Adm review #1.pdfOV FI) CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5`1' Avenue North • Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
BUILDING PERMIT REVISION #1
STAFF DECISION
TO: Scott Anderson, Grow With Us Learning Center
FROM: Jen Machuga, Planner
DATE: March 2, 2011
FILE: BLD20100248 (Revision #1)
BLD20100248 Revision #1 Proposal;
A building permit (BLD20100248) was issued in September 2010 for the remodeling of an existing
single-family residence, change in use to a daycare facility, and construction of an addition of
approximately 852 square feet on the north side of the existing building. The permit included paving and
striping of a new parking lot and a landscaping plan for the entire site. Administrative design review was
conducted concurrently with the building permit review, and staff issued administrative approval of the
project design on September 8, 2010. Following the initial design review approval and issuance of the
building permit, the applicant wanted to make changes to the landscape plan as well as a few changes to
sidewalk access to the building. Thus, a revision (Revision #1) to the issued building permit was
submitted on February 15, 2011. Staff sent the applicant questions on the proposed revision on February
23, 2010, and in response, the applicant added plants to the revised landscape plan on February 24, 2010.
As part of Revision # 1, the applicant has proposed to eliminate the portion of the five-foot concrete
sidewalk adjacent to parking stalls # 10 and # 11. Also, the applicant has proposed to relocate the walkway
that serves the side entrance at the northeast corner of the addition to follow the eastern side of the
building instead of being separated from the building by a landscaped area. Additionally, numerous
changes were proposed to the landscape pian.
Staff's analysis of the proposed changes associated with Revision #1 follows.
Owner/Applicant:
Scott Anderson
Grow With Us Learning Centers
23632 Highway 99, Suite F — PMB 502
Edmonds, WA 98026
Page 1 of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision #1
Design Review Process:
As part of the City's review of the original building permit application (BLD20100248), staff design
review was required per ECDC 20.10. The proposal is located within the Planned Business (BP) zone,
which is not an area of the City that is specifically designated for District -Based Design Review.
Therefore, the proposal is subject to the General Design Review requirements of ECDC 20.11. Projects
that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the design
review is considered an administrative Staff Decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.11
(General Design Review) and 20.01 (Type I Staff Decision — No Notice Required). Because the project is
located in the BP zone, the design standards in ECDC 20.11.030 apply in addition to the general design
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff design review with a building permit is considered a Type I
decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.01.003. The project was determined to be exempt from
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) under WAC 197-11-800(3). A critical areas checklist was
submitted in 2007 and a waiver from further study was granted (File No. CRA20070093).
Since the design review process for the project was originally administrative, design review of the
proposed revisions is also administrative. The subject staff report only addresses the proposed changes
from the original design review approval issued on September 8, 2010. Refer to the staff report issued on
September 8, 2010 for staff's complete analysis of all applicable code sections for the entire project. The
subject report only addresses the code sections applicable to Revision #1.
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDQ Compliance:
A. ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review)
The proposal is subject to the General Design Review criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, which include
criteria for building design and site treatment. With the changes proposed through Revision #1,
the project will still be consistent with the criteria applicable to site treatment in that
approximately nine of the existing evergreen trees will be retained on the site, sufficient
landscaping is provided around the front and all sides of the site to assist in buffering the building
from surrounding properties and curbing will be provided to protect the majority of the
landscaped areas.
B. ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements)
The applicant has proposed several revisions to the approved landscape plan. These revisions
include changes to the majority of the proposed tree and shrub species as well as changes to
locations of many of these plants. Due to the extent of the proposed revisions to the approved
landscape plan, Revision #1 will be reviewed entirely on its own for compliance with the
landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 instead of addressing each proposed change from the
approved plan individually.
The subject site contains several large existing evergreen trees. Many of these trees are located in
areas that cannot be protected during development due to the need to locate the parking area at
the front of the building. However, approximately nine existing trees are indicated on the plans
as to be retained. These existing trees will provide a good base to the proposed additional
landscaping. It should be noted that the existing trees to be retained as shown on the revised
landscape plan are the same as those shown on the approved landscape plan.
