HE remand staff report PRD-2007-0020 & P-2007-0021.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121- 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
To: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
From:
Michael D. Clugston, AICP
Associate Planner
Date: December 1, 2011
File: REMAND OF P-2007-21 & PRD -2007-20 — A 10 -lot Formal Plat and Planned
Residential Development (PRD) now known as Stonebridge Court
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: December 8, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Council Chambers, Public Safety Building
250-5 th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020
]IIIIIIIII&IGME1u
Phoenix Development, LLC is proposing to complete the preliminary approvals for a 10 -lot
plat and Planned Residential Development (PRD) at 7723 and 7807 220th Street SW that
was originally proposed in 2007 (Attachment A). The formal plat (PLN20070021) was
granted conditional approval on September 11, 2007 but the associated PRD was
remanded by the Hearing Examiner (Attachment B, pages 26 and 27).
The remand states in (A):
ECDC 20.35.050(C) requires that a perimeter buffer be provided. The buffer is not
required if the proposal provides for the same front, side, and rear yard setbacks
applicable to the RS -8 zone for all lots adjacent to the perimeter of the
development. However, the Applicant has sought to modify the RS -8 required
setbacks for this proposal and therefore is required to provide a landscape buffer,
open space, or passive use recreational area of at least 15 feet (rear yard setback
of RS -8 zone) along the exterior property line. Exhibits, testimony, and Preliminary
plat maps do not depict this required buffer.
For the update, the applicant has chosen to use the same front, side and rear yard
setbacks applicable to the RS -8 zone for the ten lots since each lot in the plat is adjacent
to the perimeter of the development (Attachment C). As a result, no perimeter buffer is
required.
Page 1 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
The Examiner noted in (B) that:
If substantial modifications to the proposal are needed to address the need for a
perimeter buffer and the modification to the total lot coverage, for example lot or
street layout and design of the homes, then the revised design shall be submitted
to the ADB for review of the revised proposal and subsequent recommendation to
the Hearing Examiner. ADB review shall be conducted pursuant to ECDC
20.35.080(3) with no public hearing or comment required.
The changes to the revised PRD met the Hearing Examiner's threshold for Architectural
Design Board (ADB) review since new housing products and other changes were proposed
by Phoenix Development (Attachment F).
Finally, the remand decision stated in (C):
Remand of the PRD application does not impact the Hearing Examiner's decision to
conditionally approve the subdivision of the subject property. Review of the formal
plat application is subject to criteria specified in ECDC 20.75.085 and was based on
a total of 10 dwelling units, the maximum available under the RS -8 zoning district.
Since the PRD may not provide for more density than that permitted under the
zoning district, impacts have been reviewed at maximum development capacity.
While the basic layout of the revised plat is the same as the original, some changes have
been included on the revised plat which must be reviewed for compliance by the Hearing
Examiner. Also, several of the conditions on the existing preliminary approval need to be
modified to reflect the revised plat design.
MENRI IXTI-M81,09141
This project was submitted in 2007 and so is vested to the development standards that
existed at that time. These include:
® Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20, RS - Single Family
Residential
® ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements
® ECDC Chapter 20.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA)
® ECDC Chapter 20.35, Planned Residential Development (PRD)
® ECDC Chapter 20.75, Subdivisions
® ECDC Chapter 23.40, Environmentally Critical Areas
One section of code that has been updated since 2007 regulates how permit applications
are processed and noticed. The review processes and project noticing requirements are
essentially identical to those that existed in 2007, but they have been recodified. This
information used to be in ECDC Chapter 20.100 (Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory
Board, and City Council Review), but has been updated and is now located in ECDC 20.01
—Types of Development Project Permits.
Page 2 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
According to ECDC 20.01, preliminary review of PRDs and formal plats are Type III -B
permits with a public hearing and final decision by the Hearing Examiner. Planned
residential developments also require review and recommendation by the Architectural
Design Board as was noted in the Hearing Examiner's remand (ECDC 20.35.080.A.3). As a
result of the changes arising from the updated proposal, the ADB reviewed the revised
PRD in its entirety and made a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner that the
proposal is consistent with all of the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060
(Attachment G).
