336 ADMIRAL WAY (6).pdfPR-r OF FOMON05
00A T 14' PAO& Aq
LOT OF DI?Ys.rAcg
0
30
$22
458
790
720
258 720 AO'
529
2 ka4i3 7-SX
so
182
151
1311
1W
e ve 131 151 2
79
r4o
is oL
Of
j3 52
7 m-- kD
cc, te'k. -S,?C("q 250
70 6ar-IJ87,
�1
V) LL.
710
�1
UA
0
0
LU
U.
tii
0
z
-t-p C. 1,8C) a
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I
Public Works * Planning/Building * Parks and Recreation * Engineering * Wastewater Treatment Plant
VIA FAX (206-789-7048)
AND U.S. MAIL
November 19,1997
Ms. Leslie Sacha
Environmental Consulting Services
929 North 76th Street
Seattle, WA 98103
Subject: REQUEST DETERMINATION OF PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW AND
REVISED PORT SIGNAGE
Dear Ms. Sacha:
I have completed my review of the Port of Edmonds request to amend the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit granted under File Nos. SM-96-147 and SM-97-70 to allow the replacement
of signs damaged during the storm at the beginning of the year, as well as the installation of new
signage to replace existing to provide a unified sipage package.
I have reviewed the request pursuant to the requirements and provisions for a permit modification
as contained in WAC 173-27-100 in order to determine if the requests may be granted, and the
requirements for "normal repair and maintenance!' pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(2)(b). The
proposed modifications and replacements are not considered substantive and do not materially
alter the project in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the permit, the
master program and/or the policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and therefore are
approved as specifically stated below.
1. REVISED PORT SIGNAGE PROJECT
ANuest: Proposed replacement existing Port signage with new unified sign plan
which will identify new and existing Port buildings.
Determination: APPROVED subject to the plans submitted with this revision
request.
With respect to the requirements for the proposed sign replacement plan to receive approval
through the Architectural Design Board process, I have spoken with John Bissell regarding this
MRT10.DW19-N0V-" * Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
00RUMLEMRS &WON
0
An
A '0
0
g Ai`
gi
�-6
'jg
4",
MiN
2-2, 4�1
matter and he has informed me that additional information is required to determine what portions
of the sign program must be reviewed by the ADB. Specific signage request with exact locations,
sizes and copy must be provided so that City Staff may determine if they are incidental, or if they
Z require ADB approval. ADB approval will be required for non -incidental freestanding signs, and
for any sign program with more than two, non -incidental wall mounted sips.
F-
cc
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
771-0223.
LUI
Sincerely,
—0 _Comwnity Services Department - Planning Division
LU
ail
�Jeeey S. Wilson, AICP
X Planning Supervisor
Z I
il No. SM-96-147
LU LUI pe: I e
2 ml Jile No. SM-97-70
Mayor Fahey
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning hfimager
X
John Bissell, Senior Planner
.Z Mr. Bill Toskey, Executive Director Port ofEdmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA
98020
Z
N
4
LAS I
0
a
UJ
x
I!_
LL.
UJ
L)
8
z
OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (426) 771-0220 MAYOR
-FAX (426) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works * Planninn/Buildinn * Parks and Recreation En ineerin e Wastewater Treatr6ent Plam
C.
Transmiffal
Date: AugUStL29,1997
To: Leslie Sacha
Environmental Consulting Services
929 N. 76th St.
Seattle, WA 98103
Subject: SM-97-70N-97-104
Transmitting Agenda & Staff Reports
For Your Information: X
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment:
Note attachments:
0.
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
CC. John Owen
Eric Anderson
0 Incorporated AuSust 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
/7%
AUGUST 21.190f
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLYYOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP
CODE BELOW IF YOU WISH TO -SPEAK ON THIS ITEM
SM-97-70 & ADB-97-72 PORTOFEDMONDS
"/4' kx/—/"qk 4
6
in ull�
ui
Lo uo-
w uj!
60JI
LL—
uj LIJ
us
jil
Ac"
AN
�Z-
LLI U
-J
U 0
V) 0
U) LIJ
LU =
-i F-
Ln LL
0
ul
CC <
LL D
Ln 0
X LLr
�- :r
Z �-
�- 0
Z F-
LLJ LLJ
0—
C) L-!
LLI LU
X U
�- F
LL 0
Z
L Li Ln
L)
0
Z
0
X
EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER",
MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 21, 1997 AT 9,:00 'A.M.,
Plaza Room - Edmonds Utbrary.
650 Main Street
1. Call to Order
2. Public Hearings
a. FILE NO. P-97-73- Application by Turnkey Builders for 'a Preffinh* Subdivision of
approximately 1.54 acres (67,015 square fed) into 7 single-family residential buildings sites, each
with a minimum lot area of 8,000- square feet. The proposed subdivisionincludes the development Of
a new public right-of-way cul-de-sac from 218th Street Southwest to the'proposed lots. Ile subject
property is located at 8718 218th Street Southwest and is zoned RS-9.
b. RLE NO. P-97-68 Application by George Kairez for a PrelimWay Subdivision,:to subdivide
approximately 7.40 acres in a RS-12 & RS-20 zone into 16 single-fiunily,lots with an average lot smiel
of approximately 17,000 square feet. 'Me subject proposal also includes requests to modify the
certain street development standards, specifically: reduce the private'roadway street -width by.
elimination of the required sidewalk adjoining proposed Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 from Talbot Drive,
and a request to modify the required street setback from the access road from 25-fixt to 5-feet to
allow the retention of an existing single-fiunily residence on the proposed lot. The subject property is
located at 9117 Olympic View Drive.
