Ordinance 33830006.150.013A
WSS/gjz
11 /29/01
ORDINANCE NO.3383
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT -SUBDIVISION FORMERLY KNOWN AS
LINCOLN ESTATES AND NOW DESIGNATED AS
WOODBURY AT EDMONDS AND LOCATED AT 23415 —
100' AVENUE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
APPLICATION NO. P-2000-105 AND PRD-2000-21, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL. BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council heard at public hearing the request of Metro Homes
formerly known as Lincoln Estates and now called Woodbury at Edmonds to construct a planned
residential development/subdivision at 23415 100t" Avenue West, File Nos. P-2000-105 and
PRD-2000-21; and
WHEREAS, after such hearing and considering the recommended findings of its
Hearing Examiner, the City Council adopted said findings of fact and conclusions of law giving
preliminary approval to the planned residential development -subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the report of the City staff reviewing a
final development plan and the staff s recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that said final plan contains final, precise
drawings of all the information required by ECDC 20.35.030 and is accompanied by all
covenants, homeowners associations and maintenance agreements, and other relevant legal
documents; and
{WSS498677.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 1 -
WHEREAS, said final development plan conforms to the preliminary approval
both PRD and subdivision and to all applicable conditions thereof, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The final development plan for a planned residential development and
subdivision, original application numbers PRD-2000-2 and P-2000-105, is hereby finally
approved. Said plan and all accompanying conditions, as shown on the attached Exhibit A are
hereby adopted. All maps, drawings and exhibits required by City ordinance including the
subdivision plat and set forth on the attached Exhibit B are incorporated by this reference as fully
as if herein set forth.
Section 2. The boundaries of said project are set forth on the attached Exhibit C,
along with the legal description of said planned residential development, incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 3. This subdivision plat is hereby approved for filing.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROV D:
M OR G Y HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS498677.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OFT EC ATT EY:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 12/07/2001
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 12/11/2001
PUBLISHED: 12/18/2001
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/23/2001
ORDINANCE NO. 3383
{WSS498677.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 -
BEFORE ,THE EDMONDS CITE' COUNCIL
Re the Application of METCO Homes File No. PRD-2000-21
for Planned Residential Development File No. P-2000-105
and Preliminary Plat
This matter came on for review by the Edmonds City Council on a closed record review
on November 21, 2000. After hearing presentation of staff and the developer, no other interested
party having appeared, the City Council hereby adopts as its Findings of Fact and Conclusions,
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of the City's Hearing Examiner dated
October 19, 2000.
DECISION AND CLARIFICATION
In clarification of its decision, the City Council notes that all streets and rights of way
within the subdivision are and shall be dedicated to public use on the face of the preliminary plat
and final plat in this matter.
DONE THIS 19th 'day of December, 2000.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S: Chase, City Clerk
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:..�,
ayor G Haakenson
EXHIBIT A
File No. PRD-2000-21
and P-2000-105
fhc.189v
CITY.OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771=0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE BEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANT:
Metco Homes
CASE NO.: P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
LOCATION: 23415 100`" Ave. W (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1)
APPLICATION: Planned Residential Development and concurrent Formal Plat
Approval for 27 single-family lots (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
REVIEW PROCESS: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes
recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, who conducts a public
hearing and issues a recommendation to the City Council. The
City Council reviews the record and issues the final decision on
both the Formal Plat and the Planned Residential Development.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20
(RS - RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 18
(PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 2035
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PRD).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.75
(SUBDIVISIONS).
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY
COUNCIL REVIEW).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff: Approve with conditions
Hearing Examiner: Approve with conditions
File No. PRD-2000-21
• Incorporated August I7 and P-2000-105
Sitar 0tv - HPkinan_ .lanan
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the Metco Homes application was opened at 9:40 a.m., October 5, 2000, in the.
Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for public testimony at 10:50
a.m. The hearing was held open administratively to close of business on October 12, 2000 to
allow additional information to -be submitted into the record. Participants at the public hearing
and the exhibits offered and entered are listed this report. A verbatim recording of the. hearing is
available in the Planning Division.
HEARING TESTIMONY:
The following is a summary of the testimony offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the
record as Exhibit A. He explained that:
• The proposal would include 26 new homes and one existing home for a total of 27
homes in a PRD.
• The proposed lots would be smaller than the surrounding lots, but would include
some common open space.
• SEPA review has been completed and no appeals were filed.
• The Architectural Design Board reviewed the proposal and recommended approval
with three conditions:
• That the street cross-section includes sidewalks and planting strips on both sides.
of the center road.
• That the center road shall provide for two lanes of traffic and no on -street parking.
• That the size of the detention pond should be reduced and the pond be covered to
create a detention vault with landscaping on top, which eliminates the need for the
proposed access road.
From the Applicant:
Steven Michael Smith, Applicant's Planner, concurred with the staff advisory report, except
for a few issues. He took exception with the following:
• Engineering Condition #17.f found in Attachment 8 to Exhibit A: He noted that the
traffic study referred to in this condition has already been reviewed and approved;
therefore, no further review should be required. He also noted that the City has
extensively reviewed the traffic issues and the City's standards for traffic have been
met.
• Condition #1. A5. e found in Exhibit A: He said the applicant has significant concerns
about the feasibility of a vault instead of an open cell pond. He is not aware of a City
requirement that would require a vault instead of a pond. He said the applicant is
willing to provide fencing/landscaping to make the pond more aesthetically pleasing.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 3
He also noted that the drainage study was for an open two -cell pond and that study
has been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division.
• . Engineering Condition # 3 found in Attachment 8 to Exhibit A: He said that
requirement would result in a 33-foot wide road to allow parking. He feels that due to
the small size of the lots and the small amount of space between driveways, not much
on -street parking would actually be provided. He would like to reduce the width of
the street to reduce stormwater runoff.
• 'Engineering Condition 414 found in Attachment 8 to Exhibit A: The requirement to
provide signage indicating "parking on one side only" should be change to "no
parking" to reflect the narrower streets requested.
• Engineering Condition# 17.g found in Attachment 8 to Exhibit A: He said the
applicant wishes to take access for Lot.25 from Lincoln Drive instead of 99th Place W
as required by this condition.
• Condition #I.B.5. c) found in Exhibit A: He submitted Exhibit C; to clarify the
condition and show the applicant's proposed setbacks.
From the Community:
Miklos Kohary said:
• He feels this is a much -needed development that is well thought out.
• He feels the north/south main road should be allowed without requiring increased
width as that would just result in inore surface water runoff.
He believes the open pond with landscaping or a fence should be allowed instead of a
detention vault.
• He is a commuter and sees no traffic problem in the neighborhood now and does not
believe the proposal will impact traffic.
Jean McAree said:
• She is concerned over traffic and she read Exhibit B into the record.
• She wanted to know what the access to the development would be.
• She wanted to know what the developer would do to solve the traffic problem on
234th St. SW and 94`h Pl. W.
• She wanted to know if 234th would be extended.
Eau Deal Aho said:
• She wants a fence to be constructed on the rear lot lines of Lots 19 and 20 particularly
during construction of the houses so she is not unduly impacted.
• There is a little road adjacent to her house that is not shown on the plan and she did
not want that road to be used for access, particularly during construction.
• She is concerned about construction noise because her bedroom is at the rear of her
house next to Lots 19 and 20.
Response from the Applicant:
Steven Michael Smith said:
• There will be no traffic access from 234th to the west. However, the existing walkway
will remain as it is.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 4
• The applicant may build a fence along the south side of the project for marketing
purposes.
• The applicant is not required to pay for problems that already exist, but only for
impacts directly related to the project.
• He stressed again the applicant's desire for a 24-foot wide roadway instead of a 33-
foot wide roadway.
Kristi Park, Metco Homes, said:
A six-foot high perimeter fence will be constructed when they build the homes, and a
temporary perimeter fence will be installed during construction.
Mike Metzner, Metco Homes, said:
• The applicant was concerned about providing enough parking so three spaces for
visitors are planned.
Response from the City:
Steve Bullock said:
• He did not believe the project would have a significant traffic impact and noted that.
there would be no access to the east, but rather only to the west.
• Staff would like to see all setbacks shown on the plat map and noted .that staff applies
street setbacks on all street frontages.
• Staff and the Architectural Design Board would like to explore other options
regarding the retention ponds and noted that the proposed access to the ponds
precludes adequate landscaping of the ponds.
• Many of the houses would have three car garages and could conceivably provide off-
street parking for six cars. Therefore, he felt a two-lane street with no parking.would
be justified.
• The driveway noted in the Lindell letter (Attachment 9 to Exhibit A) would have to
meet City standards.
• Staff concurred with the setbacks proposed by the applicant.
Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Division, said:
• The Engineering Division would prefer a two -cell pond for better water quality and
ease of cleaning. A detention vault raises safety issues for City crews. He noted that
the lids on the vaults are not designed to handle the load of vector trucks to park on
while they are being cleaned out.
• He disagrees with the proposal to have no on -street parking. He feels residents of the
development will have people over and there will not be adequate parking for them.
He recommended parking on one side of the street.
• He had no problem with the applicant's request to allow access to Lot 25 from
Lincoln Drive.
• During construction, the contractors will be required to use 230 and the utility strip
next to the Aho residence will be blocked off with a construction fence.
• 234th will not be extended for vehicular traffic due to its grade.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 5
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Shane: The subject property is approximately 6.04 acres in area, and is
generally rectangular in shape with property frontage on 100"' Ave. W. and 2340'
St. SW. The property has approximately 620 feet of frontage along 1000', 435 feet
of frontage along 234t' (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
(2) Land Use: The site is currently developed with one detached single-family
. residence (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
(3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation. The subject property is a gentle valley which rises up on
both the east and west sides (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3).
The majority of the site is covered with grasses and in some spots, groves. of
mature trees.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is zoned
RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(2) South: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is zoned
RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(3) East: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is zoned
RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
(4) West: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is zoned
RS-8 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development of detached single-family residences would be
compatible with adjacent zoning and development.
B. State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA)
1. Fact: AMitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued by the City's
SEPA Responsible Official on September 12, 2000. The Environmental Determination. is
included as Exhibit A, Attachment 7.
2. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 6
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Development Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family residential
development in the RS-8 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20.
(2) Because the applicant is proposing a PRD, the individual lots do not meet the
minimum lot size requirement of the underlying zone, RS-8..But the proposal does
not have any more units than would be allowed by the underlying. zoning and it is
providing open space that otherwise might not be supplied.
(3) The applicant proposes to modify the setbacks for the new lots through the PRD
process.. The applicant's proposal is for 20-foot street setbacks, 15-foot rear
setbacks and 5-foot side setbacks. In the RS-8 zone they are required to be 25, 15
and 7.5 feet respectively. The smaller setbacks would not impact any surrounding
properties except as follows:
(a) Lots 1, 5, 6 and 7 would provide only 5 or 20 feet of setback to the 234`h St. -SW.
right-of-way where 25 feet is required,
(b) Lots 7 and 17 would provide only 5 feet of side setback were 7.5 is required.
(4) No comments from the public or surrounding property owners have been submitted
which indicate a concern over these issues.
(5) No request was made to reduce the lot coverage limit of 35% for the RS-8 zone.
The lots still appear to be of sufficient size to allow for reasonable sized homes
under the RS-8 35% lot coverage limit.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Staff indicated support of the setbacks proposed for the PRD throughout the site,
including the six lots on the perimeter that have less than the underlying zone
requires. No other reductions from the underlying zone regulations have been
requested. The Examiner concurs with the staff recommendation.
(2) If the PRD. is approved, the development proposal will be consistent with the
development standards of the RS-8 zone.
2. Access Tract and Right -of -Way Improvements
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Chapter 18.80 establishes the design standards for the improvement of
public and private rights -of -way.
(2) The City of Edmonds Engineering Division is the responsible agency for
interpreting and enforcing ECDC Chapter 18.80.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 7
(3) The Engineering Division has submitted written requirements for proposed
subdivision improvements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
b) Conclusion: The applicant should submit to the Engineering Division the civil
engineering plans for all improvements required for compliance with ECDC Chapter
18.80 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
3. Critical Areas Ordinance
a) Facts:
(1) The subject proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15E .(Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance).
(2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the City has issued a
Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Critical Areas Study (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 5).
b) Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the ECDC Chapter
20.15B.
D. Planned Residential Development (PRD)Ordinance Compliance
1. Review of preliminary plan for a PRD
a) Facts: ECDC 20.35.040.A states that the. Architectural Design Board (ADB) will
review a PRD. The Architectural Design Board shall review the proposal using the
criteria of Chapter 20.10 ECDC and make .recommendations to be considered by the
Hearing Examiner and included in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to the City
Council.
(1) The ADB reviewed the proposed project on July 19, 2000 and recommended .
approval of the project with the conditions noted on Exhibit A, Attachment. 5.
b) Conclusions: The project will be consistent with Chapter 20.10 if the conditions of the
ADB (as modified by the Examiner) are included as part of the project approval.
c) Fact: ECDC 20.35.040.B requires both Hearing Examiner and City -Council Review.
The -Hearing Examiner shall make recommendations and City Council shall review the
proposal under the provisions of ECDC 20.100.010 and 20.100.030.
d) Fact: ECDC 20.35.040.0 describes the Review Criteria. The Hearing Examiner and
City Council shall review the application for conformity with the comprehensive plan,
the zoning ordinance, the criteria of the subdivision ordinance, the review criteria of
this chapter and shall review the following additional factors:
(1) Compatibility with existing and planned land use in the nearby area;
(2) Assurances that the planned residential development will be developed as
presented in design documents and statements of intent.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 8
e) Conclusions:
(1) As noted in section A of this report, the proposed development is similar in density
and is consistent with all existing and planned land uses in the nearby area.
(2) Assurances that the planned residential development will be developed as proposed.
will be provided through the final approval process.
