HE decision remand PRD-07-20 and P-07-21.pdf4? C I �;()
CITY OF EE)MM14DS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH a EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 o fax (425) 771-0221
'''4 !'� f ' '�* ��ry '� °fir n✓r ° N�" "' `
HEARING EXAMINER
1,1111.1 WG\ 9,10IRRIA0XIMMIAZE1CIT.TI I�:i7N:Y 11'LI 1 l� 1 ► 1
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE; Stonebridge Court
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary Plat Alteration OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
P-2007-21; PRD -2007-20
The Applicant requests alterations to an approved preliminary plat and associated planned
residential development ("PRD") in order to comply with a 2007 remand order from the
Edmonds Hearing Examiner. The plat and PRD alterations are approved with conditions.
The plat/PRD was initially proposed in 2007 and conditionally approved by the Edmonds
Hearing Examiner along with a concurrent order to remand the plat/PRD to provide for
perimeter buffers that comply with PRD standards. PRD regulations required a perimeter
buffer in exchange for the Applicant's proposal to reduce setbacks required by the underlying
zoning. In response to the remand order the Applicant chose to instead comply with setback
requirements, thereby no longer having to provide for a perimeter buffer. The Applicant has
further modified the plat/PRD by removing a request to waive lot coverage requirements as
authorized by PRD regulations. The Applicant will reduce lot coverage from the originally
proposed 55% to 31%, which is within the maximum 35% coverage authorized by the
underlying zoning district. Other positive alterations have resulted from the reduction in lot
coverage, include increased landscaping and tree retention. The overall adverse impacts of
the project have been reduced by the alterations.
Staff Testimony
Mike Clugston, Associate Planner at City of Edmonds, stated that this 10 -lot subdivision
PRD was initially started in 2007. At this time, the hearing examiner heard the staff
comments and approved the 10 -lot plat, but remanded the associated PRD. He stated the
reason behind this remand was an issue with the perimeter buffer not aligning with ECDC
20.35.050. An application was made after the remand to
Incorporated Augusi 11, 1,1'00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
take the plat to completion with a new PRD plan and plat, and both were very similar
to the original proposal. However, there was a new goal of making the PRD
compliant with ECDC in the new proposal. The plat was altered in several small
ways, he noted. Mr. Clugston stated that, in the new application, the Applicant has
chosen to use the regularly required 25ft setback from the sides and 15ft setback from
the rear, which means no perimeter buffer would be necessary.
Mr. Clugston commented that after being submitted to the Architectural Design
Review Board in November, the board recommended approval with some conditions
(attachment f). Additionally, the board was happy to see additional retention of trees
and the added landscaping, he noted.
Mr. Clugston testified that staff recommends the updated PRD and plat be approved
by the hearing examiner with the conditions noted on pages 11 and 12 of the
associated remand staff report.
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, Mr. Clugston stated that the difference
between the original and updated proposal is slight. The main difference is that the
lots were not using the proper sized setbacks in order to avoid needing perimeter
buffers, according to Mr. Clugston. Staff and the Architectural Review Board concur
that the overall design (w/ smaller homes and impervious surfaces) is better than the
previous 2007 one, he testified.
Applicant 'Testimony
Jim Egge, representative for Phoenix Development, stated the staff has done a good
job in summarizing the general issues at hand. Mr. Egge noted that Phoenix
Development has substantially downsized homes in order to meet the adjustment in
total lot coverage recommended by the hearing examiner in 2007. The average is 31
percent lot coverage which is much lower than the recommended 55 percent by the
previous hearing examiner, resulting in much more open lot space, according to Mr.
Egge. He testified that this change added more open space to the back of the
property. Mr. Egge stated that, by meeting the current setback standards applicable to
a R-8 zone, more trees and better landscaping would be possible. In addition, by
adding planter strips between the roadway and sidewalk in lieu of perimeter buffers
(along with the setbacks), there would be more green space for the area, he said.
Mr. Egge testified that in comparison to the original staff report from 2007, the
current report has deleted some of the previous conditions, maintained others, and
created some new ones. Mr. Egge stated that the seven new conditions in the 2011
staff report are all acceptable to Phoenix Development.
However, he stated that the condition of all requirements from the 2007 report being
met raises some issues. Recommended Condition 8 of the staff report includes the
requirements that were made in the 2007 report. According to Mr. Egge, condition A
(which discusses sewer and drain installation) of the 2007 report is being met by
condition B (which requires all sewer and drain installation prior to building permit's
PRD/Subdivision p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
being issued) of the new staff report. Mr. Egge remarked that staff has agreed to
removing this redundant condition.
Mr. Egge testified that original Condition C of the 2007 report (which required the
submittal of a traffic -impact analysis prior to the issuance of a building permit) is also
a point of concern. According to Mr. Egge, the SEPA MDNS, done during the initial
plat approval, only required a payment of an 842 dollar per lot traffic payment fee.