C. FILE NOS, SM-97-70 & ADB-97-72 Consolidatedpormit applications by the Port of Edmonds for
compliance with the City Architectural Design Board site design criteria and a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit for the demolition of the existing single -story dry boat storage buildings and
construct a new 30-fbot high Dry Stack Storage Facility for approximately 270 to 320 boats, a wash
down facility, a boat storage, and repair yard, and reconfiguration of existing parking facilities. The
proposed building is approximately 75,500 square feet in area with building dimensions of
approximately 246-fect long (between the north and south building fi=)by 230-fect wide (between
the east and west budding ficade). The proposed permit application also includes a proposed 2nd
phase to the development which includes a proposed addition of approximately 29,000 square feet of
officetretail space to the north side of the dry stack storage building. The subject property is located
on the at the southern end of the Port property where,the existing dry boat storage is located and is
zoned "Commercial Waterfront - CW."
. . . . . . . . . .
AUG-15-1997 12:18 CITY OF EDMONDS PIR DEPT. 206 771 0253 P.01
m le.
Edmonds Parks & 700 blain Sueek Edwwis, WA. 08020
To:
Date:
Number of paga
From;
cmr shen:
w
Mons:
Fax,phwc.
CC:
Pax Mona: 425-771-0253 1
REMARKS: ( C3 Urp4 0 For your Tc%iow [3 Reply ASAP 0 PIN" comment
Ah-
?A-
0- 40
�v
AI
VV,/ IVIV
xj,A Y7
Z I--
I-0.
Z �-
Uj LU
0
a
LU Lull
Z
uj 0
0
Z
liC
E
Mr. Sandhop stated that the property next door is a graveled used car lot. He also explain at there is
multi -family residential to the northwest and single family residential to the west. Mr. S p pointed out
that the elevation of the container will be about six feet lower than the abutting neighbo d are separated
by fencing. Therefore, the container will not be seen by the residents behind the s' d only be visible
from the front, which faces Highway 99.
Boardmember Goodrick noted that if the Code defines this as a permane tructure, then landscaping
.s
r
u
id
e
e
re
s
nt'a
Sid
en
t
e
0
ab
b
0
u
t*
h
I
w
H
n
g
d
e
t
n
ei
e
so
s
s
0
S
than
ts
tt
c
es
in
al
th
p
W
gh�
d
'a
d
m
d
on
p
ar
ly
p
e
a
0
b
s
as a permane tru ture' then lam
Id have to
,in a j z abl(
should be required. /
th ma al
Boardmember Pierce pointed out that if landscaping is required, the t material would have to be quite
n
to an
large in order to effectively screen the container, and would have planted properly in a sizable asphalt
th
w
opening in order to survive. He suggested that alternatives e to either paint the container in some
an n
creative and pleasing manner or use a trellis -type structure plant material to provide the necessary
screening.
Boardmember Goodrick cornmented that murals and A*hics can draw attention to the structure rather
than screening it. She suggested that the applicant coder using container plants.
Board Chairman Young stated that historically&%en the Board has considered structures which appear
corrugated the applicant has been asked to - ate that element, and to not require it of this applicant
would be inconsistent with past policy and glorc nt. In addition, when considering other small structures
along the Highway 99 corridor, the Boardj& required at least the use of container plants to offset the lack
of available permanent landscaping, AV
John Bissell pointed out that the C, Section 20.12.030 states that blank building walls should be
softened by landscaping, and that s and shrubs should be used in the transition between pavement and
buildings. It also states that re paving for parking areas end, a five-foot landscaping buffer and
extruded curbing are req ired
John Sandhop stated tha ter boxes could be used, however, since the container is twelve fed high,
potted plants may not s n it sufficiently.
Board Chairman Yo reviewed the alternatives suggested by the Board.
John Bissell poi out that a structural review by the Building Department will not be required, and that
the landscapin uirement is the only element of approval necessary by the ADB.
Boardmem i Rubenkonig requested that the applicant be asked to return to the Board with a landscape
e jc�
plan for ideration.
BCJ1RDMEMBER GOODRICK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER, PIERCE, TO
CAINIM"lUE ADB-97-88 TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING, SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 20,
$17. MOTION CARRIED.
SM-97-70 PUBLIC MEETING TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER FOR A PROPOSED NEW 30 FOOT TALL BUILDING
FOR OUT OF WATER STORAGE OF UP TO 320 BOATS AND 29,000 SQUARE
FEET OF OFFICE AND RETAIL SPACE, AS WELL AS THE
RECONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING PARIUNG AREA
Port of Edmonds
F 336 Admiral Way
Arclutechual Desip Board MedmS Page 3 Aupa 6,1997
0
'10
Bill Tosky, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Eric Anderson, Architect,
Ile Makers, 2112 Strdth Tower, Seattle, and Leslie Sacha, Consultant and Permit Coordinator, 929 No.
76th Street, Seattle, the applicant's representatives, were present.