The City's Street Tree Plan requires street trees adjacent to Edmonds Way. The landscape plan
indicates four Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura) trees adjacent to the southwestern property
line. These trees are shown to comply with the minimum required size of 3" caliper and the
maximum allowed spacing of 40 to 60 feet on center. The applicant has indicated that the
Katsura tree on the east side of the vehicular exit from the site may need to be moved to the east
Page 2 of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review—Revision #1
slightly in order to avoid conflict with utility lines. This will be acceptable, as the total number
and spacing of the street trees will still comply with the requirements of the City's Street Tree
Plan.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type IV landscaping along the southwestern side of the subject site in
order to provide a visual separation from the street where clear sight distance is required. The
proposed landscaping between the parking area and Edmonds Way includes the street trees
discussed above as well as Acer palrnatuni (Japanese maple) trees near the center of this property
line and a cluster of existing evergreens near the southern corner of the site. These trees are
consistent with the Type W landscaping requirement for trees to be planted 25 feet on center.
The Type IV landscaping requirements also specify that all trees shall be free of branches below
six feet in height, which has been added as a condition of approval. Various shrubs including
Prunus laurocerasus `Otto Luyken' (Otto luyken laurel), Ilex crenata convexa (Japanese holly),
Festuca glauca (blue fescue), Euonymus fortunei (emerald gaiety), and Euonymus japonica
(golden euonymus) are also indicated within the Type IV landscape area. These shrubs will need
to be maintained at a maximum height of 3.5 feet where clear sight distance is necessary. A
condition to this effect has been added to the approval to ensure proper maintenance of the Type
IV vegetation in order for clear sight distance to be maintained.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type V landscaping to provide visual relief and shade within parking
areas. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking stalls, at least 17.5 square feet of
landscape development must be provided for each parking stall proposed. Thus, with a total of 14
parking stalls, the applicant is required to provide at least 245 square feet of Type V landscaping
within the parking area. The revised landscape plan indicates Type V landscaping within the
landscape areas surrounding the parking lot, exceeding 245 square feet in total area.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type II landscaping to be provided along the northwestern property
line. Type II landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses, and
includes the requirement for evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being
deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on
center in addition to shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height at maturity to cover the ground
within three years. A combination of existing evergreen trees and new Chamaecyparis obtusa
(hinoki) and Acer palmaturn (Japanese maple) trees will be provided along the northwestern
property line. Although there are areas where the trees are slightly more than 20 feet apart, this is
compensated for by the cluster of existing trees being retained near the southwestern corner of the
existing building, and the average distribution complies with the requirement for the trees to be
planted at 20 feet on center. In addition to the proposed trees, the revised plans indicate a
combination of shrubs including Ilex crenata convexa (Japanese holly), Prunus laurocerasus
`Otto Luyken' (Otto luyken laurel), Rhododendf•on (purple gem rhododendron), and Euonymus
japonica (golden euonymus). These shrubs comply with the requirement for a minimum height
at maturity of 3.5 feet. This combination of shrubs and trees will sufficiently comply with the
Type II landscaping requirements.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires a combination of Types I and Il landscaping along the portion of the
eastern property line adjacent to the residentially zoned property, as Type I landscaping is
intended to provide a very dense sight barrier between significantly separate uses and Type II is
intended to provide separation between similar uses. The daycare center and adjacent residential
property are not significantly separate uses, but they are not quite as similar as Type II
landscaping calls for. Thus, the landscape plan was required to show a combination of deciduous
and evergreen trees planted at 20 feet on center as well as shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet high at
maturity to provide sufficient coverage of the ground within three years. The applicant has
proposed to retain some of the existing evergreen trees along the eastern property line and plans
to supplement these trees with new Chamaecyparis obtusa (hinoki) and Acer palmatuna (Japanese
maple) trees. The majority of the trees along the eastern property line will be evergreen, which
Page 3 of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision #I
complies with the requirement for no more than 30 percent to be deciduous of Type II
landscaping and ties in the requirement of Type I landscaping to include evergreen trees. The
overall spacing of the trees along the eastern property line more than complies with the
requirement for the trees to be spaced at no more than 20 feet on center, as some of the trees are
clustered much closer together. The applicant incorporates the fencing requirement of Type I
landscaping by including a six-foot fence along the eastern property line, which will provide
additional screening from the adjacent R -zoned property. The proposal includes various shrubs
along the eastern property line, including flex crenata convexa (Japanese holly), Prunus
laurocerasus `Otto Lztyken' (Otto luyken laurel), Rhododendron (purple gem rhododendron),
Euonymus japonica (golden euonymus), and Pieris japonica (Japanese pieris). These shrubs
comply with the requirement for a minimum height at maturity of 3.5 feet. This combination of
shrubs and trees complies with the Type I/II landscaping requirement for the eastern property
line.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.020.E, "automatic irrigation is required for all ADB -approved
landscaped areas for projects which have more than four dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of
building area or more than 20 parking spaces." Because the proposal does not trigger SEPA
review, automatic irrigation is not a requirement.