2. Review Criteria for a PRD
a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.35.050 states the following (applicable) general guidelines
and review criteria which shall be used to review PRD's:
(1) Only those properties where an unusual circumstance exists making it difficult to
develop on a lot -by -lot basis may be considered for a PRD. This is intended to
include situations such as: steep slopes, wetlands, significant and substantial
natural features (groves of woods, specimen trees, animal habitats, streams, ponds,
lakes), views or historic structures.
(2) All projects shall give special treatment to perimeter transition so as to minimize
neighborhood impact through buffering, screening and landscaping.
(3) Each project must demonstrate there is a clear benefit to the public by adoption of
the proposed PRD site such as:
(a) The creation of beneficial open space;
(b) The preservation of significant natural features;
(c) The provision for substantive additional public use facilities such as walkways,
bike paths, or public access to beach or park;
(d) Reduced density; the proposed PRD density will be compared with the city of
Edmonds planning department staffs position as to the actual maximum
number of dwelling units reasonably likely using the underlying zoning
b) Conclusions:
(1) The proposal is located on one of the larger remaining parcels in the City of
Edmonds and care is being taken to preserve mature vegetation on the property.
Furthermore, the incorporation of tree lined streets; landscape islands, perimeter
landscape screens and monument entrance plantings provide substantive public
amenities that may not otherwise have been provided.
c) Facts: ECDC Section 20.35.060 states the following (applicable) specific guidelines
and review criteria which shall be used to review PRD's:
(1) This area of the city is identified as single-family residential, and therefore, every
PRD in this zone shall be consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and
maintain building height of that zone.
(2) Only single-family detached homes are permitted.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 9
(3) The city may approve a change from any of its regular development regulations
except allowable density and building height.
(a) Allowable Density. The number of dwelling units permitted is calculated by
dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot area of the zone district
in which the site is located. Net developable area is determined by subtracting
the area set aside for streets from the total development area. Fractional units
shall be rounded to the closest whole number.
(b) Building Height. The maximum height of any building shall not exceed the
height permitted in the zone in which the site is located. If the proposal is
located in zones with different height requirements, buildings located in each
zone shall conform to the zone within which the building is located. If any .
building will be built on two or more different zones, the most restrictive height
requirements shall apply.
(4) The following items may be changed if the applicant can meet the requirements for
a variance as to each such item:
(a) Off -Street Parking Requirements. Off-street parking requirements shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.50 ECDC.
(b) Open Space Land. A minimum of 20 percent of the net developable land shall
be dedicated or reserved as usable common open space land. Driveways,
parking lots and required yard areas are not open space. The applicant shall
specify how the open space shall be maintained. The city may require
covenants running with the land naming the city as the beneficiary of the
covenant or other requirements to insure that adequate provision for
maintenance of the open space will be provided.
(c) Coverage. Coverage of the site by buildings and other structures shall not
exceed the largest percentage permitted in any zone in which the project is
located.
(d) Setbacks. The minimum residential development shall distance between a
building and the exterior boundary line in the planned be determined by the
Hearing Examiner and the City Council.
(e) Design Concepts. All projects may propose concepts such as:
(i) Greenbelts, community buildings or recreation facilities;
(ii) Dwelling units clustered around a common court, playground or
recreational area;
(iii)Common ownership of exterior spaces and community facilities;
(iv) Lots of minimum area with the balance of the site held in common
ownership.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 10
(f) Park Land Dedication. Dedication of land for use as public park to meet the
requirements of parkland dedication, ECDC 20.75.090, or park in -lieu fee,
ECDC 19.00.010.
(g) Uses. Only uses listed in the zone in which the proposal is located may be
approved.
(5) Size. A five -lot minimum shall be applicable to all planned residential
developments.
d) Conclusions:
(1) The proposed development is a single-family development that conforms to the
density allowed in the underlying zone. No requests for modification of building
heights have been requested and none would be allowed.
(2) The proposed development is providing 20% of its net developable area as open
space. These open spaces areas are protecting existing mature vegetation and
providing screening from adjacent arterial roads.
(3) Setbacks are proposed to be different from the underlying zoning. Staff has
reviewed this issue and the Hearing Examiner concurs that no obvious problems
would occur if the houses are located as proposed.
(4) No off-street parking requirements are proposed to be changed, no lot coverage
requirements are proposed to be changed, only uses permitted by the zone are
proposed and no parkland is required to be dedicated.
(5) The PRD should be approved with the conditions recommended by the
Architectural Design Board, as modified in this report by the Hearing Examiner.
E. Subdivision Ordinance Compliance
1. General Findings of a Subdivision
a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.75.080 states that the proposed subdivision may be approved
only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal, as approved
or as conditionally approved:
(1) Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter
(as listed in Section 20.75.020) and meets all the requirements of this chapter.
(2) Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (ECDC Title 15), or other adopted city policy, and is
in the public interest.
(3) Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
or a modification has. been approved as provided for in this chapter.
(4) Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code relating to flood plain management.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 11 .
b) Conclusions: The proposal, as conditioned below, complies with Section 20.75.080. It
is consistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan (see Sections C. & E). As
discussed in paragraph 2 below, it is consistent with Section 20.75.085 of the
Subdivision Ordinance. With the. recommended conditions of approval, there are
adequate provisions for open spaces, drainage ways, rights -of -way, easements, water
supplies, sanitary waste, power service, parks, playgrounds and schools; it will serve the
public use and interest and is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare..
2. Review Criteria for a Subdivision
a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.75.085 states that the following (applicable) review criteria
shall be used to review proposed subdivisions: .
(1) Environmental.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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 parts 1(a) and 2(b) of the subsection.
(d) The proposal shall be designed to minimize offsite impacts on drainage, views
and so forth.
(2) Lot and Street Layout.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) Each lot shall meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(d) Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools, parks,
public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not adequate.
(3) Dedications.
(a) The City Council may require dedication of land in the proposed subdivision
for public use.
(4) Improvements.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 12
(a) 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.
(5) Flood Plain Management. .
(a) All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the
Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
The subject property is not identified on the Federal Flood Plain Management
maps.
(6) A letter was submitted to the City by Terry and Lori Lindell, adjacent property
owners in the southeast comer of the site, with concerns over access. This lot
currently has access easement rights over the subject property to the west side of
their property. The proposed development provides for their continued access, but
they are concerned with its viability: The City's engineering standards will not
allow for a street or road to be constructed in an unsafe or unusable manor (see
Exhibit A, Attachment 9).
b) Conclusions: '
(1) The proposed plat layout is designed to minimize potential adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Open space tracts have been created to preserve existing
mature trees. Lots have also been located to minimize grading.
(2) Street improvements should include on -street parking along the entire length of the
west side of 99`h Place W, except for planting areas at the north and south ends of
each block and parking signage should be as described in Exhibit E. The
additional parking now proposed should be adequate to allow residents to
conveniently have more than a small number of guests at any one time. The
planting areas at the ends of the blocks that are now proposed on in Exhibit E will
also reduce the real and perceived amount of asphalt in the development.
(3) The proposed storm water detention facility has been revised as shown on Exhibits
F, J and K. The revised proposal provides significantly more landscaping and
screening than was originally proposed, and the newly proposed access to the
stormwater facility will allow a continuous strip of landscaping to be planted along
100th Ave. W. The Examiner concludes that the two cell water detention system as
now proposed is a marked improvement over the original proposal and it should
receive preliminary approval.
(4) Engineering review and street and driveway standards should resolve concerns
expressed by the Lindells.
(5) The proposed plat appears to be consistent with the lot layout design considerations
and lot dimension requirements required by the ECDC.
(6) The proposed plat does provide for the improvements. The Engineering Division
should review the improvement plans to ensure compliance with ECDC Chapter
18.80.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 13
3. Completion of Improvements
a) .Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.75.130.13 states that the applicant shall either complete the
improvements before the final plat. is submitted for City Council approval, or the
applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the completion of
the improvements within one year of the approval of the plat.
(2) In order to insure the correct value of the bond, the City Engineering Division will
not allow the posting of the bond or the recording of the subdivision until the City
Engineer has approved the site development plan.
b) Conclusion: Pursuant to Section 20.75.130.B, the applicant may submit a one-year
performance bond in lieu of completing required improvements prior to recording,
but after the approval of the civil engineered site improvement plan.
4. Final Plat and PRD Documents
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Sections 20.35.080, 20.75.135, 20.75.140 and 20.75.145 set forth the
requirements for the preparation of the final PRD and plat documents.
(2) ECDC Section 20.35.080 and 20.75.155 set forth the procedure for the review of
the final PRD and plat application.
(3) PRD are required, to obtain final approval within three years of their preliminary
plat approval. Final Plats are allowed five years.
F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) Compliance
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Facts:
(1) The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential".
(2) The proposal is for 27 lots designed for development with single-family residences.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive .
Plan Land Use designation for the site.
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The. Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals_ and
policies, which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and
policies are discussed in detail below.
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development
which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be
maintained and promoted.... "
b Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and
policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 14
G. Technical Committee
1. The Fire Department, -Engineering Division, and Parks and Recreation Division have made
comments pertaining to the proposed plat. Those comments have been incorporated into
the most recent set of plans, included in this packet, or are dealt with through the
.Engineering Department requirements (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended, this application be
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to
ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
2. The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination dated 9/12/2000 (see.
Exhibit A, Attachment 7).
3. The applicant shall comply with the City of Edmonds Engineering Division Requirements
dated 8/11/2000 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8), as modified by other conditions in this
report.
4. Pursuant to ECDC Section 18.50.010, all utility lines shall be placed underground.
5. Prior to approval of the final subdivision and PRD, the applicant shall:
a) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership of the subject
property on the date that the property owner(s) (as indicated in the report) sign(s) the
subdivision documents.
b) Comply with the portions of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division Requirements
dated 8/11/2000, which are required prior to recording (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8).
c) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks shown on
the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will be allowed in
the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved."
d) Construct the main street (99t' Place W), which comes off of 234" St. SW. and
terminates at the round planter island to have a cross section which includes two lanes
of traffic, parking on one side, planting strips on both sides of the street with widened
planting areas at the north and south ends of each block, and sidewalks on both sides
of the street. The Planting strips shall include street trees as indicated on the
landscape plan, planted at a size to allow 7 feet of clear space under the branches.
e) Construct a detention facility as conceptually shown on Exhibits F, J and K, however,
it is acknowledged the final size and configuration of the facility may change to some
degree during detailed engineering. The applicant must receive approval from the
Engineering Division for design and access to the detention facility, and must receive
approval from the Planning Division for landscaping associated with the facility prior
to construction.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 15
f) Install fire hydrant(s) to specifications required by the Engineering Division and Fire
Department.
g) Submit a one-year performance security in accordance with the requirements of
ECDC Section 20.75.130.B for any required improvements, which have not been
completed.
6. The applicant . shall submit a two-year maintenance security once all required
improvements are completed.
7. ECDC Section 20.75.130.A states that the applicant shall not. begin installation of
improvements until the Development Services Director has approved the improvement
plans, the Development Services Director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a
time schedule for installation of the . improvements, and the applicant has paid an
inspection fee, as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00. -
Entered this 19th day of October 2000 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner
under Chapter 20.1-00 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell, FAICP
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND COUNCIL ACTION:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the
Planning Department for further procedural ' information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 16
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Normal Review. The City Council will consider, a recommendation of the Hearing
Examiner at its next available meeting. The Council may adopt or remand .the
recommendation at that meeting.
2. Optional Public Hearing. If the Council wishes to consider any change to the
recommendation, the Council shall set a public hearing in the manner provided in Chapter
20.90. After the hearing the Council shall approve, modify, conditionally approve, deny
or remand the proposal.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL:
Section 20.75.100 governs the time limits for completion of an approved subdivision, and
the standards and criteria for granting of an extension of the time limits. Section 20.35.080
governs the time limits for completion of the Planned Residential Development, and the
standards and criteria for granting an extension of the time limits.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report; with 9 attachments
B. Letter from Jeanne McAree, dated 1015100
C. Proposed building setbacks
D. Memo from Steve Bullock, dated 10/12/00
E. Letter from Kristi Park, dated 10/11/00
F. Storm water detention drawing
G. Drawing of Tracts 994 & 995
H. Drawing of street section with parking
I. Drawing of street section with no parking
J. Revised Plat/PRD plan, dated 10/11 /00
K. Open space plan, dated 10/11/00
PARTIES of RECORD:
Metco Homes
Mike Metzner or
Kristi Park
1910 120 Pl. SE
Everett, WA 98208
Terry & Lori Lindell
23525 100" Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Lovell Sauerland &'Assoc.
Mike Smith
19400 33`d Ave. W. #200
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Eau Deal Aho
23608 99" Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Jeanne McAree
PO Box 1783
Edmonds, WA 98020
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks & Recreation Division Planning
Division
Public Works Division
Hearing Examiner Recommendation
Case No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 17
Miklos Kohary
834 Olympic Ave.
Edmonds, WA 98020
To: Ron
From:
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH.AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
Planner
CONFUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Date: SEPTEMBER 29, 2000
File: P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
27 lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential Development (PRD)
Hearing Date, Time, and Place: October Sth, At 9:30 AM,
3`d Floor Meeting Room
Edmonds City Hall
121 5 h Avenue North
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2
A. APPLICATION.........................................I.......:...................... ...... 2
...............................................................
B. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................2
H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................................3
B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ACT(SEPA).......................................................................................4
C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE.....................................................4
D. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE ........................................:...... 5
E. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE................................................................................................... 8
F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) COMPLIANCE...............................I........................................................ 10
G. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.........................................................................................................................11
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS...........................:.......................................................11
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION........................................................................................... ........... 11
B. APPEALS.................................................................................................................................................11
C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS .................................................. :........................... 11
IV. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................12
V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ..................................... ......................................................................... 12
VI. APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................12
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD..............................................................................................................12
CANCAreporttU"Vivima\00I05sr.&C
Metro Homes
< Lincoln Estates
Re No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 2 of 12
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applicant: Metco Homes (see Attachment 2).
2. Site Location: 23415 100'h Ave. W. (see Attachment 1).
3. Re nest: Planned Residential Development and concurrent Formal Plat Approval for 27
single family lots (see Attachments 2 and 3).
