Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
reduced PLN20140009 continuance staff memo and attachments.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS 1215 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION Project: Jenna Lane Townhouses File Number: PLN20140009 Date of Report: June 24, 20)4_ Staff Contact: u i �!4.% — Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner AD13 Meeting: Wednesday — July 2, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 2505 th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 As was noted at the start of the public hearing for this project on June 4, 2014, the applicant is proposing to redevelop the parcels at 8506 and 8510 240th Street SW by removing two existing single family homes and constructing five (5) new townhouse units and related improvements. At the June 4 meeting, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) continued the hearing to July 2, 2014 in order to allow the applicant time to provide additional materials to clarify the proposal. The applicant submitted the requested materials; staff believes the applicant has effectively responded to the Board's requests and recommends approval of the project's updated design with conditions. The following Exhibits and Attachments were entered into the record on June 4: Exhibit 1— Original staff report with 12 attachments 1. Applicant's cover letter 2. Aerial photo, oblique aerial and street views of the parcel 3. SEPA DNS 4. Letter of complete application, public notice documentation 5. Technical comments from Fire District #1, Engineering and Building Divisions 6. Public comments from PUD and Edmonds Greenery Homeowners Association 7. Project materials a. Proposed site plan (Sheet Cl) b. Building elevations (Sheet A3) Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance c. Landscaping plan (Sheet L1) d. Existing conditions and erosion and sediment control plan (Sheet C2) e. Site and grading plan (Sheet C3) f. Utility plan (Sheet C4) g. Standard details (Sheet C5) h. Main floor plan (Sheet A2) i. Upper floor plan (Sheet A3) 8. Preliminary stormwater plan 9. Land use application 10. Color samples 11. Plant fact sheets 12. Staff marked -up landscaping plan (for reference only) Exhibit 2 — Marked -up elevation by Board Member Broadway prior to June 4 meeting Exhibit 3 — Unit E elevation from applicant at June 4 meeting Exhibit 4 — Unit A -B elevation revision from applicant at June 4 meeting In addition to the draft meeting minutes from June 4 which are included here as Exhibit 5, the following materials were provided by the applicant as requested by the ADB: Exhibit 6 — Cover letter Exhibit 7 — Revised Unit A -B elevation Exhibit 8 — Revised Unit C -D elevation Exhibit 9 — Revised Unit E elevation Exhibit 10 — Unit B cross section Exhibit 11— Unit C cross section Exhibit 12 — Unit D cross section Exhibit 13 — Revised landscaping plan The updated materials provided by the applicant are analyzed below and are compared to the original plans for the affected design elements. If there are no changes between the two versions for a particular element, that is noted. Otherwise, updated findings of fact, conclusions and conditions are proposed. Finally, revised Engineering comments specific to this project were received and replace those originally included in Exhibit 1, Attachment 5. Exhibit 14 — Revised Engineering comments It should be noted that because the June 4 hearing was continued to a date certain (July 2), no additional public notice was required. Page 2 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance IMIN 41,1112 R11 111 R • •' The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Edmonds Way Corridor." Goals, objectives and policies in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for this district include: Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities (page 77). ® Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. ® Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. ® Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR -104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. ® Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Comments: No change. The subject site is zoned Multiple Residential which is one of several possible implementing zones within the Edmonds Way Corridor. Edmonds Way and Highway 99 to the east are served by existing transit facilities and the design of the development will access 240th Street SW as opposed to Edmonds Way. Design review is required for the project using the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code. The proposal is subject to the design standards of the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Element. The following analysis relates the project to the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade as identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design chapter (pages 92-98). C.1. Design Objectives for Vehicular Access. Page 3 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance C.1.a. Reduce the numbers of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. C.1.b. Provide safe routes for disabled people. C.1.c. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in retail/multi-family/ commercial areas. Comments: One driveway exists to 240th Street and one driveway is proposed. Landscaping will be enhanced on the 240th Street frontage, which will improve the character of the streetscape in that area. The revised landscape plan (Exhibit 13) provides additional screening compared to the original plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7c). C.2. Design Objectives for Location and Layout of Parking C.2.a. Create adequate parking for each development, but keep the cars from dominating the streetscape. C.2.b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings closer to the street and defining the street edge. C.2.c. Improve the project's visibility from the street by placing parking to side and rear. C.2.d. Provide direct pedestrian access from street, sidewalk, and parking. C.2.e. Integrate pedestrian and vehicular access between adjacent developments. Comments: Parking is proposed within enclosed garages in each of the units so cars will not dominate the streetscape any more than on nearby parcels and certainly less than on the church parcel to the north (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7a). Pedestrian and auto access will use 240th Street as opposed to Edmonds Way. While there is no need to provide access to adjacent residential developments, a condition is included to require a pedestrian connection from each of the proposed units to the 240th Street right-of-way. C.3. Design Objectives for Pedestrian Connections Offsite. C.3.a. Design the site access and circulation routes with pedestrians' comfort and ease of access in mind. C.3.b. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles and pedestrians. C.3.c. Provide direct and safe access along, through and to driveways and adjacent developments or city streets. C.3.d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas. Page 4 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance Comments: 240th Street will be used for pedestrian and auto access. Existing transit facilities nearby on Edmonds Way and Highway 99 are available. As mentioned above, a pedestrian walkway will also be required to connect each dwelling unit with 240th Street. C.4 Design Objectives for Garage Entry/Door Locations C.4.a Ensure pedestrian safety by allowing cars the space to pull out of a garage without blocking the sidewalk. C.4.b. Improve pedestrian safety by reducing points of conflict/curb cuts. C.4.c. Reduce harsh visual impacts of multiple and/or large garage entries/doors and access driveways. Reduce the quantity of entries/doors visible to the street. Comments: While access will be from 240th Street, the layout of the site dictates that the residential units will face Edmonds Way. The garages for the five units will be visible but will be screened by existing development at the corner of 240th and Edmonds Way and by the proposed landscaping on the western side of the subject site. The revised landscape plan (Exhibit 13) provides additional screening compared to the original plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7c). C.S. Design Objectives for Building Entry Location. C.S.a. Create an active, safe and lively street -edge. C.S.b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment. C.S.c. Provide outdoor active spaces at entry to retail/commercial uses. C.S.d. Provide semi-public/private seating area at multi family and commercial entries to increase activity along the street. Comments: Because this is a residential development accessing a cross street, creating a lively pedestrian environment is not a high priority. Additional landscaping along 240th will improve the appearance of the site at the street edge. Building entries will be located on the side of the structures, which are highlighted by a small eyebrow roof (Exhibits 7 - 9). C.6. Design Objectives for Setbacks. C.6.a. To create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area. C.6.b. To create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. C.6.c. To provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot. C.6.d. To encourage transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Page 5 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance Comments: Because the site is zoned RM -2.4, there is a minimum required 15 -foot setback from the street property line along 240th Street SW. The required frontage improvements and updated landscaping will help tie the subject site with the existing area (Exhibit 13). C.7. Design Objectives for Open Space. C. 7.a. To create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. C. 7A To provide places for residents and visitors to meet and to interact. C.7.c. To provide an area for play, seating and other residential activities. Comments: No change. There are no specific open space requirements for the RM -2.4 zone and none are proposed with this development. C.B. Design Objectives for Building/Site Identity. C.B.a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and massing in large multi family or commercial projects. CAL Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, color, materials and individuality of buildings. C. B. c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. C. B. d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in the city. Comments: The proposed buildings will be similar in character and scale with the existing adjacent developments. Bulk and mass are reduced by using both horizontal and vertical articulation of materials and projections on all four sides of the building. The revised mix of design elements, materials and colors ensures that a repetitive, monotonous facade and building massing is avoided (Exhibits 7-9). The residential appearance and scale of the buildings will blend well with the multifamily residential parcels immediately adjacent to the site (Exhibits 10-12). C.9. Design Objectives for Weather Protection. C.9.a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks in downtown. C.9.b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain or snow. C.9.c. Provide a covered waiting area and walkway for pedestrians entering a building, coming from parking spaces and the public sidewalk in all areas of the City. Comments: No change. The project site is not commercial nor is it located within the downtown area. Residents may choose to enter their unit through the garage to avoid the weather. The size and location of the eaves is typical of a residential building. Page 6 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance C.10. Design Objectives for Lighting. C.10.a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians, including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of security. C.10.b. Minimize potential for light to reflect or spill off-site. C.10.c. Create a sense of welcome and activity. C.10.d. Provide adequate lighting for signage panels. Comments: Residential luminaires are proposed for the building adjacent to the garages and entry doors (Exhibits 7-9). Additional lighting (bollards or similar) for pedestrian safety in the driveway area was discussed at the June 4 meeting (Exhibit 5, page 8). C.11. Design Objectives for Signage. C.11.a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered. C.11.b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. C.11.c. Provide clear signage for each distinct property. C.11.d. Use graphics/symbols to reduce the need to have large letters. C.11.e. Minimize potential for view blockage. C.11.f. Signs should be related to the circulation element serving the establishment. C.11.g. Landscaping should be used in conjunction with pole signs for safety as well as appearance. C.11.h. Where multiple businesses operate from a central location, tenants should be encouraged to coordinate signing to avoid the proliferation of signs, each competing with the others. Comments: No change. No signage is proposed at this time. Should a monument sign with the name of the development or similar be proposed in the future, review by the Planning Division is required with a building permit to ensure dimensional and placement requirements are met. For example, signs over three feet in height need to meet the required setbacks. C.12. Design Objectives for Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical. C.12.a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and composting. C.12.b. Minimize noise and odor. C.12.c. Minimize visual intrusion. C.12.d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas Page 7 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance Comments: No change. Trash and recycling will be stored in the individual units. Utility boxes and mechanical equipment are not shown on Exhibit 1, Attachment 7f; all above -ground equipment must be located interior to the site or screened or camouflaged. C.13. Design Objectives for Significant Features. C.13.a. Retain significant landscape features and unique landforms such as rock outcroppings and significant trees. C. 13. b. Limit potential future negative environmental impacts such as erosion, runoff, landslides, and removal of vegetation and/or habitats. C.13.c. Buffer incompatible uses. C.13.d. Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of the building along steep sloping sites. Comments: The project site slopes gradually from northeast to southwest but contains no critical areas or other significant features with the exception of several small- to medium-sized trees. The revised landscaping (Exhibit 13) will help to buffer the new development from existing adjacent uses and stormwater will be managed in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements (Exhibit 1, Attachment 8). The buildings will use the topography and step down the site toward the southwest (Exhibits 7-9 and 10-12). C.14. Design Objectives for Landscape Buffers. C.14.a. Create a visual barrier between different uses. C.14.b. Maintain privacy of single family residential areas. C.14.c. Reduce harsh visual impact of parking lots and cars. C.14.d. Landscape buffers should reinforce pedestrian circulation routes. C.14.e. Landscape buffers should not be designed or located in a manner that creates an unsafe pedestrian environment. C. 14.f. Minimize heat gain from paved surfaces. C. 14. g. Provide treatment of runoff from parking lots. Comments: The revised landscaping plan (Exhibit 13) addresses the landscaping buffer objectives much better than the original plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7c). Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. Page 8 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance D.1. Design Objectives for Height. D.1.a. Preserve views to mountains and Puget Sound to the west. D.1.b. Maintain the smaller scale and character of historic Edmonds. D.1.c. Minimize blockage of light and air to adjacent properties or to the sidewalk area. D. 1. d. Maintain/protect view from public places and streets. Comments: There are no views to the Puget Sound or mountains from the subject property and it is not located within the historic downtown area of Edmonds. The buildings are two stories and appear to be under the height limit (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). As shown in the cross-sections in Exhibits 10-12, the proposed buildings will be recessed into and step down on the site and will generally be at an elevation somewhat lower than the existing Edmonds Greenery buildings to the east. D.2. Design Objectives for Massing. D.2.a. Encourage human scale elements in building design. D.2.b. Reduce bulk and mass of buildings. D.2.c. Masses may be subdivided vertically or horizontally. D.2.d. Explore flexible site calculations to eliminate building masses that have one story on one elevation and four or greater stories on another. Comments: The revised proposal shows the same human scale buildings and horizontal variation but also shows vertical break up from the grade change that exists on the site (Exhibits 7-9; Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). D.3. Design Objectives for Roof Modulation. D.3.a. To break up the overall massing of the roof. D.3.b. Create human scale in the building. D.3.c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building. D.3.d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building. Comments: Because each building only contains one or two units (as opposed to having one larger five -unit building), the mass of the roofs are reduced and the buildings have a more human scale. The roof forms are still gently pitched (3:12) and incorporate small eaves but there is now a peaked roof form for Building C -D which is different from the butterfly -like forms that had originally been proposed for each of the buildings (Exhibits 7-9; Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). D.4. Design Objectives for Wall Modulation. D.4. a. To let more light and air into the building. D.4.b. Break up large building mass and scale of a facade. Page 9 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance D.4.c. To avoid stark and imposing building facades. D.4.d. To create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds. D.4.e. To become compatible with the surrounding built environment. Comments: Several windows and doors are proposed for the north, south and east sides of the buildings (Exhibits 7-9; Exhibit 1, Attachments 7h and 7i). The west fagade has fewer windows and plain garage doors but there are trellises over the garages to provide some modulation. Larger and/or varied window forms along with more attractive garage doors would benefit the west side of the building. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. E.1. Design Objectives for Building Facade. E.1.a. Ensure diversity in design. E.1.b. Reinforce the existing building patterns found in Edmonds. E.1.c. Improve visual and physical character and quality of Edmonds. E.1.d. Improve pedestrian environment in retail/commercial areas. E.1.e. Create individual identity of buildings. Comments: As originally proposed, the duplex units were to be mirror images of one another in both floor plan and appearance (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). The revised elevations show units vertically staggered by grade with more color and material variation to better differentiate each building (Exhibits 7-9). Materials proposed include board and batten and cedar shingle along with both vertical and horizontal Hardiplank siding. Cedar trellises provide additional interest on the first floor by the garage doors and sliding doors. E.2. Design Objectives for Window Variety and Articulation. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. The organization and combinations of window types provide variation in a facade as well as provide light and air to the interior. Small windows are more typically utilitarian in function, such as bathroom or stairway windows, etc. and can be grouped to provide more articulation in the facade. Comments: The variety and articulation of windows appears to be unchanged between the revised and original designs (Exhibits 7-9; Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). Board Member Broadway suggested possibilities for additional window variation in Exhibit 2. Page 10 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance E.3. Design Objectives for Variation in Facade Materials. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. Comments: As mentioned above, the revised facades use additional materials which serve differentiate the buildings and provide more interest than the original design (Exhibits 7-9; Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). E.4. Design Objectives forAccent Materials/Colors/Trim. Applied ornament, various materials and colors applied to a facade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds provide variation in the scale, style and appearance of every building facade. The objective is to encourage new development that provides: ® Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. ® Visual interest and variety in building forms. ® Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses. ® Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. Comments: The revised color elevations in Exhibits 7-9 show much more variation than the original proposal (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b). Additional variation could still be appropriate including varied window casing widths and materials and the use of projecting sills. As mentioned previously, incorporating additional natural materials is encouraged. Use of alternative roofing materials like metal, slate or solar shingles or panels would also provide interest. With conditions, staff feels that the revised proposal satisfies the referenced goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. A. The subject property is zoned RM -2.4 (Multi -Family Residential). B. Multiple dwellings are a permitted primary use in the RM -2.4 zone according to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1. C. Site Development Standards The site development standards for the RM -2.4 zone contained in ECDC 16.30.030.A are summarized on the next page: Page 11 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Units: The subject property is 0.337 acres (14,674 square feet). At 2,400 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, a maximum of six dwelling units would be possible. Five units are proposed. Height: Height calculations for the proposed structure were not provided. However, the elevation views (Exhibit 7-9) indicate the buildings will be approximately 24 feet 5 inches in height and no pitched roofs are proposed above 25 feet. Height compliance will be confirmed at building permit; height is calculated from average original grade prior to redevelopment. Setbacks: As shown on Exhibit 1- Attachment 7a, the subject site is a through lot fronting on two streets and is not a corner lot. As a result, the site has two street and two side setbacks. The proposed structures must be located at least 15 feet from the northern and southwest property lines (street setbacks) and 10 feet from the east and west property lines (side setbacks). The proposed building appears to meet the minimum setback requirements of the RM -2.4 zone. It should be noted that the top of a rockery or retaining wall must be less than 3 feet above original grade. The applicant has indicated the retaining wall along Edmonds Way has been removed from the plans (Exhibit 6). All rockeries and walls like those shown on Exhibit 1 - Attachment 7e will be verified for height compliance at building permit. There is a deck on the adjacent property to the west that projects across the shared property line into the subject site (Exhibit 1, Attachments 7d & 7e). This deck must be removed or otherwise addressed during building permit review. Structural lot coverage: At 14,674 square feet, the three structures proposed can cover no more than 45% of the site or approximately 6,603 square feet. There is no indication on Exhibit 1- Attachment 7a what the coverage of the buildings will be but this will be verified at building permit. As proposed, it appears the new Jenna Lane Townhouses will meet the development standards for the RM -2.4 zone; compliance with all development standards will be confirmed during the building permit review process. Page 12 of 19 Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Zone Area per Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Dwelling unit Height Coverage Setback Setback Setback (Sq. Ft.) RM -2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25'1 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Units: The subject property is 0.337 acres (14,674 square feet). At 2,400 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, a maximum of six dwelling units would be possible. Five units are proposed. Height: Height calculations for the proposed structure were not provided. However, the elevation views (Exhibit 7-9) indicate the buildings will be approximately 24 feet 5 inches in height and no pitched roofs are proposed above 25 feet. Height compliance will be confirmed at building permit; height is calculated from average original grade prior to redevelopment. Setbacks: As shown on Exhibit 1- Attachment 7a, the subject site is a through lot fronting on two streets and is not a corner lot. As a result, the site has two street and two side setbacks. The proposed structures must be located at least 15 feet from the northern and southwest property lines (street setbacks) and 10 feet from the east and west property lines (side setbacks). The proposed building appears to meet the minimum setback requirements of the RM -2.4 zone. It should be noted that the top of a rockery or retaining wall must be less than 3 feet above original grade. The applicant has indicated the retaining wall along Edmonds Way has been removed from the plans (Exhibit 6). All rockeries and walls like those shown on Exhibit 1 - Attachment 7e will be verified for height compliance at building permit. There is a deck on the adjacent property to the west that projects across the shared property line into the subject site (Exhibit 1, Attachments 7d & 7e). This deck must be removed or otherwise addressed during building permit review. Structural lot coverage: At 14,674 square feet, the three structures proposed can cover no more than 45% of the site or approximately 6,603 square feet. There is no indication on Exhibit 1- Attachment 7a what the coverage of the buildings will be but this will be verified at building permit. As proposed, it appears the new Jenna Lane Townhouses will meet the development standards for the RM -2.4 zone; compliance with all development standards will be confirmed during the building permit review process. Page 12 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance 2. ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulations According to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b, the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit in multifamily projects is based upon the number of bedrooms per unit. Studios require 1.2 spaces, 1 -bedrooms require 1.5 spaces, 2 -bedroom units require 1.8 spaces, and 3 or more bedrooms require 2.0 spaces. Exhibit 1- Attachment 7i shows each unit having three bedrooms; as a result, a total of ten (10) parking spaces are required. Two of the required spaces will be provided as enclosed parking within each of the five units for a total of 10 spaces. While encouraged, no guest parking is required and none is provided on private property but it is possible that one or more spaces will be created within the 240th Street right-of-way as part of curb and gutter improvements. The proposed development appears consistent with the off street parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. 3. ECDC 20.11 General Design Review ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. A. ECDC 20.11.030.A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; Comments: The revised building designs (Exhibits 7-9) are more varied than the original (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7b) yet still harmonious in scale, line and mass within the development. As shown on Exhibits 10-12, the development will integrate better with the surrounding developments by stepping down the building pads from the north to the south and eliminating the retaining wall along Edmonds Way. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; Comments: Brilliant colors were not originally proposed (Exhibit 1, Attachments 7b and 10); rather, they were few and somewhat bland. The revised elevations (Exhibits 7-9) show more and varied use of color to differentiate each building as well as to break up individual facades. 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Comments: No change. Mechanical equipment has not been shown with the elevation views. A condition of approval should be that all mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings will be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the Page 13 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. Comments: Bulk and mass are reduced in both horizontal and vertical articulation of materials and projections. The five units are also divided into three buildings which step down the site from north to south as opposed to having just one large building on the site (Exhibits 7-9). 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Comments: No change. No signs have been specifically proposed. All signage must meet the requirements of ECDC 20.60 and should use similar materials to those used throughout the rest of the development. As conditioned, staff feels the revised project is consistent with design criteria contained within ECDC 20.11.030.A. B. ECDC 20.11.030.8. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. Comments: The site is gently sloped so grading will be required to construct the driveway, building pads, and the like. Retaining walls on the eastern and western edges of the site are also proposed (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7e) but the wall adjacent to Edmonds Way has been eliminated from the proposal (Exhibit 6). Most of the site will be cleared and re -landscaped after redevelopment is complete but several existing trees near the southern edge of the site are to be retained and incorporated into the development (Exhibit 13). There will be an increase in impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway, walkways, patios, etc.) but not in excess of what would be expected with the redevelopment of an underutilized pair of multifamily zoned lots that have older single family residences on them. All stormwater will be managed in accordance the City's stormwater codes. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Comments: A variety of native trees, shrubs are groundcovers are proposed around the site which will enhance the building design and other site improvements (Exhibit 13). These areas will be watered by an automatic irrigation system. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Page 14 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance Comments: The revised landscaping plan (Exhibit 13) shows appropriate buffering on all sides of the development. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Comments: Landscaping adjacent to the driveway will be protected by curbing (Exhibit 13). 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. Comments: No change. Trash and recycling will be stored within the individual units and managed likewise. 5. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Comments: No change. Plantings will consist of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs that will provide year-round screening and interest. Examples are shown in Exhibit 1 - Attachment 11. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Comments: No change. There are no areas of wood, brick, stone or gravel in lieu of landscaping proposed as part of this project (Exhibit 13). 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. Comments: Exterior sconces are still shown on the revised elevations (Exhibits 7-9). The 'Illumination notes' on Exhibit 1 - Attachment 7e indicate that excessive glare and light pollution is to be avoided; a condition for use of dark -sky compliant cut-off fixtures is recommended. The inclusion of additional lighting within the driveway area for pedestrian safety may be merited. With conditions, staff feels the revised proposal is consistent with design criteria contained within ECDC 20.11.030.6. 4. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. The applicant originally submitted Exhibit 1 - Attachment 7c which showed Type III landscaping along Edmonds Way, Type IV along 240th Street SW, with Type II along the other property lines. Three Douglas fir trees near the southern corner of the parcel were to be retained. Given the site's location, staff felt that the original landscaping was insufficient in some locations. Specifically, denser Type I landscaping was thought to be more appropriate to Page 15 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance buffer the site from Edmonds Way corridor while Type III would be better to screen the buildings along 240th Street SW. The revised landscaping plan (Exhibit 13) shows these updates and addresses several points that were bulleted on Exhibit 1, page 16. A. ECDC 20.13.030.A describes Type I landscaping as: Type 1 Landscaping. Type 1 landscaping is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts. Two rows of evergreen trees, a minimum of 10 feet in height and planted at intervals of no greater than 20 feet on center. The trees must be backed by a sight -obscuring fence a minimum of five feet high or the required width of the planting area must be increased by 10 feet; and 2. Shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height planted in an area at least five feet in width, and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; 3. Alternatively, the trees and shrubs may be planted on an earthen berm at least 15 feet in width and an average of five feet high along its midline. While the proposed plan does not exactly meet the requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.A for Type I landscaping, the area of the site facing Edmonds Way now shows screening very much in keeping with Type I requirements including a 5' wood fence and a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and ground covers. It does not appear that the stormwater dispersion trench would be impacted by the location of the proposed landscape plantings. B. ECDC 20.13.030.13 describes Type II landscaping as: Type 11 Landscaping. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center; and 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. The applicant has revised the landscape plantings along both the west and east property lines to be more in line with Type II specifications. This type will provide an appropriate visual separation between similar uses (small home business on the west, condos on the east). On the east, slender Hinoki Cypress are now proposed as opposed to Douglas fir. Two Vine Maples and a good mix of shrubs and ground covers are included throughout. In the narrow planting bed along the western property line, the plan now calls for five Bowhall Maples combined with a row of Emerald Green Arborvitae. While not exactly Page 16 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance compliant with the Type II requirements in ECDC 20.13.030.6, the proposed vegetation seems appropriate given the width and length of the planting bed because it will provide both year-round screening as well as seasonal interest. Additional Vine Maples are also proposed adjacent to each of the buildings near the west fagade which will serve to further buffer and reduce the scale of the buildings in that location. C. ECDC 20.13.030.0 describes Type III landscaping as: Type 111 landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. The revised plan shows good Type III landscaping along the 240th Street frontage to screen the proposed development from the street. Vine and Bowhall Maples along with two Hinoki Cypress provide the vertical screening while shrubs and ground covers comprise the remainder of the plantings in that area. Given the changes shown on the revised landscaping plan, staff feels the landscaping for the project is consistent with the design review requirements of ECDC 20.13, as may be modified by the ADB. Page 17 of 19 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the revised findings, analysis, conclusions, and exhibits with this report, staff recommends that the ADB APPROVE the revised design for the proposed Jenna Lane Townhomes under file number PLN20140009 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED JENNA LANE TOWNHOMES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 2. ALL ABOVE -GROUND UTILITY EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRANSFORMERS, HOT BOXES, MECHANICAL UNITS, ETC.) MUST BE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE SITE OR CAMOUFLAGED OR SCREENED WITH ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, FENCING AND/OR LANDSCAPING. 3. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL BE DARK -SKY COMPLIANT CUT-OFF FIXTURES. 4. THE DECK OFF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE WEST PROJECTS OVER THE PROJECT SITE'S WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS DECK WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED, MODIFIED OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR DURING BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY MUST BE CREATED CONNECTING EACH OF THE DWELLING UNITS WITH THE 240TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE WALK MAY BE STRIPED ASPHALT, ALTERNATE MATERIALS, OR THE LIKE. Page 18 of 19 Luay Joudeh, PE D.R. Strong 6207 th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98034 Elisabeth Tobin Snohomish County PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206 Sally Vosk 8410240 th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 continuance Eric Hartsfield Edmonds Greenery HOA 8418240 th Street SW, Unit A303 Edmonds, WA 98026 Predrag Bojic 24007 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Nola Topolinski 8414240 th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Page 19 of 19 " 1i "I. I %,9N All"W"WaSIM" � IN I'M 1,21. 5uh Avenue North, Edmonds WA, 98020 Phone: 425,771.0220 * Fax: 425,771.n221 DEVELOPIVIIIENTSERVIC175 DEPARTMENT a PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION 11"6m, RIX MUMMA Hm. Project: Jenna Lane Townhouse5 File Numbers: PLN201400,09 Date of Report: May 28, ' Staf'f Contact, Mil, e Gugston,MCP, Assocale, Planner ADB Meetiiig: Wednesday -- J une 4, 2024 gat '7mala P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Corwiplex-1 Cuumil Chambers 2505 th Avoinue North, Edn°)onds WA 98020 11, PROJECTIPROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to red eveleap, the parcels at 8506 and 8510 240'x' Street 5W, The existing single family homes and related improvements will b,e removed, the lalts will be combined, and five (5), new townhou,se units wffl be constructed. As indicated lin this report, staff reccry)rnends approval offl-m project's design withcoindiflons., "The scope ofthe riedevelopimen't triggers Statp, EnvimnmentM Policy Act (SEPA) review, As a result, desigin re0ew by the ArcHtectural Design IBoard (ADB) is required', "I'[w desO'l review of °thle project is a Type III -B decision appealableto the [-dmonds C ity C () u n C i l - The fool owire g Attac.hirnents are indluded with th i's staff rep'011' V, � 11P, 240TH ST M Ed -11011dr, Zoni'i rig Map, May 10, 2D1 .. . ... . . ..... ... ..... . ... . .. ...... .. . ....... ... ... . ......... .. . . .. . .. .... ....3............................ Pl..NN 201400019 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 1. Applicant's cover letter 2. Aerial photo, oblique aerial and street views of the parcel 3. SEPA DNS 4. Letter of complete application, public notice documentation 5. Technical comments from Fire District #1, Engineering and Building Divisions 6. Public comments from PUD and Edmonds Greenery Homeowners Association 7. Project materials a. Proposed site plan (Sheet Cl) b. Building elevations (Sheet A3) c. Landscaping plan (Sheet L1) d. Existing conditions and erosion and sediment control plan (Sheet C2) e. Site and grading plan (Sheet C3) f. Utility plan (Sheet C4) g. Standard details (Sheet C5) h. Main floor plan (Sheet A2) i. Upper floor plan (Sheet A3) 8. Preliminary stormwater plan 9. Land use application 10. Color samples 11. Plant fact sheets 12. Staff marked -up landscaping plan (for reference only) II. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 1. Applicant: Lydd Properties, LLC 2. Owner: Lydd Properties, LLC 3. Tax Parcel Numbers: 00463301700301 & 00463301700302 4. Location: 8506 & 8510 240th Street SW, Edmonds WA 98026 5. Site size: 14,674 square feet 6. Zoning: Residential Multifamily, RM -2.4 7. Existing Use: Single family residences 8. Proposed Use: Five (5) townhouse units (two duplexes, one single) 9. Process: Type III -B decision Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for this project because more than four (4) dwelling units are proposed to be created. A SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 29, 2014 (Attachment 3). No appeals of the SEPA determination were received but Snohomish County PUD provided a comment indicating that Page 2 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 there is sufficient system capacity to serve the proposed development but that any upgrading, removal or relocation of service for the project itself is the responsibility of the developer (Attachment 6). A "Notice of Application and SEPA Threshold Determination" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on April 29, 2014. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. A "Notice of Public Hearing" was similarly advertised on May 21, 2014. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 (Public Notice). See Attachment 4 for public notice documentation and applicant correspondence. This application for design review was reviewed and evaluated by Fire District #1 as well as the Building and Engineering Divisions (Attachment 5). Assuming the design review is approved, each group, in addition to Planning, Public Works and others, will review the associated building permits required to ensure compliance with all applicable codes. Although not required during this review process, the Engineering Division provided extensive comments regarding the site and stormwater improvements. The developer will need to address these comments in the building permit submittals. 1. Topography: The site slopes gradually from east to west toward Edmonds Way. 2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, the soils on the site consists of "Alderwood Urban Land Complex, 2 - 8% slopes". 3. Critical Areas: There are no critical areas on or adjacent to the site according to critical area determinations CRA20140026 and CRA20140027 (for 8506 and 8510 240tH, respectively). 4. Wildlife: Wildlife associated with the property is typical of an urban environment including song birds and small mammals. 5. Vegetation: The site has typical urban residential landscaping with a few small -to - medium evergreen and deciduous trees. 6. Shoreline: The subject property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. The neighborhood is located near the intersection of Edmonds Way and Highway 99. Zoning is transitional as are existing uses in the area which include a mix of multifamily- and commercial - zoned and developed parcels along with some remaining single family -zoned and developed Page 3 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 parcels. Immediately north of the project site is the United Presbyterian Church. South and east, as well as west across Edmonds Way, are multifamily zoned and developed parcels. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Edmonds Way Corridor." Goals, objectives and policies in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for this district include: Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities (page 77). ® Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. ® Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. ® Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR -104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. ® Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible. Comments: The subject site is zoned Multiple Residential which is one of several possible implementing zones within the Edmonds Way Corridor. Edmonds Way and Highway 99 to the east are served by existing transit facilities and the design of the development will access 240th Street SW as opposed to Edmonds Way. Design review is required for the project using the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code. The proposal is subject to the design standards of the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Element. The following analysis relates the project to the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade as identified in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design chapter (pages 92-98). Page 4 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 C.1. Design Objectives for Vehicular Access. C.1.a. Reduce the numbers of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. C.1.b. Provide safe routes for disabled people. C.1.c. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in retail/multi-family/ commercial areas. Comments: One driveway exists to 240th Street and one driveway is proposed. Landscaping will be enhanced on the 240th Street frontage, which will improve the character of the streetscape in that area (Attachment 7c). C.2. Design Objectives for Location and Layout of Parking C.2.a. Create adequate parking for each development, but keep the cars from dominating the streetscape. C.2.b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings closer to the street and defining the street edge. C. 2. c. Improve the project's visibility from the street by placing parking to side and rear. C.2.d. Provide direct pedestrian access from street, sidewalk, and parking. C.2.e. Integrate pedestrian and vehicular access between adjacent developments. Comments: Parking is proposed within enclosed garages in each of the units so cars will not dominate the streetscape any more than on nearby parcels and certainly less than on the church parcel to the north (Attachment 7a). Pedestrian and auto access will use 240th Street as opposed to Edmonds Way. There is no need to integrate access between adjacent developments since this is a private residential development which is adjacent to similar residential developments. C.3. Design Objectives for Pedestrian Connections Offsite. C.3.a. Design the site access and circulation routes with pedestrians' comfort and ease of access in mind. C.3.b. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles and pedestrians. C.3.c. Provide direct and safe access along, through and to driveways and adjacent developments or city streets. C.3.d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas. Comments: 240th Street will be used for pedestrian and auto access. As mentioned above, existing transit facilities nearby on Edmonds Way and Highway 99 are available. Page 5 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 C.4 Design Objectives for Garage Entry/Door Locations C.4.a Ensure pedestrian safety by allowing cars the space to pull out of a garage without blocking the sidewalk. C.4.b. Improve pedestrian safety by reducing points of conflict/curb cuts. C.4. c. Reduce harsh visual impacts of multiple and/or large garage entries/doors and access driveways. Reduce the quantity of entries/doors visible to the street. Comments: While access will be from 240th Street, the layout of the site dictates that the residential units will face Edmonds Way. The garages for the five units will be somewhat visible but will be screened by existing development at the corner of 240th and Edmonds Way and by the proposed landscaping on the western side of the subject site (Attachment 7c). C.S. Design Objectives for Building Entry Location. C.S. a. Create an active, safe and lively street -edge. C.S.b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment. C.S.c. Provide outdoor active spaces at entry to retail/commercial uses. C.S.d. Provide semi-public/private seating area at multi family and commercial entries to increase activity along the street. Comments: Because this is a residential development accessing a cross street, creating a lively pedestrian environment is not a high priority. Additional landscaping along 240th will improve the appearance of the site at the street edge. Building entries will be located on the side of the structures, which are highlighted by a small eyebrow roof (Attachment 7b). C.6. Design Objectives for Setbacks. C.6.a. To create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area. C.6.b. To create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. C. 6. c. To provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot. C.6.d. To encourage transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Comments: Because the site is zoned RM -2.4, there is a minimum required 15 -foot setback from the street property line along 240th Street SW. The required frontage improvements and updated landscaping will help tie the subject site with the existing area (Attachment 7c). C.7. Design Objectives for Open Space. C. 7. a. To create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. Page 6 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 C.7.b. To provide places for residents and visitors to meet and to interact. C.7.c. To provide an area for play, seating and other residential activities. Comments: There are no specific open space requirements for the RM -2.4 zone and none are proposed with this development. C.B. Design Objectives for Building/Site Identity. C.B.a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and massing in large multi family or commercial projects. C.B.b. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, color, materials and individuality of buildings. C.B.c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. C.B.d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in the city. Comments: The proposed buildings will be similar in character and scale with the existing adjacent developments. Bulk and mass are reduced by using both horizontal and vertical articulation of materials and projections on all four sides of the building. This mix of design elements, materials and colors ensures that a repetitive, monotonous facade and building massing is avoided (Attachment 7b). The residential appearance of the buildings will mix well with the multifamily residential parcels immediately adjacent to the site. C.9. Design Objectives for Weather Protection. C.9.a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks in downtown. C.9.b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain or snow. C.9.c. Provide a covered waiting area and walkway for pedestrians entering a building, coming from parking spaces and the public sidewalk in all areas of the City. Comments: The project site is not commercial nor is it located within the downtown area. Residents may choose to enter their unit through the garage to avoid the weather. The size and location of the eaves is typical of a residential building. C.10. Design Objectives for Lighting. C.10.a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians, including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of security. C.10.b. Minimize potential for light to reflect or spill off-site. C.10.c. Create a sense of welcome and activity. Page 7 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 C.10.d. Provide adequate lighting for signage panels. Comments: Residential luminaires are proposed for the building adjacent to the garages and entry doors (Attachment 7b). It does not appear that any other lighting is proposed for the site. The use of 3 -foot illuminated bollards on the west side of the access drive across from the residential garages might better define that edge of the site. The use of cut-off lighting is encouraged. C. 11. Design Objectives for Signage. C.11.a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered. C.11.b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements. C.11.c. Provide clear signage for each distinct property. C.11.d. Use graphics/symbols to reduce the need to have large letters. C.11.e. Minimize potential for view blockage. C.11.f. Signs should be related to the circulation element serving the establishment. C.11.g. Landscaping should be used in conjunction with pole signs for safety as well as appearance. C.11.h. Where multiple businesses operate from a central location, tenants should be encouraged to coordinate signing to avoid the proliferation of signs, each competing with the others. Comments: No signage is proposed at this time. Should a monument sign with the name of the development or similar be proposed in the future, review by the Planning Division is required with a building permit to ensure dimensional and placement requirements are met. For example, signs over three feet in height need to meet the required setbacks. C.12. Design Objectives for Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical. C.12.a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and composting. C.12.b. Minimize noise and odor. C.12.c. Minimize visual intrusion. C.12.d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas Comments: Trash and recycling will be stored in the individual units. Utility boxes and mechanical equipment are not shown on Attachment 7f; all above -ground equipment must be located interior to the site or screened or camouflaged. C.13. Design Objectives for Significant Features. C.13.a. Retain significant landscape features and unique landforms such as rock outcroppings and significant trees. Page 8 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 C.13.b. Limit potential future negative environmental impacts such as erosion, runoff, landslides, and removal of vegetation and/or habitats. C.13.c. Buffer incompatible uses. C.13.d. Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of the building along steep sloping sites. Comments: The project site slopes gradually from east to west and contains no critical areas or other significant features with the exception of several small- to medium-sized trees. Proposed landscaping (Attachment 7c) will help to buffer the new development from existing adjacent uses and stormwater will be managed in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements (Attachment 8). C.14. Design Objectives for Landscape Buffers. C. 14. a. Create a visual barrier between different uses. C. 14. b. Maintain privacy of single family residential areas. C.14.c. Reduce harsh visual impact of parking lots and cars. C.14.d. Landscape buffers should reinforce pedestrian circulation routes. C. 14. e. Landscape buffers should not be designed or located in a manner that creates an unsafe pedestrian environment. C. 14.f. Minimize heat gain from paved surfaces. C. 14. g. Provide treatment of runoff from parking lots. Comments: The landscaping shown on Attachment 7c appears to generally address the landscaping objectives. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. D.1. Design Objectives for Height. D.1.a. Preserve views to mountains and Puget Sound to the west. D.1.b. Maintain the smallerscale and character of historic Edmonds. D.1.c. Minimize blockage of light and air to adjacent properties or to the sidewalk area. D.1.d. Maintain/protect view from public places and streets. Page 9 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 Comments: There are no views to the Puget Sound or mountains from the subject property and it is not located within the historic downtown area of Edmonds. The buildings are two stories and appear to be under the height limit (Attachment 7b). D.2. Design Objectives for Massing. D.2.a. Encourage human scale elements in building design. D.2.b. Reduce bulk and mass of buildings. D.2.c. Masses may be subdivided vertically or horizontally. D.2.d. Explore flexible site calculations to eliminate building masses that have one story on one elevation and four or greater stories on another. Comments: The proposed structures do not show a great deal of ornament or detail but they are of a human scale (Attachment 7b). The buildings are divided horizontally and somewhat vertically but additional detail would likely serve to further reduce the appearance of the garage (west) facade. D.3. Design Objectives for Roof Modulation. D.3.a. To break up the overall massing of the roof. D.3.b. Create human scale in the building. D.3.c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building. D.3.d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building. Comments: Because each building only contains one or two units (as opposed to having one larger five -unit building), the mass of the roofs are reduced and the buildings have a more human scale than one large building. The roof form is gently pitched (3:12) and incorporates small eaves (Attachment 7b). D.4. Design Objectives for Wall Modulation. D.4.a. To let more light and air into the building. D.4.b. Break up large building mass and scale of a facade. D.4. c. To avoid stark and imposing building facades. D.4.d. To create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds. D.4.e. To become compatible with the surrounding built environment. Comments: Several windows and doors are proposed for the north, south and east sides of the buildings (Attachments 7b, 7h and 7i). The west facade has fewer windows and plain garage doors. Larger and/or varied window forms along with more attractive garage doors would benefit that side of the building. Page 10 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. E.1. Design Objectives for Building Facade. E.1. a. Ensure diversity in design. E.1.b. Reinforce the existing building patterns found in Edmonds. E.1.c. Improve visual and physical character and quality of Edmonds. E.1.d. Improve pedestrian environment in retail/commercial areas. E.1.e. Create individual identity of buildings. Comments: The duplex units appear to be mirror images of one another and so the use of varied colors or materials would help provide more of an individual identity to each unit (Attachment 7b). The materials proposed include board and batten siding at the base with two widths of Hardiplank siding split by a belly band above. Cedar trellises provide interest on the first floor. The upper floor could use some additional interest, particularly on the west facade. E.2. Design Objectives for Window Variety and Articulation. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. The organization and combinations of window types provide variation in a facade as well as provide light and air to the interior. Small windows are more typically utilitarian in function, such as bathroom or stairway windows, etc. and can be grouped to provide more articulation in the facade. Comments: The variety and articulation of windows on the north, south and east facades is good (Attachment 7b). The window casings could be more varied, however. The windows on the west facade could be larger and include additional detail as well. E.3. Design Objectives for Variation in Facade Materials. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. Comments: As mentioned above, there is some variety in the facade materials (Attachment 7b). Additional variety including more wood, stone and other natural materials would provide additional interest. E.4. Design Objectives for Accent Materials/Colors/Trim. Applied ornament, various materials and colors applied to a facade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds provide variation in the scale, style and Page 11 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 appearance of every building facade. The objective is to encourage new development that provides: ® Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. ® Visual interest and variety in building forms. ® Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses. ® Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. Comments: The color elevation in Attachment 7b shows some variation in colors and materials. Additional variation would be appropriate including varied window casing widths and materials and the use of projecting sills. As mentioned previously, incorporating additional natural materials is encouraged. Use of alternative roofing materials like metal, slate or solar shingles or panels would also provide interest. With conditions, staff feels that the proposal satisfies the referenced goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Zoning Standards A. The subject property is zoned RM -2.4 (Multi -Family Residential). B. Multiple dwellings are a permitted primary use in the RM -2.4 zone according to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1. C. Site Development Standards Site development standards for the RM -2.4 zone contained in ECDC 16.30.030.A are summarized below: 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Units: The subject property is 0.337 acres (14,674 square feet). At 2,400 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, a maximum of six dwelling units would be possible. Five units are proposed. Height: Height calculations for the proposed structure were not provided. However, the elevation view on Attachment 7b indicates the building will be approximately 24 feet 5 inches in height. No pitched roofs are proposed above 25 feet. As a result, it Page 12 of 21 Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Area per Maximum Maximum Zone Street Side Rear Dwelling unit Height Coverage Setback Setback Setback (Sq. Ft.) RM -2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25'1 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Units: The subject property is 0.337 acres (14,674 square feet). At 2,400 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, a maximum of six dwelling units would be possible. Five units are proposed. Height: Height calculations for the proposed structure were not provided. However, the elevation view on Attachment 7b indicates the building will be approximately 24 feet 5 inches in height. No pitched roofs are proposed above 25 feet. As a result, it Page 12 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 appears the proposed structure will be compliant with the height requirements of the RM -2.4 zone. Setbacks: As shown on Attachment 7a, the subject site is a through lot fronting on two streets and is not a corner lot. As a result, the site has two street and two side setbacks. The proposed structures must be located at least 15 feet from the northern and southwest property lines (street setbacks) and 10 feet from the east and west property lines (side setbacks). The proposed building appears to meet the minimum setback requirements of the RM -2.4 zone. It should be noted that the top of a rockery or retaining wall must be less than 3 feet above original grade. The walls shown on Attachment 7e will be verified for height compliance at building permit. There is a deck on the adjacent property to the west that projects across the shared property line into the subject site (Attachments 7d & 7e). This deck must be removed or otherwise addressed during building permit review. Structural lot coverage: At 14,674 square feet, the three structures proposed can cover no more than 45% of the site or approximately 6,603 square feet. There is no indication on Attachment 7a what the coverage of the buildings will be but this will be verified at building permit. As proposed, it appears the new Jenna Lane Townhouses will meet the development standards for the RM -2.4 zone; compliance with all development standards will be confirmed during the building permit review process. 2. ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulations According to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b, the number of parking spaces required per dwelling unit in multifamily projects is based upon the number of bedrooms per unit. Studios require 1.2 spaces, 1 -bedrooms require 1.5 spaces, 2 -bedroom units require 1.8 spaces, and 3 or more bedrooms require 2.0 spaces. Attachment 7i shows each unit having three bedrooms; as a result, a total of ten (10) parking spaces are required. Two of the required spaces will be provided as enclosed parking within each of the five units for a total of 10 spaces. While encouraged, no guest parking is required and none is provided on private property but it is possible that one or more spaces will be created within the 240th Street right-of-way as part of curb and gutter improvements. The proposed development appears consistent with the off street parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. 3. ECDC 20.11 General Design Review ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. A. ECDC 20.11.030.,4. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: Page 13 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, Comments: The building designs are fairly Spartan but are harmonious in scale, line and mass within the development and will integrate with the surrounding developments. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area, Comments: No brilliant colors are proposed but rather two grays — Gauntlet Gray and Anew Grey for the walls and trim and Urbane Bronze on the entry door (Attachment 10). These colors are not well rendered on Attachment 7b, which gives the Gauntlet Gray a more greenish appearance. In any event, use of additional natural materials, earth tones, or even other brighter colors could provide additional interest without being excessively brilliant. 