John Bissell presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing
single -story boat storage sheds'from the southem portion of the Marina and replace those with a 30-foot
tall, dry stack storage building which will accommodate up to 320 boats, representing an in eas
cr e of
U approximately 1/3 more than currently located on the site. As an incidental use, an area near the southern
0
a portion of the facility will be used as a wash down and repair area for boats using the dry stack storage
LU building. The existing parking lot, located to the north of the existing dry boat storage sheds will be re-
m
paved and re -stripped.
U.;
0,
Mr. Bissell explained that 29,000 square feet of commercial tenant space is planned for the north end of the
:3! building and will be completed, along with landscape screening for the north side of the building, as the
all second phase of this proposed project.
I— X,
z
Ibe SEPA review has been completed and a Determination of Non -Significance has been issued.
z
UJ LU
The proposed building will be 350 feet long and 240 feet wide and will have gray corrugated metal siding
and a low -sloping green metal roof. Extended roof supports and knee braces will be white metal and doors
OC ;7-
will be a darker shade of gray. Lighting and signage have not been proposed. Mr. Bissell commented that
the dimensions create large
3 —11
a massive structure, and the applicant has proposed fast-growing deciduous and
M L)
evergreen trees along the perimeter, a deck -type walkway along the western elevation, increasing the size of
I— iz
the eaves and setting each comer of the building back 16 feet to reduce its impact.
�i_ 0
Z
W
John Bissell explained that the proposed facility requires access to the boat launch area as well as vehicle
and pedestrian access to the site from Admiral Way. The large parking area to the north of the building
0
Z
will accommodate automobile access and the promenade/boardwalk on the western side will allow access
for pedestrians using the facility, as well as for those passing the property.
R71
Although boat washing and limited repair is currently being performed at approximately the same location
as proposed, the increased number of boats may cause a noise impact for the park property to the south of
the site. In addition, Mr. Bissell stated that the applicant is proposing a chain link fence as a buffer
between the park and the boat wash and repair'facility. He explained that while landscaping on the north"
side of the building is planned later, in conjunction with the development of tenant space in that portion of
the building, landscaping in this area would be necessary in order to meet code requirements. In addition, if
the applicant does not complete the tenant portion of the project, staff feels that landscape mitigation should
be required.
John Bissell stated that while the proposal appears to comply with some sections of the Comprehensive
Plan, it appears to be inconsistent by creating an impact to an existing park setting, where park settings are
to be enhanced. It also appears to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code because no setback is provided
where a 15-foot setback is required. In addition, the proposal appears to be inconsistent with the ADB
design requirements found in Section 20.10.070(A)(4) because it would create a long massive building, He
explained that staff feels conditions could be incorporated which would mitigate all these elements
sufficiently to allow the application to be approved.
Bill Tosky stated that this project is part of a series of three Port projects which have been in the planning
phase for a number of years. The 30-foot height represents a reduction of the 45 feet originally planned
and the upgraded facility will assist the Port in handling the large number of boats being housed at the
Marina.
Ardtitectural Design BOW Meeting
Page 4
August 6,1997
ok
Mr. Tosky agreed that the proposed building is large, however, the boats being stored all over the site in a
variety of racks, sheds and parking lots, currently create a more undesirable view. He showed the Board
some photographs of a similar, but larger building located in Portland, Oregon, and explained that the
landscaping and colors soften the building's size considerably. Mr. Tosky pointed out that the larger
overhang and setting back the comers of the building will help to mitigate visual impact.
D
U
01
Bill Tosky also agreed that while this facility creates some noise, it will be a continuation of the noise level
I
which has been there since the facility was first built approximately 35 years ago. While there will be more
activity with the increase in the number of boats on the site, he pointed out that the public enjoys watching
U.1
and taking part in the kind of boating activities which will be carried out at the facili e Po is so
ty 11 rt al
0�
willing to providing screening if required by the Board.
Mr. Tosky stated that while the Port is willing to plant larger trees than specified in the plan, using the
51
smaller trees, of the variety spelled out, generally increase their health and make them more likely to
ac
survive.
0
Bill Tosky explained the Port has requested that an independent report be prepared regarding the possible
Z I--
UJ LU
impacts to the City's park and will be willing to negotiate with the City to minimize those impacts. The
portion of the parking lot at the park which belongs to the Port is being taken back for Port use, but no park
U to
0 ;:
property is being altered. Ile Port also provides public access to, and assists in the security measures for
the City's park.
Ile Port has applied for a zoning variance for the setback requirement because they have provided a large
walkway between the building and the waterfront for public access, however, that setback already exceeds
Ui UY
U .
the fifteen feet required. Mr. Tosky pointed out that the walkway is over the water rather than on a
bulkhead, and this was designed to enhance fish habitat. Therefore, the Port feels they have complied with
0
Z
the intent of the zoning regulation.
John Bissell commented that in making a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, the Architecttiral
Design Board must determine whether this application meets the criteria typically dealt with by the ADB.
The Hearing Examiner wflI have to make a determination whether or not a zoning ordinance can be issued.
He reminded the Board that the adjacent use, and whether mitigation is needed for visual and noise impacts
from that use, are the issues to be considered regarding the City's park.
Boardinember Rubenkonig asked Mr. Tosky for clarification regarding the term "we, the Pore'.
