Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2013-07-02 City Council - Public Agenda-1502
'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds JULY 2, 2013 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-5895 Approval of City Council Mini Retreat Minutes of June 17, 2013. B. AM-5901 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2013. C. AM-5898 Approval of claim checks #202857 through #202961 dated June 27, 2013 for $634,507.11. Approval of payroll replacement check #60276 for the period June 1, 2013 through June 15, 2013 for $145.68. D. AM-5894 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Glenn A. Salmi (amount undetermined). E. AM-5896 Resolution adopting findings and conclusions of the July 18, 2013 closed record review of the Hillman variance appeal (APL20130001). F. AM-5899 Ordinance amending certain penalty payment provisions of ECC 8.48 ("Parking"); providing for severability; and setting an effective date. 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. (5 Minutes) Community Service Announcement - "Walk Back In Time" guided tour by the Edmonds AM-5902 Cemetery Board. Packet Page 1 of 774 6. (20 Minutes) Sound Transit Presentation. AM-5906 7. (2 Hours) Closed record review of the Architectural Design Board's design approval of Point AM-5897 Edwards' Building 10 to be located at 50 Pine Street under File PLN20130022. Appeal numbers APL20130002 - APL20130004. 8. (10 Minutes) Adopting an Interim Zoning Ordinance to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance, AM-5903 specifically Sections ECDC 23.40.210 and 23.40.320, to repeal the definition of Reasonable Economic Use and references thereto. 9. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 11. (15 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(l)(i). 12. (5 Minutes) Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 774 AM-5895 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Mini Retreat Minutes of June 17, 2013. Recommendation Review and approval. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Attachments 06-17-13 Draft City Council Mini Retreat Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Committee Action: Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/26/2013 03:34 PM Sandy Chase 06/27/2013 08:48 AM Started On: 06/26/2013 01:55 PM 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 774 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINI RETREAT DRAFT MINUTES June 17, 2013 The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 17, 2013 in the Brackett Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Yamamoto. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment. 4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL BUSINESS Volunteer Recognition Councilmember Johnson announced the first annual volunteer appreciation picnic is scheduled on August 25 at 1:30 p.m.; it will be followed by the last concert of the season that begins at 3:00 p.m. A budget for the event is being prepared. A signup sheet to assist with setup, cooking, cleanup, etc. will be circulated. The event will be limited to board and commissions that serve the Mayor and Council. An announcement will be emailed to volunteers and she encouraged Councilmembers to extend an invitation to members of the boards/commissions they serve on. Edmonds City Council Mini Retreat Draft Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 774 Committee Meeting Room Change Council President Petso relayed a request to change the meeting location for the Finance Committee due to the number of people that attend these meetings. Summary: Beginning next month, the Finance Committee will meet in Council Chambers and the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee will meet in the Jury Meeting Room. Process for Amending Resolutions and Ordinances Council President Petso explained this issue arose as a result of an ordinance that was amended and adopted at a Council meeting. The result was the Council saw the changes made to the ordinance only after it was published and emailed to Councilmembers. She suggested returning to the previous practice; when changes were made to an ordinance at a Council meeting, final approval of the ordinance was scheduled on a subsequent Consent Agenda. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there may be practical reasons not to always follow that practice such as an emergency, moratoria or interim zoning ordinances. He recalled it has been the practice to schedule amended ordinances on the Consent Agenda; a recent interim ordinance regarding public markets was approved with amendments at the Council meeting because it was time sensitive. Discussion followed regarding past practice, concern the Council's intent may not have been captured via the amendment to the ordinance, instances where amendments have been made to an ordinance at a Council meeting, and concern with a Councilmember pulling an ordinance from the Consent Agenda and reopening discussion. Summary: The standard practice will be for an amended ordinance to comeback on the Consent Agenda; in the case of an interim or emergency ordinance, amendments will be made, the ordinance adopted and published with amendments as Council directs. When pulling an ordinance/resolution from the Consent Agenda to vote against it, Councilmembers committed to simply voting against it and not reopening discussion. Posting of Committee Minutes City Clerk Sandy Chase reported recent committee meeting minutes are now available on the Council's webpage and staff is in the process of adding past minutes. Report on Meetings Regarding Port of Edmonds and Harbor Square Master Plan Council President Petso reported she talked with each Councilmember one-on-one regarding how they wanted to move this project forward. She recalled Mr. Taraday provided the Council four options at the May 7, 2013 Council meeting, 1) approve as submitted, 2) approve with modifications (create a subarea plan), 3) deny the plan, or 4) resolve to take no action. In her discussions with Councilmembers, she found little support for option 1. She found some interest in option 2, but there is little consensus regarding what the subarea plan would look like and Mayor Earling has indicated staff does not have time to assist with preparing a subarea plan. An alternative under option 2 is to create a plan at a conceptual, Comprehensive Plan level but there is not a consensus regarding what that would look like. With regard to option 3, two previous votes failed. Option 4, available to the Council because the Port withdrew their Comprehensive Plan amendment, would be accomplished via a motion to discontinue the process. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City Council has an obligation to have zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That does not necessarily mean the Council is required to approve a zoning proposal made by an applicant if the zoning proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent the Council is concerned about risk with not adopting a zoning proposal when the proposal is consistent, one way of reducing that risk would be to modify the proposal in a way that it is still consistent and implements the Comprehensive Plan or adopt the proposed zoning at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan. The problem is this area may not be large enough to qualify as an area -wide rezone. Edmonds City Council Mini Retreat Draft Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 774 Mr. Taraday described the procedural differences; a site specific rezone is quasi-judicial and an area -wide rezone is a legislative process similar to the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. With a legislative process, the Council can have as many hearings as they wish, there is no 120 day timeline, and Councilmembers have the ability to interact with constituents, etc. Unfortunately there is no bright line in Washington State law between area -wide and site specific rezones. If the Council wants to explore an area -wide rezone at the same time as a Comprehensive Plan amendment, he could research that further and provide a recommendation. One of the factors considered is whether the property is in single ownership; if so, it tends toward site specific. The City Council may want to consider including other properties in addition to Harbor Square; including more properties makes a stronger argument for an area -wide rezone. Discussion followed regarding Exhibit 2 as a comprehensive subarea plan, adopting development standards prior to considering a development agreement; amending a development agreement once a developer is identified; coordination with the Shoreline Master Program; need for consistency between the Comprehensive Plan, SMP and zoning; SMP as currently drafted is not consistent with the existing Harbor Square contract rezone; limited ability for the Council to interact with citizens in a quasi-judicial process; and ability to modify the proposal as long as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Summary: Over the next 3 weeks Councilmembers consider how they want the Harbor Square Master Plan to come back. Doing nothing is not an option. Citizen Requests Council President Petso relayed the following citizen requests: • The Council approve a resolution in support of Initiative 522 regarding genetically modified foods. Councilmembers Peterson and Fraley-Monillas offered to pursue this request. • With regard to cat roaming, Animal Control would like the ability to issue tickets for cats that are a nuisance; cats are currently excluded. The Public Safety and Personnel Committee has considered the topic and is split. It was the consensus of the Council to bring removal of the cat exclusion to Council for a public hearing and decision. 5. TRAINING — CLOSED RECORD REVIEW City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided training regarding Closed Record Review, using the Court of Appeals case, City of Mercer Island v. Citizens to Preserve Pioneer Park regarding a monopole. He provided the facts of the case, Mercer Island's general variance criteria and criteria regarding cellular pole heights, the Planning Board's recommendation, the cell provider's appeal to City Council, the City Council's decision on appeal, neighbors' LUPA appeal, Superior Court decision, carrier's appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision the Court of Appeals was considering (the City Council's), and ways the Council can mess up (procedural error, erroneous interpretation of law, insufficient evidence to support a decision, erroneous application of law to facts, decision outside of authority, and decision violates constitutional rights of party seeking relief). He reviewed issues the Court of Appeals considered and the Court's decision on each. 6. TRAINING — PUBLIC RECORDS AND RETENTION City Clerk Sandy Chase introduced two experts in the field of public records and retention, Patricia Taraday, Lighthouse Law Group, and Megan Shoemaker, Lead Branch Archivist, Washington State Archives' NW Regional Branch. Ms. Chase explained a brief presentation was made to the Council at the February retreat; there were follow-up questions regarding the responsibility of the Council with regard to public records and retention. Patricia Taraday, Lighthouse Law Group, explained the intent of the training was to provide a better understanding of the reach of the Public Records Act (PRA) and a better understanding of how the PRA relates Edmonds City Council Mini Retreat Draft Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 774 to the role of a Councilmember. She noted anything that relates to Councilmembers, also relates to Board and Commission Members. Ms. Taraday described what is a public record, what if the record is personal, what is considered a "writing," how the PRA pertains to City Councilmembers, the best practice of using a City email account when conducting City business, how far does the PRA reach, O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, and penalties for violating the PRA. She summarized: the PRA pertains to the role of a Councilmember, Board Member or Commissioner; writings created or received should be retained according to retention schedules, don't delete or alter if a request is pending, and if possible use City issued email accounts because email is retained by the server. Ms. Taraday responded to Councilmembers questions regarding inadvertent use of personal email, Board Members and Commissioners concern with past use of personal computers, exemption for sensitive information, and handling email sent to personal accounts. City Attorney Jeff Taraday summarized the best way to avoid search of a personal computer was to use the City -provided email account. Megan Shoemaker, Lead Branch Archivist & Records Consultant, NW Regional Branch, described the Council's responsibly regarding records retention. She described legal requirements, what is a record, disposition authority, considerations for electronic records, definition of a public record in RCW 40.14, what is a public record, and the Public Records Act (RCW 40.14). Ms. Shoemaker explained retention in a nutshell: retain all public records for the minimum retention period that applies to the record, destroy if not archival or transfer to Washington State Archives if archival. She encouraged Councilmembers to familiarize themselves with retention schedules. She explained retention value is determined by the content and function of the record, rules apply to all formats, and rules apply to all public employees/officials/volunteers. She described archival records and transferring to the State Archives. She responded to Councilmembers' questions regarding retention, records with archival designation, and retention of Council mail. Summary: Council President Petso will discuss with Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman how to handle Council mail received in the Council office. 7. TRAINING — ELECTIONS / GUIDELINES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS Patricia Taraday, Lighthouse Law Group, referred to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) materials provided to Councilmembers, explaining the guidelines are very informative and a great reference. The PDC's website is also a great resource. She described activities governed by statute (RCW 42.17A.555) and exceptions. She invited Councilmembers to contact her with any questions. Discussion followed regarding extension of the guidelines to Boards and Commissions with regard to using City resources to oppose/support a ballot measure or candidate and the Council's current practice of not allowing public comment regarding candidates or ballot measures at Council meetings. Mr. Taraday advised his current leaning would be not to stifle public comment regarding candidates or ballot measures, preferring the Council err on the side of allowing First Amendment protected speech. He acknowledged this could result in large numbers of people providing comment at Council meetings. If that occurred, the Council may want to think about when on the agenda public comment is scheduled; it could be moved to the end of the meeting. Discussion followed regarding policies regarding content aired on the government access channel, wording on the reverse side of the Council agenda regarding prohibition of public comment which promotes or opposes candidates for public office or ballot measures except during the course of a public hearing. Summary: Mr. Taraday advised Lighthouse Law Group could research this issue further. Edmonds City Council Mini Retreat Draft Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 774 8. PRESENTATION REGARDING SR-104, INCLUDING IMPLICATIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT AT WESTGATE. Councilmembers and Mayor Earling introduced themselves. Councilmember Johnson introduced Paula Reeves, Manager, WSDOT Community Design Assistance, and described her background. Ms. Reeves introduced Ian Macek, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, and Jill Sterritt, UW Professor. Ms. Reeves described WSDOT's local programs division, explaining what they do includes retrofitting streets for everyone and redesigning "stroads." She described typical Complete Street elements, milestones in federal and state policy, WSDOT's Context Sensitive Design Policy, 2011 Complete Streets Act, and 2012 Design Flexibility Bill. She provided a map of Main Street Highways (state highways that operate as city streets) such as Edmonds Way. She described who has jurisdiction over what and where, highway purpose (RCW 47.30), general design principles, types of arterials, increased interest in biking and walking, and the need for accessible streets. Ms. Reeves explained walkability is where the money is. She provided a map of SR 104 rents and walkscores and a comparison of rents and walkscores in Wedgwood, Green Lake and Queen Anne, Tribeca, New York and Mission Neighborhood in San Francisco. Mr. Macek described and provided examples of specific opportunities. • Boulevard • Sidewalks and accessibility • Crossing treatments • Pedestrian scale lighting • Safe routes to transit • Bike lane treatments • Sidepaths and greenways • Bicycle boulevard or neighborhood greenway • Bicycle parking Mr. Macek described the importance of partnerships and potential funding sources such as MAP-21 Programs for Washington State, State Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Safe Routes to School Program and other grant resources. In response to questions that have been raised about the future of SR 104 and plans for the corridor, Ms. Reeves explained WSDOT does not foresee any capacity improvements for SR 104 in any of their 20-year transportation horizons. The Edmonds ferry terminal is in WSDOT's plans for 2030. Mayor Earling thanked the State for working with the City regarding a hot signal at SR 104 and Pine. He explained a transportation assessment was done of SR 104 in the Westgate area in 2012; he distributed a technical memorandum that states the study does not foresee any need for additional right-of-way in the area of SR 104 and 100t'' Discussion followed regarding options identified via this presentation that were not included in the Westgate Plan, staff's interest in opportunities to use Complete Streets, amount of right-of-way often a determinant, concern WSDOT did not plan to make any capacity improvements when there were significant bottlenecks such as at 76t`' & SR 104 and 100t''& SR 104 that generate cut -through traffic, and ways to address bottlenecks and/or cut -through traffic without capacity improvements. Summary: Schedule a workshop with WSDOT. Edmonds City Council Mini Retreat Draft Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 774 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso thanked Ms. Chase and Ms. Spellman for helping organize the retreat. She also thanked the presenters and staff. 11. ADJOURN The retreat was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Edmonds City Council Mini Retreat Draft Minutes June 17, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 774 AM-5901 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2013. Recommendation Review and Approval Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. 06-25-13 Draft City Council Minutes Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Attachments Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/27/2013 04:38 PM Sandy Chase 06/27/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/27/2013 11:39 AM 3. B. Packet Page 10 of 774 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 25, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Yamamoto. 2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). At 6:32 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. He announced action may occur in open session as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:55 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:05 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the flag salute. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Petso requested Item 15, Discussion: Edmonds City Code Chapter 2 Revisions, be moved to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 1 Packet Page 11 of 774 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #202722 THROUGH #202855 DATED JUNE 20, 2013 FOR $738,490.73. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60245 THROUGH #60266 FOR $454,303.81, BENEFIT CHECKS #60267 THROUGH #60274 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $199,913.22 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2013. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECK #202856 DATED JUNE 21, 2013 FOR $58,176.97. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECK #60275 DATED JUNE 21, 2013 FOR $28,050.00. D. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL A SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Valerie Stewart, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 14, Using Rain Gardens for Stormwater Management, and described her experience with putting rain gardens in her yard. Rain gardens now handle 100% of the rain water off the roof. When investigating development of the adjacent, downhill lot, she learned one of the downspouts was running onto that land. When her house was built in the 1930s it was in the middle of a forested area with many native plants and could handle the stormwater but no longer could due to development in the area. Instead of a storm sewer, rain gardens were designed for the front and backyard and a rain barrel is used for irrigation. Her rain gardens are beautiful; they filter toxins and have handled any storm event to date. A couple of Councilmembers have looked at her rain gardens, they were on the Snohomish County Task Force LID tour and they are the eighth rain gardens to be registered. She encouraged the public to look into the WSU Extension handbook for Western Washington Homeowners that describes how to make a rain garden. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed a citizen's concern with segways being driven on sidewalks. There is a segway rental facility in the area and a number are being used on sidewalks. This citizen's wife has a difficult time with rough sideways and feels threatened by segways speeding on the sidewalks. He recommended the City police the use of segways, have a discussion with the business and/or give direction regarding the use of skateboards, bicycles and segways on sidewalks in the downtown area. Next, Mr. Hertrich referred to last week's TIP presentation, reiterating his suggestion for the Council to allocate more money to the SR 104 study. He suggested Councilmembers imagine themselves as a shopper or visitor to the Westgate area and consider how to navigate the cars backed up to Westgate waiting for the ferry, and if the terminal were moved to Unocal where there would be space for vehicular storage. Rich Demeroutis, Edmonds, viewed the City's $250,000 purchase of the property in front of Old Milltown for a park and $150,000 for renovations as an advantage for the landowner and creating a park that could be utilized by businesses. Several months ago he noticed the Cheesemonger was utilizing the area for outside dining including waiters servicing the tables. He brought it to the attention of the City's Parks & Recreation Director and assumed the situation had been be remedied. A few weeks ago he walked by and saw customers picking up trays from the Cheesemonger to eat in the park. Several people he asked said they would not sit at a table if they saw a professional dining room being operated there. Several Councilmembers responded to his concern including Councilmember Peterson, who said he has been working with City staff and believed they had reached an equitable solution. He questioned why Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 2 Packet Page 12 of 774 Councilmember Peterson had standing on the property since he did not own or rent it and why he was able to utilize a park to operate his business. Apparently there is nothing in the City code to prevent this and other businesses in the area could do the same thing. He urged the City to remedy this situation, stating the park was intended to be a gathering place, not a dining room. Next, he wished Betty Mueller a happy 91" birthday today. Ms. Mueller founded the Fire Foundation and was not appreciated for her energy and the battles she raged against the City with regard to the transport fee and gambling. 6. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF PARKS & RECREATION MONTH Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring July 2013 as Recreation & Parks Month and presented the proclamation to Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. Ms. Hite thanked the Parks crew and staff for the excellent job they do all year long, from mowing and landscaping to being stewards of the off -leash area, cleaning restrooms, providing activities at the Frances Anderson Center, softball leagues and other fitness opportunities for the community. The United States has declared July Parks & Recreation Month for over 25 years. This year's theme is Love My Parks and Recreation. A flyer was distributed to Councilmembers and available at the table in Council Chambers with ideas about what to do during the month of July to celebrate Parks & Recreation Month as well as a schedule of summer concert series. There are seven concerts in the park scheduled at City Park this year, one fewer than last year. Thanks to the Hazel Miller Foundation there will also be concerts at the Hazel Miller Plaza this summer. She encouraged the public to thank the Parks crew and recreation staff for the excellent job they do all year long. 7. PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION Park & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled this subject was presented to the Council over a year ago. Staff has been working with a consultant, Randy Young, Henderson, Young and Company, who provided a complete Park Impact Fee Study and Report on April 23, 2013. After the report was delivered there were several decision points. She has contacted each Councilmember and met with the Finance Committee and Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee to discuss the decision points. Ms. Hite explained the Park Impact Fee ordinance has been distributed to the Council with proposed amendments. On Friday Mr. Young met with Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave and her to discuss concerns with the change of use language. The change of use language in the ordinance is consistent with the Transportation Impact Fees; staff wants to do further research. If adopted tonight, the Park Impact Fee will not be effective until October 1, providing time for staff to conduct that additional research. Randy Young, Henderson, Young and Company, advised the presentation on April 23, 2013 of the draft calculations was in compliance with Washington law, specifically RCW 82.02.050. He also made a presentation to the Finance Committee and Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee on June 11, 2013. He summarized the overall method by which the Park Impact Fee was calculated, explaining he considered what Edmonds has already accomplished in developing its parks system and identified how much it would cost to maintain that same system or the cost in today's dollars to buy it again; that amount is nearly $10 million in investments. Other sources such as grant funds and local funds such as Real Estate Excise Tax would provide approximately $3 million of the investment; new development would pay the remainder. Washington law allows each new dwelling unit and new business to pay their pro rata share of the $7 million cost. The study presented in April illustrated the calculations and the amount per dwelling unit and per square foot for different types of businesses. Tonight's presentation is to determine if the Council is ready to proceed with the ordinance to ask new development to pay for a portion of the park system. The Council already made that decision for the transportation system. He recalled he conducted a Transportation Impact Fee study for the City several years ago and the Council adopted a Transportation Impact Fee. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 3 Packet Page 13 of 774 Mr. Young discussed the remaining issues: 1. Should the Park Impact Fee be charged only to residential development or should businesses also be charged a Park Impact Fee? There are 78 other cities in Washington that charge a Park Impact Fee, only a few charge new businesses development. If the Council decides to charge businesses a Park Impact Fee, only new businesses will be charged. For a new retail business, the fee is approximately $2.50/square foot; $0.70/square foot for office, compared to over $2000 for a new residential unit. If businesses are not included, the City still needs to make the $10 million investment in parks to serve the new population and residential units would pay approximately 20% more. His sense of the Council in April and at committee meetings was they supported charging a Park Impact Fee to commercial as well as residential development and the draft ordinance and draft code, specifically Section 3.36.120, reflect a commercial Park Impact Fee. 2. When should the Park Impact Fee start? Under Washington law, a City government can adopt an ordinance to be effective quickly to allow new rules to be imposed as soon as possible. His advice, based on experience in many other cities, is that it is worth waiting a few months to make the Park Impact Fee effective. The primary reason is development transactions that are currently underway will not have expected the additional cost. Most cities, and what the draft ordinance reflects, adopt a 90-100 day waiting period. This allows developers that amount of time to wrap up their application and not pay the fee. After that time, the Park Impact Fee would be charged all new development that receives a permit on or after October 1, 2013. 3. Should the new fees be enacted in full or phased? The advantage of phasing in a Park Impact Fee is it allows the development community a lower rate the first year. The disadvantage to the city government is it does not collect as much the first year. They have found the rate differential does not make a big difference in the amount of development that occurs; the discounted rate does not cause a construction boom but to some, it seems a more reasonable way to enact a new fee. Councilmembers had many different opinions regarding phasing the Park Impact Fee. The draft ordinance has a two year plan; 50% of the rate would be charged the first year (October 1, 2013 — September 30, 2014), and on October 1, 2014, the rate would be increased the remaining 50% (Section 3.36.120). He provided examples of the October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2014 rate: Development Type 50 % rate Full rate Condo/Apartment —$1400 —$2800 Retail $1.24/square foot $2.48/square foot Office $0.31/square foot $0.62/square foot 4. Exemptions. State law limits exemptions to low income housing or other broad public purposes. A number of cities with Park Impact Fee have adopted exemptions for low income housing but a number of cities have not. When the City adopted its Transportation Impact Fee, a decision was made not to create an exemption for low income housing. The draft ordinance does include an exemption for low income housing built by a non-profit organization such as Habitat for Humanity. If the housing is exempt, the ordinance also includes a provision requiring they file a lien on the property for ten years so that if at any time that house or unit is flipped into profit making and the price goes above the threshold, the person who did that would owe the City that impact fee. With regard to the potential draft amendment that Ms. Hite mentioned, Mr. Young explained the current Transportation Impact Fee has a provision requiring a new house, condominium, office building or new grocery store to pay the fee; but if the use is charged, such as from a grocery store to an office building or a house to a lawyer's office, changes in use that require a permit are also subject to a Transportation Impact Fee. He and staff discussed the challenge that poses in administering the fees. A number of other Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 4 Packet Page 14 of 774 cities charge fees for changes in use or expansion and a number of cities do not. Staff is discussing whether to continue that practice with the Transportation Impact Fee. The draft ordinance models the Transportation Impact Fee; a change in use or expansion requires paying an impact fee. The amendment staff proposed would continue to charge an impact fee for expansions of significant size, such as more than 10%. However, a small scale expansion would not be charged a Park Impact Fee. He relayed some other cities have stopped charging a Park Impact Fee for change in use because they found it very difficult to charge for a change of use from a low use to a high use but when that high use changed back to a low use, the business did not get a refund. There is a legitimate question of fairness and in staff's view, would be difficult to administer. Mr. Young explained the City already charges a Transportation Impact Fee and staff is used to administering it. The administration of any impact fee is not free; the annual budget will reflect the additional time to administer the fee. Staff has suggested future amendments of the fee address whether administrative fees could be recovered from the fees; they are not included in the current draft. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Young for his easy -to -read, understandable information. She asked whether the fees could cover staff time to administer the impact fee. Mr. Young answered a number of cities and counties have elected to add either a flat dollar amount or a percentage to the fee. The funds are reserved in the impact fee account with the purpose of paying for staff administration, updating studies, consultant analysis, appraisals, etc. It is not done universally and was not included in the rate study or ordinance and he was not prepared tonight to say what that amount should be. Staff has discussed and may discuss with the Council amending the Transportation Impact Fee and Park Impact Fee ordinances to reflect that cost. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, was opposed to charging new businesses a Park Impact Fee. He questioned how businesses coming to Edmonds would benefit from the Park Impact Fee. He anticipated the cost of space would increase. He concluded a Park Impact Fee was not the right way to raise revenue in Edmonds. He suggested the City survey residents in the 15-20 blocks surrounding each park to ask what they want in the park. When the City makes those improvements, those residents will support a park levy. Val Stewart, Edmonds, Expressed concern with imposing additional fees on new construction, recalling the dramatic increase in the sewer and water connection fees approximately a year ago, and now a Park Impact Fee. If the Council chose to impose a Park Impact Fee, she preferred to phase the fee in over time. She suggested the Council consider a park levy where all residents are assessed a percentage based on the value of their property, noting people living in existing buildings all enjoy the parks. Park levies are popular and overwhelmingly supported by voters. She was hopeful any development she pursued on her property would not meet with any more unexpected surprises as far as costs, pointing out the importance of predictability in these uncertain times. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented that he felt an impact fee was proper for new development but the City should not depend on it to cure everything or charge so much that it becomes prohibitive. Businesses produce sales tax and therefore should be promoted rather than penalized. If the Park Impact Fee were minimal, a park levy could still be pursued. He questioned how a Park Impact Fee benefits the City and suggested further discussion regarding how the money would be spent. He asked if public facilities would be charged the Park Impact Fee. He referred to language that fee payers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate their development will have less impact than presumed in the impact fee schedule and asked what the impact fee schedule is based on, what would constitute less impact and whether the fee would be increased if the fee payer had more impact than assumed in the fee schedule. He summarized a Park Impact Fee was reasonable but he did not want it to be so prohibitive that it discouraged development and he did not believe it belonged in the business sector. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 15 of 774 Randy Hayden, Edmonds, acknowledged parks are suffering from lack of funds. A tax on new homes was acceptable to him because residents would use the parks. He had a problem with imposing a Park Impact Fee on businesses, noting most people at a business would not use the parks. He is working with a business that needs to relocate and he is encouraging them to come to Edmonds. That business needs 15,000-20,000 square feet and the proposed Park Impact Fee would be a substantial amount. The business currently has a park next door and only about 10% of the people use the park. He anticipated imposing a Park Impact Fee on businesses would push businesses away, reducing revenue from sales tax and property tax. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Park Impact Fee would be imposed only on new buildings. Mr. Young answered the current owner of a house, apartment, condo or business would not pay a Park Impact Fee. It is only charged on new development or, in the case of the Transportation Impact Fee, any expansion or as proposed in the amended Park Impact Fee language, expansion in excess of 10% of the existing building. The amendment also proposes no charge for a change in use with no change in square footage. He explained one of the difficulties with change of use is many changes of use do not require a permit; many cities felt it unfair to charge some changes of use an impact fee and not others. He anticipated staff will later propose eliminating a Transportation Impact Fee for a change of use. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained eliminating change of use from the definition of development activity creates a potentially significant loophole. The Transportation Impact Fee is driven by the ITE manual and how it defines trip generation for each type of use; use is a very significant factor in the calculation of the Transportation Impact Fee. When developers understand there is no fee collected with a change of use, they will simply propose they are building something that creates a very low trip generation under the ITE manual and later change the use to something that generates much larger traffic volume. The threat is not as significant for the Park Impact Fee because they are not calculated using the ITE manual, but if a decision is made to have a parallel structure for the two impact fees, it could create a very significant loophole. He suggested the Council take that issue under advisement for a couple months while staff confers on whether to have a parallel structure for both impact fees. Mr. Young agreed with Mr. Taraday's concerns, noting a delayed effective date would allow further discussion of change of use. He observed the two principle commercial categories for the Park Impact Fee are retail and office. With regard to the Park Impact Fee, for someone to intentionally beat the system, they would build an office building which has a Park Impact Fee of $0.30/square foot versus $1.20 for retail. They would then need to turn the office into a restaurant without applying for a permit to put in a kitchen, restrooms, etc. He anticipated it would be difficult to beat the system. Councilmember Bloom referred to the example Mr. Hayden provided, observing a new business locating in an available space would not be charged a Park Impact Fee. Mr. Young agreed there is no new impact fee if the building already exists. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Young provided the Finance Committee with reasons it was appropriate for businesses to pay the Park Impact Fee. Mr. Young explained the study provides technical calculations regarding the small park usage by businesses. It is recognized that businesses' employees, customers and visitors only have incidental use of parks. There is clear proof, however, that employees visit a park for a break, exercise, lunch, etc. The data sources about when and how often that happens result in the study charging businesses a tiny percentage of what would be charged a residence. Approximately 12 of the 78 Washington cities that charge a Park Impact Fee agreed businesses benefit from the park system and charge businesses a Park Impact Fee. The impact fee amount is low. If it is accepted businesses receive some small benefit, asking them to pay a Park Impact Fee based on square footage for new space, in his experience, does not drive businesses away from communities. If it did, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 16 of 774 cities would not have a Transportation Impact Fee. The practical proof that impact fees do not discourage business is the cities with the biggest growth in business, such as Bellevue and Redmond, have some of the largest impact fees in the State. The transportation system and parks system attract businesses. Contrary to the thought that cheaper is better, better quality of life is better and that attracts businesses. Mr. Taraday referred to Councilmember Bloom's question about a new business coming to Edmonds, explaining the answer depends on what the Council decides to do with regard to change of use. If change of use is removed from development activity as the amendment proposes, it is more certain that the situation posed in Councilmember Bloom's question would not be charged an impact fee. If changes of use are development activity, then City staff in processing whatever permits are associated with that new business could potentially charge an impact fee depending on the business that previously occupied the space. For example, does the preceding business generate the same impact on the system that the new business generates. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Taraday's concern about a loophole was only if the Transportation and Park Impact Fee had parallel structures. Mr. Taraday acknowledged it is a significantly larger loophole for transportation than parks but a potential loophole in both. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the goal was to have the impact fee structures mirror each other. Mr. Taraday answered that is up to the Council Mr. Young commented for the businesses and staff who administer the impact fees, there is a lot to be said for consistency. His understanding of Mr. Taraday's advice was to adopt the ordinance as drafted without the amendment to preserve that consistency. Staff will then have an opportunity to research and discuss this point further and return to the Council, possibly with both impact fees, and the loophole could be addressed at that time. Mr. Young pointed out the rates in the ordinance had not been corrected to reflect a 20% lower rate for residential with the inclusion of a commercial Park Impact Fee. He provided the following revision to the rates in Section 3.36.120: Housing Type Incorrect Rate 1011113 — 9/30/14 Corrected Rate 1011113 — 9/30/14 Incorrect Rate 10/1/14 Corrected Rate 10/1/14 Single Family $1,660.19 $1,367.03 $3,320.38 $2,734.05 Multi -Family $1,421.01 $1,170.08 $2,842.02 $2,340.16 Councilmember Peterson asked whether any neighboring cities such as Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, or Shoreline had a Park Impact Fee and if so, did they charge businesses. Mr. Young responded Mukilteo has a residential Park Impact Fee of $2,438 and does not have a commercial Park Impact Fee. Redmond, Mountlake Terrace, Arlington, Tukwila, Sedro Woolley, Buckley, Burlington, Arlington, Sumner, Ephrata and Yelm charge a commercial Park Impact Fee. Due to the amount of time spent discussing this item and the number of items remaining on the agenda, Mayor Earling suggested the Council consider moving this to a future meeting. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3928, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.36 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "PARK IMPACT FEES", PROVIDING FOR THE IMPOSITION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH FEES UPON NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE CALCULATION, USAGE AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH A FEE SYSTEM, WITH THE OCTOBER 1, 2013 START DATE, AN EXEMPTION FOR LOW INCOME BUILT BY A NON-PROFIT, A TWO-YEAR PHASE -IN, AND INCLUDING BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 17 of 774 Councilmember Peterson stated he did not support charging a commercial Park Impact Fee. There has been discussion that businesses on Highway 99 are the financial center and revenue generator for the City. Edmonds is in direct competition with Lynnwood; when a decision is being made to build a new building in Edmonds or across the street in Lynnwood, he wanted Edmonds to have every advantage. He anticipated the sales tax generated would make up for the possible loss in Park Impact Fees. He preferred the Park Impact Fee for single family and multi -family to be phased in over three years, particularly in view of needed but significant increases in fees for new construction. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her support for the motion. She understood Councilmember Peterson's concerns about businesses on Highway 99, pointing out most of those businesses were large corporation -type businesses and medical facilities and they are a good way to generate funds via a Park Impact Fee. Further, there are a number of parks in that area that will be used by the staff and patrons of those businesses. Councilmember Peterson asked if the motion included the amendment that was distributed tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis said it did not. Mr. Taraday pointed out the motion also does not include the revised numbers read by Mr. Young. Amendment #1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CORRECTED NUMBERS PROVIDED BY MR. YOUNG. Vote on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vote on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3921 - ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PUBLIC MARKETS IN THE BC. BD AND CG ZONES. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council approved Interim Ordinance No. 3921 on May 21, 2013, adopting amendments to ECDC Title 16 and 21. The ordinance is good for six months as long as the Council conducts a hearing within 60 days; this hearing meets that obligation. The Planning Board also concluded a public workshop on May 22, 2013 followed by a public hearing on June 12, 2013 to review and discuss the interim ordinance. Ordinance No. 3922 related to amending ECDC 4.90 regarding licensing was approved by the Council on May 21, 2013 and is included in the Council packet for reference purposes only and does not require a public hearing. The Planning Board recommendation is to support Interim Ordinance No. 3921, subject to recommended amendments contained in Attachment 1 of the Council packet. The most significant amendment is related to a concern raised by a Councilmember, a public market adjacent to a single family would need to be contained entirely within a building. Mr. Clifton explained the Edmonds Historical Museum approached the City last fall about opening a produce and food market in another location. Upon the review of existing regulations applicable to such a proposal, City staff found numerous issues in the existing code. The current regulations would preclude the proposed produce and farmers market from operating Wednesday evenings during any month of the year and existing regulations conflict with current operation of the Edmonds Historical Museum Garden and Summer Market that takes place each Saturday because the current code restricts operations to the months of July, August and September. The code contains a definition for seasonal farmers market but it Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 18 of 774 only allows them to operate May — September. Existing regulations prohibit any other open air market to exist other than what exists today as well as precludes the ability to establish a year-round farmers market. Mr. Clifton reviewed the goals and how the amendments addressed each goal: Goal #1: Create one definition that would be located in ECDC Title 21 - Definitions that apply to community open-air markets, farmers' markets, seasonal farmers' markets, or public markets. Amendments: The term Community Oriented Open -Air Market has been deleted from ECC Section 4.90.010 and Seasonal Farmers Market has been deleted from ECDC Title 21. A new term called Public Market has been added as ECDC 21.80.103 and will allow: • a stand-alone produce only farmers market • a farmers market • community oriented outdoor market Goal #2: Allow public markets to operate as open-air activities, within buildings.....or both Amendments: The term also allows the use to take place indoors or outdoors. Goal #3: Allow public markets to operate in public rights of way, private property, and public property not located within public rights of way Amendments: Amendments to ECC Section 4.90.020(C) reference operations that might take place in public rights of way, private property, and/or public property not located within public rights of way. Goal #4: Establish operational hours to minimize disruption to traffic, residential properties, etc. Amendments: Establishes hours of operations: - Activities of the market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday within public rights of way. • Extended hours are allowed up to 10 p.m. if the market takes place outdoors on private property or public property not located within public rights of way. • Operational hours related to activities of the market are not so limited when the market takes place within a fully enclosed building. Goal #5: Allow public markets to operate for longer periods of time, e.g., four months, 8 months, or year-round Amendments: Proposed amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21, and adopted amendments to ECC Chapter 4.90, do not place restrictions on what months a public market can operate, thus allowing a market to operate year-round. Goal #6: Remove provisions of ECC Chapter 4.90, Section 4.90.060, that are more land use oriented and move them to ECDC Sections 16.43 and 16.50 Amendments: ECC Section 4.90.060 has been deleted and relocated to ECDC Title 16. This language relates more to land use, i.e., temporary use status. Mr. Clifton advised the ordinance applies to the Strategic Action Plan, finding a way to create a year- round market. For the public market on the Salish Crossing property at the intersection of Dayton & SR 104, the process was flawless and smooth and the market is now in operation. Council President Petso asked if there was a recommended action to incorporate the Planning Board's amendments or only hold a public hearing. Mr. Clifton suggested the Council hold the public hearing and then make a decision. Councilmember Bloom referred to Section 11 of the ordinance that restricted the duration of a public market to six months. Mr. Clifton advised that was only in the interim ordinance. If the Council holds the hearing and approves a permanent ordinance, the six month provision would be removed. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 19 of 774 Al Rutledge, Edmonds, questioned whether a property owner who has been using their property in the past to sell items would be grandfathered. Fay May, Edmonds, expressed support for adoption of the ordinance, noting it will help things run smoothly and it is well thought out. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Taraday advised Ordinance No. 3921 was adopted as an interim zoning ordinance; a public hearing was required within 60 days. It was his understanding this was the public hearing required by State law within 60 days of the adoption of the interim zoning ordinance. He did not realize it was intended to be combined with the permanent adoption of the zoning regulations for public markets. Mr. Clifton pointed out the packet contained the ordinance with the amendments recommended by the Planning Board. Council President Petso suggested rather than a motion to adopt the ordinance, there be a motion to ask the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for next week's Consent Agenda that includes the Planning Board's recommendations and not include Section 11. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA THAT INCORPORATES THE CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND DOES NOT INCLUDE SECTION 11. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PLANNING BOARD QUARTERLY REPORT Planning Board Vice Chair Valerie Stewart reported the Planning Board (PB) has met 5 times since the last Quarterly Report was delivered on March 26, 2013. The PB meets on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers unless otherwise noted. Meetings are open to the public and citizens are encouraged to attend so concerns and comments are addressed early on and incorporated into discussions before making recommendations to City Council. The PB is a group of volunteer citizens who review findings, research, conduct public hearings and discuss matters relating to land use. The PB serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council in regional and local planning issues and ultimately passes on recommendations to City Council for consideration. Vice Chair Stewart provided the following highlights of recent PB meetings: 1) Public hearing on proposed code amendment to increase the time frame for validity of preliminary short plat approval In February, the PB discussed this item and proposed to extend the time frame for preliminary short plat approval to be consistent with the State's time frame for formal subdivision approval, including a provision to address applications that have already expired. The preliminary short plat approval would expire at the end of seven years if the preliminary short plat approval was issued on or before 12-31-13 and at the end of five years if the preliminary short plat approval was issued on or after 01-01-14. The time frame would then switch back to five years at the beginning of 2014, which is one year sooner than what the State regulations afford to formal plats. Also included was a provision for extending the time limit for preliminary short plats that would have expired within the past couple of years, giving applicants two additional years from the effective date of the ordinance to obtain final approval. The intent of this change was to provide builders additional time to complete projects that have been affected by the economic downturn. 2) Public hearing of proposed rezone of parcel (22133 76th Ave. W) from contract General Commercial (CG) to General Commercial (CG2) and a portion of another parcel (22121 76th Ave. W) from Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4) to General Commercial (CG2) This rezone is proposed in order to correct two errors on the official zoning map that dated back to 1995. This rezone, as recommended by the PB, brings the parcels into better alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and the CG2 zoning which has surrounded the parcels since 1995. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 20 of 774 3) Highway 99 Corridor Update The following projects are a few that are likely to come to the attention of the PB: • New Swedish cancer treatment center, located at 21605 — 76th Avenue involves future planning with the City. Community Health Centers of Snohomish County is proposing to construct a new 25,000 square foot facility. The building will be constructed to meet LEED Silver standards. • Edmonds Gateway/SR99 Revitalization Project - Phase 1: with the successful transformation of Highway 99 within the Shoreline City limits, the opportunity and precedent exists to extend similar safety, capacity, and aesthetic improvements to that portion of Highway 99 within the City limits of Edmonds. The City will create a recognizable "Gateway" that identifies this portion of Highway 99 as Edmonds from both the North and South. • 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project: a new roadway will be added from Highway 99 to 76th Ave W creating a new E/W connection from Highway 99 to I-5 and Mountlake Terrace Park-n-Ride. The City has been instrumental in securing significant funding for this project through the Federal Highway Administration grant programs. 4) Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Quarterly Update The PB is also a Parks Board and is often called upon to review and discuss matters relating to parks. The following are a just a few of the many projects underway: • The Edmonds Marsh: The City recently contracted with Earthcorps (formerly the work of People for Puget Sound) to manage the phases of the Edmonds Marsh rehabilitation efforts. A major goal of this effort is day lighting Willow Creek. $100,000 funding has been secured and additional funding is being sought. • Yost Pool: The goal this year is to replace the boiler with a more energy efficient system barring any unforeseen emergency repairs. • City Park: the department is planning to improve, update, and diversify the outdated play features at our key downtown community park. The redesign introduces a water spray play element and replaces aged play structures with interactive, kinetic, and inclusive play structures. The project is scheduled to be completed by summer 2014. • Dayton Street Plaza: the design is complete and work is scheduled in Fall of 2013. • SR 104 Mini Park: the park naming process is underway for this park. A PB sub -committee is reviewing entries for the full PB to consider at our next meeting. • Park Recreation and Open Space Plan ( PROS): The current plan was adopted in 2008, and expires in May 2014. A committee has been selected to be involved in the planning which includes me as our PB representative. The full PB will play a major role in the process of review, comments, public hearings, approval and recommendation to City Council. • Edmonds Municipal Code regarding dogs: EMC prohibits dogs on the beachfront walkways. This will be up for review. • Community Garden: The Parks Department has set aside $200,000 in the upcoming budget for acquisition of land to establish this. The goal for 2013 is to secure land to develop the garden for 2014. • Esperance Park: The Parks Department is having conversations with Snohomish County about the City of Edmonds acquiring ownership of Esperance Park. • Metropolitan Park District/Park Levy Exploratory Committee: This Committee was charged with gathering and interpreting information about the pros and cons of a Metropolitan Park District; exploring goals, issues, needs and priorities of Edmonds Parks and Recreation system; and soliciting input from the community. Board member Lovell sits on this committee. 5) Edmonds Way Zoning The PB reviewed new zoning, BC-EW and RM-EW, along Edmonds Way at two meetings. In light of the recent Compass development there, the PB discussed potential changes to the zoning to ensure a better outcome. Concerns were expressed by the City Council specifically related to the height and setback requirements, incentives for low -impact development, ground floor Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 21 of 774 commercial requirements and landscaping requirements. The PB previously raised questions about the relative width of the landscape strips, sidewalks, etc., particularly noting the close proximity of the new Compass development to Edmonds Way. The PB felt that a greater setback would be preferable. The PB also agreed that the code language should have more depth in regards to the incentives required to obtain the additional building height. They talked about whether it would be appropriate to incorporate design standards into the language similar to those found in BD zones to make development more appealing. There was additional discussion about LEED certification, bicycle storage, preferred building materials, and the inclusion of affordable housing. Staff will draft proposed amendments and bring this back for a public hearing in July. 6) Public Markets The City Council approved an Interim Ordinance on May 21, 2013 adopting amendments to ECDC Titles 16 and 21 which would allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG Zones.; the ordinance is good for a period of up to six months. The PB conducted a public workshop on May 22, 2013 to review and discuss the interim ordinance and conducted a public hearing on June 12, 2013. The PB subsequently recommended proposed amendments to City Council involving zoning regulations which would allow Public Markets in the BC, BD and CG zones. The City Council has just conducted a public hearing on this proposed ordinance tonight. This ordinance relates to the following Strategic Plan actions: • Plan Action 2a.2 (33) Farmers'/Public Market. "Expand into a year-round activity with available all-weather structures, available parking, and increased visibility to attract out - of -area customers and tourists." • Plan Action lb.5 (21) Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing. "Encourage packaging the Safeway/Antique Mall aka Salish Crossing and nearby properties for the purpose of enhancing redevelopment opportunities of this significant gateway site." 7) Incentive zoning opportunities and Highway 99 The PB discussed Highway 99 zoning incentives/issues. Highway 99 was prominently mentioned in the Strategic Plan as an opportunity for some initiatives. The PB considered ways to include 'green building' incentives in regulations along with opportunities to encourage transit oriented development in association with SWIFT bus rapid transit. The idea is to provide flexibility and more options to developers. Board Member Lovell and Chair Reed agreed to serve on the Subcommittee to study the Highway 99 issue further. They agreed to work with staff to set up a meeting with representatives from the Highway 99 Task Force and the EDC's land use subcommittee. Staff is incorporating the Board suggestions for later review. Further details are available on the City's website under Planning Board agendas. On behalf of the Planning Board, Vice Chair Stewart thanked the Mayor, Councilmembers, staff, and involved citizens for their careful study and consideration of all the land issues the Planning Board evaluates. It is extremely important work, looking toward a much needed sustainable approach to land use and development in order to ensure equity, a clean and healthy environment, and resilient economics. Councilmember Bloom thanked Ms. Stewart for her reference to items that address goals in the Strategic Plan. 10. SNO-ISLE REGIONAL LIBRARY PRESENTATION Jonalyn Woolf -Ivory, Sno-Isle Libraries Executive Director, commented in 1946 the partnership between Edmonds and Sno-Isle Libraries began. A lot of has changed in the Edmonds and Sno-Isle community since 1946; a beautiful new library building, a new City Hall, 24-hour access to library resources, online homework assistance and new faces in the community and at the library. Regardless of the shape or format, library materials provide a doorway to reading, resources and lifelong learning. The partnership between Edmonds and Sno-Isle Libraries is built on mutual respect and support. The partnership began with a contract for library service in 1946. The Library District agreed to provide library service and the City agreed to provide library quarters and furnishings, utilities and janitorial Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 22 of 774 services. Over the years, the library building was replaced, more materials and books were added to the collection, space was made for computers, staff and open hours were added and the Library District began reimbursing the City for utilities and janitorial costs. In 2001, faced with many financial issues, the City asked its citizens to annex to the Sno-Isle Libraries District. Peggy Pritchard -Olsen led a successful annexation campaign that resulted in Edmonds residents paying Sno-Isle Libraries directly for library services, allowing the City to cease paying the contract fee and be responsible for only providing the library facility. The results of this updated partnership have been incredibly successful. The City is no longer required to pay for library services from the General Fund, Edmonds residents no longer fear losing their library, and Sno-Isle Libraries now has an ongoing source of revenue that allows for thoughtful planning of future services. She appreciated the Mayor's and City Council's forethought that lead to the 2001 annexation election and knew that Ms. Pritchard-Olsen's work with the Friends of the Edmonds Library and the Library Board ensured that the future of the library in Edmonds was secure. Public libraries are a vital part of a vibrant community and for a community such as Edmonds; the library is the first step that a young family takes on the road to early learning. It is a go -to resource for small businesses and job seekers and an essential element of the community's quality of life. Her work at Sno- Isle Libraries focuses on working with staff and communities to provide the best possible customer service within each of the 21 community libraries, whether provided directly by Lesly Kaplan at a customer service desk in the library or from a staff member providing virtual service to a customer via the internet. Recently the Board of Trustees took steps to begin the Library District's upcoming Strategic Planning cycle, looking out to the next three years, gathering feedback from community members, local library boards, and friends groups and looking closely at the demographics through Snohomish and Island Counties. Over the next several months, there will be opportunity to provide feedback, comment and discussion regarding library services. Sno-Isle Libraries is a community of libraries. Their success depends on the success of each of the 21 community libraries. They count the Edmonds Library as a success, a success that started with an engaged and supportive community. Kendra Trachta, Sno-Isle Libraries Deputy Director, recognized the impact of Library Manager Lesly Kaplan and the library's staff. The summer reading program kicked off today, their annual project to keep kids reading and learning throughout the summer. This year's theme is Dig into Reading; today's event included the Pacific Science Center. Over 100 children attended and over 250 children have signed up for summer reading in Edmonds. Thanks to a suggestion by Ms. Kaplan, Ms. Trachta reported the Edmonds Library is checking out tablet PCs to customers in the library to allow them to sit in the comfortable chairs and read the new electronic magazine service, Zinio. Recent improvements at the Edmonds Library include replacing all the old wooden shelving and the Friends of the Edmonds Library funded comfortable seating, new seats for tables and replaced all the blinds. Ms. Trachta explained the Edmonds Library also go out into the community. Library staff are members of the Chamber of Commerce and make contact with businesses, introducing them to business resources; a librarian visits the Senior Center every month to teach classes on new devices and library eBooks. The Edmonds Library is collaborating with Humanities Washington and Edmonds Community College thanks to a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation on a series of conversations from the Humanities Washington Speakers Bureau. At each session, resources and links to library titles are provided so that participants can continue learning about what they hear in those public conversations. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 23 of 774 Councilmember Johnson thanked Sno-Isle for the Near Futures Conference held recently, Transforming the Nexus of Business, Education, Government and Libraries; she found it very informational and inspiring. She expressed her appreciation for the work of all the library staff. 11. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT INTERIM MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM/BUDGET FOR YEAR 2013 AND BYLAWS Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained ECC Section 3.75.120 requires the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) Interim Advisory Board present the Council a work plan and bylaws within 90 days of the Mayor's appointment of the Board. A presentation to the Finance Committee in June met the 90 day requirement. He met with Councilmember Bloom and Mary Kay Sneeringer, a member of the EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board, today to discuss the amendments to the bylaws proposed by Councilmember Bloom. A redlined copy of the bylaws with those amendments was distributed to the Council tonight. David Arista, Arista Wine Cellars, President, EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board, introduced the members of the BID Interim Members Advisory Board who were present: Sally Merck, Sally Merck Counseling; Paul Rucker, Saetia; Mary Kay Sneeringer, Edmonds Bookshop; and Kim Wahl, Reliable Floor Coverings. Other members include Steve Balas, Waterfront Coffee Co.; Juliana Buskirk, Edward Jones; Kevin Clarke, Clarke Consulting Group; Cadence Clyborne, HDR Engineering; Chris Fleck, Puget Sound Tax Services; and Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee. Mr. Arista explained the EDBID was approved by the City Council on January 15, 2013 and updated February 26, 2013. The Interim BID Members Advisory Board was appointed by Mayor Earling on March 12, 2013. The EDBID Board will present a proposed 2014 work plan to the City Council in September. Assessments and collection of assessments have begun. The most recent information indicates the EDBID has received close to 80% of the assessments. A few logistical issues such as businesses that have closed and discrepancies in square footage are being addressed. Assessments for the three quarters of 2013 total approximately $22,000 per quarter for total assessments of $66,000. Depending on the number of businesses that open and close, he anticipated next year's budget would be approximately $90,000. The EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board developed the proposed bylaws working with City Attorney Jeff Taraday. The Board will consider Councilmember Bloom's suggested changes to the bylaws at their next meeting. He recognized City staff they have worked with including Stephen Clifton, Cindi Cruz, Jeff Taraday, Roger Neumaier, Sandy Chase and many other department staff. He summarized their overall goal is to build a good foundation for the EDBID for the betterment of downtown businesses as well as the overall community. Paul Rucker, Co -Owner, Saetia, EDBID Interim Members Advisory Board Member, explained he and his wife opened their business three years ago; his day job is Executive Director UW Alumni Association, a non-profit, dues -paying membership community with 60,000 dues -paying members. He appreciated the contributions of the Members Advisory Board to ensure that by -appointment, service and retail businesses are both engaged and incorporated in this process. The work plan incorporates the goals and objectives of the ordinance as well as speaks to areas the Members Advisory Board would like to emphasize in the next six months. He highlighted several priorities: establish a foundation of the EDBID governing structure, non-profit incorporation of the EDBID and operating agreement between the EDBID and the City. He recognized member communication, engagement, participation and stewardship is the priority and will be highlighted in the next six months. The EDBID recognizes the architecture to establish a brand and identity of the EDBID is a key priority and it is included in the work plan for the remainder of this year and into next year. The EDBID Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 24 of 774 recognizes the responsibility of stewardship of resources and assessments of all members, and evaluating the effectiveness of expenditures. The work plan incorporates an opportunity to engage with education institutions such as the UW Business School to ensure the ability to provide return on investment and benefit for those resources is properly stewarded and communicated to members and the City. Mr. Rucker referred to the proposed 2013 budget of $40,000 for the remainder of 2013, recognizing the estimated revenue of $66,000 will be collected through the remainder of the year. Key priorities and allocations are identified on the last page of the budget. The EDBID anticipates unallocated funds for the first year of $26,000, and will be prepared to present a more comprehensive 2014 budget along with the 2014 work plan. Councilmember Bloom commented the total 2013 budget is $40,000 and $26,000 is allocated to branding and identity development. She asked for an explanation regarding how the funds would be allocated and what was meant by branding and identity of the EDBID. Mr. Rucker explained the ordinance specifies a scope of work and identifies the areas the EDBID is able to allocate expenses to and attempt to achieve its goal of improving the Edmonds Downtown Business District. Other BIDs this size have focused on establishing a clear and distinct brand and identity, and creating a toolkit, logos, signage, website presence, etc. that create a package and an identity that is consistent with introductory and formative efforts of BIDs Edmonds' size. The EDBID's research of similar efforts nationally indicated that was the first step that would inform the process of establishing a foundation for EDBID's efforts. This would be done in partnership with the Chamber, City and other civic organizations that are active in the publicity and promotion of the City. Councilmember Bloom observed the bulk of the budget was allocated to branding and identity, including hiring a consultant to assist. She asked if the intent was to pay a consultant to assist with developing a logo and website design as well as a brand for the EDBID. Mr. Arista answered it would include all those things. The intent is to establish a foundation to build future programs on. The all -volunteer Advisory Board anticipates a brand will be developed over the next six months. Establishing the brand will be a one-time expense; marketing efforts will result from the brand. For example, a Shop Local means shopping at local retail as well as using local services, lawyers, doctors, counselors, etc. It is possible the entire amount will not be expended on that item in the budget. Councilmember Bloom asked how much of the $26,000 would be allocated to a consultant. Mr. Arista answered he was uncertain at this point. The intent of the full member meeting in September was to gather input from the membership that the Board was moving in the direction the membership wants. Once the full member meeting is held, the Board will have a better idea of exactly how to spend those funds. Mr. Rucker advised a Request for Proposals will be prepared for a qualified creative agency or consultant to guide this process. One of the concerns was ensuring any creative approach, branding or identity effort were not done by volunteers on their home computer but worked in concert with the City and other agencies to ensure the effort had a level of professionalism. Mr. Arista explained the work to date has been done entirely by the volunteers on the EDBID, all of whom have their own businesses. At some point, professional assistance will be necessary if the goal is a good product. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had worked on two logos, one for the dog park and one for the Floretum Garden Club. She agreed it was a tremendous effort to ensure you got everyone's opinion. She noted 65% of the first six months' proceeds would go toward the branding and logo. Although she did not want to micromanage, she recognized that was a large amount. She agreed a professional was needed to do the logo, explaining one of the volunteers in the organizations she was involved in was from Microsoft and did their logos free of charge. Councilmember Johnson commented branding for the City has been discussed for many years as it relates not only to the BID but also the arts community and others. She asked how branding for the EDBID Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 25 of 774 would be coordinated with branding for the rest of the City. Mr. Clifton answered the EDBID is a distinct entity and needs to determine their brand themselves. As branding moves forward on a citywide basis, that will be considered as part of a bigger picture. He recalled Roger Brooks' advice that branding come not from elected officials or the City but from the private sector and business community. Main Motion #1 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE WORK PLAN PREPARED BY THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. Councilmember Bloom expressed concern with the amount allocated to branding and identity development in the work plan, finding it put the cart before the horse. There are two distinct groups of business owners, by appointment and open door. The concerns of all focus on parking and a public restroom. She was concerned with jumping into a brand or identity when it was linked with the identity of the entire City and before funds have been allocated for exploration of a map to identify available parking spaces or the EDBID doing a project that would generate enthusiasm. She understood a number of people have serious concerns about allocating their assessments to this endeavor. She will not support the work plan, finding the allocation of $26,000 in this budget cycle to branding and identity development premature and there were other things that should be worked on first to get the buy -in of by appointment businesses as well as open door businesses that opposed the EDBID. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out a committee with members from both open door and by appointment businesses was appointed to consider this. She assumed the committee had vetted the issue. Mr. Arista assured it has been. Everyone on the Board does not necessarily just represent one constituency, open door or by appointment, they represent all viewpoints. Councilmember Johnson asked how the branding, identity and website would work for by appointment businesses. She noted approximately 50% of the EDBID members are by appointment businesses. She recognized it would be a challenge to meet the needs of that group. Mr. Rucker explained an attempt was made to capture that in Section G, Professional Business Resources, to ensure professional development, training, technology resources, innovation for by -appointment business was part of the effort in order to provide value to all members. He recognized there is a shared common good from increased publicity and foot traffic to the health and wellness of the downtown business district. The assessment and evaluation by the UW Business School to ensure expenditures advance the effective goals of the EDBID was an attempt to recognize the diversity of the membership. The responsibility of the EDBID leadership is to ensure engagement with all members of the community and identifying value on an annual basis. Vote on Main Motion #1 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Main Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO APPROVE THE BYLAWS OF THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS AMENDED IN THE CURRENT DOCUMENT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas noted the proposed amendments were minor. Mr. Arista responded the bylaws would need to be approved by the Advisory Board first. The Board has not met since Councilmember Bloom proposed the amendments this afternoon. He agreed the amendments appear to be minor but he did not think the Council could approve the bylaws until the Advisory Board had approved the amended bylaws. He noted bylaws can be amended; the Council could approve the bylaws as proposed, the Advisory Board could review the amendments proposed by Councilmember Bloom and if the Board approved the amendments, the Council could approve the amended bylaws. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 26 of 774 Mr. Taraday advised that the Council may want to wait until the Interim EDBID Members Advisory Board has approved the revised language, but the Council can approve any bylaws they wish. If there are questions about the amendments to the bylaws, he agreed it may be preferable to have another meeting with the Advisory Board before the Council adopts them. Councilmember Bloom thanked Ms. Sneeringer and Mr. Clifton for meeting with her today and Ms. Merck for speaking with her. She preferred to have the amendments she suggested included in the adoption of the bylaws. She proposed an additional amendment to the composition of the Advisory Board to reflect not how much each member pays but the actual percentage of open door versus appointment only businesses. There is a larger percentage of by appointment businesses in the EDBID than open door businesses. She noted it is well known that she did not support the BID; however, as a business owner in the BID, she wants it to succeed. She suggested the following change in Section 5.1.a. Composition, "...To the best possible degree, members of the EDBID Board will be composed of both open door and by appointment EDBID members in rough proportion to the dollar- value of assessments to be levied e-n- eaeh ells. foe fie of business percentage of open door and by appointment businesses in the EDBID." She explained this would shift the balance to six by appointment businesses and five open door businesses. She felt this would improve relationships for the EDBID. Mayor Earling suggested Councilmember Bloom provide draft language to the Board for their consideration with the other bylaw changes at their next meeting and return to the Council for approval of the amended bylaws. Action on Main Motion #2 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Main Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO SEND THE BYLAWS BACK TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ALONG WITH COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM'S ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT. Councilmember Peterson spoke against the motion, stating it was setting up a slippery slope. The last thing the Council wants to do is micromanage the BID. The Council needs to trust that the EDBID has vetted a lot of things. The Council should give the EDBID an opportunity to succeed and build on the momentum. The Board developed all this information in 90 days, an incredible feat for a group of volunteers who have businesses to run and other community service commitments. He preferred to approve the bylaws as proposed. If there are serious issues, the Board can return to the Council with needed amendments. Mr. Clifton commented in today's meeting with Councilmember Bloom, there was discussion that the amendments reflected in the draft provided to the Council tonight were minor enough that the Advisory Board would find them acceptable. The change Councilmember Bloom proposed to Section 5. La to alter the composition of the Board is significant enough that neither he nor Ms. Sneeringer were comfortable taking a position or guessing whether the Advisory Board would accept it. He concluded that change was significant enough that it warranted having the Advisory Board discuss it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the amendments provided in the ordinance were minor; she asked whether the Council could approve the bylaws with the amendments or did the EDBID Advisory Board have to approve them first. Mr. Arista advised the amendments to the bylaws, with the exception of the last amendment Councilmember Bloom proposed, were minor. Mr. Taraday has indicated the Council can approve the bylaws with those amendments tonight; his understanding was they had to be approved by the Board first but apparently that is incorrect. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 27 of 774 Action on Main Motion #3 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Main Motion #4 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY PETERSON, TO ACCEPT THE BYLAWS AS AMENDED TONIGHT WITH THE PRINTED CHANGES. Amendment #1 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF 5.1.A COMPOSITION, FROM "THE BOARD WILL BE COMPOSED OF BOTH OPEN DOOR AND BY APPOINTMENT EDBID MEMBERS IN ROUGH PROPORTION TO THE DOLLAR VALUE OF ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED ON EACH CLASSIFICATION OF BUSINESSES" TO "IN ROUGH PROPORTION TO THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN DOOR AND BY APPOINTMENT BUSINESSES IN THE EDBID." Vote on Amendment #1 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson commented the Council had done what he was hoping they would not do, micromanage the EDBID. The Council made a significant change to the structure of the BID without consulting the EDBID. The whole point of a BID is to have the businesses come up with the ideas and not have them dictated by the City Council. The Council just blew that whole concept out of the water. All Councilmembers have seen Roger Brooks' presentation where he recommended letting the businesses do the work and the Council stay out of the way. He will vote against the main motion because he could not believe the Council had already stepped in it this early in the process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not view Councilmember Bloom's amendment as a drastic change. All the board members own businesses in Edmonds; the amendment did not change the number of board members, it only changed number of board members from one category to another. She has no vested interest and wants to do what was best for the BID and businesses downtown. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. She did not view this as micromanaging; it is changing the allocation of board members from basing it on the amount of money they pay in to the majority of business owners which is a reasonable suggestion. Council President Petso commented the Council had an opportunity early to send the proposed amendments to the bylaws back to the EDBID Advisory Board. She will support the motion and if it needs to be changed, she is confident the Advisory Board will approach the Council with a proposed change. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the amendments to the bylaws should have gone back to the EDBID Board. She felt the composition of the Board does have an impact but because she preferred the EDBID Board should have an opportunity to review the proposed change first, she will vote no on the motion. Councilmember Johnson preferred to have the amendments to the bylaws returned to the EDBID Advisory Board for their consideration; therefore, she will vote no on the motion. For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday clarified the motion was to approve the version of the bylaws that was emailed to Councilmembers by Mr. Clifton at 4:38 p.m. today that was subsequently amended by Councilmember Bloom's motion. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 28 of 774 Vote on Main Motion #4 UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE WAS (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. DUE TO THE TIE VOTE, MAYOR EARLING VOTED NO. MOTION FAILED. Main Motion #5 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO PASS THE AMENDED BYLAWS FOR THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AS AMENDED IN THE PRINTED BYLAWS AND WITHOUT COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM'S AMENDMENT. Councilmember Bloom said she would not support the motion because it did not include the amendment she proposed. She preferred to send the amendments back to the Advisory Board to consider all the proposed changes including the change she proposed to the composition of the Board. Vote on Main Motion #5 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Main Motion #6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ASK THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO CONSIDER COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM'S PROPOSED CHANGES, BOTH WRITTEN AND THE ONE READ INTO THE RECORD TONIGHT AND RETURN TO THE COUNCIL ON ANOTHER DAY. Vote on Main Motion #6 MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. 12. ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTIONS 3.75.060 - 100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MEMBERS ADVISORY BOARD. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained these amendments were recommended by Interim Finance Director Ron Cone to clarify the language in the code regarding unpaid assessments, delinquent charges and payments. The revisions do not change the intent of the ordinance, they only provide clarification. He highlighted changes in ECC 3.75.060, 3.75.080 and 3.75.100 related to delinquency charges, and 3.75.080 related to how the interest rate is calculated. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3929, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE, SECTIONS 3.75.060, 3.75.070, 3.75.080, 3.75.090 AND 3.75.100 RELATING TO THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. REVENUE BOND FINANCING PRESENTATION Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled the City's last utility capital bond was late in 2011. Most plans show the City borrowing funds every two years. The proper use of debt in financing the utility capital program was discussed with the Finance Committee and the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee two weeks ago. Tonight's discussion does not relate to that longer range issue. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 19 Packet Page 29 of 774 Mr. Williams explained the intent of borrowing money is to support the water, sewer and stormwater capital programs, just as was done in 2011. He provided photographs of the interior of pipes and identified how the bond proceeds would be used: Water Utility o Replace/upsize old pipes o Improve flow pressure o Upgrade pressure reducing stations. He described the reasons Sewer Utility o Replace existing pipes o Cured in Place Pipe repairs o Upsize pipe Storm Utility o Replace existing pipes o Cured in Place Pipe repairs o Upsize pipe Scott Bauer, A. Dashen & Associates, provided graphs illustrating Bond Buyer 20-bond GO Index 1990 to present, and the Municipal Yield Curve, identifying rates on December 14, 2011; May 10, 2013; and June 25, 2013. He explained interest rates hit 40-year lows in early December 2012. Rates have risen over the past five weeks, but are still low by historical standards. He provided a debt profile of the City's outstanding revenue bonds (2011 Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds). Mr. Bauer reviewed the financing plan: • Provide approximately $14 million in project funds for the water, sewer, and stormwater systems • Fund the reserve account and pay the bond issuance costs • Wrap the debt service around the existing bonds • Final maturity in 20 or 25 years (Mr. Bauer recommended 25 years) Mr. Bauer described delegation authority: • Under Washington State law, the City Council can delegate final approval of bond sale to designated individuals • This was utilized on the City's prior transactions • This delegated authority allows the bond sale to occur on days other than a board meeting / City Council date • Certain parameters are set in advance in the ordinance o Maximum issue sizes o Maximum interest rates o Minimum savings o Final maturity • Provides more flexibility in timing bond issue Mr. Bauer described sale method options: Negotiated Sale o The City selects an underwriting firm to which bonds will be sold Competitive Sale o The City solicits sealed bids from underwriters nationally o The bonds would be sold to the underwriter providing the best combination of interest rates and fee (i.e., true interest cost) at the specified date and time Each sale method has advantages / disadvantages o Competitive sales work well for high quality general obligation and water/sewer bonds in stable markets Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 20 Packet Page 30 of 774 o Highly transparent results • Planning for a competitive sale o The Bond Ordinance will provide for change in sale method, based on financial advisor recommendation, if market conditions warrant He reviewed the schedule of events: • July 16 Council Approval of Delegation Ordinance • July 18 Rating Visit • July 31 Post Preliminary Official Statement (Marketing Document) • August 7 Competitive Bond Sale • August 21 Bond Closing — Funds Available Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether it could be expected inflation would continue and bond rates would continue to increase. Mr. Bauer agreed that could be expected; how quickly rates increased was unexpected. He anticipated short term interest would level out. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the bond sale should occur sooner than later. Mayor Earling asked if the schedule could be condensed. Mr. Bauer answered consideration could be given to moving it up a week; the 4th of July holiday impacts the schedule. Mayor Earling observed moving as quickly as possible would improve the chances of avoiding another spike in rates. With the Council's approval, Finance Director Roger Neumaier assured the schedule would be expedited as much as possible. He concurred with A. Dashen & Associates' recommendation for 25 year bonds. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Petso asked if the bond issue would provide funds for water, sewer and stormwater. Mr. Williams answered yes. Council President Petso asked whether the Council had not yet adopted one of the utilities' Comprehensive Plans or were all of them current. Mr. Williams answered there are current Comprehensive Plan on all utilities; they are updated every six years. Until the Comprehensive Plan is replaced with a new one, the existing plan is current. An update is being prepared for the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and will be presented to the Council this fall. The Sewer Comprehensive Plan focuses on the conveyance system. Council President Petso asked if the reason bonds were being sold before the Sewer Comprehensive Plan and rate analysis were completed was to capture the lower interest rates. Mr. Williams answered that is one of the reasons but it is clear the City needs to start replacing sewer pipes and those funds must be borrowed because they are not available in the sewer fund. There were no objections voiced by the Council to proceeding as proposed. 14. PRESENTATION ON STORMWATER LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) - USING RAIN GARDENS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. This item will be rescheduled on a future agenda. 15. DISCUSSION: EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 REVISIONS. This item was moved to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee via action under Agenda Item 3. 16. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Johnson reported on June 10 she participated on a panel to review artist selection for the Five Corners roundabout. There were 21 artists who participated in the artist selection; 3 were selected to submit proposals that will be presented on July 25 from 5:30 — 6:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 21 Packet Page 31 of 774 Councilmember Buckshnis reported Snohomish County Tomorrow received their assessments which had not changed. She reported on the WRIA 8 meeting; Edmonds is attempting to get Lynnwood and Woodway to join WRIA 8. Perrinville Creek is one of the creeks that WRIA 8 is looking at. Councilmember Peterson reported the Public Facilities District interviewed candidates and selected two new members. Their appointments will be scheduled on a future Council agenda. He participated in the interviews of several great candidates; the two selected will serve the community well. Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission discussed implementation of the Strategic Plan, limiting office space in the BD1 zone, and the email policy. The meeting also included a report from the Technical Subcommittee and a report by the Tourism Subcommittee regarding changes the Port has made to their website. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board did not have a quorum. 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling provided a reminder of the Arts Summit on Saturday, June 29, 8:30 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Over 220 people have registered and he hoped Councilmembers would attend at least part of the day. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Bloom encouraged everyone to support the new mid -week market on the Salish Crossing property on Wednesdays from 3:00 — 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported Congressman Jim McDermott's town hall meeting was well attended. Congressman McDermott also toured the Edmonds Saturday Market. Council President Petso echoed an earlier speaker who wished Betty Mueller a happy birthday and praised her contributions to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis announced there were only seven flower beds left for adoption. The $250 cost to adopt a corner flower bed is tax deductible. Councilmember Johnson thanked the members of the Planning Board and the Interim EDBID Advisory Board for their participation in civic engagement. 19. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This agenda item was not required. 20. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This agenda item was not required. 21. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 25, 2013 Page 22 Packet Page 32 of 774 AM-5898 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time• Consent Submitted For: Roger Neumaier Department: Finance Review Committee: Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 3. C. Nori Jacobson Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Approval of claim checks #202857 through #202961 dated June 27, 2013 for $634,507.11. Approval of payroll replacement check #60276 for the period June 1, 2013 through June 15, 2013 for $145.68. Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year• Revenue• Expenditure• Fiscal Impact: Claims $634,507.11 2013 634,647.65 Payroll replacement check $140.54 AttnrhmPntc Claim checks 06-27-13 Project Numbers 06-27-13 Payroll Summary 06-24-13 Form Review Packet Page 33 of 774 Inbox Finance City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Reviewed By Roger Neumaier Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Date 06/27/2013 10:16 AM 06/27/2013 10:47 AM 06/27/2013 10:48 AM 06/27/2013 11:16 AM Started On: 06/27/2013 08:03 AM Packet Page 34 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 202857 6/27/2013 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL Invoice 320778 202858 6/27/2013 000199 ACE TANK & FUELING EQUIPMENT 388862 202859 6/27/2013 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND JULY 2013 202860 6/27/2013 074473 AHERN, RACHEL 202861 6/27/2013 001528 AM TEST INC 202862 6/27/2013 072799 ANDRES, KAREN 202863 6/27/2013 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH AHERN 062013 75896 ANDRES APRIL 2013 7000634514 PO # Description/Account Amount WWTP - PEST CONTROL WWTP - PEST CONTROL 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 73.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 6.94 Total : 79.94 Fleet - Chipkeys for Fuel Island Fleet - Chipkeys for Fuel Island 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 85.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 8.13 Total : 93.63 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 07/13 EDIT ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 07/2013 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,097.71 Total : 2,097.71 12 HOURS AS OUTDOOR VOLLEYS 12 HOURS AS OUTDOOR VOLLEYB 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 120.00 Total : 120.00 WWTP - LAB ICP SCAN, MERCURY WWTP - LAB ICP SCAN, MERCURY 423.000.76.535.80.41.31 150.00 Total : 150.00 MILAGE PARKS REC MILAGE PARKS REC 001.000.64.574.35.43.00 98.88 Total : 98.88 Unit 91- Supplies Unit 91- Supplies Page: 1 Packet Page 35 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202863 6/27/2013 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 240.96 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.89 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.31 Total: 280.16 202864 6/27/2013 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6868702 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM RENTALS PARKS MAINT UNIFORM RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 30.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.88 655-6880676 PARKS UNIFORM AGREEMENT PARKS UNIFORM AGREEMENT 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 30.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 2.88 Total: 66.30 202865 6/27/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 69195 CAR WASHING INSERTS Car Washing Inserts 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 944.44 Total: 944.44 202866 6/27/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 70062 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 11.76 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11.76 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 12.10 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 123.73 UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 123.73 Page: 2 Packet Page 36 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202866 6/27/2013 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 127.47 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 428.30 UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 428.29 Total: 1,267.14 202867 6/27/2013 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST July 2013 Premiums JULY 2013 AWC PREMIUMS July 2013 AWC Premiums 811.000.231.510 56,423.39 Total: 56,423.39 202868 6/27/2013 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 5114 E2GA.SERVICES THRU 5/24/13 E2GA.Services thru 5/24/13 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 11,078.53 E2GA.Services thru 5/24/13 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 13,540.42 Total: 24,618.95 202869 6/27/2013 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0704877-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 575 G Fleet Auto Propane Inventory - 575 G 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 885.38 0705656-IN Fleet Auto Propane Inventory400 Ga Fleet Auto Propane Inventory 400 Ga 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 618.50 Total: 1,503.88 202870 6/27/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12832786 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-05721 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75 Total: 273.74 Page: 3 Packet Page 37 of 774 vchlist 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 4 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202871 6/27/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830807 CANON CONTRACT CHARGES Contract charges for C1030 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.33 Contract charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.33 Contract charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.33 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88 Total: 30.65 202872 6/27/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830816 Contract Charge for Building Dept. Contract Charge for Building Dept. 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 33.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.14 Total: 36.16 202873 6/27/2013 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12830806 Lease -Council Office Copier/Printer Lease -Council Office Copier/Printer 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 Total: 30.65 202874 6/27/2013 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 195224 CENTRASHIELD CENTRASHIELD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 39.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.73 Tota I : 43.02 202875 6/27/2013 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-T21-4843 667B WWTP - TELEMETRY CIRCUIT WWTP - TELEMETRY CIRCUIT Page: 4 Packet Page 38 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202875 6/27/2013 064291 CENTURY LINK (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 72.16 206-T61-7087 WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE WWTP TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 66.57 Total: 138.73 202876 6/27/2013 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1305 E9GA.SERVICES THRU MAY 2013 E9GA.Services thru May 2013 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 25,856.05 451202-1305 E3GA.SERVICES THRU MAY 2013 E3GA.Services thru May 2013 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 4,183.25 Total: 30,039.30 202877 6/27/2013 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 10137 E1JB.SERVICES THRU 5/20/13 E1JB.Services thru 5/20/13 421.000.74.594.34.41.10 1,782.11 Total: 1,782.11 202878 6/27/2013 074468 CLARK, STACIE 062613 AWARD FOR BIRD FEST POSTER Award for art to produce Bird Fest 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00 Total: 200.00 202879 6/27/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2564057 LINER LINER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,443.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 137.11 Total: 1,580.38 202880 6/27/2013 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2564139 Fac Maint - Air Freshener, Cleaner, Fac Maint - Air Freshener, Cleaner, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 442.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 42.04 Page: 5 Packet Page 39 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202880 6/27/2013 004095 004095 COASTWIDE LABS (Continued) Total: 484.61 202881 6/27/2013 074475 COLLINS, ANDREA COLLINS 062013 CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND 001.000.239.200 107.00 Total: 107.00 202882 6/27/2013 073251 DEARN-TARPLEY, SUSAN DEARN-TARPLEY CLASSROOM VISITS, MILAGE EXPI CLASSROOM VISITS, MILAGE EXPI 001.000.64.574.35.43.00 126.84 Tota I : 126.84 202883 6/27/2013 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC IN00006977 Unit 902 - 2 - 18" Amber LED Unit 902 - 2 - 18" Amber LED 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 500.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.00 Total: 515.00 202884 6/27/2013 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 6/6/13 - 6/26/13 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PIE State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.237.190 522.00 Total: 522.00 202885 6/27/2013 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2013 CERT DUENAS WWTP - INCINERATOR CERTIFICA WWTP - INCINERATOR CERTIFICA 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 200.00 Total: 200.00 202886 6/27/2013 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 13-3370 MINUTE TAKING 6-11 & 6-18 Council Meetings 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 435.00 Total: 435.00 202887 6/27/2013 074389 DRAKE, BARB DRAKE JUNE 2013 MILAGE EXPENSES BEACH RANGE MILAGE EXPENSES BEACH RANGE 001.000.64.574.35.43.00 39.55 Page: 6 Packet Page 40 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202887 6/27/2013 074389 074389 DRAKE, BARB (Continued) Total: 39.55 202888 6/27/2013 007253 DUNN LUMBER 1899742 FAC - Decking FAC - Decking 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 362.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 34.42 Total : 396.66 202889 6/27/2013 069605 EAGLE EYE CONSULTING ENGINEERS 213-EDM-01-001 BLD20130313/Anthony's remodel. BLD20130313/Anthony's remodel. 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 1,357.88 Total : 1,357.88 202890 6/27/2013 067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRITON SPRING 2013 SPRING VOLLEYBALL LEAGUES SPRING VOLLEYBALL LEAGUES 001.000.64.575.52.45.00 4,650.00 Total : 4,650.00 202891 6/27/2013 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 61413 City Hall - Flush Lever City Hall - Flush Lever 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.47 Total : 5.46 202892 6/27/2013 069523 EDMONDS P&RYOUTH SCHOLARSHIP SHAH 17251 SHAH SWIM 17251 SHAH SWIM 17251 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 46.00 SHAH 17254 SHAH 17254 SWIM SHAH 17254 SWIM 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 46.00 SHAH 17255 SHAH 17255 SWIM SHAH 17255 SWIM 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 46.00 Total : 138.00 Page: 7 Packet Page 41 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202893 6/27/2013 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTEI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.79 2-37180 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.48 Total: 139.85 202894 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088458 WWTP - COPY MACHINE RENTAL WWTP - COPY MACHINE RENTAL 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 61.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.41 5.86 Total: 67.58 202895 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 0885321 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTEN. Maintenance for printers 06/21/13 - 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 327.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 31.12 Total: 358.72 202896 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088646 COPIER CHARGES C1030 Copier charges C1030 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 9.04 Copier charges C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.04 Copier charges C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.02 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 8 Packet Page 42 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 202896 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 202897 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088506 202898 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 088467 088468 PO # Description/Account Amount 001.000.61.519.70.45.00 0.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.85 Total : 29.67 METER READING 5/21 to 6/21 meter reading 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 13.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.29 Total : 14.84 WATER SEWER COPY USE Water Sewer Copy Use- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.11 Water Sewer Copy Use- 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.11 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.24 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use- 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 28.16 PW Copy Use- 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 15.96 PW Copy Use- 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 15.96 PW Copy Use- 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11.26 PW Copy Use- 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 11.26 PW Copy Use - Page: 9 Packet Page 43 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202898 6/27/2013 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 2.68 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 1.52 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 1.52 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.07 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 1.07 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.06 088507 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use- 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.68 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.16 Total: 133.34 202899 6/27/2013 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 18184 FAC - Square Tube, Flat Bar FAC - Square Tube, Flat Bar 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 384.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.49 Total: 420.60 202900 6/27/2013 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 65495 Unit 83 - Steel Wheel 16" Unit 83 - Steel Wheel 16" 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.75 Total: 54.75 202901 6/27/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 2633062 WWTP - VALVE FOR ASH SYSTEM Page: 10 Packet Page 44 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202901 6/27/2013 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) W WTP - VALVE FOR ASH SYSTEM 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 305.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 17.01 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 30.60 Total: 352.61 202902 6/27/2013 011900 FRONTIER 253-017-8148 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 407.50 Total: 407.50 202903 6/27/2013 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER 17064 TAI CHI 17064 TAI CHI 17064 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 100.50 TAI CHI 17063 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 123.00 QIGONG 17066 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 108.50 QIGONG 17068 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 224.40 Tota I : 556.40 202904 6/27/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9170873716 STEEL STEEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 473.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.94 Total: 517.96 202905 6/27/2013 012199 GRAINGER 9165643280 Unit 72- Caster Wheel Unit 72- Caster Wheel 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.99 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 11 Packet Page 45 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202905 6/27/2013 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.14 9165951998 Fleet Shop - Casters Fleet Shop - Casters 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 82.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 7.87 9169604429 PS - Lithium 3V Batteries PS - Lithium 3V Batteries 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.56 Total: 133.24 202906 6/27/2013 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 54 LEOFF Reimbursement LEOFF Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 160.99 Total: 160.99 202907 6/27/2013 071368 HEFFERAN, BRIGITTE HEFFERAN 17074 CALLIGRAPHY 17074 CALLIGRAPHY 17074 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 308.00 CALLIGRAPHY 17075 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 396.00 Total: 704.00 202908 6/27/2013 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 33100 E9FB.SERVICES THRU 5/31/13 E9FB.Services thru 5/31/13 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 5,083.99 Total: 5,083.99 202909 6/27/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1047223 ROS DISC ROS DISC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.18 Page: 12 Packet Page 46 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202909 6/27/2013 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 2041575 BATTERIES WRENCH BATTERIES WRENCH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 54.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.16 2041577 BUSHING BUSHING 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.82 7040341 PAINT AND SUPPLIES PAINT AND SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 117.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.20 74764 TARPS AND SPRAY TARPS AND SPRAY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.45 7566578 VINYL VI NYL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.76 Total: 294.82 202910 6/27/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2294561 LEGAL RULED PAPER PADS Business Source Legal Ruled Pads 8 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 7.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.67 2294688 STAPLER X-Acto Palm Stand Up Stapler 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 11.12 Page: 13 Packet Page 47 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202910 6/27/2013 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.06 2294690 LOGITECH MOUSE Logitech M705 Mouse 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 55.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 5.30 Total: 81.00 202911 6/27/2013 071634 INTEGRATELECOM 10997898 C/A768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,978.93 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 32.94 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 32.53 Total: 2,044.40 202912 6/27/2013 074466 KENNEMUR, ANTHONY BLD20121001 Duplicate online permit. Contractor Duplicate online permit. Contractor 001.000.257.620 125.00 Total: 125.00 202913 6/27/2013 072697 LAWLER, PATRICK 6-13-13 Training Reimbursement OSH 160 Training Reimbursement OSH 160 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 393.41 Total: 393.41 202914 6/27/2013 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 828108 Unit M-16 - Oil, Pump Kit, Thermostat Unit M-16 - Oil, Pump Kit, Thermostal 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 809.68 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 76.92 829846 Unit M-16 - Supplies Unit M-16 - Supplies Page: 14 Packet Page 48 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202914 6/27/2013 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.36 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.07 Total: 922.03 202915 6/27/2013 073968 MAGER, SARAH JUNE-2013 MILEAGE FOR SUPERVISOR TRAII` Mileage for Supervisor Traning June ' 001.000.31.514.23.43.00 136.96 Total: 136.96 202916 6/27/2013 071600 MAWBEY, CAROLYN MAWBEY 062013 INSTRUCTOR NOT AVAILABLE INSTRUCTOR NOT AVAILABLE 001.000.239.200 21.00 RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.239.200 60.60 Total: 81.60 202917 6/27/2013 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 53542734 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, I WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES, l 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 1,258.15 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 88.12 Total: 1,346.27 202918 6/27/2013 063777 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP. 1306007 SOFTWARE SUPPORT ImageFlow Lite Software Support 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 499.00 Total: 499.00 202919 6/27/2013 074476 MUNN, CAROLYN MUNN 062013 INSTRUCTOR UNAVAILABLE INSTRUCTOR UNAVAILABLE 001.000.239.200 118.00 Total: 118.00 202920 6/27/2013 073076 MY ALARM CENTER RINV02214603 Museum - Alarm Monitoring 7/1-12/31 Museum - Alarm Monitoring 7/1-12/31 Page: 15 Packet Page 49 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202920 6/27/2013 073076 MY ALARM CENTER (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 201.00 Total: 201.00 202921 6/27/2013 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S5192901.001 WWTP - ELECTRICAL REPAIR AND WWTP - ELECTRICAL REPAIR AND 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 100.86 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 9.28 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 10.46 Total: 120.60 202922 6/27/2013 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 53109 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 1 WWTP - MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 1 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 72.00 9.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 6.62 Total: 78.62 202923 6/27/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-677552 MADRONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MADRONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 102.50 1-677553 SIERRA PARK SIERRA PARK 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-677554 EDMONDS ELEMENTARY EDMONDS ELEMENTARY 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-677882 MARINA BEACH RENTALS MARINA BEACH RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,007.20 1-679419 PINE STREET PARK RENTALS PINE STREET PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-679896 WILLOW CREEK RENTALS Page: 16 Packet Page 50 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202923 6/27/2013 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued) WILLOW CREEK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-680458 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELDS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 112.35 1-681690 HUMMINGBIRD PARK RENTALS HUMMINGBIRD PARK RENTALS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 172.35 1-681692 7TH AND ELM ST 7TH AND ELM ST 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 140.00 Total: 1,983.80 202924 6/27/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 150023 STARS SPARKLE STARS SPARKLE 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 7.34 9.5% Sales Tax 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 0.70 202896 POST ITS POST ITS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 16.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 1.54 208908 BATTERIES FOR PLAZA BATTERIES FOR PLAZA 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 11.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 1.13 Total: 38.75 202925 6/27/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 154881 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 269.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 25.56 Page: 17 Packet Page 51 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202925 6/27/2013 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 154965 NEWSPAPER AD Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 39.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 3.74 Total: 337.85 202926 6/27/2013 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 954023037400 PAINT PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 98.01 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.31 Tota I : 107.32 202927 6/27/2013 008475 PETTY CASH 05/15-06/25/13 PW - Public Records Meeting Goods PW - Public Records Meeting Goods 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 15.96 Street - CDL Renewel - Bach 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 85.00 Water/Sewer - WW Cell Phone Char( 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 12.31 Water/Sewer - WW Cell Phone Char( 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 12.31 Storm - CDL Renewal - M Johnson 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 85.00 Total: 210.58 202928 6/27/2013 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 208075 INV#208075 ACCT#2772 - EDMOND MAIL BOOTS TO DANNER (PAULSC 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 10.68 Total: 10.68 202929 6/27/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON ( ALARM MONITORING FRANCESAN 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 228.69 Page: 18 Packet Page 52 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202929 6/27/2013 064088 PROTECTION ONE (Continued) 2422756 ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIE ALARM MONITORING SNO-ISLE LIE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 203.07 730531 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 25.04 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 25.04 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 22.54 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 28.80 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 12.52 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 001.000.65.519.91.42.00 11.26 Total: 556.96 202930 6/27/2013 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ 17049 FELDENKRAIS 17049 FELDENKRAIS 17049 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 105.00 Total: 105.00 202931 6/27/2013 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0013426-IN WWTP - SAFETY SUPPLIES WWTP - SAFETY SUPPLIES 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 150.65 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.12 14.31 Total: 164.96 202932 6/27/2013 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES 21413 INV#21413 - EDMONDS PD MAXXESS FLEX PROXIMITY CARD! 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 233.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 15.00 Page: 19 Packet Page 53 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202932 6/27/2013 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.56 Total: 271.56 202933 6/27/2013 072725 SAGACITY CUSTOM PUBLISHING 2013-4232 TOURISM PROMOTION AD IN VISIT Tourism promotion online ad at 120.000.31.575.42.44.00 110.00 Total: 110.00 202934 6/27/2013 067681 SAGE CONTROL ORDNANCE INC 11230 INV 11230 CUST EE0065 EDMONDE K01 IMPACT BATON STD SMOKELE 001.000.257.410 637.50 PROP. CHG IMPACT BATON 001.000.257.410 424.40 LESS IMPACT PROP CHRG IMPACT 001.000.257.410 424.40 Freight 001.000.257.410 93.00 Total: 1,579.30 202935 6/27/2013 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 607012 INV 607012 CUST 1733 ORD 74875 SIMUNITION FX 9MM RED MARKIN( 001.000.257.410 966.80 Freight 001.000.257.410 24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.257.410 94.12 Total: 1,084.92 202936 6/27/2013 074472 SEP CONSULTING LLC EDMONDS1 INV EDMONDS 1 PROPERTY ROOK PROPERTY ROOM AUDIT 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 880.00 Total : 880.00 202937 6/27/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 198324 INV#198324 - EDMONDS PD Page: 20 Packet Page 54 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202937 6/27/2013 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC (Continued) TOW 1995 BMW #AAT8856 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total: 173.01 202938 6/27/2013 074027 SHIELDS, RACHEL SHIELDS JUNE 13 MILAGE EXPENSES JUNE 2013 MILAGE EXPENSES JUNE 2013 001.000.64.574.35.43.00 74.86 Total: 74.86 202939 6/27/2013 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0154601-IN Unit 681 - Lens Replacements, and L Unit 681 - Lens Replacements, and L 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 210.42 Unit EQ75PO 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 210.42 Unit EQ78PO 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 210.42 Total: 631.26 202940 6/27/2013 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1 FIRE 17040 FIRSTAID/CPR 17040 FIRSTAID/CPR 17040 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 450.00 Total: 450.00 202941 6/27/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89th PL W 19827 89th PL W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.33 Total: 32.33 202942 6/27/2013 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2030-9778-7 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10C WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10C 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 22,185.73 Total: 22,185.73 202943 6/27/2013 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 13-601-2 Q3-13 COMMUNICATONS Page: 21 Packet Page 55 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202943 6/27/2013 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Q3-13 Communications 001.000.39.528.00.51.00 185,865.37 Q3-13 Communications 421.000.74.534.80.51.00 4,891.19 Q3-13 Communications 423.000.75.535.80.51.00 4,891.19 13-601-2A Q3-13 NEW WORLD ASSESSMENT Q3-13 New World Assessment 001.000.39.528.00.51.00 18,400.75 Total: 214,048.50 202944 6/27/2013 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 53170 PW - Office Supplies - 2 Address Ste PW - Office Supplies - 2 Address Ste 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 58.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.519.91.31.00 5.60 Total: 64.59 202945 6/27/2013 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO July 2013 Standard JULY 2013 STANDARD INSURANCE July 2013 Standard Insurance PremiL 811.000.231.550 13,895.83 Total: 13,895.83 202946 6/27/2013 071904 STECKLY, SHERRY STECKLY 062013 REFUND INSTRUCTOR NOT AVAILP REFUND INSTRUCTOR NOTAVAILF 001.000.239.200 82.60 Total: 82.60 202947 6/27/2013 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3002294593 INV#3002294593 - EDMONDS PD DISPOSAL-MED BOX HAZ WASTE 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 50.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 1.85 Total: 52.67 Page: 22 Packet Page 56 of 774 vchlist 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202948 6/27/2013 068636 STETTLER, BEVERLY STETTLER 062013 CHECK RETURNING CREDIT ON A( CHECK RETURNING CREDIT ON A( 001.000.239.200 37.15 Total: 37.15 202949 6/27/2013 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 63754 Fac Maint - Work T Shirts (20) Fac Maint - Work T Shirts (20) 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 175.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 16.63 Total: 191.63 202950 6/27/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1823989 NEWSPAPER AD Closed Rec. Rev. Pt. Edwards 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 43.00 1823998 NEWSPAPER AD Hrng Park Impact Fees 001.000.25.514.30.44.00 32.68 Total: 75.68 202951 6/27/2013 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1823561 Parker/PLN20130030 Legal notice. Parker/PLN20130030 Legal notice. 001.000.62.558.60.44.00 77.40 Total: 77.40 202952 6/27/2013 074471 TULEY, BRIAN JUNE-2013 MILEAGE FOR SUPERVISOR TRAII` Mileage for Supervisor Training June 001.000.31.518.88.43.00 142.38 Total: 142.38 202953 6/27/2013 070774 ULINE INC 51525707 INV 51525707 CUST 2634605 EDMC MAX EARPLUGS - 200/13OX 001.000.257.410 64.00 Freight 001.000.257.410 8.60 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 23 Packet Page 57 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202953 6/27/2013 070774 ULINE INC (Continued) 001.000.257.410 6.90 Total: 79.50 202954 6/27/2013 073284 UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CO July 2013 UHC JULY 2013 UHC July 2013 UHC Benefits 811.000.231.511 210,621.06 Greg Wean July 2013 Benefits 009.000.39.517.37.23.00 927.28 Total: 211, 548.34 202955 6/27/2013 043935 UPS 00002T4T13233 Building Dept. Delivery Service on Building Dept. Delivery Service on 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 28.37 00002T4T13243 Delivery service - tracking no. Delivery service - tracking no. 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 14.66 Total: 43.03 202956 6/27/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9706462656 C/A671247844-00001 Cell Service -Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 73.45 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.532.20.42.00 173.08 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 80.64 Cell Service -Parks Discovery Prograr 001.000.64.574.35.42.00 13.70 Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 57.95 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 337.98 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.000.41.521.21.42.00 188.13 Cell Service-PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 26.84 Page: 24 Packet Page 58 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202956 6/27/2013 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) Cell Service-PW Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 15.70 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 40.20 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 40.20 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 142.74 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 56.91 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 40.20 Total: 1,287.72 202957 6/27/2013 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 29412466 WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA WWTP - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 550.00 Total: 550.00 202958 6/27/2013 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 20-1-12400 INV 20-1-12400 CUST 23104-001 EC MASTER INSTRUCT. RECERT. - MA 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 100.00 SUID TRAINING - TRYKAR 5/30-31/1 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.00 Total: 150.00 202959 6/27/2013 065535 WESTERN FACILITIES SUPPLY 414706-00 INV#414706-00 CUST#701480 - EDN 4 MIL BLACK GARBAGE CAN LINEF 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 178.