Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-06-29 Architectural Design Board Packet
A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. o Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board SPECIAL MEETING VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JUNE 29, 2022, 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION Join Zoom Meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/89087813540?pwd=WmJ WQOg4VzRrOTM3Qndtcll5ODJaZzO9 Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540. Password: 612943 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 PHYSICAL MEETING LOCATION The ADB members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Edmonds Greenhill 6-Unit Townhomes BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone ADB MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda June 29, 2022 Page 1 C.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/29/2022 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Michael Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve meeting minutes from 4/6/22 meeting. Narrative Draft meeting minutes attached. Attachments: ADB220406d Packet Pg. 2 C.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting April 6, 2022 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 2, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes Staff Present Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner a MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS Phase 2 Public Hearing — 611 Main Street, 24-Unit Apartment Building (PLN2021-0066) Interim Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien reviewed issues in the City that have caused this hearing to be delayed. There was a moratorium placed on building applications for new multifamily buildings within the BD2 zones. The moratorium has been extended to April 21 to allow time for the Interim Design Standards to be reviewed and adopted. He explained that the hearing would need to be continued once the Interim Design Standards are adopted. Staff is recommending July 6 for the Phase 2 public hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting April 6, 2022 Pagel of 3 Packet Pg. 3 C.1.a MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 6. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien summarized the expected timeline for the rest of this process. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS PLN2019-0003 Revision of Kisan Multi -Family Development Mr. Lien explained this was a potential revision to a project that the ADB approved back in 2019. He thought the changes were significant enough that the ADB should be involved. This is an 18-unit multifamily building at 22810 Edmonds Way. The applicant is proposing changes to the roof form and building materials to address potential maintenance concerns. No other changes to the size or site layout are being proposed. Staff thinks that the proposed revisions still comply with the design standards for building design in ECDC 20.11.030.A and design objectives in the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that the ADB approve the proposed revisions. Naeem reviewed the process to date and requested the ADB's approval. Board Member Herr spoke in support of the changes. Board Member Strauss praised the changes, noting that it looks a lot better. General questions and answers about the project design followed. a MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERB, TO APPROVE THE CHANGES. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS Interim Design Standards Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed the proposed Interim Design Standards for Stand -Alone Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 zone. For BD2 parcels without designated street front, they must address two situations — where the project is adjacent to R-zoned property and/or where it is adjacent to other BD2 property. The proposed design standards address materials, street -side amenity space, and private amenity space. Materials: • Breaks up massing; strengthens identity • Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass • Man-made is okay if made to look like preferred materials Benefits of Street -side Amenity Space are that it results in a setback to the street to serve as an amenity space. It also activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience and strengthens pedestrian access and site identity. The Interim Design Standards state that 5% of the lot area must be provided for Street -side Amenity Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting April 6, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 4 C.1.a Space. It shall be between the building and the sidewalk only and open to the sky. It also must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. Mr. Clugston reviewed graphics of examples of this. Private Amenity Space would improve livability for smaller residential units. It allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation, and style. It also provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade, and increases `eyes on the street' thereby improving safety. Interim Design Standards state that Private Amenity Space must be 10% of the project area; that it be balconies, decks, patios, or yards; and that it be together with a dwelling unit or grouped together for resident use. If Private Amenity Space is combined with individual units, it must be at least 40 square feet. 50% of the required area can be achieved with a rooftop deck. Balconies can project 5' into the setback from R-zone property. Decks and patios can project 10' into the required setback area. Chair Bayer asked if city staff has discussed with the developer or architect about doing mixed use commercial and residential versus only residential. Mr. Clugston noted that that is a separate issue that the Council will be addressing. Chair Bayer asked if they don't do the rooftop deck would that portion of the private amenity space be spread out among the rest of the area. Mr. Clugston replied that it would. Chair Bayer asked if rooftop decks N are currently allowed in the BD2 zones. Mr. Clugston replied that they are not; it would only be part of these interim design standards and only for certain projects. Mr. Lien added some clarification about the rooftop decks. He explained that according to the building code someone could already build a rooftop deck if it 4- complies with the height limit. The exception in the Interim Design Standards is for the railings. If a building is g p � g g� �a already at maximum height, there would be an exception for the BD2 zone to allow the railings to be 42" above o the height limit. a a General clarification questions and answers about details of the standards followed. Board Member Strauss commended staff for their good ideas and great work. Mr. Clugston thanked the Board and reviewed the expected timeline for general design standards. He noted that the intent is to have something by the end of the N year. m Board Positions Mr. Lien explained that they readvertised for ADB positions (planner and architect) and hope to have a full board soon. Board Member Herr explained that his last month would probably be July. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting April 6, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 5 D.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/29/2022 Edmonds Greenhill 6-Unit Townhomes Staff Lead: Michele Szafran Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michele Szafran Background/History Public hearing was initially scheduled for June 1, 2022, but due to technical difficulties the meeting was cancelled and rescheduled to a special meeting date on June 29, 2022. Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions. Narrative The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-unit multi -family 3-story townhouse with garage parking. The 6 units are proposed in one structure and each unit will provide 4-bedrooms and a 2-car garage. A shared driveway will connect the townhouses to 210th St. SW. Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that requires a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination (those that are not categorically exempt from SEPA) are reviewed by the ADB in a public hearing. According to ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a Type III -A decision. Attachments: PLN2021-0018_StaffReport-REVISED-06292022 Packet Pg. 6 D.1.a 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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Edmonds Greenhill File Number: PLN2021-0018 Date of Report: 7 I r ,71111F Staff Contact: tanner Public Hearing: Wednesday —June 29, 2022 at 7:00 P.M. A virtual public hearing will be held via Zoom meeting, the Zoom meeting may be joined at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/I/89087813540?pwd=WmJWQ0g4VzRrOTM3Qndtc1150 DJaZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540 Password: 612943 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-unit multi -family 3-story townhouse with garage parking. The 6 units are proposed in one structure and each unit will provide 4- bedrooms and a 2-car garage. A shared driveway will connect the townhouses to 210th St. SW. (Attachments 1— 3). II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: BK Chen, Harr Chen Properties LLC 2. Applicant: BK Chen, Harr Chen Properties LLC 3. Tax Parcel Number: 00566900100601 4. Location: 7103 2101h St. SW., Edmonds WA 98026 (Attachment 7) 5. Size: The subject property contains approximately 11,326 square feet. Packet Pg. 7 D.1.a 6. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM — 1.5) with a maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. 7. Existing Use: There is currently a duplex structure on the property. 8. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-unit multi -family development with parking. The 6-units are proposed in a new three (3) story building which will provide 4-bedrooms, and a 2-car garage for each unit. 9. Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination (those that are not categorically exempt from SEPA) are reviewed by the ADB in a public hearing. According to ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a Type III -A decision. III. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review under SEPA is required for this project because the project exceeds four (4) multifamily residential units. The applicant submitted a SEPA Checklist for the project which is included in Attachment 6. The City of Edmonds 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 local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and issued SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on May 28, 2021 (Attachment 6). The City has not received any appeals of the SEPA determination. IV. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS A "Notice of Application and SEPA Threshold Determination" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on May 28, 2021. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 12 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Application and SEPA determination. The "Notice of Public Hearing" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on May 4, 2022. Notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 12 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Public Hearing. Following technical difficulties the public hearing scheduled for June 1, 2022, was cancelled and a new "Notice of Public Hearing" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on June 14, 2022. Notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site (Attachment 26). The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 (Public Notice). Three written comments were received on the proposal: one from Snohomish County PUD, Department of Ecology, and by a neighboring property owner Chloe Naranjo. Page 2 of 17 Packet Pg. 8 D.1.a Snohomish County PUD No. 1 noted the district has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development; however, the existing facilities in the area may require upgrading. PUD noted any relocation, alteration or removal of District facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the developer and must be coordinated with PUD in advance (Attachment 24). Staff Response: Utilities will be included on the civil portion of the building permit and it will be the responsibility of the developer to coordinate with PUD. Katelynn Piazza on behalf of the Department of Ecology (DOE) provided comments regarding demolition work and potential underground storage tanks (UST's), if a UST is encountered it must be decommissioned in accordance with local fire department regulations. In the event that soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during removal, cleanup must be in accordance with Ecology regulations (WAC 173-340). Staff Response: The DOE letter has been provided to the applicant and a condition has been added (Attachment 24). Chloe Naranjo has expressed concern regarding the potential for new pest infestations to neighboring properties as a result of new construction activity (Attachment 24). Staff Response: Prior to demolition or construction activities, the applicant shall hire a pest control professional to assess whether pests are present at the site and to exterminate any pest found thereon. Nina Roscow has provided comments regarding noise and traffic impacts as well as reducing light to the adjacent properties (Attachment 25). Staff Response: Noise would be expected on a short-term basis during construction activity, but once construction is completed noise would be expected to be typical of any similar sized residential development. Noise is regulated pursuant to Chapter 5.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Traffic impacts are mitigated though traffic impact fees collected in accordance with ECC 3.36.125. The site is currently accessed directly from 210th St. SW and serves 2 units. The proposal is to allow four (4) additional units with a shared access from 210th St. SW. The maximum density would allow for seven (7) units, the applicant has proposed six (6) units. The maximum height in the RM 1.5 zone is 30 feet with the portions above 25 feet required to have a roof slope pitch of 4:12" or greater, the proposed structure is compliant with the height limit of the zone. V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed by South County Fire, City of Edmonds Public Works, Engineering and Building Divisions of the Development Services Department. The Building Division had no comments at this time. Compliance with all applicable building codes will be reviewed under the building permit application. Page 3 of 17 Packet Pg. 9 D.1.a South County Fire provided comments regarding, Fire sprinkler systems, addressing and driveway signage/markings, (Attachment 23). Compliance will be further reviewed with a building permit application. The Engineering Division noted that the proposal is consistent with Title 18 ECDC and the City's Engineering Standards (Attachment 22). Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be further reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Design Review approval does not provide vesting to the current stormwater codes and any future building permit submittal will need to comply with the codes in effect at the time of submittal. The proposal will be reviewed by the City's Urban Forest Planner during the building permit review phase for compliance pursuant to Chapter 23.10 ECDC for tree replacement, retention and protection. Atree retention and protection plan and arborist report will be further reviewed at the time of building permit. An arborist report and planting plan have been included as attachments 21 and 3, however design review approval does not provide vesting to the current tree code and any future building permit submittal will need to comply with the codes in effect at the time of submittal. All trees that are to be retained during the development process and trees located on adjacent properties must be protected according to the performance standards found in ECDC 23.10.070. The applicant is encouraged to notify adjacent property owner(s) whose trees may be impacted by the proposal. VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Mixed Use Commercial." The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines provide in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a detailed analysis on how the proposal complies with the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter. Comprehensive Plan Urban 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. Page 4 of 17 Packet Pg. 10 D.1.a Staff Findings: The subject property currently provides an access along the southern property boundary directly off 2101" St. SW. which will be shifted slightly to the west from its current position. The proposed townhomes will be accessed via a shared private driveway. 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. Staff Findings: The building is proposed to be located up to the setback limits along the north (side), east (side), and south (street) property boundaries with an access drive and garage parking being provided along the west property boundary for each proposed unit (Attachment 3). 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. Staff Findings: There is no need to integrate access between adjacent developments since this is a private residential development that is adjacent to other private residential developments. Vehicles and pedestrians will both access the site via the proposed shared driveway connecting the site to 2101" St. SW. There is a pedestrian walkway proposed for access to each unit along the eastern side of the building and each unit will have direct access from the garage. Transit opportunities exist in the general vicinity of the site, including bus stops along Hwy 99 to the east and off 72nd Ave. W., which is west of the subject site. 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. Staff Findings: Because this is a small residential development, creating a lively pedestrian environment is not a high priority. Additional landscaping along 210t" St. SW. will improve the appearance of the site at the street edge. The entries to each of the residential units are clustered on the east side of the building. These entries are recessed, which may not provide sufficient space for gathering, but will provide covered entries to each of the units (Attachments 2 & 3). A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying 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. Page 5 of 17 Packet Pg. 11 D.1.a Staff Findings: The project proposal meets the setback requirements for the zone and landscaping is provided within and around the perimeter of the development. The required frontage improvements and updated landscaping will help tie the subject site with the existing area (Attachment 3). 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. Staff Findings: There are no specific open space requirements for the RM-1.5 zone and open space is not proposed with this development; however, the perimeter of the property will be landscaped. While this landscaping will enhance the visual attributes of the site, they are not intended to provide places for interaction, play, seating or 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. Staff Findings: The project uses a mix of traditional materials arranged in a manner responsive to the characteristics of the site. Bulk and mass are reduced by providing projections along the western fagade and belt courses that help define and separate each floor along the remaining fagades. The building height along with the pedestrian paths will help with way -finding (Attachments 2 & 3). A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Staff Findings: Residents will enter their units through the garage or the individual main entry doors, which are recessed covered entries to each unit. 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. Staff Findings: Adequate site lighting will be provided along the garage frontages, and the pedestrian pathway to the building (Sheet E1 Attachment 3). 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. Staff Findings: No signage is proposed at this time. Should a sign be proposed in the future, review by the Planning Division is required with a building permit to ensure dimensional and placement requirements are met. 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. Page 6 of 17 Packet Pg. 12 D.1.a Staff Findings: The trash storage will be hidden from street view on the east side of the structure. Trash staging will be provided on trash pickup days and will be further reviewed at time of building permit submittal. (Attachment 3, sheet Cl) Utilities should be screened by landscaping which has been added as a recommended condition of approval. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. Staff Findings: The site contains existing trees, and some trees will be retained, the proposed and existing landscaping (Attachment 3; sheet 1-1) will help to buffer the new development from the adjacent uses. 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. Staff Findings: The landscaping shown on Attachment 3 appears to generally address the landscaping objectives see discussion on landscaping in section 7.D below. Stormwater will be managed in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements. 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. Staff Findings: The scale and character of the proposed building will fit well within the neighborhood; it is three stories and is shown that it should be able to meet the height limit, setbacks and lot coverage for the RM-1.5 zone. The proposed building offers an arrangement of window placement, pitched rooflines and distinct breaks between floors. 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. Staff Findings: The proposed building is stepped slightly along the eastern fagade and the western fagade utilizes bumpouts and balconies that breaks up the mass of the structure. Bulk and mass of the building are also reduced through use of materials, colors, and belt courses which subdivide the building. Page 7 of 17 Packet Pg. 13 D.1.a 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. Staff Findings: The proposed roof pitches help identify and separate each unit within the building and provide modulation to the overall roof form. 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. Staff Findings: The proposed exterior walls of the building are modulated by continuous bands that break the facade down by floors. The use of windows, bumpouts, decorative balconies, materials and colors also provide variety in the facade. Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. Staff Findings: The building uses a mix of materials and colors that provides a unified residential appearance. The pedestrian path, lighting and recessed pedestrian entries provide a clear location for pedestrians to enter the structure. 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 facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. Staff Findings: The proposed windows are typical of a residential development. There are windows of various sizes on all sides of the building, which help to denote different functional elements of the building and should allow light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building facades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Staff Findings: As mentioned above, there is good variety in facade materials and design elements on all sides of the building. Page 8 of 17 Packet Pg. 14 D.1.a VII. DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Chapter 16.30 ECDC - Multi -Family Residential Zone: The subject property is located within the Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zone and subject to the development standards of Chapter 16.30 ECDC. ECDC 16.30.010 Uses Staff Findings: Multiple dwellings is a permitted primary use pursuant to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1, so the proposed development is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM1.5 zone. ECDC 16.30.030 Development Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum per Maximum Maximum Subdistrict Street Side Rear Dwelling Height Coverage Setback Setback Setback Unit (Sq. Ft.) RM-1.5 1,500 15, 10, 15, 25" 45% 'Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Staff Findings — Density: The subject property contains approximately 11,326 square feet of lot area. With a density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area, a maximum of 7 dwelling units could be constructed. The proposal is for 6 dwelling units within a three (3) story building so the proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Setbacks: The subject property is considered a corner lot with 2- streets (west and south) and, 2 side (north and east) property boundaries. The minimum street setbacks are 15 feet and the minimum side setbacks are 10 feet. The proposal is consistent with the setback requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Height: The maximum allowed height for the proposed structure is limited to 25 feet and 30 feet with a slope of 4 inches in 12 inches or greater. The proposed structure appears to have been designed to comply with the height requirements of the RM-1.5 zone as it is shown as being 25 feet above average original grade to the roof line with an additional five feet above the height limit for a sloped roof of 4 inches in 12 inches or greater Attachments 2 & 3. Staff Findings — Coverage: ECDC 21.15.110 defines coverage as the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. The application notes a building ground coverage of 5,083.56 square feet for a coverage of 44.9% of the 11,326 square foot lot. The proposal is consistent with the coverage requirements of the RM-1.5 zone (Attachment 3; Sheet Cl). Page 9 of 17 Packet Pg. 15 D.1.a B. ECDC 17.50.020 — Off -Street Parking Regulations Off-street parking requirements for multifamily developments are detailed in the table in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b. The table below provides the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b along with the number of units of each dwelling unit type and the number of required parking spaces. Required parking Number of Type of multiple Number of units dwelling unit spaces per in proposal parking spaces dwelling unit required Studio 1.2 0 0 1 bedroom 1.5 0 0 2 bedrooms 1.8 0 0 3 or more bedrooms 2.0 6 12 Total Spaces Required 12 The proposal provides 12 parking spaces. Two (2) parking spaces are proposed within the garage for each unit along the western property boundary. The proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC (Attachment 2, Sheet A-3). C. Chapter 20.11 ECDC —General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. ECDC 20.11.030.A Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; Staff Findings: A variety of materials and forms are used which creates a building harmonious in scale, line and mass within the development and which will integrate well with the surrounding area. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; Staff Findings: The proposed colors scheme avoids excessive brilliance or brightness (Attachment 2). 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Page 10 of 17 Packet Pg. 16 D.1.a Staff Findings: Screening should be able to be provided within the landscaping. Screening of mechanical equipment or utility hardware from the street level has been added as a condition of approval. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturally detailed entries; iv. Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials; Staff Findings: The proposed building is stepped slightly along the eastern facade and the western fagade utilizes bumpouts and balconies that breaks up the mass of the structure. Additionally, the structure steps slightly vertically with the site topography which also helps break up the bulk of the building. Bulk and mass of the building are further reduced through the use of materials, colors, and belt courses which subdivide the building. Site landscaping should help break up massing of the building as well (Attachments 2 & 3). 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not currently propose any signage. Any signage will be reviewed under a subsequent building permit application. ECDC 20.11.030.8 Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect natural resources, limit disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development. Staff Findings: The site currently contains a duplex with associated parking which will be demolished. The property slopes up slightly from 2101" St. SW., in general the proposal includes minimal grading to the site. The proposal includes retention of some of the existing trees (Attachment 21) and the site will be landscaped after redevelopment is complete as shown in Attachment 3 Sheet L-1. There will be an increase in impervious surfaces over existing (roofs, driveway, walkways, patios, etc.) but not in excess of what would be expected with the redevelopment of an Page 11 of 17 Packet Pg. 17 D.1.a underutilized multifamily -zoned parcel. All stormwater will be managed in accordance with the City's stormwater codes. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC is being provided with the development. See the discussion on landscaping requirements in Section 7.D below. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Staff Findings: With the combination of proposed landscaping and retention of some of the existing trees, the proposal appears to meet the general intent of Chapter 20.13 ECDC and will provide buffers from surrounding properties. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Staff Findings: This should not be a concern since there is no parking adjacent to the landscaping and there are designated pathways for pedestrians. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. Staff Findings: Trash and recycling will be provided on the east side of the proposed building, interior to the site, which will provide adequate screening. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Staff Findings: The landscaping requirements in Chapter 20.13 ECDC for the perimeter include a mix of evergreen and deciduous species that will be effective in screening the site year-round. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Staff Findings: Not applicable. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. Staff Findings: Adequate site lighting is provided via wall mounted lights at the garage entries and bollard lighting along the pedestrian pathway. Bollard lighting may not be greater than 3 feet in height within the required setbacks. As a condition of approval Page 12 of 17 Packet Pg. 18 D.1.a any proposed lighting for the entry to the units should be directed downward and avoid excessive brightness. (Attachment 3, Sheet E1). ECDC 20.11.030(C) Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Staff Findings: The proposed building is not a community facility. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Staff Findings: No specific street furniture is proposed or required. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the design standards of ECDC 20.11.030. D. Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscape Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. Two types of landscaping are required for the proposed development. Type II landscaping is required along the north property boundary to buffer the site from the adjacent single-family use and Type III landscaping is required along the west, south and east property boundaries. ECDC 20.13.030 provides the requirements for each landscaping type. Type 11 Landscaping. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center, and 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Type II landscaping is provided along the northern property boundary as shown and noted on sheet L1 (Attachment 3). Trees are proposed at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center with no more than 30 percent being deciduous. As noted on sheet L1 (Attachment 3) shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and ground cover will be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Type 111 Landscaping. Type 111 landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. Page 13 of 17 Packet Pg. 19 D.1.a 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Staff Findings: Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the ADB may interpret and modify the landscaping requirements provided such modifications are consistent with the Design Review purposes of ECDC 20.10.000. It appears that the proposed landscaping along the west, east and southern property boundaries meets the intent and is consistent with the requirements of the type III landscaping requirements. A narrow landscape strip is proposed along the eastern and western property boundaries and thus small- scale trees/shrubs are proposed to fit the space. The intervals are no greater than 30 feet on center with no more than 50 percent of the vegetation being deciduous. As noted on sheet L1 (Attachment 3) along with the trees, shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and ground cover will be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. The applicant has addressed landscaping in a response letter provided on page 2 (#5) of attachment 18. VIII. APPEALS According to ECDC 20.01.003.13 and 20.06.150, Type III -A decisions are not administratively appealable but rather subject to LUPA appeal at Snohomish County superior court pursuant to Chapter 36.70C RCW. IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments within this report, staff recommends that the ADB APPROVE the design for the proposed development under file number PLN2021-0018 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: Page 14 of 17 Packet Pg. 20 D.1.a THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MULTI- FAMILY HOMES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 2. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING 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. 3. APPLICANT SHALL REVIEW THE ENGINEERING DIVISION COMMENTS ATTACHMENT 22 AND FIRE COMMENTS ATTACHMENT 23 FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. 4. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE APPLICANT SHALL HIRE A PEST CONTROL PROFESSIONAL TO ASSESS WHETHER PESTS ARE PRESENT AT THE SITE AND TO EXTERMINATE ANY PEST FOUND THEREON. 5. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR UTILITY HARDWARE SHOULD BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE STREET LEVEL. 6. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING MUST BE SHIELDED IN ORDER TO AVOID OFF -SITE SPILLAGE. 7. UTILITIES WILL BE INCLUDED ON THE CIVIL PORTION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO COORDINATE WITH PUD (ATTACHMENT 24). 8. IF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK(S) IS ENCOUNTERED IT MUST BE DECOMMISSIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS. IN THE EVENT THAT SOIL OR GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IS ENCOUNTERED DURING REMOVAL, CLEANUP MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECOLOGY REGULATIONS (WAC 173-340) ATTACHMENT 24. 9. APPLICANT SHALL SHOW TRASH STAGING AREA ON PLANS FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. Page 15 of 17 Packet Pg. 21 D.1.a 10. APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT ARBORIST REPORT, TREE RETENTION AND PROTECTION PLAN WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEW WITH CHAPTER 23.10 ECDC, THE TREE RELATED REGULATIONS. APPLICANT IS ENCOURAGED TO NOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER(S) WHOSE TREES MAY BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSAL. X. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds Department of Ecology 121— 5t" Ave N. Attn: Katelynn Piazza Edmonds, WA 98020 P.O. Box 330316 Shoreline, WA 98133 Harr Chen Properties LLC Via email Attn: BK Chen 9110 17811 St. SW. Chloe Naranjo Edmonds, WA 98026 7019 210t" St. SW Via email Lynnwood, WA 98036 Via email Snohomish County PUD Attn: Mary Wicklund / Mark Flury Nina Roscow P.O. Box 1107 7027B 210t' St. SW. Everett, WA 98206 Lynnwood WA, 98036 Via email Via email XI. INTERESTED PARTIES Noah Noaker Lynnwood, WA 98036 Via email Diane Roger Lynnwood, WA 98036 Via email XII. ATTACHMENTS Ardis Roche Lynnwood, WA 98036 Via email 1. Land Use Application & Cover Letter 2. Elevations & Floor Plan 3. Site Plan Set, Lighting Details & Landscape Plan 4. Storm Prelim Site Plan 5. Preliminary Drainage Report 6. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance & Checklist 7. Zoning and Vicinity Map Page 16 of 17 Packet Pg. 22 D.1.a 8. Critical Area Determination 9. Edmonds Utilities Consortium (EUC) 10. Letter of Complete Application 11. Request Additional Info 1 12. NOA, SEPA and Public Hearing Notice Documentation 13. Applicant Extension Letter 14. Applicant Response Letter 1 15. Request Additional Info 2 16. Applicant Response Letter 2 17. Request Additional Info 3 18. Applicant Response Letter 3 19. Request Additional Info 4 20. Applicant Response Letter 4 21. Arborist Report 22. ENG Compliance Memo 23. Fire District Comments 24. Public Comments 25. Additional Public Comment 26. Public Hearing Notice Page 17 of 17 Packet Pg. 23 D.1.a ram. CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuilaingPermit.com Land Use Application #949238 - Edmonds Greenhill Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name BK Chen Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 9110 178th St SW edmonds7103(D_gmail.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98026 2063315725 Contractor Company Name Number Street City State Zip Phone Number State License Number Project Location Number Street 7103 210TH ST SW City EDMONDS Associated Building Permit Number License Expiration Date UBI # Zip Code County Parcel Number 98026 00566900100601 Tenant Name Rylee Byrnes Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions). Work Location Property Owner E-mail Address Floor Number 2 Apartment or Suite Number Extension Suite or Room Number A, B First Name Last Name or Company Name HARR CHEN PROPERTIES LLC Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 9110 178TH PL SW City State Zip EDMONDS WA 98026 Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 4/13/2021 Submitted By: BK Chen Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMEq Packet Pg. 24 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPerrnit.com Land Use Application #949238 - Edmonds Greenhill Project Contact Company Name: Name: BK Chen Email: edmonds7103@gmail.com Address: 9110 178th St SW Phone #: 2063315725 Edmonds WA 98026 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New New Development Activity Project Approval Project Name: Edmonds Greenhill Description of Work: To demolish exist building and construct 6 units of townhouses. Project Details Development Type Land Use Packet Pg. 25 Page 2 of 2 D.1.a City of Edmonds Land Use Application x ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • � • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONL HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY FORMAL SUBDIVISION SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # LOT LTNE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB CI ADD CC STREET VACATION RF7..ONE SHORL:LINE PERMIT Li VARIANCE I REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION Q OTI-1ER- *PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN 7HE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 71 n3 J1 nth St SW Ffimnnric WA gRn26 PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER Harr Chen Prnnprtips. LLC PHONE # 206 3315725 ADDRESS q11 n 17Rth PI SW Frlmnnrls WA 9Rn76 E-MAIL—Edmonds7lO3@gmail.com FAx # TAx ACCOUNT # 00566900100601 SEC_ TWP. Rau;, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSF.I) USE, (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NFCESSARY) Cnnstrurt new 6 unit tnwnhnuses DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) Please sPP attnrhPrl rnvpr Ipttpr APPLICANT RK Chan PHONE # 7n6 3315775 ADDRESS g11017Rth PI SW Frlmnnrlc WA qRn?6 E-MAIL Edmonds7103@gmail.com 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 pan 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 lntowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT1AGENT / 1I�//I DATE 2-6-2021 Property Owner's Authorization I, Harr Chpn certify under the penalty of pequry 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. 2-6-2021 SIGNATURE OF OWNER A / 0— / DATEcQuestions? Call (425) 771-0220. Q Revised on 8122/12 B - Land Use Application Page I of Packet Pg. 26 D.1.a MyBui ldi ngPe rm i t. ce m Jurisdiction: Edmonds Project Name: Edmonds Greenhill Application ID: 949238 Supplemental Name: Land Use Application If this is a new parcel or lot that does not yet have an address or a County tax account number, please describe the property and its location (otherwise, you may skip this question): Please describe the project and/or proposed use(s) you are seeking approval for with this application (you can upload a more detaile file/letter later in the application, as necessary): Demolish existing building and construct 6 new units of townhouses. N m E Check the boxes indicating all of the related approvals you are seeking for this project (including this application). NOTE THAT A SEPARATE APPLICATION I: O C REQUIRED FOR EACH APPROVAL. 3 Design Review O r Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning M cc The applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify s 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, LM his/her/its agents or employees. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property. 1 certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte c E are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje w property. .. I do so certify. N o Packet Pg. 27 D.1.a Date: April 10th", 2021 Design Review for "Edmonds Greenhill" Townhouses 7103 210th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 Pre -Application file # Description of Proposal The site for this project is located at 7103 210th Street SW Edmonds WA 98026. It is a rectangle lot containing a duplex residence built in 1946. This building does not have any architectural character and will be demolished for this project. The duplex is in deteriorating conditions and blackberry is overgrown in the backyard. The adjoining properties are buildings of the same zoning, including multifamily units of residential buildings and single-family residences. Across the street are residence and commercial facilities including the facilities for the City of Edmonds' public works. "Edmonds Greenhill" is the project name. The project will clear the existing site and construct 6 new 3-story townhouses on the lot. Each of the townhouses will have 4 bedrooms, a kitchen, a great room, and a 2-car garage at the first floor of the building. The kitchen and the great room will be on the second floor. A shared driveway will connect the townhouses to 210th St SW, in the similar way as the current driveway, except about 15 feet west of the current driveway. The existing front gate has a 6' wide sidewalk from the curb to the property line. The primary exterior material for this project is lap siding, which is a common finish material in the area To provide some variety in the fagade there will be also some areas of vertical siding. The other exterior wall materials are vinyl windows, painted trim and metal railing. At the base of the wall will be a small strip of rigid insulation with a cementitious coating. The roofing will be asphalt shingles. All of these materials are commonly used for residential construction in this area. Compliance with Urban Design Goals & Policies Design Objectives for Site Design. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. This project will move the driveway and the related curb cut to the west side of the existing driveway, but the width of the cube cut will be changed just slightly. That will accommodate the increased number of units from 2 to 6. 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. Packet Pg. 28 D.1.a Each of the townhouses has its own 2 car garage with the shortest connection to street via a shared driveway. All garage doors will be on the side of the building, away from 210th St SW. There will be a separate walkway from the front door of each unit to 210th St SW and the driveway. 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. The main access to the townhouses is directly from the sidewalk to front doors. There is also a door inside the garages to the residence. The pedestrian walkway can be directly accessed from 210`h St SW. Bicycle parking is in each building's garage and the front yard. There are existing bus stops within two blocks on highway 99 and a few minutes walk to 72nd Ave W. See attached Vicinity Plan for details. 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. The townhouses have driveway on the west side of the buildings and the pedestrian walkway at the east side of the buildings. Both are connected to 210`h St SW. That layout provides direct and safe access for the residents and visitors. There will be landscape areas to beautify the surroundings along the driveway, in the front area, and along the pedestrian walkway. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying 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. On the front setback area facing 210`h St SW, there will be landscape areas and low height hedge to beautify the surroundings and provide clear transition between the public sidewalk and the private residential areas. 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. Along the driveway and pedestrian walkway, there will be low height hedges, trees, and landscape plantings to beautify the areas. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. This project will use traditional materials, but it will design the installation patterns that will enhance the characteristics of the site. Packet Pg. 29 D.1.a A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. All Front entrances of the townhouses on the first floor are in the recessed areas of the building, and are covered by the second floor structure. 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. This project will provide automatic light -controlled LED lighting at all garage doors for driveway and front doors for pedestrian walkway. 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. This project sets up an address number plate for all townhouses at the front of the building facing 210 St SW with indication of the location of the townhouses. 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. All utility systems will be located toward the side of the building away from the street per utility company's specifications. Trash storage is hidden from public view in the garage or the front yard of the townhouses. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. There are retaining walls along the north and east sides of the buildings. Appropriate plants are to be planned along the retaining wall to integrate the environments. This site does not contain any notable landscape features. 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. The landscape design utilizes native plant materials to provide buffers along the perimeter of the site, and in front of the setback area. Planters are also designed between units to beautify the garage door areas of the units. Fence will be installed as needed to provide privacy for the units. Packet Pg. 30 D.1.a A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. This project offers an arrangement of forms, rooflines, windows and other elements that is unique to this building and is certainly not monotonous. See drawing. 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. This design consists of 6 individually designed townhouses that minimize the bulk of the building. It plans to add metal railings at the second floor level, as well extend the floor area out above the garage at both the 2"d and the 3rd floor levels. These elements create horizontal and vertical variations of the building to beautify the design . 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. The design of the individual townhouse is based on its elevation following the natural slope of the environment, so the roof lines of different townhouses form a good balance of symmetry and variations. The window designs are to allow maximum natural light. 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. The exterior walls of this project are modulated by continuous bands that break the facade down by townhouse and floors. Finish materials are varied between building elements to provide variety in the facade. Design Objectives for Building Fagade A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building facades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. The building is sited close to the front setback line parallel to 210`h St SW. It establishes the streetscape to provide a structure with strong individual identity both on its front view and side views.. 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 fagade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. Packet Pg. 31 D.1.a The design utilizes larger windows at all sides of the building where possible, to maximize natural light exposure. The windows are designed to the balance of symmetry and variations of the streetscape. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in fagade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. The primary finish material on the exterior walls is lap siding. Those areas are further broken down by accent bands at the floor lines. Variety is provided by some of the building forms having vertical siding as the finish material. Compliance with Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas This project is not located in any of the specific areas listed in this section, so none of these urban design goals apply to this project. Compliance with Streetscape and Trees Goals & Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through Streetscape and street tree choices. Very few or the specific goals of this policy apply to this project. This project will provide hedge in the planting strip across the front and trees on the side of the site in compliance with City standards. Conformance with General Zoning regulations The lot for this project is zoned RM-1.5. The primary permitted use for this zoning is multiple dwellings at a maximum density of 1500 SF of lot area per unit [ECDC Sec.16.30]. The area of this lot is 11, 326 SF. The maximum number of housing units allowed on the lot is 7. This project will provide 6 units. Per the Site Development standards [ECDC Sec. 16.30.030, Table A], the minimum street setback is 15 and the minimum side setback is 10'. This project complies with all of these setback requirements (see site plan). The maximum allowed coverage for this site is 45%. The project complies with this coverage limitation (see site plan). The maximum allowable building height for this site is 25', which may be extended to 30' if the portion of the building above 25' has a roof slope of 4 in 12 or greater. This project complies with these height limitations (see Elevation plan). Packet Pg. 32 D.1.a This project will provide 6 townhouses. This project provides 12 garaged parking spaces for the 6 units of townhouses with same sizes (see the first -floor plan). This project fully complies with all regulations regarding off-street parking. Clearing of the site will be required for this project. A Clearing and Grading permit will be obtained before any such work is undertaken. It is anticipated that most trees and shrubs on the lot will be removed for the construction of this project. The site contains no environmentally sensitive areas or any native growth protection easements. There are no wetlands on the site nor is any portion of the site within the setback area for a wetland. There is no significant vegetation or wildlife habitat on the site that should be protected. All requirements of ECDC Section 18.45.050 will be complied with by this project. Drainage analysis for this site was done per the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with December 2014 Amendments (2014 SWMMWW) and the City of Edmonds 2017 Stormwater Code and Reference Documents. Per EDCD Section 18.30.060, this project is a Category 2 and shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #9. All disturbed lawn and landscaped areas shall be restored to Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the DOE Manual and City of Edmonds Stormwater Code Addendum Checklist 7. Perforated stub -out connections in accordance with BMP T5.10C in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW are proposed for roof surfaces associated with this project. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW is also proposed. Because of the few number of daily trips generated by this project, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. After several phone consultations with Mr. Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds Transportation Engineer, Form E-82 Traffic Impact worksheet is prepared and submitted. We believe this project complies fully with all City of Edmonds Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations that are applicable to this site. We hope that the information we have submitted with this Design Review application will receive your prompt approval. Sincerely, BK Chen 206 3315725 Packet Pg. 33 is. �vommm r alL ■ i i �II is ■■ ■S ■ i ■ ■9A ■■ ■y *■ ■■ i m 1 [UTTp D.1.a Z O d w 0 J m m � Q W H � Z � OW w � � o w� �o Qm w m z co or- w w w 0- to W N w O (n 00 0) OV) Q > O _ = z � O N 0 U M O = o � w J O 0-0 U Q 00 LU 110 o w w W O o > � = O w z M J Q w 0 DATE: 8/30/2021 SCALE: SHEET: A-2 Packet Pg. 35 DA.a 3q'-q" 3b,41 3q'-q" 22-5 1 /2" 16-0 1 /2" ; I - 524R 524R 524R I BAR DL536e Ln ry 'm - 16 o r r C14 a r �-82416R+B2419R r PARKING 8.5'X16' LB2418R"2418R ---- s o � N N� I ry I IokT-- I 4168 26b5 Y m to PARKI NO 8.5'X16' o I I HEADROOM m 0 L E 1 �m 0 J E 1 --3 U P a u� — - UP� levation 1 A-3 Elevation 1 - Y zo .1 L ' a 16-5 1 /4" 17'-6 1 /4" 5'A 1 /2" 21'-11 1 /2" .� 4'-3" 2-6 1 /2" 2 N D FLOOR 831 5F, BALCONY 10.1 5F 15T FLOOR 334 5F; GARAGE 447 5F 1st Floor 2nd Floor 12 5 40'-6" 28'-10 13/16" r z 4i�4r 12 l Iqnoo8o I (5:E�1241316 2B24518 58 o n Iry of 2668 2468 2668 I I o v > ry ry Ln UI 1 I 40" o l - `�' N El ON GARAGE - ' Elevation A-3 1 1 4 id 12 r 13'-4 1 /2" 1 S'-3 1 /2" Dpi< 40'-6" 3RD FLOOR 847.13 5F 3rd Floor Elevation 1 m z O U w 0 J mo m Q I..I..I Z > Ow u)Q� w LLI NQ L.L w i D i z I I I —L W � O U') 00 O V) a z� �o� 0`"z M O 0 = � W J O 0-0 00 _ � O w� a m U o C)�� w w w p 00 > a- z (M J J a � W 0 0 co DATE: 3/13/2022 SCALE: SHEET: A-3 Packet Pg. 36 ------------ limmilmillmill iimiirw--iirw--ii irm--imimiu i ice! --- ------ pd- �= M - ICI ICI ICI ICI - = lol lol lol lol ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI = = ICI ICI ICI ICI - = ICI ICI ICI ICI �„I�I ICI ICI ICI_._ lol lol lol lol _____= ___----- ilmilimilmill irm-Mirm-Mirm--ilICI ICI ICI ICI ICI I.I■.�I ICI ICI I�II�=1 Iol lol lol lol llwllrw--llrw--IlL=M-lI II�111�111�111�11 ,ICI ICI ICI ICI • • a 12 HOME TECH L/\IJ I IIVV GRADE ELEVAT�ON R�GHT SCALE: 1/4 )1=1'—O" 13608 SE 51 ST PL BELLEVUE, WA (206)778-2431 hometechwa@gmail.com N O ° (0 0 Q 3 ° co V) Q) m V Z N 0 ° W Q N N O N W °' N CO N O o W LL 0 w cn `l) W N V) = F- ° U Z = _ 0 Z F- "o� CD O � O r N O Q O N NJ Z d W o E V W Q REVISI❑NS DATE DESIGN: Y. S DRAWING: H, H CHECK: C, C. DATE: JAN 29, 2021 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET: I Packet Pg. 38 P.CORNER I--41C BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 I TOP 413.0 74'_6,9 LOT A `1 ---------- ___----- O IM--o . l P.CORNER X 20 „\ " 7 -------------- 39'-6" \ .:.a 10 0 ''•Ye .. a \ Fi: `•Y . ��}.,'.yt �• ;:v�i�} .. .-z _.�>. R� v,C.:Y:�.-r.�.�� ;: vdi:s;: ik�}. �a}r.-a �.Y%r.e <r•:Y... ._ .-.._. a .r.... t_..,.--..-.. -. �%.r:f Wit, s>y _ 'S:•' .�d.:i?r :.d.:zt.. _u" i` ai:=C�:. -BLOCK WALL ------------- I -- B T. 409.5 `{r` ',/ ���/�, 1 ki FF=410.25' rt T0�412.0 / 1ST FLR : 38.75'X20.92' (810.65SF) .1 CONC. BLOCK ,/.' �/ - 2ND FLR: 39.75'X20.92'+12.3 (843.87 I�) / , ,� �I I - / I/ - 3RD FLR: 40.5'X20.92'f (847.26SF) I ( \ WALL, TYP. :;- '// �',/�/ ; ' %I - BALCONY I - ROOFLINE (E) OVER HEAD •.. � W ; POWER LINE / , i 1-2% GRADED TO DRAIN g"TYfdH OPOSED CB0 /2"� . FF=4095' ° 1ST FLR : 38.75; X20.92 (810.65SF) P1 2ND FLR: 39.75 X20.92 +12.3(843.87S I �a 3RD FLR: 40.5'X20.92'f(847.26SF) I �� %sSE�I �' /i /�.'I -BALCONY ROOFLINE I I 1 /'F/ II 1 ,II °'° •1 ' I� FF=408.75' II 1 /I ST FLR . 38.75 X20.92 1�� %1ND FLR: 39.75'X20.92'+12.3(843.87S 1r . RD FLR: 40.5'X20.92'f (847.26SF) ALCONY t�00FLINE SE I I �T•, •I/,I . . ff) BLOCK WALL B0T. 410.5 TOP 413.0 BLOCK WALL BOT. 409.5 TOP 412.0 0 1 11 11 1 i i I GARBAGE/RECYCL, TYP. ' - 0" TBACK Ln HEAT PUMP, 3-FT / ' $ 00 LESS IN HEIGHTLO / r-- � : ° ASP,HgLj V�4E 1ST FLR :38.75'X20.92' (810.65SF) 4'-0 O IEXISTI,II :39.75'X20.92'+12.3 (843.GRAD - 3RD : 40.5'X20.92f : •; I �BALC 1 .:�; : EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED Its-_ROOF'L�i�1�/1�/�1 1 1 FF = 407. 25 I I I I : ' / /�,/ .' �6 1� I /II I 1 1 ST .75'X2 10.65SF) III 2ND FLR: 3§.\75'X20.92'+12.3 (8439 \ 3RD FLR. 40.5X20.92'f (847.26SF) ® 3 \ BALCONY lu 1ST FLR : 38.75'X20.92' (810.65SF) k j fi �1 - 2ND FLR: 39.75'X20.92'+12.3 (843.87 I -: '/ 7b/ I r I - BRDC FLR: 40.5 X20.92 (847.26SF) ° \ 1 TREE TO BE -�- //. /�, �'; j - ROOFLINE 1 \\ FREMOVED, TYPW :: /� / /I �I'I/ BUILDING HEIGHT TYP FLINE_ _ _ °� :: X 4" \ I, CALCULATION BOX \ I w I \ C d° C X B ° o .LL �, `� /�/��/ .' •'. °�,^.I. ; / x: : '• E. CURB Q I WM E% 'C �" %��i �� �> 0" m �, 4' CONC. WALKWAY ( ,I I o Q }� �C ���X w Q CD I I ® P.CO NER r n I� �ir�/�� HYDRANT /�� v i SEE CV1 FO I I I ���^il� �/y u�X X'< R R.O.W. IMP I\�NT CB I I I E. MAILBOX P.CORN ERR�4MP RIM 408.54 2 1 1 1 E. CURB 124'-0" IE (12"N) 405.28 1 1- 1 VEMENT 74'_ WATER MAIN 1 \ IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59------J--I-- - - - - - -----------E. CURB-- _ (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) j E. CURB To CABLE/FIBER- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \\ COMM. BOX E. CURB BE TRIMED 1 WATER VLV. Ld \� LI -� F- Io 210 TH ST _ SW I m I aIz 1 Flo L d SSMH New A EXIST, SEWER TO BE REMAINED RIM 408.71 I 01m IE (8"N/E) 394.05 - - - - - - - - '>� IE=391.32 ---------------� CALCULATED 9TE PLAN_ 10' 0 5' 10' 20' SCALE: 1" = 10' HEAT PUMP ❑O GARBAGE ❑O RECYCL unite Posta I � 0 1 11 11 1 i i I GARBAGE/RECYCL, TYP. ' - 0" TBACK Ln HEAT PUMP, 3-FT / ' $ 00 LESS IN HEIGHTLO / r-- � : ° ASP,HgLj V�4E 1ST FLR :38.75'X20.92' (810.65SF) 4'-0 O IEXISTI,II :39.75'X20.92'+12.3 (843.GRAD - 3RD : 40.5'X20.92f : •; I �BALC 1 .:�; : EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED Its-_ROOF'L�i�1�/1�/�1 1 1 FF = 407. 25 I I I I : ' / /�,/ .' �6 1� I /II I 1 1 ST .75'X2 10.65SF) III 2ND FLR: 3§.