Park 212 _PRE-08-16_.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
th
121 5 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DSD: PD
EVELOPMENT ERVICES EPARTMENTLANNING IVISION
Pre-Application Meeting
Pre-Application Meeting
Date: November 13, 2008
Review By: Mike Clugston, AICP
Project Name: Park 212 Apartments
th
Site Address: 7300 213 Place SW
Zone: General Commercial (CG2)
Contact: Bob Carson (206-763-8496)
Description: New Multifamily Building and Townhouses
Use
Use
Existing Use: The 9.74 acre site is currently developed with nine multifamily buildings with a total of 273
units. The existing multifamily units were created under two contract rezones from Multifamily Residential
Low-Density (RML) to General Commercial (CG) in 1981 and 1983 (R-4-81 and R-6-83). In Ordinance
#2527 of 1985, the City created the General Commercial 2 (CG2) zone and applied that designation to
the parcel in question and others in the vicinity.
Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing two new sets of buildings for the site:
1) A new three-story, 24-unit multifamily building
2) 20 townhouse units
Use Allowed: Yes. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center. Because of the parcels location, there are no restrictions to residential use on the parcel,
nor minimum commercial space requirements. There is no maximum density in the CG2 zone.
Environmental Regulations
Environmental Regulations
Critical Area Determination: A critical areas determination will be required. The western portion of the
parcel is very steep and is the site a large retaining wall.
SEPA Review: A new SEPA determination will be required.
Development Standards
Development Standards
Setbacks: Per ECDC 16.60.020.A, the CG2 zone requires a 4 fully landscaped street setback. Any
th
changes to the existing landscaping in the 213 Street cul-de-sac would need to satisfy the 4
requirement. There is a 15 foot setback from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property.
Height: The maximum height is 75 feet.
Lot Coverage: There is no maximum lot coverage or floor area in the CG2 zone.
Parking: Parking requirements are defined in ECDC 17.50. As proposed, it appears that there will be
sufficient existing parking to satisfy the requirements for the site. The Parking Calculations shown on the
pre-app submittal should be included with the submittal for design review (and building permit).
Page 1 of 2
Design
Design
Design Review Required: Yes.
Design Review Process: Per ECDC 20.10.010.B, the proposed project is subject to district-based design
review and may be reviewed by staff (or by the Architectural Design Board at staffs discretion). The
proposal must meet the criteria provided in ECDC 16.60.030 and 20.11.030 as well as the design
objectives found on pages 43 49 and 73 81 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Because this is an infill project, the new buildings should be of a similar architectural style as the existing
buildings to ensure the site has a coherent appearance. If exterior improvements are anticipated to
update the existing structures to match the appearance of the new structures, it would be useful to
include those changes with the design review for the new buildings in order to streamline the process.
Landscaping: The existing site has a good amount of mature landscaping. New landscaping in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed structures must meet the requirements of ECDC 20.13 and should use
similar species that exist elsewhere on the site to create a unified appearance. Automatic irrigation is
required for projects over 4,000 square feet but since this is an infill project, automatic irrigation around
the new structures would only be necessary if it already exists on the site.
Signage: Signage requirements are defined in ECDC Chapter 20.60.
Timelines
Timelines
Design review for projects such as this commonly takes between 3 and 4 months. SEPA is processed
concurrently.
Fees
Fees
- $135 Critical areas checklist
- $15 City surcharge
- $150 Sign posting fee
- $420 SEPA review
- $100 Staff Design Review ($2,200 for ADB review, if applicable)
Page 2 of 2