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 16.96 Total: 195.49 202960 6/27/2013 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 37348-07 E6MA.SERVICES THRU 6/2/13 E6MA.Services thru 6/2/13 Page: 25 Packet Page 59 of 774 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 06/27/2013 7:48:54AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 202960 6/27/2013 073739 WH PACIFIC INC (Continued) 129.000.24.595.70.41.00 1,149.82 Total: 1,149.82 202961 6/27/2013 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1017 JUN-13 RETAINER Monthly Retainer - June 2013 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 13,390.00 Total: 13,390.00 105 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 634,507.11 105 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 634,507.11 Page: 26 Packet Page 60 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 61 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 62 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WWTP N/A c385 WWTP Switchgear Upgrade EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support KWTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program OLAr c32 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs S ers Roundabout (212th Street Sa@ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neiahborhood Traffic Calmina 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Wal SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FA c336 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects tormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives E1 FN rrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Upda nowSewer, WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with nwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study 1111�PRV Station 11 a Bandon WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program E1JK In Street Watermain STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program Pioneer Way Road Repa STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlav Proiect STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Draina SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 63 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Funding Number STM E2FE SWR E2GB EYA STM E3FB Project Accounting Number Project Title c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c369J&12 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update Am c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c406 1%013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects AW E3FC c408 ��reek Stor�v Reductrofit Sfudy STM EYD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) orthstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements * _ WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program OVD Watermain Improvements STIR E61DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program E7AA Main Street LightipjLand_§ygwalk Enhancements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements _ E7CB hell Valley Emergency ccess Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES E7MA ayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) E8GC NSF Double Track Project SWR E8GD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA ourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking 2009 Street Overlay Program STIR E91DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 64 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STIR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STIR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STIR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STIR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 EBMA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 EBMB Marina Beach Additional Parking STIR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 EBGA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c300 EBGC BNSF Double Track Project SWR c301 EBGD City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STIR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 EOIA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 EOFC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 EOLA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STIR c329 EOAA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 EOLB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c336 E1 FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c339 E1 FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1 FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 65 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1 FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STIR c354 E1 DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 EOJA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 ElEA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1 FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1 FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E21FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E21FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WWTP c385 N/A WWTP Switchgear Upgrade WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STIR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STIR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STIR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 EYA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E31FE Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive STIR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 66 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Number Number Project Title STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 67 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 EBGC STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c409 E3FD WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 68 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Proiect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonement on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1 FA WWTP WWTP Switchgear Upgrade c385 N/A STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 6/26/2013 Packet Page 69 of 774 PROJECT NUMBERS (Phase and Task Numbers) Phases and Tasks (Enaineerina Division Phase Title ct Construction ds Design pl Preliminary sa Site Acquisition & Prep st Study ro Right -of -Way Task Title 196 Traffic Engineering & Studies 197 MAIT 198 CTR 199 Engineering Plans & Services 950 Engineering Staff Time 970 Construction Management 981 Contract 990 Miscellaneous 991 Retainage stm Engineering Staff Time -Storm str Engineering Staff Time -Street swr Engineering Staff Time -Sewer wtr Engineering Staff Time -Water prk Engineering Staff Time -Park Packet Page 70 of 774 Hour Type 190 Hour Class REGULAR HOURS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 656 (06/24/2013 to 06/2412013) Description REGULAR HOURS Total Net Pay New Check $145.68 Less Original Check Issued 5.14 i40.54 Hours 15.00 Total Net Pay Amount 163.05 145.68 06/27/2013 Page 1 of 1 Packet Page 71 of 774 AM-5894 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Action Information Committee Action: 3. D. Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Glenn A. Salmi (amount undetermined). Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A Claim for Damages has been received from the following: Glenn A. Salmi 23205 - 76th Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 (Amount Undetermined) Salmi Claim for Damages Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/26/2013 A*f nhmors+c Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/25/2013 10:50 AM Sandy Chase 06/26/2013 01:58 PM Started On: 06/24/2013 03:09 PM Packet Page 72 of 774 RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS JUN 2 4 2013 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM EDNOMd y CLE Please take note that GLPnnPf, who currently resides at Z y rnailir)g address home p �Q bi?'-Z-Z& , work 0410? 7ro3 -'gID, and who resided at address C1 12 0 VV-, at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is j Z is claiming damages against C-,� 1 of F _(JMDQj&It, the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 10. 2. © { TIME: L LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: DESCRIPTION: FdrY-vndS or I'Y our) -Ha) . -reo'race I 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. iCLM O (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable. to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. See- ai+aC-V\q-& 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? X Yes No M &JQ If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: d a ® �S3:2 1 �,rnurs 3 33 Ga L) K ' ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY "' License Plate Type Auto: _ DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: Form Revised 07/ 16/09 Driver License # iodel) OWNER: _ Address: Phone#: Name: _ Address Page I of 2 h(E�' Packet Page 73 of 774 ' NOTE. THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED ' ' I G-�C. SL! L 1✓11__ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. X Signature of Claimant(s) State of tyoff -S449 L_mt S hington Coun/lA A I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that i�2 /ea n ScLIM I _ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. oa d. after 2D, 2O 3 Signature Title My appointment expir s: Please present the completed claim form to Form J?xvi ea o7n eroy City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 51" Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. -Nofuy 1100110 Starts Of YVuhlnOtoe RICHARD HERIS My Appolnbnent Expires May 2, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 74 of 774 Glenn Salmi —Claim for Damages 1.Describe the injury: On Monday, 6/10/13 at S:OOpm I was riding my road bike east on 224th St. SW, approaching the Interurban trail, intending to head south. Since this is an intersection and a blind "T," I slowed down to visually check both directions, avoid the bollards and avoid an approaching bicyclist. As I was managing my surroundings, my front tire went into a man-made hole in the road causing me to topple over the handle bars, striking my helmeted head and right shoulder on the ground. I could tell that my shoulder was damaged. The approaching bicyclist, named Ron, stopped and asked if I was OK, verified that I had a cell phone and waited with me until my wife picked me up. Packet Page 75 of 774 AM-5896 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: Consent Submitted By: Jen Machuga Department: Planning Review Committee: Type: Action Information Committee Action: 3. E. Subject Title Resolution adopting findings and conclusions of the July 18, 2013 closed record review of the Hillman variance appeal (APL20130001). Recommendation Approve the attached resolution (Attachment 1), adopting findings and conclusions of the July 18, 2013 closed record review of the Hillman variance appeal. Previous Council Action A closed record appeal hearing was conducted before the City Council on July 18, 2013. The Council voted unanimously to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and to uphold the appeal. Narrative A closed record review was conducted by the City Council on June 18, 2013 regarding an appeal by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, and Todd and Candy Brown (File No. APL20130001) of the Hearing Examiner's final decision upon reconsideration on Tom and Lin Hillman's critical areas and setback variances (File No. PLN20120033) for a proposed residence to be located at 1139 Sierra Place. The Council voted unanimously to reverse the Hearing Examiner's approval of the requested critical areas variance and to uphold the appeal. A resolution is provided as Attachment 1, which would adopt the findings and conclusions of the Council's closed record review. Minutes from the June 18, 2013 are provided as Attachment 2. Attachments Attachment 1: Resolution Adopting Findings and Conclusions on Hillman Appeal Attachment 2: Council Meeting Minutes 6/18/13 Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Sandy Chase Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase Form Started By: Jen Machuga Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Form Review Date 06/27/2013 01:25 PM 06/27/2013 04:38 PM 06/27/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/26/2013 05:59 PM Packet Page 76 of 774 Packet Page 77 of 774 6/27/13 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO LAND USE AND ZONING, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO REVERSE THE DECISION UPON RECONSIDERATION ENTERED BY THE EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE HILLMAN CRITICAL AREAS REASONABLE USE VARIANCE, APPLICATIONS (PLN20120033) TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 1139 SIERRA PLACE, GRANTING THE APPEAL OF STEPHEN SCHROEDER, CHERYL BEIGHLE, TODD AND CANDY BROWN. WHEREAS, on August 1, 2012, Tom and Lin Hillman submitted applications for a Street Setback Variance, Side Yard Setback Variance and a Critical Areas Reasonable Setback Variance in order to construct a single family home on property located at 1139 Sierra Place in Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on February 26, 2013; and WHEREAS, the SEPA MDNS was not appealed; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2013, the City Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the applications; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2013, the City Hearing Examiner conditionally approved the variances; and WHEREAS, the applicants Hillman and the City requested reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision, and on April 16, 2013 the Examiner entered an Order on Reconsideration allowing all persons who submitted written or oral comment on the Hillman applications prior to the close of the public hearing to provide written responses to the Packet Page 78 of 774 reconsideration requests and the Examiner's Order; and WHEREAS, on April 24, 2013, the Hearing Examiner entered his Final Decision Upon Reconsideration, conditionally approving all of the variance applications; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2013, the Appellants Stephen Schroeder, Sheryl Beighle, Candy Brown and Todd Brown appealed the Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration; WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to hold a closed record appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision under Edmonds Municipal Code Section 20.07.005; Now, Therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS. Section 1. Closed Record Public Hearing. A. Notice. Notice of the Closed Record Public Hearing was provided as required by Edmonds Municipal Code Section 20.07.004(F). B. Hearing. The closed record public hearing before the City Council was convened on June 18, 2013. C. Appearance of Fairness, Conflict of Interest and Ex Parte Communications. At the outset of the closed record public hearing on June 18, 2013 and prior to voting on the draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on July 2, 2013, the decision makers were individually asked to disclose any appearance of fairness, conflict of interest and ex parse communications. Each Councilmember and the Mayor stated that he/she had none to disclose. The Mayor asked the members of the audience whether any one wished to challenge any decision maker's participation in the closed record hearing, and there was no reply. 0 Packet Page 79 of 774 D. Exhibits. Continuing the list of Exhibits in the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration,' the following Exhibits were submitted: Exhibit No. Description 50 Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration (4-24-13); 51 Appeal from Final Decision Upon Reconsideration (5-8-13); 52 Letter from Alvin Rutledge (5-28-13); 53 Letter from David Thorpe (5-30-13); 54 Response from Applicants Hillman (6-7-13); 55 Memo from Lighthouse Law Group (6-7-13); 56 Reply Brief of Appellants (6-12-13); and 57 Sur -rebuttal of Applicants to Appellants' Reply Brief (6-14-13). E. General Jurisdiction of the City Council. "An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body's decision.2 The appeal filed by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Candy Brown and Todd Brown (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellants") was received by the City on May 8, 2013, and so was timely filed. F. Notice. Public Notice of the Council's Closed Record Appeal Hearing was published in the Herald on June 2, 2013. G. Staff Report.3 The facts presented by Senior Planner Kernen Lien at the Closed Record Hearing can be summarized as follows: Subject address and zoning: 1139 Sierra Place, Edmonds, RS-12. Proposal: To construct a single family residential home on a vacant lot. The house The list of Exhibits begins on page 0008 of the administrative record. 2 ECDC Section 20.07.004(B). 3 Packet Page 80 of 774 would have a building footprint of 2,174 square feet, which includes a 578 square foot garage and 1,596 square feet of living space on the first floor and 1,027 square feet of living space on the second floor. Site limitations: The lot is .93 acres in size. A category 3 wetland is located across the middle portion of the property and the 50 foot buffer for the Category 3 wetland extends into the eastern portion of the property and encompasses the entire western portion of the site. A non - fish bearing perennial stream, Type Np, is located on the northern side of the western half of the site. The minimum required 50-foot stream buffer overlaps with the wetland buffer and covers much of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern portion of the site.4 Applications submitted: Development of the site is impossible, given the above limitations, without some impact on the critical areas and/or critical area buffers. Therefore, the Hillmans have submitted applications for: 1. A critical areas reasonable use variance under ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2), based on the Hillman's allegation that application of the City's critical areas regulations to the property would deny all reasonable economic use of the property;5 2. A setback variance under Edmonds Community Development Code (EDCD) Section 20.85.010, to reduce the minimum required street setback in ECDC 16.20.030 in the RS- 12 Zone from 25 feet to 12 feet for the placement of the residence and to 3 feet for a retaining wall; and 3 The Staff Report begins on page 0081 of the administrative record. 4 All of these facts are displayed in a map prepared by Wetland Resources, located at page 189 of the administrative record. 5 See, description in the Staff Report for the manner in which the proposed construction of the home will impact the critical areas on the property, pages 0088-0095. 2 Packet Page 81 of 774 3. A setback variance under EDCD Section 20.85.010, to reduce the minimum required western side yard setback in EDCD Section 16.20.030 in the RS Zone from 10 feet to 3 feet for placement of a retaining wall. The variance applications are intertwined so all have been consolidated into a single development and are being reviewed under File No. PLN20120033. G. Appeal Issues. The Appellants have identified the following appeal issues to be considered in this Closed Record Hearing: 1. Should the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on Reconsideration conditionally approving all variances be reversed because he did not make the required findings that all of the criteria for approval of the street setback and side yard setback variances under ECDC 20.85.010(F) or the critical areas variance under ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c) had been satisfied?6 2. Should the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration conditionally approving the critical areas reasonable use exception be reversed because the Hillman's purchase of the property for a price that reflects the application of the City's critical areas regulations eliminates any argument that they have suffered a "taking" of their property as a result of those regulations?7 H. Oral Argument by Appellants and Applicants. A detailed and complete summary of the oral argument presented by Appellants and the response by the Applicants Hillman has been included in the Minutes of the Edmonds City Council Meetings dated June 18, 2013. The City Council hereby adopts the same by reference as if fully set forth herein. 6 Exhibit 51, p. 1. 7 Id., p. 3. 5 Packet Page 82 of 774 I. Chronology Pertinent to Appeal. Here is a chronology of the events relating to the Hillman's variance applications, up to the time of the Hillman's submission of the applications subject of this appeal: Date Description of Event. 5-28-03 The subject property was purchased by Darryl and Shari Lewis for $190,000. 8-7-03 The subject property was included in a Critical Areas Study by Wetland Resources. As a result of the Study, the wetland and stream boundaries and their buffers were delineated. 1-15-04 Darryl and Shari Lewis filed an application for a critical areas reasonable use variance and north property line setback variance. The Lewis family planned to construct a single family home on the property. 4-19-05 After the variances were approved, the City Council heard an appeal of the variances. 7-24-05 After a remand, the Hearing Examiner approved the variances. However, the Lewis house was never built. 4-2011 The Hillman Family Trust purchased the property for $75,000.00. 8-1-12 The Hillmans submit applications (starting on page 0 10 1) for the critical areas reasonable use variance, the street setback variance and the side yard setback variance. J. Applicable Code. The criteria for approval of the variances that are at issue in this appeal are shown in italics below. 1. Setback Variances. The setback variances are governed by chapter 20.85 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. The criteria for approval are: 20.85.010 Findings. No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made. A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 0 Packet Page 83 of 774 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats; 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. Reasonable Use Variance. The criteria for a reasonable use variance for a private development in ECDC 23.40.210 are: The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition of `reasonable economic use(s)' in ECDC 23.40.320) of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the 7 Packet Page 84 of 774 critical area; C. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. K. Hearing Examiner Final Decision on Reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner conditionally approved the variances (including the reasonable use exception).$ The following portions of his decision and the administrative record are relevant to this appeal and the Council's decision: Page 0004: The Examiner found: The conditions of approval require further staff investigation for authorization of the encroachment into the wetland itself. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria9. ... Further information is needed to determine whether the direct encroachment of this proposal should or can be avoided. Page 0013-14: The Examiner found: The most challenging issue for this proposal is whether the request constitutes the minimum necessary to grant relief from the City's critical area regulations. It appears that encroachments into the wetland could be almost entirely avoided by ° See, page 0001 of the administrative record. 9 Emphasis added. N. Packet Page 85 of 774 limiting the building footprint to 1,600 square feet,10 inclusive of garage space. The need to encroach into 1,790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon the applicant's desire to have vaulted ceilings and a driveway that could be larger than necessary to serve the property. Almost [all] of the living space and the garage could be located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicant fully built out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings. Page 0014: The Examiner found: If only a buffer encroachment were proposed, as opposed to encroachment into the wetland itself, the size of the proposed home would clearly be considered a minimum variance request given the larger sizes of surrounding homes. However, a significant complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reasons for not fully using second floor living space presented by the applicant were that they have a preference for first floor living space as they grow older and they want to avoid a boxy appearance for their home. The author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands.11 Page 0016: In his finding with regard to the criterion in ECDC 20.85.010(F), the Examiner stated: As discussed in FOF No. 3, the purpose of the variance is to maximize the distance of the proposal from the Category III wetland and so should be considered the minimum necessary to enjoy the same development rights as others in the vicinity with the same zoning. The size of the home, which is referenced in the staff report under the analysis of the criterion quoted above, is irrelevant since any reduction in building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. Any reduction in home size should be used to increase the separation from the wetland. Page 0017-18: In his finding with regard to the criterion in ECDC 23.40.210(A)(2)(c), the Examiner found: [T]here is an open question as to whether the home has been designed to minimize impacts to the on -site wetland. The conditions of approval require further staff investigation and redesign of the project to the extent necessary to 10 As stated on page 0009, the applicant seeks to construct a house that is 2,623 square feet in size, with a footprint of 2,174 square feet. " Emphasis added. I Packet Page 86 of 774 mitigate project impacts.12 According to the testimony of Mr. Brown, the applicants had to pay $75,000 for their lot whereas other lots in the vicinity average approximately $500,000. Although Mr. Brown did not provide any hard data to substantiate his cost estimates, his assertions were undisputed by the applicants and it is fair to conclude that the purchase price of the applicant's property was substantially reduced as a result of the wetland and stream. As discussed in the Order on Reconsideration, investment backed expectations are one of the factors involved in assessing reasonable use. If the living space and garage is limited to the footprint identified in Condition No. 1 of this decision, the applicants would still have 2,600 square feet of living space. This would be 1,200 square feet less than the average living space available to other homes that the applicant identified in the vicinity, but given the significantly reduced land value this would still qualify as a reasonable use if there was an appreciable environmental benefit to not building in the wetland. Page 0020: The Examiner approved all variances subject to conditions. Condition No. 1 requires the staff to consult with a qualified wetland biologist: to determine whether removing the proposed wetland encroachment would appreciably improve upon impacts to wetland functions. If there is any appreciable environmental benefit to avoiding the proposed wetland encroachment, the building footprint for the home, inclusive of the _garage, will be limited to the squared building space (including the west bay window) depicted in Ex. 4, Sheet 2, excluding the garage area and the room appended to the north of the garage to the extent it encroaches into the wetland. The southeast wetland encroachment of this living space is authorized. The driveway shall be located outside the wetland. Retaining walls may be built into the wetland to the extent necessary to support the home and driveway. If the driveway cannot be built to City standards without encroaching more than a foot into the wetland, the applicants may build the home as proposed with the 1,790 square foot encroachment. L. Evidence in the Administrative Record. Here are specific references to the administrative record relating to the issues in this appeal: Page 0105-6: Here, the applicant states that the "proposed home is smaller than the smallest home of all the properties adjoining it as shown in the comparison in Table 3 in the WRI study. Page 0106: Under No. 6, "Minimum Variance," the applicants state that "without this variance, the applicants would be denied construction of any reasonable home on the property." 1z Emphasis added. 10 Packet Page 87 of 774 Page 0107: Under ECDC Section 23.40.210(A)(2)(c)'s requirement for "minimum necessary impact," the applicants state: The applicant has carefully considered the house size and design in order to minimize critical area impacts. The total footprint and living space are the smallest of all of the adjoining properties. The research and design work clearly demonstrate that the proposed development is the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable use economic use of the property. Page 0108: Under ECDC Section 23.40.210(B)'s requirements, the applicants state: Due to the predominance of the site's critical areas, it is not possible to place a dwelling on the lot and provide access to it without a variance to the code requirements for wetland and stream buffers. The buffer/setback reductions requested herein are the minimum necessary to allow a modest -size house to be placed on the property in the only location where it makes sense to develop. The applicant is not proposing to build anything more than a reasonable single family home in keeping with what the neighboring properties have. Page 0194: In their "Response to City of Edmonds' Request for Additional Information," the applicants state: 5. Regarding the size of the proposed house, the requirement of ECDC is that the proposal be `for reasonable economic use of the property,' and that the `proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for' that reasonable use. Reasonable use for the RS-12 zone is one single-family home for each 12,000 square feet of lot area, with no more than a 35% lot cove range. The maximum allowed footprint for a 12,000 square foot lot would be 4200 square feet. There is no minimum requirement for area of a second floor. The previously approved variance for this property which expired in 2012 was for a house with a footprint of 4146 square feet. The current proposal is for 2174 square feet of footprint (plus 163 square feet of porches), which is considerably smaller. As part of the research for designing the house for this project, the sizes and footprints of neighboring homes were tabulated and averaged to determine what should be considered reasonable for this street in this zone, with emphasis on the only 2 critical area variances that have been granted in recent history (the Hachler home at 1111 Sierra Place, and the Lewis Variance for 1139 Sierra Place, granted but expired). While county records do not show footprint amounts specifically, they do show ground floor and garage areas. The average ground floor plus garage area for homes in the immediate neighborhood is 2936 square feet, compared to 2174 square feet for the proposed house. The Hachler home's footprint is 2492 square feet (measured from a plan sketch in the city's file) and the Lewis proposal was for 4146 square feet; both granted through critical areas 11 Packet Page 88 of 774 variances. Although the code does not demand `the smallest house one could possibly build' nor `the smallest ground floor area possible' as requirements for development in a critical area site, the minimizing of critical area impacts has been a major consideration. Applicant's Sur -rebuttal, Page 5: The applicant states: While the code makes it fairly clear that, for reasonable use purposes, one should be able to build a single-family home on a conforming single-family lot, it is silent as to how one should determine whether the `minimum necessary' impact prong has been satisfied. For example, there is no minimum or maximum square footage in the code to help staff or the hearing examiner decide when a footprint is small enough to be considered the `minimum necessary.' Neither code nor previous variance precedent requires a house footprint smaller than what we have proposed. It does not define nor require a minimum single family residence or minimum house size, nor a minimum footprint as suggested by the appellants ... but rather requires that `the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning... The applicants suggested that if the Council were to decide not to affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision, it could strike Condition No. 1 of that decision, and modify it, as suggested by the applicants. (This appears on page 10 of the Sur -rebuttal.) Applicants' Argument at the Closed Record Appeal: The Applicants did not point to any evidence in the record to contradict the Hearing Examiner's pertinent findings of fact .13 Instead, they described the calculations they used to determine the size of their proposed home, contended that a previous variance on the same piece of property had been granted (but not utilized) by the City, and explained the reason for the size of the proposed driveway. M. Conclusions of Law. Burden of Proof. The appellant bears the burden to demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous, given the record. ECDC Section 20.07.005(C). 2. Standard of Review. The City Council "shall determine whether the 13 That the applicants' "need to encroach into 1,790 square feet of Class III wetland is based upon the applicants' desire to have vaulted ceilings ..." Or that "[a]lmost all of the living space and the garage could be located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicant fully built out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings." And that the "author of the wetland report ... was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland." These findings appear on page 0014 of the administrative record. 12 Packet Page 89 of 774 decision made by the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in the record."14 The Council shall affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner.15 A finding is "clearly erroneous ... when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." 16 Because this is a closed record hearing, the Council cannot base its decision on evidence that is presented for the first time in the appeal. Therefore, if the Council decides to modify or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner, it must identify the portion of the record upon which such modification or reversal is based. 3. Standard of Adequacy for Hearing Examiner's Decision. "Findings of fact by an administrative agency are subject to the same requirements as are findings of fact drawn by a trial court."17 As this standard is interpreted by the Washington courts: The purpose of findings of fact is to ensure that the decision maker `has dealt fully and properly with all the issues in the case before he [or she] decides it and so that the parties involved' and the appellate court `may be fully informed as to the bases of his [or her] decision when it is made. ... Findings must be made on matters `which establish the existence or nonexistence of determinative factual matters ...' 18 4. Variance Requirements. a. Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.85.010, the City cannot approve any variance to the Zoning Code, unless a finding is made that all of the criteria in 20.85.010(A) through (F) have been satisfied. The Appellants argue that "the applicants have not sustained their burden of proof that the filling of 11 % of the wetland was the minimum necessary to allow 14 ECDC Section 20.07.005(H). 15 ECDC Section 20.07.005(H). 16 Phoenix Development, Inc. v. City of Woodinville, 171 Wash.2d 820, 829, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011). 13 Packet Page 90 of 774 the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning, as required by ECDC 20.85.010.F."19 The Hearing Examiner determined that the size of the home is irrelevant under the analysis for this criterion "since any reduction in building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. ,20 The Council affirms the Hearing Examiner's findings and conclusions conditionally approving the street setback and side yard setback variances. b. Pursuant to ECDC Section 23.40.210(A)(2), a reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that all of the criteria in ECDC Section 23.40.210(A)(2)(a) through (f) have been satisfied. ECDC Section 23.40.210(A)(2)(c) requires that the "proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property." The Hearing Examiner determined that there was "insufficient evidence in the record" to determine whether this criterion had been satisfied.21 He described the rationale for the applicant's proposal, but conceded that "these are not sufficient reasons to justify an encroachment into wetlands."22 In his approval, the Examiner imposed a condition of approval that required the City staff to consult with the applicant's wetland biologist and as to the wetland impacts, and to then evaluate the need to reduce the size of the building footprint. The Hearing Examiner cited to no code provision or other authority that allows this procedure, which delegates his authority on a final decision as to the applicant's satisfaction of a variance criterion to the City staff, and 17 Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wash.2d 26, 35, 873 p.2d 498 (1994). 18 Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn.2d at 35-36. 19 Ex. 51, page 2. 20 See, page 0016 of the administrative record, No. 9. 21 See, page 0001 of the administrative record. 14 Packet Page 91 of 774 terminates with a decision (on the wetland impacts and size of building footprint in the wetlands) from which there is no appeal. 5. Reasonable Use and Takings. "Reasonable economic use" is defined, in pertinent part, in ECDC Section 23.40.320 as follows: "The minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process." Here, the City has adopted critical areas regulations affecting property, and the Hillmans bear the burden of establishing that application of those regulations "destroys any fundamental attribute of ownership, including the right to possess, to exclude others or to make economically viable use of the property. ,23 "[T]he party claiming a taking has the burden of showing governmental conduct that will constitute a taking is not justified as a valid exercise of the police power. ,24 "Even though the Government may `take' private land ... it can justify its conduct as a proper exercise of its police power, if it shows that it is merely restricting, but not eliminating the use of such land. ,25 An owner claiming loss of the economically viable use of property must show that the challenged governmental regulation proximately caused the loss of all such use.26 "Proximate cause means a cause with, in a direct sequence unbroken by any new independent cause, produces the injury complained of, and without which, such injury would not have happened.i27 In other words, the applicants' business decision to purchase a lot heavily encumbered by critical areas for $75,000, which is significantly lower than the amount paid by 22 See, page 0014 of the administrative record. 23 Guimont v. Clark, 121 Wash.2d 586, 605, 854 P.2d 1 (1993). 24 Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wash. App. 505, 516, 958 P.2d 343 (1998). 25 Id. 26 Guimont, 121 Wash.2d at 604. 15 Packet Page 92 of 774 others for property in the area without critical areas, is the proximate cause of their loss, if any. The Washington courts have held that a purchaser cannot sue for a taking or injury relating to the property that occurred prior to his or her acquisition of title: Because the right to damages for an injury to property is a personal right belonging to the property owner, the right does not pass to a subsequent purchaser unless expressly conveyed. ... Furthermore, the court has found that no taking damages should be awarded to plaintiffs who acquired property for a price commensurate with its diminished value.28 The applicants may argue that a second "take" will occur if the City denies the reasonable use variance. They also believe that the City's previous approval of a critical areas variance for the same piece of property entitles them to approval of this variance. However, the Washington courts have held that "[i]f existing land regulations limit the permissible uses of the property at the time of acquisition, a purchaser usually cannot reasonably expect to use the land for prohibited purposes. ,29 The Washington courts have also ruled that no one is entitled to approval of an application simply because other, similar, development applications were 27 Ventures Northwest Ltd. Partnership v. State, 81 Wash. App. 353, 364, 914 P.2d 1180 (1996). 28 Hoover v. Pierce County, 79 Wash. App. 427, 434, 903 P.2d 464 (1995). 29 Buechel v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, 125 Wash.2d 196, 210, 884 P.2d 901 (1994). In Buechel, the property owner Buechel purchased a narrow waterfront lot 8,500 square feet in size, on Hood Canal, and zoned for residential use. The minimum lot size in the zone was 10,000 square feet. Buechel admitted that most of the lot was underwater and that the buildable lot area was less than 1,000 square feet. Buechel applied for a variance to allow construction of a 20 x 35 foot, 2-story home on the property. The decision to deny the variance was upheld because the administrative record demonstrated that water -dependent recreational use of the property was a "reasonable use," providing Buechel with some economic value. As stated by the Buechel court: To some extent the reasonable use of property depends on the expectations of the landowner at the time of purchase of the property. If existing land regulations limit the permissible uses of the property at the time of acquisition, a purchaser usually cannot reasonably expect to use the land for prohibited purposes. Although not necessarily determinative, courts may look to the zoning regulations in effect at the time of purchase as a factor to determine what is a reasonable use of the land. Presumably regulations on use are reflected in the price a purchaser pays for a piece of property. This landowner knew when he purchased this lot that it did not satisfy the minimum lot size or the setback requirements of the [Mason County Shoreline Master Program]. 16 Packet Page 93 of 774 approved.30 The Hearing Examiner should have denied the applicants' variances because the applicant did not demonstrate that all of the criteria for approval of the critical areas variance had been satisfied. Specifically, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the "proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property," as required by ECDC Section 23.40.210(A)(2)(c). So that there is no confusion on this point, any subsequent application(s) for variances submitted by the applicants must address the central questions posed by this appeal -- if the applicant fully built out the second story of the proposed home, could all of the living space and the garage be located within a building footprint situated outside of the wetland?31 In brief, can this home be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland? Until these questions are answered, no critical areas reasonable use variance may be approved. From the evidence in the administrative record, it appears that the applicants misinterpreted these criteria for the variance(s), and instead developed their own formula for "reasonable use." The applicants asserted that "reasonable use" entitles property owner to "one single family home for each 12,000 square feet of lot area"32 and therefore concluded that for their property, the "maximum allowed footprint for a 12,000 square foot lot would be 4200 square feet. ,33 Because the applicants' proposed house was for 2,174 square feet of building footprint, they erroneously believed that the application should be approved regardless of 30 The Washington courts have held that each application must be independently reviewed by the decisionmakers to determine whether it satisfies the laws in effect at the time the application was filed, and no application is entitled to automatic approval because other, similar applications were approved. CROP v. Chelan County, 105 Wash. App. 753, 760, 21 P.3d 304 (2001). 31 Administrative record, page 0013-14. 32 Administrative record, page 0194. 33 Id. 17 Packet Page 94 of 774 whether it was the "minimum necessary to provide the applicant" with a "reasonable use" of their property. Based on the above, the City Council concludes that the Hearing Examiner's failure to make findings on all of the criteria necessary for approval of the critical areas reasonable use variance is clearly erroneous. Because the City's code specifically provides that all criteria must be satisfied before a variance may be approved, he clearly erred in determining that the variance could be approved with a condition that would delegate the responsibility for ascertaining compliance with the code criteria to the City staff. Implementation of this process could have at least two deleterious effects. First, it would result in a decision by staff on the application that would be binding on all interested parties, without their consent or participation. Second, it would arguably create a precedent for future action. In other words, if the City allows variances to be granted without making a finding that all criteria for approval have been satisfied, then at some point in the future, another applicant will make the argument that his/her application should benefit from the same deficient treatment. The City Council notes that its decision to reverse the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration does not preclude the applicants from submitting future variance applications to build a house on the subject property.34 Nor does the Council believe that denial of these applications constitute a take or an argument that the applicants' constitutional rights have been violated.35 34 However, the applicants should note that there are restrictions on the resubmittal of applications. "[A] second application may be considered if there is a substantial change in circumstances or conditions relevant to the application or a substantial change in the application itself." West Coast, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 104 Wash. App. 735, 742, 16 P.3d 30 (2000). 35 "The mere denial of a permit for one particular us does not establish the absence of any economically viable use." Ventures Northwest, 81 Wash. App. at 366. IN Packet Page 95 of 774 DECISION The City Council reverses the Hearing Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration on the critical areas reasonable use variance without prejudice. The critical areas reasonable use variance is denied. The Examiner's Decision on Reconsideration on the street setback, side yard variance is affirmed. DATED this day of July, 2013. [Insert signature blocks] Appeals. This decision may be appealed to superior court according to chapter 36.70C RCW, within the deadlines set forth in RCW 36.70C.040. 19 Packet Page 96 of 774 Edmonds Way would be unlikely to return to shop in Edmonds. He suggested a coordinated effort with King County who borders Edmonds Way as investing more money in the study to show the State that Edmonds is interested in improving the roadway to provide economic benefits to downtown Edmonds. Next, he was glad consideration was being given to improvements other than a traffic light at SR 524/88th Avenue. 5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE TO WALKER KASINADHUNI, STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE. Council President Petso read Resolution 1292 commending Student Representative Walter Kasinadhuni for his service as student representative from March 12 to June 18, 2013. Student Representative Kasinadhuni commented that he appreciated the opportunity to serve. 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILE NO. APL20130001) OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON TOM AND LIN HILLMAN'S CRITICAL AREAS AND SETBACK VARIANCES (FILE NO. PLN20120033) FOR A NEW RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT 1139 SIERRA PLACE. APPELLANTS: STEPHEN SCHROEDER, CHERYL BEIGHLE, TODD BROWN, & CANDY BROWN Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record review is for the City Council to address an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision on reconsideration on a street setback variance, side yard variance and two critical areas reasonable use variance requests to construct a single family home at 1139 Sierra Place. He opened the closed record hearing. Mayor Earling explained the hearing is not open to public testimony; this is a hearing on the appeal of Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown and Candy Brown. It is not an open record hearing and there will be no opportunity during the closed record appeal hearing for public testimony. Oral argument will be allowed from the applicant and parties of record. The parties of record include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision -making body had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the appeal outside of the public hearing process. Councilmembers Buckshnis, Johnson, Yamamoto, Peterson, Bloom, and Fraley-Monillas, Council President Petso and Mayor Earling stated they had not. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed they could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Peterson, Bloom, Yamamoto, Johnson, and Buckshnis and Council President Petso stated they had no conflicts and could hear the matter in a fair and objective manner. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to the Council's or his participation as a decision -maker in the hearing. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling described the procedures for presentation of oral argument: staff will be allowed 15 minutes for its presentation and the applicant and appellants will be allowed 20 minutes each to address the Council. The 20 minutes may be used by any combination of parties of record who wish to testify, a total of 20 minutes for each side. The Council was agreeable to the described procedures. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 4 Attachment 2 Packet Page 97 of 774 Mayor Earling explained the Council's jurisdiction in the closed record appeal hearing is to determine whether the decision by the Hearing Examiner was clearly erroneous under the evidence in the record. The City Council shall affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner accordingly. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained Jen Machuga was the Project Planner for this application but was unable to attend tonight's meeting. He shares an office with Ms. Machuga and is very familiar with the project. He explained the subject site is located at 1139 Sierra Place within the single family residential zone RS-12. The site is currently a vacant lot and the property owners, Tom and Lin Hillman, propose to construct a new single family residence on the site. He displayed a map prepared by Wetland Resources, page 189 of the record, explaining the site is incredibly limited by the existing critical areas. A Category 3 wetland is located across the middle portion of the property and the 50-foot buffer for a Category 3 wetland extends into the eastern portion of the property and encompasses the entire western portion of the site. A non -fish bearing perennial stream, Type Np, is located on the northern side of the western half of the property. The minimum required 50-foot stream buffer overlaps with the wetland buffer and covers much of the northern portion of the site. Additionally, an erosion hazard area is located on the eastern portion of the site. Erosion hazards are 15-40% slopes; he was uncertain of the exact slope on this property but it was on the higher end of the erosion hazard. Due to the presence of critical areas and associated buffers throughout much of the site, development on the site is impossible without some impact to the critical areas and/or buffers. ECDC contains a provision for a critical areas reasonable use variance when a site is so encumbered by critical areas and their associated buffers that it is not possible to develop the site in such a way that fully complies with the City's critical area code requirements. A critical area reasonable use variance allows for exceptions to the requirements of the critical areas code in order to allow for development of the site in such a way that has the least possible impact on existing critical areas and buffers while still allowing reasonable economic use of the property. Mr. Lien explained the Hillmans requested a critical area reasonable use variance because they felt strict application of the City's critical area regulations would deny all reasonable economic use of the property. The City's code defines reasonable economic uses as the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state, federal, constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. Reasonable economic use shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. For example, minimum reasonable use of a residential lot that meets or exceeds the minimum bulk requirements is use for one single family residential structure. Determination of reasonable economic use shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as the desire to make more profitable use of the site. In addition to the requested critical areas variance, the Hillmans also requested a setback variance to reduce the minimum required street setback from 25 feet to 12 for the residence and 3 feet for a retaining wall and to reduce the minimum required western setback from 10 feet to 3 feet. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan of the property (page 109 of the record) identifying the 12 foot setback variance, a 3 foot street setback and a 3 foot side setback for the retaining wall. He identified where the house and the retaining wall intrude into the wetland. He identified the wetland buffer and stream buffer. He explained the variance reduces the 50-foot stream buffer to 25 feet. The residence would be located in the southwestern corner of the property. The building footprint is proposed to be 2,174 square feet which includes a 578 square foot garage and 1,596 square feet of living space on the first floor, and 1,027 square feet of living space on the second floor. Both variance requests, consolidated in one application, were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner as a Type III-B decision. Following a public hearing on March 14, 2013, the Hearing Examiner issued an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 5 Packet Page 98 of 774 initial decision on March 28, 2013. Both the City and the applicant requested reconsideration of his decision. Following an order of reconsideration issued by the Hearing Examiner on April 16, 2013 and receipt of comments from parties of record, the Hearing Examiner issued a Final Decision on Reconsideration on April 24, 2013 which was mailed to all parties of record on April 25, 2013. The Hearing Examiner's April 24, 2013 decision includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the requested setback variances as well as in support of the requested encroachment into the stream and wetland buffers. However, the decision specifically states there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachment as required by the variance criteria. The decision states further information is needed to determine whether direct encroachment of the proposal can be avoided. The Hearing Examiner included a condition of approval, Condition 1, requiring that the applicant submit additional information to staff in order to determine the wetland encroachment can occur. An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision was submitted by Stephen Schroeder, Cheryl Beighle, Todd Brown and Candy Brown on May 8, 2013. As required by ECDC 20.07.005.13, the appellants, applicant and parties of record submitted written arguments, responses and rebuttals which are included as attachments to the Council's agenda packet. The applicant's final surrebuttal was received after the agenda memo was published and was mailed to the City Council, applicants and posted on the website developed specifically for this closed record appeal. The Council's decision options on the subject closed record appeal are set forth in ECDC 20.07.005.H and are outlined in a memo from Lighthouse Law Group, included as Attachment G to the agenda packet. The Council may choose to affirm, modify, reverse or remand the Hearing Examiner's decision. Appellant Presentation Steve Schroeder, 1142 Vista Place, explained he and his wife, Cheryl Beighle, live one property adjacent and directly north of the subject property. He pointed out the structure, yard and driveway will be located entirely in the wetland and its buffers which are all environmentally critical areas. He displayed the Critical Areas Study Map and Wetland Mitigation Plan (page 189 of the record) and identified the location of the buffers. He displayed a blowup of the same map, highlighting the footprint of the proposed structure including the garage, the oversized driveway and the wetland boundary. He noted the garage, a portion of the house and two-thirds of the driveway would be located within the wetland. Mr. Schroeder stated this is a beautiful urban oasis that should be preserved and not degraded. He displayed an aerial photograph of the property and identified the approximate property boundaries, his house, the Brown's house, Sierra Place and the location of the proposed structure. He provided a blowup of the aerial photograph, identifying his and the Brown's houses, the wetland occupying two-thirds of the property, and the buffer. He contends the applicant has not met their burden of proof; the code requires the proposed impact on the critical area be the minimum necessary to achieve a reasonable economic use of the property. The Hearing Examiner found in both his original order and order on reconsideration that the encroachment into the wetland could be avoided by limiting the footprint of the house. The original design has a footprint close to a 4,000 square foot house; however, the total square footage was reduced due to the vaulted ceilings. The Hearing Examiner found the footprint was larger than necessary to achieve reasonable economic use. As the City Attorney pointed out in their memo, this appears to be a finding of fact by the Hearing Examiner and that some parts of his order are consistent with that finding. Mr. Schroeder noted the Hearing Examiner pointed out the only reason for not using the second floor for living space was an aesthetic preference for a ground floor structure and to avoid a boxy looking house. The Hearing Examiner also found these were not sufficient reasons to push the footprint into the wetland. Mr. Schroeder made reference to a preference to avoid a "snout" house, a garage where the bays look like the snout of an animal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 6 Packet Page 99 of 774 Mr. Schroeder explained the Hillmans have proposed what appears to be a compromise — adopt the Hearing Examiner's language to limit the footprint of the house to the structure without the garage, approximately a 1600 square foot footprint. In their proposed compromise, the Hillmans remove the driveway provision and include the driveway as they designed it and the retaining walls and add language that the building driveway shall be placed no further eastward than the squared off line than is necessary to meet draining requirements and in no case further than the original proposal. He summarized that took back all concessions related to the driveway and would once again appear to place the discretion to make this decision in the hands of the experts the Hillmans have hired. He opposed that compromise. Mr. Schroeder referred to the Hearing Examiner's language that the Hillmans have not justified putting the footprint of the house or the driveway into the wetland. He pointed out there is no evidence in the record to justify the oversized driveway, two-thirds of which would be located in the wetland. Mr. Schroeder explained the Council has the option of modifying the Hearing Examiner's decision. If the Council does so, he urged the Council to adopt the language Mr. Taraday suggested that there be no encroachment into or variance to use the wetland itself and the footprint of the structure inclusive of the garage not exceed 1600 square feet. He urged the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and deny the variance because they had not met their burden of proof that this is the minimum necessary for a reasonable economic return on the property. Mr. Schroeder noted Edmonds is a beautiful place and it is a gift to live here; livability is of the essence of the community. The Council has been instrumental in achieving a proper balance between development and livability. In Edmonds, livability trumps runaway development. Regulation of environmentally critical areas necessarily would determine that some parcels are not suitable for development. He referenced the Lucas case that refers to regulatory takings, where regulations take all economic use of a property. Background principles of law that include reasonable land use regulation are an exception under the Lucas case to the regulatory takings analogy. If it is created, there is no takings even if economic use of the property is restricted or taken away. Mr. Schroeder explained the City is familiar with this concept. There are developers who argue that the height limits in the commercial zone make commercial building economically infeasible, yet the City has steadfastly held the line in favor of livability and against runaway development. All land use regulations put constraints on land and do so for the common good, to promote the general welfare and happiness of the citizenry. Variances give relief to people in unique situations where a strict application of the law would result in an unjust outcome. Because other properties are subject to wetland regulations, this situation is not unique and does not justify a variance. Mr. Schroeder referred to 23.40.320 that defines reasonable use as a single family residence on a lot that meets the bulk requirements. The Hearing Examiner and staff take this out of context to mean it trumps all other provisions of the code. The legislative intent of the Council is to protect wetland and other critical areas when the critical areas ordinance was enacted in 2004. The inclusion of the definition in 2004, which he envisioned was in response to the Lucas case, complicated the process. He did not believe the Council's intent via adoption of this definition was to redefine takings law. The code also states if any provisions conflict with that title, that which provides the most protection of the critical area shall prevail. Taking this definition out of context and treating it as if it trumps case law and the rest of the code is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Mr. Schroeder referred to the Hillman's point in their rebuttal document that if the definition were taken by itself, they could put three houses on their lot and meet the 1200 square foot requirement. He pointed out that would require the stream be placed in a culvert, the wetland filled and the buffers eliminated and degrade the habitat beyond recognition. If the Council accepts that the definition of reasonable economic Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 7 Packet Page 100 of 774 use implies a single family residence, the Council would be helpless in preventing that result and could not stop destructive development anywhere in the City. Mr. Schroeder explained the Hillmans lack a reasonable investment expectation. Critical area regulations were in place at the time they purchased the property. The Hillmans needed a variance to build a single family residence. They paid $75,000 for a nearly 1 acre lot where adjacent properties sold for upward of $500,000. This property has remained undeveloped for 100 years; everything around it has been developed. If the Hillmans wanted to build a 4,000 square foot house with most of the living space on the first floor and an oversized driveway, they could do so on an unrestricted lot and likely would have to pay a reasonable market value for the lot. Mr. Schroeder urged the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision that grants the variance. The Council enacted ordinances governing sensitive areas; he urged the Council to certify that all provisions are important and should be construed together in a manner that protects sensitive areas. If on occasion that means a property cannot be developed, that is the price of maintaining a livable community. Todd Brown,1135 Sierra Place, explained he lives northwest of the Hillman Family Trust property. The area is very wet year round and prone to flooding. Even the City acknowledged what a number of downstream neighbors have stated in the record; development in the larger area has exceeded the stormwater drainage capacity. On page 24 of the record, the City engineering staff states that this stream receives stormwater runoff from an area of at least 16 acres encompassing 40+ lots and City right-of-way that were developed largely before stormwater management was required. Staff also states it is problematic to verify that the proposed development will prevent any increase in the stormwater discharge to neighboring properties. The development seems at odds with the City ordinance that stated development cannot be materially detrimental to properties in the City. Mr. Brown played the Zehner Video 1 from the record that illustrates water flow from the Hillman Trust property entering the wetland on the eastern side of the I I I I property, through an open ditch during a typical rainstorm. Mr. Brown summarized they have been described as having a no growth attitude. Although true to some extent, he questioned who wouldn't in their position and the history of this property and the inconsistencies in the story. He would like to believe the Hillman Family Trust intends to simply build one or more houses and sell them, but as Ronald Reagan said, trust yet verify. That aside, their other pertinent and justified concerns have to do with the drainage problem on the property and the shortcomings of the stormwater plan. He agreed with Sheri Zehner's statement in one of her opposition letters, "don't use us and our downstream neighbors as drainage guinea pigs." He also paraphrased Councilmember Bloom, "Edmonds is indeed a gift, we should show our appreciation by not allowing these extreme variances." A member of the audience asked to speak as a party of record. Mayor Earling advised parties of record should have been included with the appellant's or applicant's presentation. The 20 minute timeframe for each party was to include statements from all parties. Applicant Presentation Tom Hillman, 15915 74th Place West, explained his wife, Lin, and he are the applicants. He noted the open questions that have no final answer, nor should they have, are what is the minimum necessary or the minimum variance. To clearly define them would prevent someone from building or allow them to build too much. By necessity, the minimum necessary or the minimum variance are not clearly defined. In his introduction, the Hearing Examiner uses the term, encroachment, when actually the term impact is more appropriate. He quoted from the Hearing Examiner's introduction, if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria, but minimizing impacts is different Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 8 Packet Page 101 of 774 than minimizing encroachments. The standard is no net loss of wetland functions, and that is the minimum impact. Mr. Hillman referred to the Hearing Examiner's statements in his documents, on the one hand this and on the other hand that. He disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's statement that the purpose of the variance is to maximize the distance of the proposal from the Category 3 wetland; the purpose of the variance is to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The Hearing Examiner then states, on the other hand, although a priority for building within buffers over wetlands themselves is a reasonable inference to make, this priority is not expressly imposed in the City's wetland regulations and there is no scientific evidence in the record to support this priority. Mr. Hillman summarized the Hearing Examiner is stating on one hand building needs to stay away from the wetland, and on the other hand this priority is not expressly opposed and not required by the City or supported by scientific evidence. The Hearing Examiner acknowledges there is no mandate to prefer the wetland versus the buffer. The Hearing Examiner further states it is possible that encroachment into the stream buffer would cause more environmental damage than wetland filling. Mr. Hillman referred to the criteria; no other reasonable economic use of the property has less impact on the critical area, stating the Hearing Examiner acknowledges that reasonable economic use is defined as a single family home. The Hearing Examiner then wonders if other reasonable economic use might include redesign. The code does not specify design criteria to meet reasonable economic use of the property; how would it be determined whether a redesign met the criteria. Mr. Hillman referred to minimum; the RS-12 requires a minimum lot width of 80 feet. Two 10-foot setbacks would allow a 60-foot wide house. The RS-6 zone has a 60 foot minimum lot width and side setbacks of 5 feet which would allow a 50 foot wide house. The Hearing Examiner's condition limits the house to approximately 52 feet and because of the setback due to drainage, the house will only be 36 feet wide. He questioned a 36-foot wide house in an RS-12 zone where the neighbors enjoy a minimum 80 foot lot width. Mr. Hillman referred to the wetland report that states the wetland is sloped, has no ability to retain water, contains blackberry bushes and is not very high functioning. The area of their proposed encroachment is approximately 1800 square feet; they are proposing to enhance over 15,000 feet of the wetland, the entire wetland. Their wetland biologist concluded they will achieve a net gain of the wetland function. With regard to statements that the amount they paid for the lot should limit their variance, the code explicitly states reasonable economic use shall not include considerations of factors personal to the owner, such as how much they paid for the lot. The appellant stated and the Hearing Examiner repeated, if the lot were not encumbered by a critical area, it would have cost $500,000. The 35% maximum coverage and setback would allow a 14,000 square foot house to be built on a lot this size that was unencumbered by critical areas. They paid $75,000 for the lot; 15% of $500,000; 15% of 14,000 is approximately 2,100 square feet, approximately what they are proposing. He concluded proportionately they are not demanding the maximum that could be built, only what is reasonable and what others would be able to build. Conversely 1,600 square feet is only 11% of the 14,000. He calculated if they are limited to 1,600 square feet, the land is only worth $56,000 and they paid $75,000. Mr. Hillman explained when they purchased the property it had an active, approved variance that they could have used to build. The previous variance was for a structure upslope with the driveway through the wetland, affecting 3,000 square feet of wetland. They decided not to do that. The house next door applied for and received a similar variance to build their house within 10 feet of the stream with access to their house over the stream. When they purchased the property, they had a reasonable expectation they would also be able to obtain a variance due to the existing variance and their proposal was less than the existing variance. He did not feel Condition 1 was necessary because no net loss is no net loss and building in the buffer exclusively is not required over building in a critical area to achieve that no net loss. He referred to their wetland biologist report that states, it is generally impractical to disturb forested habitat for the sake Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 9 Packet Page 102 of 774 of wetland mitigation if ultimate mitigation measures can be achieved. The forested habitat is the mature trees near the stream buffer. The stream buffer and those trees are more important than the sloped, blackberry infested area they are encroaching into and mitigation improves the situation. He explained they pulled their project forward to preserve a tree in the stream buffer that is 30 inches in diameter. The Hearing Examiner reached his conclusion applying an interpretation of the code; the Council may reach a different conclusion. To that end they proposed a modification. They tried to use the Hearing Examiner's language, striking his request for more information. Mr. Hillman explained the driveway is 25 feet from the property line as required by the City, disagreeing it was a massive, oversized driveway. The driveway and the house must be higher than the stream. If the house is moved downslope as suggested by the Hearing Examiner, the drainage system will not function. They have 74 feet of detention but only 58 feet depth on the west side. There is currently an L shape that utilizes the front yard and side yard. The City found the drainage system required the retaining wall on the west side to provide coverage; a variance is required because the retaining wall is in the setback. Mr. Hillman explained their modified proposal strikes the driveway language because it removes a corner of the driveway. They would propose moving the driveway only in the event it does not work technically. He suggested the modification was not reasonable, 52 feet at its widest is minimal in Edmonds and an arbitrary square footage limit of 1,600 does not seem appropriate because it does not address the critical area encroachment issue. By way of rebuttal of the appellant's testimony, Mr. Hillman said they do not have an oversized driveway and are not trying to get the driveway as big as possible. The driveway is as wide as it needs to be for the garage and includes some of the sidewalk area. With regard to this being an urban oasis, Mr. Hillman explained they would like to enhance the wetland, improve its function and be stewards of the wetland by building a house nearby. He was unsure what the appellant meant by his reference to 4,000 square feet, their footprint is 2,174. He concluded the City's code is not on trial, they do not want the Council to change the laws but rather work with them and recognize their rights as property owners. He noted the code states reasonable economic use shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant; that is their request. Donna Breske, civil engineer assisting the Hillmans with storm drainage design, provided rebuttal to the appellant's comment regarding increased storm drainage from the site. She explained a detention system will be installed. A detention system is above and beyond what would be required by the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual. The manual requires stormwater detention systems be installed if a project creates 5,000 square feet or more. The manual provides jurisdictions the ability to be more stringent; Edmonds' code requires detention systems for more than 2,500 square feet and less than 5,000 square feet. Mr. Hillman referred to Condition 1, limiting the wetland encroachment to the line defined by the Hearing Examiner. Their intent is to abide by the Hearing Examiner's language. He urged the Council to remove Condition 1 and if not, modify it as they have requested. Although it would limit their building footprint, they are seeking clarity and finality in this process. Council Questions Mayor Earling cautioned the Council to limit their requests to information contained in the record. He suggested there had been some extraneous information provided and requested Councilmembers focus on the issues of appeal of final decision on reconsideration related to a street setback variance, side yard variance and two critical areas reasonable use variances. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the proposed wetland mitigation included in the report from the wetland specialist and who would monitor it. Andrea Bachman, Senior Ecologist, Wetland Resources, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 10 Packet Page 103 of 774 responded the Hillmans have the opportunity to contract with Wetland Resources to do annual monitoring. They would visit the site, evaluate plant materials, recommend maintenance and produce a monitoring report that would be submitted to the City. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Wetland Resources opined they did not see a problem with filling the wetland because the remaining wetland would be improved. Ms. Bachman answered the Hillmans would enhance the wetlands at an 8:1 ratio which is beyond the minimum requirement. Mr. Schroeder pointed out the wetland report prepared by Ms. Bachman identifies $5,000 to purchase plants for mitigation. He noted anyone landscaping property knows that a small front yard cannot be landscaped for $5,000. There is nothing in the report for labor, removing invasive, non-native species or planting; the report is grossly inadequate. He referred to Ms. Bachman's statement that the Hillmans have the opportunity to hire Wetland Resources to oversee monitoring, noting there does not appear to be a contract in place. Mr. Lien stated the wetland report (page 163 of the record) includes a monitoring program. Standards for monitoring include 100% survival in year 1, no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species; 40% aerial coverage of native species in year 2, no greater than 20% coverage of invasive species; and 70% aerial coverage of native species by year 3, no greater than 20% invasive species. The monitoring plan includes a performance bond to ensure these criteria are met. The Hillmans would typically hire a wetland consultant to do the monitoring and submit monitoring plans to the City to show that the criteria are being met. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 282 of the record, David Thorpe's letter, which states a Category 3 wetland requires a replacement ratio of 2:1. Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 23.50.050.F that explains mitigation ratios for wetland. A Category 3 wetland has a mitigation ratio for replacement of 2:1; for every square foot impacted, 2 square feet would need to be replaced. The applicant's proposal is for enhancement. ECDC 23.50.050.G, wetland enhancement mitigation, states the mitigation ratios in F are doubled. Therefore, wetland enhancement for a Category 3 wetland would be 4:1. The wetland report proposes enhancement of 8:1 which is more than twice what the critical area code requires. Councilmember Bloom said Mr. Thorpe was referring to replacement of the lost wetland at a 2:1 ratio. She asked whether the code requirement was for the 1800 square feet of lost wetland to be replaced at double that amount. Mr. Lien responded there are a number of ways to mitigate; replacement is one way, enhancement is another way. If the proposal were to replace wetland, the ratio would be 2:1. The mitigation proposed is enhancement which is double the replacement ratio or 4:1. The wetland report proposes an 8:1 ratio, double what is required by the City's code. Councilmember Bloom asked if the mitigation was for the 1800 square feet and how that was calculated. Mr. Lien referred to page 12 of the record, explaining the applicant is proposing to enhance 15,560 square feet for the wetland impact. There is also an impact to the buffer which they are proposing to mitigate at a ratio of 0.5:1. The critical area code does not specify mitigation ratios for impacts to buffers. For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien explained for a mitigation ratio of 2:1, for every square foot impacted, 2 square feet would be created. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the mitigation would be done in an area beyond the wetland. Mr. Lien answered yes if a wetland were being created, enhancement is an allowed mitigation. The proposal is to enhance the wetland on the site. Councilmember Bloom referred to no net loss. Mr. Brown's letter references the removal of 29-30 trees which she assumed were in the 1800 square foot wetland and that some of the trees were 30-40 inches in diameter. She asked whether the mitigation would replace those at an 8:1 ratio. She questioned how there would be no net loss. Mr. Brown clarified those trees were in the buffer and in the wetland. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 11 Packet Page 104 of 774 Mr. Brown referred to the closed record appeal procedures that state objections to information outside the administrative record shall be brought before the City Council before the City Council begins deliberations. He asked whether the Council was in deliberation or asking questions. Mayor Earling responded the Council was asking questions. Mr. Brown referred to the appeal procedures that state if information outside the administrative record is offered by a party of record, it shall be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same to timely object and provide justification supporting the objection. He referred to the applicant's reference to alternative driveway plans. Mayor Earling suggested that be addressed after the current question. Councilmember Bloom asked how mitigation will result in no net loss if 29-30 trees are removed from the wetland and buffer. Mr. Lien referred to pages 160-161 of the record that address the proposed enhancement plantings. Ms. Bachman explained the enhancement plantings for both the wetland and the buffer add about 700 plantings to the site, a significant net increase in native vegetation coverage. They will replace invasive blackberries and ivy with native trees and shrubs, planting a total of almost 40 native trees including conifers. Council President Petso referred to one party's reference to the driveway as oversized and Mr. Hillman's indication it was the minimum depth required by the City. She asked whether the driveway was the minimum width to access and exit the garage. Mr. Hillman answered the code does not specify a minimum width. Council President Petso asked if it was the minimum practical width needed to get a car in and out of the garage. Mr. Hillman answered there is a turnaround issue; one of the reasons for the shape is to allow vehicles to back out and turn around to avoid backing out into the street. He noted this is the first anyone has said the driveway was oversized. Council President Petso relayed her understanding of the criteria was that it be the minimum necessary impact on the critical area. Mr. Hillman answered the impact of the driveway, yard, sidewalk, planting strip, etc. will be mitigated. The wetland report states on -site creation of a new wetland is impossible on the property; they chose to double the required mitigation. Council President Petso responded she understands mitigation; the minimum necessary is different than mitigating the impact. Mr. Hillman responded that goes to the term encroachment versus impact. City Attorney Jeff Taraday, representing staff, explained there is a distinction between what minimum necessary standards require and what the functions and values of the wetland are and how they may/may not be mitigated by the applicant's mitigation plan. The applicant may be required to satisfy both, but merely providing mitigation for impact does not get one over the hurdle of minimum necessary or minimum reasonable use; those are two separate prongs of analysis. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to define minimum reasonable use. Mr. Taraday answered the code states reasonable economic use means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of subsequent due process. He noted if the code stopped there, tonight's discussion would be very different. The code goes on to state that reasonable economic use shall be liberally construed to protect the constitutional property rights of the applicant. The critical sentence in his opinion in the definition is, for example, the minimum residential use for a residential lot which meets or exceeds the minimum bulk requirements is the use for one single family residential structure. A determination for reasonable economic use shall not include consideration of factors personal to the owner such as a desire to make a more profitable use of the site. Mr. Taraday explained the inclusion of the example in the City's definition of reasonable use makes it difficult to tell the owner of a single family lot that conforms to the City's minimum dimensional standards that under no circumstances can they ever build a single family home on the single family lot because of the wetland. One could say the City's code makes it possible for a property owner to build a single family home; that is a very different question than making it possible to build the single family home of your desire because the code states it is the minimum use. Considering Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 12 Packet Page 105 of 774 this definition in the context of the variance criteria, there is an obligation by the property owner to propose the minimum single family home. He acknowledged reasonable minds can differ what is the minimum single family home. Mr. Taraday paraphrased one of the applicant's comments in their brief or made at the Hearing Examiner meeting: they are not required to build the minimum single family home; they get to build a reasonable single family home and get the minimum variance possible to build our reasonable single family home. He disagreed with that analysis; he believed the applicant was required to build the minimum single family home. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a detention system was similar to a dry well. Ms. Breske answered it is a piped detention system that detains stormwater from the new hardscape and releases it at a slow rate over 24-36 hours to the stream that runs adjacent to the northern part of the site to prevent a gush of water into the stream. Mr. Brown commented the applicant has assured all the stormwater from impervious surfaces will drain into the detention pipe system, designed to hold water from an infrequent 10-year storm. This does not address the water from the footing drains, the house foundation and the 135 feet of retaining garden walls that will drain directly into the outfall pipe and flow uncontrolled into the stream. He referred to page 114 of the record, explaining this will direct water away from its normal drainage pattern, thereby increasing flow. The current plan does not minimize net loss of wetland function. He referred to the applicant's wetland ecologist's description of a better plan (page 204 of the record) as it avoids dumping any stormwater into the creek to the north and directs it along its natural drainage path based on topography to the southwest drain culvert. The wetland ecologist states this plan is the least impactful to the hydrological conditions of the surrounding critical areas. This plan also eliminates the impact of the drainage outflow pipe on the streamside 42-inch cedar which the applicant's wetland ecologist states is more important to the site than even the wetland into which the building is encroaching (page 55 of the record). The plan also saves another valuable tree, an 18-inch cedar. Mayor Earling cautioned trees were not the subject of the appeal. Mr. Brown referred to an inconsistency; the applicant says the plan is a non -starter because the southwest culvert has been buried, is non-functional and not on the City's stormwater map. Mr. Hillman stated at the hearing that they used an electronic device to show where this culvert was buried. He later learned the diagnostic approach was a shovel digging in the wrong place and a flimsy steel tape that could not be pushed all the way through a 25-foot long conduit (page 52 of the record). He has routinely witnessed water flowing through this culvert and knows it works. The fact that this was inadvertently left off the City's stormwater map in the 1970s seems easy to remedy by clearing blackberries from the outlet, putting it on the map and using it. Mr. Brown referred to page 248 of the record; the City required permission from the 1111 property owners downstream to discharge water from the Hillman Trust property into the southwest culvert before a variance could be granted and that an easement would be required during the building permit process. He referred to page 114 of the record, stating the entrance to the north culvert is outside the City's drainage easement and thus creates the same situation. The entrances to both culverts on the Hillman Trust property are not in the City's drainage easement and deliver stormwater to the 1111 wetland. Written permission from the property owners should be required before the variance is granted. The 1111 property owners have not indicated their approval. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Mr. Brown did not believe the detention system will address the runoff. Mr. Brown agreed, advising the flows as described by the wetland ecologist are called sheet flow, which will come down the hill, hit the retaining walls and be directed to the north to the stream that is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 13 Packet Page 106 of 774 often obstructed and overflows, flooding the lane. The southwest culvert would normalize that flow and was the initial plan supported by the applicant's wetland ecologist. Ms. Breske responded to Mr. Brown's comments. She identified Mr. Brown's property and his driveway and access lane and wetland on the adjacent properties. She commented Mr. Brown's driveway included a large earthen berm with a culvert underneath. If the City wanted minimum impact on the Brown's property, they would have required a bridge on piers to preserve the wetland underneath. Attorney Carol Morris, representing the City Council, suggested this information was outside the record. Ms. Breske explained the footings from the retaining wall will release to the stream and flow through the culvert. She identified the direction of existing surface and subsurface flows on the site that charge the wetland and stream. There is nothing in the City's drainage manual that states all existing drainage flows on the site must be maintained. She concluded the footing drains will not change the point of discharge or the existing flow to the stream and the hydrology already occurring. The final design has not been completed. With regard to drainage concerns, Engineering Technician Jennifer Lambert explained on October 10, 2012 the City received a letter from the Hillmans (page 204 of the record) stating they would like to use the southwest culvert for drainage. The City responded (page 247 of the record) asking them to provide documentation showing the natural flows on site; preservation of drainage systems is one of the City's minimum requirements #4. Staff received a map from Andrea Bachman showing the natural drainage flows (page 168 of the record) into the northwest culvert and natural flows of the site, when it overflows, uses a natural drainage that drains to the southwest culvert. Per Ms. Bachman, they are preserving the current site drainage. Councilmember Bloom referred to page 88 of the record, the 6 items that must be met; #5 Not Detrimental, which states: As discussed above, the purpose of the requested street and side setback variances is to minimize impact to the existing critical areas on the site. Additionally due to the topography of the surrounding area, it does not appear that the proposed residence would significantly impact existing views of Puget Sound. The proposed residence should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. She pointed out "should not be detrimental" was not a finding of fact. Ms. Morris responded the appeal is not in regard to that variance section. The appeal is related to the subsection that the proposal minimizes loss of critical area functions and values consistent with best available science. The appeal claims that this section of the critical areas ordinance has not been satisfied because the Hearing Examiner states further investigation is required. Ms. Morris stated it appears the Hearing Examiner's decision itself is internally inconsistent because even as he says additional investigation is needed to determine whether this criterion has been satisfied, he also states there is no evidence in the record to support the criterion in 23.40.210.2.F, the proposal minimizes the critical area. Ms. Morris relayed the Hearing Examiner states on the first page of his Decision on Reconsideration that additional investigation is needed. And then on page 14 of his decision, the Hearing Examiner states a significant complicating factor in the application is it appears the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space. The only reason for not utilizing second floor living space presented by the applicant is a preference for first floor living space as they grow older and avoiding a boxy appearance. The Hearing Examiner's decision goes on to state Andrea Bachman was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. These are not sufficient reasons to justify encroachment into the wetland. Ms. Morris summarized the Hearing Examiner was saying more investigation was needed to determine whether the criterion had been met but also states the evidence in the record does not show the criterion has been met. She concluded that is a significant problem tonight. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 14 Packet Page 107 of 774 Ms. Morris referred to the second appeal issue related to takings and read from a case where the court states to some extent the reasonable use of property depends on the expectations of the land owner at the time of purchase of the property. If existing land regulations limit the permissible use of the property at the time of acquisition, a purchaser usually cannot reasonably expect to use the land for the prohibited purposes. Although not necessarily determinative, courts may look to the zoning regulations in effect at the time of purchase as a factor to determine what is a reasonable use of land. Presumably regulations on use of land are reflected in the price a purchaser pays for a piece of property. The land owner knew when he purchased this lot that it did not satisfy either the minimum lot size or setback requirements of the code. Ms. Morris clarified she was reading from a case where a person purchased a waterfront lot that did not meet the minimum square footage requirement. The entire lot was only 8,500 square feet, there was a 10,000 square foot minimum lot requirement but most of the lot was underwater. In this case, the court said that a reasonable use of this property was as a recreational property even though it was single family zoned, meaning the owner could camp on it. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Council should be discussing drainage issues. Ms. Morris responded the Council has two appeal issues before them. The Hearing Examiner said there is not enough evidence to support a decision on the criteria with regard to the critical areas ordinance. The applicant did not appeal that. The issue before the Council is whether there is evidence in the record to support the Hearing Examiner's decision, whether to reverse, affirm, or modify his decision. Ms. Morris felt the Hearing Examiner's decision was internally inconsistent, citing another part of the Hearing Examiner's decision that states there isn't evidence in the record, meaning they did not meet the criterion. Councilmember Bloom asked if Ms. Morris was saying because the significant critical areas include a wetland, stream and erosion hazard area, the property owners should not expect to be able to develop it. Ms. Morris responded the City's code describes what a reasonable use property is. She recommended the Council focus on the two parts of the appeal, 1) do the applicants meet all the criteria for approval of a reasonable use exception and 2) the takings issue. The Council may not need to consider the takings issue and can instead focus on the issue that the Hearing Examiner mentioned in his first page, that more investigation is needed and that not enough information is available to determine the applicant meets the critical areas reasonable use exception. If the Council agrees with the Hearing Examiner that there is not enough information in the record, it would seem that the Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision. The applicant can submit another application with a modified proposal; the Council does not have to remand although the Council can if they wish. Councilmember Peterson asked Ms. Morris to address remand. Ms. Morris responded if the Council remanded, the applicant would first need to agree to the remand due to the legal limitations on the ability to hold more than one open record hearing and more than one closed record hearing as well as limitations on the time period for issuance of a final decision after a complete application has been submitted. If the applicant agreed and the Council remanded, it would go back to the Hearing Examiner and the additional evidence the Hearing Examiner says was missing would need to be submitted. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the applicant would need to submit the initial plan or could they alter the plan as part of the remand for example no longer encroaching into the wetland and instead only encroach into the buffer. Ms. Morris answered if the Council wants to remand, it would be for the applicant to submit evidence to demonstrate that criterion has been met. If the Council wants to reopen to allow the applicant to submit new information for a new proposal, the Council could deny and the applicant could submit a new application. Councilmember Yamamoto asked what the Council could modify. Ms. Morris did not recommend modification because someone would need to review all the variance criteria to ensure they were satisfied with regard to the modification which would be difficult to do at a Council meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 15 Packet Page 108 of 774 Councilmember Bloom asked Ms. Morris to reference the exact verbiage in the Hearing Examiner's decision, relaying her understanding the Council had two options, reverse or remand, based on the inconsistencies. Ms. Morris referred to the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision Upon Reconsideration (page 1 of the record), where the Hearing Examiner states the conditions of approval require further staff investigation for authorization of the encroachment into the wetland itself. There is insufficient evidence in the record to determine if the proposal has been designed to minimize wetland encroachments as required by the variance criteria. Ms. Morris referred to the first paragraph on page 14 of the record: Almost [all] of the living space and the garage could be located within the footprint proposed outside of the wetland if the applicant fully built out the second story of the proposed home in lieu of vaulted ceilings. Ms. Morris referred to the third paragraph on page 14 of the record where the Hearing Examiner states a significant complicating factor in this application is that it appears that the encroachment into the wetland itself could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space and the author of the wetland report, Andrea Bachman, was not able to provide any reason why the home couldn't be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. Ms. Morris referred to paragraph 9 on page 16 of the record, in which the Hearing Examiner states, the size of the home, which is referenced in the staff report under the analysis of the criterion quoted above, is irrelevant since any reduction in building size would not result in any reduction of the setback encroachment. She was uncertain what was meant by this statement. In response to the case that Ms. Morris cited regarding a property that was physically incapable of accommodating a house and the only use was recreational, Mr. Hillman explained the subject property can easily accommodate a house, the wetland is very low functioning and it is not the same situation. In the case Ms. Morris cited, the land was underwater and there was little that could be done to mitigate. He concluded that case did not apply to this situation. Lin Hillman commented if the Council remanded for redesign, the criteria is still minimum reasonable use of a minimum house. She questioned the definition of a minimum house, and whether another design would meet the criteria simply because it was smaller. She noted the plan they submitted was smaller than the plan that had previously been submitted. The Hearing Examiner allowed for the fact that everything had been considered by staff but was not in the record. The Hearing Examiner felt denial of the application was too harsh a penalty which was the reason he included the statement about checking with staff and the wetland biologist to confirm their proposal was environmentally sound. In their modification, they were willing to strike the language requiring further investigation by staff and the wetland biologist and living with the line the Hearing Examiner drew. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the applicant could be asked if they preferred remand over reversal. Ms. Morris answered the Council needed to make that determination based on the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Peterson asked how much time remained on the review clock. Staff responded zero. Ms. Morris reiterated the Council could ask the applicant to waive the legal requirements with regard to the time period for final decision and the prohibition on more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal if the Council remanded the decision. Councilmember Peterson asked if the applicant would be willing to waive those requirements. Mr. Hillman responded he could not say without knowing how long the delay would be. They were not willing to rehash the entire thing again. The Hearing Examiner seems to have reached a conclusion that they met the criteria and if they could show the one little thing, they could have it all. They are willing not to show that and want to have finality regarding what they can build. Ms. Morris explained a remand would be limited to that one narrow issue that the Hearing Examiner pointed out, that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate the proposed house is the minimum necessary and that there is insufficient reason to justify encroachment into the wetland. If the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 16 Packet Page 109 of 774 Council remanded the decision, she was uncertain there was information to satisfy that issue. The applicant could develop reasons why the proposal was the minimum necessary but the Hearing Examiner's decision appears to indicate it cannot be satisfied. She concluded the Hearing Examiner's decision is inherently inconsistent; he says more information is needed but his decision states it appears the encroachment into the wetland could be avoided entirely if the home is redesigned to replace the vaulted ceiling space with additional living space and no one has said why the house cannot be redesigned to move it out of the wetland. If the Council remanded the Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Peterson asked whether the applicant could introduce a new witness such as an architect or building designer to explain why the home cannot be redesigned to avoid encroachment into the wetland. Ms. Morris answered they could. Mr. Schroeder asked if the appellants could introduce expert opinion testimony in opposition to the applicant's expert opinion. Ms. Morris said that was a future issue, depending on the Council's decision. Mr. Schroeder inquired about the scope of the remand. Ms. Morris explained if the Council remanded the decision, it would not be just the applicant submitting evidence. Ms. Hillman explained the Hearing Examiner recognized this was a complex multi -dimensional puzzle and that everything that went on between them and staff and the various designs that were proposed and eliminated for various reasons were not in the record. She referred to page 72 of the record, which states, "The examiner recognized that it is likely that staff has thoroughly considered the need to encroach into the wetland and has determined that the proposed encroachment results in the least overall impacts to the wetland while accommodating the right of the applicant to reasonable use. Unfortunately, this aspect of the staff's analysis did not make it into the record and the direct encroachment into a wetland is too serious an issue to authorize on the presumption that other options have been fully assessed. If staff has already in fact compared the impacts of building more in the second story of the home or further northward into the buffer in lieu of encroaching into the wetland, no further work on the condition imposed by the preceding paragraph is necessary." Council Deliberation Council President Petso commented despite the potential for remand, she had concerns with that action. She read the language to say the impact to the critical area must be the minimum necessary impact. She understood the applicant was mitigating the impact but that was different than the minimum necessary impact. She pointed out instead of a cutout on the driveway to minimize the amount of wetland covered by concrete, the proposal is to have a turn around. She did not find that the minimum necessary impact. If the decision is remanded to the Hearing Examiner, she did not anticipate he would redraw the proposal any more than the Council would. She favored reversing the Hearing Examiner's approval of the reasonable use variance. Councilmember Bloom referred to 24.50.040B which prohibits building on wetlands. The applicants are proposing to build on 1,790 square feet of wetland, a permanent wetland impact. The code regulates wetlands that are 250 square feet and above, the proposal is six times the minimum wetland that is regulated by the Edmonds critical areas ordinance. Referring to the buffer impact of 3,920 square feet, a permanent buffer impact, she noted the code requires a 50 foot buffer. She supported reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision, not only because it was not a reasonable use and the minimum damage to the wetland, but the Council would not be enforcing the code if they allowed building on wetlands. She found this a dangerous precedence to set in this instance or in the future. A property owner who purchases property with a wetland and a stream should expect to build a very small house in order to meet the setbacks and wetland criteria. Wetlands are disappearing and there are serious drainage issues throughout the City. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Shoreline Master Plan, no net loss and wetlands. She appreciated the amount of work everyone has done on this application. She agreed wetlands are very Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 17 Packet Page 110 of 774 important and although the applicant proposed mitigation, their building would eliminate wetlands. She agreed there was insufficient information for the Hearing Examiner to answer questions regarding a smaller building. She supported reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Peterson advised he also supported reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision but for different reasons. He found it frustrating that by sitting as a quasi-judicial rather than legislative body, the Council could not tweak things. He disagreed with Councilmember Bloom, pointing out mitigation was allowed by the code. His supporting reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision had less to do with the applicant or the appellants and more to do with the Hearing Examiner's decision. His decision is inconsistent, unclear and vague. Councilmember Johnson asked Ms. Morris to speak to the modification option. Ms. Morris explained the Council would be considering the language proposed in the surrebuttal, changes to Condition #1. She recommended the Council not modify tonight because it would require analyzing the modification under the criteria for the various variances which would require a significant amount of time. Councilmember Johnson observed the Council was given four choices, 1) affirm the Hearing Examiner's decision which it appeared the Council was not interested in, 2) modify which Ms. Morris did not recommend, 3) remand which would require the applicant's agreement, and 4) reverse. She noted the only viable option appeared to be reversal. Ms. Morris explained reversal would be a denial. It would not prohibit the applicant from submitting a revised application that demonstrates some of the things in the Hearing Examiner's decision, to show the proposal is the minimum under the criteria in the code. Councilmember Yamamoto asked about the applicant's options with a reversal. Ms. Morris answered if the Council reversed the Hearing Examiner's decision, the application would be denied. The applicant could submit a new application and using the Hearing Examiner's decision and what they have heard tonight to formulate something that better meets the criteria, to show the reasons for the size of the house and why it is the minimum required. She noted the applicant's indication that they want to keep the upstairs small because they want more living space on the first floor as they age is not something that is considered in a variance because it relates to the personal aspects of the applicant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recognized reversal was probably the better decision. She was disappointed in the Hearing Examiner's decision, finding the inconsistencies troubling in making a decision. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REVERSE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2014-2019). Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an introduction to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to adoption of the budget • Document contains all regionally significant transportation projects that a city plans to undertake in the next six years • City of Edmonds policy: TIP is financially constrained the first three years • Federal and state grants and local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 18, 2013 Page 18 Packet Page 111 of 774 AM-5899 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: Consent Submitted For: Councilmember Peterson Department: City Council Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Type: Action Tnfnrmntinn Submitted By: 3. F. Jana Spellman Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Subject Title Ordinance amending certain penalty payment provisions of ECC 8.48 ("Parking"); providing for severability; and setting an effective date. Recommendation Previous Council Action On March 12, 2013 the Public Safety and Personnel Committee was asked by Municipal Court staff to consider removing the provision in Ordinance 3653 that reduced parking fines by one half if paid within 24 hours. The reasoning behind this was that the State Auditor's Office found that this was not a best business practice due to uncertainty when tickets were issued and subsequently paid. The City -Wide Parking Committee had forwarded this issue to the PS/P Committee. Judge Fair also noted that the late fee of $100 for a $20 parking ticket seemed excessive. Councilmember Peterson worked with City Attorney Sharon Cates to redraft language to make these changes. Narrative Municipal Court staff requested review and removal of the 50% price reduction of parking tickets if paid within 24 hours of issuance. The State Auditor had informed the Court that due to logistical reasons, this was not a best business practice. Judge Fair also requested the Council consider reducing the $100 late fee as he believed it was excessive. Attnehmontc Attachment 1: 3/12/13 PS/P Committee Minutes Attachment 2: Ord. 3653 Attachment 3: DRAFT Ordinance Amending Penalty Payment Provisions of ECC 8.48 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/27/2013 10:47 AM City Council Jana Spellman 06/28/2013 09:06 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 06/28/2013 09:06 AM Mayor Dave Earling 06/28/2013 09:20 AM Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/28/2013 09:21 AM Packet Page 112 of 774 Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 06/27/2013 08:30 AM Final Approval Date: 06/28/2013 Packet Page 113 of 774 Action: Take item to full Council for further discussion after draft discussion points and possible ordinance language received from Officer Dawson. C. Discussion and potential action regarding possible amendment of City Code 8.48, Parking, Paragraph 8.48.215 B.2. Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator, explained she attended a Parking Committee Meeting to bring to their attention the difficulty the Municipal Court is experiencing with the section of the City Code that allows citizens who receive a parking ticket to pay a reduced fine if the individual pays the fine by the end of the next business day after the issuance of the parking ticket. Generally, the Court does not have the tickets in their system that quickly. Therefore, the individuals can become very angry and upset when they come to the Municipal Court and are not able to pay. Ms. Ferebee stated that the Parking Committee recommended removing the section of the Code that allows for a reduced fine if it is paid by the end of the next business day. Councilmember Peterson stated that he was in agreement with eliminating the reduced fine. He stated that he would work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance to place on the consent agenda. Councilmember Bloom was in agreement. Action: Councilmember Peterson will work with the City Attorney to create an ordinance eliminating the reduced fine. The Ordinance is to be placed on a future Consent Agenda for approval. D. Student and Senior Volunteers Councilmember Bloom stated she would like to support the Boards and Commissions in obtaining student volunteers. She suggested that a senior volunteer could assist Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Assistant, in getting the word out to the various schools. Councilmember Peterson suggested Ms. Spellman could email the school board or a volunteer coordinator in the school system to determine if there are students interested in volunteering. Councilmember Bloom suggested a senior volunteer could work with Jana to develop a framework for contacting all of the schools with the appropriate person to contact and to advertise. Councilmember Peterson cautioned that managing a volunteer can take more time. He suggested talking with the Council President as she is in charge of Ms. Spellman's schedule. Councilmember Bloom also recalled that at the Council Retreat, Councilmember Johnson suggested an event be held to recognize city volunteers. Councilmember Bloom stated she will discuss with the Mayor the idea of scheduling a yearly event. E. Ethics Board and Code of Ethics Councilmember Bloom suggested narrowing down the list of sample policies from other cities for the City Attorney to work with in developing the policy for Edmonds. She suggested using the policies from the cities of Bainbridge Island, Lynnwood and Monroe. Public Safety & Personnel Committee March 12, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Packet Page 114 of 774 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 5/20/07 ORDINANCE NO.3653 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8.48.215 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES IN ORDER TO INCREASE PARKING FINES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, in order for fines to be meaningful and to cover the costs of enforcement, they must be reviewed and approved; and reviewed; and WHEREAS, it has been some time since the City's parking infractions have been WHEREAS, the City Council finds it to be in the public interest and necessary for cost recovery to increase the cost of parking fines; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Section 8.48.215 Parking infraction penalties is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.48.215 Parking infraction penalties. A. Any person who commits a parking infraction shall be assessed the following civil penalty, unless otherwise provided herein: 1. All parking infractions whether on public streets or within lots, except as detailed in subsections (A)(2) of this section: $40.00; 2. Unauthorized handicapped zone parking: $250.00; {WSS661253.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - I - Packet Page 115 of 774 B. All persons who have committed a parking infraction and are issued a notice of infraction for a violation of subsection A (1)of parking infraction ordinances shall be assessed a reduced fine of $20.00 for that violation i£ 1. It is their first violation; and 2. The individual pays the penalty within 24 hours of the issuance of the notice of infraction. C. Repeat Violations Within One Calendar Year. 1. For persons who commit repeated parking violations within one calendar year, there shall be no opportunity for reduction and the penalty shall stand as stated in subsection (A) of this section regardless of when the penalty is paid; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the court from imposing additional penalties and costs for late payment. 2. After the second violation, the penalty listed in subsection (A), with the exception of A (2) of this section, shall be to $40.00 with no reduction. After the third violation, the penalty listed in subsection (A) of this section shall be increased to $80 and all subsequent violations within one calendar year shall pay a civil penalty equal to $160.00 per violation. 3. Each subsequent violation of the posted period of parking time constitutes another violation. Calculation of the new period of parking time begins immediately after a notice of infraction has been issued. 4. Any person who remains free of parking infractions for one calendar year shall revert to the base fine set forth in subsection (A) of this section to the end that, after a one-year period free of violation, the offense shall be considered a first offense and subject to reduction as provided above if paid within 24 hours. D. Any person who commits a parking infraction, and who fails to respond to the notice of that infraction within 15 days of its issuance, shall be assessed twice the civil penalty for such infraction as is set forth in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. Such penalty shall be in addition to any other penalties or fines imposed for failure to respond to a notice of parking infraction. E. "Person" as used in this section shall refer to the registered owner of the vehicle found to be in violation of the parking provisions of this chapter. {WSS661253.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 -2- Packet Page 116 of 774 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. W. SCOTT SNYDER APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 06/15/2007 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 06/19/2007 PUBLISHED: 06/24/2007 EFFECTIVE DATE: 06/29/2007 ORDINANCE NO. 3653 {WSS661253.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 3 - Packet Page 117 of 774 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.3653 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 19th day of June, 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 3653. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8.48.215 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES IN ORDER TO INCREASE PARKING FINES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 20th day of June, 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS661253.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 - 4 - Packet Page 118 of 774 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CERTAIN PENALTY PAYMENT PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.48 ("PARKING"); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Edmonds Municipal Court has determined that certain penalty payment provisions of the City of Edmonds' Parking code section, ECC 8.48, are unduly administratively burdensome; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds wishes to revise ECC 8.48 to address the issues raised by the Municipal Court; NOW, THEREFORE, AS FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN Section 1. Subsection .215 of Section 8.48 of the ECC Parking is hereby amended to read as follows (deleted text in strike -through; new text in underline): 8.48.215 Parking infraction penalties. A. Any person who commits a parking infraction shall be assessed the following civil penalty, unless otherwise provided herein: 1. All parking infractions, whether on public streets or within lots, except as detailed in subsection (A)(2) of this section: $40.00; 2. Unauthorized handicapped zone parking: $450.00. 1. it ;s their- first . ,.la fi n, ,..,a 2. The individual pays, or- mails the pa�qmeat for-, the peaalt-y by the end of the next. business da-y after- the isstianee of the netiee of infiaetion. EB. Repeat Violations Within One Calendar Year. -1- Packet Page 119 of 774 1. For persons who commit repeated parking violations within one calendar year, there shall be fie eppeftunity for r-e"etien the penalty shall stand as stated in subsection (A) of this section, except as set forth below r-egafd4ess of when the penalty is paid; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the court from imposing additional penalties and costs for late payment. 2. Aftff For the second violation, the penalty listed in subsection (A) of this section, with the exception of subsection (A)(2) of this section, shall be increased to $40.00 with ne ram. A4ff For the third violation, the penalty listed in subsection (A) of this section shall be increased to $80.00 and all subsequent violations within one calendar year shall pay a civil penalty equal to $160.00 per violation. 3. Each subsequent violation of the posted period of parking time constitutes another violation. Calculation of the new period of parking time begins immediately after a notice of infraction has been issued. 4. Any person who remains free of parking infractions for one calendar year shall revert to the base fine set forth in subsection (A) of this section to the end that, after a one-year period free of violation, the offense shall be considered a first offense PC. Any person who commits a parking infraction, and who fails to respond to the notice of that infraction within 15 days of its issuance, shall be assessed a late fee of $100.00. Such penalty shall be in addition to any other penalties or fines imposed for failure to respond to a notice of parking infraction. M. "Person" as used in this section shall refer to the registered owner of the vehicle found to be in violation of the parking provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 3884 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3653 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3564 § 1, 20051. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. -2- Packet Page 120 of 774 APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFFREY B. TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. -3- Packet Page 121 of 774 On the Ordinance No. provides as follows: �1"UT lu M a1&0 we] ;3111►�►�[O I W[$I of the City of Edmonds, Washington day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CERTAIN PENALTY PAYMENT PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.48 ("PARKING"); PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 52013. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 122 of 774 AM-5902 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Sandy Chase Department: City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Information Committee Action: 5. Subject Title Community Service Announcement - "Walk Back In Time" guided tour by the Edmonds Cemetery Board. Recommendation Information Only Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Dale Hoggins, Cemetery Board Member, will provide information regarding the "Walk Back In Time" guided tour at Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. Inbox Mayor Finalize for Agenda Fonn Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Dave Earling 06/27/2013 04:39 PM Sandy Chase 06/27/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/27/2013 11:42 AM Packet Page 123 of 774 AM-5906 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: 20 Minutes Submitted For: Dave Earling Department: Mayor's Office Review Committee: Type: Information Tnffher"0 finn Subject Title Sound Transit Presentation. Recommendation Previous Council Action Submitted By: Committee Action: 717 Carolyn LaFave Narrative Michelle Ginder, Project Manager for Sound Transit Lynnwood Link, will provide an update on Lynnwood Link and potential siting of the Link Maintenance Facility. Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Reviewed By Sandy Chase Dave Earling Sandy Chase Form Review Date 06/27/2013 04:07 PM 06/27/2013 04:39 PM 06/27/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/27/2013 03:15 PM Packet Page 124 of 774 AM-5897 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: 2 Hours Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Review Committee: Type: Action Information Committee Action: 7. Subject Title Closed record review of the Architectural Design Board's design approval of Point Edwards' Building 10 to be located at 50 Pine Street under File PLN20130022. Appeal numbers APL20130002 - APL20130004. Recommendation The Council may affirm, modify, reverse, or remand the Architectural Design Board's decision pursuant to ECDC 20.07.005.H. Previous Council Action None. Narrative At its May 15, 2013 meeting, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviewed and approved a revision to Building 10 of the Point Edwards development, which is the last of the buildings to be constructed for the Point Edwards multi -family master plan development. The Point Edwards development was originally approved by the ADB under file number ADB-2002-226 for 295 units. In 2005, the ADB approved an increase in the number of units at Point Edwards to 350 units, which is still below the maximum 419 units allowed by the Point Edwards Master Plan. To date, 261 residential units have been constructed at Point Edwards. Building 10 was also the subject of further design review in 2006 under file number ADB-2006-97. Currently, the applicant has proposed to revise the design of Building 10 from what was approved by the ADB in 2002 and 2006, including an increase to the number of units provided within Building 10. The proposed Building 10 would hold 85 units at Point Edwards for a total of 346 units at the site. Three appeals of the ADB's decision were received by the City of Edmonds: APL20130002 from the Town of Woodway, APL20130003 from David Inadomi, and APL20130004 from Christy Cufley et al. The ADB's decision on Building 10 is a Type III-B decision which is appealable to City council as a closed record appeal. A closed record appeal means an administrative appeal on the record to the City Council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence nor information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005.B. Only parties of record are allowed to testify at the closed record appeal. ECDC 20.07.003.B defines Packet Page 125 of 774 parties of record as: • The applicant; • Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application; • Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or • The City of Edmonds. Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.005.A, closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open record hearing before the hearing body/officer (the Architectural Design Board in this instance), which includes the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings. ECDC 20.07.005.D also provides appellants an opportunity to submit written arguments, and parties of record and the applicant an opportunity to respond to those written arguments on a prescribed time line. Staff has developed a web page that contains all of the information related to this closed record appeal. This web page is linked from the City Council's web page and is available directly at http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city-council/agendas/closed-record-review.html. This web page contains the record on appeal, a verbatim transcript of the May 15, 2013 ADB meeting, the three appeals received, and the written arguments related to the appeal. The official written record on appeal is included as Exhibit A. The written record on appeal has been Bates Stamped with sequential numbers (0001 to 0522) to help the City Council and parties of record identify and reference specific sections of the record. The verbatim transcript of the May 15, 2013 ADB meeting is included as Exhibit B. The three appeals received are included as Exhibits C through E. The written arguments, responses, and rebuttals allowed for by ECDC 20.07.005.D that have been received to date have been included as Exhibits F through L. It shall be noted that the applicant has an opportunity to submit a written surrebuttal, which is due on June 28, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. If the applicant submits a surrebuttal prior to this deadline, it will be attached to the web page listed above since it will be too late to add the surrebuttal to this agenda memo. All files attached to this agenda memo and on the above mentioned web page are available for review at the Planning Division, located on the second floor of City Hall at 121 5th Ave. N. Office hours are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m and Wednesday from 8:00 a.m. to noon. Attachments Exhibit A - Bates Stamp Version of Written Record Exhibit B - May 15, 2013 Architectural Design Board Verbatim Transcript Exhbit C - Town of Woodway Appeal (APL20130002) Exhibit D - David Inadomi Appeal (APL20130003) Exhibit E - Christy Cufley et al. Appeal (APL20130004) Exhibit F - Town of Woodway June 14, 2013 Written Argument Exhibit G - Kemen Lien June 21, 2013 Written Response Exhibit H - Richard Gifford June 21, 2013 Written Response on APL20130002 Packet Page 126 of 774 Exhibit I - Richard Gifford June 21, 2013 Written Response on APL20130003 Exhibit J - Richard Gifford June 21, 2013 Written Response on APL20130004 Exhibit K - Town of Woodway June 26, 2013 Rebuttal Exhibit L - Christy Cufley et al. June 26, 2013 Rebuttal Inbox City Clerk Mayor Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kemen Lien Final Approval Date: 06/28/2013 Form Review Reviewed By Date Sandy Chase 06/27/2013 10:47 AM Dave Earling 06/28/2013 09:23 AM Sandy Chase 06/28/2013 09:24 AM Started On: 06/27/2013 07:33 AM Packet Page 127 of 774 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 'Ilc. i g9., May 16, 2013 Subject: Notice of Final Decision PLN20130022, Point Edwards Building 10 Design Review Dear Interested Parties: This letter serves as the Notice of Final Decision on the Architectural Design Board's review of the Point Edwards Building 10 under PLN20130022 pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.06.009.A. The Architectural Design Board's decision may be appealed by a party of record (as defined by ECDC 20.07.003) to the Edmonds City Council. Any appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the decision (the date of this letter) in accordance with the ECDC 20.07.004. Enclosed with this Notice of Final Decision is: 1. City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board May 15, 2013 Synopsis of Meeting 0 L Lien -- Planner Packet Page 128 of 774 0001 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Synopsis of Meeting May15,2013 Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Michael Mestres (excused) Kemen Lien, Senior Planner Bruce O'Neill, Vice Chair Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Project Manager Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recorder Cary Guenther Rick Schaefer Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 2013 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED Lei L,"LlIII U/_[Illjy APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS Public Hearing on proposed revisions to Point Edwards Building 10 and associated landscaping. Site is located at 50 Pine Street (PLN20130022 Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 15, 2013 Pagel of 2 0002 Packet Page 129 of 774 Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report, and Richard Gifford, PLLC, was present to represent the applicant, John Goodman, the Principal in Edmonds Pine Street LLS. Also present to represent the applicant were project architects, Joe Kohner and Myer Harrell of Weber Thompson; landscape architect, Forrest Jammer of Tom Rengstorf and Associates; and civil engineer, Rick Tompkins of Triad Associates. BOARD MEMBER O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE FILE NUMBER PLN20130022 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ON -STREET PARKING IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED AT THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING NORTHERN DRIVEWAY APPROACH WHICH IS NO LONGER BEING USED BY BUILDING 10. THE ON -STREET PARKING AREA EAST OF THE DRIVEWAY APPROACH SHALL BE EXTENDED WEST TO PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 3 ADDITIONAL ON -STREET PARKING SPACES. 2. A TRELLIS NO TALLER THAN 6 FEET WITH ASSOCIATED PLANTINGS SHOULD BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE TOP OF THE ROCKERY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SURFACE PARKING AREA AND THE APPLICANT SHOULD WORK WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING LANDSCAPING. 3. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. 4. HEIGHT CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE MP1 ZONE. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation) There were no consolidated permit applications to come before the Board. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Mr. Lien announced that a major project on 5 h Avenue will be presented to the Board for review on June 5tt'. The presentation will likely be followed by a public hearing on July 17th. I:VZ ■�1'IYYDCN1t11.7\117xy[ ► 1 1/l 01: : Kl MIZAI `! There were no Board comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 15, 2013 Page 2 of 2 0003 Packet Page 130 of 774 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION f C. I s 9 " PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Point Edwards Building 10 File Number: PLN20130022 Date of Report: V9 y 19, 2013 0 From: rnen Lien, Se Tanner Public Hearing: Wednesday —May 15, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5tt' Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. HISTORY AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: The proposal before the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is for a revision to Building 10 of the Point Edwards development (Attachments 1 — 3), which is the last of the buildings to be constructed for the Point Edwards multi -family master plan development. The Point Edwards development was originally approved by the ADB under file number ADB-2002-226 (Attachment 4) for 295 units. In 2005, the ADB approved an increase in the number of units at Point Edwards to 350 units, which is still below the maximum 419 units allowed by the Point Edwards Master Plan (Attachment 5). To date, 261 residential units have been constructed at Point Edwards. Building 10 was also the subject of further design review in 2006 under file number ADB-2006-97 (Attachment 6). Currently, the applicant has proposed to revise the design of Building 10 from what was approved by the ADB in 2002 and 2006, including an increase to the number of units provided within Build 10. The proposed Building 10 would hold 85 units at Point Edwards for a total of 346 units at the site. Two conditions of the original twelve conditions of approval under ADB-2002-226 for Point Edwards were: • Staff shall confirm the landscape plan has not significantly changed from the current proposal or it must return to the Board for final approval; and • Staff shall confirm that the materials and colors used are consistent with the design of the development or they must be brought back to the Board for final approval. (Attachment 4) Originally, the surface parking lot associated with Building 10 contained 27 parking stalls. The current proposal includes a surface parking lot with 74 parking stalls. Additionally, the proposed landscaping for the revised Building 10 includes a water feature and patio area in an area previously designated as a landscaped area. Staff felt the nearly tripling in surface parking and Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 1 of 18 0004 Packet Page 131 of 774 addition of the water feature and patio area were significant changes to the landscaping previously approved by the ADB, and thus has referred the proposed revisions to the ADB for further review. While the colors of the proposed Building 10 appear to be consistent with previous approval, the design and materials for the proposed Building 10 have changed from the original and subsequent ADB approvals of Point Edwards and Building 10. This change in design and materials is a second reason why the current proposal is being referred back to the ADB for further review. The Architectural Design Board reviewed a previous iteration of Building 10 at a public hearing during the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting (Attachment 7) under file number PLN20120040. The ADB moved that the public hearing be continued to a future date and that the applicant modify the design proposal for Building 10 as follows: 1. The design of Building 10 should be more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards under the Point Edwards Master Plan. 2. Additional landscaping should be provided along the rockery or in the parking lot along the south side of the surface parking lot. 3. The applicant should take into consideration the following design elements present in the existing Point Edwards buildings: residential fenestration, broad overhangs, more human scale, distinction between floor -to -floor heights, and Pacific Northwest elements and materials. 4. The applicant must submit samples of the proposed materials. Ari issue with regard to SEPA review (See Section III below) arose since the December 19, 2012 ADB, meeting which could have led to some procedural errors. In an effort to correct potential procedural errors, the applicant withdrew the Building 10 application under PLN20120040 (Attachment 8). While technically a new design review application, the applicants have taken the ADB's comments on PLN20120040 under consideration in the revised design plans for Building 10 now being reviewed under file number PLN20130022 (Attachment 3). II. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Applicant: Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson On behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC 2. Owner: Edmonds Pine Street, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Ste. 107 Seattle, WA 98109 3. Tax Parcel Number: 27032600104100 4. Location: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds WA 98020 5. Size: The parcel where Building 10 would be located is approximately 2.1 acres (91,688 square feet). The overall size of the Point Edwards upper yard site (the MP 1 Zone) is approximately 24.06 acres. 6. Zonin : Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use (MP I), subject to Chapter 16.75 ECDC 7. Proposed Use: Eighty-five (85) unit multifamily residential building with 21,000 GSF of structured parking (70 parking stalls) and 74 surface parking stalls. 8. Existing Use: The site where Building 10 would be located is vacant. The subject site is part of the Point Edwards Master Plan which has completed nine multifamily residential structures with a total of 261 units and two amenity centers. Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 2 of 18 0005 Packet Page 132 of 774 Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination are reviewed by the ADB in a public hearing. Given that the original review was conducted under public hearings and the current proposal is being referred back to the ADB under conditions that were established in the public hearing process, the revisions to Building 10 are being reviewed in a public hearing before the ADB. According to ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a Type III-B decision, which is appealable to the City Council. 10. Issues: a. Compliance with ECDC 16.75 Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone (MP I) b. Compliance with ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulations c. Compliance with ECDC 20.11 General Design Review d. Compliance with ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements e. Compliance with Urban Design objectives in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan III. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: The City of Edmonds issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance on May 9, 2003 for the original Point Edwards development proposal for a multifamily development of up to 300 units (Attachment 9). In 2005, when the developer requested the number of allowed units to be increased to 350 units, the City adopted the May 9, 2003 MDNS as being appropriate for and meeting the needs for the increase in units (Attachment 10). The first mitigation measure of the May 9, 2003 MDNS is: 1. The city accepts the applicant's proposed traffic mitigation fee of $22,000 for signalization improvements to the Pine St/SR-104 intersection and $32,000 for trip mitigation. The signalization project at Pine Street and State Route 104 was tied to the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal project. With the Edmonds Crossing project being delayed to sometime in the distant future, the signalization of Pine Street and State Route 104 is no longer warranted. The City had previously indicated that the May 9, 2003 MDNS and 2005 adoption of the 2003 MDNS satisfied the SEPA requirements for the revised Building 10 application. However, with a specific condition in the May 9, 2003 MDNS no longer being applicable; the City determined the SEPA review for Building 10 should be updated, particularly in regard to potential traffic impacts. The City is in the process of refunding the $22,000 for the signalization improvements. Anew SEPA checklist (Attachment 11) and traffic impact study (Attachment 12) as well as other environment documents that were part of previous environmental reviews of the Point Edwards development were submitted with the subject application for SEPA review of Building 10. The City of Edmonds issued a Determination ofNonsignificance (DNS) for Building 10 on April 12, 2013 (Attachment 13). No valid appeals of the DNS were received. A few of the comments letters in Attachment 18 indicate they are appeals of the SEPA DNS; however, these letters were not accompanied by the associated appeal fee. The persons who wrote these letters were notified of this requirement and informed that while these letters do not constitute valid appeals of the SEPA DNS, the letters would be included as comment letters in this staff report to the ADB. IV. PUBLIC NOTICE: A "Notice of Application and SEPA Threshold Determination" issued on April 12, 2013, posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 3 of 18 0006 Packet Page 133 of 774 Library. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and published in the Everett Herald. A cover letter was sent with the Notice of Application and SEPA Threshold Determination to parties of record of PLN20120040 informing them that in order to be considered parties of record for the current application (PLN20130022) comments specific to this application must be submitted (included in Attachment 14). A "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 1, 2013. Notice of the public hearing was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and parties of record. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 (Attachment 14). V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: The application was reviewed and evaluated by Fire District #1, Engineering Division, Building Division, Public Works Department and Parks Department (Attachments 15 - 16). Fire District #1, Building Division, Public Works and Parks did not provide any comments on the proposal (Attachment 15). The Engineering Division noted that an approval of the design review phase shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The proposed development must comply with water quality requirements and plans submitted during the building permit phase of the project will need to confirm pollution -generating contributing surface areas as well as conveyance capacity in the existing stormwater system. The applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design (Attachment 16). The layout of travel lanes, on -street parking, sidewalks, etc. along Pine Street was reviewed and approved during the initial design phase for the entire Point Edwards development. At that time an access point was proposed (and constructed) along the north side of Building 10. The current proposal no longer includes a driveway approach at this location and in light of the expressed need for additional on -street parking; the City will require the on -street parking area to the east of said constructed driveway approach to be extended west to provide approximately 3 additional parking spaces. A depiction of this extended on -street parking area is included in Attachment 16. Additional review will be conducted by all affected departments at the time of building permit review. Comments may be provided by those departments at that time. VI. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS 1. ECDC 16.75 — Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone (MP1) A. ECDC 16.75.010 Uses The site is located in the Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone (MPl) and is subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.75. The current proposal for Building 10 is for an 85-unit multifamily residential building. Multifamily development is a permitted primary use in the MP zone pursuant to ECDC 16.75.010.A.1 Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 4 of 18 0007 Packet Page 134 of 774 B. Pursuant to ECDC 16.75.020.B, development standards in the MP zone are as follows: Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum lot area Zone Lot Area Lot Street Side Rear Maximum Coverage Floor per (Sq. Ft.) Width Setback Setback' Setback Height (o/a� Area3 dwelling unit (s.f.) 3 sq. ft. 2,400 MP1 None None 15' 10' 15' 35a s ' 45 per sq. ft. of lot area ' For residential buildings, setbacks apply to exterior lot line only, and not to any interior lot lines within a development. 2 See Footnote 1. 3 The maximum floor area is intended to limit the size of nonresidential development only. In the case of a mixed -use development that includes residences, the maximum floor area calculation shall be applied to the residential use as well. 4 Roof may extend up to five feet above the state height limit if designed as part of an approved modulated design in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC. 5 Building height may be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building as illustrated, but not limited to, Figures A, B and C. 6 Total lot coverage for the entire site covered by an adopted master plan within the MP I zone cannot exceed 45 percent. Lot coverage for the individual building lots within the area covered by the master plan cannot exceed 75 percent. Individual lots may not be able to achieve the 75 percent maximum lot coverage due to compliance with master plan and code requirements that address such issues as circulation, open space, topography, buffers, and critical areas. C. Setbacks: The proposed Building 10 complies with the setback requirements established in ECDC 16.75.020.B. D. Height: The allowable height in the MP1 zone is 35 feet with an additional 5 five feet allowed as part of an approved modulated design in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC to a maximum of 40 feet. The guidance for roof modulations is contained within the Urban Design objective of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and states; D.3 Design Objective for Roof Modulation D.3.a To break up the overall massing of the roof. D.3. b Create humans scale in the building D.3.c Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building. D.3.d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building. The ADB should review the proposed Building 10's roof design to determine if the roof design is sufficiently modulated to be granted the additional 5 feet and be granted an overall height limit of 40 feet. Note on height calculations: The height rectangle used to calculate the average grade for determining the maximum allowed height encompasses the underground parking structure. This is consistent with how height calculations were performed on the Gregory Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 5 of 18 0008 Packet Page 135 of 774 Building located at 505 — 5"' Avenue South under ADB-2003-44. The reasoning for including the underground parking in the height calculations comes from the following code: ECDC 21.40.030.A defines height as "the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure." Pursuant to ECDC 21.40.030.B, average level is determined "by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves." ECDC 21.10.040 defines a building as "any structure having a roof, excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized." Finally, ECDC 21.85.070 defines a roof as "the top covering of a building or structure." With Building 10, the underground parking structure's roof is part of the surface parking area and the underground parking structure is part of Building 10. Since pursuant to ECDC 21.40.030.B, the average level calculation must include "all of the building", the height rectangle encompasses the roof of the underground parking structure. The City strives for consistency in application of the development code and this method is consistent with the Gregory Building where the same situation occurred. If the ADB finds the proposed roof line constitutes a modulated roof design and the applicant is granted the additional 5 feet in height, the proposed building appears to comply with the maximum height established in ECDC 16.75.020.B. The building will be verified for compliance with the height limit during building permit review. E. Coverage: According to footnote 6 under the development standards table for the MPl zone referenced above, lot coverage for any of the individual building lots cannot exceed 75 percent, and total lot coverage for the entire site covered by the Point Edwards Master plan cannot exceed 45 percent. Page 4 of Attachment 3 provides calculations demonstrating compliance with the coverage requirements of ECDC 16.75.020.B. Building 10 will occupy 42.9 percent of its building site while coverage for the entire Point Edwards development would be 28.5 percent. F. Density (Lot area per dwelling unit): While Building 10 is located on its own separate parcel, overall density for the Point Edwards development was determined during the Master Plan review process. The Point Edwards Master Plan (Attachment 5) indicated a maximum of 419 units in the upper yard, or MP zone. The Point Edwards development has been approved for 350 units. To date, 261 units have been developed which leaves 89 units left from the approved 350 units. The proposed Building 10 is for an 85-unit multifamily building which is consistent with the density allowed under the Master Plan and approved Point Edwards development. 2.. ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parldng Regulations A. Off street parking requirements for multifamily developments are contained within ECDC 17.50.020.A. Lb and are as follows: Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking space per dwelling unit Studio 1.2 1 bedroom 1.5 2 bedrooms 1.8 Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 6 of 18 0009 Packet Page 136 of 774 3 or more bedrooms 1 2.0 B. Page 4 of Attachment 3 provides a breakdown of the type of dwelling units contained within the proposed Building 10. Using this information and the number of required parking spaces required by ECDC 17.50.020.A.1, the following table details the parking requirements for Building 10: Type of multiple Number of Required parking space per dwelling Required Parking dwelling unit units in Bld. 10 Spaces unit Studio 6 1.2 7.2 1 bedroom 48 1.5 72 2 bedrooms 27 1.8 48.6 3 or more bedrooms 4 2.0 8 Total Parking Space 135.8 required (rounded up to 136) C. The application materials indicate 70 parking spaces in an enclosed garage and 74 stalls on a surface lot for a total of 144 stalls. D. The proposed Building 10 is compliant with the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. Compliance with parking requirements will be verified during the associated building permit review. 3. ECDC 20.11 General Design Review and ComArehensive Plan Urban Design Obiectives A. The Architectural Design Board reviewed a previous iteration of Building 10 at a public hearing during the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting (Attachment 7) under file number PLN20120040. The ADB moved that the public hearing be continued to a future date and that the applicant modify the design proposal for Building 10 as follows: 1. The design of Building 10 should be more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards under the Point Edwards Master Plan. 2. Additional landscaping should be provided along the rockery or in the parking lot along the south side of the surface parking lot. 3. The applicant should take into consideration the following design elements present in the existing Point Edwards buildings: residential fenestration, broad overhangs, more human scale, distinction between floor -to -floor heights, and Pacific Northwest elements and materials. 4. The applicant must submit samples of the proposed materials. While technically a new design review application, the applicants have taken the ADB's comments on PLN20120040 under consideration in the revised proposal for Building 10 now being reviewed under file number PLN20130022 (Attachments 1 — 3). B. The ADB must determine if the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan. C. The applicant provided a narrative on pages 34 — 36 of Attachment 3 which demonstrates how they feel the proposed Building 10 complies with the design guidelines contained Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 7 of 18 0010 Packet Page 137 of 774 within the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (Pages 92 - 100). Viewing the building on its own as a stand-alone development, Building 10 would comply with many of the design guidelines identified in the applicant's narrative. However, Building 10 is the last building of the Point Edwards development and as such it needs to be viewed in the context of the overall Point Edwards Master Plan. Building 10 will crown the Point Edwards development and will stand above the rest of the existing Point Edwards buildings (See the picture on page 10 of Attachment 3). The applicant's changes to the previous design reviewed under PLN20120040 have improved the connections of the overall design of the building with the rest of the Point Edwards development, but the scale of Building 10 is out of character with the rest of the Point Edwards development and the overall topography of the site. D. Staff generally concurs with the applicant's narrative on pages 34 — 36 of Attachment 3 on how the proposed Building 10 complies with the design guidelines contained within the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan as provided on pages 34 — 36 of Attachment 3. Below is staff analysis of additional design guidelines (in addition to those contained on pages 34 — 36 of Attachment 3) that the proposed Building 10 meets. E. C.La Reduce the numbers of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety by reducing the number ofpotential points of conflict. (page 93) As noted in Section V of this report, the proposed development plan would eliminate one of the curb cuts into the project site. F. C.2.a Create adequate parkingfor each development, but keep the cars from dominating the streetscape. (page 94) As noted above in section VI.2 of this report, the proposed Building 10 would comply with the City of Edmonds parking standards as detailed in ECDC 17.50. Many comments have been submitted about the availability of (or lack thereof) on -street parking. Two of the purposes of the off-street parking regulations as enumerated by ECDC 17.50.000 are "to reduce street congestion and avoid crowding of on -street parking space" and "to protect adjacent property from the impact of a use with inadequate off-street parking." By complying with the off-street parking standards in ECDC 17.50, the proposal should keep cars from dominating the streetscape. Additionally, the elimination of the curb cut along the north side of the proposed Building 10 will allow for approximately 3 additional on -street parking spaces. G. C.4. b Improve pedestrian safety by reducing points of conflict/curb cuts. (page 94) As noted above, the proposed development would eliminate one of the curb cuts into the project site. H. C. 7.c To provide an area for play, seating and other residential activities. (page 95) The outdoor amenity area provided on the east end of the building provides an area for seating and barbequing for residents of the building. L C.10 Design Objectives for lighting (page 95) C.10.a Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians, including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of security. C.10.b Minimize potential for light to reflect or spill off -site Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 8 of 18 0011 Packet Page 138 of 774 The exterior pathways, parking areas and main entry to the building will be illuminated to create a safe environment for residents. The Town of Woodway submitted a lighting agreement with the previous developer of the Point Edwards property which called for decorative street lights along Pine Street. This decorative lighting along the north side of Pine Street has been installed as well as through the rest of the Point Edwards development. However, the light standards installed along the south side of Pine Street are not of the same style. If the Town of Woodway desires decorative street lights in place of the existing light standards on the south side of Pine Street they will need to amend or otherwise pursue a private agreement with the developer. The location of any replacement lights will need to be designed by an engineer to meet street lighting illumination standards. The City will require the lights to be owned and maintained by the Point Edwards development community and subsequently the Town of Woodway should the development fail to maintain the lighting system. This is consistent with the Indemnification/Hold Harmless Agreement between Point Edwards and the Town dated December 20, 2004 (Attachment 18). In addition, if the street lights are located within the City right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. J. C.14. c Reduce harsh visual impact of parking lots and cars. (page 96) The applicants have added trellises within the surface parking area to help reduce the visual impact of the parking lot. An existing rockery along the southern edge of the surface parking area is a hindrance to providing more landscaping along the southern edge of the parking area. The Town of Woodway suggested adding a landscape trellis feature on top of this rockery to further reduce the visual impact of the parking area. Staff also feels an added trellis or additional landscaping would further reduce the visual impact and has provided this as a suggested condition of approval. This is also consistent with the ADB recommendation #2 from the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting. K. E.3 Design Objectives for Variation in Facade Materials (page 98) The materials that make the exterior facades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the facade to help reduce the bulk of the larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. In response to the ADB recommendation #3 from the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting, the applicants have revised the design of Building 10 providing more variation in building materials and colors from the foundation to the roof. L. While the proposed Building 10 complies with a number of the design standards detailed in the Comprehensive Plan and ECDC 20.11, the overall scale of the building is out of character with the Point Edwards development and is not harmonious with the sites topography. The original Building 10 that was approved with ADB-2002-226 stepped down, with the western portion of the building being taller than the eastern portion (Attachment 17). The review and approval of the Building 10 design under ADB-2006-97 raised the roof of the eastern portion of Building 10 level with the western portion. The Building 10 approved under ADB-2006-97 is used for comparison on pages 46 — 51 of Attachment 3. Although the proposed Building 10 with the tops of both the eastern and western portions at the same level may comply with the maximum zoning height, this configuration is not consistent with the Point Edwards Master Plan or with a number of design standards and Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 9 of 18 0012 Packet Page 139 of 774 policies within the City's Comprehensive Plan. Developments must comply both with the zoning standards and the design guidelines for a specific site. Staff feels that if the eastern portion Building 10 stepped down as proposed with the original design, it would be compliant with the City's design standards. A recommended condition of approval is for the eastern portion of Building 10 to be stepped down to four stories, with the overall design remaining the same (top floor stepped back and modulated roof design). This recommended condition of approval is supported by the following: In the Upper Yard (governed by the proposed MPl zoning regulations), the residential buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. (Point Edwards Master Plan, page 14) With the top of the eastern portion of Building 10 being at the same elevation of the western portion, the building is not designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. The original application for the Point Edwards development under ADB- 2002-226, noted that the buildings were "stepped" according to topography and that the buildings were designed to fit with topography and terraced to conform to ridgelines and utilize the headlands as a backdrop. With both sides of Building 10 being at the same elevation, that is no longer the case. 2. C.2.a Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause the minimum disruption to the natural topography. (Comprehensive Plan, Soils and Topography, page 82) 3. C.2.c.ii Site and building plans should be designed to preserve the natural features (trees, streams, topography, etc.) of the site rather than forcing the site to meet the needs of the imposed plan. (Comprehensive Plan, Multifamily Development, General Design Policies, page 73) Stepping the eastern portion of Building 10 down as originally proposed in 2002 preserves the natural topography of the site. As noted in the ADB review of the revised Building 10 in 2006 under ADB-2006-97 (Attachments 6), the applicants requested the additional height in order to incorporate some of the additional units approved in 2005 when the approved total units was increased from 295 to 350 units. While keeping the eastern portion of the building at the same height as the western portion maximizes the number of units, the building design forces the plan on the site rather than incorporating the natural topography. 4. C.8 Design objectives for Building/Site Identity (Comprehensive Plan, page 95) C. 8. c Retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. C.8.d Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in the city. The applicants have responded to the ADB recommendations #1 and #3 from the December 19, 2012 meeting through the use of similar materials and design elements found in the rest of the Point Edwards development; however, the scale and form of the building is out of character with other buildings in the Point Edwards development. Stepping the eastern portion of the building down would still result in one of the tallest buildings in the Point Edwards development, but would be closer in scale with the rest of the Point Edwards development, providing a more human scale as recommended by the ADB in #3 from the December 19, 2012 meeting. Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 10 of 18 0013 Packet Page 140 of 774 S. C.13.d Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of the building along steep sloping sites. (Comprehensive Plan, Design Objectives for Significant Features, page 96) This design criterion directly applies to stepping the eastern portion of Building 10 down to better integrate the building into the slope of the site. Attachment 17 is from ADB-2006-97 which illustrates how the original Building 10 stepped down along the slope and appears integrated into the site as opposed to keeping the eastern portion of the building at the higher elevation as the hill slopes away which makes the building appear to tower above the landscape. 6. D.1. b. Maintain the smaller scale elements in building design. (Comprehensive Plan, Design Objectives for Height, page 97) The five stories of the eastern portion of the proposed Building 10 does not maintain the smaller scale that is historically found in Edmonds. Stepping the eastern portion of the building down to conform with the natural topography would help reduce the scale of the building. 7. D.2 Design objectives for Massing (Comprehensive Plan, page 97) D.2.a Encourage human scale elements in building design. D.2. b Reduce bulk and mass of buildings. D.2. c Masses may be subdivided vertically or horizontally. Stepping the eastern portion of the building down to conform with the natural topography would help reduce the bulk and mass of the building and divide the mass of the building horizontally. This would also help improve the human scale of the building consistent with the ADB recommendation #3 from the December 19, 2012 meeting. 8. E.1. b Reinforce the existing building patterns found in Edmonds. (Comprehensive Plan, Design Objective for Building Facade, page 98) As proposed, Building 10 would not reinforce the existing building patterns found at Point Edwards. The rest of the Point Edwards residential buildings contain three levels of residential units. Buildings 8 and 9 appear four stories when viewed from the street below because of the underground parking. Reducing the eastern portion of Building 10 by one story would more closely match the existing building patterns in the Point Edwards development. 4. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements A. ECDC 20.13 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. B. Landscaping details for the proposed Building 10 are included on pages 28 — 33 of Attachment 3. Staff generally feels the proposed landscaping is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.13 and the rest of the Point Edwards development with the exception of the screening of the surface parking lot located on the south side of Building 10. C. Along the south side of the surface parking area which borders the Town of Woodway is a rockery which can be seen on page 40 of Attachment 3. The surface parking is proposed to be placed up to the base of this rockery. The existing vegetation along the Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 11 of 18 0014 Packet Page 141 of 774 top of the rockery is essentially a briar patch. Staff feels that landscaping along the rockery should be improved to provide greater screening of the parking area from the single family residence located just south of the development in Woodway. The issue, however, is that the property line is located very close to the rockery, so there is not enough space for substantial landscaping. The applicants have added trellises within the surface parking area as recommended at the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting to help improve the interior screening of the parking lot. The Town of Woodway, in their comment letter included in Attachment 18, has suggested adding a trellis to the top of the rockery to further mitigate the view impact of the surface parking lot from the residence directly to the south. This is also consistent with the ADB recommendation #2 from the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting. Staff is supportive of the addition of a trellis or additional landscaping adjacent to the rockery and has included it as a suggest condition of approval. D. Type V landscaping is required for parking areas and is described in ECDC 20.13.030.E. For parking areas that contain more than 50 but less than 100 parking spaces, the amount of Type V landscaping required is determined by interpolating between 17.5 and 35 square feet for each parking stall proposed. With 74 parking stalls on the proposed surface lot, 25.9 square feet of Type V landscaping is required per parking space for a total of 1,916.6 square feet of Type V landscaping. Page 32 of Attachment 3 indicates there is 2,353 square feet of Type V landscaping, which is consistent with ECDC 20.13.030.E. E. The Town of Woodway has requested the landscaping to be extended into Woodway's right-of-way, which is adjacent to the building site. The City cannot require landscaping to extend off of the site and outside of City jurisdiction, but is supportive of the request. VII. PUBLIC CONCERNS: As of the writing of this staff report, fifty-seven comment letters/emails have been received which are included as Attachment 18. All of the comment letters/emails received to date are in opposition to the proposed Building 10. Most of the letters/emails received have touched on the items summarized below. Staff has attempted to respond to most of the issues raised in the comment letters and many of the issues raised are also addressed elsewhere in this staff report. Staff also wants to note an online petition that has been circulated in regards to Building 10: www.stop-edmonds-eyesore.org. Pursuant to ECDC 20.07.003.B.3, persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record. Staff has not attempted to respond the comments in the online petition. As of the writing of this staff report, according to the referenced website 675 people have signed the online petition. Parking: Commenters expressed concerns about the number of parking spaces provided, the size of the surface parking lot that is proposed for Building 10, and the impact the development to on - street parking. Staff response: Section VI.2 above details how the proposed Building 10 is compliant with the off street parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. The original design for Point Edwards and Building 10 indicated a surface parking lot, although with significantly fewer parking spaces. The surface parking lot appears to be adequately screened from the Point Edwards development, and the applicant has added trellises within the interior of the parking lot as suggested by the ADB at the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting. The Town of Woodway has requested a trellis Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 12 of 18 oo1 s Packet Page 142 of 774 also be installed on top of the rockery along the south side of the surface parking lot to further screen the parking area from the residence directly to the south. Staff is supportive of this and has added a recommended condition of approval requiring the addition of a trellis or additional landscaping to help screen the parking area when viewed from the south. Many commenters requested more parking be placed underground. The City's off-street parking regulations and design guidelines do not require underground parking. Design guideline C.2.c (Comprehensive Plan, page 94) suggests that parking should be placed to the side and rear of the development, which is what has been proposed. Many comments have been submitted about the availability (or lack thereof) of on -street parking. Two of the purposes of the off-street parking regulations as enumerated by ECDC 17.50.000 are "to reduce street congestion and avoid crowding of on -street parking space" and "to protect adjacent property from the impact of a use with inadequate off-street parking." By complying with the off-street parking standards in ECDC 17.50, the proposal should keep cars from dominating the streetscape. The being said, with the elimination of the road cut along the north side of Building 10, there is an opportunity to provide approximately three additional on -street parking spaces with this development. Building design is distinct fi°om other development at Point Edwards: The comment letters expressed a concern that the proposed Building 10 would be different in style than the rest of the development at Point Edwards. Staff Response: The applicants have responded to the ADB recommendations to make the proposed Building 10 more consistent with the rest of the Point Edwards buildings. While the proposed Building 10 would look different than the rest of the residential buildings at Point Edwards, the applicant's changes to the previous design have improved the connections of the overall design of the building with the rest of the Point Edwards development. Concern about the number and size of units: Commenters are concerned about the number of units in Building 10 and the size of the units. One concern with the size of the units is that the building would turn out to be an apartment building instead of condominiums. Staff Response: As detailed above in Sections I and Ill, Point Edwards was originally approved for up to 300 units, which was subsequently increased to 350 units. 261 units have been constructed in Point Edwards to date, so an 85-unit multifamily development would bring the total unit count up to 346 which is consistent with previous approvals for Point Edwards. Several comments referenced an average of 1,5,00 square feet per residential development unit mentioned in the Point Edwards Master Plan. That reference contained on page 15 of the Point Edwards Master Plan is an assumption used for the potential number of units in the lower yard of the Point Edwards Master Plan area, or the area covered by the MP2 zone. The location of Building 10 is in the upper yard, that area covered by the MP1 zone. The residential density of the upper yard of the Point Edwards development was calculated by a permitted density of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit. With a total Upper Yard area of 24.06 acres, a maximum density of 419 units was identified (24.06 acres / 2,400 square feet) in the Point Edwards Master Plan. As previously noted, Point Edwards been approved for 350 units and with the proposed development, the total unit count would fall within this allowed limit. In regards to the concern that the size of units would attract renters, multifamily development is a permitted primary use in the MP 1 zone pursuant to ECDC 16.75.010.A.1. Both condominiums and apartment buildings are types of multifamily development and allowed uses in the MP zone. Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 13 of 18 0016 Packet Page 143 of 774 Traffic: Concerns were expressed that increased traffic from the development would overwhelm Pine Street and create unsafe conditions. Staff Response: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by William Popp Associates dated March 25, 2013 (Attachment 12) was prepared to evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed Building. The TIA was reviewed and approved by the City of Edmonds Transportation Engineer. The City of Edmonds also has traffic impact fees which will be assessed at building permit approval for the development. Building Height: Concerns were raised about the overall building height, whether the height calculations were done properly, and whether the building is modulated enough to warrant the additional five feet allowed by the code. Staff Response: Section VI.1.D above contains a detailed discuss on how height calculations were done on the proposed building. The ADB will have to determine if the roof design is modulated enough to warrant the additional five feet allowed by the zoning code. If the additional five feet is granted, the building as proposed appears to comply with the maximum allowable height for the MPl zone. While the building may comply with the maximum height allowed by the zone, the proposal must also meet site design standards. As discussed in detail above in Section VI.3.1, above, staff is recommending the eastern portion of Building 10 be stepped down to better conform with the site's topography and be more consistent with the rest of the Point Edwards development Glare: Concerns have been raised about potential glare from the windows associated with Building 10. Staff Response: Glare was a concern with all of the Point Edwards development. A condition of approval for ADB-2002-226 sill applies to the proposed Building 10: e Glazing for the development shall be selected for its ability to minimize glare. VIII. SUMMARY 1. Staff feels that the development is consistent with the bulk standards, use requirements, parking, and other applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance. 2. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. Staff feels the overall design elements of the building are consistent with the guidelines, but that the building's layout with respect to being designed to take existing topography into account and scale with respect to the rest of Point Edwards is not consistent with design guidelines. With the staff recommended condition that the eastern portion of the building be stepped down to conform with site topography as was originally proposed for Building 10 in 2002, staff feels the proposal would be consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines and other design guidelines in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the requirements of criteria in ECDC sections 20.10 and 20.11. Typically, compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines indicates compliance with the Design Review Criteria. IX. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends APPROVAL of the design for the proposed Point Edwards Building 10, file number PLN20130022, with the following conditions: Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 14 of 18 0017 Packet Page 144 of 774 1. The eastern portion of Building 10 shall be stepped down to four stories in order conform to the Point Edwards Master Plan and the City of Edmonds design standards. The overall design of the building shall remain substantially the same with the top floor stepped back and the modulated roof design retained as depicted in Attachment 3. 2. On -street parking is required to be added at the location of the existing northern drive -way approach which is no longer being used by Building 10. The on -street parking area east the driveway approach shall be extended west to provide approximately 3 additional on street parking spaces. 3. A trellis no taller than 6 feet with associated plantings should be installed adjacent to the top of the rockery on the south side of the surface parking area, or the applicant should work with the adjacent property owner to provide additional screening landscaping. 4. - The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 5. Height calculations are required with the building permit application in order to demonstrate that the project complies with the height requirements of the MP 1 zone. X. PARTIES OF RECORD: Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson 225 Terry Ave N, Ste 200 Seattle, WA 98109 City of Edmonds 121 51h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Jeffrey and Catherine Yocom 45 Pine Street, 4108 Edmonds, WA 98020 Frank and Dolores Dean 45 Pine Street #209 Edmonds, WA 98020 Keith and Janet Dawson 45 Pint Street #302 Edmonds, WA 98020 Ralph and Marjorie Swenson 45 Pine Street #205 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mary Knapp 61 Pine Street #108 Edmonds, WA 98020 Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 15 of 18 Edmonds Pine Street, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Ste 107 Seattle, WA 98109 Steve and Denise Reibman 45 Pine St, Apt. 308 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mary D. Pintler 65 Pine Street #305 Edmonds, WA 98020 Andrea Bonnicksen 75 Pine Street #204 Edmonds, WA 98020 Tom and Jan Barrett 45 Pine Street #310 Edmonds, WA 98020 David Inadomi and Carol Cornejo 21603 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Nancy Bittner 31 Pine Street #214 Edmonds, WA 98020 0018 Packet Page 145 of 774 Lee and Sally Shobe 31 Pine Street #208 Edmonds, WA 98020 Tom and Liz Waggener 65 Pine Street #103 Edmonds, WA 98020 Robert Campbell 45 Pine St Unit 103 Edmonds, WA 98020 George Fotheringham 14105 SE 38t" St Vancouver, WA 98683 Charles and Katherine Gold 75 Pine St Unit 303 Edmonds, WA 98020 David and Bonnie Huneke 61 Pine St Unit 202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jim and Susan Matheson 41 Pine Street Unit 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Douglas and Anne Julien 65 Pin St Unit 201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Thomas Murphy 55 Pine St Unit 304 Edmonds, WA 98020 Shirley Oczkewicz 41 Pine St Unit 208 Edmonds, WA 98020 James Pellegrino 45 Pine St Unit 202 Edmonds, WA 98020 Lois Rathvon 71 Pine St Unit 302 Edmonds, WA 98020 Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 16 of 18 0019 Town of Woodway 23920 113"' PI W Woodway, WA 98020 Sarah Boyd 41 Pine St Unit 211 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dana Davies 45 Pine St Unit 105 Edmonds, WA 98020 Gail and Rhys Wilkie 65 Pine St Unit 211 Edmonds, WA 98020 Yuri and Zoe Gurevich 31 Pine St Unit 305 Edmonds, WA 98020 Lane and Laura James 31 Pine St Unit 207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Gordon and Ursula Johnson 51 Pine St Unit 311 Edmonds, WA 98020 Earl and Susan Larson 41 Pine St Unit 107 Edmonds, WA 98020 Nancy Jacob 65 Pine St Unit 301 Edmonds, WA 98020 Kevin O'Keefe and Megan McDonald 75 Pine St Unit 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 James Peters 45 Pine St Unit 207 Edmonds, WA 98020 Sharon Ruff 55 Pine St Unit 212 Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Page 146 of 774 Harry and Judith Rutledge 45 Pine St Unit 106 Edmonds, WA 98020 Floyd and Janis Smith 45 Pine St Unit 208 Edmonds, WA 98020 William and Clair Widing 21605 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Laura and Jon Fleming 21635 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Francess and Michael Velling fvellinq(a.comcast. net Clayton Cain 8021 234"' St SW #229 Edmonds, WA 98026 Carolyn Jones 1550 NW 195" St #111 Shoreline, WA 98177 Janet Lewis 5540 Canfield PL N Seattle, WA 98103 Monica Martin 41 Pine St Unit 309 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edward Morris ston cg abinAyahoo.com Bill and Ruth Anderson 11515 Bella Coola Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Kevin and Penny Kaldestad 21810 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 17 of 18 0020 Susan Matheson 41 Pine St Unit 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Ruth Thompson 65 Pine St Unit 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Rhys and Gal Wilkie PO Box 6123 Sun Valley ID 93354 Robyn Beresford 21800 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Terry Walsh 348 NW 112"' St Seattle, WA 98177 Carolynne Harris edmondsfroglady(dOotmail.com W. Stephen Burgess 41 Pine Street #207 Edmronds, WA 98020 Charles and Marsha Greenberg 21612 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Maureen Rivelle 51 Pine Street Unit 207 Edmonds, WA 98020 John and Lynn Lampe 65 Pine St Unit 209 Edmonds, WA 98020 Scott and Sharon Hovik 11701 Bella Coola Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Tor and Cheryl Langesater 21600 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 Packet Page 147 of 774 Jeffrey and Shelli Critchlow Justin and Lisa Marquart 21720 Chinook Rd I Point Edwards PI Woodway, WA 98020 Woodway, WA 98020 K.C. and Melody McGowan 21900 Chinook Rd Woodway, WA 98020 XI. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use Application 2. Applicant Cover Letter 3. Point Edward Building 10 ADB Design Packet 4. ADB-2002-226 5. Contract Rezone and Point Edwards Master Plan 6. ADB-2006-97 7. December 19, 2012 Architectural Design Board Minutes 8. PLN20120040 Withdrawal Letter 9. SEPA MDNS issued May 9, 2003 10. Adoption of May 9, 2003 MDNS 11. March 26, 2013 SEPA Checklist 12. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by William Popp Associates dated March 25, 2013 SEPA 13. DNS issued April 12, 2013 14. Public Notice Documentation 15: Technical Committee Review Sheets 16. Engineering Division Approval 17. Illustrations of Building 10 from ADB-2006-97 18. Comment letters/emails Point Edwards Building 10 PLN20130022 Page 18 of 18 0021 Packet Page 148 of 774 RECEIVED City of Edmonds MAR 2G 2013 Land Use Application 0EVELOPNIENT SERVICES ■ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT t, ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # a�t UCAhONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE —i N REC'D BY v-- ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ? ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE J 3 6 RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THATALL INFO RNA TION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION LS A PUBLIC RECO RD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 50 Pine Street PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Point Edwards Building 10 PROPERTY OWNER Edmonds Pine Street, LLC PHONE# 206-215-9734 ADDRESS 2801 Alaskan Way, Ste 107, Seattle, WA 98109 E-MAIL mparent@goodmanre.com FAX# 206-215-9994 TAX ACCOUNT # 270326-001-041 SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 89-unit multifamily residential with 2 1, 000 GSF of structured parking. See attached cover letter for additional information. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached cover letter APPLICANT Weber Thompson PHONE# 206-344-5700 ADDRESS 225 Terry Ave N, Ste 200, Seattle, WA 98109 E-MAIL info@weberthompson.com FAX# 206-508-3507 CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Joe Kolmer PHONE# 206-344-5700 ADDRESS 225 Terry Ave N, Ste 200, Seattle, WA 98109 E-MAIL jkolmer@weberthompson.com FAX# 206-508-3507 The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE Pr er (' Authorization I, i tY Ownercertify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purp ses of inspecti and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER I.�L� DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122 12 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of l 0022 Attachment 1 Packet Page 149 of 774 March 26, 2013 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 22S TERRY AVE N : SUI H 200 ., A"_?LE, VVA M09 206.344.5700 : 206.749.S005 w��t�rthon�psaf3.cr�m WEBER THOMPSON rA/— LL� xr \ �G Hand Delivere��ss 0) RE: 50 Pine Street Building (Building 10, Point Edwards) Dear Mr. Lien: With this letter we are submitting a new application for Architectural Design Board (ADB) review of the multi -family residential project at 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, in the Point Edwards master planned development. We submitted an earlier version of this project to the City on November 2, 2012 ("First Application"). The First Application has been withdrawn pursuant to the terms of the March 25, 2013 letter to you from Richard E. Gifford, the applicant's attorney. A copy of the notice of withdrawal is enclosed. The following additional materials accompany this letter: 1. Completed Land Use Application form for Major Design Review (SEPA required) signed by this firm and the land owner's representative; 2. Complete project plans and descriptions; 3. Environmental checklist (SEPA); 4. Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA"); 5. Required fees as stipulated by you ($2,530 for design review; $485 SEPA; $15 City surcharge —total fees $3,030 by single check as you approved); and, 6. APO list (in mailing label format) and declaration TIA review fees may or may not be assessed by the City depending on how traffic impact fees are determined under the City's Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, ECDC Ch. 18.82 during building permit review. You have approved submittal of the new application without TIA analysis fees at this time. The currently proposed minor amendment to the Point Edwards project follows a long history of design effort spanning at nearly a decade. The building design was first approved at the time of development approval in 2003, and a particular design was later approved by the ADB with a minor amendment in September/October 2006 ("2006 Design"). A Building Permit was subsequently issued for the 2006 Design, however the permit expired. The project has since been re -designed, while keeping the overall residential program, siting, and general massing intact, with some minor changes to the architectural language, amenity spaces, and parking strategy. To summarize — the design includes approximately 75,000 gross 0023 Attachment 2 Packet Page 150 of 774 Weber Thompson Design Review Application Page 2 of 3 square feet of multifamily residential, approximately 21,000 gross square feet of structured parking, and additional surface parking. 85 multi -family residential units are included in the proposed design, a reduction of four units from the First Application. The addition of the proposed building would bring the total number of multi -family residential units in Point Edwards to 346, four less than the number of units approved for the development in 2005. Regarding the Edmonds Community Development code, the overall bulk and massing of the building above grade is approximately 25% smaller than the previously approved design. As the number of residential units increased from the previous design, the number of required parking stalls has also increased to a total of 144 stalls, 70 of which are structured and 74 surface lot spaces. Although the number of residency units in the new proposal has been reduced, the parking that will be provided remains the same, offering considerable excess parking capacity as noted in the TIA. This parking is shielded from Pine Street by the building, and landscape mitigation measures have been implemented to reduce the visual and environmental impact from Pine Street (also 117th PI W) and the City of Woodway to the south. The conceptual design illustrated in this packet proposes to supplement existing planting along this lot line, as well as provide numerous landscape islands and planted trellises at the surface parking layout, which offer increased privacy and visual screening for both residents of the project and adjacent neighbors. The approach for this re -design is for it to blend effectively with the Point Edwards development and adjacent properties as a whole. The building employs materials and landscape palettes which are analogous to the surrounding environment, while providing a unique identity which is emphasized in the City's Design Guidelines. Design cues have been taken from existing residential buildings, while also borrowing the clean, modern lines and fenestration found at the Point Edwards amenity buildings and residence to the south. The ADB held a public hearing on the First Application last December, at which the Board provided constructive design input. Although that process now has been discontinued and we are submitting the new application, we have considered the Board's comments in the re -design of the project. The project documents accompanying this application incorporate many of the Board's suggestions. We believe the resulting design refinements enhance the overall product and bring it into closer correlation with the surrounding built and natural environment. In our view, the new 50 Pine Street design retains the spirit of the 2006 Design, while meeting the intent of the Urban Design Objectives within the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and guidance provided at the Pre -Application Meetings in 2012 and the December 2012 ADB public hearing. The enclosed design package illustrates the finer points of our approach relative to the Edmonds Design Guidelines. 0024 Packet Page 151 of 774 Weber Thompson Design Review Application Page 3 of 3 We look forward to the opportunity to discuss the application and enclosed materials with you and in the ADB design review process. Please contact me with any questions or concerns regarding the application materials. eph Kolmer Associate Weber Thompson Enclosures cc (w/o encls): Matt Parent, Edmonds Pine Street LLC Richard E. Gifford 0025 Packet Page 152 of 774 r WEBER THOMPS N PINE STREET AT INT EDWARDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING MARCH 261 2013 EDMONDS PINE STREET, LL e TPA. T' 5 Y 1 ii I'I 1 5 1 1 1 Packet Page 153 of 774 0026 Attachment 3 50 PINT STRFFT This proposed minor amendment to the project at 50 Pine Street follows a long history of design effort spanning approximately seven years. The building design was previously approved by the Architectural Design Board with a manor amendment its 2006, A Building Pwmit was subsequently issued however the permit expired. The project has since been re -designed, while keeping the overall residential program. siting. and general massing intact, with same minor changes to the architectural language, amenity spaces, and parking strategy. To summarize, the design includes approximately 75,000 gross square feet of multifamily residential, approximately 21,000gross s"re feet of structured parking, and additional surface parking. The overall bulk and massing of the building above grade is approximately 25% smaller than the previously approved design. As the number of residential uniis increased from the previous design, the number of required parking stalls has also Increased. This parking is shielded from Pine Street by the building, and landscape mitigation measures have been Implemented to reduce the visuai and environmental Impact from Pine Street (also t 17'th Pi W) and properties to the south. The approach for tins revision is to blend effecthnWy with the Point Edwards area as a whole. The project will employ materials and landscape palettes which are analogous to the surrounding environment, white providing a unique identity as encouraged in the City's Design Guidelines. Cues have been taken frorn existing residenual and arnenity buildings found at Point Edwards, and structures to the south. e feel the proposed project, with it's colors and North est Craftsman influence, retains a spirit of the previously approved design. while meeting the intent of the Urban Design General Objectives within the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. We have diustrated the finer points of our approach with the attached exhibits, BUILDING ENTRY OUTDOOR AMENITY GARDEN AND TERRACE WNIMINIVER Project Summary.................................................................................................. i Zoning................................................................................................................... 5 SiteContext Aerial................................................................................................ 6 Previous Building Boundary...................................................................................7 Historical Average Grade Plane ............................................................................ 0 Design Cues ............................................ ..................... .................... ............... 9-r0 Perspectives.................................................................................................... 1 l -17 ColorElevation►s................. ................ ......... ............ ................................. ......18-20 FloorP1ans.......................................................................................................21-2S Building Sections ....................... . . . . ............. . ... .. .........................27 Landscape Plans and Plantings.......................................................................28-33 Design Guidelines .... ........... ................ ........ ....... ...... ............ --- ................... 34-3b Appendix... ..... ................................................................................................. 37-51 03.2G K 3 3 MFV EDMONDS PIN[ 5T. LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I TABLE OF CONTENTS WEBER T H P S 0027 Packet Page 154 of 774 LOT COVERAGE INDIVIDUAL LOT (75% MAX. ALLOWABLE)- 39,182 SF BLDG 10 FOOTPRINT 19 018 S F LOT= 42.9�o COVERAGE MASTER PLAN (45% MAX. ALLOWABLE) BUILDINGS I & 2 54,671 SF BUILDING 3 19.320 SF BUILDING 4 9,820 SF BUILDING 5 34,711 SF BUILDINGS 6 & 7 64,584 5F BUILDING 8 23,655 SF BUILDING 9 24,844 SF BUILDING 10 39,182 SF AMENITY BUILDING 1 9,599 5F AMENITY BUILDING 2 6,166 5F TOTAL 287.052 SF 287,052 SF { 1.008,330 SF MASTER PLAN AREA - 28.5% COVERAGE BU I LDI NG AREA B`1` FLOOR LEVEL AND U 5 E FLOOR CIRCULATION & LEVEL RESIDENTIAL UNrrS SHAFTS L2 I LII84 3,275 0 I i,712 2, 22B L4 22.973 3.340 is 23A313 1 76.491 3,086 Total 13.955 EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 1635.020 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MINIMUM LOT AREA NONE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH NONE MINIMUM STREET SETBACK 15' MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK 10' MiNIMUM REAR SETBACK MAXIMUM HEIGHT 35' MAXIMUM COVERAGE (%) 45'*' MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA 3 S- FT{S-F- OF LOT AREA MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT (S.F.) 2,400 ' EXTERIOR LOT LIME ONLY, NOT INTERIOR LOT LINES WITHIN DEVELOPMENT •" FROOF MAY EXTEND 5' ABOPVE HT LIMIT IN ACCORDANCE WFFH CHAPTER 20.10 ECDC • i r TOTAL LOT COVE RACE FOR TH E E NTIRE 5FTE COVE RED BY AN ADOPTED MASTER PLAN WITHIN THE MPI ZONE CANNOT EXCEED 45 PERCENT. LOT COVERAGE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING LOTS WITHIN THE AREA COVERED BY THE MASTER PLAN CANNOT EXCEED 75 PERCENT. INDVIDUAL LOTS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE 75 PERCENT MAXI Iy UM LOT COVERAGE DUE TO COMPLIANCE WITH MASTER PLAN AND CODE REQUIRE MENTS THAT AD DRESS SUCH ISSUES AS CIRCULATION, OPEN SPACE, TOPOGRAPHY. BIJFF1 R5, AND CRMCAL AREAS. GROSS FLOOR AREA PER USE AUXILIARY (TRASH. MECH. STORAGES -... AMENITY 1._ 1.076 _2.488 767 151,6 672 675 OY 83 T95 STRUCT- PARKING I GROSS FLOOR PLATE AREA 10.607 0 17.714 -- 38.264 0 26.9N Q 2�S,1U1 20.7 i 2 119.975 17.50.020 PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF MULTIPLE DWELLING UNIT STUDIO I BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMS 3 OR MORE REEDROOMS UNIT DISTRIBUTION BY FLOOR REQUIRED PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT 1,2 1.5 1.8 2.0 UNIT COUNT BY F1-00R UNIT NAME DESCRIPTION LI L2 L3 L4 L5 TOTAL Al OPEN I 0 0 0 0 I 1 Al 08EN II3 0 1 1 I 0 3 A3 OPEN I11 0 0 si I 0 1 A3ALT OPEN I 0 0 0 0 1 I Ell I BED 4 0 6 9 132 1 Bsu 6 13 13 10 2 34 B4 I BED 0 0 1 2 2 5 CI 2 BED 1 3 3 3 0 I� C2 2 BED I 0 0 0 0 I C3 2 BEd 0 1 I 1 0 3 C4 7 RED 0 0 0 6 6 11 C5 2 BED 0 0 0 1 I C4 2 BED STUDY 0 0 0 0 3 3 DI 3 PPD + STUDY 0 Cl n c} 1 I TOTAL QUANTITY BY FLOOR:. 8 13 1 14 27 23 83 PROPOSED PARKING ENCL05ED GARAGE (U) 70 E TERI OR LOT �L 7ft Total 144 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I PROJECT SUMMARY WEBER THOMPSON pmv Packet Page 155 of 774 0028 dna EDMONDSPINE- ST.I!EC I SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I ZONING Zoning Designations and Descdptions Single Family W K6 jrrgrrFamwy,6.0wlq.11.loll il#6 i++yfrFanaN�r,#.U4�f4,R.fot4 nip POSIrFamlrr,IG.00sq. p.4an tsv Sidnir jr&M y, 11mo P4. it. sort iksw-t# FNot rmdi %mve iamtlt 12.00 14. (I. wt -7 m-N ilryieFan�i, xwo sq. it. kit „ 0-0 �IrplrFwnJiy. rlo3l FlOn NA4j AIGiRiFainit�l,OOCsq,fl,NJarorrapr►udf PA-2A +Will AwAjA 1.403p.IL 4 101 armPrr Lodi uM,I,S +WdlffwNp,J.Ndsq. It. a(fotaurap+rW4 Ru fw wily Fonr1v RM-Fdmor&1*V Downtown Busine's w 1 )bxnlPM RSlarl Cafe 61U1 1 lven mod COMW4 W 3Di A otam {mm!'em r i OMMVlC161 tea lea �o+»J+x. a si�rnrwr 105 Dow ropmArrEColddx OR ofm raldroer CoIIi1t7erdal ;w PIO►+rFd$�Infyy + • � EN F4Fphb+xOWddu�I+Ys1 fVrlU ►7t40i �+iPd#eJlrafd1)w M bC rwmMilr i4u"5 IC-Ew (r,. ,I,, S.W., aC-(*"rd% wmy (G Gmt#pl fpmmrrpai CGt Grnenl Cpmmme for waterhilt - (w C4.morctal wigrimn1 Pq Afl Aftgfi Fran lililiiC# OhN OPP EN W Aftler Pim jrll OWJUWON Other P Ptrbrk UK OS ow SPOO 5 WEBER THOMPSON 0029 Packet Page 156 of 774 rn , IVIOTIIej4 f-ARIlvfVMLKVAY F F C 0CF I.MSH AREA EDMONIDS dAE '•' -: %✓ +' WII:)CIW C.ItLLC :ICI"h1'i I J f + y 3"IATCHERY AMF iTY BUILDfNG i ' A f: JIT`� , � v2J6 Ll-f ST. Sw PIN ST BUILDING x f r rx. 7 O �+ f O # 0 PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT 23.417 SF ED O DSRNESf,LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PREVIOUS BUI1-01NG BOUNDARY PREVIOUS BUILDING FOOTPR1NT 37,692 5F S)l 16 13 T 0 a, 16, 32' 64' 1132'=1`-O' WEBER THOMPSON mpr 0031 Packet Page 158 of 774 �- . Z9� 143 § -- f � � 47.3 AVG. HISTORICAL GRADE= A 0.2 + 147.3 + ] 2 §.S§' + 1 §§.6 0' = 604.0/ 4 = 1 5 1.0 EDMONDS PINESTLL SO PINESTREET AT POINT EDWARDS | HI STORI CAL AVE KAG E G RADEPLAN E N, \ _ * , & ` � � % � % \ `04004 : ]2 , § _ _ _ _ - - - --- - - - - - - -- - - - - - \ r ]§b.6 . � \ � . \ \ , � \ | WEBER THO MPSON FAV Packet Page 1m y774 0032 FXISTING PT. IEDWARDS BUILDINGS LANDSCAPING EDCwONDS ?IN EST.LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I DESIGN CUES A(EXISTING BUILDIILDI NGS}; Materials. colors, rrraddation E (Ah1� Caean mcdermadern lines colors C(E ISII NG BUILDING), Sensitivity to adjacent -,,tes WEBER THOMPSON 0033 Packet Page 160 of 774 CDMONIDS PINE ST, LLC WATER L. ii C.