The Applicant requests that Condition C be eliminated because the plat was already
approved in 2007, and the city found the previous study to be sufficient, he stated.
He added that the Applicant is not adding lots so the SEPA findings should remain
adequate. '
Mr. Egge further noted attachment 8 of the staff report (which is the engineer
requirements of the former plat) should be slightly modified. He asked that reference
be made in attachment 8 to sub item 7 "planting strips" with reference to a
memorandum from the engineering division written on October 20, 2011 (Exhibit 2).
The memorandum notes the acceptance of the planter strips plan by the city,
according to Mr. Egge.
The recommended deletions and minor wording adjustments outlined in the staff
report are acceptable to the Applicant. Mr. Egge stated that there are no identified
critical areas on the subject property.
The Examiner questioned using traffic data from 2007 to mitigate traffic impacts,
especially if a final plat is not completed for several more years. He asked whether
the Applicant believed that the plat alteration would re -commence the five year
expiration period applicable to plats, or whether the commencement of the expiration
period still related back to the 2007 approval. Mr. Egge stated it was the Applicant's
understanding that the expiration period still commenced from the 2007 approval.
Mr. Clugston concurred.
Public Testimony
Colleen McDonald (22028 77th Place West) stated she lives downstream from the
storm -drain run-off exit connected to the Applicant's property. Ms. McDonald
testified that she was present for the previous 2007 hearings and is content with many
of the proposed improvements. She noted the inclusion of more trees and green
spaces, along with smaller lot sizes are great improvements. However, she
commented that she remains concerned that 20-30 foot trees will be knocked down
and only replaced with 12 ft trees. She asserted that there does not seem to be any
penalties in place if large, old-growth trees are accidentally knocked down during
construction.
She further testified about her concern with the SEPA mitigation report and the
stormwater run-off ditch planned (attachment J). She stated that this impact report
claims there are no visible signs of eroding, but she contests that the current drainage
PRD/Subdivision p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
0
rel
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
system goes through her backyard and she has seen the opposite. Currently,
according to Ms. McDonald, there is a large amount of erosion due to the drainage
system in the ditches that travel through her property. She stated the flow rate has
increased substantially in the time since she has been there (5 years), and she fears
further erosion from increased drainage. Ms. McDonald remarked that she is
concerned with the size of the ditch and pipe that will be used and whether it will be
big enough to protect her property from further damage. Additionally, she testified
that the SEPA mitigation does not take into account some amphibian life forms that
live in the area. She also voiced concern that the road -lane is not large enough for a
fire truck to maneuver.
She concluded that she does not wish to lose anymore of her property to erosion, but
she is not opposed to the development as long as her concerns are addressed.
Joe St. Laurent (218th St. SE), representing James Plout who owns the properties
surrounding the proposed lots (east, west, and north-west), stated that the owner of
the surrounding properties is concerned with damage to his trees during the
construction process and increased flooding. Mr. St. Laurent noted that if there is not
a large enough drainage pipe used there could be flooding onto 218th St causing
problems for surrounding property owners. From September to April, the current
drainage area is a stream because of the large amount of water, he noted. According
to Mr. St. Laurent, the main concern is the protection of James Plout's properties that
surround the proposed lots on three sides.
Alvin Rutledge stated that the city of Edmonds had meetings regarding public works
(including drainage pipes) in the summer and both the Applicant and members of the
public should have attended. They could have received funding from the city to deal
with their current concerns if they had brought them to the city's attention. Mr.
Rutledge also voiced concern over traffic on 220th St., which he believes has
increased greatly since the time of the first application. He noted recent accidents in
this area due to speeding and increased volume of traffic. Mr. Rutledge stated that he
is not against the development, but he wishes to ensure public safety by using a
current traffic study when creating mitigation plans. Upon questioning by the hearing
examiner, Mr. Rutledge said he was unsure if the drainage system associated with the
proposed lots was discussed at the previous city public works meetings.
Staff Rebuttal
Mike Clugston, Associate Planner at City of Edmonds, stated that, in regards to Ms.
McDonald's street width concerns, the proposed street widths meet the code from
2007. Moreover, he noted that a condition of approval had been added regarding
street parking. The condition (page 11 of the staff report, condition 2) would require
signs dictating "No Street Parking," in order to maintain the appropriate space needed
for emergency vehicles, according to Mr. Clugston.
PRD/Subdivision p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Upon questioning by the hearing examiner, Mr. Clugston testified he was not aware
of any problems in this particular area with the city's drainage systems.
Applicant Rebuttal
Jim Egge stated that the street width proposed is 28ft and the typical fire code
standard is 20ft. He remarked that the cul-de-sac also meets city turn -around
requirements. Regarding the drainage system, Mr. Egge noted that a preliminary
drainage analysis had been done in August 2011, but a final drainage analysis is still
required. He stated that the city and civil engineer will ensure that the drainage
system meets requirements and will protect against potential flooding. He added that
an on-site retention vault is part of the current proposal.
