Loading...
2021-05-05 Architectural Design Board Packet Architectural Design Board 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Remote Zoom Meeting www.edmondswa.gov ~ Agenda ~ Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, May 5, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Architectural Design Board Page 1 Printed 4/29/2021 Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/95351960968?pwd=akREUlN1dnVGRG53RmliU1lVRHhpZz09 Meeting ID: 953 5196 0968. Password: 681028 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 I. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived II. Public Hearing A. Audience Comment Period 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5470) Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2 Background/History Projects in the Downtown Business zones are subject to district-based design review under the regulations of Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). According to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.12.010, district-based design review applications that trigger SEPA review are Type III-B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB held Phase 1 of this public hearing on March 5, 2021. During that meeting, the Board continued the hearing until May 5, 2021. Staff Recommendation Take additional testimony from staff, applicant, and the public. If the ADB has sufficient information to make a decision, the Board can close the public hearing, deliberate, and make a decision. If additional information is needed, continue to the public hearing to a date certa in and request specific information to complete the record. Staff recommends approval of the project with the conditions noted in the attached staff report. Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda May 5, 2021 Architectural Design Board Page 2 Printed 4/29/2021 ATTACHMENTS:  Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (PDF)  Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (PDF)  Exhibit 2 - Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments (PDF)  Exhibit 3 - Engineering Corrections on Initial Phase 2 Resubmittal (PDF)  Exhibit 4 - Applicant Response to Engineering Corrections (PDF)  Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (PDF)  Exhibit 6 - Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing (PDF)  Exhibit 7 - Engineering Design Review Approval (PDF)  Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (PDF)  Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (PDF) III. Approval of Minutes 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5483) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation approve March 3rd meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  ADB210303d (PDF) IV. Approval of Agenda II. Administrative Reports V. ADB Member Comments VI. Adjournment Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/5/2021 Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2 Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Projects in the Downtown Business zones are subject to district-based design review under the regulations of Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). According to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.12.010, district-based design review applications that trigger SEPA review are Type III- B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB held Phase 1 of this public hearing on March 5, 2021. During that meeting, the Board continued the hearing until May 5, 2021. Staff Recommendation Take additional testimony from staff, applicant, and the public. If the ADB has sufficient information to make a decision, the Board can close the public hearing, deliberate, and make a decision. If additional information is needed, continue to the public hearing to a date certain and request specific information to complete the record. Staff recommends approval of the project with the conditions noted in the attached staff report. Narrative The proposal is for three buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units at 614 and 616 5th Ave. S. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) while the eight-unit building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed and a subdivision will be required to create a lot line between Buildings A & B and Building C. Please refer to the attached staff report and Exhibits 1 - 9 for a complete discussion of the project. Attachments: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 Exhibit 2 - Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments Exhibit 3 - Engineering Corrections on Initial Phase 2 Resubmittal Exhibit 4 - Applicant Response to Engineering Corrections 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 3 Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised Exhibit 6 - Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing Exhibit 7 - Engineering Design Review Approval Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides 2.A.1 Packet Pg. 4 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION’S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD “PHASE 2” DISTRICT-BASED DESIGN REVIEW Project: Pine Park 614 File Number: PLN2020-0053 Date of Report: April 28, 2021 Staff Contact: __ Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner ADB Meeting: Wednesday – May 5, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. I. PROJECT PROPOSAL AND PROCESS The proposal is for three buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units at 614 and 616 5th Ave. S. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) while the eight-unit building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed and a subdivision will be required to create a lot line between Buildings A & B and Building C. Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board. Join the Zoom webinar meeting at: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: https://zoom.us/j/95360544929?pwd=Zmd0REFORkE3RkRaeVdB RmpkNUxMZz09 Passcode: 818962 Or join by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 953 6054 4929 Passcode: 818962 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 2 of 19 Projects in the Downtown Business zones are subject to district-based design review under the regulations of Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). According to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.12.010, district-based design review applications that trigger SEPA review are Type III-B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB held the Phase 1 portion of the public hearing on March 5, 2021. During that meeting, the Board continued the hearing until May 5, 2021. According to ECDC 20.12.005.B, the purpose of the hearing continuance is to allow the applicant to revise the initial concept to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. The ADB will complete their review of the design of the project and make the final decision on the design proposal at the conclusion of the Phase 2 portion of the hearing process. The following Exhibits are included with this Phase 2 staff report: 1. ADB minute March 3, 2021 2. Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments 3. Engineering Corrections on Initial Phase 2 Resubmittal 4. Applicant Response to Engineering Corrections 5. Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised 6. Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing 7. Engineering Design Review Approval 8. Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments 9. ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides II. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS A. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is located near the southern end of the Edmonds downtown business area on 5th Avenue South and is at the southern end of the Downtown Alliance Boundary. The property is zoned BD3 (Downtown Convenience Commercial) as are the parcels directly to the north and south. To the west and east are multi- and single-family zoned and developed properties. B. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS Since the hearing was continued to a date certain during Phase 1 of the hearing process, no additional public notice is required. However, staff mailed a “Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing” to property owners within 300 feet of the site (Exhibit 6). This courtesy notice was also posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and at the Library. Ed Lorah and Paul McCulloh submitted comments and testimony at Phase 1 hearing (Attachments 11 and 12 of Exhibit 8). The applicant responded to those comments in their Phase 2 narrative (Exhibit 2). No additional comments have been received as of the date of this staff report. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 3 of 19 C. TECHNICAL STAFF REVIEW The Phase 1 portion of the application was reviewed and evaluated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue, Building Division, Public Works Department, and Engineering Division. Initial comments by these reviewers were included with the March 5, 2021 report to the ADB. [Attachment 10 of Exhibit 8] South County Fire, Public Works, and the Building Division reserved further comment on the design review to focus on the associated building permit reviews. The Engineering Division reviewed the Phase 2 resubmittal and noted that the project is feasible, but they will also focus review on the building permits (Exhibit 7). D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is “Downtown Convenience” within the “Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center” overlay. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project include: Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues – and builds on – its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds’ visual identity by continuing its pedestrian-scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the “5th and Main” core. A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.6 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds’ attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. D.8 Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian and bicycle activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following description for the Downtown Convenience Commercial designation: 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 4 of 19 Downtown Convenience Commercial. This is the south end of 5th Ave, south of Walnut. Commercial uses would be required on the first floor, but auto-oriented uses would be permitted in addition to general retail and service uses. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses. Weather protection would still be required, but to a lesser degree than the retail core and only when the building was adjacent to the sidewalk. Height and design of buildings shall conform to the standards of the Downtown Mixed Commercial District. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially-designated property, floor area that is located behind the commercial street frontage may be appropriate for residential use. General design objectives for site design, building form and building façade are provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tieing each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way-finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather Protection. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 5 of 19 automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians – including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces – to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city’s emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms – such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees – into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas Findings: The proposed redevelopment would remove a curb cut from 5th Avenue and use the alley to the south for vehicular access (Exhibit 5). Buildings A & B would front 5th and have pedestrian entrances from the sidewalk. Weather protection is provided along the sidewalk and lighting is provided at the sidewalk, between Buildings A & B, along the alley, and at pedestrian entrances for Building C. Pedestrian lighting is proposed at all entrances, between A & B, and along the alley. The western setback area will be landscaped and include a fence to buffer the project site from the west. 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. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 6 of 19 should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Findings: All three buildings have a distinct top and base and use vertical and horizontal modulation to reduce mass. Walls are modulated using canopies, balconies, and decks. Design Objectives for Building Façade. 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. A.18 Building Façade Design. Encourage building façades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a façade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building façades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in façade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Findings: Varied materials and colors are used on all three buildings. Banks of windows on the east and west facades of each of the buildings will provide light and air. The window systems and sizes could include some additional variation. Design objectives specifically for the downtown area addressing site design, building form and building façade are also provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place-making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a “park and walk” policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. Findings: The redevelopment project would remove the only curb cut at the site from 5th Avenue (Exhibit 5). Required off-street parking for the proposed units would access from the existing alley to the south. B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 7 of 19 Findings: The east façade of proposed Buildings A & B would define the street edge at 5th Avenue. The one curb cut currently at the site would be removed resulting in new sidewalks along the length of the development at 5th. No crosswalks or transit stops are located adjacent to the site. B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Findings: The pedestrian entries for the live/work units in Buildings A & B would be at grade on 5th Avenue. They would be easily recognizable due to the storefront windows and canopies overhead. Building C would be a residential building only. B.4 Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing each areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. Findings: Proposed Buildings A & B would be located at the 5th Avenue sidewalk, which would help to tie the site to the neighboring sites west of the street. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. Findings: The proposed buildings are consistent with the scale, proportion, and character of other buildings in the downtown area. Each will use brick, metal and masonry materials similar to other downtown buildings. B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. Findings: Buildings A & B would include canopies over each pedestrian entry at 5th Avenue. While not offering complete weather protection along the sidewalk, the canopies are wide and deep enough to provide significant protection for pedestrians. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. Findings: Signage will be reviewed by staff with future building permit applications. B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 8 of 19 Findings: In the public right-of-way, street tree grates are part of the proposed frontage improvements and an existing flower pole will remain. The status of a memorial bench from the Parks Department remains unresolved - a condition is proposed to resolve its location at building permit. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale. Findings: The proposed buildings are two- and three-stories and stepped down the site to the west to remain consistent with the 30-foot height limit of the BD3 zone. B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building façades should respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. Findings: Both proposed Buildings A & B emphasize human scale at 5th Avenue and echo historic building widths. Building C is longer but is vertically divided into narrower elements. All three buildings show horizontal differentiation. B.11 Building Façade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long façades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base). Findings: Both proposed Buildings A & B emphasize human scale at 5th Avenue and echo historic building widths. Both buildings show horizontal differentiation on the east facade and a defined roof edge. B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the façade. Findings: Buildings A & B use similar window systems for each of the six units facing 5th Avenue. They serve to break up the façade vertically and horizontally but are not distinctive. As conditioned, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the referenced goals and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. E. DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST During Phase 1 of the public hearing on March 3, the ADB established design priorities for the project based on the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area using the Design Guidelines Checklist. The minutes for that meeting are in Exhibit 1 and the applicant’s response to the Checklist guidance is Exhibit 2. 1. Site Planning. The proposed site plan modernizes what today is an auto-centric commercial development from the 1970s. Buildings A & B will be built to the street property line at 5th Avenue. The live-work units in both buildings will have direct connections to the sidewalk with 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 9 of 19 canopies highlighting the entries at 5th Avenue. Parking is de-emphasized at the street front by using the alley south of the project to load the required on-site stalls. 2. Bulk and Scale. Bulk and scale are consistent with the downtown area. The transition to the multifamily-zoned site to the west includes a 15’ required building setback. Within the required setback area will be a strip of vegetation and wood fence. 3. Architectural Elements. The Board highlighted the importance of architectural elements and materials and the revised proposal addresses the high priority given to these items. 4. Pedestrian Environment. The proposal improves the pedestrian environment at 5th Avenue. Canopies over the sidewalks and entries will provide weather protection where there is none now. Parking is located away from 5th Avenue. Regarding trash and recycling, each unit is proposed to have an interior trash/recycling storage area. For Buildings A & B this would be within the commercial portions of the live/work units at sidewalk grade while Building C would have storage in each garage (Sheet A2.1 and A2.2 of Exhibit 5). The intent is that each unit would bring toters out to the 5th Avenue sidewalk for retrieval by the hauler. This arrangement is not yet approved by Sound Disposal, however. Given the adjacent alley access, the Board may want to keep refuse off 5th Avenue and discuss alley loading and/or centralized trash facilities. 5. Landscaping. New street trees are proposed along 5th Avenue. Small planters at the street front and between Buildings A & B will provide additional interest. The landscaping along the west property line will help buffer the project from the existing developments to the west. Green roofs were not included. As conditioned, staff finds that the revised project design satisfies the Board’s prioritization for Site Planning, Bulk and Scale, Architectural Elements, Pedestrian Environment, and Landscaping. F. APPLICABLE CODES 1. ECDC 16.43 – Downtown Convenience Commercial Zone (BD3) A. ECDC 16.43.020 Uses. The site is zoned BD3 and is subject to the use requirements of ECDC 16.43. The proposal includes multiple residential and live/work units, and associated parking and loading, which are all permitted primary or secondary uses in the BD3 zone. B. According to ECDC 16.43.030, development standards in the BD3 zone include: 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 10 of 19 Zone Minimum Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD3 None None 0’ 0’ 15’ 30’ 12’ 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. C. Setbacks. The project site is immediately adjacent to Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zoned property on the west. As a result, the proposed development must maintain a 15’ setback from the west property line. The setback is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan (Sheet A1.1 of Exhibit 5). D. Height. The maximum allowed height in the BD3 zone is 30 feet above average original grade. Certain height exceptions are provided for in ECDC 16.43.030.C.3 and the definition of “height” in ECDC 21.40.030. Height calculations were provided with the Phase 2 submittal (Sheet A1.2 of Exhibit 5). Based on the information provided, it appears that all three buildings would be below the maximum allowed height for the zone. It should be noted that the deck elements on the west side of each of the buildings must be included in the height calculations. Elements in the right-of-way are excluded. E. Ground Floor. According to ECDC 16.43.030.B, the designated street front area for the subject site is 45 feet measured perpendicular from 5th Avenue South. Within the designated street front area, a minimum floor-to-floor height of 12 feet is required and entries to commercial spaces must be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. In the BD3 zone, only commercial uses are allowed within the designated street front area, while any permitted uses are allowed outside of that area. Parking is not a commercial use and may not be located within the designated street front area. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 11 of 19 An exception is available for certain BD3-zoned properties which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front. In that instance, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. Sheet A1.1 of Exhibit 5 shows a project site consisting of two future lots created by a separate subdivision. If that subdivision is approved, the two live/work buildings at the street front adjacent to 5th Avenue would be on a lot that is about 58 feet deep. Building cross-sections are included on Sheet A1.2 and show 30’ deep ground-floor spaces with parking immediately behind that. The ground floor of each building has a 12’ floor-to-floor height and entries are at or near sidewalk grade. A condition of approval is proposed to require a subdivision of the project site to create a lot line west of proposed Buildings A & B. Staff will review future uses in the ground-floor tenant spaces through business license applications and inspections. F. Parking. Per ECDC 17.50.010.C.1, one parking stall is required for each dwelling unit and two stalls are required per live/work unit. Sheet A1.1 of Exhibit 5 shows one enclosed stall for each unit in Building C and two partially covered exterior stalls for each unit in Buildings A and B. G. Open Space. According to ECDC 16.43.030.E, for buildings on lots larger than 12,000 sq. ft., at least five percent of the lot area of the project must be devoted to open space. With a project area of 17,160 square feet (not including the alley), 858 square feet of open space is required. However, if a lot line is created west of Buildings A & B, the project would then consist of two lots that are each less than 9,000 sq. ft. In that case, the 5% open space requirement would not apply. The applicant intends to obtain subdivision approval to create that lot line, which is proposed as a condition of design approval. If the subdivision is approved, the open space requirement would not apply. As always, all zoning requirements (and related building, engineering, and public works codes) will be verified through review and approval of permits for the buildings and site improvements and through inspections during the construction process. 2. ECDC 22.43 Design Standards for the BD Zones Design standards applicable to the BD zones are provided in ECDC Chapter 22.43. A. ECDC 22.43.010 Massing and Articulation. Intent – To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A “base” can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Comments: Each of the three buildings uses a variety of forms, materials, patterns, and colors to create a distinct top and base (Sheets A3.1 - A3.3 of Exhibit 5). The top 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 12 of 19 edges of Buildings A & B are highlighted with eaves and corbel brackets while Building C has a rooftop deck area. 2. Building facades shall respect and echo historic patterns. Where a single building exceeds the historic building width pattern, use a change in design features (such as a combination of materials, windows or decorative details) to suggest the traditional building widths. Comments: Older building widths in the downtown area typically vary from about 30 to 60 feet. Proposed Buildings A & B are about 60 feet wide at 5th Avenue. Each building is further divided vertically into spaces that are about 20 feet wide using stacked banks of windows. Building C is about 130 feet wide but uses stacked banks of windows and decks to create spaces that seem about 16 feet wide. B. ECDC 22.43.020 Orientation to Street. Intent – To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. 1. Building frontages shall be primarily oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot or alley. Comments: Buildings A & B are oriented to 5th Avenue. Building C is tucked behind A & B and not on a street. 2. Entrances to buildings in the BD1, BD2 and BD4 zones shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. Comments: While not strictly applicable to this site since it is zoned BD3, entrances to Buildings A & B are visible from 5th Avenue and accessible from the sidewalk. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of the following elements: a. Higher bay(s); b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet); c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. Comments: Entrances to Buildings A & B are highlighted with small forecourts at the sidewalk framed by planters and canopies. Building C is behind and does not orient to the street. C. ECDC 22.43.030 Ground Level Details. Intent – To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. 1. Ground-floor, street-facing facades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements: a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets; b. Medallions; c. Belt courses; d. Plinths for columns; e. Bulkhead for storefront window; f. Projecting sills; 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 13 of 19 g. Tile work; h. Transom or clerestory windows; i. Planter box; j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Comments: Buildings A & B incorporate lighting, medallions, planter boxes, canopies, and large storefront windows. 2. Ground floor commercial space is intended to be accessible and at grade with the sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC 16.43.030. Comments: The commercial spaces in Buildings A & B are accessible and at grade with the sidewalk at 5th. Building C does not have the ground floor commercial requirement. D. ECDC 22.43.040 Awnings/Canopies and Signage. Intent – 1) To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. 2) To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way-finding for visitors. 3) To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. 1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. Comments: Structural canopies are proposed over the sidewalk on both buildings at 5th Avenue (Sheet A3.1 of Exhibit 5). 2. Awnings and canopies shall be open-sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. Comments: The canopies are open-sided. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted. Comments: None of the canopies are marquee, box, or convex in shape. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. Comments: No retractable awnings are proposed. 5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame store- fronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies should be hung just below a clerestory or transom window, if it exists. Comments: The proposed canopies frame the storefronts and do not conceal architectural details. 6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple-storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Comments: The canopies used on both buildings appear to be identical. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 14 of 19 7. Nonstructural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high-gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Comments: Nonstructural awnings are not proposed. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Com- binations of sign types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Comments: No signs are proposed. Signs in the BD zones are subject to the design standards in ECDC 22.43.040 and will be reviewed by staff through future building permits. 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are preferred. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less are permitted and are not counted when calculating the amount of signage permitted for a business in ECDC 20.60. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under ECDC 22.43.030(B). Comments: See #8 above. 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Comments: See #8 above. 11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Comments: No signage was included with this proposal. Signage will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards of ECDC 22.43.040 and the sign code requirements of ECDC 20.60 when a sign application is submitted. 12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or con- tributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or on a city council-approved historic survey. Comments: Not applicable. The subject site is not on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, nor on a city council-approved historic survey. 13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An historic sign may be used to meet this standard. Comments: See #8 above. E. ECDC 22.43.050 Transparency at Street Level. Intent – To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. 1. The ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have transparent windows covering a minimum of 75 percent of the building façade that lies between an average of two feet and 10 feet above grade. Comments: 5th Avenue has the designated street front requirement. No analysis of the window transparency facing 5th Avenue was provided but by visual estimate of 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 15 of 19 the renderings in Exhibit 5, it appears that about 50% of the space from 2’ – 10’ is transparent (Sheet A3.1 of Exhibit 5). A condition is proposed that the ground floor windows for the live/work units in Buildings A & B must be compliant with the 75% transparency requirement at 5th Avenue. 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Comments: A condition is proposed. 3. Where transparency is not required, the facade shall comply with the standards under ECDC 22.43.060. Comments: Transparency is only required for the east walls of Buildings A & B since they abut 5th Avenue. 4. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. Comments: Not applicable since the site is zoned BD3. F. ECDC 22.43.060 Treating Blank Walls. Intent – To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under ECDC 22.43.050). At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street-facing façade: a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block); b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; c. Belt courses of a different texture and color; d. Projecting cornice; e. Decorative tile work; f. Medallions; g. Opaque or translucent glass; h. Artwork or wall graphics; i. Lighting fixtures; j. Green walls; k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Comments: As noted above, only the east walls of Buildings A & B abut 5th Avenue. However, the west wall of Buildings A & B and the east and west walls of Building C include windows, pedestrian and auto entrances, decks, and the like. The north and south walls of all three buildings will be visible from the street but do not abut 5th Avenue. These walls will not contain windows due to code requirements, but the facades are treated with different materials and colors, and vertical and horizontal differentiation. Light sconces are included on the south walls. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 16 of 19 G. ECDC 22.43.070 Building HVAC Equipment. Intent – To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other building utility features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. 1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. If these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g., rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. Comments: Elevators are not proposed for the units and no HVAC equipment was shown on the drawings in Exhibit 5. There are no height exceptions for HVAC equipment, so a condition is proposed that any HVAC equipment meet the standards in ECDC 22.43.070. 2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on adjoining properties. Comments: As noted above, HVAC equipment was not shown for the units. A PUD transformer is proposed interior to the site near the northeast corner of Building C. Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with design standards contained within ECDC Chapter 22.43. 3. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for multifamily and commercial projects. Each proposal must meet those requirements as well as the standards in the City’s Street Tree Plan. Sheet L1.0 of Exhibit 5 shows the proposed landscaping for the site. Three Scarlet Sentinel Maples are proposed as street trees at 5th Avenue, which is consistent with the Street Tree Plan. Additional landscape treatments are shown near the live/work entrances at 5th Avenue and in the walkway between Buildings A & B. Because the project site is adjacent to multifamily-zoned property on the west, Type I landscaping is appropriate for that location. Per ECDC 20.13.030.A: Type I 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.A.1.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 17 of 19 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. The landscaping along the western property line shown on Sheet L1.0 consists of a 6’ wood fence at the property line along with a mix of shrubs, ground covers, and one row of evergreen (Serbian spruce) and deciduous trees (Vine maple). This arrangement is not technically consistent with the Type I landscaping requirements. However, the ADB may interpret and modify the requirements contained in ECDC 20.13, provided the modification is consistent with the design review purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000, which include: A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; D. To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. If the Board feels that the proposed western landscaping meets the intent of ECDC 20.13.030.A and the design review purposes in ECDC 20.10.000, it may approve the landscaping as proposed. Alternatively, the Board may require revisions to better achieve the intent and purposes, or it may require full compliance with ECDC 20.13.030.A along the western property line. Automatic irrigation is required for the landscaping along the western setback unless waived by the ADB. 4. ECDC 20.60 Signs Signs in the BD zones are subject to the design standards in ECDC 22.43.040. No signs were included with the application materials – staff will review and approve signage through future building permits. As conditioned, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the referenced zoning codes. 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 18 of 19 III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020, when approving proposed development applications, the ADB is required to find that the proposed development is consistent with the zoning ordinance, the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the specific design criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and exhibits of this report, staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board APPROVE the proposal under File No. PLN2020-0053 with conditions as stated in the following recommended motion: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43, AND APPROVES THE PROPOSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED TO CREATE A LOT LINE WEST OF BUILDINGS A & B IN ORDER FOR THE GROUND FLOOR DEPTHS TO SATISFY THE 30’ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN ECDC 16.43.030.B.10.E. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CANNOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY OF THE BUILDINGS UNTIL THE SUBDIVISION IS RECORDED AT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR. 2. PEDESTRIAN PATHS WITHIN THE SITE MUST BE ESTABLISHED FROM THE BASE OF THE STAIRS BETWEEN BUILDINGS A & B BACK TO BUILDING C AND ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE EAST SIDE OF BUILDING C USING STRIPING, ALTERNATE MATERIALS, OR SIMILAR. 3. HVAC EQUIPMENT FOR ALL UNITS MUST MEET THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN ECDC 22.43.070. 4. THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE I REQUIREMENTS IN ECDC 20.13.030.A AND MEETS THE PURPOSES OF THE DESIGN REVIEW CHAPTER IN 20.10. 5. THE EXISTING MEMORIAL BENCH IN THE SIDEWALK AT 5TH AVENUE MUST BE SITED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. 6. THE APPLICANT MUST WORK WITH SOUND DISPOSAL TO DETERMINE A PROCESS AND CONFIGURATION FOR RECYCLING AND TRASH. 7. THE GROUND FLOOR WINDOWS FOR THE LIVE/WORK UNITS IN BUILDINGS A & B MUST COMPLY WITH THE 75% TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT AT 5TH AVENUE. IF THIS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED DURING BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW, THE PROJECT MUST COME BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR REVISION. 8. GROUND FLOOR STOREFRONT WINDOWS MUST BE TRANSPARENT. TO QUALIFY AS TRANSPARENT, WINDOWS SHALL NOT BE MIRRORED OR DARKLY TINTED GLASS, OR PROHIBIT VISIBILITY BETWEEN THE STREET AND INTERIOR. 9. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 File No. PLN2020-0053 Page 19 of 19 PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. IV. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds Applicant Jacob Young at Design Collaborative Persons who submitted written comments Ed Lorah (Parkview Twin HOA) Paul McCulloh IV. INTERESTED PARTIES N/A 2.A.1.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Pine Park 614 Phase 2 staff report (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 1 of 10 DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting March 3, 2021 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Maurine Jeude Board Members Absent Kim Bayer Joe Herr Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: PINE PARK 614 – PHASE 1 DESIGN REVIEW (FILE NUMBER PLN2020-0053) Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She asked if any Board Member had engaged in communications with opponents or proponents regarding the design review of File Number PLN2020-0053 outside of the public hearing process, and all Board Members answered no. Next, she asked if any Board Members had a conflict of interest or believed that he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner, and all answered no. Lastly, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to a Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and there were no objections. Chair Strauss invited all those who wanted to testify in the hearing to affirm that their testimony would be the truth. She then invited staff to present the application. Mr. Clugston explained that the subject site is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3). Because the proposal triggers a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board is required through a two-phased public hearing. At the Phase 1 hearing, the applicant will present a conceptual design and a description of the property to be developed, noting all significant characteristics. The Board will use this information to make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and prioritize the Design Guideline Checklist (Attachment 4). Following public testimony and completion of the checklist, the Board will continue the public hearing to a date certain not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing. At the Phase 2 hearing, the applicant will respond to the guidance from the Phase 1 hearing, and the Board will review the proposal again and issue a Type III Decision. Mr. Clugston advised that the packet that was provided for the meeting included the Staff Report and 13 attachments. An additional attachment (narrative from the applicant) was received on March 3rd and will be included in the packet that is prepared for the Phase 2 Hearing. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photograph looking west at the project site at 614 and 616 – 5th Avenue South, just south of Ace Hardware. The site was previously occupied by Curves and Baskin Robbins. He noted the location of the alley to the south and existing parking lot between the two buildings. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing development with three new buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) and the 8-unit residential building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings will load from the private alley south of the site. 