\75'X20.92'+12.3 (8439 \ 3RD FLR. 40.5X20.92'f (847.26SF) ® 3 \ BALCONY lu 1ST FLR : 38.75'X20.92' (810.65SF) k j fi �1 - 2ND FLR: 39.75'X20.92'+12.3 (843.87 I -: '/ 7b/ I r I - BRDC FLR: 40.5 X20.92 (847.26SF) ° \ 1 TREE TO BE -�- //. /�, �'; j - ROOFLINE 1 \\ FREMOVED, TYPW :: /� / /I �I'I/ BUILDING HEIGHT TYP FLINE_ _ _ °� :: X 4" \ I, CALCULATION BOX \ I w I \ C d° C X B ° o .LL �, `� /�/��/ .' •'. °�,^.I. ; / x: : '• E. CURB Q I WM E% 'C �" %��i �� �> 0" m �, 4' CONC. WALKWAY ( ,I I o Q }� �C ���X w Q CD I I ® P.CO NER r n I� �ir�/�� HYDRANT /�� v i SEE CV1 FO I I I ���^il� �/y u�X X'< R R.O.W. IMP I\�NT CB I I I E. MAILBOX P.CORN ERR�4MP RIM 408.54 2 1 1 1 E. CURB 124'-0" IE (12"N) 405.28 1 1- 1 VEMENT 74'_ WATER MAIN 1 \ IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59------J--I-- - - - - - -----------E. CURB-- _ (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) j E. CURB To CABLE/FIBER- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \\ COMM. BOX E. CURB BE TRIMED 1 WATER VLV. Ld \� LI -� F- Io 210 TH ST _ SW I m I aIz 1 Flo L d SSMH New A EXIST, SEWER TO BE REMAINED RIM 408.71 I 01m IE (8"N/E) 394.05 - - - - - - - - '>� IE=391.32 ---------------� CALCULATED 9TE PLAN_ 10' 0 5' 10' 20' SCALE: 1" = 10' HEAT PUMP ❑O GARBAGE ❑O RECYCL unite Posta I � 26S#h 5t SVf ti ib m ro Lynrn arld Arr 7103 210th St S W Park2lb� Edmonds WA9�8026 2e0th St sw tE onkey t S 1V Park 21 2 9 Kuma's Fish Market A PVirginia Mason Edmonds} Family Medicine 1 Enldr� Ban nerBank 212th S't sW 212th WSW Magic Toyota 4 // 50 ClearwaterCar Welsh 27 71 Ah Pi S1N � Carivlax w 21 ath P1SW SEAWEED Cannabis VICINITY MAP N.T.S. GENERAL INFO: SITE ADDRESS: 7103 210TH ST. SW, EDMONDS, WA 98026 OWNER: HARR CHEN PROPERTIES, LLC TEL: 206 331 5725 LOT AREA: 11,326 SF ZONING: R.M.-1.5 PARCEL #: 00566900100601 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEATTLE HEIGHTS DIV 4 BLK 001 D-01 - BEG SW COR LOT 6 TH E ALG S LN 30.01FTTO POB TH NWLY TAP 30FT E OF W LN SD LOT151.14FT NLY FRM S LN SD LT TH E 74.10FTM/L TO E LN SD LT TH S ALG E LN SD T M/L TO E LN SD LOT TH S ALG E LN SDLOT TO SE COR TH W ALG S LN SD LOT TO POB EXISTING BUILDING: YEAR BUILT: 1947 1 ST FLOOR: 768 SF F. BASEMENT: 732 SF CARPORT: 572 SF PROPOSED BUILDING: 6 TOWNHOUSES W/ FOLLOWING EACH BUILDING 1ST FLOOR: 334 SF, 2-CAR GARAGE: 477 SF 2ND FLOOR: 831 SF + 12.3SF BALCONY 3RD FLOOR: 847.26 SF LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS: (45% max.) BUILDING FOOTPRINT 6X847.26SF=5083.56 SF OT COVERAGE 5083.56 SF/11326 SF=44.88% <45% OK BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATIONS: POINT A B C D ELEVATION 406 413.55 412.75 406.56 AVERAGE 1638.84/4=409.71 MAX HEIGHT 409.71+25=434.71 MAX ROOF HEIGHT 409.71+25+5=439.71 LANDSCAPING NOTES: TYPE II LANDSCAPING: 1. Per ECDC 20.13.030.B.2 shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height and other plant materials will be required that cover the ground within 3 years. TYPE III LANDSCAPING: 1, Per ECDC 20.13.030.C.2 for the south and east property boundaries astaff report condition will require shrubs with a minimum height of 3.5 feet and other plant materials to cover the ground within 3 years 2, Per ECDC 20.13.030.C.3 the west property boundary will be conditioned to provide any of the following: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height HOME TECH 13608 SE 51ST PL BELLEVUE, WA 206 778 2431 32229 p IS IDNAL O o 3 ..MD - �: A Q L Z 0E w N Q N O N U) W °' N 0 9 LUCn O W � w t Z U� �- 08 O Z = _ Z 0' Q O Q O O r N J amQ CV O N Z J W M a � V r U) REVISI❑NS DATE O1 OCT 24, 2021 MAR 13, 2022 APR 2, 2022 DESIGN1 Y. S DRAWING: H, H. CHECK: Y, S. DATE: MAR 20, 2021 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET: 1 C I -1 Packet Pg. 39 ATTAC H M EN' i %.) - - - - - - - - - - — - - — 418 P.CORNER 7 NATIVE EVERGREEN TREE -4� 6- BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 TOP 413.0 BLOCK WALL BOT. 409.5 ---� TOP 412.0 CONC. BLOCK WALL, TYP. 4L0-- ------- - — - - -- -—— — — — — —— LO II In -- EXISTINB�--O" / GRADE \ \�IQ6 13 NEW TAYLOR JUNIPER, ALONG THE WEST P.L. (SEE NOTE 2) TYPE 1 CB RIM 406 REFER TO NOTES 3 AND 6 IN SDI SHT. TREE TO BE REMOVED, TYPW— W Q O Q Cn O Cn N Q elf P.CORNER 74'-6" LOT A IY LANDSCAPING NOTES: 7'6"± TYP. TREE REMAIN Q _ 1. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one—half feet in m 77 B8 ___------ F(6 TOTAL) O w B g height, and living ground cover must be planted so . - P.CORNER ° ° A that the ground will be covered within three years. X 20'9 �w X , 2. Talor Juniper trees with 3 feet maximum mature 39' -6" :y:�..., .= ter•.: �..: ....__� ._ ._.. 10 _0" width FF=410.25 // //1 ST FLR°: .v 2ND FLR 4. - 3RD FLR - BALCONY -2% GRADED TO DRAIN „ OPOSED CB 8 TYP 1' Oi ---- 2 2" +I ,fit I O FF=409.5' I ° / / a All 1ST FLR /,� 2ND FLR I I N 3� / . _ 3RD FLR BALCONY °. . BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 TOP 413.0 BLOCK WALL BOT. 409.5 TOP 412.0 11 11 1. 4 NEW NATIVE FRUIT/FLOWER TREES, ALONG EAST P.L. 5 NEW NATIVE EVERGREEN --- I d°: TREES, ALONG EAST P.L. . I (SEE NOTE 2) FF=408.75 I ° T7 1ST FLR I GARBAGE/RECYCL, 2ND FLR I a- = TYP. /iI - 3RD FLR I ,> BALCONY r 10 -0 SETBACK Ln zk A'SPt/T �P,�V E T/ 1ST FLR h I 4 - 0 i� / , - 2ND FLR I I / I I 3RD FLR /•/, / , I / / / - BALCONY FF`= 407.25' �k 1ST x -2ND FLR I \ 3RD FLR I 3,9 i 4 -BALCONY d 5" FF=406.5' I \ 1ST FLR I� \ 2ND 6ER'VNSPOUT CONNECTION, I I D �2�In/"i // 3 FERER TO NOTES 2 AND 3. ' ALCON Y I I I \\ C / ,R1 V 'CY' , — \ ITI x} B. o v \ Y X mLn c„ 4 CONC. WALKWAY }v,����xX�{ w o Cn REFER TO NOTE 5/SDI. / n SEE CV1 FO R.O.W. IMPROVE �ME EW TAYLOR JUNIPER, P.CORNER 24'-0" ALONG SOUTH . • STEEDS HOLLY ASPHA T PAVEMENT 74'-6" (SEE NOTE 2) 3.5' TALL, TYP. (SEE NOTE 1) LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS LANDSCARNG PLAN- 10, 0 5' 10' 20' SCALE: i" = 10' SEE SD1 SHEET FOR STORM WATER DESIGN DETAILES a. A landscape plan meeting the requirements of ECDC20.13.010 is provided in this submission. b. A Type 2 landscaping has been included along northern border of the property in the landscape plan, Type 3 landscaping has been designed on the plan for the rest of 3 sides of the property. c. Type 3 landscaping is required for the eastern, western, and southern property lines. (?),STEEDS HOLLY SHRUBS '*"TAYLOR JUNIPER TREE ONATIVE FRUIT/LOWER TREE NATIVE EVERGREEN TREE (GOLDEN LODGEPOLE PINE/INCENSE CEDAR/SHORE HOME TECH 13608 SE 51ST PL BELLEVUE, WA 206 778 2431 32229 p IS IDNAL 0 a W o 3 _7B 0 W N Q N O N Z W W N Q J .. o p w co a W Cl) > w t 0 U) � � o a Z Cl)_ 0 a = _ Q Z F" "0� CD 0 O r N r O N N z J Q M Z REVISI❑NS DATE DESIGN1 Y. S DRAWING: H, H. CHECK: Y, S. DATE: AYG 16, 2021 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET: 1 L I PINE/MOUNTAIN HEMLOCK P.CORNER 74'-6" LOT A 7 0 BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 I TOP 413.0 Ys BLOCK WALL` I BOT. 409.5 . I TOP\ 412.0 1 CONC. BLOCK WALL, TYP. E.OVERHEAD POWER LINE rfrm PROPOSED POWER VAULT BOX-�' (FLUSH TO THIE GRADE, 8c TO BE SCREENED) -- I 37 B8 9 _ B P.CORNER *7207�+'-7 x 410.5 FF= 410.25' 1 ST FLR II II II II -ROOFLINE C.0.1 I M.S.S. LIGHT-6 -ss- I 1-2% GRADED TO DRAIN PROPOSED CB F ® 44:: B. LIGHT-8 s - e j 8"TYP .: H FF= 409.5' 1 ' 1 ST FLR �x� I I I � •- -:�o I I I 01.:.. I ::1 U) I I I I -• 'B. LIGHT-7 0 I----4-1 rlpI�--- - ROOFLINE 0 BLOCK WALL B0T. 410.5 TOP 413.0 BLOCK WALL BOT. 409.5 TOP 412.0 .I X M.S.S. LIGHT-5I 409 Iw ---1�1 I ------- iH °ee FF=408.75' Imo, I I I 1 ST FLR I •.. °., I I � P �'� I I I 1 _ -- I rO�OFLINE Lo - - �' r 4 B. LIGHT-6,� 408H. HEAT PUMP, 3-FT 22'-0" I�' OR LESS IN HEIGHT I ASPHALT P VEME T 1 vj I 3 I B. LIGHT-5 I I •��-•• g to ®j FF= 407.25' - 406 to I I 1ST LR------ ° U Im ®I x B. LIGHT-4 ----T- Iw J sl - ROOFLINE M.S.S. LIGHT-2 •' 4 . I �f FF= 406.5' .e = can ; I I I H 1 ST FLR I .• '° " I�,': po 1)-0„ 1 I IJ 1 ©I" ROOFLINE ®I 1 DRI I EWA Y, IN W I I I I M.S.S. LIGHT-1 a I• .d x 4 U I I I I Ld Q , _1 I , APR B WM E,I I --------UGP\ �_�—i=2 : ,.... [DID B. j �- B. LIGHT-1 I I ® P.CORNE,9I SEE CV1 FOR R.O.W. IMPRO EMENT I I I I I CB I I I E. MAILBOX RIM 408 54 I I 1 E CURB I I IE (12"N) 405.28 2 I I— I — 74'_6" WATER MAIN ---- - IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59------J--�TMA ---------- —� E. CURB-- (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) RE I jE. CABLE/FIBER ------------- CURB To BE TRIMED I I I COMM. BOX E. CURB TER VLV. - - ry ->Io 210 TH ST SW I m IF- o U �w I w IN az ml0 L d w l0 SSMH V)Ibi RIM 408.71 UIm IE (8"N/E) 394.05 �� IE=391.32 - - - - - - - - ---------------� CALCULATED GHT-3 C 71 MOO E. CURB C„ 4' CONC. WALKWAY III \ '/9]G7_WI P.CORNER E. RAMP STREET UGHTNG PLAN_ 10' 0 5' 10' 20' SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 COMM. C❑NDUIT PROVIDED STREET LIGHTING 8 BOLLARD LIGHTS AT THE ENTRANCE AND ALONG THE EAST SIDEWALK: BLAZE 42" HIGH DARK BRONZE 5000K LED SQUARE BOLLARD LIGHT -STYLE #160A1 6 MOTION SENSOR SECURITY LIGHTS: TWO -LIGHT BRONZE 180-DEGREE, MOTION SENSOR SECURITY LIGHT EACH MOUNTED 7' ABOVE EACH UNIT GARAGE FLOOR, AND PROJECTED DOWNWARD ONTO THE SITE B. LIGHT - TECH LIGHTING ARKAY 36"H BLACK 3-LED LANDSCAPE BOLLARD LIGHT -STYLE #81K03 POSSINI EURO RIDGELAND BLACK RECTANGULAR OUTDOOR WALL LIGHT MOUNTED 7' ABOVE GARAGE FLOOR HOME TECH 13608 SE 51ST PL BELLEVUE, WA 206 778 2431 32229 p rs IDNAL Q O H Q 'L^ V ZN c 0 E Zw Q Q N N CDJ W N °' N 0 9 0 d w Cn ZW ci)LLI rL O J Z 0 O O r N O W O N N Z J W a Q REVISI❑NS DATE zj, APR 2, 2022 DESIGN1 Y. S DRAWING: H, H. CHECK: Y, S. DATE: AYG 16, 2021 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET: 1 Packet Pg. 41 1 P.CORNER 74'-6" LOT A HOME TECH I BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 I TOP 413.0 BLOCK WALL I BOT. 409.5 I TOP\412.0 I CONC. BLOCK I WALL, TYP. E.OVERHEAD POWER LINE PROPOSED POWER VAULT BOX-� (FLUSH TO THIS GRADE, & TO 1 BE SCREENED) 37 B8 9 _ B P.CORNER A ' 0 X 2099 A 99 A A x 410.5 FF= 410.25' 1 ST FLR M.S.S. LIGHT-6 1-2% GRADED TO DRAIN AR�PROPOSED CB FF=409.5' 1 ST FLR F B. LIGHT-8 e e O 8"TYP m , I TJ GP P - � — d a I IF- M.S.S. LIGHT-5 I 409 w FF= 408.75' 1 I I`d II 1ST FLR -�-1 > 1 ®j-A.4 Lo - - Lo M.S.S. LIGHT-4 B. LIGHT-6 ,a_.. I cn Lo 1408 H . �`1 22'-0„ 17-FFf�' I ASPH LT P VEME T 4 : _1 — �-- \7 S.S. LIGHT-3 I I � `p 10 I" FF= 407.25' ®j ... dl 4 6 1ST - - ------ I ILU I� ss M.S.S. LIGHT-2 dJ I �s FF= 406.5 H I � I B. LIGHT-7 O m O BLOCK WALL B0T. 410.5 TOP 413.0 BLOCK WALL BOT. 409.5 TOP 412.0 = HEAT PUMP, 3—FT i OR LESS IN HEIGHT } B. LIGHT-5 899 m B. LIGHT-4 X 5" Lo Lo I 1 ST FLR I "Al " -i ,9 po � DRI A I D i a z ZTI F-r-1 W I 4I M.S.S. LIGHT-1 d w x I 4 I o I — — — 1.5"WATER LINE w a�. UTUTYPA Q \ a.. d B. L-i GH T— 3 1 Q I � a " ��d . . O E. CURB lU' 0 5' lU' 20' I WM(E;� 1 Cnn ---------UGP\ _ -=� L-IG-HIi=2 i c„ 4' CONC. WALKWAY SCALE: 1" = 10' Cn ®ID 1 I � :: B. LIGHT-1 v WM ) Br�Ew„u E ' I -�— SEE SDI SHEET FOR STORM I I SEE CV1 FOR R.O.W. IMPRO E T HYDRANT WATER DESIGN DETAILES P.CORNER I I I I I M N I I CB I I I E. MAILBOX I I I I I P.CORNER E. RAMP RIM 408.54 2 I I I E. CURB I I iJ i IE (12"N) 405.28 I I — 74'_6" WATER MAIN I I IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59------J--�-- ----- —------------ E. CURB (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) j E. CURB To CABLE/FIBER--------------------------� BE TRIMED I COMM. BOX E. CURB I I WATER VLV. I LI -> l0 210 TH ST _ SW I mIF- o � — �w w IN I a-z mlo L U 1 wl� Al SSMH V1bi RIM 408.71 01m IE (8"N/E) 394.05 — — — — — 'm:::) IE=391.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CALCULATED Al EXIST. SEWER TO BE REMAINED COMM, C❑NDUIT PR❑VIDED 13608 SE 51ST PL BELLEVUE, WA 206 778 2431 32229 p rs IDNAL 0 E W N Q N 0 N W °' N O d LLI V`/ Lu V) / w U Z (� 0 Q J = _ ' a Z O CD 0 o r N O N ON Z J J H M a � r w ;_ REVISI❑NS DATE APR 2, 2022 DESIGN1 Y. S DRAWING: H, H. CHECK: Y, S. DATE: AYG 16, 2021 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET: 1 I Packet Pg. 42 1 I v P.CORNER 74'-6" LOT A -41C --- -r---- . g 9 I ° � P.CORNER j BLOCK WALL X 20" `0 X A 0 \ BOT. 410.5 39)-6„ I TOP 413.0 d. ,.. _.... .. 10 - 0 y;r:,r'9.'.;s "`i1�} .S+j;: a�&S;: �?-.,•R: ��v.H• .iY- } .iY::'.• a e i s rX -} 'Yip-•;s .y Yi«.} ?'.'Fk.;R: .{;:F;- yjM 5}•".r.. �=c`,.•`•- `1T:v :'• .t r/. Ir � :"•''"- ;Yid.. ?i.-_ H. y� . • �+ye ,,..;r'�_: .: ''. ;y' :}Y`y;;YY"%ii ijr..:. y BLOCK WALL �`� � , />.� .. - _ .. . Y}., .,;.:>:,.' •x,�. ,; _:. ws;�:.. w �;iy, IBOT. 409.5/ / , /.� ,I FF=410.25 --- > - - - - - - - - - I --` TOP-\�T2M f BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 TOP 413.0 GONG. BLOCK \ / , ,/ BLOCK WALL WALL, TYP.ol \ BOT. 409.5 E.OVERHEAD POWER LINE �f ROOFLINE °4: B�GHT-8 TOP 412.0 M.S.S. LIGHT-6 :y: , �// 1-2% GRADED TO DRAIN PROPOSED POWER VAULT BOX / .. / / //ApnPROPOSED CB 8 TYP (FLUSH TO THIE GRADE, & TO 1 '/ 4 BE SCREENED) - d J/ /�/� 1ST FLR �'/ '�_� 'B. LIGHT-7 Oi I -.1 �� - - ROOFLINE I I _ //r.' , ,'/' I M.S.S. LIGHT-5 dl 1 '41D- '/r'�09 i'r ° 1 FF=408.75 1 I TST GARBAGE/RECYCL, TYP. I T7,4ap _RooNE I L B. LIGHT-6 I I M.S.S. LIGHT_ 4 l a 1 /4'q HLAT PUMP, 3-FT Al "�" - 00\ LESS IN HEIGHT /ASP,W L'T /P VFW E T/ 1ST FLR \ 4'- 0" EXISTII�O„ \ 1 I I / GRADE: _ ROOFLINE _Q6 S.S. LIGHT-3 :-I 1 1, 0. JI FF=407.25' I 1 I. I / 1ST --- /T. I / 'I�' 1ir \\ 1 X 3, I-/'/i / 1/ ' '/_./I ,I � \4 % 1�`'',- - ROOFLINE \ I \ sl M.S.S. LIGHT-2 \ I \ \\ 71 4 � ��FF=406.5 H I \ I // . / , /' '1 / /l' 1ST FLR I I00blvI.1 I ILL_4 RIM P-f - ROOFLINE 1 ®I \\ ro L.L/',/.' ,I / /I 'I/I M.S.S. LIGHT-1 \ _ ..W X / 1.5"WATERVINE \ I I x i`I�` �\ d. e a , / I- 0, B. G H T �3 O >xx\�\�\ \� �. e. a � •d.: �. o E. CURB 1 %�'��\1/\ \ WM(E)� WM(E`I ocn '�/ %/�� �� L-IG-�1i=2 I v, 4' CONK. WALKWAY ®® 1 ®® 1 N � /X y ,`1 l<l x/ \'x)< 5 EW„ c � � �1 1 I X �c'C < \ % LI E \ I I ® P.CO N r n '� �I'�i�\/} v HYDRA T IV \/v u\x 5'.N' W. SIDE WALK CB I I I E. MAILBOX 1 1 t f = P.CORNER 24 -0 ---- E. AMP RIM 408.54 I I I E. CURB HAII WATER MAIN 11 1 1 1 1 \ IE (12"N) 405.28 I I EW RAMP VEM.EN T 74' IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59 I I L ------NEW RAMP "I--- _� (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) E. CURB I I E. CURB TO I CABLE/FIBER - - - - - - - - ------------� \� BE TRIMED I COMM. BOX E. CURB \ I I WATER VLV. oI ry Ld ->l0 210 TH ST SVV I m� I o IU - - I I m Iz I Flo I Ld SSMH wlv I cn w Al RIM 408.71 I vIm IE (8"N/E) 394.05 _ _ >Iv IE=391.32 - - - - - - I% _(CALCU LATED) Lo I Lo �/-� CC PLAN 10' 0 5' 10' 20' SCALE: 1" = 10' SEE SDI SHEET FOR STORM \\WATER DESIGN DETAILES \ Ed HEAT PUMP © GARBAGE ® RECYCL C EXIST, SEWER TO BE REMAINED COMM, C❑NDUIT PR❑VIDED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES 1. SCHEDULE A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION AT 425-771-0220, EXT. 1326. TWO DAY (48 HR) NOTICE IS REQUIRED. 2. REVIEW TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLNOTES. 3. CALL FOR UTILITY LOCATES. 4. INSTALL TESC MEASURES AND MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL WHILE PREVENTING DISTURBANCE OF ANY AREAS OF VEGETATIONOUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE. 5. HAVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSPECTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE CLEARING. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PRACTICES AND/OR DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 6. DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURES 7. ROUGH GRADE SITE AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL DRAINAGE FEATURES. 8. CLEAR, GRUB & ROUGH GRADE SITE. REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SURFACE DISTURBANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ROUGH GRADING. (OTHER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED PER EROSION CONTROL NOTES BELOW) 9. INSTALL UTILITIES AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 10. STABILIZE AND COMPOST AMEND ALL EXPOSED SOILS PRIOR TO REVEGETATION OF ENTIRE SITE. 11. ESTABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PERMANENT VEGETATION. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE STABILIZATION AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR. HOME TECH 13608 SE 51ST PL BELLEVUE, WA 206 778 2431 1�G ,� 32 T �� rs r�VAt L Zy 0 E w Q N N O N W cn N �o O W cn W Lu ' Q Z ~ co 0 O JN O OCL �• N O N z J J _ � M a CD CD V REVISI❑NS DATE APR 2, 2022 DESIGN: Y. S DRAWING: H, H. CHECK: Y, S. DATE: DEC. 28, 2021 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET: 1 cv I Packet Pg. 43 — — — — — — — — NOTES: — — — — — — 418 74'-6" LOT A 1Y 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RIM AND P.CORNER _—_----------o—�m ----� — INVERT ELEVATIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY 4-46-- -- _— —r-- r- w B 9 P.CORNER O ' O � 0 O O X 7W * \ ENGINEER IF DIFFERENT THAN PLANS. BLOCK WALL BOT. 410.5 „ \ 20„O X \ \\ 39'-6" 0' \ TOP 413.02. ' +rr.• ; yr +R S vyj" .7y'.,' };r i \ ;y..Y',.-..•Y'i.,.D.-Yi«:✓.. i.-r1+!i4:. :.v`i+P: 1 v.RiiJ,; i1•, 5Y: •. j'r r r w y .y "xr w«_ .•Y+S_-.: v1h+g; �.vAyi . is }, ,, + x \ ALL DOWNSPOUT CONNECTIONS SHALL .BLOCK WALL BOT. 409.5 —m -2� `a�/ , ' • Y:.., ..Y.._ :.Y. ~;;=: KX \ — — — : a ��OCK WALL I \ BE A MINIMUM OF 18" BELOW FINAL GRADE. � ��� / , , , \ °• / .'i \ /' .. � I TOP 413,,0 \ CONC. BLOCK WALL, TYP. / ///., / , /'/�.I-/' ,a••, BLOCK WALL /IA �� BOT. 409. » 3. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE 4 PVC (E) OVER HEAD I ;. � :: �/ �/ ' ��.�;" —ROOFLINE °;: TOP 412.0 AND HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2%0 POWER LINE —2% GRADED TO DRAIN \, �\ UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. ' '4�0/' '.' ; '' TOWARDS PROPOSED CB ------ :..:. •...,• 1 4. INFILTRATION TRENCH SHALL BE O PER DOE MANUAL BMP T5.10A.. -- I/ PERFORATED PIPES SHALL BE FLAT. —ROOFLINE I -: ;:: REFER TO SHEET SD2. �., , , , ll7llTl ______ ---- _ ---� :. I I• a•• I •� 5. PROPOSED WALKWAY SHALL BE GRADED =� ���.'' i,T. 1 i TO DRAIN AWAY FROM BUILDINGS AND ------__----4Q8 1 I TOWARDS VEGETATED AREAS WITH A GRADE OOFLINE �� -= I BETWEEN 1-2�. , •o.: (SETBACK ' 6. PROPOSED CATCH BASIN AND SUMP LIDS / 1 I Ln A/-/0 f EXISTING / GRADE • • I, 4'-0" I c' A�SP,W L'T �f'AxV T/ ° / . /�/� �' ,I J/ \ �, SHALL BE FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE. I EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED ROOF ,, I I/r • a ------------------------------------- A\ ROOFLINE L A, TYPE 1 CB {1 � / I •r . RIM 406 REFER TO NOTES 3 AND 6 %, / \\ , , Z2p b, ' ,}�' — ROOFLINE \ ,:..: DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION, \ W� / Z�T /_' / I' REFER TO NOTES 2 AND 3. :.° • \ W ' \�/ uxy� x -B-s -o --,�- :'°: DRANAGE PLAN % \%�\ �\ '� I ; ° . ° 10' 0 5' 10' 20' O v�i yK/ / >�� \� \� SCALE: 1" = 10' -: %`�,\ <x/ X'<,�{ o Q 4' CONC. WALKWAY REFER TO NOTE 5. CD ' .. 'S CB 1 :5' N E I. D:E bVA L K \ - -- CORNER RIM 408.54 � 2' \ 4-0" / IE (12 N) 405.28 NEW RAMP ASPHA T PAVEM ENT 74 , \ IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59---------L_ — — — — — —— NEW RAMP (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) SUMP W/SOLID LID, 36'x5'x4' REFER TO NOTE 4. INFILTRATION TRENCH, REFER TO NOTE 4. 2 SH FINE CONSULTING 13608 SE 51stPI Bellevue, WA 98006 (425) 444-9740 r o� w�syl 1 V1311 W N 0 co 0 Q Z O 0 W Z LV Q cf)� J � F— � a. O LU = = (� Z F- Q �o r z pN Q �o EVISI❑NS DATE AUG 26, 2021 DEC 31, 2021 DESIGN J.S. DRAWING: K.A.E. CHECK: J,S' DATE; N❑V 15, 2020 SCALE: 1, = 10' SHEET: S D � 0 0 :E L O W ATTACH Packet Pg. 44 D.1.a Plan View Plan 1 ��it1R 4" rigid or �i" flexible roof � e°� pertorated drain d � P��a�e pipe �--------------� sump+�rlsolidlid infiltration trench roof drain p���j�j,,,�r — �oeauN P.� �r0��� ��� 4" rigid or " fl�ik�l� splash �lvci� Profile View � �erfvrated pike B s��r-r� pipe Aperforated - � solid lid a 1�washed ra��c 'I "Y ��" 1' rein 12eeA— ------- 1'mirl fins mesh screen vari s Marie 7. rein. �' min. REFER CI.1�mn. REFER TO C 1.1 Section A -A „p e, � � �m a��� eau�,�� filt��-fabnc Comp�G#�d b�ckfill 4' ' a' aa' a 4" rigid �r " flexible ��rfora#�d pips �,�; perforated pipe 3' " i v�ra�hed rock 1 �, . ��.� washed ,o�.i„ _ 26 � h1�T TO ALE NOT Figure III-3.1.2 Typical Downspout Infiltration Trench Typical �rr��p�t Infiltration T�r�� � E P �, R T E C� T++ F R�vi��d November 0� � ECOLOGY ,y,;����Mb �,s o��eR���tlsP ,sw�s. i6 A 6P` "loom ECOLOGY D.1.a BK Chen Townhouse 7103 210th ST SW, Edmonds WA 98026 Technical Information Report - Drainage Report 21,18 OX) is 5'roNAL &r.} 2/31 /21 Prepared by: Jie Sheng, PE, LEED Green Associate SH Fine Consulting March 10, 2021 Revised December 30, 2021 ATTAC H M E Packet Pg. 46 D.1.a Tables of Contents 1. Introduction 3 Figure 1-1: Project Site Area 3 2. Existing Conditions 3 3. Proposed Conditions 3 Table 1-1: Project Impervious Areas 4 4. Proposed Drainage 4 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans 4 Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4 Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution 4 Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems/Outfalls 4 Minimum Requirement #5: Onsite Stormwater Management 4 Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment 5 Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control 5 Minimum Requirement #8: Wetland Protections 5 Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance 5 Appendix A: Site and Drainage Plans 6 Appendix B: Minimum Requirements 7 Appendix C: Onsite Stormwater Management BMP Selection 8 Appendix D: Infiltration Testing 9 Appendix E: Offsite Analysis 10 Appendix F: Operation and Maintenance Manual 11 Appendix G: WWHM Infiltration Trench Data 12 Packet Pg. 47 D.1.a 1. Introduction This report analyzes storm water drainage control measures for the proposed BK Chen Townhome project located in the City of Edmonds. The project site consists of a single, rectangular parcel located at 7103 210th ST SW, Edmonds, WA, 98026. The parcel is approximately 11,326 square feet in size, and bounded by access roads to the east and west, private residence to the north and 210th ST SW to the south. There is an existing single -story dwelling unit and carport that will be demolished. The proposed development consists of a 6-unit townhome development. Figure 1-1: Project Site Area 2. Existing Conditions The site is generally flat with gentle slopes from north to south with grades of approximately 5%. There is an existing single -story dwelling unit and carport that will be demolished and removed. Current storm water runoff from the roofs are discharged to the surrounding lawn surface via downspouts and sheet flow from the carport roof. Runoff follows the existing grade of the site towards 210th St SW and into the curb and gutter drainage system along 210th ST SW. Existing driveway runoff sheet flows into the curb and gutter drainage system along 210th ST SW. There is no evidence of downstream flooding and no drainage complaints related to this parcel. There are no known critical areas onsite or adjacent to the site. 3. Proposed Conditions The proposed development includes the demolition of the existing structures, and the construction of a new, 6 unit townhome development, and associated walkways and driveways. Refer to Appendix A for the proposed Site Plan. Refer to Table 1-1 below for proposed hard areas. Packet Pg. 48 D.1.a Lot Size Proposed Proposed Proposed New Plus Total PGIS Footprint Driveway Walkway Replaced Hard Surfaces 11,326 SF 4,884 SF 3,133 SF 855 SF 8,872 SF 3,988 SF Table 1-1: Project Impervious Areas Infiltration testing shows this site is suitable for infiltration. Refer to Appendix D for the infiltration test results and procedures. Infiltration BMPs are proposed for this site. Evaluation of all stormwater management BMPs and proposed infiltration facilities are discussed in further detail below. Refer to Appendix A for the proposed drainage plan. 4. Proposed Drainage Drainage analysis for this site was done per the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with December 2014 Amendments (2014 SWMMWW) and the City of Edmonds 2017 Stormwater Code and Reference Documents. Per EDCD Section 18.30.060, this project is a Category 2 and shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #9. Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans Stormwater site plans have been prepared for this proposed development and are attached in Appendix A. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the Stormwater Site Plan. The SWPPP narrative and drawings are submitted separately. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution Source pollutants are not anticipated at this project site. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems/Outfalls The existing outfall is the public storm system along 210th ST SW. There is an existing curb and gutter system adjacent to the project site that leads to a catch basin in the right of way along 210th ST SW. The proposed project maintains this existing outfall to the maximum extent feasible. See Appendix E for off - site analysis. Minimum Requirement #5: Onsite Stormwater Management Onsite stormwater management BMPs from ECDC 18.30.060D.5.e List #2 are considered below. Infiltration testing shows this site is suitable for infiltration. Refer to Appendix D for the infiltration test results and procedures. Lawn and Landscaped Areas: Packet Pg. 49 D.1.a All disturbed lawn and landscaped areas shall be restored to Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the DOE Manual and City of Edmonds Stormwater Code Addendum Checklist 7. Refer Appendix C. Roofs: The following onsite stormwater management BMPs are considered for all future proposed roof areas, in order: 1. Full dispersion is not feasible due to lack of native vegetation, and lack of 100-ft minimum flow path. 2. Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the SWMMWW is feasible and proposed for this project. Other Hard Surfaces: The following onsite stormwater management BMPs are considered for the proposed driveway, walkway and patios, in order: 1. Full dispersion is not feasible due to lack of native vegetation, and lack of 100-ft minimum flow path. 2. Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Section 3.1.1 of Volume III of the SWMMWW is feasible and proposed for this project. The infiltration trench is designed to provide 100% infiltration as modeled by the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) using the geotechnical recommended infiltration rate (refer to Appendix D). WWHM data is included in Appendix G. Any overflow from the infiltration trench will follow the lawn grade, flowing east to west towards the proposed driveway, which is graded to drain towards 210th ST SW. There is an existing storm drain that will convey any overflow to the city storm system. Refer to Appendix A for Drainage Plans and Details. Minimum Requirement #6: Runoff Treatment This project does not generate 5,000 SF or more of pollution -generating hard surfaces or 0.75 acres or more of pollution -generating pervious surfaces. Per ECDC 18.30.060.D.6, runoff treatment is not required. Minimum Requirement #7: Flow Control This project has less than 10,000 SF of total effective impervious surfaces and does not convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture. Per EDCD 18.30.060.D.7, flow control is not required. Minimum Requirement #8: Wetland Protections This project does not contain any known or observed wetlands. Stormwater from this project does not discharge into any known or observed wetlands. Minimum Requirement #9: Operation and Maintenance Operation and maintenance of proposed stormwater BMPs is the responsibility of the owner. Refer to Appendix F for the Operation and Maintenance Manual. Packet Pg. 50 D.1.a Appendix A: Site and Drainage Plans E 0 m C 3 0 co z c m m ,L^ V N 0 E W C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 51 __--------- - — — — — - NOTES: 74'-6" LOT A Y 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RIM AND P.CORNER -____-----------oT�m---� INVERT ELEVATIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY � ---4a------ BLOCK WALL —--------- w B 9 P.CORNER ENGINEER IF DIFFERENT THAN PLANS. oo" X TOP 413.0 2. ALL DOWNSPOUT CONNECTIONS SHALL BLOCK WALL,'' B T. 409.5 ----------------� , / . ,',�.� �___—__ / MOCK WALL �� BE A MINIMUM OF 18" BELOW FINAL GRADE. I / iI CONC. BLOCK WALL' TYP. " ' . �' TOP 413 0 BLK WALL '"' . �\ 3. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE 4" PVC (E) OVER HEAD ;' i'''%%' I BOT. 409. I/ , ; �, , % ' , ^1 - ROOFLINE '; \ TOP 412.0 \ AND HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2%, POWER uNE / . �' . 'r ' \ \ �' / ,'.' 1-2% GRADED To DRAIN \ �\ UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. TOWARDS PROPOSED CB \ 4. INFILTRATION TRENCH SHALL BE �\,� �. I PER DOE MANUAL BMP T5.10A.. PERFORATED PIPES SHALL BE FLAT. — VV,� ' —ROOFLINE - i REFER TO SHEET SD2. 409/ /Ill/7ll/Tl 5. PROPOSED WALKWAY SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN AWAY FROM BUILDINGS AND --- '' {{� �''.''' I,i �\ ;•/I II i TOWARDS VEGETATED AREAS WITH A GRADE � OOFLINE �� = �... BETWEEN 1-2%. I (SETBACK r I - // I/ 498. 1 I I I 6. PROPOSED CATCH BASIN AND SUMP LIDS EXISTING GRADE ', i . r J 1 ASP,W 'r.P,ovg T, v) '•• 11 4'-0" I SHALL BE FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE. EX TING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED ROO \ I,Y \\ 1. \ o t \ \\ \. �I - ROOFLINE • I TYPE 1 CB RIM 406 REFER TO NOTES 3 AND 6 \\1 \\\ \� %��ROOFLINE I �� L1 DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION, o \ REFER TO NOTES 2 AND 3. \ DRAINAGE PLAN xTn� .d. 5: `x,y> y 0' F Ii(� I':•:' \\ \\ 10' 0 5' 10' 20' N ,' '( / y %'` \}�,i`x ��\xK�� SCALE: 1" = 10' \\ = }�X�Y\� K o a 4' CC NC. WALKWAY ® P.CO NLR x�� `C, n REFER�TO NOTE 5. /y u . ,. .. \ \\ u x x K 5'NE SIDE WALK.... .: _.. ORNER \ \ CB RIM 408.54 I 4'-0" \ / \ IE (12"N) 405.28 I NEW RAMP ASPHA T PAVEMENT 74' ,e \ \ IE (12"E/W/S) 403.59---------L-------------- NEW RAMP _� \ \ \ (PROJECT REFERENCE DATUM) SUMP W/SOLID LID, 36'x5'x4' \ \ REFER TO NOTE 4. INFILTRATION TRENCH, REFER TO NOTE 4. - - - _ 210 TH ST SW SH D.1.a CONSULTING 13608 SE 51 st Pl Bellevue, WA 9800 (425)444-9740 � z i O O I E I W I N N O I CD en a y' J O I a LU Z ai 3:, Z 0 ' REVISIONS DA AUG 26, 20E DEC 31, 202 DESIGN, J.S. DRAWING, K.A.F. CHECK; J.S. DATE, NOV 15, 20E SCALE, 1" = 10' SHEET; Packet Pg. 52 Plan View kw R'R.xbb mN Pm1dR4RR Ripe f� �l I I —� unR.adRlId M.� 5.rcn rRNR�R m,.rna„ Profile View A aamN s C fY wuM5 mM 11f"- �' 1'mM A wn«� nmlm+�s�m. SectionA-A mmo reROR rvl �.• ,. ,o,R, ,r R.rM ewS s-NR¢R�le � NOT TO 9CME Figure III- L Typical Downspout Infiltration Trench PenseS NouremAer N,5 blfty Innuny-551— SH FINE CONSULTING �aznaaa-w9 , N O 00! C 2 O Cl) W J 3 W o Oy W ZF a 3� Z ON H {� O 0 mn REVISIONS DATE AUG 26, 2021 DEK- JS DRAMINGK A.F. CHECK, J.S. DATE NDV I5, 2020 SCALE, NTS SHEET, SD2 D.1.a c m E Q Packet Pg. 53 D.1.a Appendix B: Minimum Requirements E 0 z C 3 0 co z c m m ,L^ V N 0 E W C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 54 EDMONDS STORMWATER ADDENDUM D.1.a JUNE 2017 Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Yes No Minimum Requirements No. 1 through 5 apply I Minimum Requirement No. 2 applies Newt Question IF Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced hard surfaces? OR Convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Yes No Is this a road related project? All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. All Minimum Requirements apply to the new hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. No Yes Does the project add 5,000 square feet or No more of new hard surfaces? Yes Yes Do new hard surfaces add 50% or more to the existing hard surfaces within the project limits? Figure 3.1. Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Development. No additional requirements. H 3. APPLICABILITY OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Packet Pg. 55 D.1.a Appendix C: Onsite Stormwater Management BMP Selection Q Packet Pg. 56 D.1.a BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth Purpose and Definition Naturally occurring (undisturbed) soil and vegetation provide important stormwater func- tions including: water infiltration; nutrient, sediment, and pollutant adsorption; sediment and pollutant biofiltration; water interflow storage and transmission; and pollutant decom- position. These functions are largely lost when development strips away native soil and vegetation and replaces it with minimal topsoil and sod. Not only are these important stormwater functions lost, but such landscapes themselves become pollution generating pervious surfaces due to increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and other landscaping and household/industrial chemicals, the concentration of pet wastes, and pollutants that accompany roadside litter. Establishing soil quality and depth regains greater stormwater functions in the post devel- opment landscape, provides increased treatment of pollutants and sediments that result from development and habitation, and minimizes the need for some landscaping chem- icals, thus reducing pollution through prevention. Applications and Limitations Establishing a minimum soil quality and depth is not the same as preservation of nat- urally occurring soil and vegetation. However, establishing a minimum soil quality and depth will provide improved on -site management of stormwater flow and water quality. Soil organic matter can be attained through numerous materials such as compost, com- posted woody material, biosolids, and forest product residuals. It is important that the materials used to meet the soil quality and depth BMP be appropriate and beneficial to the plant cover to be established. Likewise, it is important that imported topsoils improve soil conditions and do not have an excessive percent of clay fines. This BMP can be considered infeasible on till soil slopes greater than 33 percent. Design Guidelines . Soil retention. Retain, in an undisturbed state, the duff layer and native topsoil to the maximum extent practicable. In any areas requiring grading remove and stock- pile the duff layer and topsoil on site in a designated, controlled area, not adjacent to public resources and critical areas, to be reapplied to other portions of the site where feasible. • Soil quality. All areas subject to clearing and grading that have not been covered by impervious surface, incorporated into a drainage facility or engineered as struc- tural fill or slope shall, at project completion, demonstrate the following: 1. A topsoil layer with a minimum organic matter content of 10% dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 911 1Packet Pg. 57 D.1.a to 8.0 or matching the pH of the undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 4 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. 2. Mulch planting beds with 2 inches of organic material 3. Use compost and other materials that meet these organic content require- ments: a. The organic content for "pre -approved" amendment rates can be met only using compost meeting the compost specification for BMP T7.30: Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes (p.959), with the excep- tion that the compost may have up to 35% biosolids or manure. The compost must also have an organic matter content of 40% to 65%, and a carbon to nitrogen ratio below 25:1. The carbon to nitrogen ratio may be as high as 35:1 for plantings com- posed entirely of plants native to the Puget Sound Lowlands region. b. Calculated amendment rates may be met through use of composted material meeting (a.) above; or other organic materials amended to meet the carbon to nitrogen ratio requirements, and not exceeding the contaminant limits identified in Table 220-B, Testing Parameters, in WAC 173-350-220. The resulting soil should be conducive to the type of vegetation to be established. Implementation Options: The soil quality design guidelines listed above can be met by using one of the methods listed below: Leave undisturbed native vegetation and soil, and protect from compaction during construction. 2. Amend existing site topsoil or subsoil either at default "pre -approved" rates, or at custom calculated rates based on tests of the soil and amendment. 3. Stockpile existing topsoil during grading, and replace it prior to planting. Stockpiled topsoil must also be amended if needed to meet the organic mat- ter or depth requirements, either at a default "pre -approved" rate or at a cus- tom calculated rate. 4. Import topsoil mix of sufficient organic content and depth to meet the require- ments. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 912 1Packet Pg. 58 D.1.a More than one method may be used on different portions of the same site. Soil that already meets the depth and organic matter quality standards, and is not com- pacted, does not need to be amended. Planning/Permittinglinspection/Verification Guidelines & Procedures Local governments are encouraged to adopt guidelines and procedures similar to those recommended in Guidelines and Resources For Implementing Soil Quality and Depth BMP T5.13 in WDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. This document is available at: htta://www.soilsforsalmon.ora/Ddf/Soil BMP Manual.Ddf Maintenance . Establish soil quality and depth toward the end of construction and once estab- lished, protect from compaction, such as from large machinery use, and from erosion. • Plant vegetation and mulch the amended soil area after installation. . Leave plant debris or its equivalent on the soil surface to replenish organic matter. . Reduce and adjust, where possible, the use of irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, rather than continuing to implement formerly established practices. Runoff Model Representation Areas meeting the design guidelines may be entered into approved runoff models as "Pasture" rather than "Lawn." Flow reduction credits can be taken in runoff modeling when BMP T5.13: Post -Con- struction Soil Quality and Depth is used as part of a dispersion design under the con- ditions described in: . BMP T5.1013: Downspout Dispersion Systems (p.905) . BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion (p.905) • BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion (p.908) . BMP T5.18: Reverse Slope Sidewalks (p.937) . BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion (p.939) (for public road projects) 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 913 1Packet Pg. 59 D.1.a Figure V-5.3.3 Planting bed Cross -Section Mulct Loose soil with visible dark organic matter Loose or fractured subsoil Reprinted from Guidelines and Resources For Implementing Soil Quality and Depth BMP T5.13 in WDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 2010, Washington Organic Recycling Council NOT TO SCALE Figure V-5.3.3 Planting Bed Cross -Section DEPARTMENT OF Revised January2016 ECOLOGYPlease see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability, and disclaimer. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 914 1Packet Pg. 60 D.1.a III-3.1.1 Downspout Full Infiltration Systems (BMP T5.10A) Downspout full infiltration systems are trench or drywell designs intended only for use in infiltrating runof from roof downspout drains. They are not designed to directly infiltrate runoff from pollutant -generating impervious surfaces. a� Application 0 C 3 Projects subject to 1-2.5.5 Minimum Requirement #5: On -site Stormwater Management must provide for �0_ individual downspout full infiltration systems or full dispersion if feasible. Evaluate the feasibility, or applicability, of downspout full infiltration unless full dispersion is proposed. Use the evaluation procedure below to determine the feasibility of downspout full infiltration. a� ,L^ V Runoff Modeling for Roof Downspout Full Infiltration C 0 If roof runoff is infiltrated according to the requirements of this section, the roof area may be discounted w from the project area used for sizing stormwater facilities. N Procedure for Evaluating Feasibility 1. Have one of the following prepare a soils report to determine if soils suitable for infiltration are present on the site: o A professional soil scientist certified by the Soil Science Society of America (or an equivalent national program) o A locally licensed on -site sewage designer o A suitably trained person working under the supervision of a professional engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist, or engineering geologist registered in the State of Washington. The report shall reference a sufficient number of soils logs to establish the type and limits of soils on the project site. The report should at a minimum identify the limits of any outwash type soils (i.e., those meeting USDA soil texture classes ranging from coarse sand and cobbles to medium sand) versus other soil types and include an inventory of topsoil depth. 2. If the lots or site does not have outwash or loam soils, and full dispersion is not feasible, ther consider a rain garden or bioretention BMPs (the next lower priority on -site stormwater management system). Packet Pg. 61 D.1.a 3. Complete additional site -specific testing on lots or sites containing outwash (coarse sand and cobbles to medium sand) and loam type soils. Individual lot or site tests must consist of at least one soils log at the location of the infiltratior system, a minimum of 4 feet in depth from the proposed grade and at least 1 foot below the expected bottom elevation of the infiltration trench or dry well. Identify the NRCS series of the soil and the USDA textural class of the soil horizon through the depth of the log, and note any evidence of high ground water level, such as mottling. E 0 c 4. Downspout infiltration is considered feasible on lots or sites that meet all of the following: c 0 3 feet or more of permeable soil from the proposed final grade to the seasonal high ? ground water table. _ a o At least 1-foot of clearance from the expected bottom elevation of the infiltration trench or dry well to the seasonal high ground water table. 0 E o The downspout full infiltration system can be designed to meet the minimum design w criteria specified below. N Design Criteria for Infiltration Trenches Figure III-3.1.2 Typical Downspout Infiltration Trench shows a typical downspout infiltration trench system, and Figure III-3.1.3 Alternative Downspout Infiltration Trench System for Coarse Sand and Gravel presents an alternative infiltration trench system for sites with coarse sand and cobble soils. These systems are designed as specified below. General 1. The following minimum lengths (linear feet) per 1,000 square feet of roof area based on soil type may be used for sizing downspout infiltration trenches. Coarse sands and cobbles: 20 LF Medium sand: 30 LF Fine sand, loamy sand: 75 LF Sandy loam: 125 LF Loam: 190 LF Packet Pg. 62 D.1.a 2. Maximum length of trench shall not exceed 100 feet from the inlet sump. 3. Minimum spacing between trench centerlines shall be 6 feet. 4. Filter fabric shall be placed over the drain rock as shown on Figure 111-3.1.2 Typical Downspout Infiltration Trench prior to backfilling. 5. Infiltration trenches may be placed in fill material if the fill is placed and compacted under the direct supervision of a geotechnical engineer or professional civil engineer with geotechnical expertise, and if the measured infiltration rate is at least 8 inches per hour. Trench length in fill must be 60 linear feet per 1,000 square feet of roof area. Infiltration rates can be tested using the methods described in Section 3.3. 6. Infiltration trenches should not be built on slopes steeper than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required on slopes over 15 percent or if located within 200 feet of the top of slope steeper than 40%, or in a landslide hazard area. 7. Trenches may be located under pavement if a small yard drain or catch basin with grate cover is placed at the end of the trench pipe such that overflow would occur out of the catch basin at an elevation at least one foot below that of the pavement, and in a location which can accommodate the overflow without creating a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems. This is intended to prevent saturation of the pavement in the event of system failure. Design Criteria for Infiltration Drywells Figure III-3.1.4 Typical Downspout Infiltration Drywell shows a typical downspout infiltration drywell system. These systems are designed as specified below. General 1. Drywell bottoms must be a minimum of 1 foot above seasonal high ground water level or impermeable soil layers. 2. When located in course sands and cobbles, drywells must contain a volume of gravel equal to or greater than 60 cubic feet per 1000 square feet of impervious surface served. When located in medium sands, drywells must contain at least 90 cubic feet of gravel per 1,000 square feet of impervious surface served. 3. Drywells must be at least 48 inches in diameter (minimum) and deep enough to contain the gravel amounts specified above for the soil type and impervious surface served. Cn 0 E 0 3 0 c _ a� a� L c� _ 0 E w Packet Pg. 63 D.1.a 4. Filter fabric (geotextile) must be placed on top of the drain rock and on trench or drywell sides prior to backfilling. 5. Spacing between drywells must be a minimum of 10 feet. 6. Downspout infiltration drywells must not be built on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). Drywells may not be placed on or above a landslide hazard area or on slopes greater than 15% without evaluation by a professional engineer with geotechnical expertise or a licensed geologist, hydrogeologist, or engineering geologist, and with jurisdiction approval. E 0 c Figure III-3.1.2 Typical Downspout Infiltration Trench c I t jig a V N 2014 Figure III-3.1.2 pdf download 0 E Figure I11-3.1.3 Alternative Downspout Infiltration Trench System for Coarse Sand -0 and Gravel 2014 Figure III-3.1.3 pdf download Figure 111-3.1.4 Typical Downspout Infiltration Drywell 2014 Figure III-3.1.4 pdf download Setbacks Local governments may require specific setbacks in sites with slopes over 40%, land slide areas, open water features, springs, wells, and septic tank drain fields. Adequate room for maintenance access and equipment should also be considered. Examples of setbacks commonly used include the following: Packet Pg. 64 D.1.a 1. All infiltration systems should be at least 10 feet from any structure, property line, or sensitive area (except slopes over 40%). 2. All infiltration systems must be at least 50 feet from the top of any slope over 40%. This setback may be reduced to 15 feet based on a geotechnical evaluation, but in no instances may it be less than the buffer width. 3. For sites with septic systems, infiltration systems must be downgradient of the drainfield unless the site topography clearly prohibits subsurface flows from intersecting the drainfield Washington State Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as Amended in December 2014 (The 2014 SWMMWW) Packet Pg. 65 D.1.a Plan Vie Ii — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — infiltration trench Profile View roof drain overflow - 4" rigid or 6" flexible splash block A perforated pipe CB sump w/solid lid 4um=7m=_ — — — — — — — — — — — — 6" 12" washed rock 1 Y " - Y4" 1' min 1' in Afine mesh screen varies 10' min. 5' min. Section A -A filter fabric compacted backfill 6„ II _I sho DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington �!iiilig-�alz -'F �► perforated!i!�4" rigid or 6" flexible washed rock 1 YZ" - Y4" 24" NOT TO SCALE Figure III-3.1.2 Typical Downspout Infiltration Trench Revised November 2015 Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Packet Pg. 66 D.1.a Appendix D: Infiltration Testing C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 67 D.1.a NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES. INC. July 26, 2021 Mr. BK Chen VIA Email:.bkchen@gmail.com Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) Chen 210th Street SW Residential Development Infiltration 7103 — 210th Street SW Edmonds, Washington NGA Project No. 1209720 17311-135th Ave. N.E. Suite A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 www.nelsongeotech.com Dear Mr. Chen: This letter documents our explorations and provides our opinions and recommendations for the feasibility of stormwater infiltration for the proposed townhome residential development project located at 7103 — 210th Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. INTRODUCTION The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence within the central portion of the property surrounded by grass -covered yard areas and few scattered young to mature trees. Topography within the site is generally level to gently sloping from north to south. We understand the proposed development will consist of removing the existing site structure and constructing several townhome residence structures within the site. For use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with an untitled and undated preliminary site plan showing the existing and proposed site layout. We understand that stormwater generated from the proposed development may be directed to onsite infiltration systems, if feasible. We have been requested to evaluate the infiltration capacity of the site soils within the property. The City of Edmonds utilizes the 2014 Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management in Western Washington Manual (2014 SWMMWW) to determine the design of infiltration or detention facilities. According to this manual, long-term design infiltration rates for this site are to be determined by performing on -site infiltration testing consisting of the Small Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT). Packet Pg. 68 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration July 26, 2021 Edmonds, Washington Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions within the site and to provide opinions and recommendations for stormwater infiltration. Specifically, our scope of services included the following: 1. Review available soil and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with trackhoe excavated test pits. Trackhoe was subcontracted by NGA. 3. Perform grain -size sieve analysis on selected soil samples, as needed. 4. Provide long-term design infiltration rates based on one on -site small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) per the 2014 SWMMWW. Location and depth of tests to be determined by civil engineer. Water for the test to be secured by client. 5. Provide recommendations for infiltration system installation. 6. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical letter. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The property consists of a roughly rectangular -shaped parcel covering approximately 0.26 acres. The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence within the central portion of the property surrounded by grass -covered yard areas and few scattered young to mature trees. Topography within the site is generally level to gently sloping from north to south. We did not observe any surface water within the site on our visit on October 9, 2020. Subsurface Conditions: The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by J. P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983). The site is mapped as Qva (Advance Outwash deposits), with Qvt (glacial till) nearby. Texture and structure vary from place to place but Advance Outwash generally is composed of moderate- to well -sorted, stratified, light gray to tan medium to coarse sand and pebbly sand containing minor amounts of fine sandy silt. Vashon till typically consists of a concrete -like mixture of relatively equal parts of silt, sand, and gravel. In our explorations, we encountered soils primarily consisting of fine to medium sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt, which we interpreted to be consistent with the description of the outwash deposits mapped in this area. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 69 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration July 26, 2021 Edmonds, Washington Page 3 Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on October 9, 2020 by excavating three test pit explorations with a mini -excavator as shown in Plate 1 below. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. f Plate 1: Excavator equipment utilized to dig explorations. Shown digging Test Pit 1 located to the west of the existing structure and looking north. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 3. The logs of our explorations are attached to this letter and are presented in Figure 4. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraph. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the exploration logs should be reviewed. At the surface of Test Pits 1 and 2, and Infiltration Pit 1, we generally encountered approximately 1.0 feet of surficial topsoil. Underlying the surficial topsoil in Test Pit 1, we encountered approximately 2.0 feet of dark brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organics along with a buried topsoil layer that we interpreted as undocumented fill soil. Below the undocumented fill soils in Test Pit 1 and the surficial topsoil in Test Pit 2 and Infiltration Pit 1, we encountered medium dense to dense, brown gray fine to medium sand with varying amounts of sand, gravel and roots that we interpreted as native advance outwash deposits. All of our test pit explorations were terminated within the native advance outwash deposits at depths in the range of 7.0 to 9.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil conditions in Test Pit 1 are shown in Plate 2 below. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 70 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration Edmonds, Washington 3. NGA File No. 1209720 July 26, 2021 Page 4 Plate 2: Test Pit 1 soil conditions. Surficial undocumented fill soils underlain by native advance outwash deposits extending to the depths explored. Hydrogeologic Conditions We did not encounter groundwater seepage or observe any indications of groundwater seepage in any of our explorations completed within the site. If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction, we would interpret this water to be perched groundwater. It is our opinion that the potential for perched groundwater within the upper advance outwash soils is low due to the relatively granular nature of the native advance outwash soils underlying the site. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of underlying, less permeable soils. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of precipitation. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. We anticipate that the seasonal high groundwater table within the area is located at a greater depth below the site and should not adversely impact the proposed infiltration systems within the site. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 71 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration July 26, 2021 Edmonds, Washington Page 5 Stormwater Infiltration The subsurface soils generally consisted of topsoil and/or fill underlain by fine- to medium- grained sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel to the depths explored within the proposed infiltration areas. We conducted on -site infiltration testing in accordance with the 2014 SWMMWW, to determine the long term design infiltration rate of the site soils. On -site testing consisted of a Small Pilot Infiltration Test (Small PIT) to determine the long-term design infiltration rates. We conducted a Small PIT within Infiltration Pit 1, located as shown on the attached Site Plan in Figure 2 and in Plate 3 below. The test was conducted within a pit that measured 6.0-feet long by 4.5-feet wide by 5.0-feet deep. Due to the granular nature of the site soils and the maximum capacity of the on -site water source, we were only able to maintain approximately 8.5-inches of standing water within the hole instead of the recommended 12-inches. This level was maintained within the PIT for approximately 6 hours for the pre soak period of the test. At this time, the water flow rate into the hole was monitored with a Great Plains Industries (GPI) TM 075 water flow meter. Plate 3: Infiltration PIT 1 location looking southeast. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 72 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration July 26, 2021 Edmonds, Washington Page 6 After the 6-hour soaking period was completed, the water level was maintained at approximately 8.5- inches for one hour for the steady-state period. The flow rate for Infiltration Pit 1 stabilized at 2.50 gallons per minute (150 gallons per hour), which equates to an approximate infiltration rate of 8.95 inches per hour. The water was shut off after the steady-state period and monitored at least every 15 minutes. After 60 minutes, the water level within the pit dropped approximately 8.0 inches, resulting in an infiltration rate of 8.0 inches per hour. At the conclusion of the testing, Infiltration PIT 1 was excavated an additional two feet to a total depth of 7.0 feet below the existing ground surface and no indications of groundwater seepage and/or impermeable zones were observed. CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that the subsurface soils within the site are suitable for traditional stormwater infiltration. In accordance with the Table 3.5 of the 2014 SWMMWW, correction factors of 0.8, 0.5, and 0.9 for site variability and number of locations tested (CF ), testing method (CFt), and degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup (CFm), respectively were applied to the field measured infiltration rate of 8.0 inches per hour, selected from the falling -head portion of the testing. A total correction factor of 0.36 was applied to the measured field infiltration rate obtained from the falling head portion of the test to determine the long-term design infiltration rate. Using the above correction factor, we calculated a long-term design infiltration rate of approximately 2.88 inches per hour. The base of the infiltration systems should terminate within the native glacial outwash soils encountered at depth. The stormwater infiltration systems should be designed and maintained in accordance with 2014 SWMMWW. The stormwater manual recommends a minimum five-foot separation between the base of an infiltration system and any underlying bedrock, impermeable horizon, or groundwater. We did not observe any indications of or encounter groundwater and/or impermeable layers within our explorations to a depth of up to 9.5 feet below the existing ground surface within the site. We anticipate that the seasonal high groundwater table within the area is located at a greater depth below the site and should not adversely impact the proposed infiltration systems within the site. We recommend that any infiltration systems be placed as to not negatively impact any proposed or existing nearby structures and also meet all required setbacks from existing property lines, structures, and sensitive areas as discussed in the drainage manual. In general, infiltration systems should not be located within proposed fill areas within the site associated with site grading or retaining wall backfill as such condition could lead to failures of the placed fills and/or retaining structures. We should be retained to evaluate the infiltration system design and installation during construction, if necessary. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 73 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration July 26, 2021 Edmonds, Washington Page 7 USE OF THIS LETTER This letter was prepared for Mr. BK Chen and his agents, for use in planning and budgeting the above - referenced project only. Our services included an evaluation of the infiltration capability of the site soils at specific locations and should not be considered as an in-depth geotechnical study of the site or an evaluation of the overall site stability. This letter may be used for bidding and estimating purposes, but m E our letter, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface t c conditions. The subsurface conditions between explorations may vary. A contingency for varying c conditions should be incorporated into the project plans. We recommend that NGA be retained to review the design and provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 74 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration July 26, 2021 Edmonds, Washington Page 8 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Lee S. Bellah, LG Project Geologist 1•+ OY WA 40 cISTOL C3� 1 �flNAL F Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal LSB:KMS:sg Four Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 75 D.1.a VICINITY MAP N Not to Scale a' 2"Th s: sw zaa0F4sw A Smart Foodservice 9 { Warehouse Stores _ - O t � � � c 3 zveu, st sw College Place % Doug's Hyundai 0 Middle School a El Antojo I Lynnwood r Project Y p gmitegreens �. IATTLE 20M St sw 81n S1 � Site HEIGHTS 20amsrsw a) � P r Pinewood Square Apartments - r- - E 21 �111 S1 sw W m Snohomish County PUD Y Lynnwood Office IN N Burger King CD � Q 0 sw 2121h St SW Edmonds Woadway 2121n sc sw 212<n Si sw zlnn St sw 212 o W High School fn $ Park 2129 a s LU n ® CarMax Used car dealer Southwest O a 8 Transl McDonald's V) � I Swedish 0. 00 Edmonds Campus T g o s :161h Si 54% r -r Premera Blue Cross e []Upstaging Seattle N O Z �� m Q 11 +; : 1 s:l, C N WinCo Foods E a Edmonds, WA Project Number Chen 210th St SW NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 1209720 Residential Development NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 10/23/20 Original DPN LSE Infiltration GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Woodinville Office Wenatchee Office Figure 1 Vicinity Map "Wlood-il.,WA98 2°° W-athee°WA98801 (425)486-1669/Fax: 481-2510 w.nelsongeolech.com (509) 665-7696 / Fax: 665=7692 Packet Pg. 76 ul i I DA.a 1. FF=413' IL1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'± (814SF) 2ND LEVEL: 39,75'X27':� (835SF) �r-3RD LEVEL: 4p.75'X21't (856SF) II i F•F=411.5' I{1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'± (8145F) E 02N❑ LEVEL: 39.75'X21*± (835SF) I^- �3RD I LEVEL: 4D.75'X21'± (855SF) 1 E 0 _ Existing Residence 41 ❑ 4 J 74a9.5' co � 1ST LEVEL: 38,75'X21'# (814SF) TP-1 3RD LEVEL: 40.75'X21'f (856SF) 1 C y 408 1 n 0O _ 1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'± (814SF) J E w ND LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (835SF) W Proposed Townhome i — 3RD EVEL: 40.75'X21'# (typ) i (714 N o N OD 06 FF=407.0' N W 1 12' 1 S T L a - 2ND LEVEL: 39-75'X21':� (835SF) 4- U) SS-2 3Rd LEVEL: 40.75'X21'± (856SF} f > W 6.5' O C 75'X21't {814SF)n F_2PNqDLEVEL: .75'X21'± (8355F) .75'X21't (856SF)1NF-1 TP-2 t CI;� 00 = CD a PAVEMENT o E C.4 LEGEND - - 74'— 6,. r — Property line r INF-1 _10_ Number and approximate p 20 40 1 location of infiltration test pit a V TP-1 = Number and approximate Scale. 1 inch = 20 feet I location of test pit Reference: Site Plan based on an undated, untitled site plan. o a Project Number Chen 21Oth St SW NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By m 1209720 Residential Development N11�A ASSOC[A7ES INC. Onginal ❑PN 1 10/23/20 Infiltration GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS z Figure 2 g Site Plan W—wh-Ofl- 1T311.13$hAvp. NE.A $pp 105pa-51 woo Avu�, wA SM72 wenaw.e, wA aee01 {4251 dgg 18897 Ferc 4B1.2510 www.nclyangcra,�h.ppm {50H1665-76967WFA 8&i7692 Packet Pg. 77 D.1.a UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL 0 GRAVEL GM p GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % OF COARSE FRACTION SILTY GRAVEL RETAINED ON E SOILS NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL m SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND ;v SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % C O RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 % NO. 200 SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND E PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE W WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND N N FINE - SILT AND CLAY ML O N SILT N INORGANIC o GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY U) LESS THAN 50 % > SOILS ORGANIC OL LU ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY IX O SILT AND CLAY MH rL SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 % PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY W 0l NO. 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORECD r ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT c r N HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT O PEAT IN z J NOTES: (L c 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: a� examination of soil in general t accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Q is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Moist - Damp, but no visible water. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from interpretation of blowcount data, below water table visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number Chen 210th St SW NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 1209720 Residential Development Infiltration NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 10/23/20 Original DPN LSE i= t0 Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart Woodinville Office Wenatchee Office 1731 W.Idin til A°e 11172°° 105 tha W 98 W Fl W.98072 Wenatchee, WA965- Packet Pg. 78 _Jd (425) 486-16691 Fax: 481-2510 w.nelson9eolech.com (509) 665-7696 1Fax: 665-7692 D.1.a LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 0.0 - 1.0 GRASS UNDERLAIN BY DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOT, AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 1.0 - 2.0 DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ORGANICS AND DEBRI; (LOOSE, MOIST) (UNDOCUMENTED FILL) 2.0 - 3.0 BURIED TOPSOIL E 1= O 3.0 - 9.5 SP-SM BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL C (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) ?, O SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 5.0, 7.0, 9.0 FEET ~ GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED E TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET ON 10/9/20 t c TEST PIT 2 N d L 0.0 - 1.0 DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOTS, AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) C 1.0 - 9.5 SP-SM BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL O (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) W SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0, 7.0, AND 8.5 FEET ... GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED N TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED c N TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET ON 10/9/20 rn INFILTRATION PIT 101 0.0 - 1.0 DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOTS, AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 1.0 - 7.0 SP-SM BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 10/9/20 LSB:KMS NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 1209720 FIGURE 4 Packet Pg. 79 D.1.a Appendix E: Offsite Analysis Per City of Edmonds GIS, the Snohomish County On-line Property Information (SCOPI) interactive map and Snohomish County Drainage Inventory, accessed August 25, 2021, there are no critical areas, including wetlands, on or adjacent to this project site. The project site is not mapped as a FEMA Floodway or FEMA Floodplain. There do not appear to be any records of drainage complaints on or adjacent to this project site. No evidence of run-on from adjacent parcels and roadways were observed during site visits conducted on October 1, 2019 and August 26, 2021. There was no evidence of other drainage related issues on the property, such as ponding or soft, saturated soils, or mushy top soil. Existing Site Hydrology: There appears to be one Threshold Discharge Area (TDA) onsite. Runoff from the existing roof and driveway currently runs off across the lawn towards 210th ST SW. Infiltration of stormwater does occur. Any additional runoff follows the gravel driveway towards 210th ST SW and follows the road grade toward an existing public catch basin to the southwest. Some standing water below the inverts of the incoming and outgoing storm pipes were observed in the catch basin on October 1, 2019. No water was observed in the catch basin on August 26, 2021. Developed Site Hydrology: Existing infiltration of storm water is preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Proposed infiltration facility is sized and intended to keep stormwater runoff onsite. Packet Pg. 80 D.1.a Appendix F: Operation and Maintenance Manual E 0 m C 3 0 co z c m m ,L^ V N 0 E W C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 81 D.1.a V-4.6 Maintenance Standards for Drainage Facilities The facility -specific maintenance standards contained in this section are intended to be conditions for determining if maintenance actions are required as identified through inspection. They are not intended to be measures of the facility's required condition at all times between inspections. In other words, exceedence of these conditions at any time between inspections and/or maintenance does not automatically constitute a violation of these standards. However, based upon inspection observations, the inspection and maintenance schedules shall be adjusted to minimize the length of time that a facility is in a condition that requires a maintenance action. Table V-4.5.2(1) Maintenance Standards - Detention Ponds Maintenance Defect Conditions When Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Needed Maintenance Is Performed General Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic feet per 1,000 square feet. In general, there should be no visual evidence rash & Debris of dumping. If less than threshold all trash and debris will be removed as part of next scheduled maintenance. Any poisonous or nuisance vegetation which may constitute a hazard to maintenance personnel or the public. Poisonous Any evidence of noxious Vegetation and noxious weeds weeds as defined by State or local regulations. (Apply requirements of adopted IPM policies for the use of herbicides). Trash and debris cleared from site No danger of poisonous vegetation where maintenance personnel or the public might normally be. (Coordinate with local health department) Complete eradication of noxious weeds may not be possible. Compliance with State or local eradication policies required Packet Pg. 82 1 Maintenance Defect Conditions When Comaonent Maintenance Is Needed I D.1.a I Results Expected When Maintenance Is Performed Contaminants and Pollution Rodent Holes Beaver Dams Any evidence of oil, gasoline, contaminants or other pollutants No contaminants or pollutants (Coordinate removal/cleanup 1present. with local water quality response agency). 0 Any evidence of rodent holes if Rodents destroyed and dam or facility is acting as a dam or berm repaired. (Coordinate with 0 berm, or any evidence of water local health department; coordinatE piping through dam or berm with Ecology Dam Safety Office if L via rodent holes. pond exceeds 10 acre-feet.) _ Facility is returned to design L function. Dam results in change or (Coordinate trapping of beavers 0 function of the facility. E and removal of dams with w When insects such as wasps Insects and hornets interfere with maintenance activities. appropriate permitting agencies) Insects destroyed or removed from site. Apply insecticides in compliance with adopted IPM policies Packet Pg. 83 D.1.a Maintenance Defect Conditions When Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Needed Maintenance Is Performed Tree growth does not allow maintenance access or interferes with maintenance activity (i.e., slope mowing, silt removal, vactoring, or Trees do not hinder maintenance equipment movements). If activities. Harvested trees should trees are not interfering with be recycled into mulch or other 0 Tree Growth and access or maintenance, do not beneficial uses (e.g., alders for Hazard Trees remove 0 firewood). � If dead, diseased, or dying c Remove hazard Trees D trees are identified a� L (Use a certified Arborist to determine health of tree or removal requirements) 0 E w N Slopes should be stabilized using o appropriate erosion control 04 Eroded damage over 2 inches o measure(s); e.g.,rock o deep where cause of damage w reinforcement, planting of grass, cn is still present or where there is w Side Slopes of Erosion potential for continued erosion. compaction. Pond 0 If erosion is occurring on 0. Any erosion observed on a compacted berms a licensed civil compacted berm embankment. y engineer should be consulted to CO resolve source of erosion. 0 0 Accumulated sediment that cm Z exceeds 10% of the designed Sediment cleaned out to designed a Sediment pond depth unless otherwise pond shape and depth; pond Storage Area specified or affects inletting or reseeded if necessary to control outletting condition of the erosion. facility. Liner (if Liner is visible and has more Liner repaired or replaced. Liner is a Applicable) than three 1/4-inch holes in it. fully covered. Packet Pg. 84 D.1.a Maintenance Defect Conditions When Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Needed Maintenance Is Performed Any part of berm which has settled 4 inches lower than the design elevation Ponds Berms (Dikes) Settlements If settlement is apparent, measure berm to determine amount of settlement Settling can be an indication of more severe problems with the berm or outlet works. A licensed civil engineer should be consulted to determine the source of the settlement. Dike is built back to the design elevation. Discernable water flow through pond berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to continue. Piping Piping eliminated. Erosion potentia (Recommend a Goethechnical resolved. engineer be called in to inspect and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. Emergency Tree growth on emergency Overflow/ Spillway and spillways creates blockage Berms over 4 feet problems and may cause in height failure of the berm due to Trees should be removed. If root system is small (base less than 4 uncontrolled overtopping. inches) the root system may be left Tree Growth in place. Otherwise the roots Tree growth on berms over 4 should be removed and the berm feet in height may lead to restored. A licensed civil engineer should be consulted for proper piping through the berm which berm/spillway restoration. could lead to failure of the berm. Packet Pg. 85 1 DA.a Maintenance Defect Conditions When Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Needed Maintenance Is Performed Discernable water flow through pond berm. Ongoing erosion with potential for erosion to continue. Piping Piping eliminated. Erosion potentia (Recommend a Goethechnical resolved. engineer be called in to inspect E and evaluate condition and recommend repair of condition. c .E Only one layer of rock exists D above native soil in area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil at the Emergency Emergency Rocks and pad depth are restored Overflow/Spillway Overflow/Spillway top of out flow path of spillway. to design standards. 0 (Rip -rap on inside slopes need w not be replaced.) o N N Erosion ISee "Side Slopes of Pond" o i aerie v-4.*.ztz) iviaintenance -itanaaras - inriitration Results Expected Maintenance When Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Component Maintenance Is Performed See "Detention Trash & Debris See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Ponds" (No. 1). Poisonous/Noxious See "Detention See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Vegetation Ponds" (No. 1). General Contaminants and See "Detention See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Pollution Ponds" (No. 1). See "Detention Rodent Holes See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Ponds" (No. 1) w w 0 a a� o: Cn 00 0 0 r N O N Z J d Packet Pg. 86 D.1.a Results Expected Maintenance When Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Component Maintenance Is Performed Water ponding in infiltration pond after rainfall ceases and appropriate time allowed for infiltration. Treatment basins should infiltrate Sediment is Water Quality Design Storm Volume within 48 removed and/or E hours, and empty within 24 hours after cessation facility is cleaned Storage Area Sediment of most rain events. so that infiltration �0- system works (A percolation test pit or test of facility indicates according to to facility is only working at 90% of its designed design. capabilities. Test every 2 to 5 years. If two inches or more sediment is present, remove). N c 0 E Filled with Filter bag is w Filter Bags (if -- Sediment and Sediment and debris fill bag more than 1/2 full. replaced or system N applicable) cm Debris is redesigned. N N O O Sediment and By visual inspection, little or no water flows Gravel in rock filter w Rock Filters cn Debris through filter during heavy rain storms. is replaced. w Side Slopes See "Detention Q Erosion See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). of Pond Ponds" (No. 1). Cn Emergency i See "Detention o Tree Growth See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). O Overflow Ponds" (No. 1). r Spillway and N N Berms over 4 "Detention z See "Detention J a Piping See Ponds" (No. 1). feet in height. Ponds" (No. 1). a� E See "Detention CU Rock Missing See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). a Emergency Ponds" (No. 1). Overflow Spillway See "Detention Erosion See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). Ponds" (No. 1). Packet Pg. 87 D.1.a Results Expected Maintenance When Defect Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Component Maintenance Is Performed Pre -settling Facility or sump filled with Sediment is Ponds and 6" or designed sediment trap depth of sediment. Sediment and/or removed. Vaults debris E 0 c 3 0 Table V-4.5.2(3) Maintenance Standards - Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) D Results Expected 6 Maintenance When Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Component Maintenance is L Performed c 0 Storage Area One-half of the cross section of a vent is Vents open and w Plugged Air Vents ., blocked at any point or the vent is damaged. functioning. N Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% of the diameter of the storage area for 1/2 length of storage vault or any point depth exceeds 15% of All sediment and Debris and diameter. debris removed Sediment (Example: 72-inch storage tank would require from storage area. cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than 1/2 length of tank.) Any openings or voids allowing material to be Joints Between transported into facility. All joint between tank/pipe sections Tank/Pipe Section (Will require engineering analysis to determine are sealed. structural stability). Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape more Tank/pipe repaired Tank Pipe Bent Out than 10% of its design shape. (Review required or replaced to of Shape by engineer to determine structural stability). design. Packet Pg. 88 1 D.1.a Maintenance Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected When Defect Component Needed Maintenance is Performed Any trash or debris blocking (or Overflow Pipe is free of all obstructions and Obstructions having the potential of blocking) Pipe works as designed. the overflow pipe. See "Closed Detention See "Closed Detention See "Closed Detention Systems"-] o Manhole Systems". (No. Systems". (No. 3). (No. 3). 3). �0 D See "Catch Catch Basin Basins"❑ (No. See "Catch Basins"❑ (No. 5). See "Catch Basins"F- (No. 5). 5). a L � Table V-4.5.2(5) Maintenance Standards - Catch Basins 0 E w Results Maintenance Expected Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed When Component Maintenance is performed Packet Pg. 89 D.1.a Maintenance Component Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Maintenance is performed General No Trash or Trash or debris which is located immediately in front of debris located the catch basin opening or is blocking inletting capacity immediately in of the basin by more than 10%. front of catch basin or on Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 percent of grate opening. the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no No trash or case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from debris in the Trash & the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. catch basin. Debris Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe blocking more Inlet and outlet than 1/3 of its height. pipes free of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate odors that could cause complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., No dead methane). animals or vegetation present within the catch basin. Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 percent of the sump depth as measured from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no No sediment in Sediment case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the the catch basin sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Packet Pg. 90 1 D.1.a Results Maintenance Expected Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed When Component Maintenance is performed Structure Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Top slab is free Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks of holes and wider than 1/4 inch. (Intent is to make sure no material is cracks. E 0 running into basin). _ 3 Frame is sitting �O Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of flush on the riser more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame rings or top slab not securely attached and firmly attached. a� c� E Basin replaced Maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. or repaired to w Fractures or design Cracks in Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider than 1/2 inch standards. Basin Walls/ and longer than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe Pipe is Bottom or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin regrouted and through cracks. secure at basin wall. Basin replaced Settlement/ If failure of basin has created a safety, function, or design or repaired to Misalignment problem. design standards. No vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% blocking of the basin opening. opening to Vegetation basin. �getation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is more No vegetation or an six inches tall and less than six inches apart. root growth present. Packet Pg. 91 1 D.1.a Results Expected Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed When Component Maintenance is performed Contamination No pollution See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). and Pollution present. E 0 Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open Catch basin Place catch basin requires maintenance. cover is closed .E Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one maintenance Mechanism Mechanism person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less than opens with Catch Basin Not Working 1/2 inch of thread. proper tools. Cover N One maintenance person cannot remove lid after 0 Cover can be E Cover Difficult applying normal lifting pressure. removed by one w to Remove (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance o maintenance.) Cn person. 04 O w Ladder meets > w design W Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not securely standards and Q Ladder Rungs 4) Ladder attached to basin wall, misalignment, rust, cracks, or allows Unsafe sharp edges. maintenance Cco person safe O access. O r N O N Metal Grates Z Grate opening a Grate opening (If Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. meets design c Applicable) Unsafe 0 standards. E 0 Grate free of a Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate trash and Debris surface inletting capacity. debris. Packet Pg. 92 DA.a Results Expected Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed When Component Maintenance is performed Grate is in place Damaged or and meets Grate missing or broken member(s) of the grate. Missing. design o standards. 0 Table V-4.5.2(6) Maintenance Standards - Debris Barriers (e.g., Trash Racks) Maintenance Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected When Defect Components Needed Maintenance is Performed Trash and Trash or debris that is plugging more than Barrier cleared to design flow General Debris 20% of the openings in the barrier. capacity. Bars in place with no bends Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 more than 3/4 inch. inches. Damaged/ Bars in place according to Missing Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. design. Bars. Metal Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Barrier replaced or repaired to deterioration to any part of barrier. design standards. Inlet/Outlet Debris barrier missing or not attached to Barrier firmly attached to pipe Pipe pipe Table V-4.5.2(7) Maintenance Standards - Energy Dissipaters Maintenance Components Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed External: Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed .E R to a� ,L^ V N C 0 w Packet Pg. 93 D.1.a Appendix G: WWHM Infiltration Trench Data C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 94 D.1.a WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Q Packet Pg. 95 D.1.a General Model Information Project Name: 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes Site Name: BK Townhomes Site Address: 7103 210th ST SW City: Edmonds Report Date: 12/16/2021 MGS Region: Puget East Data Start: 1901 /10/1 E Data End: 2058/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute c c DOT Data Number03 ~ Version Date: 2018/10/10 c Version: 4.2.16 a a� POC Thresholds L C 0 E Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year w High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year Cm 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM 1 Packet Pg. 96 D.1.a Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Mod 0.26 Pervious Total 0.26 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.26 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 97 D.1.a Mitigated Land Use Infiltrated Hard Surfaces Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 0.112 DRIVEWAYS MOD 0.072 Impervious Total 0.184 Basin Total 0.184 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Gravel Trench Bed 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 W E 0 c 0 c D a) a� c� c 0 E w 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 98 D.1.a Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing E :i Q 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 99 D.1.a Mitigated Routing Gravel Trench Bed 1 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Trench bottom slope 1: Trench Left side slope 0: Trench right side slope 2: Material thickness of first layer: Pour Space of material for first layer: Material thickness of second layer: Pour Space of material for second layer Material thickness of third layer: Pour Space of material for third layer: Infiltration On Infiltration rate: Infiltration safety factor: Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 36.00 ft. 5.00 ft. 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 To 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.36 70.012 0.175 70.187 99.75 0 0 Gravel Trench Bed Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-%) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0444 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.0889 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.1333 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.1778 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.2222 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.2667 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.3111 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.3556 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.4000 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.4444 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.012 0.4889 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.5333 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.5778 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.6222 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.6667 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.7111 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.012 0.7556 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.012 0.8000 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.012 0.8444 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.012 0.8889 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.012 0.9333 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.012 0.9778 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.012 1.0222 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.012 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 100 D.1.a 1.0667 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.012 1.1111 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.012 1.1556 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.012 1.2000 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.012 1.2444 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.012 1.2889 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.012 1.3333 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.012 1.3778 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.012 1.4222 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.012 1.4667 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.012 1.5111 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.012 1.5556 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.012 1.6000 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.012 1.6444 0.004 0.006 0.000 0.012 1.6889 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.012 1.7333 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.012 1.7778 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.012 1.8222 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.012 1.8667 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.012 1.9111 0.004 0.007 0.000 0.012 1.9556 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.012 2.0000 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.012 2.0444 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.012 2.0889 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.012 2.1333 0.004 0.008 0.000 0.012 2.1778 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.012 2.2222 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.012 2.2667 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.012 2.3111 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.012 2.3556 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.012 2.4000 0.004 0.009 0.000 0.012 2.4444 0.004 0.010 0.000 0.012 2.4889 0.004 0.010 0.000 0.012 2.5333 0.004 0.010 0.000 0.012 2.5778 0.004 0.010 0.000 0.012 2.6222 0.004 0.010 0.000 0.012 2.6667 0.004 0.011 0.000 0.012 2.7111 0.004 0.011 0.000 0.012 2.7556 0.004 0.011 0.000 0.012 2.8000 0.004 0.011 0.000 0.012 2.8444 0.004 0.011 0.000 0.012 2.8889 0.004 0.011 0.000 0.012 2.9333 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.012 2.9778 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.012 3.0222 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.012 3.0667 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.012 3.1111 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.012 3.1556 0.004 0.013 0.000 0.012 3.2000 0.004 0.013 0.000 0.012 3.2444 0.004 0.013 0.000 0.012 3.2889 0.004 0.013 0.000 0.012 3.3333 0.004 0.013 0.000 0.012 3.3778 0.004 0.014 0.000 0.012 3.4222 0.004 0.014 0.000 0.012 3.4667 0.004 0.014 0.000 0.012 3.5111 0.004 0.014 0.024 0.012 3.5556 0.004 0.014 0.277 0.012 3.6000 0.004 0.014 0.670 0.012 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 101 D.1.a 3.6444 0.004 0.015 1.161 0.012 3.6889 0.004 0.015 1.733 0.012 3.7333 0.004 0.015 2.369 0.012 3.7778 0.004 0.015 3.059 0.012 3.8222 0.004 0.015 3.791 0.012 3.8667 0.004 0.016 4.552 0.012 3.9111 0.004 0.016 5.330 0.012 3.9556 0.004 0.016 6.112 0.012 4.0000 0.004 0.016 6.887 0.012 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 102 D.1.a Analysis Results POC 1 W + Predeveloped Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.26 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0 Total Impervious Area: 0.184 ate, o.s , s s io m W w 10 N ev u, au ee N.s x Mitigated Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.004412 5 year 0.006847 10 year 0.008168 25 year 0.009512 50 year 0.01031 100 year 0.010966 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1902 0.006 0.000 1903 0.002 0.000 1904 0.004 0.000 1905 0.002 0.000 1906 0.001 0.000 1907 0.007 0.000 1908 0.004 0.000 1909 0.005 0.000 1910 0.008 0.000 1911 0.004 0.000 W E 0 C 0 E D W a� ,L^ V c 0 E w 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:57:20 PM Packet Pg. 103 D.1.a 1912 0.013 0.007 1913 0.007 0.000 1914 0.002 0.000 1915 0.002 0.000 1916 0.004 0.000 1917 0.002 0.000 1918 0.004 0.000 1919 0.003 0.000 1920 0.004 0.000 1921 0.004 0.000 1922 0.005 0.000 1923 0.003 0.000 1924 0.002 0.000 1925 0.002 0.000 1926 0.004 0.000 1927 0.005 0.000 1928 0.003 0.000 1929 0.007 0.000 1930 0.004 0.000 1931 0.004 0.000 1932 0.003 0.000 1933 0.004 0.000 1934 0.010 0.000 1935 0.004 0.000 1936 0.006 0.000 1937 0.005 0.000 1938 0.005 0.000 1939 0.000 0.000 1940 0.004 0.000 1941 0.004 0.000 1942 0.006 0.000 1943 0.002 0.000 1944 0.005 0.069 1945 0.004 0.000 1946 0.004 0.000 1947 0.003 0.000 1948 0.009 0.029 1949 0.007 0.036 1950 0.004 0.000 1951 0.005 0.000 1952 0.013 0.062 1953 0.011 0.055 1954 0.004 0.000 1955 0.003 0.000 1956 0.002 0.000 1957 0.005 0.000 1958 0.012 0.027 1959 0.007 0.000 1960 0.003 0.000 1961 0.008 0.027 1962 0.004 0.000 1963 0.002 0.000 1964 0.003 0.000 1965 0.009 0.017 1966 0.002 0.000 1967 0.003 0.000 1968 0.005 0.000 1969 0.003 0.000 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 104 D.1.a 1970 0.005 0.000 1971 0.009 0.033 1972 0.006 0.051 1973 0.007 0.000 1974 0.004 0.000 1975 0.010 0.037 1976 0.005 0.000 1977 0.003 0.000 1978 0.009 0.013 1979 0.002 0.000 1980 0.004 0.000 1981 0.004 0.000 1982 0.003 0.000 1983 0.007 0.000 1984 0.002 0.000 1985 0.004 0.000 1986 0.003 0.000 1987 0.007 0.005 1988 0.005 0.000 1989 0.004 0.000 1990 0.005 0.000 1991 0.004 0.000 1992 0.006 0.000 1993 0.005 0.000 1994 0.009 0.015 1995 0.002 0.000 1996 0.010 0.000 1997 0.005 0.000 1998 0.004 0.000 1999 0.000 0.000 2000 0.003 0.000 2001 0.002 0.000 2002 0.006 0.000 2003 0.005 0.000 2004 0.005 0.000 2005 0.006 0.000 2006 0.003 0.000 2007 0.003 0.000 2008 0.004 0.000 2009 0.003 0.000 2010 0.002 0.009 2011 0.003 0.000 2012 0.004 0.038 2013 0.003 0.000 2014 0.002 0.000 2015 0.009 0.000 2016 0.001 0.000 2017 0.007 0.071 2018 0.012 0.041 2019 0.013 0.067 2020 0.004 0.000 2021 0.006 0.000 2022 0.002 0.000 2023 0.005 0.000 2024 0.010 0.018 2025 0.004 0.000 2026 0.007 0.000 2027 0.003 0.000 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 105 D.1.a 2028 0.001 0.000 2029 0.005 0.000 2030 0.010 0.030 2031 0.003 0.000 2032 0.002 0.000 2033 0.002 0.000 2034 0.003 0.000 2035 0.011 0.040 2036 0.006 0.000 2037 0.001 0.000 2038 0.006 0.000 2039 0.000 0.000 2040 0.002 0.000 2041 0.003 0.000 2042 0.011 0.045 2043 0.005 0.000 2044 0.007 0.000 2045 0.004 0.000 2046 0.005 0.000 2047 0.003 0.000 2048 0.004 0.000 2049 0.004 0.000 2050 0.003 0.000 2051 0.004 0.032 2052 0.003 0.000 2053 0.004 0.000 2054 0.006 0.043 2055 0.002 0.000 2056 0.002 0.000 2057 0.003 0.000 2058 0.003 0.000 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0133 0.0713 2 0.0133 0.0690 3 0.0130 0.0666 4 0.0122 0.0622 5 0.0121 0.0552 6 0.0115 0.0509 7 0.0112 0.0447 8 0.0107 0.0425 9 0.0104 0.0407 10 0.0101 0.0405 11 0.0100 0.0384 12 0.0097 0.0375 13 0.0095 0.0365 14 0.0095 0.0329 15 0.0090 0.0320 16 0.0090 0.0303 17 0.0089 0.0290 18 0.0087 0.0274 19 0.0087 0.0266 20 0.0075 0.0176 21 0.0075 0.0175 22 0.0074 0.0153 23 0.0074 0.0125 Mitigated. POC #1 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 106 D.1.a 24 0.0072 0.0089 25 0.0071 0.0069 26 0.0071 0.0053 27 0.0070 0.0000 28 0.0070 0.0000 29 0.0069 0.0000 30 0.0068 0.0000 31 0.0068 0.0000 32 0.0066 0.0000 33 0.0062 0.0000 34 0.0062 0.0000 35 0.0062 0.0000 36 0.0061 0.0000 37 0.0061 0.0000 38 0.0060 0.0000 39 0.0059 0.0000 40 0.0058 0.0000 41 0.0057 0.0000 42 0.0056 0.0000 43 0.0055 0.0000 44 0.0054 0.0000 45 0.0053 0.0000 46 0.0051 0.0000 47 0.0051 0.0000 48 0.0050 0.0000 49 0.0050 0.0000 50 0.0050 0.0000 51 0.0049 0.0000 52 0.0049 0.0000 53 0.0049 0.0000 54 0.0049 0.0000 55 0.0048 0.0000 56 0.0048 0.0000 57 0.0048 0.0000 58 0.0048 0.0000 59 0.0047 0.0000 60 0.0047 0.0000 61 0.0047 0.0000 62 0.0047 0.0000 63 0.0047 0.0000 64 0.0045 0.0000 65 0.0045 0.0000 66 0.0045 0.0000 67 0.0045 0.0000 68 0.0044 0.0000 69 0.0044 0.0000 70 0.0043 0.0000 71 0.0043 0.0000 72 0.0043 0.0000 73 0.0043 0.0000 74 0.0043 0.0000 75 0.0042 0.0000 76 0.0042 0.0000 77 0.0042 0.0000 78 0.0042 0.0000 79 0.0042 0.0000 80 0.0041 0.0000 81 0.0040 0.0000 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 107 D.1.a 82 0.0040 0.0000 83 0.0040 0.0000 84 0.0040 0.0000 85 0.0040 0.0000 86 0.0040 0.0000 87 0.0039 0.0000 88 0.0039 0.0000 89 0.0039 0.0000 90 0.0039 0.0000 91 0.0039 0.0000 92 0.0038 0.0000 93 0.0038 0.0000 94 0.0038 0.0000 95 0.0038 0.0000 96 0.0036 0.0000 97 0.0036 0.0000 98 0.0036 0.0000 99 0.0036 0.0000 100 0.0035 0.0000 101 0.0035 0.0000 102 0.0035 0.0000 103 0.0035 0.0000 104 0.0033 0.0000 105 0.0033 0.0000 106 0.0033 0.0000 107 0.0033 0.0000 108 0.0032 0.0000 109 0.0032 0.0000 110 0.0031 0.0000 111 0.0031 0.0000 112 0.0031 0.0000 113 0.0031 0.0000 114 0.0031 0.0000 115 0.0030 0.0000 116 0.0030 0.0000 117 0.0029 0.0000 118 0.0029 0.0000 119 0.0029 0.0000 120 0.0029 0.0000 121 0.0028 0.0000 122 0.0027 0.0000 123 0.0027 0.0000 124 0.0027 0.0000 125 0.0027 0.0000 126 0.0026 0.0000 127 0.0026 0.0000 128 0.0025 0.0000 129 0.0024 0.0000 130 0.0024 0.0000 131 0.0023 0.0000 132 0.0023 0.0000 133 0.0022 0.0000 134 0.0022 0.0000 135 0.0022 0.0000 136 0.0021 0.0000 137 0.0021 0.0000 138 0.0021 0.0000 139 0.0021 0.0000 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 108 D.1.a 140 0.0021 0.0000 141 0.0020 0.0000 142 0.0020 0.0000 143 0.0019 0.0000 144 0.0019 0.0000 145 0.0018 0.0000 146 0.0018 0.0000 147 0.0017 0.0000 148 0.0017 0.0000 149 0.0016 0.0000 150 0.0015 0.0000 151 0.0015 0.0000 152 0.0012 0.0000 153 0.0011 0.0000 154 0.0010 0.0000 155 0.0005 0.0000 156 0.0003 0.0000 157 0.0002 0.0000 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 109 D.1.a Duration Flows Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0022 53261 444 0 Pass 0.0023 49050 443 0 Pass 0.0024 45163 442 0 Pass 0.0025 41778 441 1 Pass 0.0025 38645 439 1 Pass 0.0026 35810 436 1 Pass 0.0027 33228 435 1 Pass 0.0028 30911 432 1 Pass 0.0029 28879 430 1 Pass 0.0029 26947 427 1 Pass 0.0030 25174 425 1 Pass 0.0031 23429 422 1 Pass 0.0032 21866 420 1 Pass 0.0033 20330 419 2 Pass 0.0034 18915 417 2 Pass 0.0034 17677 416 2 Pass 0.0035 16504 412 2 Pass 0.0036 15464 409 2 Pass 0.0037 14451 409 2 Pass 0.0038 13498 407 3 Pass 0.0038 12595 404 3 Pass 0.0039 11786 399 3 Pass 0.0040 11060 397 3 Pass 0.0041 10416 395 3 Pass 0.0042 9837 395 4 Pass 0.0043 9309 394 4 Pass 0.0043 8781 392 4 Pass 0.0044 8291 391 4 Pass 0.0045 7845 390 4 Pass 0.0046 7399 389 5 Pass 0.0047 7035 388 5 Pass 0.0047 6667 387 5 Pass 0.0048 6342 386 6 Pass 0.0049 6034 385 6 Pass 0.0050 5742 380 6 Pass 0.0051 5474 380 6 Pass 0.0052 5220 380 7 Pass 0.0052 4988 379 7 Pass 0.0053 4756 378 7 Pass 0.0054 4538 376 8 Pass 0.0055 4333 375 8 Pass 0.0056 4123 373 9 Pass 0.0056 3937 371 9 Pass 0.0057 3775 370 9 Pass 0.0058 3631 369 10 Pass 0.0059 3491 367 10 Pass 0.0060 3368 366 10 Pass 0.0061 3255 365 11 Pass 0.0061 3145 359 11 Pass 0.0062 3054 359 11 Pass 0.0063 2966 358 12 Pass 0.0064 2876 355 12 Pass 0.0065 2779 354 12 Pass 0.0065 2681 351 13 Pass 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 110 D.1.a 0.0066 2585 349 13 Pass 0.0067 2491 346 13 Pass 0.0068 2387 345 14 Pass 0.0069 2278 344 15 Pass 0.0070 2181 343 15 Pass 0.0070 2080 340 16 Pass 0.0071 1997 339 16 Pass 0.0072 1927 337 17 Pass 0.0073 1863 336 18 Pass 0.0074 1790 335 18 Pass 0.0074 1718 332 19 Pass 0.0075 1664 332 19 Pass 0.0076 1595 330 20 Pass 0.0077 1535 330 21 Pass 0.0078 1479 330 22 Pass 0.0079 1417 328 23 Pass 0.0079 1360 326 23 Pass 0.0080 1298 326 25 Pass 0.0081 1242 325 26 Pass 0.0082 1188 324 27 Pass 0.0083 1146 322 28 Pass 0.0083 1100 321 29 Pass 0.0084 1045 320 30 Pass 0.0085 1000 318 31 Pass 0.0086 953 317 33 Pass 0.0087 916 316 34 Pass 0.0088 877 314 35 Pass 0.0088 830 312 37 Pass 0.0089 788 309 39 Pass 0.0090 754 308 40 Pass 0.0091 709 307 43 Pass 0.0092 666 306 45 Pass 0.0092 627 304 48 Pass 0.0093 595 304 51 Pass 0.0094 554 304 54 Pass 0.0095 515 301 58 Pass 0.0096 461 300 65 Pass 0.0097 420 298 70 Pass 0.0097 392 297 75 Pass 0.0098 360 294 81 Pass 0.0099 334 292 87 Pass 0.0100 306 292 95 Pass 0.0101 286 291 101 Pass 0.0101 265 291 109 Pass 0.0102 248 291 117 Fail 0.0103 233 291 124 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1 /2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 111 D.1.a Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 112 D.1.a LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent waterfluality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Gravel Trench Bed 1 PDC ❑ 63.87 ❑ 99.75 Total Volume Infiltrated 63.87 0.00 0.00 99.75 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Duration Compliance with LID Analysis Standard B% oft-yrto 50% of Result = yr Failed E :i Q 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:06 PM Packet Pg. 113 D.1.a Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:22 PM Packet Pg. 114 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic Basin 0.2Gac E L R Q 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:22 PM Packet Pg. 115 Mitigated Schematic E :i Q 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 116 D.1.a Predeveloped UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1901 10 01 END 2058 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <----------- File Name ------------------------------ >*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.wdm MESSU 25 Pre2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.MES 27 Pre2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.L61 28 Pre2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.L62 30 POC2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomesl.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 11 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 Basin 1 MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 11 C, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 117 D.1.a PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY 11 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.1 0.5 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP 11 0 0 2 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR 11 0.2 0.5 0.35 END PWAT-PARM4 AGWRC 0.996 *** INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 2 0 0 0 *** INTFW IRC LZETP *** 6 0.5 0.7 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS 11 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** Unit -systems Printer *** User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEI GWVS 0 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 118 D.1.a END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Basin 1*** PERLND 11 PERLND 11 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 0.26 COPY 501 12 0.26 COPY 501 13 NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- ><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><-------- > <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 119 D.1.a WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 12 MASS -LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 13 END MASS -LINK END RUN 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 120 D.1.a Mitigated UC/ File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1901 10 01 END 2058 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <----------- File Name ------------------------------ >*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.wdm MESSU 25 Mit2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.MES 27 Mit2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.L61 28 Mit2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes.L62 30 POC2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomesl.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 IMPLND 4 IMPLND 6 RCHRES 1 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 Gravel Trench Bed 1 MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* END PRINT -INFO 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 121 D.1.a PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR END PWAT-PARM4 AGWRC *** INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP *** INTFW IRC LZETP *** PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > 4 ROOF TOPS/FLAT 6 DRIVEWAYS/MOD END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** Unit -systems Printer *** User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 1 1 27 0 1 1 1 27 0 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 4 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 6 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 4 0 0 6 0 0 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM GWVS Packet Pg. 122 D.1.a END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 4 0 0 6 0 0 END IWAT-STATEI 1�1►1�>�Nu1�11►1�] SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# Infiltrated Hard Surfaces*** IMPLND 4 0.112 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 6 0.072 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** IMPLND 4 0.112 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 6 0.072 COPY 1 15 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series in out 1 Gravel Trench Be-008 2 1 1 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** Printer Engl Metr LKFG 28 0 1 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 <------ ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- ><-------- > 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 123 RCHRES Initial # - # *** VOL *** ac-ft <------ ><-------- > 1 0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 92 5 Depth Area (ft) (acres) 0.000000 0.004132 0.044444 0.004132 0.088889 0.004132 0.133333 0.004132 0.177778 0.004132 0.222222 0.004132 0.266667 0.004132 0.311111 0.004132 0.355556 0.004132 0.400000 0.004132 0.444444 0.004132 0.488889 0.004132 0.533333 0.004132 0.577778 0.004132 0.622222 0.004132 0.666667 0.004132 0.711111 0.004132 0.755556 0.004132 0.800000 0.004132 0.844444 0.004132 0.888889 0.004132 0.933333 0.004132 0.977778 0.004132 1.022222 0.004132 1.066667 0.004132 1.111111 0.004132 1.155556 0.004132 1.200000 0.004132 1.244444 0.004132 1.288889 0.004132 1.333333 0.004132 1.377778 0.004132 1.422222 0.004132 1.466667 0.004132 1.511111 0.004132 1.555556 0.004132 1.600000 0.004132 1.644444 0.004132 1.688889 0.004132 1.733333 0.004132 1.777778 0.004132 1.822222 0.004132 1.866667 0.004132 1.911111 0.004132 1.955556 0.004132 2.000000 0.004132 2.044444 0.004132 2.088889 0.004132 2.133333 0.004132 2.177778 0.004132 2.222222 0.004132 2.266667 0.004132 2.311111 0.004132 2.355556 0.004132 2.400000 0.004132 conditions for each HYDR section Initial value of COLIND for each possible exit <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > *** 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Volume Outflowl Outflow2 (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000184 0.000000 0.012000 0.000367 0.000000 0.012000 0.000551 0.000000 0.012000 0.000735 0.000000 0.012000 0.000918 0.000000 0.012000 0.001102 0.000000 0.012000 0.001286 0.000000 0.012000 0.001469 0.000000 0.012000 0.001653 0.000000 0.012000 0.001837 0.000000 0.012000 0.002020 0.000000 0.012000 0.002204 0.000000 0.012000 0.002388 0.000000 0.012000 0.002571 0.000000 0.012000 0.002755 0.000000 0.012000 0.002938 0.000000 0.012000 0.003122 0.000000 0.012000 0.003306 0.000000 0.012000 0.003489 0.000000 0.012000 0.003673 0.000000 0.012000 0.003857 0.000000 0.012000 0.004040 0.000000 0.012000 0.004224 0.000000 0.012000 0.004408 0.000000 0.012000 0.004591 0.000000 0.012000 0.004775 0.000000 0.012000 0.004959 0.000000 0.012000 0.005142 0.000000 0.012000 0.005326 0.000000 0.012000 0.005510 0.000000 0.012000 0.005693 0.000000 0.012000 0.005877 0.000000 0.012000 0.006061 0.000000 0.012000 0.006244 0.000000 0.012000 0.006428 0.000000 0.012000 0.006612 0.000000 0.012000 0.006795 0.000000 0.012000 0.006979 0.000000 0.012000 0.007163 0.000000 0.012000 0.007346 0.000000 0.012000 0.007530 0.000000 0.012000 0.007713 0.000000 0.012000 0.007897 0.000000 0.012000 0.008081 0.000000 0.012000 0.008264 0.000000 0.012000 0.008448 0.000000 0.012000 0.008632 0.000000 0.012000 0.008815 0.000000 0.012000 0.008999 0.000000 0.012000 0.009183 0.000000 0.012000 0.009366 0.000000 0.012000 0.009550 0.000000 0.012000 0.009734 0.000000 0.012000 0.009917 0.000000 0.012000 *** Initial value of OUTDGT for each possible exit <--- ><--- ><--- ><--- >< --- > 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 124 D.1.a 2.444444 0.004132 0.010101 0.000000 0.012000 2.488889 0.004132 0.010285 0.000000 0.012000 2.533333 0.004132 0.010468 0.000000 0.012000 2.577778 0.004132 0.010652 0.000000 0.012000 2.622222 0.004132 0.010836 0.000000 0.012000 2.666667 0.004132 0.011019 0.000000 0.012000 2.711111 0.004132 0.011203 0.000000 0.012000 2.755556 0.004132 0.011387 0.000000 0.012000 2.800000 0.004132 0.011570 0.000000 0.012000 2.844444 0.004132 0.011754 0.000000 0.012000 2.888889 0.004132 0.011938 0.000000 0.012000 2.933333 0.004132 0.012121 0.000000 0.012000 2.977778 0.004132 0.012305 0.000000 0.012000 3.022222 0.004132 0.012489 0.000000 0.012000 3.066667 0.004132 0.012672 0.000000 0.012000 3.111111 0.004132 0.012856 0.000000 0.012000 3.155556 0.004132 0.013039 0.000000 0.012000 3.200000 0.004132 0.013223 0.000000 0.012000 3.244444 0.004132 0.013407 0.000000 0.012000 3.288889 0.004132 0.013590 0.000000 0.012000 3.333333 0.004132 0.013774 0.000000 0.012000 3.377778 0.004132 0.013958 0.000000 0.012000 3.422222 0.004132 0.014141 0.000000 0.012000 3.466667 0.004132 0.014325 0.000000 0.012000 3.511111 0.004132 0.014509 0.024873 0.012000 3.555556 0.004132 0.014692 0.277796 0.012000 3.600000 0.004132 0.014876 0.670242 0.012000 3.644444 0.004132 0.015060 1.161868 0.012000 3.688889 0.004132 0.015243 1.733126 0.012000 3.733333 0.004132 0.015427 2.369915 0.012000 3.777778 0.004132 0.015611 3.059929 0.012000 3.822222 0.004132 0.015794 3.791302 0.012000 3.866667 0.004132 0.015978 4.552071 0.012000 3.911111 0.004132 0.016162 5.330007 0.012000 3.955556 0.004132 0.016345 6.112659 0.012000 4.000000 0.004132 0.016529 6.887532 0.012000 4.044444 0.004132 0.016713 7.642361 0.012000 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1004 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR 0 1 1 1 WDM 1005 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR 0 2 1 1 WDM 1006 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1007 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS -LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS -LINK 5 MASS -LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 125 END MASS -LINK 15 D.1.a MASS -LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY END MASS -LINK 17 END MASS -LINK END RUN INPUT MEAN 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 126 D.1.a Predeveloped HSPF Message File E :i Q 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 127 D.1.a Mitigated HSPF Message File E :i Q 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 128 D.1.a Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. T entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by: Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2021; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com 2021-08-20 BK Edmonds Townhomes 12/16/2021 4:59:23 PM Packet Pg. 129 D.1.a OF EDAf O 1Pd CITY OF EDMON DS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a total of a 6-unit townhome with associated parking. The 6-units are proposed in a new three (3) story building and each unit is proposed to contain four (4)-bedrooms. Parking for the units will be provided via a two -car garage for each unit. Access to the proposed development will be taken off of 210th St. SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Proponent: BK Chen Location of proposal: 7103 210th St. SW., Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00566900100601 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 June 11, 2021. Project Planner: Michele Q. Szafran, Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date:'a L5 c2l 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 June 18, 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 May 28, 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. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents are available at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under the file application number PLN2021-0018, or by emailing the City contact listed above, or by calling the Page I oft ATTACHME11 Packet Pg. 130 D.1.a City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all inquiries. Search under permit file number PLN2021-0018. Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ❑X Applicant ❑X Dept. of Ecology ❑ City of Everett ❑ Parties of Record ❑ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ❑X 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 ❑X WSDOT ❑ City of Shoreline ❑ WSDOT— Ferries ❑ Town of Woodway ❑X Puget Sound Energy ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife o ❑X Snohomish PUD ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works c ❑X Olympic View Water & Sewer ❑X Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Snohomish Co. PDS 3 ❑ Alderwood Water District ❑ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. 0 ❑X Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ❑ King County - Transit c ❑X South County Fire ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ❑ King County— Environ. Planning t° ❑X Swedish Hospital ❑ Puget Sound Partnership t ❑X Community Transit y ❑X Tulalip Tribe ❑ Other U) a O E W pc: File No. N SEPA Notebook N rn N t0 O 0 W U) W fY O Q d cC O O O r N O N Z J a- Q Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 131 D.1.a #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: RECEIVED Apr 14 2021 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the 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 answer, 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 these 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 different 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 13) which 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: Edmonds Greenhill 2.Name of applicant: dw Chen Properties, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Revised on 9116116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 1 of 29 Packet Pg. 132 D.1.a BKChen Phone: (206) 331-5725 9110 178LPl SW Edmonds WA 98026 4.Date checklist prepared: 411012021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6.1'roposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): We propose to begin construction as soon as building permit is issued. (STAFF COMMENTS) Mtt1\ S�(�A- vQ__ 'Des iA^ r�.42Aj te,,w 'tS unL-A - rev tew poi 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There is no plan for any future expansion of the project on this site. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A licensedgeotechnical engineer has prepared a Geotech report for the soil conditions of this site for the project. (STAFF COMMENTS) C� 6� EAh"0 GcI \ KNaS rDpOef*n I, rlaa+h` Of\R.a Doz t- pC 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are not aware of any such applications or proposals. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 2 of 29 N N O N CD N W O G ul co LU 0 Q. CD �a co I 0 0 N O N Z J a Packet Pg. 133 D.1.a (STAFF COMMENTS) 1-61anA r, C. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 3 of 29 E a Packet Pg. 134 D.1.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Design Review Board approval; Demolition permit; Building permit (and associated construction permits, plumbing, (STAFF COMMENTS) Seea TVIf'&n;f1 o\U- 11. Give a 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. Demolish an existing duplex on the site and construct 6 new townhouses. (STAFF COMMENTS) l Q T t1 oopk O�SS(7C�0.cl�crvJ iS �ro''�5ed� ���n �� �a�4�_ Q-� eceG(,,_ is 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. Site address: 7103 210'h St SW Edmonds WA 98026 Tax parcel 00566900 (STAFF COMMENTS)" _ tit f 1 co Irico'k — Owv\Sp a -A N � L1 . Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 4 of 24 Packet Pg. 135 D.1.a 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: Site is flat in the front part of the lot -near 210`h St. SW and then gradually goes up gently toward the back part of the lot in the north and U) northeast directions. E 0 c 3 0 r .E (STAFF COMMENTS) R t c m m ,L^ V b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N Near the back (north) part of the lot, the slope is about 8%. The overall slope of the lot is about 5% from front (south) toward back 0 (north) E M LU N N O N a) N W (STAFF COMMENTS) c G W to W W C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the z classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether 0. the proposal results in removing any of these soils. CD BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL a (STAFF COMMENTS)_ ACCord-1 a1 ) TO ov-%O: oyw-&L 60.4\3-" Go i\ S ei N g i�e., 0,(\L P%\Oqr w eod U f bCAn I or -A T" I 0 0 r- N O N Soy\s Syr - a l3ov-n joLw `� - Fr °�o Slof c d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None that we are aware of. (STAFF COM Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 5 of ?,, 0 E U r Q Packet Pg. 136 D.1.a 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. There is approximately 262 cubic yards of cut and 50 cubic yards of fill proposed for the proiect. The area of jzrading is approximately 8000sf in size, which is the majority of the building site and the driveway. The fill material will consist primarily of structural backfill, and crushed rock as a base for the proposed pavements. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing the site for the proposed building and driveway, but best management practices for erosion and sediment control will be implemented during the construction of the project. A stormwater pollution prevention plan will be prepared for the proiect and specific erosion and sediment control measures will be installed and inspected on a regular basis. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 70% of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard erosion and control measures will be implemented during the construction. A site specific stormwater a pollution prevention plan will be prepared for the project. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ 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. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 6 of 29 Packet Pg. 137 D.1.a There will be dust and a small amount of vehicle emission during the construction of the proiect. There should be no significant air impacts after construction, other than vehicles driven by the occupants. (STAFF COMMENTS) ��(� Un . '�.� e i i ins SK0U Itl Ve a. houeoo.) oL"e (O f ► v%a r—+, b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None that we are aware of. (STAFF COMMENTS C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None that we are aware of. (STAFF COMMENTS) PAb-O fp ' c► jn On Ltt- rri ��,�Q��S %� O\�A b� C'04l WATER Surface: (1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ (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. None. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ (3) Estimate the amount of rill and dredge material 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. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 7of 29 Packet Pg. 138 D.1.a (STAFF COMMENT (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (STAFF COM (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (STAFF CO (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. (STAFF COMM 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 groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 8 of 29 Packet Pg. 139 D.1.a (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. Site is served by the city's sewer system. No waste water will be discharged into the ground. (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 from the project will be generated by the proposed new buildings. A perforated stub -out connection between roof downspouts and local drainage system will be built EDCD 18.30. Permeable pavement is proposed as well . (STAFF COMMENTS) t �1 '�C� 1� • �v0 . (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) —/ (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 9 of 29 Packet Pg. 140 D.1.a (STAFF COMMENTS) C�OWl��t j i'-�"�N 6'8r'fM,ymocW d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Project will comply with stormwater requirements in EDCD 18.30 (STAFF COMM 4. Plants a. X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs X grass re crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMM b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most of the existingtrees, rees, grass, and blackberry bushes on the site will be removed. Entire site will be re -graded and new landscaping will be installed, Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 10 of 24 Packet Pg. 141 D.1.a (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 Lord. Lwki�� P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 11 of 29 Packet Pg. 142 D.1.a C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None that we are aware of. (STAFF COMMEN d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The landscape plan will utilize all native or naturalized plants. Landscape will fit in the character of the neighborhood. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ 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: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: None reported mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None reported fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Not applicable Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 12 of 29 Packet Pg. 143 D.1.a (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. (STAFF COMM C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This project will have no impact on anv animal migration route. (STAFF CO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No measures to preserve or enhance wildlife are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. No invasive animal species are known to be on or near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) V Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 13 of 20 Packet Pg. 144 D.1.a 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. Electricity from the power grid will be used to heat the dwelling units, to provide hot water. and to provide power for lighting, cooking and other domestic activities. (STAFF COMMENTS) I/ b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This project will not affect the access to solar energy for any neighboring site. (STAFF COM 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: This project will meet the Washington State Energy Code for commercial construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 14 of 29 Packet Pg. 145 D.1.a (STAFF COMMENTS) ./ (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. There is no indication of any possible contamination of the site from present or past uses. 0 (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. There are no existing hazardous conditions in the area. (STAFF COM (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. No toxic or hazardous chemical will be stored at the site during construction or during occupancy. (STAFF COMMENTS) CARIO3 V\Qrro 0& (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No emergency services will be required beyond what is normal for a multi -family residence. (STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 15 of 29 Packet Pg. 146 D.1.a (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No measures are required or proposed. (STAFF b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no known sources of noise near the site. (STAFF (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 hour's noise would come from the site. During construction noise will be created by the vehicles and equipment used. This noise will only occur during normal working hours. There should be no significant noise from the site after construction is completed. (STAFF (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The project will comply with ECC 5.30 Noise and Abatement control. (STAFF COMMENTS) J Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 16 of 29 Packet Pg. 147 D.1.a 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 site is currently used as a residential area, same as the adjacent properties. The new buildings will continue to be a residential area. (STAFF CO rs alp- I.- FtreJ0-& ,�o►,c�5 a 4 -���� .Tom- P ce��+� �"c. eA.$�- ► s a Corvio and -! s c.� Lov % mU o,\ � �� Gl'A m-F 1.) �B . 5°Crib. 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 non forest use? (STAFF COMMENTS) Z (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: (STAFF COMMENTS) ,/ C. Describe any structures on the site. The site currently contains a 2-story building used as residences. (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 17 of 29 Packet Pg. 148 D.1.a d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The building and the car porch on the site will be demolished. (STAFF COMMENTS) ^' m e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 0 t RM- 1.5 3 0 cc (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ s c m m N C f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 0 Medical activity center 'D LU (STAFF COMMENTS). CCA-NW g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? Not applicable. (STAFF COMM h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. No part of the site has been classified as a critical area. (STAFF COMMENTS)�0�r% Aj pxm tqn I C----jninV 1 1M0A6y tV-.. cS)%Dold V>t. \ Vnr, Pk4P. YVV.A:�-* 1, 1- Gn� L2r . 3o t;C X,- Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 18 of 29 Packet Pg. 149 D.1.a i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The project will include 6 townhouses, each of them having 4 bedrooms. Occupancy capacity will be up to 24 people. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ m j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 0 There are 2 units on the site with a possibility of housing 3 people. t 3 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) , s c m m (9 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: vJ The project will increase the capacity to house people after the completion. 0 w (STAFF COMMENTS) .z I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Proiect continues the existine land use on the site, which is compatible with nei hg_boring land uses. (STAFFCOMMENTS�iO\ ce ,tmS 't QgrD�,e) "4'Jrl°.t� c.ODCb�1Ql_ Cowqlva w ii-n +v.* de t ttopvr-4,Nr Siond aroLs OP- m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Project has no impact on agricultural or forest lands. No measure to control impacts are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS)�r 9. Housing Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 19 of 29 Packet Pg. 150 D.1.a a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 6 units will be provided, they will be middle income units with the potential to provide housing for the low income people as well. (STAFF COMMENTS) . Z b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 2 units will be replaced, with a mix of middle and low income housing (STAFF COMMENTS) V C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: The project is to replace 2 units of old housing with 6 new housing units. (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? Maximum height of the building is 25'. Roof will extend 5' above the standard height with the roof a 4" in 12" or greater slope. The principal exterior material will be hardieplank siding, with some of vertical cement board for variation. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No view will be altered or obstructed by this project. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 20 of 24 Packet Pg. 151 D.1.a 71 (STAFF COMMENTS) f C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The current older building will be replaced with new and aesthetically better designed buildings. (STAFFCOMMENTS) �O`�(�O�GL� t�'Y Wl,c�iSn :� W��� eS1StJ�Q� GO►'rip�lC�Lt ,�_ t�II.S AIO I(` 0 \1 `0 -* Gr V5 r 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior Light will be added in places where needed for regular access to the buildings. All exterior lighting will be designed to meet Edmonds criteria for spillage onto neishborins properties. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? (STAFF COMM d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Light and glare pacts will be controlled by complying with Edmonds' Municipal Code standards receding light spillage. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checkiist.doc Page 21 of 29 Packet Pg. 152 D.1.a 71 (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ 12. Recreation What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. (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: No such measure will be proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS)Taf +�' .1rA GA &_.S W M 6k— a.'gSe s s epc 'j SS U0nC a- t�- cti. 3vm d o n0 Per,-Y4 Gon s, S)er�- w \4-A--,. 1 C D C CI XC p l "5, 3 (o 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 22 of 29 Packet Pg. 153 D.1.a 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. The building on site is over 75 years old. However it is not eligible for listing on any register. (STAFF COMMEN 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. None as we know of. (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. (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. Construction to stop if any item unearthed during the development and appropriate agencies will be notified. (STAFF COMMENTS) ✓ Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 23 of 29 Packet Pg. 154 D.1.a 71 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 site has street frontage on 2101h- St SW, there will be a similar access to the site on the same street about 15 feet west of current (STAFF COMM 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? There are bus stops about 800 feet away on Highway 99. Other bus stops are on the corner of 72th Ave W and 210`h Street SW about 300 feet away. Edmonds Park & Rider is about 2 blocks (0.2 miles) away on the corner of 212`h St SW and 72—d Ave. (STAFF COMMENTS) �z C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? There is a car porch on site. 6 garages will be added in the new construction for the total of 12 car parking 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). The project will revise the existing street frontage for driveway and add a pedestrian entrance from the 210`h St. No other changes to existingtransportation ransportation systems are proposed. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 24 of 29 Packet Pg. 155 D.1.a (STAFF COMMENT e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) v 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? The ITE Trip Generation Manual 0 Oth Edition) calculates the number of trips for townhouse during PM peak hours as 0.5 per dwelling unit. This project should generate around 3 vehicular trips during peak daily volumes. The only truck access to the site will be occasional moving or delivery services. (STAFF COMMENTS ail^ 6A ' Dn J �,... (]ar-�— W rwc ' G��1t �fi`oll. 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. (STAFF COMMENTS) V h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No such measures are proposed. _ _ Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 25 of 29 Packet Pg. 156 D.1.a 71 (STAFF COMMENTS) I l t°t+J4C— 1 vy-i'o fkeA cc� ma") � 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. This project will increase the population density on the site. The impact on public services will be (STAFF COMME b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: No such measure is proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septie system, other: (STAFF COMME 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. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checkiist.doc Page 26 of 29 Packet Pg. 157 D.1.a 71 Electrical Service - Snohomish County PUD; Water — City of Edmonds Water District Sewer - City of Edmonds Water District. All these utilities currently serve the site or exist in the right of wM along the front of the site, (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. Rao&- c4m 4-10-2021 Signature of Proponent Date Submitted ed %fie rN �04 Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 27 of 29 Packet Pg. 158 D.1.a D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because thesequestions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answerin• these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the i ern at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would\he proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous su tances; or production of noise? Proposal measures to avoid or such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animalslfish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or nat\res? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural reso Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist.doc Page 28 of 29 Packet Pg. 159 D.1.a 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such re\to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be lt land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with e? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land ltse impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands onNtransportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state,federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Revised on 9119116 P71 - SEPA Checklist. doc Page 29 of 29 Packet Pg. 160 I D.1.a I i City of Edmonds ZONING & VICINITY MAP 0 126.30 252.6 Feet 188.1 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for Z,257 p B p pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend 0 ReZones PRD RoW Zoning RS-6 RS-8 RS-10 RS-12 © RSW-12 ❑ RS-20 RS-MP RM-3 RM-2.4 ■ RM-1.5 RM-EW BD1 N BD2 N BD3 N BD4 BD5 N OR ® WMu ® BP V BN ® FVMU BC Notes 7103 210TH ST. SW PLN2021-0018 Lynn— N = d Z, t MDunilak 0 W j Packet Pg. 161 1 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 4/23/2021 HARR CHEN PROPERTIES LLC 7103 210TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-7219 Subject: Critical Areas Determination (CRA2021-0056) Site Address: 7103 210TH ST SW Dear Applicant/Owner, Please find the enclosed critical area determination for the Critical Areas Checklist you submitted to the City of Edmonds Planning Division. The critical area determination for your property is "WAIVER." Note that this determination is a site -specific determination and not a project -specific determination. If the critical area determination is "STUDY REQUIRED," additional critical areas information or critical areas specific studies may be required for development or alteration of your property depending on the location of the activity. "WAIVER" means no further critical area review is required for development or alteration of your property. If you have any questions regarding this critical area determination, please contact the planner on duty at 425.771.0220. Regards, 'f MICHAEL CLUGSTON Planning Division Development Services Department Enc: Critical Area Determination ATTAC H M E Packet Pg. 162 #P20 Critical Areas File #: C1,P,#202/— 0 ❑ Initial Determination - $110 KZ Subsequent De/ ermination - $55 Da a Received: Date Mailed to Applicant: The purpose of this checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any critical areas and/or buffers are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes, are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are regulated to protect their functions and values. The City's critical area regulations are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 through 23.90. Property Owner's Authorization City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 www.edmondswa.gov A property owner, or an authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. Staff will review the checklist, conduct a site visit, and make a determination of whether there are critical areas and/or critical area buffers on or near the site. If a "Critical Area Present" determination is issued, a report addressing the applicable critical area requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 may be required depending on the scope of the proposed activity. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge 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 attendant to this application. The undersigned owner, 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. SIGNATURE OF OWNER — Owner: Name Harr Chen Properties, LLC Harr Chen Street Address 9110 178th PI SW City Edmonds State WA Telephone: 206 8410161 Email address: bkchen@gmail.com DATE 3-12-2021 Applicant/Agent: BK Chen Name Street Address 9110 178th PI SW Zip98026 City Edmonds State WA Zip 980, Telephone: 206 3315725 _ Email Address: edmonds7103@gmail.com Revised on 1 4117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist ",C", Packet Pg. 163 D.1.a CA File No: Cgl�- ?(,) Z I U In S( #P20 Site Information 1. Site Address/ Location: 2. 3. 4. 5. 91 7 s Critical Areas Checklist 7103 210th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 Property Tax Account Number: 00566900100601 Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 11326 sf Is this site currently developed? N Yes ❑ No If yes, how is the site developed? A duplex building is on site Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. RECEIVED Apr 14 2021 CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT �C] Flat to Rolling: No slope on/adjacent to the site or slopes generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). ❑ Moderate: Slopes present on/ to site of more than 15% and less than 40% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 25 to 66-feet). ❑ Steep: Slopes of greater than 40 % present on/ adjacent to site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 25-feet). Have there been landslides on or near the site in the past? ❑ Yes No If yes, please describe: Site contains areas of year-round standing water? ❑ Yes (approx. depth: ) IN No Site contains areas of seasonal standing water? ❑ Yes (approx. depth: ) No If yes, what season(s) of the year? 9. Site is in the floodway or floodplain of a water course? ❑ Floodway ❑ Floodplain 10. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? ❑ Yes No If yes, are flows year-round or seasonal? ❑ Year-round ❑ Seasonal (time of year: ) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site? ❑ Yes N No 1 3 Zoning: !` / " I — / ' SCS mapped soil type(s): For City Staff Use Only 3. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site: �/(/� 4. Site within designated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA)? /V v DETERMINATION CRITICAL AREAS PRESENT WAIVER Reviewed by /-- 4 ` &� 1, Date: Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Packet Pg. 164 D.1.a EU Edmonds Utilities Consortium ....................................... CUSTOMER — EUC CONTACT Form :.......................................... A coordinated utility environment which maximizes joint utility opportunities to provide quality service for the citizens of Edmonds YOU WILL BE GIVEN A CONFIRMATION NUMBER BY EACHUTILITY ONCE YOU HAVE INFORMED THEM OF YOUR PROJECT. SITE ADDRESS: # The consortium number is PUD-0110-2021. Mary McAllister - 425-670-3216 You will need to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service MMMcAllister@SNOPUD.com Questionnaire. PUGET SOUND PSE said there is no gas line near the # property. We will not install it either. ENERGY Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. You will need to New Customer Construction provide PSE with the parcel number, contact phone number and mailing Department - 1-888-321-7779 address. i I . i r # 21-040 You will need to provide Ziply with the location of your project, total line Mike HaKahan - 425-949-0230 requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your Mike.HaKahan@ziply.com development plan may be required. ft # 91462 CICAT You will need to provide Comcast with the location of the project, copy of the John Warrick - 425-263-5328 development and site plan (digital copy if available), the date in which service is John Warrick@cable.comcast.com required and a list of contact names, phone numbers and mailing addresses. 0 ara�e VIEW # Per Chris at this email address, this property is not in their service jurisdiction. No confirmation is needed. For customers in Olympic View Service Area: You will need to provide OVWSD with the survey map of your site and 425-774-7769 or chriss@ovwater.com complete a development information form. E 0 3 0 :E c d d N C 0 E w THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF PERMIT SUBMITTAL Rev. o packet Pg. 165 ATTAC H M E D.1.a EU Edmonds Utilities Consortium ....................................... CUSTOMER — EUC CONTACT Form :.......................................... A coordinated utility environment which maximizes joint utility opportunities to provide quality service for the citizens of Edmonds YOU WILL BE GIVEN A CONFIRMATION NUMBER BY EACHUTILITY ONCE YOU HAVE INFORMED THEM OF YOUR PROJECT. SITE ADDRESS: HVW. Mary is out of office. Her backup #person Andy tea said rm didn't have Andy : �,,,�.v,.o., way to generate a confirmation number, �,c'w "—a— but he confirmed the receiving of ®® information with this mail on the left. U31RAND Mary McAllister - 425-670-3216 You will need to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service MMMcAllister@SNOPUD.com Questionnaire. PUGET SOUND PSE said there is no gas line near the # property. We will not install it either. ENERGY Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. You will need to New Customer Construction provide PSE with the parcel number, contact phone number and mailing Department - 1-888-321-7779 address. i I . i r # 21-040 You will need to provide Ziply with the location of your project, total line Mike HaKahan - 425-949-0230 requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your Mike.HaKahan@ziply.com development plan may be required. # 91462 IT You will need to provide Comcast with the location of the project, copy of the John Warrick - 425-263-5328 development and site plan (digital copy if available), the date in which service is John Warrick@cable.comcast.com required and a list of contact names, phone numbers and mailing addresses. OaYMPICVIsw # Per Chris at this email address, this property is not in their service jurisdiction. No confirmation is needed. For customers in Olympic View Service Area: You will need to provide OVWSD with the survey map of your site and 425-774-7769 or chriss@ovwater.com complete a development information form. E 0 3 0 R co z c m ,L^ V U) c 0 E w THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF PERMIT SUBMITTAL Rev. 0 Packet Pg. 166 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION "(IC. 189V May 14, 2021 Harr Chen Properties LLC Attn: BK Chen 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Letter of Completeness Edmonds Greenhill Design Review Application PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the design review application for the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill townhomes located at 7103 2101h St. SW. for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. Although it has been determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and is therefore complete, additional information may be needed as staff continues with review of the application. Staff will contact you as our review continues if additional information is necessary. Since the application has been determined to be procedurally complete, a notice of application will be posted on the subject property and mailed to adjacent property owners within the next two weeks consistent with ECDC 20.03.002. I will be the main staff contact for your application. If you have questions at any point during the review process, you may reach me at michele.szafran(d),edmondswa.gov or (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Michele Q. Szafran Planner Cc: File No. PLN2021-0018 ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 167 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION "(IC. 189V May 28, 2021 Harr Chen Properties LLC Attn: BK Chen 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION LOCATED AT 7103 210th St. SW. FILE NO. PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, The design review land use application for the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill townhomes located at 7103 2101h St. SW. became procedurally complete pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.02.002 on May 14, 2021. During staff s continued review of your application, however, it was determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staffs review of the proposal may continue: Planning Division Comments: 1. Height: a. Height Calculations: Please review and expand the height rectangle as necessary to include the 3rd floor projection and deck if the deck projects beyond the 3rd floor. Per the elevation shown as Elevation — Right (B) the deck is proposed to extend slightly beyond the 3rd floor bump out. Revise the height rectangle and calculations as necessary. The deck projection will count as lot coverage as well. b. At the time of building permit review a datum reference point will be required under the height calculation information and/or called out on the site plan. The datum point is used to verify compliance with the zoning height restriction, and must be a permanent point of reference, such as the top of a manhole cover, fire hydrant, or street monument. The datum point is used to verify the height of the structure during the height inspection or survey if required. c. Elevation Views: Update as necessary with any changes to the height calculation as noted above. d. Label the roof pitch on the elevation plan view. The roof pitch must be 4" in 12" or greater in order to extend five feet above stated height limit. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 168 D.1.a 2. Lot Coverage: a. Lot coverage needs to cover for the area that covers the greatest portion of the lot, so that would be the area of the 3rd floor and, also the balcony if it projects outside of the dimensions of the 3rd floor. The maximum lot coverage is 45%. Per ECDC 21.15.110 Coverage means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. Please make any necessary changes to the lot coverage information provided. 3. Retaining Wall: a. It appears that a Retaining wall is proposed on the site, please clearly show all retaining walls on the site plan and label the top and toe of wall. b. All retaining walls over 3 feet from original grade must meet setbacks. Please note that retaining walls may not be greater than 3 feet from original grade within the required setback area. Information has not been provided to verify the height of the retaining wall, please provide additional information. 4. Tree Code Regulations: a. Since the time of the DRC meeting, new Tree Code regulations have been introduced. The subject property is subject to the new tree code regulations, please see the attached document to review the new tree code. It will need to be clear on your plans how many of the existing trees will be removed as there will be replacement and possible fees required based on the size and number of trees removed. b. A tree retention and protection plan are required per ECDC 23.10.060.13. The arborist must address the retention requirements of ECDC 23.10.060.C, tree protection measures in ECDC 23.10.070, and replacement requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 25% of all significant trees must be retained on the subject site. A significant tree is any tree over 6" DBH, a significant tree would not include a hazard tree as deemed hazardous per ECDC 23.10.040.F.b. Hazard tree documentation will be required for the hazard trees. You will need a qualified professional as defined in ECDC 23.10.020.0. to provide the required plans per chapter 23.10 ECDC. 5. Landscaping: a. A landscape plan meeting the requirement of ECDC 20.13.010 is required. b. Type II landscaping will be required along the northern property boundary since there is a Single -Family use adjacent to the site. Type III landscaping is required everywhere else. c. Type II Landscaping: Type II landscaping is required along the northern property boundary. Trees are required at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center with no more than 30% being deciduous. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Please ensure the proposed landscaping is consistent with the Type II landscaping requirements as detailed in ECDC 20.13.030.13. Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 169 D.1.a d. Type III Landscaping: Type III landscaping is required along the southern, eastern and western property boundaries. Trees are required at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center with no more than 50% being deciduous. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and living ground cover should cover the ground within three years of planting. Please ensure the proposed landscaping is consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements as detailed in ECDC 20.13.030.C. e. Deviation from landscaping standards: i. ECDC 20.13.000 allows the Architectural Design Board to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13; provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. If the project proposes modifications of the landscaping requirements detailed in ECDC 20.13, please identify the proposed modifications and demonstrate how the proposed modifications are consistent with ECDC 20.10.000. 2. Parking: a. Parking Stall Dimensions: The minimum parking stall dimensions are 8.5 feet by 16.5 feet. See Figure 18-1 of section ECDC 18.95.030. Please show the parking stalls dimensioned in the garage. b. It appears that the stairs shown in the garage will be a barrier to meeting the minimum parking stall dimensions of 8.5' x 16' per vehicle, please address. 3. Lighting plan: Please provide a lighting plan. The lighting plan should evaluate all exterior lighting associated with the development. Please provide a lighting plan including exterior lighting, lighting location, height and style of fixtures and intensity of illumination. A complete lighting plan is necessary to evaluation design review criteria ECDC 20.11.030.B.8. 4. Design Review General Comments a. Expand cover letter to include responses to ECDC 20.11.030 sections A and B. b. The project narrative cover letter item A.12 notes retaining walls along the north and east sides of the building, please clearly show on the site plan and provide top and toe of wall elevations. Retaining walls may not be greater than 3 feet in height about the average original grade. The project narrative cover letter item A.20 discuses that finish material on the exterior walls will be broken down by accent bands at the floor lines, and the letter also states that there will be some areas of vertical siding. Per the elevation views provided there does not appear to be any vertical siding proposed, please address. ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 calls out features that would be acceptable to help avoid long, unbroken or monotonous buildings, the use of multiple materials, variations in color, materials and projections all help break up the bulk of the building both vertically and horizontally. Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 170 D.1.a 5. General Notes: a. A power vault is not shown on the revised landscape plan, if to be located within landscaping areas please note that utilities should be screened from view at street level pursuant to ECDC 20.11.030.A.3. b. The floor plan view shows the proposed layout for the 3 floors, I assume this is the proposed floor plan for each unit, but please label on the floor plan sheet. c. The site plan shows and labels the 1", 2nd and 3rd floor (level) lines but there are other lines shown that are not labeled, if the line is part of the height rectangle, then it should be moved out to include the 3rd floor projection. Please clearly label the plans. d. I do not see an eave line on the site plan, but please note that the eaves may not project more than 30" into a required setback. e. The site plan and the landscape plan show a planter area and street light adjacent to the garages, this is not consistent on the preliminary plans, it would be helpful to show a detail of this proposal and to make all plans consistent. f. Some of the plans show a walking path along the north side of property but other plans do not, please provide consistent plans. g. There are 4 separate plan sheets provided, and all sheets are labeled with the same title and page number (C1). The electronic documents submitted are labeled as Preliminary Plat Map, Preliminary Short Plat, Site Plan and Landscape Plan. At this time, you had indicated that you are not intending to individually sell each unit, so Preliminary Plat and Short Plat naming would not be appropriate for the drawings. Please note that a separate land use process would be required for subdividing each unit. This is a design review application only. h. Please label plans appropriately, there is duplication and inconsistencies between the plan sheets. The plan sheets are all labeled the same, as "Site Plan & Notes" and numbered C 1. Please clearly label and provide one landscape plan consistent with the requirements in this letter, one site plan (should not contain landscaping), a preliminary development plan (civil plan), including all hard surface and utility improvements, and a lighting plan. General Engineering Division Comments: For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary development plans (civil plans) to determine project feasibility. The project submittal did not include a preliminary development plan set and therefore, comments provided below may be incomplete. The following comments are provided by Engineering Program Manager, Jeanie McConnell. Please contact Jeanie directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jeanie.mcconnell(aedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding her comments. Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 171 D.1.a 1. Civil plans shall include survey of City right-of-way, existing surface features and utility locations. Clearly label property lines on all plan sheets. 2. Improvements shown on the civil plans shall be consistent with regards to site layout as that provided on any separate site or landscape plans. 3. Civil plans shall be provided as a separate submittal from the drainage report. 4. Hard surface areas: a. Label driveways and walkways, indicate proposed surface material, and include dimensions. b. The first 20-ft of the access drive, beginning at the connection to the City street, shall be a minimum 24-ft in width. c. Remainder of access drive can be reduced to 22-ft in width. d. A 5-ft wide sidewalk is required along the property frontage, in continuation of the sidewalk to the east. A sidewalk has been shown on some of the plans but not all. Please revise plans to clearly show proposed improvements with connections from on -site walkways, etc. 5. Landscaping: a. Shared driveway shall be separated from ad j acent property driveway to the west by a landscape planter. The plans indicate a 3-ft wide planter, which is not wide enough for the long-term survivability of trees in this location. A planter of at least a minimum of 4-ft shall be provided or show alternate proposal to provide separation between driveways. b. Indicate spacing of proposed trees. c. Ensure proposed utility locations will not conflict with proposed landscaping. A power vault has been shown in the 3-ft wide landscape buffer to the west of the shared access. 6. Water System: a. Water Availability Letter shall be submitted with the subject application. Please complete the Water AvailabilityApplication and email to En ing eeringPermits(d),edmondswa.gov. b. Plans shall include location of all proposed water meters, including service line from City water main to the meter. Refer to Fire Department comments for water meter sizing. Proposed water meter size shall be included on the plans. c. Water service lines shall be shown from meter to each unit. Refer to Fire Department comments for water service sizing. Pipe size and material shall be included on the plans. d. Water system shall be separated from sewer a minimum of 10-ft. 7. Sewer System: a. Sewer Availability Letter shall be submitted with the subject application. Please complete the Sewer Availability Application and email to En - in�gPermits kedmondswa. gov. b. Show existing sewer from City main to the property line and indicate pipe size. c. Show proposed sewer lateral within the subject property with side sewer connections from each of the proposed units. d. Label pipe material and provide pipe invert elevations to confirm feasibility. 8. Storm System: Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 172 D.1.a a. Show public storm system in 21Wh St SW. b. Show connection to City system and provide invert elevations. c. Refer also to drainage report plan markups from Zack Richardson. 9. Dry Utilties: a. Show proposed location of power, phone, gas, cable. 10. Recycling/trash: a. A trash enclosure is not required for this project. However, space must be indicated in each garage for storage of individual waste containers. Please show the area on the floor plan that will be designated for garbage containers. Stormwater Engineer Comments: Refer to Drainage Report and Civil Plan markups for comments by City Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson. Please contact Zack directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Zachary.richardsongedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Transportation Impact Analysis: A transportation impact analysis worksheet was submitted to the city, but the ITE Land Use Category Codes do not match that found within City code or City Handout. The worksheet does not need to be submitted until future building permit submittal, but please not corrections these corrections are required. Fire Department Comments: South County Fire provided the following comments: • Required fire sprinkler system (see attached letter) Comments may be addressed with the subsequent building permit submittal. Please contact Karl Fitterer directly at 425-771-0213 or by email at kfitterer(csouthsnofire.org with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 173 D.1.a Please provide a complete response to the comments including a cover letter stating how each comment was addressed. Please submit the above information to the Planning Division as soon as possible so that staff may continue processing your application. According to ECDC 20.02.003.D the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days (or by August 26, 2021) or the application will expire. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at mchele. szafran&edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Michele Q. kafran/Planner Attachments: Tree Code Ordinance Stormwater Comments Fire Lane Standards Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 174 D.1.a ORDINANCE NO. 4218 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING PRIOR TREE CLEARING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND WHEREAS, the Planning Board has been reviewing draft tree regulations since September 2020, specifically at the September 9, October 14, October 28, November 12, and November 18 Planning Board meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4200 (a moratorium on certain subdivision applications) and Ordinance 4201 (interim regulations to accompany the moratorium) on November 10, 2020 to preserve existing trees while the Planning Board completed its work; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the draft tree regulations on December 9, 2020 and completed its review on January 13, 2021 with a recommendation to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council received an introduction to the draft tree regulations at the January 26, 2021 Council meeting and held a public hearing on February 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, the regulations adopted by this ordinance represent the city's initial stages of implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan that the City Council adopted in 2019; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code) of the Edmonds Community Development Code is repealed in its entirety and replaced by a new Chapter 23.10 added to Title 23 (Natural Resources) of the Edmonds Community Development Code . The new chapter 23.10 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Tree Related 1 Packet Pg. 175 D.1.a Regulations," is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 2. A new Section 20.75.048 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Conservation Subdivision Design," is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment B hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 3. A new chapter 3.95 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Tree Fund," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment C hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Section 4. The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 shall be extended to March 24 2021. Section 5. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage, and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Ordinances 4200 and 4201 were adopted on November 10, 2020, were only intended to remain in effect for four months, and need to be repealed by ordinance. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, Ordinances 4200 and 4201 would either last longer than intended or would expire before this ordinance could take effect. In the latter scenario, any delay in the effective date of this ordinance could allow developers to vest applications under the preexisting set of tree regulations. Therefore, this ordinance should be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that all future development be governed by the new code. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 5, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted 2 Packet Pg. 176 D.1.a by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then Section 5 shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. Section 7. Severab i liCy.. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. APPROVED: MANOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: C �C!LERK, SCOT T EY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 26, 2021 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 2, 2021 PUBLISHED: March 5, 2021 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDINANCE NO. 4218 3 Packet Pg. 177 D.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4218 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2nd day of March, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4218. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2021. 4 ZK, SCO'�A EY Packet Pg. 178 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose 23.10.010 Administration Authority 23.10.020 Definitions 23.10.030 Permits 23.10.040 Exemptions 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development 23.10.080 Tree Replacement 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title 23.10.090 Bonding 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.110 Liability 20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility Chapter 3.95 Tree Fund 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance use of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 1 of 15 Packet Pg. 179 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of development. J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the City of Edmonds; 23.10.010 Administering Authority The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. 23.10.020 Definitions A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. Canopy — The leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH. D. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. E. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH). F. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. G. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective or exposed by recent removal of adjacent trees which makes it subject to a high probability of failure as determined by a qualified tree professional. H. Grove —A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. I. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. J. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. K. Native Tree — Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well -suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 2 of 15 Packet Pg. 180 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A L. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. M. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. N. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. O. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. P. Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height, theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. Q. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional.. R. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries S. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. U. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 181 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A V. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. 23.10.030 Permits A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter. B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit. C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. 23.10.040 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks Department. E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public safety or tree health. F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed with supporting documentation: City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 182 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC. 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision 2. Subdivision 3. New multi -family development 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single- family house, and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Retention Plan City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 183 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A 1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention plan at the applicant's expense. Tree Retention Plan Components. The tree retention plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter; iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.) V. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required). iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an `X' or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. c. An arborist report containing the following: A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 184 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions a. Phased Review i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention Plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. A new Tree Retention Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows: ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site 2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. Every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 5. For developing properties identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One: City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 185 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH. 2. Priority Two: a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that may become hazardous because of wind gusts, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. Remaining trees may be susceptible to blowdowns because of loss of a buffer from other trees, grade changes affecting the tree health and stability, and/or the presence of buildings in close proximity. 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 186 D.1.a ATTACHMENT A other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. D. Grade. 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 187 ATTACHMENT A D.1.a 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.10.080 Tree Replacement A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement tree is required. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2) replacement trees are required. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation complies with the standards in this section. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 188 ATTACHMENT A D.1.a C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. A fee -in -lieu of tree replacement may be allowed, subject to approval by the director after consideration of all other options. A tree replacement fee shall be required for each replacement tree required but not planted on the application site or an off -site location. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. 23.10.090 Bonding A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 189 ATTACHMENT A D.1.a maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in subsection B. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area buffers. 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties: Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 190 ATTACHMENT A D.1.a the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s). If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and required tree replacement. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. 23.10.110 Liability A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 191 ATTACHMENT B D.1.a 20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following development standards: 1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones provided that a. No street setback shall be less than fifteen (15) feet; b. No rear setback shall be less the ten (10) feet; c. No required side setback shall be less than five (5) feet; and d. Street and Rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced. Lot size and width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and widths, provided that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided that, in total, coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allow required for the zoning district in which it is located. 4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with the intent of city codes and standards. C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection is association with design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC 23.10.085. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 192 ATTACHMENT C D.1.a 3.95 Tree Fund 3.95.010 Tree Fund Established There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund." 3.95.020 Funding Sources Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC. B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC. C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and D. Other monies allocated by the City Council 3.95.040 Funding Purposes A. Monies in the Tree Fund maybe used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health; 4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational purchases; 6. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting. City Council Adopted March 2, 2021 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 193 D.1.a 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 EDH921288 ORDS 4216-4218 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 03/05/2021 and ending on 03/05/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such public tion is $42.0 - Subs *bed and sworn bBfDT8. me on this Linda Phillips z�— Y Public day of f anlNaehington i+xPites08z7 A.A A , f Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOW PASSEY Packet Pg. 194 Classified Proof D.1.a ORDINANCE SUMMARY of the City Of E'lm'nds, Washlnl%on On the 2nd clay of March. Z021, she CISy Council of the CItV al EdmeRds, passed the faaOWing Oh7lnant,!, the summaries of said ordinances ton0itfn9 eI We% arm ofoulded as follows: RANCE L3_14 AN ORDINANCEODINOF EDMONl7S, WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4211 AS A RESULT OF "NTICtPA7E0 'TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME $DILL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDINA NO.4217 AN ORDINANCE OF �H CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,. ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION To PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK. TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE FIERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO 4218 AN ORDINANC8 OF OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND The full text of these OrdinOneas will DO m9310a upon request. DATED this 2nd Onyy Of March, 2021. CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY Published: March 5, 2021, EDH921288 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 03/08/2021 09:45:49 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 195 D.1.a BK Chen Townhouse 7103 210th ST SW, Edmonds WA 98026 Technical Information Report - Drainage Report - ^ 3/ 10/21 Prepared by: Jie Sheng, PE, LEED Green Associate SH Fine Consulting March 10, 2021 Packet Pg. 196 D.1.a Tables of Contents 1. Introduction 3 Figure 1-1: Project Site Area 3 2. Existing Conditions 3 3. Proposed Conditions 3 Table 1-1: Project Impervious Areas 4 4. Proposed Drainage 4 Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans 4 Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention 4 Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution 4 Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems/Outfalls 4 Minimum Requirement #5: Onsite Stormwater Management 4 Appendix A: Site and Drainage Plans 6 Appendix B: Minimum Requirements 7 Appendix C: Onsite Stormwater Management BMP Selection 8 Appendix D: Infiltration Testing 9 Packet Pg. 197 D.1.a 1. Introduction This report analyzes storm water drainage control measures for the proposed BK Chen Townhome project located in the City of Edmonds. The project site consists of a single, rectangular parcel located at 7103 210th ST SW, Edmonds, WA, 98026. The parcel is approximately 11,326 square feet in size, and bounded by access roads to the east and west, private residence to the north and 210th ST SW to the south. There is an existing single -story dwelling unit and carport that will be demolished. The proposed development consists of a 6-unit townhome development. Figure 1-1: Project Site Area 2. Existing Conditions The site is generally flat with gentle slopes from north to south with grades of approximately 5%. There is an existing single -story dwelling unit and carport that will be demolished and removed. Current storm water runoff from the roofs are discharged to the surrounding lawn surface via downspouts and sheet flow from the carport roof. Runoff follows the existing grade of the site towards 210th St SW and into the curb and gutter drainage system along 210th ST SW. Existing driveway runoff sheet flows into the curb and gutter drainage system along 210th ST SW. There is no evidence of downstream flooding and no drainage complaints related to this parcel. There are no known critical areas onsite or adjacent to the site. 3. Proposed Conditions The proposed development includes the demolition of the existing structures, and the construction of a new, 6 unit townhome development, and associated walkways and driveways. Refer to Appendix A for the proposed Site Plan. Refer to Table 1-1 below for proposed hard areas. Packet Pg. 198 D.1.a Lot Size Proposed Proposed Proposed Total PGIS Footprint Driveway Walkway 11,326 SF 4,884 SF 2,730 SF 1,220 SF 3,950 SF Table 1-1: Project Impervious Areas Infiltration testing shows this site is suitable for infiltration. Refer to Appendix D for the infiltration test results and procedures. Infiltration BMPs are proposed for this site. Evaluation of all stormwater management BMPs and proposed infiltration facilities are discussed in further detail below. Refer to Appendix A for the proposed drainage plan. 4. Proposed Drainage Drainage analysis for this site was done per the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with December 2014 Amendments (2014 SWMMWW) and the City of Edmonds 2017 Stormwater Code and Reference Documents. Per EDCD Section 18.30.060, this project is a Category 2 and shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #9. Refer to Appendix C for appropriate City of Edmonds Addendum Checklists. Minimum Requirement #1: Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans Stormwater site plans have been prepared for this proposed development and are attached in Appendix A. Minimum Requirement #2: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the Stormwater Site Plan. The SWPPP narrative and drawings are submitted separately. Minimum Requirement #3: Source Control of Pollution Source pollutants are not anticipated at this project site. Minimum Requirement #4: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems/Outfalls The existing outfall is the public storm system along 210th ST SW. There is an existing curb and gutter system adjacent to the project site that leads to a catch basin in the right of way along 210th ST SW. The proposed project maintains this existing outfall to the maximum extent feasible. Minimum Requirement #5: Onsite Stormwater Management Onsite stormwater management BMPs from ECDC 18.30.060D.5.e List #2 are considered below. Lawn and Landscaped Areas: All disturbed lawn and landscaped areas shall be restored to Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the DOE Manual and City of Edmonds Stormwater Code Addendum Checklist 7. Refer Appendix C. Packet Pg. 199 D.1.a Roofs: The following onsite stormwater management BMPs are considered for all future proposed roof areas, in order: 1. Full dispersion is not feasible due to lack of native vegetation, and lack of 100-ft minimum flow path. 2. Bioretention is also not feasible due to lack of siting that would allow bioretention to meet required setbacks. 