4. Review Process: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes
recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, who conducts a public hearing and issues a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council reviews the record and issues
the final decision on both the Formal Plat and the Planned Residential Development.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 1.6.20
(RS - RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code .(ECDC) 'Title 18
(PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.35
(PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PRD).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.75
(SUBDIVISIONS).
e. Compliance with Edmonds Community, Development Code (ECDC) Chapter
20.100 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY
COUNCIL REVIEW).
B. Recommendations
Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend
approval of this application, subject to the following conditions:
1. This application is subject to the applicable 'requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility. of the applicant to
ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
2. The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination dated 9/12/2000 (see
Attachment 7).
3. The applicant shall comply with the City of Edmonds Engineering Division
Requirements dated 8/11/2000 (see Attachment 8).
4. Pursuant to ECDC Section 18.50.010, all utility lines shall be placed underground.
5. Prior to approval of the final subdivision and PRD, the applicant shall:
a) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership of the
subject property on the date that the property owner(s) (as indicated in the
report) sign(s) the subdivision documents.
b) Comply with the portions of the City of Edmonds Engineering Division
Requirements dated 8/11/2000 which are required prior to recording (see
Attachment 8).
cA61esVq*rts\subdivisions\00105s,.doc
Maw Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000.21
Page 3 of 12
c) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks
shown on the Plat Map are vested under this PRD/Formal Plat. No buildings will
be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being approved."
d) The main street which comes off of 2340' St. SW. and terminates at the round
planter island shall have a cross section which includes two lanes of traffic,
planting strips on both sides of the street and sidewalks on both sides of the
street. The Planting strips shall include street trees as indicated on the landscape
plan, planted at a size to allow 7 feet of clear space under the branches.
e) The detention pond shall be replaced by an underground vault. Landscaping
shall be planted over the top of the vault and the access road eliminated.
f) Install fire hydrant(s) to specifications required by the Engineering Division and
Fire Department.
g) Submit a one-year performance security in accordance with the requirements of
ECDC Section 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements which have not been
completed.
6. The applicant shall submit a two-year maintenance security once all required
improvements are completed.
ECDC Section 20.75.130.A states that the applicant shall not begin installation of
improvements until the Development Services Director has approved the improvement
plans, the Development Services Director and the applicant have agreed in writing on a
time schedule for installation of the improvements, and the applicant has paid an
inspection fee, as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size and Shave: The subject property is approximately 6.04 acres in area, and
is generally rectangular in shape with property frontage on 100a' Ave. W. and
234`f St. SW. The property has approximately 620 feet of frontage along 100a',
435 feet of frontage along 234a' (see Attachment 3).
(2) Land Use: The site is currently developed with one detached single-family
residence (see Attachment 3).
(3) Zonih : The subject property is zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Ve etation: The subject property is a gentle valley which rises up
on both the east and west sides (see Attachment 3).
The majority of the site is covered with grasses and in some spots', groves of
mature trees.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North:. The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is
zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1).
cAfiles4eponAsubdivicions\00105sr.doc
Metoo Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 4 of 12
(2) South: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is
zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1):
(3) East: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is
zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1).
(4) West: The area is currently developed with single-family residences and is
zoned RS-8 (see Attachment 1).
b) Conclusion: The proposed development of detached single-family residences would
be compatible with adjacent zoning and development.
D. State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA)
a) Fact: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) .was issued by
the City's SEPA Responsible Official on September 12, 2000. The Environmental
Determination is included as attachment 7.
b) Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA
(see Attachment 7).
C. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Development Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to single-family
residential development in the RS-8 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20.
(2) Because the applicant is proposing a PRD, the individual lots do not meet the
minimum lot size requirement of the underlying zone, RS-8. But the proposal
does not have any more units than would be allowed by the underlying zoning
and it.is providing*open space that otherwise might not be supplied.
(3) Setbacks for the new lots are .proposed to be modified through the PRD
process. The applicants proposal is for 20 foot street setbacks, 15 foot rear
setbacks and 5 foot side setbacks. In the RS-8 zone they are required to be 25,
15 and 7.5 feet respectively. The smaller setbacks would not impact any
surrounding properties except as follows:
(a) Lots 1, 5, 6 and 7 would provide only 5 or 20 feet of setback to the 234'*
St. SW. right-of-way where 25 feet is required;
(b) Lots 7 and 17 would provide only 5 feet of side setback were 7.5 is
required.
(4) No comments from the public or surrounding property owners have been
submitted which indicate a concern over these issues.
(5) No request was made to reduce the lot coverage limit of 35% for the RS-8
zone. The lots still, appear to be of sufficient size to allow for reasonable sized
homes under the RS-8 35% lot coverage limit.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Staff is supportive of the setbacks proposed .for the PRD throughout the site,
including the six lots on the perimeter that have less than the underlying zone
requires. No other reductions from the underlying zone regulations have been
requested.
c:V'iil-VePm\suWivisionsw0105sr.aoe
Mctco Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000.105 & PRD-200041
Page 5 of 12
(2) If the PRD is approved, the development proposal will be consistent with the
. development standards of the RS-8 zone.
2. Access Tract and Right -of -Way Improvements
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Chapter 18.80 establishes the design standards for the improvement of
public and private rights -of -way.
(2) The City of Edmonds Engineering Division is the. responsible agency for
interpreting and enforcing ECDC Chapter 18.80.
(3) The Engineering Division has submitted written requirements for proposed
subdivision improvements (see Attachment 8).
b) Conclusion: The applicant should submit
engineering plans for all improvements
Chapter 18.80 (see Attachment 8).
3. Critical Areas Ordinance
a) Facts:
to the Engineering Division the civil
required for compliance with ECDC
(1) The subject proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15B (Interim
Critical Areas Ordinance).
(2) The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist, and the City has issued
a Waiver from the _requirement to prepare a Critical Areas Study (see
Attachment 5).
b) Conclusion: The applicant has complied with the requirements of the ECDC
Chapter 20.15B.
D. Planned Residential Development (PRD) Ordinance Compliance
1. Review of preliminary plan for a PRD
a) Facts: ECDC 20.35.040.A states that a PRD will be reviewed by the Architectural
Design Board (ADB). The Architectural Design Board shall review the proposal
using the criteria of Chapter 20.10 ECDC and make recommendations to be
considered by the Hearing Examiner and included in the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation to the City Council.
(1) The ADB reviewed the proposed project on July 19, 2000 and recommended
approval of the project with the conditions noted on Attachment 5.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The project will be consistent with Chapter 20.10 if the conditions of the ADB
are included as part of the project approval.
c) Fact: ECDC 20.35.0403 requires both Hearing Examiner and City Council Review.
The Hearing Examiner shall make recommendations and City Council shall review
the proposal under the provisions of ECDC 20.100.010 and 20.100.030.
d) Fact: ECDC 20.35.040.0 describes the Review Criteria. The Hearing Examiner and
City Council shall review the application for conformity with the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance, the criteria of the subdivision ordinance, the review
criteria of this chapter and shall review the following additional factors:
(1) Compatibility with existing and planned land use in the nearby area;
c:1F1esWpomisobdiviskm\oo 1 o5sr. doc
Metto Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000-105 do PRD-2000-21
Page 6 of 12
(2) Assurances that the planned residential development will be developed as
presented in design documents and statements of intent.
e) Conclusions:
(1) As noted in section ILA of this report, the proposed development is similar and
consistent with. all existing and planned land uses in the nearby area.
(2) Assurances are provided through the final approval process.
2. Review Criteria for a PRD
a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.35.050 states the following (applicable) general guidelines
and review criteria which shall be used to review PRD's:
(1) Only those properties where an unusual circumstance exists making it difficult
to develop on a lot -by -lot basis may be considered for a PRD. This is intended
to include situations such as: steep slopes, wetlands, significant and substantial
natural features (groves of woods, specimen trees, animal habitats, streams;
ponds, lakes), views or historic structures.
(2) All projects shall give special treatment to perimeter transition so as to
minimize neighborhood impact through buffering, screening and landscaping.
(3) Each project must demonstrate there is a clear benefit to the public by adoption
of the proposed PRD site such as:
(a) The creation of beneficial open space;
(b) The preservation of significant natural features;
(c) The provision for substantive additional public use facilities such as .
walkways, bike paths, or public access to beach or park;
(d) Reduced density; the proposed PRD density will be compared with the
city of Edmonds planning department staffs position as to the actual
maximum number of dwelling units reasonably likely using the
underlying zoning.
b) Conclusions:
(1) The proposal is located on one of the larger remaining parcels in the City of
Edmonds and care is being taken to preserve mature vegetation on the property.
Furthermore, the incorporation of tree lined streets, landscape islands,
perimeter landscape screens and monument entrance plantings provide
substantive public amenities that may not otherwise have been provided.
c) Facts: ' ECDC Section 20.35.060 states the following (applicable) specific
guidelines and review criteria which shall be used to review PRD's:
(1) This area of the city is identified as single-family residential, and therefore,
every PRD in this zone shall be consistent with the neighborhood
characteristics and maintain building height of that zone.
(2) Only single-family detached homes are permitted.
(3) The city may approve a change from any of its regular development regulations
except allowable density and building height.
(a) Allowable Density. The number of dwelling units permitted is
calculated by dividing the net developable area by the minimum lot
cAfiks4cpons\su divisions\00105sr.doe
Meteo homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000-105 & PPD-2000-21
Page 7 of 12
area of the zone district in which the site is located. Net developable
area is determined by subtracting the area set aside for streets from
the total development area. Fractional units shall be rounded to the
closest whole number.
(b) Building Height. The maximum height of any building shall not exceed
the height permitted in the zone in which the site is located. If the
proposal is located in zones with different height requirements,
buildings located in each zone shall conform to the zone within which
the building is located. If any building will be built on two or more
different zones, the most restrictive height requirements shall apply.
(4) The following items may be changed if the applicant can meet the requirements
for a variance as to each such item:
(a) Off -Street Parking Requirements. Off-street parking requirements shall
be. in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.50 ECDC.
(b) Open Space Land. A minimum of 20 percent of the net developable
land shall be dedicated or reserved as usable common open space
land. Driveways, parking lots and required yard areas are not open.
space. The applicant shall specify how the open space shall be
maintained. The city may require covenants running with the land
naming the city as the beneficiary of the covenant or other
requirements to insure. that adequate provision for maintenance of the
open space will be provided.
(c) Coverage. Coverage of the site by buildings and other structures shall
not exceed the largest percentage permitted in any zone in which the
project is located.
(d) Setbacks. The minimum distance between a building and the exterior
boundary line in the planned residential development shall be
determined by the Hearing Examiner and the City Council.
(e) Design Concepts. All projects may propose concepts such as. -
Greenbelts, community buildings or recreation facilities;
Dwelling units clustered -around a common court, playground or
recreational area;
Common ownership of exterior spaces and community facilities;
(iv) Lots of minimum area with the balance of the site held in common
ownership.
(� Park Land Dedication. Dedication of land for use as public park to
meet the requirements of park land dedication, ECDC 20.75.090, or
park in -lieu fee, ECDC 19.00.010.
(g Uses. Only uses listed in the zone in which the proposal is located may
be approved.
(5) Size. A five -lot minimum shall be applicable to all planned residential
developments.
e:\files4epartdsubdivisiom\00105sr.doe .
Metro Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page g of 12
d) Conclusions:
(1) The proposed development is a single family development.that conforms. with
the density allowed in the underlying zone. No requests for modification of
building heights has been requested and none would be allowed. .
(2) The proposed development is providing 20% of it's net developable area as
open space. These. open spaces areas are protecting existing mature vegetation
and providing screening from adjacent arterial roads.
(3) Setbacks are proposed to be different from the underlying zoning. Staff has
reviewed this in section II.C.1 of this report and does not perceive any obvious
problems.
(4) No parking requirements are proposed to be changed, no lot coverage
requirements are proposed to be changed, only uses permitted by the zone are
proposed and no park land is required to be dedicated.
(5) The PRD should be approved with the conditions recommended by the
Architectural Design Board. .
E. Subdivision Ordinance Compliance
1. General Findings of a Subdivision .
a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.75.080 states that the proposed subdivision may be
approved only if all of the following general findings can be made for the proposal,
as approved or as conditionally approved:
(1) Subdivision Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this
chapter (as listed in Section 20.75.020) and meets all the requirements of this
chapter.
(2) Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (ECDC Title 15), or other adopted city policy,
and is in the public interest.
(3) Zonine Ordinance. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, or a modification has been approved as provided for in this chapter.
(4) Flood Plain Management. The proposal meets all requirements of the
Edmonds Community Development Code relating to flood plain management.
b) Conclusions: The proposal complies with Section 20.75.080. It is consistent with
the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan (see Sections II.C. & ME). As discussed
in paragraph 2 below, it is consistent with Section 20.75.085 of the Subdivision
Ordinance. With the recommended conditions of approval, there are adequate
provisions for open spaces, drainage ways, rights -of -way, easements, water
supplies, sanitary waste, power service, parks, playgrounds and schools; it will serve
the public use and interest and is consistent with the public health, safety, and
welfare.
2. Review Criteria for a Subdivision
a) Facts: ECDC Section 20.75.085 states that the following (applicable) review
criteria shall be used to review proposed subdivisions:
(1) Environmental.
c: \fikslteM-\SubdivisiomNoo l o5st. doe
Metco Homes
Lincoln Estate
File No. P•2000-105 & PM20o0-21
Page 9 of 12
(a) Where environmental resources exists, 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. .
(b) 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.
(c) 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 parts 1(a) and 2(b) ' of the
subsection.
(d) The proposal shall be designed to minimize off -site impacts on drainage,
views and so forth.
(2) Lot and Street Layout.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) Each. lot shallmeet the applicable dimensional requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
(d) Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths shall be provided to serve schools,
parks, public facilities, shorelines and streams where street access is not
adequate.
(3) Dedications.
(a) The City Council may require dedication of land in the proposed
subdivision for public use.
(4) Improvements.
(a) 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.
(5) Flood Plain Management.