EXHIBITS
Ex. 1: December 1, 2011 staff report with attachments A -N.
Ex. 2: October 20, 2011 memorandum from Jeannie McConnell to Mike
Clugston
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Applicant is Phoenix Development LLC.
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on December 8, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Public Safety Complex in the
Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Site/Proposal Description. The Applicant requests a preliminary plat
alteration and planned residential development ("PRD") approval in order to comply
with a remand order from the hearing examiner in PLN2007021. The plat/PRD was
initially proposed in 2007 and conditionally approved by the Edmonds Hearing
Examiner along with a concurrent order to remand the subdivision to provide for
perimeter buffers that comply with planned residential development ("PRD")
standards. PRD regulations required a perimeter buffer in exchange for the
Applicant's proposal to reduce setbacks required by the underlying zoning. In the
2007 decision the Examiner determined that the proposal did not comply with these
buffer requirements. In response to the remand order the Applicant chose to revise
the plat/PRD to comply with setback requirements, thereby no longer having to
provide for a perimeter buffer. The Applicant has further modified the plat/PRD by
removing the request to waive lot coverage requirements as authorized by PRD
regulations and made other minor revisions. The Applicant will reduce lot coverage
from the originally proposed 55% to 31%. The lot reduction is the only significant
PRD/Subdivision p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
revision to the 2007. Other positive changes have resulted from the reduction in lot
coverage, include retaining additional trees and increasing the amount of landscaping.
2 As revised the PRD/Plat application is for preliminary approval of a 10 lot PRD/plat.
3 The PRD/plat proposal is composed of two parcels totaling 79,943 square feet. The
subject parcels are located at 7723 and 7807 220`f' Street SW. The site has generally
4 uniform topography with a slope of about 6% to 10% which drains to a north -south
running ditch that is located on the middle of the site. The site currently has two
5 unoccupied homes, a carport and a shed.
6 The proposed site plan indicates that 9,123 sq. ft. of usable open space will be
7 provided. Tract 997 is 392 sq. ft. at the northern end of the proposed cul-de-sac and
will contain two benches. Tracts 998 and 999 are at the southern end of the site
8 adjacent to 220th Street SW and are 4,367 sq. ft. and 4,364 sq. ft., respectively. Tract
998 is proposed as the location of the stormwater vault and will contain a short
9 walking path. A walking path and two benches will be located on Tract 999. All
10 three tracts will be maintained by the proposed Homeowner's Association
11 The PRD application includes three requests for alternative development standards as
follows:
12
Lot Size (ECDC 20.35.030.A.1.b). While the underlying RS -8 zone
13 regularly requires a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size, the updated
14 preliminary plat/PRD shows lot sizes ranging from a minimum of 5,611
square feet up to 6,453 square feet (Attachment L). The proposed lot sizes
15 are specifically proposed as follows, along with lot coverage:
16
17
18
19
20
21
ZZ
23
24
25 Lot Width (ECDC 20.35.030.A.1.c). While the underlying RS -8 zoning
regularly requires a 70 -foot lot width, the widths for the updated PRD lots
vary from 55 to 68 feet.
PRD/Subdivision p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Proposed
Lot Area
s
Proposed
Lot Coverage
Lot 1
6,187
31.4%
Lot 2
5,727
30.4%
Lot 3
5,716
33.2%
Lot 4
6,453
30.8%
Lot 5
5,611
32.5%
Lot 6
5,669
30.7%
Lot 7
6,417
31.0%
Uot a
3,713
31.ZYO
Lot 9
5,731
31.8%
Lot 10
6,187
31.4%
25 Lot Width (ECDC 20.35.030.A.1.c). While the underlying RS -8 zoning
regularly requires a 70 -foot lot width, the widths for the updated PRD lots
vary from 55 to 68 feet.
PRD/Subdivision p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Street and Utility Standards (ECDC 20.35.030.A.1.e). The updated design
includes a 5' landscape strip between the curb and sidewalk adjacent to the
proposed 78th Place West. Where the sidewalk extends outside of the public
right-of-way, the Applicant is proposing a public walkway easement.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The proposed development is surrounded by
single-family neighborhoods on the north and south sides of 220th Street SW, which
is a busy collector street (Attachments 9 and 10 of Attachment F to the staff report,
Ex. 1). Development transitions to multi -family and commercial toward 76th Avenue
and Highway 99 to the east. Across 220th Street to the south lies a portion of
unincorporated Snohomish County known as "Esperance."
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts created by the
proposal. All adverse impacts of the project were found to be adequately mitigated in
the 2007 approval of the plat/PRD and associated State Environmental Policy Act
("SEPA") review. The revised proposal only serves to further reduce the adverse
impacts of the project by decreasing lot coverage and increasing landscaping and tree
retention. A reference during public testimony was made that the site contains
amphibians that should be protected, but there was insufficient information presented
to establish that these species were subject to protection under the City's critical areas
regulations not any evidence presented that additional investigation is warranted.
Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of mitigation for tree removal and
insufficiency of penalties for unauthorized removal. Penalties for unauthorized tree
removal have been set and found adequate by the City Council in its adoption of
ECDC 18.45.070, which sets a monetary fine of $1,000 per tree with up to a three
inch diameter and $3,000 per trees with a larger diameter. City staff have found the
replacement trees proposed by the Applicant to be adequate and there is no evidence
in the record that supports a finding that larger replacement trees are necessary and/or
could be reasonably required of the Applicant. Infrastructure issues as addressed
below. No other adverse impacts are discernible from the record.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure and Public Services. As conditioned by this decision,
adequate infrastructure will serve development as follows:
• Drainage: A couple adjoining property owners expressed concern over drainage
issues on their property, citing erosion caused by a drainage ditch/stream that will be
used for the project and an increase in run-off since the project was reviewed in 2007.
The decrease in impervious surface can result in a change of storm water impacts
(presumably for the better), so a re -assessment of impacts is appropriate. The
updated drainage analysis, Attachment J to the staff report, concludes that revisions to
the project will not adversely affect adjoining property owners. However, it is
unclear whether a current site visit was conducted or that increases in flows since
2007 were considered. Staff shall verify whether project design adequately addresses
the increase in flows asserted during public testimony and shall require further
mitigation as necessary to ensure that there is no off-site flooding or erosion impacts
PRD/Subdivision p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
created by the project. All other storm water issues are adequately addressed by the
City's storm water regulations.
• Transportation: There will be no change in the number of residences in the
project, so there will be no material change in off-site traffic impacts. The Applicant
and Staff agreed during the hearing that the five year time limit for filing a final plat
application, as required by ECDC 20.75.100, commences from the date of the 2007
preliminary plat approval, not the date any plat alteration is approved. Consequently,
the use of a traffic study conducted in 2007 for this project would be no different than
any other subdivision Applicant who has five years to complete preliminary plat
improvements prior to final plat approval.
Related to this issue, during the hearing the Applicant requested revision to Condition
C of the 2007 Examiner decision. Condition C will not be revised. Condition C
requires the Applicant to submit a Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") that demonstrates
that traffic impacts do not lower applicable level of service standards prior to the
issuance of building permits. The Applicant asserted during the hearing that the
SEPA MDNS already imposes a traffic mitigation fee to mitigate off-site traffic and
that this issue could not be revisited. There are two problems with this position.
First, the courts have ruled that a SEPA determination does not preclude the
consideration of environmental impacts in an associated permit application if the
criteria require that consideration. See Quality Rock Products v. Thurston County,
139 Wn.2d 125 (2007). The adequacy of infrastructure, including traffic, is a key
consideration in subdivision review and the Hearing Examiner had full authority to
consider and require that off-site traffic impacts were fully mitigated. Second, the
Applicant is arguing that the 2007 SEPA traffic analysis is sufficient while at the
same time arguing that the additional TIA required by the Examiner for the 2007
plat/PRD approval should not apply. The Examiner concluded that there was
adequate traffic infrastructure because of a combination of the SEPA mitigation and
his condition for the TIA. The Applicant isn't in a position to argue that the traffic
conditions of approval that applied in 2007 are inviolate while at the same time
arguing that others should be changed to its benefit. If there was a problem with
Condition C a timely appeal should have challenged it after issuance of the 2007
decision.
The interpretation of Condition C will be left to staff during implementation of this
decision. To facilitate matters, the Examiner points the parties to Finding of Fact No.
22 of the 2007 decision, where the Examiner notes that despite repeated requests for a
TIA he was only given its first page. The 2007 Examiner found traffic mitigation to
be adequate based upon the SEPA mitigation fee, but wanted confirmation through
the full TIA report that the SEPA mitigation actually did maintain level of service
standards. From this discussion it appears that the 2007 TIA should still satisfy
Condition C.
® Parks and Open Space: In his conclusions regarding the adequacy of parks and
open space the Examiner found in the 2007 decision that the project provided on-site
PRD/Subdivision p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
M
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
open space and recreational facilities to satisfy the adequacy requirements for both
the PRD and the preliminary plat. As shall be discussed in the Conclusions of Law,
there are only minor revisions to the amount of open space provided and the space
still meets PRD open space standards. Tract 997 has been reduced in sized by 143
square feet but the open space and open space amenities have not been altered in any
material way and they are still adequate to meet the needs of the development.
Conclusion Page 7 of the staff report also concludes that the facility is served by
existing parks in the area.
• Water and Sewer: The 2007 conditions of approval, adopted into this decision,
require the Applicant to demonstrate that the City has adequate water and sewer
capacity.