3. Downspout dispersion systems are not feasible due to lack of minimum required flow path. 4. Perforated stub -out connections in accordance with BMP T5.10C in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW are proposed for this project. Other Hard Surfaces: The following onsite stormwater management BMPs are considered for the proposed driveway, walkway and patios, in order: 1. Full dispersion is not feasible due to lack of native vegetation, and lack of 100-ft minimum flow path. 2. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW is proposed for this project. Refer to Appendix A for Drainage Plans and details. Packet Pg. 200 D.1.a Appendix A: Site and Drainage Plans E 0 m C 3 0 co z c m m ,L^ V N 0 E W C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 201 NOTES: 418 ---------------------------- ---------------------------- 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RIM AND 74-6" INVERT ELEVATIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY -------__-_____-_ _ ____--------- - ----- ENGINEER IF DIFFERENT THAN PLANS. 414 .'.�n>- "" . 39'�6 2. ALL DOWNSPOUT CONNECTIONS SHALL B.S.L. FF-413' ___- _ `� `, \ BE A MINIMUM OF 18" BELOW FINAL GRADE. _ 1 5T- t5VEL: 38.75'X21't (814SF) ad d 2ND LEVEL: (835SF) 3RD " \\ �� 40.75'X21't LEVEL: 40.75'X21't (856SF) � 3. ALL STORM PIPES SHALL BE 4" PVC AND HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2%, 2: \ UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. a \ ' Qa4 ill FF=411.5' '1ST LEVEL: \\ \ 4. PERFORATED STUB -OUT CONNECTION 38.75'X21't (814SF) LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (835SF) A, :' \\ SHALL BE PER DOE MANUAL BMP T5.10C.. I-2ND 3RD LEVEL: 40.75'X21't (856SF) ° PERFORATED PIPES SHALL BE FLAT. 410---------- ---- 4 410 d II --- 1 REFER TO SHEET C.1.2. 4a1 •`', FF=409.5' L----- -•. 1 1I I _ 38.75'X21't (81 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AND a<°. a'':. 12ND LEVY;\39.75'X21't (835SF) \ 4. 3RD LEVEL: �0.75'X21't (856SF) III •. 1 11 I ANY UNCOVERED PATIO SHALL BE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT PER DOE MANUAL g i i. \\ ^:• i 11 BMP T5.15. REFER TO SHEET C.1.2. �( a. . I 1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21't J l \ I r d _\\ I _2ND LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (835SF)3RD 40.75'X21't 11 LEVEL: (86_ L - - - - - - - I \ 1 \ � -06 � I F 407.0' 1 1 I \ d ° 'a' I� ^. I 1ST LE 2ND LEVEL: .'X2t (835SF),. 3RD LEVEL: .75'X21't (856SF) PEW ABLE PAVEMENT, REFETO NOTE 5.4 \ PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, I a:.l FF=406.5' \ \ \ REFER TO NOTE 5. a d'' . Q 1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'± \(8,14SF) \ \ \\\ a -2ND LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (8MSF) \\ I 3RD LEVEL: 40.75'X21't (856§S�) I \ 2 5 -0� < I DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION,\ \ \ \\\ \\\ D I.VE4AY.'d I REFER TO NOTE 2. SITE PLAN 1 10' 0 5' 10• 20' ° .148'-0% B.S. \ \\ \\ PAVFJVAENT= r 4- \ \ SCALE: 1" = 10' 04 In \ 74'-6" \ \ CONNECTION, CONNECT TO EXIST. PUBLIC RM STO i�PERFORATED STUB -OUT \ \ \\ REFER MATCH IE, TO NOTE 1. 2'X10' LEVEL TRENCH \ \\ \\ W/PERFORATED PIPE, \ REFER TO NOTE 4. \ \ 210 TH ST SW \' SH Ill CONSULTING 13608 SE 51 st PI Bellevue, WA 9800 (425)444-9740 N d O c 0 c t,0 1 t 1 � 1 � 1 i 1 (7 ,N O I E I w I N N O I an en SIONS DA DESIGN J.S. DRAWING: K.A.F. CHECK; J.S. DATE; NOV 15, 20E 1" = 10' T1 Packet Pg. 203 SH D.1.a CONSULTING FIGURE C.2.1LA PERFORATED PIPE CONNECTION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE r— RANDOM FILL 24" MIN. TRENCH X-SECTION NTS PLAN VIEW OF ROOF NTS 4/24/2016 FILTER FABRIC 6' PERFORATL❑ PIPE fP"-I" WASHrbRock SLOB TO ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM 2' x 10' LEVEL TRENCH __ -- wIPERFORATED PIPE 2016 Surface Water Design Manual —Appendix C C-I136 A e Permeable pavement mix r.. _ 4 r _ 1. washed sand or 0-5" washed crushed stone for base material 6" open -graded base material, i"-2'crushed-washed Subgrade. determine compaction based on design requirements NOT TO SCALE I WWhVM Figure V-5.3.4 Example of a Permeable Pavement (Concrete or Asphalt) Section DEPARTMENT O F Revised January 2016 ECOLOGY Please see http.//www.ecy wa gavlcopyrrght htwl for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washingtorl limitation of liability, and disclaimer. 13608 SE 51st Pl Bellevue, WA 980( (425)444-9740 IS J C Q LU u Cl) u Wp O= u w = n Q z � z p o Q � 4 C � Y u 0 m a rISIDNS DF SIGN J.S. AWING K.A., ECK J.S. TE; Nov 15, 20� ALE; NTS Packet Pg. 204 D.1.a Appendix B: Minimum Requirements E 0 z C 3 0 co z c m m ,L^ V N 0 E W C w E :i Q Packet Pg. 205 D.1.a Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or more, of new plus replaced hard surface area? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or greater? Yes Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. Next Question No Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? OR Convert 3/4 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Yes �, I No All Minimum Requirements apply Next Question to the new hard surfaces and the Is this a road related project? NO converted vegetation areas. Yes Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new hard surfaces? Yes IF No Is the total of new plus replaced hard surfaces Do the new hard IF 5,000 square feet or more, surfaces add 50% or NO No addition I NO AND more to the existing 11111 does the value of the proposed improvements hard surfaces within requirements. - including interior improvements - exceed the project limits? 50% of the assessed value (or replacement value) of the existing site improvements? Yes who DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. Yes Figure 1-2.4.2 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment Revised June 2015 Please see http.//www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Packet Pg. 20E D.1.a Appendix C: Onsite Stormwater Management BMP Selection Q Packet Pg. 207 D.1.a BMP T5.13: Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth Purpose and Definition Naturally occurring (undisturbed) soil and vegetation provide important stormwater func- tions including: water infiltration; nutrient, sediment, and pollutant adsorption; sediment and pollutant biofiltration; water interflow storage and transmission; and pollutant decom- position. These functions are largely lost when development strips away native soil and vegetation and replaces it with minimal topsoil and sod. Not only are these important stormwater functions lost, but such landscapes themselves become pollution generating pervious surfaces due to increased use of pesticides, fertilizers and other landscaping and household/industrial chemicals, the concentration of pet wastes, and pollutants that accompany roadside litter. Establishing soil quality and depth regains greater stormwater functions in the post devel- opment landscape, provides increased treatment of pollutants and sediments that result from development and habitation, and minimizes the need for some landscaping chem- icals, thus reducing pollution through prevention. Applications and Limitations Establishing a minimum soil quality and depth is not the same as preservation of nat- urally occurring soil and vegetation. However, establishing a minimum soil quality and depth will provide improved on -site management of stormwater flow and water quality. Soil organic matter can be attained through numerous materials such as compost, com- posted woody material, biosolids, and forest product residuals. It is important that the materials used to meet the soil quality and depth BMP be appropriate and beneficial to the plant cover to be established. Likewise, it is important that imported topsoils improve soil conditions and do not have an excessive percent of clay fines. This BMP can be considered infeasible on till soil slopes greater than 33 percent. Design Guidelines . Soil retention. Retain, in an undisturbed state, the duff layer and native topsoil to the maximum extent practicable. In any areas requiring grading remove and stock- pile the duff layer and topsoil on site in a designated, controlled area, not adjacent to public resources and critical areas, to be reapplied to other portions of the site where feasible. Soil quality. All areas subject to clearing and grading that have not been covered by impervious surface, incorporated into a drainage facility or engineered as struc- tural fill or slope shall, at project completion, demonstrate the following: 1. A topsoil layer with a minimum organic matter content of 10% dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas, and a pH from 6.0 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 911 1Packet Pg. 208 D.1.a to 8.0 or matching the pH of the undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of eight inches except where tree roots limit the depth of incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 4 inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layers, where feasible. 2. Mulch planting beds with 2 inches of organic material 3. Use compost and other materials that meet these organic content require- ments: a. The organic content for "pre -approved" amendment rates can be met only using compost meeting the compost specification for BMP T7.30: Bioretention Cells, Swales, and Planter Boxes (p.959), with the excep- tion that the compost may have up to 35% biosolids or manure. The compost must also have an organic matter content of 40% to 65%, and a carbon to nitrogen ratio below 25:1. The carbon to nitrogen ratio may be as high as 35:1 for plantings com- posed entirely of plants native to the Puget Sound Lowlands region. b. Calculated amendment rates may be met through use of composted material meeting (a.) above; or other organic materials amended to meet the carbon to nitrogen ratio requirements, and not exceeding the contaminant limits identified in Table 220-B, Testing Parameters, in WAC 173-350-220. The resulting soil should be conducive to the type of vegetation to be established. Implementation Options: The soil quality design guidelines listed above can be met by using one of the methods listed below: Leave undisturbed native vegetation and soil, and protect from compaction during construction. 2. Amend existing site topsoil or subsoil either at default "pre -approved" rates, or at custom calculated rates based on tests of the soil and amendment. 3. Stockpile existing topsoil during grading, and replace it prior to planting. Stockpiled topsoil must also be amended if needed to meet the organic mat- ter or depth requirements, either at a default "pre -approved" rate or at a cus- tom calculated rate. 4. Import topsoil mix of sufficient organic content and depth to meet the require- ments. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 912 1Packet Pg. 209 D.1.a More than one method may be used on different portions of the same site. Soil that already meets the depth and organic matter quality standards, and is not com- pacted, does not need to be amended. Planning/Permittinglinspection/Verification Guidelines & Procedures Local governments are encouraged to adopt guidelines and procedures similar to those recommended in Guidelines and Resources For Implementing Soil Quality and Depth BMP T5.13 in WDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. This document is available at: htta://www.soilsforsalmon.ora/Ddf/Soil BMP Manual.Ddf Maintenance . Establish soil quality and depth toward the end of construction and once estab- lished, protect from compaction, such as from large machinery use, and from erosion. • Plant vegetation and mulch the amended soil area after installation. . Leave plant debris or its equivalent on the soil surface to replenish organic matter. . Reduce and adjust, where possible, the use of irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, rather than continuing to implement formerly established practices. Runoff Model Representation Areas meeting the design guidelines may be entered into approved runoff models as "Pasture" rather than "Lawn." Flow reduction credits can be taken in runoff modeling when BMP T5.13: Post -Con- struction Soil Quality and Depth is used as part of a dispersion design under the con- ditions described in: . BMP T5.1013: Downspout Dispersion Systems (p.905) . BMP T5.11: Concentrated Flow Dispersion (p.905) • BMP T5.12: Sheet Flow Dispersion (p.908) . BMP T5.18: Reverse Slope Sidewalks (p.937) . BMP T5.30: Full Dispersion (p.939) (for public road projects) 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 913 1Packet Pg. 210 D.1.a Figure V-5.3.3 Planting bed Cross -Section Mulct Loose soil with visible dark organic matter Loose or fractured subsoil Reprinted from Guidelines and Resources For Implementing Soil Quality and Depth BMP T5.13 in WDOE Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 2010, Washington Organic Recycling Council NOT TO SCALE Figure V-5.3.3 Planting Bed Cross -Section DEPARTMENT OF Revised January2016 ECOLOGYPlease see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability, and disclaimer. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V - Chapter 5 - Page 914 1Packet Pg. 211 D.1.a C.2.11 PERFORATED PIPE CONNECT C.2.11 PERFORATED PIPE CONNECTION Perforated pipe connections are intended to convey concentrated runoff from impervious surfaces (usually roof runoff) directly to a local drainage system while providing some infiltration of that runoff in the process. They are required for any pipe connection of roof downspouts to the local drainage system regardless of the extent to which flow control BMPs are required or being used onsite. Perforated pipe connections are intended to provide for some infiltration during drier periods (late spring through early fall), which may help dampen the flashiness of stream flows in developed areas and provide some groundwater recharge. During the wet winter months, however, this BMP likely provides little or no flow control benefits. Therefore, it is not credited with mitigating target impervious surface. Applicable Surfaces Subject to the minimum design requirements below, the perforated pipe connection may be applied to concentrated runoff from any impervious surface or non-native pervious surface. Operation and Maintenance See Section C.2.11.2 (below). C.2.11.1 MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Figure C.2.1 LA (p. C-106) illustrates a perforated pipe connection for a typical single family residence. Impervious areas larger than 10,000 square feet and non-native pervious areas larger than 35,000 square feet may require larger pipe to adequately convey flows and should be designed by a civil engineer. Perforated pipe connections must be installed according to the following requirements: 1. Where possible, the perforated pipe connection must be placed in native soil to maximize infiltration of water, and must not be located under impervious surfaces, except as a last resort. 2. The gravel filled trench must beat least 10-feet in length for every 5,000 square feet of impervious surface or 35,000 square feet of non-native pervious surface from which runoff is conveyed. 3. The perforated portion of the system may not be placed in a critical area buffer or on slopes steeper than 25%. Any proposed placement of the perforated portion on slopes steeper than 15% or within 50 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area must be approved by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist unless otherwise approved by the DPER staff geologist. 4. For sites with septic systems, the perforated portion of the system must be down slope of the drainfield primary and reserve areas. DPER permit review staff can waive this requirement if site topography clearly prohibits subsurface flows from intersecting the drainfield. 5. The perforated pipe connection must not create flooding or erosion impacts as determined by DPER. If the system discharges toward or is near a landslide hazard area, erosion hazard area, steep slope hazard area, or a slope steeper than 15%, DPER may require evaluation and approval of the proposal by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. 6. A minimum of a 5 foot setback is required between any part of the perforated pipe trench and any property line. C.2.11.2 MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS If the perforated pipe connection flow control BMP is required for a project, the following maintenance and operation instructions must be recorded as an attachment to the required declaration of covenant and grant of easement per Requirement 3 of Section C.1.3.4 (p. C-23). The intent of these instructions is to explain to future property owners, the purpose of the BMP and how it must be maintained and operated. These instructions are intended to be a minimum; DPER may require additional instructions based on site -specific 2016 Surface Water Design Manual — Appendix C 4/24/2016 C-105 Packet Pg. 212 D.1.a SECTION C.2 FLOW CONTROL BMPs conditions. Also, as the County gains more experience with the maintenance and operation of these BMPs, future updates to the instructions will be posted on King County's Surface Water Design Manual website. A reproducible copy of the instructions, prepared for inclusion with the declaration of covenant, is located in Reference M. ❑ TEXT OF INSTRUCTIONS Your property contains a stormwater management flow control BMP (best management practice) called a "perforated pipe connection," which was installed to reduce the stormwater runoff impacts of some or all of the impervious surface on your property. A perforated pipe connection is a length of drainage conveyance pipe with holes in the bottom, designed to "leak" runoff, conveyed by the pipe, into a gravel filled trench where it can be soaked into the surrounding soil. The connection is intended to provide opportunity for infiltration of any runoff that is being conveyed from an impervious surface (usually a roof) to a local drainage system such as a ditch or roadway pipe system. The size and composition of the perforated pipe connection as depicted by the flow control BMP site plan and design details must be maintained and may not be changed without written approval either from the King County Water and Land Resources Division or through a future development permit from King County. The soil overtop of the perforated portion of the system must not be compacted or covered with impervious materials. FIGURE C.2.1LA PERFORATED PIPE CONNECTION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RANDOM FILL TRENCH X-SECTION NTS PLAN VIEW OF ROOF NTS SLOPE TO ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM x 10' LEVEL TRENCH /PERFORATED PIPE 4/24/2016 C-106 2016 Surface Water Design Manual — Appendix C Packet Pg. 213 D.1.a BMP T5.15: Permeable Pavements Purpose and Definition Pavement for vehicular and pedestrian travel occupies roughly twice the space of buildings. Stormwater from vehicular pavement can contain significant levels of solids, heavy metals, and hydrocarbon pollutants. Both pedestrian and vehicular pavements also contribute to increased peak flow durations and associated physical habitat degradation of streams and wetlands. Optimum management of 0 E stormwater quality and quantity from paved surfaces is, therefore, critical for improving fresh and marine 0 water conditions in Puget Sound. 0 0 The general categories of permeable paving systems include: • Porous hot or warm -mix asphalt pavement (see Figure V-5.3.4 Example of a Permeable i Pavement (Concrete or Asphalt) Section) is a flexible pavement similar to standard asphalt that uses a bituminous binder to adhere aggregate together. However, the fine material (sand and finer o is reduced or eliminated and, as a result, voids form between the aggregate in the pavement E surface and allow water to infiltrate. w • Pervious Portland cement concrete (see Figure V-5.3.4 Example of a Permeable Pavement .(Concrete or Asphalt) Section) is a rigid pavement similar to conventional concrete that uses a cementitious material to bind aggregate together. However, the fine aggregate (sand) component is reduced or eliminated in the gradation and, as a result, voids form between the aggregate in the pavement surface and allow water to infiltrate. Figure V-5.3.4 Example of a Permeable Pavement (Concrete or Asphalt) Section 2014 Figure V-5.3.4 pdf download • Permeable interlocking concrete pavements (PICP) and aggregate pavers. (see Figure V- 5.3.5 Example of a Permeable Paver Section) PICPs are solid, precast, manufactured modular units. The solid pavers are (impervious) high -strength Portland cement concrete manufactured wit[ specialized production equipment. Pavements constructed with these units create joints that are filled with permeable aggregates and installed on an open -graded aggregate bedding course. Aggregate pavers (sometime called pervious pavers) are a different class of pavers from PICP. These include modular precast paving units made with similar sized aggregates bound together with Portland cement concrete with high -strength epoxy or other adhesives. Like PICP, the joints or Packet Pg. 214 D.1.a openings in the units are filled with open -graded aggregate and placed on an open -graded aggregate bedding course. Aggregate pavers are intended for pedestrian use only. Figure V-5.3.5 Example of a Permeable Paver Section 2014 Figure V-5.3.5 pdf download • Grid systems include those made of concrete or plastic. Concrete units are precast in a manufacturing facility, packaged and shipped to the site for installation. Plastic grids typically are delivered to the site in rolls or sections. The openings in both grid types are filled with topsoil and grass or permeable aggregate. Plastic grid sections connect together and are pinned into a dense - graded base, or are eventually held in place by the grass root structure. Both systems can be installed on an open -graded aggregate base as well as a dense -graded aggregate base. Applications and Limitations Permeable paving surfaces are an important integrated management practice within the LID approach and can be designed to accommodate pedestrian, bicycle and auto traffic while allowing infiltration, treatment and storage of stormwater. Permeable pavements are appropriate in many applications where traditionally impermeable pavements have been used. Typical applications for permeable paving include parking lots, sidewalks, pedestrian and bike trails, driveways, residential access roads, and emergency and facility maintenance roads. Limitations: • No run-on from pervious surfaces is preferred. If runoff comes from minor or incidental pervious areas, those areas must be fully stabilized. • Unless the pavement, base course, and subgrade have been designed to accept runoff from adjacent impervious surfaces, slope impervious runoff away from the permeable pavement to the maximum extent practicable. Sheet flow from up -gradient impervious areas is not recommended, but permissible if the permeable pavement area is > the impervious pavement area. • Soils must not be tracked onto the wear layer or the base course during construction. Infeasibility Criteria: Packet Pg. 5 D.1.a These are conditions that make permeable pavement not required. If a project proponent wishes to use permeable pavement - though not required to because of these feasibility criteria - they may propose a functional design to the local government. These criteria also apply to impervious pavements that would employ stormwater collection from the surface of impervious pavement with redistribution below the pavement. Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria must be based on an evaluation of site -specific conditions and a written recommendation from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g, engineer, y E geologist, hydrogeologist) 0 3 0 F- • Where professional geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonablE concerns about erosion, slope failure, or down gradient flooding. • Within an area whose ground water drains into an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area. c� • Where infiltrating and ponded water below new permeable pavement area would compromise adjacent impervious pavements. E w • Where infiltrating water below a new permeable pavement area would threaten existing below grade basements. • Where infiltrating water would threaten shoreline structures such as bulkheads. • Down slope of steep, erosion prone areas that are likely to deliver sediment. • Where fill soils are used that can become unstable when saturated. • Excessively steep slopes where water within the aggregate base layer or at the sub -grade surface cannot be controlled by detention structures and may cause erosion and structural failure, or where surface runoff velocities may preclude adequate infiltration at the pavement surface. • Where permeable pavements can not provide sufficient strength to support heavy loads at industrial facilities such as ports. • Where installation of permeable pavement would threaten the safety or reliability of pre-existing underground utilities, pre-existing underground storage tanks, or pre-existing road sub -grades. The following criteria can be cited as reasons for a finding of infeasibility without further justification (though some require professional services to make the observation): • Within an area designated as an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard. Packet Pg. 6 D.1.a • Within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20%. • For properties with known soil or ground water contamination (typically federal Superfund sites or state cleanup sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)): o Within 100 feet of an area known to have deep soil contamination; o Where ground water modeling indicates infiltration will likely increase or change the direction of the migration of pollutants in the ground water; E 0 c o Wherever surface soils have been found to be contaminated unless those soils are removed 3 within 10 horizontal feet from the infiltration area; 0 c R o Any area where these facilities are prohibited by an approved cleanup plan under the state Model Toxics Control Act or Federal Superfund Law, or an environmental covenant under Chapter 64.70 RCW. a c • Within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill. 0 E w • Within 100 feet of a drinking water well, or a spring used for drinking water supply, if the pavement N is a pollution -generating surface. N • Within 10 feet of a small on -site sewage disposal drainfield, including reserve areas, and grey water reuse systems. For setbacks from a "large on -site sewage disposal system", see Chapter 246-272B WAC. • Within 10 feet of any underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes, regardless of tank size. As used in these criteria, an underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products, chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10% or more of the storage volume (including volume in the connecting piping system) is beneath the ground surface. • At multi -level parking garages, and over culverts and bridges. • Where the site design cannot avoid putting pavement in areas likely to have long-term excessive sediment deposition after construction (e.g., construction and landscaping material yards) • Where the site cannot reasonably be designed to have a porous asphalt surface at less than 5 percent slope, or a pervious concrete surface at less than 10 percent slope, or a permeable interlocking concrete pavement surface (where appropriate) at less than 12 percent slope. Grid systems upper slope limit can range from 6 to 12 percent; check with manufacturer and local supplier. Packet Pg. 217 D.1.a • Where the native soils below a pollution -generating permeable pavement (e.g., road or parking lot) do not meet the soil suitability criteria for providing treatment. See SSC-6 in III-3.3.7 Site Suitability. Criteria (SSC). Note: In these instances, the local government has the option of requiring a six -in& layer of media meeting the soil suitability criteria or the sand filter specification as a condition of construction. • Where seasonal high ground water or an underlying impermeable/low permeable layer would f f creae s taturated conditions within one foot othe m bottoothe lowest gravel base cou1 se. y aD E Where underlying soils are unsuitable for supporting traffic loads when saturated. Soils meeting a 0 California Bearing Ratio of 5% are considered suitable for residential access roads. 0 Where appropriate field testing indicates soils have a measured (a.k.a., initial) native soil saturated E R hydraulic conductivity less than 0.3 inches per hour. (Note: In these instances, unless other infeasibility restrictions apply, roads and parking lots may be built with an underdrain, preferably elevated within the base course, if flow control benefits are desired.) _ Roads that receive more than very low traffic volumes, and areas having more than very low truck 0 E traffic. Roads with a projected average daily traffic volume of 400 vehicles or less are very low w volume roads (AASHTO, 2001)(U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2013). Areas with very low truck o N traffic volumes are roads and other areas not subject to through truck traffic but may receive up to to weekly use by utility trucks (e.g., garbage, recycling), daily school bus use, and multiple daily use o by pick-up trucks, mail/parcel delivery trucks, and maintenance vehicles. Note: This infeasibility Fn criterion does not extend to sidewalks and other non -traffic bearing surfaces. • Where replacing existing impervious surfaces unless the existing surface is a non -pollution generating surface over an outwash soil with a saturated hydraulic conductivity of four inches per hour or greater. • At sites defined as "high use sites" in Volume I of this manual. • In areas with "industrial activity" as identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). • Where the risk of concentrated pollutant spills is more likely such as gas stations, truck stops, and industrial chemical storage sites. • Where routine, heavy applications of sand occur in frequent snow zones to maintain traction durinc weeks of snow and ice accumulation. A local government may designate geographic areas within which permeable pavement, or certain types of permeable pavement, may be designated as infeasible due to year-round, seasonal or periodic high groundwater conditions, or due to inadequate infiltration rates. Designations must be based upon a Packet Pg. 218 D.1.a preponderance of field data, collected within the area of concern, that indicate a high likelihood of failure to achieve the minimum groundwater clearance or infiltration rates identified in the above infeasibility criteria. The local government must develop a technical report, and make it available upon request by the Dept. of Ecology. The technical report must be authored by (a) professional(s) with appropriate expertise (e.g., registered engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist, or certified soil scientist), and document the location and pertinent values/observations of data that were used to recommend the designation anc boundaries for the geographic area. The types of pertinent data include, but are not limited to: • Standing water heights or evidence of recent saturated conditions in observation wells, test pits, test holes, and well logs. • Observations of areal extent and time of surface ponding, including local government or professional observations of high water tables, frequent or long durations of standing water, springs, wetlands, and/or frequent flooding. • Results of infiltration tests In addition, a local government can map areas that meet a specific infeasibility criterion listed above provided they have an adequate data basis. Criteria that are most amenable to mapping are: • Where land for bioretention is within an area designated by the local government as an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard • Within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20% and over 10 feet vertical relief • Within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill Design Guidelines Ecology has listed below the critical design criteria you must consider when designing permeable pavement. Local governments can adopt alternative design criteria, as long as it does not conflict with the criteria listed below. For modeling guidance of permeable pavements, refer to Appendix III-C: Washington State Department of Ecology Low Impact Development Flow Modeling Guidance, and the 2012 WWHM User Manual. You can find additional guidance for permeable pavement design in the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (2012). Note that the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (2012) is for additional informational purposes only. You must follow the guidance within this manual if there are any discrepancies between this manual and the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (2012). Packet Pg. 9 D.1.a Subgrade • Compact the subgrade to the minimum necessary for structural stability. Two guidelines currently used to specify subgrade compaction are "firm and unyielding" (qualitative), and 90- 92% Standard Proctor (quantitative). Do not allow heavy compaction due to heavy equipment operation. The subgrade should not be subject to truck traffic. • To prevent compaction when installing the aggregate base, the following steps (back -dumping) should be followed: 1) the aggregate base is dumped onto the subgrade from the edge of the y E installation and aggregate is then pushed out onto the subgrade; 2) trucks then dump subsequent 0 loads from on top of the aggregate base as the installation progresses. 0 • Use on soil types A through C. D Separation or Bottom Filter Layer (recommended but optional) c� • A layer of sand or crushed stone (0.5 inch or smaller) graded flat is recommended to promote infiltration across the surface, stabilize the base layer, protect underlying soil from compaction, and E serve as a transition between the base course and the underlying geotextile material. w Base material • Local governments should adopt their own minimum base material requirements as they see necessary for support of flexible pavements. Many design combinations are possible. The material must be free draining. The municipality should determine and publish estimates of the void space for each standard base material allowed in their jurisdiction. • To increase infiltration, improve flow attenuation and reduce structural problems associated with subgrade erosion on slopes, impermeable check dams may be placed on the subgrade and below the pavement surface (See Figure V-5.3.6 Example of a Check Dam Along a Sloped Section of Permeable Pavement). Check dams should have an overflow drain invert placed at the maximum ponding depth. The distance between berms will vary depending on slope, flow control goals and cost. Figure V-5.3.6 Example of a Check Dam Along a Sloped Section of Permeable Pavement 2014 Figure V-5.3.6 pdf download Packet Pg. 220 D.1.a Wearing layer • For all surface types, a minimum initial infiltration rate of 20 inches per hour is necessary. To improve the probability of long-term performance, significantly higher initial infiltration rates are desirable. • Porous Asphalt: Products must have adequate void spaces through which water can infiltrate. A void space within the range of 16 — 25% is typical. y E • Pervious Concrete: Products must have adequate void spaces through which water can infiltrate. c A void space within the range of 15 — 35% is typical.. o C • Grid/lattice systems filled with gravel, sand, or a soil of finer particles with or without grass: ? The fill material must be at least a minimum of 2 inches of sand, gravel, or soil. _ c a� a� • Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement and Aggregate Pavers: Pavement joints should be filled with No. 8, 89 or 9 stone. 0 E Drainage conveyance w Roads should still be designed with adequate drainage conveyance facilities as if the road surface was impermeable. Roads with base courses that extend below the surrounding grade should have a designed drainage flow path to safely move water away from the road prism and into the roadside drainage facilities. Use of perforated storm drains to collect and transport infiltrated water from under the road surface will result in less effective designs and less flow reduction benefit. Underdrains Note that if an underdrain is placed at or near the bottom of the aggregate base in a permeable pavement design, the permeable pavement is no longer considered an LID BMP and cannot be used to satisfy 1-2.5.5 Minimum Requirement #5: On -site Stormwater Management. However, designs utilizing an underdrain that is elevated within the aggregate base course to protect the pavement wearing course from saturation is considered an LID BMP and can be used to satisfy 1-2.5.5 Minimum Requirement #5: On -site Stormwater Management. See Appendix III-C: Washington State Department of Ecology Low Impact Development Flow Modeling Guidance and the WWHM Users Manual for guidance in modeling permeable pavements with underdrains. Acceptance test • Driveways can be tested by simply throwing a bucket of water on the surface. If anything other than a scant amount puddles or runs off the surface, additional testing is necessary prior to accepting the construction. Packet Pg. 221 D.1.a • Roads may be initially tested with the bucket test. In addition, test the initial infiltration with a 6-inch ring, sealed at the base to the road surface, or with a sprinkler infiltrometer. Wet the road surface continuously for 10 minutes. Begin test to determine compliance with 20 inches per hour minimum rate. Use of ASTM C1701 is also recommended. Storm wa ter-rela ted Design Procedures See III-3.4 Stormwater-related Site Procedures and Design Guidance for Bioretention and Permeable Pavement for more specific guidance regarding required field testing, assignment of infiltration rate y E correction factors, project submission requirements, and modeling. 0 3 0 Runoff Model Representation See Appendix III-C: Washington State Department of Ecology Low Impact Development Flow Modeling = Guidance for runoff modeling guidance under WWHM3 and under WWHM 2012. c� Maintenance 0 E Please see Table V-4.5.2(22) Maintenance Standards - Permeable Pavement. w Maintenance recommendations for all facilities: • Erosion and introduction of sediment from surrounding land uses should be strictly controlled after construction by amending exposed soil with compost and mulch, planting exposed areas as soon as possible, and armoring outfall areas. • Surrounding landscaped areas should be inspected regularly and possible sediment sources controlled immediately. • Installations can be monitored for adequate or designed minimum infiltration rates by observing drainage immediately after heavier rainstorms for standing water or infiltration tests using ASTM C1701. • Clean permeable pavement surfaces to maintain infiltration capacity at least once or twice annuall} following recommendations below. • Utility cuts should be backfilled with the same aggregate base used under the permeable paving tc allow continued conveyance of stormwater through the base, and to prevent migration of fines frorr the standard base aggregate to the more open graded permeable base material (Diniz, 1980). • Ice build up on permeable pavement is reduced and the surface becomes free and clear more rapidly compared to conventional pavement. For western Washington, deicing and sand application may be reduced or eliminated and the permeable pavement installation should be Packet Pg. 222 D.1.a assessed during winter months and the winter traction program developed from those observations. Vacuum and sweeping frequency will likely be required more often if sand is applied. Porous asphalt and pervious concrete • Clean surfaces using suction, sweeping with suction or high-pressure wash and suction (sweeping alone is minimally effective). Hand held pressure washers are effective for cleaning void spaces and appropriate for smaller areas such as sidewalks. y E • Small utility cuts can be repaired with conventional asphalt or concrete if small batches of c permeable material are not available or are too expensive. o Permeable pavers • ICPI recommends cleaning if the measured infiltration rate falls below 10 in/hr. a c� • Use sweeping with suction when surface and debris are dry 1-2 times annually (see next bullet for c exception). Apply vacuum to a paver test section and adjust settings to remove all visible sediment E without excess uptake of aggregate from paver openings or joints. If necessary replace No 8, 89 of w 9 stone to specified depth within the paver openings. Washing or power washing should not be N used to remove debris and sediment in the openings between the pavers (Smith, 2000) • For badly clogged installations, wet the surface and vacuumed aggregate to a depth that removes all visible fine sediment and replace with clean aggregate. • If necessary use No 8, 89 or 9 stone for winter traction rather than sand (sand will accelerate clogging). • Pavers can be removed individually and replaced when utility work is complete. • Replace broken pavers as necessary to prevent structural instability in the surface. • The structure of the top edge of the paver blocks reduces chipping from snowplows. For additional protection, skids on the corner of plow blades are recommended. • For a model maintenance agreement see "Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements" (Smith, 2011). Plastic or Concrete grid systems • Remove and replace top course aggregate if clogged with sediment or contaminated (vacuum trucks for stormwater collection basins can be used to remove aggregate). Packet Pg. 2 3 D.1.a • Remove and replace grid segments where three or more adjacent rings are broken or damaged. • Replenish aggregate material in grid as needed. • Snowplows should use skids to elevate blades slightly above the gravel surface to prevent loss of top course aggregate and damage to plastic grid. • For grass installations, use normal turf maintenance procedures except do not aerate. Use very slow release fertilizers if needed. Washington State Department of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as Amended in December 2014 (The 2014 SWMMWW) Packet Pg. 224 DA.a I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�I�IA SEEN �MWE ::::=:::_ III�11 ..._..�III�11 ..._..�III�11 ,._...dill .._...dill .._...dill .._.. .._..._.11�11L..:_.:�-•I�IIL..:_.:� -•III ..._..._III�11 ..._..._III�11 ..._..._III�11 �11 ..._II�11 ..._II�11 ..._III .._..._.11�11L..:_.:� -•1�11 ..:_.:� -MIL..:_ Ill�ii�ll.._ Ill�ii�ll.._ =:::-' III::=:::-' IIuIm DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Permeable pavement mix 1"washed sand or 0.5" washed crushed stone for base material 6" open -graded base material, 4" - 2" crushed -washed Subgrade, determine compaction based on design requirements NOT TO SCALE Figure V-5.3.4 Example of a Permeable Pavement (Concrete or Asphalt) Section Revised January 2016 Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. Packet Pg. 225 D.1.a Appendix D: Infiltration Testing Q Packet Pg. 226 D.1.a NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES. INC. November 12, 2020 Mr. BK Chen VIA Email:.bkchen@gmail.com Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) Chen 210th Street SW Residential Development Infiltration 7103 — 2101h Street SW Edmonds, Washington NGA Project No. 1209720 17311-1351h Ave. N.E. Suite A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 www.nelsongeotech.com Dear Mr. Chen: This letter documents our explorations and provides our opinions and recommendations for the feasibility of stormwater infiltration for the proposed townhome residential development project located at 7103 — 2101h Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. INTRODUCTION The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence within the central portion of the property surrounded by grass -covered yard areas and few scattered young to mature trees. Topography within the site is generally level to gently sloping from north to south. We understand the proposed development will consist of removing the existing site structure and constructing several townhome residence structures within the site. For use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with an untitled and undated preliminary site plan showing the existing and proposed site layout. We understand that stormwater generated from the proposed development may be directed to onsite infiltration systems, if feasible. We have been requested to evaluate the infiltration capacity of the site soils within the property. The City of Edmonds utilizes the 2014 Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management in Western Washington Manual (2014 SWMMWW) to determine the design of infiltration or detention facilities. According to this manual, long-term design infiltration rates for this site are to be determined by performing on -site infiltration testing consisting of the Small Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT). Packet Pg. 227 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions within the site and to provide opinions and recommendations for stormwater infiltration. Specifically, our scope of services included the following: 1. Review available soil and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with trackhoe excavated test pits. Trackhoe was subcontracted by NGA. 3. Perform grain -size sieve analysis on selected soil samples, as needed. 4. Provide long-term design infiltration rates based on one on -site small-scale Pilot Infiltration Tests (PIT) per the 2014 SWMMWW. Location and depth of tests to be determined by civil engineer. Water for the test to be secured by client. 5. Provide recommendations for infiltration system installation. 6. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical letter. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The property consists of a roughly rectangular -shaped parcel covering approximately 0.26 acres. The site is currently occupied by a single-family residence within the central portion of the property surrounded by grass -covered yard areas and few scattered young to mature trees. Topography within the site is generally level to gently sloping from north to south. We did not observe any surface water within the site on our visit on October 9, 2020. Subsurface Conditions: The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by J. P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983). The site is mapped as Ova (Advance Outwash deposits), with Qvt (glacial till) nearby. Texture and structure vary from place to place but Advance Outwash generally is composed of moderate- to well -sorted, stratified, light gray to tan medium to coarse sand and pebbly sand containing minor amounts of fine sandy silt. Vashon till typically consists of a concrete -like mixture of relatively equal parts of silt, sand, and gravel. In our explorations, we encountered soils primarily consisting of fine to medium sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt, which we interpreted to be consistent with the description of the outwash deposits mapped in this area. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 228 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 3 Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on October 9, 2020 by excavating three test pit explorations with a mini -excavator as shown in Plate 1 below. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. Plate 1: Excavator equipment utilized to dig explorations. Shown digging Test Pit 1 located to the west of the existing structure and looking north. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 3. The logs of our explorations are attached to this letter and are presented in Figure 4. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraph. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the exploration logs should be reviewed. At the surface of Test Pits 1 and 2, and Infiltration Pit 1, we generally encountered approximately 1.0 feet of surficial topsoil. Underlying the surficial topsoil in Test Pit 1, we encountered approximately 2.0 feet of dark brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organics along with a buried topsoil layer that we interpreted as undocumented fill soil. Below the undocumented fill soils in Test Pit 1 and the surficial topsoil in Test Pit 2 and Infiltration Pit 1, we encountered medium dense to dense, brown gray fine to medium sand with varying amounts of sand, gravel and roots that we interpreted as native advance outwash deposits. All of our test pit explorations were terminated within the native advance outwash deposits at depths in the range of 7.0 to 9.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil conditions in Test Pit 1 are shown in Plate 2 below. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 229 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 4 Plate 2: Test Pit 1 soil conditions. Surficial undocumented fill soils underlain by native advance outwash deposits extending to the depths explored. Hydrogeologic Conditions We did not encounter groundwater seepage or observe any indications of groundwater seepage in any of our explorations completed within the site. If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction, we would interpret this water to be perched groundwater. It is our opinion that the potential for perched groundwater within the upper advance outwash soils is low due to the relatively granular nature of the native advance outwash soils underlying the site. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of underlying, less permeable soils. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of precipitation. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. We anticipate that the seasonal high groundwater table within the area is located at a greater depth below the site and should not adversely impact the proposed infiltration systems within the site. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 230 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 5 Stormwater Infiltration The subsurface soils generally consisted of topsoil and/or fill underlain by fine- to medium- grained sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel to the depths explored within the proposed infiltration areas. We conducted on -site infiltration testing in accordance with the 2014 SWMMWW, to determine the long term design infiltration rate of the site soils. On -site testing consisted of a Small Pilot Infiltration Test (Small PIT) to determine the long-term design infiltration rates. We conducted a Small PIT within Infiltration Pit 1, located as shown on the attached Site Plan in Figure 2 and in Plate 3 below. The test was conducted within a pit that measured 6.0-feet long by 4.5-feet wide by 5.0-feet deep. Due to the granular nature of the site soils and the maximum capacity of the on -site water source, we were only able to maintain approximately 8.5-inches of standing water within the hole instead of the recommended 12-inches. This level was maintained within the PIT for approximately 6 hours for the pre soak period of the test. At this time, the water flow rate into the hole was monitored with a Great Plains Industries (GPI) TM 075 water flow meter. Plate 3: Infiltration PIT 1 location looking southeast. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 231 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 6 After the 6-hour soaking period was completed, the water level was maintained at approximately 8.5- inches for one hour for the steady-state period. The flow rate for Infiltration Pit 1 stabilized at 2.50 gallons per minute (150 gallons per hour), which equates to an approximate infiltration rate of 8.95 inches per hour. The water was shut off after the steady-state period and monitored at least every 15 minutes. After 60 minutes, the water level within the pit dropped approximately 8.0 inches, resulting in an infiltration rate of 8.0 inches per hour. At the conclusion of the testing, Infiltration PIT 1 was excavated an additional two feet to a total depth of 7.0 feet below the existing ground surface and no indications of groundwater seepage and/or impermeable zones were observed. CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that the subsurface soils within the site are suitable for traditional stormwater infiltration. In accordance with the Table 3.5 of the 2014 SWMMWW, correction factors of 0.8, 0.5, and 0.9 for site variability and number of locations tested (CFv), testing method (CFt), and degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup (CFm), respectively were applied to the field measured infiltration rate of 8.0 inches per hour, selected from the falling -head portion of the testing. A total correction factor of 0.36 was applied to the measured field infiltration rate obtained from the falling head portion of the test to determine the long-term design infiltration rate. Using the above correction factor, we calculated a long-term design infiltration rate of approximately 2.88 inches per hour. The base of the infiltration systems should terminate within the native glacial outwash soils encountered at depth. The stormwater infiltration systems should be designed and maintained in accordance with 2014 SWMMWW. The stormwater manual recommends a minimum five-foot separation between the base of an infiltration system and any underlying bedrock, impermeable horizon, or groundwater. We did not observe any indications of or encounter groundwater and/or impermeable layers within our explorations to a depth of up to 9.5 feet below the existing ground surface within the site. We anticipate that the seasonal high groundwater table within the area is located at a greater depth below the site and should not adversely impact the proposed infiltration systems within the site. We recommend that any infiltration systems be placed as to not negatively impact any proposed or existing nearby structures and also meet all required setbacks from existing property lines, structures, and sensitive areas as discussed in the drainage manual. In general, infiltration systems should not be located within proposed fill areas within the site associated with site grading or retaining wall backfill as such condition could lead to failures of the placed fills and/or retaining structures. We should be retained to evaluate the infiltration system design and installation during construction, if necessary. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 232 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 7 USE OF THIS LETTER This letter was prepared for Mr. BK Chen and his agents, for use in planning and budgeting the above - referenced project only. Our services included an evaluation of the infiltration capability of the site soils at specific locations and should not be considered as an in-depth geotechnical study of the site or an evaluation of the overall site stability. This letter may be used for bidding and estimating purposes, but E our letter, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface t c conditions. The subsurface conditions between explorations may vary. A contingency for varying c conditions should be incorporated into the project plans. We recommend that NGA be retained to review the design and provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 233 Stormwater Infiltration Letter (2"d Revision) NGA File No. 1209720 Chen 210th Street SW Townhome Residential Development Infiltration November 12, 2020 Edmonds, Washington Page 8 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Lee S. Bellah, LG Project Geologist M. 1 ° W x 35215 �`w ,v A L Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal LSB:KMS:dy Four Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE Packet Pg. 234 D.1.a VICINITY MAP N Not to Scale a' 2"Th s: sw zaa0F4sw A Smart Foodservice 9 { Warehouse Stores _ - O t � � � c 3 zveu, st sw College Place % Doug's Hyundai 0 Middle School a El Antojo I Lynnwood r Project Y p gmitegreens �. IATTLE 20M St sw 81n S1 � Site HEIGHTS 20amsrsw a) � P r Pinewood Square Apartments - r- - E 21 �111 S1 sw W m Snohomish County PUD Y Lynnwood Office IN N Burger King CD � Q 0 sw 2121h St SW Edmonds Woadway 2121n sc sw 212<n Si sw zlnn St sw 212 o W High School fn $ Park 2129 a s LU n ® CarMax Used car dealer Southwest O a 8 Transl McDonald's V) � I Swedish 0. 00 Edmonds Campus T g o s :161h Si 54% r -r Premera Blue Cross e []Upstaging Seattle N O Z �� m Q 11 +; : 1 s:l, C N WinCo Foods E a Edmonds, WA Project Number Chen 210th St SW NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By I CK 1209720 Residential Development NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 10/23/20 Original DPN LSE Infiltration GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Woodinville Office Wenatchee Office Figure 1 Vicinity Map "Wlood-il.,WA98 2°° W-athee°WA98801 (425)486-1669/Fax: 481-2510 w.nelsongeolech.com (509) 665-7696 / Fax: 665=7692 Packet Pg. 235 FF=413�__--- ° 1 -LEVEL: 38.75'X21'± (814SF) d ° d 2ND LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (835SF) 3RD LEVEL: 40.75'X21't (856SF) /O I \ _ 1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21't (814SF) 2ND LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (835SF) i° 3RD LEVEL: 40.75'X21't (856SF) Existing Residence 410 � 1 FF=409.5' 1 - ° 1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'f (814SF) 1 TP Q° °d 2ND LEVE`L< 39.75'X21't (835SF) I 'a 3RD LEVEL: '0.75'X21't (856SF) I 1 °I 1 I \ to „a a �. d 1ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'±� 14SF) 2ND LEVEL: 39.75'X21't ( 35SF) 1 Proposed Townhome ° ° M 3RD EVEL: 40.75'X21't 1 (typ) a I � ° ° � F 407.0' \ 1 I 124 d 1ST LE ° S,Q-2' a d d 2ND LEVEL: 9.75,X21'f (835SF) 3RD LEVEL: 4 .75'X21'f (856SF) ° FF=406.5' ° d" a ° ST LEVEL: 38.75'X21'±�814SF) 2ND \ ° LEVEL: 39.75'X21't (BSF) 3RD LEVEL: 40.75'X21't (856SF 25'-0"� '° I INF-1 TP-1� \ D IVEIAY °° I \ I PA VFdt.1'_EN T - s N LEGEND - `. 