on the subject site outright, without a CUP: family day care home, farm product processing,farm stand, fish farm, foster home, health and social services facility and commercial kennel. The Examiner is unable to conclude that the currently proposed church will have effects upon neighboring properties that are greater than some of these permitted uses. 7. Based on the totality of the facts in the record, the Examiner concludes that the proposa l meets Zoning Code requirements for building hei ght, parking, landscape buffers, parking area landscaping, building setbacks and other zoning code regulations and requirements, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. & Adequate pub lic and/or private services exist to serve the proposal. S. Conditioned as set forth below, the proposal is compatible with and incorporates specific features, conditions, or rev isions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or intended character, oppeananoa, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the site and surrounding property. 10. Based upon the entire record and the Findings of Fact herein the Examiner concludes that the proposal meet all of the requirements of the County 's CUP regulations, prov ides for the public health, safety and welfare and should be approved, subject to the recommended precondition and conditions. 11. In issuing a CUP, the Examiner has broad discretion to impose conditions of approval. The Examiner may: A. Increase requirements in the otondando, oriterie, or policies established by Title 30 SCC'. B. Stipulate the exact location as a means of minimizing hazards to life, limb, propert y damage, erosion, landslides, or traffic; C. Require structural features or equipment essential to serve the same purpose set forth id3q.42c.1do( ` ^)(b> '` '' ^ D. Impose conditions similar to those set forth in items 30.42C100(2)(b) and 30.42C.100/2>(o) as may be deemed necessary to establish parity with uses permitted in the same zone in their freedom from nuisance generating features in

25 matters of noise, odors, air pollution, vvastoo, vibrahon, tnaffic, physical hazards, and similar matters. The Hearing Examiner may not in connection with action on a CUP, reduce the requirements specified by Title 30 SCC as pertaining to any use nor otherwise reduce the requirements of Title 30 SCC in matters for which a variance is the remedy provided; E. Assure that the degree of compatibility with the purpose of this title shall be maintained with respect to the particular use on the particular site and in consideration of other existing and potential uaes, within the general area in which the use is proposed to be located; F. Recognize and compensate for variations and degree of technological processes and equipment as related to the factors of noise, $nloke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and hazard or public need; G. Require the posting of construction and maintenance bonds or other security sufficient to secure to the county the estimated Cost Of construction and/or installation and maintenance of required improvements; and H. Impose any requirement that will protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 12. Any Conclusion of Law in this Decision which should be deemed a Finding of Fact is hereby adopted as such. Exhibits M.1 and M.2 are added to the record in this matter. 2. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT is GRANTED to the Applicant for the construction and operation of a church on the subject property as described in the application, subject to the following PRECONDITION and CONDITIONS; A Record of Developer Obli atinns and Certificate of Concurrency shall have been recorded with the County Auditor against the real property on which the development is proposed A. The Site Plan (Exhibit B.2) received by P0S on October 12, 2012, shall constitute the Official Site Plan. Any discrepancy between the content of the official site development plan and the performance standards of Title 30 SCC shall be resolved in favor of Title 30. SCC 30,42C.110 governs revisions to CUPs. B. In accordance with SCC any parking lot lighting shau be arranged or shielded so as to reflect the light away from any dwelling units and the public right-of-way. C. The Landscape Plan (Exhibit B.4) received by PDS on October 12, 2012, shall constitute the approved preliminary landscape plan. D. Prior to any development activity (e.g. clearing, grading or filling) on the site and/or prior to issuance of any building permits by the County