• Fire Protection: Public testimony included a concern over the width of the
internal streets, claiming that the internal road and cul de sac are not wide enough for
fire access. As noted by the Applicant, the internal road complies with the fire access
standards of the International Fire Code. As noted in the staff report in Section VII,
Fire District No. 1 has also reviewed the proposal and recommended a condition,
adopted by this decision, which requires restrictions on street parking on 78th Pl. SW
in order to maintain emergency access. The need for these restrictions will be
assessed during review of the civil plans. The Fire District did not express any other
concerns with the revised proposal. There is nothing in the record to otherwise
suggest any other deficiencies in fire protection services. The revised proposal
provides for adequate fire protection.
® Schools and Sidewalks: The project is served by adequate schools and sidewalks
to and from school and other public facilities as determined by Finding of Fact No. 19
of the 2007 decision, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. ECDC 20.01.003 provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on
preliminary PRD and preliminary subdivision applications, classifying them as Type
III -13 applications. ECDC 20.75.110(A) provides that any major changes to approved
preliminary plats shall be reviewed in the same manner as the original application.
ECDC 20.35.110 also requires review of major changes to PRD approvals in the
same manner as the original application. The revisions proposed by the Applicant are
deemed to be considered major changes that necessitate the Type III -B review.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation.
Residential (RS -8).
PRD/Subdivision
The subject property is zoned Single -Family
P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3. SEPA Compliance and Notice. The City issued a Mitigated Determination
of Non -Significance (MDNS) on July 3, 2007 (Attachment 6 of Attachment F). A
SEPA Addendum for the revised project was issued October 4, 2011; the proposed
revisions to the PRD were found not to create any new significant environmental
impacts (Attachment 7 of Attachment F).
4. Review Criteria and Application. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 1,
the review of the proposed preliminary plat and PRD modifications must be
processed in the same manner as the original applications, which is interpreted as
subjecting the applications to the same review criteria. Chapter 20.35 ECDC governs
the review criteria for PRDs and Chapter 20.75 ECDC governs the review criteria for
subdivisions. Relevant criteria are quoted below and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law.
ECDC 20.35.030(A): Alternative development standards may be established through
the PRD process. Such alternative standards shall be limited to the bulk standards
specifically set forth in this chapter. Absent specific authorization the standard may
not be waived or varied through the PRD process.
1. Bulk development standards which may be established are as follows:
b. Lot Size. Lot sizes may be reduced ("clustering') to allow dwelling units
to be shifted to the most suitable locations on residential PRD sites so long
as the overall density of the project complies with the comprehensive plan
and zoning ordinance.
c. Lot width.
e. Street and Utility Standards Alternative. Street standards may be
established by the city engineer and alter utility standards established by the
public works director so long as such alternatives provide the same or
greater utility to the public system, safety and long-term maintenance costs
as the standards established by ECDC Title t �.
5. The Applicants are limiting their requested alternative development
standards to lot size, lot width, and street and utility standards as described in Finding
of Fact No. 3. All of these standards may be altered through the PRD process as
authorized above.
ECDC 20.35.040(A): Approval of a request to establish an alternative development
standard using a PRD is based on the criteria listed in this section. In evaluating a
PRD which proposes to modem the development standards of the underlying zone, the
city shall consider and base its findings upon the ability of the proposal to satisfy all
of the following criteria, if applicable.
6. All of the criteria of ECDC 20.35.040 are satisfied as outlined below. The
extensive landscaping, tree retention, limited impervious surface and perimeter
PRD/Subdivision P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
buffering that exceeds applicable standards in combination more than off -set the
moderate alterations requested by the Applicant.
A. The proposed PBDs shall be compatible with surrounding properties in the
following respects:
1. Provide landscaping for projects seeking to cluster lots under ECDC
through the design review process and greater buffering of
buildings, parking and storage areas than would otherwise be provided through
the subdivision process,
2. Providing safe and efficient site access, on-site circulation and off-street
parking, and
3. Architectural design of buildings and harmonious use of materials as
determined by the ADB in accordance with ECDC -20.3.,51. 0d' 0;
6(a). The criteria quoted above are met by the project. Extensive
landscaping is proposed for the project as shown in Attachment N to the staff report,
including the addition of planter strips along both sides of the internal roadway that
were not proposed in the 2007 application. Fencing on the perimeter of the project
would provide more buffering than required by the subdivision process. The staff
report notes that off-street parking standards are met and the conditions of approval
require restrictive parking signs as determined necessary by staff to maintain
emergency access along 78th Place West. The Architectural Design Board ("ADB")
has reviewed the updated project and determined it meets design review criteria as
outlined in its recommendation, Attachment G to the staff report.
ECDC 20.35.040(B): No setback from the exterior lot lines of the PRD may be
reduced from that required by the underlying zoning unless a variance or subdivision
modification is approved;
6(b). All standard RS -8 exterior setbacks are proposed to be maintained
(Attachment L to the staff report).
ECDC 20.35.040(0): Minimize the visual impact of the planned development by
reduced building volumes as compared with what is allowable under the current
zoning or through landscape or other buffering techniques;
6(c). The proposed utility lines will be buried consistent with ECDC
18.05. The landscaping and open spaces will serve to reduce visual impacts
(Attachment N to the staff report). Building volumes are less than the maximum
allowed by the zone and are effectively broken up with design elements and details
like porches, recessed garages, and the like (Attachments 13 and 17 of Attachment F
to the staff report).