74'-6" — — Property line INF-1 Number and approximate 0 20 40 ' I location of infiltration test pit TP-1 —�_ Number and approximate Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet I location of test pit Reference: Site Plan based on an undated, untitled site plan. Project Number Chen 210th St SW NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 1209720 Residential Development NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 10/23/20 Original DPN LSE Infiltration GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure 2 Woodinville Office Wenatchee Office g Site Plan 17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500 105 Palouse St. (425)486- Woodinville, WA 98o72 Wenatchee, WA 98801 Packet Pg. 236 16691 Fax 481-2510 w.nelsonyeotech.com (509)665-7696/Fax : 665-7692 D.1.a UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL 0 GRAVEL GM p GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % OF COARSE FRACTION SILTY GRAVEL RETAINED ON E SOILS NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL m SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND ;v SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % C O RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 % NO. 200 SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND E PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE W WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND N N FINE - SILT AND CLAY ML O N SILT N INORGANIC o GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY U) LESS THAN 50 % > SOILS ORGANIC OL LU ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY IX O SILT AND CLAY MH rL SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 % PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY W 0l NO. 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORECD r ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT c r N HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT O PEAT IN z J NOTES: (L c 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: a� examination of soil in general t accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Q is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Moist - Damp, but no visible water. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from interpretation of blowcount data, below water table visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number Chen 210th St SW NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 1209720 Residential Development Infiltration NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 10/23/20 Original DPN LSE i= t0 Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart Woodinville Office Wenatchee Office 1731 W.Idin til A°e 11172°° 105 tha W 98 W Fl W.98072 Wenatchee, WA965- Packet Pg. 237 _Jd (425) 486-16691 Fax: 481-2510 w.nelson9eolech.com (509) 665-7696 1Fax: 665-7692 D.1.a LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 0.0 - 1.0 GRASS UNDERLAIN BY DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOT, AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 1.0 - 2.0 DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ORGANICS AND DEBRI; (LOOSE, MOIST) (UNDOCUMENTED FILL) 2.0 - 3.0 BURIED TOPSOIL E 1= O 3.0 - 9.5 SP-SM BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL C (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) ?, O SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 5.0, 7.0, 9.0 FEET ~ GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED E TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET ON 10/9/20 t c TEST PIT 2 N d L 0.0 - 1.0 DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOTS, AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) C 1.0 - 9.5 SP-SM BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL O (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) W SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0, 7.0, AND 8.5 FEET ... GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED N TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED c N TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET ON 10/9/20 rn INFILTRATION PIT 101 0.0 - 1.0 DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOTS, AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 1.0 - 7.0 SP-SM BROWN -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 10/9/20 LSB:KMS NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 1209720 FIGURE 4 Packet Pg. 238 D.1.a SOUTH COUNTY FIRE 12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208 tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249 www.southsnat t re.arg City of Edmonds Department of Fire Prevention Plan Review DATE: 4-30-21 PERMIT #: PLN-2021-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWN HOMES JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Edmonds Greenhill 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA FIRE PLAN REVIEW NOTES: 1. Required fire sprinkler system, Town homes are permitted to install a 13D sprinkler system. Deferred submittal for the sprinkler system. Addressing and driveway signage/markings at final 2. Townhomes: A residential fire sprinkler system is required. A recommended flow -through design will meet specifications and reduce equipment and continuing maintenance requirements. ECDC19.05.020132. Provide a minimum combination water service of one inch (1") meter and one and one half (11/2") service line, or show that domestic and fire protection needs can be met with a smaller service. Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer _southsnofire.org SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD + MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 239 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION '(IC. 189V May 14, 2021 Harr Chen Properties LLC Attn: BK Chen 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Letter of Completeness Edmonds Greenhill Design Review Application PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the design review application for the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill townhomes located at 7103 2101h St. SW. for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. Although it has been determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and is therefore complete, additional information may be needed as staff continues with review of the application. Staff will contact you as our review continues if additional information is necessary. Since the application has been determined to be procedurally complete, a notice of application will be posted on the subject property and mailed to adjacent property owners within the next two weeks consistent with ECDC 20.03.002. I will be the main staff contact for your application. If you have questions at any point during the review process, you may reach me at michele.szafran(d),edmondswa.gov or (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Michele Q. Szafran Planner Cc: File No. PLN2021-0018 Packet Pg. 240 D.1.a Notice of Application and SEPA Determination - File Numbers PLN2021-0018 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a total of a 6-unit townhome with associated parking. The 6-units are proposed in a new three (3) story building and each unit is proposed to contain four (4)-bedrooms. Parking for the units will be provided via a two -car garage for each unit. Access to the proposed development will be taken off of 210t' St. SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Name of Applicant: BK Chen Location: 7103 210'h St. SW., Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00566900100601 File Nos.: PLN2021-0018 (Design Review) Date of Application: April 16, 2021 Date of Notice: May 28, 2021 Date of Completeness: May 14, 2021 Requested Permits: Design Review. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. Other Required Permits: Building permits. Required Studies: None Existing Environmental Documents: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Preliminary Drainage Report Comments on Proposal Due: June 11, 2021. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public_ involvement/public_notices/development _ notices under the development notice for application number PLN2021-0018, 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: Michele Q. Szafran, (425) 771-0220, michele.szafran(cedmondswa.gov STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed Design Review (File Nos. PLN2021-0018). SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. Date of Issuance: May 28, 2021 SEPA Comments Due: June 11, 2021 SEPA Appeal Deadline: June 18, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 241 I� ILI '� W70.31"" O� 1 z Z ow O o r o I^ o � o = w Ln Ln Ilk- `` — Nxx fw �n_"iti _ I HNNNw uu � I � I Nliµ f r � 4r'.. City of Edmonds MAILING LIST 1 0 239.76 479.5 Feet 357.1 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 4,285 p B p pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION I D.1.a I Ly��wV D Mr F inounciaw 0 re. - I., Legend Y D cc ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIIN =_ — <all other values> C 1 N d L 2 N 5; 4 'a C 9;71;7;8 O E State Highways W -. <all other values> .. -- 0 Notes 2 Packet Pg. 243 I D.1.a I i City of Edmonds MAILING LIST 2 �0 Ly��wV - .......I,. a �' MDunrl.rY 'Y 3r[erar. ire a e O Legend co Arcs DE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINI =_ — <all other values> C 1 N d L 2 N 5; 4 'a C 9;71;7;8 O E State Highways W — <all other values> .. -- 0 Notes 0 239.76 479.5 Feet 357.1 This ma is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for 4,285 p B P pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 2 Packet Pg. 244 of ED& .� o J) CITY OF EDMONDS /, . �00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a total of a 6-unit townhome with associated parking. The 6-units are proposed in a new three (3) story building and each unit is proposed to contain four (4)-bedrooms. Parking for the units will be provided via a two -car garage for each unit. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 2101" St. SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). PROJECT LOCATION: 7103 21011 St. SW., Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00566900100601 NAME OF APPLICANT: BK Chen COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 1, 2022 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained online at httos://www.edmondswa.L-ov/services/public involvement/public notices /development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2021-0018, 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. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on June 1, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa-gov.zoom.us/I/89087813540?pwd=WmJWQOg4VzRrOTM3Qndtc1ISODJaZzO9 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540 Password: 612943 CITY CONTACT: Michele Q. Szafran, Planner/Michele.Szafran@edmondswa.gov/425-771-0220 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: May 4, 2022 Packet Pg. 245 I� ILI '� W70.31"" O� 1 z Z ow O o r o I^ o � o = w Ln Ln Ilk- `` — Nxx fw �n_"iti _ I HNNNw uu � I � I Nliµ f r � D.1.a FILE NO.: PLN2021-0018 Applicant: BK Chen (Harr Chen Properties LLQ DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 4th day of May, 2022, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Michele Q. Szafran, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 4th day of May, 2022, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: g IBFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 247 P P ra _ a. to e w. - �C of - __ �// ��� ' �.. -�. -i— ` _. �,.. i• - 14 I • WOW I _ I - e0 -- FI,I�� _� ant �C°7C5 5all Moor � e 71 il ' e Al 1• a o v — — — SiLR ;l � O i o 1V9 xl .� 1 u - elf �® - �i. .i 4P 7 M , ail it o o Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates 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 EDH953845 PLN2021-0018 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 05/04/2022 and ending on 05/04/2022 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount the fee for s h publicatio $77.40. Subscribed and swor day of n before me on this r f t� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 MICHELE S7.AFRAN PL A1202- /- O0j8 Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires 8/2912025 Commission Number 4.417 Packet Pg. 249 D.1.a CiassiiieuProof PLV2WJsw0016 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is proposing to construct a total of a 6-unit lownhome with associated parking. The 6-units are proposed In a new three (3) story building and each unit is proposed to contain four (4}bedrooms. Parking for the units will be provided via a two -car garage for each unit Access to the proposed development will be taken off 210th St. SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). PROJECT LOCATION: 7103 2101h St. SW., Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00566900100601 NAME OF APPLICANT: BK Chen FILE NO.: PLN2021-0018 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 1, 2022 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, If any. or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to Initiate an appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained online at littps://wvAv.edmondswa.gov/sewices/public invoN eme nt/p ub li c_ n otices/development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2021- 0018, by emalling the City contact listed below, or by tailing the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application number for all Inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on June 1, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/89087813540?pwd=WmJ WQOg4VzRrOTM 3Ondtc1 5ODJaZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215.8782 Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540 Password: 612943 CITY CONTACT: Michele Q. Szafran, Planner I Michele.Szafran@edinonciswa.gov / 425-771-0220 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: May 4, 2022 Published: May 4, 2022. EDH953845 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 05/04/2022 12:46:47 pm Page: " Packet Pg. 250 D.1.a 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 "(IC. 189V August 26, 2021 Bk Chen Edmonds7103 a,gmail.com 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: TIME EXTENSION ON REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION LOCATED AT 9110 178th ST. SW. FILE NO. PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, The City of Edmonds has received your request for a 90-day extension to submit additional information on the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill Townhomes project located at 7103 2101h St. SW. The city is granting the 90-day extension as allowed by ECDC 20.02.003.D.2. Please respond to the requested information in the May 28, 2021 letter of request for additional information by November 24, 2021. SEE ATTACHMENT 11 If you have any questions of me, please contact me via email at mchele. szafran(c edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Michele Q. Szafran/Planner CC: File ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 251 D.1.a From: 7103 edmonds <edmonds7103(a,gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 2:10 PM To: Szafran, Michele <Michele.Szafran(aedmondswa.gov> Cc: BK Chen <bkchen(a�,gmail.com> Subject: Re: PLN2021-0018 Letter of Request for Additional Information (7103 210th St. SW.) Michele, Thank you very much for the reminder! I have been working hard to get the resubmittal done before the Augurs 26 deadline. However, I am still waiting for the final documents from the designer and the arborist. I was told they should be done in the next few days, but I would rather be prepared for them to be late. So I would like to request an extension of 90 days, just in case they cannot deliver the final documents to me by the deadline. I will submit the final documents as soon as I receive them, either before the deadline or after the deadline. The reason for the 90-days is that I understand the allowed extension is just one time opportunity. So it will be safe to request the maximum time for that. However, that extended time is not going to impact my plan to resubmit it ASAP. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Packet Pg. 252 D.1.a Date: September 1", 2021 Design Review for "Edmonds Greenhill" Townhouses 7103 210th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 Pre -Application file number: PLN2021-0018 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov Dear Planner, This cover letter has been updated, along with all the drawings and an arborist report, per comments on the letter of "Request for additional information for design review" dated May 28th, 2021 from the Development Services, city of Edmonds. Please let me know if there will be any questions. Description of Proposal The site for this project is located along 210th St SW between 70t" Ave. W and 72"d Ave W in Edmonds. It is a rectangle lot containing 1 duplex residence built in 1946. This building does not have any architectural character and will be demolished for this project. The duplex is in deteriorating conditions and the blackberry is overgrown in the backyard. The adjoining properties are buildings of the same zoning, including multifamily units of residential buildings and single-family residences. Across the street are mostly commercial facilities including the facilities for the City of Edmonds' public works. "Edmonds Greenhill" Townhouses will clear the existing site and construct 6 new 3-story townhouses on the lot. Each of the townhouses will have 4 bedrooms, a kitchen, a great room, and a 2-car garage on the first floor of the building. The kitchen and the great room will be on the second floor. A shared driveway will connect the townhouses to 210th St SW, in the similar way as the current driveway, except on the west of the current driveway. The existing front gate has a 5' wide sidewalk from the curb to the property line. The primary exterior material for this project is lap siding, which is a common finish material in the area To provide some variety in the fagade there will be metal railing, and painted trims, windows and horizontal bands along the floor lines. The roofing will be asphalt shingles. All of these materials are commonly used for residential construction in this area. ECDC 20.11.030 section A requires "the building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area". This project offers a design of townhouses that are common in the city and in the greater Seattle area,with additional characters of metal railing and a deck on the second floor level to beautify the exterior design of the building. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 253 D.1.a ECDC 20.11.030 section B requires "the existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment". This project designs the townhouses following the natural slope of the site. That has provided natural break points between townhouses. All landscape areas have been designed to follow the natural slope as well, to provide site treatments that are in harmony with the buildings and the surrounding environments. Evergreen trees, shrubs, and flower trees will be planned around the border areas of the property to beautify the townhouses and the property. Compliance with Urban Design Goals & Policies Design Objectives for Site Design. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. This project will move the driveway and the related curb cut to the west side of the existing driveway, but the width of the cube cut will be changed just slightly. That will accommodate the increased number of units from 2 to 6. 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. Each of the townhouses has its own 2 car garage with the shortest connection to the street via a shared driveway. All garage doors will be on the side of the building, away from 210th St SW. 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. The main access to the townhouses is directly from the sidewalk to front doors. There is also a door inside the garage to the residence. The pedestrian walkway can be directly accessed from 210th St SW. Bicycle parking is in each building's garage and the front yard. There are existing bus stops within two blocks on highway 99 and a few minutes walk to 72nd Ave W. See attached Vicinity Plan for details. 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. The townhouses have a driveway on the west side of the buildings and the pedestrian walkway at the east side of the buildings. Both are connected to 210th St SW. That layout provides direct and safe access for the residents and visitors. Along the driveway, front area along 210th St SW, and pedestrian walkway, there will be landscape to beautify the surroundings. Packet Pg. 254 D.1.a A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying 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. On the front setback area facing 2101" St SW, there will be landscape areas and low height hedge to beautify the surroundings and provide clear transition between the public sidewalk and the private residential areas. Evergreen trees will be planted in the front landscape area to enhance the transition as well. 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. Along the driveway and pedestrian walkway, there will be evergreen trees, flower trees, and low height hedges planted to beautify the landscape area. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. This project will use traditional materials, but it will design the installation patterns, and paint different colors that will enhance the characteristics of the site. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection All Front entrances of the townhouses are under the recessed areas of the building, and are covered by the second floor structure. 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. This project will provide automatic light -controlled LED lighting at all garage doors for driveway and front doors for pedestrian walkway. There will be lighting posts installed along the driveway as well. 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. This project sets up an address number plate for all townhouses at the front of the building facing 210 St. SW with indication of the location of the townhouses. Packet Pg. 255 D.1.a 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. All utility systems will be located toward the side of the building away from the street. Trash bins are hidden from public view, and stored in the front yard of the townhouses. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. There will be block walls along the north side and the corners of the northwest and the northeast corners of the building. Please see the notes on site plan for the top and toe of the wall elevations Evengree plants and flower plants are to be planned along the block walls to integrate the environments. 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. The landscape design utilizes evergreen plants, evergreen trees, and flower trees to provide buffers along the perimeter of the site, and in front of the setback area. Landscape buffers are also provided at the front yards to beautify the front door areas of the units. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass" The forms, rooflines, windows and other elements that are unique to this building are certainly not monotonous. See drawing. 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. This design consists of 6 individually designed townhouses that minimize the bulk of the building. It plans to install metal railings at the second floor level, as well extend the floor area out above the garage at both the 2nd and the 3rd floor levels. Large and tall windows will be installed as well. These elements create horizontal and vertical variations of the building to beautify the design . 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. Packet Pg. 256 D.1.a The design of the individual townhouse is based on its elevation following the natural slope of the environment, so the roof lines of different townhouses form a good balance of symmetry and variations. The window designs are to allow maximum natural light. 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. The exterior walls of this project are modulated by the hanging elevation and footing. That helps to break the fagade down by townhouse and floors. Finish materials are varied between building elements to provide variety in the fagade. Design Objectives for Building Facade A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. The building is sited close to the front setback line parallel to 21oth St SW. It establishes the streetscape to provide a structure with strong individual identity both on its front view and side views. 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 facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. The design utilizes larger windows at all sides of the building where possible, to maximize natural light exposure. The windows are designed to the balance of symmetry and variations of the streetscape. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in fagade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. The primary finish material on the exterior walls is lap siding. Those areas are further broken down by trims at the extended second and third floors. Variety is provided by metal railing at the second floor level above the garage door, as well as by windows trim of different colors, around the third floor windows. A.21 All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Shrubs planted around the property boundaries will be evergreen plants and evergreen trees that meet and exceed the type 2 and type 3 landscape standards. They should provide screening functions in summer and in winter. Packet Pg. 257 D.1.a Compliance with Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas This project is not located in any of the specific areas listed in this section, so none of these urban design goals apply to this project. Compliance with Streetscape and Trees Goals & Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. Very few of the specific goals of this policy apply to this project. This project will provide evergreen shrubs and trees in the planting strip across the front of the site in compliance with City standards. Conformance with General Zoning regulations The lot for this project is zoned RM-1.5. The primary permitted use for this zoning is multiple dwellings at a maximum density of 1500 SF of lot area per unit [ECDC Sec.16.30]. The area of this lot is 11, 326 SF The maximum number of housing units allowed on the lot is 7. This project will provide 6 units. Per the Site Development standards [ECDC Sec. 16.30.030, Table A], the minimum street setback is 15 and the minimum side setback is 10'. This project complies with all of these setback requirements (see site plan). The maximum coverage for this site is 45%. The project complies with this coverage limitation (see site plan). The maximum allowable building height for this site is 25', which may be extended to 30' if the portion of the building above 25' has a roof slope of 4 in 12 or greater. This project complies with these height limitations (see Elevation plan). This project will provide 6 townhouses. This project provides 12 garage parking spaces for the 6 units of townhouses of the same size (see the first -floor plan). This project fully complies with all regulations regarding off-street parking. Clearing of the site will be required for this project. A Clearing and Grading permit will be obtained before any such work is undertaken. It is anticipated that some of the trees and blackberries on the lot will be removed for the construction of this project. The site contains no environmentally sensitive areas or any native growth protection easements. There are no wetlands on the site nor is any portion of the site within the setback area for a wetland. There is no significant vegetation or wildlife habitat on the site that should be protected. All requirements of ECDC Section 18.45.050 will be complied with by this project. Packet Pg. 258 D.1.a Drainage analysis for this site was done per the 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington with December 2014 Amendments (2014 SWMMWW) and the City of Edmonds 2017 Stormwater Code and Reference Documents. Per EDCD Section 18.30.060, this project is a Category 2 and shall comply with Minimum Requirements #1 through #9. All disturbed lawn and landscaped areas shall be restored to Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the DOE Manual and City of Edmonds Stormwater Code Addendum Checklist 7. Perforated stub -out connections in accordance with BMP T5.10C in Section 3.1.3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW are proposed for roof surfaces associated with this project. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW is also proposed. Because of the few daily trips generated by this project, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. Form E- 82 Traffic Impact worksheet has been submitted. No further information regarding the traffic impact of this project is submitted herewith. We believe this project complies fully with all City of Edmonds Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations that are applicable to this site. We hope that the information we have submitted with this Design Review application will receive your prompt approval. Sincerely, BK Chen 206 3315725 Packet Pg. 259 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION rJ�C. 18910 October 6, 2021 Harr Chen Properties LLC Attn: BK Chen 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION LOCATED AT 7103 2101h St. SW. FILE NO. PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, Staff has reviewed the additional information submitted on September 2, 2021, regarding the design review land use application for the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill townhomes located at 7103 2101h St. SW. During staff s continued review of your application, it has been determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staffs review of the proposal may continue, new comments are below in red. Planning Division Comments: 1. Height: a. ADDRESSED. b. ADDRESSED. STILL NEEDED. Elevation -Front appears to have a portion of the roof over the maximum allowed height (see note attached to plan sheet A-4). Elevation Views Update as necessary with any changes to the height calculation as noted above. d. PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. The dimension is not legible. Label the roof pitch on the elevation plan view. The roof pitch must be 4" in 12" or greater in order to extend five feet above stated height limit. 2. Lot Coverage: a. NEEDED. This does not appear to have been addressed. The 31 floor and 2nd floor with the balcony cover the greatest area, so that area must be used as the building footprint for calculating lot coverage. The lot coverage provided on sheet C 1 used the first -floor area. Lot coverage needs to cover for the area that covers the greatest portion of the lot, so that would be the area of the 3rd floor and, also the balcony if it projects outside of the dimensions of the 3rd floor. The maximum lot coverage is 45%. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 260 D.1.a Per ECDC 21.15.110 Coverage means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. Please make any necessary changes to the lot coverage information provided. b. Verify consistencies with sheet C1 and A-3 regarding floor area measurement. 3. Retaining Wall: a. PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. b. The retaining wall along the northern portion of the lot shows the top and bottom wall elevation, however, please note the top and bottom elevations along the portion of the wall along the eastern and western portion of the lot. All retaining walls over 3 feet from original grade must meet setbacks. Please note that retaining walls may not be greater than 3 feet from original grade within the required setback area. Information has not been provided to verify the height of the retaining wall, please provide additional information. 4. Tree Code Regulations: a. ADDRESSED. b. ADDRESSED. Required Tree Replacement: Per ECDC 23.10.080.D.3 replacement trees shall be primarily native species and thus at least 51 % of all required replacement trees must be of native vegetative species. Per the "Sunset Western Garden Book" 2001 edition by Kathleen Norris Brenzel a Sky Pencil is considered an evergreen shrub not a tree. Shrubs may not be substituted for required replacement trees. It's also uncertain if the fruit/flower tree is a native vegetative species. Tree replacements are required and per the arborist report 41 trees are required as replacement. Because tree F4 is listed as poor condition, replacement trees will not be required for that tree, so the total replacement trees required is 38, and at least 20 of the replacement trees must be of native vegetative species. 5. Landscaping: Ensure proposed above and underground utility locations will not conflict with proposed landscaping. A power vault and underground utilities has been shown in the landscape buffer to the west of the shared access. It's unclear if a 3-ft wide planter will be adequate space to comply with the landscaping requirements as listed below, a minimum of a 4-ft area may be needed. a. NEEDED. A landscape plan meeting the requirement of ECDC 20.13.010 is required. b. NEEDED. Type II landscaping will be required along the northern property boundary since there is a Single -Family use adjacent to the site. Type III landscaping is required everywhere else. c. Type H Landscaping: Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 261 D.1.a NEEDED. As noted above, Sky Pencil is considered an evergreen shrub not a tree, please provide a revised landscape plan. Also noted above, all required replacement trees per the tree code must be primarily native vegetative species. Type II landscaping is required along the northern property boundary. Trees are required at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center with no more than 30% being deciduous. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Please ensure the proposed landscaping is consistent with the Type II landscaping requirements as detailed in ECDC 20.13.030.B. d. Type III Landscaping: NEEDED. As noted above, Sky Pencil is considered an evergreen shrub not a tree, please provide a revised landscape plan. Also noted above, all required replacement trees per the tree code must be primarily native vegetative species. Type III landscaping is required along the southern, eastern and western property boundaries. Trees are required at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center with no more than 50% being deciduous. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and living ground cover should cover the ground within three years of planting. Please ensure the proposed landscaping is consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements as detailed in ECDC 20.13.030.C. e. ADDRESS AS NECESSARY. Deviation from landscaping standards: i. ECDC 20.13.000 allows the Architectural Design Board to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13; provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. If the project proposes modifications of the landscaping requirements detailed in ECDC 20.13, please identify the proposed modifications and demonstrate how the proposed modifications are consistent with ECDC 20.10.000. 2. Parking: a. ADDRESSED. b. STILL NEEDED. Overlap shown on Sheet A-3. It appears that the stairs shown in the garage will be a barrier to meeting the minimum parking stall dimensions of 8.5' x 16' per vehicle, please address. 3. PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. Lighting plan: Please provide a lighting plan. The lighting plan should evaluate all exterior lighting associated with the development. Please provide a lighting plan including exterior lighting, lighting location, height and style of fixtures and intensity of illumination. A complete lighting plan is necessary to evaluation design review criteria ECDC 20.11.030.13.8. Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.030.13.8 exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Additionally excessive brightness shall be avoided, and lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Per the applicant's response letter dated September 1, 2021, automatic light -controlled LED lighting will be provided at all garage doors, front doors, and lighting posts installed along the driveway. Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 262 D.1.a The proposed lighting post along the western property boundary does not appear to provide shielding, lighting must be projected downward on site. It might be better to provide lighting for the pedestrian pathway areas (such as lite bollards or something low- rise) rather than within the landscape area along the western property boundary. Please provide details for the proposed lighting along the garage and front doors, this lighting must be projected downward onto the site. 4. Design Review General Comments a. ADDRESSED. b. ADDRESSED. c. ADDRESSED. 5. General Notes: a. NEEDED. Power vault along western property boundary is required to be screened from street view. A power vault is not shown on the revised landscape plan, if to be located within landscaping areas please note that utilities should be screened from view at street level pursuant to ECDC 20.11.030.A.3. b. ADDRESSED. c. ADDRESSED. d. NOTE. Per the elevation plan view and site plan, no eave is shown on the north and south side of building, please note that eaves may not project more than 30" into a required e. ADDRESSED. f. ADDRESSED. g. ADDRESSED. h. ADDRESSED. For clarity purposes please show on the site plan the setback dimensions for the southern property, midway for the eastern property, and along the western property to the 3rd floor level. (The setback for the west and south is 15 feet and 10 feet for the north and east property boundaries). Add banding on elevation plan view sheets consistent with sheet A-2 (Volume Model) k. Per the site plan (sheet Cl) it appears that a heat pump is proposed within the required setback. Please note that a heat pump or similar may not be greater than 3 feet in height within required setbacks. Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 263 D.1.a 1. I do not see a property survey for the subject site and per google street view a few of the trees are located east of the fence along the eastern property boundary and appear that they could be located on the adjacent property. Please confirm that the trees and property boundaries are accurately shown. Civil sheet SDI shows plantings outside of the property boundary. Please make plans consistent. in. It's unclear if some of the trees located along the eastern property boundary are on the border, although this is a private matter between neighboring properties, the City of Edmonds strongly encourages you to contact the neighbor about the proposed development and potential impacts to the trees early in your planning process. General EnOneerint! Division Comments: For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary development plans (civil plans) to determine project feasibility. The project submittal did not include a preliminary development plan set and therefore, comments provided below may be incomplete. The following comments are provided by Engineering Program Manager, Jeanie McConnell. Please contact Jeanie directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jeanie.mcconnellgedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding her comments. 1. INCOMPLETE. One preliminary civil plan set shall be provided. Plan set shall include all existing and proposed right-of-way improvements (asphalt road, adjacent sidewalks, adjacent driveways, etc.), as well as all existing and proposed utilities. As previously noted, clearly label property lines. Civil plans shall include survey of City right-of-way, existing surface features and utility locations. Clearly label property lines on all plan sheets. 2. ADDRESSED. 3. INCOMPLETE. See comment number 1 above. Civil plans shall be provided as a separate submittal from the drainage report. 4. Hard surface areas: a. ADDRESSED. b. ADDRESSED. c. ADDRESSED. d. INCOMPLETE. Connection to existing adjacent sidewalks has not been shown. A 5-ft wide sidewalk is required along the property frontage, in continuation of the sidewalk to the east. A sidewalk has been shown on some of the plans but not all. Please revise plans to clearly show proposed improvements with connections from on -site walkways, etc. 5. Landscaping: a. This comment is being left for reference until Planning Division landscaping requirements have been fully addressed. Civil plan sheets shall be updated as needed to reflect landscaping revisions. In addition, please note that planting over 3-ft in height directly north of the sidewalk will not be approved as these plantings will create a sight -distance issue. Shared driveway shall be separated from adjacent property driveway to the west by a landscape planter. The plans indicate a 3-ft wide planter, which is not wide enough for the long-term Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 264 D.1.a survivability of trees in this location. A planter of at least a minimum of 4-ft shall be provided or show alternate proposal to provide separation between driveways. b. INCOMPLETE. Spacing between trees has not been provided. Indicate spacing of proposed trees. c. Comment remains for reference. Ensure proposed utility locations will not conflict with proposed landscaping. A power vault has been shown in the 3-ft wide landscape buffer to the west of the shared access. 6. Water System: a. ADDRESSED. b. NOT ADDRESSED. Plans shall include location of all proposed water meters, including service line from City water main to the meter. Refer to Fire Department comments for water meter sizing. Proposed water meter size shall be included on the plans. c. NOT ADDRESSED. Revise as needed to avoid conflicts with proposed plantings. Water service lines shall be shown from meter to each unit. Refer to Fire Department comments for water service sizing. Pipe size and material shall be included on the plans. d. Comment remains for reference. Water system shall be separated from sewer a minimum of 10-ft. 7. Sewer System: a. ADDRESSED. b. Proposed sewer is shown to connect to an 8" line on the adjacent property to the west. Provide reference to easement within adjacent property. Show existing sewer from City main to the property line and indicate pipe size. c. ADDRESSED. d. NOT ADDRESSED. Label pipe material and provide pipe invert elevations to confirm feasibility. 8. Storm System: a. INCOMPLETE. Label pipe size and catch basins. The line on the adjacent property to the west is private, not public. Please label as such. Show public storm system in 210th St SW. b. Comment remains for reference. Show connection to City system and provide invert elevations. c. ADDRESSED. 9. Dry Utilities: a. INCOMPLETE. Only power has been shown. Show proposed location of power, phone, gas, cable. 10. Recycling/trash: a. INCOMPLETE. Did not find note within plan sheets that addressed this comment. A trash enclosure is not required for this project. However, space must be indicated in each garage for storage of individual waste containers. Please show the area on the floor plan that will be designated for garbage containers. Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 265 D.1.a Stormwater Engineer Comments: Refer to separate review comments by City Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson. Please contact Zack directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Zachary.richardson(cedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Transportation Impact Analvsis: ADDRESSED. Fire Department Comments: Comment carry over for reference only. South County Fire provided the following comments: • Required fire sprinkler system (see attached letter) Comments may be addressed with the subsequent building permit submittal. Please contact Karl Fitterer directly at 425-771-0213 or by email at kfitterernsouthsnofire.org with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Please provide a complete response to the comments including a cover letter stating how each comment was addressed. Please submit the above information to the Planning Division as soon as possible so that staff may continue processing your application. According to ECDC 20.02.003.D the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days (or by January 4, 2022) or the application will expire. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at mchele. szafran(d), edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Michele Q. Szafran/Planner Attachments: Stormwater Comments Fire Lane Standards Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 266 ------------ ---------------- -- ---------------------- lamilmillmill -- ---------------- EE - Ilo��lo��lo��lol� ICI ICI ICI ICI _•- - = lol lol _ lol -I lol I ICI ICI ICI ICI = = ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI �„I�I ICI ICI ICI_•_ -------------------- -------------- - --- II�.ITII FII lol lol lol lol ------------ ------------ ------------ 01 , S i - -- lol lol lol lol ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICI ICIMl I.I■.�I ICI ICI I�II�=1 Iol lol lol lol ICI ICI ICI ICI II�111�111�111�11 • q' • • D.1.a I 1'-6 1/4" 13'-7 1 /2" 2q'-1 13/ 16" GROUND FLOOR 333 50 FT ., . 40'-q" 3RD FLOOR lq8 !Ba FT 11'--13/16" 1'-6 1/4" v 3q'-q" 3q'-T II I I I I = 524R I 624R BAR B24R I ❑G536R � Ul I� Ln o Ul F--8241 SR+5241 DR Y�ALL BELOV� lI 0 r L5241 SR—LB2416R J cv ry FAMILY I KITCHEN o .� cv 15'-8" X 1 q'-1123'-1 " X 1 q'-11- f� � Ln I � ry t} m NTH UP o Ln 0 16'-5 1/4" 1 T-6 1/4 5'-q 1 /2" 3q'-q" 2ND FLOOR S46 5a FT z O w U) w Lu J m 000 � w z O_w U) (If LLJ w O Qm 0O w m Z) z N W U)00 O U') O U') Q z� 0z U M o O = � w J O a O 00 _ m U � Q m LU F-- L o C) LV LU W O a cn = 00 O W z M J J Q W 0 DATE: 8/30/2021 SCALE: SHEET: A-3 Packet Pg. 268 I D.1.a I To: Date: Project Name: STO RM WATE R REVIEW COMMENTS City of Edmonds Engineering Division Applicant September 17, 2021 Edmonds Greenhill Permit Number: PLN2021-0018 Address: 7103 210t" St SW Review Type: Design Review (Prelim) Submittal Date: 9/2/2021 Reviewer: Zack Richardson, PE City of Edmonds, Stormwater Engineer Recommendation: I recommend that preliminary approval of PLN2021-0018 be withheld until the comments below is addressed. Review Comments: 1. While it is recognized that the proposed trench is equivalent in volume to the prescriptive trench, there is also a more than 40% reduction in infiltration surface area which makes it difficult to confirm as "equivalent", and dimensions are tight enough that it is not clear that future revisions would not impact the site plan and/or building footprints. a. Provide further explanation of how the proposed reduced -area footprint is equivalent to the prescribed trench sizing, provide supporting information as needed, OR b. Adjust trench as needed to provide equivalent volume and area, OR c. Revise design to model the trench for 100% infiltration using the geotechnical recommended infiltration rate. i. With a design rate of 2.88 in/hr; the overall size of the trench may actually decrease with this method. ii. Make sure to use "Puget East 36" hydrology data in modelling. 2. Update plans and report to address overflow from system: a. If designed with prescriptive sizing, overflows are fully anticipated, and a piped overflow connection to the City system is required. b. If designed for 100% infiltration, surface overflow may be permitted if shown to not create any erosion, flooding, or freezing nuisances. Show overflow route and describe in report as needed. Pa Packet Pg. 269 D.1.a SOUTH COUNTY FIRE 12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208 tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249 www.southsnat t re.arg City of Edmonds Department of Fire Prevention Plan Review DATE: 4-30-21 PERMIT #: PLN-2021-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWN HOMES JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Edmonds Greenhill 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA FIRE PLAN REVIEW NOTES: 1. Required fire sprinkler system, Town homes are permitted to install a 13D sprinkler system. Deferred submittal for the sprinkler system. Addressing and driveway signage/markings at final 2. Townhomes: A residential fire sprinkler system is required. A recommended flow -through design will meet specifications and reduce equipment and continuing maintenance requirements. ECDC19.05.020132. Provide a minimum combination water service of one inch (1") meter and one and one half (11/2") service line, or show that domestic and fire protection needs can be met with a smaller service. Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer _southsnofire.org SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD + MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 270 D.1.a Harr Chen Properties, LLC. Attn: BK Chen 9110 178t" PI SW Edmonds WA 98026 (206) 331-5725 Date: Jan. 3rd,2021 City of Edmonds, Planning department Attn: Michele Szafran 120 5t" Ave. North, Edmonds WA 98020 Re: Design review for townhouse plan at 7103 210,^ St SW Edmonds WA 98026 File No. PLN2021-0018 Dear Michele, This letter and attached plans are to provide addition information and clarification requested in your letter of Oct. 6t", 2021. 1 will use the letters and the numbers from your letter to organize the information. Planning Division Comments: 1. Height c. "Elevation front" view has been updated to be within the maximum height limit. d. Roof pitch labeling has been added to Elevation plan. 2. Lot coverage a. The 3rd floor and the 2nd floor balcony areas have been added to building footprint to calculate lot coverage area. It is 45.3%. 1 hope this little variation is acceptable. b. Sheet C1 and A-3 floor measurement have been reconciled. 3. Retaining wall: a. The retaining wall issues have been addressed in b. b. Retaining walls are not over 3 feet from original grade. Height of the east and west portion of the retaining have been provided on the plan. 4. Tree code regulations: c. Required tree replacement: There are 38 total replacement trees required and 20 of them need to be native species. Based on our conversations with Snohomish WSU Master Gardener Office, we have identified and plan to plant 6 native fruit trees (Rainer cherries or Bing cherries) and 14 native evergreen trees that include a combination of "Incent cedar", "Golden lodgepole pine", "Shore pine", and "Mountain hemlock". We ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 271 D.1.a will also consider "Pacific yew tree" if acceptable. The remaining 18 replacement trees are to be "Taylor juniper tree" for its beauty and the suitability to the environment. 5. Landscaping: We will make sure the utility connection boxes are covered well by the landscaping plants and installed screen, if the screen is needed. We plan to select "Taylor juniper tree" as the trees along the west side of the property for a 3-ft wide planting area for its beauty and shape. The tree has a 3 feet maturity width. Shrubs and groundcover between the trees will be planned. The proposed electricity box will be 3 feet long and 2 feet wide leveled with ground. There will be no issues to cover any utility boxes in that planting area with shrubs, groundcover, or screen. a. A landscape plan meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.13.010 is provided in this submission b. A Type 2 landscaping has been included along northern border of the property in the landscape plan. A type 3 landscaping has been designed on the plan for rest of the 3 sides of the property. c. The northern border has 6 existing evergreen trees. Additional 7 evergreen trees will be planted. That meets the type 2 landscape area of less than 30% deciduous trees and less than 20 feet apart between trees. Shrubs and groundcover will be planted around and between trees to meet the type 2 landscaping requirements. d. Type 3 landscaping for the eastern, western and southern property lines. As previous comment has provided, 4 types of native evergreen trees and Taylor juniper trees will be chosen to plant around the boarder areas. There will be 13 Taylor Juniper trees planted at the west side of the boarder along the shared driveway to the 15 feet point from the southwest corner of the property for the visibility of the drivers. Shrub and groundcover will be planted between the trees. There will be 7 native evergreen trees and 6 native fruit trees (Cherries) to be planted along the eastern boarder of the property. There will 5 Taylor Juniper evergreen trees to be planted along the southern boarder of the property. All three boarders in this section have more than 50% evergreen trees and they are less than 30 feet apart. Therefore, all 3 boarder areas of planning have met the requirements of the type 3 landscaping. e. Possible deviation from landscaping standards: Per current plan, there is no deviation from the landscaping standards. 2. Parking: b. A slider view of the stairs from the first floor to second floor has been provided to show that there is no barrier to the parking space in the garage to meet the dimension requirements of 8.5 x 16' per vehicle. 3. Light plan has been updated per ECDC 20.11.030.13.8 5. General notes: a. Power vault has been added to landscaping plan and note added to screen the power vault from street view. Packet Pg. 272 D.1.a d. Eave has been marked on the south and north side of the building. i. Information has been added for the setback lengths of all sides of the property. j. Band has been added on the elevation view to be consist with volume model. k. Note has been added that the heat pump is lower than 3 feet. I. We can confirm that the trees are located inside our property line. Based on the description of the deed of the property, the east property line is outside all the existing trees in the area. The fence shown in the Google Street view was built many feet inside the property line to use the tree trucks as the support posts. The west side of the yellow concrete driveway boarder for the eastern neighbor's driveway is the property boarder line. When the building permit gets approved, we will coordinate with neighbors for the tree works when needed. General engineering division comments: 1. Preliminary civil plan has been provided with all existing utilities, property lines, surface features, etc. 2. Addressed 3. Civil plan has submitted as a separate plan. 4. d. Front sidewalk and walkway have been updated on all plans. 5. Landscaping: a. This issue has been addressed in the landscaping section. b. Spacing between trees has been marked on the plan. c. This issue has been addressed in landscaping section. 6. Water system: b. Water meter will be at the same location of the current water meters. Please see plans for details. one. c. Water meters lines to each unit has been added. d. Water lines are more than 10 feet from sewer line. 7. Sewer system: b. Sewer line will be connected to the city sewer at the same location as the current d. Sewer pine materials is labeled, and elevation indicated. 8. Storm system: will be addressed by the storm system engineer Ms. Jie Sheng. Packet Pg. 273 D.1.a 9. Dry utilities. a. Cable and fiber connection location have been marked on the utility plan. No gas is available and needed for this project. No old phone line is needed. Landline will be provided by cable or fiber services. 10. Recycling/trash a. recycle bin and trash can storage locations have been indicated on the plan in the front door area of the townhouses. Packet Pg. 274 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'Il 18y10 January 28, 2022 Harr Chen Properties LLC Attn: BK Chen 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION LOCATED AT 7103 2101h St. SW. FILE NO. PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, Staff has reviewed the additional information submitted on January 4, 2022, regarding the design review land use application for the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill townhomes located at 7103 2101h St. SW. During staff s continued review of your application, it has been determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staffs review of the proposal may continue, new comments are below in red. Planning Division Comments: 1. Height: (Please add the height elevation points back on the site plan sheet C 1.) a-d. ADDRESSED. 2. Lot Coverage: a. STILL NEEDED. This has not been addressed and must be addressed prior to staff recommendation and design review hearing decision. Please be sure to use the largest area and correct the plans to be no more than 45% lot coverage. Please be sure to include entire building area including after the decimal point in the calculation. Although it may not be required at this time it's strongly encouraged to provide a site survey to be sure of accuracy of plans, a survey may help verify the lot area for lot coverage verification as well. October 6, 2021: The 3rd floor and 2nd floor with the balcony cover the greatest area, so that area must be used as the building footprint for calculating lot coverage. The lot coverage provided on sheet C 1 used the first -floor area. b. ADDRESSSED. 3. Retaining Wall: a & b: ADDRESSED. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 275 D.1.a 4. Tree Code Regulations: (Please note that per the new tree code any tree with a 24" DBH or greater will be subject to tree appraisal for removal. There are a couple of large trees along the eastern property boundary that will be subject to appraisal that appear able to be retained, so you may want to consider retaining those trees if possible.) Tree appraisals will be required at the time of building permit.) a & b ADDRESSED. Required Tree Replacement: (Addressed for now, trees have been shown but as a condition of approval it will need to be verified with the building permit that replacement trees are primarily native species (at least 5 1 % native)). 5. Landscaping: Screening of utilities will be required as a recommended condition. a. PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. See items c and d below. b. PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. See items c and d below. c. Type HLandscaping: Please provide on the site plan if not then will be made a condition for building permit submittal. i. Per ECDC 20.13.030.13.2 shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height and other plant materials will be required that cover the ground within 3 years. This will be made a recommended staff condition and must be shown on the plans for building permit review. d. Type III Landscaping: Please provide the below items on the site plan if not then will be made a condition for building permit submittal. i. Per ECDC 20.13.030.C.2 for the south and east property boundaries a staff report condition will require shrubs with a minimum height of 3.5 feet and other plant materials to cover the ground within 3 years. ii. Per ECDC 20.13.030.C.3 the west property boundary will be conditioned to provide any of the following. The proposed plantings must be shown on the plans for building permit review. a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. e. ADDRESSED. i. ADDRESSED. Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 276 6. Parking: (Please note that the minimum parking stall is 16.5' in length rather than 16 feet as previously stated. It appears that there is adequate room but please correct on the plan.) a & b: ADDRESSED. 7. Lighting plan: PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. The proposed garage lighting does not appear to be projected downward on the site, please provide lighting that is shielded to prevent light from going off site. M.S.S. LIGHT- TWO -LIGHT BRONZE 180-DEGREE MOTION SENSOR SECURITY LIGHT MOUNTED 7' ABOVE GARAGE FLOOR 8. Design Review General Comments a-c: ADDRESSED. 9. General Notes: a-k: ADDRESSED. Height of the bollard may not be greater than 3 feet in height within required setbacks. NB_ LIGHT - BLAZE 42' HIGH DARK BRONZE 5000K LED SWARE BDLLARD LIGHT -STYLE #160AI Although it may not be required at this time it's strongly encouraged to provide a site survey to be sure of accuracy of plans. The applicant/property owner is responsible for ensuring accuracy of plans. October 6, 2021: I do not see a property survey for the subject site and per google street view a few of the trees are located east of the fence along the eastern property boundary and appear that they could be located on the adjacent property. Please Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 277 D.1.a confirm that the trees and property boundaries are accurately shown. Civil sheet SDI shows plantings outside of the property boundary. Please make plans consistent. in. ADDRESSED. General Engineering Division Comments: Comments will be provided as soon as they are received. Stormwater Engineer Comments: ADDRESSED FOR PRELIMINARY Transportation Impact Analvsis: ADDRESSED. Fire Department Comments: Comment carry over for reference only. South County Fire provided the following comments: • Required fire sprinkler system (see attached letter) Comments may be addressed with the subsequent building permit submittal. Please contact Karl Fitterer directly at 425-771-0213 or by email at kfitterernsouthsnofire.org with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Please provide a complete response to the comments including a cover letter stating how each comment was addressed. Please submit the above information to the Planning Division as soon as possible so that staff may continue processing your application. According to ECDC 20.02.003.D the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days (or by April 28, 2022) or the application will expire. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at mchele. szafran(d), edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Michele Q. Szafran/Planner Attachments: Fire Lane Standards Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 278 D.1.a SOUTH COUNTY FIRE 12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208 tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249 www.southsnat t re.arg City of Edmonds Department of Fire Prevention Plan Review DATE: 4-30-21 PERMIT #: PLN-2021-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWN HOMES JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Edmonds Greenhill 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA FIRE PLAN REVIEW NOTES: 1. Required fire sprinkler system, Town homes are permitted to install a 13D sprinkler system. Deferred submittal for the sprinkler system. Addressing and driveway signage/markings at final 2. Townhomes: A residential fire sprinkler system is required. A recommended flow -through design will meet specifications and reduce equipment and continuing maintenance requirements. ECDC19.05.020132. Provide a minimum combination water service of one inch (1") meter and one and one half (11/2") service line, or show that domestic and fire protection needs can be met with a smaller service. Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer _southsnofire.org SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD + MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 279 D.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM January 31, 2022 Michelle Szafran, Planning Division Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Division PLN2021-0018 — Design Review Edmonds Greenhill — 7013 2101h St SW Comments 1 — May 28, 2021 Comments 2 — October 6, 2021 Comments 3 — January 31, 2022 General Engineering Division Comments: For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary development plans (civil plans) to determine project feasibility. The project submittal did not include a preliminary development plan set and therefore, comments provided below may be incomplete. The following comments are provided by Engineering Program Manager, Jeanie McConnell. Please contact Jeanie directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jeanie.mcconnellkedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding her comments. 1. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. The drainage plan is still separate from other "civil" plan sheets. 10/6/2021- INCOMPLETE. One preliminary civil plan set shall be provided. Plan set shall include all existing and proposed right-of-way improvements (asphalt road, adjacent sidewalks, adjacent driveways, etc.), as well as all existing and proposed utilities. As previously noted, clearly label property lines. 5/28/2021 - Civil plans shall include survey of City right-of-way, existing surface features and utility locations. Clearly label property lines on all plan sheets. 2. 10/6/2021 - ADDRESSED. 3. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. The drainage plan has been provided separate from the drainage report but has not been included as part of the civil plan set. All utilities, drainage included, are part of the civil plan set. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. See comment number 1 above. 5/28/2021 - Civil plans shall be provided as a separate submittal from the drainage report. 4. Hard surface areas: a. ADDRESSED. Packet Pg. 280 b. ADDRESSED. c. ADDRESSED. d. 1/31/2022 - INCOMPLETE. A sidewalk has been shown on the drainage plan, but not labeled on other plan sheets to clearly indicate a sidewalk will be installed as part of this development project. Please revise plans accordingly. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Connection to existing adjacent sidewalks has not been shown. 5/28/2021 - A 5-ft wide sidewalk is required along the property frontage, in continuation of the sidewalk to the east. A sidewalk has been shown on some of the plans but not all. Please revise plans to clearly show proposed improvements with connections from on -site walkways, etc. 5. Landscaping: 1/31/2022 comment - No further comments provided within this landscaping section. Comments TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. Please note, plans still indicate a 3-ft wide landscape strip. Please note, this is not an acceptable width for trees, but shrubs may be allowed as indicated by the Planning Division. a. 10/6/2021 - This comment is being left for reference until Planning Division landscaping requirements have been fully addressed. Civil plan sheets shall be updated as needed to reflect landscaping revisions. In addition, please note that planting over 3-ft in height directly north of the sidewalk will not be approved as these plantings will create a sight -distance issue. 5/8/2021 - Shared driveway shall be separated from adjacent property driveway to the west by a landscape planter. The plans indicate a 3-ft wide planter, which is not wide enough for the long-term survivability of trees in this location. A planter of at least a minimum of 4-ft shall be provided or show alternate proposal to provide separation between driveways. b. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Spacing between trees has not been provided. 5/8/2021 - Indicate spacing of proposed trees. c. 10/6/2021 - Comment remains for reference. 5/8/2021 - Ensure proposed utility locations will not conflict with proposed landscaping. A power vault has been shown in the 3-ft wide landscape buffer to the west of the shared access. 6. Water System: a. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 -ADDRESSED c. 1/31/2022 -ADDRESSED d. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. Proposed water service lines are not shown in a location that allows for proper connection to a water meter, realistic alignment of pipe materials and does not have proper separation from the sanitary sewer line. 10/6/2021 - Comment remains for reference. 5/8/2021 - Water system shall be separated from sewer a minimum of 10-ft. 7. Sewer System: a. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 - ADDRESSED. Plans revised to show connection at City main line in 210th St SW. 10/6/2021 - Proposed sewer is shown to connect to an 8" line on the adjacent Packet Pg. 281 property to the west. Provide reference to easement within adjacent property. 5/8/2021 - Show existing sewer from City main to the property line and indicate pipe size. c. 10/6/2021 - ADDRESSED d. 1/31/2022 - NOT ADDRESSED 10/6/2021 - NOT ADDRESSED. 5/8/2021 - Label pipe material and provide pipe invert elevations to confirm feasibility. 8. Storm System: a. 1/31/2022 — ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 — ADDRESSED c. 10/6/2021 - ADDRESSED 9. Dry Utilities: a. 1/31/2022 — INCOMPLETE. Proposed cable and fiber utilities have been shown to be in direct conflict with the water service lines. The critical point to convey during design review is that there is sufficient space on site to accommodate the utility needs. Please also refer to the water service line comment, which indicates insufficient separation between water and sewer lines. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Only power has been shown. 5/8/2021 - Show proposed location of power, phone, gas, cable. 10. Recycling/trash: a. 1/31/2022 — INCOMPLETE. Response comments say this was addressed, but I was not able to find notes within the plans provided. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Did not find note within plan sheets that addressed this comment. 5/8/2021 - A trash enclosure is not required for this project. However, space must be indicated in each garage for storage of individual waste containers. Please show the area on the floor plan that will be designated for garbage containers. 11. 1/31/2022 — As noted by the Planning Division, floor plans need to be revised to indicate parking stall dimensions consistent with City standards — 8'/2' x 16 %'. Packet Pg. 282 D.1.a Harr Chen Properties, LLC. Attn: BK Chen 9110 178" PI SW Edmonds WA 98026 (206) 331-5725 Date: March 10th,2022 City of Edmonds, Planning department Attn: Michele Szafran 120 5th Ave. North Edmonds WA 98020 Re: Design review for townhouse plan at 7103 210,, St SW Edmonds WA 98026 File No. PLN2021-0018 Dear Michele, This letter and attached plans are to provide additional information and clarification requested in your letter of Jan. 28th, 2022. 1 will use the letters and the numbers from your letter to organize the information. Planning Division Comments: 1. Height c. "height elevation points" have been added back to the site plan sheet Cl. 2. Lot coverage a. The largest building area has been adjusted and computed to less than 45%. Lot survey is planned. Adjustment, if needed, will be made based on the survey report when the building permit application is submitted. 4. Tree code regulations: 5 more trees along the east border will be retained. Please see the plan for the locations. Replacement tree locations are adjusted to accommodate the changes. 5. Landscaping: c. Notes are added to the site plan that Per ECDC 20.13.030.13.2 shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height and other plant materials will be required that cover the ground within 3 years. d. For Type 3 landscaping for the eastern, western and southern property lines, notes are added that Per ECDC 20.13.030.13.2 shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height and other plant materials will be required that cover the ground within 3 years. 6. Parking: ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 283 D.1.a eM 16.5' park stall length has been corrected on the plan. 7. Garage lighting has been modified to have downward projection. Height of the bollar is within 9. General notes: 1. Land surveying is ordered and is planned to be done in a month. General engineering division comments: 4. d. Front sidewalk and walkway indicators have been labeled on the civil plan. 5. Landscaping: This is to answer questions about the type 3 landscaping requirements along the west border of the property. The type 3 landscaping requires that trees are to be less than 30 feets apart, and with shrubs and ground cover planted in between. To be in harmony with the surrounding environments, we have designed the plant strip to be 3 feet wide and carefully selected suitable trees called "Taylor Juniper tree". The trees are slim and beautiful, with a maximum maturity width of 3 feet. The trees will blend well with the shrubs, the ground covers, and provide more sunshine to the neighboring planting strip right next to your property. Compared with other options, this landscaping design provides the best choice "to minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent community development and reduce community property values. "(EDCC 20.10.000) That design should meet the EDCC regulations for the type 3 landscaping. 6. Water system: b. New water meters will be in the same area of the current water meter. Please see plans for details. c. Water meters lines to each unit have been added, and they are on the east side of the building, far away from the sewer line and cable/optical lines. No gas line is needed. d. Water lines are more than 10 feet from the sewer line now. 7. Sewer system: b. Sewer line will be connected to the city sewer at the same location as the current one. Please let me know if any further information is needed. Thanks, BK Chen 206 3315725 Packet Pg. 284 D.1.a Q Packet Pg. 285 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION March 31, 2022 Harr Chen Properties LLC Attn: BK Chen 9110 1781h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION LOCATED AT 7103 2101h St. SW. FILE NO. PLN2021-0018 Dear Mr. Chen, Staff has reviewed the additional information submitted on March 14, 2022, regarding the design review land use application for the proposed 6-unit Edmonds Greenhill townhomes located at 7103 2101h St. SW. During staff s continued review of your application, it has been determined that additional information/clarification is necessary. Please provide responses to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staffs review of the proposal may continue, new comments are below in red. Planning Division Comments: 1. Height: ADDRESSED. a-d. ADDRESSED. 2. Lot Coverage: a. ADDRESSED. Subject to further review at time of building permit. b. ADDRESSSED. 3. Retaining Wall: a & b: ADDRESSED. 4. Tree Code Regulations: ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of building permit. a & b ADDRESSED. c. Required Tree Replacement: ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of building permit. 5. Landscaping: Screening of utilities will be required as a recommended condition. a. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 286 D.1.a b. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. c. Type II Landscaping: i. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. d. Type III Landscaping: i. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. ii. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. a. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. b. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. c. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of ADB hearing or building permit. e. ADDRESSED. i. ADDRESSED. 6. Parking: ADDRESSED. a & b: ADDRESSED. 7. Lighting plan: ADDRESSED. 8. Design Review General Comments a-c: ADDRESSED. 9. General Notes: a-k: ADDRESSED. 1. ADDRESSED. Further review will be at time of building permit. m. ADDRESSED. General Engineering Division Comments: See attached Memo from Jeanie dated March 30, 2022. Stormwater Engineer Comments: ADDRESSED FOR PRELIMINARY Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 287 D.1.a Transportation Impact Analysis: ADDRESSED. Fire Department Comments: Comment carry over for reference only. South County Fire provided the following comments: • Required fire sprinkler system (see attached letter) Comments may be addressed with the subsequent building permit submittal. Please contact Karl Fitterer directly at 425-771-0213 or by email at kfitterernsouthsnofire.org with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. Please provide a complete response to the comments including a cover letter stating how each comment was addressed. Please submit the above information to the Planning Division as soon as possible so that staff may continue processing your application. According to ECDC 20.02.003.D the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days (or by June 29, 2022) or the application may expire. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at mchele. szafran(c edmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Michele Q. Szafran/Planner Attachments: Engineering Memo Stormwater Comments Fire Lane Standards Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 288 D.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM March 30, 2022 Michelle Szafran, Planning Division Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Division PLN2021-0018 — Design Review Edmonds Greenhill — 7013 2101h St SW Comments 1 — May 28, 2021 Comments 2 — October 6, 2021 Comments 3 — January 31, 2022 Comments 4 — March 30, 2022 General Engineering Division Comments: For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary development plans (civil plans) to determine project feasibility. The project submittal did not include a preliminary development plan set and therefore, comments provided below may be incomplete. The following comments are provided by Engineering Program Manager, Jeanie McConnell. Please contact Jeanie directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jeanie.mcconnell&edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding her comments. 1. March 30, 2022 — The recent submittal combined the drainage plan with the other civil plans sheets, but unfortunately the most updated drainage plan was not used. Please revise accordingly. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. The drainage plan is still separate from other "civil" plan sheets. 10/6/2021- INCOMPLETE. One preliminary civil plan set shall be provided. Plan set shall include all existing and proposed right-of-way improvements (asphalt road, adjacent sidewalks, adjacent driveways, etc.), as well as all existing and proposed utilities. As previously noted, clearly label property lines. 5/28/2021 - Civil plans shall include survey of City right-of-way, existing surface features and utility locations. Clearly label property lines on all plan sheets. 2. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED. 3. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. The drainage plan has been provided separate from the drainage report but has not been included as part of the civil plan set. All utilities, drainage included, are part of the civil plan set. Packet Pg. 289 D.1.a 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. See comment number I above. 5/28/2021 - Civil plans shall be provided as a separate submittal from the drainage report. 4. Hard surface areas: a. ADDRESSED. b. ADDRESSED. c. ADDRESSED. d. March 30, 2022 — ADDRESSED. Sidewalk has now been shown on the civil plan sheet. 1/31/2022 - INCOMPLETE. A sidewalk has been shown on the drainage plan, but not labeled on other plan sheets to clearly indicate a sidewalk will be installed as part of this development project. Please revise plans accordingly. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Connection to existing adjacent sidewalks has not been shown. 5/28/2021 - A 5-ft wide sidewalk is required along the property frontage, in continuation of the sidewalk to the east. A sidewalk has been shown on some of the plans but not all. Please revise plans to clearly show proposed improvements with connections from on -site walkways, etc. 5. Landscaping: 1/31/2022 comment - No further comments provided within this landscaping section. Comments TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. Please note, plans still indicate a 3-ft wide landscape strip. Please note, this is not an acceptable width for trees, but shrubs may be allowed as indicated by the Planning Division. a. 10/6/2021 - This comment is being left for reference until Planning Division landscaping requirements have been fully addressed. Civil plan sheets shall be updated as needed to reflect landscaping revisions. In addition, please note that planting over 3-ft in height directly north of the sidewalk will not be approved as these plantings will create a sight -distance issue. 5/8/2021 - Shared driveway shall be separated from adjacent property driveway to the west by a landscape planter. The plans indicate a 3-ft wide planter, which is not wide enough for the long-term survivability of trees in this location. A planter of at least a minimum of 4-ft shall be provided or show alternate proposal to provide separation between driveways. b. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Spacing between trees has not been provided. 5/8/2021 - Indicate spacing of proposed trees. c. 10/6/2021 - Comment remains for reference. 5/8/2021 - Ensure proposed utility locations will not conflict with proposed landscaping. A power vault has been shown in the 3-ft wide landscape buffer to the west of the shared access. 6. Water System: a. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 -ADDRESSED c. 1/31/2022 -ADDRESSED d. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. Proposed water service lines are not shown in a location that allows for proper connection to a water meter, realistic alignment of pipe materials and does not have proper separation from the sanitary sewer line. Packet Pg. 290 D.1.a 10/6/2021 - Comment remains for reference. 5/8/2021 - Water system shall be separated from sewer a minimum of 10-ft. 7. Sewer System: a. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 - ADDRESSED. Plans revised to show connection at City main line in 2 1 & St SW. 10/6/2021 - Proposed sewer is shown to connect to an 8" line on the adjacent property to the west. Provide reference to easement within adjacent property. 5/8/2021 - Show existing sewer from City main to the property line and indicate pipe size. c. 10/6/2021 - ADDRESSED d. March 30, 2022 — NOT ADDRESSED 1/31/2022 - NOT ADDRESSED 10/6/2021 - NOT ADDRESSED. 5/8/2021 - Label pipe material and provide pipe invert elevations to confirm feasibility. 8. Storm System: a. 1/31/2022 — ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 — ADDRESSED c. 10/6/2021 - ADDRESSED 9. Dry Utilities: a. March 30, 2022 — PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. Water meters have been relocated, but only the cable/fiber comm box is showing on the plans. Revise plans to show dry utility corridor that will be provided. 1/31/2022 — INCOMPLETE. Proposed cable and fiber utilities have been shown to be in direct conflict with the water service lines. The critical point to convey during design review is that there is sufficient space on site to accommodate the utility needs. Please also refer to the water service line comment, which indicates insufficient separation between water and sewer lines. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Only power has been shown. 5/8/2021 - Show proposed location of power, phone, gas, cable. 10. Recycling/trash: a. March 30, 2022 -ADDRESSED 1/31/2022 — INCOMPLETE. Response comments say this was addressed, but I was not able to find notes within the plans provided. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Did not find note within plan sheets that addressed this comment. 5/8/2021 - A trash enclosure is not required for this project. However, space must be indicated in each garage for storage of individual waste containers. Please show the area on the floor plan that will be designated for garbage containers. 11. March 30, 2022 —ADDRESSED. 1/31/2022 — As noted by the Planning Division, floor plans need to be revised to indicate parking stall dimensions consistent with City standards — 8 %2' x 16 1/z'. Packet Pg. 291 D.1.a SOUTH COUNTY FIRE 12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208 tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249 www.southsnat t re.arg City of Edmonds Department of Fire Prevention Plan Review DATE: 4-30-21 PERMIT #: PLN-2021-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWN HOMES JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Edmonds Greenhill 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA FIRE PLAN REVIEW NOTES: 1. Required fire sprinkler system, Town homes are permitted to install a 13D sprinkler system. Deferred submittal for the sprinkler system. Addressing and driveway signage/markings at final 2. Townhomes: A residential fire sprinkler system is required. A recommended flow -through design will meet specifications and reduce equipment and continuing maintenance requirements. ECDC19.05.020132. Provide a minimum combination water service of one inch (1") meter and one and one half (11/2") service line, or show that domestic and fire protection needs can be met with a smaller service. Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer _southsnofire.org SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD + MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 292 D.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM March 30, 2022 Michelle Szafran, Planning Division Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Division PLN2021-0018 — Design Review Edmonds Greenhill — 7013 2101h St SW Comments 1 — May 28, 2021 Comments 2 — October 6, 2021 Comments 3 — January 31, 2022 Comments 4 — March 30, 2022 drawing background General Engineering Division Comments: updated For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary development plans (civil plans) to determine project feasibility. The project submittal did not include a preliminary development plan set and therefore, comments provided below may be incomplete. rhe following comments are provided by Engineering Program Manager, Jeanie McConnell. Please contact Jeanie directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at jeanie.mcconnell&edmondswa.gov ith any March 30, 2022 — The recent submittal combined the drainage plan with the other civil plans sheets, but unfortunately the most updated drainage plan was not used. Please revise accordingly. plan is still separate from other "civil" plan sheets. 10/6/2021- INCOMPLETE. One preliminary civil plan set shall be provided. Plan set shall include all existing and proposed right-of-way improvements (asphalt road, adjacent sidewalks, adjacent driveways, etc.), as well as all existing and proposed utilities. As previously noted, clearly label property lines. 5/28/2021 - Civil plans shall include survey of City right-of-way, existing surface features and utility locations. Clearly label property lines on all plan sheets. 2. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED. 3. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. The drainage plan has been provided separate from the drainage report but has not been included as part of the civil plan set. All utilities, drainage included, are part of the civil plan set. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 293 D.1.a 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. See comment number I above. 5/28/2021 - Civil plans shall be provided as a separate submittal from the drainage report. 4. Hard surface areas: a. ADDRESSED. b. ADDRESSED. c. ADDRESSED. d. March 30, 2022 — ADDRESSED. Sidewalk has now been shown on the civil plan sheet. 1/31/2022 - INCOMPLETE. A sidewalk has been shown on the drainage plan, but not labeled on other plan sheets to clearly indicate a sidewalk will be installed as part of this development project. Please revise plans accordingly. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Connection to existing adjacent sidewalks has not been shown. 5/28/2021 - A 5-ft wide sidewalk is required along the property frontage, in continuation of the sidewalk to the east. A sidewalk has been shown on some of the plans but not all. Please revise plans to clearly show proposed improvements with connections from on -site walkways, etc. 5. Landscaping: 1/31/2022 comment - No further comments provided within this landscaping section. Comments TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. Please note, plans still indicate a 3-ft wide landscape strip. Please note, this is not an acceptable width for trees, but shrubs may be allowed as indicated by the Planning Division. a. 10/6/2021 - This comment is being left for reference until Planning Division landscaping requirements have been fully addressed. Civil plan sheets shall be updated as needed to reflect landscaping revisions. In addition, please note that planting over 3-ft in height directly north of the sidewalk will not be approved as these plantings will create a sight -distance issue. 5/8/2021 - Shared driveway shall be separated from adjacent property driveway to the west by a landscape planter. The plans indicate a 3-ft wide planter, which is not wide enough for the long-term survivability of trees in this location. A planter of at least a minimum of 4-ft shall be provided or show alternate proposal to provide separation between driveways. b. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Spacing between trees has not been provided. 5/8/2021 - Indicate spacing of proposed trees. c. 10/6/2021 - Comment remains for reference. 5/8/2021 - Ensure proposed utility locations will not conflict with proposed landscaping. A power vault has been shown in the 3-ft wide landscape buffer to the west of the shared access. 6. Water System: a. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 -ADDRESSED c. 1/31/2022 -ADDRESSED d. 1/31/2022 - TO BE ADDRESSED WITH FUTURE BUILDING PERMIT. Proposed water service lines are not shown in a location that allows for proper connection to a water meter, realistic alignment of pipe materials and does not have proper separation from the sanitary sewer line. Packet Pg. 294 D.1.a 10/6/2021 - Comment remains for reference. 5/8/2021 - Water system shall be separated from sewer a minimum of 10-ft. 7. Sewer System: a. 10/6/2021 -ADDRESSED b. 1/31/2022 - ADDRESSED. Plans revised to show connection at City main line in 2 1 & St SW. 10/6/2021 - Proposed sewer is shown to connect to an 8" line on the adjacent property to the west. Provide reference to easement within adjacent property. 5/8/2021 - Show existing sewer from City main to the property line and indicate pipe size. existing sewer line d. March 30, 2022 —NOT ADDRESSED information provided 10/6/2021 - NOT ADDRESSED. 5/8/2021 - Label pipe material and provide pipe invert elevations to confirm feasibility. 8. Storm System: a. 1/31/2022 — ADDRESSED cable/fiber conduit b. 1/31/2022 — ADDRESSED shown c. 10/6/2021 - ADDRESSED a. March 30, 2022 —PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. Water meters have been relocated, but only the cable/fiber comm box is showing on the plans. Revise plans to show 1/J 1/GVGG — 11V l..111V11 Ll'.l _Li. i tupV.nGu l auvz; anu 11VG1 utiiitiGJ 1lQVG VGGii J1ivwii 6V be in direct conflict with the water service lines. The critical point to convey during design review is that there is sufficient space on site to accommodate the utility needs. Please also refer to the water service line comment, which indicates insufficient separation between water and sewer lines. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Only power has been shown. 5/8/2021 - Show proposed location of power, phone, gas, cable. 10. Recycling/trash: a. March 30, 2022 - ADDRESSED 1/31/2022 — INCOMPLETE. Response comments say this was addressed, but I was not able to find notes within the plans provided. 10/6/2021 - INCOMPLETE. Did not find note within plan sheets that addressed this comment. 5/8/2021 - A trash enclosure is not required for this project. However, space must be indicated in each garage for storage of individual waste containers. Please show the area on the floor plan that will be designated for garbage containers. 11. March 30, 2022 —ADDRESSED. 1/31/2022 — As noted by the Planning Division, floor plans need to be revised to indicate parking stall dimensions consistent with City standards — 8 %2' x 16 1/z'. Packet Pg. 295 D.1.a ARBORIST REPORT DATE: August 24, 2021 PREPARED FOR: BK Chen SITE ADDRESS: 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 PREPARED BY: Kim Ettari, ISA Certified Arborist PN1301A Laughing Trees Landscapes 5607 40th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105 828-318-6088 / laughingtreeslandscapes@gmail.com ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 296 D.1.a NARRATIVE SCOPE OF WORK You have asked me to assess the health and potential impact of the proposed townhome construction project on the trees located at 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA. This involves creating a Tree Inventory and an assessment of the current condition of the trees located on your property, or trees located off -site that have limbs that overhang your property as per the requirements in Edmonds City Code 23.10. METHODOLOGY The methods used for this assessment are as outlined in Tree RiskAssessment by Julian Dunster and as adopted by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The end goal of most assessments is to provide the owner or manager of the tree(s) with factual information, enabling them to make decisions about the management of the tree(s). For this particular assessment, I used a Level II Assessment that includes inspection of the root collar, lower trunk, and canopy of the tree as can be seen from the ground. Basic assessment does not include climbing the tree or excavation of soils to inspect root structure or condition. I used field glasses to look at the upper limbs and canopy of the selected trees. I measured twenty (20) trees for their Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), an industry standard of measuring trees at 4.5' above grade. (Trees that are multi -stemmed or branched below the standard 4.5' point of measurement are measured in some other way and noted as such in the notes section of the Tree Inventory.) 9ILlU]1►[lly_1ki Biel -k•44W/AIIs] E•1 The subject site is a residential parcel with an existing home. The trees in question run along the perimeter of the property on all sides. The proposed construction project to add 6 attached townhomes running north to south on the property will impact in one way or another all of the existing trees on the property. ATree Inventory was created that details the trees by Reference #, Species/Common Name, Size (DBH), Drip line or Canopy extension, Interior critical root zone, and Condition with detailed remarks as needed. As per the aforementioned Edmonds City Code all of trees on the property have been classified as "significant." The city code also requires that a 25% canopy coverage remain after tree removal. Retainage of the 6 indicated existing trees should meet that threshold. See attached inventory. As per Edmonds City Tree Replacement Code 23.10.080 a total of 41 trees should be replanted on site (breakdown listed below.) Special preference to hedging, dwarf or smaller replacement trees is highly recommended. See attached tree map. Packet Pg. 297 D.1.a Tree #F1 - Douglas Fir - 28" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 80' tall - REMOVE for driveway construction - SW corner (3 replacement trees required) Tree #F2 - Douglas Fir - 29" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 80' tall - REMOVE for driveway construction - SW corner (3 replacement trees required) Tree #F3 - Douglas Fir - 20" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 80' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - south (3 replacement trees required) Tree #F4 - W White Pine - 21" DBH - POOR CONDITION - 70' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - south (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T1 - Douglas Fir - 24" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 80' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T2 - Douglas Fir - 21" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 80' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T3 - Douglas Fir - 25" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 90' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T4 - Douglas Fir - 23" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 90' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T5 - Douglas Fir - 19" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 90' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T6 - Douglas Fir - 18" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 90' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Tree #T7 - Black Locust - 22" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 70' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (3 replacement trees required) Packet Pg. 298 D.1.a Tree #T8 - Black Locust -14" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 40' tall - REMOVE for sidewalk construction - east (2 replacement trees required) Tree #131 - Douglas Fir - 34" DBH - FAIR CONDITION -100' tall - REMOVE for driveway construction - NW corner (3 replacement trees required) Tree #132 - W Red Cedar - 20" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 70' tall - RETAIN with tree protection fencing - north Tree #134 - W Red Cedar - 22" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 70' tall - RETAIN with tree protection fencing - north Tree #135 - W Red Cedar - 31" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 90' tall - REMOVE for townhome construction - north (3 replacement trees required) Tree #136 - Douglas Fir - 30" DBH - FAIR CONDITION - 90' tall - RETAIN with tree protection fencing - north Tree #137 - W Red Cedar -11" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 50' tall - RETAIN with tree protection fencing - north Tree #138 - W Red Cedar -14" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 50' tall - RETAIN with tree protection fencing - north Tree #139 - W Red Cedar - 7" DBH - GOOD CONDITION - 50' tall - RETAIN with tree protection fencing - north RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The following trees will need to be removed because they are either a) within the construction zone or b) interior crucial root zones will be destroyed as a result of the construction. Based on the engineering plans there is no way to mitigate or protect/retain these trees: F1, F2, F3, F4, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, B1, B5 2. The following trees are to be retained with tree protection fencing around the drip lines and limbed up to approximately 20' to protect branches from construction damage. No construction traffic whatsoever must occur within the tree protection zone: B2, B4, B6, B7, B8, B9. Packet Pg. 299 D.1.a -` W PO ou 0, Aj N ❑ Q N fp U) N N -0 T! W Q' 0 r C C �� o � o a a_ a o. o � v v a � N [Q m m [Q [Ci f� (p 3 (10 !tl C C fl1 Al R1 N [❑ S1J ffl Al C7 D) f0 m [p f11 3 �a ❑ 3 o a n m 3 ro m m 3 ro w 3 m 3 m 3 m �. su ro N r°7i R7 N N N N 7�.f N N N H c m n 2) n Al co [A m N m fp m N [u N N_ m N_ E.�j co G6 0 TR Z o W m a v 00 0, n a o ° o o v o ❑ 0 m ❑ a a o ❑ ❑ uro, m �° x' ct7 CQ sp rp�_p77 = r� �' cQ rp r j ❑ r-'• r N N N N N 7 N N O CD n O 0 m CD ro so N N N CJ A fry _ N N N N fJl R7 M. N !p A] -` IR N [a A N 1 c� I71 N SO Q N N LO GQ N 00 R ani nni w �i m w m w O (N11 ro ONO Q O Q 6 p p p N Q 0 0 O m b Q fV IV 0 0 N fV p CR 1 1 ::E w m Z j;T m g m z ran rii C V Q C] C] 0 Q CT p Q a Q 0 O O 1 i Z z 0 [n m rr2 m m rA �n W m h? 1 3 O Q O 4 N n S N N 00 fan a ao a a a A o n c) � y o a �o m xi 0 ?� ?° 0 0 0 0 0 ID R VO O. � A V Q cfl Q cp O co Q co Ci 4 ?? w m a t7 m ❑ 3 w N R1 N N A] W n V 7 O d [p p� W O m O Qr _ _6 _� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r❑ o m 3 3 3 3 3 -3 :0 m w n Q. W C '❑ 0 b N cr Ci' H CS a m n CQ A Ci W 0 m ro Oi N ❑ S N:) a N o ro h ❑ r%) o W g m 3 N � m � O O 3 � 4 Q Q o 3 A R. 3 Q .3. U 3 m m 4 O co [� CD yCD 3 _ 02 O t m 3 m C m �� rr o w c a N �* n W Q [9 z zr 'o (n R 3 ❑ •e-• a' cow m v3i m ro CD Al 7 O ❑� -rn- m K m K 7 m = K d m a m :1 ° m n m m [7 ]7 m n 0 m 70, n m m 0 = m D m 0 m N � = Oc K �� K N R. K N K � (7«y K N K [: g N K 2 5�L5. 2 µm �° �m 2 0 rn 2° ° 2° am 2� � 2° c a c 0 2 0 m c° ❑ m m m wm �,m m �m :m �m 0 �_ °a �o °a °a qo a� o o a a a o a D CD n N O' CO O J. N Q CQ 4. � Q. iZ Q- Q Q 7 [p Al @ N m LU m gmg ro tD C C SD CL m •C � 7S �c � ac �c �c �c �c 7c .c .� Packet Pg. 300 ILN 2 3 3 I @ 2 : $ m A & s t § y t e 7 = o $ \ / o ƒ E a E g e ) � _$ \ 0 0 § / [ ] o J ƒ $ J 2 s a 3 a 5 7 = I 2 = I \ E E E E E o e o 0 0 § f } R \ R / 5= \ Imo/ e N±I® loll to2£ 7$5£�ƒgJa m��CO,� a� J§ \ \ 2 A C WO/ ] 0 \CLGN _ po 3 /E 2 G /3 % ro § o 9L w r M 0 ) ® 00 OR U q q \ = a= (D CD ( \ 0 0 0 § § % \ \ CL 0 § 5-5- R 9 G C? A e = CLE - - E \ d CD\ CD \ \ \ \ § E ( (D / / / \ / > m / E \ / \ } z \ _ \ � ƒ\ /\ \\ \\-K 77 § t\d/ J§ k/ 0 1, /i)} ){ C \/�D. k\\\\ \\ E2 §/ 0- { � %/ ¥k ¥° y�7\\Ef{ 0 n[\ 0 2 3 2 2 § ■ �V ■ I m 0 0 ] ] m M $ E 0 \ 0 . � G \ § 0 2 0 E w Packet Pg. 301 L N!] nriz O �v[n N mom ZW ol M , a a � I I I Mg ! ' I , a i C f I i f f ! X\ • �\ I [n yW vow I ? fT1 fPi i Y ❑rn Am O O QI -0 WyA, I ILI! pn r x a r� r r r r r r r` rr r e � Fri 4 =A r y V y ru nm x dr YAM J f .- fn d --------- --_-___- - O v n / L vd ❑ MW O r paj �� ❑❑m � ~ m ❑ � A . x — t C N L �V \N /4 .sue m 'w'. rr'1 m m c 11 Y \ rri t�i m •r,� h m rrri II n1`ra ill `�� Farr,, rrE' 1 � a v 41 rr: i'•--• •- . .pr„r; W. N O14 �f prrlf O P�Lo O[_Wq ?� hl V ta V iWn r'= w I NNN NNN V xxN f N xN �_ f� If F} F} H' \ l•F i•!' � FF !•1• � ' rF H� �' I i to N G/ Can Owl N � (((///�A))),,,`y�i �vu ��v N N _ � b , Packet Pg. 302 D.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM April 12, 2022 Michel Szafran, Associate Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN2021-0018 — Design Review — RM1.5 Zone Edmonds Green Hill — 7103 21011 St SW Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. A preliminary stormwater plan and report was submitted as part of the design review application. The City has confirmed project feasibility under current codes and regulations - Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 and the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual. Please be aware the City is currently working towards adoption of a revised stormwater code, based off the 2019 DOE Stormwater Manual. Design Review approval does not provide vesting to the current stormwater code and any future building permit submittal will need to comply with the codes in effect at the time of submittal. Sewer and Water Availability Certificates were submitted and issued in conjunction with the subject application. Document reference numbers are ENP2021-0047 and ENP2021-0048 respectively. With future building permit submittal, one complete civil construction plan set shall be submitted to the City. Civil plans shall include, at a minimum, a cover sheet, existing conditions plan sheet, temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, grading plan, utility plan sheets for water, sewer, storm and dry utilities, frontage improvements and right-of-way restoration and traffic control. Refer to City website for example City approval block, construction notes, standard details, etc. ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 303 D.1.a SOUTH COUNTY FIRE 12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208 tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249 www.southsnat t re.arg City of Edmonds Department of Fire Prevention Plan Review DATE: 4-30-21 PERMIT #: PLN-2021-0018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWN HOMES JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Edmonds Greenhill 7103 210th St SW Edmonds, WA FIRE PLAN REVIEW NOTES: 1. Required fire sprinkler system, Town homes are permitted to install a 13D sprinkler system. Deferred submittal for the sprinkler system. Addressing and driveway signage/markings at final 2. Townhomes: A residential fire sprinkler system is required. A recommended flow -through design will meet specifications and reduce equipment and continuing maintenance requirements. ECDC19.05.020132. Provide a minimum combination water service of one inch (1") meter and one and one half (11/2") service line, or show that domestic and fire protection needs can be met with a smaller service. Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer _southsnofire.org SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD + MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Page 1 of 1 ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 304 D.1.a E 4. � s .ry _ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • PO Box 330316 • Shoreline, Washington 98133-9716• (206) 594-0000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 June 11, 2021 Michele Q. Szafran, Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Edmonds Greenhill Development — 7103 2101h St SW File# PLN2021-0018, Ecology SEPA# 202102843 Dear Michele Szafran: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination of nonsignificance (DNS) for the Edmonds Greenhill project. Based on review of the checklist associated with this project, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) has the following comments: The proposal includes demolition of one existing residence. The Snohomish County property database indicates that the residence was built in 1947, during which time furnaces fueled by heating oil from underground storage tanks (USTs) were common. If USTs are encountered during construction of the project, they must be decommissioned in accordance with local fire department regulations. In addition, if soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during UST decommissioning, the contamination must be characterized and cleaned up in accordance with Ecology regulations (WAC 173-340). Thank you for considering these comments from Ecology. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact Michael Warfel from the Toxics Cleanup Program at (206) 594-0121 or by email at michael.warfel(kecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, & Katelynn Piazza SEPA Coordinator Sent by email: Michele Szafran, michele.szafrangedmondswa.gov ecc: Michael Warfel, Ecology ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 305 EFIEEJEUProviding quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value June 14, 2021 Michele Szafran City of Edmonds Michele. szafran@edmondswa.gov Dear Ms. Hess: Reference No.: PLN2021 0018 6-Unit Edmonds Townhome District DR Number: 21-10-286 The District presently has enough electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. Existing single phase overhead primary line on driveway. The project will likely require underground primary line extension; no new poles are allowed in City of Edmonds. The developer is required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements on all parcels where electrical facilities must be installed to serve the proposed development. It is unlikely that easements will be granted on District -owned property, or consents granted within District transmission line corridors. Existing PUD facilities may need relocations or modifications at the developer's expense. Any relocation, alteration, or removal of District facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the project developer and must be coordinated with the PUD in advance of final design. Please include any utility work in the scope of all land -use permits. Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements upon its property for any electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. Please contact the District prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's South County office at 360-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer. Sincerely, Many wir,k&wL& for Mark Flury, Senior Manager Transmission & Distribution System Operations & Engineering 1802 — 751 Street S.W. • Everett, WA • 98203 1 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783-4300 • Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 • www.snopud.com Packet Pg. 306 D.1.a From: Chloe N To: Szafran, Michele Subject: Question about File N. PLN2021-0018 Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 4:56:34 PM Hi Michele, I am currently an owner in the Edmond Place Condominium at the 7019 address. I got the notice in the mail for the public hearing about the building of the new townhomes a few doors down from me, and I just had a question if this project does get approved to move forward. In the last few years being an owner, whenever the city does any sort of utility/construction work around the area, the result is always an infestation of ants on our property, which seem to be caused by/correspond with the construction disrupting their nests. I know there isn't necessarily anything the city can do because they need to do repair work, etc. But if this is a private company doing the building and we get another infestation that impacts multiple units in our buildings, is there any sort of recourse to have them cover extermination fees if there is another infestation right after construction begins? Thanks, Chloe Naranjo Packet Pg. 307 D.1.a From: ncroscow(cbfrontier.com To: Szafran, Michele Subject: Development Application PLN2021-0018 Comment Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 5:06:39 PM Hello - I am the owner of the property at 7027B 210th Street SW Lynnwood which is adjacent to the property proposed for development at 7103 210th Street SW in Edmonds. The proposed development will adversely impact noise and traffic in the area as well as significantly reducing the amount of light available to the properties at 7027th Street SW. The impacts could be reduced with some design changes such as reducing the height of the structures by using covered parking instead of a garage. While that may reduce the square footage of the units being proposed, that change would mitigate the increase in noise and traffic by reducing the occupancy level of the development. I would ask the permit application be returned to the developer for changes before it is approved. Thank you, Nina Roscow ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 308 OV ED& .� o J) CITY OF EDMONDS /, . �00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-unit townhome with associated parking. The 6-units are proposed in a new three (3) story building and each unit is proposed to contain four (4)-bedrooms. Parking for the units will be provided via a two -car garage for each unit. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 2101" St. SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). PROJECT LOCATION: 7103 21011 St. SW., Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00566900100601 NAME OF APPLICANT: BK Chen I " ► 11YA10I13Fs3 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 29, 2022 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings and request a copy of the decision on the application. The city may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained online at httr)s://www.edmondswa.L-ov/services/public involvement/public notices /development notices under the development notice for application number PLN2021-0018, 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. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on June 29, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa-gov.zoom.us/I/89087813540?pwd=WmJWQOg4VzRrOTM3QndtcllSODJaZz09 Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 / Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540 / Password: 612943 Physical Location: The ADB members will be meeting remotely and the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location provided is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue. CITY CONTACT: Michele Q. Szafran, Planner/Michele.Szafran@edmondswa.gov/425-771-0220 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 14, 2022 ATTAC H M E N I Packet Pg. 309 I� ILI '� W70.31"" O� 1 z Z ow O o r o I^ o � o = w Ln Ln Ilk- `` — Nxx fw �n_"iti _ I HNNNw uu � I � I Nliµ f r � PL1\1'z62-1'-001P Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being fast 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 armexed is a true copy of EDH956722 PLN2021-0018 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 06/14/2022 and ending on 06/14/2022 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount � the fee for cli publicati is $87.72. Subscribed and sworn efore me on thi: day of 6; Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of i—n6 - LEGAL ADS 114101416 MICIIELE SZA17RAN Linda Phillip, Public State of Washington EMy APPointment Expires L/29/202, Comm isslon Number W17 Packet Pg. 311 D.1.a Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-unit townhome with associated parking. The 6-units are proposed a new three (3) story building and each unit is ,in proposed to contain four (4)-bedrooms. Parking for the units will N be provided via a two -car garage for each unit. Access to the d proposed development will be taken off 210th St. SW. Design E review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III -A decisions. The 0 site Is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). 0 PROJECT LOCATION: 7103 210th St. SW., Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00566900100601 NAME OF APPLICANT: 8K Chen 0 FILE NO' PLN2021-0018 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: June 29, 2022 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any C 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. 1p or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in — ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an appeal. t Information on this development application can be viewed or 0 obtained online at y https:/Avww.edmondswa.gov/services/ppublic InvolvemenVpublic_n otices/development_notices y i under the development notice for application number PLN2021- 0018, b'yy smelling the City contact listed below, or by calling the City of Lmonds at 425-771-0220. Please refer to the application W number for all Inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Due to COVID-19, a virtual public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on 0 June 29, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at: htlps://edmondswa- gov.zooin-us71/89087813540?pwd=W rnJ W 0Og4 VzRrOTM 30ndtc 1 -a 60DJaZz09 LLI Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782 / Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540 I Password:612943 N Physical Location: The ADB members will be meeting remotely N and the public may as well at the zoom Information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on O open public meetings, a physical location to participate in the � meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location N provided Is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room 8 O located at 220 Railroad Avenue. CITY CONTACT: Michele . Szafran,Planner O Mlchele.Szafran( edmondswa.gov /425-771-0220 0 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 14. 2022 LLI Publishetl: June 14, 2022. EOH956722 W 0 1Z d 00 O O N O N Z J a Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 06/15/2022 08:31:55 am Page: ' Packet Pg. 312 D.1.a FILE NO.: PLN2021-0018 Applicant: BK Chen (Harr Chen Properties LLQ DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 14th day of June, 2022, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Michele Q. Szafran, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 14th day of June, 2022, at Edmonds, Washington. g Signed:FR` IBFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 313 F.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/29/2022 Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History On February 15, 2022, Council adopted Ordinance 4247, which declared a two -month emergency moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for certain projects in the Downtown Business (BD2) zone. The moratorium applied to projects that require a SEPA threshold determination on sites that are not subject to the Designated Street Front standards in Chapters 16.43 and 22.43 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The moratorium was intended to give staff time to create interim design standards to address gaps in the code that apply to those sites. On March 29, staff introduced the proposed interim design standards to Council. A new section would be added to the existing design standards for the Downtown Business zones in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. These new standards would only apply to projects in the BD2 zone that do not have the Designated Street Front requirement and are multifamily -only buildings. The intent of the section was to ensure that this type of project is compatible within the downtown area by adding standards for materials, private amenity space, and street -side amenity space (Exhibits 1 & 2). On April 5, Council held a public hearing on the moratorium and voted to extend the moratorium for two weeks to allow additional time to consider the proposed interim design standards and to gather additional information about the history of the Designated Street Front requirements in the BD zones. Staff also presented the proposed interim design standards and received feedback from Council. The designated street front topic moved along more or less in parallel with the design standard work (Exhibit 3). On April 19, Council discussed the proposed standards and proposed some amendments of their own before tabling the discussion due to the late hour (Exhibit 4). On April 21, the Council discussed the revised interim design standards and approved the emergency Ordinance 4256 and revised standards at that meeting (Exhibits 5 & 6). After being extended several times, the building permit moratorium was lifted on June 1 by Council's adoption of Ordinance 4262. On June 14, the Council held a public hearing on the interim ordinance as required by state code. On June 21, the Council adopted findings supporting the interim standards and to retain them through October 21. Staff was directed to prepare permanent design standards for the multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone and take them through the standard review process for code amendments. Staff Recommendation Packet Pg. 314 F.1 Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting. Consider the interim standards and any additional refinements for permanent standards. At a subsequent meeting, the Board will make a recommendation to the Planning Board who will review the proposal, hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to City Council. Narrative The following interim design standards were adopted by Council to apply to multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone and are in effect through October 21 (Exhibit 6). Any building permit submitted until that date must meet these standards. Work on these interim standards by the Architectural Design Board and Planning Board over the next two months may lead to some refinements for the Council to consider when adopting permanent standards prior to October 21. These interim design standards are very narrowly focused given the time and resources available and do not involve comprehensive analysis of multifamily design standards throughout the City. The multifamily design standard project anticipated for later in 2022 will take a broad look at multifamily areas throughout Edmonds and will revisit BD2 multifamily standards as well. 1) Materials There is currently no preference stated in the code for the types of materials that can be used on the exterior of a building. This allows flexibility but can result in use of materials that do not reflect the historic patterns in the downtown area as the Building/Site Identity guidance in the Comprehensive Plan indicates. To that end, this standard would require the use of preferred materials including natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass. Man-made products like fiber cement could be used if it is made to look like the preferred materials. While contributing to a more historic look, using a variety of preferred materials can be used to break up a building's massing. 