HE
�A
Bill Tosky explained that the Port of Edmonds is an organization created by the citizens of the Port
District, who elect three commissioners to be responsible for providing policy, direction and taxing
authority for the Port and for hiring an Executive Director to carry out the overall daily operations. Over
many years, the Port has purchased land and developed facilities to provide services for the boating
community and the general public as well. He pointed out that the Port of Edmonds is not involved with
commercial or cargo transportation at this time.
Boardinember Rubenkonig commented that as a member of the ADB, she has concern for the public and
their ability to enjoy facilities located on the Edmonds waterfront. She asked if ac s is d to e
ces provi ed th
public through the Port's indulgence. She also asked for clarification about whether the Port feels the boat
storage area will be more aesthetically pleasing with the new facility when compared to the way the current
storage area is arranged, and inquired about the public process which took place in planning for this
facility.
Arcititeftntl Design BoW Meeting Pap 5
N
9".
Uji
X.
z I.-
�_ 0
Z �—
UJ UJ
(n
0-
13 �-
LU I
LL 0
z
LU 0)
z
M
A
Mr. Tosky stated that the general public, as well as the tax -paying pubdiblic, are invited to enjoy the Port's
facilities in the same manner that people do who pay for the use of those = services. 71cre are many different
groups of people who come to the waterfront area and the Port invites 2s them all, without restrictions. He
also clarified that the Port feels the new facility will make the mariihina area more attractive, from an
architectural or aesthetic point of view, than it is today. Mr. Tosky explalolained that the planning process has
been on -going for a number of years and the public has been encourageDged to provide input during the Port
meetings, which are held twice per month and are publicly advertised. A. Over the four to five years this
planning process has been worked on, Mr. Tosky stated that the new w facilities have been on the public
meeting agenda approximately one-third of the time.
Boardmember Rubenkonig commented that she did not agree with the ioi idea that enclosing the boat storage
facility would make it more aesthetically pleasing. She stated that as a rin member of the ADB, she must look
at what impact this proposal will have on the general public who wish to oo use and enjoy the waterfront area.
Referring to page 26 of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan regarding - the downtown waterfront activity
center, Boardmember Rubenkonig asked how it meets the requirememoient that a project must present a
coherent vision for future development in the area. She also asked if a rl. Master Plan for the waterfront has
been done and if so, why was this project not included. In addition,^ she asked for clarification as to
whether this project is related in any way with the multi -modal transpoosortation project, which also has an
impact on the park. .
Bill Tosky explained that the Master Plan submitted by the Port hasp -as been approved by the City and
incorporated into the City's Master Plan. It will continue to be updatemed at regular intervals. He pointed
out that the Port is a participant in the study for the multi -modal I project, but is not a funding or
management participant. If the multi -modal primary plan is adopted, . it would not impact the proposal
being considered during this meeting, however, would eliminate the City"w's waterfront park. If the alternate
multi -modal plan is adopted, however, it would have some major impacts -as on some Port property but would
not affect this boat storage project.
Boardmember Rubenkonig asked if the Port's parking spaces, which are I - being taken away from public use,
will be provided for elsewhere.
Bill Tosky stated that when all three Port projects are complete, there wilffill be more parking spaces available
than there are presently.
Boardmember Rubenkonig asked if public restrooms are being made a pa -mart of the boat storage facility.
Mr. Tosky explained that this building is not a public facility. It is r-i replacing an existing boat storage
facility and restrooms will be available for Port customers who use thmrrat facility, but not for the general
public. He stated that there are two public restrooms which the Port mamintains on their property and they
will work with the City to establish restrooms for the park as well.
Boardmember Chalupnik stated that the pictures shown by the applicant - it do not present the full impact of a
building of the size proposed and commented that he would prefer a difflifferent building design. He pointed
out this building does not meet the City's design requirements.
Bill Tosky stated after it is painted and the area landscaped, the building r, will present far less impact on the
viewer.
Boardmember Goodrick commented that use of a chain link fence as a bwouffer is inadequate and that a solid
screen would be preferred both for visual and noise impacts. She also : 0 stated that it is her understanding
that the use of smaller trees would provide healthier landscaping.
ArcWteefinvI Dtsip Board Mftning
Page 6
AUgust6,1997
W
N N-
X Ui.
�- X
z �-
0
W LU
T�
0
a �-
LU
U- 0
z
LU (A
0
z
1*1
[a
Boardmember Pierce commented that the 2-inch caliper street trees are adequate and would be easy to
maintain and promote healthy growth. He asked about the lockers along the west and south portions of the
facility and inquired why there are no lockers, buffers or screenings proposed along the south side.
Bill Tosky explained that the lockers are attached to the building and stick out slightly. He also pointed out
that screening will be placed along the fence on the south end of the parking lot and because of the need to
provide access for heavy equipment and emergency vehicles, that end of the building must be left open.
The fire lane also continues eastward through the parking lot.
Boardmember Pierce asked if picnic benches would be included along the promenade on the Admiral Way
side.
Mr. Tosky stated that sidewalks have been added on the Admiral Way side but public facilities are not
planned in that area since it is away from the water and public interest and use is minimal.
Boardmember Pierce also commented on the long unbroken ridge line of the building and asked if any
modulation could be added to mitigate that element.