(a) All subdivision proposals shall comply with the criteria set forth in the
Edmonds Community Development Code for flood plain management.
The subject property is not identified on the Federal Flood Plain
Management maps.
(6) A letter was submitted to the City by Terry and Lori Lindell, adjacent property
owners in the southeast corner of the site, with concerns over access. This lot
currently has access easement rights over the subject property to the west side
of their property. The proposed development provides for their continued
access, but they are concerned with its viability. The City's engineering
cA l-Vepons\subdivisions\00105sr.do..
Mnco Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000405 & PRD-2000-21
Page 10 of 12
standards will not allow for a street or road to be constructed in an unsafe or
unusable manor (see Attachment 9).
b) Conclusions:
(1) The proposed plat layout is designed to minimize potential adverse impacts on
the natural environment. Open space tracts have been created to preserve
existing mature trees. Lots have also been located to minimize grading.
(2) Engineering review and street and driveway standards should resolve any
concern of the neighbors.
(3) The proposed plat appears to be consistent with the lot layout design
considerations and lot dimension requirements required by the ECDC.
(4) The proposed plat does provide for the improvements. The Engineering
Division should review the improvement plans to. ensure compliance with
ECDC Chapter 18.80.
3. Completion of Improvements
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.75.130.B states that the applicant shall either complete the
improvements before the final plat is submitted for City Council approval, or
the applicant shall post a bond or other suitable surety to guarantee the
completion of the improvements within one year of the approval of the plat.
(2) In order to insure the correct value of the bond, the City Engineering Division
will not allow the posting of the bond or the recording of the subdivision until
the City Engineer has approved the site development plan.
b) Conclusion: Pursuant to Section 20.75.130.B, the applicant may submit a one-year
performance bond in lieu of completing required improvements prior to recording,
but after the approval of the civil engineered site improvement plan.
4. Final Plat and PRD Documents
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Sections 20.35.080, 20.75.135, 20.75.140 and 20-75.145 set forth the
requirements for the preparation of the final PRD and plat documents.
(2) ECDC Section 20.35.080 and 20.75.155 set forth the procedure for the review
of the final PRD and plat application.
(3) PRD are required to obtain final approval within three years of their
preliminary plat approval. Final Plats are allowed five years.
F. Comprehensive Plan (ECDC) Compliance
1. Comprehensive Plan Designation
a) Facts:.
(1) The subject property is designated as "Single Family Residential".
(2) The proposal is for 27 lots designed for development with single family
residences.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site.
e: %fiksVcp—\-bdivisions\00105sr.doe
Metro Homes
Lincoln Estates,
File No. P-2000-105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 11 of 12
2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section,' identifies goals
and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals
and policies are discussed in detail below.
(1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential
development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents
should be maintained and promoted.... ..
b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals
and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City.
G. Technical Committee
1. The Fire Department, Engineering Division, and Parks and Recreation Division have
made comments. pertaining to the proposed plat. Those comments have been
incorporated into the most recent set of plans, included in this packet, or are dealt with
through the Engineering Department requirements (see Attachment 8).
M. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the
Planning Department for further procedural information.
A., Request For Reconsideration
Section 20.100.01 Q.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific referencesto the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision
being appealed.
C. Time Limits For Reconsideration And Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request,. the time
clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example; if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
r.\fik$Vep—\sub&%isions\oo 1 Ossr.&c
Metoo Homes
Lincoln Estates
File No. P-2000.105 & PRD-2000-21
Page 12 of 12
IV. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a
change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
V. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.75.100 governs the time limits for completion of an approved subdivision, and the
standards and .criteria for granting of an extension of the time limits. Section 20.35.080 governs
the time limits for completion of the Planned Residential Development, and the standards and
criteria for granting an extension of the time limits.
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 9 are attached.
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Applicants Declarations
3. Preliminary Plat (dated 7/13/00)
4. Landscape Plan (dated 7/7/00)
S. ADB minutes and recommendation, dated 7/19/00 meeting
6. ADB Staff Report with attachments, dated 7/13/00
7. Environmental Determination, dated 9/12/00
8. Engineering Divisions Requirements, dated 8/11/00 .
9. Letter from Lori and Terry Lindell, dated 9/22/00
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD.
Metco homes
Mike Metzner or
Kristi Park
1910 120 Pl. SE
Everett, WA 98208
Lovell Sauerland & Assoc.
Mike Smith
19400 33`d Ave. W. #200
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Terry & Lori Lindell
23525 100s' Ave. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks & Recreation Division
.Planning Division
Public Works Division
c:\filcsVepo-\subdivisions\oolG5sr.doe
Subject Property or'
a 27 lot PRD/Forma PI
23305
23605
.w
23610
23605
23611'
23611
23619
23618
�23619
23625
23627
23627
23701
23632
2370
23633
223707
23707
23712
23715
23716
23726
23726
23307
23323
O�
Obi 0) CA ONO
Of CA
23404
23414
23424
Q
23616
�.
236
0 23621
23620
N
23628
N
23632
23706
7
N 236i1
A4m
N I �
Obi �
a
ITT
23229
23228
23306
23305
23304
IL
0
N
tti
N
23406
3414
N
p
23415
33422
[23430
--�
23504
:2:34:17]
23512
23513
23520
23521
r23528 1
23529
Zoning and Vicinity Map
2
9706 9632
9631
L
23
L9630
9631
237TH PL
Attachment.1
File No. PRD-2000-21 &
P-2000-105
ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PLANNERS / DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
LINCOLN ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRD
NARRATIVE STATEMENT
February 25, 2000
LSA No. 4103
Lincoln Estates will be a subdivided Planned Residential Development (PRD) project of 30
single-family units (2 existing). Existing zoning is RS-8 and no zoning.change is proposed.
The site comprises about seven acres on two existing lots lying at the intersection of 1001h
Ave. W. and 234" St. SW. Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan designates the property as High
Density Single -Family (5-8 dwelling units per acre).
All of the homes are proposed as single-family. Architectural detail, open space areas, tree
retention, and professional landscaping will enhance the project's overall appearance. Many
trees will be retained in `Tract 997.'
Planned Residential Development was chosen as the development theme due to layout
difficulties with conventional subdivision. Property dimensions and access requirements
make quality design impossible using standard RS-8 rules: Application for a PRD allow's for
well -considered project design and significant retention of community open space and large
trees.
Open spaces are provided in several places within Lincoln Estates. In addition to tree
retention, significant screening' will be achieved through professional landscaping in 'Tract .
996.' That tract runs the entire road frontage from 100"' Ave. W and will reduce potential
conflicts between road and homes.
A 50-foot private right-of-way. connecting to 112"' Ave. W will provide access to the site.
Twenty-four feet of driving surface will be complimented by sidewalk on one side of the
street. Private roads connecting to the main street will serve most homes directly.
Orientation of those homes away from street frontage will reduce apparent density and
homogeneity from the main access street..
Drainage from the finished project will be collected by catch -basins and piped to biofiltration
and detention facilities as depicted on submitted plans. Detained and biofiltered storm -water
will be conveyed to existing facilities within 100"' Ave. W.
Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this package.-
S. Michae i ,
Land Use Planner
RECEIVED
FEB 2 5 2000
PERMIT COUNTEF
19400 33rd An
Attachment 2
File No. PRD-2000-21
& P-2000-105
'M 30V'1d 43L6
1,115����
Cee p:
oo
fill
Y7
1
14ill ii! �Si
I fill
➢i�
.
� R
r�r
p
'r i���
��
«
I
w-tt-s d•
peY
•ie
r
d
z
.._I.._�.-LT.._
\tssd L
` 0'OM Ii t10
fall
..� ,.,..w.a
.......�,® df10Nv
'ter N91S3O SrR�Nno
9990-let
1�Gld 'i
rstr)'iat
3ddOS
votes em'1t3a3n3
l�Jt�NIWl132�e!
37v-w ruoaomw
vm'sCHM4 3
'0NI '00 a 1 N3NZ131W
931V 1S3 N-IO:)NI-i
d'
big�'��
LU
jig
��. a a a a a i • . .a . . . i ����i�� � ap°�gf�� i' '����q� �p,i1�
J • • O®®:p o � . �� t �rii E•� i��l !� i � 1 l��i � � !� !q (fit
�oH
3l
LU
I I 1 1 V. r• r •.� r.• �• i.' . . �
j---r11TIN
A LIGHTING PLAN BE SUBMITTED FOR STAFF APPROVAL WHICH ADDRESSES
THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERN FOR ADEQUATE SHIELDING OF LIGHT;
THE WEST ELEVATION SHOULD BE AS SHOWN ON SHEET A4 OF THE BOARD
PACKET;
TREES BEING ADDED ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BE A
MINIMUM OF TEN FEET HIGH AND BE PLANTED TEN FEET APART;
BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT IS FOUND TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY
POLICIES, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND
SATISFIED THE CRITERIA IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE. MOTION CARRIED.
7. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS
ADB-2000-21 APPLICATION BY METCO HOMES FOR A 27-LOT PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) AT 23415 100TH AVENUE WEST;
AppIicant's representatives Kristi Park and Michael Metsner, Metco Homes, 1910 120th Place SE,
Everett, WA 98208 were present.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock presented the staff report and explained the proposed site of
approximately six acres is currently undeveloped land with one single-family home on the far eastern
portion of the lot. Since the property is zoned RS-8 and is developed as a Planned Residential
Development (PRD) the proposed density of 27 units, 26 of which will be new homes, is acceptable.
Because it is being developed as a PRD, the Architectural Design Board must review the project and
send their recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for final consideration.
Mr. Bullock stated the property is zoned Residential Single -Family with a minimum lot size of 8,000
square feet and will allow for 27 lots. The property is surrounded by existing single-family
development. The proposed project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and
will need to be reviewed under these guidelines prior to this application being presented to the
Hearing Examiner. He .pointed , out since the ADB does not typically review single-family
development and the Urban Design Guidelines do not have any references to single-family
development, the Board may want to limit specific direction to common areas and site layout.
Steve Bullock explained the applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the open space areas and
street tree plantings. Open space areas will be scattered throughout the development. Along the
western property line adjacent to I00th Avenue W. a strip of land will be developed as an open space
tract that will accommodate the grade change between the road and the development and will be
planted with groundcover and fir trees. On the north property lines, between 100th and the main
road, a hedge and monument style fence is proposed. He stated in the center of the property, a large
parcel to the west of the center road will be left as open space in an effort to. retain a large number of
mature evergreen trees. Mr. Bullock also said the center road will be flanked on both sides by Maple
trees and the main entrance will have a large gateway planting and the street terminus will include a
planting island.
Mr. Bullock stated the central spine road could be strengthened by having the street cross-section
provide sidewalks and planting strips on both sides of the two lanes of traffic, which is consistent
Attachment 5
Architectural Design Board Nesting PeBe 9 File No. PRD-2000-21
with PRD guidelines encouraging reduced impervious area and improved pedestrian walkways. He
explained all the house plans have two or three car garages and typically will include a garage apron
to accommodate an additional two or three cars. Therefore, it may be desirable to eliminate on -street
parking to reduce paved areas.
Steve Bullock said the eight conceptual home designs range from 2,000 to 2,800 square feet with a
mix of stone, brick and wood siding, porches and a range of window styles proposed. Staff noted
care should be taken by the applicant to ensure facades of the homes that may be visible to 234th
Street SW or 100th Avenue W. be interesting as well.
Boardmember Rob Michel asked about the location of the sign and the function of the road where the
bollards are located. He also questioned if evergreen trees are being eliminated to put the emergency
access road in.
Mr. Bullock replied the sign is at the northeast comer of the main road, and the road with the bollards
will be used for emergency fire access only.
Kristi Park explained the plan was designed around the existing evergreen trees and a landscaped
turnaround will be included to provide additional screening and reduce headlight glare. Tree -lined
streets are planned, however, she requested approval of the addition of four parallel parking spaces;
two adjacent. to Lot 10 and two adjacent to Lot 25, to provide additional visitor parking.
Vice Chair James Chalupnik asked about the different driveway on Lot 11.
Ms. Park clarified the exact homes have not been selected for each lot, and the driveways shown are
only examples of the way they may be designed.
Boardmember Lisa Raflo questioned the need for the additional on -street parking spaces.
Kristi Park explained the marketing department of her company made this recommendation as a
result of a marketing study and indicated this was an important addition to the development.
Ms. Park discussed the recommendation and requested more flexibility regarding the need for homes
adjacent to 100th Avenue to have similar facades as on their face. She explained these houses have
rear yards with a 25-foot drop from the road to these homes, and fir trees will be planted along the
road, blocking the view to the houses from the road.
Boardmember Tom Bykonen asked if the additional parking spaces would be available to anyone.
Kristi Park indicated anyone in the community would have access to the spaces.
Michael Metsner, 1910 120th Place SE, Everett, WA 98208, discussed the CC & R's relating to
parking enforcement by the subdivision Board and pointed out residents will be required to park their
vehicles in their garages so the additional on -street spaces will be used only for periodic parking
needs.
Boardmember Tom Bykonen asked about the design of the detention pond.
Ms. Park commented it would be a classic open detention pond with a black chain Iink fence
surround and monumental fencing between the road. and the chain link fence will provide visual
screening from 234th St.
Mr. Metsner stated Lots 22, 23 and 27 will have side elevations along 100th He explained the new
access road will be slightly wider then the existing road and most significant trees will be retained.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 10 July 19, 2000
Boardmember Linda. Goodrick complimented the applicants on preserving the existing trees.
Boardmember Rob Michel recommended eliminating the access road to the detention pond which
allowsthe detention pond to be reduced in size. He also suggested the pond be changed to a covered
vault with a manhole lid so the area can be landscaped. Mr. Michel recommended the sign structure
be moved to 100th near the access road and detention pond. He pointed out since Lots 3 and 4 are
shaped differently, perhaps five or six additional Douglas Fir trees could be added at that location.
Boardmembers Tom Bykonen, Lisa Raflo and Shawn Mahoney agreed with Boardmember Michel's
recommendations.