ECDC 20.35.040(D): Preserve unique natural features or historic buildings or
structures, if such exist on the site; and/or
6(d). Unique features are limited on the site but eighteen existing
healthy, mature trees are proposed to be retained as part of the PRD (Attachment N,
Attachment 12 of Attachment F).
PRD/Subdivision P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
W
MAI
W1
ECDC 20.35.040(E): Reduction of impervious surfaces through the use of on-site or
common parking facilities rather than street parking.
6(e). The project proposes 31% lot coverage, which is less than the
35% authorized under ECDC 16.20.030 for the RS -8 zone. Use of shared driveways
is a partially attributable to reducing impervious surface (Attachment M to the staff
report).
ECDC 20.35.050: Because PRDs provide incentives to Applicants by allowing for
flexibility from the bulk zoning requirements, a clear benefit should be realized by the
public. To ensure that there will be a benefit to the public, a PRD must demonstrate
that it meets the following decision criteria.
7. As outlined in the conclusions of law below, the PRD provides for a clear
public benefit by satisfying all applicable ECDC 20.35.050 criteria.
ECDC 20.35.050(A): Design Criteria. The project must comply with the city's urban
design guidelines set forth in subsection (A)(]) of this section and provide two or more
of the results set forth in subsections (A)(2) through (A)(5) of this section:
1. Architectural design consistent with the city's urban design guidelines for
multifamily projects or ECDC ,2'0 3'S 060 for single-family projects for the design,
placement, relationship and orientation of structures;
3. Minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials through the use of alternate
materials or methods such as grasscrete or shared driveways;
4. Increase through the addition of usable open space or recreational facilities on-
site above the minimum open space required by ECDC 20 352 Q6 01(B)(6);
7(a). The three criteria quoted above are met by the project. The ADB has
reviewed the proposal for compliance with ECDC 20.35.060 for single family
projects and has recommended the project be approved with conditions adopted by
this decision (Attachment G). The proposal includes two shared driveways, one
serving Lots 3 — 5 and another serving Lots 6 — 8 (Attachment M). The Applicant is
proposing to provide 11.4% of the site as open space (9,123 sq. ft.) instead of the
minimum of 10% (7,994 sq. ft.) (Attachment L).
ECDC 20.35.050(B): Public Facilities. The PRD shall be served by adequate public
facilities including streets, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, fire protection, water,
stormwater control, sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation facilities.
7(b). Adequate public facilities serve the project as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 6.
ECDC 20.35.050(0): C. Perimeter Design. The design of the perimeter buffer shall
either
1. Comply with the bulk zoning criteria applicable to zone by providing the same
front, side and rear yard setbackv for all lots adjacent to the perimeter of the
development; and/or
PRD/Subdivision p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7(c). The revised plat/PRD will comply with the regular RS -8 setbacks that
apply to the zone by using the same front, side and rear yard setbacks for all lots. No
additional perimeter buffer is therefore required (Attachment L).
ECDC 20.35.050(D): Open Space and Recreation. Usable open space and
recreation facilities shall be provided and effectively integrated into the overall
development of a PRD and surrounding uses and consistent with ECDC
20.35.060(B)(6). "Usable open space" means common space developed and
perpetually maintained at the cost of the development. At least 10 percent of the gross
lot area and not less than 500 square feet, whichever is greater, shall be set aside as
a part of every PRD with five or more lots. Examples of usable open space include
playgrounds, tot lots, garden space, passive recreational sites such as viewing
platforms, patios or outdoor cooking and dining areas. Required landscape buffers
and critical areas except for trails which comply with the critical areas ordinance
shall not be counted toward satisfaction of the usable open space requirement.
7(d). For a 79,943 sq. ft. planned residential development with more than
five lots, at least 7,994 sq. ft. needs to be developed and maintained as usable open
space. Tract 997 is 392 sq. ft. at the northern end of the proposed cul-de-sac and will
contain two benches. Tracts 998 and 999 are at the southern end of the site adjacent
to 220' Street SW and are 4,367 sq. ft. and 4,364 sq. ft., respectively. Tract 998 is
proposed as the location of the stormwater vault and will contain a short walking
path. A walking path and two benches will be located on Tract 999. All three tracts
will be maintained by the proposed Homeowner's Association (Attachments L, N and
I). All three tracts have amenities that qualify them as usable open space and their
total combined area exceeds the 10 percent minimum of the standard quoted above.
ECDC 20.50.060: Because PRDs may utilize alternative bulk development standards
in residential zones, the following single-family design criteria are established to
ensure that development of PRDs in single-family zones will maintain a single-family
character. Although the criteria listed here are not necessarily consistent with every
design characteristic of every single-family neighborhood in the city of Edmonds, the
criteria have been developed to create a reasonable single-family residential setting.