Eric Anderson explained that notches were removed from the comers so the visual massing was reduced
from that area. The roof overhang was increased from the normal six inches to approximately four feet and
will be supported with knee braces placed every thirty feet which match the knee brace theme they have
incorporated into their other buildings. He also pointed out that the landscaping will provide additional
buffering.
Boardmember Pierce asked for clarification on the visual height line relative to the boat moorage structures
previously approved.
Bill Tosky presented diagrams which pointed out the visual height line from 3rd and 4th Avenues.
Boardmember Rubenkonig asked for clarification as to why the proposed building is not set back further
from the park boundary and the reason the Port will be taking back their parking spaces which are
currently being offered for public use.
Mr. Tosky responded that the boat storage/handling building needs to be in close proximity with the water
and boat launching facilities previously approved. Ile entire facility has been moved further north than the
existing buildings and is located as far from the park as possible, while still allowing for water access. Ile
park patrons have been using Port property for parking and these spaces will now be made available to
Port customers who use the boat storage flicility. Tle total number of parking spaces which will be
available for both park patrons and Port customers will increase overall, however, some park patrons will
have to walk a short distance further than they do currently. He explained that contained in the long-range
plan is the installation of a deep -water dock. If that dock is built in the fiiture, the access would be through
that Port parking lot, and in order to eliminate impacts to the park it is imnortnnt tn �t— ^u W-
future accesses to that dock area,
Boardmember Rubenkonig stated that non -boat user patrons exist and are being adversely impacted. She
reiterated that to remove the parking spaces from public use for the adjacent park creates a conflict and
would like to see other arrangements made.
Board Chairman Young pointed out that although the Port has previously made their property available for
fima rty
public parking, either by assumption or by agreement with the City, it is their own legi te prope and
Ardtiteeftual Design BoW Meding Page 7 AugU96,1997
0
0
feet it is necessary to use that space for their own operation. In addition, the previously approved
promenade added by the Port, with access to the waterfront, created an offsetting public benefit.
Z
Mr. Young also suggested that Boardmembers state those specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan or
<
Design Guidelines if they feel the proposal is not in compliance.
UJ,
cc ��
Boardmember Chalupnik stated that the building lacks modulation and does not meet the criteria used by
UJ U
-J
uo�
the Board when approving other buildings. He explained that the criteria should not be changed for this
U) OL
application.
(n LIJ
LU
-J
U) U.1
Board Chairman Young stated that the first item the Board needs to consider, when formulating a
UJ 0!
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, is policies from the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the
applicant's representatives how
this proposal enhances the shoreline features to include a full spectrum of
Lt <n
recreational activities, park settings and marine facilities.
31
X!
Bill Tosky explained that this proposal provides a significant increase in marine services and water access
Z �-
for boaters, and does so with much more efficiency than other facilities of its kind. The population of the
�- 0
Z
community has tripled since the marina was established in the mid-60's and this is an attempt to pro de
vi
LU LU
increased boating services commensurate with that increase in population.
0
Board Chairman Young asked for clarification on the elements of the proposal which provide for the
a ;7.
- elimination of large and inadequately landscaped or paved areas.
LU W1
01
Leslie Sacha responded, using an aerial photograph, that the existing site is not landscaped. She pointed
Z%
out that landscaping on the site will be increased to an amount that is in compliance with the Code.
LU 0
U MI.,
I-- i--�,
Board Chairman Young asked for a summary of elements which will be included to provide rest and
0 1
Z
comfort areas for citizens while in this business district.
Bill Tosky explained that the previously approved Port project provided benches and picnic tables along the
waterfront walkway area as well as water viewing platforms. Negotiations will be held with the City to
create improved restroom facilities as well.
=T-
am
EN
Boardmember Goodrick suggested that the proposal could be in compliance with this element of
consideration if benches were also added along Admiral Way. Pedestrian use has not been encouraged
primarily because there are no benches available. That addition would also add a park -like and pedestrian -
friendly feeling along Admiral Way.
Boardinember Pierce commented that the street trees being added along Admiral Way will also create a
more attractive area for pedestrian use and adding benches in this area would be very desirable.
Boardinember Rubenkonig asked for clarification regarding the prior approval given to the Port project,
which included the waterfront walkway, and whether it was clear at that time that 25 parking spaces were
to be eliminated from public use.
John Bissell explained that the parking space issue is a part of this proposal and was not discussed in the
prior application which included the promenade.
Boardinember Rubenkonig stated the plan to remove those parking spaces from public use limits easy
pedestrian access to the beach which is contrary to ECDC Section C.2(a). She commented that this
meeting is the first time this issue has been made available to the public.
Amhitedural Design Bo&A Meeting
Psge &
August 6,1997
z .!I
LIJ
JO
Ln 0
:n LU
53 X
-J
LO LL.
0
UJ
n
:J-
uj�
0
Z �-
LU LU
0-
0 �-!
LU WI
z
UJ (b
0
z
E
co
Bill Tosky explained this topic has been discusseod many times at open public meetings by the Port
Commission during the past two to three years. F-He added that when the project is complete the total
number of public and Port parking spaces will be gr=ater dw what is available currently. These 25 spaces
are being re -designated for Port tenant use through thae use of fencing and will require the public to walk an
additional 50-100 feet to reach the park.
John Bissell noted that this meeting is the first time - the project has been discussed by the City, but it has
been discussed on several occasions by the Port Comamission at its public meetings.