Michael Metsner expressed concern that the City may have a requirement for an access road to the
detention pond.
Boardmember Rob Michel pointed out there is no City requirement, however, they will not request
the road be removed as long as City standards are met.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock mentioned the Board can include language in a recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner that states the ADB would like to see the plan consistent with City requirements.
Boardmember Linda Goodrick stated she agreed with recommendations of staff and Boardmember
Michel regarding the detention pond, however, she disagreed with Mr. Michell suggestion to move
the signage.
Boardmember Shawn Mahoney agreed with Boardmember Goodrick.
Boardmember Tom Bykonen also agreed and recommended the detention pond be a . covered
detention vault and stated there is no need for the additional four parking spaces.
BOARDMEMBER LINDA GOODRICK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER
TOM BYKONEN, THAT A RECOMMENDATION BE MADE TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER THAT ADB-2000-21 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: -
THAT STREET CROSS-SECTION INCLUDE SIDEWALKS AND PLANTING STRIPS
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CENTER ROAD;
THAT THE CENTER ROAD SHALL PROVIDE FOR TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC AND
NO ON -STREET PARKING;
THAT THE SIZE OF THE DETENTION POND BE REDUCED AND THE POND BE
COVERED TO CREATE A DETENTION VAULT WITH LANDSCAPING ON TOP,
WHICH ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD;
BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT IS FOUND • TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY
POLICIES, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND
SATISFIED THE CRITERIA IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE. MOTION CARRIED.
8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS OR ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 11
July 19, 2000
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
July 19th, 2000 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: The Architectural Design Board
From:
I . . —:V�
Steve Bull , AICP
Senior Planner
Date:_ JULY 13, 2000
PRD-2000-21: Application by Metco Homes for a 27-lot Planned Residential Development
(PRD) located at 23415 100th Avenue West.
A. Applicant/Property Owner Architect/Representative
Ed Lincoln
h Kristi Park, Metco Homes
23415 100 Ave. W. 1910 1200Pl. SE
Edmonds, WA 98020 Everett, WA 98208
B. Site Location: 23415100`h Ave. W.
C. Introduction: The proposed site, approximately 6 acres, is currently undeveloped land with one
single family home on the far eastern portion of the lot. Since the property is zoned RS-8 and is being
developed as a PRD the proposed density of 27 units, 26 of which will be new homes, is acceptable. But
because it is being developed as a PRD the ADB will need to review the project and send their
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner.
D., Background:
1. Zoning: The property is zoned Residential Single -Family — minimum lot size of 8,000 sq. ft.
(RS-8). The proposed street and lot configuration is acceptable for accommodating 27 lots.
2. Environmental Review: The proposed project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). That part of the review will need to be complete prior to this application going to the
Hearing Examiner.
3. Issues: The applicant has submitted site plans, landscape plans and potential building
designs. Their packet of information also describes the design of the building, site, and
landscaping. The Architectural Design Board must determine whether the proposal is consistent
the design review criteria found in ECDC 20.10.070.
E: Staff Analysis:
Because the ADB does not typically review single family development and the Urban Design Guidelines
do not have any references to single family development, staff analysis has been limited to how the
Pagel of 3 Attachment 6
File No. PRD-2000-21
& P-2000-105
r
Staff Report for PRD-20DO-21
Lincoln Estates, 27 unit PRD
project meets the criteria of ECDC 20,10.070. Also, to allow flexibility for future home owners, the
Board may want to limit specific direction to common area and site layout.
1. Site Design:
a. Open Space: Open spaces, will be scattered around the development. Along the
western property line adjacent to 100`h Ave. W a strip of land will be developed as an open_
space tract that will accommodate the grade change between 100`h and the development. It will
be planted with groundcover and fir trees. In the center of the lot, a large parcel to the west of
the center toad will be left as open space in an effort to retain a large number of mature
evergreen trees. The center road will be flanked on both sides by Maple trees and the main
entrance will have a large gateway planting and the street terminus a planting island.
b. Site Organization: The major
organizational theme behind this design
concept is the central road. It has a major
entrance statement with street trees proposed
down its entire length. At its end, a planting
island signals the end and sends future
residents and guests back out. This central
spine could be strengthened by having the
street cross-section provide sidewalks and
planting strips on both sides of the two lanes of
traffic. This could be required through the
PRD which encourages reduced impervious
area, and improved pedestrian walkways.
c. Parking: All of the house plans have two or three car garages and typically will
have a garage apron in front of the garages to accommodate.an additional two to three cars.
With that kind of parking on each lot, it may be desirable to eliminate on street parking to
reduce paved areas.
d. Landscaping: The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the open space area and
the street tree plantings. They have submitted a typical landscape plan for the single family
lots, but this is just a conceptual plan that maybe modified by the individual home owners.
The landscape plans for the open space tracts are appropriate for residential areas and the
Potential uses the different open space tracts will be used for.
e. Screening: The applicant is providing screening in two locations. First on the west
side of the development, fir trees are being planted to provide a buffer and screen from the
traffic and noise of 1000h Ave. W. Second, on the north property line between 100th and the
main road, the applicant is proposing to have a hedge and monument style fence.
f. Context: All around the proposed development is existing single family
development. The proposed development will turn the area from an undeveloped tract of land
into a neighborhood that is very consistent with its surroundings.
2. Building Design':
a. General: ' Again, because all the structures will be single family homes and we .
don't want to create a problem for future owners and their potential desire to remodel or add to
their homes the Board should not identify specific building designs for the project. The
applicant has submitted eight conceptual home designs which could be used on the site: The
range in size from 2,000 to 2,800 sq. ft. and have two to three car garages.
Page 2 of 3
Staff Report for PRD-20W-21
Lincoln Estates. 27 unit PRD
b. Materials: Materials proposed are very consistent with residential design in the
area. A mix of stone, brick and wood siding is proposed. A range of window styles are
proposed.
c. Shapes and Forms: The shapes and forms proposed are in keeping with residential
development in the City of Edmonds. Porches appear to be prominent features of all the
designs..
d. Details and Fenestration: . The front facades are very well developed. Window types, porch
designs and dormers all contribute to a very residential feel. Care needs to be taken to ensure
that other facades of the homes that may be visible to 234`h St. SW or 1000, Ave. W. should be
interesting as well.
e.' Size, Height and Bulk: The proposed buildings are very residential and compatible with the
surroundings in their size, height and bulk.
F. Summary:
1. As proposed the project is consistent with, the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal is consistent with the bulk standards and use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposal appears to be consistent with the requirements of the criteria of ECDC sections 20.10
G Recommendation: Staff feels that the proposal meets the city's requirements. I have included some
issues the Board may want to recommend to the Hearing Examiner for consideration: . .
The board recommends the Hearing Examiner approve the proposed PRD-2000-21 with the
following conditions: .
• Street cross-section include sidewalks and planting strips on both sides of the center
road. The center road shall provide two lanes of traffic and no on street parking.
• Building elevations which face public roads shall have the same finish treatments the
front of the buildings have.
Because with these conditions:
1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies.
2. The proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
3. The.proposai satisfies the criteria and purposes ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map.
2. Applicants Declarations.
3. Site Plans and Elevations
Page 3 of 3
---
n��,� oroFmi'.ow.sY�(nu 699m9BY(6LY1•l31
emte6 vm'113a3n3 J.ZID'NIWIl3Zfd � k ""
---��-+ df10� 37VVlel MLmLImmIG vm'40NONQ3
® NVIS34 snz!i ng �NI '07 4Nt/ 1 NatC.LBIW S31V 1ST N100N11
N LEI
MT
fill
ai 'fit t ; ii Jill
. I; 'i�i !� —iI iLL
!
1
15,
w �@ �� t �� � .7 i :�� � � � 3 j � pd�s �4 ��f� � � �p � ►:4�; � � Et �, t
Ze . R t a t: t t t.► t fillLIO
rEEt� pi j
!! _►
IF
yy y
A�
Jill
`----—_—_—__ 'M 33y1d 4116
_ W 30Yld 4IL6
9 o n !�—r-----�
cs rod'ct "lan Imo a � a • 111
L 'ON CMOO tl3r1 tllJ�pQ ,tlt
TD1d.p e �r
ON / s -n. I i ! Q� r"-' --v� cF _ •.- �' y#e
..r• 1.�
4 L •� r � _
Ni
�h O W ( Rs 7a �� n; • .6 .
41001
r
�rrrr I R I�R H re-, C
.._..__.
y,.� F1i i R-ORroOi 'YR I In '
Q NO,11COW N1nod OoOMtl3
-
�,
WO F�• I
h
n J ! 66
61
F 1 $1 , v
RYrod
• *Vol CRIO
(i ci
isQM5�� Its
5
�i�.i t�j
ill Jill fill
€�� till
P
y Ly-0 ovaI '19 70A
r NO I LII00♦ NLOoi Oo0Aty2
i a o I �6t �s
$ `19
\ 9roX tAto
•
s
e
�e
Y
T
No
N.0 V C>trom.
•
ADB SUBMITTAL -July 7, 2000
.Lincoln Estates ORD•00-021
Metco Homes: Contact - Kristi Park
ARCHITECURALS-
ri:vELOPMENI'l S�fi'.ICES G1F;
f',!'I ' OP 4 f:.W"IN!O.
Color Scheme
❖ The colors used on the homes will consist of residential subdue hues of pale
grays, pale yellows, tans, pale greens, and whites. Architectural trimming will
coordinate with the base colors of the homes with bolder tones of gray, blue,
green and white.
Exterior Materials
❖ Composition Roofing
❖ White Vinyl Windows
❖ Lap Vinyl Siding
❖ Corner Trim
❖ Architectural Shaker Siding
❖ Continuos Metal Gutters
❖ Stone/Brick Fagade Materials
Homes
❖ Single family developments are often subject to buyer's disgression. This can
sometimes add to/ or subtract elements of the fagade for each home. Many
exterior elements can be added such as bay windows, shudders, additional
brickerylstone work or window shapes, architectural shaker tile ... etc.
❖ Typical sq. footages range from 2000 sq. - 2800 sq. ft.
❖ Typical individual lot site plan will include sidewalks and concrete back patios.
•:� It has not been determined which home will reside on which lot. The home
depicted in this submittal are designed to fit on almost any lot. Homes
adjacent to existing homes will have increased window modulation on their
sides to add aesthetic value.
1910 -120th Place SE • Everett, WA 98208 • (425) 316-0261 • (425) 481-0665 • Maim
Sales/Planning Fax: (425) 379-2914 • E-mail: sales@metco-homes.com • Internet: http:/ Attachment 3
MEfCOHL015C4 • MEf'COC*2430 File No. PRD-2000-21
Landscape Design
❖ The landscape plan submitted serves to preserve existing trees and add
aesthetic vegetation to the proposed neighborhood. Unless trees are allowed
within the right of way on the main street, street trees will be provided as
shown on the landscape plan. The open areas are landscaped to preserve the
mature evergreens already on site and to add folage and trees to currently un-
vegetated areas for common enjoyment and recreation.
❖ Individual home landscapes are subject to change as the homeowner sees fit.
We have submitted a landscape plan for a typical single family home that
serves as a base plan for most homes. Rear yards are left un•landscaped for
owner's tastes.
Proposed Signage
❖ The proposed sign plan is to be designed with a monumental theme containing
stone fagade and vegetation. It will provide as a distinctive entrance to the
development and detail the border of the property. It will be lighted with
recessed, outdoor lights designed only to minimally illuminate the sign.
Dimensions are shown on the submitted sign plan.
SITE PLAN CHANGES
Reduced Density:
❖ The development now consists of 26 new lots, rather than the originally
proposed 28 homes. Due to the reduced density the most southern
existing parcel (previously included as Lot 14) has been taken out of the
plat for net developable area.
Increased Open Space:
❖ Open spaces have been increased substantially. Most of these open
spaces and their uses have been left undetermined at this stage with
the exception of screening landscape designs and an increase of trees
and vegetation throughout the site. The largest tract of open space will
preserve the mature evergreens already on site.
Fire Requirements:
❖ The submitted site plan reflects the revisions of the Fire Dept.
a
Road Alignment Shift:
❖ Road has been shifted to accommodate the reduction in the number of
lots and. the increase of individual lot sq. footage.
I REQUESTED TRAFFIC REPORT REVISION
❖ Traffic report with revised calculations as requested by the City of Edmonds
Engineering Department.
Revised Plat Certificate
❖ Revised Plat Certificate reflects the changed propertyperimeters and
exclusions.
. Of EDAr
CITY OF EDMONDS
I' I� 1 sqo 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220
RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Determination for the development of a new 27 lot PRD/Formal Plat. Approximately 3,000
cubic yards of grading will be required to construct the roads and other required improvements. The project
will be located at 23415100'h Ave. W. and is zoned RS-8. (City of Edmonds File No. PRD-2000-21)
Proponent: Mietzner Land, L.L.C., 1910 120'h Pl. SE., Everett, WA 98201
Location of proposal, including street address if any: 23415 100'h Ave. W.
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it. does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from
the date below. Comments must be submitted by September 27'h. 2000.
Responsible Off cial0effrey S. Wilson
Position/Title:Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division
Phone: 771-0220
Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, W 98020
Date: �D Signature:
XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 250 5th Avenue North,
Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than September 27'h, 2000, by filing a written appeal citing the
reasons.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Steve Bullock to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals.
XX
XX
Posted on _ September 12, 2000, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services
Building, and the' Edmonds Post Office.
Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist.
Page 1 of 2
OW21 M.DOC
9113A00.SEPA
Attachment 7,
File No. PRD-2000-21
& P-2000-105
T
Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist:
XX
XX Environmental Review Section
Edmonds School District No. 15
Attn.: Bret Carlstad, Planning and Property
Department of Ecology
Manager
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
20420 68th Avenue WestLynnwood,
WA 98036-7400
XX Washington. State Dept. of Transportation XX
TSM&P/Land Developer
Community Transit
15700 Dayton Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
Attn.: Brent Russell
1133 164th Street Southwest, #200
Lynnwood, WA 98037
XX
Mietzner Land, L.L.C.