The intent behind these criteria is to ensure a high quality of design and construction
for all buildings located in single-family neighborhoods where development
standards may be modified through the PRD process.
8. As noted previously, the ADB has reviewed and found the project to be
consistent with applicable design criteria, including those required by ECDC
20.50.060, with the addition of two conditions that have been adopted by this
decision. Attachment G to the staff report. In its report to the ADB, staff also found
the project to be consistent with the design standards of ECDC 20.50.060.
Attachment F to the staff report.
ECDC 20.75.085: The following criteria shall be used to review proposed
subdivisions:
PRD/Subdivision p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9. The project satisfies all subdivision criteria as outlined in the conclusions of
law below.
ECDC 20.75.085(A): Environmental.
1. Where environmental resources exist, such as trees, streams, ravines or wildlife
habitats, the proposal shall be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts to
the resources. Permanent restrictions may be imposed on the proposal to avoid
impact.
2. The proposal shall be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveways
and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography.
3. Where conditions exist which could be hazardous to the future residents of the
land to be divided, or to nearby residents or property, such as flood plains, steep
slopes or unstable soil or geologic conditions, a subdivision of the hazardous land
shall be denied unless the condition can be permanently corrected, consistent with
paragraphs A(1) and (2) of this section.
4. The proposal shall be designed to minimize off-site impacts on drainage, views
and so forth.
9(a). As determined in Finding of Fact No 5, as conditioned there are no
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. The site is
fairly level so extensive grading will not be necessary. The proposal further
minimizes grading by using two shared driveways (Attachment M). No hazardous
conditions exist at the site (a critical areas `waiver' was issued for the site in
CRA20060091). An updated preliminary drainage plan was submitted with the
revised plat/PRD (Attachment J). Drainage and stormwater will be addressed in detail
with the required review and approval of civil improvement plans. All new
impervious surfaces must be connected to an on-site detention system. A condition of
approval has been added to address concerns raised by neighbors during the hearing.
Views in this location are local. It does not appear that they will be negatively
impacted by this proposal.
ECDC 20.75.085(B): Lot and Street Layout.
1. Lots shall be designed to contain a usable building area. If the building area
would be difficult to develop, the lot shall be redesigned or eliminated, unless
special conditions can be imposed on the approval which will ensure that the
lot is developed properly.
PRD/Subdivision p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Lots shall not front on highways, arterials or collector streets unless there is
no other feasible access. Special access provisions, such as shared driveways,
turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards.
3. Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
4. Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks,
public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
9(b). While each proposed lot must usually meet the dimensional
requirements of the zoning ordinance in ECDC 16.20.030, the dimensional
requirements in this case have been altered through the PRD process. As identified
in the Findings of Fact, the project area is moderately flat with no critical areas, so
the building areas identified in the plat maps are fully buildable and provide
sufficient space to accommodate reasonably sized homes. The lots do not front on
any highways, arterials or collector streets. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 6,
which adopts Findings from the 2007 Examiner decision, there are sidewalks that
provide pedestrian access to nearby schools and these sidewalks connect to
adjoining sidewalks to provide pedestrian access to other public facilities.
ECDC 20.75.085(0): Dedications.
1. The city council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision
for public use.
2. Only the city council may approve a dedication ofpark land to satisfy the
requirements of ECDC 0 i . 090,,. The council may request a review and written
recommendation from the planning advisory board.
3. Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication
of land for streets, including those on the official street map and the preliminary
plat.
10. The City Engineer's Report (Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B of the
staff report) requires the dedication of 78th Pl. W. No other dedication of public land
is required of the Applicant. As noted on Attachment L to the staff report, Open
Space Tracts 998 and 999 will remain in the ownership of the homeowner's
association. ECDC 20.75.085(C)(1) only expressly authorizes the City Council to
require dedication of land for public use. The project is conditioned on staff
consulting with the City Attorney to determine whether Council authorization is
necessary for the dedication of the 78th Pl. W.
PRD/Subdivision
p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ECIDC 20.75.085(ID): Improvements.
1. Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to, streets, curbs,
pedestrian walks and bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines,
sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities.
2. The person or body approving a subdivision shall determine the improvements
necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of this chapter, and the
requirements of.-
a. ECDC Title -1-8, Public Works Requirements;
b. Chapter 19,_ 5, Fire Code, as to fire hydrants, water supply and access.
This determination shall be based on the recommendations of the community
development director, the public works director, and the fire chief.
11. The project has undergone extensive review by the community
development director, the public works director (specifically engineering) and Fire
District No. 1. A number of improvements have been recommended as a result of
this review and they have been incorporated into the conditions of approval.
ECIlDC 20.75.085(E): Flood Plain Management. All subdivision proposals shall
comply with the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Community Development Code for
floodplain management.