Board Chairman Young explained that because the IPort is a public entity, their meetings are open to the
public and their agendas are published prior to thecir meetings. He then asked how the site layout is
coordinated with the existing buildings regarding beauutification and urban design or if there is any aesthetic
link between the proposed building and any other Porrt property.
Eric Anderson pointed out that there are three Port perojects being planned but as yet unbuilt. The Marine
Center building, which is 40,000 square feet of mixec:d use office and commercial space, will be built on the
north end, cast of Admiral Way. The second is the b suilding being proposed, and the third is an addition to
this proposed building which will likely be built witHhin the next few years. The same extended overhang
and knee brace theme, color scheme, window treatmeant and landscape design will be used throughout.
Board Chairman Young asked if the site design provi ides adequate separation of vehicles and pedestrians to
avoid conflicts.
Bill Tosky explained that two features were added to improve safety significantly. The first is the addition
of the sidewalk on Admiral Way and the other is Whe waterfront walkway and viewing platforms which
separate the pedestrians from the boat launch operatitions and allows pedestrians to view the area without
walking through it.
Board Chairman Young requested clarification on hs.ow the proposal satisfies the stipulations that on -site
parking spaces and paved surfaces should be kept WD a minimum, joint -use parking arrangements and M*-*
lieu parking payments are encouraged, and only t!'he absolute minimum number of parking spaces to
accommodate the uses should be permitted on site.
Leslie Sacha stated that the Port prepared a comproehensive traffic study which was submitted with the
Shoreline Permit application. This study evaluated.1 existing parking as well as parking which will be
available when the Port development is complete, incEuding the 29,000 square foot addition and the Marine
Services building. The study was also discussed with A City staff regarding how code requirements would be
met with the Port's planned uses. The City's park;dng requirements are considerable and the proposed
amount of parking is not in excess of what is requireo:d. There will be 35 additional pull -in parking spaces
added on the west side of the boat storage facility a1c)ng Admiral Way. These spaces will be available for
both Port tenants and the general public and the majotarity of these spaces will be within 300 feet of the park
which meets the guideline in the City Code.
Bill Tosky clarified that the Port's peak parking days - are dramatically different dw normal days and 98%
of the amount of parking needed for a peak day is cumTently provided. Each summer, on a few key holiday
weekends, the parking is typically full in the Port areaA. Every other weekend there are usually many spaces
available. Boat users are a small part of the peak day- parking users at the Port.
Board Chairman Young questioned the zero setback Itfrom, the bulkhead which is being proposed, since the
Code requires a 15-foot setback.
Ardtitectural Design Board Meeting Page ! 9 Aupst 6, 1997
Z
U1
L)
0
C)
LU
LA.
5
Z �-
0
�i I--
t.0 LU
0
a !=
LU LU
LL C
Z
UJ Cr
0
Z
V-
L*1
[a
John Bissell stated that the ADB does not have authority to determine whether or not a project is in
compliance with the criteria for approval of a valiance and the Code states that staff will inform the ADB
whether a project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. It is up to the ADB to determine whether or
not a project is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the 15-foot setback, as
interpreted by the applicant� will have a bearing on the recommendation the ADB makes only if shown in
the Comprehensive Plan or Design Guidelines.
Board Chairman Young summarized the criteria and purposes of the Edmonds Community Development
Code as they pertain to the applicant's proposal as follows: all elements of building design should form an
integrated development harmonious in scale, line and mass, and building elements include all exterior
elements and colors; and a minimum of five feet landscaped groundcover in all planting beds. He then
clarified with the applicant's representatives that these criteria and purposes were met.
Bill Tosky indicated that they were.
John Bissell pointed out that while the items indicated in the staff report are those which seem to be most
pertinent to the application, any item in the Comprehensive Plan or Design Guidelines could be addressed if
the Board feels that it is pertinent in making a recommendation.
Leslie Sacha asked if the Shoreline Master Plan is a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
John Bissell explained that it is not a part of the Comprehensive Plan as it exists today. Previously, it had
been included, but with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995, the Shoreline, Master Plan was
separated out. Those issues contained in the Shoreline Master Plan which relate to the Port would be
issues to be considered by the Hearing Examiner,
There were no audience comments on this proposal.
Boardmember Pierce asked, regarding Section 20.10.070 dealing with long, massive unbroken structures,
whether the design for a single, long, totally covered free-standing building was used to serve a specific
purpose, and would multiple buildings be as usable for this type of facility.
Bill Tosky pointed out that there are actually four outside buildings connected at the comers and one
building in the center. Ile four buildings are connected to provide operational efficiency and minimize the
amount of land required to store the boats, and as a security measure to avoid having the public in the area
where heavy equipment operates. Eventually a building will be added to the north end of the site which will
house the retail office complex.
Boardmember Pierce recommended that on the eastern elevation, at least three additional planters
containing street trees be added to increase modulation and screening. In addition, he pointed out that the
small plaza area located mid -point from the Port along Admiral Way would be an appropriate place to add
benches for pedestrian use. Mr. Pierce commented that the west elevation with the boat lockers and retail
space is adequate. Without the retail space added, however, the north and east elevations appear too box.
like and he suggested increasing the landscape buffering in those areas. Mr. Pierce also stated that he
would prefer to see additional modulation on the building.