A condition of approval has been added requiring all tree and plant sizes and spacing to be
consistent with the minimum size and maximum spacing requirements of ECDC 20.13.015 and
the City's Street Tree Plan, Additionally, ECDC 20.13.020.D requires four to six inch extruded
curbs where landscaping meets paved areas. Thus; in the area where the sidewalk is proposed to
be removed adjacent to parking stalls #10 and #11, the applicant must provide an extruded curb
between the pavement of these parking stalls and the landscaping. This has been added as a
condition of approval. With this condition of approval, the changes to the sidewalk surrounding
the building requested under Revision #1 will not impact any other requirements of the Planning
Division.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject site is located within the "Planned Business/Neighborhood Business" designation of the
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the site is located within the "Westgate Corridor." The proposal is
subject to the applicable general objectives for urban design located on pages 90 through 98 of the
Comprehensive Plan. These objectives were addressed in staff's original design review approval issued
on September 8, 2010. The proposed changes as part of Revision #1 will not impact the project's
compliance with the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan discussed in staff's original design
review decision.
Findings & Conclusions:
In accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.11.020 and 20.11.030, the proposal has been found to
be in compliance with the design criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, the bulk and use requirements of the
zoning ordinance, and the building design and site treatment criteria applicable to general design review.
Detailed discussion on compliance with these requirements can be found in the sections above as well as
in the original staff issued on September 8, 2010.
Technical Review:
The Engineering Division, Building Division, and Fire Department have reviewed the proposed revisions
to the building permit (File No. BLD20100248). Any comments from these departments will be provided
as part of their review of Revision # 1.
Page 4 of 5
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review — Revision #I
Public Comments:
Projects that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the
design review is considered an administrative Staff Decision (Type I) subject to the requirements of
ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review) and 20.01 (Staff Decision — No Notice Required). Therefore, no
public notice was required for the subject application. The City has not received any comment letters for
this project.
Decision
Staff finds that with the conditions below, the proposed revisions to the issued building permit are
consistent with design criteria in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Edmonds Community
Development Code, specifically ECDC 20.11.030. Therefore, staff finds that Revision #1 to building
permit BLD20100248 is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes, and it is the
responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits.
2. Tree and plant sizes and spacing shall comply with minimum sizes and maximum spacing of
ECDC 20.13.015 and the City's Street Tree Plan.
3. Trees within the Type IV landscaping area (adjacent to the southwestern property line) shall be
free of branches below six feet in height, and shrubs within this area shall be maintained at a
maximum height of 3.5 feet.
4. An extruded curb four to six inches in height must be installed between parking stalls #10 and
#11 and the landscaping area pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 20.13.020.D.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Jennifer Machuga,
Appeals
March 2, 2011
Date
Design review decisions by staff are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or
development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by
staff is not in itself an appealable decision.
Page 5 of 5