- MOM MODULATION. COLON, AMENITY- COLOR, MATERIALS, MATERIALS CLEAN MODERN LINES MODULATION, N, OL F , MATERIALS i 101 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I DESIGN CUES - EXISTING POINT I-DWARDS BUILDINGS & LANDSCAPING WEBER T H O M P O Packet Page 161 of 774 0034 Wh&yw Mullion;l y C,bty Cement Fiber Cement Fitter Cement Firer Cernerri fiber C tvk Fiber Cement Sidm�g, Rakes es UP Side a kap Swx+g' I ap Siding+ Lap Wing, & Trim I Sid ng Trim & Mullii r *F_rposwn of vr$ Ynfkms A 1 �l d .f + f i } 4P 1 5 r EDMONDSPINrST,LLC: 50 PINE STREET AT P01NT ED ARDS I VIEW J'R M NORTHWEST A=t WEBER THOMPSON 0035 Packet Page 162 of 774 I _ *K A6 Try ' .r y. qL err `� + t w� JjJ�� E Wnsdow Mums) Fiber Cemev valcwn m up Siding `EIOSure 0 Srdrog wants �� W Fier Cement I Fiber' Corr► t Fber Cemer t Fiber Cement Siding• Lap Skiing Lap Si&rig Lap S+ding & Trim Siding Trim 8 Mullions LOMONDSPINE ST,LLC SO PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS 1 VIEW FROM NORTHL•'AST #.IF 44 7SY3 ?! A 3 13 a WEBER THMRSON F r Packet Page 164 of 774 0037 fDMONDS PINE 5T, LLC Packet Page 165 of 774 - -I .1 pup- L- I L { �~ 4 i711511'{ l t �� t i' 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I DETAIL. AT EAST WING 0038 WEBER THOMP O M M == Window Mulfpans! Fiber Cement Fiber arnent Fiber Omen! ribw Cement Flbor Cement Fiber Gemmed Siding, Balconies Lap Siding Lap Sidiq Lap Siding Lap Siding & Ti im Siding Trirn $ MuMkx$ aLxxos+jre of s: vGrres MX*'ONDSPINE 5T.LLC- 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST 1 WEBER r SON 0039 Packet Page 166 of 774 Wusd:.y ME,IlMMI fiber Cerrm"I Baltpnres . Lap Siding 'E$POSWe Of M*r?g 4+Qr3eS T— IM DerCemeriit Fiber Cement Fiber Cemenr FiberCemeart Fbff Cement 5tdmg, Lap Sidng I Lap Siding I Lap W.-rig & Trim Sidir Trrm & Mv9ions �311 f t6 _ 0110 IDS PINE ST LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST WEBER THOMPSON �I 0040 Packet Page 167 of 774 indow Mulr*WV Fiber C*rrwl Dak=lrl s I Lag Siding F4w Co tWl Fihv Cement Lap Si" I Lap Siding Fier Ce vent Fiber Cement Lap SkIiiirg & Trim Siding r b er anent Siding, Trim & Mulliom 'Fxposu 4vC(mgwyjes F.DMONDS PINE ST. LLC 43 ia.l3 IT _ 50 PINE STREET AT P01NT EDWARDS EXTERIOR AT LEVEE 4 LOBBY WEBER THOMPSON Packet Page 168 of 774 0041 EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC _vr� 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW TO OUTDOOR AMMTY WEBER T H O M P S P! mpr Packet Page 169 of 774 0042 I J # 11 N * y 4j 5 + F =r jp 4Y � + EDMONDS NNE ST. LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS N PATIO AT HTNESS SPACE WEBER THOM P O N 0043 Packet Page 170 of 774 EDMONDSPINE ST,LLC [ 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS G TRELLIS & LANDSCAPE ISLAND DETAIL WEBER THOMPSON f r k k 0044 Packet Page 171 of 774 .��.�.�.. . �.� .—�__�---�--�------ � FItNESS POWDER® ROOMS �» ry EDMONDS PINES tLC | 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS | LEVEL PLAN § I)ri'�M BACK OFHOUSE AMENS ORCULATON PARKING DEcKITFRRAC[ ROOF FIRE PIT AREA [Q REA WEBER T HUMP S O N 0045 Packet Page 1G y774 1 L-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------� EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS [ LEVCL 2 PLAN RESIDENTIAL BACK OF HOUSE AMENITY CIRCULATION PARKING DECKJTERRACE ROOF 0 8' 16' 3 ' 64' s � i 44� k� k� i ---------- WEBER THOMPSON P 0046 Packet Page 173 of 774 EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC I 50 PINE STREET AT P01NT ED ARDS 1 LEVEL 3 PLAN RESIDEN AL BACK OF HOUSE AMENITY ORCULATION PARKING DECKrMIRRACE ROOF 0 t11 16, 3 ' 64' } ~4 M A �� ti � Ir�fyp41 4 riM � 4I � Y• c WEBER THOMPSON c� 0047 Packet Page 174 of 774 f } r i r r r = FFICE x y f f RESIT USUAL BACK OF HOUSE AMENITY ORCULAT1ON PARKIN DECK/TERRACE ROOF Q EDMONIDS PJNE S7, LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EOWARDS I LLB LL 4 PLAN WEBER T H O M P O 0048 Packet Page 175 of 774 EDMONDS NNE 5T, LLC I 5O PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS RESIDENTIAL BACK OF HOUSE 0 a' 1 & 2' 64' LLVL'L5PLAN WEBER THOMPSON Packet Page 176 of 774 0049 'S ------------------ EDMONDS PIN L ST, LLC $0 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I ROOF PLAN RESIDENTIAL BACK OF HOUSE AMENITY C1 RCU LAT[ON PARKING DECKM BRACE !ROOF 0 B' 167 32' GN WEBER 7HOMPS0N mpr r f 0050 Packet Page 177 of 774 Ta1r00F 7RES MY v. +IlltLsitt 10T W#iE►'. Y "^ Pir�ilrl{i L3 [Lbl. b �7 hFf lmdO h OE". - BUILDING 5LCTION A -A t\ FbRf k .auri �I 7i?�r l.i E7}l'R. BUILDING SECTION B-B EDMONDS FINE ST, LLC IKr&JRlKMAll0 WpFAOM 1Mjlr OMR RES Wdr RE-51C}EIVTkgL - - - a - ORCLILATION - - PARKIN I 6pNj RES-UNIT - A19YC6 pkYK C9RR RES. WT SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I BUILDING SECTION 1% Nk7L loxr R,� ANDUKAlE61BOMIe Q at IV 32' AVERAM R310FWA GRADE SxLR - N.J, a WEBER THO PSON 0051 Packet Page 178 of 774 It -- Lev 1 - La dca #. - I- r _ ~� Lsca af.. 4 - - - -- ----- -- ti i A 1 A U Building 10 l.4 t - -� - � - + - �- -� - } - � - �- - 1 -- .. ti-�- f - rt - N- -� - & - 4 N - - F - � - --I-- h U LA Level Landscape Area f 11P 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN WEBER T H M P Ohl P- 0052 Packet Page 179 of 774 a i 13 "n 1 3 29 97 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIVE St7L PLAIN E B E R THOM PS I 7ra 0053 Packet Page 180 of 774 '� i I / j�•�;'J�1�]I1�4�' '�fytiylr.5, � � i'•�• w ��� �� OL ikL AN O 4 ' 1 it 3 ''l - • * ~ �L- rS + L - UM OUT 11 4•y� `... fit, S-.4.;. _ ..�.f+4}�. V,9 + .r #-; '�'t. ..�f� - . / fit, '_S•• '•" �� �*` it i PREUMINARY PLANT SCHEDULE ilL:�l.._ 1.`[.;. ir4rau[x [iNL mall C& sm im i AZEN F'UUATUY MLLm-1H1rnr, Mralil5E UAM A # B ihAh-ur£4 6'-qr Nf 10 +11ru0l+CHIER AINVL 4 6gpmtJBE11R1 W # Et "CAL V-v $4 6 CIGIA£IrJS hASLH{W1Pt.■! wi,aTr 14i4�ON #I�RJfF14R11 H A' 2-Vr.% 6•-IQ• 11E A r �!j Ae�, Teplyr#E ST/if�IGy11� q IyY{ 1y OA4 ISTjL 6•-C' ++i 1a iIE�EE�� Fii� 7��9F, Fig} +rWaR�►4E �l(�E� �I� � E CART L& JaL gC ■ UA9YOUA OfMA x8eua AiAGUL m m k ff 2.5-UL 6--S- LIT 7 BEAM LL NUC COUL01 I&WE i= MR mj!3ZnEx15 QS- SPEC: Gn x2A Ex x 'Evmsr CKREM OL2aL.EA 2 oft 12' - 10' M ■ H04O4t5 114M1l RUI 'CFW5L7W PrrW CMF5C& r,GLh BAREVLRVr t f.Al 12' M EIF1111EP�i a Cd}LYhFPES's 'fd4uu PEW .WLLull "V4 PAETRR. i r.+l 13' - e�1' N CWR%TA TFRMPA LILVKLH ORmf-E ! Q L 11 - Ya` 13 * Cr-gts A HfOWR LM wHIrL' W)Ck usr S GAL 12' - ur 20 _ rwQlm oouMriCA 'FFE Mffla ' rmpmp rJFHdr,. 2 a& 1Y - 1r 64 •' *36A WAOSA' RUGO&A RDSE 6 GAL 12' - IV 23 ■' SAKOCOCCA WONERWA HUW is sl'ECT BOX 2 9AL 12' - IV n SPWAEL NWWWCA-514MWPU11D' AmmWi40 5pffilA 2 CAL t3' - 1R- 25 3PRA A r BULULEA 'AW+*Wr WAIFT"' M1TI.G1Y ti'kTMA 5P1Rtfi 2 CAL 1X' - W 21 IxxUS R*tCAU, F.fPAWMl5 t MuSid Air S Qk L7• - 16' 26 .. 'SiA{D pafAL6W UOELA E ' ' MS1HLLJA - Y1ui 11"'F LIWIUN DANO votmWIA 3 CAL e' 5 . Y*ui•l- '- .. FSLM T8LDPICIP U1► DO MErLE 419Ww%" t CAL L'2' - 24' H lWi■.P4 ¢fcrlLrL.ld.Lr am-p-, ctuwm cm upl rrt/swlCill 9_C 5P[G aft ., AO LLEA PAUDGAAI 'yyJWQN NAM N Ems■ 10AROW 1 CA, L22 EC1nNAUA PVRFUKA mmgmf. Cpr1mht" 1 DIAL 7 -. nfflH0FWA CHARiOA& WJUEbA ErtbyplEF.11 1 44 1s0 HELLEBMUS rWXM ovr.ImAl i*6E a G■4 A' - 12' 1.&1 HOWFIRWALLk1 1r 'WXKL7 On ACCIr€7 JltY Dr<YLiLY 1 fi4 71 IK)Slx S+ENXIDANA'.ELECAPIS- 34HxDL "t MVLAL 1 CA 6' - 12' 133 ;.? LAMMLA AWU5TFOLIA EKL15R IJ%Am IEF J CWL Ir - 12' M ' KUW& " OFr1Arl# P 5MARr1' 1 CAL 235 5CMM xO;rE •fu1LAIN "' WN-D 0SS STONECRaP 1 CHI 6' - 12' 174 flaw CiL em CrllWMtwi IYIiIE IIKXEZIM�U Q-5m. $I Cam: ARU1IDft%CZL -P)4% FVFWER- ")CR$tEP?5 FEJ4tr$A fair455 : 1>64 12' - Ir 120 CMEx BLL7 W"N t8AT+1CA .W SMM I OAL or - IV- 4 tax Cowie-f1766E1' CL1CW 10n ENA M FWR WDU I C.LL 4- - 12' 111) + CAKm ELf44 'KwUS OOLEE)r DOMES MM4 SF= 1 m 22 FESTUCA 10A0C hS9 '5 WiKI J SLUE yAwTou 6LUE n=uE I GA 15, - 12' Ise +1EUGIGWFK t+ sELffV'AREra BLUE OAT OIMSS 1 G4 W - 12' 3CG L, 1Rom ftrvRFA CIAN7 LWK 1 M e - 12, lks 1.jbk PE WAJ:A1i -B ISLUC' IM aIJE Ll1rl6,'IF I. *q III We.4JI% drr♦IUCIS '4WILLUUS- MAIDEN 4w615 # SA L#' - IFr N "bir4i 51-mas Eiz ld[AL 19k L [OULLtw EIAYlf m url ulzulm 911 GG"U5 51CUM6FRx `1`.mar even nowwo s rµ 12' - 24• m ' upmH NLA kou1r41IA N QMOQN GW kE I GAL 12 - r8 30 404I NLIL A-M4S CRUP04a mfiw llri I Ga 5- - 12- 279 '.1 11r9n[A CAUMMlIC+S rfiCAPrK YM IATRRE S CAL I2' - Ir 76 ,J POONWHUII SITWEkN WT : mfto FEW 1 CJA 6' It' 170 1 ReB SANGUINEW WD lEPvurrliG amwad S &k 12, - le 4 S* -ARpv5 AL.Bus 'WLC W;ur'' ELVOjLl Sti tWWAY 3 m IV r id' 53 WSi'INILILI D74TIIPJ D&mf.pEi1J mk"i-LBERRe 3 CAL 1T' - dY' 70 vnturn 12014WA +l4uL QNN2k bI6K Mil Usa AP RT ArL ❑ how 14IDDI ACID 091E FmN. RiE 20S HARD FW,,E, nx r96 - EEm - 6 195%1,UOG W of Xm V 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I LANDSCAPE PREL NiINARY PLANT SCHEDULE 133.26. [ 3 3I WEBER THOMPS0fV7p ur Packet Page 182 of 774 0055 �ii iF'i a�* ii i iFi}}€#41•FFR��1 r ,.'� v X 5 x ti X 4 1 ti x 5 k I U t l I'd) I 1 TYPE V; REQUIRED PARKiHG LtNOSMAPE 1r.5 S.F.;MINU25S.F. eAvOl REOuiW-D PELLL' PIER 76 F'*i{MINGa SEE ENLARGED VALL 8 1pIMULEDSTAU-70x173-1.330 S.F. MIN 11JW&F.AVQ- ANDS CAPE LANTISCARE REQUIRED_ P L A N PROV IDEo: 2,3M &F. AARKINo LANo5cAPE r � � a} m 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I LANDSCAPE 517E PLAN WEBER THOMPSON 0056 Packet Page 183 of 774 a} m 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I LANDSCAPE 517E PLAN WEBER THOMPSON 0056 Packet Page 183 of 774 TYPE V: REQUIRED PARKING LANDSCAPE 17.5 S.F. (M#IN)/ 25 S.E. (AVG) REQUIRED PER PARKING TA4LL, 75 PARKING STALLS + 1 DISABLED STALL = 76 x 17.5 = 1,330 S.F. MIN 1 1,900 S.F. AVG. LANDSCAPE REQUIRED. PROVIDED: 2,353 S.F. PARKING LANDSCAPE 50 PIQUE STREET AT POINT 5D ARDS I ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN: ON - GRADE PARKING `ft.'b,A3 33 _ WEBER THOMPSON 0057 Packet Page 184 of 774 *1W 9 EDMONDS FINE ST. LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED ARDS I DESIGN GUIDELINES DESIGN GUIDELINES C. 2. C. I M P R 0 V E T H E P RO J E C T'S V I S k B I L I I Y from the street by placing parting to side and rear. Off-street surface parking. which is screened by landscaiping, has been provided at the rear (or south side) of the building; additional parking is located within the building structure. . 4. A. ENSURE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY by a I I owing cars t he space to pull out of a garage without blacking the sidewalk, Garage access leas been reduced to a single entry point at the west end of the building, which is set back approximately 25 feet from the adjacent sidewalk. "Surface parking access, also at the west end of the site, utilizes a roundabout style landscaped Island to aid in slowing the speed of vehicular traffic. Adrop-off area has been incorporated outside the lobby. which is located where the east and west building wings meet. C. 4, C. R E D U C E H A R S 1-1 V I S U A L I M PAC T S of multiple and/or large garage entries/doors and access driveways. Reduce the quantity of entries{duvrs visible to the street. The garage door. which is located down and away from the street. is concealed in part by finished grade; visual impact is softened by landscaping at both sides of the door, The color of the door blends with adjacent materials. As noted at CA.a, access paints to structured parking have been reduced to one location. Surface parking also incorporates landscape elements, including planted islatids with trellises at the center of the layout, .5_k3. CREATE A PEDESTRIAN FRir DIY r VIR C MFNT- Clearty defined pedestrian paths lined with landscaping and low impact lighting have been incorporated into the site design. Outdoor i rmenjry areas create a lively and comfortable viewing envoi ronnient for the residents, and help to soften and compliment the building. 14 WEBER THOMPSON 0058 Packet Page 185 of 774 .7.B. PROVIDE PLACFS FAR RESIDENTS and visitors to meet and toitnwram Amenity areas have been incorporated into the project at multiple floors and site Ivcations_ Both the Fitness and Garden Room spaces utilize articulated window wall partitions, finish materials, and extensive glazing to help break down the transition between indoor and otit,door spaces. Seating areas have been added adjacent to the elevator lobbies, which take advantage of Puget Sound and mountain views, and allow light to penetrate into the common areas of the building, C.8,A. DO NOT USF R1=PETITIVF. I'-10NOTONOUS BUII DING FORMS and amassing in large multi -family or commercial projects. A variety of materials, colors, rnodulation, and landscaping have been employed to heap break down the scale of the building and artficulate the facade. the top floor of buil'ding's north side has been set back. which helps modulate height and allow for generous roof overhangs, emphasizing a horizontal orientation for the building. A window wall slot, or setback, has been designed at the north side of the building where the west and east wings join, dividing the fa;ade into 2 separate pieces. Terraces, Juliette balconies, and fenestration strategies Ad texture to the fagade, and help tie tine building's material palette together, C .9. C. P ROV I D E A COVE R E U WA I T I N G AR E A and walkway for pedestrians entering a building, coming From parking spaces and the public sidewalk. A wood, metal. and glass canopy extends to surface parking at the drop -oft area at to guide pedestrians to the building's main lobby. C. 10. A, P R 0 V I D E A D E Q U AT E I L L U M 11�,1 Al 1(' .) N in a I I areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians, Including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of security The exterior pathways, parking areas and main entry to the building will be illuminated to create a safe ertviornment for residents. .1 ., I-I1 D E U N S I C H T LY U T I I I T Y B 0 X F S. outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage. recycling and composting. Recycling and garbage facilities are located in a room wlthin the parking garage. EgWpment arnd storage are also in the garage or at closets located off secondary corridors. LDfy'ONDSIll Nf ST. LLC 50 FINE STREET AT POINT EDWA'4RDS I DESIGN GUIDELINLS WEBER T H f`M P S O 0059 Packet Page 186 of 774 t EDMONDS PINE ST, 1_1_C 1"..- h . r4, .14.A. CREATE A VISUAL B RRIr-R BETWEEN DIFFERE IT USFS. i.11.B. MAI NTAIN PRIVACY OF S I NG LE FAMILY } ESIDENI IAA. AREAS. Landscaping, trellises, and canopies are a few of [he methods implemented to help screen uses from one another, D.2.13. REDUCE BULK AND MASS OF BUILDINGS. The building is articulated for the Most part with elements of vw ing materials, colors, and roof hipped roof forms_ Above -grade footprint has been reduced 25% from the previous iteration, and the slot (or setback) created where both building wings meet helps to reduce built and scale further at the structure's core. Topography plays a signifi"m role in adjusting the scale of the building as well. D.3.A. TO BREAK UP I'HE OVERALL MASSING F 'THE ROOF. A variety of materials and color combine with hipped roof forms, which extend above the main parapet, creating roof forms that help to break up the massing of the building, D. 3. D. P R V I ID L WAYS F O R ADID I 110 I I A L L IG H I to eater the building. Strategies incorporated into the building design for increased natural daylight include generous gla; sing at 1lvir+g and amenity areas, a full height window wall adjacent elevator lobbies (to bring light into the building's common areas), and transtucent treatments at some of the building's canopies. Light wells have been incorporated into a number of the south facing units at the east swing. E.I.A. ENSURE E DIVERSITY IN DESIGN. E.1.E. CREATE If DWIDUAL IDENTITY OF BUILDINGS. E.4, DESIGN OBJECTIVFS FOR ACCENT MATT IAL / LORS/TRIM. { ,x The approach for this re -design is for it to blend effectively with the Poirit Edwards area as a whale, using huilding materials, colors, and landscape palettes which are analogous to the surrounding environment, while appearing unique enough that it has its own identity, Design cues have been taken From surrMinding J residential buildings. while also borrowing the clean, modern lines and fenestration found at the paint �l Edwards' amenity buildings. m 50 PINSTREET AT POINT' EDWARDS I DESIGN GUIDELINES WEBER T H O P O - pr 0060 Packet Page 187 of 774 APPENDIX 0061 Packet Page 188 of 774 VIEW TO SOUTH. W. DAYTON ST VIEW TO SOUTH, W. DAYTON ST EDMONDS PINE ST. LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEWS TOWARDS SITE VIEW TO SOUTH. SUNSET AVE, E VILW TO SOUTH. SUNSET AVE. E 38 WEBER TROMPS # Packet Page 189 of 774 0062 . EXISTING F'UBUC Air' INITY (VIEWS TO PUGET SOUND. MOUNTAINS & DrWNTOWN) PROPOSED'OUTDOOR AMENrrY AREA EXISTI NG TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING CREEP! BELT TO REMAIN LDMONDSPINLSC,LLC I SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I OUTDOOR AVILNITY AT LA�>1 LND O� SGIE WEBER THO I PSON ;Ar- 0063 Packet Page 190 of 774 TO PU ET SOUND. MOUNTAINS & DOWNTOWN) EDMONDS PINE ST LLC I 50 ?1NE STREET AT P01NT ED ARDS I OUTDOOR AMENITY (VIEW FROM WEST) WEBER THOMPSON 0064 Packet Page 191 of 774 POP*/� - ., J . . • � 4?- � • 6 2 4 � ■� � �dr����1���.,� . . � • .� ! dc � - \ 2 �.�'. : ,% do w , 4 •� •• -- r.,�, -�:-"y'�.�'r �.!?�C�!'y r�'-T't"v'+s � ._.�. �a';�`...�"4f�+,-rip' - F%PIrLpI . F +xJhY{xJprwFTx[rr�l I[NAZZ IYar ICRRfy 'I.'-••+I:'_'M.'a"Y Ohm[! la PADW way we acim dr a 7tl0774�C dtlF40rF /¢t F�-r y' / Cm ilAF 61PAi7 JF it i x 1RdiC I'r1. ufrY •1f f r C� ,T+ 'r Ills„�rfa +Y j I f / `anr xlhi S+wrr er .Taff SIWr 14 srprlr; 47► fMY�Le g/Jr,,Tr i , rJLNQ#�VIIYiIf'�,rr ~ rpmi - YGi'iY.'U iawY f+H5 116hkr SSf,{f { a!w>YE8 +hO.vat'/l9 :AiG,r Ji FJJ3i Rif sPrnJfR _ 70,OUr 1p �' _ m" Jftnl TJ44 rfft w pr+Jrt +'aV7F,1C'AFit th SCALE; V s W �•h IS}T91i r1 �t��,rY ,' , F 111) 1' tty7l4+F ✓k IW TS FLO) 1 Jf n; s4r++ilanmrf yF 1iw er hb Q[a Iy FL Ht ir4l oq 12} _e Ll i z%mrm- mppF w _ k y `4 rrohar pMans l#rrR/mlmh Ttia &rr hW rf.[ r wr" y £r Ip dry Im tt -+ - !J 4 At r aa:r ww -. j Fr►J T -' _ IXRAn3R Nile Or x # \ - . ewFrFr.sw I•L } Pmr,l ra,uorn ►nJ.trk o ,Ya rY n+X fSk + run Rrra'. V 7ZaD 4 _ • ^t, •i -+ r. •. ra W 1a1C'aa1N arR t'�[Jt3l � � x1 ��SP � � anx IYNR w'Wr TWr J '- -.s pffe wir 1 ` 3 fliesktil ;'.--C r. Ir1f.+I OFJ' YNaIR-0J -}cif lS.'.YS � �`T �r ylr�ii Y.�!`M,II"R 4 - \ -�li~+mhr" lrti+'v Yy �; ,,r•� r2, �'yS+4tJ.i1rLIJ/ ' aF�i 'J ` ilrP N a`Sm410F f �+L• I. � ,. � Ir ..,. ,. _ POLL rMM rdir b '7RIi I: PFCPDXO nGvMA74trMrr6rRr Wi7Aulk - "'* q _ AorpfR, {rrYJ .'MM LOL Ph ON AI SM 3r94f WCK lF `ya - — _ _ _.. ..-JY7aul.ptr r'eyl#tr ikI JYR4'/ Afltrn lhYi f lg" LrrY f FW} #"' R:} Wi-MYrl rl�[,I�m�+6 MyT',/�rF 1lPr" T& F•arJPfJrr{ra�rl+E +? .rr�rl.a .Y -�'Y[.tll'•F tprte PAp w lr�'7,+,e! ra t�Y[ ` 9 NMPA VVMNAMW +aL £�4 {4l srrrl purr i r <'lrtrd 3 FrAVFkWNl 7DIA4 7m .5wr N)Fu S?W 40MA yr,ftl Sr � RI� 50 PINE STREET AT POINT FD ARDS I CIVIL SITS PLAN E 8 E R THOMPSON r� Y k•Y I k l � 0067 Packet Page 194 of 774 EDMOI%.JD5 PINE 5T, LLC '14 _ 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I LIGHTING PLAN WEBER ----T H O M PS O fN Packet Page 195 of 774 0068 Lf?h'iONDSPINE ST,LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS C ADB APPROVED CONCEPT (2006) WEBER THOMPS { 0069 Packet Page 196 of 774 BE 11 �I ■i NI ��ii�l !Small l IBM ON. MIN6I �� �l 11 ��i�r 1 D i u wl MREP IJI liliil �� i� ,lama :mob 11 mewl �� NNE11 1� anURE11 NEE 1� ONE JU7Q I nn'llimAll lLL=M=:MllIlmll -�11irlimmimilmimm i - IL rm. A! -!--- :i ME I IIIU! IM-NIMMAMM! 21 vi -i i 17-1 Britioll MEM'MR1111111111 10111111116 �� I'l M M� i a Wil It 710 L�lllmlllim FdiiOUTED RDCFSMUS +79d�A7 � TO- RDQF LS EI.EV-- - — +l79�Y t4 ELE V, SOUTH ELEVATION ( L-ST INN) oilll l7on1■1�! 11 • IDMONDSPIN FST,LI-C 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS MAX. F;EIC HT ig AffflCULATED BONUS. = mI ul. - {,7!Y4- �r r141 Sr i WEBER THOMPSO 0072 Packet Page 199 of 774 ALLO W TAI W� saP LY — - -- - — m r MR. M CEO im LEVEL LS LLJ Lil T V EL I J5.5— ffl.m_ ,I '_ ' ' ff-] ff! I L U-1I D ED-- „B fL Y}+yp I — I - J - I a 7 I f *t BEM I I if3fl [� 1 rL EDMONDS PINE ST. LLC .O. JAB [► i7#n' MUTH ELEVATION (WIST) 1 i :�� � is � _�: � -:-� � ��' i ��� �1 � � i : i �11 ��I■ II■I'1It:� � �II I■k�M ��. �� iti� 1 I■I I Eli MI II, ul i�q � � I� ��I rulI�:H� ill m I� I SOUTH ELEVATION (EAST) 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS, 2008 PERMIT SET WEBER T H O M P S O Packet Page 200 of 774 0073 1,ig3f. Hmw a R04 90N� UE r1$7�7 T.O. ROOF I U EleV, _ L3 S". WEST ELEVATION EDMON IDS PINE ST, LLC 50 DINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PROPOSED ELEVATJONS lYw3E. F�IglT� ARi1pJlATfD - olary IT-- — _ S — U ELEV, I i uE L3 ELEV. GIBE ' — +f64,07 42 ELEV. �I� r E L T ! �� y5 r�^ - --. EAST ELEVATION WEBER THOMP ON Packet Page 201 of 774 0074 I L C LLvq LS 1 LX. 174f' L{4LL Ld li 9J8 ll. HAS K' It %4Ey..�L,,g# �yy 1 15+L, — Y AwRoa L4CL L Ll £a fr L4 ta LL*Ft S xo. sLee IL �17.6 LDMONDSPINE ST,LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT ED+ ARD KLOWA&C luxMkd �y Ff+ FJL lrwl Lb I A "'A LVAL Ld 1Q M { LL ib�b' LL 7�L€tR L3 {��Ly T R" LCC CRAM UAL Lt I.a. LEVEL 1 12 AA@ LL 'Alf S I PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS, 2008 PERMIT SET WEBER EBER i H O P S O 0075 Packet Page 202 of 774 Iho 1B911 Date: To: Subject: Transmitting CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Letter of Transmittal June 18, 2003 ADB Applicants ADB Meeting of 6/1 1 /03 REVISED Architectural Design Board Synopsis For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Comment: Enclosed is your copy of the ADB Synopsis. Please call if you have any questions. Note attachments: X Sincerely, Diane M. Cunningham, Administrative Assistant Packet Page 203 of 774 • Incorporated0A�uguGst 11, 1890 • Attachment 4 BOARDMEMBER LOWELL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER CHRISTIANSON, TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, FILE NO. ADB-03-38, AND TO FORWARD IT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR A DECISION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. MINOR PROJECTS: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — MAJOR PROJECTS: a. FILE NO. ADB-02-226: Application by Point Edwards, LLC. for a 295-unit multi -family development. Project will include all elements to provide access to the site. The subject property is located at xx Pine St. and is zoned Master Plan Hillside mixed use zone (MP1). BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER UTT, TO APPROVE ADB-02-226 BECAUSE THE BOARD FEELS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BULK STANDARDS, USE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT THE BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRITERIA OF ECDC SECTIONS 20.10 AND 20.12, AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS; • WITH ALL BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS, THE FINAL UNIT COUNT AND UNIT MIX MUST BE SUBMITTED TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS; • ALL TREE CLEARING AND REPLANTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SUBMITTED ARBORIST REPORT AND FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN; • ALL TRAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY IN CONFORMANCE WITH ECDC 20.15B.110; • STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY REQUIRING FENCING TO BE INSTALLED ALONG THE EDGE OF THE STEEP SLOPE BUFFER PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE, AND SAID FENCING OR A REPLACEMENT OF IT SHALL REMAIN PERMANENTLY IN PLACE; • STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS PROTECTION EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY THAT PRESERVES THE STEEP SLOPE CRITICAL AREA AS A PROTECTED AREA; • STAFF SHALL CONFIRM THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OR IT MUST RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; • THE DESIGN OF THE AMENITY CENTER MUST SUBSTANTIALLY BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNS APPROVED FOR THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS OR IT MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; Architectural Design Board Meeting-ss Page 2 June 11, 2003 0077 Packet Page 204 of 774 • STAFF SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE MATERIALS AND COLORS USED ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THEY MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; • A ROUND -ABOUT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR TRAFFIC CALMING AT PINE AND CHINOOK, WITH A CENTER PLANTER; • GLAZING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SELECTED FOR ITS ABILITY TO MINIMIZE GLARE; • STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS: None. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 11. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: CHAHZMAN MICHEL CALLED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING AT 10:39 P.M. Architectural Design Board Meeting-ss Page 3 June 11, 2003 0078 Packet Page 205 of 774 To: From: Date: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT June 11, 2003 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION ORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Senior Planner JUNE 4, 2003 ADB-2002-226: Application by Point Edwards, LLC. for a 295-unit multi -family development. Project will include all elements to provide access to the site. The subject property is located at xx Pine St. and is zoned Master Plan Hillside mixed use zone (MPl). A. Applicant/Property Owner Pt. Edwards, LLC Pier 702801 Alaska Way, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98121 B. Site Location: xx Pine St. C. Introduction: Architect/Revresentative Weber + Thompson 425 Pontius Ave. N. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 The Pt. Edwards condominium project is before the Architectural Design Board for final review and approval. It consists of 295 units located in nine buildings with an associated Amenity Center in a tenth building. Access roads, street improvements, landscaping and public promenades and trails are included as elements of the entire proposal. The property is located in the Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use 1 Zone (MPl) and the site is controlled by a Master Plan approved by the City Council. All of the submitted drawings and documentation are intended to show how the proposed project has been designed to comply with these plans and regulations. D. Background: Zoning: As mentioned above, the site has been rezoned to MP1 and the City Council has approved a master plan for the property. The current proposal would implement the approved master plan for the hillside portion of the site otherwise known as the Unocal upper yard. 2. Environmental Review: The proposed project is subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The applicant has submitted an Environmental Checklist and a number of studies to support it. On May 9, 2003, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. Both the City and the Applicant have complied with the State Environmental Policy Act. Page 1 of 8 0079 Packet Page 206 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development 3. Issues: Staff must confirm the compliance of the project with the bulk standards of the MP zone and other city regulations like parking and critical areas. The Architectural Design Board must determine whether the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria found in ECDC 20.10 and 20.12 and also with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. In the Urban Design Guidelines, the subject property falls under the direction of the Downtown Activity Center — Multi -Family Residential. E. Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The following is staff s analysis of the project's compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Included in the applicants submittal packet is extensive documentation of how they feel their project complies with the Code and the Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment 2) 1. ECDC 16.75 MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed —Use Zone: a. The MP zone specifically provides for Multi -family development as a permitted primary use. b. ECDC 16.75.020 is the table that articulates the bulk standards of the MP 1 zone. 15 foot Street Setback, 10 foot Side Setback and 15 foot Rear Setback, 35 foot height limit with provisions for 5 additional feet with modulated building designs. c. While some of the buildings approach the required street setback along Pine St., the proposed building locations provide substantially more than required for all the other required setbacks. Also, and probably more significantly, all of the proposed buildings are significantly below the maximum height allowed. This will allow for the protection of views for units within the complex, surrounding properties and the general public walking along the promenade and using the overlooks. d. Page 10 and 11 of Attachment 2, the applicant's declarations, include a table documenting how the applicant feels they meet the provisions of the MP1 zone district. Staff agrees. e. The "Site —Concept Plan" and sheet "Cl of 2" both indicate in further detail how the proposed project complies with the required setbacks, height limits and lot coverage provisions (see Attachment 3). f. A condition which requires the ongoing compliance of the individual parts of the project with this code section through construction/building permit review stage would be appropriate. 2. ECDC 17.50 Parking: a. For multi family development, parking is required based on the number of units and the number of bedrooms in each unit. 1.2 stalls/studio unit, 1.5 stalls/1 bdrm unit, 1.8 stalls/2 bdrm unit and 2 stalls/3 and greater bdrm units. b. Page 10 of Attachment 2 includes a line in the code compliance table that documents the need for 502 off street parking stalls for the entire development while indicating that 529 off street parking stalls are provided. Staff has confirmed. C. The Off Street Parking Plan Map documents how those stalls are provided on the project (see Attachment 4). d. A condition which requires the final unit count and unit mix to confirm compliance with this section of the code at building permit stage is appropriate. 3. ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting: a. This chapter regulates the clearing of land and the cutting of trees on all underdeveloped properties and in areas of steep slopes or other environmental significance. In this case, the Page 2 of 8 0080 Packet Page 207 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development property is significantly underdeveloped at this time and the project proposes significant impact to vegetation in sloped areas. b. Projects, such as this one, that are subject to review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) are exempt from the permitting process of this chapter. However, the project is still subject to the direction this chapter gives in regards to replanting and scheduling of work. C. The applicant has submitted a report by a consulting arborist which inventories the existing vegetation and gives recommendations regarding it. The applicant's landscape plan has been created in response to this report. d. A condition which requires all tree clearing and replanting to comply with the submitted arborist report and final landscape plan would be appropriate. 4. ECDC 20.15B Critical Areas: a. The applicant and the City, through the critical areas ordinance, have confirmed the presence and location of a Geologically Hazardous Area, a Steep Slope Hazard Area, on the property. Steep Slope Hazard Areas are prohibited from being developed and have a required 50 foot buffer and a 15 foot building setback from the buffer. b. The critical areas ordinance does provide a process where an applicant, with the proper geotechnical support, may propose to reduce their required buffer down to a minimum of 10 feet. The 15 building setback still applies. In this case, the applicant submitted exhaustive geotechnical support for the reduction of the buffer from 50 feet down to 10 feet. After reviewing the reports and having a peer review of the report completed, Staff has issued a decision allowing for the reduction of the required buffer from 50 feet down to 10 feet. You will note on most of the site plans, a large shaded area on the northwest side of the property and a smaller shaded area on the north northeast portion of the site. These are the Steep Slope Hazard Areas. You will also note that all the buildings are 25 feet from those Hazard areas, a 10 foot buffer plus a 15 foot building setback. C. Land clearing and tree cutting that complies with ECDC 18.45, as described above in section EA of this report is exempt from the Critical areas chapter. Also, trail construction in a Geologically Hazardous Area, if done to the best available technical standards approved by the City, is exempt from critical area regulations. d. A condition that requires the trail construction design to be approved by the City in conformance with ECDC 20.15B.110 would be appropriate. e. Because the primary goal of the critical areas chapter is to protect critical areas and public and private property, a condition that protects the steep slope areas by requiring prior to the start of any construction on the site, fencing to be installed along the edge of the steep slope buffer to protect the Critical Area and its buffer throughout the construction process would be justified. f. Because of the requirements of the Critical Areas chapter, a condition that requires a document or map to be recorded that preserves the steep slope critical area as a protected area should be included. 5. Comprehensive Plan: a. In the applicant's declaration, see Attachment 2 pages 1-7 and Appendices, they have described in great detail how their project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and several adopted elements or approved plans, namely the Downtown Waterfront Plan and the approved Master Plan for the Unocal property. Page 3 of 8 0081 Packet Page 208 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development b. Staff has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Waterfront Plan and the approved Master Plan for the Unocal property and agrees. F. Staff Analysis of Design Criteria and Urban Design Guidelines: The following is an analysis of the project's compliance with ECDC Chapters 20.10 and 20.12 and the Urban Design Guidelines. This project is subject to the specific standards for Multi -Family Residential in the Downtown Activity Center as outlined in the Urban Design Guidelines (see Attachment 2 Appendix D of this packet). 1. Site Design: a. Site Organization: The subject proposal is only for the southern portion of the Unocal property that lies above, higher in elevation, the future alignment of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry/Multi-Modal Terminal. This portion of the property rises up fairly sharply from the waterfront and wetland areas and then rounds off to the top of the bluff that runs along the west side of the town of Woodway. The project would make use of an existing public right-of-way, Pine Street, to gain access to the site from the southeast. A new road is proposed that would provide for a looped access and also allow for terraced development of the site. The proposal includes ten buildings on the site, nine residential buildings and a tenth amenity center. Siting of the building footprints has been carefully considered, both horizontally and vertically, to protect views from the individual units but also to create vistas and lookouts from public places throughout the site. Also, because the buildings are "wrapped" around the site, very few of the buildings present the exact same "face" at the same time to people looking at the site. A majority of the required parking for the proposed residential units will be provided in subterranean garages in the proposed buildings. But the applicant is proposing some parallel parking along the street and in small pocket parking areas over and above their required parking, to accommodate guest and overflow parking needs. Sidewalks and pathways are shown throughout the plan as well as a number of community open spaces, overlooks and parks. The guidelines encourage the Downtown Activity Center to be pedestrian oriented and provide features of pedestrian interest. According to the submitted plan, it appears that this guideline has been addressed. b. Parking: As mentioned above, most of the required parking is proposed to be provided in parking garages. Guest parking and overflow parking are provided by on street parallel stalls or small parking areas in front of individual buildings. All of these techniques for dealing with parking are supported in this section of the Design Guidelines. Landscaping: Both of the drawing packets, Attachments 3 and 4, give detail regarding the proposed landscaping for this project. While the landscape plans included in Attachment 3 are more detailed in regards to the size and species proposed, the four or five landscape vignettes included in Attachment 4, which typically had an enlarged plan and section, seem to be developed to a greater degree in respect to an overall design theme which could assist in tying the site together. Although species and size and quantity are not specifically addressed in the attachment 4 plans, the plans do indicate more thought and care has been put into creating and defining outdoor spaces at the overlooks through plantings, terraces, arbors and other architectural features. Both plans indicate the use of trees along the sides of buildings to enhance the privacy of the residents and further enhance the views by framing them in green. Page 4 of 8 0082 Packet Page 209 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development Attachment 3, sheets L1.2 and L1.3 show the proposed replanting plan immediately adjacent to or in the steep slope critical area. Clearing and replanting should happen as described in the arborist's report. Street trees consistent with the City's Street Tree Plan have been proposed. If the trees are to be located in the sidewalk, tree grates should be used to ensure a walkable surface. The sidewalk promenade with the periodic overlooks should be a very attractive public amenity. In adding trellis', water features and other features as part of the overlooks, the overlooks take on more spacial qualities that will allow them to act as outdoor rooms. One thing that might be desireable in tying the overlooks together and to the site might be to consider connection of the water features through a dry stream bed type of feature. However, plantings and architectural details can and maybe already are creating some of this connection. The Design Guidelines encourage trees and landscaping to be used to buffer streets, buildings and parking lots from each other. It appears that the proposed plan is doing this to a great degree, although one place that might benefit from more trees is the south property line adjacent to the Town of Woodway property owners. It may be appropriate for the Board to defer final approval of the landscape plan. d. Streetscape: The Design Guidelines for the Downtown Activity Center strongly encourage amenities that would include street furniture and lighting with an early 1900's theme, street trees with tree grates if located in a sidewalk, 7' sidewalks and awnings. These elements appear to be directed at development that has more of a connection with the downtown commercial area than this project does. But, in looking at the proposed site plan(s), it appears as if a number of those items are being considered by the applicant for inclusion in this project (i.e. Street Trees, Sidewalks and Open Spaces). Staff is comfortable with the applicant's proposal. e. Signage: The applicant has a entry sign included as part of the attachment 4 drawing packet. It would be located at the intersection of Pine St and the lower loop road at the east side of the site. Because the wall the sign is mounted on is located in a setback area, it will have to meet any required sight distance setbacks. Otherwise the sign and the wall appear to use materials compatible with the design of the rest of the complex. f. Lighting: The City of Edmonds will control the design of the lighting in the Pine St. right-of- way. Attachment 4 includes a lighting plan that indicates the type and height of fixtures planned by the applicant. No examples of the fixtures are included. Fixtures that are shielded and directed down will be preferable to other globe type fixtures. g. Screening: At this time the applicant has not shown how utility vaults and heating and cooling equipment are being screened. However, since nothing is shown, it is assumed that nothing will be visible. If some utilities or mechanical is required that will be visible, the applicant will need to demonstrate how it is screened. h. Dumpster Enclosures: Same as above for garbage enclosures. i. Context: The Design Guidelines state that buildings and site development should be designed to fit in with their surroundings. This is a unique site, both because of its size, the surrounding vegetation and the lack of any visible improvements after the tanks were removed. That is not to say that the site is a complete blank slate, but there may not be as many immediately adjacent buildings and cues to draw on. It appears from some of the submitted building elevations, that cues have been taken from Page 5 of 8 0083 Packet Page 210 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development development in downtown Edmonds as well as residential development. Materials and individual volumes of the proposed buildings have a residential feel. 2. Building Design: a. General: As indicated immediately above, the Design Guidelines state that buildings should be designed to fit into the context of the surrounding areas. Because this site is somewhat isolated due to its aspect and the fact that it is separated from downtown by the marsh and the topographic change, there are not as many cues upon which to "fit" the buildings into the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted building elevations that have a distinctive character. Previous feedback the Board gave the applicant in preliminary review sessions, indicated a concern for the "block" appearance of the buildings and the apparent lack of modulation. The drawings submitted by the applicant, especially in Attachment 4, which include several perspective drawings, give a much clearer sense of the depth and amount of modulation proposed by the applicant for the buildings. Deep decks, trellis' and building projections result in the face of the buildings moving horizontally close to 20 feet. One building that very little detail has been submitted for is the amenity center located in the southeast corner of the site. While the footprint appears to be fairly specific, no elevations have been submitted that would indicate the look and feel of the building. This is something that should either be brought back to the Board or staff directed to review it for consistency with the designs approved for the rest of the buildings. In that case, it would only return to the Board if staff felt it didn't continue the character established in the buildings on the rest of the site. b. Materials: Although the drawings don't state materials specifically, they appear to indicate panelized stucco system combined with areas of beveled horizontal siding and glazing. On page 8 of attachment 2, the applicant gives some additional detail. If the Board felt that not enough detail has been submitted related to the proposed materials, they could require that element to return to the Board or direct staff to review. C. Shapes and Forms: In examining the building footprints and elevation drawings and perspectives, it is apparent that the designs are internally consistent. That is to say, similar roof pitches, building volumes and architectural features are used throughout the buildings which allow both individual buildings and the group of buildings to look a little different on each side, while at the same time looking like one building or development. It is apparent that care was taken to minimize unbroken walls, ridge lines and other building elements which could lead to large uninteresting buildings. d. Details and Fenestration: The elevation drawings and perspectives indicate a number of elements that can lead to interesting buildings. Trellis', arbors, bay windows and/or bump outs are indicated on the buildings. A number of window types and sizes ranging from small squares to large window walls are shown on their elevations. Exposed beams and implied columns all give the buildings richness and complexity that should allow them to remain interesting. e. Size, Height and Bulk: The Design Guidelines state that large multi -family development should be broken down into smaller house sized elements through the modulation of the facades and roof. The perspective drawings are very descriptive of how the buildings will be broken into many smaller house size pieces. Also, the section drawings show how the buildings have been ticked into the slope and how buildings at the different levels of the site will break up the apparent mass of buildings upslope of them. Furthermore, the fact that the buildings have remained substantially under the maximum allowed height has minimized the impact the project could have had regarding height and bulk. It has also protected views from within the property and adjacent properties. Page 6 of 8 0084 Packet Page 211 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development f. Transitions: When multi -family development is adjacent to single family development in a single family zone, transition elements may be required on the multi -family project. This is especially true for developments adjacent to single family zones where adjacent buildings are much smaller or downhill from the proposed development. In this case, the adjacent single family development in Woodway is uphill from the subject project and they are typically large homes. The site section drawings also indicate how, at maximum, only one floor elevation reaches the elevation of the adjacent Woodway properties. F. Summary: 1. With the proposed conditions, staff feels that the development is consistent with the bulk standards, use requirements and other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. 3. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the requirements of the criteria of ECDC sections 20.10 and 20.12. Typically, compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines indicates compliance with the Design Review Criteria. G. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Board approve ADB-2002-226 with the following conditions: 1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits. 2. With all building permit submittals the final unit count and unit mix must be submitted to confirm compliance with the City's parking requirements. 3. All tree clearing and replanting shall comply with the submitted arborist report and final landscape plan. 4. All trail design and construction shall be approved by the City in conformance with ECDC 20.15B.110. 5. Steep Slope Hazard Areas shall be protected by requiring fencing to be installed along the edge of the steep slope buffer prior to the start of any construction on the site. 6. Steep Slope Hazard Areas protection easement shall be recorded on the property that preserves the steep slope critical area as a protected area. Optional conditions: 7. The landscape plan must return to the Board for final approval or staff confirm that it hasn't significantly changed from the current proposal. 8. The design of the amenity center must be brought back to the Board or staff directed to review it for consistency with the designs approved for the rest of the buildings. 9. Elevations with materials and colors must be brought back to the Board or staff directed to review it for consistency with the designs approved for the rest of the buildings. Because with these conditions the board finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies, the staff has found the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes of ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria and ECDC section 20.12, landscaping: Attachments: Page 7 of 8 0085 Packet Page 212 of 774 Staff Report for ADB-2002-226 Pt Edwards Multi -Family Development 1. Vicinity Map 2. Applicant's declarations regarding project compliance with code design criteria, Includes Appendices A, B, C and D (D is the City's Urban Design Guidelines) 3. Drawing Packet 1, Dated 12/13/2002 4. Drawing Packet 2, Dated 05/29/2003 5. Minutes from ADB meetings, 9/18/02 and 11/20/02 Page 8 of 8 0086 Packet Page 213 of 774 qM ZOE Attachment 1 File No. ADB-2002-226 0087 Packet Page 214 of 774 I...."CEIVED POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 13 2002 PERMIT COUNTER CONFORMANCE OF POINT EDWARDS MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, APPROVED POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN, AND LAND USE REGULATIONS The proposed development has been designed in conformance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan [including the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center guidelines, the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan (D/W Plan), the City's Urban Design Guidelines (UDG), and the Design Criteria codified at ECDC § 20.10.070], the City's approved Site Master Plan for Point Edwards encompassing the property covered by this application (Pt. Edwards Master Plan, or Master Plan), and the newly adopted land use and development regulations for the subject property, codified at ECDC ch. 16.75, MP - Master Plan Hillside Mixed -Use Zone (MP Zone), which correspond to and implement the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Plan. The following discussion is not an exhaustive listing of every section of the City's planning guidelines and regulatory standards with which the proposed project complies, but rather a summary of principal elements showing the proposal's broad conformance. To facilitate review and comparison, excerpts from the City's Comprehensive Plan documents and the approved Pt. Edwards Master Plan showing the goals, objectives, and/or narrative referenced in the following discussion are attached to this summary as Appendix 1. Pt. Edwards LLC's proposal to create 295 units of condominium housing incorporates many of the goals established in the documents referenced above, in particular development of a pedestrian -oriented streetscape environment that enhances slopes with view to the waterfront. Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center A.3. As designed, the project promotes a more efficient, multi -faceted transportation system. Bike lanes and a pedestrian "promenade" are provided along the existing Pine Street ROW. The street is to be rebuilt and improved to City standards. Improvements include 16 on -street, parallel parking stalls for public use along the North (view) side of Pine Street. An attached Private Drive, serving the lower portion of the site is, similarly, to be developed with a sidewalk on the view side, completing a pedestrian "loop" through the site. Parallel parking stalls along the Private Drive provide additional off-street parking. [CP, p.29] A.4. By proximity and demand volume, it is anticipated that Pt. Edwards multi -family development will encourage a more vital setting for Downtown -1- 0088 Packet Page 215 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 businesses as residents access closest businesses for required goods and services. [CP, p.29] A.7. Pt. Edwards multi -family development provides new residential importunities suitable to a senior population including elevator -served flats, covered, and attached parking and ADA compliant units. A pedestrian - oriented landscape supports the above. [CP, p.29] A.10. 545 total (529 off-street proposed / 502 required) off-street parking stalls will be provided. 453 stalls will be accommodated in sub -grade parking garages. The balance will be provided in the form of screened, landscaped surface parking lots or parallel parking stalls off Private Drive. Please see zoning compliance chart below.) [CP, p.30] A.11. Pt. Edwards Condominiums will transform the Unocal Tank Farm from a highly industrialized site into a housing site within a park -like setting. [CP, p.30] A.14. Numerous landscape, rest and comfort areas for pleasure of citizens will be created exploiting view opportunities off Pine Street and the Private Drive. 3 mini -parks / lookouts are scheduled along Pine Street. A Pedestrian Promenade, featuring seasonably blooming trees, connects these amenities. Supporting View Corridors are developeed in the Site Plan design. The Pedestrian loop further connects all"front doors" of residential buildings and the Amenity Center beyond. Additional vistas and view opportunities are available to pedestrian from the Private Drive below. [CP, p.30] A.17. Street, landscape and building lighting will be selected to minimize glare, enhance architectural and landscape character and provide for the safety of the public and residents. [CP, p.30] A.20 see A.14 (above) [CP, p.30] -2- 0089 Packet Page 216 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 MASTER -PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS The City's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995 pursuant to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. The Plan specifically designates the entire Unocal site, including the property under this application commonly known as the "upper yard", for "master plan development". In July 2002, the Edmonds City Council established the MP Zone, then adopted the Pt. Edwards Master Plan and rezoned the subject property to MP1 under the MP Zone as part of a contract rezone, to allow for master planned development of the property as contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and as more particularly described in the D/W Plan. In so doing, the Council determined that the MP Zone and the Pt. Edwards Master Plan were consistent with and directly implements the Comprehensive Plan as well as the D/W Plan, which target the site for master plan development. Although not technically a Comprehensive Plan element at this time, the Master Plan provides the implementing framework for the Comprehensive Plan, express designation of and planning directives for the site. Multifamily residential development is a permitted primary use in MP1 pursuant to ECDC § 16.75.010. In the master plan provisions of the MP Zone set out at ECDC § 16.75.020(D), part 3, "All property identified in the master plan shall be developed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the master plan." As designed, the proposed multifamily residential development in the upper yard accounts for and conforms to the guidelines and standards set out in the Master Plan and the new MP Zone. The Pt. Edwards Master Plan at pages 12 and 16, provides that "the land shown in the MP1 zone (the Upper Yard) would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential use," under either the Preferred Alternative (including eventual multi -modal transportation in the lower part of the Unocal site adjoining the upper yard, commonly referred to as the Edmonds Crossing project), or under Alternative Two (excluding multi -modal development). This project has been sited and designed consistently with the Preferred Alternative, and fully accommodates the City's contemplated future re- development of the lower portion of the Unocal property as part of a multi - modal facility, including the possible re -alignment of SR 104 for such future re -development as shown in the Master Plan. In all respects, the proposed project meets the Master Plan requirements, accommodates Edmonds Crossing, should that project become a reality, and does not preclude consistent re -development of the lower yard. The proposal's conformance to the Master Plan is discussed in more detail below. -3- 0090 Packet Page 217 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 Multi -family residential Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative Two plans designate the Upper Yard (MP1 Zone) for multi -family residential development at a maximum density of 419 units on a 24.06-acre site. A reduced density of 295 units is actually proposed. Multifamily development on the uplands portion is envisioned as Phase 1 development of the Pt. Edwards site compatible with future Mixed -Use development and a new multi -modal transportation facility proposed for the Lower Yard (MP2 Zone) in the earlier Down Town Waterfront Plan. [MP, pp.12, 16] • Multi -family development in the Upper Yard, in accordance with the Master Plan, ensures compatibility with the Multi -Modal Transportation Facility and the current site design does not preclude such future development. The Site Plan design also makes allowance for the realigned SR104 as conceptually shown in the Master Plan. [MP, Fig.4] Undeveloped pockets (open space) have been left at the west periphery of the Upper Yard as called for in the Preferred Alternative. As noted, smaller pockets of open space are integrated into the site design throughout. Mini -parks along Pine Street exactly conform to the statement, "where feasible and appropriate these public open spaces will be connected through pedestrian pathways that may incorporate sidewalks on Pine Street." As mentioned elsewhere the Pine Street sidewalk extends through the lower portion of the site, forming a pedestrian sidewalk loop with additional view opportunities. [MP, p.12, Fig.4] • "Site conditions including steep slopes and railroads are generally not favorable to facilitating pedestrian access. The steep slopes and highway location will serve to discourage pedestrian access between the upper and lower yards. " [ M P, p.13 ] "Despite the physical limitations imposed by site topography the Downtown Waterfront Plan contemplates pedestrian access from Upper Yard to the waterfront as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project. Upper Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate such accesses may be included in connection with the future Edmonds Crossing development."' It should be noted that no reliable designs for the Multi -Modal Transportation facility are currently available. [MP, p.13] Circulation and Access • The existing Pine Street R.O.W. is retained, providing access to multi- family use at the Upper Yard. [MP, p.13] -4- 0091 Packet Page 218 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 Building Dimensions and Relationships • Individual buildings fit into a terraced hillside and take advantage of the site topography to show their full height only on the downhill side. Uphill, each typical 3-storey structure shows only a 1 to 2-story facade above sidewalk level. The top story of each building also steps back. The proposed structures are consistent with MP1 height requirements: max. 35' + 5' with approved modulated roof design (see table below) [mp, p.14] Residential Development Guidelines B.3. Pt Edwards Condominiums have been designed to protect (external) views from adjacent properties. New buildings are terraced into the site's steep terrain. View is also critical to the marketability of individual units. Accordingly, each new building has been carefully situated to protect internal views. We anticipate little or no impact on views from adjacent homes. [CP, p.32] B.5.a. The designers have tried to balance public and private needs: protecting residential privacy with I'scape screening, horizontal separation distance and building design while providing view opportunities for the public. [CP, p.33] B.5.c. Pt. Edwards Condominiums replaces the Unocal Tank Farm and is an objective improvement over the previous use. This change of use is, of course, supported by a full environmental remediation program and re- landscaping of the industrial site. Recent alternatives for the site included the BrightWater sewage treatment facility. Property values are protected and enhanced by this development. [CP, p.33] B.5.d. Private property, particularly in the adjoining City of Woodway, will be protected from any adverse environmental impacts by development to the City of Edmonds and State standards. The development is subject tot Architectural Design Board (ADB) Review and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Additionally a Critical Areas review will be undertaken and submitted for professional peer review. Site improvements will be completed to the satisfaction of City staff and to City Building Codes and other applicable standards. [CP, p.33] B.6. Pt. Edwards Condominiums are designed to conform to the unique site constraints imposed by topography, soil conditions, subsurface geology, natural vegetation and drainage. Individual structures are, typically, 2 stories of frame construction over a 1-story sub grade concrete parking structure with a single row of units fronting the garage structure on the lowest (downhill) level. Typical 3-story buildings only show 1 to 2 story -s- 0092 Packet Page 219 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 facades at the uphill face. By exploiting the sites sloping topography, internal and external views are protected. Non -engineered rockeries will be deployed as required to retain soil in a naturalistic manner. Soil retention and seismic design will conform to all applicable City and State Codes and guidelines. Existing vegetation will be selected or augmented by new planting per the Vegetation Management Plan submitted as part of this application. [CP, p.33] C.2 Proposed structures are heavily modulated both in plan and section (terraced) to add scale and avoid "stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential buildings. Numerous decks, balconies, courtyards and patios enliven the surface of each building and add opportunities to inhabit the building exterior. [CP, p.33] Open Space Guidelines: B.3. Open space is distributed throughout the site in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of the development and providing sufficient space for recreation. Open space and numerous view opportunities are integrated into the site design as described previously. [CP, p.42] Soils and Topography Guidelines: B.2. Streets and access ways at Pt. Edwards Condominiums have been designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. Primary access utilizes the existing Pine St. R.O.W. [CP, p.43] C.1 Grading and fill on this site is largely restorative in nature following mass removal of contaminated soils from the decommissioned UNOCAL tank farm. The finished site will refer to the Historical Grade of the Upper Yard. New grading will not jeopardize the stability of adjacent properties. Buildings have been designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural. topography. Natural vegetation shall be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes. [CP, p.43] C.2. Buildings designed for minimal site disruption as described above. Note that building footprints follow the contours of the Site. Also buildings are "stepped" according to topography. Small (non -engineered) retaining walls are preferred throughout the Site. [CP, p.43] -6- 0093 Packet Page 220 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 EDMONDS DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN - PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS (AUGUST, 1997) The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and approved Site Master Plan for Point Edwards embody many of recommendations given in the earlier Downtown Waterfront Plan which elaborates upon the development of a Multi -Modal Transportation Center occupying the Lower Yard of the UNOCAL site while emphasizing compatible development opportunities in the "upland portion of the site. These are expressed as "...general guidelines for new uses and construction..." Residential use is identified as an option for redevelopment of the uplands portion (Concept Plan, p.31). The proposed Pt. Edwards Multi -Family Development complies with these guidelines as a planned re -development of the uplands, which accommodates and does not preclude development of the multi -modal facility scheduled for the Lower Yard. The proposed development further conforms to Preliminary Guidelines for the Point Edwards Site [p.44] as follows: Buildings designed to fit with topography and terraced to conform to ridgelines and utilize the headlands as backdrop. (D/W 1, p.44) Greenbelt of trees retained on steep slopes. (D/W 2, p.44) (Please see Landscape Plan) Recommended 35' max. Height limit adopted. (D/W 4, p.44). (However, please note that the method of height calculation differs in the approved MP1 zone. Height is calculated from approved Extrapolated Historical Grade and Average Level per ECDC 21.40.030 to max. 35' + 5' with approved modulated roof design rather than the center of a gable roof). The proposed development is realized as a composed complex of structures. (D/W 5, p.45) -7- 0094 Packet Page 221 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines for Downtown Activity Center bl) Building Design -Multi -Family Building Design (a) General As the subject development occupies a heavily graded site and replaces a tank farm, there is very little building context. The closest structures are large single family homes (City of Woodway) that occupy the ridge above the former UNOCAL site. From the middle of the site these are largely obscured by the lie of the land or a line of screening trees, planted, exactly for that purpose, sometime in the past. [UDG, p.20] Rather, the dominant aspects of this site are Topography and View. The interactions of these two elements inform the scale, form, height and massing of the buildings proposed and are discussed in further detail in the sections below. (b) Materials Again, there is little built context for reference but each structure should be understood as a figure (Building) against a large backdrop (Landscape) provided by the Pt. Edwards promontory. Landscape elements will be more naturalistic with pockets of trees and grasses retained by rockeries defining various outdoor areas. To provide complimentary balance, the buildings will be lighter, crisp and contemporary. Typically, each structure will be realized as 2-3 stories of wood -frame construction over a concrete subgrade garage. Ground -face concrete masonry units are proposed for foundation faces and other `grounded' building elements and formal landscape elements such as entry monuments, etc. Bevel siding in various sizes, panel and batten systems and shingles are proposed for exterior wall cladding. Vinyl windows will be used at punched openings with aluminum window -wall' systems forming large glazed bays. Roofs will be mineral -faced membranes to control reflectivity and metal for low -sloped shed roofs. [UDG, p.21] (c/d) Shapes and Forms / Details and Fenestration Generally, the buildings proposed are `bars' deployed in a radial pattern about the site. Building footprints essentially follow site contours with the lowest levels terraced into the slope to minimize their mass. The roof of the subgrade structure provides walk -out patios for rear -facing units. Above, the penthouse' story is setback, further reducing the bulk of each building and providing another inhabitable surface. This may be reminiscent of the superstructure and deck on top of a ship's hull and this nautical' metaphor may be reinforced in details like cable -rails, etc. Building facades are heavily modulated and characterized by 2-story bays corresponding to individual dwelling units. These elements are similarly reflected in bays on the top floor, which express at the modulated roofline as -s- 0095 Packet Page 222 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 shed -roofed pop -ups. Continuing with the theme above, these high-ceilinged spaces may be the "bridge". The sheds deploy generous overhangs and slope inward, expressing the more generous face toward the view. Clerestory windows add detail to these faces and allow light to penetrate deeper into units. Selectively placed "eyebrow" awnings and brackets continue the theme of overhangs and protection on other parts of the facade. Numerous cantilevered bays and balconies also engage this interplay of surfaces and indicate residential development. Fenestration ranges from floor to ceiling "'window -wall" assemblies to small porthole -like openings. The various sizes roughly correspond to privacy needs of the individual spaces within and are composed to add variety and rhythm to the building face. [UDG, p.21] (e) Size, Height and Bulk As mentioned above, the proposed building footprints follow topography and are cut into the slope of the site, minimizing the apparent bulk of each structure. The typical building shows 1 story less on the uphill face with the lowest story on that side assigned to an underground garage structure. Private walk -out patios are developed off the garage roof, serving double height "garden loft" units. In, most cases, these sunken courtyards face an elevated street, adding horizontal separation to an already diminished mass. A modulated roof line with low slope shed roofs was selected in order to protect private and public views. [UDG, p.21] Each building is further broken up into 2-3 story house size elements with each modulation in plan corresponding to individual unit divisions within. A further layer of residential articulation is developed at the building face with cantilevered balconies, window bays, roof and awning overhangs supported by detailed wood bracketry. (f) Transitions The closest existing structures occupy a ridge above the Point Edwards site and, benefiting from their elevated location, overlook any proposed development. With the measures to reduce building mass outlined above little impact upon their views is anticipated. There are no existing structures below the new development that may require transition mitigation. [UDG, p.21] -9- 0096 Packet Page 223 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 MP1 SUBDISTRICT 16.75.05 PURPOSE STATED PURPOSE PROPOSED BENEFIT • (A.) ... benefit the public by . add up to 295 owner households providing new tax revenue to community • (B.) mix of land uses ... take • design for sloping topography to advantage of site conditions and maximize view opportunities water views from private dwellings and public view lookouts • (C.) ... permit construction in • proposed development conforms accordance with a Master Plan to "SITE MASTER PLAN for POINT Concept and site design that is EDWARDS". Please see visually pleasing ... commentary above. • (E.) ... encourage visual access to • public view outlooks linked by the water for the public from public pedestrian promenade provided spaces within the development in site design. Significant view corridors proposed. 