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Clugston reviewed that multifamily, live/work, parking and loading are all allowed uses in the BD3 zone, and no setback would be required from the street (5th Avenue) or on the sides (north/south). A 15-foot setback from the west property line would be required because the property to the west is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM). The maximum height limit in the BD3 zone is 30 feet. One off-street parking space would be required for each of the multifamily units in Building C, and each of the live/work units would require 2 off-street parking spaces. Mr. Clugston shared a site plan, noting the location of the two live/work buildings (Buildings A and B), which would sit at the property line on 5th Avenue. The multifamily building (Building C) would be located behind, with a 15-foot setback along the western property line. Again, he said no setback would be required on the north, south or east sides. Mr. Clugston said the applicant has not provided height calculations, but the building sections provided in the packet gives a general feeling for the height. Buildings A and B will be likely be right at 30 feet in height, and Building C will be a little less than 30 feet in height. He said the applicant will be required to provide specific height calculations for the Phase 2 hearing, and setbacks, height, etc. will be verified via the Building Permit process. Mr. Clugston advised that the Designated Street Front Requirements apply in all of the Downtown Business (BD) zones. Ground floor ceiling heights must be at least 12 feet and commercial uses are required to a depth of 45 feet from the street front. Parking is not considered a commercial use. However, there is an exception in the BD2 and BD3 zones for properties that have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front. In that instance, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case, can the commercial space be less than 30 feet deep. As proposed, Buildings A and B would utilize the exception, with commercial spaces that are 30-feet deep and parking located immediately behind. The proposed floor-to-floor height is 12 feet for each of the two buildings. Mr. Clugston said the project site (Parcel A) is approximately 130 feet deep and 132 feet wide. When applying for design review, the applicant thought there was a property line dividing the parcel into two separate lots, and the intent was to do a lot-line adjustment. However, the line was later determined to be a tax parcel line rather than an actual lot line. Because a lot-line adjustment is no longer an option, the applicant could request a 2-lot short plat to yield two lots. Both of the new lots would be about 8,500 square feet in size and approximately 65 feet deep. While the project is not currently code-compliant, it would become compliant if and when a 2-lot short plat is approved. The applicant intends to submit an application in the next few days, and a decision should be relatively close at the Phase 2 hearing. If it is not available at the Phase 2 hearing, staff will recommend a condition that short plat approval must be obtained. With short plat approval, the commercial space could be 30-feet deep, with parking behind. Mr. Clugston reviewed that for lots over 12,000 square feet or where buildings are longer than 120 feet at the street front, 5% of the lot area of the project area must be devoted to open space. With short plat approval, no open space would be required since the east and west lots would each be less than 12,000 square feet and Buildings A and B would be less than 60 feet wide at the street front. He noted that the applicant is proposing a small courtyard between Buildings A and B, and with the ground floor commercial requirement, there will be more activation of the street front along 5th Avenue. Mr. Clugston referred to the Design Review Checklist that was attached to the Staff Report. He advised that, following the applicant’s presentation and public testimony, the Board should work through the checklist and provide feedback to the applicant. Lastly, the Board will be asked to schedule the Phase 2 portion of the hearing, considering May 5th or June 2nd as potential options. Isaac Greenetz, Citizen Design Collaborative, said a lot of work has been done to fit the buildings onto the site, activate the street, create pedestrian activity, and design facades that present well to the street. The conceptual design that is being presented to the Board is an attempt to meet all elements of the Design Guideline Checklist, as well as the City’s Development Code requirements. The goal is to enliven the street as much as possible. He said he didn’t have anything to add to Mr. Clugston’s thorough presentation, but he was available to answer any questions the Board might have regarding the proposed project. 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 3 of 10 Jacob Young, Citizen Design Collaborative, agreed that Mr. Clugston’s presentation was thorough. He commented that the property owners are long-time Edmonds residents, and they have identified a concern that there are very few townhomes in the Edmonds downtown area. In addition to the project being profitable to them, they are interested in doing a project that is in the best interest of the community. Chair Strauss opened the hearing to public testimony. Ed Lorah, Edmonds, said he was speaking on behalf of residents of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner’s Association, which is located just west of the subject parcel. He asked if the questions he raised in an email submitted prior to the meeting (Attachment 11 of the Staff Report) would be addressed during the hearing. Mr. Clugston advised that the Phase 1 hearing is a high-level analysis of the proposed project, and specific details about design would be addressed at the Phase 2 hearing. No other members of the public indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Vice Chair Owensby said he likes the initial site design and believes the project will benefit the area. He said he likes the applicant’s creative proposal to do a short plat so that all three buildings can be accommodated on the property. Board Member Jeude said she understands that, as proposed, no open space would be required for the project if the short plat application is approved. However, she asked how the applicant intends to enliven at the street level. Mr. Greenetz explained that the street front portions of the ground floor of the buildings on 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) will be reserved for commercial space, and the intent is that they function as facilities for people to engage at the street level. Vice Chair Owensby asked if the commercial spaces in Buildings A and B would be limited in terms of the types of uses allowed. Mr. Clugston responded that all of the uses allowed in the BD3 zone would be allowed in the commercial spaces associated with the proposed development, including retail, offices, coffee shops, etc. Chair Strauss said she walks by the site daily, and it has been an eyesore for some time. She believes the proposed project will help to activate the street. However, she is concerned about some elements of the design. It appears that the amount of impervious surface would increase significantly, which raises stormwater concerns. She asked if the applicant is proposing to use permeable pavement to mitigate stormwater runoff on the site. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborative, referred to the drawings provided by the Civil Engineer and said permeable pavement is proposed for both the parking areas and the plaza between the two front buildings. Chair Strauss commented that there is some information in the Design Guidelines about how the project can meet the open space criteria. While she recognized that no open space would be required if the short plat is approved, she is concerned there won’t be a lot of inviting space around the proposed residential units. She suggested that a landscape architect should be consulted to add planter boxes or other elements to the design. Mr. Greenetz noted that there would be some room for landscape elements along the front of the building behind the sidewalk. The intent is to landscape, where possible, at the entrances to each unit and in the courtyard between the two buildings. He summarized that there will be opportunities on the site to create these small areas, but they will be more urban in nature. Chair Strauss asked if the alley would be used to provide access to the residents in Building C. Mr. Greenetz answered affirmatively. Chair Strauss advised the applicant to keep the property well-lit and inviting, as the building layout appears to create a tunnel effect. Chair Strauss asked how deep the canopies on the front of the building would extend over the sidewalk. Mr. Greenetz said they are currently drawn at 3-feet deep. Chair Strauss suggested the applicant consider extending them further out over the sidewalk, which would provide opportunities for outdoor uses associated with the commercial spaces. She recalled that concern has been raised with other projects in the downtown area that the canopies should extend out 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 4 of 10 further to provide additional cover. Mr. Greenetz asked if the City allows canopies to project out over the sidewalk, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. However, he would need to check on the distance that canopies can extend out into the right-of-way. Chair Strauss asked if the applicant has considered pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. Mr. Greenetz responded that it has been discussed as an option by the ownership group, but no decision has been made at this point. He noted that 4-star Greenbuild is standard for development in Washington State and tends to be just as good as LEED Certification. LEED Certification can become more of a paperwork process than an actual environmentally-friendly process. The builder is conscientious about the environment and is doing everything possible within budget. Chair Strauss said sustainable design is the focus of her career, and she would really like to see projects in downtown Edmonds pursue LEED Certification. Chair Strauss advised that the Design Guidelines talk about bulk and scale and compatibility and suggested that the design is missing a middle. Because the top is darker than the bottom, it feels really heavy and enormous. She voiced concern that when compared to the one-story buildings on each of the adjacent lots, the proposed project will feel big and heavy. She suggested that the top layer be lightened and that a middle be added to provide more variation and reduce the bulky appearance of the building. Chair Strauss asked if the memorial bench in the right-of-way adjacent to the subject property would be relocated. Mr. Greenetz said he isn’t sure at this time. The idea is to add more benches, if possible, along the entire property. Mr. Clugston said staff would seek direction from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department about whether the bench should remain in its current location or be moved somewhere else. Chair Strauss reminded the applicant that the commercial spaces on the ground floor of Buildings A and B must be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act requirements. For example, the restrooms must be large enough for ADA accessibility. Mr. Clugston advised that would be confirmed as part of the Building Permit review. Chair Strauss noted that the applicant is proposing to provide roof access for occupants of one of the building, and she asked if adding a vegetative roof was considered as an option. Mr. Greenetz responded that, as proposed, only Building C would provide roof access. He agreed that a vegetative roof would be one option for making the space useable. Chair Strauss pointed out that the western sun, when setting in Edmonds, will hit the side of the building from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. The dark color that is proposed for the top of the buildings will make the western façade that much hotter. Ed Lorah, Edmonds, voiced concern that Building C will look like a monolithic wall from the western point of view. As currently proposed, it will fill the entire lot from one end to the other, and the design doesn’t provide a lot of variation. In addition to this concern, the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner’s Association is concerned about how the exterior lights on the proposed new buildings will impact their properties. From an aesthetic point of view, he pointed out that every part of the lot would be full of concrete, with 14 residential units and 20 parking spaces. On behalf of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner’s Association, he asked the project designers to consider the project’s impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Greenetz agreed to work on being sensitive to the adjacent neighbors in terms of light, the monolithic massing, and the size of the development, in general. He said it is challenging to develop projects that are sensitive to existing development, as well as any future development that might occur on adjacent properties. Chair Strauss commented that placing the buildings the long way, north to south, is the best option to avoid blocking sunlight to the condominium development behind. However, she agreed with Mr. Lorah that, as proposed, the site will be crowded with very little open space. 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Chair Strauss reviewed that the Design Guideline Checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines, and it is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines, themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. The Board worked through the Design Guideline Checklist as follows: A. Site Planning N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics. The site is currently developed with two dilapidated buildings, which should not be replicated. X 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. There are larger buildings and commercial uses to the north and south on 5th Avenue. The design should build on the existing activity at street level that is created by existing commercial uses on either side. This guideline has been addressed by the ground floor commercial space on 5th Avenue. X 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street. X 4. Encourage human activity on street. X 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites. X 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects). Because no front or side setbacks are required, this guideline is not applicable. X 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects). While no open space is required for the project, the Board asked the applicant to consider possibilities to add landscape elements, etc. X 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property. X 9. Discourage parking in street front. There is already on-street parking along 5th Avenue. The applicant is not proposing any parking in front of the building. X 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots). X Ed Lorah, Edmonds, commented that the Board appears to be focusing more on Buildings A and B that will face 5th Avenue. He encouraged them to think about the proposal as a total project and consider how it will impact adjacent properties to the west. Chair Strauss agreed, but noted that many of the guidelines are specifically related to the street front and sidewalk. She noted that minimizing intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites was identified as a high priority that applies specifically to Building C. Vice Chair Owensby commented that many of the issues related to compatibility with adjacent properties will be addressed via the zoning regulations. As an example, Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are no setback requirements in the BD zones, except when adjacent to residential zones. In this particular case, a 15-foot rear setback would be required to reduce the project’s impact on residential development to the west. B. Bulk and Scale N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less-intensive zones. This will be particularly important to protect the residential development to the west from potential impacts. X 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 6 of 10 C. Architectural Elements and Materials N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures. X 2. Unified architectural concept. X 3. Use human scale and human activity. X 4. Use durable, attractive and well-detailed finish materials. X 5. Minimize garage entrances. In addition to minimizing garage entrances on 5th Avenue, it is also important to minimize garage entrances from the alley to serve the residential units in Building C. X D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. Protected entries should be provided on all buildings, including Building C. X 2. Avoid blank walls. It was noted that the fire code requires a blank wall on the south side. However, windows could be added on the north side to break up the blank wall. X 3. Minimize height of retaining walls. The applicant’s current plan is to address the slope of the site with the building rather than retaining walls. X 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas. The applicant is doing this by locating the buildings at the street, with parking behind. X 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures. X 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. The applicant hasn’t addressed this issue yet. X 7. Consider personal safety. X E. Landscaping N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. It was noted that there isn’t a lot of landscaping along the street front in this neighborhood. However, there are some existing street trees. The applicant was encouraged to add landscaping elements where ever possible. X 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. Green spaces for the residents should be encouraged. X 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. The Board wanted to see more landscaping included in the design, perhaps a vegetated roof on the lower building so that people in the upper building could see some green vegetation and people in the upper building could enjoy the space. X 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 7 of 10 The applicant indicated the ability to provided a resubmittal for the Phase 2 hearing by the beginning of April, allowing staff sufficient time to review the proposal again and prepare a Staff Report for a Phase 2 hearing on May 5th. If the resubmittal is not completed by the beginning of April, the Board could continue the Phase 2 hearing to June. The Board continued the Phase 2 portion of the hearing to May 5, 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board approved the February 3, 2021 minutes as submitted. PRESENTATION: CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING AND DISCUSSION Mr. Taraday noted that he last presented training to the Architectural Design Board in 2019, and all three of the Board Members present participated at that time. His current presentation is intended to be a refresher course. He agreed to email his PowerPoint presentation to the Board Members via Planning Division staff. Mr. Taraday explained that Washington State has a rule that there can only be one open record hearing on an application. That means that, for quasi-judicial applications, the Architecture Design Board may be the only body to ever decide on the application that has opportunity to ask the applicant a question. None of the subsequent bodies that review the application will have an opportunity to ask an applicant a factual question about the project, and they cannot seek any new information about the project. The Board has a tremendous responsibility to develop a factual record for its decisions. A lot of the factual record will be developed via the applicant’s interaction with staff, but it is very important for Board Members to ask questions of clarification and request additional details and/or information as necessary to unearth the critical facts relating to the project as thoroughly as possible. He encouraged the Board to pause and ask questions. They can even continue the hearing to a future date, if necessary, to allow time for applicants, staff and members of the public who participate in the hearing to answer questions or provide the additional information the Board is seeking. Vice Chair Owensby questioned if the Board’s 2-phase public hearing process is consistent with the State’s rule that there can only be one open record hearing. Mr. Taraday explained that the Board has two different processes. With one process, the Board serves as the recommending body. They meet with the applicant (not a public hearing) and provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner, but the Hearing Examiner is responsible for conducting the public hearing, establishing the factual record and making the final decision. With the other process, the Board serves as the decision- making body. They conduct the public hearing, establish the factual record and make the final decision. It is much more important that the Board is as thorough as possible when they are acting as the deciding body. Mr. Clugston added that, typically, the Board holds just one public hearing on a project. With the 2-phased approach, the Board still only holds one public hearing. However, following the Phase 1 portion of the hearing, the Board continues the hearing to a future date for the Phase 2 portion. Mr. Taraday summarized that the one-hearing rule doesn’t require that the hearing must start and finish on the same day. Hearings can be continued, as needed. Mr. Taraday advised that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that quasi-judicial hearings must be fair in fact and appear to be fair to those who aren’t the decision makers. Quasi-judicial hearings are hearings in which the Board Members act as judges as opposed to policy makers. While the Planning Board’s primary role is policy maker, the Architectural Design Board primarily serves in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies anytime the rights of an applicant are being determined, or Type III-A Decisions in the Architectural Design Board’s case. Mr. Taraday said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is highly concerned about ex parte communications. In order to have an ex parte communication, there must be a pending quasi-judicial decision. At the very least, someone needs to have submitted an application. No member of a decision-making body may engage in ex party communications with opponents or proponents with respect to a proposal that is the subject of a public hearing before them. If an ex parte 2.A.1.b Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Exhibit 1 - ADB minutes March 3 2021 (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 | Memorandum | 2021 1 COLLABORATIVECO.COM 206.535.7908 WE ARE FAMILY DESIGNING INSPIRED SPACE TO CREATE COMMUNITY DATE TO PROJECT April 2, 2021 Edmonds Design Review Board 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Pine Park 614 Citizen Design appreciates this opportunity to respond to comments received during the Phase 1 design review hearing for the Pine Park 614 project. This project is located at 610-614 5th Avenue S. The comments and our responses are provided below. GENERAL COMMENTS • Provide average grade and height limit calculations [staff comment]. • The requested calculations have been added to Sheet A1.2. The height limits are also depicted visually in the sections on that sheet. • Provide landscaping such as planter boxes. • Proposed landscaping includes a landscape buffer [between the subject parcel and its westerly neighbor] planted with shrubs, groundcover and trees, planter boxes near Buildings A and B, and several street trees. This information is included on Sheet L1.0. Possible species include vine maple, mountain hemlock, viburnum, hydrangea and lavender. • Consider extending canopies further into the right-of-way to provide weather protection for pedestrians. • Pursuant to ECDC 18.70.030, canopies are to extend at least six feet into the right-of-way when the sidewalk is more than eight feet wide. This project abuts a 15 ft sidewalk, and the canopies have been revised to be six feet deep. Larger canopies were considered but appeared out of scale with the rest of the project. • Consider lightening the top layer of the design and adding a middle to provide variant and reduce its bulky appearance. Lightening the color will also help with solar heat gain in the afternoon. • The proposed color of Building A and B’s upper stories has been lightened as requested. A prominent horizontal band between the second and third stories helps to decrease the perceived mass of the upper section. Addtional detailing, such as corbel brackets on the cornice, concrete plinths, medallions and lighting fixtures, has also been added to the facade to provide human scale and visual interest. • Concerns were raised that the western elevation will appear to be a monolithic wall and provide too little variation when viewed from the neighboring parcel. • The western facade of Building C, which faces the neighboring parcel, is proposed to include projecting balconies with visible tie rods. These features help break up the facade by introducing a rhythm and adding detail. The bottom story is also recessed, and the upper stories include significant areas of glazing and a prominent horizontal band. These 2.A.1.c Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 | Memorandum | 2021 2 further break up the facade and add interest. Finally, this elevation will be partially screened from view by the plantings in the landscape buffer. Note that the west rendered elevation shows only a third of the proposed trees in order to allow the elevation to be seen and reviewed. Much less of it will be visible through the full number of trees once they have matured. SITE PLANNING • The site is currently developed with two dilapidated buildings, which should not be replicated [lower priority]. • The existing structures will be demolished and replaced by three high- quality structures. • There are larger buildings and commercial uses to the north and south on 5th Ave. The design should build on the existing activity at street level that is created by existing commercial uses on either side. This guideline has been addressed by the ground floor commercial space on 5th Ave. [higher priority]. • Noted. The commercial space has been retained in the revised design. • Provide an entry clearly identifiable from the street [higher priority]. • All street-facing units have prominent entries directly accessed from the sidewalk. Units behind the street-facing block are accessed via a pedestrian pass-through at the center of the eastern facade. This pass- through is provided with benches, planters and lighting to help it provide an attractive access point. • Encourage human activity on the street [higher priority]. • The project includes ground floor commercial space, which will help generate pedestrian activity. • Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites [higher priority]. • Building C is separated from the existing condominium to the west by both its own driveway and the condominium’s parking lot. Furthermore, the above-described landscape buffer will provide a soft separation between these buildings. The buildings are not provided with windows on the north and south sides, thus avoiding any privacy concerns in those directions. • While no open space is required for this project, the Board asked the applicant to consider possibilities to add landscape elements, etc. [higher priority]. • As noted above, the project now includes landscaping where feasible. • Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining propoerty [higher priority]. • The project provides all vehicular access via an existing, private alley to the south. This allows it to eliminate the existing curb cut near the middle of the subject, reducing the impact of vehicles on the pedestrian environment. BULK AND SCALE • Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less-intensive zones. This will be particuarly important to protect the residential development to the west from potential impacts. • As noted above, a landscape buffer is provided between Building C and the neighboring parcel. Building C’s driveway is also located between 2.A.1.c Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 | Memorandum | 2021 3 the building and landscape buffer, further separating the neighboring structure from the new building. Concerning the building itself, several features are provided on the west facade of Building C to break up its mass and provide texture when viewed from the west. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS • Use a unified architectural concept [lower priority]. • All three buildings use a harmonious combination and materials and similar massing to create a unified design concept. • Use human scale and human activitiy [higher priority]. • As noted above, the project provides ground-floor commercial suites abutting the 5th Avenue right-of-way. This continues the pattern to both the north and south, activating the pedestrian zone and encouraging street-level activity. Concerning human scale, the project proposes a variety of textures and secondary architectural elements along the sidewalk. • Use durable, attractive and well-detailed finish materials [higher priority]. • Brick siding is used adjacent to the pedestrian environment to provide a high degree of texture where it will be interacted with most often. This includes provision of plinths at the base of the building. Upper stories on Buildings A and B use panel siding enriched by the use of stile and rail details and horizontal banding. This helps create the “base and top” parti of the elevation. Building C instead uses a vertical siding pattern for its upper stories, giving it a different identity and avoiding over- repetition of the elements on Buildings A and B. All materials used will be high quality and installed with a high degree of craftmanship. • Minimize garage entrances. In addition to minimizing garage entrances on 5th Avenue, it is important to minimize garage entrances from the alley to serve the residential units in Building C [higher priority]. • Building C’s garage entries are located on the opposite side of the structure from the pedestrian entries. They are also set back from the overhanging upper facade, minimizing their appearace when viewed from the west. Finally, the landscape buffer located along the westerly property line will help screen them from view. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT • Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. Protected entries should be provided on all buildings, including Building C [higher priority]. • All three buildings provide canopies above their pedestrian entries. • Avoid blank walls. It was noted that the fire code requires a blank wall on the south side. However, windows could be added on the north side to break up the blank wall [higher priority]. • The fire separation requirement noted in this comment also prohibits windows on the north sides of Buildings A and C due to their proximity to the property line. Since windows are not an option, the project provides a stile and rail pattern on the north and south facades of Building A to increase the visual interest of the building. Building C instead uses a 2.A.1.c Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 | Memorandum | 2021 4 combination of vertically-patterned siding, brick and horizontal banding to increase interest and reduce apparent bulk. • Minimize height of retaining walls. The applicant’s current plan is to address the slope of the site with the building rather than retaining walls [lower priority]. • This remains the case. Minimal retaining walls are proposed. • Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas. The applicant is doing this be located the buildings at the street, with parking behind [higher priority]. • This remains the case. • Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. The applicant hasn’t addressed this issue yet [higher priority]. • As this is a townhouse project, a centralized dumpster enclosure will not be needed. Each unit will be responsible for storing and staging its refuse containers, and it is anticipated that these will be co-located with parking. This will help keep them out of public view and avoid impacts on the pedestrian environment. • Consider personal safety [higher priority]. • Lighting is provided at the pedestrian pass-through, in the alley and along the 5th Avenue frontage to contribute to the safety of passersby. LANDSCAPING • Reinforce existing landscape character of the neighborhood. It was noted that there isn’t a lot of landscaping along the street front in this neighborhood. However, there are some existing street trees. The applicant was encouraged to add landscaping wherever possible [lower priority]. • Three new street trees have been added to the proposal and may be seen on Sheet L1.0. This sheet also shows that planter boxes have been added to the proposal where feasible. • Landscape to enhance the building or site. Green spaces for the residents should be encouraged [higher priority]. • Minimal area is available for landscaping on this site, primarily due to parking and access requirements. It has been added where feasible. • Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. The Board wanted to see more landscaping included in the design, perhaps a vegetated roof on the lower building so that people in the upper building could see some green vegetation and people in the lower building could enjoy the space [lower priority]. • Provision of a vegetated roof on Building C was considered, and it was determined that expansize roof decks would be a better amenity for the residents. It is possible that residents of this building will provide container plantings, increasing the overall amount of vegetation. We welcome the board’s further comments and look forward to working together as the project continues. Citizen Design 2.A.1.c Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Applicant Response to Phase 1 Hearing Comments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page | 1 Date: April 19, 2021 To: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PLN2020-0053 –Design Review Pine Park 614-616 5th Ave S The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents submitted for the subject application. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following. Utility Engineer Review: The following comments are provided by the City Utility Engineer, Mike Delila. Please contact Mike directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at mike.delilla@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Please submit the following information. 4/19/21 Sewer and Water availability request was not received. To determine whether existing water and sewer systems provide sufficient capacity for the proposed development, the applicant will need to submit a request for Water-Sewer Availability determination. To request a Water and Sewer availability determination, please email Engineeringpermits@edmondswa.gov with the address(s) to start the process. The utility engineer will need to send the subject proposal out to a consultant to determine what upgrades (if any) would be needed within the City’s system. This will take approximately two weeks. General Engineering Review: MEMORANDUM 2.A.1.d Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Engineering Corrections on Initial Phase 2 Resubmittal (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page | 2 The following comments are provided by the Engineering Technician, JoAnne Zulauf. Please contact at Joanne.zulauf@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding these comments. Please make the following revisions to the plans. 1. Frontage Improvements and Access: a) 4/19/21 Done. Call out the width of the drive aisles on site. Two way drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 ft in width. b) 4/19/21 Done. Parking stalls shall be 8.5 x 16.5. If you can demonstrate that sufficient parking area is available to provide all required parking spaces at the full width dimensions, then if desired, a maximum of fifty percent of the total required parking spaces may be sized at reduced width per the parking space dimensions, 8 x 16.5. See ECDC 18.95.020 for full requirements. c) 4/19/21 Need more information. Provide a plan showing frontage improvements along 5th Ave S to determine if there are conflicts, or other issues barring feasibility: i. Okay. 7-10 foot wide sidewalks required (width determined by available ROW). ii. 4/19/21 No Information Provided. Proposed power pole relocations. Work with PUD to determine new locations. iii. Okay. Show location of street trees with 3’ x 3’ tree grates along the curb to ensure adequate spacing from utilities, etc. iv. 4/19/21 Not Shown Show flower pole on plan. Relocating if necessary. 2. Trash and Recycling; show how trash and recycling will be handled on the site. Please contact Sound Disposal, 425-778-2404, for requirements. 4/19/21 A townhouse is not required to have a centralized trash area as long as an adequate plan is shown and agreed upon by the local disposal company. There are several issues with the design that has been submitted. 1. The plan only shows a trash bin space for each unit but not a recycle bin. This means there will be twice as many than is shown on the plans. 2. The posts for the overhang area are not shown. Will they land in the trash areas? 3. The space proposed for the bins is 3 ft in width. With a car on either side there will be very little room to use the bins without the lid hitting a car, or residents and their trash having contact with the cars. 4. If there are double the bins that you have shown on the plans, will residents be able to get in their cars? 5. There is a pretty good slope in the parking area. The bins will roll, get pushed around by the weather, into parking stalls, into the drive aisle causing safety issues and a mess. 6. Where will all these bins be set out for pick up day? Will Sound disposal drive in to the lot? There is no room for turn around and the slopes may make it difficult to back out. Please revisit this design. Approval from Sound Disposal of design and pick up to collect all the separate cans needs to be submitted. Where will these cans go that will not interrupt ingress and egress? Provide a plan showing how this can be done and provide an indication from Sound Disposal agreeing to this plan. 2.A.1.d Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Engineering Corrections on Initial Phase 2 Resubmittal (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page | 3 Stormwater Engineer Review: 4/19/21 Done Refer to attached plan review comments by City Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson. Please contact Zack directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Zachary.richardson@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. No further action necessary for design review approval. Stormwater items to address prior to building permit submittal: No soils report or Geotech report was received therefore no verification of sizing of system, etc. Infiltration is shown at less than typical setbacks (west building may even have footings in the infiltration area). Confirm that Geotech has reviewed the plans and submit extra documentation to show that the design is acceptable. Also, the first two stretches of connecting pipe are only 8” so the capacity will need to be checked though depending on infiltration rates may not be an issue. Transportation Engineer Review: The following comments are provided by the City Transportation Engineer, Bertrand Hauss. Please contact Bertrand directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Bertrand.hauss@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. No further action necessary for design review approval. A Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet was provided indicating the project would create less than 25 peak-hour trips; therefore, a traffic study is not required. Specific mitigation fees will be further reviewed during the building permit phase of the project. Additional Items to Be Addressed at Civil Submittal. 1. Parking area between buildings is over the maximum parking slope allowed. A waiver can be requested to up to a max of 14% provided certain criteria can be met. A request will need to be received with your civil submittal. Please review Edmonds Community Development Code chapter 18.95 D for the waiver criteria. 2. The entrance to the parking area closest to building B cuts through the southeast parking stall. The entrance will need to be revised so a full parking space is not encroached upon. 2.A.1.d Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Exhibit 3 - Engineering Corrections on Initial Phase 2 Resubmittal (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2.A.1.e Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Applicant Response to Engineering Corrections (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2.A.1.e Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Exhibit 4 - Applicant Response to Engineering Corrections (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) ℄ 5TH AVENUE S℄ HOMELAND DRIVE 30'-0"HALFROW 18'-0" ALLEY517-519 4TH AVENUE SPARKVIEW TWIN CONDOAPN: 006493-0010PRIVATE ROAD APN: 270326-001-023-00 622 5TH AVENUE S APN: 004096-002-012-00 130± FT ⅊ (E) NEIGHBORING BUILDING610 5TH AVENUE SAPN: 270326-001-008-00 61'±BUILDING A:(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.3'±AGLA: 1735± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 500± SF (EA)61'±30'±10'±BUILDING (ABOVE)20.3'± (TYP)BUILDING B:(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.4'±AGLA: 1220± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 600± SF (EA)30'±20.3'± (TYP)24'-0"BACKINGDISTANCE5'-6"L'SCAPEAREAESTABLISH (N) ⅊ VIA SHORT SUBDVISION(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)58'-6"24'-0"BACKINGDISTANCE61'-6"A1.21A1.22A1.23A1.23EG/FG = 76.6'±EG/FG = 82.7'±30'-0" REQ'D COMM. USES A1.24A1.2416.5'± (TYP)BUILDING (ABOVE)BUILDING C:(8) 3-STORY TH (INC. BSMT)FOOTPRINT AREA: 3960± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 78.3'±AGLA: 990± SF (EA)GARAGE/BSMT: 495± SF (EA)132'±30'± 15'-0" REAR STBK REMOVE (E) DRIVEWAY ANDRESTORE CURB PER CITY STDREPLACE (E) DRIVEWAY WITHCONC SIDEWALK AND EXTENDTO ⅊ PER CITY STANDARD(N) STREET TREE WITH4'-0" SQ TREE GRATEPER L'SCAPE (TYP. OF 3)(N) TREE IN BUFFER AREAPER L'SCAPE (TYP. OF 16)BENCH BENCH MOTOR COURTDRIVEWAYA1.22A1.21(N) WOOD FENCEPER L'SCAPE(E) FLOWER POLETO REMAINREFUSE STAGINGSCALE:NA1.111" = 10'CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANSCALE:A1.1CONCEPTUALSITE PLANAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2, 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION05101" = 10'20PROJECT DIRECTORYOWNER AND DEVELOPERARCHITECT  APPLICANTCITIZEN DESIGN10 DRAVUS STREETSEATTLE, WA 98109CONTACT: JACOB YOUNGTEL: 206.853.8055EMAIL: JYOUNG@COLLABORATIVECO.COMPROJECT INFO.614-616 5TH AVENUE SEDMONDS, WA 98020PARCEL MAP NUMBERSPARCEL A: 270326-001-009-00PARCEL B: 270326-001-029-00SITE ADDRESSJURISDICTIONEDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONSEATTLE LUXURY HOMES557 ROY STREET #125SEATTLE, WA 98109LOT AREA AND ZONINGLOT AREA: 0.39 AC (17,160± SF) TOTALZONING: BD3CONSTRUCT (3) BUILDINGS CONTAINING (6) LIVE/WORKTOWNHOUSES AND (8) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES,PER PLANS AND AS FOLLOWS:·(3) LIVE/WORK TOWNHOUSES TO EACH CONTAIN 1735± SFAGLA, 500± SF WORK SUITE AND (2) COVERED,UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES.·(3) LIVE/WORK TOWNHOUSES TO EACH CONTAIN 1220± SFAGLA, 600± SF WORK SUITE AND (2) COVERED,UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES.·(8) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES TO EACH CONTAIN 990± SFAGLA AND 495± SF GARAGE.DIVIDE (E) PARCEL INTO TWO RESULTANT PARCELS VIASHORT SUBDIVISION (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT).(E) STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED.ESTABLISH USES AND OCCUPY, PER PLANS.SCOPE OF WORKLEGAL DESCRIPTIONPARCEL A:SEC 26 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-5) N 55 FT FDT BAAP 30 FT W & 123FT S OF NE COR S 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 TH RUN W 130 FT TH S132 FT TH E 130 FT TH N 123 FT TO PUB SUBJ ESE PUDPARCEL B:SEC 26 TWP 27 RGE 03 BAAP 30 FT W & 132 FT S OF NE CORS 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 TH RUN W 130 FT THE S 132 FT THE 130 FT TH N 132 FT TPB LESS N 55 FT THOF SUBJ ESE PUDIF ANYCIVIL ENGINEER  SURVEYORSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERTBDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTTBDGENERAL CONTRACTORTBD PROJECT SITE614-614 5TH AVE SHIGHWAY 1043RD AVE S5TH AVE S HOWELL WAYPINE STWALNUT STHOMELAND WAYNTSVICINITY MAPDAVIDO CONSULTING GROUP15029 BOTHELL WAY NE #600LAKE FOREST PARK, WA 98155CONTACT: TIM GABELEIN, PETEL: 206.523.0024EMAIL: TIM@DCGENGR.COMDRAWING INDEXA1.1CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANA1.2CONCEPTUAL SITE SECTIONSA1.3VICINITY MAPA1.4CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLANA2.1BUILDINGS A&B FLOOR PLANSA2.2BUILDING C FLOOR PLANSA3.1RENDERINGS & RENDERED ELEVATIONSA3.2RENDERINGSA3.3CHARACTER STUDYC01CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND UTILITY PLANL1.0CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN1 OF 1SURVEY2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 40Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 708090100BUILDING A AVG GRADE: 83.58'±BUILDING A HT LIMIT: 113.58'±12'-0" 9'-0"9'-0" 8'-6"9'-6"9'-0"BUILDING ABUILDING C⅊⅊℄COMM. FFE: 83.0'±FFE: 95.0'±FFE: 104.0'±FFE: 74.0'±BUILDING C AVG GRADE: 75.95'±BUILDING C HT LIMIT: 105.95'±110FFE: 82.5'±FFE: 92.0'±ROOF: 101.0'±7090100BUILDING B AVG GRADE: 83.40'±BUILDING B HT LIMIT: 113.40'±⅊⅊℄BUILDING C AVG GRADE: 75.95'±BUILDING C HT LIMIT: 105.95'±12'-0"8'-6"8'-6"BUILDING BCOMM. FFE: 84.4'±FFE: 96.4'±FFE: 104.9'±801108'-6"9'-6"9'-0"BUILDING CFFE: 74.0'±FFE: 82.5'±FFE: 92.0'±ROOF: 101.0'±708090100110BUILDING A AVG GRADE: 83.58'±BUILDING A HT LIMIT: 113.58'±⅊⅊BUILDING B AVG GRADE: 83.40'±BUILDING B HT LIMIT: 113.40'±12'-0"9'-0"9'-0"BUILDING ALINE OF COMMERCIALFLOORBUILDING B8'-6"8'-6"12'-0"COMM. FFE: 83.0'±FFE: 95.0'±FFE: 104.0'±COMM. FFE: 84.4'±FFE: 96.4'±FFE: 104.9'±7090100BUILDING C AVG GRADE: 75.95'±BUILDING C HT LIMIT: 105.95'±⅊⅊FFE: 82.5'±80FFE: 92.0'±ROOF: 101.0'±BUILDING CFFE: 74.0'±8'-6"9'-6"9'-0"EG = 83.0'±BUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING CEG = 83.3'±EG = 83.5'±EG = 84.5'±EG = 84.6'±EG = 85.2'±EG = 83.8'±EG = 80.0'±EG = 82.4'±EG = 73.5'±EG = 75.9'±EG = 72.0'±SCALE:A1.2CONCEPTUALSITE SECTIONSAND DIAGRAMSAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2, 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION010201" = 20'40SCALE:A1.211" = 20'LONGITUDINAL SECTIONSCALE:A1.221" = 20'LONGITUDINAL SECTIONSCALE:A1.231" = 20'TRANSVERSE SECTIONSCALE:A1.241" = 20'TRANSVERSE SECTIONSCALE:A1.251" = 20'HEIGHT LIMIT DIAGRAM83.5' + 84.5' + 83.0' + 83.3' = 334.3'334.3' / 4 = 83.575' ≈ 83.58'AVG (E) GRADE CALCSBUILDING A84.6' + 85.2' + 80.0' + 83.8' = 333.6'333.6' / 4 = 83.40'BUILDING B82.4' + 75.9' + 73.5' + 72.0' = 303.8'303.8' / 4 = 75.95'BUILDING C2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 41Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A1.3VICINITY MAPAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2, 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A1.31N/AVICINITY MAP2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 42Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A1.4CONCEPTUALLIGHTING PLANAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2, 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A1.31N/ACONCEPTUAL LIGHTING PLANEXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULEWALL SCONCES ARE LOCATED ALONG THE EAST (5TH AVENUE)FACADE OF BUILDINGS A AND B. THEY ARE ALSO UTILIZEDTHROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE TO ILLUMINATE THEPEDESTRIAN PASS-THROUGH AND BUILDING C'S ENTRIESFROM THE MOTOR COURT. FINALLY, THEY ARE PROVIDED ONTHE SOUTH FACADES OF BUILDINGS A AND C TO PROVIDELIGHT IN THE ABUTTING ALLEY."CARSON" BY REJUVENATION HARDWARE (OR EQUAL)MAX. WATTAGE: 300WPROPOSED LAMP: 15W LED (1500 LUMENS)WALL SCONCESURFACE MOUNT FIXTURES ARE LOCATED ON THEUNDERSIDES OF THE ENTRY CANOPIES TO PROVIDELIGHT AT EACH UNIT ENTRY."REEL" BY ACCESS LIGHTING (OR EQUAL)WATTAGE: 15WINTEGRATED LAMP: 15W LED (1200 LUMENS)SURFACE MOUNTSTRING LIGHTS ARE PROPOSED IN THE PEDESTRIANPASS-THROUGH TO PROVIDE BOTH ILLUMINATION ANDAMBIENCE."S14" BY BULBRITE (OR EQUAL)MAX. WATTAGE: 1200WPROPOSED LAMP: (15) 11W INCANDESCENT(1125 LUMENS TOTAL)STRING LIGHTS2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 43Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) WORK SUITEELEV.ELEV.ELEV.WORK SUITEWORK SUITEBATHBATHBATH30'-0"10'-9 1/2"9'-3"20'-4"61'-0"6'-0"FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±FFE:83.0'±REFUSEREFUSEREFUSEELEV.ELEV.ELEV.BEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBALCONYBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBALCONYBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBALCONY20'-4"40'-0"12'-1 1/4"5'-0"12'-8 3/4"11'-4 1/2"14'-7"5'-9"7'-0"61'-0"14'-7"5'-9"14'-7"5'-9"ELEV.ELEV.ELEV.20'-4"40'-0"KITCHENLIVINGDININGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGDININGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGDININGBALCONYBATHBATHBATHWORK SUITEWORK SUITEWORK SUITE20'-4"30'-0"61'-0"6'-0"FFE:84.4'±FFE:84.4'±FFE:84.4'±FFE:84.4'±FFE:84.4'±FFE:84.4'±REFUSE REFUSE REFUSE20'-4"30'-0" 20'-6 1/2"9'-5 1/2"6'-6"14'-1 1/2"61'-0"3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6"KITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONY20'-4"30'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"10'-0"13'-3 1/2"7'-0 1/2"61'-0"13'-3 1/2"BEDM. BEDM. BATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHPHASE 1B:(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.4'±AGLA: 1220± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 602± SF (EA)PHASE 1A (ELEVATOR):(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.3'±AGLA: 1735± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 500± SF (EA)SCALE:NA2.111/8" 1'-0"BUILDING A FLOOR PLANSSCALE:A2.1FLOOR PLANSAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:NA2.121/8" 1'-0"BUILDING B FLOOR PLANS2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 44Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 16'-5 1/2"30'-0"18'-5 1/2"11'-6 1/2"131'-8"OFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEOFFICEGARAGEREFUSE FFE:77.3'±FFE:77.5'±FFE:79.3'±FFE:73.5'±FFE:74.0'±FFE:74.0'±FFE:74.0'±FFE:74.0'±FFE:74.0'±FFE:74.0'±FFE:74.0'±REFUSEREFUSEREFUSEREFUSE REFUSE REFUSE REFUSE PHASE 1C:(8) 3-STORY TH (INC. BSMT)FOOTPRINT AREA: 3960± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 78.3'±AGLA: 1320± SF (EA)GARAGE/BSMT: 495± SF (EA)(8) 2 BEDROOM UNITS16'-5 1/2"40'-0"29'-6 1/2"10'-5 1/2"7'-0"9'-5 1/2"131'-8"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"KITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYKITCHENLIVINGBALCONYFFE:82.5'±FFE:82.5'±FFE:82.5'±FFE:82.5'±FFE:82.5'±16'-5 1/2"40'-0"14'-7"5'-3 1/2"6'-2"13'-1"10'-5"11'-9 1/2"131'-8 1/2"16'-5 1/2"BEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHBEDM. BEDM. BATHBATHSCALE:NA2.211/8" 1'-0"BUILDING C FLOOR PLANSSCALE:A2.2FLOOR PLANSAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 45Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A3.1RENDERINGSAND RENDEREDELEVATIONSAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A3.15NTSBUILDINGS A B VIEWED FROM NORTHEASTSCALE:A3.16NTSBUILDING A VIEWED FROM EASTSCALE:A3.13NTSEAST RENDERED ELEVATIONSCALE:A3.14NTSNORTH RENDERED ELEVATIONSCALE:A3.12NTSSOUTH RENDERED ELEVATIONSCALE:A3.11NTSWEST RENDERED ELEVATIONVERTICAL SIDING (GRAY)DETAIL BAND (BLACK)BRICK VENEER SIDING (EARTH TONES)METAL COLUMN (BLACK)METAL BALCONY (BLACK)METAL GUARDRAIL (BLACK)(N) TREES PER L'SCAPE.SOME TREES NOTSHOWN FOR CLARITY.FIBERGLASS WINDOWSAND DOORS (BLACK)PLANTERS PER L'SCAPE(N) STREET TREESPER L'SCAPEPANEL SIDING(LIGHT GRAY)OVERHANGING EAVEW/ CORBEL BRACKETSFIBERGLASS WINDOWSAND DOORS (BLACK)DETAIL BAND (LIGHT GRAY)METAL CANOPY (BLACK)WALL SCONCEDECORATIVE MEDALLIONDETAILED CONCRETE PLINTHBRICK VENEER SIDING (EARTH TONES)STILES AND RAILSADDED FOR DEPTHWALL SCONCEDETAIL BAND (LIGHT GRAY)PANEL SIDING (LIGHT GRAY)BRICK VENEER SIDING(EARTH TONES)WALL SCONCERETAINING WALL (CONC)METAL GUARDRAIL (BLACK)DETAIL BAND (BLACK)VERTICAL SIDING (GRAY)BRICK VENEER SIDING(EARTH TONES)METAL COLUMN (BLACK)BUILDING B (BEYOND)BUILDING A (BEYOND)BUILDING CBUILDING ABUILDING CBUILDING BBUILDING CBUILDING ABUILDING BCONCRETE PLINTH2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 46Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A3.2RENDERINGSAND RENDEREDELEVATIONSAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SCALE:A3.23NTSBUILDING C VIEWED FROM SOUTHWESTSCALE:A3.24NTSBUILDING C VIEWED FROM NORTHWESTSCALE:A3.22NTSMOTOR COURT VIEWED FROM SOUTHSCALE:A3.21NTSBUILDINGS A B VIEWED FROM EAST2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 47Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A3.3CHARACTERSTUDYAS NOTEDRHYLVLRQ 104/23/21ASULO 2 2021DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2CLW\ RI EDMONDS1FOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A3.31NTSCHARACTER STUDY2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 48Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 4TH AVENUE 100986.94SDMH101085.68SSMH101184.39CB101284.79CB101384.31SSMH101784.18CB124569.68SDMH124669.29CB134482.22CB138069.54CB138162.60CB146772.98CB151662.75SSMH152767.21CBS0°00'14"W 20.00' S0°00'26"W 152.00'N89°54'04"W130.00'S0°00'26"W 132.00'PARCEL ATO ROIC WA S N I NG T O N , L L C , A D E L AW A R E LI M I T E D L I A B IL I T Y CO M P A NY A N D F I R S T A M E R IC A N T IT L E INSURANCE C O MP A N Y : THIS IS TO C E R T I FY T H AT T H I S M A P OR P L AT A N D T H E SU R V E Y O N WH I C H I T I S B AS E D WE R E MA D E I N ACCORDANC E W IT H T H E 2 0 1 1 M I N I M UM S T AN D A RD D E T AI L R E QU I R EM E N T S F O R AL T A / A CS M L AN D T I TL E SURVEYS, JO I N T LY E S TA B L I S HE D A ND A D OP T E D BY A L TA A N D N S P S , A N D I NC L U DE S I T EM S 2 , 3 , 4 , , 5 6(A)(B), 7(A)( B 1 ) ( C ), 8 - 1 0, 1 1 ( A ) (B ) , 1 6 - 1 9 A ND 2 0 OF T A B LE A T HE R E OF . THE FIELD W O R K W A S CO M P LE T E D ON F E BR U A R Y 2 5 , 2 01 5 . DATE OF PLA T O R M A P : __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . ___________ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ DAVID R FUL T O N , P L S C E R TI F I C A TE N U MB E R 32 4 2 9N89°54'04"W131.37'ONE STORY BUILDING614 5TH AVE. S.2 STORY CONC. BLOCK BUILDING616 5TH AVE. S.8" CONCRETE WALL55'19'FFE=84.05'66'30'FFE=85.26' MAINFFE=76.59' ALLEYONE BALLARD LLC610 5TH AVE SFOURTH STREET APARTMENTS LLC531 4TH AVE SPK REAL PROPERTY LLC622 5TH AVE SPARK PLACE EDMONDS, A CONDO400 HOWELL WAYPARKVIEW TWIN, A CONDOMINIUM517 4TH AVE SCONC. WALKASPHALT PARKINGGRASSASPHALTASPHALT ALLEYCONC WALK SDMH RIM =86.9418" CON S IE=86.3418" CONC N IE=82.14SSMH RIM=85.68CTR CHANN IE=80.48CB RIM =84.398" PVC W IE=82.89CB RIM =84.798" PVC W IE=82.89CB RIM =82.2210" CON W IE=80.424" CONC E IE=80.62CB RIM =84.188" PVC W IE=82.686" PVC N IE=82.78SSMH RIM =69.68CTR CHANN=63.08CB RIM =69.296" CON N IE=67.04CB RIM =69.546" CON S IE=67.84CB RIM =62.6010" CONC N IE=60.6010" CONC E IE=60.70SSMH RIM =62.75CTR CHANN=57.70CB RIM =72.984" PVC W IE=72.184" PVC N IE=72.18POSTBENCHEASEMENT 7603100239SEE EXCEPTION 4OVERLAP S89°54'04"E261.37'S89°54'04"E38.63'S0°00'26"W20.00'N89°54'04"W38.63'NOTE:LEGAL DESCRIPTION OVERLAPSINTO RIGHT OF WAY OF 4TH STREET80 85 7570 6583 84 8474 75 80 82 80848586X82.1X73.85TH AVENUE S SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTWWWWWWWWWSDWWSDSDSDSDSDPERF PERF PERF PERF PERF PERF PERF SDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMUGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD UGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGP UGP UGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUTUTPHASE 1CGARAGE FF 74.00LEVEL 1 FF 83.90PHASE 1ALEVEL 1 FF 83.00PHASE 1BLEVEL 1 FF 84.40CAD FILE NUMBER: P:\CLIENTS-CIVIL\KURTH JOHNATHAN\614 5TH AVE S PINE PARK EDMONDS\DWG\DRAWING\614 5TH AVE S EDMONDS_CONCEPTUAL CIVIL PLAN_20.DWGLAST MODIFIED BY: JEREMY - SAVE DATE: 12/9/2020 3:38 PM - SHEET SET: XXXX - ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE: ANSI FULL BLEED D (34.00 X 22.00 INCHES)AUTOCAD VERSION: CIVIL 3D 2013 C011CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN SCALE IN FEET402001020ABBREVIATIONS:BLDG= BUILDINGBM= BENCHMARKBOTS= BOTTOM OF STEP(S)CB= CATCH BASINCL= CENTERLINECW= CONCRETE WALKDRN= FOOTING DRAINEG= EXISTING GRADEEL= ELEVATIONELEV= ELEVATIONESMT= EASEMENTEX= EXISTINGFF= FINISHED FLOORFG= FINISHED GRADEFL= FLOW LINEG= GASHMA= HOT MIX ASPHALTID= INNER DIAMETERIE= INVERT ELEVATIONLF= LINEAL FEETLS= LAND SURVEYOROHP= OVERHEAD POWERPL= PROPERTY LINEPVI= POINT OF VERTICALINTERSECTIONROW= RIGHT OF WAYSD= STORM DRAINSDCO= STORM DRAIN CLEANOUTSDFM= STORM DRAIN FORCEMAINSDMH= STORM DRAIN MANHOLESS= SANITARY SEWERSSMH= SANITARY SEWERMANHOLESSS= SANITARY SIDE SEWERSSSCO= SANITARY SIDE SEWERCLEANOUTTOC= TOP OF CURBTOPS= TOP OF STEP(S)TYP= TYPICALW= WATERWDF= WOOD FENCECONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'15029 Bothell Way NE Suite 600 Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 P: 206.523.0024 F: 206.523.1012 www.dcgengr.com OWNER: PROJECT:DATE:DESIGNED BY:PROJ. MANAGER:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:REV. SHEETOFSHEET NUMBER7654321ABCDEFGHIJK7654321BCDEGHIKAFJBYNo.DATE REVISION TM LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL" & THE RELATED ACRONYM, & THE LEGACY LEED AP LOGO ARE TRADEMARKS OWNED BY THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL & ARE AWARDED TO INDIVIDUALS UNDER LICENSE BY THE GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION INSTITUTE.88BK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC 577 ROY ST, SUITE 125 SEATTLE, WA 98109 614 5TH AVE S (PINE PARK) EDMONDS, WA BIJVRBBIAS SHOWN12/9/2020A21 03/25/2016 TG REVISIONS PER CITY'S ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 3/11/2016 2 04/25/2016 TG REVISIONS PER CITY'S ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 4/13/2016APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTIONCITY OF EDMONDSDATE:____________________CITY ENGINEERING DIVISIONBY:______________________PROFESSIONALENGI N EERREGISTERED54904 ST A T EOFWASHINGTONIB E NJAMNJDIDI.NS541236789101112KEY NOTES:KEYNOTEDETAIL/SHEETREM EX UGP FROM SNOPUD VAULT-CONNECT TO EX PRIMARY POWER-PROPOSED BURIED PHONE LINE-PROPOSED TRANSFORMER-NEW WATER SERVICE TO BLDG-REUSE EX WATER METER ANDSERVICE IF SIZED APPROPRIATELY-NEW WATER SERVICECONNECTION TO MAIN-NEW WATER METER-NEW SEWER CONNECTION TO MAIN-NEW FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONTO MAIN-CONFIRM STORM LOCATION ANDREMOVE OR RELOCATE ASNECESSARY-TAX PARCEL BOUNDARY-REUSE EX WATER SERVICE IFSIZED APPROPRIATELY-THE TWO TAX PARCELS WITHIN"PARCEL A", (A SINGLE LOT) TO BECONSOLODATED AS PART OF THISPROJECT-PROPOSED CB-50'L x 15'W INFILTRATION FACILITY(1.0' DEEP) PROVIDING 100%INFILTRATION OF PHASE 1C ROOFRUNOFF-39.5'L x 19'W INFILTRATIONFACILITY (1.0' DEEP) PROVIDING100% INFILTRATION OF PHASE 1A &1B ROOF RUNOFF-CONNECT TO EX CB-PROPOSED SSSCO-NEW FIRE SERVICE METER-REMOVE EX DRIVEWAY APPROACH& REPLACE WITH SIDEWALK ANDCURB & GUTTER-PROPOSED CURB WALL-PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN-NEW FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONTO BLDG-REMOVE ALL EX TREES ON-SITE(TYP)-ROOF RUNOFF TO ROUTE TOINFILTRATION FACILITY-PROPOSED SDCO-6" PERFORATED PVC LAID FLAT(TYP)-6" SD @ 2.00% MIN (TYP)-EMERGENCY OVERFLOW FROMINFILTRATION FACILITY TOCONNECT TO STORM SYSTEM INALLEY-1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829301314LEGEND:CONCRETEASPHALT ROADWAYLANDSCAPEPERMEABLE PAVEMENTSURFACINGINFILTRATION FACILITYGENERAL NOTES:1.ALL STORMWATER TO BE INFILTRATED ON-SITE. WATERQUALITY TREATMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY NATIVE SOILSMEETING SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SUITABILITYPROPERTIES FOR TREATMENT OR ENGINEERED SOILS LAYERIN ACCORDANCE WITH SSC-6 VOLUME III, CHAPTER 3, SECTION3.3.7 OF THE 2014 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FORWESTERN WASHINGTON.2.ALL UNITS WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH A NFPA 13DFLOW-THROUGH FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM.151515161718191910102081020102010212223242424251326262612727272715282829303015PRELIMINARY2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 49Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE: N L1.0 1 1" = 10' CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE:L1.0 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN AS NOTED April 2, 2021 DESIGN REVIEW PH. 2 City of EDMONDS PINE PARK 614NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONREFERENCE IMAGES ACER CIRCINATUM | VINE MAPLE [4] ACER RUBRUN | SCARLET SENTINEL MAPLE [3] TREES 0 10 20 1" = 20' 40 SHRUBS HYDRANGEA MACROPHYLLA 'PIA' | COMPACT MOPHEAD HYDRANGEA VIBURNUM DAVIDII | DAVID VIBURNUM PERENNIAL LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA | ENGLISH LAVENDER GROUNDCOVER JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'WILTONII' | BLUE CARPET JUNIPER PICEA OMORIKA | SERBAIN SPRUCE [9] ℄ 5TH AVENUE S ℄ HOMELANDDRIVEPRIVATE ROADENGLISH LAVENDERBENCHBENCHSCARLET SENTINEL MAPLE (TYP.) VINE MAPLE (TYP.) NEIGHBORING BUILDING RETAINING WALL DAVID VIBURNUM (TYP.) COMPACT MOPHEAD HYDRANGEA (TYP.) COMPACT MOPHEAD HYDRANGEA (TYP.) BLUE CARPET JUNIPER (TYP. GROUND COVER) SERBIAN SPRUCE (TYP.) DAVID VIBURNUM (TYP.)NEW 6’ HIGH WOOD FENCE RHYLVLRQ 1 04/23/211 2.A.1.f Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2.A.1.fPacket Pg. 51Attachment: Exhibit 5 - Plan Set for Phase 2 of Hearing - Revised (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) CITY OF EDMONDS COURTESY NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pine Park 614 is a proposal for three buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units at 614 and 616 5th Ave. S. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) while the eight-unit building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed and a subdivision will be required to create a lot line between Buildings A & B and Building C. The project site is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3). District-based design review projects that require a SEPA determination are Type III-A decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). PROJECT LOCATION: 614 & 616 5th Avenue South and adjacent private alley (Tax ID #: 27032600100900, 27032600102900 & 27032600102300) NAME OF APPLICANT: Jacob Young (Citizen Design Collaborative) FILE NO.: PLN2020-0053 DATE OF NOTICE: April 28, 2021 REQUESTED PERMITS: District-based design review, SEPA determination OTHER REQUIRED Building permits, subdivision PERMITS: EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA checklist and DNS, critical area checklist, traffic impact analysis COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: May 5, 2021 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Phase 1 of the hearing was opened on March 5 and continued at that time until May 5. Phase 2 of the public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. 2.A.1.g Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Due to COVID-19, Phase 2 of the public hearing will be held on Zoom. Join the meeting at: https://zoom.us/j/95360544929?pwd=Zmd0REFORkE3RkRaeVdBRmpkN UxMZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 953 6054 4929 Password: 818962 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. Information on this development application can be found at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public_involvement/public_notic es/development_notices under permit number PLN2020-0053, by emailing the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 2.A.1.g Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Exhibit 6 - Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) City of Edmonds Date: April 26, 2021 To: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Subject: PLN2020-0053 – Design Review Pine Park 614-616 5th Ave S Engineering has reviewed the design review application for the proposed 6 live/work units and 8 residential units for the location of 614-616 5th Ave S. Approval of the design review application shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Power pole and flower pole relocations shall meet all frontage requirements, ECDC codes and the requirements of Snohomish PUD. Trash and recycling shall be located as to not interfere with parking or ingress/egress. Plan for trash pick up shall be reviewed and approved by Sound Disposal prior to COE approval. Stormwater management shall be consistent with ECDC 18.30 and the 2017 Stormwater Addendum. Traffic Impact and General Facility fees will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. Thank you. MEMORANDUM 2.A.1.h Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Exhibit 7 - Engineering Design Review Approval (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM “PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE 1” To: The Architectural Design Board (ADB) From: _ _ Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner Project: Pine Park 614 (File No. PLN2020-0053) Date of Report: February 24, 2021 Public Hearing: Wednesday – March 3, 2021 at 7:00 P.M. (Phase 1*) Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board. Join the Zoom webinar meeting at: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: https://zoom.us/j/95360544929?pwd=Zmd0REFORkE3RkRaeVdB RmpkNUxMZz09 Passcode: 818962 Or join by phone: US: +1 253 215 8782 Webinar ID: 953 6054 4929 Passcode: 818962 * Note: The public hearing will be continued to a date certain for Phase 2 of the two-phased design review process. I. PROJECT PROPOSAL The proposal is for three buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units at 614 and 616 5th Ave. S. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) while the eight-unit building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 2 of 8 would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed. II. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The subject site is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3). Since this proposal triggers a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), project design is reviewed the Architectural Design Board through a two-phased public hearing. This district-based design review process was developed to provide for public and design professional input at an early point in the permitting process. The process is described in Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and is summarized below. This submittal (Attachments 1 - 3) initiates Phase 1 of the two-phased ADB public hearing process. According to ECDC 20.12.005.A, for Phase 1 of the process, the applicant must provide a preliminary conceptual design and must also provide a description of the property to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB will use this information to make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and will prioritize the design guideline checklist (Attachment 4) based on these facts in addition to the design objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and within the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following public testimony at the Phase 1 hearing and completion of the design guideline checklist by the ADB, the public hearing is continued to a date certain, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing date. Per ECDC 20.12.005.B, the purpose of the continuance of the hearing to Phase 2 is to allow the applicant to design or redesign the initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. Once this is done, the design will be submitted to staff, who will review the proposal and schedule the project for final review (Phase 2). Staff will provide a more detailed analysis of the proposal’s compliance with the prioritized design guidelines and criteria as part of the Phase 2 hearing. The ADB will further review the design of the project and will make the final decision on the design at the conclusion of Phase 2 of the public hearing. III. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Topography: The general area slopes down east-west toward Puget Sound. The subject site was graded in the past to create a level area on the east where the existing buildings and parking lot are located. A small slope to the west of the parking area leads down to a separate flat undeveloped area. 2. Critical Areas: A Critical Areas Checklist was reviewed in under File No. CRA2017- 0073 and it was determined that no critical areas were located on nor adjacent to the site, and a “Waiver” was issued. 3. SEPA Review: Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required for this project because the proposal includes more than four dwelling units. A SEPA 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 3 of 8 checklist was submitted with the application and a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on February 9, 2021 (Attachment 8). IV. DEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL COMMENTS The Phase 1 portion of the subject application was evaluated by staff from the Snohomish County Fire District #1 and Building Division as well as the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. The Building Division did not have comments at this stage in the review process but had provided general comments at a previous pre-application meeting. South County Fire and Public Works/Engineering Division comments are included as Attachment 10. Fire noted that all units must be sprinkled and added several specific standards to meet including for turning radius into the site and the requirement for ‘No Parking Fire Lane’ signage in the drive aisles. Public Works/Engineering provided comments regarding utilities, frontage improvements, stormwater, and traffic impact fees. These issues can be primarily managed at the building permit phase, but the feasibility of frontage improvements and trash/recycling will be further evaluated in the Phase 2 hearing submittal. V. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS 1. ECDC 16.43 – Downtown Convenience Commercial Zone (BD3) A. ECDC 16.43.020 Uses The site is zoned BD3 and is subject to the use requirements of ECDC 16.43 (Attachment 5). The proposal includes multiple residential and live/work units, and associated parking and loading, which are all permitted primary or secondary uses in the BD3 zone. B. According to ECDC 16.43.030, development standards in the BD3 zone include: Zone Minimum Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD3 None None 0’ 0’ 0’ 30’ 12’ 1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 4 of 8 4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43- 1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. C. Setbacks. The project site is immediately adjacent to Multiple Residential (RM- 2.4) zoned property on the west. As a result, the proposed development must maintain a 15’ setback from the west property line. The setback is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan (Sheet A1.1 of Attachment 3). D. Height. The maximum allowed height in the BD3 zone is 30 feet above average original grade. Certain height exceptions are provided for in ECDC 16.43.030.C.3 and the definition of “height” in ECDC 21.40.030. While height calculations were not provided with the Phase I submittal, building section drawings do show the maximum height for all three buildings less than 30’ above finished floor (Sheet A1.2 of Attachment 3). Height calculations are required for all three buildings with the Phase 2 resubmittal. It should be noted that the deck elements on the west side of each of the buildings must be included in the height calculations. Eaves, like those on the east sides of the buildings, may be excluded if they are less than 30”. E. Ground Floor. According to ECDC 16.43.030.B, the designated street front area for the subject site is 45 feet measured perpendicular from 5th Avenue South. Within the designated street front area, a minimum floor-to-floor height of 12 feet is required and entries to commercial spaces must be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. In the BD3 zone, only commercial uses are allowed within the designated street front area, while any permitted uses are allowed outside of that area. Parking is not a commercial use and may not be located within the designated street front area. An exception is available for certain BD3-zoned properties which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front. In that instance, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. The project plans in Attachment 3 show two live/work buildings at the street front adjacent to 5th Avenue on a project site that is 130’ deep (Sheet A1.1). Building cross-sections are included on Sheet A1.2 and show a 30’ deep ground- floor spaces with parking immediately behind that. The ground floor of each building has a 12’ floor-to-floor height and entries are at or near sidewalk grade. 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 5 of 8 Compliance with the ground floor requirements will be verified during review of the Phase 2 submittal. Redesign of the ground floor area will be necessary to comply with the commercial use requirements within the 45-foot designated street front depth from 5th Avenue. F. Parking. Per ECDC 17.50.010.C.1, one parking stall is required for each dwelling unit and two stalls are required per live/work unit. Sheet A1.1 of Attachment 3 shows one enclosed stall for each unit in Building C and two partially covered exterior stalls for each unit in Buildings A and B. G. Open Space. According to ECDC 16.43.030.E, for buildings on lots larger than 12,000 sq. ft., at least five percent of the lot area of the project must be devoted to open space. With a project area of 17,160 square feet (not including the alley), 858 square feet of open space is required. No open space is identified on Sheet A1.1 of Attachment 3. The open space must be provided adjacent to the street lot line and can be any combination of outdoor seating areas, a public plaza, or landscaping that includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. ECDC 20.12 District-Based Design Guidelines A. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.070.A, the ADB must use the design guidelines and design review checklist applicable to the district-based design review process for its review. These guidelines and checklist are included for reference as Attachment 4. The ADB will use the checklist to prioritize the design guidelines for the subject proposal. B. Compliance with the district-based design guidelines will be reviewed by the ADB during Phase 2 of the review process. 3. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements A. ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB can interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. B. As noted previously, a 15’ setback is required on the west side of the project since it is adjacent to a residentially-zoned parcel in that location. According to ECDC 16.43.030.H, that area must be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge is not required since the use adjacent to the setback on the subject parcel would be residential. A landscaping plan must be submitted for the Phase 2 review to evaluate the vegetation within the 15’ setback area and around the remainder of the site. C. Street trees will be required. Existing street furniture, art poles, and planter baskets in the sidewalk along 5th Avenue should be incorporated to the new project, where possible. 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 6 of 8 4. ECDC 22.43 Design Standards for the BD Zones A. Design standards applicable to the BD zones are provided in ECDC Chapter 22.43 (Attachment 6). B. The cover letter in Attachment 2 describes how the applicant believes the project meets the standards. Compliance with the BD design standards will be reviewed by the ADB in detail during Phase 2 of the review process. 5. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Objectives A. In addition to the design guidelines applicable to the district-based design review process and the BD-zone design standards, the proposal must also comply with the applicable downtown design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because the site is designated “Downtown Convenience” and within the “Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center” overlay. Refer to Pages 122 through 127 of the December 2017 Comprehensive Plan for the applicable design objectives (Attachment 7). B. Compliance with the downtown design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed by the ADB during Phase 2 of the review process. VI. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS The subject application was submitted on December 21, 2020 and was found to be complete on January 11, 2021. A “Notice of Application” was issued on January 25, 2021. This notice was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, and Community Development Department. It was not posted at the Library since it is closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and published in the Everett Herald. A separate “Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination” was issued on February 9, 2021. This notice was posted in the manner noted above. The public notice materials are included as Attachment 9. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. Two comments have been received to date: 1. Ed Lorah, representing the Parkview Twin Condo HOA immediately west of the project site, has several concerns including stormwater coming off the project site, parking, lighting, ownership, and project timing (Attachment 11). Staff response: As noted in staff’s response in Attachment 11, all stormwater generated by the project must be managed on-site. In his review of the project, the City’s Stormwater Engineering noted general feasibility of the project. Specific details of how stormwater will be managed and compliance with the stormwater code in Chapter 18.30 ECDC will be evaluated during building permit review (Attachment 10). 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 7 of 8 Regarding parking, each of the eight units in the west building would have one stall per unit while each of the six units in the two eastern buildings would have two stalls – one for the ‘live’ use and one for ‘work’ use. No guest parking is required by the code and none would be provided so other visitors to the site would have to use the on-street spaces during their visits. Project lighting will be addressed as part of the Phase 2 submittal while the applicant can better address anticipated project timing and ownership options. 2. Paul McColluh, a neighbor to the south, was concerned with parking on- and off-site (Attachment 12). Staff response: See above. VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.A.1, the purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing process is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guideline checklist. In identifying the relative importance of the design criteria, the ADB must use the applicable design criteria of the BD3 zone, the downtown design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant district-specific design objectives of ECDC Chapters 20.12 and 20.13. Staff recommends that the ADB conduct the following after the public comment portion of the Phase 1 public hearing: 1. Consider all applicable design guidelines and standards referenced in this report and complete the design guidelines checklist in Attachment 4, prioritizing all applicable design guidelines and objectives. 2. Request that the applicant address the following as part of the submittal for Phase 2 of the hearing: a. Update the site plan to show open space consistent with ECDC 16.43.030.E. b. Update the designated ground floor street front area at 5th Avenue to show the required 45-foot depth of commercial uses. c. Provide height calculations to verify the proposal’s consistency with the maximum building height requirements for the BD3 zone. d. Respond to the design guideline checklist. e. Respond to the Fire and Public Works/Engineering comments in Attachment 10. f. Respond to the public comments received to date. 3. Continue the public hearing to a date certain for Phase 2 of the public hearing process, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 meeting date. May 5 or June 2 is recommended to allow sufficient time for the applicant to respond and for staff to evaluate the response and prepare the for the next portion of the hearing. 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 PLN2020-0053 – Phase I Page 8 of 8 VIII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds Applicant Jacob at Design Collaborative Persons who submitted written comments Ed Lorah (Parkview Twin HOA) Paul McCulloh IX. INTERESTED PARTIES N/A X. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant’s Cover Letter 3. Preliminary Project Plans (Phase 1) 4. Design Guideline Checklist 5. ECDC 16.43: BD – Downtown Business 6. ECDC 22.43: Design Standards for the BD Zones 7. Comprehensive Plan Excerpt Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center 8. SEPA Checklist and Determination of Nonsignificance 9. Public Notice Materials for Phase 1 10. Departmental technical comments 11. Ed Lorah comment 12. Paul McCulloh comment 13. Traffic impact analysis 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) City of Edmonds Land Use Application Revised on 8/22/12 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of 1  ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT  CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT  HOME OCCUPATION  FORMAL SUBDIVISION  SHORT SUBDIVISION  LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT  PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT  OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT  STREET VACATION  REZONE  SHORELINE PERMIT  VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION  OTHER: ● PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD ● PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL______________________________________________ FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # _________________________________________ SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL ____________________________________________________ FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to 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 information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Property Owner’s Authorization I, _____________________________________________, certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. FILE # ZONE DATE REC’D BY FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE  HE  STAFF  PB  ADB  CC FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY X 614-616 5TH AVENUE S PINE PARK 614 BK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC 206.673.4543 557 ROY STREET #125, SEATTLE, WA 98109 ABUKOWSKI@BAYEQ.COM N/A 270326-001-009-00 + 270326-001-029-00 26 27 3E CONSTRUCT (3) BUILDINGS CONTAINING A TOTAL OF (8) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES AND (6) LIVE/WORK TOWNHOUSES, PER PLANS. RECONFIGURE PROPERTY LINES VIA BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT. EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED. SEE ATTACHED COVER LETTER AND DESIGN DRAWINGS. JACOB YOUNG 206.535.7908 10 DRAVUS STREET, SEATTLE, WA 98109 JYOUNG@COLLABORATIVECO.COM N/A SAME AS APPLICANT. 12.07.2020 12/7/2020 Augustus Bukowski 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) INFO (AT) COLLABORATIVECO.COM 206.235.7908 WE ARE FAMILY DESIGNING INSPIRED SPACE TO CREATE COMMUNITY 1 Pine Park 614 Design Narrative December 11, 2020 To whom it may concern, This letter is provided to explain, in narrative form, the compliance of the design standards for the proposed project located at 614-616 5th avenue S. in Edmonds. The development will consist of (3) buildings containing (6) live/work townhouses and (8) residential townhouses. The (6) live/work units will be split into (2) street facing buildings along 5th Avenue S. and the (8) residential townhouses will be located behind the live/work buildings facing west. The street facing buildings have been designed in accordance with the design standards for the BD zones as stated in Chapter 22.43 of the Edmonds City Code. The building has been designed with a distinct base and top. The base is proposed to be a medium toned brick with alternating brick patters at the plinth level to distiguish the columns between units. The top is adorned with a pattern of fiber cement panels and trim and metal windows that echo historic patterns. The top edge is finished with projected decorative cornices to create a deep shadow line. The building frontage takes advantage of 9’ tall glass doors and windows with metal canopies that provide a distinct and visually prominent entrance to each unit. The frontage will be adorned with decorative lighting, medallions, bulkheads at storefront windows, projecting sills and planter boxes to enhance the street presence and reinforce the character of the surrounding buildings. The character of these buildings will be defined by their refined material pallette of black metal, charcoal detailing and brick. These combination of these materials will provide a rich experience for pedestrians and occupants and we hope will be a treasured addition to downtown Edmonds. Sincerely, Citizen Design ARCHITECTURAL FEASIBILITY AGREEMENT Attachment 2 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) ℄ 5TH AVENUE S℄ HOMELAND DRIVE 30'-0"HALFROW 18'-0" ALLEY517-519 4TH AVENUE SPARKVIEW TWIN CONDOAPN: 006493-0010PRIVATE ROAD APN: 270326-001-023-00 622 5TH AVENUE S APN: 004096-002-012-00 130± FT ⅊ (E) NEIGHBORING BUILDING610 5TH AVENUE SAPN: 270326-001-008-00 61'±BUILDING A:(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.3'±AGLA: 1735± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 500± SF (EA)61'±30'±10'±BUILDING (ABOVE)20.3'± (TYP)15'-0" REAR STBK BUILDING B:(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.4'±AGLA: 1220± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 600± SF (EA)30'±20.3'± (TYP)24'-0"BACKINGDISTANCE5'-6"L'SCAPEAREARELOCATE ⅊ VIA LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT58'-6"24'-0"BACKINGDISTANCE61'-6"A1.21A1.22A1.21A1.22A1.23A1.23EG/FG = 76.6'±EG/FG = 82.7'±30'-0" REQ'D COMM. USES A1.24A1.2416.5'± (TYP)BUILDING (ABOVE)BUILDING C:(8) 3-STORY TH (INC. BSMT)FOOTPRINT AREA: 3960± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 78.3'±AGLA: 990± SF (EA)GARAGE/BSMT: 495± SF (EA)132'±30'±SCALE:NA1.111" = 10'CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANSCALE:A1.1CONCEPTUALSITE PLANAS NOTEDDHFHPEHU 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCLW\ RI EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION05 101" = 10'20PROJECT DIRECTORYOWNER AND DEVELOPERARCHITECT  APPLICANTCITIZEN DESIGN10 DRAVUS STREETSEATTLE, WA 98109CONTACT: JACOB YOUNGTEL: 206.853.8055EMAIL: JYOUNG@COLLABORATIVECO.COMPROJECT INFO.614-616 5TH AVENUE SEDMONDS, WA 98020PARCEL MAP NUMBERSPARCEL A: 270326-001-009-00PARCEL B: 270326-001-029-00SITE ADDRESSJURISDICTIONEDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONSEATTLE LUXURY HOMES557 ROY STREET #125SEATTLE, WA 98109LOT AREA AND ZONINGLOT AREA: 0.39 AC (17,160± SF) TOTALZONING: BD3CONSTRUCT (3) BUILDINGS CONTAING (6) LIVE/WORKTOWNHOUSES AND (8) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES,PER PLANS AND AS FOLLOWS:·(3) LIVE/WORK TOWNHOUSES TO EACH CONTAIN 1735± SFAGLA, 500± SF WORK SUITE AND (2) COVERED,UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES.·(3) LIVE/WORK TOWNHOUSES TO EACH CONTAIN 1220± SFAGLA, 600± SF WORK SUITE AND (2) COVERED,UNENCLOSED PARKING SPACES.·(8) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES TO EACH CONTAIN 990± SFAGLA AND 495± SF GARAGE.RECONFIGURE (E) BOUNDARY LINE VIA BOUNDARY LINEADJUSTMENT.(E) STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED.ESTABLISH USES AND OCCUPY, PER PLANS.SCOPE OF WORKLEGAL DESCRIPTIONPARCEL A:SEC 26 TWP 27 RGE 03RT-5) N 55 FT FDT BAAP 30 FT W & 123FT S OF NE COR S 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 TH RUN W 130 FT TH S132 FT TH E 130 FT TH N 123 FT TO PUB SUBJ ESE PUDPARCEL B:SEC 26 TWP 27 RGE 03 BAAP 30 FT W & 132 FT S OF NE CORS 1/2 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 TH RUN W 130 FT THE S 132 FT THE 130 FT TH N 132 FT TPB LESS N 55 FT THOF SUBJ ESE PUDIF ANYCIVIL ENGINEER  SURVEYORSTRUCTURAL ENGINEERTBDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTTBDGENERAL CONTRACTORTBD.PROJECT SITE614-614 5TH AVE SHIGHWAY 1043RD AVE S5TH AVE S HOWELL WAYPINE STWALNUT STHOMELAND WAYNTSVICINITY MAPDAVIDO CONSULTING GROUP15029 BOTHELL WAY NE #600LAKE FOREST PARK, WA 98155CONTACT: TIM GABELEIN, PETEL: 206.523.0024EMAIL: TIM@DCGENGR.COMDRAWING INDEXA1.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANA1.2 CONCEPTUAL SITE SECTIONSA1.3 VICINITY MAPA2.1 BUILDINGS A&B FLOOR PLANSA2.2 BUILDING C FLOOR PLANSA3.1 RENDERINGSA3.2 CHARACTER STUDYC01 CONCEPTUAL GRADINGAND UTILITY PLAN1 OF 1 SURVEYAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 65Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 708090100BUILDING A AVG GRADE: 83.3'±BUILDING A HT LIMIT: 113.3'±12'-0" 9'-0"9'-0" 8'-6"9'-6"9'-0"BUILDING ABUILDING C⅊⅊℄COMM. FFE: 83.0'±FFE: 95.0'±FFE: 104.0'±FFE: 74.0'±BUILDING C AVG GRADE: 76.0'±BUILDING C HT LIMIT: 106.0'±110FFE: 82.5'±FFE: 92.0'±ROOF: 101.0'±7090100BUILDING B AVG GRADE: 83.4'±BUILDING B HT LIMIT: 113.4'±⅊⅊℄PHASE 1C AVG GRADE: 76.0'±PHASE 1C HT LIMIT: 106.0'±12'-0"8'-6"8'-6"BUILDING BCOMM. FFE: 84.4'±FFE: 96.4'±FFE: 104.9'±801108'-6"9'-6"9'-0"BUILDING CFFE: 74.0'±FFE: 82.5'±FFE: 92.0'±ROOF: 101.0'±708090100110BUILDING A AVG GRADE: 83.3'±BUILDING A HT LIMIT: 113.3'±⅊⅊BUILDING B AVG GRADE: 83.4'±BUILDING B HT LIMIT: 113.4'±12'-0"9'-0"9'-0"BUILDING ALINE OF COMMERCIALFLOORBUILDING B8'-6"8'-6"12'-0"COMM. FFE: 83.0'±FFE: 95.0'±FFE: 104.0'±COMM. FFE: 84.4'±FFE: 96.4'±FFE: 104.9'±7090100BUILDING C AVG GRADE: 76.0'±BUILDING C HT LIMIT: 106.0'±⅊⅊FFE: 82.5'±80FFE: 92.0'±ROOF: 101.0'±BUILDING CFFE: 74.0'±8'-6"9'-6"9'-0"SCALE:A1.2CONCEPTUALSITE SECTIONSAS NOTEDDHFHPEHU 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCLW\ RI EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION010 201" = 20'40SCALE:A1.211" = 20'LONGITUDINAL SECTIONSCALE:A1.221" = 20'LONGITUDINAL SECTIONSCALE:A1.231" = 20'TRANSVERSE SECTIONSCALE:A1.241" = 20'TRANSVERSE SECTIONAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 66Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A1.3VICINITY MAPAS NOTEDDHFHPEHU 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCLW\ RI EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A1.31N/AVICINITY MAPAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 67Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 30'-0"10'-9 1/2"9'-3"20'-4"20'-4"40'-0"12'-1 1/4"5'-0"12'-8 3/4"11'-4 1/2"14'-7"5'-9"7'-0"61'-0"14'-7"5'-9"14'-7"5'-9"20'-4"40'-0"20'-4"30'-0"61'-0"20'-4"30'-0" 20'-6 1/2"9'-5 1/2"6'-6"14'-1 1/2"61'-0"3'-6" 3'-6" 3'-6"20'-4"30'-0" 12'-0"8'-0"10'-0"13'-3 1/2"7'-0 1/2"61'-0"13'-3 1/2"PHASE 1B:(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.4'±AGLA: 1220± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 602± SF (EA)PHASE 1A (ELEVATOR):(3) 3-STORY LIVE/WORK THFOOTPRINT AREA: 1830± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 83.3'±AGLA: 1735± SF (EA)WORK SUITE: 500± SF (EA)SCALE:NA2.111/8" = 1'-0"BUILDING A FLOOR PLANSSCALE:A2.1FLOOR PLANSAS NOTEDDHFHPEHU 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCLW\ RI EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:NA2.121/8" = 1'-0"BUILDING B FLOOR PLANSAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 68Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 16'-5 1/2"30'-0"18'-5 1/2"11'-6 1/2"131'-8"PHASE 1C:(8) 3-STORY TH (INC. BSMT)FOOTPRINT AREA: 3960± SFAVG (E) GRADE: 78.3'±AGLA: 1320± SF (EA)GARAGE/BSMT: 495± SF (EA)(8) 2 BEDROOM UNITS16'-5 1/2"40'-0"29'-6 1/2"10'-5 1/2"7'-0"9'-5 1/2"131'-8"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"16'-5 1/2"40'-0"14'-7"5'-3 1/2"6'-2"13'-1"10'-5"11'-9 1/2"131'-8 1/2"16'-5 1/2"SCALE:NA2.211/8" = 1'-0"BUILDING C FLOOR PLANSSCALE:A2.2FLOOR PLANSAS NOTEDDHFHPEHU 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCLW\ RI EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Attachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 69Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A3.1RENDERINGSAS NOTEDDecember 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCity of EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A3.15NTSBUILDINGS A & B VIEWED FROM NORTHEASTSCALE:A3.16NTSBUILDINGS A & B VIEWED FROM EASTSCALE:A3.13NTSBUILDING A VIEWED FROM EASTSCALE:A3.14NTSPROJECT VIEWED FROM SOUTHSCALE:A3.12NTSPROJECT VIEWED FROM SOUTHSCALE:A3.11NTSBUILDING C VIEWED FROM WESTAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 70Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) SCALE:A3.2CHARACTERSTUDYAS NOTEDDHFHPEHU 10, 2020DESIGN REVIEWCLW\ RI EDMONDSFOR PLANNING DEPT USE ONLYPINE PARK 614 614-616 5TH AVENUE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NEW CONSTRUCTION NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSCALE:A3.21NTSCHARACTER STUDYAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 71Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 4TH AVENUE 100986.94SDMH101085.68SSMH101184.39CB101284.79CB101384.31SSMH101784.18CB124569.68SDMH124669.29CB134482.22CB138069.54CB138162.60CB146772.98CB151662.75SSMH152767.21CBS0°00'14"W 20.00' S0°00'26"W 152.00'N89°54'04"W130.00'S0°00'26"W 132.00'PARCEL ATO ROIC WA S N I NG T O N , L L C , A D E L AW A R E LI M I T E D L I A B IL I T Y CO M P A NY A N D F I R S T A M E R IC A N T IT L E INSURANCE C O MP A N Y : THIS IS TO C E R T I FY T H AT T H I S M A P OR P L AT A N D T H E SU R V E Y O N WH I C H I T I S B AS E D WE R E MA D E I N ACCORDANC E W IT H T H E 2 0 1 1 M I N I M UM S T AN D A RD D E T AI L R E QU I R EM E N T S F O R AL T A / A CS M L AN D T I TL E SURVEYS, JO I N T LY E S TA B L I S HE D A ND A D OP T E D BY A L TA A N D N S P S , A N D I NC L U DE S I T EM S 2 , 3 , 4 , , 5 6(A)(B), 7(A)( B 1 ) ( C ), 8 - 1 0, 1 1 ( A ) (B ) , 1 6 - 1 9 A ND 2 0 OF T A B LE A T HE R E OF . THE FIELD W O R K W A S CO M P LE T E D ON F E BR U A R Y 2 5 , 2 01 5 . DATE OF PLA T O R M A P : __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . ___________ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ DAVID R FUL T O N , P L S C E R TI F I C A TE N U MB E R 32 4 2 9N89°54'04"W131.37'ONE STORY BUILDING614 5TH AVE. S.2 STORY CONC. BLOCK BUILDING616 5TH AVE. S.8" CONCRETE WALL55'19'FFE=84.05'66'30'FFE=85.26' MAINFFE=76.59' ALLEYONE BALLARD LLC610 5TH AVE SFOURTH STREET APARTMENTS LLC531 4TH AVE SPK REAL PROPERTY LLC622 5TH AVE SPARK PLACE EDMONDS, A CONDO400 HOWELL WAYPARKVIEW TWIN, A CONDOMINIUM517 4TH AVE SCONC. WALKASPHALT PARKINGGRASSASPHALTASPHALT ALLEYCONC WALK SDMH RIM =86.9418" CON S IE=86.3418" CONC N IE=82.14SSMH RIM=85.68CTR CHANN IE=80.48CB RIM =84.398" PVC W IE=82.89CB RIM =84.798" PVC W IE=82.89CB RIM =82.2210" CON W IE=80.424" CONC E IE=80.62CB RIM =84.188" PVC W IE=82.686" PVC N IE=82.78SSMH RIM =69.68CTR CHANN=63.08CB RIM =69.296" CON N IE=67.04CB RIM =69.546" CON S IE=67.84CB RIM =62.6010" CONC N IE=60.6010" CONC E IE=60.70SSMH RIM =62.75CTR CHANN=57.70CB RIM =72.984" PVC W IE=72.184" PVC N IE=72.18POSTBENCHEASEMENT 7603100239SEE EXCEPTION 4OVERLAP S89°54'04"E261.37'S89°54'04"E38.63'S0°00'26"W20.00'N89°54'04"W38.63'NOTE:LEGAL DESCRIPTION OVERLAPSINTO RIGHT OF WAY OF 4TH STREET80 85 7570 6583 84 8474 75 80 82 80848586X82.1X73.85TH AVENUE S SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTUTWWWWWWWWWSDWWSDSDSDSDSDPERF PERF PERF PERF PERF PERF PERF SDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDCOMMCOMMCOMMCOMMUGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD UGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGP UGP UGP UGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUGPUTUTPHASE 1CGARAGE FF 74.00LEVEL 1 FF 83.90PHASE 1ALEVEL 1 FF 83.00PHASE 1BLEVEL 1 FF 84.40CAD FILE NUMBER: P:\CLIENTS-CIVIL\KURTH JOHNATHAN\614 5TH AVE S PINE PARK EDMONDS\DWG\DRAWING\614 5TH AVE S EDMONDS_CONCEPTUAL CIVIL PLAN_20.DWGLAST MODIFIED BY: JEREMY - SAVE DATE: 12/9/2020 3:38 PM - SHEET SET: XXXX - ORIGINAL SHEET SIZE: ANSI FULL BLEED D (34.00 X 22.00 INCHES)AUTOCAD VERSION: CIVIL 3D 2013 C011CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN SCALE IN FEET402001020ABBREVIATIONS:BLDG = BUILDINGBM = BENCHMARKBOTS = BOTTOM OF STEP(S)CB = CATCH BASINCL = CENTERLINECW = CONCRETE WALKDRN = FOOTING DRAINEG = EXISTING GRADEEL = ELEVATIONELEV = ELEVATIONESMT = EASEMENTEX = EXISTINGFF = FINISHED FLOORFG = FINISHED GRADEFL = FLOW LINEG = GASHMA = HOT MIX ASPHALTID = INNER DIAMETERIE = INVERT ELEVATIONLF = LINEAL FEETLS = LAND SURVEYOROHP = OVERHEAD POWERPL = PROPERTY LINEPVI = POINT OF VERTICALINTERSECTIONROW = RIGHT OF WAYSD = STORM DRAINSDCO = STORM DRAIN CLEANOUTSDFM = STORM DRAIN FORCEMAINSDMH = STORM DRAIN MANHOLESS = SANITARY SEWERSSMH = SANITARY SEWERMANHOLESSS = SANITARY SIDE SEWERSSSCO = SANITARY SIDE SEWERCLEANOUTTOC = TOP OF CURBTOPS = TOP OF STEP(S)TYP = TYPICALW = WATERWDF = WOOD FENCECONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'15029 Bothell Way NE Suite 600 Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 P: 206.523.0024 F: 206.523.1012 www.dcgengr.com OWNER: PROJECT:DATE:DESIGNED BY:PROJ. MANAGER:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:REV. SHEETOFSHEET NUMBER7654321ABCDEFGHIJK7654321BCDEGHIKAFJBYNo. DATE REVISION TM LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL" & THE RELATED ACRONYM, & THE LEGACY LEED AP LOGO ARE TRADEMARKS OWNED BY THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL & ARE AWARDED TO INDIVIDUALS UNDER LICENSE BY THE GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION INSTITUTE.88BK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC 577 ROY ST, SUITE 125 SEATTLE, WA 98109 614 5TH AVE S (PINE PARK) EDMONDS, WA BIJVRBBIAS SHOWN12/9/2020A21 03/25/2016 TG REVISIONS PER CITY'S ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 3/11/2016 2 04/25/2016 TG REVISIONS PER CITY'S ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 4/13/2016APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTIONCITY OF EDMONDSDATE:____________________CITY ENGINEERING DIVISIONBY:______________________PROFESSIONALENGINEERREGISTERED54904 STA T E OFWASHINGTONIB E N J AMNJDIDI.NS541236789101112KEY NOTES:KEYNOTEDETAIL/SHEETREM EX UGP FROM SNOPUD VAULT-CONNECT TO EX PRIMARY POWER-PROPOSED BURIED PHONE LINE-PROPOSED TRANSFORMER-NEW WATER SERVICE TO BLDG-REUSE EX WATER METER ANDSERVICE IF SIZED APPROPRIATELY-NEW WATER SERVICECONNECTION TO MAIN-NEW WATER METER-NEW SEWER CONNECTION TO MAIN-NEW FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONTO MAIN-CONFIRM STORM LOCATION ANDREMOVE OR RELOCATE ASNECESSARY-TAX PARCEL BOUNDARY-REUSE EX WATER SERVICE IFSIZED APPROPRIATELY-THE TWO TAX PARCELS WITHIN"PARCEL A", (A SINGLE LOT) TO BECONSOLODATED AS PART OF THISPROJECT-PROPOSED CB-50'L x 15'W INFILTRATION FACILITY(1.0' DEEP) PROVIDING 100%INFILTRATION OF PHASE 1C ROOFRUNOFF-39.5'L x 19'W INFILTRATIONFACILITY (1.0' DEEP) PROVIDING100% INFILTRATION OF PHASE 1A &1B ROOF RUNOFF-CONNECT TO EX CB-PROPOSED SSSCO-NEW FIRE SERVICE METER-REMOVE EX DRIVEWAY APPROACH& REPLACE WITH SIDEWALK ANDCURB & GUTTER-PROPOSED CURB WALL-PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN-NEW FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONTO BLDG-REMOVE ALL EX TREES ON-SITE(TYP)-ROOF RUNOFF TO ROUTE TOINFILTRATION FACILITY-PROPOSED SDCO-6" PERFORATED PVC LAID FLAT(TYP)-6" SD @ 2.00% MIN (TYP)-EMERGENCY OVERFLOW FROMINFILTRATION FACILITY TOCONNECT TO STORM SYSTEM INALLEY-1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829301314LEGEND:CONCRETEASPHALT ROADWAYLANDSCAPEPERMEABLE PAVEMENTSURFACINGINFILTRATION FACILITYGENERAL NOTES:1. ALL STORMWATER TO BE INFILTRATED ON-SITE. WATERQUALITY TREATMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY NATIVE SOILSMEETING SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL SUITABILITYPROPERTIES FOR TREATMENT OR ENGINEERED SOILS LAYERIN ACCORDANCE WITH SSC-6 VOLUME III, CHAPTER 3, SECTION3.3.7 OF THE 2014 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FORWESTERN WASHINGTON.2. ALL UNITS WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH A NFPA 13DFLOW-THROUGH FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM.151515161718191910102081020102010212223242424251326262612727272715282829303015PRELIMINARYAttachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 72Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Attachment 3PLN2020-00532.A.1.iPacket Pg. 73Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 1 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Applying the Design Guidelines When designing projects and issuing permits for new developments, applicants and City staff will rely on these guidelines to help define specific design conditions that will be required for project approval. As these design guidelines get applied to particular development projects, some important things to remember are: 1. Each project is unique and will pose unique design issues. Even two similar proposals on the same block may face different design considerations. With some projects, trying to follow all of the guidelines could produce irreconcilable conflicts in the design. With most projects, reviewers will find some guidelines more important than others, and the guidelines that are most important on one project might not be important at all on the next one. The design review process will help designers and reviewers to determine which guidelines are most important in the context of each project so that they may put the most effort into accomplishing the intent of those guidelines. 2. Project must be reviewed in the context of their zoning and the zoning of their surroundings. The use of design guidelines is not intended to change the zoning designations of land where projects are proposed; it is intended to demonstrate methods of treating the appearance of new projects to help them fit their neighborhoods and to provide the Code flexibility necessary to accomplish that. Where the surrounding neighborhood exhibits a lower development intensity than is current zoning allow, the lower-intensity character should not force a proponent to significantly reduce the allowable size of the new building. 3. Many of the guidelines suggest using the existing context to determine appropriate solutions for the project under consideration. In some areas, the existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, the new project should be recognized as a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In light of number 2 above, the site’s zoning should be considered an indicator of the desired direction for the area and the project. 4. Each guideline includes examples and illustrations of ways in which that guidelines can be achieved. The examples are just that – examples. They are not the only acceptable solution. Designers and reviewers should consider designs, styles and techniques not described in the examples but that fulfill the guideline. 5. The checklist which follows the guidelines (Checklist) is a tool for determining whether or not a particular guideline applies to a site, so that the guidelines may be more easily prioritized. The checklist is neither a regulatory device, nor a substitute for evaluating a sites conditions, or to summarize the language of examples found in the guidelines themselves. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 2 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Considering the Site Edmond’s Land Use Code sets specific, prescriptive rules that are applied uniformly for each land use zone throughout the city. There is little room in the Code’s development standards to account for unique site conditions or neighborhood contexts. A project architect can read the Code requirements and theoretically design a building without ever visiting the site. However, to produce good compatible design, it is critical that the project’s design team examine the site and its surrounding, identify the key design features and determine how the proposed project can address the guidelines’ objectives. Because they rely on the project’s context to help shape the project, the guidelines encourage an active viewing of the site and its surroundings. For a proposal located on a street with a consistent and distinctive architectural character, the architectural elements of the building may be key to helping the building fit the neighborhood. On other sites with few attractive neighboring buildings, the placement of open space and treatment of pedestrian areas may be the most important concerns. The applicant and the project reviewers should consider the following questions and similar ones related to context when looking at the site: ƒ What are the key aspects of the streetscape? (The street’s layout and visual character) ƒ Are there opportunities to encourage human activity and neighborhood interaction, while promoting residents’ privacy and physical security? ƒ How can vehicle access have the least effect on the pedestrian environment and on the visual quality of the site? ƒ Are there any special site planning opportunities resulting from the site’s configuration, natural features, topography etc.? ƒ What are the most important contextual concerns for pedestrians? How could the sidewalk environment be improved? ƒ Does the street have characteristic landscape features, plant materials, that could be incorporated into the design? ƒ Are there any special landscaping opportunities such as steep topography, significant trees, greenbelt, natural area, park or boulevard that should be addressed in the design? ƒ Do neighboring buildings have distinctive architectural style, site configuration, architectural concept? Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 3 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Design Guidelines Checklist This checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines. It is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. A. Site Planning N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics ‰ ‰ ‰ 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics ‰ ‰ ‰ 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street ‰ ‰ ‰ 4. Encourage human activity on street ‰ ‰ ‰ 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites ‰ ‰ ‰ 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) ‰ ‰ ‰ 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects) ‰ ‰ ‰ 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property ‰ ‰ ‰ 9. Discourage parking in street front ‰ ‰ ‰ 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) ‰ ‰ ‰ B. Bulk and Scale N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less- intensive zones ‰ ‰ ‰ Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 4 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 C. Architectural Elements and Materials N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures ‰ ‰ ‰ 2. Unified architectural concept ‰ ‰ ‰ 3. Use human scale and human activity ‰ ‰ ‰ 4. Use durable, attractive and well-detailed finish materials ‰ ‰ ‰ 5. Minimize garage entrances ‰ ‰ ‰ D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry ‰ ‰ ‰ 2. Avoid blank walls ‰ ‰ ‰ 3. Minimize height of retaining walls ‰ ‰ ‰ 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas ‰ ‰ ‰ 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures ‰ ‰ ‰ 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas ‰ ‰ ‰ 7. Consider personal safety ‰ ‰ ‰ E. Landscaping N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood ‰ ‰ ‰ 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site ‰ ‰ ‰ 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions ‰ ‰ ‰ Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 5 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 A-1: Responding to Site Characteristics The siting of buildings should respond to specific site conditions and opportunities such as non-rectangular lots, location on prominent intersections, unusual topography, significant vegetation and other natural features. Explanations and Examples Site characteristics to consider in project design include: 1) Topography • Reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. For instance, buildings should be designed to "step up" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. • Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions in their sites in a consistent and positive way, consider similar treatment for the new structure. • Designing the building in relation to topography may help to reduce the visibility of parking garages. 2) Environmental constraints • Site buildings to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. 3) Solar orientation • The design of a structure and its massing on the site can enhance solar exposure for the project and minimize shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. 4) Existing vegetation • Careful siting of buildings can enable significant or important trees or other vegetation to be preserved. 5) Existing structures on the site • Where a new structure shares a site with an existing structure or is a major addition to an existing structure, designing the new structure to be compatible with the original structure will help it fit in. A-2: Streetscape Compatibility The siting of buildings should acknowledge and reinforce the existing desirable spatial characteristics of the right-of-way. Explanation and Examples The character of a neighborhood is often defined by the experience of traveling along its streets. We often perceive streets within neighborhoods as individual spaces or "rooms." How buildings face and are set back from the street determine the character and proportion of this room. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 6 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 A-3: Entrances Visible from the Street Entries should be clearly identifiable and visible from the street. Explanation and Examples Entries that are visible from the street make a project more approachable and create a sense of association among neighbors. A-4: Human Activity New development should be sited and designed to encourage human activity on the street. Explanation and Examples Livelier street edges make for safer streets. Ground floor shops and market spaces providing services needed by residents can attract market activity to the street and increase safety through informal surveillance. Entrances, porches, awnings, balconies, decks, seating and other elements can promote use of the street front and provide places for neighborly interaction. Siting decisions should consider the importance of these features in a particular context and allow for their incorporation. Also, architectural elements and details can add to the interest and excitement of buildings and spaces. Elements from the following list should be incorporated into all projects. Projects in pedestrian oriented areas of the City should include an even greater number of these details due to the scale of the buildings and the proximity of the people that will experience them. ƒ Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets ƒ Belt courses ƒ Plinths for columns ƒ Kickplate for storefront window ƒ Projecting sills ƒ Tilework ƒ Transom or clerestory windows ƒ Planter box ƒ Variations in applied ornament, materials, colors or trim. ƒ An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 7 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 In pedestrian oriented areas, ground floor commercial space is encouraged to be at grade with the sidewalk. If the entrance can not be located at the grade of the sidewalk, special care must be taken to ensure that there is both a visual and physical connection between the pedestrian way and the entrance that enhances the pedestrian orientation of the building. The ground level façades of buildings that are oriented to street fronts in the CW, BC, BN, and BP zones shall have transparent windows to engage the public. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the façade shall comply with the guidelines under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. In the Downtown Commercial Core The ground level façades of buildings that are oriented to streets should have a substantial amount of transparent windows, especially in the retail core. A primary function of the pedestrian oriented retail core is to allow for the visual interaction between the walking public and the goods and services businesses located on the first floor are providing. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the façade shall comply with the guidelines under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. Buildings that are entirely residential do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all-residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the guidelines under the section ‘Treating Blank Walls’. That portion of Ground level spaces that opens up to the sidewalk through means of sliding or roll up doors shall be considered to comply with any transparency requirements regardless of the amount of glass in the opening. Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. They may be structural (permanently attached to and part of the building) or non-structural (attached to the building using a metal or other framework). To enhance the visibility of business signage retractable awnings are encouraged and should be open-sided. Front valances are permitted and signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. Marquee, box, or convex awning shapes are not permitted. Awnings should be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings should also be hung just below a clerestory or “transom” Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 8 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 window, if it exists. Awnings on a multiple-storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high- gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Structural Awnings should be designed to incorporate natural light. Artificial lighting should only be used at night. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail is consistent with the design elements mentioned above that enhance the interest of the area. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Signage in the “Arts Center Corridor” defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places A-5: Respect for Adjacent Sites Buildings should respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings. Explanation and Examples One consideration is the views from upper stories of new buildings into adjacent houses or yards, especially in less intensive zones. This problem can be addressed in several ways. ƒ Reduce the number of windows and decks on the proposed building overlooking the neighbors. ƒ Step back the upper floors or increase the side or rear setback so that window areas are farther from the property line. ƒ Take advantage of site design which might reduce impacts, for example by using adjacent ground floor area for an entry court. ƒ Minimize windows to living spaces which might infringe on the privacy of adjacent residents, but consider comfort of residents in the new building. ƒ Stagger windows to not align with adjacent windows. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 9 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 A-6: Transition Between Residence and Street For residential projects, the space between the building and the sidewalk should provide security and privacy for residents and encourage social interaction among residents and neighbors. Explanation and Examples The transition between a residential building and the street varies with the depth of the front setback and the relative elevation of the building to the street. A-7: Residential Open Space Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well-integrated open space. Examples and Explanations Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site planning elements: ƒ Courtyards which organize architectural elements, while providing a common garden or other uses. ƒ Entry enhancement such as landscaping along a common pathway. A-8: Parking and Vehicle Access Siting should minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties and pedestrian safety. Explanation and Examples Techniques used to minimize the impacts of driveways and parking lots include: ƒ Locate surface parking at rear or side lots. ƒ Break large parking lots into smaller ones. ƒ Minimize number and width of driveways and curb cuts. ƒ Share driveways with adjacent property owners. ƒ Locate parking in lower level or less visible portions of site. ƒ Locate driveways so they are visually less dominant. Access should be provided in the following order of priority: i) If there is an alley, vehicular access should use the alley. Where feasible, the exit route should use the alley. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 10 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 ii) For corner parcels, access should be off the secondary street rather than the primary street. iii) Share the driveway with an adjacent property. This can be a driveway with two-way traffic. iv) A driveway serving a single project is the least preferred option. Drive-through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., should comply with the following: i) Drive-through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. ii) Drive-through speakers shall not be audible off-site. iii) The entrance and exit from the drive-through shall be internal to the site, not a separate entrance and/or exit to or from the street. A-9: Location of Parking on Commercial Street Fronts Parking on a commercial street front should be minimized and where possible should be located behind a building. Explanation and Examples Parking located along a commercial street front where pedestrian traffic is desirable lessens the attractiveness of the area to pedestrians and compromises the safety of pedestrians along the street. A-10: Corner Lots Building on corner lots should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. Parking and automobile access should be located away from corners. Explanation and Examples Corner lots offer unique opportunities because of their visibility and access from two streets. (above and below) Corner lot treatments. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 11 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 B-1: Bulk, and Scale Compatibility Projects should be compatible with the scale of development anticipated by the applicable Land Use Policies for the surrounding area and should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to near-by, less intensive zones. Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived bulk, and scale between anticipated development potential of the adjacent zones. Explanation and Examples For projects undergoing Design Review, the analysis and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts will be accomplished through the Design Review process. Careful siting and design treatment based on the technique described in this and other design guidelines will help to mitigate some bulk and scale impacts; in other cases, actual reduction in the bulk and scale of a project may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts. Design Review should not result in significant reductions in a project's actual bulk and scale. Bulk and scale mitigation may be required in two general circumstances: 1. Projects on or near the edge of a less intensive zone. A substantial incompatibility in scale may result from different development standards in the two zones and may be compounded by physical factors such a s large development sites, slopes or lot orientation. 2. Projects proposed on sites with unusual physical characteristics such as large lot size, or unusual shape, or topography where buildings may appear substantially greater in bulk and scale than that generally anticipated for the area. Factors to consider in analyzing potential bulk and scale impacts include: ƒ distance from the edge of a less intensive zone ƒ differences in development standards between abutting zones (allowable building width, lot coverage, etc.) ƒ effect of site size and shape ƒ bulk and scale relationships resulting from lot orientation (e.g. back lot line to back lot line vs. back lot line to side lot line) ƒ type and amount of separation between lots in the different zones (e.g. separation by only a property line, by an alley or street, or by other physical features such as grade changes). Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 12 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 In some cases, careful siting and design treatment may be sufficient to achieve reasonable transition and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts. Some techniques for achieving compatibility are as follows: ƒ use of architectural style, details (such as roof lines or fenestration), color or materials that derive from the less intensive zone. (See also Guideline C-1: Architectural Context.) ƒ creative use of landscaping or other screening ƒ location of features on-site to facilitate transition, such as locating required open space on the zone edge so the building us farther from the lower intensity zone. ƒ treating topographic conditions in ways that minimize impacts on neighboring development, such as by using a rockery rather than a retaining wall to give a more human scale to a project, or stepping a project down a hillside. ƒ in a mixed-use project, siting the more compatible use near the zone edge. In some cases, reductions in the actual bulk and scale of the proposed structure may be necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts and achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. Some techniques which can be used in these cases include: ƒ articulating the building's facades vertically or horizontally in intervals that conform to existing structures or platting pattern. ƒ increasing building setbacks from the zone edge at ground level ƒ reducing the bulk of the building's upper floors ƒ limiting the length of, or otherwise modifying, facades ƒ reducing the height of the structure ƒ reducing the number or size of accessory structures. C-1: Architectural Context New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Explanation and Examples Paying attention to architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, especially historic buildings, can help new buildings be more compatible with their neighbors, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar: ƒ building articulation ƒ building scale and proportion ƒ or complementary architectural style ƒ or complementary roof forms ƒ building details and fenestration patterns ƒ or complementary materials Even where there is no consistent architectural pattern, building design and massing can be used to complement certain physical conditions of existing development. In some cases, the existing context is not so well-defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a new project can become a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 13 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 In most cases, especially in the downtown commercial area, Buildings shall convey a visually distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Architectural Features Below are several methods that can help integrate new buildings into the surrounding architectural context, using compatible: ƒ architectural features ƒ fenestration patterns, and ƒ building proportions. Building Articulation Below are several methods in which buildings may be articulated to create intervals which reflect and promote compatibility with their surroundings: ƒ modulating the facade by stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade ƒ repeating the window patterns at an interval that equals the articulation interval ƒ providing a porch, patio, deck or covered entry for each interval ƒ providing a balcony or bay window for each interval ƒ changing the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval ƒ changing the materials with a change in the building plane ƒ providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature with each interval C-2: Architectural Concept and Consistency Building design elements, details and massing should create a well-proportioned and unified building form and exhibit an overall architectural concept. Buildings should exhibit form and features identifying the functions within the building. In general, the roofline or top of the structure should be clearly distinguished from its facade walls. Explanation and Examples This guideline focuses on the important design consideration of organizing the many architectural elements of a building into a unified whole, so that details and features can be seen to relate to the structure and not appear as add-ons. The other objective of this guideline is to promote buildings whose form is derived from its function. Buildings which present few or no clues through their design as to what purpose they serve are often awkward architectural neighbors. For example, use of expansive blank walls, extensive use of metal or glass siding, or extremely large or small windows in a residential project may create architectural confusion Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 14 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 or disharmony with its neighbors. Conversely, commercial buildings which overly mimic residential styles might be considered inappropriate in some commercial neighborhoods. Often times, from an architectural design perspective buildings will convey a visually distinct ‘base’ and ‘top’. A ‘base’ can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible ‘plinth’ above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Other architectural features included in the design of a building may include any number of the following: ƒ building modulation or articulation ƒ bay windows ƒ corner accent, such as a turret ƒ garden or courtyard elements (such as a fountain or gazebo) ƒ rooflines ƒ building entries ƒ building base Architectural details may include some of the following: ƒ treatment of masonry (such as ceramic tile inlay, paving stones, or alternating brick patterns) ƒ treatment of siding (such as wood siding combined with shingles to differentiate floors) ƒ articulation of columns ƒ sculpture or art work ƒ architectural lighting ƒ detailed grilles and railings ƒ special trim details and moldings ƒ a trellis or arbor Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 15 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 C-3: Human Scale The design of new buildings should incorporate architectural features, elements and details to achieve a good human scale. Explanation and Examples The term "human scale" generally refers to the use of human-proportioned architectural features and site design elements clearly oriented to human activity. A building has a good human scale if its details, elements and materials allow people to feel comfortable using and approaching it. Features that give a building human scale also encourage human activity. The following are some of the building elements that may be used to achieve better human scale: ƒ pedestrian-oriented open space such as a courtyard, garden, patio, or other unified landscaped areas ƒ bay windows extending out from the building face that reflect an internal space such as a room or alcove ƒ individual windows in upper stories that o are approximately the size and proportion of a traditional window o include a trim or molding that appears substantial from the sidewalk o are separated from adjacent windows by a vertical element ƒ windows grouped together to form larger areas of glazing can have a human scale if individual window units are separated by moldings or jambs ƒ windows with small multiple panes of glass ƒ window patterns, building articulation and other treatments that help to identify individual residential units in a multi-family building ƒ upper story setbacks ƒ a porch or covered entry ƒ pedestrian weather protection in the form of canopies, awnings, arcades or other elements wide enough to protect at least one person ƒ visible chimneys C-4: Exterior Finish Materials Building exteriors should be constructed of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing are encouraged. Explanation and Examples The selection and use of exterior materials is a key ingredient in determining how a building will look. Some materials, by their nature, can give a sense of permanence or can provide texture or scale that helps new buildings fit better in their surroundings. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 16 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Materials typical to the northwest include: ƒ clear or painted wood siding ƒ shingles ƒ brick ƒ stone ƒ ceramic and terra-cotta tile Many other exterior building materials may be appropriate in multifamily and commercial neighborhoods as long as the materials are appropriately detailed and finished, for instance, to take account of the northwest’s climate or be compatible with nearby structures. Some materials, such as mirrored glass, may be more difficult to integrate into residential or neighborhood commercial settings. D-1: Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrance Convenient and attractive access to the building's entry should be provided. To ensure comfort and security, paths and entry areas should be sufficiently lighted and entry areas should be protected from the weather. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian-oriented open space should be considered. Explanation and Examples If a building is set back from the sidewalk, the space between the building and public right-of-way may be conducive to pedestrian or resident activity. In business districts where pedestrian activity is desired, the primary function of any open space between commercial buildings and the sidewalk is to provide visual and physical access into the building and perhaps also to provide a space for additional outdoor activities such as vending, resting, sitting or dining. Street fronts can also feature art work, street furniture and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building's setting. Where a commercial or mixed-use building is set back from the sidewalk a sufficient distance, pedestrian enhancements should be considered in the resulting street front. Examples of desirable features to include: ƒ visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) into the site from the public sidewalk ƒ walking surfaces of attractive pavers ƒ pedestrian-scaled site lighting ƒ areas for vendors in commercial areas ƒ landscaping that screens undesirable elements or that enhances the space and architecture ƒ signage which identifies uses and shops clearly but which is scaled to the pedestrian ƒ site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, benches, pergolas, kiosks, etc. Examples of features to avoid are: ƒ asphalt or gravel pavement ƒ adjacent unscreened parking lots ƒ adjacent chain-link fences Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 17 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 ƒ adjacent blank walls without appropriate screening The following treatment of entrances can provide emphasis and interest: ƒ special detailing or architectural features such as ornamental glazing, railings and balustrades, awnings, canopies, decorative pavement, decorative lighting, seats, architectural molding, planter boxes, trellises, artwork signs, or other elements near the doorway. ƒ visible signage identifying building address ƒ Higher bay(s) ƒ Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) ƒ Forecourt D-2: Blank Walls – See pages 8-9 from guidelines blank walls Buildings should avoid large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. Where blank walls are unavoidable they should receive design treatment to increase pedestrian comfort and interest. Explanation and Examples A wall may be considered "large" if it has a blank surface substantially greater in size than similar walls of neighboring buildings. The following examples are possible methods for treating blank walls: ƒ installing vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plants materials ƒ setting the wall back and providing a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, including plant materials that could grow to obscure or screen the wall's surface ƒ providing art (mosaic, mural, decorative masonry pattern, sculpture, relief, etc.) over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface ƒ employing small setbacks, indentations, or other means of breaking up the wall's surface ƒ providing special lighting, a canopy, horizontal trellis or other pedestrian-oriented features that break up the size of the blank wall's surface and add visual interest ƒ An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent D-3: Retaining Walls Retaining walls near a public sidewalk that extend higher than eye level should be avoided where possible. Where higher retaining walls are unavoidable, they should be designed to reduce their impact on pedestrian comfort and to increase the visual interest along the streetscapes. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 18 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Explanation and Examples The following are examples of methods to treat retaining walls: ƒ any of the techniques or features listed under blank walls above ƒ terracing and landscaping the retaining walls ƒ substituting a stone wall, rockery, modular masonry, or special material ƒ locating hanging plant materials below or above the wall D-4: Design of Parking Lots Near Sidewalks Parking lots near sidewalks should provide adequate security and lighting, avoid encroachment of vehicles onto the sidewalk, and minimize the visual clutter of parking lot signs and equipment. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate some considerations to address in highly visible parking lots: Treatment of parking area perimeter ƒ the edges of parking lots pavement adjacent to landscaped areas and other pavement can be unsightly and difficult to maintain. Providing a curb at the perimeter of parking areas can alleviate these problems. Security lighting ƒ provide the appropriate levels of lighting to create adequate visibility at night. Evenly distributed lighting increases security, and glare-free lighting reduces impacts on nearby property. Encroachment of cars onto the sidewalk ƒ without wheel stops or a low wall, parked cars can hang over sidewalks. One technique to protect landscaped and pedestrian areas from encroachment by parked cars is to provide a wide wheel stop about two feet from the sidewalk. Another technique is to widen a sidewalk or planting bed basically “building in” a wheel stop into the sidewalk or planting bed. This is more durable than wheel stops, does not catch debris and reduces tripping hazards. Signs and equipment ƒ reduce sign clutter by painting markings on the pavement or by consolidating signs. Provide storage that is out of view from the sidewalk and adjacent properties for moveable or temporary equipment like sawhorses or barrels. Screening of parking ƒ screening of parking areas need not be uniform along the property frontage. Variety in the type and relative amount of screening may be appropriate. ƒ screen walls constructed of durable, attractive materials need not extend above waist level. Screen walls across a street or adjacent to a residential zone could also include landscaping or a trellis or grillwork with climbing vines. ƒ screening can be designed to provide clear visibility into parking areas to promote personal safety. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 19 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 D-5: Visual Impacts of Parking Structures The visibility of all at-grade parking structures or accessory parking garages should be minimized. The parking portion of a structure should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the structure and streetscape. Open parking spaces and carports should be screened from the street and adjacent properties. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate various methods of improving the appearance of at-grade parking structures: ƒ incorporating pedestrian-oriented uses at street level can reduce the visual impact of parking structures in commercial areas. Sometimes a depth of only 10 feet along the front of the building is enough to provide space for newsstands, ticket booths, flower shops and other viable uses. ƒ setting the parking structure back from the sidewalk and installing dense landscaping ƒ incorporating any of the blank wall treatments listed in Guideline D-2 ƒ visually integrating the parking structure with adjacent buildings ƒ continuing a frieze, cornice, canopy, overhang, trellis or other devices at the top of the parking level ƒ incorporating into the parking structure a well-lit pedestrian walkway, stairway or ramp from the sidewalk to the upper level of the building ƒ setting back a portion of the parking structure to allow for the retention of an existing significant tree ƒ using a portion of the top of the larking level as an outdoor deck, patio or garden with a rail, bench or other guard device around the perimeter D-6: Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas Building sites should locate service elements like trash dumpsters, loading docks and mechanical equipment away from the street front where possible while maintaining access to utilities. When elements such as dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot be located away from the street front, they should be situated and screened from view and should not be located in the pedestrian right-of-way. Explanation and Examples Unsightly service elements can detract from the compatibility of new projects and create hazards for pedestrians and autos. The following examples illustrate considerations to address in locating and screening service areas and utilities: ƒ plan the feature in a less visible location on the site ƒ screen it to be less visible. For example, a utility meter can be located behind a screen wall so that it is not visible from the building entrance. ƒ use durable materials that complement the building ƒ incorporate landscaping to make the screen more effective ƒ locate the opening to the area away from the sidewalk. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 20 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 ƒ incorporate roof wells, utility rooms or other features to accommodate utility and mechanical equipment needs. D-7: Personal Safety and Security Project design should consider opportunities for enhancing personal safety and security in the environment under review. Explanation and Examples Project design should be reviewed for its contribution to enhancing the real and perceived feeling of personal safety and security within the environment under review. To do this, the question needs to be answered: do the design elements detract from or do they reinforce feelings of security of the residents, workers, shoppers and visitors who enter the area? Techniques that can help promote safety include the following: ƒ providing adequate lighting ƒ retaining clear lines of site ƒ use of semi-transparent security screening, rather than opaque walls, where appropriate ƒ avoiding blank, windowless walls that attract graffiti and that do not permit residents or workers to observe the street ƒ use of landscaping that maintains visibility, such as short shrubs and pruning trees, so there are no branches below head height ƒ creative use of ornamental grille as fencing or over ground floor windows in some locations ƒ absence of structures that provide hiding places for criminal activity ƒ design of parking areas to allow natural surveillance by maintaining clear lines of sight both for those who park there and for occupants of nearby buildings ƒ clear directional signage ƒ encouraging "eyes on the street" through placement of windows, balconies and street-level uses ƒ ensuring natural surveillance of children's play areas. E-1: Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with Adjacent Sites Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of neighboring properties and abutting streetscape. Explanation and Examples Several ways to reinforce the landscape design character of the local neighborhood are listed below: ƒ Street Trees If a street has a uniform planting of street trees, or a distinctive species, plant street trees that match the planting pattern or species. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 21 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 ƒ Similar Plant Materials When many lots on a block feature similar landscape materials, emphasis on these materials will help a new project fit into the local context. ƒ Similar construction materials, textures, colors or elements Extending a low brick wall, using paving similar to a neighbor's or employing similar stairway construction are ways to achieve design continuity. E-2: Landscaping to Enhance the Building and/or Site Landscaping, including living plant material, special pavements, approach, screen walls, planters, site furniture and similar features should be appropriately incorporated into the design to enhance the project. Examples Landscape enhancements of the site may include some of the approaches or features listed below: ƒ Soften the form of the building by screening blank walls, terracing retaining walls, etc. ƒ Increase privacy and security through screening and/or sharing. ƒ Provide a framework such as a trellis or arbor for plants to grow on. ƒ Incorporate a planter guard or low planter wall as part of the architecture. ƒ Distinctively landscape open areas created by building modulation. ƒ Incorporate upper story planter boxes or roof planters. ƒ Include a special feature such as a courtyard, fountain or pool. ƒ Emphasize entries with special planting in conjunction with decorative paving and/or lighting. ƒ Screen a building from view by its neighbors, or an existing use from the new building. E-3: Landscape Design to Address Special Site Conditions The landscape design should take advantage of special on-site conditions such as high-bank front yards, steep slopes, view corridors, or existing significant trees and off-site conditions such as greenbelts, ravines, natural areas, and boulevards. Explanation and Examples The following conditions may merit special attention. The examples suggest some ways to address the issue. High Bank Front Yard Where the building's ground floor is elevated above a sidewalk pedestrian's eye level, landscaping can help make the transition between grades. Several techniques are listed below. ƒ rockeries with floral displays, live ground cover or shrubs. ƒ terraces with floral displays, ground covers or shrubs. ƒ low retaining walls with raised planting strips. ƒ stone or brick masonry walls with vines or shrubs. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 22 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Barrier-free Access Where wheelchair ramps must be provided on a street front, the ramp structure might include a planting strip on the sidewalk side of the elevated portions of the ramp. Steep Topography Special plantings or erosion control measures may be necessary to prevent site destabilization or to enhance the visual qualities of the site in connection with a neighborhood improvement program. Boulevards Incorporate landscaping which reflects and reinforces . Greenbelt or Other Natural Setting ƒ Minimize the removal of significant trees. ƒ Replace trees that were removed with new trees. ƒ Emphasize naturalizing or native landscape materials. ƒ Retain natural greenbelt vegetation that contributes to greenbelt preservation. ƒ Select colors that are more appropriate to the natural setting. On-site Vegetation ƒ Retain significant vegetation where possible. ƒ Use new plantings similar to vegetation removed during construction, when that vegetation as distinctive. Attachment 4 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 1/16 Chapter 16.43 BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000    Purposes. 16.43.010    Subdistricts. 16.43.020    Uses. 16.43.030    Site development standards. 16.43.035    Design standards – BD zones. 16.43.040    Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. The BD zone has the following specic purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, oce, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Dene the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed-use residential and oce areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into ve distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specic aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown WaterfrontAttachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 2/16 Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The ve subdistricts are: BD1 – Downtown Retail Core; BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF(1)BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A A Oces A X A A A A Legal/law rms A X      Financial A X      Advising A X      Mortgage A X      Banks (without tellers)A X      Accounting A X      Counseling A X      Architecture A X      Engineering A X      Advertising A X      Insurance A X      Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/tness club)A X      Service uses A A(2)A A A A Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 3/16 Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF(1)BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A A Automobile sales and service X X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C X A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C X A A A C Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC1 A A A A A A Residential Single-family dwelling A X A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) – must be located on second oor or behind rst 45 feet from sidewalk or rights-of-way A X A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A X A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A A O-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B X B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B X B B B X Commercial parking lots C X C C C X Wholesale uses X X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C C Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 4/16 Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF(1)BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5 Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C X C C C C Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities) X X C A C X Laboratories X X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X X C X X Day-care centers C X C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X X C C A X Medical uses, e.g.,A X      Physicians A X      Dental A X      Optometrist (without retail)A X      Physical therapy (without retail)A X      Counseling A X      Other similar medical services A X      Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as dened in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as dened in ECDC 21.85.033 C X C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D X D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X X D D D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 5/16 X = Not permitted NOTES: (1)    BD1 Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (rst 45 feet measured from public rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as dened under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements. (2)    Services – by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business are not allowed within BD1 GFSF (rst 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate oces, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed. For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. B. Exception to the BD1 GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD1 zone may apply for an exception from the restrictions on oces and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The space is less than 500 square feet; 2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk; 3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and 4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.030 Site development standards. Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 6/16 A. Table 16.43-2. Sub District Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Minimum Street Setback Minimum Side Setback1 Minimum Rear Setback1 Maximum Height2 Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 BD15 0 0 0 0 0 30'15' BD25 0 0 0 0 0 30'12' BD35 0 0 0 0 0 30'12' BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 30'12' BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25'12' 1    The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2    Specic provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 3    Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground oor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground oor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. 4    “Minimum height of ground oor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive nished oor surfaces for that portion of the ground oor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground oor is the only oor above street grade, from the top of the oor nish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor nish” is the exposed oor surface, including coverings applied over a nished oor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl ooring, wall-to- wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground oor height of 15 feet; note that the “nished” ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5    Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specied for the RS- 6 zone. Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 7/16 Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 8/16 B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground oor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. For all BD zones, the ground oor is considered to be that oor of a building which is closest in elevation to the nished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “oor” is considered to be the sum of the oor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the denition of “ground oor” contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. 2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that dene the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD zones. The designated street front is dened as the 45 feet measured perpendicular to the street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. 3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum height of the ground oor specied in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground oor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section. Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 9/16 4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use is located on the ground oor within a designated street front as dened in subsection (B)(2) of this section, the elevation of the ground oor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location. Portions of the ground oor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with the access requirements specied in this section. 5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground oor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specied in subsection (B)(4) of this section, the portion of the ground oor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed so that either: a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground oor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground oor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground oor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The rst choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground oor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground oor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground oor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground oor outside of the designated street front. 8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground oor of a building. One option is to develop the ground oor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground oor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern. Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 10/16 9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground oor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section. When development of the ground oor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e., ground oor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground oor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground oor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 11/16 Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 10. Exceptions and Clarications. The regulations for the ground oor contained in subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarications: a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground oor to meet the specied minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the ground oor requirements for height. d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground oor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the rst 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be located within that 45 feet). e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the rst 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the rst 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodied as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground oor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit for each BD zone is described in Table 16.43-2 (see denition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 12/16 2. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground oor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of dierences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C) (2)(a) of this section, a building step-back shall be provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as dened in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insucient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the secondary street. 3. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specied in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of ve feet above the specied height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than ve percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specied height limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. O-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, O-Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial oor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 13/16 E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least ve percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 14/16 F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. 1. If a certicate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the sta may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of sta shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section. b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section. 2. No o-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC 17.50.070(C). 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is retained on-site, no o-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benet, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 15/16 recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benet exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 4140 § 1, 2019; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3865 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.035 Design standards – BD zones. Design standards for the BD zones are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. O-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 16/16 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 9. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Property Performance Standards. C. Interim Use Status – Public Markets. 1. Unless a public market is identied on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary use, the city council nds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 7, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3902 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3894 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. Attachment 5 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 1/13 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BD ZONES Sections: 22.43.000    Applicability. 22.43.010    Massing and articulation. 22.43.020    Orientation to street. 22.43.030    Ground level details. 22.43.040    Awnings/canopies and signage. 22.43.050    Transparency at street level. 22.43.060    Treating blank walls. 22.43.070    Building HVAC equipment. 22.43.000 Applicability. The design standards in this chapter apply to all development within the BD1, BD2, BD3, and BD4 downtown zones, except for multifamily buildings in the BD4 zone. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.010 Massing and articulation. A. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. B. Standards. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A “base” can be emphasized by a dierent masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 2/13 Buildings should convey a distinct base and top.   The base can be emphasized by dierent material(s). 2. Building facades shall respect and echo historic patterns. Where a single building exceeds the historic building width pattern, use a change in design features (such as a combination of materials, windows or decorative details) to suggest the traditional building widths. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.020 Orientation to street. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 3/13 A. Intent. To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. B. Standards. 1. Building frontages shall be primarily oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot or alley. 2. Entrances to buildings in the BD1, BD2 and BD4 zones shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of the following elements: a. Higher bay(s); b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet); c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. Buildings shall be oriented to the street. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 4/13 Entrances shall be given visually distinct expression. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.030 Ground level details. A. Intent. To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. B. Standards. 1. Ground-oor, street-facing facades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall incorporate at least ve of the following elements: a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets; b. Medallions; c. Belt courses; d. Plinths for columns; e. Bulkhead for storefront window; f. Projecting sills; g. Tile work; h. Transom or clerestory windows; i. Planter box; Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 5/13 j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. 2. Ground oor commercial space is intended to be accessible and at grade with the sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC 16.43.030. Ground oor details encourage visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.040 Awnings/canopies and signage. A. Intent. 1. To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 6/13 2. To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way-nding for visitors. 3. To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. B. Standards. 1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. 2. Awnings and canopies shall be open-sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. 5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies should be hung just below a clerestory or transom window, if it exists. 6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple-storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Open-sided nonstructural awning with front valance. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 7/13 Open-sided structural canopy. 7. Nonstructural awnings should be constructed using canvas or re-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high-gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are preferred. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less are permitted and are not counted when calculating the amount of signage permitted for a business in Chapter 20.60 ECDC. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under ECDC 22.43.030(B). 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. 11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. 12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or on a city council-approved historic survey. 13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An historic sign may be used to meet this standard. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 8/13 Retractable and open-sided awnings allow signage to be visible.   Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 9/13 Examples of projecting signs using decorative frames and design elements. Awning or canopy shapes: [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.050 Transparency at street level. A. Intent. To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. B. Standards. 1. The ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have transparent windows covering a minimum of 75 percent of the building facade that lies between an average of two feet and 10 feet above grade. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 10/13 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. 3. Where transparency is not required, the facade shall comply with the standards under ECDC 22.43.060. Ground level facades of buildings should have transparent windows between two to 10 feet above grade. Windows shall provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, and therefore should not be mirrored or use darkly tinted glass. 4. Within the BD1 zone, ground oor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk.* [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. *Code reviser’s note: Subsection (B)(4) of this section was formerly codied as ECDC 16.43.030(B)(10)(g). 22.43.060 Treating blank walls. A. Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 11/13 B. Standards. 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under ECDC 22.43.050). At least ve of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground oor, street-facing facade: a. Masonry (except for at, nondecorative concrete block); b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; c. Belt courses of a dierent texture and color; d. Projecting cornice; e. Decorative tile work; f. Medallions; g. Opaque or translucent glass; h. Artwork or wall graphics; i. Lighting xtures; j. Green walls; k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 12/13 Buildings shall not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.070 Building HVAC equipment. A. Intent. To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other building utility features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. B. Standards. 1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to t in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. If these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g., rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. 2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on adjoining properties. Rooftop equipment should be screened from view. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2/18/2021 Print Preview https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/cgi/menuCompile.pl 13/13 Attachment 6 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Community Culture and Urban Design 122 Urban Design General. The man-made environment is an expression of human culture and reflects, in physical form, the social values of the members of the community. The manner in which the man-made elements are integrated into the natural environment helps create the community’s special characteristics and contribute to the quality of life in Edmonds. The beauty and variety of the natural surroundings in Edmonds and the historical development of the City have combined to create an interesting and visually attractive community. Views, especially views from public corridors and public places, are an important community asset. However, unsightly development – of poor quality or design – does exist in the City. Aging buildings in some parts of the City can create an aesthetic problem if they are not maintained. Retaining historic buildings can positively reinforce the character of an area such as downtown. The strip type of development along Highway 99 has often resulted in economic underdevelopment of private properties that end up being aesthetically displeasing. Although utility wires are placed underground where new development takes place, overhead wires still exist in most of the older parts of the City where they interfere with views and create visual blight. Commercial signs contribute to the color and variety of community life as well as providing an important function but they may also create discordant and unsightly conditions where they are excessive or of poor design. Street landscaping has been utilized in the past on a limited basis. However, in many areas, parking lots, access roads, streets and buildings can be better integrated with the landscape. Urban Design Goals & Policies The general design objectives provided with this goal are intended to provide general guidance, while the subsequent design objectives (Goals B, C and D) for specific locations or situations are intended to supplement the general objectives and add more guidance for those specific situations. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, “D”). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, “D.2”) General Design Goal A. Design goals and objectives are intended to provide a set of tools for the City to use to guide future development to result in high quality, well-designed, and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. The goals and related objectives contained in this section are intended to: • improve the physical appearance and character of Edmonds, • improve retail and pedestrian circulation options, Attachment 7 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Community Culture and Urban Design 123 • improve business opportunities, • protect natural environments using sustainable design practices, • protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds. General Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tieing each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way-finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Attachment 7 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Community Culture and Urban Design 124 A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians – including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces – to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city’s emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms – such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees – into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. 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. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Attachment 7 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Community Culture and Urban Design 125 Design Objectives for Building Façade. 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. A.18 Building Façade Design. Encourage building façades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a façade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building façades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in façade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas In addition to the general design goal and objectives described above under Goal A, supplemental design objectives are outlined below for specific areas or districts within the city. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, “D”). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, “D.2”) Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place-making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a “park and walk” policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. Attachment 7 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Community Culture and Urban Design 126 B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. B.4 Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing beach areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale. B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building façades should respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. Attachment 7 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Community Culture and Urban Design 127 B.11 Building Façade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long façades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base). B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the façade. Urban Design Goal C: Highway 99 Corridor. Additional Design Objectives for the Highway 99 Corridor should support its function as a locus of commercial and potential mixed use activity, building on the availability of multiple forms of transportation and its proximate location to surrounding neighborhoods. C.1 General Appearance and Identity. Design of buildings and spaces along Highway 99 should encourage a feeling of identity associated with different sections of the highway. C.2 Site Design. Site design should allow for vechicular access and parking as well as safe access and circulation for pedestrians. Whenever possible, sites should provide connections between adjacent businesses and between businesses and nearby residential neighborhoods. C.3 Landscaping and Buffering. Landscaping, fencing or other appropriate techniques should be used to soften the street front of sites and also used to buffer more intensive uses from adjoining less intensive use areas (e.g. buffer commercial from residential development). Urban Design Goal D: Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Design in neighborhood commercial areas should seek to support the function of the neighborhood center while paying close attention to its place within the neighborhood setting. D.1 Landscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to transitions from commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using landscaping and/or gradations in building scale to provide compatible development. Attachment 7 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION_PLN2020-0053 2/4/21.SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Pine Park 614 is a proposal for three buildings and site improvements at 614 and 616 5th Ave. Six live/work units would be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) while an eight-unit building would be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed. Proponent: Jacob Young Location of proposal, including street address if any: 614 & 616 5th Avenue South and adjacent private alley (Tax ID #: 27032600100900, 27032600102900 & 27032600102300) Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.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. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the 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 February 23, 2021. Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner (michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov) Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager (rob.chave@edmondswa.gov) Contact Information: City of Edmonds | 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 | 425-771-0220 Date: February 9, 2021 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 March 2, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on February 9, 2021, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION_PLN2020-0053 2/4/21.SEPA Information on this development application can be obtained online at http://edmondswa.gov/public-notices- text/development-notices.html under the development notice for application number PLN2020-0053, by emailing the listed City contacts, or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ☒ Applicant ☒ Dept. of Ecology ☐ City of Everett ☒ Parties of Record ☐ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ☐ City of Lynnwood ☐ Dept. of Natural Resources ☐ City of Mountlake Terrace ☐ US Army Corps of Engineers ☐ Dept. of Commerce ☐ City of Mukilteo ☐ US Fish and Wildlife ☐ WSDOT ☐ City of Shoreline ☐ WSDOT – Ferries ☐ Town of Woodway ☒ Puget Sound Energy ☐ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ☒ Snohomish PUD ☐ Dept. of Health – Drinking Water ☐ Snohomish Co. Public Works ☒ Olympic View Water & Sewer ☒ Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ☐ Snohomish Co. PDS ☐ Alderwood Water District ☐ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ☐ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ☐ Edmonds School District ☐ Port of Edmonds ☒ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ☐ King County - Transit ☒ South County Fire ☐ Puget Sound Regional Council ☐ King County – Environ. Planning ☐ Swedish Hospital ☐ Puget Sound Partnership ☐ Community Transit ☒ Tulalip Tribe ☐ Other pc: File No. PLN2020-0053 SEPA Notebook Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Revised on 9/16/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 1 of 25 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environment al impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepare d for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide informat ion to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from th e proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the an swer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer thes e questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on differen t parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) whi ch they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pine Park 614 2. Name of applicant: Jacob Young 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 10 Dravus Street Seattle, WA 98109 206.535.7908 4. Date checklist prepared: December 10, 2020 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 2 of 25 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): It is anticipated that this project will be constructed starting in the summer of 2022. Phased construction is not anticipated at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and a Hazardous Building Materials Survey for the subject properties were completed by a prior owner. No additional studies are proposed as part of this project. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other propos als directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. A land use code amendment has been proposed which would permit unit lot subdivsions in the subject parcel’s zone. The proposed project includes townhouses, and it is possible that a ULS would be pursued if this amendment is approved by the City. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 3 of 25 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The project will require district-based design review, a boundary line adjustment, a demolition permit, a right -of-way construction permit and several building permits in addition to environmental review. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The project consists of three buildings containing a total of 14 townhouses. Two buildings would be located adjacent to the 5th Avenue S right-of-way with the third building located toward the rear (west) of the subject. The two easterly buildings would contain, in aggregate, six live/work townhouses. Each live/work townhouse would contain a commercial suite on the at-grade story with two residential stories above. Parking for the live/work townhouses would be located behind them and accessed via a drive aisle connected to the private alley south of the subject. The westerly building would contain eight purely residential townhouses, each containing three stories. Parking for these units would be located in private garages on the lowest story. This parking would be accessed via a drive aisle near the westerly property line and connected to the private alley south of the subject. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known . If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project site consists of two legal parcels identified by the Snohomish County Assessor as APN 270326-001-009-00 and APN 270326-001-029-00. These parcels are located on the west side of 5th Avenue S near its intersection with Howell Way. The project’s address is 614-616 5th Aveue S. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 4 of 25 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site contains both steep and flat terrain. Please refer to the topographic survey for details. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is an apparently artificial embankment located near the center of the subject. This embankment supports the existing parking lot and appears to have a maximum slope of 88%, more or less. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Per the project geotechnical report, the subject is generally underlain by “medium dense to very dense silty sand with varying proportions of silt and gravel.” (Zipper Geo Associates, p. 3) The report also notes that the native soils are covered by a fill layer of varying thickness. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The geotechnical report describes no such soils on the subject, and City GIS does not show any known landslide events in the immediate vicinity. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 5 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading activities are expected to affect the entire subject (17,160 sf) to varying degrees. Approximately 450 cy of excavation will be required to construct the westerly building. Additional excavation may also be required to reach structurally competent soils beneath the easterly buildings, though the amount of excavation needed in this area cannot be predicted at this time. If structural fill is needed, it will be imported from a vendor. Excavated native soils are to be used for non-structural fill. The drive aisle between the buildings is to be regraded. It is anticipated that the cut and fill volumes for this work will be approximately equal. The westerly drive aisle is expected to require relatively little grading, though some will be needed to prepare it for pavement installation. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. While erosion is always a possibility during construction, it is not anticipated that this project will result in greater risks for erosion that are typical. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 95%. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Best management practices (BMPs) will be employed to mitigate the risk and will be selected at a later date. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 6 of 25 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction emissions will include those generated by construction equipment, particularly during the earthwork phase. Dust may be generated during earthwork if it takes place during the dry season. Construction emissions are expected to taper off in later phases. The completed project is not anticipated to generate significant emissions due to its primarily residential nature. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? I f so, generally describe. No significant odor or emission sources are known in the vicinity. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the air, if any: During construction, best management practices will be used to help reduce the amount of dust and other emissions generated. BMP selection will take place at a later date. As a primarily residential development, significant long-term emissions and odors are not anticipated. No mitigation measures are exp ected to be necessary. (STAFF COMMENTS) 3. WATER a. Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (includ ing year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 7 of 25 (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge mater ial that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 8 of 25 b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater runoff will be generated by the proposed buildings and drive aisles. This water will be collected via inlets and/or catch basins and routed to an infiltration gallery, detention system or other stormwater infrastructure. Overflows are anticipated to be discharged to the public storm main. The design of these systems will be developed as part of the project’s civil construction permit. No discharge to open waters is anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 9 of 25 (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Approximately 60% of the subject is currently developed with impervious surfaces. Per the site survey, it appears that runoff from the existing parking lot is collected by an inlet and conveyed to the publi c storm main in 5th Avenue S. The existing structures appear to discharge their runoff via downspouts. It is unclear whether the downspouts are connected to the public storm drain. As discussed in Item 3.c.1, the proposed improvements may utilitize infiltration to keep stormwater on site or detention to slow its entry into the public storm drain. These features will reduce the site’s impact on public storm infrastructure, helping mitigate the increased impervious area. No direct impacts on nearby offsite drainage patterns are expected. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: As noted in Item 3.c.1, the project is expected to include infiltration, detention or another onsite storm drainage facility for this purpose. (STAFF COMMENTS) 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: (3) street trees and (2) others. Species unknown. ______ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: ___________________________________________________ X shrubs Various types of shrubs were observed, though species are unknonw a this time. ____________ X grass Portions of the subject near the westerly boundary line __________________________________ pasture _____________________________________________________________________________ crop or grain ________________________________________________________________________ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops __________________________________________ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: ___________________________ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other:___________________________________________ other types of vegetation: ______________________________________________________________ (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 10 of 25 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most or all onsite vegetation will be removed during construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A landscape buffer is proposed along the westerly boundary line. It is anticipated that these plantings will be selected for their compatibility with local conditions, helping ensure survival and reducing the necessity for long- term irrigation. Street trees and frontage plantings will also be provided as required by City standards. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 11 of 25 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: None observed. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ____________________________________________________ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: _______________________________________________________ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: ________________________________________________ (STAFF COMMENTS) ______________________________________________________________________ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is not known to be part of a migration route. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 12 of 25 e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS) 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The project will primarily rely upon electrical energy. Natural gas may be used for cooking and water heating. A final determination on the use of natural gas will be made as part of the building permit documents. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The proposed improvements are most likely to affect the use of solar energy by the northerly neighboring parcel. As relevant zoning permits zero-lot-line development, shading of the southerly portions of this lot will occur in the vicinity of the proposed buildings. However, the northerly portions of the neighboring lot will likely be unaffected due to the low height limit. It is likely that careful siting of solar facilities on the northerly neighboring lot will allow future projects to take advantage of solar energy despite the shading produced by this project. For example, it may be possible to locate future solar facilities on rooftops, raising them out of the shaded area. The westerly neighboring parcel may also experience some shading during the morning hours. However, the neighboring parcel has placed a parking lot in its easterly portions. Thus, shading produced by this project is likely to fall on the parking lot rather than the south-facing roof planes of the existing buildings on the neighboring lot. These roof planes are likely the best location for future solar facilities on the neighboring lot; thus, the impacts of the current project are minor. The easterly neighboring parcels are on the opposite side of 5th Avenue S, a 60 ft wide right-of-way. This distance appears to be sufficient to avoid any shading of those parcels. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will be designed to the 2018 Washington State Energy Code, which includes numerous energy conservation requirements. Specific compliance measures will be determined as part of the building permit documents. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 13 of 25 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. The project includes primarily residential floor area with some commercial space. While any combustible construction presents a degree of fire risk, it is expected that this project will not involve any unusual hazards. No use of hazardous materials is anticipated. Any existing hazardous materials discovered during demolition will be disposed of according to standard practices. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. A hazardous materials survey of the subject discovered several asbestos-bearing materials in both existing structures. Lead-based paint was also found. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment determined that a dry cleaner was historically located at 622 5th Avenue S, and it is possible that the subject has been contaminated by this facility. The ESA also found small quantities of chlorinated solvents stored in the existing structures. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Per the site survey, a natural gas main is located in the 5th Avenue S right-of-way approximately 12 ft from the subject’s easterly boundary line. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project’s development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. As noted in Item 7.a.1, small quantities of chlorinated solvents were found in the existing structures. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 14 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health haz ards, if any: Existing hazardous materials will be disposed of according to standard practices. No unusual measures are expected to be necessary at this time. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 5th Avenue S is a busy arterial, resulting in traffic noise. The northerly and southerly neighboring parcels contains several restaurants, possibly resulting in additional noise concerns. Other nearby parcels are residential in character and unlikely to generate significant noise. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noise is to be expected throughout construction during standard work hours (7am to 6pm Monday-Friday and 10am to 6pm Saturday). No significant long-term noise is anticipated in this primarily residential project. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 15 of 25 (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Short-term impacts will be mitigated through limiting work hours to those permitted by City ordinance. Long-term mitigation is not anticipated to be necessary. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The subject is currently developed with two low-rise commercial buildings and a shared parking lot. The existing buildings are presently vacant but have been recently occupied as office space and an ice cream parlor. No impacts on nearby or adjacent land uses are anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The subject has been developed with nonfarm and nonforest uses for several decades. The proposal retains this nonfarm, nonforest character. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 16 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Describe any structures on the site. Two low-rise, CMU masonry structures are present on the subject. The northerly structure is a single-story building most recently occupied by an ice cream parlor. The southerly structure contains one above-grade story and one basement. It was most recently occupied by several office uses. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Both existing structures will be demolished. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? BD-3 (STAFF COMMENTS) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Downtown Convenience (STAFF COMMENTS) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? Not applicable. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 17 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. The entire subject is shown to be part of a seismic hazard area in Edmonds’ GIS. The steeply-sloped area near the middle of the subject is also shown as a landslide hazard and severe erosion hazard in the GIS. (STAFF COMMENTS) i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 42 people (3 per townhouse). (STAFF COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. The subject is not currently developed with residential uses. (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No displacement. (STAFF COMMENTS) l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project proposes primarily residential uses, and existing residences are located to the east and west of the subject. Commercial uses are located to the north and south, and provi sion of live/work units along 5th Avenue S continues this pattern of commercial uses adjacent to the arterial. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 18 of 25 m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Not applicable in this location. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -income housing. Fourteen units are proposed. These are likely to be middle-to-high income housing. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None needed as no units will be removed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? The structures are restricted to a maximum of 30 ft above average grade. Exterior materials have not yet been selected but may include brick, fiber cement panel, metal and glass. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 19 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views from the parcels on the opposite side of 5th Avenue S will be altered by the construction of the new buildings. As the affected parcels are located above the subject, this is partially mitigated by existing topography. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The project is subject to district-based design review, and aesthetic impacts will be considered during that process. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposal includes expanses of glazing on the east and west façades of all buildings. Interior lighting thus could spill onto the sidewalk and the parking lot on the westerly neighboring parcel. As a primarily residential project, this is most likely to occur during morning and evening hours. Light will also be produced by vehicles entering and leaving the subject. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Safety hazards due to light or glare are not anticipated. Impacts to views are expected to be minor due to the small scale of the project and lack of pole-mounted lighting. Its primarily residential nature also results in minimal 24-hr lighting. While it is anticipated that the 5th Avenue S sidewalk will be lit throughout the night, much of the subject will be darkened once residents go to bed. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Street lighting in the 5th Avenue S right-of-way may affect the interior environment of the easterly buildings. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 20 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Parking is located between and behind the buildings, reducing its imp acts on neighboring parcels and the right- of-way. The proposed landscape buffer along the westerly property boundary further reduces the impact of light on the westerly neighboring parcel. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The subject is two blocks from Edmonds City Park. It is also adjacent to several eating and drinking establishments.The subject is approximately ½ mile from downtown Edmonds and the various recreational opportunities there. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Roof decks are proposed on the westerly building to provide a passive, onsite recreation opportunity. The project is also required to contribute parks impact fees, helping mitigate any effects of increased demand on Edmonds City Park to the west. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 21 of 25 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Both existing structures are over 45 years old. They have not been included in preservation registers. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. Per the WISAARD database, there is a high to very high risk of encountering archaeological artifacts in the general vicinity. The database also notes that the area is considered a Tribal Area of Interest for the Tulalip, Swinomish, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, Sauk Suittle Tribe, Samish Indian Nation and Muckleshoot peoples. No archaeological studies of the subject parcel are known to have been conducted, and no evidence of cultural resources has been observed. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. The WISAARD and Edmonds Register of Historic Places databases have been consulted. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 22 of 25 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The subject is served by 5th Avenue S. It is also served by a privately-owned alley. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, the subject is served by Community Transit via 5th Avenue S. The nearest stop is located at the intersection of 5th Avenue S and Howell Way. (STAFF COMMENTS) c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The proposal includes a total of 20 new parking spaces. The existing parking lot contains 15 space s and is to be removed. Thus, the proposal results in a net gain of five spaces. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). During the pre-application conference, City staff indicated that the project will be required to construct frontage improvements on the west side of the 5th Avenue S right-of-way. These improvements include sidewalk, planter strip and street trees, driveway access to the private alley, curb and gutter. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 23 of 25 e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Per the ITE Manual, midrise multifamily development in a general urban or suburban context generates approximately 0.44 trips per unit. Also per this manual, small office spaces (such as those provided in the live/work units) typically generate 2.45 trips per 1000 sf gross floor area. Using these values, the project is expected to generate approximately 14.3 trips per day. No truck traffic is anticipated due to the primarily residential nature of the project. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Not anticipated in this urban area. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: In addition to the frontage improvements discussed above, the project is required to provide transportation impact fees. This funding may be used by the City as necessary to mitigate impacts to the transportation network. (STAFF COMMENTS) Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 24 of 25 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The project increases the number of residential units on the subject, generating a corresponding increase in the need for public services. As the project is relatively small, the impact is expected to be minor. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Not anticipated to be necessary for this small-scale project. (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: All listed utilities are already available to the subject. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Snohomish PUD. Underground connections from a common vault are anticipated. Natural Gas:Puget Sound Energy. New service lines will be needed. Water: City of Edmonds. New service lines will be needed. Refuse Service: Sound Disposal. Collection area(s) to be designed at a later date. Communications: Various purveyors. It is anticipated that telephone, cable and Internet will be provided. Sanitary Sewer: City of Edmonds. New side sewers will likely be needed. Storm Drainage: City of Edmonds. New onsite drainage improvements are proposed with overflow to the main. Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Revised on 9/19/16 SEPA Checklist.doc Page 25 of 25 (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. ____________________________________________ __________________________________________ Signature of Proponent Date Submitted 12.10.2020 Attachment 8 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) PRO JECT DESC RIP T IO N : PRO JEC T LO CA T IO N : NA M E O F A PPLI CA N T: FILE NO .: REQ U EST ED PER M IT S: CO M M E N T S O N PRO P O SA L D U E : PU B LI C HEA RIN G IN FO RM A T IO N : CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Pin e Park 614 is a pro po sal fo r three buildin gs and site im provem ents at 614 and 616 5th A ve . Six live/w o rk un its w o uld be co ntaine d in tw o buildings adjacent to 5th A venue (Bu ild in gs A and B) w hile an eight-unit buildin g w o u ld be behind the live/w ork buildings an d fa ce w est (Build ing C). Drive aisles w est of the buildings w ould load fr om the private alley south of the site. To acco m m o d ate the new pro ject, the existing im p ro ve m e nts on the site w ill be rem oved . T h e pro ject site is zo ne d Dow ntow n Co nvenie nce Com m ercial (BD 3). District-based de sig n review projects that require a SEPA determ ination are Type Ill-A deci sions, w h ich req u ire a tw o -phase pub lic hearing an d decision by the Architectural Design Board (A D B ). 614 & 616 5th A venue So uth an d adjacent private alley (Tax ID #: 2703260010 0900, 27 0 3 2 6 0 0 10 290 0 & 27 0 3260 0 10 2300 ) Ja co b Yo un g PLN 2 0 2 0-0053 District-base d design review , SEPA determ in ation M a rch 3, 20 21 Du e to CO V ID -19, Phase 1 of the tw o -phase virtual public hearing w ill be held by the A rch ite ctu ral Design Board on M arch 3, 20 21 at 7 p.m . Join the Zoom m eeting at: http s://zo om .us/j/95360 54 4929?pw d=Zm d0REFO RkE3 RkRaeV dBRm pkN U xM Zz09 O r via ph one by dialing 25 3-2 15-8782 M e etin g ID : 953 6054 4929 Passw o rd : 818 9 62 T h e he arin g w ill be co ntin u ed to a date certain fo r Phase 2 of the public hearing during th e M a rch 3 m e etin g. A ny pe rso n has the right to co m m ent on this app lication during public co m m ent period, rece ive no tice an d particip ate in any hearings, an d req uest a co py of the deci sion on the ap p licatio n . The City m ay accept pu b lic co m m e nts at any tim e prior to the closing of the reco rd of an op e n record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open reco rd predecision he arin g is provid e d, prior to the decision on the pro ject perm it. In fo rm ation on th is develop m e nt ap p lication can be fo u nd at http ://ed m ond sw a.gov/pu b lic-no tices-text/develop m ent-notices.htm l under the deve lop m e nt no tice fo r app lication nu m b er PLN2 0 20 -0053, by em ailing the City co ntact listed be lo w , or by calling the City of Ed m ond s at 425-77 1-0220. Please refer to the Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) ap p lication nu m b er fo r all inquiries. A co py of the staff report w ill be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. SEP A DETER M IN A TIO N : No tice is hereby given that the City of Edm onds has issued a Determ ination of Nonsignifi cance un de r W A C 197-11 -340 fo r the above pro ject. DA T E O F ISS UA N C E: Feb ruary 9, 20 21 SEP A CO M M E N TS DU E: Co m m ents regarding the SEPA determ ination are due February 23, 2021. SEP A A P P EA L: This SEPA determ ination m ay be appealed by filing a w ritt en appeal citing the specific reaso ns fo r ap p eal w ith the required appeal fee no later than M arch 2, 2021 by 4:00 p.m . O nly parties of reco rd as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an ad m in istrative ap peal. CIT Y CO N TA CT: M ike Clugsto n, A ICP, Senior Planner m ichael.clugsto n @ e dm ondsw a.gov 425-77 1-0 220 , BUILDING A VIEWED FROM EAST All S(',o\l( IHS Q) fc~O~~CT VIEWED FROM SOUTH Q) ~!;)}L9!NGS A & B VIEWED FROM EAST Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) C ity of Edmonds Adjacent Property Owner List 4(14 .:.(.tj -i144'2410 4i)8 ·UO 424 -i28 4J4 432 4JC ~ I a ""' . r: ,--- --, ' <( 1 4)) I ::C ' 1- s::t j' 6 g r---~----'----'- - --ct - 409 1 ! 4H- i ;,__ vi LJ~<5_.! • ! ; \~rJ\_;;;~~--'----~ w-----------------~~,¥-V~•~UTST --~[I , < , ~ L I 5 ~Ji 1, 2 ,0-- , r j ~ , ·· l~"',1! ;,_,I ~ : j•2 -.;J r-1 -,r,) __ L-~----- 5·4 r ~ ~ ~ 54) ~ ~ 417 ~ ~- ~ ~ I ~(,3 1/\ ~--~ ·---~ ~-~ '5Df• <{ ~ ' ~ I_ 6Li~ __ : 61--1 ' ,02 1.;:. , 1 )04 :eo I 50) ' ' ------ i ~5 ri w ·> :?. "' Q - --l :-i=t01JYI>J " r, 'i:: :,o Vl w ~ 0 b::: rt'\ r JI,.,,- 1 r_:_1 I I ------ --1 F _ , I l '::'. ' 4"1 . I - ,18 ~- 11 ' . •1" -;-7 - 1 ' _ , , ,_1) • ~- - , I r-- ~-- _j c,' ~ -,-- : - 'T" ~ - 521 C -'-~ 5:c, 6CO I ~~ciM ~ci:$i~/ >I l10 <t'.~ I on I :J:I be ~-71,-.--,. 1,1"1 -=i~- 1 I s,;c . LI . I _cc__l ,,,-- ! C»• J I , ,; _'"4 I ii 1~ II -<· - ' .--l ~ -- --,-J IA r . . 7 I ! --=-"~- J ~ ~2:. -W L_ r ~ I .,..._ 5•17 "·< -, :;; )55 65411 7,19 70L 710 703 71 • ! ' )i1 ;: ,, ,-, 5J) 0 r ,. ~ ~ <r "' II"'• :~ -;1: 140 54B 528 ,__ I j) ~lS I '' 5·18 5}9 00 ~ ,,. r .c, .,. ))4 ~- ~ )~~. )11 -:. )b4 .. - ·- 706 .-:, ~- ~- ~ ~ no Tl" 539 J, i ~ ;;-: ; 1/\ ui > <{ J: 7 I- -IIJ:] r, c>- ~ ,, - 'r #--~- ~b=c~:~(-- - 8(1.i ~ ~ ~ Q ~- C ;;: ·=- ~ 0 "" -~ : :====:. ·~A=~1-et~rn~====-~~-r I C, :,; 6:; I SI 4 Cl., J lj f;,j 1 ~- N c;, 9(,0 ~ ;; JSO PARKS DEPT t========~ ,,,::P-ll SIES. T .c;....J ~I (1(1 72':• ~ I )•ICJ 91)..: 5)6 '9,)2 'iOS /I~ 716 )-17 "iJB 911:, 72 1 7' I "' 'fl. 5ZI ~29 " r 91.>;i --· 9. 91 b ~ ~ Jm --- ~ "' n1 51: ,27 ::;, :f~ 110 0 LU ~ z ~: N ~- .,., '2 g •""I ~ ,~·-==. ~-3 ;:: ~ :~ :~ - r:= ~ i, === ~--:) ::::-.::PlNE..ST.::..- ; 410 "" 611 1: 3,031 or 0 252.60 505.2 Feet 4,514 376.2 WGS_ 1984_ Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere © City of Edmonds This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ( I , 'f~monct s ,'a I t,,mia .uy ' I I Terrace Legend N otes 300' Property Owner Addresses for PLN2020-0053 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 7 0 3 2 5 0 0 2 10 5 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 8 0 0 5 3 3 ED M O N D S L L C A P P L E T W O L L C A R C H ER K E V IN W & KIMBERLY D 23520 WOODWAY PARK RD, 14227 EVERGREEN WAY, 630 5TH AVES UNIT 208, EDMONDS, WA 98020 STANWOOD, WA 98292 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3453 00477300000500 00880600010100 27032500207900 BAKKEN JAN 0 BANKSTON JOHN K & SHERILYN M BARRETT STEVEN P 516 HOMELAND DR, 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 101, 510 HOLLY DR, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4026 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00906500030000 00720000000400 00720000301900 BC 300 LLC BEDDALL BRADLEY BIGLER LINDA PO BOX 1044, 19515 27TH NW, 25449 S KINGSTON RD NE, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEATTLE, WA 98177 KINGSTON, WA 98346 27032600102300 00409600101903 00843900030400 BK INVESTMENT GROUP LLC BOZE TIMOTHY A & TAMI R BRADBURY WARREN E 557 ROY ST STE 125, 314 HOWELL WAY, 504 HOLLY DR, UNIT 304 SEATTLE, WA 98109 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4118 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00906500040200 00409600100300 00880600020100 BRADLEY DRAKE R BURK CAROL CARROLL WENDY 654 5TH AVES UNIT 402, 515 3RD AVES, 400 HOWELL WAY #201, EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00409600101904 00906500010300 00906500020400 CHALMERS GINA LIVING TRUST CHAN DAVID & NAKAGAWA JANE CHAN DAVID C & NAKAGAWA JANE R 318 HOWELL WAY, 1758 43RD AVE, 654 5TH AVES UNIT 204, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4118 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3619 00720000110700 27032500215300 27032500210400 CHAN MAN HOI COLUMBIA CITY PARTNERS LLC CURTIS CHESTER B & DOLORES B 4380 E MARSHALL COURT, 42016TH AVES, PO BOX 1087, GILBERT, AZ 85297 SEATTLE, WA 98108 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00906500040400 00477300001501 00477300001800 DAHLSTROM TIMOTHY & MURPHY DAWSON WESC DOLAN MICHAEL W & MARY K DONNA 539 HOMELAND DR, 515 HOMELAND DR, 654 5TH AVES UNIT 404, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4026 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4026 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3617 00409600101500 00409600101400 27032600102500 DOWD-TIMONEN PATRICIA TRUST DRULLINGER MARK A EDMONDS CENTER LP 534 4TH AVE S, 544 4TH AVES, 403 HOWELL WAY, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00649300200100 00872700051400 00843900020100 FAIRCHILD FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING FARMER JAMES R & PATRICIA W FIRMANI LINDA TRUST 514 4TH AVES, 504 HOLLY DR, UNIT 201 519 4TH AVES UNIT A, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4138 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 F O U R T H S T R E ET A P A R T M E N T S L L C F R A N C IS R O G E R A F U R E Y D A N IE L J & ANNE M 624 ELM PL, 630 5TH AVES# 101, 116 CLALLAM BAY ST, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4646 EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEQUIM, WA 98382 00872700051800 00720000120400 00880600010200 GRIGNON DIANE H HAMMRICH GREGORY F HANLEY ROBERTS & BETTY J 518 4TH AVES, 630-5TH AVES# 204, 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 102, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4190 00880600020200 00906500020300 00720000110500 HAYTEMA PIETER D & NORMA J HEINS LANE REVOKABLE FAMILY TRUST HEVERAN JANET 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 202, 654 5TH AVES UNIT 203, 630 5TH AVES UNIT 105, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4190 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3619 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00906500040100 00409600101901 00720000110300 HOFFMAN SHERRY R HOGGINS DALEE & DONNA L HUDDLESTON JEAN MARIE 654 5TH AVES UNIT 401, 21826 95TH AVE W, 630 FIFTH AVES UNIT 103, EDMONDS, WA 98020-3617 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00477300001702 00720000120600 00649300100300 HUDLOW KARMEN L HUGHES DAVID & BELINDA JERMULOWSKE JEFFREYS/WHEELER 523 HOMELAND DR, 630 5TH AVES UNIT 206, ALISHA K EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3453 517 4TH AVENUE SOUTH #C, EDMONDS, WA 98020 00649300100200 00477300000600 00409600100900 JOCHIMSEN LAVERE E & KATHRYN C KETTEL RICHARD G & SARA E KILLIN JONATHAN & SELENA 517 4TH AVES UNIT B, 524 HOMELAND DR, 543 3RD AVES, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4137 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4103 00720000120500 00906500020200 00880600010300 KIRK MARY ELLEN KRUEGER JOHN & JEAN REVOCABLE KURTH RLT 630 5TH AVES UNIT 205, TRUST 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 103, EDMONDS, WA 98020-3453 654 5TH AVES UNIT 202, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4190 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3619 00843900030300 00906500040300 00409600200400 KWAK KUM TRUST LALLY ANN M LANG JACK A 504 HOLLY DR, UNIT 303 654 5TH AVES UNIT 403, 5414TH AVES, EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3617 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4189 00720000120100 00409600101300 00409600100800 LANIGAN BILLIE THON LARSON GREGG & DARCIE LARSON HELMA A 630 5TH AVES UNIT 201, 554 4TH AVE S, 5413RD AVES, EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4103 00720000120300 00649300100100 00409600101200 LEESE WAYNE LORAH SHANNON R & EDWARD LORETTE ALLAN R & SALLY B PSC 477 BOX 29, 517 4TH AVES UNIT A, 558 4TH AVES, FPO AP, 96306 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 00 8 80 60 00 20 300 0084 390 0030 200 004096 00 10 0400 LY LE T H EO D O R E & H U M PH R EYS-LYLE LYO N S JO H N A L & C A R O LS M A H O N EY SU SA N A JO A N P TR 19828 47T H AV E N E, 52 1 3 R D AV E S , 40 0 H O W E LL W A Y U N IT 20 3, LA KE FO R EST PA R K, W A 98 155 ED M O N D S, W A 980 26 ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 -4190 00 477 300 000 30 0 00 90 6 50 00 10 10 0 00 72 0 000110 800 M A R Z A N O M IC H IA H J & A N TH O N Y M A TT H EW S SU SA N R M C IN TYR E JESSA M Y N A 5 10 H O M E LA N D D R , 14 11 1 55T H AV E W , 630 5T H AV E S U N IT 10 8, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 -40 26 ED M O N D S, W A 980 26 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 -3448 00 84 390 00 20 20 0 00 64 930 0200 200 00409 60010 1600 M C K A Y G R E T A / LI G H T FO O T LI N D A M IZE LI SA M TT EE M T BA KER A SSO CI A TES LP 5 0 4 H OL L V D R , U N IT 20 2 70 0 1 SEA V IEW AV E N W U N IT 160-80 8, PO BO X 13 2 9, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 SEA TT LE, W A 98 117 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 2 7 032 50 0 20 800 0 270 326 00 10 0300 0072 0 000 11 0 200 M T O LY M P U S H O L D IN G S LLC OL YM PIC & SO U N D V IEW LLC PA IN E SU SA N 5 33 5T H A V E S, 12625 4TH AV E W ST E 20 0, 1005 5TH AV E S U N IT 10 2, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 EV ER ETT , W A 98204 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 4096 00 200 500 270 326 00 100800 00 649 300 10 04 00 P A U L S O N G IL LI A N PA YN E R G PED ERSO N N A N C Y C H ER M A K 5 4 7 4T H A V E S , 88 27 29TH AV E N W , 517 4T H AV E S U N IT D, ED M O N D S , W A 980 20 -4 189 SEA TT LE, W A 98 11 7 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20-413 7 00 90 6 50 0 0 2 0 10 0 270 3250 0218300 00 40 960010 1700 P ER R Y PA M E LA ELI ZA BET H PET ER SO N JEF F R EY J & M C KIM M IE PH IPPS TH O M A S E & G A YLE M 654 5T H A V E S U N IT 20 1, H EA TH ER L 22 929 10 8T H AV E W , ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 527 H EM LO C K W A Y, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20-5189 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 40 96 0 0 10 11 0 0 00 4096 0020 1200 00 409 600 20 0300 P IC K E TT R O N A LD PK REA L PR O PER TY LLC PN T PRO PERTIES LLC 6 54 4T H A V E S , 272 4 98TH AV E N E, 9792 ED M O N D S W A Y #225, ED M O N D S , W A 980 20 -72 26 BELLEV U E, W A 980 04 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 4 77 30 0 00 0 10 0 00 477 300000 20 0 00 40 96 0010 0 10 1 P O O L E C E C E LI A A PO W ER LEE A & M ELA N IE L PU G SLEY KEV IN & KO R YN N 53 7 5T H A V E S , 51 1 H O M ELA N D D R , 30 8 HO W ELL W A Y, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 -34 58 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 -40 26 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 40 96 00 100 10 2 004 77 30 000040 0 27 0 32 500 215200 R A M M G A R V /R A M M C H A R LEN E RIC H A R D RITA RO D R IG U ES A D LER F & M ER C ED ES F 50 11 1 9T H A V EN U E N E, 609 5TH AV ES , 52 1 H EM LO C K W A Y, S E A TT LE , W A 98 10 5 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 -3452 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 84 39 00 030 100 00 906 5000 10 200 27032 500 2184 00 S C H IP P ER S JO H A N M & A N T O N ETT H A G SC O TT LA M A R & C A TH Y L SH A PPA C H ER TH O M A S & M ELI SSA A 50 4 H OL LY D R U N IT 3 0 1, 874 5 G R EEN W O O D AV E N A PT 31 5, 539 HEM LO C K W A Y, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 -34 98 SEA TT LE, W A 98 103 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 0 0 6 4 9 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 96 0 0 10 0 7 0 0 S IM P S O N JE A N H S P A R K S A L A N J S T E IN L E P A M E L A 5 1 9 4 T H A V E S U N IT C , 5 2 7 3 R D A V E S , 11 2 S T A N D R E W S P L , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -4 13 8 ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 T U L L A H O M A , T N 3 7 3 8 8 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 6 5 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 0 S T O U LI L R Y A N C O R E Y S TR A U S S LA U R A S U R P R E N A N T V A L ER IE A & LE W IS P O B O X 8 4 1 , 6 3 0 5 T H A V E S U N IT 10 6 , D A V ID R ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 6 5 4 5 T H A V E S U N IT 4 0 6 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 6 5 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 4 3 9 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 7 0 3 2 5 0 0 2 0 8 2 0 0 S W IN D L ER K A T H R Y N E T O B Y l L L C U R S IN O D A N IE L A 6 5 4 5 T H A V E S U N IT 4 0 5 , P O B O X 13 3 9 3 , 1 7 8 1 4 7 3 R D P L W , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -3 6 1 7 M IL L CR E E K , W A 9 8 0 8 2 ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 6 -5 5 2 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 6 4 9 3 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 1 10 4 0 0 V A N D E R LI N D E N JO Y M W IL K E N IN G R O B E R T W IL LI A M S B E N JA M IN 6 3 0 5 T H A V E S #l A , 5 1 9 4 TH A V E S U N IT D , 6 3 0 5 T H A V E S 10 4 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 96 0 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 7 0 0 W IL S O N LI N D A M Z E IL E LO U IS E A 5 5 5 4 T H A V E S , P O B O X 1 5 6 2 0 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 S E A TT L E , W A 9 8 1 1 5 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) F il e N o .: P L N 2 0 2 0 -0 0 5 3 A p p li c a n t: J a c o b Y o u n g P in e P a rk 6 1 4 D is tric t b a s e d d e s ig n re v ie w , N o tic e o f H e a rin g a n d S E P A T h re s h o ld D e te rm in a tio n DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 9th day of February, 2021 the attached Notice of application and virtual public hearing as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Michelle Martin, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9th day of February, 2021 at Edmonds, Washington. Sig n e d :~AA -£u Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) FILE NO.: PLN2020-0053 Applicant: Pine Park 614 (Jacob Young) DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 9th day of February, 2021, the attached Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, City Hall, and Public Safety buildings. It was not posted at the Edmonds Public Library because it is still closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I, Michael Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9th day of February, 2021, at Edmonds, Washington. {BFP74 7893.DOC; I \00006.900000\} Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first 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, ano that the annexed is a true copy f EDH919435 PLN2020-005 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 02/09/2021 and ending on 02/09/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. is Subs~ and swornz~ me on this ~ dayof~.,.7. ~/- ; ~✓4~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds . LEGAL AD S 114101416 MICHELLE MARTIN Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Classified Proof City or Edmonds NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pine Park 614 Is a proposal ror three buildings and site Improvements at 614 and 616 5th Ave. Six live/work units w ould be contained in tw o buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) whlle an eight-unit building would be behind the live/Work buildings and face west (Building C ). D rive alsles w est or the buildings w ould load fro m the priv ate alley south or the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing Im pro vem ents on the site w ill be rem oved. The project site ts zoned Downtown Convenience ccmmercrat (803). District-based design review projects that require a SEPA determination are Type Ill-A cecrsrons, which require a two- ~~:~~ (~t:)- hearing and deci sion by the A rchitectural D esign PROJECT LOCATION: 614 & 616 5th Avenue South and adjacent private alley (Tax ID #: 27032600100900, 27032600102900 & 27032600'102300) NAME OF APPLICANT: Jacob Young FILE NO.: PLN2020-0053 REQUESTED PERMITS: District-based design review, SEPA determ ination COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: March 3, 2021 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, Phase 1 of the two-phase virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on March 3, 2021 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom m eeting at: · https://zoom.us/j/95360544929?pwd=Zmd0REFORkE3RkRaeV dBRmpkNUxMZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 953 6054 4929 Password: 818962 ~~~I~e~!~ln~i~~0~ot~~n~~~c~ j ~:~u~~~ain for Phase 2 of the A ny pe rson has the r1ght to com m ent on th is appllcatlon during h~~~1i~g~~,:~d8 ~~q~:~f~· c~;:i~f u~i¾ce~l!i~~ 6~7~~P:~;ll~0at~r;r. 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 ope n record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project perm it. lnformaUon on this development application cari be found at http:1/edmondswa.gov/publlc-notlces-texUdevetopment- noUces.htm l under the developm ent notice for application ~~~~~r o:'~~2~~~i-~g51t·. b6i1;'':i~il~Sm~idsc~r fft~iL8~~~d Please refer to the appucauon num ber for all Inquiries. A copy of the staff repo rt will be avallable at least seven days prior to the hearing. . SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice Is hereby given that the City of Edm onds has issued a Determ ination of Nonslgnificance under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. DATE OF ISS\JANCE: February 9, 2021 . SEPA COMMENTS DUE: Comments reqardinq the SEPA tleterm ination are due Febrµary 23, 2021. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA detennlnalion may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than M arch 2, 2021 by 4:00 p.m . Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to inrflile an---e dm inistra tive appear. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Sernor Planner m~i~Matlon@ed ondswa.gov Published: February 9, 2021. EDH919435 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 02/09/2021 11 :36: 14 am Page: 2 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) ) CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION Pine Park 614 is a proposal for three buildings and site improvements at 614 and 616 5th Ave. Six live/work units would be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) while an eight-unit building would be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). A drive aisle would be in between the buildings which would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed. The project site is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3). District-based design review projects that require a SEPA determination like this are Type Ill-A decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). A separate notice of the public hearing will be issued once a hearing date has been selected. PROJECT LOCATION: 614 & 616 5th Avenue South and adjacent private alley (Tax ID#: 27032600100900, 27032600102900 & 27032600102300) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NAME OF APPLICANT: Jacob Young FILE NO.: PLN2020-0053 DATE OF APPLICATION: December 21, 2020 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: January 11, 2021 DATE OF NOTICE: January 25, 2021 REQUESTED PERMITS: District-based design review, SEPA determination OTHER REQUIRED Building permits PERMITS: REQUIRED STUDIES: None at this time EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA checklist, critical area checklist, traffic impact analysis COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: CITY CONTACT: February 8, 2021 Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) ') Pine Park 614 AIC.SOE.GlS.SHU.T_CUffU:llNC );f 1,7171 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) C ity of Edmonds A djacen t Property O w n er List 8 -II! --~V\ • i"": 404 .':.()J 4H 412 410 -!08 ·110 •124 428 r-·~ i · ! j '' :-. , :;:; i · I ' I I i,03 ~ .... _! ! -- : -- - . __j 0 L--- - --~ WA.CNUI.ST ~ _ ~ ~- , 1 ' 5or, ~ 601 [: "<03 I I ' '::c I '.='. 50• I 1_,1' I 5)0 I I I~ f----,1 t,1•1 S',6 1 1- 1 ,~ ~ ~' , ~ ~ j+', ; 502 IN ' j(•] I --; , s:t- g I' 5•2 , 11 I 1 . so4 !<o , _ 51. _.,._ ,l.....-·-----,,. --:-ir:-:itr":i- - --·--i---.-- ----.-----r--- --+ 1 ,·-1 , II I ' I· l ,-.. "' ,- . j i' ,., -~- .,, "'I ~ ~ ~ ,;,- I O - 'I -· ·---·-. I I r,.. r-- "" ,.... <;1" .r, 0 .,... ,r , I • ,.,... .,,.,, ...... .,.., ,r, .,.., .. ~, ~7 , I ----~.-~,.IQ'.[[V::TJR. 1-.---~ 3C5 55(.l •ll -1 -UL 4.H' 22~ - 533 6CO ~ ~ I I(',,' 'I ~-1-1 I 1·-,---1 ~ --1 I - 7 ~ I I ➔OJ ' \ 61~ I » . --1 ~~~J I --1· ' _...J I - I , ,-1· I V') '.)JJ ::'. ::: 117 . ~ ·• :• I 1-~ --.· -·-:~_-=- _.,.:::,/ Lu - ~ - _, -"' _.~ I • ~O:lvtELANU:;1~· ,,.-; >( s.r I s.'Q ~ \,,, • -· ,,,f_.·___ ~ w w, I <( 1- - -- ~ _J . ' ~ -- --4""' I~ ,;;, ::S ,-.. 527 7 ~ '}~ J I ! . - , I -· .., .,,..~r-o ! . - ,:, ~- '-' . I '>I J ,,, ...,_ I 0::: - --,,.,,- I If--···· ~- ~ m s,, L))4 I 1 ,,. 1 1 - i:,..1 ~ ----j .. I I 1"' I t---- I )4.4 I .. ~ I 5) / I I )11 ;;:; .,, ~- ·~ C, " -~ "' V ~ 528 I ) 7 )JS I ,, o7i ,-10 o4E 5·1<1 I- "' 5~ M• ~~------~ lt::==ERB EN::OR--, ' - I )":-9 I )~4 ,,, r ~ .~ .,.., t."', -~~ ·--·- -·--~:- _-'.·_---::;: J~6 564 zoe Vl ,,, .,. 0 .,., ,r, 0 ,C, .,., - UJ ---- > 72 0 <( ~ ,, 1.0 72/> ~ :;; 5:<5 j; ~ -0 ~ ~, ~ "" ~ ,_ 1 fo ~.P:C K~wJfY- -~ ,:___ __ _ __ - --r-- - ---.--- -=:.- _ C 'f. R ~ ,=, ~ ~ ,, ~ SO.i u ~ - ---- :6~4 1 '1 SH 81 t 631 515 ~, ~ 9(,.,) (,'.J1 9 ~ ~ 551) PARKS DEPT f-----;=P-.tlStE :S-J:---==-1 7(13 70L 1--- 7(•) -~A~~O=&~=f=:Er..,·•"'-=====" .~ 90° i\l'"/ 710 i,.._ _ I I 'I 71' 715 716 7£1 ~·-·--· I I Ji,~ 0 LU ~ :z ~- :s -=-· "" ~ N :<l : ,:c, .... 252,60 505.2 Feet ;';: ,-.. '/:/ i--- ii-,, :i: 0- ~ 5 ,x1 '': I,---·-.-- 1 i J. ! ')],j ~- 525 .,., ?. ;-- - ·-· 51 ~ ~29 527 I 10 ,c, C, ~ ;~ j I fl~:;::_-:--:- 4 '.~-~~~1 ~-=P.JN E-5:I -::~--- --=_-- 0 "i' '~41> ;;c r C'• r ·r )·17 :5b :902 558 .r, :; ..... ..... ' 906 11·-1 I II ~ 916 91;i 91$ ,;11 -~~_:~- 1 1: 3,031 0 r 4,514 376.2 W GS_ 1984_W eb_M ercator_Auxiliary _Sphere © City of Edm onds This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS M AP IS NO T TO BE USED FO R DESIG N O R CO NSTR UCTIO N :; fdmond 1. ,'a I, I ' t.- • .--, I l,i:~l"K<' ~)9 Mou ni.L,ite- ll-Nr.Ke Legend N otes 300' Pro perty O wner Addresses fo r PLN2020-0053 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 3 3 ED M O N D S LLC 2 3 5 2 0 W O O D W A Y PA R K R D , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 4 77 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 B A K K E N JA N 0 5 1 6 H O M E L A N D D R , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -4 0 2 6 0 0 9 0 6 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 B C 3 0 0 LLC P O B O X 10 4 4 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 2 7 0 3 2 6 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 B K IN V E S T M E N T G R O U P LL C 5 5 7 R O Y S T S T E 12 5 , S E A TT L E , W A 9 8 1 0 9 0 0 9 0 6 5 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 B R A D L E Y D R A K E R 6 5 4 5T H A V E S U N IT 4 0 2 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 4 C H A L M ER S G IN A LI V IN G T R U S T 3 1 8 H O W E L L W A Y , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -4 1 1 8 - 0 0 7:2 0 0 0 0 11 0 "1 0 0 .. C H A N M A N H O I 4 3 8 0 E M A R S H A L L C O U R T , G IL B ER T , A Z 8 5 2 9 7 0 0 9 0 6 5 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 D A H L S T R O M T IM O T H Y & M U R P H Y D 6 5 4 5 T H A V E S U N IT 4 0 4 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -3 6 1 7 0 0 4 0 9 6 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 D O W D -T IM O N E N PA T R IC IA T R U S T 5 3 4 4 T H A V E S , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -4 11 0 0 0 6 4 9 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 -- --~A IR CH lt D ·FA M lt Y ·R EV O C A B L n T R O S T 5 1 9 4 T H A V E S U N IT A , ED M O N D S , W A 9 8 0 2 0 -4 13 8 I P~1t. .woiy.com. p.1te11t~ : I l3l·IHI .ilonq 11111• lo t·<pO<L' Pop up [di:JL' I 27032500210500 APPLE TWO LLC 14227 EVERGREEN WAY, STANWOOD, WA 98292 00880600010100 BANKSTON JOHN K & SHERILYN M 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 101, EDMONDS, WA 98020 00720000000400 BEDDALL BRADLEY 19515 27TH N W, SEATTLE, WA 98177 00409600101903 BOZE TIMOTHY A & TAMI R 314 HOWELL WAY, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4118 00409600100300 BURK CAROL 515 3RD AVES, EDMONDS, WA 98020 00906500010300 CHAN DAVID & NAKAGAWA JANE 1758 43RD AVE, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 - 27032500215300 COLUMBIA CITY PARTNERS LLC 4201 6TH AVES, SEATTLE, WA 98108 00477~00001501 - DAWSON WES C 539 HOMELAND DR, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4026 Q_Qg.~_§00:1,01100 DRULLINGER MARK A 544 4TH AVE S, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 00872700051400 ··rnRl'vlER JAMES-R &-P:ATRICIA·w- 514 4TH AVES, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4110 Etiquettes dadressc Easy Peel : l!c•p liP Z ,l lil hachur« .ilin d e re v e le r le , ob o rd Po p -u p I LJ,,,, A vr1y Iomplatc 5160 I j ----- 00720000120800 ·ARCHER KEVIN W & KIMBERLY D 630 5TH AVES UNIT 208, EDMONDS, WA 98020-3453 27032500207900 BARRETT STEVEN P 510 HOLLY DR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 00720000301900 BIGLER LINDA 25449 S KINGSTON RD NE, KINGSTON, WA 98346 00843900030400 BRADBURY WARREN E 504 HOLLY DR, UNIT 304 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00880600020100 CARROLL WENDY 400 HOWELL WAY #201, EDMONDS, WA 98020 00906500020400 CHAN DAVID C & NAKAGAWA JANE R 654 5TH AVES UNIT 204, EDMONDS, WA 98020-3619 27012500210400 CURTIS CHESTER B & DOLORES B PO BOX 1087, EDMONDS, WA 98020 0041-7300001-800 ~ - DOLAN MICHAEL W & MARY K 515 HOMELAND DR, EDMONDS, WA 98020-4026 27032§.0010250Q_ EDMONDS CENTER LP 403 HOWELL WAY, .EDMONDS, WA 98020 00843900020100 FIRl'VIANITINDA - 504 HOLLY DR, UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020 Allez a avery.ca/gabarits : Utilisuz le G a b ari t A vciry 5160 I Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 1 se3 a saipe.p seuon !l~ 00409600200100 FO URTH STREET APARTMENTS LLC 624 ELM PL, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4646 00872 700051800 GRIGNON DIANE H 518 4TH AVES, ED MONDS, WA 98020-411 0 00880600020200 HAYTEMA PIETER D & NORMA J 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 202, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4190 00906500040100 HOFFMAN SHER RY R 654 5TH AVES UNIT 401, ED MONDS, WA 98020-3617 00477300001702 HUDLOW KARMEN L 523 HOMELAND DR, ED MONDS, WA 98020 0072 0000120600 HUGHES DAVID & BELINDA 630 5TH AVES UNIT 206, EDMONDS, WA 98020-3453 00649300100200 JO CHIMSEN LAVERE E & KATHRYN C 517 4TH AVES UNIT B, ED MONDS, WA 98020-413 7 ·· · -oonoooo120soo KIRK MARY ELLEN 630 5TH AVES UNIT 205, ED MONDS, WA 98020-3453 00843900030300--~-- - KWAK KUM TRUST 504 HOLLY DR, UNIT 303 ED MONDS, WA 98020 00720000120100 LANIGAN BILLIE THON 630 5TH AVES UNIT 201, ED MONDS, WA 98020 0072 0000120300 [EESEW AYI\IE PSC 477 BOX 29, FPO AP, 96306 0072 000011010 0 FRANCIS ROGER A 630 5TH AVE S # 101, ED MONDS, WA 98020 0072 0000120400 HAMMRICH GREGORY F 630-5TH AVE S # 204, ED MONDS, WA 98020 00906500020300 HEINS LANE REVOKABLE FAMILY TRUST 654 5TH AVES UNIT 203, ED MONDS, WA 98020-3619 00409600101901 HOGGINS DALEE & DONNA L 21826 95TH AVE W, ED MONDS, WA 98020 00477 300000600 KETT EL RICHARD G & SARA E 524 HOMELAND DR, ED MONDS, WA 98020 - -00906500020200 - KRUEGER JOHN & JEAN REVOCABLE TRUST 654 5TH AVES UNIT 202, ED MONDS, WA 98020-3619 00906.§00040~00--- LALL YANN M 654 5TH AVES UNIT 403, ED MONDS, WA 98020-3617 004096001J):l.30Q_ _ LARSON GREGG & DARCIE 554 4TH AVES, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4110 0064930010 010 0 -··t.:oRAR SHANNON R & EDWARD 517 4TH AVES UNIT A, ED MONDS, WA 98020 00720000120200 FUREY DANIELJ & ANNE M 116 CLALLAM BAY ST, SEQUIM, WA 98382 00880600010200 HANLEY ROBERTS & BETT Y J 400 HOWELL WAY UNIT 10 2, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4190 00720000110500 HEVERANJANET 630.STH AVES UNIT 10 5, ED MONDS, WA 98020 0072 0000110300 HUDDLESTON JEAN MARIE 630 FIFTH AVES UNIT 10 3, ED MONDS, WA 98020 00649300100300 JER MULOWSKE JEFFREYS/W HEEL ER ALISHA K 517 4TH AVENUE SOUTH #C, ED MONDS, WA 98020 0040960010 0900 KILLIN JONATHAN & SELENA 543 3RD AVES, ED MONDS, WA 98020-410 3 OD8806000103-00 KURTH RLT 400 HOWEL L WAY UNIT 103, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4190 004096002:0 0400 LANG JACK A 5414TH AVES, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4189 OQ40960Q.100800 .. ~ LARSON HELMA A 5413RD AVES, ED MONDS, WA 98020-4103 004096001012 00 - LORETTEALLAN R& SALLY B 558 4TH AVES, ED MONDS, W A 98020-411 0 1 09 l c; • ,wIc!Lu,11 f. "'/\\;/ ,,sn : saie1dLL10ljLUOYt\Ja/\e oi 09 1 ;:,f,p3 cln ci<)d .isocl,,< 01 dllll fiuoI1' pu,>g : s1aqe7 ssarppv 1aad /ise3 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 00 880 60 00 20 300 LYLE TH EO D O R E & HU M P H R EYS-LYLE JO A N P TR 400 H O W ELL W AY U N IT 20 3, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20=41:90- 00 477 30 0000 300 M A RZ A N O M IC H IA H J & A N TH O N Y 5 10 H O M ELA N D D R, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20-40 26 00 8439 000 20 200 M C KA Y G R ETA / LI G H T FO O T LI N D A 50 4 H O LLY D R , U N IT 20 2 ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 2 70 32 500 20 8000 M T O LYM PU S H O LD IN G S LLC 5 3 3 5T H AV E S , ED M O N D S, W A 98020 2703260010 0300 O LYM PIC & SO U N D VIEW LLC 12625 4TH AV E W STE 200, EV ER ETT , W A 98204 00 4096 00 20 0 500 PA U LSO N G ILLI A N 5 4 7 4T H AV E S , ED M O N D S, W A 980 20-4 189 00 906500020 10 0 PER R Y PA M ELA ELI ZA BET H 654 5T H AV E S U N IT 20 1, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 -0 0 4 090 00 10 1 100- - PIC KETT RO N A LD 654 4T H AV E S , ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 -72 26 -00 4'7-7-3 0 00001 00----- PO O LE C EC EL IA A 5 3 7 5T H AV E S , ED M O N D S, W A 980 20-3458 004096 00 10 0 10 i__ R A M M G A R V/R A M M CH A RLEN E 50 11 1 9TH AV EN U E N E, SEA TT LE, W A 98 105 ) 00 8439 0 00 30 100 - SC R IPP EKSJO R A l'fl\;,fl~ZA N T0-1\J ETI H A G 50 4 H O LLY D R U N IT 301, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20-34 98 00843900030200 LYO N S JO H N A L & CA RO LS 19828 47TH AV E N E, LA KE FO REST PA RK, W A 98155 00906500010 10 0 M A TT H EW S SUSA N R 14111 55T H AV E W , ED M O N D S, W A 98026 00649300200200 M IZE LI SA M TT EE 7001 SEA V IEW AV E NW UNIT 160-808, SEA TT LE, W A 98117 270326001 00800 PA YN E R G 8827 29TH AV E NW , SEA TT LE, W A 9811 7 - 27032500218300 PET ER SO N JEFFR EY J & M CKIM M IE HEA TH ER L 527 HEM LO C K W A Y, ED M O N D S, W A 98020 --0 0"409600201200 PK REA L PRO PERTY LLC 272 4 98TH AV E N E, BELLEV U E, W A 98004 004]-7-3 00000-2:0 0- - - PO W ER LEE A & M ELA N IE L 511 HO M ELA N D DR, ED M O N D S, W A 98020-4026 QQ47n_Q000_040Q _ RIC H A RD RITA 609 5TH AV E S , ED M O N D S, W A 98020-3452 00906500010200 SCOTTTAMAR & CATH Y L-- - 8745 G REEN W O O D AV E N A PT 315, SEA TT LE, W A 98103 00409600100400 M A HO N EY SU SAN A 5213 RD AVES, ED M O N DS, W A 98026 0072 000011 0800 M CI N TYRE JESSAM YN A 630 5TH AVES UN IT 108, ED M O NDS, W A 98020-3448 1 091 c; ,))l'(dtU,lj Al.J/\V ,1S(1 : saie\dLual/lliOYAJcJi\e oi 09 004096 00101600 M T BA KER ASSO CIATES LP PO BO X 13 29, ED M O NDS, W A 98020 0072 0000110 200 PA IN E SUSAN 10 05 5TH AVES UN IT 102, ED M O N DS, W A 98020 00649300100400 PED ER SO N NAN CY CH ERM AK 517 4TH AVES U NIT D, ED M O NDS, W A 98020-413 7 -- 0040960010 1700 PH IPPS TH O M AS E & GAYLE M 22929 10 8TH AVE W , ED M O NDS, W A 98020-5189 004U96002003U0 - - PN T PRO PER TIES LLC 9792 ED M O ND S W AY #22 5, ED M O NDS, W A 98020 004096 0018 0101 PU G SLEY KEVIN & KO RYN N 308 HO W ELL W AY, ED M O NDS, W A 98020 27032500215200 RO D RIGUES AD LER F & M ERCED ES F 521 HEM LOCK W AY, ED M O NDS, W A 98020 I .ibp3 dn dt\J .v.odx.i 01 ''"I r,uo1l' P'"'8 : s1aqe7 ssaJPPV 1aad Ase3 27032500218400 SHAPP7\CH ER TRO-l'VIAS-& 1\71E[\SSA A 539 HEM LOCK W AY, ED M O NDS, W A 98020 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 0 0 64930 0200 300 S IM P S O N JE A N H 519 4TH A V E S U N IT C, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 -413 8 00409600 10 0 600 ST O U LI L RY A N CO R EY P O B O X 84 1 , ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 0090 6500040 500 SW IN D L ER KA T H R YN E 65 4 5TH A V E S U N IT 405, ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 -36 17 0 0 72 0 00 0 10 0 10 0 V A N D ER LI N D EN JO Y M 6 30 5T H A V E S #lA , ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 0040 960 0200 600 W ILS O N LI N D A M 55 5 4 T H A V E S , ED M O N D S , W A 9 80 20 l 0040 9600 10 0 500 SPA R KS ALA N J 527 3R D AV E S, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 0072 0000 110 600 ST RA U SS LA U R A 630 5T H AV E S U N IT 10 6, ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 8439000 10 000 TO BYl LLC PO BO X 13 39 3, M ILL CR EEK, W A 98082 00 64 9300 2004 00 W ILKEN IN G RO BER T 519 4TH AV ES U N IT D , ED M O N D S, W A 980 20 00 40 9600100700 STEIN LE PA M ELA 112 ST A N D R EW S PL, TU LLA H O M A , TN 37 388 0090650 0040600 SU R PR EN A N T VA LER IE A & LEW IS D A V ID R 654 5TH AV ES U N IT 40 6, EDMeNE>S; wA-~8()20 270 32 500 20 8200 URSIN O DA N IEL A 178 14 73 R D PL W , ED M O N D S, W A 980 26-5520 0072 0 000110 4 00 W ILLI A M S BEN JA M IN 630 5TH A V E S 10 4, ED M O N D S, W A 98020 00 72 0 000 120 700 ZEILE LO U ISE A PO BO X 156 20 , SEA TT LE, W A 9811 5 1 091 <; ,ljl'(rillkl( Ah)f\v ,.sn : saie1dLuavu10::i-AJcl/\l? oi 09 1 01,p J rln-lio,J .iso d xo 01 '""I huo11· 1"1,18 : s1aqe7 ssa.1ppv 1aad ASL?:J r--1 : 09L~ .A~3I\V Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) FILE NO.: PLN2020-0053 Applicant: Pine Park 614 (Jacob Young) DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 25th day of January, 2021, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property, City Hall, and Public Safety buildings. It was not posted at the Edmonds Public Library because it is still closed due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. I, Michael Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 25th day of January, 2021, at Edmonds, Washington. {BFP747893.DOC; I \00006.900000\ } Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) F il e N o .: P L N 2 0 2 0 -0 0 5 3 A p p li c a n t: P in e P a rk 6 1 4 J a c o b Y o u n g N o tic e o f A p p li c a tio n DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 25th day of January, 2021, the attached Notice of application and virtual public hearing as prescribed by Ordinance to property owners within 300 feet of the site that is the subject of this application. I, Michelle Martin, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 25th day of January 2021 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed:~~ Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first 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 EDH91826 LN2020-0053 a it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issue(s), such publication commencing on 01/25/2021 and ending on 01/25/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The $50. is Subscribed and sworn ~~-a.. ._.c:::z_ day of this ~~ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City ofBdm onds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 MICHELLE MARTIN Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) I Classified Proof ' , • ') 'J ',\, ... \ ... }'- CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION PRb~~~~;s ~~~Cs~~T~~~v:~:nf:'! t1 1~ i!n~Plff 0 Jt~ ~:e th ~';~ live/work units would be contained in two buildlngs adjacent to 5th Avenue, (Buildings A and B) while an eight-unit building would be behind the liVetwork buildings and face west (Building C). A drive aisle would be In between the buildings which would load from the private alley south of the site. To accommodate the new project, the existing improvements on the site will be removed. The pro ject sile is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial ~~?e3~1~:t~~~t-,~;~isd~~g~;~~i~~-Ar~je 8c~~1o1~:,t ~e~~~~:q~~:: two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). A separate notice of the public hearing will be issued once a hearing date has been selected. PROJECT LOCATION: 614 & 616 5th Avenue South and adjacent private alley (Tax ID #: 27032600100900, 27032600102900 & 27032600102300) NAME OF APP~ICANT: Jacob Young FILE NO.: PLN2020-0053 DATE OF APPLICATION: December 21, 2020 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: January 11, 2021 DATE OF NOTICE: January 25, 2021 REQUESTED PERMITS: DistMc1-based design review, SEPA detennlnatlon OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Building permils REQUIRED STUDIES: None at this time EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA checklist, critical area checklist, traffic Impact analysis COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: February 8, 2021 CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner ~J~~;;~-~~~~ton@ edm ondsw a.gov Published: January 25, 2021. EDH918262 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 01/26/2021 03:36:15 pm Page:2 Attachment 9 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Cities of Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace Department of Fire Prevention Page 1 of 1 Fire Comments DATE: 12/28/2020 JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Pine Park 614 614 – 616 5th Ave S. Edmonds, WA CONTACTS: Citizen Design Jacob Young 206-853-8055 jyoung@collaborativeco.com FIRE COMMENTS: 1. Noted 13D fire sprinklers in all units. 2. Need 20 feet wide 13 foot 6-inch-high clear access in drive isle. 3. Turning radii will adhere to South County Fire standards, 25 inside 45 outside turning radii and show on drawings. 4. Drive isle will be signed, stripped or both with "NO PARKING FIRE LANE". 5. All vaults will adhere to South County Fire standard of a minimum of HS20. (To achieve 75,000# point load) 6. Separate permits for 13D Fire Sprinkler systems 7. Building addressing 12 “numbering on contrasting background”. Suite identification is 6-inch numbers or letters beside the door in a contrasting color. Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 O: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer@southsnofire.org Attachment 10 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page | 1 Date: January 22, 2021 To: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PLN2020-0053 –Design Review Pine Park 614-616 5th Ave S The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents submitted for the subject application. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following. Utility Engineer Review: The following comments are provided by the City Utility Engineer, Mike Delila. Please contact Mike directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at mike.delilla@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Please submit the following information. 1. To determine whether existing water and sewer systems provide sufficient capacity for the proposed development, the applicant will need to submit a request for Water-Sewer Availability determination. To request a Water and Sewer availability determination, please email Engineeringpermits@edmondswa.gov with the address(s) to start the process. 2. The utility engineer has sent the subject proposal out to a consultant to determine what upgrades (if any) would be needed within the City’s system. It is unlikely that any upgrade is necessary in this case but you will receive the determination within the next two weeks to confirm that or outline the upgrade that would be needed. No action is needed at this time. General Engineering Review: The following comments are provided by the Engineering Technician, JoAnne Zulauf. Please contact at Joanne.zulauf@edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding these comments. MEMORANDUM Attachment 10 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Page | 2 Please make the following revisions to the plans. 1. Frontage Improvements and Access: a) Call out the width of the drive aisles on site. Two way drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 ft in width. b) Parking stalls shall be 8.5 x 16.5. If you can demonstrate that sufficient parking area is available to provide all required parking spaces at the full width dimensions, then if desired, a maximum of fifty percent of the total required parking spaces may be sized at reduced width per the parking space dimensions, 8 x 16.5. See ECDC 18.95.020 for full requirements. c) Provide a plan showing frontage improvements along 5th Ave S to determine if there are conflicts, or other issues barring feasibility: i. 7-10 foot wide sidewalks required (width determined by available ROW). ii. Proposed power pole relocations. Work with PUD to determine new locations. iii. Show location of street trees with 3’ x 3’ tree grates along the curb to ensure adequate spacing from utilities, etc. iv. Show flower pole on plan. Relocating if necessary. 2. Trash and Recycling; show how trash and recycling will be handled on the site. Please contact Sound Disposal, 425-778-2404, for requirements. Stormwater Engineer Review: No further action necessary for design review approval. Stormwater items to address prior to building permit submittal: No soils report or Geotech report was received therefore no verification of sizing of system, etc. Infiltration is shown at less than typical setbacks (west building may even have footings in the infiltration area). Confirm that Geotech has reviewed the plans and submit extra documentation to show that the design is acceptable. Also, the first two stretches of connecting pipe are only 8” so the capacity will need to be checked though depending on infiltration rates may not be an issue. Transportation Engineer Review: No further action necessary for design review approval. A Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet was provided indicating the project would create less than 25 peak-hour trips; therefore, a traffic study is not required. Specific mitigation fees will be further reviewed during the building permit phase of the project. Attachment 10 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) From:Clugston, Michael To:ed lorah Subject:RE: Questions for review re: 614-616 5th Ave South project Date:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:20:10 AM Hi Ed, Thank you for the comments. As I mentioned in the other thread, you are now a party of record to this project. I’ve inserted responses below to the best of my ability – your concerns will be added to the record and others more knowledgeable than myself will be able to better respond going forward. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Mike Michael Clugston, AICP Senior Planner City of Edmonds 425-771-0220 x 1330 michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov CITY HALL IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Services will continue to be provided by email, phone and by appointment as necessary. Apply for a Building Permit or Critical Area Determination at: https://mybuildingpermit.com/ For planning permit inquiries, email: planningpermits@edmondswa.gov For all other permit inquiries, email: devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov Handouts, codes, plans, and Web GIS: http://www.edmondswa.gov/handouts.html From: ed lorah <mswedlorah@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 7:47 AM To: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Questions for review re: 614-616 5th Ave South project Hi Mike- Our Parkview Twin HOA Board met last night (seven of eight owners were present) to review and discuss the proposed development for 614-616 5th Ave South. Here are the main questions and concerns that we defined. 1. Drainage. We believe from reviewing the plans that grey water and sewage will connect to a Attachment 11 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) system beneath the existing alley on the south boundary of our property and the new development, and run down to 4th Ave South. We also understand that the alley will be paved as part of the project. Our concerns have to do specifically with ground flow from rain water. Right now we have a green belt behind our property that absorbs much of the water cascading down from the ridge and streets above us. In heavy rainstorms the alley acts as a conduit for the water not absorbed by the (current) vacant lot. We are concerned that the destruction of the green belt and the paving of the entire parcel of land behind us may result in direct runoff into our parking lots and homes. Has the city conducted a hydrology survey regarding these concerns? The project must be designed to manage all of its stormwater onsite. During design review, the City’s Stormwater Engineer will review the project to determine whether it is feasible from that perspective. Assuming it is, at the building permit phase, the Engineer would review the civil improvement plans to ensure compliance with the Stormwater code in Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 2. In addition to the onsite parking planned for the development will there be room for guest parking, or will visitors find on-street parking? Will the city allow vehicles to be parked in the alley? Presently, Barkada, our neighborhood restaurant, has delivery vehicles making short stops to offload. We recently had aid cars come to our condo and they require access 24/7. Would the city install "No Parking" signage? As proposed, each of the residential units in the west building would have one off-street space as required by code. Each of the six live-work units would have two off-street spaces (one required for the ‘live’ use plus one required for the ‘work’ use). No other guest parking is required or proposed onsite so any further parking would be on the street. The need for parking signage will be evaluated by the Engineering Division and Fire District. 3. What are the plans for exterior outside lighting? Will there be exterior lights on garages, stairways, etc;? Are there limits to the number of lights allowed and restrictions on brightness at night? This is a big question as the eight town house will be facing our bedroom windows at Parkview. Looking at the current renderings, it appears there are small wall sconces around the buildings but further information about that can be obtained for the 2nd phase of the design review hearing. 4. What is the estimated timeframe for completion of the project once begun? According to the information provided by the applicant, they anticipate starting construction in the summer of 2022. How long the construction process takes depends on many factors but 12 months is probably a reasonable ballpark. 5. Is this project intended as a "condo complex" with an HOA or will it be private owners, each responsible for his/her own unit? The applicant would like to use the City’s unit lot subdivision process to create individually-owned Attachment 11 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) lots for each of the 14 units. The unit lot process is similar to doing condos in that each unit lot is separately owned and maintained and then there is an HOA to manage jointly-owned elements. The code currently does not allow that process to be used in the Downtown Business zones, however, so the applicant has applied for a separate code amendment to add the Downtown Business zones to where the unit lot process could be used. The process has been used successfully in other areas of Edmonds so it would stand to reason that it could work in the BD zones as well. The Planning Board will start to look at the proposed code change this Wednesday and will eventually hold a public hearing on the topic and then forward it to the City Council for their review. If the Council did not approve the code change, the Pine Park project could be rentals or more likely made into condos. Thanks. We are planning to attend the public hearings and will undoubtedly have more questions as things move ahead. Sincerely, Ed Lorah for Parkview Twin Condominiums 517-519 4th Ave South Edmonds WA 98020 Attachment 11 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 1 Clugston, Michael From:Paul McCulloh <paulmcculloh@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:16 PM To:Clugston, Michael Subject:Re: Comment on File No PLN2020-0053 Hi Mike, Thank you for your quick and comprehensive reply to my question, as well as for the attached project files. Looks like Edmonds is in good hands. I look forward to watching the project progress. Regards, Paul On Tue, Feb 9, 2021, 8:09 AM Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> wrote: Hi Paul, Thank you for the comment. You are a party of record to this application and will receive a copy of the eventual decision and have the right to appeal should you find that necessary. Notice for the public hearing for the project will be issued today with the first phase of the hearing on Zoom on March 3. Onsite parking would be provided for the residential and commercial uses in accordance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Each of the eight units in the west building would have one stall per unit while each of the six units in the two eastern buildings would have two stalls – one for the ‘live’ use and one for ‘work’ use (see Sheet 1 of the attached). No guest parking is required by the code and none would be provided so other visitors to the site would have to use the on-street spaces during their visits. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know. Mike Michael Clugston, AICP Senior Planner Attachment 12 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 2 City of Edmonds 425-771-0220 x 1330 michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov CITY HALL IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Services will continue to be provided by email, phone and by appointment as necessary. Apply for a Building Permit or Critical Area Determination at: https://mybuildingpermit.com/ For planning permit inquiries, email: planningpermits@edmondswa.gov For all other permit inquiries, email: devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov Handouts, codes, plans, and Web GIS: http://www.edmondswa.gov/handouts.html From: Paul McCulloh <paulmcculloh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 2:45 PM To: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comment on File No PLN2020-0053 Hello Mr. Clugston, I am a resident of 630 5th Avenue South, the property nearly adjacent to the proposed building site for the above- referenced file number. In addition to being adjacent to the project site, our building makes use of the private alley south of the site, which would also be used by the proposed buildings. The project description that we received does not make mention of parking, or local impact on parking, in connection with this proposed project. I am hopeful that the City of Edmonds is requiring new buildings to have on-property ground level or below-ground parking. As I'm sure you are aware, during normal working times parking along this portion of Fifth Avenue is generally full during working hours. The impact to the area of an additional 10 to 20 cars requiring street parking would be, at the least, detrimental. Attachment 12 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) 3 I am making this comment before the end of the comment due date so that it can be on file for this project. In addition, if you would be so kind as to let me know the current status of parking for this project, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Paul McCulloh 206-291-7822 Attachment 12 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Name of Proposed Project: Owner/Applicant Applicant Contact Person: Name Name Street/Mailing Address Street/Mailing Address City State Zip City State Zip Telephone: Telephone: Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable): Firm Name Contact Name Telephone: E-mail: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Location - Street address: (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) b. Specify existing land use: c. Specify proposed type and size of development: (# of residential units and/or square footage of building) d. Date construction will begin and be completed: e. Define proposed access locations: PERMITTING & DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 121 5th Avenue N P: 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov Transportation Impact Analysis Worksheet The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) worksheet applies to projects that generate less than 25 peak-hour trips. When applicable, a TIA Worksheet shall be submitted in conjunction with a building permit application or at the time of business license if a building permit is not required. APPENDIX A Page 1 of 2 Attachment 13 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) f. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: 2. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the attached Impact Fee Rate Tables and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. CHANGE IN USE Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04), the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used. ITE Land Use Category Per Unit Fee Rate Units in square feet, # of dwelling, vfp, etc. Fee New Use $ X = $ Prior Use $ X = $ New Use Fee: $ - Prior Use Fee: $ = $ 1 NEW DEVELOPMENT ITE Land Use Category Per Unit Fee Rate Units in square feet, # of dwelling, vfp, etc. Fee New Use $ X = $ OTHER MITIGATION FEE RECOMMENDATION: $ INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $240.00 (+ consultant fee) $ TOTAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE $ City of Edmonds, Engineering Division Approval Date 1 No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative. APPENDIX A Page 2 of 2 Attachment 13 PLN2020-0053 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) Pine Park 614 | Memorandum | 2021 1 COLLABORATIVECO.COM 206.535.7908 WE ARE FAMILY DESIGNING INSPIRED SPACE TO CREATE COMMUNITY DATE TO PROJECT March 1, 2021 Edmonds Design Review Board 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Pine Park 614 Citizen Design appreciates this opportunity to provide additional information regarding the proposed entitlements for the Pine Park 614 project. This project is located at 610-614 5th Avenue S and is currently under board design review. As currently envisioned, the project includes several interrelated entitlements. In chronological order, these include a short subdivision, board design review, several building permits, a land use code text amendment and a unit lot subdivision. As of this writing, applications have been submitted for design review [PLN2020-0053] and the code text amendment [AMD2020-0003]. Due to unforeseen circumstances discussed below, the short subdivision has not yet been submitted. At the beginning of this project, the development team was led to believe that the project site consisted of two legal parcels. This would have resulted in the project requiring a boundary line adjustment rather than a short subdivision to create the desired lot lines. The project team submitted this boundary line adjustment under record number PLN2021-0005. During initial review of this application, City staff determined that these parcels were in fact tax lots and had never been formally subdivided. Therefore, it was determined that a boundary line adjustment was not the appropriate vehicle for establishing the desired lot lines. Upon further discussion with City officials Rob Chave and Mike Clugston, it was determined that the project would instead move forward using a short subdivision. The proposed short subdivision achieves several key project goals. The first of these is to reduce the lot depth from 130 ft to 58.5 ft. This reduces the required commercial depth from 45 ft to 30 ft, which allows for the front buildings’ required parking. It also establishes two parcels containing less than 12,000 sf each. This restores the original understanding [based on the tax lots] that open space would not be required due to the size of the subject parcels. Finally, the subdivision creates a boundary between the front and rear buildings. Should the unit lot subdivision code amendment be rejected, this allows for greater flexibility in the sale, rental and/or condomiumization of the buildings. Having determined that the project is able to move forward by replacing the requested boundary line adjustment with a short subdivision, the project team chose to move forward with design review for this project. We welcome the board’s comments and look forward to working together as the project continues. Citizen Design 2.A.1.i Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit 8 - Phase 1 Staff Report and Attachments (Pine Park 614 Design Review Public Hearing - Phase 2) PINE PARK 614 ADB PHASE I PUBLIC HEARING PLN2020-0053 March 3, 2021 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Outline Review Two-Phase Hearing Process Packet, Attachments & Review Context Site Context BD3 Zoning Requirements Review Design Guideline Checklist Recommendation on Date Certain 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Two -Phase Hearing Process Triggered by BD3 zone, need for SEPA Phase 1 Applicant provides conceptual design ADB prioritizes design guideline checklist Continue hearing to a date certain, not to exceed 120 days Phase 2 Applicant responds to guidance from Phase 1 ADB reviews proposal based on guidance from Phase 1 ADB issues Type III-A decision 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Packet, Attachments and Review Context Staff report with initial 13 attachments One additional attachment tonight Attachment 14 –Applicant Narrative Initial review of use/bulk, parking, Designated Street front, open space 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design East Buildings (A & B) Six Live/Work Units 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design West Building (C) Eight Units 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design BD3 Zone –Use and Bulk MF, live/work, parking / loading allowed Setbacks 0’ from street (5th Ave. ) and sides (N/S) 15’ from west property line since MF zone to west 30’ maximum height 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Parking West Building Eight units -1 per unit East Buildings Each unit -1 ‘live’ stall + 1 ‘work’ stall 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Designated Street Front Along 5th Height of ground floor must be 12 ft tall for 45’ depth, commercial uses in that space but not parking 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Alternative Allowed in BD3 Zone For properties within the BD2 and BD3 zones which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Is the Proposed Layout Compliant? Yes, with the short plat Condition to obtain short plat approval will be proposed Preliminary short plat application expected soon Can then have commercial space with 30’ depth and parking behind within the Designated Street Front area per the BD3 exception 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Open Space 5% of lot area for lots over 12,000 sq. ft or with buildings longer than 120 feet at the street lot line With short plat, no open space required Buildings A & B are less than 120’ long at 5th Ave. East and west lots < 12,000 sq. ft. (8,500 sf +/-) 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Design Guideline Checklist Included as Attachment 4 to Staff Report Packet page 25 Similar to design standards for BD zones in ECDC 22.43 Work through checklist and provide guidance to applicant 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Date Certain for Phase 2… Staff recommends May 5 or June 2 Allow sufficient time for the applicant to respond to design guidance Allow staff sufficient time to begin review of preliminary short plat application, design review resubmittal, and prepare the staff report for Phase 2 of the design hearing 2.A.1.j Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Exhibit 9 - ADB 3-3-21 Phase 1 Pine Park PPT Slides (Pine Park 614 Design Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/5/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation approve March 3rd meeting minutes. Narrative March 3rd meeting draft minutes attached. Attachments: ADB210303d 3.1 Packet Pg. 216 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 1 of 10 DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting March 3, 2021 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Maurine Jeude Board Members Absent Kim Bayer Joe Herr Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: PINE PARK 614 – PHASE 1 DESIGN REVIEW (FILE NUMBER PLN2020-0053) Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She asked if any Board Member had engaged in communications with opponents or proponents regarding the design review of File Number PLN2020-0053 outside of the public hearing process, and all Board Members answered no. Next, she asked if any Board Members had a conflict of interest or believed that he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner, and all answered no. Lastly, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to a Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and there were no objections. Chair Strauss invited all those who wanted to testify in the hearing to affirm that their testimony would be the truth. She then invited staff to present the application. Mr. Clugston explained that the subject site is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3). Because the proposal triggers a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board is required through a two-phased public hearing. At the Phase 1 hearing, the applicant will present a conceptual design and a description of the property to be developed, noting all significant characteristics. The Board will use this information to make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and prioritize the Design Guideline Checklist (Attachment 4). Following public testimony and completion of the checklist, the Board will continue the public hearing to a date certain not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing. At the Phase 2 hearing, the applicant will respond to the guidance from the Phase 1 hearing, and the Board will review the proposal again and issue a Type III Decision. Mr. Clugston advised that the packet that was provided for the meeting included the Staff Report and 13 attachments. An additional attachment (narrative from the applicant) was received on March 3rd and will be included in the packet that is prepared for the Phase 2 Hearing. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photograph looking west at the project site at 614 and 616 – 5th Avenue South, just south of Ace Hardware. The site was previously occupied by Curves and Baskin Robbins. He noted the location of the alley to the south and existing parking lot between the two buildings. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing development with three new buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) and the 8-unit residential building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building C). Drive aisles west of the buildings will load from the private alley south of the site. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Mr. Clugston reviewed that multifamily, live/work, parking and loading are all allowed uses in the BD3 zone, and no setback would be required from the street (5th Avenue) or on the sides (north/south). A 15-foot setback from the west property line would be required because the property to the west is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM). The maximum height limit in the BD3 zone is 30 feet. One off-street parking space would be required for each of the multifamily units in Building C, and each of the live/work units would require 2 off-street parking spaces. Mr. Clugston shared a site plan, noting the location of the two live/work buildings (Buildings A and B), which would sit at the property line on 5th Avenue. The multifamily building (Building C) would be located behind, with a 15-foot setback along the western property line. Again, he said no setback would be required on the north, south or east sides. Mr. Clugston said the applicant has not provided height calculations, but the building sections provided in the packet gives a general feeling for the height. Buildings A and B will be likely be right at 30 feet in height, and Building C will be a little less than 30 feet in height. He said the applicant will be required to provide specific height calculations for the Phase 2 hearing, and setbacks, height, etc. will be verified via the Building Permit process. Mr. Clugston advised that the Designated Street Front Requirements apply in all of the Downtown Business (BD) zones. Ground floor ceiling heights must be at least 12 feet and commercial uses are required to a depth of 45 feet from the street front. Parking is not considered a commercial use. However, there is an exception in the BD2 and BD3 zones for properties that have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front. In that instance, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case, can the commercial space be less than 30 feet deep. As proposed, Buildings A and B would utilize the exception, with commercial spaces that are 30-feet deep and parking located immediately behind. The proposed floor-to-floor height is 12 feet for each of the two buildings. Mr. Clugston said the project site (Parcel A) is approximately 130 feet deep and 132 feet wide. When applying for design review, the applicant thought there was a property line dividing the parcel into two separate lots, and the intent was to do a lot-line adjustment. However, the line was later determined to be a tax parcel line rather than an actual lot line. Because a lot-line adjustment is no longer an option, the applicant could request a 2-lot short plat to yield two lots. Both of the new lots would be about 8,500 square feet in size and approximately 65 feet deep. While the project is not currently code-compliant, it would become compliant if and when a 2-lot short plat is approved. The applicant intends to submit an application in the next few days, and a decision should be relatively close at the Phase 2 hearing. If it is not available at the Phase 2 hearing, staff will recommend a condition that short plat approval must be obtained. With short plat approval, the commercial space could be 30-feet deep, with parking behind. Mr. Clugston reviewed that for lots over 12,000 square feet or where buildings are longer than 120 feet at the street front, 5% of the lot area of the project area must be devoted to open space. With short plat approval, no open space would be required since the east and west lots would each be less than 12,000 square feet and Buildings A and B would be less than 60 feet wide at the street front. He noted that the applicant is proposing a small courtyard between Buildings A and B, and with the ground floor commercial requirement, there will be more activation of the street front along 5th Avenue. Mr. Clugston referred to the Design Review Checklist that was attached to the Staff Report. He advised that, following the applicant’s presentation and public testimony, the Board should work through the checklist and provide feedback to the applicant. Lastly, the Board will be asked to schedule the Phase 2 portion of the hearing, considering May 5th or June 2nd as potential options. Isaac Greenetz, Citizen Design Collaborative, said a lot of work has been done to fit the buildings onto the site, activate the street, create pedestrian activity, and design facades that present well to the street. The conceptual design that is being presented to the Board is an attempt to meet all elements of the Design Guideline Checklist, as well as the City’s Development Code requirements. The goal is to enliven the street as much as possible. He said he didn’t have anything to add to Mr. Clugston’s thorough presentation, but he was available to answer any questions the Board might have regarding the proposed project. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 3 of 10 Jacob Young, Citizen Design Collaborative, agreed that Mr. Clugston’s presentation was thorough. He commented that the property owners are long-time Edmonds residents, and they have identified a concern that there are very few townhomes in the Edmonds downtown area. In addition to the project being profitable to them, they are interested in doing a project that is in the best interest of the community. Chair Strauss opened the hearing to public testimony. Ed Lorah, Edmonds, said he was speaking on behalf of residents of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner’s Association, which is located just west of the subject parcel. He asked if the questions he raised in an email submitted prior to the meeting (Attachment 11 of the Staff Report) would be addressed during the hearing. Mr. Clugston advised that the Phase 1 hearing is a high-level analysis of the proposed project, and specific details about design would be addressed at the Phase 2 hearing. No other members of the public indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Vice Chair Owensby said he likes the initial site design and believes the project will benefit the area. He said he likes the applicant’s creative proposal to do a short plat so that all three buildings can be accommodated on the property. Board Member Jeude said she understands that, as proposed, no open space would be required for the project if the short plat application is approved. However, she asked how the applicant intends to enliven at the street level. Mr. Greenetz explained that the street front portions of the ground floor of the buildings on 5th Avenue (Buildings A and B) will be reserved for commercial space, and the intent is that they function as facilities for people to engage at the street level. Vice Chair Owensby asked if the commercial spaces in Buildings A and B would be limited in terms of the types of uses allowed. Mr. Clugston responded that all of the uses allowed in the BD3 zone would be allowed in the commercial spaces associated with the proposed development, including retail, offices, coffee shops, etc. Chair Strauss said she walks by the site daily, and it has been an eyesore for some time. She believes the proposed project will help to activate the street. However, she is concerned about some elements of the design. It appears that the amount of impervious surface would increase significantly, which raises stormwater concerns. She asked if the applicant is proposing to use permeable pavement to mitigate stormwater runoff on the site. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborative, referred to the drawings provided by the Civil Engineer and said permeable pavement is proposed for both the parking areas and the plaza between the two front buildings. Chair Strauss commented that there is some information in the Design Guidelines about how the project can meet the open space criteria. While she recognized that no open space would be required if the short plat is approved, she is concerned there won’t be a lot of inviting space around the proposed residential units. She suggested that a landscape architect should be consulted to add planter boxes or other elements to the design. Mr. Greenetz noted that there would be some room for landscape elements along the front of the building behind the sidewalk. The intent is to landscape, where possible, at the entrances to each unit and in the courtyard between the two buildings. He summarized that there will be opportunities on the site to create these small areas, but they will be more urban in nature. Chair Strauss asked if the alley would be used to provide access to the residents in Building C. Mr. Greenetz answered affirmatively. Chair Strauss advised the applicant to keep the property well-lit and inviting, as the building layout appears to create a tunnel effect. Chair Strauss asked how deep the canopies on the front of the building would extend over the sidewalk. Mr. Greenetz said they are currently drawn at 3-feet deep. Chair Strauss suggested the applicant consider extending them further out over the sidewalk, which would provide opportunities for outdoor uses associated with the commercial spaces. She recalled that concern has been raised with other projects in the downtown area that the canopies should extend out 3.1.a Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 4 of 10 further to provide additional cover. Mr. Greenetz asked if the City allows canopies to project out over the sidewalk, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. However, he would need to check on the distance that canopies can extend out into the right-of-way. Chair Strauss asked if the applicant has considered pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. Mr. Greenetz responded that it has been discussed as an option by the ownership group, but no decision has been made at this point. He noted that 4-star Greenbuild is standard for development in Washington State and tends to be just as good as LEED Certification. LEED Certification can become more of a paperwork process than an actual environmentally-friendly process. The builder is conscientious about the environment and is doing everything possible within budget. Chair Strauss said sustainable design is the focus of her career, and she would really like to see projects in downtown Edmonds pursue LEED Certification. Chair Strauss advised that the Design Guidelines talk about bulk and scale and compatibility and suggested that the design is missing a middle. Because the top is darker than the bottom, it feels really heavy and enormous. She voiced concern that when compared to the one-story buildings on each of the adjacent lots, the proposed project will feel big and heavy. She suggested that the top layer be lightened and that a middle be added to provide more variation and reduce the bulky appearance of the building. Chair Strauss asked if the memorial bench in the right-of-way adjacent to the subject property would be relocated. Mr. Greenetz said he isn’t sure at this time. The idea is to add more benches, if possible, along the entire property. Mr. Clugston said staff would seek direction from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department about whether the bench should remain in its current location or be moved somewhere else. Chair Strauss reminded the applicant that the commercial spaces on the ground floor of Buildings A and B must be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act requirements. For example, the restrooms must be large enough for ADA accessibility. Mr. Clugston advised that would be confirmed as part of the Building Permit review. Chair Strauss noted that the applicant is proposing to provide roof access for occupants of one of the building, and she asked if adding a vegetative roof was considered as an option. Mr. Greenetz responded that, as proposed, only Building C would provide roof access. He agreed that a vegetative roof would be one option for making the space useable. Chair Strauss pointed out that the western sun, when setting in Edmonds, will hit the side of the building from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. The dark color that is proposed for the top of the buildings will make the western façade that much hotter. Ed Lorah, Edmonds, voiced concern that Building C will look like a monolithic wall from the western point of view. As currently proposed, it will fill the entire lot from one end to the other, and the design doesn’t provide a lot of variation. In addition to this concern, the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner’s Association is concerned about how the exterior lights on the proposed new buildings will impact their properties. From an aesthetic point of view, he pointed out that every part of the lot would be full of concrete, with 14 residential units and 20 parking spaces. On behalf of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner’s Association, he asked the project designers to consider the project’s impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Greenetz agreed to work on being sensitive to the adjacent neighbors in terms of light, the monolithic massing, and the size of the development, in general. He said it is challenging to develop projects that are sensitive to existing development, as well as any future development that might occur on adjacent properties. Chair Strauss commented that placing the buildings the long way, north to south, is the best option to avoid blocking sunlight to the condominium development behind. However, she agreed with Mr. Lorah that, as proposed, the site will be crowded with very little open space. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Chair Strauss reviewed that the Design Guideline Checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines, and it is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines, themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. The Board worked through the Design Guideline Checklist as follows: A. Site Planning N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics. The site is currently developed with two dilapidated buildings, which should not be replicated. X 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. There are larger buildings and commercial uses to the north and south on 5th Avenue. The design should build on the existing activity at street level that is created by existing commercial uses on either side. This guideline has been addressed by the ground floor commercial space on 5th Avenue. X 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street. X 4. Encourage human activity on street. X 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites. X 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects). Because no front or side setbacks are required, this guideline is not applicable. X 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects). While no open space is required for the project, the Board asked the applicant to consider possibilities to add landscape elements, etc. X 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property. X 9. Discourage parking in street front. There is already on-street parking along 5th Avenue. The applicant is not proposing any parking in front of the building. X 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots). X Ed Lorah, Edmonds, commented that the Board appears to be focusing more on Buildings A and B that will face 5th Avenue. He encouraged them to think about the proposal as a total project and consider how it will impact adjacent properties to the west. Chair Strauss agreed, but noted that many of the guidelines are specifically related to the street front and sidewalk. She noted that minimizing intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites was identified as a high priority that applies specifically to Building C. Vice Chair Owensby commented that many of the issues related to compatibility with adjacent properties will be addressed via the zoning regulations. As an example, Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are no setback requirements in the BD zones, except when adjacent to residential zones. In this particular case, a 15-foot rear setback would be required to reduce the project’s impact on residential development to the west. B. Bulk and Scale N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less-intensive zones. This will be particularly important to protect the residential development to the west from potential impacts. X 3.1.a Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 6 of 10 C. Architectural Elements and Materials N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures. X 2. Unified architectural concept. X 3. Use human scale and human activity. X 4. Use durable, attractive and well-detailed finish materials. X 5. Minimize garage entrances. In addition to minimizing garage entrances on 5th Avenue, it is also important to minimize garage entrances from the alley to serve the residential units in Building C. X D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. Protected entries should be provided on all buildings, including Building C. X 2. Avoid blank walls. It was noted that the fire code requires a blank wall on the south side. However, windows could be added on the north side to break up the blank wall. X 3. Minimize height of retaining walls. The applicant’s current plan is to address the slope of the site with the building rather than retaining walls. X 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas. The applicant is doing this by locating the buildings at the street, with parking behind. X 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures. X 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. The applicant hasn’t addressed this issue yet. X 7. Consider personal safety. X E. Landscaping N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. It was noted that there isn’t a lot of landscaping along the street front in this neighborhood. However, there are some existing street trees. The applicant was encouraged to add landscaping elements where ever possible. X 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. Green spaces for the residents should be encouraged. X 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. The Board wanted to see more landscaping included in the design, perhaps a vegetated roof on the lower building so that people in the upper building could see some green vegetation and people in the upper building could enjoy the space. X 3.1.a Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 7 of 10 The applicant indicated the ability to provided a resubmittal for the Phase 2 hearing by the beginning of April, allowing staff sufficient time to review the proposal again and prepare a Staff Report for a Phase 2 hearing on May 5th. If the resubmittal is not completed by the beginning of April, the Board could continue the Phase 2 hearing to June. The Board continued the Phase 2 portion of the hearing to May 5, 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Board approved the February 3, 2021 minutes as submitted. PRESENTATION: CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING AND DISCUSSION Mr. Taraday noted that he last presented training to the Architectural Design Board in 2019, and all three of the Board Members present participated at that time. His current presentation is intended to be a refresher course. He agreed to email his PowerPoint presentation to the Board Members via Planning Division staff. Mr. Taraday explained that Washington State has a rule that there can only be one open record hearing on an application. That means that, for quasi-judicial applications, the Architecture Design Board may be the only body to ever decide on the application that has opportunity to ask the applicant a question. None of the subsequent bodies that review the application will have an opportunity to ask an applicant a factual question about the project, and they cannot seek any new information about the project. The Board has a tremendous responsibility to develop a factual record for its decisions. A lot of the factual record will be developed via the applicant’s interaction with staff, but it is very important for Board Members to ask questions of clarification and request additional details and/or information as necessary to unearth the critical facts relating to the project as thoroughly as possible. He encouraged the Board to pause and ask questions. They can even continue the hearing to a future date, if necessary, to allow time for applicants, staff and members of the public who participate in the hearing to answer questions or provide the additional information the Board is seeking. Vice Chair Owensby questioned if the Board’s 2-phase public hearing process is consistent with the State’s rule that there can only be one open record hearing. Mr. Taraday explained that the Board has two different processes. With one process, the Board serves as the recommending body. They meet with the applicant (not a public hearing) and provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner, but the Hearing Examiner is responsible for conducting the public hearing, establishing the factual record and making the final decision. With the other process, the Board serves as the decision- making body. They conduct the public hearing, establish the factual record and make the final decision. It is much more important that the Board is as thorough as possible when they are acting as the deciding body. Mr. Clugston added that, typically, the Board holds just one public hearing on a project. With the 2-phased approach, the Board still only holds one public hearing. However, following the Phase 1 portion of the hearing, the Board continues the hearing to a future date for the Phase 2 portion. Mr. Taraday summarized that the one-hearing rule doesn’t require that the hearing must start and finish on the same day. Hearings can be continued, as needed. Mr. Taraday advised that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that quasi-judicial hearings must be fair in fact and appear to be fair to those who aren’t the decision makers. Quasi-judicial hearings are hearings in which the Board Members act as judges as opposed to policy makers. While the Planning Board’s primary role is policy maker, the Architectural Design Board primarily serves in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies anytime the rights of an applicant are being determined, or Type III-A Decisions in the Architectural Design Board’s case. Mr. Taraday said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is highly concerned about ex parte communications. In order to have an ex parte communication, there must be a pending quasi-judicial decision. At the very least, someone needs to have submitted an application. No member of a decision-making body may engage in ex party communications with opponents or proponents with respect to a proposal that is the subject of a public hearing before them. If an ex parte 3.1.a Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 8 of 10 communication occurs, the Board Member involved should make a public announcement disclosing the communication and placing on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action. Anyone at the hearing would then be given an opportunity to rebut the substance. Mr. Taraday cautioned that a decision maker may be challenged for prejudgment concerning issues of fact about parties or for partially evidencing a personal bias or prejudice towards an applicant or project. Board Members will always be asked to disclose any biases, which are different than policy leanings. Board Members who are concerned about a potential bias should contact staff prior to the hearing for clarification. Board Members who feel they are biased should recuse themselves from participating in the hearing. However, they should let the chair know in advance, as it could result in quorum issues. As a general rule, challengers to a Board Member’s participation must present evidence of actual or potential bias to support their claim. Vice Chair Owensby commented that, as architects, some of the Board Members are biased about what they like and don’t like, what fits within the community, etc. He asked if this would qualify as bias. Mr. Taraday answered no and said he would describe architectural preferences as similar to policy leanings, which are not considered biases. While an applicant could challenge a member’s participation, he wouldn’t encourage the Board Member to step down for that reason. Chair Strauss referred to the application the Board reviewed earlier in the meeting. She noted this is the second time she has participated in a design review for that site. She walks by it every day and she definitely has some ideas of what she would like the architecture to look like. Mr. Taraday said there are scenarios where having intimate knowledge of a site can influence your decision in a way that would be hard to see in the record. While he isn’t suggesting a Board Member should step down, the Board Member should disclose any personal thoughts and observations at the public hearing that might influence their thinking. This would give the applicant and others at the hearing an opportunity to respond to and understand the basis for the Board Member’s decision. He explained that anyone seeking to disqualify a member of a decision-making body must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for the disqualification is made known to the individual. In this situation, he suggested the Board Member should read a prepared statement, after the ex-parte communication and bias disclosures, that summarizes his/her observations about the site that might influence the decision. This would force people to make their objections known early in the hearing. He added that he could attend a public hearing and provide direction if the Board feels an application could be controversial. Mr. Taraday explained that, no matter how onerous the Appearance of Fairness violation, bias, or ex parte communication, if a Board Member’s disqualification would cause a lack of a quorum or result in a failure to obtain a majority vote, any challenged member would be permitted to fully participate in the proceeding and vote as though the challenge had not occurred. If this situation occurs, the Board should do whatever it can to appear as fair as possible. Chair Strauss asked if a member’s disqualification would apply to a specific hearing or to all business that is scheduled on the Board’s agenda for that meeting. Mr. Taraday answered that the disqualification would only pertain to the specific quasi-judicial public hearing. If there are two separate applications on the same agenda, a challenge for one would not disqualify a Board Member from participating in the review of the second application. Mr. Taraday requested feedback and questions on the script that is provided for the Chair to read when conducting quasi- judicial public hearings. Chair Strauss responded that the script is straightforward and helpful to her. Mr. Taraday invited questions about the process, as outlined by the script. Vice Chair Owensby asked if the script outlines the specific proposal or if it is generic in nature. Mr. Clugston said the script outlines the process for quasi-judicial public hearings and specifically addresses issues related to Appearance of Fairness. Vice Chair Owensby asked that he also receive a copy of the script, in case Chair Strauss is unexpectedly absent and he is required to lead the hearing. Mr. Taraday referred to Part 3 of the script, where the Chair asks if there is anyone in the audience who objects to his/her participation or to any other Board Member’s participation as a decision maker in the hearing. He asked how this is working in the Zoom meeting format. Mr. Clugston said staff tries to have everyone in the room during the entire 3.1.a Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 9 of 10 hearing because there are usually only a few members of the public in attendance. Chair Strauss said she tries to give the public plenty of time to speak up. Mr. Taraday agreed the current process provides an adequate opportunity for public comment. However, they should watch for people who might be having technical problems and attempt to address them early in the hearing. If there is large attendance at a hearing and not everyone can remain in the room, they should provide clear instructions about how to raise hands, etc. This will provide procedural protection to the City. It will be easy for the City to defend a future challenge if it can be shown that the challenger had an opportunity to object during a hearing but didn’t take it. When considering whether or not to disqualify themselves, Mr. Taraday suggested that Board Members should ask the following: “Would a disinterested person, with knowledge of the totality of my personal interest or involvement, be reasonably justified in thinking my involvement might affect my judgment?” He clarified that it is one thing to walk by a property on the way to and from work, but an arguably different thing if you are an adjacent property owner who might be financially impact by the outcome of a hearing. Again, Mr. Taraday advised that the Board is responsible for ensuring there is a complete record when conducting quasi- judicial hearings. All evidence must be introduced during the open record hearing, as the City Council is relying on the Board to ask all relevant questions. All comments must be made into the microphone. They should request supplemental information for questions that cannot be resolved at the hearing. All exhibits that are submitted during the hearing should be made part of the public record. This might be more difficult using the Zoom meeting format. Mr. Clugston advised that, if this situation comes up, he would ask that the exhibits be forwarded to him via email. Mr. Taraday explained that it is not enough to just vote to recommend. The Board must make clear findings of fact and expressly adopt, amend or reject staff findings as appropriate. This is easier when the Board unanimously agrees with Staff’s recommendation, as well as the rationale behind it. They can simply agree with the Staff recommendation for the reasons stated in the Staff Report because staff does a good job of evaluating the criteria and how they apply to the application. However, there will be times when the Board disagrees with the staff’s recommendation on certain elements of an application. When this occurs, the Board needs to be detailed when setting forth its recommendation and the rationale behind it. For example, they should point to specific design criteria to support a recommendation. In some situations, it might be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow more time for the Board to work with staff to carefully articulate the details of their recommendation and make findings of fact that are consistent with the Board’s decision. Chair Strauss commented that, in the past, the Board has added conditions to the staff recommendation, and it was difficult to come up with the right wording. It is good to know that the Board can continue the hearing to allow more time to draft the right language before taking final action. Mr. Taraday emphasized that the Board can also ask for drafting help, as necessary. Mr. Taraday briefly summarized the court case, Anderson vs. Issaquah as follows: During the ensuing discussion amongst the commissioners, Commissioner Larson stated that the revisions to the front façade had not satisfied his concerns from the last meeting. In response to his request for more specific design guidelines, Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Development Commission had been giving directions/suggestions and it was the applicant’s responsibility to incorporate them into a revised plan that reflects the changes. Commissioner Larsen then suggested that the façade could be broken up with sculptures, benches, fountains, etc. Commissioner Nash suggested that Anderson drive up and down Gilman Boulevard and look at both good and bad examples of what has been done with flat facades. Commissioner Nash agreed, stating, “There is a certain feeling you get when you drive along Gilman Boulevard, and this building does not give this same feeling.” Commissioner Steinwachs wondered if the applicant had any option but to start from scratch. Anderson responded that he would be willing to change from stucco to wood facing but that, after working on the project for nine months and experiencing total frustration, he was not willing to make additional design changes. At that point, the Development Commission denied Anderson’s application. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 10 of 10 Mr. Taraday explained that the City is not allowed to make applicants guess about the meaning of the design criteria. Hopefully, the design criteria are written clearly enough to avoid this type of situation, and the Board should keep this case in mind when remarking on a particular design. He advised them to focus on the criteria. If the criteria are causing a problem because they are not specific enough, the Board should be even more specific about their interpretation. The problem with the Anderson vs Issaquah case wasn’t just about how the criteria were written; it was also ambiguous statements like “drive up the boulevard looking at good and bad examples and figure it out.” He emphasized that the vagueness test doesn’t require a statute to meet impossible standards of specificity, and the Board is allowed to fill in some of the gray area, but there should be something in the actual code that provides rational for the decision. Mr. Taraday advised that the Board should let staff know if there is a particular criterion that is causing problems so it can be revised to be easier to work with. Vice Chair Owensby recalled that earlier in 2020, the Board had discussed revising its role to allow them an opportunity to work with the staff and Planning Board to clarify and improve the Design Guidelines. He noted that some of the criteria are too prescriptive and there isn’t enough flexibility for the Board to make site-by-site decisions on different aspects of an application. He questioned the Board’s ability, at this time, to recommend approval of any project that deviates from the Design Guidelines. Mr. Clugston agreed that there should be some flexibility for the Board to make site-specific decisions, as long as the intent of a criterion can be met. He said the Board doesn’t currently have the leeway to make site-specific decisions that depart from the Design Guidelines; but hopefully, this flexibility can be addressed at some point in the near future. Mr. Taraday agreed to work with staff to see if a temporary fix could be made to give the Board more latitude. However, it is also important to remember that the opposite of arbitrary is the ability to express rationale for a particular decision. A great foundation for decision making is the ability to explain rationale. If this is not possible, a decision is considered arbitrary. He suggested the Board is more interested in having the ability to deviate from the code in certain situations, which is a different question than the issue of vagueness. However, the more authority given to the Board, the greater potential for a vagueness problem. He summarized that if the code is too prescriptive, it is difficult to make it work in the real world. If it is not prescriptive enough, there are potential legal problems with vagueness. Mr. Taraday encouraged the Board Members, particularly those with design backgrounds, to provide feedback to staff regarding the Design Guidelines. Referring back to the Anderson vs. Issaquah case, Mr. Taraday said the court concluded that “Design professionals need to know in advance what standards will be acceptable in a given community. It is unreasonable to expect applicants to pay for repetitive revisions of plans in an effort to comply with the unarticulated, unpublished statements a given community may wish to make on or of its signature street. It is equally unreasonable, and a deprivation of due process, to expect or allow a design review board, such as the Issaquah Development Commission, to create standards on an ad hoc basis, during the design review process.” Mr. Taraday advised that he could also provide training on the Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act at the request of the Board. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. 3.1.a Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: ADB210303d (Approval of Minutes)