26 M> The Applicant shall have paid an impact fee to Snohomish County for traffic impacts b) Transportation Service Area ^E^ totaling $14,O (2) Right-of-way that is tangent to the ultimate right-of-way on 180th Street SE and 67th Avenue SE sufficient for a 35-foot radius curb return must have been deeded to the County. (3) 10 feet of additional rightnfvvmy, parallel and adjacent to the existing 30 feet of rightof-way for 180th Street SE shall be deeded to the County along the development's frontage, such that a total of 40 feet of right-of-way will result. (4) As required by SCC 30.42C.200. a LUPB, on a form provided by POS, shall be executed by the Applicant and recorded with the County Auditor. (5) A performance security shall be provided and approved based on the mitigation plan contained in Exhibit C.5 and the requirements of Chapter SCC. (6) The Applicant shall mark with temporary markers in the field the boundary of all Critical Area Protection Areas (CAPA) required by Chapter 30.62A GCC, or the limits of the proposed site disturbance outside of the CAPA, using methods and materials acceptable to PDS. (7) A CASP shall be recorded with the County in accordance with section 30.02A.160 SCC containing the following restrictive language: "All CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION AREAS shall be left permanently undisturbed in a substantially natural state. No deghng, grading, fiuing, building construction or p(amarnant, or road construction of any kind shall occur, except removal of hazardous trees. The activities as set forth in UDC 30.91N,010 are allowed when approved by the County." E. The special conditions imposed by the Fire Marshal set forth in Exhibit M.2 shall be included in the building permit. F. Prior to the issuance of Certificate of nal i s; (1) Rural standard frontage improvements shall be constructed along the property frontage with 180th Street SE to the satisfaction of the County. (2) Rural standard frontage improvements shall be constructed along the property frontage with 67th Avenue SE to the satisfaction of the County. (3) Site improvements and landscaping depicted on the approved plans shall be installed, inspected and approved. (4) CAPA boundaries shall have been permanently marked on the site, with both CAPA signs and adjacent markers which can be magnetically located (e.g.: rebar, pipe, 20 penny nails, etc.). The Applicant may use other permanent methods and materials provided they are first approved by the County. Where a CAPA boundary crosses another boundary (e.g.: lot, tnaot, plat, road, eto.), a rebar marker with surveyors' cap and license number must be placed at the line crossing

27 (5) CAPA signs shall have been placed no greater than 100 feet apart around the perimeter of the CAPA. Minimum placement shall include one Type 1 sign per critical area feature, and at least one Type 1 sign shall be placed in any lot that borders CAPA, unless otherwise approved by the County biologist. The design and proposed locations for the CAPA signs shall be submitted to the PDS Land Use Division for review and approval prior to installation. (6) All mitigation shall have been completed, inspected and approved. (7) The fire alarm, fire hydrants and fire sprinkler systems shall be installed and operational. G. Use of the site subject to this CUP shall not include the o of a clothing bank, clothing bank distribution center, food bank or any similar operation or use. H. This CUP approval shall expire five years from the date of approval if construction of the proposed church has not commenced within the five year period. Nothing in this permit/approval shall excuse the Applicant, owner, lessee, agent, successor or assigns from full compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project. In particular, no o emhng, grmding, filling, construction or other physical alteration of the site may be undertaken prior to the issuance of the necessary Decision issued this 7 th day of February, Gordon Siviey,11e ng Examiner The decision of the Hearing Examiner is final and conclusive with right of appeal to the County Council. However, reconsideration by the Examiner may also be sought by one or more parties of record. The following paragraphs summarize the reconsideration and appeal processes. For more information about reconsideration and appeal promaduree, please see Chapter SCC and the respective Examiner and Council Rules of Procedure, Reconsideration Any party of record may reques by the Examiner within 10 days from the date of this decision. A petition for reconsideration must be filed in writing with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, 2nd Floor, Robert J, Drewel Bui ding, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, Washington, (Mailing Address: MIS No Rockefeller Avenue, Everett WA 98201) on or before February 18, There is no fee for filing a petition for reconsideration. "The petitioner for reconsideration shall mail or otherwise provide a copy of the petition for reconsideration to all parties of record on the date ofqina."[8cc3u,72.o O458 17