12. This project is not in a FEMA -designated flood plain.
All subdivision and PRD criteria are met and the revised PRD/Subdivision is
approved, subject to the following conditions:
The following new conditions are based on review of the updated Stonebridge
Court plat/PRD:
1. The Applicant shall work with the Parks and Recreation Department to
determine appropriate street tree species for both 220th Street SW and the
proposed 78th Place West. The selected species shall be shown on the
construction documents submitted for review and approval of required civil
subdivision improvements that are part of the associated plat
(PLN20070021).
2. Emergency access shall be maintained on proposed 78th Place SW. If on -
street parking is anticipated, the stalls must be shown during the review of
the civil construction drawings that go along with the associated plat.
PRD/Subdivision
p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Otherwise, signage must be provided indicating that no on -street parking is
permitted on 78th Place SW.
3. As part of civil development, the existing driveway approaches on 220th
Street SW shall be removed.
4. On the civil construction plans submitted for City review, a manhole for
maintenance access shall be added along the "BYPASS SD LINE" as noted
on the Preliminary Engineering Plan.
5. The 10' City drainage easement noted on the Preliminary Engineering Plan
shall be kept free of obstructions to allow access.
6. As part of civil development, any existing water services to the subject lots
shall be abandoned.
7. The `Optional Tree Replanting Statement' on the face of the preliminary
plat and engineering plan shall not apply (Attachments L and M) and shall
be removed prior to submitting for final plat/PRD approval.
8. Staff shall verify whether the Applicant's updated drainage analysis has
taken into consideration potential increases in drainage ditch flow rates as
testified by Ms. McDonald and shall require further analysis and mitigation
as necessary.
9. The five year preliminary plat expiration period set by ECDC 20.75.100
commenced upon the approval of the 2007 application applies to this revised
application and has not been "reset" by issuance of this decision.
10. City staff shall confer with the City Attorney to determine whether ECDC
20.75.085(C)(1) requires Council approval of all subdivision dedications. If
so, the dedications required of the plat shall be submitted to the City Council
for approval.
All of the existing conditions of the Hearing Examiner's September 11, 2007
approval decision are proposed to be retained except as modified below:
11. Condition `B". This condition could be updated for clarification: "Prior to
final plat approval, the Applicant shall acquire approval from the Civil
Engineering Division of civil construction drawings that demonstrate
compliance with all City of Edmonds development standards; Edmonds
utility purveyor standards and the Engineering Requirements identified in
Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B. The civil drawings shall
include all PRD improvements including street and entry landscaping, sewer
and water improvements, protected critical areas, fencing and signage. "
The last two sentences of Condition A are stricken as redundant to revised
Condition B.
12. Subsection 7 of Exhibit A of Attachment B is modified to provide that the
proposed landscaping strip buffer for 78th Pl. W. shall be completed prior to
recording. Specific design and construction standards will be reviewed and
approved as part of the civil construction drawing review required in
Condition 8 above.
13. Condition "D". This condition has been met by submission of Attachment J
and can therefore be eliminated.
PRD/Subdivision p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14. Condition "E". The ADB recommended approval of the updated
landscaping and tree retention plans (Attachments 12 and 15 of Attachment
F) and did not request any additional changes be made to the landscaping of
the revised plat/PRD. This condition can be eliminated.
15. Condition "H". The Applicant submitted proposed covenants for
Stonebridge Court as part of the remand materials (Attachment I). This
condition can be eliminated.
16. Condition "I". The conditions of the initial ADB review from July 18, 2007
no longer apply. This condition can be eliminated.
17. Condition "J". The Applicant has demonstrated compliance with ECDC
20.35 through this remand. This condition can be eliminated.
18. Condition "O". The subconditions (ad, a.ii) should be clarified as follows:
"O.a. Construct all required improvements as approved and shown on the
civil construction drawings; or" "O.b. Post a performance bond for all
required improvements as approved and shown on the civil construction
drawings as surety that the improvements will be constructed within a
specified, City approved, amount of time. For a plat, this time period is
typically 2 years."
19. Condition "P.b". The files referenced are incorrect. The condition should
read: "Conditions of approval must be met and can be found in the final
approval for the subdivision located in files P-2007-21 & PRD -2007-20."
20. Condition "P.O. The condition should be slightly clarified with the
underlined language: "Include on the plat all required information,
including owner's certification, hold harmless agreement, easement
provisions, maintenance provisions, and staff approval blocks."
21. Condition "Q". This condition includes subconditions that applied to the
original ADB approval issued in July 2007 but no longer apply given the
ADB's recommendation on the updated plat/PRD. The updated condition
could eliminate the subconditions and read: "Prior to submission of
building permit applications, the Applicant shall ensure the building plans
are consistent in type and style with those approved by the ADB on
November 2, 2011 (Attachments 13 and 17 of Attachment F)."
Dated this 22nd day of December, 2011.
PRD/Subdivision
P it A. Olbrechts
Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
p. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type III -B decision within 14 days
the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal will be heard at a closed record revi
before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.07.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
PRD/Subdivision
P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision