PLN-2007-0020 PRD remand staff report.pdfCYTY (OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Project: Stonebridge Court Planned Residential Development
File Number: PLN20070020
Date of Report: October 26. 2011
From:
Mike Clugston, AICP
Associate Planner
Public Meeting: November 2, 2011 at 7:00 pm
City Council Chambers: Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
Phoenix Development, LLC is proposing to complete the preliminary approvals for a 10-
lot plat and Planned Residential Development (PRD) at 7723 & 7807 220' Street SW
that was originally proposed in 2007 (Attachment 1). The formal plat (PLN20070021)
was. granted conditional approval on September 11, 2007 but the associated PRD was
remanded by the Hearing Examiner in order to resolve several site design issues,
including lot coverage and perimeter design (Attachment 2). Legal action then ensued
and with the economic downturn, the proposal languished until mid-2011.
The general layout and scope of the project is unchanged between the original 2007
proposal and the revision of 2011 — it is still a 10-lot PRD and plat with a central cul-de-
sac road. However, while the basics of the project remain the same, some modifications
were made by the new developer in order to comply with the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) governing PRDs. The Hearing Examiner noted in the
remand 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
11LN20070020 "S1one1)ridge Court -
Page �2
pursuant to ECDC 20.35.080(3) with no public hearing or comment required. "
[Attachment 2, page 27, (2)(b)]
The changes to the revised PRD meet the Hearing Examiner's threshold for ADB review
since new housing products and additional vegetation retention and landscaping are
proposed by Phoenix Development. However, while the structural coverage for each lot
and the perimeter buffer issue appear to have been addressed, and will be reviewed by the
Hearing Examiner, the general appearance of the development remains largely the same
(Attachments 3 & 5).
H. REVIEW PROCESS
According to ECDC 20.02, 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 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 will review the revised
PRD in its entirety and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on whether the
proposal is consistent with all of the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Owner: Vivian Swain et al
2. Applicant: Phoenix Development, LLC
3. Tax Parcel Numbers: 00461000201500, 0046100201600, and 0046100201701
4. Location: 7723 & 7807 220th Street SW
5. Zoning: Single -Family Residential (RS-8) — 5.5 units per acre maximum density
(Attachment 4)
6. Project Size: 79,943 square feet (1.835 acres)
7. Existing Use: Two dilapidated single family residences and associated outbuildings
8. Proposed Use: 10-lot Planned Residential Development (Attachment 5). At
approximately 79,943 sq. ft., the subject RS-8 parcels qualify for a development of up
to 10 lots using PRD requirements.
IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
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). A SEPA Addendum for the
revised project was issued October 4, 2011; the proposed revisions to the PRD were not
found to create any new significant environmental impacts (Attachment 7).
13LN20070020 "S/onehridge Cottrl
Page 13
V. PUBLIC NOTICE
On October 21, 2011, a notice of development application 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 residents within 300 feet of the site. The City has complied with the noticing
provisions in ECDC 20.03 (Attachment 8).
VI. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Topography: The subject site is essentially flat.
2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, this
site consists of "Alderwood--Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes" (map unit
symbol 5).
3. Critical Areas: A waiver from further critical area study was issued in 2006
(CRA20060091).
1 ►_ @M 110] t1i Me [oil) 1X41 .:::V DI Oki LIYM
The proposed development is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods on the north
and south sides of 2201h Street SW, which is a busy collector street (Attachments 9 and
10). 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."
VIII. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA
While the Hearing Examiner will ultimately determine whether the revised proposal
meets the criteria to establish alternate development standards for a PRD (ECDC
20.35.030 and 20.35.040), the ADB must evaluate the project relative to the specific
single-family design standards that apply to PRDs in ECDC 20.35.060:
"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. "
Phoenix Development has provided a narrative discussing how they feel they meet the planned
residential development criteria (Attachment 11). The following is staff s analysis of the
standards in ECDC 20.35.060.
13LN20070020 "Sloitehf•ide Coitr1 Pa e 14
1. Site Design
A. Retain Significant Features
"Significant trees, topography and other environmental features as well as
historic or landmark structures should be retained and/or integrally included in
the design of the project. This might be done by designing homes that are
multilevel to respond to the existing topography or buildings which have an
irregular footprint to preserve healthy significant vegetation. "
As noted earlier in this report, there is little topography at the site and there are
two existing houses that are proposed to be removed. Most of the site is
overgrown with blackberries, weeds and brush. While there are no critical areas
on the site, there are several groups of existing mature trees that could be
preserved by effectively siting the proposed development.
The associated arborist's report identified 21 trees for possible retention and
recommended 18 be conditionally retained (Attachment 12). These trees,
primarily Douglas fir, are generally located near the boundary of the site which
reflects the fact that the arborist was asked to evaluate those trees that could be
retained based upon the revised site plan showing the proposed 10-lot PRD. It
would be possible to retain additional trees on the interior of the site but for the
possible expense of one or more building lots under the proposed development
scenario. Alternatively, the site layout could be redesigned using the flexibility
allowed through the PRD process in order to build the site around some of the
other existing trees that were healthy enough to be retained. That said, the
proposed level of retention is an improvement on the original PRD which showed
only 9 trees near the northeast corner of the site being kept.
The applicant has proposed an `optional tree replanting statement' (Attachment 5)
identifying tree replacement ratios for any retained trees that an arborist identifies
that must be removed during the development process; for example, when civil
subdivision improvements are being installed. The Hearing Examiner's 2007
PRD approval already includes a condition that addresses tree protection and
replacement which will be retained (Attachment 2, page 28, Condition G):
A certified arborist shall delineate a root zone around each tree proposed
for retention with temporary fencing which is intended to protect the
critical root zone during excavation and construction so as to maintain the
integrity of the retained tree. The fencing shall remain in place until final
landscaping is installed on the lot containing the retained tree. If any of
the retained trees are damaged during construction, the Applicant shall
replace that tree with a coniferous tree of 10 to 12 feet minimum in height.
B. Vehicular Access
"Driveway widths shall not exceed 20 feet at curb cuts. Curb cuts should never
exceed this width even if they provide direct access to a three -car garage. Shared
driveways between adjacent homes are encouraged as a way to reduce the
number and size of curb cuts and impervious surfaces. "
P L N 2 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 "Stonehrid e Court" Pale �5
As shown on Attachment 5, proposed driveway widths range from 15' to 18'.
Also, two shared driveways serve the rear lots, 3 — 5 and 6 — 8.
C. Garage Locations
"Homes should have a visually diminished garage front. "
The renderings in Attachment 13 show two -car garages with each of the proposed
homes that are at least somewhat recessed. While this meets code, it would be
interesting to see some side -loaded or even one -car garages.
D. Landscaping and Buffering
"Landscaping and buffering shall be consistent with the requirements of the
urban design guidelines. "
The Urban Design Guidelines include recommendations for landscaping
(Attachment 14). Concept E-1 (Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with
Adjacent Sites) recommends using street trees and plant materials similar to the
surrounding environment to blend a new project into the local context. As
indicated in Attachment 10, the subject site is located in an area of several larger
parcels that have not been recently subdivided. Large mature trees are located in
most of the adjacent parcels north of 2201h Street. South of 220th are more
common cul-de-sac and flag -lot subdivisions (Attachment 9).
As discussed above, the proposed landscaping plan shows the retention of 18
large trees, mostly on the exterior of the site (Attachment 15). Autumn Applause
Ash trees are proposed within a 5-foot planting strip adjacent to 78th Place West.
Several Summit Ash trees will buffer the houses from the cul-de-sac. Additional
vegetation near the southern portion of the site and the two larger open space
tracts will buffer the development from 220th Street.
A 6-foot solid wood fence is proposed on the north, east and west property lines
and a 3-foot split rail fence is proposed for the southern property line adjacent to
220th. The 3-foot fence will provide an obvious transition from the street to the
development while allowing vision into and out of the site. The 6-foot solid
fence, on the other hand, would serve to split the development off from the rest of
the neighborhood creating an exclusive feel. The intent of the PRD is not to
create exclusivity but rather to buffer and blend the development into the existing
surroundings; there are no tall fences on the north side of 220th and only a few in
the immediate area south of the road. Perhaps using the 3-foot split rail fence
around the entire development would be more appropriate.
Absent from the proposed landscaping plan are the required street trees along
220th Street SW. The Amanagawa Cherry (min. 2" caliper) is called for in the
Edmonds Street Tree Plan (Attachment 16). A small, narrow tree, the
Amanagawa Cherry should be spaced between 30 and 40 feet on -center within or
adjacent to the 2201h Street right-of-way.
11LN20070020 ".Slonebridhe Corirt Page 16
E. Building Entrances
"Homes should have a dominant front porch andlor entry expression. A separate
pedestrian access should be provided from the sidewalk to the main building
entrance. "
Most of the homes shown (Attachment 13) exhibit a font porch/entry which is
more or less dominant on the fayade. Many of the lots also show a walkway from
the sidewalk to the entry (Attachment 5).
F. Open Space Requirements
"For PRDs with critical areas, separate open space tracts designated "critical
areas open space" should be created for their protection. Usable open space shall
be provided in accordance with ECDC 20.35.050(D). "
As mentioned previously, there are no critical areas on the site and so no `critical
area open space' areas are proposed. Usable open space, on the other hand is
proposed. ECDC 20.35.050(D) states:
"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. "
Since the overall site is 79,943 square feet, a minimum of 7,994 square feet of
usable open space is required. The site plan (Attachment 5) indicates three
separate open space tracts are proposed totaling 9,123 square feet (11.4% of gross
lot area). The code requires that the open space must also be usable. As indicated
on the landscaping plan (Attachment 15), there will be walking paths within the
two larger tracts adjacent to 220th Street (Tracts 998 and 999), two benches within
Tract 999, and two benches in the smaller northern tract at the end of the cul-de-
sac (Tract 997).
G. Street Design
"Site design should include a residential neighborhood street design which
includes elements such as sidewalks on both sides, street trees and
planting/parking strips. Each residential lot should have at least one associated
street tree planted in the parking strip if present or in the front yard if not. "
As indicated on the landscape plan (Attachment 15), street trees are proposed
along the new access road, 78th Place West, within a planting strip. Sidewalks are
131.N20070020 "St one1)ridge Corrrt "
Page 17
interior to the planting strip and link the cul-de-sac to existing sidewalks on 220th
Street SW. There are additional yard trees proposed for Lots 3 — 8.
Two small landscaped areas are proposed at the entrance to the development
which provides transition from 220th to 78th Place. Any signage anticipated for
the entrance must meet the requirements of ECDC 20.60.025.13.2 which states:
"The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential
subdivisions, planned residential developments (PRD), or multifamily
structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per
main street entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be
provided at each main entrance. "
Further, any sign on either side of the entrance to 78th Place West could be no
taller than 3 feet above existing grade since it would be located within a required
street setback area.
2. Building Design
A. Characteristics of Single -Family Development
"To demonstrate a residential quality, single-family homes should have a strong
connection between the street and the house. This can be accomplished by
providing a pedestrian access or walk from the street to the front door or porch.
From the street, the design should not emphasize the garage, but rather the
human scale and elements of design (this could include pedestrian entrances,
windows, and details that are a smaller, more human scale and texture). "
There is good connection between most of the proposed houses and 78th Place. It
might have been even better if the proposed street setbacks were reduced to less
than the 25 feet required in the underlying RS-8 zone, but many of the homes have
a direct path from the sidewalk to a front entry/porch and transitional landscaping
in the front yards. The color renderings and elevations (Attachments 13 & 17)
show houses with slightly recessed two -car garages, more dominant pedestrian
entrances, as well as varying roof forms and window details.
B. Entries and Porches
"Porches contribute to the richness and warmth of a neighborhood, therefore
houses should have front porches consistent with the style and scale of the house
and the neighborhood. Main entries should be prominent and oriented to the
street. "
Each of the houses in Attachments 5 and 13 shows a well -integrated pedestrian
entry oriented toward 78th Place West. The porches for the houses on Lots 3,4,5,7
and 9 appear to be large enough to be used for outdoor seating, encouraging
additional opportunity for neighborhood interaction.
PLN20070020- Slortebrie Court " Page 18
C. Materials
"Materials should be used in a consistent manner on all sides of the house. In
other words, do not use several materials to enhance the front of the building but
leave the sides and back unembellished. "
Attachments 13 and 17 indicate that attractive materials will be used throughout
the development, not simply on the facades facing 78th Place West.
D. Garages
"Garages facing the street or located at the front of a house should be no wider
than one-half the width of the house. "
According to the elevation drawings (Attachment 17), it appears that each of the
two -car garages is less than 50% of the width of the house. One -car garages
would have been even less dominant, particularly on Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10.
IX. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
This application 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) A
condition is proposed to address this concern.
The Public Works and Parks Departments provided several comments (Attachment 19).
Most apply to the associated plat and conditions will be added as appropriate but 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) 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 781h Place.
The Engineering Division provided comments with the PRD (Attachment 20). These
were mainly stormwater related and therefore will be addressed as part of the review of
the plat by the Hearing Examiner. However, it was mentioned that the proposed
landscape buffer between the interior plat street (781h Place W) and sidewalk, with
portions of the public sidewalk being located within a public easement on private
property, was acceptable. Specific design and construction standards will be reviewed
with the civil construction plans associated with the plat improvements.
Based on the analysis and attachments to this report, staff finds that the project meets the
zoning ordinance and therefore proposes that the Architectural Design Board recommend
APPROVAL of the revised Stonebridge Court Planned Residential Development project
as shown in file PLN20070020 with the following conditions. These conditions are in
addition to those already issued as part of the Hearing Examiner's original 2007 decision
(Attachment 2):
P L N 2 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 "SIonebrid e Court "
Page 19
1. The applicant shall work with the Parks and Recreation Department to determine
appropriate street tree species for both 2201h 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.
XI. PARTIES OF RECORD
1. Loree Quade, Phoenix Development, LLC — 16108 Ash Way, Suite 201, Lynnwood,
WA 98087
2. Jim Egge, James Egge & Associates — 10807 25th Street SE, Lake Stevens, WA
98258
3. Vivian Swain— 23306 Robin Hood Lane, Edmonds, WA 98020
4. City of Edmonds — 1215th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020.
XII. ATTACHMENTS
1. Cover letter from Phoenix Development
2. Excerpt of Hearing Examiner's decision, dated September 11, 2007
3. Original ADB staff report and minutes, dated July 11 and 18, 2007
4. Zoning map
5. Revised PRD site plan
6. SEPA MDNS, dated July 3, 2007
7. SEPA Addendum, dated October 4, 2011
8. Public notice info
9. Aerial photo
10. Oblique aerial (`Bing maps", accessed October 7, 2011)
11. Project narrative from Phoenix Development
12. Arborist's report and tree inventory
13LN20070020 "Slonebridge Corart "
Page 110
13. Color renderings of housing products
14. Excerpt of Edmonds Urban Development Guidelines
15. Landscape plan (color and black and white)
16. Excerpt of Edmonds Street Tree Plan
17. Elevation drawings
18. Fire District comments
19. Public Works and Parks comments
20. Engineering comments