A. Applicant's Letter of Intent
B. Hearing Examiner decision and exhibits, dated September 11, 2007
C. Preliminary Plat and PRD Site Plan, dated September 30, 2011
D. Preliminary Engineering Plan, dated September 30, 2011
E. Plat name reservation
F. ADB staff report, dated October 26, 2011, with Attachments 1-20
G. ADB draft minutes and recommendation, dated November 2, 2011
H. Plat certificate
I. Preliminary Covenants for Stonebridge Court
J. Updated drainage assessment, dated September 2011
K. Public notice documentation
L. Preliminary Plat and PRD Site Plan, dated September 30, 2011 (large format)
M. Preliminary Engineering Plan, dated September 30, 2011 (large format)
N. Landscaping plan, dated September 15, 2011 (large format)
A. Owner: Vivian Swain et al
B. Applicant: Phoenix Development, LLC
C. Tax Parcel Numbers: 00461000201500, 0046100201600, and 0046100201701
D. Location: 7723 & 7807 220th Street SW
E. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS -8) — 5.5 units per acre maximum density
F. Project Size: 79,943 square feet (1.835 acres)
G. Existing Use: Two dilapidated single family residences and associated outbuildings
Page 3 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
H. Proposed Use: 10 -lot Planned Residential Development. At approximately 79,943 sq.
ft., the subject RS -8 parcels qualify for a development of up to 10 lots using PRD
requirements.
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). 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."
On November 18, 2011, a notice of development application and public hearing was
published in the Everett Herald newspaper and posted at the subject site, as well as the
other required locations (the Public Safety Building, City Hall, and the Edmonds Library).
The notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. The City has
complied with the noticing provisions in ECDC 20.03 (Attachment K).
The remand update was reviewed by Fire District #1 as well as the City's Engineering
Division, Parks and Recreation Department, and Public Works Department.
The Fire Marshal stated "call out and sign additional parking spaces along street or
restrictions, in order to maintain access for emergency vehicles." (Attachment 18 of
Attachment F) A condition is proposed to address this concern.
The Public Works and Parks Departments provided several comments (Attachment 19 of
Attachment F). Public Works stated:
1. Remove existing driveway approaches on 220th;
2. "Bypass SD line" is 300' with no access — add a manhole for maintenance access;
3. 10' drainage easement must be accessible with vactor —void of obstructions;
4. Confirm maintenance of detention system is that of property owners;
5. Contact OVWSD about connecting to sewer;
6. Abandon any existing water services.
Conditions are proposed to address #1, #2, #3 and #6. With respect to #4, the
maintenance of the detention system is described in Section 3 of Article 5 of the
preliminary covenants for the Stonebridge Court Homeowners' Association (Attachment
I, page 12). Comment #5 is addressed in existing Condition of Approval "A" (Attachment
B, page 27).
Page 4 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
Parks noted that the Autumn Applause Ash trees are not a good choice for right-of-way
plantings. The City's Street Tree Plan (Attachment 16 of Attachment F) contains a list of
recommended street tree species on pages 130 and 131. The applicant will need to work
with the Parks Department to determine the appropriate species for both 220th and 78th
Place; a condition to that effect is proposed.
The Engineering Division provided two comments with the PRD (Attachment 20 of
Attachment F). The first involved stormwater and indicated that the project is vested to
the stormwater regulations in effect at the time the original application was submitted in
2007. Also, it was mentioned that the proposed landscape buffer between the interior
plat street (78th Place W) and sidewalk, with portions of the public sidewalk being
located within a public easement on private property, was acceptable. In each case,
specific design and construction standards will be reviewed by the City when the civil
construction plans associated with the plat improvements are submitted.
_Ll_ • �� • •
The applicant submitted a Narrative Statement (Attachment 11 of Attachment F)
describing the updated Stonebridge Court project and how the proposal conforms to the
Edmonds Community Development Code. The following is staff's analysis of the revised
plat and PRD.