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Comments: Mechanical equipment has not been shown with the elevation views. A condition of approval should be that all mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings will be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. Comments: Bulk and mass are reduced in both horizontal and vertical articulation of materials and projections (Attachment 7b). The five units are also divided into three buildings as opposed to one large building. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Comments: No signs have been specifically proposed. All signage must meet the requirements of ECDC 20.60 and should use similar materials to those used throughout the rest of the development. As conditioned, staff feels the project is consistent with design criteria contained within ECDC 20.11.030.A. B. EC®C20.11.030.B..Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. Page 14 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 Comments: The site is gently sloped so some grading will be required to construct the driveway, building pads, and the like — approximately 822 cubic yards of cut and 251 cubic yards of fill. Retaining walls on the eastern and western edges of the site are also proposed (Attachment 7e). Most of the site will be cleared and re - landscaped after redevelopment is complete but several existing trees near the southern edge of the site are to be retained and incorporated into the development (Attachment 7c). There will be an increase in impervious surfaces (roofs, driveway, walkways, patios, etc.) but not in excess of what would be expected with the redevelopment of an underutilized pair of multifamily zoned lots that have older single family residences on them. All stormwater will be managed in accordance the City's stormwater codes. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Comments: A variety of native trees, shrubs are groundcovers are proposed around the site which will enhance the building design and other site improvements (Attachment 7c). These areas will be watered by an automatic irrigation system. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Comments: Landscaping will be required to buffer the project from the street as well as from the two adjacent multifamily zoned parcels. Landscaping must be of the type requirements found in ECDC 20.13 or as modified by the Architectural Design Board — see Section H(4) below. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Comments: Landscaping adjacent to the driveway will be protected by curbing (Attachment 7c). 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. Comments: Trash and recycling will be stored within the individual units and managed likewise. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Comments: Plantings will consist of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs that will provide year-round screening and interest (Attachment 11). 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Comments: There are no areas of wood, brick, stone or gravel in lieu of landscaping proposed as part of this project (Attachment 7c). Page 15 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. Comments: Exterior sconces are shown on Attachment 7b. The 'Illumination notes' on Attachment 7e indicate that excessive glare and light pollution is to be avoided; a condition for use of dark -sky compliant cut-off fixtures is recommended. The installation of 3 -foot illuminated decorative bollards on the west side of the access drive across from the residential garages might better define that edge of the site. With conditions, staff feels the proposal is consistent with design criteria contained within ECDC 20.11.030.B. 4. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. The applicant submitted Attachment 7c which is the proposed landscaping plan showing new landscaping and the retention of three Douglas fir trees near the southern corner of the parcel. Type III landscaping is proposed along Edmonds Way, Type IV along 240th Street SW, with Type II along the other property lines. Given the site's location, staff feels that the proposed landscaping shown on Attachment 7c is insufficient in some locations. Denser Type I landscaping would be more appropriate to buffer the site from the busy Edmonds Way corridor while Type III would be better to screen the buildings along 240th Street SW. This section of the report outlines options and proposes additional landscaping and species which would likely be more suitable for the site. Fact sheets for each of the species proposed by the applicant are included as Attachment 11. A marked -up landscaping plan is included as Attachment 12 — it is intended to be for reference only but should allow the Board to better visualize possible changes. The following general elements need to be revised when preparing the landscaping plan for the associated building permits: Erosion control netting is shown in various locations on Attachment 7c. Appropriate ground cover plantings must be added to meet code. ® Douglas fir trees grow to a large size which is not necessarily compatible with denser multifamily sites. Weeping Alaska cedar, shore pine, Leyland cypress, arborvitae or similar could be better options for evergreen species, particularly in the narrower planting areas. ® In addition to the exterior landscaping described below, vine maples (or similar) should be installed in the small landscape areas adjacent to the residential garages. These trees will serve to further break up the west fagade and soften the appearance of the garages. Page 16 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 A. ECDC 20.13.030.A describes Type I landscaping as: Type 1 Landscaping. Type 1 landscaping is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts. 1. Two rows of evergreen trees, a minimum of 10 feet in height and planted at intervals of no greater than 20 feet on center. The trees must be backed by a sight -obscuring fence a minimum of five feet high or the required width of the planting area must be increased by 10 feet; and 2. Shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height planted in an area at least five feet in width, and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, 3. Alternatively, the trees and shrubs maybe planted on an earthen berm at least 15 feet in width and an average of five feet high along its midline. The portion of the site facing Edmonds Way should be landscaped with Type I landscaping. Edmonds Way is a busy state highway and the additional landscaping and fencing would serve to further buffer the dwelling units from the right-of-way. Two rows of a combination of the evergreens from the list mentioned previously would be appropriate. The shrubs and groundcovers must also meet Type I requirements. B. ECDC 20.13.030.13 describes Type II landscaping as: Type 11 Landscaping. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center, and 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. The applicant has identified Type II landscaping along both the west and east property lines. This type will provide an appropriate visual separation between similar uses (small home business on the west, condos on the east). In the western bed, a low -growing (< 3' max.) Hybrid Manzanita is proposed along with interspersed Douglas firs and a Bowhall Maple near 240th Street. Given the length and width of the planting bed, a hedge might be more appropriate in that location. Pacific wax myrtle, Leyland cypress or arborvitae could be used as hedge plantings along the whole length of the western bed south of the Bowhall Maple. Whether a hedge or other Type II landscaping plants are selected, that theme should also be extended in the area to the northwest of the driveway opposite Unit E and blend into the Type I landscaping along Edmonds Way. Page 17 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 The eastern landscaping area appears to meet code criteria. As mentioned at the top of this subsection, smaller evergreen trees would likely be more appropriate as opposed to the Douglas fir. Likewise, ground covers must be included per code throughout the area. C. ECDC 20.13.030.0 describes Type III landscaping as: Type Ill landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Type III landscaping would be appropriate along the 240th Street frontage to screen the proposed development from the street. Lawn is not an acceptable screening material (although it could be used as a ground cover) and the Type III landscaping must extend from the driveway to the eastern property line. This area could include an additional Bowhall Maple east of the driveway (framing the driveway with Bowhalls on both sides) and an evergreen closer to the retaining walls and Red Flowering Currants. Appropriate shrubs and ground covers are required throughout. With the proposed changes and as conditioned, staff feels the landscaping for the project is consistent with the design review requirements of ECDC 20.13. In addition to the SEPA comment submitted by PUD as discussed on page 2 of this report, one other public comment was received as of the date of this report. Eric Hartsfield, on behalf of the Edmonds Greenery Home Owners Association, submitted several comments and questions on May 10 (Attachment 6). Edmonds Greenery is the development immediately adjacent to Page 18 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 the east of the proposed project. The questions/comments and staff responses are outlined below. 1. "There does not appear to be any on-site parking other than the garages. Where do visitors park?" Staff response: There is no requirement for guest parking in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Guests may park in the 240th Street right-of-way. 2. "Will there be curb and sidewalk along the 85' of 240th Street SW frontage?" Staff response: Curb and gutter will be required by the Engineering Division as part of this development on the south side of 240th Street but sidewalk will likely not since there is existing sidewalk on the north side of the street. 3. "Will the curb be at least 20 feet south of the engineer's line to allow for both street parking and unimpeded traffic?" Staff response: The drawings submitted are preliminary and for design review of the project only — all civil engineering improvements will be reviewed in accordance with City of Edmonds codes and requirements at building permit. The curb will extend the length of the project property and its location along with required paving may allow for some parallel street parking spaces to be created along the south side of 240th Street. 4. "Drawing L1 shows new Douglas fir trees planted 3.75' east of townhouses A — D. This does not seem wise." Staff response: Douglas fir trees grow very large and are usually not a good evergreen landscape tree. Staff has proposed several alternative species in Section H(4) on page 16 for the Design Board to review that should be more appropriate to the space available. 5. "1 cannot picture what the roof will look like from the two elevation views on Sheet Al. The front elevation view looks like a flat roof. The side elevation view calls out a 3:12 pitch and shows the eaves plunging downward over the front porch." Staff response: It is a little bit easier to see the roof line on the color elevations submitted on April 9. There is a peak in the middle of the duplex units with 3:12 roof sloping off to the north and south. A modified butterfly roof form does drop down toward the entry doors on the side elevations. Page 19 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments with this report, staff recommends that the ADB APPROVE the design for the proposed Jenna Lane Townhomes under file number PLN2014009 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED JENNA LANE TOWNHOMES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. SEE ATTACHMENT 5 FOR SPECIFIC ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT. 2. ALL ABOVE -GROUND UTILITY EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRANSFORMERS, HOT BOXES, MECHANICAL UNITS, ETC.) MUST BE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE SITE OR CAMOUFLAGED OR SCREENED WITH ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, FENCING AND/OR LANDSCAPING. 3. 3 -FOOT TALL ILLUMINATED BOLLARDS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE LANDSCAPING AREA WEST OF THE DRIVEWAY ACROSS FROM EACH OF THE RESIDENTIAL GARAGES. 4. ADDITIONAL INTEREST SHALL BE ADDED TO THE WINDOWS AND GARAGE DOORS IN THE FORM OF VARIED SILL OR CASING WIDTHS, MATERIALS OR COLORS. 5. ADDITIONAL INTEREST SHALL BE ADDED TO THE FACADES AND EAVES IN THE FORM OF OTHER COLORS INCLUDING EARTH TONES OR BRIGHTER COLORS WHICH ARE NOT EXCESSIVELY BRILLIANT. 6. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL BE DARK -SKY COMPLIANT CUT-OFF FIXTURES. 7. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH STAFF TO CREATE A LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR THE ASSOCIATED BUILDING PERMIT USING THE GUIDANCE IN SECTION H(4) OF THIS REPORT ON PAGES 16 — 18 (AS GENERALLY SHOWN ON ATTACHMENT 12). IF THE PLAN DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT GUIDANCE, THE LANDSCAPING PORTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW SHALL BE RESUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR FURTHER REVIEW /_L1I7_1»:i9]4_l4 8. THE DECK OFF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE WEST PROJECTS OVER THE PROJECT SITE'S WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS DECK WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED, MODIFIED OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR DURING BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. Page 20 of 21 Jenna Lane Townhouses File PLN20140009 Luay Joudeh, PE Eric Hartsfield D.R. Strong Edmonds Greenery HOA 6207 th Avenue 8418240 th Street SW, Unit A303 Kirkland, WA 98034 Edmonds, WA 98026 Elisabeth Tobin Snohomish County PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206 Page 21 of 21 ,a .March 18, 2014.. RECEIVED Project No' 13056 Planning Division MAR 19 201 Development Service Department Ms. Jen Machuga DEVELOPMENT.SERVICES .City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds; Washington 98020 Jenna Lane Townhouses Cover L' etter =8506 &; 8640 240th Street SW Dear Ms. Machuga: This letter is a brief overview .of. the proposed project of Jenna Lane Townhouses compliance. with the requirements within the Comprehensive Plan and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)>. Comprehensive Plan Pages 92 through 100 of the Comprehensive Plan were referenced and utilized while developing the building elevations. Similar facades from -the adjacent buildings were considered within the architectural 'drawing to minimize.the impact of additional residential - homes while still creating visually appealing buildings. Landscaping is provided in the building setbacks and the clearing limits were minimized to protect natural.'environment. The access -drive was moved away from the neighboring condominium to help improve traffic circulation. Building Requirements The ECDC, the 2012 International Building Code, the 2012 International Residential Code, the 2012 International„ Fire Code, the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code, and the 2012 Washington State Energy Code will be utilized in the design of the residential homes. The building heights are to be a --maximum of 25' above finished grade to meet the RM -2.4 requirements set in `ECDC 16.30.0.30.A. Storm Drainage -Requirements A Storm Drainage Plan is included for. Small Site Projects .following Chapter 18.30 of the ECDC'Stormwater Management, Manual. Sanitary Sewer and Water Requirements A meeting with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OWVSD)- was held in January to discuss water and sewer connections. The preliminarydesign is based on the comments given at that time. Landscaping Requirements 620 7th Avenue In utilizing ECDC Chapter 20.13,,a Landscaping Plan has been provided for the. Kirkland, vvA 95033 Phone: (425) 827-3063 City's review. Type 11 Landscaping was used for property lines not abutt' - - >3 )2 Attachment 1 __---_-__-_- ---_-- � PLN20140009 Jenna Lane Townhouses Cover Lear March 18, 2014 Page 2 of 2 roadway, Type III_ Landscaping was used on the, property line abutting Edmonds Way, and Type IV was -used on the property line abutting 240th Street SW. All plants in reference were selected from approved Native Plant Guide sources. Signage Requirements No„additional signage is proposed. Parking Requirements-, uirements Two side, by side parking stalls have been provided within garages for each home meeting the requirements set forth in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters., I trust that the responses listed',, above are adequate to address the City's requirements. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the information, please'do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, R _� T-R-OIN-Gi Consulting Engineers Inc. Luay R. Joudeh, P. E. Project Engineer LRJ/QHH Enclosure: 8 —Oversized Plan Sets 1 - Reproduction Plan Set 1 — Adjacent Property Owners List 1 Critical Areas Checklist 1 — Environmental Checklist 1 Land Use Application for ADB Review 1 Lot Line Adjustment 1 Architectural Design Review 1 — Demolition Permit Application 1 — Stormwater Site Plan - 1 — Offsite Analysis and Mitigation Report 1 - Fee R;\2013 \0\ 13 05 6 \Correspondence\Letters\out\L 140224_C it y. d o cx o� E,Pjg, Jonina Lane "rommhouses 8506 & 8510 240th Street S,VV tural Design Board Review Architec File #: PLN1201400110( 9 2012, Aerial P U Attacl'mient 2 P L N �2 014 00109 IMM 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) 9 •' •: aa,` ;.; Description of proposal: The Applicant is seeking design approval for the Jenna Lane Townhouses, two duplexes and a single unit at 8506 & 8510 240th Street SW. Two existing single family residences will be removed while new frontage, utility and landscaping improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the five new dwelling units. The site is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM -2.4). This is a Type III -B permit with a public hearing and decision made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). (File No. PLN20140009) Proponent: Lydd Properties LLC (Luay Joudeh at D.R. Strong) Location of proposal, including street address if any: 8506 & 8510 2401h Street SW (Tax ID #s: 00463301700301 & 00463301700302) Lead agency: City of Edmonds An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.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 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May 13, 2014. Project Planner: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner - Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-0220 ®ate: April 29, 2014 Signature: � XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than May 13, 2014 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the project planner to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on April 29, 2014 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit(a_ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.edmondsw; Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20140009. These materials are also available Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA Attachment 3 PLN20140009 Page 1 of 2 PLN20140009 SEPA DNS.DOCX Mailed notice to the following: XX COMCAST XX Snohomish County Health District Outside rlant Engineer, North Region Attn: Bruce Straughn 1525 75t St. SW Suite 200 3020 Rocker Ave Everett, WA 98203 Everett, WA 98201-3900 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Ramin Pazooki Attn: Elaine Babby SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 PO Box 97034, M/S EST -11 W 15700 Dayton Ave. N. Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Betty Tobin Snohomish Co. PUD XX Luay Joudeh PO Box 1107 D.R. Strong (Lydd Properties LLC) Everett, WA 98206-1107 6207 th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98034 XX Kojo Fordjour Department of Ferries na ental Manager EnvXX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 2 2901 3 Ave., Suite 500 901 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services Seattle, WA 98121-3014 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road XX Community Transit Marysville, WA 98270 Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 cc: File No. / SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 PLN20140009 SEPA DNS.DOCX April 15, 2014 LuayJoudeh CITY OF EDMONDS 1215 1h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION D.R. Strong 6207 th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98034 Subject: Letter of complete application, Architectural Design Board review of Jenna Lane Townhouses at 8506 & 8510 240th St. SW (File: PLN20140009) Dear Mr. Joudeh, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the application for design review of a 5 -unit project called the Jenna Lane Townhouses at 8506 & 8510 240th St. SW. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.02.002, the application has been determined to meet the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete; please accept this letter as the City's completeness notice in accordance with ECDC 20.02.003. While the application is technically complete, the City may request additional information during review of the project with which to make a decision. The City will proceed with the public notice portion of the project as required by Chapter 20.03 of the ECDC. If you have any questions, please let me know either at 425-771-0220 or michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov. Sincerely, Mike Clugston, AICP Associate Planner Attachment 4 P LN20140009 "'Oe. 10" •yk E . 