1910 120`� PI. SE.
Everett, . WA 98201
XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL:
1. THE APPLICANT WILL CONTRIBUTE A TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE OF $1,200 FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT TO INTERSECTIONS AND 100TH AVE. W.
Attachments: Environmental Checklist
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Traffic Report
pc: File No. PUD-2000-21
SEPA Notebook
Page 2 of 2
000VED.DOC
9113=.SEPA
. •,t `Tc�,. ?: F�.i �� }L A. .. `L� = *� w 4F r �'"' i �s � f t� 2�-.y='.
t �: , y+ . `�' i}r •,�r"T.o- r- ri".� ;4 rR ,�, f� J �-+K.7, 1 / I n } r�ii �s
4. ��..'i Y - .F:n 5,.,�. ,q. i`� ., p A. 1 5?1r5}�r'�+iet Ly 'P ^J: Fi •-.. � • rtY� i � ..�" J,Jw_ t�i.,�l",
�s,
•r[,
h �r:Rl�f,`uf.r'Ur.�,iut , v=
x
-l1 rt,%i.surkt ss�
", t Bldg s`.k£
,fib •� i �.
,> r' t F
T
��pnor{to
s .
al
R
(�,*` wiit'�r 's-i�`},itx�t"!•X}'u1Sq ai=�n,:_~�°��.4� {fi.,w?ecOrdntg>S
.,
..: a :. ... ...
,-"v'tpermt/_.,
... r•
L Rights -of way for public-stt00ts:
10' street dedication required on 234'' St SW
X
As shown on the preliminary Plat, all proposed paved surfaces
X
within the plat are classified as public streets and shall meet
the appropriate right-of-way widths.
Main street- 99t° PL W.; minimum of 50' wide
First cross street- 234t° PL W.; min. of 30, wide.
Second cross street- Lincoln Dr.; min. 20' wide.
Last cross street- 235t6 PL W; min. of 20' wide.
2.. £asements:;(CR,ty utilittes;,pnitte access; oth'&iffilities):
Provide private easements for access and utilities as needed.
X
Provide 10.00 foot wide maintenance easements over all
X
public utilities.
Provide pedestrian easement as needed for sidewalk on
X
Lincoln Dr. and 235' PL W.
3. "Streetunprovem;ents (A 1? with curli and;gutterj
ALL PROPOSED PLAT STREETS SHALL HA VE 18"
X
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERS ON BOTH SIDES.
Construct a new concrete curb and gutter along the South side
X
of234' St SW a minimum of24.00 feet from the North edge
of the asphalt pavement of 234' St SW. Pave additional width
as required to insure 24 feet of asphalt pavement
99 PL W: Radius improvements to 234!' St SW access to meet
X
geometrics and 25 MPH speed,posting on 234'h St SW.
Pave plat road (99' PL W) to a minimum width of 33.00 feet
X
between faces of concrete curbs.
On street parking allowed only on the W. side of 991' PL W to
X
the N. side of Tract 994.
Pave plat road (2341 PL W). to a minimum width of 20.00 feet
X
between faces of concrete curbs and extend road another 25' to
connect to main portion of Tract 999.
Pave Lincoln Dr 18.00 feet between faces of concrete curbs.'
X
Pave plat road (235' PL Aq to a minimum width of 18.00 feet
X
between faces of concrete curbs.
Slope of all plat public streets shall not exceed 12%.
X
4. Street tumar-ound:
Cul-de-sac on 99s' PL W shall have a minimum radius of 47.00
X
feet to the face of curb. Island radius shall be 23'.
234' PL W and 235' PL W. shall have a hammerhead at the
X
terminus of the road..
Lincoln Dr. shall have lockable/removable bollards placed at
X
100* Ave W for fire access only.
Attachment 8
File No. PRD-2000-21
& P-2000-105
4 � # � '�#.�.; �•� , M�` '' ^� ,��{�' ��#fit `�k,4�,, ��
l W ,9s t..
F,v �� s� '' '�w,�� Wyb`��&��j �hk-��;rxssl �in��,.wa.='N'' •Yr �,
+r�':a,?���T�'--�gi+.,'�`�">�� r.` ��� a yy�J' '� }`�,j �.I.'�'.'�,• '�
C S °.' a y� ..#� .�YL, $ 7' 1�{� :� SiU�{ � XY ,��YL HiyQ�,'•
��r, G'f•'ie7�f'�� `,f L�.y���� }4 �jy� �ry ��Y'4r ^5 t.f
Re , i` 5. �hegk�xw�thws
t �
��;�..r��,--��'r ^, ��`,,,, ;�,tr �r,y. i a_
w4�p or, nr
f ti,tt l"h,�lk 3 iJki� S� t �If T . 't
I @L'.s gie%� r� x y I
4Bond�bsted;
�k•
'� . �;: c
..R�,?(ej{G `'��4k
'r'��?
.h.o
�.. �, .
S. Sidewalks and/or walkways:
Construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk, to City
X
standards, across the property frontage on 2340' St SW from
10& Ave W. to the proposed plat road (99'" PL W).
Construct five foot wide concrete sidewalks on both sides of
X
99a' PL W.
Construct five foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of 2341h
X
PL W., 235' PL W and Lincoln Dr.
Provide wheel chair mountable access points where necessary
X
per City Standards.
6. Street°lights:
Street lighting required within the plat. Spacing to be
X
determined the Engineer. Light poles shall be aluminum with
breakaway bases per WSDOT Standards.
. Rlan ip�g 'stri
::
.
Trees planted in rights -of -way of public roads and upon
X
easements to be approved by City of Edmonds as street trees.
8; :Vti?atef s stem;ainprove2rierits (pipelines; ire. ;Yi3rants;i;pump
stataons;'2e1em1etenng; D;S H S etc)i?SD.
Water lines to be a minimum of 8" ductile iron pipe per
X
Olympic View Water and Sewer Districts standards.
Fireflow requirements shall comply with Appendix 3A of the
X
1994 Uniform Fire Code.
Provide fireflow calculations for each proposed hydrant.
X
Provide fire hydrants in accordance with standards for
X
Edmonds Fire Department.
Fire hydrant at the end of 234" PL W shall be installed in the
X
large body of tract 999.
Provide service to each lot.
X
Connect to OVWSD for water in accordance with (iaw)
X
OVWSD's Standard Developer Extension Agreement
sewers'stem un rovements: :� 'el--;4.- ump
Sanitary .. y, p (p P P
Stattons telemetering, hesithfdistnct, etc)�OVWSD
The distance between manholes shall not exceed 300'.
X
Provide service to each lot with maximum possible separation
X
from water service lines.
Connect to OVWSD for sewer in accordance with (iaw)
X
OVWSD's Standard Developer Extension Agreement
0: Stbrm :sewer system improvements -(pipelines; pump
Stations, DC E;:fshenes, etc:)t
Provide stormwater quality enhancements for asphalt areas per
X
ECDC section 18.30.
Provide detention system for the entire plat as detailed in the
X
preliminary drainage report
Provide stonnwater service to each lot. Do not use spaghetti
X
type lines as shown on preliminary drainage plan. Add
additional catch basins and lateral lines as required.
Connect to public storm system
X.
X
�.J ! Y 7Y: to ,�. t �y ..,��,L,,,,4r: •G°.X a! � r i/' l(F t 4. t ' Fl.IC, �� W^
', !3r k !� ti. ar ` (i
P,7".'' y� iY'i .tf �1"1*}�, y
� �T8 b . Ve. t` Y tY`. ! lb-� 7 � � [ IQ�� Ff.`I • f1�(' r y
-#��.{��,,;. � �.
�_}�,� ��;; � bpi ,-GF�,T`,gy�� •�kN+�t�i4jp
'1"�I+"-f`"rT,14 ••••'����"!I
Y.Tf-1!F�4y}}'Y'W'.ih*+.tiXFA{C:
.. 4, '.• y1' fit'. f .;�
�y ,�". jRe' .d V.1
��
t t � 5 �„ d
r rr^ 11U•r7
Y- •i`':,1 . Y. 7. .ate k
j p(�,, i wrt X�
¢ -1� i •r�
'1 .y � e'
t l`,{�`:w �is�L'l.
%�R'7tl9"m. j
1 t
$onie ostei�
�r'
.,17 �'.
���.ar ..Ay.l.,
4h
omVIE
Y'.
X' 1."".
tytT�{'LE
t�.�
..'Y�r
i'-'i'Sr")j`P 4�7"yYr+�L.: r.•:�y7.,,
y3T^�{1i•.M1jf 5ir2SM.!I(frt:1f��^.J,Y�'•�r1141:Ji,=:tr ill�ii-.T'yM•�*1•1yvJ1VUL��'TgY1NtiA
cS G1'ilflA
'7"prl'
?..r•"wyeY1�iL.rJ
9" }�.;
rt.riT�i iY�1 i..
fit •.v)r�•y
11. On -site drainage (plan 'per Ord. 3013):
All impervious surfaces to have detention and water quality
X
X
amendments.
12. Underground wiring (per Ord. 1387):
Required for all new services
X
X
13. Excavation and grading (per UBC, Chapter 70):
Provide detailed grading plan, to include temporary erosion
X
and sedimentation control plan
Submit a grading plan as part of engineered site plan.
X
14. Signage.(per City Engineer):
All signs must be vinyl letters and to City Standards. No silk
X
screened signs will be permitted.
Provide street name signs: 99' PL W, 234 PL W, and 235"
X
PL W. and Lincoln Dr.
Provide high intensity stop signs on 234` PL W, 235" PL W,
X
Lincoln Dr. and at the plat road (99' PL W) entering 2341" St
SW.
Provide "No outlet" sign at plat road (991h PL W) intersection
X
with 2341 St SW on the street sign.
Provide "No Parking at anytime" signs along.all plat roads,
X
except where on street parking is allowed.
Provide " Parking this side of street only" along W. side of
X
99d' PL W.
Provide Fire and aid signs for addressing lot 13
X
Provide crosswalk, stop bars and other pavement markings as
X
required.
15'. Sun+ey'monumentat'ioh (per Ori a, ;Section 12.10.12U):
Provide concrete monument and case at the intersection of the
X
plat streets.
Provide concrete monument and cases along centerline of 991
X
PL W.
16..As-built'rawings (per.City'IEngineer):
Required for all utility construction.
X
X
17. Oihei requirements:
a) Plat showing lots, easements, legal, survey information
X
b) Legal documents for each lot
X
c) Field staking -lot comers (by professional surveyor)
X
d) Maint. Agreement (private drive) and utilities
X
e) Utility development plan
X
f) Traffic Study
X
g) Others
Clustered mailbox locations per Postmaster.
X
Lots 1,2,3,4,11,14,15,,16,19,20 and 25 to take access only
X
Pff 991" PL W.
Lots 12,13, 26, and 27 to take access off Lincoln Dr.
X
Lots 17,18, 21,22,23, and 24 to take access only off235`s
X
IL W
Lots 5,6,7,8,9 and 10 to take access only off 234`1 PL W.
X
:" F,1.r,SShrA�S,• •-0'' k ,: t. N tl ; ..yam >T "::K. yrt• Y �Y:'?.:3" M 't�' Ni" , r
L 4FZ' •+ D�p� }�� ic'f( ^,�•,.>Syr,`'f_'•+ j ,� tT 'z'rFl � [� (1}�� �M �2j r�4y�9.(?+}�+Si+" �� �(IF'�ff •1J4M�'T
u��St �^'��M� .`'41.�5���T'����?n�• �4.>�] C., f - ;. l'.i� �u7en'rf,.i�},�y^'iy)��0�"�L• l]��I.
.Y n f�� �. } 44Y S? d C• ^�".�
}kir�.��:5,`.','���i��;=Fq�*''X'�� ,�,,,u� `"S_� ��4�C�� #��fl�'�i���`�s�'+.�
, jr '1' ? %�, �=1
�;Re"��,��'r �:�
J �ll� Cro 5.5 �`
��r1t'iDrtb�';�`
k�
i � �{��w.�����
��,��; f :�.
I I Oro' �'q"bi.s�``';..
�e+�+�>;.��(� '�%•..
�+�ndt �.Si�
,�:_ `�. r u..�''.t.
-�'`'ai^ `�
., ��
� k:
'�,{�
' Vo�AS, afy3�C^iw•
�..�}�'J,
{ a
'
,rc..'
Jrt y �1•.z'' •PS� �h�^_ � � ` `5,n''A`+� [t •-, � a rr'�t-cnZ'�itf
4t ?sY�)^/ t In�`� �} 1s1�� �. e�j+ff��,�+TJ„� if�'�,�„
�".......
�''r�^'�'�',,�'1' S
�^.+. im . �,7•wY
! eiu 8a T I�j'y4'
�+ ' - �JA'ti � S�+ 14r
-Y' t�i:.;•ry..:
� �
(r�+,��L
—, ...s..:
Lot Driveway slopes must be identified on development plans.
X
It is the intent that no driveways exceed 14%.
Lot Driveway slopes must be identified on development plans.
X
It is theintent that no driveways exceed 14%.
All areas of fill will require confirmation of compaction test by.
X
an independent testing company.
1.5: Engineering .fees:`..
a) Drainage system design review at $50 per lot.
X
b) Sewer connection charge/LID (OVWSD) fees to be paid in
. X
full.
c) Plan review/inspection fee of 2.2% of improvement costs
X
plus $250.
d) Other fees (Traffic mitigation)
X
CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF EDMONDS
KM aJ
DATE
The Engineering requirements have been completed and the subdivision can be recorded
Authorized for recording by: Date:
9/22/00
r:
e-�:
�,
Steve Bullock, Planner
City of Edmonds
121 5 h Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
(425)771-0220
(425) 771-0221 fax
Dear Steve:
Lori and Terry Lindell
23525100 West
Edmonds, WA 98020
206-542-0661 voice 206-542-8396 fax
tlindell a)autocomputers com
We have just received, for the first time, a copy ofa proposed plan from Metco Homes and the
"Lincoln Estates" housing development, which adjoins our home. We see from the plan that our
driveway for access to our garage is very different in the plan. It is designed to be a "hairpin"
turn, wrapped around a designated green space area noted as "Tract 991".
