Loading...
08-0156 Plan Review Comments 3.pdf CE th ITY OF DMONDS • 1215 AN•E,WA98020 VENUE ORTH DMONDS P: 425.771.0220 • F: 425.771.0221 • W: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us HONEAXEB DSD: P•E•B EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING NGINEERING UILDING April 16, 2008 Stephen Waite, AIA Waite Architects 111 Elm Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS #3 FOR PLAN CHECK # 2008-0156 TH VIOLATION AT 21010 76 AVENUE WEST Steve, Based on our discussion at the counter on April 14 and after discussing the project with staff, it is agreed that design review for the above-referenced project will be done administratively rather than through the Architectural Design Board. Fees will be doubled to $200 for the administrative design review. As I had mentioned in my previous letters of March 12 and April 8, the proposed changes must be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code, as well as the approved landscape plan (ADB-10-87) that was developed in accordance with the variance that exists for the site (V-1-85). As submitted, the changes to the site and landscape plan cannot be approved because they do not satisfy the above criteria. 1. The northern property line setback for the BN-zoned parcel was reduced from the required 15’ to 0’ through a variance (V-1-85). The variance approval was conditioned on the establishment of a 4’ landscaped setback area to buffer the R-zoned parcel to the north. This landscaped area was removed as part of the subject violation. As a result, the four-foot landscaped setback along the northern property line from the building eastward to the street property line must be replaced. It must be constructed and planted in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 16.45.020.C: The required setback from R zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BN lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback. According to the landscaping types listed in ECDC 20.13.030, it would appear that Type II landscaping would be appropriate for the space. As a result, the space must include some combination of plantings, trees and/or a fence that meets the above requirements. 2. The planting areas along the southern property line setback were also illegally removed. While there is no setback or landscape buffer requirement along the southern property line adjacent to another BN-zoned parcel, the approved landscape plan (ADB-10-87) indicated several landscaped areas on the southern portion of the parcel. There does not appear to be a valid reason behind removing the landscaping and altering the site. The parking requirement for the site was originally satisfied and is currently even considering the proposed interior changes to the structure. Seven spaces existed prior to the violation (two interior and five exterior) yet only five are required for the current residential and office uses (two for the residential and three for the office, no customers). These five spaces existed in the parking lot as originally approved by the ADB in 1987. As a result, and without information to the contrary, the landscaped areas on the southern side of the parcel must also be replaced. According to the landscaping options presented in ECDC 20.13.030, Type III landscaping appears appropriate for the southern area. The above information must be included on a landscape plan prepared in accordance with ECDC 20.13. With the plan, please include a planting schedule as well as a cost estimate for the work. Please submit the requested materials as soon as possible in order that we can continue to process the application. The Building and Engineering Divisions are also reviewing the building permit and may have their own comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771- 0220. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Planner Attachments