6 ,, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is seeking design approval for the Jenna Lane Townhouses, two duplexes and a single unit at 8506 & 8510 2401h Street SW. Two existing single family residences will be removed while new frontage, utility and landscaping improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the five new dwelling units. The site is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM -2.4). This is a Type III -B permit with a public hearing and decision made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). PROJECT LOCATION: 8506 & 8510 240`h Street SW (Tax ID #s: 00463301700301 & 00463301700302) NAME OF APPLICANT: Lydd Properties LLC (Luay Joudeh at D.R. Strong) FILE NO.: PLN20140009 DATE OF APPLICATION: March 18, 2014 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: April 15, 2014 DATE OF NOTICE: April 29, 2014 REQUESTED -PERMITS: State Environmental Policy Act Review, Architectural Design Board Review OTHER REQUIRED Lot line adjustment/combination, demolition and building permits PERMITS: REQUIRED STUDIES: N/A EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist, Critical Area Checklists COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: May 13, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: To Be Determined Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5`h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance link. Search for permit PLN20140009. SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. DATE OF ISSUANCE: April 29, 2014 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: May 13, 2014. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 1215`h Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than May 13, 2014. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 PUBLISH: April 29, 2014 Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signerture of plicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 6 777-1 Notary) ublic in !r}�r the State of Washington Residing at L. C JCC .�� �`t• ••" ' • 6�J' 016L0G �• Revised on 9/30/11 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Page 2 of 2 VAC /•1NCI�- ICIII�IIGlc d1VV A - r A 00463301600103 00700200310300 00700200110200 OLSON ROSELLA ANDERSON CRAIG L BARKEY BRENDA 319 W 105TH ST APT 1F 8410 240TH ST SW #C103 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A102 NEW YORK NY 10025 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026-9145 00463301700403 00463301700100;0102 00669500370200 BOJIC/PREDRAG/LJILIJANA BOWERS JEFFRY D & DAWN R BURGGRAFF PAUL R & CINDY J 24007 EDMONDS WAY 12425 NE 155TH PL 22419 149TH ST SE EDMONDS WA 98026 WOODINVILLE WA 98072 MONROE WA 98272-9015 i 00700200230400 00463301600502 00700200120400 BURKE BRENT TRUMAN BUTER LESLIE A CHAPMAN EUNICE A 1808 FAIRVIEW ST PO BOX 1886 8418.240TH ST SW UNIT A204 BERKELEY CA 94703-2414 EDMONDS WA 98020 EDMONDS WA 98026-9147 00700200210300 00669500110100 00700200230100 CHAUSSEE AMBRE L CURL BREANNA DARWIN LAHNA S 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B103 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 101A 8414 240TH ST SW # B301 EDMONDS WA 98026-9121 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500250400 00669500130200 00700200220100 DASHER LYNNE A DEFRAWY NAZEK HASSAN DOLAN KERRY K 8517 242ND ST SW UNIT B504 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 302A 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B201 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026-9052 EDMONDS WA 98026-9121 00463301800100 00700200110600 00700200130500 EDMONDS GATEWAY ETHERTON KEITH FELDMAN MICHAEL APARTMENTS LLC 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A106 18418 240TH ST SW #A305 312 S 112TH ST EDMONDS WA 98026-9145 EDMONDS WA 98026 TACOMA WA 98444 00669500370100 00669500250100 006,69500130400 FISKE JAMIE FJARLIE CRAIG FLOTTEN PAMELA A 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 701C 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 501B 8515 242ND ST SW #304 EDMONDS WA 98026-9077 EDMONDS WA 98026-9077 EDMONDS WA 98026 00700200120100 00669500130100 00669500110500 FORMAN TERRIE K FORREST GREIG FOSTER GERALD R & URSULA K 7031 196TH ST SW #204 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 301A 8811 166TH ST CT E LYNNWOOD WA 98036 EDMONDS WA 98026-9052 PUYALLUP WA 98375 00669500250500 00700200210400 00700200310100 GALLEON HOMEOWNERS GIVENS DEBORAH J GULL JENNIFER E ASSOCIATION 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B104 8410 240TH ST SW C101 9805 NE 116TH ST EDMONDS WA 98026-9121 EDMONDS WA 98026 KIRKLAND WA 98034 00700200210100 HARRIS ROMAIN 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B101 EDMONDS WA 98026-9143 00700200130300 HARTSFIELD ERIC J 8418 240TH ST SW A303 EDMONDS WA 98026 00463301700401 HEALY DONALD N 206 MEADOW RUN CARROLLTON GA 30116 ttiquettes faeiles. h peleri A Sens de Repliez a is hachure afro ale ; ?s w'mavery com I7til'ose le Oabarlt AVER�T® 5160® charc�errien� P' pngc re®i6ier le rebord Po a 1 -0000=60 -AVERT A 00463301600101;0105 00669500120200 00669500110400 HENSON MARGARET HERBST W ALEXANDER HULL TOBEN W 7019 14TH AVE NW 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 202A 2227 OAKES AVE SEATTLE WA 98117 EDMONDS WA 98026-9051 EVERETT WA 98201 00463301600104 JACOBS DARREN 23926 84TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026-9151 00700200130600 JORGENSEN LISA 15115 12TH DR SE MILL CREEK WA 98012-1396 00669500380200 KLOSTER LINDA M 8519 242ND ST SW #802C EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500260500 LAKEWOOD COMMONS 234 LLC 4552 POINT WHITE DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WA 98110 00463302400203 LEISER SHAUN PO BOX 50216 SEATTLE WA 98160-0216 00463301700302 LYDD PROPERTIES LLC 8506 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026 00700200120200 MCMECHAN SUSAN/DANA 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A202 EDMONDS WA 98026-9147 00669500120100 MOSBACH DAVID 8515 242ND SW #201 EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500260100 PEHRSON EDITH A 8517 242ND ST SW B601 EDMONDS WA 98026 00700200120600 JENSEN BARBARA J 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A206 EDMONDS WA 98026-9147 00669500110300 KENNEY JUN 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 103A EDMONDS WA 98026-9050 00463301600302;0501;0402 KOREAN UNITED PRESBYTERIAN 8506 238TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-8939 00669500260400 LARSEN LISA 8517 242ND ST SW #604 EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500120600 LOPEZ GUILLERMO/LOUCEL MARIA 8515 242ND STREET SW #206A EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500260200 JOHNSON GAYLE S 8517 242ND ST SW. #602 EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500120300 KILLGORE JEANNE R 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 203A EDMONDS WA 98026-9051 00700.200230200 KORF DIANE S 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B302 EDMONDS WA 98026-9144 00700200130200 LEE GERARD 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A302 EDMONDS WA 98026-9148 00463301700301 LYDD PROPERTIES LLC BOX 864 KIRKLAND WA 98033 00669500380100 000,69500240400 MAKUTA KEVIN MCCARTHY KEVIN C & KERRI L 8519 242ND ST SW #801C 8517 242ND ST SW #404 EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500120500 00700200320100 METZGER MELISSA A MOE CYNTHIA J 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 205A 8410 240TH ST SW UNIT C201 EDMONDS WA 98026-9051 i EDMONDS WA 98026-9142 00669500240100 00669500130300 NORGAARD AVERI J PASCUAL FRANCISCO & PAZ 8517 242ND ST #401 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 303A EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026-9052 00700200220400 QUAM TIMOTHY P 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B204 EDMONDS WA 98026-9180 00669500130600 RANNOW ROGER E 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 306 EDMONDS WA 98026 ttiguettes faciles a peter i A Repliez a la hachure akin de i wwwavenjxom . Utillsez ie gabarit ANPERY® 5960®cl�aergs des�x rgAi0er le red urd po; -upmc 00700200120500 00463301600200 REISER CHARMAINE P RICHARDSON C M 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A205 8421 240TH ST SW EDMONDS WA 98026-9147 EDMONDS WA 98026-9140 00700200110300 00700200320400 SCHEUERMAN KAY SEYMOUR DARLENE L 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A103 8410 240TH ST SW UNIT C204 EDMONDS WA 98026-9145 EDMONDS WA 98026-9142 00700200320300 00669500250200 SIVARATNAM PRABHA & SMITH STEPHANIE C SUNDARESWARA 8517 242ND ST SW UNIT B502 8410 240TH ST SW UNIT C203. EDMONDS WA 98026 EDMONDS WA 98026-9142 00669500240500 00669500390100;0200 SOUZA JOHN A/ERNE KELCI A SPENCER BRAD 8517 242ND ST SW #405 808 NW 193RD ST EDMONDS WA 98026 SHORELINE WA 98177 00700200120300 00669500110600 STERN SAMUEL R III SUNDQUIST ELENA 8100 204TH PL SW 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 106A EDMONDS WA 98026-6703 EDMONDS WA 98026-9077 00700200110400 TINNEY MATTHEW N 19614 80TH AVE W UNIT A-104 EDMONDS WA 98026-6400 00700200130400 TREFZGER AIDA 19201 4TH DR SE BOTHELL WA 98012-7013 00700200310200 VOSK SALLY 8410 240TH ST SW UNIT C102 EDMONDS WA 98026-9141 00669500240300 WILSON JESSE & PRISCILLA 8517 242ND ST SW # B403 EDMONDS WA 98026 00700200210200 ZANDONA MARY L 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B102 EDMONDS WA 98026-9121 00700200230300 TOPOLINSKI NOLA 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT 8303 EDMONDS WA 98026-9144 00700200220300 TUBIANOSA CESAR R & CELESTE 8414 240TH ST SW UNIT B203 EDMONDS WA 98026-9178 00669500120400 WAKENSHAW PATRICK A 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT A204 EDMONDS WA 98026 00700200130100 XUEDONGSHENG 18819 1ST PL W BOTHELL WA 98012 00463301600201 ZEON YOUNG L & XIAO YANG 23922 84TH AVE W EDMONDS WA 98026-9151 Etiqueites faciles h peler ; Repliez a la hachure afro deSens de Utilisev le gabarit AVERY@ 51606 � cnargement r6v6ler le re6ord Popmjupnsc 00700200110100. SAVAGE JAMIE 8418 240TH STREET SW # A101 EDMONDS WA 98026 00669500240200 SHIVELEY KAREN 8517 242ND ST SW UNIT 4028 EDMONDS WA 98026 00463301700305 SNOHOMISH CO PROP MGMT 3000 ROCKEFELLER AVE # 404. EVERETT WA 98201 00669500250300 STAUFFER CHRISTINE 8515 242ND ST SW UNIT 503B EDMONDS WA 98026-9077 00700200320200 SWISHER TODD & MARY JO 21603 47TH PL W MOUNTLAKE TERRACE WA 98043 00700200110500 TOWNSEND CHRISTOPHER B & KAREN M 8418 240TH ST SW UNIT A105 EDMONDS WA 98026-9145 00700200310400 VICTORY RUIE 8410 240TH ST SW UNIT C104 EDMONDS WA 98026-9146 00669500110200 WILLIAMS RESI & TRAN DENNIS 8515 242ND ST SW # A102 EDMONDS WA 98020 00700200220200 YOUSEFIZADEH YOUSEF 4026 164TH PL SW LYNNWOOD WA 98037-9503 1 •, On the 29th day of April, 2014, the attached Notice of Application, & SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 29th day of April, 2014 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1 1 %111` -;d;JRL i On the 29th day of April, 2014, the attached Notice of Application & SEPA Determination was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Kevin Garrett, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 29th day of April, 2014, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747892.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Teresa Snyder being fust duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH558732 PLN20140009 NOA as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 04/29/2014 and ending on 04/29/2014 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $101.48../ Subscribed and sworn before me on this �C day of )� ' 0 1 /"? ;/V Vho-ffi // v 9 Notary Public in and for t Washington. * USAN L, S T OLTZ City of Edmood9 - LEGAL ADS 114101416 DLAKE CUNNINGHAM PLN20140009 NOA ISTATE 44�� WASHINGTON NOTARY --o-- PUBLIC b1y Commission Expires 1210017 fns. 18y" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is seeking design approval for the Jenna Lane Townhouses, two duplexes and a single unit at 8506 & 8510 240th Street SW. Two existing single family residences will be removed while new frontage, utility and landscaping improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the five new dwelling units. The site is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM -2.4). This is a Type III -B permit with a public hearing and decision made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). PROJECT LOCATION: 8506 & 8510 2401h Street SW (Tax ID #s: 00463301700301 & 00463301700302) NAME OF APPLICANT: Lydd Properties LLC (Luay Joudeh at D.R. Strong) FILE NO.: PLN20140009 DATE OF APPLICATION: March 18, 2014 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: April 15, 2014 DATE OF NOTICE: May 21, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on June 41 2014 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 -5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Permit Assistance link. Search for permit PLN20140009. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Associate Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 PUBLISH: May 21, 2014 Oe cn; s ° .Jenna Lane Townhouses 0506 & 0510 240th Street SW Z®n1nq Map Architectural Design Bard Review May 2013 File #: PLN20140009 1 inch = 100 feet FILE NO.: PLN20140009 Applicant: LYDD PROPERTIES On the 2st day of May, 2014, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21st day of May, 2014 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: m&V ' (BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ ) On the 21 st day of May, 2014, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 21St day of May, 2014, at Edmonds, Washington. �, _ Signed: � � i,(� Project Number: PLN20140009 Applicant's Name: LYDD PROPERTIES (JENNA LANE) Property Location: 8506 & 8510 240TH ST. SW Date of Application: 03.18.14 Date Form Routed: 03.21.14 Zoning: MULTI FAMILY (RM -2.4) Project Description: CONSTRUCT 5 UNITS (2 DUPLEXES AND 1 SINGLE) If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title:a;nw El I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ER I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): I✓ ii.P t�:� SUG�� Ula le -1.r- ,) v i'1deLL_, The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: �L�( � �/+ Signature:.��� Phone/E-mail: 4-13- 771-0G_Z (2. X <�D Attachment 5 P LN20140009 Ci,' t OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM El PW -Engineering 0 Fire 0 PUN - Maintenance El Parks & Rec. Building; El Economic Dev. Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20140009 Applicant's Name: LYDD PROPERTIES (JENNA LANE) Property Location: 8506 & 8510 240TH ST. SW Date of Application: 03.18.14 Date Form Routed: 03.21.14 Zoning: MULTI FAMILY (RM -2.4) Project Description: CONSTRUCT 5 UNITS (2 DUPLEXES AND 1 SINGLE) If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MIKE CLUGSTON Ext. 1330 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: 6 E6 �6 El I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): X srroaonRisn co. John Westfalll, CFF FIRE Deputy Chief - Fire Marshal Date: _2 _. z,,�( i DISTR jwestfall@flredistricti.org Signature: Phone/E-mail: 12425 Meridian Ave S. phone: 425-771-0213 Everett WA 93203 cell: 425-231-3644 www.firedistrictl.org fax: 425-775-7721 Unincorporated South Snohomish County, Brier, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace ►14 � ►l- ���7_ ► 1� �1�►�1�1 Date: April 2, 2014 To: Mke Clugston, Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Subject: PLN2014009, 5 Units, (2 Duplexes and 1 Single) Engineering has reviewed and approved the subject application. Approval of this design review shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. A comprehensive review of the project has not been performed and full comments will be provided at time of building permit review. The following issues were noted however and should be considered while preparing the plans for permit submittal. 1. The subject property is serviced by Olympic View Water Service District for water and sewer. Please remove reference of City of Edmonds standard details. An approved and signed plan from OVWSD will be required at time of building permit. 2. It appears that a surcharge will be placed on points of the wall surrounding the turn around and along the driveway. Please note distance of wall from proposed pavement edge or provide structural calculations for the wall. 3. The detail provide for the wall shows a rockery, not a wall. Rockeries cannot have surcharges. 4. Rockeries must be located a distance equal to the height away from the right of way. 5. At minimum, one additional catch basin shall be installed to collect runoff on the access road. Please also see the following comments provided by City Stor water Engineer, Jerry Shuster; For this application I reviewed the following: ® Stormwater Site Plan Report, Edmonds Way Multifamily Development, 23220 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Washington. Prepared by Web Engineering, Revision 2, February 14, 2014. City of Edmonds ® Drawings C-5, C-6, & C-7. 1. Stormwater Site Plan Report — ® Section 2.3 - The report correctly classifies the site as a Category 2 Small Site Project. The report does not, however, list all the Small Site Minimum Requirements that apply to the project and how the design meets these minimum requirements. See Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.30.060.D.2.b and Section 5 of the Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement (http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public Works/Storm water Utilitv/pdf/EdmondsStormwaterSupplementFinal20100428.pdf). The document should be organized to speak to.all the applicable Small Site Minimum Requirements. ® Section 4.3.1 and Appendix 3 —The project uses ChamberMaxx detention chambers for storage. The "Storm Detention Chamber Volume Summary (Cross-section Calc)" in Appendix 3 uses an chamber volume of 7.94 cubic feet per lineal foot of chamber (cf/If) in the calculation. Information obtained by the reviewer form the manufacturer's website (http://www.conteches.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command =Core Download &Entryld=2757&Portalld=0&Tabid=144) indicated the chambers range from 6.5 to 6.9 cf/If (see enclosed). If the designer is using a different chamber that has 7.94 cf/If please provide the cut sheet. If the designer is using the Chambermaxx model in the enclosed cut sheet, modify the modeling and the design accordingly. a. Appendix 3 —The "Effective Depth" parameter in WWHM3 for detention systems should be the live storage plus 1 foot of freeboard above the top of the riser. In this configuration, the value should be 3.5 feet instead of 3 feet. b. Appendix 3 —The modeling uses a 10 inch diameter riser pipe in the detention outlet structure. The "Flow Control Manhole Detail" on Drawing C-5 shows a 12 inch diameter riser pipe. Also, the modeling shows that the outlet structure for the detention system has notch height of 1 foot and notch width of 0.08 feet. The "Flow Control Manhole Detail" on Drawing C-5 shows has notch height of 0.08 feet and notch width of 1 foot. Please reconcile these inconsistencies. Also, the City of Edmonds has its own standard detail for control structures that does not use a shear gate. Please include. (http://edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Services/Permits and Development/Standard Details/Storm Drainage/E5-4 FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE.pdf). ® Section 4.3.3 - The design proposes linear sand filter for treating the runoff from the pollution generating impervious surfaces. Ecology's 2005 and 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW)state for sand filters: "Do NOT place upstream of a detention facility. In order to prevent exposure of the sand filter surface to high flow rates that could cause loss of media and previously removed pollutants," (Section 8.6). Also, a pre -settling chamber is not included in the design (the proposed 1 foot by 1 foot catch basin is not sufficient). Section 8.2, Volume V of Ecology's 2005 SWMMWW requires the use of a pre-setting system upstream of a sand filter. Figure 8.7 in the 2005 SWN 4WW provides an example of a linear sand filter with a sediment chamber. While the 2005 SWMMWW does not provide criteria for pre -settling, the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual does. It states that the pre -settling goal is to remove 50 percent of the total suspended solids and suggests some options. (Section 6.5.1). Also, sand filters must be set back at least 5 feet from property lines. Other options are available for the project to meet the basic treatment requirement beside a linear sand filter. The City of Edmonds accepts the use of "General Use —approved" technologies by Ecology. 2. Drawings ® C-6 — "Sand Filter and Detention Profile" — this provides an elevation for the bottom of the "base of the chambers." Clarify whether tis elevation is actual bottom of the chamber or the bottom of 6" rock layer below the chambers. Sincerely, Jerry Shuster, P.E. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 x1323 Thank you. �I ; .. ! w �I'. ...._,m...... Inn uIl Al i!!i!!!!!il y iiiii.... !.... ...:.I ' .....^"":!