Considering that this is our primary access, and that the current approach to our garage is
straight, we find this unacceptable. Our requirement is to be able to "take a run at it" when ever
there is any snow or ice on the ground. Even with our four-wheel drive Blazer the slope is steep
enough to make success questionable in the winter. If the approach to the garage on snow is un-
successful, backing down.the hairpin 180-degree turn will be both unsafe and dangerous. In that
case we are very likely to end up in lot #16's yard or worse yet, house. For these reasons we do
not think that the current plan as drawn is appropriate.
Access to our garage and the lower portion of our property will have to be a longer and straighter
approach. We request that our driveway start from nearer lots 15 or 14. Even though this means
more of the driveway will be on my father — in — law's property. This should be acceptable
because this is where our driveway is now and we already have an easement for access on this
proPerty.
Thank you for offering to log our concerns before the land use planning hearing officer. We
understand that a hearing for these issues will be on October 4a''. We will return from England
October 8`h, and will contact your office at that time.
TSU D. Lindell
Attachment 9
File No. PRD-2000-21
& P-2000-105
AECEIVED
OCT 0 5 2000
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
October 5, 2000
To the City of Edmonds Development and Planning Department,
My name is Jeanne McAree and I reside at 23409 94th Place West. My comments and questions
concerning the Metco Homes development on 100th Ave West and 234th Street SW are as fol- .
lows.
Comments
• 27 new homes will add approximately 54 more automobiles to the neighborhood.
• Currently, Edmonds residents use 232nd St SW and 238th St SW to cut through to 236th St
S W, so they can avoid 100th Ave W, the traffic lights and the busy intersection by QFC and
Albertson. Cars SPEED on 234th St SW and 94th PL W to Madrona School or to Highway
104. Our house is on the comer of these two streets and I am a stay at home mom so I know
the traffic patterns and speeds at this location.
• I have phoned and written the City of Edmonds traffic engineer and requested solutions to
this traffic problem over the last 4 years and have only received the volunteer traffic radar
speed detector crew one afternoon and a promise for a traffic calming program.
• 234th St SW currently runs from 100th Ave West east and stops at about 99th Ave. W then
a foot path continues east up a small hill to about 98th Ave W. and then continues eastward
for a long stretch to 93rd Ave W with no stop signs.
Questions
• What will be the traffic access to the development?
• Will the developer work with the City of Edmonds to solve the traffic problems on 234th ST
SW and 94th A West?
• Will 234th St SW remain as is or will you open up the street where it ends at about 99th Ave
West?
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Sincerely,.
Jeanne McAree���
23409 94th PI W !'
mail- PO Box 1783
Edmonds, WA 98020
phone 206 546-4973
October S, 2000
Lincoln Estates Building setbacks
Upon detailed review of the proposed building setbacks lines on the
preliminary plat map, inaccuracies were discovered. A small number of the
building envelopes depicted on these plans are not consistent with the
building setback requirements proposed as a part of the PRD. We ask that
the hearing recommendation does not reflect the verbiage of the Staff
Recommendation B.5 c)" The setbacks shown on the Plat Map are vested
under this PRD/Formal Plat........" To minimize future confusion, all lots
should be subject to the standards described as follows:
Building Side
Building Setback
(minimum)
Front setback*
20'
Side Yard Setbacks
5'
Side Yard Setbacks (adjacent to roadways)
10,
Rear Yard
15,
*Front of home is determined by driveway access.
Date: October 12, 2000
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds
From: Steve Bullock
Senior Planner
Subject: OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR THE LINCOLN ESTATES PRD.
Lyle Chrisman, from the Engineering Division, Kristi Park and Mike Meizner, the applicants, and
myself met Tuesday morning, 10/10/00, and resolved the three issues you asked us to deal with as
well as two attendant issues. A packet will be mailed to you that has the supporting drawings.
Building setbacks: The applicant submitted a new preliminary plat map that reflects the
setbacks they would like based on the orientation of the lots. Staff has
reviewed them and has essentially the same comments that we had in the
original staff report.
Detention Facility: The applicant has submitted a detention pond design with access and
landscaping that staff feels resolves the anticipated conflicts. A drawing .
has been submitted which demonstrates this.
991, Pl. W. The west side of the street will accommodate parking along its legnth
except for planting bulb at the north and south ends of each block. This is
described in their letter.
Attendant issues
Mail Box: Will be located in one of the center landscaping beds to provide easy
access for both the mailmen and residents.
Open Space Plan: The applicant has further described how the separate open space areas will
be developed and used.
City of Edmonds cze Planning Division
00021HEMEMO.DOC
NOVEMBER IS, 2000.
October 11, 2000
Planning & Engineering
City of Edmonds
121 5d' Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Mr. Bullock and Mr. Crisman,
This letter summarizes issues of concern pertaining to the requests of the hearing
examiner and the staff:
Building Setbacks Determined to be adequate as submitted by site plan 10/11/00.
Detention Facility Determined sufficient with the relocated access road. The road
will be designed to accommodate a fully loaded vactor truck with
appropriate screening landscape as submitted on the 10/11/00 site
plan.
99' Pl. W The west side of 99a' Pl. W will accommodate parking and 4
landscape bump -outs w/trees that will meet engineering
specifications. The curbs on either side of the driveways will
contain a 5' strip containing "no parking" markings. The other
side of the street with have "no parking" signage.
Cluster Mail Bog Determined by Bruce Deans, Supervisor, Customer Services USPS
to be placed in one location in the tract 997 as depicted on the open
space/mailbox plan submitted 10/11/00.
Open Spaces Open spaces will be utilized for various uses including nature trail,
benches, trees, a tot lot, an urban garden center and
grass/shrubbery landscape as, depicted on the open space/mailbox
plan submitted 10/11/00.
Thank you for all your time and consideration! We look forward to working with you for
a successful final engineering review. Please.call me with any questions at your earliest
convenience(425.481.0665 x.233 or 206.850.7653 cell).
Regards,
0
Kristi Park
Project Manager
1910 - 120th Place SE • Everett, WA 98208 • (425) 316-0261 • (425) 481-0665 • Main Fax: (425) 379-8814
Sales/P.lanning Fax: {425) 379-2914 • E-mail: sales@metro-homes.com • Internet: hMp://www.metcofiomes.com
METCOHL015C4 9 METCDC*2430
' Gf<gtrl2 � sscA}tE� ��
��r . � 1�•0 • tiv
s�ncs-t'T�S
'LTRJ4l+-
Gl5
i
NOT
j
��--t 99.'
!wT i l
70"
cur � x
Ilk.
`Pl,�
LLIs �
leiW6�.—
�N� s
1
I
Foodmeraw
NO
r nn
t W.
I�;i; lig ;F rt m r ffi W
If
iILI 11' i d
li'? j i1�15 � � Rifi
j;i4{ i= �.r a �r:'•.!
a I I
-'M 3�Vld Y7L8
—. .F I . 1 arroa •es •-a'. ~t°!i
o:u.' �r 1 co. sa.o•nrtw >r.. I
to o: a.t •iar. �uo�d� -I! I =i el� .�i `lj��� "1� i 'ij `l� I i �-
at as
kk -4r• ••1 i !
lit• � ___ I-.j�:••, �`f,r t� L111 �! L LJ •A LroOa '>• 7L
. " , i. ; t ��1 �11. .;.. ...'.... `..i•..:.s{ �' .. .:�'�:.�. ,i-.: ,,�1•I�t-•� i......,, a - o r a o �
� ,\• A C •.i.. i .' - ... 0...._ ..,y�..... •..vr
.Ir _ 1"p
.._ ^1.1!: I --• -- ---- - -- -qR moo' ���
Sri
�' �...� % t i...."1 .;y 'R,......°'`r•. ,�� �'.-im�>r---,,-ram _� _ li � > io_ I
e
F u: } �� .t--r -r w •` _. 7i .alit. E' S'1 R��co ' g� d
1 ' +�„ �:; ..• to -- -- p
x•,•s es 1
• r
�rji B• `�� ° � Ili ` / P � � o � �� I �
all
it�:ai It! [fit 6. /t[.Bt►
g r �
0
A Iu C M 1p
z
co
�- 0 Id uj
RFW
�<to
6 < ¢czi�W- Z z p
C W a38ws a 40
Id 1:,- z 1. M 1-
zvrS F
co
b a g IL 0 4i O p m
iQ$Fb <$N 0 H M 00) M
z iWb ff-
. Z
9OJR3<¢>.yT00 ¢ OGw I
rF U- N?OWZSQ�O W Z Z
m qqug I9 0Z wV i ~lqy@ Z W mGOQ
0 ¢O ZZsI
3e°.€ OQ ° o��- a ¢_ �n¢� < m M
W o 's °z¢�c m,�{ <zx SM2 <z �� w 3°' C: `Ogz �' Q J M O J
z x Ygri�yo o� ?�t- YFs E�`., 3g,� 3 _a��F S W a<� Q Y •J p� IL
<`9''u ¢ y < "ab`= b i�b"� �¢b �o c° Z H 0 J M .� p Z <
0 3 �o,F O2 3$ �¢�� a $�°�� H¢ I U. J J> Z O m} m
Ky�4pH p Yo s << m v J J J
"KpNp Zdz �CZ 2 ER a
2< < 2 gSYW=Wyy,,F �" ¢�<.'� F<F [lW S"<Ro
a U �0 ' �N< 2
< N USF<V< G Vlv a 23s N UNN�Oi C a Zia N ° _61- O .F.�CtFa N
M
o o 8
p rr LAY
Q xi
Z k'FWn$ON.
aiE
Z 0 Mn aNm tli ��a F�g'
F- O .56`5 ��g6Yd�lW¢
�U4.e N5AMI W W N b 8m���o��-N F s• 3
13
Z r
W � 0 3 F$o gwc a$ < 'oQ
f } 5 $ ¢
Q N W Z o o a W HViNUM F- bow€
U.W a'z�lg$ ��bj'3 � Q €,. bps
} 0 O o=z83Z�� 0 a�^�&
O 0 Z
c ° ° o p icS�a
<
ii
pZ o
�N
c �wi <¢ zEglo
o
�¢p� `mSpNj°Wp
Wgdg €<¢o
cPi
�O -M m L$moz<'zz N o$DD�m9uz --x
�IZ FV < leg
yW9 g..iicece 7S~ w2 2 H YW x y < gg 2
<w mr $ o c
ci $
o =�o�a�a7=File No. PRD-2000-21
and P-2000-105
0 Z
10�R
O0.
4w
�
a
G 3 Z
d•
Q W (aW
V) Q <
ac Z
0
H Zg}
$
Q N W Z
o
r
~ LL'
O
,
M > =
M
S
$
zUN
o_
{{1 Q 0
ij V
t
=
OW
z u
z
pN m
a
br
om�
11pp
m.
V
lV
r
pp
n
-mm
om
N1'�f1OFl
npip
p
ryryP
,fr1
•
moYBlM
Pv
r�A
a
«??deFl�$«��
Sr,y888888888
•��annr�
8
$
Su
Liu
G8r3�G��&Gm.'u
a
c
3
LL
O
o
O (0
to
< m d N N�
O
�'• <
¢
U IO
W
'0z
? V
x
M
a 0 d ^- C« B
0
� G
Z
N
nj O
N
F o
ILO
m
one
B B m�R
O
=?
o
z
O a,
0 z
:O
z
a m
O¢
F IL^
O
F
<3F
4tl O
er.•�
9Ni#
6 AS u .S W � o;
IV tl Ig bi 8.-S
It O�
LL C W
O
OLL
O W_.
B
oo
gg a g
OX<
< W
¢<3
z Y U V ko m
FS m
r
0
O o 0 0 o ,!
z V
O¢ m
W
z
?
Q
z
W b{ o Z; a g 3 d
J 1 A A A A N 1 11r
m
m,
H
<< i g>< i 6 c
a a a aj F
< r
a
O
O
J_
8
1
of
9 9
W O J
O
W
J
W p=
IL !'
o
z
9 9 9 9
IL JJ�
< <mv
z
00}
J
!,I
' ot, 30'dd 'LF 3W(fT0% ( E 'ON
SMOGVWI K-4
D (n
W
u
N
XI
CQ
I
�N
IM I Via'
M .LS.iG00 N _ _ _ .._......_ .. I ..I . �N I p
cm� S,LOM'L N30Lffe UnUJ GNOMON z � R of q
Ih C$ 'gym z N ti
sil
M.
g o
00'O�fIL ,l0'Ofl-M ,GS,L£.p0 N .ZC'OHL-M .CC,ZC.OD N +ri,P M R. .SYoft-M ,LC,Z"o N
-- '•^ 'tov6 O • tC'M ,{C7)ol 1
,tOv6 B1 ,lS'06
Isg( i8 I g- �s .10 l ��w _.�
,�� Ik o TF ALICl-M .LS'if.W N N7'6 x mi G68 N 1� _.....�_...... _
zk IWS O n g Io ( I CO' m yQiO--------- Po' °�
o e1 Im —NO" 01 g z N N r-- / 3 ,LC 9s4 N I
$= I or 1 vi I r I 135!!0 19 n emec r- 8 I ,ZO'OBl-M .GS.ZC.00 N / _ ,it'll -� ,f l'6ot 1
M ,MMOC N I - I- I 'tov6 �-•- o oI c I ,LO'C9 ,LD'09 LBY9 c it•eo
u 5 ( I 1 ,l0'06 M .LC,ZC.00 N 1 p, H a ; a m
B+< 1 I 'C9'L6-M .LGIZCM N I- -I N *I o r in of b 1
Z25
x<0< l .I 9v to mlLn I >h �it Lvog ; .9L•Lc _^ n1 �n n Ind ne o'ylm �i dI9 ?J2 ;a
I o-I £1 to F L i $ cn el0t'o;O� '-' 1n
nG7z ( m 212c- lea 91,
lm �' a �18 of #az $ry$ io 8 ° $ nWB� I �� .99•6e I m
III I o �� -- - - '
E. I N I tool 1 Ia tons z; :t �« � ib--- m V301d C./ alm 3 Lc,9iDo
,OZ 0 1 M,MW.00Ni. IMA M,LC,2C00N I .��t Qg i= .00rof L1D'OB AOTC $�u
y \ dl S e gjr �N +i $ o bi ^`�i �b I M 33tlld H166 £66 19tlM1 ��°
�1 .ru $ ,� � •IB Y'a,�A,yu ..os•w-3.6L.9s.OD N .` 'd
_1 I mm d. sb � � m ^N a _jIs
m k' S b �' � 8 � h � �(' " � m •� a � 1 3 .GC.Bf.00 N � {$ W i�
m ,^� .ao'orrICQ
Lf28 'Z/'6lQ M 30VId I H166 a-a}.odo•f°I LLiz SLOT :\"LLDN38 Ol I n \0N% r]ib64Ln 30d AL AB'6L2-3 ,Bf,C40D N hu% \ I I m po +' d'
f !0 C 133N5 ry0 71V13O 335 w I '^ +I Ou 1p N
SZCLHeI 'ON V tl3d 35/so AL 'X3 m __� i "�•1 -:' 3 ,Lf.H�.00 N z
W 1 3 .LC.Q*Z N i ,ZOZB-M .LC,LC.O N\ ,ftYe
�I ,00'Of ,OObe 'OObB L.'S693 N $�,•
f I m /�.-p.2t35y0 a�N Ig I m .secs s:m
a 5b "m58 dR b ��Z Sh gl$ wi rNQQZ C4 Im I ala 2 a� 8 }�!� 2o?