16.75.010 USES ALLOWABLE PROPOSED PRIMARY USE 0 Multi -Family • Multi -Family Residential Residential • Local Public Facility • Local Public Facility (Amenity Center SECONDARY • Off street Surface • Off Street Surface Parking, USE Parking and Sub grade Parking Garage Structured Parking to Serve A Permitted Use 16.75.010 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALLOWABLE PROPOSED HEIGHT • Max. 35' + 5' • Max. 35' + 5' • (with Approved • (Calculated from Historical Modulated Design in Grade per 21.40.030 accordance with ECDC) 20.10 ECDC MAX. LOT 0 Max. 45% . 18.74% COVERAGE MIN. STREET • 15' • 15' SETBACK MIN. SIDE 0 10, . 10, SETBACK MIN. REAR • 15' . 15' SETBACK REQUIRED • 502 (total off-street) • 529 Total off-street + 16 PARKING (PER Public Stalls' @ Pine Street -10- 0097 Packet Page 224 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 PARKING (PER 17.50.020 ECDC DENSITY: 2,400 SF Lot Area 295 Units = 3,419 SF Lot MINIMUM LOT per Dwelling Unit = Area per Dwelling Unit AREA PER 420 Units DWELLING UNIT -11- 0098 Packet Page 225 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPENDIX A: CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,, 20. APPENDIX APPENDIX C: EDMONDS DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN August, 1994 TEXT EXCERPTS URBANAPPENDIX D: CITY OF EDMONDS DESIGN GUIDELINES Current, December, 2002 TEXT EXCERPTS Packet Page 226 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPEtIDIX A: CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 200 TEXT EXCERPTS I 0100 Packet Page 227 of 774 The Downtown/Waterfront activity center is designed to present a coherent vision for future development in the area. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Downtown/Waterfront activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: A. To proceed on a program providing for a more livable, beautiful and successful downtown Edmonds, while preserving the small town atmosphere desired by our citizens. To encourage downtown development that enables the realization of an aesthetically pleasing business community consisting of people comforts, park -like surroundings and de-emphasizing auto pollution and congestion. Recognize and plan for the coordinated and mutually supporting development of the three dominant regional uses in the downtown/waterfront area; the port, multimodal transportation, and beach/open space facilities. The Downtown/Waterfront Plan is adopted by reference as a part of this element. Policies to achieve these goals include the following: A.1. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by positive mixed - use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. A.2. Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, and marina facilities. �A.3. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. AA Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.5. Support a mix of uses downtown without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. �.A.6. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Existing height limits are an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect. /-A.7. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate needs of senior citizens. AX Reroute auto traffic to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods. Land Use Packet Page 228 of 774 0101 29 A.9. Establish a Point Edwards multimodal transportation center which provides convenient transportation connections for bus, ferry, rail, auto and bicycle riders and makes Edmonds an integrated node in the regional transportation system. The new terminal should be planned to reduce negative impacts to downtown Edmonds while providing the community with unique transportation resources and an economic stimulus to the larger community. ,'A.10. Create off -site, off-street parking/park facilities. A.11. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. A.12. Provide weather protection for citizens while using the downtown shopping district. A.13. Strive for the elimination of overhead wires and poles as expeditiously as possible. f A.14. Provide landscaping, rest and comfort areas for the pleasure of citizens while in the business district. A.15. Coordinate new building design with old structure restoration. A.16. Develop sign regulations that support the pedestrian character of downtown. A.17. Provide public area and street lighting best suited for comfort, security, and aesthetic beauty. A.18. Initiate a program of enforcement of abatement procedures. A.19. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys along Main Street. A.20. Develop mini -parks in the downtown business district. The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway High School. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense uses serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. This is in contrast with a pattern of mixed use commercial and residential development which dominates the activity center just west of the Highway 99 corridor. The overall character of this activity center is intended to be similar to a campus, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park -like atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to achieve the following goals: 30 Packet Page 229 of 774 0102 Land Use A. Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to pedestrians. Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting of a campus atmosphere of park -like surroundings and inter -connected development. Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access patterns on local streets. Policies to achieve these goals include the following: A.1. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas. A.2. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the region. A.3. Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. A.4. Route auto traffic to minimize impact to residential neighborhoods. A.5. Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and support a "campus" pattern of development characterized by pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. A.6. Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access. Master Planned Developments are areas dominated by a special set of circumstances which allow for a highly coordinated, planned development, with phasing over time. These master plans describe a special purpose and need for the facilities and uses identified, and provide a clear design which fits with the character of their surroundings. The master plans describe the land use parameters and relationships to guide future development on the sites (height, bulk, types and arrangements of uses, access and circulation). All development within areas identified in each master plan shall be consistent with the provisions of the master plan. When located within a designated activity center, development within a master plan area shall be consistent with the goals and policies identified for the surrounding activity center. The following Master Plans are adopted by reference: A. Edmonds-Woodway High School B. Stevens Hospital Land Use Packet Page 230 of 774 0103 31 C. City Park F. MP® I'lA5?'Ef— pG4N :If laewpE /hl?cg0 SSE TjOiVbi —� D. Pine Ridge Park AWW11 AW - 9k . gilpf E. Southwest County Park A. The City of Edmonds is unique among cities in Washington state. Located on the shores of Puget Sound, it has been able to retain (largely through citizen input) a small town, quality atmosphere rare for cities so close to major urban centers. The people of Edmonds value these amenities and have spoken often in surveys and meetings over the years. The geographical location also influences potential growth of Edmonds. Tucked between Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Puget Sound, the land available for annexation and development is limited. Living standards in Edmonds are high, and this combined with the limited development potential, provides the opportunity for constructive policy options to govern future development. This will ensure an even better quality of life for its citizens. Edmonds consists of a mixture of people of all ages, incomes and living styles. It becomes a more humane and interesting city as it makes room for and improves conditions for all citizens. B. Goal. High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. B.2. Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures in the area. B.3. Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. BA Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economically feasible. 32 0104 Land Use Packet Page 231 of 774 B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles: B.S.a. Residential privacy is a fundamental protection to be upheld by local government. B.S.b. Traffic not directly accessing residences in a neighborhood must be discouraged. B.S.c. Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use encroachments. B. S.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc. B.6. Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage. C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development solutions for residential subdivisions. C.1.a. Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space, etc). C.1.b. Consider attached single-family dwelling units in PRD's near downtown and shopping centers as an alternative to multiple family zoning. C.2. Multiple. The City's development policies encourage high quality site and building design to promote coordinated development and to preserve the trees, topography and other natural features of the site. Stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential (RM) buildings are to be avoided. C.2.a. Location Policies. C.2.a. i. RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets. C.2.b. Compatibility Policies. C.2. b. i. RM developments should preserve the privacy and view of surrounding buildings, wherever feasible. C.2. b. ii. The height of RM buildings that abut single family residential (RS) zones shall be similar to the height permitted in the abutting RS zone except where the existing vegetation and/or change in topography can substantially screen one use from another. Land Use Packet Page 232 of 774 0105 33 13.3. Adequate buffers of landscaping, compatible transitional land uses and open space should be utilized to protect surrounding land areas from the adverse effects of industrial land use. Particular attention should be given to protecting residential areas, parks and other public -institutional land uses. BA. All industrial areas should be located where direct access can be provided to regional ground transportation systems (major State Highways and/or railroad lines). • A. Generally in urban areas a lack of open space has been one of the major causes of residential blight. This lack has contributed to the movement of people from older densely developed neighborhoods to peripheral areas still possessing open areas. Open space must be reserved now for assurance that future settled areas are relieved by significant open land, providing recreational opportunities as well as visual appeal. Not all vacant land in the City should be considered desirable or valuable for open space classification. Therefore, the following set of criteria -standards have been developed for determining those areas most important for this classification. B. Goal. Open space must be seen as an essential element determining the character and quality of the urban and suburban environment, in accordance with the following policies. B.1. Undeveloped public property should be studied to determine its suitability and appropriate areas designed as open space. B.I.a. No city -owned property should be relinquished until all possible community uses have been explored. 13.2. All feasible means should be used to preserve the following open spaces: B.2.a. Lands which have unique scientific or educational values. B.2.b. Areas which have an abundance of wildlife particularly where there are habitats of rare or endangered species. B.2.c. Natural and green belt areas adjacent to highways and arterials with the priority to highways classified as scenic. B.2.d. Areas which have steep slopes or are in major stream drainage ways, particularly those areas which have significance to Edmonds residents as water sheds. B.2.e. Land which can serve as buffers between residential and commercial or industrial development. B.2.f. Bogs and wetlands. Land Use Packet Page 233 of 774 0106 41 B.2.g. Land which can serve as buffers between high noise environments and adjacent uses. B.2.h. Lands which would have unique suitability for future recreational uses both passive and active. B.2. i. Areas which would have unique rare or endangered types of vegetation. B.3. Open space should be distributed throughout the urban areas in such a manner that there is both visual relief and variety in the pattern of development and that there is sufficient space for active and passive recreation. Provide views and open space in areas of high density or multiple housing by requiring adequate setback space and separation between structures. C. Goal. Edmonds possesses a most unique and valuable quality its location on Puget Sound. The natural supply of prime recreational open space, particularly beaches and waterfront areas, must be accessible to the public, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Edmonds saltwater shorelines and other waterfront areas should receive special consideration in all future acquisition and preservation programs. C.2. Provide wherever possible, vehicular or pedestrian access to public bodies of water. A. General. The natural topography of the city contributes to the environmental amenity of the community. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged development. These are frequently areas where natural drainage ways exist and where the second growth forest is still undisturbed. In some areas, soil conditions also exist which are severely limited for urban development. Based on soil and slope analysis for the city, several areas may be identified as potentially hazardous for urban development. (See report to Environmental Subcommittee on Soils and Topography, February 3, 1975.) Some areas which are limited for development are desirable for public recreation, open spaces, conservation of existing natural features, maintenance of valuable biological communities and protection of natural storm drainage system. In some hillside areas, changes in existing soil characteristics because of development, grading, increased runoff and removal of vegetation may cause severe erosion, water pollution and flooding with subsequent damage to public and private property. 42 0107 Land Use Packet Page 234 of 774 B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD's, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside. C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Grading and Filling. C.I.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. CIA b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding IS• slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. 11 CIA Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 1 S% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2. b. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.c. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff I at predevelopment levels. C.3. Erosion Control. C.3.a. Temporary measures shall betaken to reduce erosion during construction. . C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways. Land Use Packet Page 235 of 774 0108 43 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 SITE MASTER PLAN FOR POINT EDWARDS, Final., May • 11 TEXT EXCERPTS 0109 Packet Page 236 of 774 Part One,:'Background INTRODUCTION In 1995, the City of Edmonds adopted its Downtown Waterfront Plan as an element of its Comprehensive Plan. That plan called for any future development of certain properties located in the southwestern portion of the city to occur only upon the formulation of a "master plan" to guide that development. Since that time, the city has approved master plans for portions of those properties, most significantly for property owned by the Port of Edmonds. This Master Plan is intended to analyze development potential and establish parameters for the future development of the planning area in accordance with two new MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use zones. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this master plan will describe the parameters of land uses within the planning area. It will describe, in a general manner, the height and bulk of structures, the types and arrangement of land uses, and site access and circulation patterns. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Point Edwards planning area consists of 44.54 acres of land in Edmonds, Washington, improved with small buildings currently used as office space. The planning area lies on the western perimeter of the Edmonds Downtown Activity Center, and is bordered on the northwest by Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, and on the south by the corporate boundary of the City of Woodway. The area is the site of a former `tank farm' used for the storage and distribution of petroleum products. A portion of the planning area was divided by a short plat approved by the City of Edmonds in 1998. The. 1998 short plat excluded the "teardrop" parcel located to the south of Pine Street Extension. Access to the planning area is from the east via Pine Street Extension (216th Street SW), connecting to SR104. R IIS� FIN7 PQI�4EDWARDS MASTER PLAN P01 AGE 2 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. EXISTING CONDITIONS History of Land Use In 1920, the Union Oil Company purchased approximately 110 acres of land in the area known as Point Edwards in Snohomish County. Additional property was acquired in the ensuing years, and the City of Edmonds subsequently annexed this property. At its peak, the site included what is now the Port of Edmonds, Harbor Square,, and Marina Beach. The property was developed with tanks and pipelines for the transshipment of petroleum products via tanker ships. Union Oil Company (now Unocal) has gradually divested much of these holdings, until the Point Edwards site is now its only remaining property. Within the past year, activity on the site has been devoted primarily to demolition, with the removal of all of the tanks in the upper yard, and much of the supporting infrastructure in the lower yard. The site is improved by two small wood -frame office buildings, one of which houses the local office of Unocal Corporation. The office uses are the only active uses that remain on the site at this time. Environmental Summary The prior use of the property for the storage and shipment of petroleum products has resulted in subsurface soil conditions that include deposits of petroleum compounds. The presence of these contaminants requires the implementation of a cleanup plan approved by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Site remediation has commenced in the upper yard by the removal of the tanks on the site. Additional remediation activities will occur on the site, in both the upper and lower yards, prior to site development on those portions of the property. Cleanup efforts in the Lower Yard are expected to commence by 2004. This Master Plan includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Analysis in the form of a checklist2. This SEPA checklist incorporates by reference the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the city in the course of adopting its Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a significant amount of environmental analysis related to the planning area has previously been conducted. A list of those studies is shown in Appendix B. In October of 1995 the Washington State Department of Ecology approved the Unocal "work plan" acknowledging the next steps in the agreement (Agreed Order) with the State to environmentally investigate the Point Edwards property in Edmonds. This approval allowed Unocal to commence exploratory drilling and testing in conformance to the work plan and thereby provide insight to the contamination. This work was completed in August of 1996. A draft work investigation report was submitted to Ecology. An interim action plan was submitted and approved by Ecology in 2001 that led to Unocal's voluntary removal of the tanks and lines in the Upper Yard, and removal of strategically 2 Submitted concurrently with this Master Plan REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAQ11 1 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Pr50W1N1D&gWA38 of 774 A ,.,,,.., important plume contamination in the Lower Yard. The interim action plan calls for complete cleanup of the upper yard with follow up action on the lower yard consistent with the order and regulation under MTCA in 2002. Critical Areas The area is bordered on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, the Point Edwards Marsh. This wetland extends for several acres to the north of the site. Immediately abutting this wetland in the northern portion of the planning area is a constructed stormwater facility that was classified in a previous study as a Class 3 wetland. Because this stormwater facility was constructed as an element of previous site development, its classification may be re-evaluated as new development occurs. According to flood maps available to the city from the Federal Emergency Management Agency3, the planning area is located in `Flood Zone C,' meaning that the area is not located within any 100-year or 500-year flood zone. The city's Shoreline Master Prorgi am. regulates shoreline use and development on coastal waters, and on all land located within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline. None of the property shown in this Master Plan is located within 200 feet of the shoreline's high water mark. The original hillside was terraced as tanks were placed on the site. The tanks were commonly placed on the southern and upland portion of the study area commonly known as the `upper yard.' The remainder of the site is commonly known as the `lower yard.' This lower yard generally is more level than the upper yard, where steep slopes (in excess of 40%) still exist in some areas. Despite the presence of these steep slopes soil conditions on the site appear to be stable, with little indication of erosion. Zoning The City of Edmonds Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 16.40 ECDC), currently designates the Point Edwards property as CW (Commercial Waterfront). The primary uses now permitted in this zone are: • Marine -oriented services; • Marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented retail uses; • Petroleum products storage and distribution; • Offices located above ground floor (excluding medical, dental, and veterinary); • Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation; and • Parks and open space. 3 Ref: Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 530163-0005D, 2/19/86; Federal Flood Insurance Administration; U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGPI 12 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARM€i q$a 39 of 774 _ _ _ The CW zoning designation was applied to the site at a time when the property was used for the shipment and storage of petroleum products, an activity that required direct water access. In the intervening time, that use of the property has been discontinued and direct access to the waterfront has been eliminated. Because the site no longer has direct access to the waterfront, the requirement for water -dependent uses severely limits potential future uses of the property. Figure I shows the city's zoning map. The City of Edmonds adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1995, pursuant to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. That plan designates the subject property and surrounding lots for `Master Plan Development.' In the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, site development options discussed site development consistent with a multi -modal facility. Figure 2 shows the Comprehensive Plan's Downtown Activity Center concept map. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 1 1 3 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FEUMMO,Q40 of 774 _ (, I I 3!f ! 1 ! 1,/ P {, r f 4 II Ii, is (, 1 P � Pam. t, �� _ fi r f' s -s i �'' ,, ,. , r . 1 I I 1 to a, `� i I'r fL �! " w £ " -� r F ?.t I.:. 'r , .,!: e. 1 . ins �---i I 77 `af'lsM1a:, L. 'J' „�,.•.�1: rt r"1 >s- ,ail rr - I":,y -, 3'; �-� 1� "_.n, �',cl_7.r7ra ;C. ! d . I __:_ 11 z - Y 1. J ' rc. t•^3/ ? ' ^�c:Y,-%tx-3t.<� :•;4•�- \ :,-,•'-t . r. - !': i' , � a P ( .. l: ' ,.,� r tt 10, l.s a.l : i„+ �;-; ,.::i_ v;, d „r' 1-r:T ,s iy .I�•, .,, •u„ ., rru I ,� `I:. I�: .IF, �t x iy� I+. ,z .. :r5•% r.. J,.1 ... /( _,; ,,.i i, .,, ::.1I•�G.i�t"•.:o-j5ui 's`^7•.$ ., a>«i' I`_:,a` ,r--...a ,. I r:�.., I, t.. ,yt._ ,, .,L.1.r,c:r ..Y r �r f.� +1' a R: \ ._� t .f , + d ...,.4:Rf• , 7 ,d?3'' .f ..(. Ft F I m r i : { ` ,i .,.; :•a ;�:. t t 't'! "a",' t'i `rf'.- >-1'F"' ; •�3.a .7a' Jn i wn c a r . a ��G:,.1 :.,.1_�-.,+ . _, :;a. t LI . L. Jr.l r L - }I 7. .. ,.•__ .. ..., Ip ,... 0. , ^ s-' ; l :,15.''T 'y R,t,�;,S t 'R'- : • .. t,::p?y?;°cJ-^...I . L r- t [: 1 h1:;r_`.• (- ,i-, S .ti :1 t ,. „g yy J.. ,;..s, _r; 4'�L't^,nfd6�Z,Crrt,xi,T+. ...'�il�,"-^"�\�' /"r,1•R !- .j A. r_..Y:..I ,:p,l ..,,,.wS'+' ; '.3 -b... Y-c.,m.r- ,*, ,.,--��] ,'s � t '.i _..,., -' j{ fi. I, a Lx. .. i,•I, ,''f.I;i;•;J-' �', i d.!x,- l f ,J T1T-•b, :'tii' t :- ,'i: a 4 \ -�, ..:t: ii�: f,w1 .a,57_` _,.�1. .-ia=a:' _!_t'�.i. :G,• vf,.;:'�`i°:.hmR7. •f,}.. '!: 6�' r i4 r? .?.. i w,;-s �rM� a;_ ,-I ,;7 , _4 C+ ;L,.1 .! J - �: a ..5 r: - 5.f 7 r t y r.'<.. ., c, _ ea,s.,, S.eY. , I r:' l: N s .t+7-''jr ;: <;� :>U:L�., j(? 5, ^•u ' fi:y- .i1,;L.^ i , .I, . �1 '''w !'s:. t. v 1 r • -•w• ' T.ir,.=.; Ia'::: ,, .'t•,E: .,.,.t dJ :.r .l:+• ,ram "•t,;;✓' >t __ 1.1 ,. .! _`IP' r } .ii��'„ u` .,j - y W.;.L, " -�- r,'. ,, y.�,� r ...,'i:: '1{ s ..r : - �:�J� -f; t Sr -. T95' +,rc- , L,-., k ,.7: ,-t� -rc'; ,; Jl.:..r,,. ;..I- ,,:4I i't,. T,,.•I �:I•:167''i I ,-, I.I 'R14 ( _ :'1.?+jcecJ'.. ,1„•'i 1 -rt.� _r,! r j r7 i., ,,i .a!,,S"ITf r°,ti.u"> " ,a .I iMR*..-.i tG. ,..,� '-1 !.- ( 1 �,;�-• _,!'8 �4 � ,t "7.r u1c;7a,- L,I. •i<,(,1,?..lj' .,,...•;'I.I. -� .I f i- •:fC'�'�,, i?J �I�I t,T- ^'' �, 'I� ..s:: - t9 '*T,:.. = 1'. 'r•�o^i� 5-::.[. , r I rr , 1 :'i' ,It+=•k. 1:,...r., .ra �4" kr,. �. JA, ✓ .i:,a.,Z�[.%•{e A.', .l-JxA a' S' 1 W a r .~'�'»r!^ 1 - I Zr y't"i� .^ g'+� e.' - _.. iY.41'f?+}'•. ;, Aj' •1 r.Tt. r'i= •;.:,a .?.Idd<�, r y--••, ae. _t?J,+z;,. 1, ,, tt,. ,b Wd, ,% +,.� S `oJ"c �` c,.u,., - f^-'... d a,%�+: f 1 �i:" It . A.✓. s Lh.., .Pest,^'r' _t- • I'Lik"• nC'f�--"/ ( 'ar . n tiG: :;. .,n4:c7a. „r` ni ,, i1j. f' a. rr•r6_ i r.�cz�7 �Yli' r f 4 ti) �fi :rsS Li:f ; ,, r•.:, ., E] 6 9 t-, h •- ',I,•:..i� a5,u';, a J I _: I t,. . ii•..=:, ,>a , Inshe:.�'c,�,..R4,.. t�,.. < ;1_"?" •,;t ,'�, ... - { , . .. R -.::: ,„.' -:... ',I ti.! ,- l r: ",5... (.' , ; •,:; - .'ic.y .5 ei-z-1.4m *1r, 1:,'gla :av'7Is"i'" ,(z<r. t'„'e v P'� '' t 7c R'i.. - _ ,nd ,,,t_rd1'•}:•I Y x :' :u . ,,,7, �( .-e..,,.,+: , t,..,,...,. SE ['F `a` r L .',. I I ..I . w;:''.,'�� ,7F v`'''.. a7'�.y3s-� fi 5] Sde -r_ ! 4"F> =? J '�T'a ^.:sd. r S ri,' -. �:,. - .: .� is _ ,II ._••.�: ,, - cc.. . f 1 ,,,,k `n ..`r_ !,. ..•b',; fti � r���.� 'a %^L.:r T I x n 'a 3« T �'&a: - .. r #:. - - y.ti. w _,. . -,•t J �:stirr. ;�.,r '' C. ,, +c. Gi 'T"? -Yt +.,,..-,7:.a- ,.=, .. t:i l.:-F lc:n.... _ # ;e .s ..i.., ra<!.J:�•,t f. 7 r ::. ,I'' .s� :iw�:, ,z rj" ,.•c' tt wd,; a ,n'- 5, .i k+_<F+r ! ... .asti. 77- .`: 1 '^ ..-,�.T.3.r f a .k3',[.. 5"•:< } ,'$ R`.'- 5^ i�aa• Mgt rA• - L 5 Y`1.: %,y. . Y •r, . _ ,c;!': -k:' -a, z ..b,,. ...f 1 _. •.--tv,.. , a ,, t. !-.' •',-1.,.,.,• . .,r.. ''�=`,<r ''' :(',.. , .- w.,... „4-.h-. s r ..t , t t. ',y %J { '•:n:,+ r .y J i n.Fs l' \- - �,;�y.",; .;1'.:1t=:r,if t,.? ,rs'-'i. `z l'r-pr<'.: ",:•.�,.'T': ,:i,. ,r,?Ji,i. L-'7 r ..;:5„. .,,- v u'...:YI.':x..,,.r "�rl. '+J •r>:' .a.•5,. %7'iia it'.'�+'.r. .-",a.__: ,.iC, §:i• I t , ..;� i ,, r„-.._,_:,11..-,�,v + I.I...:.'^,:b •'LiiL:.,m 9.a* t'11 .J:' .,, ty_ $" ' :L'r'., ,...Uaaai i'' r' ,,;.,.-_,�: ,sr•. ..7 i . _ at i"e �:<i N w- i' }, x.$jS;`.�21?. 4 . e le,la 3: _r_ w r { rl•, ..c+ .. ,: i .. - ., i ( 5 : ,; 2r.,J e'i:i.,GIF4-5•• ;, ._.< - x yT�,::'k`,%I:nr�.:rs.'�._ A!."°�E .. `y.� .�<r:, ,i-a_7 I e_:I :, " 5 �.. ' �. fir {r, ' tt -S.. -'t..f'; ? ,.. - ,, :,,.t•.,.,r?r',r:(�' .,wJ ;,,,„.r. g is„,.: `tiY.^T;u Y:.,;:n`r •'p . �' t•b-^3• t',^.�r4a: t:,`s: `1> _s -3. _ "•'�,Si?ij ua. ..t, .s. s . •,.: �.. r:' .,(b ..1,.- .�•. wtrc•I:d 3 r . s;::J,gun��:ra'y_ -L t -`rx .+i_r `"lIyl2±.,j}L'.,,ey'.' �,:ti'1 c w�.: i.. ='S:i C. q�... :,•a� "?•.Ti i.,-..:i+.i1e? .Pl r ,rr• .T, ia, tiJiK" :i =. _ -rc, . -•_ 1 +4twd ,>Y .. i, •7,}--�raL,,,.l ,.,. 1 u ) ,-i? r t S { ` G a,.w. ,;.V >.. ,H • : �,7W" :a.-,+::7�r., - 5< , F„n" ,<LS�,.,r. ty' f.! r '. rr ! 7 l;' . �„ .. .Ad';. ''fir,,. T , : $, n' :::i18 3}' �( 7R�"J•'a'S'�?i• 1 �_�r':. w.. -r ,Ir.., _r..,,, � �e,'A - .4',"- 7 f 3•ri.=f11 3 (.. M- -4. ; .,t ,k'y..2 ,q. .,: 'k7 'I .. I y.. ..d'�' lr_' -3.�a-,nif^'-iv+�ii�uld gi.iy',».irr} a1v._h4,rs,5, t. 4;fy.� ,,. ; 71' .•r'` .r,.: r'�, ! �:'11 r• .. T, ',,:, I , d' . >, .,:. ,J�.+' r„t.,Ze7 :.,,tL�.r :•!TI . LJ' ,t „-,n {* r, .in •'k _ t c,:, 'd, '=u _f - 4=', 11�t.. n�"a ✓ .f/i -_ :"w'L , a : ,2; ',I' 1 's, i ,.,.-`. rSn,+y,R''-,•.r'Y G . d ..7 < .t..v . J m. . 3;3 7�3 _irl _ r F;W, ( �'`j. i.. �,rr .,,;, 'PG!_'•h..d,'»%tc,r -�c�-^t'. .�' a..„ •n• s.,..,. t.•. .d. ,c4.,-n C,t 1Z'Ye'}.•'g1':liy .>.T'w.�;'!-r.0 e7L; �:i`SYP•ta _ � r s.' ,(r t I �+ ti C ^, • i + iF.rxrAt+.,•". c' ,' , ��,j��1._y+•tJat". , . C�..'�,,rr•i,:i r'•7 nT+�' -3 _ "r1 .:1... d:� .,3 e.^ .' I ' _ . T'.9i, ''r{ 'r . R nr , �. .+ I 4 .; 'C_,.:.;i .J, .r...,.-I v�3`..ira"h ...i3.u,3f bu__ w n`lx�id• l.E. _:5 rn '-:a.",.f _ 'tCt'%` ,tW � _.,7 �; .7`L�;•,;����j,_� .r'�, 'E 1 - _ 3 - .11r ,r irErt�`a -,-•J, J^+7'� •7• h:+6 :;: k5„ ,.,,�,< 'ju: •[+ 7c.!`,.,�.flL, �i�11�i:H E. ,,t y f r f • _{ r . i,.d . , 4 e , ram ' },[I ., r -B _`. i r�1, 'v r: w+' ZS .v t. x lyr .r . 'I:-!. 1 ,.t.,�: 'I •t:i:ta :i.11?r,i.. F' 7 5�: �:., k - Qb :n ..G _ } 'G7' f k� I j r. "'L_-dn � .:il.: ,!�.i^ ,4.6.R:a 1, l,. 11 w • �,z Lts. .,.;,y .t . I.i.r r. t•. {4' - 1 e ! 7 ar: x 4 a. tr: ,..'^, ruJ.l1...,,.iiifE'g131 ..41.. '6�N.? �+N,S- '� +ci E4. .,LY g .,•f-'. - '. . a r p �....y. �. -, :Jti . h. fi:'i3',� A 2, €'.'S! .� sr:-."r'd-'J711q..., „ g _J•.L I"G : C �! - i �.Jiiiut `t _ t.I t , t ? i r,_t. .. -'•A� v+ u-.I _ 33: i+,3'• rf :j c: r - r.-. �uu n-6`_ 3 '_ :.Y• -1-• J � , 3-.i_ „tL 6A .l A. .Y. I ,. _.u,..-a.i�c.-r - '1 a {`,. ,,,iaS."i c' ti:i..�Lc'FF...:!C,y...y jm",, .5 _,e',: .151 li' n'FrF''�••�r.7��....g,.,, uz r i y'• r• '•.,'1 J. ,- 'c'}. i''i .„'Cni,-y.,., , t r1. } ,rrrn„.Yf s� d.7, , iy_ 3.. "��G3;.t'F;ai...(., } _ h .> :5>,.:aar- �F7'3„i`- ?.u,.. ,`xP�if: .'1c .,d.. 'PSI; .g'1•r3.r,J ;w 'r'.r'i'.•7aF_.k --p � ,.asZ ! i Ir .,, ! ,m .rt d+stz'C.,:,-,i,l_ 's-::•, ,.d...E•" ..,>:,, w.l � '-• '1:fa•`'r,. ,1--`''•; .T3` 'b.''-._3��•`• ::, °,�-;,4a.' t., .,IRIs ,• r :. ,� , ... t t ��,�'Mxl 4,.�8,? 'r .Iri,4 5 •)*-''i . .i:t . .art ..-J.`�'.:-', - ./JI. ,!gT4 Gif,r^"c';^ i•? `t ,17 ;X1 _ ' ,,: - J " ;,+ .,�-t s .tk M:. rs,7 1}!':'+:Yff-, .• ., ,t}31 "•^ ,�, .....,1. '.= t "", 6,,, `". _ :j .�L','• -: 'i;e t ,, r ;, . 4 LL r : 1 "r .n •+ _ f,: r'r'u- , ?"I i c ,�' 7 .::'J:7,°;"`.'" _ 1 �-1 ,Y:; ;� -r fig; �: i 't x' `.ry.,1. % �n, i;* ':;;3...- ,= .. , ,ins. '°9' . 4 [.�. �" .?��->,J,r7,.' 1� (Y-sg,.. .r.,.,�'�,,.w„!'"L ,. _ .,r'+l..ca(��7'�•(Pva�. J e' :/ 7f1;%`i'Y,a',,,-I.<e °:t.1.- �rr-5'rri.5 :;.,,<'+.r3"�`.,1t I�Ss,le- .�-'�,,i' Iis ,1.;.;( r.,_i.r. ,,� !�, _,Tl:?-•r �x ::i' f ±. ..dn, 'KY: .r• "r° .;y, •I .�. u"V,.,-' fiid _{. e•f .,.;1:e s7t t, Jd'i1 d.. P'1I +M! I'''`' •yu•_.s:': ¢A,a' , L.. f -t-,F _•�, u- L^' t k' r l ( �- r N-`fi ,y8e1.•, „y1: ,::ir - I ,7,ji,-' _I•�. A�'r .- 1(. R., '_- • e,r.l.?' ='rK• `•- c I ,1., t._.�,,"L ''y i t , .r. f ..;Lrm „ I - - I i l- .,' ii rk {.. 1" .4:,n. yy ✓✓<I: ,-r:}jf{.e ,�:.�,"-..e,..,<. ia-, - .T+_"• 1 a is k_, 3 15:�- .L; 1 6:,�,._ .2 , C" �5"»^Jndlix - 1.. 'dt•5.y :i.�_.._..,n . .iJi s1,f r �V _ ��fa:ly _Y,1,>. ,I..`ci'� •I ,?i•°'s.. i .: � „`-7 .,_ L'F; I. ,%,�-'^'! .M- _s-r �ts'.ss '1!�.i w'!.;�L' :.r }}''., 1,?•- '?-*, rn-. ,.bx 2.:^-, .Pr'--I.7. jd r:: r e s. ..,) 1 ,..,i.,,,L, �,! ,.{.?.. .. t< 'f;: •I - 4 v'}:'.- , I - -+r��T_,>,k= t. .., ..� '� , t ,.,,,q:i1,•f.5i-.: •", - I.:,Y �,. !. _ t .:i�=':�„- '�.C"i�iiit��lli. ,� 'i <E''iir,:ac .':7 I ..,-r .�.IJ ty W a,.. > i l S::', 1�Y. .,Y'':1 1 7T: r. T2 _1.1 x- i= 1> : 1r't5e _C L'_, , > ..__• 1 nn x. r ::G:"i:`•-:.,,,a. S 4,,..,71.{ r `-{'7'r: :'.f 1" ,.n:,'.:, : : (r- _r:i! "1•r., .' ,i.- aJ 6. .4 ,'may �fl fit r r'.-a _ !! , 1 ,, l :�;(T,r-F sr F ° __.:._= r r..df,=- - Yq. :,.i r._�' .q _ _ ' 1 u�iL .,-y ...�',,a .-r, : r �i .Y`T'idLYll< �iw- �``'� e.2': t, t :7t r , v ,rs+, 1, - .. ,L�==i �- d' :.�•.,. 'r' . d-s-,1-„ ' . :,.,III- 2 - :r:'r- t�t - j� J I ,L..:':J.6 , r,�?5;_- , r.- ' ?'.ri•"'rs �,j 1 _s3�r.J rat";e . aa. n�? a ,a _a 5 1 t„ s .r r 1 s l / ,,.-�3"' 'C-,�[:J-.L=1r.Jr '; ,I`l 'r v(;I•f'._._.;11.,w 4. 21, .,.�"rj !,':. i. ,.r,{ at-•v.:w�.:,�.',_��.,,,... at:"y t? { ntL.. T'S- ,. <it S'7t�' r, ..a„J.;'( -. w�K �^ ,r'. r.. 7 SJ.i'` . I:1' ,• U,i:i-d�_'; >•``sf .,t?,• "Fi r,v.�+.i.i,.+ r G o1 ;�a ,i'.:.rC�•t,S: .r7.; :_t- ...Pr-y, _'„ 1 av - - �} 4"."�s I '..: :,.+, ;. ro ...t. .3- Sti , ';. v •r,l.:- ?.:.31._d ,_i'"'S' �.t -s__, , .:� .:'T r_'-"yi�ii.n a. ,.,...�•-fll_ve<,s.v:.a ,?. •r;d�•.::xd..:�:g';2 tip' .. y[��('t - -a: +i 's 1'i•.. -: :t � . _ »a z L$3,. I. _ 4�= ! i i 'i! I' S i,t. T r,'! ,.., .3 c _ A d rc. f <LI•IX[ rf �s (4 ��'z _� r i \ �t �;ir.•Jc"+�� Iir •>•, r .>�,,: '-,'rt:17.. ,L..,�,1I ('7; ..>r.,.. _ .�,7. •n r`. I . �z, a.., , .+ ar5 ..I i" -�. r,: �l,n x i ? J.,,., i, 1,' #' as•.7� : :its:r- ,:rl :url:?s' .Iy. t. tLz�, It d7�iu •:d r3t`+P rk� �� s24 (r: Tti t <irer. I -� r11, .G , ,I v iw.�.i•., -M^pt ', •!' r- . j •.., ,, :-r ,..EY 4V 'z.; .,'r"i, yt x;. ,T„ y' ^`.._t.,uu5t,�-'J"+ � , ,aad .» •,L-,-t• y f ?J: n ;4. ,M 9 myr. .n,..m<'S� Jitss'S :-ma's t: •1J1,,r.,,,.: , C. .:. ,.t lr �,i •:fir i-- .�t_,. �Jt�`n., ''�, .r.•a �'✓�: aa+'( �p n,-"•^1''%I.i Tdr - ._.j f r i r `.n,:+,^ �.i.., n,l- 7 r,.f. s,5o `. �E ,. ,,. •,1l �" ...£5%`T- 'tl .: A L 1 t .T j� �.Vi'r �:^ tr' _!l. �.. ".+ t9•' - A a,C I -:Tfs . .Ted: -- *,-�. .tk - rC r_ . •<u�,-..*' ! J �., u.,. „,.T - :a.. I r^:.r.S ? a .:�b »I . ,.1 ., 1'_ wl 1 i_ du - t ,, r r F a z; ..,;!: ,.�,`_' f.'.";,4 �'s.S: •'l' , -'" - +1 5'.•1 'L I , ,r c _ .,'i7 s _ ..a::..ir... a • n_F-, _ .,s�.., P 5 r 1 . n 1..1 .!- r.,,•' •,m!a :.� .. ,, . YJn,:.. __t.c.. .,.+:. ('sr'°w,.. -_SL „+.•''r.;<`45'i".1 {' :rJ:. >^"+77, - d 2cr= t , ,•au,;,., r s. J.rr:. ;1,.....J,, }`. fl.J' "s•�}� saSfa,. � ':i:l {.. .y.- ! .'. _..' w5ti'r'L*.. ai3 ..y, �,,..�Y.1tL J �L=;:d''" 1..e;, F Y , i:, +�'- . T si.,j>" . Lrr J" e.t q Yi u.'a''A.�P .'T. _ R. v ,..d .;r, •ar •n,Y,c I ,1 1.�. , .1=-a.sr; - : J :r :..t. , I:. J (... r M. } , :l:•i � .,C..�.ta_ : �.,,, o!n . J, r3.b,}y.., ,..r.�J,L•,m,d.,.<Jc�J.. ^N `• P. z r. e . >,..t�f.'J%,y..LI(r.*_. .�r>..,,1_. �` _IW` r ' ut:»..§�� Y't°4�'; -'J ;d.. _ _ J�'�uaa, „7 �Jy.. ara'N.., t „r t ..ay.r.. '. ,.T..F -t: C%� 3..7,,,. '�sL'd;.;.f3!i-,,.j cJ•1'ug" . N rt: S. ei;r.d.i,.r ^r, Je, F:t"a,I T'I�, .4 �c.+.a *1 .� :t: .} x 1 .c^:1 a:{:-f'i(7'-.,_„_rJ. a:Na� .:tB'.:(c se,'a'.-_,-., I.I,Lo�r1 Z:7 ?r(13?:q �.JIU A :,te�r1".',�,'^"„+,'..., "i _ I .,r nJ t. sv i , '! _r`r ,..I,9 .,ifb• I F�7' "j7.1.-.a-(f'�r..,a.J tl .r_'` to J r is ,t _. '.i i` j, G r qg •F;3: �:e_ •'-'^•:,' .; " r.e^ '..,._ � ,,:-tl adb ;l�„ ft ..£r. �. ic!e6Y, r.: n +.. \ sYr .o d; �jt1 "l,aJ,t ,»21s v!1ct c ,,C:!';,,7t „�,s`o,.n` -''. rrl+' .,�,5•'i•� d j� . ..•S;. %-1 .1l <. ' l :;l.i"':C :'vli :•+ i+i. n ,t # %:t..N Y.'I .d. .''r. ':�r" .u_ ...• l'L� J�,. .:rv` ''t},` ", rr.s.�rtn-r. 7� , - t:, a 'r s •:fix ( Ib,a t _ 3 r ,>� , r• - 't 4f, .N`:r �,.: `+: _ I. `: J,x7,.1J� .r:.J �_., ,h,,...1,. F" . � w,,,� :;•r[� �,.r .r. 4 ..• s r ' L., e 7 fslr�u_.r. r.- I j ,_., c ,S; n 1•%e`.:F! :s :. ✓y 3' 1a.' r...i:J ='{' pJ" P.:S" ^ 1 f .u_<5 <;,'t ,. S a'K i, r .'. .. ,. r ,"� ,`< :,..:: _,xd. J l,,: y'. /,7[ , �.. y friv7'L: '!, '�.'3' .. , :, w,.6 • PH , .,11 zTMl_L✓b.'�!a}L:�. i 7 ;i; �, • 'dra•<j'ga •,-.:.c u'1t+;3,• ( ,!.r. .P?, a .c.,. r t ,.. ,� a:f c.. .a. +:1H• t. r • v..,'-.� .,. .» .r„ �.{{ t * Ta:So, . fr•'.' I ,d•'S' . 1,"i .1<, �••i. c,, .... x !�_ :u r r i t J, r�. " ,, J _Y . +, <.F:? _ la '•t .t' rl:,6F•: _ ris.v. i:t iw.J:J La�'r•I„ 'I' -., r 4 s:' :Y ,.,,. �- . a ,a ,: J- ..� ',7Tw' ,.i=•Is ISrt>' :' r' =,:f y- r a• iv:. < - X• .,<..,,,• -s- r r �r :; y ,:; ";paR. (_ yilLy�._,.1 i,. E. } j I .4n4.,. 3 Tom[ Lam:, a LI-[3.. 16 ,_d°. -1 :.,.. d y ., a , 3 as x .r <. t ,_,_..... .�.1 1 ..AC'3'^ is _ 1I_ eY �+. ,W 4" �[ ,r, 1 ^re. i. .� _iJ :.ir_ „ .L I :a c. ]. �- x. % .,a- ,.e;-:.\:,,:, Y,�.1,_B1"_[,.'�n.7�,1.Y]• ,rpl(- f6 ".g..i uL..,rr t �..2s•rJ'. �. x.t�C� la +.' w. 3: ;:r;. i. r .,J:' s x n. .�J'� ',r'• , L: - l�9' tE `e�• . r., :': .e'r,,.c'.'�:, .�,,•• I Sx. ,1;rs-, t r - .,s.. i~ , c Y ' (>< r. ,>' ';r '`7. ,! a 'L!l ji _ :?rai 4' •.s't ., , ;,.-t, n. .. , , T:{ -P!1'� ^_- ..2;. ..T=.''2 -!i'(%::+ t;cc'..,tura(i t7,'."!'ri:jit^r t..1_ r •r3"-ijir,�'ij'� t ¢,. 41., : 1..✓„p•.S F t I.f ,a.. _�.-'Y•�1.T.. ,ri.+r ,-3.;d{--0 -i•. I-_ �,.:.,,;:�+�rJ,,• ,.1 _ ..; :.21. T,S.r,:a- iK!i. 1 .t I. ., :.: . .... ,.'-. '. , .,. -,,. a „. d h'•!^ X'. •.=n ; .7�7 s*.._;fz'%yL•., '' , I_'s(:s:.l -�' .�-; E" % �1�'..::' ___"="� ',s o !'i}-. rtw �i .:.1.. t ,'. r.. .:al_ �,x t rc.S�al.«,'' ,r�.,...„d;,I+:- �,i_�,- _xe..L''_.,; „w<7..Y�:ia ....'I+,:.,:'}"':7 -w:rr"....I.:>)uw5.<,•a,s6r7.,?,_.,J.a✓r, -'� a S;•rs,{.. �iR-•,-r-s::��?-?--yy ��,,j(y !.;4 !, t�-'�,`�$j rar..t'3 �ri. ^ ..F '�• aaP ,k: .jrc.' x, j., i' (.. ): :] X T.Cdi .N', iEl'> .L.. �J .n-R-^'�+'J'!t" ..Lm $Q Dzi� Cuq .,R..- + J5:lt• ,...,:-� I'i,m;n rgv :.x, t s. s• 71 i v r r. i , t _�'ul ,;r:..a •. �,}.. 1,r +� -- ma: , "r;J •r- .,>.r " 1: JL< y ( l•t t ,.r,, k G .�. �•-�,n,u, :�c:- ( 7a'•� ..t, c, .h�iErL%'dLirSr,_:=6r.-rr5+c_ ! t, .-,'x"f�^-•'T�� -,. .; 1 t ,,?: . u rn ,i s .fl t .' a• r,:. .5,,,.r�('� •� t . ,s„ 2. 'M. p . ! 1 taa,� ..La.L.L..:,i,<= • .,I nr 1. 1a9.,•�'� u;}� -;11': p ,,.• +.•r.. Ih �' ,, t i7 r7 �,-+...3";1_ ; t'.('ti;''��((�SL,:..�`; .,}', a! tt�� is ,I 11 ((•�y�,a a.,, cµ, y:. £• ...� tr r I * t*.t'' j.iJt?,.r....l, Lt. •:}, ai+l ; c 1 71J( t}_ r'.a �',,r_g,:rrs '�>_'i^,: r, r •r , r •,..; •fit- Lr r .t .rL ,3 St.. Sc 4... r'^ ;L"t'•, ,.rn•f.:g .Sa F ,C. ,F'� "+ - y.;, k-.v�is 1•'� ,, 1�[-nt:i.+;;u,. - �., : ,n ,, ,� k 4•t, -r, 4. ",'i';, „i.; J_'_,,yIG rryr �ii��_, .:� [.e �'��,y ,5F'&i �, 'a'' 9 C. :i..•r:. �i,...-, .., 'r e1.', i'.z -'tr t.r, ', r. `3• ;.,.. Via;,'; '7 �i "C i.. _.�. `<. �:,,,ts-:, ,+,•J. .k 'zC j..,.c,-, a r ma's'n. rlrcy-ki'Ja+ .ar (t-i.Ii.�'..,� "'"l; 1 +ats $^ a '9 ..,~._ „1^s ',j"I'^'=1rg+', :� {_.pT T, < :n.., xtry 1 �,'I, R,.I. 9M a,, �- froF[i ��YI' i f rF2J4, 7. ,r.: .; .rt f r .A ,, ,t;PJq 1 SJ r ✓'- u:l ,u. t .5.- Ks �, x tr,+r,d artµ. , itl ) L.. _.,., ,�j'a1 3 ,•rt , hf utiN�•' '>fix." Y-; . n.. ,l ..,r-'is'rssl 3'�I:: �.,..f..,1I) .;7,„q C ,; d, 5. 1 r .rid d x"„' .y: r✓ t .L: r� t:,, s h 3. G £ `r°+- 1 I 1 1 7 L, 11°�lna Ifni a�. .�.1diulu'G T ci; r SI .r .. If :•'mil? e?7'rl$::i t 3 r t 4 4 ai .xt( 1 Fa r `4'iwA ''' ! zl.. _1.•, ."C( wN. (r:..Ltti I.ry it :.:; ti. qi ..0 3 .'.r �. 'l: l,1 t xc. a 1.-tTv i 2 ;!J, w '('�� 4 Efr'. r�'' dd t{''1 `S'> .Jr.a.: a 1 -rj tE:,SVJ? , ' .• v F t, <...1 "t• ,=s1 . J tr, } t�,Iy�:1 [ ,L.r�.`: tom: s` j<':. p r r y '.. -rl I-` 1 `,. TU`� I.yU7 'R •Tf''1, .i i..,.y i-a�n� sF. `1 h Fx...l::%:x�3'a ' E ::^r ;:u a� a'"_':j a : r �. +' *S.3.f is I ,;s�,�a, - .fi ,/p��du,,�Jk ,:,r',:: rr;'.,.= t:d,.,�. j L.719 :.'ei- - -� '.V7 �. /1 '� }... f:.. i L : i„ h, 4 1 1!, f, i. ,k 'I••.... .M1 r .LA;_ . 6 , Y .,:'y]'::.. t ..„- r ': -r s r ;,': r: .d. sr s': ii , •.. .'g7,.:..' L. { .."T+;- Jg, o-.,3,.,, ,Sr: .£�dl-.:d,:dG'k,'�,. it, rs `' t ::, r:, .r_.; J . r ,x .r'; r ,.�, 7 a a. k �s . a -. ; . t , "R} ' °E ,�, _" �-- - 1 .J�•,'",' w - i- J. m ,, _,.:,�I,:: .kp,r .,"'I t- -.s.:r Y .r.� { f}I:.i r=!,.,_,r- �'' tl: ,e ,y.,,;:.r ,...1':r-"1, •d.=';, ,=b •',i;, •,,r: . 1.,t r .r., -. •e -'"y. `i. 13 �, - r t �' >>, 1, }._� : I'i(r In„i,r.,ti ;'�G'i .a py'ro�y ._ Vfa - - F': , Y;}14.Ir `��,<, a_.__l1 Jr` eT:^'1cj;'a,.. cl7CT j�,_T., - ,Y ,.^fit w.� Y 1. ''L s; 3 '..'+ P.2 , 5 �j,+. ..4 .K' .,..: L S` L C i,!f ,.M.I . )Q .. I.1 I. „iY. J. r'.•.. _'v1�,d,.7:1 YI 1'iY,,- Y,Y � '' .r, r ' s:. 3f_ J �>,r '> _Y ,:.: .: y.,_. at , , ,..t- :' c ' . .. _t ,V` ..�T, •.i� ::4...,-%.. t Aie 1i k >`.� p s a .c4!. ro k. a. Y it> 4..e •�t p�x ' .. r� r . r !)� '? J '"T, ._.u1. .. 1+Sr:, <.., y c:c: cc.c r.7fk e E,7., t i r.-.� 1 ,�«. IL7 !� d-• �` L*e aa:,Z. .. ., x,,.. ' +' ..a, . °s„- q t , ) -Je 'P r -„ .t; �, •fix-`'x, ; ..d .. ' l , ~+ rr 'ab- 1 Hlllit r '1-_.'`{' 't.r. I... ,.,, �`. - ..,4, ti'.1, C , �'rr. _ u;^^� . k i tR' .!, 9 i r Y :C , ,-- Z^S .y"i •. � 4. .. _ l'J.lQa ':7d°W- . is ,. } y.q .:, h : , w.0 t -, r r .. ,r ,;,- 7:' ...y.. ,2. n :M a t�•.. ql ' n.. rs c'- i �•It^"' .I -,.,.�y $' y. :i.- P..7. :.,t I .,�.. _, d fi. .. ':T .>: u. r!.s, n _•4j e : r'R� y : .: ?'r;: �$t 8 a.Q! ..,. .7 P :_ t -.* .: .t..g i.. '4 :v ,..:,. ,....r 2aKe wv ,. 4e'?u•.a 7 r l�;y; •"l», on I-•,-*• :x . L -. f-^- ...Y:.: W .;-: n.6-,tl...• :^-<'t 6 `f 35 -"<- ,: :: v :51-.,t .., •r- Ll;... ->:'r; 7 a r S;tL• m.. ... • r 1'dg` .I "t��,Ti7I'7'1 rI)-r �L,. :,-e, v.. .m.e �. .5; 3s,.,.,, ^,: ...t.. o :7.I _•.,a t >.-k. v, ,ti x �„ ..,,b,+..yy. rq. _. .,.. :' •.I'M " v. R n t,.._S m5 1 d. "3' + ,7.� a �ti , C, fir.. � '1 „tc�P v r I . } L; �f_��. Yi ,< r'>~tOi,:C J.M-tY' n 1:5 ri.'.�,:.1.Ttl`y m yi:: 2 .J? ,a,.. t.4 .). r t 1C .0.::7 1.xr lt".'. I,., '" Uv�.. :;. ,.;...., :a. •, d e ;•r.:"'• I,r::^••r t J-.s�. u ... .. y 1 "CI' ,.<. ,'u,- �.,... _.ti.,.,�.,.' it-' r-• 7-' - t= r m., 3 YE . t .i.,. f, < . .,r I I )':. btrrlr I .•�.. ...,t:% �"..vtti Z 'O. E.2+ ry,.. F. Z x .IY:Ik ,. > Y,.. `SS}' I < r',- 1_. ff,T n K..' .:R i,: •`•i s ^:,5.,. :,S.rIr > g .tw ,r° af. .\- t t.11.11 v7_ P !?:i,.:. • .- ff ,� iA,w m : 5 ry +,_, _,,:.:, y C :-,A n.,tl %• , J : a tJ w t I . ltl 1 t� 3...�. s ,vw g zr n r a.�'w� . t," :i I r .., ,r oe, ,r xsi"e r -r .:� z.,- T §%$ :. I' r � - >s.,w � . c r r.r: -..t. t: .,� .:r( ,1 ..G?_. ;,� i ,v .. ::;Q r1-. ,,,'' t$:`, *a 5 ';„ L'.-0w .,. ,.. C' S a 1 x ri", ,_e4 ,,nA _ / ( !, ,�: r>t y s ,: _ �� z - ,tad ,- f '.'`"r h .�^: tr 7: r - .I t„ F(y ,, :�.;: .d 4. ,h: . � ',! n h _r, N:. y,r, f H SS ,: r. ,,r i .. t '3F.. - .._ I 'jIf ..�_ :.p. • 1" I I�' . 'p. !M14Fw N J' ,... , :.. .E.. .m ;':,, . is c 7 ,. ...C, ,..:: .. ..� g' .. rY�.�. .. y.2, i. -Y 7 .C. C-(.:`, ? r ', 7 ...;- ' .. .:� . '.:, n. A h' iv ,, ;$., h• n _ .. ,;r; ,_:-, > .. ; : .r.. YI , .1 4i.J�i .;• Q n aici Vvr t .,, c. Sh ax"• , k ., x Js' F"; ,(. j _ L L , l i.,. 1 .s, i. ,-y r '.r K_ a .0 .S.F t. ,z ....o-„. .,..�^, u`-., k I ..rt, { I '.I 1. tU t Y rt . •r r .., i t s`: { >Y 1e tG... h. s •-?-'. i,, 4 fix. N > tY L _1 t. t ? '..A it .r. i. r, I .? _�, it .w ,, '. x.:� R1: t Y�. r. " a f„•: ,ax , -<' '.. t IL r s t�.r,.r.. :t I.... •.• t r. ,�E *,'t3�''c:: l: , ... ^-%i`- :1.. . r t - •wS� S n r ,: 4 . Y• .. vt ,. ,�' : q 1'. a. ,t. ; -.+t-!_+-�.::C' ' @ 3: , ., r €. r5 .. N�. .r.Yi4"'' r 9,. i r ,"C3, . _ <c . a __ ,,.. r'-+Y cY,a: C �a ,b�. ., ia' >A. :� Sri w-, 2.i.-. 3 •x•'r 3_.. rr u y. ,. a ei-wit: .t4:,.r.,5 .w `, -i... 1 !-P:._ (� r - ��..... lr. ;," -i .;az u u,x :' a Stu . wS3' , � Y ^ ...:. -.,. ' +r.- , .I-' "-I:Lt.. L- r . i- It:cerrsz xcm..mm'm.. nu no..am.:.�'. :€.�.., , 4 s.. :'.re..3 iv.: i.. ;'F. - 7{: �_1 'I: ....,1,, �, ,. it ::,: Y,ti�: x `utK 1 .'.r J u f ,;,It l r•t I f 'T ii ~i S t ,..1 _ _ ,,r°^„',! '�.{�-,.. O:: s x. ,:, m t. �:- . - Y .'K. •:I::+ w.a , ter'. . F' .. •1 7 4 S. „Cti� ':iFu rf r't:£:: 1},' „1 }-.'� il.. „':.:. r '.;� -r. ,11Yt'..77II 1ry1' S::'9 1 ,;, e., r~ ... .,.'. �5 -Y. J, .t.� w r. h k,t tL. r. r..,.;.,.. I. JJe:: {. C .?*. .I- r N,.:SC gI���U.I� �:.� ®-'.' • J7`. ..i ,.:,a .' ',. i ., 5 k. . , :�-, ... "L. r ,.'yc .. r. a r;F. 1 . 1 U . 1.::;.. u. r_. ., t `t 1 .xrw_; 7 „r ,Ilru , Ntt c' r Ac ,,.. `e' r }...,.,. „, .� s sT, ... ... .h ,'6 ._. f :t.-'^t ...t r. ^, .ry d. tm . N. ,. -3T Ft,... t. rn 1' :. r+w _r., ,:: ! h. is }..� .. ,.I;r. C.C. ). @ '; :. 4 .. '' 1 't a '.I : x ,.,.. rt t,.,. , U , r. f s 3 [ I. , '::: S n !,. { ..:..: rtr T•: - F 4 h r�. s 7 {III .. - 4A :a, ..rY )' '.,,>.:u,., . ., : .e'::.: v }_.. , J,1' C._., :: :..a,h �: rr , .L.�: 17. ,� t.. :., .:. (• y. s 7 ,,. .7L o,. d- .r d:-"'a+, 's.. fi :L-_ 'w ^3; rti rJ,.:, I sLI : i :r r..vS, r .k. j �' `' , :,.n , ,:= cd :. 5'.,--:-+nn{- G,: ,s, r r: ., ;,.< - ,. ,..,., ..-.r« r ,, is .. , a Pait Two. Alternative De ent +" r CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Downtown Waterfront Plan that was adopted as an element of the city's Comprehensive Plan took a close look at the Point Edwards site as a focal point for a multi -modal transportation center that would become a "regionally important transportation facility." This center would integrate a relocated ferry terminal, inter -city and commuter rail, buses, and park -and -ride facilities. Of the three alternate sites identified by the city, Point Edwards was named as the preferred alternative for the transportation center. The Downtown Plan also allowed for fiirther development of the site, suggesting specific redevelopment options that would complement the transportation center. The Comprehensive Plan notes that development of a multi -modal transportation facility helps to solve a number of problems throughout the city: • the existing ferry terminal location creates traffic conflicts due to its close proximity to downtown. • access to the existing terminal is sometimes blocked by the at -grade crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks. • the ferry holding area creates a barrier between downtown and the waterfront. • the ferry location restricts the expansion of downtown, reducing potential economic growth. • congestion created by ferry traffic discourages new businesses from locating downtown. By relocating the ferry terminal to the Point Edwards site, the city can create a more pedestrian -friendly downtown area that is tied more closely to the waterfront. At the same time, traffic congestion could be reduced by creating a true multi -modal center where passengers can access an integrated mass -transit system via road, rail, or water. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 8 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PBsket�RegwA43 of 774 The city's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Point Edwards property as a part of the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center." Within that activity center, the planning area is designated for "Master Plan Development." The Point Edwards property is one of several that share the Master Plan Development designation. Some other properties within that area have already drafted a master plans, with each plan intended to promote mixed -use development: ® The Port of Edmonds submitted a Master Plan for its properties to the city, which plan was adopted by the city in January 2002. ® Owners of the Harbor Square property entered into a "contract rezone" agreement with the city, and are proceeding with development in accordance with this "master plan" concept for its redevelopment.., In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, this Master Plan is based upon the proposed adoption by the city of a "Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use" (MP)4 zone. This designation would create two separate and compatible zoning districts, that would be applied to the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard, respectively. The MP1 zone for the Upper Yard would permit a range of uses that include multi -family residential, office, hotels/motels, some restaurants, conference centers, day care, and certain secondary uses. For the MP2 zone, neighborhood -oriented retail uses and multi -modal transportation centers are added. The application of these zones to the study area will be illustrated in greater detail in the following section, Alternative Development Strategies. This Master Plan sets forth two alternatives for future development of the properties within the study area. Each of these alternatives has been designed to conform to the requirements of the proposed MP zoning. A map illustrating the proposed zoning boundaries is shown in Figure 3. A plan illustrating the mix and relationships. of land uses in the preferred alternative is shown in Figure 4, and an alternative plan that would permit development without a multi -modal transportation facility is shown in Figure 7. This second alternative is set forth to permit reasonable development within the planning area in the event that a multi -modal facility is not pursued within a reasonable period. It should be noted that Figures 4 and 7, illustrating proposed development alternatives, are intended as conceptual designs only. It is anticipated that reasonable adjustments will be made to these conceptual designs as more definitive development plans are devised, as part of a project -specific review. However, the boundaries of the MP1 and MP2 zones will remain constant. 4 See Appendix A for the full text of the proposed zone. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAg161 % P§RW05^4 of 774 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. _ _ j j.. .. j.. wc,.p WC TO <� _mp 2 Wc TO M pi Nj two RESIDENTIAL CITY OF WOODWlc, Y WC - WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL OS - OPEN SPACE MP - MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE Os Rwol 116 f THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Multi -Modal Center The primary focus of the Preferred Alternative is to create a multi -modal transportation center that will integrate a relocated ferry terminal, a railroad terminal, bus service, park - and -ride facilities, and accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. The multi -modal center would realign SR 104, taking advantage of site topography to create an overpass over the BNSF railroad tracks for ferry access, complete with stacking lanes. Immediately to the north of the highway realignment, a train/transit station with an oversized parking lot would be developed. The siting of this building will create a link to the railroad tracks that border the study area to the northwest. The SR 104 realignment would run roughly along the boundary between the MPl and NM zones, extending west to a ferry access ramp. The realignment route would be wide enough to accommodate stacking lanes for the ferry. The highway realignment would occupy approximately 6.3 acres of land within the study area, while the adjacent multi - modal facility would occupy an additional 3.6 acres. Multi -Family Residential In the Preferred Alternative, the land shown in the MP 1 zone (the Upper Yard) would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential use. At a permitted density of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit, the maximum: number of dwelling units that would be allowed on this 24.06-acre site would be 419. However, after setting aside land for roads and open space, accounting for site limitations related to steep slopes, and observing setback and height restrictions, the probable density would be lower than the maximum permitted density. Densities at build -out will be consistent with urban densities contemplated by Washington's Growth Management Act, and the city's Comprehensive Plan. Pockets of open space would be located to the north and west of the residential development, providing a measure of buffering between the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard. In addition to the designated open space areas in the Upper Yard, smaller pockets of public open space would be integrated into the site design. Where feasible and appropriate, these public open spaces would be connected through pedestrian pathways that may incorporate sidewalks on Pine Street. The residential development would constitute phase 1 of site development within the planning area, with sub -phases in this area to be determined as development is proposed. Multi -Modal Transportation and Mixed Use Development As noted earlier, the area located generally to the north of the realigned highway (the Lower Yard) would be devoted to a multi -modal transportation facility, and to development that complements that facility. Adjacent to the multi -modal facility is an area designated for mixed use development. The primary use of this area is anticipated to be office space, with supporting retail and service uses. This mixed use area encompasses approximately 4.6 acres. To the southeast of this area lies a small site designated as a commercial node of less than one acre. This area is intended to provide REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAQ 120 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Pack EDMet POS, WzqNDage 47 of 774 MAY 14 50nm goods or services to residences and businesses located within the study area. The location takes advantage of visibility from the realigned highway, and is located at the intersection that leads to the mixed use area. Located to the northeast of the mixed use area is a portion of the study area'that will be devoted to open space, a buffer for the abutting marsh, and possibly for stormwater management. This area, which includes a site currently used as a salmon hatchery, provides a transition to the abutting property to the northeast. Circulation and Access The realigned SR 104 would be the main thoroughfare through the study area. Internally, Pine Street Extension will provide access to the multi -family use on the Upper Yard along its existing right-of-way. Access to the northerly portion of the study area, and to the multi -modal facility, will necessitate the relocation of the existing Unoco Road. The alignment for the relocated access road will result in a signalized intersection at SR 104, and may necessitate some encroachment into the wetland buffer. Potential intersection designs are shown in previous site studies, and are expected to be further refined during the development review process. The ferry access will be achieved via an overpass across the railroad tracks. This access will also include provisions for pedestrians and bicycles. The multi -modal facility will improve rail access to the community, permitting rail passengers to gain access to ferries, buses, and the local highway system. Site conditions including steep slopes and railroads are generally not favorable to facilitating pedestrian access. The steep slopes and highway location will serve to discourage pedestrian access between the upper and lower yards. In addition, the railroad tracks create a barrier that effectively isolates the site from port and waterfront property to the west. Despite the physical limitations imposed by site topography, the Downtown Waterfront Plan contemplates pedestrian access from the Upper Yard to the waterfront as part of the -s Edmonds Crossing project. Upper Yard development will be designed to reasonably F accommodate such access as it may be included in connection with the future Edmonds Crossing development. k The issue of access and circulation is discussed in greater detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared in 1995 for the proposed Edmonds Crossing project. That study evaluated traffic related to automobiles, rail, and ferries. Utilities The study area is served by or has available all necessary public utilities. Public water, sewer, and storm drainage are provided by the City of Edmonds, while electricity and natural gas are available through Puget Sound Energy. The capacity of sewer lines REVISED FINAL - Pow EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 13 Paskat.Rage tg,48 of 774 QDAVID EVANS AND ASSDATES, INC. within the study area may need to be upgraded to accommodate anticipated development. This capacity will be analyzed in greater detail prior to development approvals. As provided in City of Edmonds regulations, all utilities that serve the site will be placed underground as development occurs. Building Dimensions and. Relationships In the Upper Yard (governed by the proposed W l zoning regulations), the residential buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. Building heights will be limited to 35 feet, except that an additional five feet in height will be allowed as part of an approved, modulated roof design. Building height will be calculated according to approved city standards. To encourage the appearance of smaller building masses, building heights will be calculated separately for. each clearly separated portion of a building. Because the realigned highway will be built into a hillside, allowances will be made for the height of the highway's supporting structure and its relationship to the multi -modal facility. Thus, in the W2 zone, heights of up to 45 feet will be allowed. Because building in the lower yard area will be significantly lower in elevation than the steep slopes immediately to the south, 45-foot buildings will not obstruct views from surrounding properties. Due to this more liberal height allowance, no additional credit would be granted for roof features as part of an approved modulated roof design. The 45-foot height limit in the lower yard would permit four-story buildings. However, due to the limited area available for development, it is likely that the first floor of buildings would be devoted primarily to structured parking5, with some supporting retail uses. Upper stories would be devoted primarily to offices. However, the potential for residential dwellings on the upper floors of buildings may be considered. Given the size of the area set aside for mixed use development (less than five acres) and the need forparking and landscaping, the maximum amount of floor area devoted to, individual land uses may occur as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Development Potewial, MP2 Zone FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 parkins; retalyservice 30,0006 2 of 1; residenljal 100 000 3 office; residential 100 000 4 office residential 80 000 TOTAL. 310 000 5 If structured parking is not constructed, then the 'amount of required surface parking will result in less ground area available for buildings. Thus, the assumption that structured parking will be used should not impact the site's overall development potential. 6 Does not include parking. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. P&R9N0RgWA49 of 774 It should be noted that the numbers and uses shown in Figure 5 are not absolute. For example, a first -floor restaurant or bank may extend onto the second floor, or may choose an upper floor location. Also, the total square footage of development may occur in one building, or in several buildings that Would add up to the total square footage shown above. For purposes of calculating the potential for residential development, anaverage of 1,500 square feet is assumed for each dwelling unit. Thus, if the upper floors of buildings were devoted to residential uses, the number of potential dwelling units per floor would be calculated as follows: Figure 6: Potential Residential Development, MP-7 Zone FLOOR MAXIMUM SQUARE POTENTIAL MAXIMUM # FOOTAGE DWELLING UNITS 1 30 000 0� 2 100,000 66 3 100 000 66 4 Rn 000 53 TOTAL 310 000 185 In the calculations illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, dwelling units are substituted for office space at a ratio of 1:1,500, or one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of office space. Thus, total potential site development would consist of up to 310,000 square feet of office space or as many as 185 dwelling units, or some combination thereof. Phasing The size and topography of the site lends itself to a phased development approach. Phase 1 would be the residential and open space development of the Upper Yard. Due to the size of this project, sub -phases will be identified when specific development plans are submitted. Because adequate access to the Lower Yard would be required for development, Phase 2 would be the Edmonds Crossing multi -modal facility. Phase 3 would encompass the mixed -use, `transit -oriented' development in the Lower Yard that would support the multi -modal facility. While the timing of these development phases has not been firmly established, it is likely that plans for Phase 1 development would be submitted to the city within one year of adoption of this Master Plan. The timing for Phase 2 will depend upon state funding for Edmonds Crossing. Portions of Phase 3 may commence prior to the completion of Phase 2. ALTERNATIVE The city's Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies the development of a multi -modal facility as a high priority, and selects the Point Edwards planning area as the preferred 7 The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE(y1 EDMONDS, WA 23 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Packet Page 250 of 774 MAY 14. 2002 location for that facility. However, the development and construction of such a facility (including the highway realignment) will not be possible without the active cooperation and support of the ferry system, the railroads (both Burlington Northern and Amtrak), the state's Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and local transit service providers. Getting support and financial commitments from all of these entities, especially in an era of tight budgets, may prove'to be an impossible challenge. This Master Plan recognizes the possibility that plans for a multi -modal transportation facility may not be pursued by these third parties in a timely manner, and provides development options in Alternative Two that address this possibility. As noted earlier, cleanup of the Lower Yard is expected to commence by 2004. Planning and environmental studies prepared by the City of Edmonds and others suggest that planning for components of a multi -modal facility should be underway within this same general time frame. In the event that site -specific planning for a multi -modal facility is not commenced by 2004 or 2005, current or future owners of property within the planning area should have the flexibility to develop the site using Alternative Two. This alternative is conceptually depicted in Figure Z Balanced Development Alternative Two attempts to balance development types throughout the study area, using the same basic mix of uses (excluding the multi -modal facility) that are planned in the Preferred Alternative. Multi -Family Residential The multi -family development planned for the MP1 zone in the upper yard remains essentially the same as in the Preferred Alternative. The open space area to the west of the housing development is expanded to include much of the steep slope area that was dedicated to the highway realignment, and the need for the open space area to the east is eliminated when the highway is removed. Mixed Use Development The area of mixed use development in the lower yard is expanded to include the area that was designated for the multi -modal facility. This expanded area encompasses approximately nine acres, plus a one -acre commercial node at the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. Circulation and Access The ,key to safe and efficient traffic circulation in this alternative is the realignment (and perhaps signalization) of the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. This realignment will result in improved sight distances, fewer turning movement conflicts, and increased traffic safety. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN �EDMONDS, WA .itPAC�3�4 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Packet Page 251 of 774 MAY 14, 2002 i 300 0 300 600 f �' , i{lii c \ �r nGQAQITS SCALE: 1" = 300' f�,i�IAgIJ17`t SITE ACCESS 9.sr;, �. • ni:�it�u�r; , NOTE: CONCEPTUAL DRAWING ONLY. LINE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I I I �— FnCF hP turn en,n I I lWO ti+•s +O�O 4'�POi+ +s�0•+ was'+ +a+ +.•�a.