Board Chairman Young mentioned that in other instances when the general mass of a building appeared too
great, the applicant returned to the ADB with a proposal which included additional modulation, and that the
Board could make this a part of their recommendation.
Architectural Design BoW Me -ding
Page 10
August 6, 1"7
10,
C.)
Boardmember Goodrick stated that the landscape buffer would disappear to a large extent in the winter
when the trees are bare, and asked Boardmember Pierce to comment whether he felt the landscaping would
be adequate to offset this element. She also asked if adding additional conifers to the landscape plan would
give effective screening.
!i :
LU:
Boardmember Pierce pointed out that the medium -grade plantings will help somewhat, however, additional
modulation on the building, particularly on the upper portion, is needed. He explained that if additional
0
01
conifers were added, a large area of approximately 20-30 square feet would have to be available to allow
Di
those plants to achieve the size needed to provide an impact.
W�
M:i
U.1
Boardmember Goodrick also agreed with Boardmember Pierce that adding park benches along Admiral
0 i,j
Way to enhance the public use area would be recommended.
Z I—
�_ 0.
Z �—
LU Lu
U CA
0-1
a t�,
LU LU'
Z
LU tn
0
Z
r—
E
Boardmember Chalupnik commented that the proposal does not adequately separate pedestrians from
vehicles due to the fact that, with the Port's re -allocation of parking spaces in the park area, pedestrians
will be required to walk across the entrance of the parking lot. He also commented that the proposal is for
a long, monotonous building which is not in compliance with the Community Development Code.
Boardmember Rubenkonig referred to page 26 of the City's Comprehensive Plan, section A, which
encourages proceeding with a program providing for a more livable, beautiful and successful downtown
area while preserving the small town atmosphere desired by the citizens, and commented that the proposed
building does not satisfy that criteria, nor does it comply with ECDC Section 20.10.070(A)(4) regarding
the avoidance of long, massive or unbroken buildings. Since the proposal includes five buildings, she
suggested that there may be a way of changing the design to comply with the City's guidelines and be of a
scale which is more appropriate. The need for additional modulation must also be addressed in order for
the proposal to be in compliance.
Ms. Rubenkonig referred to page 26 of the Comprehensive Plan, section A, paragraph 3, which recognizes
a coordinated and mutually�supportcd development between the Port, the multi -modal transportation plan
and beach open space facilities, and stated that by re -allocating parking spaces and placing those spaces
behind a chain -link fence, this proposal will create a community conflict which is contrary to the guidelines.
Board Chairman Young and Boardmember Pierce asked for clarification regarding the process of reviewing
this proposal.
John Bissell explained that the Board must make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner regarding the,
compliance of this proposal. If the recommendation is for denial and the Hearing Examiner agrees, then the
applicant may re -apply and appear again before the Architectural Design Board with a revised proposal.
With a consolidated hearing process, the applicant has only one hearing and one appeal opportunity.
Therefore, the Board cannot continue this meeting for further deliberation, nor can the Board require that
the applicant return to the Board for a second hearing.
BOARDMEMBER PIERCE MOVED, SECONDED By BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG, TO
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER THAT SM-97-70 BE
DENIED, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.10.070 REGARDING LONG MASSIVE
UNBROKEN OR MONOTONOUS LINES OF BUILDINGS, PARTICULARLY ON THE NORTH
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page I I August 6.1997
z I--
0
UJ UJ
0—
Q
W UJ
X C>
�— iz
L-L 0
z
0
z
N
E
AND EAST SIDES OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE, AND IN ORDER TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION, AN "PROVED VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED
AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL MODULATION INCLUDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH BOARD
CHAIRMAN YOUNG VOTING NO.
7. DISCUSSION OF ITEMS APPROVED By STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL
John Bissell explained that the finish on the building located at 5th Avenue and Main Street is stucco and
the applicant is proposing changing the siding material on the entire building, which complies with what the
staff can approve. If the proposal was to change the siding material On Only one tenant space, it would not
be in compliance.
Mr. Bissell stated that the flat apartment roof at 21112 - 80th Ave. W. was damaged in the winter storms
and is being replaced with a pitched roof which complies with the City's height requirements. He explained
that Boardmember Oaklief, who helped create the ordinance which gives staff the authority to approve
proposals such as these, agreed that the intent of the ordinance was to allow staff to deal with this type of
project without needing the approval of the Architectural Design Board.
8. BOARD DISCUSSION
Boardmember Goodrick requested an updated list of Board members. She also commented that it has been
brought to her attention that the ADB previously gave an annual award for an outstanding project and
wondered if that program was going to be continued.
John Bissell commented that he would make sure that an updated Board list is made available. He also
explained that the award system was discontinued several years ago. He stated that it could be resumed if
the Board wishes.
Boardmember Goodrick stated that an annual award system may provide an incentive for applicants to
produce good proposals for Board consideration.
Boardmember Rubenkonig thanked the Boardmembers for their efforts in considering the proposals at this
meeting. She noted that having the other two Boardmembers present may have made it easier to identify
acceptable alternatives to the building design proposed by the Port. Ms. Rubenkonig also explained that
because she is a new member of the Board, she sometimes needs more information to fully understand each
proposal.
Boardmember Chalupnik pointed out that each member of the Board had different concerns about the
compliance of the proposal.
Boardmember Pierce explained that Ife needed to clearly understand the review and recommendation
process before making his decision, and pointed out that in certain situations, the ability to hold only one
collective hearing can make the Board's deliberations more difficult.
Board Chairman Young complimented the Boardmembers for identifying the appropriate elements which
caused the proposal to be out of compliance. He explained that by recommending denial, rather than
approval with conditions, the Board may have lost an opportunity to suggest positive changes in the design
since there is only one hearing taking place.
ArWtechrd Desip Boud Meding
Pap 12
August6,1997
%
1 4
CITY OF EDMONDS, .BARBARA FAHEY
121 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works Planning/Building - Parks and Recreation Engineering Wastewater Treatment Plant
z
<
LU
Transmittal
uii
n Date: August 7, 1997
(a LL
To: ADB Applicants
0) a
X ut Subject: ADB Meeting of 8/6/97
01
LU LU! Transmitting ADB Synopsis
0— For Your Information: X
uJ LU
x
I— I As you requested:
U.
LU 0 For your file:
Comment: The appeal period of your item Will be up on 8121197 at
z 5:00 p.m.
Note attachments:
Sincerely,
Diane Cunningham, Administative Assistant
W
Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
t 4-4=�
I
T
0
0
Notice of Development Application & Hearing Examiner Public Hearing
Date of Notice: August 7, 1997 1
File # SM-97-70 & ADB-97-72
Applicant Information Permit Information
Name of Applicant: .......... - Port of Edmonds Requested Permits Plat
Date of Application: ............. May 14,1997 1 and Approvals:
cde Application Complete: June 20,1997 Other Required Permits Unknown
not yet applied for (if
Protect Location:....— Southern end of the Port property where known): ........... ..............
molding dry boat storage is located. Required Studies related Unknown
Paijact Description: ..................... Consolidated application for compliance with ADB to the project: .................
criteria & Shoreline Substantiel Diwelpereat point
.,he reinsertion of the misting dry boat storage
bldg. & constrout 30 ft. high Dry Stuck Storage Related Environmental Critical Areas Checklist
Willy, wash down fad! ity, boat stomp & operr Documents: ...............
yard & reconfiguralion of eveling nedir; fiedlities.
The proposed application also includes a proposed Public Comments Due:.. August 21, 1997 by 9:00 A.M.
2rd phase to the development .1relt trend. .
addition of pp-. 29,000 sq. ft. of flucchrokil City Contact: ............... — Jeff Wilson
space. The propertyieconsdOw'.
Public Hearing Information
Date: AUGUST21,1997 Time: 9:00 A.M. Place: Plaza Meeting Room - 650 Main St., Edmonds
Intersection on this development application ean be vievved or obtained at the City of Edmonds Community Services Department,
121 Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 980X (425) 771-0220, Public comments should also be sent to this address.
The decision an this development application will be made within 120 days ofthe date ofthe Lemer ofComplerecess, with allowances mordefor mucedur and
additional information requests Note that ability to Ppeal a decision & —If" uponp�ticipationinihepemitdecisionprocess
, Tor
The mmmal,mulliation,destmetion,orconcealmentofthis This notice may be moved
Warningil notice befare the hearing date Is a misdemeanor punishable by
fine and imprisproment. after. August 21, 1997
25XI
32XIE]
VFII;� j
N
A�
fi
_V, V'
ATTACHMENTB
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
z
2: 232703.1-04,5.0004
232703-1-05'7-0 9
00
L) ESC Associates in 232703-4-003-0008
Burl Fort Nofthern Railroad Co.
0 3131 E. Madison SL. Suitt 202 777 Main Street L. Ardean
Harold R. Stone 4:
Seattle. WA 98112 14277 Worden Way
U) Lu, Fort worth. TX 76102,
uj.�I Saratoga, CA 95070
_j
U) U. 232703-4-01 I.000g
—0
w Union Oil Company 232703-4-012.0007 232703-4-013-0006
P.O. Box 7600
Port of Edmond' Margaret B. Vorwick Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90051 s c/0 Brice Inv. Realty
LL Edmonds. WA qg020
9450 SW Commerce Circle
X U) I WiLsOnville, OR 97070
._,_N�/014-0005
327R-4/-64-0004
Port oty onds Fort of rmonds 75-0001
Uj Lu K�I!
Edmoe4 WA 98020 Port qPK( onds
Edmop6s\WA'98020
Edmlbndf, WA gso2o
U U)
0—
Lu LU 2327034-094-bQ08
13270' -086-0009 Cial�Edrnopqs.
Ci 1_ �t
Fort 232.7,03, -0005
onds _r
Edrn
�L_ 0 'v
Z� 0 WA 98020 250 Fi*,, nue N. Port Wolmonds
LUWUJ n Edra6ndk WA 98020
n A 98020
1:).)-0006
z 'o orl
0 onds 233ZO3
,14-158-0001
A 132'k3*159-000
250 F* venue N. Poh)(Edmonds 0
'is
Edmin nds. A 98020 Edrj(on&. WA 9SO20 Port oXdmonds
Edrn/ncR WA 98020
Leslie Sacha
Environmental Consulting
929 N. 76th St.
Seattle, WA 98103 %N
0
0
n,
gn-
N
�M;