=� Lf0 I 3 z l 21 IN� bl • m �oari n` ih �N-iD p�j �, 1 Ni; ml 6s�iW N m ?'c yi bQoN 1+ I min 3 .Lf.9Y.0o N�� 013� W
p IVI I n l w <w $ a N I pp
<Im�B a�zyyz�� m M$ w QR m 0/ la �^ ��A'I33 z 3 cr ooL �� _ .921*6 I
In > I w m1 z I'�ffi�S m m mm I- A+V I� r"'- I ,Lc.er.o N t
Iw - - -----j
W __......._....I w 1 I B N = z z a I- I z. I. ,2Z•98-3 .GC.BY.00 N R i AM
•ane SS3 'Md,t0'Ce A0'09 .L69Z gDA9' 1 - b io uu sei Non oL aLm£AO N M3A•OBR4'S9•'N-g2.03• $off Oti3O $1p°p NhN 135!!O 'S vt $ b FO1
N y �• �� i m L9 8 J 3 .LC.9*.00 N Tr�
N 15 u 1 1 GSA I.b O �N � N 175 Sri+ Y ,Cl'BB ,ZB'66 N :� ,6L'CB Lig�Z `Y
N u NO 123t1.� �c I N CC Mi-V ,L6'Cel-3 .Lf,9r.00 N_
IN nlUr O -C P�F.�_�.v.'...c= baBfi„sc�T_.eL.t0.C:.V,hC- .CC09Yp
..._..... _ _ .� ail Q d' W -Ae 10' S�?0 %�7 --3 N-- BpO /S BTA'6
rl 9648 W" o.u'�D. 0.24'2o•4Cr {o -466 LOVa_
1 N 1B .- i �.222A0' 17• 1.39 • �.9-______-__n� LBI-3 .OZ.00.90 + '^`
I Ac AZ NO I aAri 16
L.374.65 - LO•yg{ 1 i.
v+i 61,j9 CI= p.6614T,per }q+X y � a
I^3 N 72?qd W Vi" "�� F h.,Ti--- M '3AV 4100t — —_.1�a
W�Ao3�s 9 �i� 1y19kg� C r LV —
N 1ph520 i��' d�~F V
'U U X --
Iz
����k I zosozzeaae •oN '�v �, eoso�t-�000 •oN •.a'tr � ��u�
Ww HER I BB-ZZ -S dS I - � 00 9-S dS
Ei
�P
x
u
S
-
nT
OA
01 a S
�
u
CO
Z
Zi 0
0.
i Z
Q ul 0) 0)
M 0 <
W QO3
F-zI>
Q N W Z
�00
0
>x
p00
p V I
OW z
N
M 33Vld
HA6
b
3 .29,,CLOO N
,000r ...
,00roe ,loss
�
��•oa-
M .19ALOO N
ooroe
vR M .IS,SLDO N
�
aA #
�1 nin
#
'
N8
W#
u s<W
3
3 r�N
N
d�
S
z
«yON
e}
w
q
b#V\�<a
m
m
Li5o �Z M.z
N
M
Nz
3
966 lovul g
n L66 lOV2LL
b
off#
Q
d;
Y
a39
<7,9
€�
UP
znio
���Fil�
o . g3 90
IL
Ir
XF < o o
m m� J 1.1��8 gn
J
W =j —1i crr- Yw
00
N
� r
m
r
a
0
E
of fj
m
Zi
10
M
ur
r ¢
¢ 2 N
W
s W�
n
w
cor
f=
ca
Z
x
co
Nmo
r d
nA
�W
C
AN W W0
�N Z-2
n
<
3 .eS,C�.ro N z
O O
/ y
a�
—31
_
3.Lf,9*M N 3
t
O¢
LL^
'
0 < 0
3
.6S,L�yO N`
#
I"_
O=a
F- �d Q
G
W 0=
m
o
N
in
e�
.;w1
LL ao
U. I<
0 ZZ8
a J >.<
0
a
Kcg`40N
0 x L
p¢a
¢<�+
Z �¢0
J
a
PW
.Q �, 00
Z
W
< i
, JM
W U
J_
LL
N
W V J
z J00
< < m
W Z
m >aZ
_ - O J
<
N
y�m
a}w WedW
inau<iw iEF�<S
a
S
E+pA
Yy'�0i1�S
N
b
p}b
b
grro�V
t3W i Ro
Vrcr�ZZ
\ q
a
A
N
W ` 43L.LV7-Wn
00-8-S dS .1
O LL
Cl o F
OW NNvaO
S
m3yw6Jz-z 0Z Z O
ojW w C4 0
Z oanw-i9r6CDO off N HIE.- izwN^ W41
jEd o goo �<€a „ M. �w'��bbb o�W � O � W � �
0 009y�".no 0: K'oSA 9-85HO$9 paffi �nR� � �� Z 5 Z C+1 .0
¢ Niir^eo�b-n-N °J1 d aw ry?i€� bb bmz oFmp O LL O < f
p Up^ Y yw iy
F- f b O 0. b<i"'€o Fo o .m �o W<¢z'N°•� �¢�"_� BRIM ¢ G V G W Z
W < <o�o b ��¢ ¢f <zi�zm£ N<
V n$ y zN z ipa€ sp aam8'�8OF bg ^� < ?¢ O Z W = co
ddtl<bo . "W��'Itf¢g¢g� �3oti �� bwi a i 0 O J w M O
Z orw^SdNpW$ Ww NiN o Ynn
Z #mCNadj"¢'bca batgf to ng w� W <b Z-gy m O = < ¢ < <
W how P9kg8c �w <<o� Srf" € u �g� W Z 0 a. " O G
5�ocopzo� €LL�.�¢ NpV� N� C W O
r v <b< b' .<'p'W-' od d> >^ p$m �sm�' O ¢ 0 Z < ¢ O Z
Z < ff�rJg f <nzixb'< koCd ��Zi �p
Q pwi U-3 sx gio; �i�"r- �� € < r 82-F I� W a 0 W
oz¢< bmW zs pz iF¢m�` mop € �2< SZng Yii<b orj < i J J
lu F<<onir8 p <¢oWpb 2- x N^ o s Y J 3
W gO n^ "mp 'Z� o i�� � < i5< "LfoW k�nmw w� 9 ¢ � O LL
¢ > o�ri�b i°LL €� <� Z H O Q dl i Z <
< �OOmNNpY44I11Hz of aunt oZ °dz U-I.z�k'> ib <'SI �r�Z < < J v Z 0 CO j
i aNN~WF F=Cja�i pN^I��U f= F tlb3
o 000�n�2�WoWa �OU!�Fe"iF� ,. Cp mp3 �w!+oC�y¢I a0� p p
0. ZF«Jp «<inia iJOW01� wVZ'W W 8 Z�; 3 p0 3
'd l��'srao¢ ZFbmama Tr-< axN�uc� - N �'b 6 �gW Oof
VJ Ag y
Z xbF 'zx!-^ F-,.z6 v LFFt C� F¢.S W� €� m �N m<s
Z c `O` i.C�igi.o< b. 0.. Q 6 -n8 ogoybyx bid v�NMZpO Kyyy<= ��JJyU.r
i r SO Wb�St� N43¢ ry< W4o <
O 3- O 6I"g m� I���x 62,N o<pg $tea mg<
Z Wg.€_"<� aoaoy,-N gmgg a egg Mews �g 2 pxx 4w�0 F i.2€i— p v� zIJ o`"S <Kw pp, < ppPqq a
I^'= �oabN� 2eP91 =O Nd m AIR! yF�aO N�� W WyWp F' B
W W to tlY�W¢Ctl�W < O$SU�.. •-= 92- L49 x iSp2
z� ao p o� ffi� ¢w ¢ Zs< 6;P
Cq Z a oZSzoS = o�o< �Si ��� n< 8 6�-60 W u iN
W 0 3 pp��{NZI� apt€s og �1��'b`a=
p25O� �p �ry�0 NN p<r
12
Q W ZIS¢�Qi mtgn Mg Ph
jg
ob6 Oe�
9q0tlib'. W
✓8
O O OSW1 b,N<<p¢¢i 3a g<�Yzn.
UO a Xx p p�&<m w€b
�U<m�wp�x
.tlaMO } Fd4 tl biz za�-on�D Z 0 gdtaf6Wm'
¢rypmEb b��waablw� €� o�
Q ~ = F Wo c9gCi�Q �€ b<z'�� 35og <ff ' -gg�Wg brcgwa3 c`¢',� tlp
O V - H 9p¢ p- G �ZFw �gt
W O W NzMiMov� ffio^ 4 b p� € b<`zo Fb=I00-5 <
go y�i,. E"' z bm
N Z affi$ 2 s o'taiz'. i-9 i $tliA r¢ oa > � gp ppa
O N N � LS ?Fo � <W��� � nm'oy� amg m' zCi =s Inh s�a
/ v ��zz �,j g'�j
W III<zsoi�oa �S i�dz3- �SLp$ < ao.�<b`�,. �. Fx xar<¢.•ab �s N z n �¢uff�l
b i
i p
Reg.p s
" g $ Z
O U am0 I g>�
Fo �i of W t€, �� "2 M.
r= �'�^`� cg ?a. .?ski F= $=
W g< w By 6
bs bs �z ¢p
yi< Z'bU Z<NB N N 0p�= �� '< '< ZUW
FZ FBi Fl� F=n F < N¢ � m E_ Et F�m
zi b i� mri §s�_�yy z.b i
ag-gif ffi < s it <�
z F" o tizc w3p k'1m= Wb m <fi Fp Pei XV
ei I-' � 8 hilk ��o s c gG�� SS
�Fsas gze "a �e ae
¢ �p �� 21A �p w3kA EX Gp �GIq
W d=o ��� ao. �N£< �g 8ff� a8.<
B
Lh
�1l5011�
•M 3'l'd-Id HLbb -
t,
i, ==�1 -
try __-"
-_._.nfi•4S
V 27YId K"b
I Itl 101 x1 I
1
I
i
fro-,
F
I
I
I
M
-- 4aool
File No. PRD-2000-21
and P-2000-105
THAT PORTION OF TRACT 2, BLOCK 1, RICHMOND FRUIT GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY
DEEDED TO THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH FOR ROAD PURPOSES, UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY
AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2181922; EXCEPT THE NORTH 130 FEET OF THE EAST 130 FEET
THEREOF;
TOGETHER WITH ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, BLOCK 1, OF SAID PLAT, AND TOGETHER
WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED FORREST STREET ADJOINING, WHICH UPON VACATION
ATTACHED TO SAID PREMISES -BY OPERATION OF LAW, LYING EAST OF 100TH AVENUE WEST.
EXCEPT THE EAST 130 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF TRACT 1, BLOCK 1, OF SAID PLAT LYING
SOUTH OF THE NORTH 190 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE EAST 175 FEET OF THE NORTH
190 FEET OF TRACT 1, BLOCK 1, OF SAID PLAT;
EXHIBIT C
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3383
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the I 11h day of December, 2001, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. 3383. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT -SUBDIVISION FORMERLY KNOWN AS
LINCOLN ESTATES AND NOW DESIGNATED AS WOODBURY AT EDMONDS AND
LOCATED AT 23415 — 100TH AVENUE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
APPLICATION NO. P-2000-105 AND PRD-2000-21, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2001.
" Z�6'0' �
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{WSS498677.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 4 -
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3383
ofthe ny 0 Edmonds, Washington
On the 111h day of December, 2001, the City Council of
the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3383. A
summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of
the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASH-
INGTON, APPROVING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT -SUBDIVISION FORMERLY KNOWN AS
LINCOLN ESTATES AND NOW DESIGNATED AS
WOODBURY AT EDMONDS AND LOCATED AT 23415 —
100TH AVENUE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
APPLICATION NO. P-2000.105 AND PRD-2000.21, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon
request.
DATED this 12th day of December, 2001.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Published: December 18, 2001.
Affidavit of Publication
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is
Principal.Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published
in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that
said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and
State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order
of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice
City of Edmonds
Summary of Ordinance No. 3383
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper
proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said
paper on the following days and.times, namely:
December 18, 2001
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during
all of sai(Aeriod.
No -
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th
day of December, 2001
Nota ub c in and for the State of W.
Everett, Snohomish County.
RECEIVED
DEC 1 9 2001
EDMONDS CITY CLERK
Principal Clerk