2) Private amenity space Multifamily -only projects in the BD2 zone would be required to provide 10% of gross lot area in some form of private amenity space on the project site. This could take the form of balconies, decks, patios, or yards for individual dwelling units or applied to the site (see Exhibit 2). These spaces would improve livability for the residents and serve to modulate building facades and reduce building massing. There are different options proposed to meet this standard because each site and building are unique so that what makes sense on a BD2 zoned parcel that has no required side setback might not work as well on a parcel that has a 15-foot required setback from an adjacent R-zoned property. 3) Street -side amenity space or pedestrian area Multifamily -only projects in the BD2 zone would be required to provide 5% of gross lot area in some form of street -side amenity space or pedestrian area on the project site (see Exhibit 2). This space would have to be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk. This standard is consistent with the Pedestrian Access and Building Setback language in the Comprehensive Plan in that it would serve to move the building back somewhat from the sidewalk similar to a setback but still allow for pedestrian connection with the street. Attachments: Packet Pg. 315 F.1 Exhibit 1 - 2022-03-29 Council Minutes Exhibit 2 - Graphics for Interim Design Standards Exhibit 3 - 2022-04-05 Council Minutes Exhibit 4 - 2022-04-19 Council Minutes Exhibit 5 - 2022-04-21 Council Minutes Exhibit 6 - Ordinance 4256 and Interim BD2 Design Standards Packet Pg. 316 F.1.a UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, L. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged that, 1) there is a housing affordability issue in Edmonds, 2) the comprehensive plan supports a variety of housing types including multifamily development in the downtown activity center, and 3) in the interest of seeing successful multifamily development, it is critical that there are design standards to support that. The proposed interim design standards are intended to fill the gap for multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. Staff welcomes council feedback on the interim design standards. Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed: • Moratorium Ordinance 4247: o "The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to draft interim zoning regulations for the BD2 zone that would change the required setback for properties that do not front on a Designated Street Front." o This was NOT a comprehensive look at the BD zones or multifamily design standards • Downtown Business Zones Designated Street Front o BD 1 — Retail Core o BD2 — Mixed Commercial o BD3 — Convenience Commercial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 317 F.1.a o BD4 - Mixed Residential o BD5 - Arts Corridor Designated Street Front (identified by blue line on above map) Standards o Commercial and mixed -use building 0 45-foot depth of ground floor commercial o Floor height minimums o Transparency and access at sidewalk o Detail at ground level o Multifamily allowed behind 45 feet or above BD2 parcels without Designated Street Front (on the edges of the BD2 zone, transition between the core and typically multifamily residential or single family residential) o Small area on Main Street, small area on 2' Avenue a few parcels up 3' and 2nd Avenues and two parcels on Sunset. o Two situations 1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or 2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property Comprehensive Plan: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office 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. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. ■ E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal F. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family residential uses Comprehensive Plan: Downtown Design Goals and Policies o Vehicular access and parking o Pedestrian access and connections o Building setbacks o Building/site identity o Massing Proposed design standards o Materials ■ Benefits - Breaks up massing; strengthens identity - Preferred exterior materials: stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass - Manmade okay if made to look like preferred - Photos of projects using more traditional building materials o Street -side amenity space ■ Benefits - Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space - Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience - Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity ■ Plan view - Street -side Amenity Space - 5% of lot area must be provided - Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky - Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. ■ Section Cut - Street Facing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 318 F.1.a - Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building - Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street -side amenity space o Private amenity space ■ Benefits - Improves livability for smaller residential units - Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style - Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade and increases `eyes on the street' thereby improving safety ■ Plan View - Private Amenity Space - 10% project area - Balconies, decks, patios, yards - Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use - If with individual units, > 40 sf - 50% of required area can be achieved with a rooftop deck ■ Section Cut - Adjacent Property - Balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property - Decks and patios 10' Mr. Clugston explained the goal tonight, if the council is satisfied with the proposed standards, is to adopt the ordinance in the packet as Exhibit 3 referencing Exhibit 2, the new standards that would be applied to Chapter 23.43. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had a problem with the BD zones having no commercial; in her opinion adding these high density properties was ruining the downtown area because, in her opinion, the BD2 zone was mixed commercial, not residential. The council should look at all the BD zones because she did not understand how the downtown area, which should service small business, is suddenly becoming more dense and apartment blocks. She questioned allowing straight up residential in a BD zone with no mixed use at all. Ms. McLaughlin answered the code allows solely multifamily developments in the BD2 when not adjacent to the blue lines (designated street front) on the map. It is meant to be a transitional space, in an urban development transect, the retail commercial core allows for some residential but predominantly active storefronts on the ground level. This area was always intended to be a transitional zone where it will transition to residential only. The parcels on the edges of BD2 are where that transition is occurring. She acknowledged there could be philosophical differences regarding that. Mr. Clugston agreed the code specifically allows it. He was not employed by the City when the code was adopted in 2006/2007, but these are transitional area on the outside edge of the BD2 zone and the feeling was while it could be mixed use, they could also be just multifamily based on their location relative to the BD 1 zone around the fountain. Councilmember Buckshnis said she understood transitional zones, but she wondered how those areas of BD2 were selected and did not go further into 6t' or further up to Bell. In her opinion, the City needed to unwind all the BD zones; it is important to keep businesses in the downtown area thriving and not have high density buildings. She relayed a citizen's question about whether the two lots have different setbacks and his feeling it should not have gone to the ADB due to the lot differentiation. Mr. Clugston said prior to adoption of the BD zones, this area was zoned community business (BC). When the different BD zones were developed, the intent was to apply them to the types of development that were there at the time, understanding that most of the commercial area will be around the fountain and radiating out, with transition spaces at the furthest edges. That is what this proposal is trying to address. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 13 Packet Pg. 319 F.1.a Ms. McLaughlin cautioned about not getting into specifics about the project that is under review. She clarified there is no variance proposed for that project. Mr. Clugston explained all the development codes have to be met; the City's variance criteria are very restrictive, primarily related to parcels with environmental constraints. Virtually nowhere else has a variance been granted in the 15 years he has been at the City. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there are two different properties. Mr. Clugston explained they are both zoned BD2 with the exact same development standards. The only difference is the eastern side of the site is adjacent to multifamily residential which requires a 15' setback. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that 15' setback was still required. Mr. Clugston answered it was. Councilmember Tibbott asked what the setback from the lot lines was for BD2; he understood there was 5% for the front and asked if there was a setback requirement for the side or rear. Mr. Clugston answered there are zero setbacks from any lot line in the BD2 zone whether street, side or rear. The only setbacks that exist for these parcels are when they are adjacent to R zoned property which requires a 15' setback. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long that setback standard had been in effect. Mr. Clugston answered since 2007 when the code was adopted. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would take to extend the blue lines. As the downtown fills up and commercial businesses thrive when there are other good, viable strong commercial businesses around them, it seems that more commercial space would add to the vibrancy of the downtown. It has been 15 years since those standards were adopted, it may be necessary to extend the blue lines. Ms. McLaughlin answered that certainly should be considered in the scoping for the comprehensive plan update. Given that the downtown activity center is such a robust commercial retail and residential center, the City needs to analyze commercial demands, the future of retail, as well as multifamily design standards coupled with how to meet housing needs. Mr. Clugston commented there have been about 6-7 redevelopment projects since these codes were adopted in 2006/2007. The pace of turnover is very small for a number of reasons. The developer could have proposed a mixed use building for this site but chose not to, believing that residential made more sense than mixed use. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the areas on the edges of the BD2 without Designated Street Front that have been filling in and said there may be opportunities to extend the vibrant business life. He asked if there were any ingress/egress parking standards in BD2, and if so, what were they and what provisions were made to go from a garage to an alley or from a parking lot to a public street. Mr. Clugston said the code does not want access onto the main streets and to have residents use the alley as much as possible. Buildings that do propose to use the alley need to ensure that access can occur safely. Ensuring that access occurs in a safe manner is reviewed with every with building permit. If a building went up to the rear lot line, Councilmember Tibbott asked if turning radius inside the building would be required, wide enough garage doors for sight distance, etc. Mr. Clugston referred to the post office where there is a gap in the wall from one of the drive aisles to allow drivers to see pedestrian on the sidewalks, or sometimes mirrors are used. There are a number of different ways that can be addressed. Councilmember Tibbott observed those standards are already in the code. Mr. Clugston agreed they were. Council President Olson said the overriding reason for standards is to protect other properties in the area, other homeowners in the area and the community as a whole. She thanked staff for this proposal which addressed something that was lacking and what they have brought forward makes a difference and will help with projects that fall into this gap. However, two significant things were not addressed that she hoped could be addressed, first the issue of accommodating loading/unloading on the property. This is 24 units that will have regular turnover, whether it is the tenants moving in and out or having furniture or appliances delivered. She was concerned with a building accommodating 24 families not designating an area for deliveries and felt it should be addressed in the code or be a design requirement. The loading Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 14 Packet Pg. 320 F.1.a zone could be the setback and provide additional space for people entering/exiting their garages from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin expressed concern that Council President Olson's question was very project related. She offered to speak in theory but not to the project itself as the proposed standards are applicable to all parcels in the BD2 zone. Council President Olson pushed back on that assertion, pointing out any buildings without setbacks on the alley would be in the same situation. Ms. Laughlin said there are temporary right-of-way permits for loading for this reason. There will be episodic loading needs in any urban environment, particularly for moving in/out of buildings. A requirement to accommodate a WB-67 moving truck would deem parking structures infeasible due to turning movements. Staff could look at what that would require and how much space it would take out of the programmatic area, requiring the developer to compensate in other aspects of the project to make that program work. The nature of an alley is that it is slightly utilitarian. Requiring a 25' width to allow a truck to unload would be a significant amount of space in the alley, pushing the alley to 44' wide. Council President Olson commented it would not increase the alley width, it would be on the property and made available for loading/unloading which can be expected to occur with some regularity. Ms. McLaughlin said that would need to be dimensioned out. The reason why that is not seen in any other city is because the curb space or alleys themselves are typically used for loading/unloading and moving. Council President Olson referred to the use of "urban" and pushed back, saying Edmonds is a suburban and not an urban environment and she hoped that was part of the planning. Use of the alley for ingress/egress to garages has been encouraged, and loading/unloading from the alley could block access which would have a huge impact. She was trying to assess if it was an option to require some setback from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin asked if her question was how to accommodate moving trucks onsite. Council President Olson answered it was related to moving trucks or delivery trucks. Ms. McLaughlin said the engineering/permitting team could answer that question better than she could and offered to provide further information. Council President Olson said her other issue was consolidating parcels, which is not mandated, and should be an opportunity for the City to get a concession that supports the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan says the City cares about light and not having huge, blocky structures, but this building on a slope which the building height assessed at that level, the center point would be in a different place on one of the parcels versus the consolidated parcel. Consolidating parcels has a negative impact in terms of light. When that is allowed, there should be a requirement for a step down or modulation in the roof line to provide breaks of light to everything around it. That should be required because the parcels are being consolidated and they are not currently allowed to be built on in that manner. If the lots were developed without consolidating them, there would be breaks between the buildings due to required setbacks. Ms. McLaughlin said State law exempts lot combinations from the subdivision law, essentially streamlining lot combination which is intended to ensure it is not a hinderance to meeting density goals. The City does have some discretion to ensure any lot combination meets the objectives within the comprehensive plan. Mr. Clugston explained there is no required setback between the parcels, if they are both zoned BD, they can be built wall to wall. The only time a setback is required is if it is adjacent to a residentially residential zoned parcel. As an example, he referred to a clump of parcels south of Main between 6'1i and Durbin where, in theory, one person could buy the approximately 8 parcels and construct one building on it. At the northeast corner of 6' & Main, one person could buy three parcels, combine them and develop one project on the site. Lot consolidation for projects happens all the time; if someone owns all the parcels, they can be combined and a larger project developed on it. That would also apply to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 321 F.1.a parcels on Yd and there are no setbacks between the parcels because they are not adjacent to an R zoned property. Even if one person did not own all the parcels, each property could be developed wall to wall. Mr. Clugston continued, the intent of the design standards is when there are two adjacent BD2 parcels that could have multifamily, private amenity space needs to be provided. One of the ways to do that is either move the building back to provide a balcony that projects out or create a balcony that is recessed into the building; either way provides some modulation. There are other ways to achieve that standard such as a rooftop desk. When there are no setbacks, buildings can be constructed right to the property line and that is the case with the overwhelming majority of the parcels in the BD zones. Council President Olson said that explanation clarified it for her. She asked if the City just got lucky with the architectural design of the first two parcels at 6th & Main that follow the slope. That makes a big difference and she was unsure if that occurred because the developer chose to be nice and cared about making the community look good, or if the City had it in code. Mr. Clugston said he was not familiar with the location Council President Olson was referencing. Council President Olson referred to the buildings on the north side of the street at 6t' & Main, the two largest parcels on the northwest corner of the intersection. Mr. Clugston answered those were zoned multifamily, not B132, and were built a number of years ago so he did not know what the code requirement was for height measurement at that time. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for a description of public amenity space. Mr. Clugston displayed the plan view, explaining the street -side amenity space has to be 5% of the lot area and must be provided between the building and the sidewalk, be open to the sky and must include landscaping, seating, art, or similar elements. He displayed the section view, identifying the street -side amenity space, the space between the sidewalk and the building front that acts like a setback that is activated through uses. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the map that illustrates the areas with and without designated street fronts, recalling Mr. Clugston's comment that the areas on the edges of B132 without designated street fronts were transitional areas. Mr. Clugston referred to the intersection of Main & 5t'', and the parcels radiating away from that, the BD 1 zone, the retail core. Just outside of that on all sides is the B132 zone, adjacent to the retail core and in some instances does not extend very far but in some areas it does. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what PRD 2002-102 means. Mr. Clugston answered it was a Planned Residential Development for single family development. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if loading/unloading spaces were required for any other residential type. Mr. Clugston answered not to his knowledge. Councilmember Chen said he had two questions, first, as the City grows, would the BD 1 zone need to be expanded into the BD2 zone. Ms. Mclaughlin said that is something that the needs analysis as part of the comprehensive plan update will consider, what are the City's commercial and retail demands and where should they be located, looking at the City and its activity centers as a whole, including the medical center, downtown and waterfront. She looked forward to doing a needs analysis and engaging the council in those discussions. Edmonds is unique in the sense that all the retail spaces are occupied which is a great sign. It was unclear where there was pent up demand; that will require some retail analysis. Councilmember Chen said his second question was whether the interim code only applied to residential or if it applied to both residential and mixed use, noting the current code allows both residential and mixed use. Mr. Clugston said there are existing design standards that apply to mixed use or commercial/office projects. This proposal would apply only to standalone multifamily buildings. Because this is residential only, the same amount of design analysis has not been done which is why these standards have been proposed. Ms. McLaughlin said that is the unanticipated gap; the intent is to fill that gap with these Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 322 F.1.a interim design standards specifically for multifamily. Staff is also working on multifamily design standards that would apply citywide. Councilmember Chen suggested the recommendations from the Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) be revisited and incorporated. Ms. McLaughlin agreed some of the CHC's recommendations were applicable to multifamily design standards and others will be applicable to the comprehensive plan update. Councilmember Buckshnis said she still has an issue with not being project specific when it was dealing with a project. This will be displacing 7-8 businesses, some of them women -owned, in the downtown business district. Acknowledging the council cannot consider project specifics, she asked if traffic, stormwater, or sewer impacts had been considered. As this will be a dense project with 24 - 48 extra cars, she asked if a traffic study had been done. She referred to the aging infrastructure, recalling a sewer break on 5' Avenue in the past. Ms. McLaughlin assured that was part of the permitting process which looks at everything that Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned including the need for traffic analysis, stormwater, existing utilities, what it can support and whether there is capacity. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the timeframe for the citywide multifamily design standards. Ms. McLaughlin answered the senior planner that was leading the effort left the City. Recruitment is underway for that position and it may be expedited by moving to a consultant process; those options are being analyzed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussions at the Economic Development Commission about light and buildings next to each other and interest in setbacks. She recalled there were setbacks in Westgate and asked why no setbacks were being enforced to allow for light for adjacent buildings so they did not just look out on a wall. Ms. McLaughlin answered defining light and air can be fairly subjective. There could be a lighting/shadow study done on projects which was something she recommended. Oftentimes when there is an alley or street, particularly when the street is up to 25' wide, the light and air issue is mitigated by having that space in between buildings. Looking at historic downtowns within a tight urban fabric, the buildings are adjacent to each other like in Edmonds downtown core; the street provides light, air and separation. The same is seen in the development that is currently under review. Councilmember Buckshnis said there is plenty of density in the downtown area. Her issue is changing the mix of the BD zone, and making it more residential. She was aware it was allowed because it was not identified as a designated street front but she was still concerned that mixed use was not required. Council President Olson said this question was already answered but she wanted to be sure staff understood the question the way she intended; staff was saying no other condos or apartments were required to provide loading/unloading even if there is no parking lot associated with the complex. Ms. McLaughlin said in talking with Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien today about this issue, the only one he could recall was a project that requested a loading zone. Council President Olson said this comment was not related to the specific item but for all planning going forward, especially in downtown areas, when the building follows the slope like it does between 5t' & 6t' on the north side of Main, it is great and charming and although there are no setbacks on the side, it is so cute. She hoped that could be implemented in more places and made a priority in planning going forward. Councilmember Chen commented in terms of timing, the moratorium is expiring so there is some urgency. Ms. McLaughlin said in the interest of lifting the moratorium, given the magnitude of a moratorium on development and market dynamics, a public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled on April 5t''. These interim design standards will be returned to council on April 5t'; staff s recommendation is that the interim design standards be adopted and the moratorium would then be lifted on April 5tn With regard to the effective date of the proposed ordinance, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as currently drafted, it would not take immediate effect. Assuming it is adopted on April 5t'', it would not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 323 F.1.a take effect until April 15'. The ordinance could be drafted to take immediate effect, but it would require a majority plus one vote to pass. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there was any risk with continuing with the current proposed timeline of a public hearing on April 5' and adoption of the interim design standards on April 5'. Mr. Taraday answered by his calculation if the ordinance is adopted on April 5" without an emergency clause, it would take effect on April 15th. City Clerk Scott Passey advised it would take effect on April 13'. Mr. Taraday said that was before the moratorium expired. Councilmember L. Johnson observed adding an emergency clause would allow the ordinance to take effect sooner if there was some benefit to that. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the benefit of have more than 5% public open space and what the timing would be to incorporate that change into the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clugston answered given the short amount of time, it would be easier to stick with this proposal. That could be considered in the permanent multifamily design standards. Councilmember K. Johnson requested staff put that on the list of things to look at in the permanent standards. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the setback standards for RM-1 weren't used such as in the BD4 zone. She recognized this was a transition zone and the intent is a standalone multifamily property. Mr. Clugston explained BD2 is mixed commercial adjacent to BD1. He displayed a map identifying the BD4 zone, downtown mixed residential, which is located in the southwest area of downtown and off by itself. In BD4, if a project is mixed use, there are no setbacks; if it is multifamily only, then RM-1.5 setbacks apply. The three sites that the DB4 zone covers are large, developed sites that were developed without designated street front standards. The RM setbacks are not appropriate for the BD2 zoned parcels which do not have side setbacks unless adjacent to residential which has a 15' setback requirement. With regard to adding an emergency clause to the ordinance, Council President Olson said if the effective date of the ordinance fit within the moratorium period without an emergency clause, how would an emergency be justified? Mr. Taraday said that was a good question; he did not want to rule out the possibility that an emergency declaration could be drafted that would be valid, but Council President Olson was correct that the ordinance would need to state the basis for taking emergency action. That basis is usually left to the discretion of the legislative body. If council or staff suggested a basis for an emergency, he would not eliminate that possibility, but she was correct that expiration of the moratorium was one basis that probably wouldn't satisfy the emergency clause. 3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 ECDC RELATED TO ADDRESSES FOR USE IN MAILED NOTICE Council President Olson explained the reason for notices is to make citizens and other stakeholders aware when there is a project that might influence their interests. The City has been made aware that notices are not always getting to the right people. The intent of this item is to determine how to change the code to resolve that via a code update. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this ordinance was requested by the council president. He tried to correct something that had been brought to her attention, that there are two different types of owner addresses held by Snohomish County, the taxpayer address and the owner address. Most often those addresses are the same, but it is possible for a property owner to contact the county and ask that tax statements be sent to a different address such as when someone owns property in the City but does not reside at the property and wants to receive mail elsewhere. The question is how to best provide notice to the public, in this case about development projects but it could be posed even more broadly. Mr. Taraday continued, because he did not involve City staff early enough, some issues were raised late in the game as this was going into the packet that have not yet been resolved. One such issue is that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 29, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 324 30 ft. max. 12 ft. min. SECTION CUT - STREET -FACING O T / l7ICVJJ LV I AREA F.1.b PLAN VIEW - STREET -SIDE AMENITY SPACE �I Oam ml rl _ 10 ft max. GROUND FLOOR - �I PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE A D I 5 ft. min. 15 ft. min. setback setback PLAN VIEW - PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE RS-6 ROW LINE b FT. MIN. FENCE SCREENING PATIO loft. max. 5 ft. min. 15 ft. min. setback setback F.1.b E M 4" 50% MAX Of 3 AMENITY SR 2 AS ROOFTOI S PRIVATE M AMENITY SF = 40 SQ. FT. � q _ aM .y d N_ Q M rt+ m D r _ T M E i 4) o a 0 N D _ c0 w C a! E •L d L 0 N t� t Q R L �J N r t x w 30 ft. max. 12 ft. min. SECTION CUT - ADJACENT PROPERTY 70 I0 F.1.b F.1.c Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was to extend the moratorium to Tuesday, April 19t' or Thursday, April 215t. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance states April 21'. He did that intentionally not knowing what may be on the April 19t1' agenda, and he wanted to provide additional time in the event the council needed to adjourn meeting to another night that week to finish its business. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating this should not have been as part of the agenda due to extending the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tern Olson said it was relevant because the council may want to give input to staff for further work in order to move quickly past moratorium. Mr. Taraday agreed from a parliamentary standpoint, it was not out of order. It is on the agenda and with only a short extension of the moratorium, it would be helpful for staff to receive feedback from the council sooner rather than later. Mayor Pro Tern Olson suggested limiting the discussion to feedback regarding how it could be improved. Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to provide last week's PPT again or just proceed to council discussion/questions. Councilmember L. Johnson said given the information the council heard earlier, it would be beneficial to have a shortened presentation. Mr. Clugston reviewed Interim Design Standards of Stand-alone multifamily building in BD2 zone, explaining the intent of the interim design standards was to apply them to the parcels on the edge of the BD2 zone outlined in red on the map that do not have a designated street front: !• Designated Street Front* - v h�3 9T EY Sz DALEY ]ST 802 ST BELL ST aoa 802 eoi I ❑nrro L x T MAPLE ST ry ALDER Si 4 a r� A - ^ ALDER 5T E rT WALNUT gY WALNUT S i t 80, Nd LL WAY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 329 F.1.c Standards are intended to apply to two situations 1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or 2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property Proposed design standards o Materials ■ Benefits - Breaks up massing; strengthens identity - Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass - Manmade okay if made to look like preferred - Photos of projects using more traditional building materials o Street -side amenity space ■ Benefits - Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space - Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience - Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity ■ Plan view - Street -side Amenity Space - 5% of lot area must be provided - Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky - Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. ■ Section Cut - Street Facing - Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building - Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street -side amenity area o Private amenity space ■ Benefits - Improves livability for smaller residential units - Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style - Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade and increases `eyes on the street' thereby improving safety ■ Plan View - Private Amenity Space - 10% project area - Balconies, decks, patios, yards - Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use - If with individual units, > 40 sf - 50% of required area can be achieved with a roof top deck ■ Section Cut - Adjacent Property - Balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property - Decks and patios 10' Councilmember Paine said she did not have any trouble with most of the interim design standards, but wanted to understand the impact of removing CA, "A maximum of 50% of the required private amenity space may be provided as roof top deck. Deck railings may...". Mr. Clugston answered it would limit the ability of designers to provide private amenity space. They could probably do it in other ways such as a recessed balcony. The intent is to use the roof top as a gathering space for residents. Similar features are allowed to exceed the height in all zones such as elevator penthouses, chimneys, etc. This is an example of what could be on a roof top in a dense downtown area. Councilmember Paine said amenity space that was not on the roof would provide articulation and modulation on the building sides so it wasn't a giant mass and such a square. Grooves provide sightlines, a square does not. Having a roof top deck seems to shift that visual so it is not really community friendly. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 330 F.1.c Mr. Clugston said that is an option; other zones in Edmonds such as the General Commercial and Westgate Mixed Use allow roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said she was open to considering it in the multifamily design standards that will have a public process, but preferred to have the standards be tighter now and be more generous when there was a public process. Ms. McLaughlin said she could understand what Councilmember Paine was saying about having it be part of the required private amenity space and asked if she would be opposed to allowing roof top amenity space after they had met their standards. For instance, if the developer already met their private amenity space per the interim design standards and chose to do a roof top deck, would that be allowed. Councilmember Paine said she do not know how she felt about that, she has the square in her head. Ms. McLaughlin said that would be solved via the private amenity space; it was her understanding Councilmember Paine did not want the roof top deck to count toward that because she wanted further articulation. She could see that point of view but wanted to clear whether the desire was to prohibit roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said visual examples would be helpful. She hoped to avoid a block with people partying on top of the building. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with idea of maintaining the private amenity space and once that has been met, whether there is a roof top deck is inconsequential to the design standard. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis agreed with Councilmembers Paine and K. Johnson. She did not want people hanging out on decks, hanging over and looking and waving at people down on Main Street. There is nothing in the code that says decks on a roof top are considered open space. She wanted to be conscientious of that and not turn into Seattle where people hang out on decks waving at everybody walking by. She referred to a statement last week that a traffic analysis had been done, but now staff indicates no traffic analysis had been done and that it would come later. Ms. McLaughlin said at the last council meeting there was a question regarding the project development process for this particular project, specifically what types of studies are requested during project review and a traffic study was one of the questions. Traffic is typically evaluated in any project; in this project, which is not the subject of tonight's review, the traffic analysis yielded less than 25 PM peak hour trips. When a preliminary traffic analysis results in less than 25 PM peak hour trips, a full traffic study is not required because the impacts per hour on the street network are negligible. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis questioned 25 peak hour trips with the addition of at least 24 cars. Ms. McLaughlin answered international transportation engineering guidelines guide trip generation analysis. Public Works leads this process and the engineering team can provide more detail. It is a very standardized methodology for determining peak hour trips in different types of land use. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3918 which is very explanatory about the design standards in BD zones but doesn't say anything about roof top decks. Mr. Clugston said he would need to look at the code and report back. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis asked if staff had spoken to the developer regarding mixed use versus fully residential since it is in a BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered this is a discussion on interim design standards for buildings in the BD2 zone. Councilmember Chen referred to an area outlined in red south of Main and east of 6t' on the map of designated street fronts and areas without designated street fronts. He asked if the Bellmont Building at 600 Bell was in the BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered that is in a multifamily zone. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the design standards and allowances for roof top decks or if the interim standards were allowing something that did not currently exist. She preferred to have that go through the more lengthy process with the overall multifamily design standards. She was concerned with adding something like that through these interim design standards if it did not already exist. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 331 F.1.c Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in the purpose of transition zones. There are very intensive uses in BD1, less intensive uses in BD3 and BD2 seems to be somewhat of a transition between those two. He asked the purpose of a transition zone and what the difference would be between mixed use and a mix of uses in BD2. Ms. McLaughlin answered the term transition zone is something that has used in staff s presentations. As the public mentioned, it is not found in the zoning code. In her professional judgment, transitional zones are meant to taper out the intensity of a mix of uses that are often found in a downtown core. It affords a larger variety for developers to choose from with regard to market demand. There is a typology that is more suited to a higher density retail core for in downtown core for mixed use buildings. With regard to a mix of uses, tapering away from the retail core, it allows for a variety of uses that still support, as stated in the comprehensive plan, the intensity that happens in the core and supports the retail and commercial uses by providing residences and other uses that help keep that space lively and vibrant. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the photographs on packet page 107 of the North Sound Center and the post office building that have modulation and articulation in the rooflines and the sides. He asked staff to address how the articulation and design features help with good design for the City. Mr. Clugston said these buildings illustrate human scale. The lower buildings on Main Street are only 15' tall so they definitely have human scale but the Starbucks building on the corner and the post office buildings are definitely not monolithic blocks, they have elements that provide modulation, different eaves, etc. The Graphite building also has a lot going on and even on the North Sound building, there is modulation using colors, materials and windows to create human scale. Councilmember Tibbott said the proposed interim design standards for BD2 would be in line with this kind of modulation and natural materials and would help tie all the BD zones to downtown. Mr. Clugston agreed that was the intent. Ms. McLaughlin advised the proposed interim design standards would be used in combination with the existing design standards that talk about mimicking historic patterns, human scale, etc. and would not be used in isolation. The whole package of applicable design standards are in the council packet. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said if a roof top deck was included, she agreed it should be recessed from the edge so people could not look into windows on surrounding buildings, that was good input from the architect during the public hearing. She will listen to that public comment again to ensure she considered everything that was mentioned. She encouraged staff to consider that comment and other comments from the public. If councilmembers objected to the idea of a roof top deck, she suggested perhaps it could be allowed with a conditional use permit so the surrounding residents could weigh in. Councilmember Tibbott said it was clear from the council's discussion that clearer design standards were needed for a roof top deck. He asked what happened if a design was proposed that did not meet the design standards. Mr. Clugston said the developer would be sent back to the drawing board. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the proposal would be denied. Mr. Clugston said when staff or the ADB is reviewing a project, the goal is not to deny but to get them to something that is code compliant that also meets the design guidance in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Tibbott summarized they would need to meet the design standards before it was approved for construction. Mr. Clugston answered yes, or before it was conditionally approved. 2. 2022 PROS PLAN DRAFT REVISION PROPOSAL Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Angie Feser said the final draft PROS Plan is currently under council consideration for approval. After robust public engagement and considerable public comment since the January 7t' draft release, the plan is in its last stage of council review and revision. Usually in this phase council has the option of approving the final draft as recommended by the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 332 F.1.d 3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2) Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed. Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the public at the April 5' meeting. Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the 50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2. Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck, even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to allow roof top decks as an amenity. Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 333 F.1.d Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on multifamily buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet. She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and further amendments can be made. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process. A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS. Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards. Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required modulation on the slope. Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists, it would not be a mandate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 334 F.1.d Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones. Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr. Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that; that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that lifts the moratorium. Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium, or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of the ordinance he sent council this afternoon. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 335 F.1.d COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM. Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point without reading what was emailed. Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested addressing the main motion. Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr. Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately. He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both; the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency. The motion was clarified as follows: Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read it quickly. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 336 F.1.d UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH. Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said the council tabled this item. Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda. Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head nods. Council President Olson restated her motion: TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM. Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the transparency hat on. Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the afternoon. He did not support the motion. Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday. Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate. Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 337 F.1.d Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said. There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting packet materials done and extending the moratorium. Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to review. Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like within a month as that is a much bigger study. Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable supporting that. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days, Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to take immediate effect. Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary. 4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3) Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES (Previously Item 8.4) Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 19, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 338 F.1.e UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet. Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO UN -TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council's prerogative. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr. Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday's motion was to move the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council's deliberation would be much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight's packet will be the best starting point for council's deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday's ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the ordinance in tonight's packet. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253. Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday's conversation and he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance. Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium's expiration on June 2nd. She will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June 2nd Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 339 F.1.e Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and step-down is one of the option. Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr. Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation. That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, "AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION." Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years' experience indicated using "compatible within the downtown area" could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott asking about that relative to the post office building. Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant. Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFT-ING—THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE, "DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SECOND FLOOR ONLY." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 340 F.1.e Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach into the setback were limited to the second floor and up. Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building; decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third floors can project a maximum of 5 feet. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 341 F.1.f ORDINANCE NO. 4256 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots that do not front on a designated street front; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on April 15, 2022; and WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and WHEREAS, the moratorium was intended to allow planning staff sufficient time to draft interim regulations for the BD2 zone; and WHEREAS, the six -day extension was afforded to allow planning staff and the city attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD zones and the designated street front; and WHEREAS, with work continuing on the designated street front, it is proposed that these standards be adopted without lifting the moratorium and that the moratorium be lifted in conjunction with resolution of designated street front issues; and WHEREAS, planning staff have now completed a proposed set of interim design standards for the BD2 zone; and WHEREAS, planning staff continue to work on a permanent set of multi -family design standards, which could be ready for adoption in the next six -months; and WHEREAS, while the work referenced above continues, the city council desires to adopt the following interim standards to bring the BD2 regulation into closer harmony with the city's values and policy statements; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Interim ❑esign Standards. A new section 22.43.080, entitled "Additional Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone," is hereby added Packet Pg. 342 F.1.f to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. Section 2. Duration of -Interim Design Standards. The interim design standards adopted by this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 3 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 3. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on May 17, 2022 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5. Declaration of EmeMencv. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this 2 Packet Pg. 343 F.1.f ordinance take immediate effect. Without taking immediate effect the interim regulations adopted by this ordinance would not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium, allowing for the possibility that building permit applications could become vested to the existing regulations, which are not consistent with the city's values and vision for the BD2 zone. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure that any building permit applications submitted would vest to the regulations set forth in this ordinance. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 6. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: MAY MIKE NELS N ATTEST/AUTHENTI TED: &JYXW,SCOtL!�4AEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Packet Pg. 344 F.1.f BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 28, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 19, 2022 PUBLISHED: April 21, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19. 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4256 4 Packet Pg. 345 F.1.f SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4256 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 191h day of April, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4256. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this I91h day of April, 2022. �y CIT CL I %K, S c,6 SEY Packet Pg. 346 F.1.f Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publieation State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates 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 EDI1953211 ORD1NIANCE 4255, 4256 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issuc(s), such publication commencing on 04/25/2022 and ending on 04/25/2022 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount o the fee for su publication is $37.84. Subsefted and sworn ��.. day of befor me on this Mdary Public in and for the State of Washington. Ciq• of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 SCOIT PASSEY Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires 812912025 COmmI5LI0r, Numbar 4.417 .may Packet Pg. 347 F.1.f Classified Proof ORDINANCE SUMMARY gf the Cily0IEdmoods, Washington On the 2151 o[ Aprll, 2022, the City Council of fie City of Edmonds, passed Iha following Oronarmes, The Summaries of said ordinances consisting of titles are provided as fottoWS: ORpINAN� - NO.4255 AN ORDINANCE OF H CITY DMbNDS, WASHINGTON. EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMTT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT 00 NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254. ORDINANCE NO.425E AN ORDINANCE OF c�IDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. The full text of these Ordinances will be sent upon roquest. DATED Ihis 21st Day of ApnL 2D22 CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY Published: April 25, 2022. EDH953211 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 04/25/2022 01:18:20 pm Page: 2 Packet Pg. 348 F.1.f EXHIBIT A 22.43.080 Additional Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone. A. Intent. To ensure that buildings entirely comprised of multiple dwelling residential units are compatible with the downtown area. B. Materials. Building facades must be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted by the Director or Architectural Design Board if they replicate the appearance of the preferred materials. C. Private Amenity Space. An exterior area equivalent to at least 10% of the project's gross lot area must be provided as private amenity space for residents of the development. This standard can be met through a combination of balconies (cantilevered, recessed or semi - recessed), decks, patios or yards for individual dwelling units or the site as a whole. 1. Not all dwelling units are required to have private amenity space. When it is provided, it must be immediately accessible from the dwelling unit and be a minimum of 40 sq. ft. 2. If the space is at ground level facing a street, no fence may be over three feet in height. 3. Balconies may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a maximum of 5 feet. Patios and decks may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a maximum of 10 feet. D. Some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists. E. Street -side amenity space or Pedestrian Area. An exterior area equivalent to at least 5% of the project's gross lot area must be provided as street -side amenity space or pedestrian area. This space must be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk and must be open to the sky, unless otherwise excepted. The space must be pedestrian -oriented and may include the following elements: 1. Landscaping 2. Seating area 3. A similar feature as approved by the Director or Architectural Design Board 4. Areas allocated to private amenity space cannot be used toward the street -side amenity space or pedestrian area requirement. Packet Pg. 349