A. Compliance with ECDC 20.15A, Environmental Review
Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required in 2007 because
the plat/PRD contained 10 lots/units. 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).
B. Compliance with ECDC 20.35, Planned Residential Development
1. Alternative Standards, ECDC 20.35.030
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.
The updated plat/PRD proposes to modify the following RS -8 development
standards: lot size, lot width, and street and utility standards. Building setbacks
and lot coverages are no longer proposed to be altered from the regular RS -8
requirements (Attachments L and M).
a) Lot Size (ECDC 20.35.030.A.1.b). While the underlying RS -8 zone regularly
requires a minimum 8,000 square foot lot size, the updated preliminary
Page 5 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
plat/PRD shows lot sizes ranging from a minimum of 5,611 square feet up to
6,453 square feet (Attachment Q.
b) 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.
c) 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.
Conclusion: The proposed alternative standards are in keeping with the flexibility
provided in the PRD process and will create lots which will appear little different
than those created using the regular RS -8 development standards.
2. Criteria for establishing alternative development standards, ECDC 20.35.040
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 modify 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.
a) Providing more landscaping and greater buffering. A conceptual landscape
plan for the updated proposal illustrates the extent of retained and new
landscaping along the 78th Place, within the proposed lots, and in the common
open space areas adjacent to 220th Street (Attachment N). Proposed fencing
on the exterior of the development would provide additional transition and
buffering.
b) Efficient and safe circulation. Proposed 78th Place West would serve the new
homes and meet public safety requirements without significantly affecting
traffic levels or patterns existing in the area. Required off-street parking is
provided and if parking is anticipated within the 78th Place right-of-way, the
Fire District requested appropriate signage to ensure emergency access
(Attachment M).
c) Architectural Design. The Architectural Design Board reviewed the updated
project for compliance with the PRD single family design criteria. As indicated
in their recommendation, they found the proposal meets these criteria
(Attachment G).
d) Exterior setbacks. All standard RS -8 exterior setbacks are proposed to be
maintained (Attachment Q.
e) Reduced visual impact. 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). Building volumes are less than the maximum allowed
by the zone and are effectively broken up with design elements and details
Page 6 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
like porches, recessed garages, and the like (Attachments 13 and 17 of
Attachment F).
f) Preservation of Natural Features. 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).
g) Reduction of impervious surfaces. Use of shared driveways will result in a
reduction of impervious area as opposed to a standard subdivision
(Attachment M).
Conclusion: All of the criteria for establishing alternative development criteria
appear to be met for the revised proposal.
3. Decision Criteria for PRDs, 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.
a) Design Criteria. This criterion is met by complying with the Single Family
Design Criteria (ECDC 20.35.060) and meeting at least two more results from
the list of four in 20.35.050 subsections (A)(2) through (A)(5).
Criteria 1 is met. 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 (Attachment G).
Criteria 3 is met. The proposal includes two shared driveways, one serving
Lots 3 — 5 and another serving Lots 6 — 8 (Attachment M).
Criteria 4 is met. 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).
b) Public Facilities. The updated plat/PRD will be served by existing public
facilities available in the area including water, sewer, stormwater, streets,
schools, parks and nearby Community Transit bus stops (Attachment M,
Attachment 8 of Attachment B).
c) Perimeter Design. 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 Q.
d) Open Space and Recreation. 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. The proposed site plan
indicates that 9,123 sq. ft. of usable open space will be provided. Tract 997 is
392 sq. ft. at the northern end of the proposed cul-de-sac and will contain two
Page 7 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
benches. Tracts 998 and 999 are at the southern end of the site 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
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 1).
Conclusion: The revised PRD appears to meet the decision criteria. Conditions
recommended by the ADB and the Engineering Department should be included in
any approval.