28 A petition for reconsideration does not have to be in a special form but must: contain the name, mailing address and daytime telephone number of the petitioner, together with the signature of the petitioner or of the petitioner's amorney, if any; identify the specific findings, conclusions, actions and/or conditions for which reconsideration is requested; state the relief requested; and, where applicable, identify the specific nature of any newly discovered evidence and/or changes proposed by the Applicant. The grounds for seeking reconsideration are limited to the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The Hearing Examiner exceeded the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction; The Hearing Examiner failed to follow the applicable procedure in reaching the Hearing Examiner's decision; The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law; The Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions and/or conditions are not supported by the record; New evidence which could not reasonably have been produced and which is material to the decision is discovered; or The Applicant proposed changes to the application in response to deficiencies identified in the decision. Petitions for reconsideration will be processed and considered by the Hearing Examiner pursuant to the provisions of SCC Please include the County file number in any correspondence regarding this case. An appeal to the County Council may be filed by any aggrieved party of record within 14 days from the date of this decision. Where the reconsideration process of SCC has been invokeu, no appeal may be filed until the reconsideration petition has been disposed of by the hearing examiner. An aggrieved party need not file a petition for reconsideration but may file an appeal directly to the County Council. If a petition for reconsideration is filed, issues subsequently raised by that party on appeal to the County C0uOnil shall be limited to those issues raised in the petition for reconsideration. Appeals shall be addressed to the Snohomish County Council but shall be filed in writing at the Public Assistance Counter of Planning and Development Services, 2»u Floor, County Adminiotradion-East Bui)ding, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, Washington (Mailing address: 3000 Rockefeller Avenue M/S 604, Everett, WA 98201) on or before February , and shall be accompanied by a filing fee in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each appeal filed; PROVIDED, that the fee shall not be charged to a department of the County. The filing fee shall be refunded in any case where an appeal is summarily dismissed in whole without hearing under SCC An appeal must contain the following items in order to be complete: a detailed statement of the grounds for appeal; a detailed statement of the facts upon which the appeal is based, including citations to specific Hearing Examiner findinga, conc uoions, exhibits or oral testimony; written arguments in support of the appeal; the name, mailing address and daytime telephone number of each appellant, together with the signature of at least one of the appellants or of the attorney for the appaumnt(s), if any; the name, mailing address, daytime telephone number and signature of the appellant's agent or representative, if any; and the required filing fee

29 The grounds for filing an appeal shall be limited to the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) The decision exceeded the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction; The Hearing Examiner failed to follow the applicable procedure in reaching his decision; The Hearing Examiner committed an error of law; or The Hearing Examiner's findings, conclusions and/or conditions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record [SCC ] Appeals will be processed and considered by the County Council pursuant to the provisions of Chapter SCC. Please include the County file number in any correspondence regarding the case. The Land Use Permit Binder, which must be executed and recorded as required by SCC 30.42C.200, will be provided by PDS. The Binder should not be recorded until all reconsideration and/or appeal proceedings have been concluded and the permit has became effective. Staff Distribution: Department of Planning and Development Services: Monica McLaughlin 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." A copy of this Decision is being provided to the Snohomish County Assessor as required by RCW

30 pó]l] I l[.ji'[ói[i This decision is binding but will not become effective until the above precondition(s) have been fulfilled and acknowledged by the Department of Planning and Development Services (PDS) on the original of the instant decision. Document(s) required for fulfillment of the precondition(s) must be filed in a complete, executed fashion with PDS not later than February 7, "Fulfillment" as used herein means recordation with the County Auditor, approval/acceptance by the County Council and/or Hearing Examiner, and/or such other final action as is appropriate to the particular precondition(s). 2. One six-month period will be allowed for resubmittal of any required document(s) which is (are) returned to the Applicant for correction. This conditional approval will automatically be null and void if all required precondition(s) have not been fulfilled as set forth above; PROVIDED, that: A. The Examiner may grant a one-time extension of the submittal deadline for not more than twelve (12) months for just cause shown if and only if a written request for such extension is received by the Examiner prior to the expiration of the original time period; and B. The submittal deadline will be extended automatically an amount equal to the number of days involved in any appeal proceedings. The above imposed precondition(s) having been fulfilled by the Applicant and/or the successors in interest, the Department of Planning and Development Services hereby states that the instant decision is effective as of Certified by: (Name) (Title) Nothing in this approval excuses the Applicant, owner, lessee, agent, successor or assigns from compliance with any other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project

31 PARTY OF RECORD REGISTER WEST WOODLAND GOSPEL HALL SNO CO PLANNING & DEV/LAND USE LU CLEARVIEW GOSPEL TODD BRANDT MONICA MCLAUGHLIN ASSEMBLY NE 177TH PL, SUITE ROCKEFELLER AVE HEARING: JAN 23, 2013 WOODINVILLE WA # 604 EVERETT WA CITY OF MILL CREEK KEITH ABEL SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT NO ADDRESS GIVEN PO BOX 2338 BRADLEY BALL SNOHOMISH WA NO ADDRESS GIVEN ROY DESOTO DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS PAULA MICHELLE FULLER royadesoto@gmail.com COUNTY ENGINEER TH AVE SE 3000 ROCKEFELLER AVE SNOHOMISH WA # 607 EVERETT WA CROSS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT GARY JONES TINA VALDEZ/ MATTHEW THOMAS GARY HAJEK Eiffle54@hotmail. corn TH AVE SE TH ST SE SNOHOMISH WA SNOHOMISH WA SNO CO FIRE DIST NO 7 THOMAS REGNEY MICHAEL RISTON GARY MEEK regney@aol.com TH AVE SE TH ST SE SNOHOMISH WA SNOHOMISH WA WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION BARBARA AND ANDREW ROGERS SNO CO PUD NO 1 SCOTT RODMAN TH AVE SE ELISBETH TOBIN PO BOX SNOHOMISH WA PO BOX 1107 SEATTLE WA EVERETT WA

32 SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON MOTION NO MODIFYING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CLEARVIEW GOSPEL HALL ASSEMBLY HEARING EXAMINER FILE NO LU WHEREAS, Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly (Applicant) applied to Snohomish County for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to site a church at th Street SE, Snohomish, WA; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner (Examiner) held a public hearing on November 17, 2010, issued a decision denying the CUP without prejudice on December 2, 2010, received a petition for reconsideration from the Applicant, granted the petition for reconsideration in part and denied it in part, and issued a Revised Final Decision and Order denying the CUP application on February 4, 2011; and WHEREAS, Applicant filed an appeal on February 18, 2011, asking the Council to either approve the CUP or void the revised Examiner decision and reinstate, with modifications, the December 2, 2010, decision; and WHEREAS, the Council held a closed record appeal hearing on March 28 and March 30, 2011, to hear oral argument and to consider the appeal based on the record and those arguments; NOW, THEREFORE, ON MOTION: Section 1. The Snohomish County Council incorporates the foregoing recitals as findings and makes the following additional findings of fact and conclusions, pursuant to SCC (1): A. The Council adopts the following Findings of Fact from the Examiner's Decision: Nos. 1 through 13, 14B, and 15. B. The Council revises and adopts the Examiner's Finding of Fact No. 14A to read as follows, with revisions indicated: 14A. Is the proposal consistent with the comprehensive plan? Mor. PRO] 01.fl pp Motion No Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No Page 1

33 . ^ r a w r P 111 a r r _ l A a r..... ^ r r. 1 r r A. A 1 i r ^ Motion No Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No Page 2

34 The proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Here, Clearview asserts that the Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") does not directly address churches. The Examiner disagrees. The Comprehensive Plan contains several land use policies relating to churches on lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), where it is assumed that most will be placed. In addition, churches may be included in the Public/Institutional Use land use designation on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). However, there are no specific land use policies guiding the siting of churches on lands designated as rural in the Comprehensive Plan. As a long-term planning document, the Plan is neutral as to the siting of churches on rural lands; it neither promotes nor discourages their placement on these lands. To determine where churches are permitted, prohibited or conditional uses, one must look to the County's Zoning Code. Here, the testimony in the record was that the proposed church is consistent with Policy LU 6.E of the Plan. Churches are a traditional part of rural communities across Snohomish County. They are part of a rural lifestyle. The prior use of the subiect property for single-family purposes with a mobile home was not a positive influence in the community because it frequently was the site of illegal activities such as the ignition of fireworks, noisy ATVs, unk and other problems. The church will provide a stable, attractive use with architectural features that give it a rural look and feel. C. The Council revises and adopts the Examiner's Finding of Fact No. 14C to read as follows, with revisions indicated: 14C. Will the proposal be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity? The impacts to the surrounding community from the proposed application will arise from a change in the nature andintensity of the use of the subject property. The church will be significantly larger in size than residences on 67th Avenue and 180th Street SE, at over 8,000 square feet. The facility is designed to support a congregation of approximately 80 families and iodividua S, with parking for 56 vehicles on site. The applicant suggests that the current enrollment of 25 families should be persuasive (Exhibit A3); however, their Board President, Todd Brandt, testified that they currently have 100 members. Additionally, the Hearing Examiner must consider the maximum use of the church facilities as designed, because the County lacks the legal authority to regulate the internal workings of the church once it is operating. (Exhibit A3) Church members will visit the site throughout the week and the site will also introduce a new use, a clothing bank distribution center, to the area (which is currently operating in a nearby business zone). The church argues that they are not a commercial endeavor. (Exhibit A3) However, the nature of their use of the subject property is clearly more similar to a commercial use than a residential one, given its building footpri0t, traffic generation, hours of use, congregation size, and noise generation, and the fact that they intend to allow the property to be used for a low income clothing bank distribution center for the public at large. As such, the Hearing Examiner finds that the church will (( \\ have some impacts on the surrounding community that are similar to the impacts of a commercial use ((with respect to its impacts on the surrounding community)). Motion No Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No Page 3

35 There was significant public opposition to the use of the property for a church by the people currently living ((in and)) around the proposed church. (Testimony of Michael Riston, Tyson Siegert, Rob Vanderwall, Keith Abel, and comments in Exhibits H2, K2, H4, H5). Neighbors cited noise, increased traffic and safety concerns on 67th Avenue and 180th Street SE, and the potential for unfettered growth in the size of the congregation that would be traveling to and from the site on those roads. Several citizens testified that the parcel should be used for residential purposes, which would be more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding properties currently consist of single-family residences, plant nurseries and horse farms/riding stables. (Exhibit D3) The Examiner notes that the subject lot is designed at maximum capacity, meaning that there would be nowhere for additional cars to park except on the surrounding rural roads, should their congregation expand in the future. The change in use will also intensify the noise and traffic coming and going from the site. The traffic study states that the entire site will utilize 67th Avenue SE to access the surrounding street network. (Exhibit C2) At present, 67th Avenue SE is a two-lane local rural road without any pavement markings or sidewalks. Id. Across 180th Street, 67th Avenue SE is a gravel road with a cautionary speed posted at 10 mph. 67th Avenue SE where it accesses the site is a paved road without a posted speed limit (assumed 4. to be 25 mph). Id. The applicant expects to generate 73 average daily trips at its access point on 67th Avenue SE. (Exhibit C.2 at p. 4) This volume of traffic is a significant increase in overall traffic on this rural road without. Residents testified to their concern about the overall impact that this would have on their quiet enjoyment of the area and to the safety of pedestrians, especially children, living in the neighborhood. There is a suggestion that traffic impacts cannot be considered once it has been determined that the mitigation requirements of Chapter SCC have been met. However, this is incorrect in the context of a CUP. The impacts analyzed in Ch B SCC do not address the compatibility of traffic with the surrounding neighborhood within the context of a CUP analysis. This is a qualitative analysis (as opposed to the quantitative analysis performed in the traffic study), which relates to whether the l5roposed use will be materially detrimental to or compatible with other uses in the area. Here, the Examiner finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the impacts associated with the placement of a church on the subject property (increased traffic, noise, visual impacts), which is located in a rural, largely pastoral, residential setting will be materially detrimental to properties and uses in the immediate vicinity. D. The Council revises and adopts the Examiner's Finding of Fact No. 14D to read as follows, with revisions indicated: 14D. Is the proposal compatible with and does it incorporate specific features, conditions, or revisions that ensure it responds appropriately to the existing or the site and surrounding property? The legislative decision to identify churches as one of the many conditional uses in the County's zoning system represents a conclusion by the County's legislative officials that each and every church may be different, may have different impacts and may have different effects on the neighborhood depending upon the particular surroundings. The question here is, as it Motion No Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No Page 4