� !i!!!:I !!iii!i! �i:!!!i:ii:uii:ii^. .....wj! .......ii i INNSI�ullb...... n iii: Y;. ' IIiIIIIIIIIIIIiI I llllllllllll!'I .. Rovert Chave City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Chave: Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers May 7, 2014 Reference Number: PLN20140009 Jenna Lane Townhomes District DR Number: 14-073 The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. Any removal or relocation of District facilities necessitated by this project shall be at the expense of the project developer. Please include any utility work in all applicable permits. Cost of any work, new or to upgrade, existing facilities that are required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policies. The District policy requires the developer to provide a 10 -foot easement and an 8 -foot clearance between any building/structures and transformers/switch cabinets upon its property for underground electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. We recommend contact with the District prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's Plat Development Team at (425)783-4350. Sincerely, Elisabeth A. Tobin Senior Manager Planning, Engineering, & Technical Services 1802-75 Ih Street S.W. ® Everett, WA ® 98203 /Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 ® Everett, Wi Attachment 6 425-783-4300 o Toll-free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 o www.snl P LN20140009 Clugston, Michael From: Clugston, Michael Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:02 PM To: 'erichartsfield@aol.com' Cc: vat@phillipsre.com; dana.mcm@comcast.net; maryzandona@comcast.net; sallyvosk@comcast.net;jenn976@clearwire.net Subject: RE: PLN20140009 - SEPA Comments Hi Eric, Thank you for submitting comments regarding the referenced project. Your comments will be added to the record reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) prior to their decision on the design of the project. You will also become a party of record for this land use project in accordance with ECDC 20.07. Your questions will be addressed by staff in their report to the ADB and by the ADB at their public hearing, if necessary. If the Board approves the proposal, separate building permits for the buildings and other site improvements will be required from the Building Division to ensure compliance with zoning requirements as well as Building, Engineering, Fire and other relevant codes. Regards, Mike Clugston, AICP ( Associate Planner City of Edmonds 425-771-0220 michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov_ From: erichartsfield@aol.com Finailto:erichartsfield@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 4:09 PM To: Clugston, Michael Cc: vat phillipsre.com; dana.mcm@comcast.net; maryzandona@comcast.net; sallyvosk@comcast.net; jenn976@clearwire.net Subject: PLN20140009 - SEPA Comments Mr. Clugston, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Eric Hartsfield, resident and Board of Directors member of Edmonds Greenery, easterly abutting parcel to the proposed Jenna Lane Townhouses. The other four members of the Board and our property manager are cc'd on this e-mail. My comments: 1. There does not appear to be any on-site parking other than the garages. Where do visitors park? 2. Will there be curb and sidewalk along the 85' of 240th Street SW frontage? Drawing C5 has Detail E2.13 but Drawings C2, C3, C4 and L1 do not show this in plan view. 3. If so, will the curb be at least 20 feet south of the engineer's line (i.e. the sixteenth section line) to allow for both street parking and unimpeded traffic? 4. Drawing L1 shows new Douglas fir trees planted 3.75' east of townhouses A, B, C and D. This does not seem wise. 5. 1 cannot picture what the roof will look like from the two elevation views on Sheet Al. The front elevation view looks like a flat roof. The side elevation view calls out a 3:12 pitch and shows the eaves plunging downward over the front porch. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Eric J. Hartsfield Orta -6,700z1 9Z096N01,.VM=SONOW03 E8096 NOI VNIHSHM'ONV &IN m2�0 MS 133d1S H1 OPZ 015859098 P9SX06'O''d '� T O m 133HS N3A00 j S3SnOHAfM013WV7 VNN3P 077 `S3112t3dOatd 0017 eev xostnsa . NIg $aaaa § o 0 g$ga & Opk w •r a' �Rti Z v wa§kkka aka " y o gl s $ e a g "aol Mid 4i _ ea Gr mi Z,4 LJ Fm 4 3 o f ffxgi na al, Hui (9 y / s o gyral oq nz ea VgaGaaz �gF e k 350. age �a � � s� ���g�s ase a a oa $d 5 ' <� s $tai � N / / �_ �_- _ N >Se�T�f $fie" tfe ee��k a ,. 'a �s s e;; � � o � � 5..0a.P I H D U v obi briN� & o °u n S91VID03SV � HSVN I - 'a �s s e;; � � o � � f I o a t Z - Q Ili.Q I , adW p:. J It 2 y. 0 AZA I �� _ 1 ,,. ..... �7 r— ;. . 'a �s s e;; F*ob6=5e =�o3u o�y��gs5 INR WOYtB'SZZ (9021 t. O �m /} �2 S 9Z0B6 NOl`JNIHSUM 'SONOW03 EB086 NOlONIHSYM 'ONb?N2itN �„ �'a O Z02 5M1 MS 133U -LS 110,12 0198 8 9058 ,19B XOH'O'd fid', +' - CD �O . � S3SnOHIVM01 3MV7 VNN3f 077 `S311N3d0!ld QO,{7 fade• ,vosv.3a: a N ¢ E r log £ .p C E 1 KL zo Z € I< x o Q �a wo w �4 z � ( � �' r�1 `�\vy� �vvvrvvvv�v�vv�wvvvv�, 1 DO UQ ro v $3 r � ��-�-yy ,+�^�'•�y IV tt i i'3• - yam--. — � � r g� , ' , rC'vlZ -,� ' �^�,.F c.ex'x.bn i•a �.{ ,�t� w _s xs sa r:x-, =s3 _ i\a�,ryr� -1 .. tx er` 'w s? 'a4 .r3 ttr.£ xtSr,x •'u �. { ,,-`\ s r . �� y ''��.r, ,#r.r\z�- ` sS�' f {-4�u w �`i• �y.. a.a. r �a# v\ 'f t DECK Ll 2 �r z� Ob18-6ZZ (302) �z�2 � F 32086 NO1JNINSVM SONOFNO3 EB086 NOl0NfNSVM `ONb-7N2liN '� ' 02 " MS1332fLSH10bZOFS88SOS8 738 XO6 'O'd _ '�' w � NV7d 7OHLNOO NOISOH3 8 SNO111ONOO ONUM3 . SOSRO1iNmo13PNv7 vjvN3f 'I, 077S311b3dOYd GGA7 g§ ii x Yt a -s Off$ - !O= e g •tl � a'a 00. j�&4 °aka@ - Z e O w o ( atiBszz(sozl c 2 g 9ZOBd NOlJNtNSYM 'SQNOW03 EB086 NO1ONINSVM 'ONV7XWl -02g MS133211Siil0YZ O1S88905B i96XOS'Od 6fz yy N77d ON)QHUO ONV3115 � Z � j.6 S3Sf]OhINMO1. 5 AS 3NV7 4'NN3f _ 077 `53112I3dONd (WA? ty - sav . ,va!sHaa o r✓ ° � �� �� e « a �� e � a 1��� sg ass ee M; g a yes e s£ #O g 8e a a3a� 'HY 3� � �� R as gQ� i� 3� E �a A o aQ. a as gsa I a�a a z a a za mg as ga e as 3 3 q any r s g qj i3aha �£ b mea. a �gk"m g as g €t� a a= _yip In 3 i N � , �x N �2B€ gra € s 4 « xay x § a Asa �a e e ge x r o m� xg ? s i�g - Iaa. a x a o e � x � z� e ge' =�=xp aLg a a g6 bks �y se g�xz a� _ Q "nz M`ea �i� g� g �� z 7�a °s`� aE$«=a « b .«�. „ zs 'a a� 7e a WLQ liv [$as PnS has aax �a a 7 �''°^� i r'`� � • `� �" i Boa � �tr,r . t�";'k *" r"� n �a ,;iY �fr" � gp _A Ril lk I I �allll l e� �c�Ilil T II I I -1I I I o � u Ual I ON1 Zd M 'C Q2. 9 92086 NOl.9NtHSVM SONONG3 E8086 NOlONtHSYM 'ONVllt21LN p OZ MSL332U.SH10YZ049889099 L88XOS "O'd -0 Nb7d A117(Lf) h � i..YdY hro5N3a (6 Z s 4 , s-gsnOHNMOI -9Nd7 VNN3f X77 S3(12(3dOtdd OQI7 Q III'--- e¢ ISI-,. era�a� Q zIk e8 :jl ��Eg� € 3 , _ z iD Cq e H w Cl) �aasza �� a as s?. - 6 ti � r 0 `=a ( �� '„� ;,s„�u ^ rY �$• � r ^,y "'fig,// /�+ � �4 �:' I. ����I � � y$$ / moi' �+',,✓'`?" � /f.. i "All, �/ w abt8-6ZZ 'ON O �' O �' �Z $^ 9Z48b N01'JNiNSHM "SQNOlNQ3 £8085 NO1JNlHSb'M `QNb7N?JDl ,�, � p Q qW $ S1tY130 QNYONYIS k M1 N �n I U sHsnOl4NMO1 3NY7 7NN-gr rO77 `S311N3dOTld Oa17 2 Z W I w1= zZI �3 I v LL -111,. } VI ;I� I --II � T (aLVID SC+V&, \S 71 ===7 S,L D -a'L I H D -a v !1 MN,7-7 ',;INNMr- -7;v,MC= -1 j E 21 < [L SaLVIDOSSV�HWN Stormwater Site Plan Iv Jenna Lane Townhouses 8506 & 3510 240 th Street SE Edmonds,g., �I R,. JOU of IYASXI� 3/ 7111V 0 -32162 EIST.- Cs� IONAL OwnerlApplicant Lydd Properties, LLC P.O. Box 864 Kirkland, WA 98083 Report Prepared by D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 6207 1h Avenue Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date Larch 14, 2014 Attachment 8 © 2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. PLN20140009 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. General ofProject ....... .............................................................................................. 2 Figure1.Vicinity Map .......................................................................... .............................. ......................... 2 B. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................... ............. ............. 3 C. Proposed Development -------............................................................................... ....... 3 SECTION 3—DISCUSSION QFMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 4 A. Preparation ofa3honnmmterSite Plan -----------------------------'4 B. Construction 3honnmmterPollution Prevention Plan ........................................................... ......... 4 C. Source Conbo/bfPollution ................................................................................................... 4 D. Preservation ofNatural Drainage System Ouffa8o................................................................. —'4 E Onsite 3honnwmterManagement ------------------------- .................. 4 F. Runoff Treatment -------------........... —............................................. ---....... 5 G. Flow Control ....................................................................................................................... ......... 5 H. N/ettandProtection ....................................................... ............................................................... 0 � Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 6 J. OftsiteAnalysis and Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 6 K. Financial Liability .......................................................................................................................... O Figure 3.Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ........................................................................................... 7 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................. 8 APPENDIX "A"Operations and Maintenance Manual ............................................................................... 0 APPENDIX "B"Offsite Analysis and Mitigation Report .......................................................................... 10 @zo14�R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Jenna Lane Townhouses � 0onnwate,Site Plan Edmondo.mjanhington A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Jenna Lane project is located at 8506 & 8510 240th Street SW, just north of Edmonds Way. Based on the most recent boundary survey, the site (Site) is approximately 0.337 acres consisting of Parcel Number 0046330170-0301 and -0302. The project (Project) proposes the demolition of the existing two single family residence and associated driveways and the construction of two duplexes and a single family residence with an access drive and landscaping improvements. The Project will add 8,447 s.f of new plus replaced impervious surface, which includes 3,444 s.f. of new plus replaced pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Therefore the Project is considered Small Site Category II and must implement Small Site Minimum Requirements to the maximum extent feasible. . CICJI:ST 6AIe Q _ i r r L o`k - 228th st sa - Wrin:r„t:�..1ti% . Bn bih .. Wad SI S'.V d - J visdtl_Ett'nd o v I o :$ Fslrs,n5d AL�ii ftc.ltrvn Z3atb St SIN IF, O ;d4'1:73Rh rt. b p 3 Rkn hand 5 ss r_§, 200afeet 500 m Figure 1. Vicinity Map D -ut Rpt brt�,ar; viae; LE Fv$ 09 . 23,1111 5t SW a' b 205th! - rrteca "1 za0tisc . Nz aih Sig 3 i hijvrr dM 9 � irlBivtlt i a S � _ J iaELOCV_FIILL.. s a 4 - NE95th St" ,oA -:- p. SIA_ 5 r 7'Alma, city $ ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 2 Jenna Lane Townhouses i Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington I E. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Site is developed with two existing single-family residences, paved driveway, and landscaping. The existing homes have storm drainage, sewer and water connections from the Site. Storm runoff from impervious areas (roof drains, driveway, patios, walkways) and landscaping appears to discharge as sheet flow downstream and enter l the Edmonds Way conveyance system. See Appendix A for the Offsite Mitigation and Analysis. C. PROPOSE® DEVELOPMENT The Project's new plus replaced impervious area will include 8,447 s.f. of roof, walkway, driveway and patio surfaces. Lawn, landscaping and natural vegetation on the Site will include 6,227 s.f. of pervious surface. Landscaping is in accordance with the various landscaping buffer types located in Chapter 20.13 of the City of Edmonds Code. Three of the existing onsite trees will be retained. The existing utility connections for side sewer and water meters will be utilized for the proposed dwellings. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 3 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington -y i- l T :i - ..' : �..r lJ •J f. i j 1 ! 1 j }, `a". 4.i L % L iINIM Per Chapter 5- Small Site Category II requirements of the City of Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement, the Project must comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #11. The following is a summary of how each Minimum Requirement is met. A. PREPARATION OF A STORMWATER SITE PLAN The preparation of this report shall satisfy Minimum Requirement #1. B. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN See Figure 2 for the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. C. SOURCE CONTROL OF POLLUTION In accordance with the Department of Ecology source control requirements, the Project will implement street sweeping and vacuuming, sawcutting and paving pollution prevention, and implement regular maintenance of the stormwater structure onsite. D. PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM OUTFALLS Existing drainage patterns show one Natural Discharge Area (NDA) in one Threshold Discharge Area (TDA). Runoff sheet flows from the northeast corner of the Site to the southwest corner. After exiting the Site, runoff drains into a swale southwest of the southwest property line. Then runoff is collected into a catch basin in the shoulder off the east side of Edmonds Way. Runoff flows northwest in the conveyance system in Edmonds Way and eventually drains into Puget Sound. The proposed development will discharge at the natural location to the maximum extent possible. This development will collect the onsite runoff and convey it to a dispersal trench along the southwest property line where it will be discharged at the natural location. Runoff will sheet flow over the southwest property line and into a grass swale in the shoulder on the east side of Edmonds Way. Once in the swale, runoff will continue northwesterly to a catch basin on the southeast corner of Edmonds Way and 240th Street SW. No adverse drainage impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project improvements. General Parameters Flow Control BMP requirements are not applicable due to- Direct Discharge exemption and minimal flow frequency increase from the 100 year storm event. ® Infiltration Flow Control BMP's are not feasible as the presence of till soils are not suitable for stormwater infiltration and the overall slope of the site. ® Dispersion Flow Control BMP's will be implemented via a 30' dispersal trench to mimic existing drainage patterns into Edmonds Way drainage system. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 4 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington ® Roof downspout controls are not feasible due to site sizing constraints and the presence of till soils that are not suitable for stormwater infiltration. Roof downspouts will be connected to the new storm drain system. The Project will implement the following BMP's: BMP T5.13 Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth. Within the limits of Site disturbance, duff and topsoil will be retained in an undisturbed state and stockpiled for later use to stabilize and amend soils throughout the Site. Post -construction soil amendment will meet the requirements of BMP T5.13 Post - Construction Soil Quality and Depth. The total effective ,pollution -generating impervious surface (PCIS) does not exceed 5,000 s.f. for the threshold discharge area;'therefore runoff treatment is not required. No Oil Control Facility or device is required as the Site does not meet High -use Site criteria, as determined by step 2 established in Volume V, Chapter 2 of the Manual. Infiltration for Pollutant Removal is not practical as the onsite till soils are not suitable for infiltration as determined by step 3 established in Volume V, Chapter 1 of the Manual. Phosphorous Control is not required as determined by step 4 established in Volume V, chapter 1 of the Manual. Stormwater runoff from the Site discharges to the Puget Sound. Puget Sound does not have any identified Pollutants of Concern such as phosphorous as indicated in the 303(d) map of impaired water bodies obtained from the DOE Water Quality Assessment for Washington; a website query that provides interactive mapping of the water bodies listed in the 2008 Water Quality Assessment according to the requirements of Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act and as determined by step 1 established in Volume V, chapter 2 of the 2005 DOE Manual. Enhanced Treatment is not required as determined by step 5 established in Volume V, Chapter 1 of the Manual. G. FLOW CONTROL The continuous simulation model, the Western Washington Hydrology Model, WWHM, j was used to analyze the pre and post developed runoff rates. The soil type is modeled as "Till" for the Alderwood Series slopes 2-8%SCS classification as shown in Figure 11 in the Offsite Analysis and Mitigation report. In post -development conditions, the soil types are unchanged from the pre -developed conditions. The portions of.the Site within the proposed clearing limits tributary to the proposed detention vault were modeled as "Till Grass" and Impervious as appropriate. Results of the WWHM analysis are as follows: ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 5 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington Flow (cfs) Predeveloped Mitigated 10 Year 0.1104 0.1725 25 Year 0.1499 0.2163 100 Year 0.221 0.2915 From the table above, .it is concluded that the development would generate less than 0.1 cfs increase between the predeveloped conditions and the mitigated 100 year return frequency flow. Therefore, according to Step III, Chapter 4 of the Manual, the Project is exempt from flow control. Additionally, due to runoff flowing into the Edmonds Way Basin, the Site is considered a Direct Discharge Basins Project. As seen in the Offsite Analysis and Mitigation report located in Appendix A, no unacceptable downstream issues are found. H. WETILAND PROTECTION No wetland areas are onsite. To maximize the effectiveness of the On -Site Stormwater Management BMP's the following practices should be implemented as part of an overall Site management program: © Soil quality and depth should be established toward the end of construction and once established, should be protected from compaction, such as from large machinery use, and from erosion. ® Soil should be planted and mulched after installation. ® Plant debris or its equivalent should be left on the soil surface to replenish organic matter. An Operation and Maintenance excerpt from the 2005 DOE manual has been included in Appendix A for each drainage facility that is being proposed. See Appendix B for Offsite Analysis and Mitigation Report A performance bond is not required for this project. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 6 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 7 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington 0096NOloN/HSYM'SON'OW.03 E8096N01ONIHSVM 'OMVZ)fHN V p zU' u a Ms133 H[orzalsea. assxos o•d a q� �`;._• ®""+� o m rc W ga MM 70X1h'OO NOMY3 O p 8 SNOIl10NOO oN11Sf.O d. xO m Zai V N 6� 3NV7VNN3f O77 `S311N3dONd aaA-1 ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 8 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington APPENDIX "A=" Operations and Maintenance Manual An Operations and Maintenance Excerpt from the Manual has been included in this j section for each drainage facility that is being proposed. ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 9 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington L ©2014 D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. 10 Jenna Lane Townhouses Stormwater Site Plan Edmonds, Washington City of • • Land Use Applicatior V ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 0' 0 0 11 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT �aa MEM 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # FL_00Hb0 Gq ZONE ,tet- ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE 3 `A -M REC'D BY `-tLLV\ ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE ai d % RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ,(ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: 0 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFOR31ATION CONTAINED TVITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD 0 PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 8506 & 8510 240th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 PROJECT NAME(IF APPLICABLE) Jenna Lane PROPERTY OWNER Lydd Properties, LLC PHONE# (206) 229-8140 ADDRESS P.O. Box 864 k, a. -.4 gooel3 E-MAIL FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # 0046330170-0301 & -0302 SEC. 31 TwP. 27 N RNG. 4E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residences and constructing five units (2 duplexes and one single) upon lot consolidation. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) This project will adhere to the standards, specifications and codes set by the City of Edmonds including all rules and regulations from the applicable municipal, state and federal codes. APPLICANT Lydd, Properties, LLC PHONE# (206) 229-8140 ADDRESS P.O. Box 864 o& ;�-, E-MAIL " Fly / FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Luay Joudeh, D.R. Strong PHONE# (425) 827-3063 ADDRESS 620 7th Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98034 E-MAIL Luay.Joudeh@drstrong.com FAX# (425) 827-2423 The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to II' release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by.the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the informgtio�n-aff_d-6M"rhe—rewiith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this a plicati on the calf of Ife owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT— o-,� —,��— DATE Property Owner's Authorization I, � -7, ani certify under the penalty of pert—, the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the aboi subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff, subject property for the purpose spec t10 :p:o�sfinattendant to this application. Attachment 9 SIGNATURE OF OWNER DI PLN20140009 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8/11/11 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of 1 Attachment 10 PLN20140009 httn://t2.gstatic.com/images?a=tbn:ANd9GcO90WOKiOagI6B-w rnRv-H98uwU9Eroi a... 5/27/2014 Page 1 of 1 file-IIIC-/I Jsers/clupston/AnnData/T.ocal/Microsoft/Windows/Temnoraiv%20Internet%20F... 5/27/2014 Page 1 of 1 I it 'I � Illi .................:........................................................... V httns-//encrvntecl-thnl.ustatic.cnm/image-,?n=thn-AN(i9GcT6YvRhSXxf,TaFHa35hh 7.U... 5/27/2014 hybrid manzanita: Arctostaphylos X. media - Native Plant Guide Arctostaphylos X. media Perennial Shrub Height: 3 ft. Availability: Low Growing ease: Low Moisture req.: dry Exposure req.: sun Plant description: Go to my plant list (no plants selected) add this plant s..v Page 1 of 2 © Greg Rabrntm hybrid manzanita in bloom (enlarge) This manzanita is naturally occurring hybrid 1117iiji, between bristly manzanita and kinnikinnick. Its „q�!