4. Single Family Design Standards, ECDC 20.50.060
The Architectural Design Board reviewed the updated PRD on November 2, 2011
and recommended approval of the project with the following conditions
(Attachment G):
® THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO
DETERMINE APPROPRIATE STREET TREE SPECIES FOR BOTH 220TH STREET SOUTHWEST 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).
® EMERGENCY ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON PROPOSED 78TH PLACE SOUTHWEST. 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.
OTHERWISE, SIGNAGE MUST BE PROVIDED INDICATING THAT NO ON -STREET PARKING IS
PERMITTED ON 78TH PLACE SOUTHWEST.
C. Compliance with ECDC 20.75, Subdivisions
According to ECDC 20.75.110 (Changes to Preliminary Plats), "(ijf the proposal involves
additional lots, rearrangements of lots or roads, additional impacts to surrounding
property, or other major changes, the proposal shall be reviewed in the some manner
as the original application." In this case, since there were changes made to the PRD in
order to comply with ECDC 20.35, changes were therefore required to the associated
plat — the lots were slightly rearranged as was the proposed road.
The original proposal was found to meet the General Findings requirements of ECDC
20.75.080 (Attachment B). The proposed changes meet the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance as indicated below as well as the Zoning Ordinance (see
discussion of ECDC 20.35 compliance above).
1. Subdivision Review Criteria (20.75.085)
a) Environmental
(1) Subdivisions should be designed to minimize significant adverse impacts
where environmental resources exist (such as trees, streams, ravines, or
wildlife habitats). As noted in the SEPA discussion on page 5, no significant
environmental impacts will occur because of the development. There are
Page 8 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
a number of large trees on the parcel, some of which will be impacted by
the proposed development. That said, the arborist's report noted that up
to 18 existing trees will be retained (Attachment 12 of Attachment F). The
subdivision code does not require any tree retention so keeping up to 18 is
an improvement over what could otherwise occur. Retained trees must be
protected during development in accordance with ECDC 18.45.050 and as
identified in the Hearing Examiner's original condition "G" (Attachment B,
page 28). The 'Optional Tree Replanting Statement' on the face of the
preliminary plat and engineering plan shall not apply (Attachments L and
M).
(2) The site is fairly level so extensive grading will not be necessary. The
proposal further minimizes grading by using two shared driveways
(Attachment M).
(3) No hazardous conditions exist at the site (a critical areas 'waiver' was
issued for the site in CRA20060091).
(4) 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.
(5) Views in this location are local. It does not appear that they will be
negatively impacted by this proposal.
b) Lot and Street Layout
(1) 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 noted in the
Hearing Examiner's original decision, a 10 -lot plat is a reasonable use of
the property (Attachment B, page 27).
(2) Lot sizes and dimensions
The regular required minimum lot area for the RS -8 zone is 8,000 square
feet. Through the PRD process, however, the applicant has proposed to
reduce that as summarized below to make more efficient use of the land
and attain the allowed density of the zone (5.5 dwelling units per acre).
The structural coverage for each lot (area covered by houses, sheds, or
similar detached buildings) will remain below the maximum 35% for the
zone.
Proposed
Proposed
Lot Area (sf)
Lot Coverage
Lot 1 6,187
31.4%
Lot 2 5,727
30.4%
Page 9 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
pxn'200/20/P-2007-21
Similarly, the regular required lot width in the RS -8 zone is 70 feet. As
noted previously, through the PRD process lot width has been reduced to
between 55 and 68 feet (Attachment Q.
(3) Safe walk provisions
The subject site isprimarily served b«three area public schools: Chase
Lake Elementary, College Place Middle School, and EdnnOnd3-VV0Odvvay
High School. According toinformation available onthe Edmonds School
District website:
,,(accessed
November 3[i201I),all three schools are within walking distance ofthe
�»
site. Existing sidevva|ksand crosswalks are available along 22" Street SW
to access College Place and Ednnonds'VVoodvvaytO the east and north on
76 m Avenue West. Existing sidewalks and crosswalks are also available to
,
the vv8StoD22u� m and north on84 Avenue West tothe elementary
SohO0i
c) Dedications
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B).
d) Improvements
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B).
e\ Flood Plain Management
This project is not in a FEMA -designated flood plain.