36 always is in a conditional use permit application, whether the characteristics of this particular proposal on this particular site will be sufficiently compatible or can be made sufficiently compatible with the surrounding neighborhood area to allow issuance of the requested permit. The focus should be on the characteristics of the specific proposal and the area in which it would be located. Here, the Examiner finds that the proposal is incompatible with the existing character of the area. Although the application has been desi ned to meet most, but not all, of the County's desi standards, there was significant public testimony demonstrating that the proposed use is incompatible with the surrounding properties. Although some citizens spoke of "rural" living only in terms of single-family homes on large lots with livestock in pastures, the County's Comprehensive Plan speaks to other uses in the rural area, including rural businesses and services, and natural resource based industries. (See, Snohomish County Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan (GMACP), General Policy Plan (GPP) at Goal LU-6). However, all of these other uses must be small-scale, located in rural business or rural industrial zones designed to serve the immediate surrounding community, and designed to limit impacts on the surrounding rural areas and the natural environment, (GPP LU-6). ((Rural commercial uses are required to be located within the rural business zono. (See, GPP LU 6E.1 within a rural business zone and, thorofore, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Finding of Fact. No. 1 4A, )) Although the applicant has made every effort to comply with the majority of the County's regulations (except for the bulk regulations), the facts remain that even as conditioned, the ((GGITIM8FGial)) proposed use of the property will be incompatible with the characteristics of the surrounding properties. The applicant noted that their proposed use will be an improvement over the priorusesthat occurred on the property, where the property was used by people to shoot off illegal fireworks, ride ATVs and engage in other nuisance activities. They point out that many properties are substandard in size as compared to the current zoning. Clearview also asserts that their plans and building designs make the church structure a ^ p88[rn0fe like a home and that it will fit into the surrounding neighborhood. They note that churches are an integral part of rural living and are not confined only to urban areas. While these points may be accurate, the Examiner finds that the impacts that will be generated by the church operations are simply not in keeping with the character of existing uses in the area for the reasons set forth above. E. The Council adopts the following additional Findings of Fact: In the December 2, 2010, Decision, the Examiner evaluated the first criterion for approving a conditional use permit, SOC (1)(a). The Examiner concluded that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore met that criterion. The Petition for Reconsideration did not ask the Examiner to reconsider that conclusion, and thus, the issue was not before the Examiner on reconsideration. The Examiner reconsidered and reversed that conclusion in the February 4, 2011, Decision. The Examiner exceeded her iurisdiction by reconsidering issues that were not raised in the Petition. Council does not adopt the findings and conclusions as amended by the Examiner on reconsideration of this issue. By replacing Finding of Fact 14A and Conclusion of Law 2A with language from the December 2, 2010, Decision as set forth in this motion, Council finds and concludes that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore meets SCC (1)(a). Motion No C earviewgoope!hau Assembly, File No. 08-1O1044 Page 5

37 in the December 2, 2010, Decision, the Examiner did not evaluate the proposal for consistency with the final two criteria for approving a conditional use permit, Soc (1)(c) and(d). The Petition for Reconsideration asked the Examiner to analyze those criteria and find that the proposal satisfies them. The Examiner analyzed those criteria and included the analysis in the February 4, 2011, Decision. While the Examiner reached a different conclusion than the Applicant requested, it was within the jurisdiction of the Examiner to do so. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect to these criteria. The Examiner did not err in finding that the proposal was inconsistent with those two criteria. The Council adopts the following Conclusions of Law from the Examiner's Decision: Nos. 1, 3, and 4. G. The Council adopts Conclusion of Law No. 2 from the Examiner's Decision with revisions to paragraphs 2A, 2D, and 2E, as indicated: The proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Here, Clearview asserts that the Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") does not directly address churches. The Examiner disagrees. The Comprehensive Plan contains several land use policies relating to churches on lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), where it is assumed that (nost will be placed. In addition, churches may be included in the Public/Institutional Use land use designation on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). However, there are no specific land use policies guiding the siting of churches in lands designated as rural in the Comprehensive Plan. As a long-term planning document, the Plan is neutral as to the siting of churches on rural lands; it neither promotes nor discourages their placement on these lands. To determine where churches are permitted, prohibited or conditional uses, one must look to the County's Zoning Code. Here, the testimony in the record was that the proposed church is consistent with Policy LU 6.E of the Plan. Churches are a traditional part of rural communities across Snohomish County. They are part of a rural lifestyle. The prior use of the subject property for single-family purposes with a mobile home was not a positive influence in the community because it frequently was the site of illegal activities such as the ignition of fireworks, noisy ATVs, junk and other problems. The church will provide a stable, attractive use with architectural features that give it a rural look and feel. Based on these facts, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the proposal is consistent with the Plan. 2D. Is the proposal materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity. The Examiner concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that the impacts associated with the placement of a church and a low income clothing distribution center open to the public at large, in this rural residential setting will be materially detrimental to properties and uses in the Motion No Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No Page 6

38 immediate vicinity. The proposal will introduce a use that ((' )) has some impacts similar to a commercial use, that will materially increase the amount of traffic, noise, visual impacts and congestion in and around the area, and will contribute to the overall decline of the rural character of the area. Accordingly, the proposal does not meet this requirement of SCC 30.42C E. The proposal is incompatible with the existing or intended character, appearance, quality of development, and physical characteristics of the surrounding property. The Hearing Examiner concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposal is incompatible with forth the existing or intended characteristics of the surrounding property. ((As set i n Fi nding of the Comprehensive Plan for service by the CRC LAMIRD or at a minimum, a rural business zone.)) The ((Gem met l)) use that has been described above is incompatible with the residential and rural uses (horse farms, nurseries, single family residences on larger acreage) in the area. The ((commercial nature of the)) operation will impact the quiet enjoyment of the residents in the area. (For example, the traffic will be significantly out of scale from the existing traffic patterns, especially on 67th Avenue SE, from which they will gain access to the site). ((The County's legislative authority has made it clear that rural oornmorcial uses are to be sited in rural business zones.)) Accordingly, the proposal does not meet this requirement of SCC Section 2. The Snohomish County Council enters its decision in the case of Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No LU, as follows: The Snohomish County Council hereby affirms the February 4, 2011, Decision of the Examiner with modifications as provided in this Motion. Any language in the Examiner's Decision in this matter that is contrary to the provisions of this Motion is superseded by this Motion. In all other respects, the Council affirms the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision of the Examiner. Dated this 30' h day of March, SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohorji.sh-County, - U shington ATTEST: ce-cha Sheila McCallister Asst. Clerk of the Council Motion No Clearview Gospel Hall Assembly, File No Page 7

39 We, the undersigned, are against the building of the West Woodland Gospel Hall Assembly Church, and respectively request the Snohomish County Hearing Examiner, or if needed the Snohomish County Council, to deny the Conditional Use Permit (File Number LU) to construct a 8,194 square foot church located at ' h Street SE, Snohomish (at the southeast corner of 180` h Street SE and 67` h Avenue SE), in Section 14, Township 27 North, Range 5 East, W.M., Snohomish County, Washington. We, the undersigned, are owners of real property within the area of notification related to the area for which Conditional Use Permit LU is sought. Printed Nam e I Signature Address of Property in Area i Resic# IA s (if different) Date om 4w _ I _ iua _ <Z' ait Ly j4?/o c( çyç - MLkucL 24y7V/J I? 5-/ In c ^+. E\c 1 ' a'1 11 7!>_ 1S l` 1'tltf ) /) ^ S.- [82O 61 y'` Svc SC P 4 f^ r{1 t'4^tg^l^ ) Y yu ri1 i^^ ^t fi J^ y l - r _ r3 I L ^ ^ '. - 5-i _ 4^ ^tr^. ^^^ z 5 ^. i 1 ^ f j FAI 10

40 ' t4y,rir Printed Name Signature Address 'rog y in Area Residence Address (if different ) Date f LidL 1e (e)lz i } Q r. 4j t3 1 '1.' 1. { ////e ( / ^ T G3 fl1l 2R ^I^1G^ t/ ^^/^J^t' i."l! J n _-._ ^yy 5/ / lam S' j O (' Y II / Jt1Jc2 ^tc/l^i ^^^ 2?'' / ' f,, t(di 1 ^^ 6^ ^ ew l. L..p^ LL7^^ t$ S't f'l / l? 0 0 LEiLSicL i ( `O}^^, I t v ' / Page ( 2

41 k LI I I I I 111 pintedife i n Area Rosdence A, Ø%djf differji) 97 j -- Date Je /,1-v--e ^ ' F. ( cl (7Z9 /3 p 0^7 fr?lji(z i3i1ii kt cJL leo, Ka^l 0 k, wy+ 9 Cof Page 13

42 Petition Against Building West Woodland Gospel Hall Assembly Church (CUP File Numbers LU) Pr : d Nair h:,., ;"" :." SIcmdtVre Adfdr4?cc of Pronft'}V in Qrpa Pic1nrt' Arldrncc lif rliff ^ o-c,nfl il ^ fn C (4L Y4-1l$ ' 1 3 I /^^ 'G 6 t ^--.. / """ hl {^. l 'pj '! t 4J 1''r J' / /! `... NaaM /IND /3 6itcss s vir(s4* w, rit-''9 ` 41-E J 5 / cots-pinl& - `ro CadtV CO3 (M, I am the circulator of this Protest Petition and a resident of Snohomish County. I have personally witnessed the signing of the Protest Petition by each person whose name appears thereon. irculator Signature Circulator Printed Name 1 l /7 3f & 7 1iJ Sru^rfzsm(st 1 /9 'Z jg Circulator Address t 7731 (`i, i Sc Circulator's Residence and Address Date Page I4

43 r"f v^r c>^1 M" w p / Ii _i r T 1 YAYA4 A 4'A4NVA4' ' i I p 4,^^d' ' Y1 3' 5^ 1 '^ V p^ 9 ^ yr 0 r i:b f ^ N ^^ ^ i p dt,2 lq_.. ' /..1vtY nt : r `N 1,S F<'' 1 I^ r uw i 'e1' N7VtlfiM 4 ^Ft FYhVAV.4t 2 fym1^t:v hhl^4h.t ^ M1ti 7 > I ^ fp 1 V. 1.1 p O ( m 6 TH NUL. ^J Q ^2 Q ti?,y NYAYI+vhVI.4A hyt4fyhv hy FYAV FYHYA4tYb4t tt (rl I ^ 'ff}{} H.ft'. ^ ; ^Y Q.f. i Y 4207 V O p do d R/W - ne s 2roil pmts '... "_. 7T ^'^ AV E _ c4 pt lots in SP 4 8 IT' 1 b ṿ^ $ I ' ^ rifi ^,fr..t:+5'i':t h1'44.tyavn ^,'4 n1 AVn".iv.\^1 ^ A '^, \.J l fl, AMA.A.+N, N mot; _ + ' Yfi'H.Y.k^ tk ^+ i 411'{a41NOV,{Y.5t{4Hi41H+l +H44l4Ntfi+it+H+HSHi -N.iHiH4Ht4i H i4'nv YH ' (,i ,....i.. _ o t I Y. I W. gvy fa lt Y'nY.,4 ^)nv54:5h^ HM114i1:^ va 15.1 t1{ft I ^' t, ^ [ ^i p i N y CS w+h+eti++ 4,. u!i414w ,hw,+y.5.4.ts.y4++,a. f 4' t p. '. ^ I\'2 6 N ^ I W c'no _.,... ^ N. -. O 7,,1 1 p) n W to 9P m I v Ol m W " NYH44 4 j th tn fhttffh+ IffH+H+ N }t tx Gl I U) 2 R -C) '1-1 n w l' vl b Z -1. I 1 { a. f+..,jvyavnyr: tayt.vt YnYAVhv. l}'^ µwf O -V ; e+2...hr-«+ -. ^ (vp l ^ ^j, VA4FYAYFV hynvavhyhyj.4+ni.vavay AY7fA4^VN ^^t} 1ç _" "Y - i">t?^ f 1 I.. 5v 7-6 <^ hoj - Z 1 ' ^(^^?r't^ ^'^J?7{' 1 ^3 Sad at^{^?-i((l oo^^ i's3c'1