�ry';!I�iII' bluish -green leaves and pink flowers make this an *'!!!:!!!�:,:!'r ''� .111 N attractive evergreen ground cover. Since it rarely grows up to 3 feet in height, is a nice ground cover where low shrubs are desired, but you are looking for something other than kinnikinnick.. It requires good drainage, and is not very common in the nursery trade (yet). Keywords: none listed Plans that use this plant:Steep slope with dry sunny conditions Attachment 11 PLN20140009 Pacific wax myrtle: Myrica californica - Native Plant Guide Myrica californica Evergreen Shrub Height: 15 ft. Availability: Medium Growing ease: High Moisture req.: dry - moist Exposure req.: sun - part shade Plant description: Go to ray pleat fist (no plants selected) add this plant Page 1 of 2 Native to southwest Washington coast. Makes an excellent evergreen hedge. Can be pruned. Attractive foliage. Fruits are eaten by wildlife. Grows best with some sunlight, it will still grow in almost full shade. © Greg Raboum Pacific wax myrtle foliage (enlarge) Keywords: birds, broad, broad leaf (evergreen), drought tolerant, fire-resistant , fruit, upright Articles that mention this plant: Deer resistant plants Plans that use this plant:Moist, sunny, Wet, part shade, Wet, shady evergreen huckleberry: Vaccinium ovatum - Native Plant Guide Page 1 of 2 Go to Inn 131a"t list huckleberryevergreen (no plants selected) add this plant Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen Shrub Height: 6 ft. Availability: High Growing ease: Medium Moisture req.: dry - moist Exposure req.: part shade - shade Plant description: Beautiful foliage and edible fruit make this a must in most gardens. The new growth is bronze and the berries are blue to black. Does not transplant well, but can be grown easily from smaller potted stock. Can be hedged. For more information, check out the article about huckleberry under Plant topics. © Clay Antieau Evergreen huckleberry berries (enlarge) Keywords: birds, broad, broad leaf (evergreen), butterflies, drought tolerant, edible, fire- resistant , fruit, purple, spreading, upright, white Articles that mention this plant: Huckleberry plant pick Plans that use this plant:Dry, part shade, Moist, part shade, Moist, shady red -flowering currant: Ribes sanguineum - Native Plant Guide Ribes sanguineum Deciduous Shrub Height: 6 ft. Availability: High Growing ease: Medium Moisture req.: dry - moist Exposure req.: sun - part shade Plant description: Go to lay Plart list (no plants selected) add this plant © Greg Rabourn Red flowering currant in bloom (enlarge) Page 1 of 2 Keywords: birds, broad, butterflies, fast, fire-resistant , fruit, pink, purple, red, upright Articles that mention this plant: Deer resistant plants Plans that use this plant:D sunny, Moist, sunny, Steep slope with dry sunny conditions Print Plant Page 1 of 2 Bowhall Red Maple Scientific name: Acer rubrum `Bowrhall' Taxonomy Plant Requirements Family: Aceraceae Zone: 3 to 9 Type: Deciduous tree Native: NO Plant Characteristics Height: 40 ft Bloom: Spring flowers Width: 15 ft Bloom Time: April to May Bloom Color: Red i Additional Characteristics Trees Leaves Wildlife value iu C Small lot suitable Good Fall color ❑ Attract !r" C Flowering tree ❑ Leaves fragrant hummingbirds h _ i ❑Attract butterflies C� Safe for beneath ❑ Gold foliage ;;., power lines ❑ Attract birds .:.: ❑ Evergreen ......................................:................:............................................ Fruit Bark Poisonous C Showy ❑ Showy ❑ Foliage C Edible D Fruit Description In the ornamentals trade the red maple cultivar'Bowhall' is considered to be an excellent street, and parking lot tree species as it does not become too wide. It has better fall color than the red maple cultivar 'Armstrong'. Morphology: This deciduous tree grows to a height of 45' and a width of 15'. Leaves are 3" long and as wide, with 5 lobes. Leaf margins are dentate to serated. Leaves are arranged alternately. Flowers are red samaras approximately 1" across, and emerge in the month of April and May. Leaves are borne on upright stems which give the tree its upright to oval crown at maturity. During the summer months the leaves are dark green above and grayish beneath. In the fall, the leaves turn shades of yellow, orange'. and reddish orange, before being shed for the winter. The cultivar'Bowhall' is considered narrower in width than other red maple cultivars, such as 'Red Sunset' or 'October Glory', thus making it suitable to smaller planting areas. Adaptation: Red maple is considered very tolerant of soil flooding, as well as droughty conditions. It is commonly planted all across the United States, as well as Canada, Europe and New Zealand. Tree growth is classified as moderate to rapid. Pests: None reported. Images Douglas -fir: Pseudotsuga menziesii - Native Plant Guide Go to my Plant ti5t Douglas—fir (no plants selected) add this plant Pseudotsuga menziesii Evergreen Tree Height: 250 ft. Availability: Medium Growing ease: High Moisture req.: dry - moist Exposure req.: sun - part shade Plant description: Page 1 of 2 © Greg Raboum Douglas -fir entire free (enlarge) mm�' clic I ii!!!!iii!i!iii!!ii!!i!!i!!iiu!iii!ii! I! ii!!ei.!!I!el ::!!,i!II!I:;:II:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Il:i:::i!I§!!„4:11;.: .;nr..::!ai!::: Certainly the ubiquitous native tree of our region, li, i. IIii11:_,...L ,,.'��� ;. I In iii!! Ilil:::!!II€€;<!!iii!i !i! ,.i:iIIIIIIIII ,;�'Il�lry!; ;,!dial il'. the Douglas fir is host to man natives species of r,•;iii:i:I'!!!ai.. �L..l 9 Y p �I! '!iisi:::!!: !::i ai;';!;,d;i:�. I !!!!ii!!!i!!!i!:!°ii!iii'ii!i! insect and bird. Fast growingand predictable it a.::.::.:.::::::::.!::::I.!:i:::::::::::!::.::...,I.:.i i:il::::.::::::::::. !:.:::?:::;.:;li. a..,. .., :illi �Ilil'ia!;,:II,!14; ., I ..:II!!.! :I.::.:.i:l! ' , a:.a.......:...,a n I�N1 ' I:. I I Ili � , .. .:.. ::ll!i.l I I! �� .I.,:.. , I: ':1:.:= jli;iiiiiliii i, ll;i;,!°i'Ijii l?!II� . : !'iiili:iiiii,ill .!i:,,: ,.. I III li:,;;llll:il!iiii!ii: can be grown In almost any native soil but will :�i!I::il::il:!!uii!I!II!9!iill!I ::.:I:i:::::::::iii„iii„?!:Illi':I�!Ili9ii:iiilll!!lii!ILdi!i!!!iiii!iil sometimes blow down if planted in shallow soils over compacted clay or glacial till. For that reason it has better luck growing in groves that have been thinned a bit to allow air circulation. Certainly a great backdrop tree, it provides good screening and a sense of grandeur to any garden. The constant needle drop will adversely affect adjacent lawns over time. So keep it some distance from lawns. This tree cannot be topped or effectively hedged so give it plenty of space (allow 15' diameter). Keywords: birds, butterflies, conifer (evergreen), drought tolerant, fast Articles that mention this plant: Deer resistant plants Plans that use this plant:Dry, part shade, Dry, sunny 92086 NOlONtNSYM 'SONOW03 EA186 N01JNiHSYMONVWNCf MS139XUGR1ope Ns8890S8 b_'i8 X08'O'd V� O, zw 5.3 � NN'id 3dHO50NY1 oz sHsnoHNM013NV7 YNN3r . 077 531da3dONd OOI+"7 O 1. O C O (D" N 19 xjn SS cg® �§_- IP �dS o _ w � a m z h r o Lo o a �VVAAVAAVAAVAAAVAAVV�•� . " c` 4o 4,0 - 3 r co A/1 u'1 Jam r alb . uj w _, a a i 6iE�'w ✓as'� � i� � "�� rN IAF �'+ t `y +r., a !MSrk�t�W.� a S E r �a�ty o as "est `4 �-.,4 ,a t xr +;.� �'`� '� - �.. N ''•.y 4r���� ar!r�'Gx�. w ��r�! ��� C DECK a _ a _� wo Q 0 v� �s vy muvnz+m, .v-�xcsvw fe�r.sv. M iixn `dM 'SGNOWQM o sa.��azH�a$� vra-r ANN=r a.a SU IDOSSV I IISVN iMawdo-t�nscs aar -c ; £ m � m •��Pf .+d o n.° `u � q w dnmdd FQ - z 0 0 lu ulQzwQ� d 4 z 0< W W 0 4 4 O d.. o O m � = O X z ui J •vmmarmm.Y°""`..�e• 4 4NV J 511Nn vM 'saNOWaa 0 d S I �3,LIH0XV� MNIV I %VNN;3r "0 — Si3.I.VI:)OSSV11HWN .LNMWdOi2^0Q QQAi •a=or d a° $5 � nn p w dnmdd FQ - z 0 0 lu ulQzwQ� d 4 z 0< W W 0 4 4 O d.. o O m � = O X z ui J CITY OF SSSS ARCHITECTURAL " DBOARD Minutes ofRegular Meeting Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 50' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Cary Guenther, Vice Chair Brian Borofka Bruce O'Neill (arrived at 7:03) Rick Schaefer APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Staff Present Lois Broadway (excused) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2014 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED J�1►�910a APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, asked if the Architectural Design Board has an opportunity to provide input on the placement and quality of signs in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston explained that, generally, sign applications require an administrative review by staff, and no design review is required as long as the proposal meets the requirements of the sign code (ECDC 20.60). If the applicant wants to vary from the sign code requirements, the proposal would come before the ADB for review and approval. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON JENNA LANE TOWN HOMES (FII E NUMBER PLN20140009) The applicant is seeking design approval for two duplexes and a single unit at 8506 and 8510 — 240"' Street Southwest. Two existing single-family residences will be removed while new frontage, utility and landscaainiz Architec 0 A 0=01 0 improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the five new dwelling units. The site is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM -2.4). This is a Type M -B permit with a public hearing and a decision made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Clugston explained that the subject properties are located on 240'l' Street Southwest, near the intersection of Edmonds Way and Highway 99. Currently, the site is developed with two single-family residential homes and is zoned RM -2.4. The applicant is proposing to remove the two existing homes and develop five new units on the site. The project will include the buildings, frontage improvements on 240"' Street Southwest, site improvements and landscaping. Because this is a Type III -B Pernit, the Architectural Design Board is required to conduct a public hearing and issue a decision, which is appealable to the City Council. He entered the following items into the record for the hearing: ® Exhibit 1 is the Staff Report that was published and mailed out on May 28, 2014, along with 12 attachments. ® Exhibit 2 is a marked -up, colored rendering of the proposal prepared by Board Member Broadway, with some suggestions for possible improvements to the building design. ® Exhibit 3 is a colored elevation drawing for the single-family unit, which was submitted by the applicant just prior to the start of the meeting. ® Exhibit 4 is a colored elevation drawing of the duplex units, which was submitted by the applicant just prior to the start of the meeting. Mr. Clugston displayed a map of the subject properties, pointing out that that the properties to the east are zoned RM -2.4. The properties to the west across Edmonds Way are zoned RM -1.5, and the properties to the north across 240`l' Street Southwest are zoned Single -Family (RS -8). He also provided aerial and oblique photographs of the site, noting that the southern portion is heavily treed and the two properties have been developed as single-family residences for at least 50 years. Mr. Clugston provided street views of the site looking south from 240°i Street Southwest and northeast from Edmonds Way. He noted that the existing homes are tucked into the landscaping. He also provided an existing site plan showing the location of the two houses. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 7d of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), which shows that the bulk of the trees would be removed from the site. However, the applicant is proposing to retain three trees on the southern end of the site as part of the required landscaping. He also referred to Attachment 7e of the Staff Report, which illustrates the proposed location of the single-family unit, as well as the two duplexes. It also illustrates the location of the proposed retaining wall on the perimeter of the site. He noted that access would be from 240`l' Street Southwest via a driveway along the western portion of the site. Mr. Clugston explained that staff reviewed the elevation drawings that were initially submitted by the applicant to determine if the proposal meets the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). He advised that, generally speaking, the project is consistent with the requirements of the ECDC and the guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, but staff felt the design was a little plain. The duplex structures have some differentiation on the top and bottom, as well as some vertical separation; but the units appear to be a mirror image of one another. The use of varied colors or materials would help provide more of an individual identity to each unit. He said he invited Board Member Broadway, who was unable to attend the hearing, to provide some ideas (Exhibit 2) for improving the building design. She recommended that the applicant use different materials, colors and window shapes. She particularly suggested accent colors for the garage doors and eaves to provide more facade interest. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 7c of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), which represents the applicant's current proposal for landscaping. He said the proposal meets the general requirements of the Landscape Code (ECDC 20.13); but given the site's location near Edmonds Way, staff is recommending that additional landscaping be required. He referred to Attachment 12 of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), which is a marked -up version of the landscape plan to illustrate some of staff's ideas. He explained that the applicant had proposed Type III Landscaping along Edmonds Way, and staff is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 2 of 8 recommending Type I Landscaping, which is thicker and denser and includes a fence. This will provide additional screening for the structure from Edmonds Way. Staff is also recommending the applicant use Type III Landscaping on the northern property line to buffer the site from 240'' Street Southwest and the existing church. Type II Landscaping is proposed along the east property line, including Douglas Fir trees in the narrow landscape areas. The homeowner's association for the adjacent properties (Edmonds Greenery) has raised concern about using this species in such a small space. Staff is recommending that the Douglas Fir trees be replaced with a more appropriate species. Type II landscaping is proposed on the western property line. However, given the narrow planting area, staff suggests that some type of hedge material would be appropriate in this location. Mr. Clugston concluded his presentation by stating that staff recommends approval of the proposed development, with eight conditions (Page 20 of the Staff Report). He specifically reviewed the following proposed conditions: ® Condition 2 would require that all above -ground utility equipment be located interior to the site or camouflaged or screened with architectural features, fencing and/or landscaping. This is a common condition for all multi -family development. ® Condition 4 would require the applicant to add interest to the windows and garage doors. ® Condition 5 would require the applicant to add interest to the facades and eaves in the form of other colors. ® Condition 7 would require the applicant to work with staff to update the landscape plan using the guidance provided in the Staff Report regarding landscape types and materials that are appropriate for the site. ® Condition 3 would require the applicant to install illuminated bollards in the landscaping area west of the driveway across from each of the residential garages. The only lighting proposed by the applicant is on the buildings, themselves, and lighting the entrance will provide additional safety. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the applicant has not made provisions for pedestrian access in the roadway area. While the site is fairly narrow and there is not enough room for a sidewalk, staff is proposing that the applicant use striping or some other feature on the pavement along the eastern side of the driveway to connect the pedestrian area up to 240d' Street Southwest. Mr. Clugston suggested the Board utilize the Staff Report (Exhibit 1), as well as information provided by Board Member Broadway (Exhibit 2) and the applicant (Exhibits 3 and 4) to come up with conditions and/or recommendations to address concerns related to building design, landscaping, etc. Board Member Borofka pointed out that the applicant has provided elevation drawings titled "Al of 3 (Attachment 7b). He asked if the applicant also submitted sheets A2 and A3. He also pointed out that the applicant did not provide drawings for the south elevation of Building E (single-family house), which will face Edmonds Way. Mr. Clugston clarified that Sheet Al (Attaclunent 7b) was submitted as part of the application, but sheets A2 and A3 were not included. Just prior to the meeting, the applicant submitted new elevation drawings, but not for the south elevation of Building E. Chair Gootee agreed with Board Member Borofka's concern that there is no drawing to illustrate the southern elevation of Building E. This elevation will front on Edmonds Way and will be seen by people coming down the road. Luay Joudeh, P.E., D. R. Strong, said he is a member of the LYDD Properties Group and the project engineer for the Jenna Lane proposal. He said he worked very closely with Mr. Clugston to address the concerns raised in the Staff Report, as illustrated in Exhibits 3 and 4. Regarding the south elevation drawing for Building E, he pointed out that the dense landscaping buffer proposed along Edmonds Way would screen Building E from the roadway. To provide additional clarity, he advised that the southwest elevation would likely mirror the northeast elevation. Mr. Joudeh said he finds the conditions outlined on Page 20 of the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) to be reasonable, and he also tried to incorporate the comments provided by Board Member Broadway (Exhibit 2) into the new elevation drawings (Exhibits 3 and 4) that were submitted just prior to the meeting. The new drawings also incorporate the comments Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 3 of 8 provided by Mr•. Clugston in the Staff Report. He summarized that the new drawings (Exhibits 3 and 4) provide a variety of paint colors to create depth and separation between the two units that will be side-by-side. Mr. Joudeh referenced comments provided by the City Engineer regarding the proposed project (Attachment 5) and explained that the recommended drainage condition actually applies to a different project. Mr. Clugston agreed that the City Engineer's comments in Attachment 5 are related to another project on Edmonds Way, and reference to the comments should be removed from Condition 1. The City Engineer has indicated that the basic facility proposed by the applicant is acceptable, and that stormwater requirements will be addressed as part of the building permit. Board Member O'Neill asked Mr. Joudeh to describe the modulation shown in the elevation drawings. Mr. Joudeh that they are working with 21 x 45-foot buildings and the goal is to maximize their size. That means that opportunities for modulation are limited. He pointed out that the garage doors will be painted a different color, and there will be some lattice work over the garage and patio doors. He summarized that they have provided as much modulation as possible without compromising the size of the units. Board Member O'Neill asked if the driveway width is the minimum width required. Mr. Joudeh answered affirmatively. Board Member O'Neill asked if the applicant is proposing to incorporate both of the scenarios shown in Exhibits 3 and 4, or if he would choose one of the scenarios to apply to all three buildings. Mr. Joudeh clarified that, as currently proposed, the duplex units would have one design scheme, and the single -family unit another. However, he said he is open to additional suggestions from the Board, and would not be opposed to a different scheme for each of the three buildings. Board Member O'Neill expressed his belief that the Board should require the applicant to submit elevation drawings for the south side of Building E prior to Board approval. Board Member Schaefer agreed and commented that although the fagade would eventually be screened as the landscaping matures, the building would be constructed on fill and would be prominent to those coming down Edmonds Way. Chair Gootee asked what the applicant has in mind for the vegetative screen along Edmonds Way. Mr. Joudeh answered that three existing Douglas Fir trees near the southern corner of the property would be retained, and would provide some screening from Edmonds Way. At the City's request, the applicant would provide Type I Landscaping to provide a dense site barrier and separate the development from Edmonds Way. While he recognizes the need to provide a buffer, it is also important to allow some sunlight into the new building. He said he is not against providing south elevation drawings for Building E. It was not provided previously because it would simply be a mirror image of the northeast elevation. Vice Chair Guenther said he would also like the applicant to provide a southern elevation drawing for Building E. He said he does not believe it would be possible to simply mirror the northeast elevation, given the location of windows, etc. It is critical for the Board to see what the southern fagade will look like prior to approving the application. Chair Gootee observed that there are so many ideas floating around that it will be necessary for the applicant to provide new elevation drawings for all the buildings, with the appropriate adjustments, before the Board can approve the application. Board Member Schaefer concurred and stressed the importance of providing clear direction for the applicant to move forward with new drawings. Board Member Borotka asked if the applicant has artist renderings to illustrate what the buildings will look like from 240`l' Street Southwest and Edmonds Way. Mr. Joudeh answered that no artist renderings have been prepared. Again, he pointed out that the elevation drawings in the initial Staff Report (Exhibit 1) have been updated (Exhibits 3 and 4) to incorporate comrnents from Board Member Broadway and staff. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Board Member Schaefer pointed out that the proposed Douglas Fir could encroach with the long-term function of the dispursement trench. He suggested that whatever is planted in this bed should have a root structure that is consistent with the presence of the dispursement trench. Board Member O'Neill said it appears from the elevation drawing that the applicant is proposing to add fill behind the rockery. He pointed out that not only would the rockery require a surcharge, the City does not allow rockeries to be filled from behind. He requested more irtformation about how the applicant would address this situation. Mr. Joudeh explained that as the foundation design is developed, the applicant will consult with a structural engineer. Options include a mechanically stabilized wall or a taller foundation to eluninate the need for a wall altogether. Board Member O'Neill said he would like to see more definite plans for the retaining wall and/or taller foundation before approving the project. Predreg Bojik, Edmonds, said his property is located adjacent to the western boundary of the subject property, and he would like assurance from the City that stormwater issues will be properly addressed before a building permit is issued. He noted the slope that separates the two properties and commented that simply planting vegetation may not prevent the slope from sliding. Board Member O'Neill explained that, as part of the building permit review process, the applicant will have to demonstrate that the proposed project will not erode the bank. Mr. Bojik asked if underground utilities would be required. If so, he asked if he would also be required to place his utilities underground. Board Member O'Neill answered that all new construction in Edmonds requires underground utilities, but Mr. Bojik would not be required to change his service. Board Member O'Neill requested more information about Condition 8, which makes reference to a deck on an adjacent properly. Mr. Clugston explained that the deck on the adjacent property protrudes into the western boundary of the subject property. The adjacent property owner will need to either remove the deck or obtain an easement from the applicant for its maintenance. This issue will need to be addressed before a building permit can be issued. Mr. Bojik said his homes and the two homes on the subject property were built in the 1950's, and there is already a problem with stormwater runoff. When it rains heavily, water goes under his house, and he is afraid the new development will cause the problem to worsen. Board Member Schaefer pointed out that because the applicant would be required to meet strict stormwater standards, the situation could actually improve as a result of development. Mr. Bojik asked where residents of the new homes would park. Mr. Clugston explained that the project will include frontage improvements (curbs and gutters) along 240d' Street Southwest, but no sidewalk would be provided. Parking for one or two cars will be provided along the street front. Sally Vosk, Edmonds, said she lives in the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums that are located directly to the east of the subject property. She asked where she could find information to illustrate how much of the proposed new buildings would be visible from the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums, particularly Building B that is located to the east of the subject property. Currently, there is a six-foot fence along the property line, but the subject property would still be visible from the second and third stories of the condominiums. Mr. Clugston responded that the entire Staff Report, and all the associated attachments, are available on the City's website. Chair Gootee pointed out that, typically, the Board does not require applicants to provide perspective drawings from each angle of the project. Instead, the Board has to look at the elevation drawings and envision what the new buildings will look like from different elevations. Ms. Vosk asked if it would be reasonable for the Board to require the applicant to provide an artist's rendition of what the proposed buildings will look like from Edmonds Way and 240''' Street Southwest. Board Member Schaefer said that is not a common requirement because artist renderings are costly. Most of the time, the Board Members can visualize how things will look by reviewing the elevation drawings. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Vosk pointed out that the City typically requires sidewalks for all new multi -family development. Mr. Clugston said the Engineering Division has indicated that there needs to be a sidewalk on at least one side of the roadway, but they are not required on both sides. Because there is an existing sidewalk on the north side of 240"' Street Southwest, the applicant would not be required to construct a sidewalk on the south side, as well. However, frontage improvements (curb and gutter) would still be required. Nola Topolinski, Edmonds, said she also lives in the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums and came to the meeting hoping to get an artist rendition of what the new buildings would look like from the condominium complex. She asked if the buildings would be two or three stories. Board Member Schaefer answered that the proposed buildings would be two stories tall. Chair Gootee added that staff will review the height of the proposed buildings as part of the building permit to ensure they are code compliant. Mr. Clugston pointed out that building height in the RM -2.4 zone is 25 feet,' and it appears from the elevation drawings that the tallest portions of the proposed buildings will be 24.5 feet. He reiterated that building height would be verified as part of the building permit. Ms. Topolinski asked how much separation there would be between the proposed new buildings and the condominiums. Mr. Clugston answered that the new buildings would be set back 10 feet from the property line, and the existing condominium buildings are located between 12 and 15 feet from the property line. The separation would be between 22 and 27 feet. Ms. Topolinski asked where the existing trees the applicant is proposing to retain are located. Board Member Schaefer said the trees are located at the southern tip of the subject property next to Edmonds Way. One is actually located on the Edmonds Greenery Condominium property, and two are on the subject property. There are three existing trees in the right-of-way in this location, as well. New landscaping would also be added along the property boundary. Ms. Topolinski said she lives on the third floor of her condominium building, and she currently looks out at greenery and blue sky. She is happy to hear that the trees will not be removed. No other members of the public indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Mr. Clugston suggested that if the Board would like the applicant to provide more information and updated drawing, the best approach would be to continue the public hearing to a date certain. This would allow the applicant time to update the drawings as per the Board's direction. For example, the Board could request the applicant provide artist renderings depicting how the building will look fiom 240d' Street Southwest, Edmonds Way, and the eastern property line. He noted that the City typically requires artist renderings for development proposals in other areas of the City where development standards are applicable. While elevation drawings and landscape plans typically provide all the information the Board needs, they can request a higher level of detail. Chair Gootee expressed support for continuing the hearing. He observed that a number of ideas have been proposed, and it is important for the Board to provide clear direction to the applicant. The Board discussed potential dates of June 18d' or July 2nd. It was questionable whether or not a quorum would be available on June 186, and there was some concern that the updated drawings would not be available to provide sufficient time for both the Board and the public to review prior to the hearing. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to continue the public hearing to July 2nd. They discussed that the applicant could obtain guidance from the comments in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) and the drawing submitted by Board Member Broadway (Exhibit 2). They recognized that timing is important, but it is essential the Board has enough information to feel comfortable with its decision. It is also important to provide additional information to address concerns raised by citizens. The Board asked that the new information from the applicant be posted on the City's website as soon as possible. Board Member Borofka said he would like the applicant to provide more modulation, particularly on the east and west facades of the duplexes. He recognized the small lot size, setback requirements and the need to maximize footprint; but Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 6 of 8 he suggested that color or material changes could be used to provide some vertical breakup between the units. In addition, he noted that adjacent residents are concerned about what the new buildings will look like from the condominium complex, and Board Members would like a sense of what the buildings will look like fi•om Edmonds Way. Artist renderings would help the Board and nearby residents visualize what the completed project will look like. BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE NUMBER PLN20140009 (JENNA LANE TOWNHOUSES) BE CONTINUED TO JULY 2ND. VICE CHAIR GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. In preparation for the continued hearing on July 2"d, the Board discussed the following items and gave further direction to the applicant. 1. South elevation drawings and artist renderings depicting how the building will look from 240'h Street Southwest, Edmonds Way, and the eastern property line. Mr. Joudeh requested more information about what the Board would like the new drawings to include. In addition to south elevation drawings, the Board agreed that the artist renderings could be simple drawings that show the cross sections through Buildings B, C and D to illustrate the relative height of the proposed buildings to each other and to the adjacent buildings to the east. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the second and third floor condominium units would be above the proposed buildings, and only the first floor would look directly at them. It was also noted that the building pads for the duplex units will step down because of site grading and that relationship needs to be reflected in the revised elevations. 2. A drawing illustrating what the retaining wall system will be. Mr. Joudeh asked if the Board's concerns are about structural issues or what the rockery will look like. Board Member O'Neill said he would prefer a rockery over a retaining wall, but the Engineering Division will likely impose surcharge limitations. A three-foot rockery would have to be located six feet from the edge of the pavement. While you can cut from the bank and construct a rockery in front, you cannot construct a rockery and then fill in behind. Mr. Joudeh said his understanding is that you can fill behind a rockery if it is not taller than three feet. Mr. Joudeh said visibility of the rockery from Edmonds Way should not be a concern. While he does not mind providing the additional detail requested by the Board, he noted that the plantings provided in the landscape buffer would screen the rockery from Edmonds Way. The Board agreed they wanted additional information about the type of retaining wall system the applicant would use. 3. Revised north, east and west elevations that break up the facade as per the comments in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) and Board Member Broadway's drawing (Exhibit 2). Vice Chair Guenther observed that Board Member Broadway's drawing was based on the elevation drawings that were submitted with the initial application. The applicant has updated the elevation drawings (Exhibits 3 and 4), to incorporate some of her suggestions. He pointed out that Board Member Broadway's recommendation for windows may not be possible to implement. The Board agreed that the applicant should prepare new elevation drawings that incorporate the recommendations from both staff and Board Member Broadway. While they asked the applicant to consider Board Member Broadway's suggestions for window placement and size, it was recognized that consideration must also be given to the inside functions. The Board noted that the elevation drawings shown in Exhibit 3 pertain to the single-family unit and are different than the elevation drawings shown in Exhibit 4, which pertain to the duplex units. They agreed they would like the applicant to use both schemes, and perhaps incorporate a third scheme so that each building is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 7 of 8 somewhat different. They further agreed that the buildings would be enhanced by providing a variety of materials and colors. 4. Revised landscape plans that incorporate the comments provided by staff in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1). Mr. Clugston explained that if the Board agrees with staff's recommendations related to the landscape plan, they could ask the applicant to update the drawings accordingly. Another option would be to simply include Condition 8, which requires the applicant to work with staff to create a landscape plan using the guidance in the Staff Report. The Board agreed that the landscape plan should be updated according to staff's recommendations. 5. Additional lighting in the landscaped area west of the driveway. The Board discussed whether additional lighting should be required or not. It was noted that the only lighting currently proposed is near the doorways to each of the units; and staff has recommended Condition 3, which would require the applicant to install illuminated bollards in the landscaping area west of the driveway across from each of the residential garages. Chair Gootee cautioned against requiring additional lighting, which could impact adjacent properties by shining onto nearby homes. On the other hand, Board Member Borofka pointed out that there is not enough space to provide a sidewalk along the driveway for pedestrian access to 240'l' Street Southwest. He expressed his belief that bollard lighting would address a safety issue rather than a design issue. The majority of the Board agreed that bollard lighting should not be required and Condition 3 should be eliminated. 6. Additional information about utility boxes or other structures that would be need to be screened as per Condition 2. Board Member Borofka noted that the applicant has not provided any details about proposed above -ground utility equipment and how it would be screened. He suggested that the landscape plan be updated to incorporate this required screening. The remainder of the Board agreed that information would be useful, but noted that the issue could also be addressed by Condition 2, which requires that all utility equipment be screened. Mr. Joudeh pointed out that the only utility equipment would be a transformer and a phone post, which would be located within the right-of-way. Utility companies do not allow this equipment to be screened. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION. There were no administrative reports. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Vice Chair Guenther commented that the minutes from the Board's April 2nd meeting were very thorough. He suggested that a copy of the minutes be provided to new Board Members to provide information about the Board's roles and responsibilities. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 4, 2014 Page 8 of 8 D L 51F R", 0 O tas r . T .` G. June 13, 2014 Project No. 13056 Mike Clugston City of Edmonds Planning Department Architectural Design Review Board RECEIVED 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 JUN 17 2014 Re: Jenna Lane Townhouse Project Review Responses 11E1EI-OPME11T SF-RvIGES Dear Mr. Clugston, Thank you for your continued attention to this project. I am writing in response to issues raised by staff and Architectural Review Board members concerning the Jenna Lane Townhouse project (Project). To avoid any confusion, I have included experts from the draft meeting minutes followed by our proposed response to each action item: 1. South elevation drawings and artist renderings depicting how the building will look from 240th Street Southwest, Edmonds Way, and the eastern property line. Please see attached revised elevations including the south elevation of Building E as it would appear from Edmonds Way. 2. A drawing illustrating what the retaining wall system will be. The retaining wall along Edmonds Way has been eliminated by lowering the pad elevation of Building E. This should make said Building less prominent and easier to screen. from Edmonds Way. 3. Revised north, east and west elevations that break up the facade as per the comments in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1) and Board Member Broadway's drawing (Exhibit 2). The attached revised elevations of all Buildings illustrate the variation of siding, paint, and elevations. 4. Revised landscape plans that incorporate the comments provided by staff in the Staff Report (Exhibit 1). A revised landscape plan is attached. It incorporates the comments made by staff and board members concerning prosed plants and type of buffer required, ,especially along Edmonds Way. 5. Additional lighting in the landscaped area west of the driveway. Noted 6. Additional information about utility boxes or other structures that would be need to be screened as per Condition 2. Noted 620 stn Ave EXHIBIT 6 Engineers Surveyors ( Landsi PLN20140009 Mike Clugston June 13, 2014 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, in order to address comments from the neighbors to the east, we have prepared the attached cross sections demonstrating relative elevations. It appears that the view from the third floor of the condominium project to the east should not be blocked by the Jenna Lane Townhouses. It is worth noting that the Project proposed roof elevation is in compliance with City of Edmonds Zoning Code. We hope this letter along with the attached information will address concerns about this project. We respectfully request your approval so we can move this Project forward. Sincerely yours, D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Luay R. Joudeh, P.E. President LRJ/Ics Enclosure: a. Revised Elevations b. Revised Landscape Plan C. Site Cross Sections R:\2013\0\13056\Correspondence\Letters\out\L13056_140613_Mike Clugston2.docx . . . . ..... ... .... wMai Imp, XHIMT 7 PLN20140009, 01, w 0 w x T2 z\ » / , \} S J, D "1\" I If . . . . ............................ . . \g \ EXI-IIBIT 8, P 1, N 20140009 w I a I R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ ........... .......... . . 10 -A ... . . ... ..... . ........... 7 1 11 AM" V --- - - -- - ------------ . .... ... ................................................. .......... 44 EX J-1 I b 11"' 9 FILN20140009 - . . . . . . . . . . . 44 EX J-1 I b 11"' 9 FILN20140009 amxrx arrv-omu auonru-® 9Z096 NOlON/HSVM SONOfNO3 S e suss � MS 13381S h1106L OG99 8 9099 0 0 R .G. 3S!)OHiV NO/lO3S SSONO 31/S m m SN33NIDN3JNLLw7sNOD o a ti DNMUG •ao a a S3snOHMMO13NV7 V NIN3i ao o� A rLivwl 4®®®9 �srei �tmrno csaas vw •aww+s muonviu-ozn 95096NO1JN1HSbM 'SONOW03 3 sus spm s� MS133N1SH1060019999099 R y �a.0. 3/SnoH/gl�pV N01103pS� SSSyO{N�Op3p1I G S?93M'JN3 �N07 b Q a S3snOH NMOl 3N / VNN3l Q c o � 11 mmzffim._ mus M wroa ory an o e�-� 92086 NO1JNINSb'M 'SONOW03 'S s Ae^s s a s MS 133N1S iLLMO N99 Y90-99 p � .0.35()OH1V N011O3SSSONO311S S833N1ON3 ONLUSNOO s3snOHNMO.L 3NV7 VNN3/ a ONOHLS ?I'O a s 7 m Y �tl ` u od FF r L,vGv140009 Yw ti 22 ce Null aOV)5'jw'. SNOISIAIa Yw ti 22 Clugston, Michael From: Zulauf, JoAnne Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:34 PM To: Clugston, Michael Subject: Jenna Lane Stormwater Here is the comment from Jerry; The site needs to be classified per Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and the Edmonds Stormwater Code Supplement (ESCS): httpl/www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Public Works/Stormwater Utility/pdf/Ed mondsStormwaterSupplementFinal20100428.pdf. The key metrics are land disturbing activity area and impervious surface area. Once classified, the applicable Minimum Requirements should be listed. Special attention should be paid to Minimum Requirement #6 (Runoff Treatment) and MR#7 Flow control. The access driveway is considered pollution generating impervious surface (PGIS) and runoff treatment is required for 5,000 square feet or more PGIS. Note that the Edmonds Way drainage basin (where this site is located) is considered a direct discharge basin but due to capacity problems, sites must meet the flow control standards in section 5.7.2 of the ESCS. Infiltration is preferred . Use the requirements in Appendix C of the ESCS for infiltration testing requirements. Dispersion trenches (as proposed) are only allowed for roof runoff where there is a 50 foot flow path of native vegetation,. This is not the case for this project. As proposed, not feasible. Jerry Shuster, P.E. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry.Shuster@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 x1323 JoAnne Zulauf I Senior Engineering Technician Engineering Division I City of Edmonds 1215 th Ave N I Edmonds, Wa 98020 425.771.0220 x 1324 1 FAX 425.672.5750 Joanne.Zulauf@edmondswa.gov "' �1 X111•