No new public comments have been received regarding the updated plat and PRD.
the application and during the comment period, staff recommends that, as amended,
the proposed formal plat (P-2007-21) and planned residential development (PRD -200
20) known as Stonebridge Court should be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. I
Page 10 of 13
Lot 10
6,187
31.4%
Similarly, the regular required lot width in the RS -8 zone is 70 feet. As
noted previously, through the PRD process lot width has been reduced to
between 55 and 68 feet (Attachment Q.
(3) Safe walk provisions
The subject site isprimarily served b«three area public schools: Chase
Lake Elementary, College Place Middle School, and EdnnOnd3-VV0Odvvay
High School. According toinformation available onthe Edmonds School
District website:
,,(accessed
November 3[i201I),all three schools are within walking distance ofthe
�»
site. Existing sidevva|ksand crosswalks are available along 22" Street SW
to access College Place and Ednnonds'VVoodvvaytO the east and north on
76 m Avenue West. Existing sidewalks and crosswalks are also available to
,
the vv8StoD22u� m and north on84 Avenue West tothe elementary
SohO0i
c) Dedications
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B).
d) Improvements
See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B).
e\ Flood Plain Management
This project is not in a FEMA -designated flood plain.
No new public comments have been received regarding the updated plat and PRD.
the application and during the comment period, staff recommends that, as amended,
the proposed formal plat (P-2007-21) and planned residential development (PRD -200
20) known as Stonebridge Court should be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. I
Page 10 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
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. 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.
All of the existing conditions of the Hearing Examiner's September 11, 2007 approval
decision are proposed to be retained except as modified below:
8. Condition "B". This condition could be updated for clarification: "Pursuant to
receiving preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall submit civil construction
drawings to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The civil
construction drawings shall address the Engineering Requirements identified in
Attachment 8 of Exhibit A of Attachment B and shall include all PRD improvements
including street and entry landscaping, protected critical areas, fencing and
signage."
9. Condition "D". This condition has been met by submission of Attachment J and
can therefore be eliminated.
10. 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.
11. Condition "H". The Applicant submitted proposed covenants for Stonebridge
Court as part of the remand materials (Attachment 1). This condition can be
eliminated.
Page 11 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
12. Condition "I". The conditions of the initial ADB review from July 18, 2007 no
longer apply. This condition can be eliminated.
13. Condition "J". The Applicant has demonstrated compliance with ECDC 20.35
through this remand. This condition can be eliminated.
14. Condition "O". The subconditions (a.i, 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."
15. 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."
16. Condition "P.c". 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."
17. Condition "W. 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)."
UNEFTIT0091
A party of record may submit a written appeal of a Type III -B decision within 14 days of
the date of issuance of the decision. The appeal will be heard at a closed record review
before the City Council according to the requirements of ECDC Chapter 20.07.
Section 20.75.100 states, "Approval of a preliminary plat or preliminary short plat shall
expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has
acquired final plat or final short plat approval within the five-year period."
As a result of the decision rendered, the property owner may request a change in the
valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
Page 12 of 13
HE Remand Staff Report
Stonebridge Court
PRD -2007-20/P-2007-21
A. Loree Quade, Phoenix Development, LLC —16108 Ash Way, Suite 201, Lynnwood, WA
98087
B. Jim Egge, James Egge & Associates —10807 25th Street SW, Lake Stevens, WA 98258
C. Vivian Swain — 23306 Robin Hood Lane, Edmonds, WA 98020
D. Colleen McDonald — 22028 77th Place W, Edmonds, WA 98026
E. Bryan Briscoe — 21820 77th Place W, Edmonds, WA 98026
F. Larry Simonson — 300 NE 97th, Seattle, WA 98115
G. Kathy Lester — 21905 80th Avenue W, Edmonds, WA 98026
H. City of Edmonds —121 5th Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020.
Page 13 of 13