{a i a�l REALIGNED INTERSECTION aca rrmvwwr mom Doom WAM my � maa® was r - my Mccom ®em E Pine Street Extension from SR 104 provides the only access to the planning area, and improvements to this street such as sidewalks and turning lanes will be required to ensure safe and adequate site access. The railroad continues to present a barrier to site access from the west. With the elimination of the ferry access and the multi -modal facility, projected traffic volumes to and from the study area will be significantly lower. Without the Edmonds Crossing project, pedestrian access from the site to the waterfront becomes problematic. Aside from topographic and engineering constraints, the high costs associated with providing a grade -separated access across the railroad, including negotiating an appropriate easement or license from the railroad, would create great difficulty. However, the design and development costs alone should not preclude the potential of providing such access. Accordingly, Upper and Lower Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate future pedestrian access to, the waterfront. To the extent that waterfront access is later afforded with Lower Yard development and benefits site development, the developer(s) may contribute to this effort through the donation of land, or through other mutually agreeable means. Building Dimensions and Relationships Height, bulk, and overall dimensional requirements for Alternative Two do not differ from the Preferred Alternative. Due to the increased size of the area designated for mixed use development, the development potential in this area is increased as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8: Development Potential, MP2 Zone Alternative Two FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION. 1 parking; retail/service 55,0008 09 2 office; residential 180,000 120 3 office; residential 180,000 120 93 TOTAL =cc 000 333 Phasing As with the Preferred Alternative, the first phase of development would feature the residential and open space development on the Upper Yard. Development of the Lower Yard would occur in Phase 2. The timing of these development phases has not yet been determined. For each phase, sub -phases of development would be shown as plans are submitted to the city for review. s Plus parking. 9 The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAG0126 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 253 of 774 CONCLUSION The Point Edwards site is one of the few significant development opportunities remaining in the City of Edmonds. The significance and visibility of the site is evidenced by the high degree of interest shown by local, regional, and state governments and agencies. However, despite the high level of interest shown, and despite the clear documentation of the need to improve ferry access by moving its associated traffic congestion away from Downtown Edmonds, little has been done by any public agency to secure the Point Edwards site for use as a multi -modal facility. This Master Plan preserves the option for a multi -modal facility, while, acknowledging that such a development may not come to pass within a reasonable period of time. Unocal Corporation, the property owner, has enjoyed a long history of cooperative working relationships with city government and other involved agencies. The type and intensity of development illustrated in this Master Plan is intended to meet the spirit and the letter of the city's Comprehensive Plan, to encourage action toward the development of a multi -modal center on the property, and to promote the efforts of those who wish to maintain a high quality of life in Edmonds. A multi -modal facility or other development of comparable scope at Point Edwards will benefit the city by providing a development that complements Downtown Edmonds. As noted in the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, the relocation of rail and ferry service from their current locations will improve traffic congestion in the downtown area. At the same time, the site of these relocated facilities can benefit from increased exposure by creating a mixed -use development that maximizes development opportunities while creating an atmosphere that is faithful to the vision set forth in city plans. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGfD f 27 OAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 254 of 774 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPENDIX EDMONDS DOWNTOWN WATERFR• V mazov= I I *-A 2 *xG] 4.0,4:A &I 0128 Packet Page 255 of 774 1. Executive Summary Completed Pedestrian Esplanade, Connects Bracket's Landing to X Point Edwards Public / Pedestrian_fi Improvements Throughout Marina / Port .. ........ ..... � O Consolidated Marina Support-- �\ O Facilities (Port Activffies)` L O Provide P.W To Beach > Multimodal Terminal • Ferry Connections • Transit Drop Off • Commuter Rail / Amtrak Station • Park and Ride • Pedestrian Access to Waterfront ...Redevelopment Options Conference Center Housing Restaurant Hotel Mixed -use Commuter Services Commercial Wetlands Commuter Parking 40 —integrated Open Space Deer Creek Hatchery Integrate Hatchery with development ........... r_1 N Point Edwards Potential Redevelopment PIMM. 1 T.• 0 w 0 1. • Conditions Land Use and Urban Design Edmonds has a downtown other small cities could envy. It includes a vital mix of small retail, office, recreational, commercial and residential uses. The tree -lined streets, particularly within the vicinity of Main Street and 5th Avenue, create a welcoming, pedestrian -oriented shopping district that draws shoppers from around the Puget Sound metropolitan region. To the north of Main Street and east of 5th Avenue are relatively dense mixed multi -family and single-family neighborhoods. While there is concern among local residents regarding the development of multi -family buildings adjacent to single-family houses and the intrusion of commercial development into residential neighborhoods, the neighborhoods remain attractive and viable, benefiting from the proximity to downtown. To the south of Dayton Street, the commercial district centered along 5th Avenue becomes more auto -oriented with large parking lots and nine convenience -oriented shops. With its large marina, boating services, public esplanade and a nix of restaurants and commercial uses, the Port of Edmonds, located along the waterfront south of Dayton Street, is a vital waterfront resource. Between Highway 104 and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks lies a large wetland which the City is enhancing with a series of interpretive trails. Besides this large passive, natural area, downtown Edmonds features these other parks: Brackett's Landing, situated north of the ferry dock; Marina Beach Park, located just south of the Port's marina; and City Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan Park lying west of 3rd Avenue and north of Pine Street. The City has recently purchased the Anderson Marine site, located just south of the ferry dock, and it will be developed as Brackett's Landing South Park, filling in another vital link along the shoreline. While downtown Edmonds resources and attractions are many, there are also several physical issues, challenges and opportunities to be addressed. The most obvious redevelopment issue remaining is that the downtown is largely cut-off from the water by the ferry traffic, ferry holding areas and the railroad tracks. If a greater connection can be made to the water, a large relatively underdeveloped section of downtown, roughly bounded by Main Street, 2nd Avenue, Dayton Street and Highway 104, would increase the downtown redevelopment options. Other connections between the Port and the commercial core are also key to unifying the downtown. In addition, the current waterfront uses between Dayton and Main Streets largely exclude the public from use of the shoreline, minimizing the beach's value as a public resource. An important redevelopment challenge/opportunity exists at the Point Edwards site located on the bluff overlooking the downtown from the south. For decades this site has been occupied by a tank farm. With the removal of the tanks and preparation of the site, the area will become a premiere redevelopment opportunity. The City is actively pursuing the relocation of the ferry terminal and construction of a multimodal transportation center on the lower portions of the site, but this leaves acres of redevelopable land it the top of the hill. 11 C m v m N Cn W O 0 w Planning! •,Alternativez •.l G: Improve and Encourage Economic Development Opportunities G-1 Maintain and encourage local business ownership. G-2 Encourage small locally owned businesses and cottage industries. G-3 Provide basic consumer needs and convenience shopping in town. G-4 Provide for and determine "appropriate" expansion of business core for growth expected within urban growth area. G-5 Develop plans and strategies for businesses that are and are not sensitive to Washington State Ferry traffic. G-6 Provide urban design and public improvement projects (such as a cultural center, performing arts, etc.) to provide a focal point for businesses and community activities in the town of Edmonds. Goal m Utilize UNOxCAL Site to its Best Community oeial H-1 Carefully evaluate the value ($) of the site. -2 Investigate potentials for private and/or public development. H-3 Integrate uses of Washington D.O.T. if chosen as the new ferry dock location. T r � r i'to rose Lbw . Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan 0 w N The Point Edwards site has the potential to accommodate a multimodal transportation center serving rail, commuter rail, ferry, bus, auto (park and ride), pedestrian and bicycle modes. Traffic to and from the multimodal transit center can be accommodated more easily at the Point Edwards site than at a downtown site. A multimodal transit center at Point Edwards will not diminish downtown Edmonds bus service. 6. The Point Edwards uplands retain substantial redevelopment potential in all three ferry relocation alternatives. 7. Portions of the Point Edwards site must be prepared for redevelopment before the transit center can be constructed. While it will take several years to design and build a transit center at the Point Edwards site, the timing of the other alternatives is also problematic. Developing a grade separated terminal in the downtown will involve substantial engineering unknowns and interim scheduling problems which have not yet been technically evaluated. Edmonds DowntownMaterfront Plan �7 0 W W UrbanDesign Concept Successful downtown plans are built on a sound urban design concept that coordinates individual design improvements and development activities into a unified whole. The urban design concept for downtown Edmonds, illustrated on the following page, also translates the two -phased redevelopment strategy into a set of specific physical actions and pursues the goals established through the public involvement process. Specifically, the urban design concept is aimed at the project's objectives through the following means: Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. 2. Create an integrated system of parks and trails by developing a new park at the Anderson Marine site (Brackett's Landing South Park), building a public plaza near the Senior Center, building a trail system around the edge of the wetlands (Union Oil Marsh), and establishing safe pedestrian connections from the shoreline to downtown at Dayton 4. Expand on the sense of community by removing intrusive ferry traffic from the core, providing several options for an expanded Senior Center, constructing an elevated plaza for public celebrations, and establishing a public pier for boaters and foot ferries as a waterside gateway. 5. Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by preserving its small scale, low height limit, enhancing its shoreline character, expanding on the qualities of the "5th and Main" core, improving the streetscape along Sunset Avenue (after the highway is relocated and realigned with Point Edwards), and sensitively redeveloping the Point Edwards site. R 7 Street, Main Street and an overpass located between the two. These waterfront connections will provide a crucial link in unifying the shoreline to the Port marina and Point Edwards multimodal transportation center. g 3. Protect Edmonds' natural environmental quality through enhancement of the wetlands and beach areas. 30 Improve traffic conditions by removing ferry traffic impacts from the downtown core. Improve and encourage economic development opportunities by providing space for local businesses and cottage industries, undertaking public improvement projects, the demand for increasing local services from residential and business sectors. Of particular significance are the enhancement of redevelopment opportunities around the existing ferry holding lanes, the creation of a convenient "parking reservoir" and the enhancement of Edmonds as a water -oriented destination. Utilize the Point Edwards site to its best community potential by developing a multimodal transit center with compatible development on the uplands. Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan IV. Urban Design Concept 0 /IJEdmonds Downtown/ g� mWaterfront Plan Masterplan redevelopment of !IC3 c North area east of railroad to include „ 0 150 450 festival site, parking "reservoir' i and pedestrian -oriented, mixed- I'C F__1 17_� 1 use commercial i 0 300 600 900 1200 Reuse ferry terminal dock for visitors' orientation, plaza, •• � CYR- r' »DIY `�71 Enhance Main Street as Mosquito Fleet and/or visiting •• i recreational moorage ®• pedestrian link to waterfront c9C Concept Plan � - o �o �p�,r Pedestrin overpass a > B • �/.r, .; , 11g0D i Major access route Improved streetscape Key pedestrian link Park/public space Complete shoreline esplanade from Brackett's Landing to Point Edwards Develop "necklace of parks" along waterfront Coordinate with Port's redevelopment efforts to integrate boating, public access and recreational uses . / Edmonds Way corridor redevelopment Downtown core redevelopment Urban design focal point i Develop multimodal transportation center 'I XLJ Encourage mixed -use, infiil ; f redevelopment through street Ji o improvements, traffic/parking o ! management, and regulations i c� fl to protect views and urban Lf tC design qutali�tile's^' 5);i(o� plc, ° Reconfigure SR 104 into RE o Sunset Avenue, serving as a a pedestrian boulevard a .uiC-i IIIJ 1-1f••u I O 0 P m� Maintain good access to o oOgp port/marina district p 1'� I g 1 ItJ r,l 1°°o Upgrade streetscape to visually Ci link Point Edwards to 0130 downtown q(5 0rI,=0oo Q4 •., Enhance wetlands with ] ; d ( C interpretive trails i" Ln I U !HUI 1 uc. 1 L/ a r D 1 Redevelop UNOCAL uplands Construct new ferry terminal a Possible options Include: i � a 1� a "`^ 11 Q _ Upgrade access . 0 a U hotel a r ❑�;, :L, ° I Q�o�o _ _ " L . na • residential . mixed -use • commuter services Edmonds DmntamVWaterfront Plan 31 T Q) n T v N N 0 J J 0 w N Point Edwards•• Transportation Emerging conditions in the regional transportation network present Edmonds with the exciting opportunity of creating a new multimodal transportation center. With dramatic increases in cross sound ferry traffic, proposed increases in passenger rail service to Vancouver, and the possibility of a commuter rail connection between Everett and Tacoma (serving Boeing, industrial centers and cities located on Puget Sound), an Edmonds multimodal center appears to be an appropriate major link. Edmonds, along with the cities of Everett and Mukilteo and the Regional Transit Authority is studying the concept of a commuter rail corridor along the shoreline between Everett and Seattle which could ultimately connect with other rail transit systems. The preliminary concept presented in this report builds on the opportunity presented by relocating the ferry terminal. The proposed Point Edwards site allows for the grade separation of circulation routes and the efficient interchange between modes. As presented in this report, the concept is in its earliest stages of development. T However, this study identifies no "fatal flaws" or overriding problems that would prevent the viability of a regional center. The City of Edmonds has recently received numerous grants to study the concept in greater detail. As currently conceived, the multimodal transportation concept features a multilevel transit center linking ferry passengers at the upper level to bus, train, and auto/parking connections below. Pedestrian and bicycle paths will connect riders into town and other destinations. The 1/4 mile pedestrian overpass from the transit center to the ferry will be enclosed, perhaps with moving walkways. There is also the option of providing a bus turn -around at the ferry landing. Park -and -ride and kiss -and -ride facilities will also be included. Traffic impacts are also an important consideration and will be studied in the upcoming feasibility analysis. At this point it appears that auto and bus traffic can be handled. Southbound traffic from the multimodal center will follow the existing route along Highway 104. Northbound traffic will bypass central downtown, reducing congestion. The ultimate realization of the multimodal center depends upon resolving many regional, technical and funding issues at several levels. The fundamental city improvement directions, which were developed during this downtown/waterfront planning effort, work to support the development of a multimodal center. What is important to point out in the context of this plan, is that the downtown and waterfront would certainly benefit from a multimodal center. Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan V. Elements Pedestrian bridge - - . . . Ar___* to ferry loading 1`� // Mezzanine balcony looks down into waiting room Edmonds Multimodal Transportation Cent Multi -level ierminal concept Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan ��i Parking Shared Commuter, Waterfront and Marirfv #A Bus Exit set Services adjacent to Lobby and Main Waiting Room located underneath vertical circulation structure - Path to upland development r*I 0 * 50 100 200 300 Ik N e N 41 T (D N CY) 41 0 O ,4 MIMMW_ _t`'1,,� Pedestrian connections Edmonds Multimodal Transportation Center Cross Section Conceptual Diagram Bus drop-off Rider Services Station Commuter Rail 42 Edmonds DowntaffMaterfront Plan The removal of the tank farm from the Point Edwards bluffs will provide a unique and attractive piece of redevelopable view property. Even after the construction of the ferry access and multimodal center, approximately 30-40.acres of redevelopable land will be left on the site. With convenient access to Highway 104 and expansive views, the upland portion of the site would be suitable for several different uses. Options suggested by citizens participating in the downtown/waterfront plan include parks, a senior center, a conference center, and a hotel. Because the site will not be available until the existing tank farm and related facilities have been removed and the site prepared for new development, redevelopment may be several years away. Therefore, there is no need to designate the preferred uses at this time. Nor can the City's role in the property's transferal and ultimate development within the ferry terminal construction be determined now. What is needed is some general guidelines for new uses and construction on the site to insure that the redevelopment is compatible with its surroundings and the community's overall redevelopment efforts. The following guidelines are recommended for the Point Edwards site redevelopment. They are not intended as a rigid set of standards because new opportunities and conditions may emerge. After careful study and public input, the Point Edwards site should be rezoned with a new designation to implement these guidelines and the performance criteria identified in the study. Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan It is recommended that the current zoning of the Point Edwards site be modified to reflect new development opportunities, the construction of the multimodal center, and the public objectives identified in this plan. The guidelines in the discussion of the site's redevelopment are intended to serve as a guide in this effort. Preliminary Guidelines for the Point Edwards Site include (Subject to further study): Give top priority to public transportation uses that require a waterfront site and rail access (ferry terminal, rail station, multimodal transportation center). Give secondary priority to uses that support a multimodal transportation center. 2. Encourage a mix of compatible uses. 3. Insure compatibility with neighboring uses. 4. Restrict uses that would detract from the economic viability or environmental quality of the downtown core (e.g., the relocation of existing businesses from the core). Encourage new uses that augment or complement activities in the core (e.g., conference center). Encourage public or service oriented uses (e.g., expanded senior center with continuing care facility). 6. Encourage uses that take maximum advantage of the access, setting and views afforded by the site. 43 Preliminary Guidelines for 1 Edwards 1. The development, including buildings and site improvements should "fit" with the site's topography and character. That is, the buildings should be clustered or terraced to conform to the ridge lines and utilize the headlands as a backdrop. 2. A greenbelt of trees must be retained on the steep slopes. 3. A heavily landscaped buffer must be provided to screen neighboring residences. 4. Height should be restricted to prohibit tower or massive block -like development. The height limit should be measured from each point on the building's perimeter to encourage terracing. A 35' maximum height limit is recommended as an interim measure. However this limit should be studied further as site development options become more defined. The following provides sample language for such a provision: Height: The maximum height of all buildings is 35' as measured from the existing grade elevation at each point of the structure's footprint. That is the top of the allowable building envelope should roughly follow the slope of the existing terrain. Exception: the Architectural Design Board (ADB) may approve a taller single "signature structure " that serves as a landmark for the Point Edwards bluff, provided that the Board finds that the structure meets the objectives of this plan and subsequent City sponsored site design studies. m OK Fit with existing site r' � �� I all OK Greenbelt Retained Unacceptable Unacceptable Buffer a AM ®®® - ®® ®► Existing New ----- House Development All.w.bk beijht � - a masi�ced at na7 � g` i Height limits to encourage terracing Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan 5. A composed complex of structures is recommended rather than one large structure. 6. The development may include one "landmark structure" designed to be a visual accent on the bluffs, provided that ADB finds the development meets the City's objectives. The example site plan shown on the following page illustrates one site development option consisting of a conference center and some multifamily housing. The conference center includes a 50-100 bed inn, meeting and banquet rooms, recreation facilities and a restaurant. The implementation chart in Chapter IV (on page 52)summarizes C the actions recommended in this plan. Not based on engineering studies or specific programmatic information, the estimates are pvery general and are provided for order -of -magnitude comparison only. The chart is not intended as a check list that will remain constant over time. New conCtrninta and opportunities will emerge that will require adjustment of the overall direction. The implementation program in this plan is intended to help the City begin what will be a long and complex process. The key contribution here is to map out a logical, step- by-step direction the City can pursue now with the assurance that early steps will not prove counter -productive down the road. OK '-^ e11111►11 ^, 1111Itl11 l- SIM • , .`_,'yam. t�C.•' w a Unacceptable A composed set of smaller structures One landmark structure Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan 45 POINT EDWARDS City of Edmonds 12/13/2002 APPENDIX OF •URBAN GUIDELINES December, 1 1 TEXT EXCERPTS 0141 Packet Page 268 of 774 ()bM-jjj_ Wbt6H OaAk VELtMF'�-) 7L(-e,LIfv-CW7_ T66?-Tyax-15 �1�GWL�Ix�aT . maximum height of 3 feet will be allowed as freestanding signs unless the property owner can demonstrate that a such a sign cannot provide adequate signage. D. Non-residential Conditional Uses in Residential Zones Non-residential conditional uses in residential zones can include churches, schools, offices, hospitals and other uses listed in the Zoning Code. Non-residential conditional uses in residential zones should be designed according to the guidelines most appropriate to the situation. Since these uses are located in residential neighborhoods, the proposal should be designed according to the neighborhood business guidelines and the guidelines for the district where the use is situated. (See Neighborhood Business Guidelines and District Guidelines). 1L Districts A. Downtown Activity Center The downtown area is characterized by older buildings built after 1900 and before 1950. These buildings include residential, commercial and mixed use buildings. As Edmonds has remained a vibrant, growing community for the entire 20th century, there are more modern buildings mixed with the older buildings. Since the street layout of the downtown area was created prior to the advent of the automobile as the primary form of transportation, the downtown commercial area is generally a comfortable place for pedestrians. The design guidelines are intended to retain the existing character of the City while allowing for growth and change over time. For these purposes the City of Edmonds has created the following Downtown Edmonds guidelines. 1. Downtown Activity Center Defined: The boundaries of the Downtown Activity Center shall be the same as those defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Gateway Streets Defined: Gateway Streets are streets leading into the downtown area. The public facilities on these streets are designed to tie into the character of the downtown area. Public facilities are considered to be street lights, bus stop shelters, street furniture and other facilities found in the City right-of-way with the general purpose of serving the public at large. The Gateway Streets are as follows (see attached Gateway Street Map): ® 5th Avenue South to SR 104. ® SR 524 to the intersection with Olympic Avenue. At the time of the writing of this document, SR 524 includes 3rd Avenue N to Caspers Street, Caspers Street from 3rd Avenue N to 9th Avenue N, 9th Avenue N to Puget Drive, Puget Drive to 196th Street SW, and 196th Street SW as it leaves Edmonds. ® Main Street from the Ferry Terminal to Maplewood Drive. 3. Pedestrian Streets Defined: Pedestrian Oriented Streets shall be as follows (see attached Pedestrian Street Map): ® 5th Avenue from Howell Way to Edmonds Street. ® 4th Avenue from Dayton Street to Bell Street. ® 3rd Avenue from Dayton Street to Bell Street. ® 2nd Avenue from Bell to Dayton Street. 0142 Packet Page 269 of 774 Page 19 • Bell Street from 5th Avenue North to 2nd Avenue North. • Main Street from 6th Avenue to the waterfront. • Dayton Street from 5th Avenue South to 2nd Avenue South. • James Street between 3rd Avenue and Sunset. As Downtown Edmonds develops, it will be necessary to reassess the location of the pedestrian oriented streets. In the event that the Ferry terminal leaves the Main Street location, or in the event that the Ferry Holding Lanes are relocated, the City shall immediately reassess the pedestrian oriented street section of this ordinance. 4. Guidelines for the Downtown Activity Center a) Historic Preservation (1) Historic Resources (a) Design of new or renovated buildings in the downtown area should be sensitive to the presence of historic buildings or landmarks. When built adjacent to one of these historic resources, size, bulk, building materials, window patterns, rooflines, orientation, setbacks, signage, and other design features of the new building should be compatible with and not overwhelm. the historic resource. (2) Downtown Character (a) Development downtown should be accomplished so as to reinforce the historic character and pedestrian orientation and scale of downtown buildings and streetscapes. Each building should contribute to the character of the downtown environment in a manner consistent with the heights, facades, setbacks, rooflines, signage, and repeating design elements of other buildings found on the street. (3) Rehabilitation and Continuing Use (a) The continuing use of existing structures is a desirable feature of the downtown streetscape. The rehabilitation of existing buildings is encouraged. Within the downtown commercial area, the conversion of old homes into small businesses contributes to the accessible, "small town" atmosphere of downtown. b) Building Design (1) Multi -Family Building Design (a) General Buildings should be designed to fit into the context of the surrounding area, paying special attention to the scale, form, height and massing of the existing neighborhood. All of the following design guidelines should be interpreted based on the area surrounding the site to be developed. For example, colors usually should be non -garish, with bold colors used for trim. However, a specific design in a specific area may require bolder coloring. Or multiple family development usually should use a shingled roof, but a particular design in particular location may call for a metal roof. It should be noted that some areas of the City have developed sites or buildings which would be in substantial non-compliance with these design guidelines. In such cases, a designer should design a proposed building in conformance with the design guidelines rather than in context with the surrounding area. 0143 Packet Page 270 of 774 Page 20 (b) Materials Materials and colors used should complement what is used in the neighborhood. Building material choices may include, but are not limited to wood, masonry, stucco, and tile. Roofs material choices may include, but are not limited to composition or wood shingles. All these materials are characterized by fairly fine texture. (c) Shapes and Forms A building should have a design theme carried throughout its shapes and forms. These elements should be applied on all sides consistently. Typical forms used in residential development include porches, dormers, and hip / gable / shed roofs. However the building forms are applied, the buildings should avoid large massive unbroken roof and wall lines. Where buildings are located on corner lots, the shapes and forms of the building should accent the corner. Buildings on corner lots must be designed to provide visual interest and modulation on both streets frontages. (d) Details and Fenestration Residential development is typified by smaller window sizes, i.e. paned windows, overhangs and soffits. All buildings should have a clear entry expression such as arches, awnings, shutters or other entry defining characteristics. In addition, porches and other entry expressions, along with decks, dormers, and balconies, are indications of residential development. All of these items should be combined with the shapes and forms of the building to avoid large, massive roofs and walls. Modulation of walls, texture, materials and windows should be used to break up the appearance of the walls. Colors are considered as a design element and must be compatible with the building design theme, and the design theme of the surrounding area. (e) Size, Height and Bulk Multi -family development should indicate its use by its scale of development. Larger buildings should be broken into house size elements through articulation and modulation of the facades and roofs. (f) Transitions Since the height limit for development in the multiple family zones and in the Community Business zone can be 5 feet higher than the allowable height limit for single family homes, a transitional element(s) should be included in their design. Design mitigations maybe required where adjacent buildings are much smaller or down hill from the proposed building(s). (see Figure 4). (2) Commercial Design (a) General Buildings should be designed in context with the surrounding area. All of the following design guidelines should be interpreted based on the area surrounding the site to be developed. For example, colors usually should be non -garish, with bold colors used for trim. However, a specific design in a specific area may require bolder coloring. (b) Materials Packet Page 271 of 774 0144 Page 21 Materials and colors used should complement what is used in the vicinity. Building material choices may include, but are not limited to masonry, stucco, prefab panel, metal, and glazing. Roofs material choices may include, but are not limited to standing seam metal and flat asphalt. (c) Shapes and Forms A building should have a design theme carried throughout its shapes and forms. Small to mid -scale buildings with horizontal relief along the facade typifies development in a pedestrian oriented commercial area. Consistency, unity and simplicity also characterize the application of shapes and forms for this type of development. However the building forms are employed, buildings should avoid long unbroken roof and wall lines. Where buildings are located on corner lots, the shapes and forms of the buildings should accent the corner. Buildings on corner lots must be designed to provide visual interest and modulation on both street frontages. (d) Details and Fenestration Typical details for this type of development include a strong cornice, building ornamentation, awnings, storefront windows, and balconies. All buildings should have a clear entry expression such as arches, awnings, shutters or other entry defining characteristics. All of these items along with the shapes and forms of the building should be combined to avoid large, massive walls. Modulation of walls, texture, materials and windows should be used to break up the appearance of the walls. Colors are considered as a design element and must be compatible with the building design theme, and the design theme of the surrounding area. (e) Transitions Since the height limit for development in the multiple family zones and in the Community Business zone can be 5 feet higher than the allowable height limit for single family homes a transitional element(s) should be included in their design. Design mitigations maybe required where adjacent buildings are much smaller or down hill from the proposed building(s). (see Figure 4). (f) Context Buildings should be designed to conform to the surroundings. A designer should not leave blank and uninteresting walls on sides of the building facing neighboring properties. If a zero foot setback is utilized for the purpose of joining the proposed building to another building the treatment of the sides of the building adjoining the other buildings shall be appropriate to such development. c) Site Design The designer should create a site design which allows for a consistent theme from the building to the site. Landscaping should be used to complement the building and site design. (1) Site Organization The site design should be oriented toward the pedestrian. Storefronts should be encouraged adjacent to sidewalks. Where storefronts are not possible, other features of pedestrian interest should be created adjacent to the sidewalks. 0145 Packet Page 272 of 774 Page 22 (2) Parking Lots should be oriented for pedestrian safety with walkways between stall isles and along the sides of the parking lots, and with well defined cross walks where pedestrians must cross the drive isles. Parking lots should be located behind, underneath buildings, or between buildings. Parallel parking on the street is desirable. Corner parking lots should be avoided. (3) Landscaping Interior parking lot landscaping is required. Parking lot perimeter landscaping is required. Landscaping should be used as a buffer between buildings and use changes. Landscaping should be used as a buffer between streets and buildings and/or parking areas. (4) Streetscape Since Downtown commercial developments are pedestrian oriented, the City shall encourage the placement of street furniture and awnings over the public right-of-way where possible and appropriate. Sidewalks with a minimum 7 foot width are required. Street trees are required. Sidewalk tree grates which allow for handicapped accessibility of the sidewalk, and which allow for growth of the tree shall be used. Installation and maintenance of the trees will be the responsibility of the City. Installation of trees may be required of the applicant as mitigation for new development. Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian oriented streets. The City should create incentives rather than disincentives for the addition of awnings over public sidewalks. Awning design should allow diversity, while still providing coordination between properties. Street furniture should be encouraged in the public right-of-way, on and adjacent to the public sidewalks. Street furniture, light fixtures, bus stop shelters and other utilitarian fixtures found in the public right of way should have a early 1900's theme. That theme should be continued on the Downtown Gateway Streets. In areas where a portion of the City right-of-way will remain unimproved, the developer will be required to install landscaping between the property line and the improved portion of the right-of-way. (5) Screening Utility vaults, heating and cooling equipment and other utility equipment should be screened in some way by vegetation or walls. Parking should be screened from residential areas with vegetation and fences, and from streets with walls and vegetation. (6) Trash & Recycling Enclosures Trash and recycling enclosures must be screened with solid wood or masonry fencing. Chain link fencing with slats may only be permitted for enclosure gates. Trash and recycling enclosures should be located off alleys, if possible. Wherever they are located, they should be placed to allow safe and convenient pick-up by the trash and recycling haulers. If such a location requires a conspicuous location, additional screening will be required. 0146 Packet Page 273 of 774 Page 23 (7) Context: Buildings should be designed to conform to the surroundings. A designer should not leave blank and uninteresting walls on sides of the building facing neighboring properties. If a zero foot setback is utilized for the purpose of joining the proposed building to another building the treatment of the sides of the building adjoining the other buildings shall be appropriate to such development. d) Transportation Orientation The downtown area is a pedestrian oriented area. The transportation orientation must therefore be primarily for pedestrians. Therefore developments should promote pedestrian and bicycle use. Buildings should be close to the street. Parking should be in the rear, and not the primary focus of the site. All access from parking lots to the street should be clearly marked for pedestrian safety. All parking areas should provide clearly marked pedestrian walkways. e) Signage (1) Multi -Family Sign Design Signage for multiple family developments should be low level signs that are primarily for building identification. One sign is allowed for each development. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited. Freestanding signs must be monument signs. (2) Pedestrian Oriented Sign Design Signage on pedestrian oriented streets should be low level signs that are primarily oriented for pedestrians. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited, while signs with external illumination are allowed. 5. Pedestrian Oriented Commercial a) Location The design criteria found in this section are for development located on pedestrian oriented streets in the Downtown Activity Center. Additional criteria may be applied to construction within the Downtown Activity Center. b) Building Design (1) General Buildings should be designed in context with the surrounding area. All of the following design guidelines should be interpreted based on the area surrounding the site to be developed. For example, colors usually should be non -garish, with bold colors used for trim. However, a specific design in a specific area may require bolder coloring. It should be noted that some areas of the City have developed sites or buildings which would be in substantial non-compliance with these design guidelines. In such cases, a designer should design a proposed building in conformance with the design guidelines rather than in context with the surrounding area. (2) Materials Materials and colors used should complement what is used in the vicinity. Building material choices may include, but are not limited to masonry, stucco, prefab panel, 0147 Packet Page 274 of 774 Page 24 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/ 18/02 R:7/19/02gjz ORDINANCE NO.3411 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REZONE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM CW TO MP-1 AND MP-2; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF A CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT; APPROVING A MASTER PLAN APPLICATION FILE NO. CDC-2002-37, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, a request for the rezone of certain real property located in the City of Edmonds, owned by the Unocal Corporation, was considered by the Edmonds City Council at a closed record review. The review was continued to July 2, 2002; and WHEREAS, this matter came to the Edmonds City Council upon the record and recommendation of its Planning Board, dated May 22, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council, based upon the record and the argument presented, finds it to be in the public interest to approve the contract rezone, accept a concomitant zoning agreement, substantially in the forth set forth in the attached Exhibit 1 and approve a master plan amendment adopting by this reference and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, the findings, conclusions and recommendations of its Planning Board as its own; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: [wss 522252.DOC; t i00006.900000i) Packet Page 275 of 774 -1- 0148 Attachment 5 Section 1. Certain real property described in the attached Exhibit 1 and in Planning File No. R-2002-38 is hereby approved for rezone from CW to MP-1 and MP-2. The delineation of the boundaries of said rezone designations are shown on the attached Exhibit 2, and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 2. The findings adopted by the City Council are based in part upon an assessment that the application satisfies the City's criteria for rezone as such project is delineated and limited pursuant to the terms of a concomitant rezone agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The City Council hereby accepts such agreement and authorizes the Mayor to execute such agreement and for the City Clerk to attest to his signature. Said concomitant rezone agreement shall be forwarded for filing with the Snohomish County Auditor. Section 3. A master plan submitted in File No. CDC-2002-37 of the planning records of the City Council and conditioned in accordance with the Planning Board's recommendation and adopted by the City Council is hereby approved. Section 4. Effective Date. 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. APPROVED: MAY R G HAA ENS ON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS522252.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 2 - 0149 Packet Page 276 of 774 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. Scott Snyder FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/19/2002 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/23/2002 PUBLISHED: 07/28/2002 EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/02/2002 ORDINANCE NO. 3411 {WSS522252.DOC;1/00006.900000/} - 3 0150 Packet Page 277 of 774 I ZV/' wc oi�' ' * - - WC - WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL OS - OPEN SPACE MP - MASTER PLAN Os HIULSIDE MIXED USE wc \, ` To Os X A wc TO mpi ell RESIDENTIAL CITY OF WOODWAY When Recorded Return To: City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Document Title: Contract Rezone Reference No.: R-2002-38 Grantor(s): Union Oil Company of California Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description: Portion of Gov. Lot 3, Section 23 and Gov. Lot 1 and NW1/4, NE 1/4 of Section 26 in Township 27 N, Range 3 E, W.M. (See Exhibit A for Complete Legal Description) Assessor's Parcel #: 270-326-001-026-00; 270-326-002-006-00; 270-326-001-024-00; 270-326-001-021-00 COVENANT REGARDING USE AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (CONTRACT REZONE) WHEREAS, Union Oil Company of California ("Grantor") is the owner of the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"), and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is a municipal corporation ("Grantee"), within the boundaries of which the Property is located, and WHEREAS, the Grantor has applied for a rezone of the Property from Commercial Waterfront (CW) to Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use 1 (MP I) on one portion of the Property and Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use 2 (MP2) on another portion of the Property as described in Exhibit A, on the condition that the future development of the Property is restricted in the manner set forth in Section 2 below, and the Grantor is desirous of restricting the future development of the Property and obtaining the rezone referred to herein, the Grantor does hereby covenant and agree as follows: Y:\WP\unoca1\Covenant Re Use & Future Dev.c.doc 0152 Packet Page 279 of 774 1. Consideration. This agreement is made as an inducement to the City of Edmonds to approve the rezone referred to above and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. 2. Future Development Restricted. Any future use, development, modification or improvement of the Property shall be subject to the restrictions of the MP 1 and MP 2 zones on the respectively zoned portions of the Property as described in Exhibit A and subject to and consistent with the provisions of the Site Master Plan for Point Edwards as presented to the Edmonds City Council as Exhibit 1 in Agenda Memo # 7 on June 18, 2002 (the "Master Plan") provided, however, that these limitations may be modified, repealed, or otherwise left in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 below. 3. Amendment or Repeal. This contract may be amended or terminated in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures applicable to a rezone of the Property under the ordinances in effect at the time such application is made to the City of Edmonds. Grantor covenants that it shall not initiate a rezone request or attempt to terminate or amend this covenant within five (5) years from its effective date; provided, however, that this shall not preclude the City from initiating a rezone of the Property nor shall it preclude the Grantor from initiating a revision to the Master Plan in said time period. 4. Covenant to Run With the Land. The restriction contained herein shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding upon the Grantor, its heirs, executors and assigns forever. 5. Effective Date. This covenant shall be effective on the later of the date this Covenant is executed by the Grantor or the date this Covenant is accepted by the Grantee. Union Oil Company of California, a California Corporation Its: C7�.c �: -AI Date: "i ik ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation By: Its: Md Date: 7-.3® -off, YAWP\UNOCAL\COVENANT RE USE FUTURE DEV.C.DOC 2 0153 Packet Page 280 of 774 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF } ss. 9 4ii' r� t �'i f z On it /� , 200$ , before me, �'� a Notary Public id and for said County and State, personally appeared personally known to me _(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. BETTY A- BEAN Commission # 1208319 Z Notary Public - California Notary P lic Santa Barbara County My Comm. 6�sM Jan 16, 2003 0154 Packet Page 281 of 774 EXHIBIT A MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE 1 (MP 1) ZONE LOT 3, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT -(S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216th STREET SW), THENCE N 01 *08' 01" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52039'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE S75063'15" W, 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78034'50" 1N, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S 78034'50"W, 272.90 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE S 4203434" W, ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE 322.72 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS S 59001'17" W FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 59001'17" E, 566.66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) AND PINE STREET EXTENSION (216th STREET SW), THENCE N 01 °08' 01" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52039'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE S 75°53'15" W. 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78"34'50" W 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE N 59*01'17" E, 262.97 FEET, THENCE N 89*36'15" E, 359.47 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3 THENCE S 75053'15" W, 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS N78°34'S0' E FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 7803450" W, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 0155 Packet Page 282 of 774 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 26 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 88051'46" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1, A DISTANCE OF 527.86 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21035'00" WEST 130.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 80.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 86.57 FEET TO A POINT OF A COMPOUND CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 165.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 213.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 65035'00" EAST 37.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 480.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 89.81 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE SOUTH 54051'46" EAST 207.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 520.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 187.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 88051'46" EAST 83.18 FEET FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88051'46" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 83.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (BEING PARCEL III OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 8101160175). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 0156 Packet Page 283 of 774 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE 2 (MP 2) ZONE REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Lot Line Adjustment for Union Oil Company AF #200202145001 PARCEL A LOT 2, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9810055004, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, IN SECTION 23 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-148) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLATS-98-018)AND PINE STREET EXTENSION(216th STREET SW),THENCE N 01008'01" E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52'39'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE S 75053'15" W, 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78034'50" W 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE N 59001'17" E, 262.97 FEET, THENCE N 89'36'15" E, 359.47 FEET, TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, THENCE S 75*53'15" W, 410.77 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS N78'34'50'E FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 78034'50" W, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT (S-98-018) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND PINE STREET, EXTENSION (216th STREET SW),THENCE N 01'08'01"E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 211.56 FEET; THENCE N 52039'09"W, 909.08 FEET; THENCE 875053'15" W, 410.77 FEET, THENCE S 78'34'50" W, 190.31 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE S 78034'50"W, 272.90 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE S 42034'34" W ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 322.72 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS S 59'01'17" W FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 59001'17" E. 566,66 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 0157 Packet Page 284 of 774 EXHIBIT A CONTINUED TOGETHER WITH LOT 1 7HAT POR7/ON OF GOVERNMENT LOT I AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NOR7T (EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE .3 EAST W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGTiW DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE N0R7HWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAND SECTION 26, THENCE NORTH 86'51'46" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 571.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2135'00" HEST 113.73 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET, THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6V 5956" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 129.85 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 205.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74'00' " AN ARC DISTANCE OF 264.77; 7HENCE SOUTH 65:35'00' EAST 37.89 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 520.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 43'15' AN ARC DISTANCE OF 97.30 FEET; THENCE. SOUTH 54'51'46" EAST 20Z70 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 480.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID .CURVE THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34i10101" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 284.84 FEET TO A POINT 26.00 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26 AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO SAID SOUTH UNE; THENCE SOUTH 88'51'46" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 577.31 FEET, THENCE NORTH 1T)8'14' EAST 24.00 FEET TO 7HE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 1VO4' EAST 137.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 30i553 EAST 219.53 FEET THENCE SOUTH 647145' EAST 248.85 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SR 104 AS CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR STATE ROAD 104 BY DECREE ENTERED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 106375, THENCE SOUTH 12 49'15' WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 187.98 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83'07'35" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 297.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING 0158 Packet Page 285 of 774 r t� � � �:: �.� �� �� � ;,; �'�ix ,�' 4 tY� t".'. .. preparedb David Evans i Associates, Inc. 0160 Packet Page 287 of 774 Executive The purpose of this master plan is to implement the goals and objectives of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan as they relate to the development of that area of the city known as Point Edwards. The drafting of this master plan is the first step to development of the Point Edwards property (the planning area), as contemplated by the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan. This master plan is submitted concurrently with a proposal to amend the text of the City of Edmonds zoning regulations, creating two separate but complementary Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use zones to be applied to different portions of the study area. These proposed zoning designations would permit land uses and intensity of development that are consistent with the uses and densities contemplated in the city's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Waterfront Plan'. All future development within the study area would occur in a manner that is generally consistent with the uses and densities shown in this Master Plan. The study area has been in the same ownership since 1920, and was once a portion of a larger property. The prior use of the property for the storage and shipment of petroleum products resulted in spills that are now subject to environmental remediation efforts. Any future uses of the property within the study area will require that cleanup efforts be successfully concluded prior to development, and the level of cleanup will help to determine the range of future land uses permitted. Existing zoning regulations require `water dependent' uses to be the primary focus of site development. Because the property no longer has direct access to the waterfront, such uses are no longer feasible. The two alternative development strategies shown herein propose future land uses that have been discussed in detail as a part of the adoption process for the city's Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Waterfront Plan. Each of the alternative development strategies contemplates that the "Upper Yard" portion of the study area would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential development. The "Lower Yard" would evolve as a mixed -use development, with the preferred alternative focusing that development around a multi -modal transportation center that would relocate the ferry terminal and the railroad station to the site. A second development alternative without the multi -modal facility is provided in the event that the development of the multi -modal center is not pursued by all the parties within a reasonable time frame. Although the Downtown Waterfront Plan has been adopted as a part of the city's Comprehensive Plan, these plans are often referred to separately because each document expresses a different level of detail with regard to planning for the Point Edwards study area. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 1 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0161 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 288 of 774 r.... Background INTRODUCTION In 1995, the City of Edmonds adopted its Downtown Waterfront Plan as an element of its Comprehensive Plan. That plan called for any future development of certain properties located in the southwestern portion of the city to occur only upon the formulation of a "master plan" to guide that development. Since that time, the city has approved master plans for portions of those properties, most significantly for property owned by the Port of Edmonds. This Master Plan is intended to analyze development potential and establish parameters for the future development of the planning area in accordance with two new MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use zones. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, this master plan will describe the parameters of land uses within the planning area. It will describe, in a general manner, the height and bulk of structures, the types and arrangement of land uses, and site access and circulation patterns. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Point Edwards planning area consists of 44.54 acres of land in Edmonds, Washington, improved with small buildings currently used as office space. The planning area lies on the western perimeter of the Edmonds Downtown Activity Center, and is bordered on the northwest by Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks, on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, and on the south by the corporate boundary of the City of Woodway. The area is the site of a former `tank farm' used for the storage and distribution of petroleum products. A portion of the planning area was divided by a short plat approved by the City of Edmonds in 1998. The. 1998 short plat excluded the "teardrop" parcel located to the south of Pine Street Extension. Access to the planning area is from the east via Pine Street Extension (216"I' Street SW), connecting -to SR104. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 2 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0162 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 289 of 774 EXISTING CONDITIONS History of Land Use In 1920, the Union Oil Company purchased approximately 110 acres of land in the area known as Point Edwards in Snohomish County. Additional property was acquired in the ensuing years, and the City of Edmonds subsequently annexed this property. At its peals, the site included what is now the Port of Edmonds, Harbor Square, and Marina Beach. The property was developed with tanks and pipelines for the transshipment of petroleum products via tanker ships. Union Oil Company (now Unocal) has gradually divested much of these holdings, until the Point Edwards site is now its only remaining property. Within the past year, activity on the site has been devoted primarily to demolition, with the removal of all of the tanks in the upper yard, and much of the supporting infrastructure in the lower yard. The site is improved by two small wood -frame office buildings, one of which houses the local office of Unocal Corporation. The office uses are the only active uses that remain on the site at this time. Environmental Summary The prior use of the property for the storage and shipment of petroleum products has resulted in subsurface soil conditions that include deposits of petroleum compounds. The presence of these contaminants requires the implementation of a cleanup plan approved by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Site remediation has commenced in the upper yard by the removal of the tanks on the site. Additional remediation activities will occur on the site, in both the upper and lower yards, prior to site development on those portions of the property. Cleanup efforts in the Lower Yard are expected to commence by 2004. This Master Plan includes a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Analysis in the form of a checklist2. This SEPA checklist incorporates by reference the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the city in the course of adopting its Comprehensive Plan. In addition, a significant amount of environmental analysis related to the planning area has previously been conducted. A list of those studies is shown in Appendix B. In October of 1995 the Washington State Department of Ecology approved the Unocal "work plan" acknowledging the next steps in the agreement (Agreed Order) with the State to environmentally investigate the Point Edwards property in Edmonds. This approval allowed Unocal to commence exploratory drilling and testing in conformance to the work plan and thereby provide insight to the contamination. This work was completed in August of 1996. A draft work investigation report was submitted to Ecology. An interim action plan was submitted and approved by Ecology in 2001 that led to Unocal's voluntary removal of the tanks and lines in the Upper Yard, and removal of strategically 2 Submitted concurrently with this Master Plan REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 3 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0163 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 290 of 774 important plume contamination in the Lower Yard. The interim action plan calls for complete cleanup of the upper yard with follow up action on the lower yard consistent with the order and regulation under MTCA in 2002. Critical Areas The area is bordered on the northeast by a Class 1 wetland, the Point Edwards Marsh. This wetland extends for several acres to the north of the site. Immediately abutting this wetland in the northern portion of the planning area is a constructed stonnwater facility that was classified in a previous study as a Class 3 wetland. Because this stormwater facility was constructed as an element of previous site development, its classification may be re-evaluated as new development occurs. According to flood maps available to the city from the Federal Emergency Management Agency3, the planning area is located in `Flood Zone C,' meaning that the area is not located within any 100-year or 500-year flood zone. The city's Shoreline Master Program regulates shoreline use and development on coastal waters, and on all land located within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline. None of the property shown in this Master Plan is located within 200 feet of the shoreline's high water mark. The original hillside was terraced as tanks were placed on the site. The tanks were commonly placed on the southern and upland portion of the study area commonly known as the `upper yard.' The remainder of the site is commonly known as the `lower yard.' This lower yard generally is more level than the upper yard, where steep slopes (in excess of 40%) still exist in some areas. Despite the presence of these steep slopes soil conditions on the site appear to be stable, with little indication of erosion. Zoning The City of Edmonds Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 16.40 ECDC), currently designates the Point Edwards property as CW (Commercial Waterfront). The primary uses now permitted in this zone are: • Marine -oriented services; • Marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented retail uses; • Petroleum products storage and distribution; • Offices located above ground floor (excluding medical, dental, and veterinary); • Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation; and • Parks and open space. 3 Ref: Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 530163-0005D, 2/19/86; Federal Flood Insurance Administration, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE .4 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0164 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 291 of 774 The CW zoning designation was applied to the site at a time when the property was used for the shipment and storage of petroleum products, an activity that required direct water access. In the intervening time, that use of the property has been discontinued and direct access to the waterfront has been eliminated. Because the site no longer has direct access to the waterfront, the requirement for water -dependent uses severely limits potential future uses of the property. Figure I shows the city's zoning map. The City of Edmonds adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1995, pursuant to the requirements of the State of Washington Growth Management Act. That plan designates the subject property and surrounding lots for `Master Plan Development.' In the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, site development options discussed site development consistent with a multi -modal facility. Figure 2 shows the Comprehensive Plan's Downtown Activity Center concept map. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 5 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0165 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 292 of 774 . L.. .. ... ..... .. 17, 114 / ll/ 2 m6nds rr� n iu 6 n untr ctiviy inter ; ®cepM ap � � �� � � � ActiviiyCen$er E3ot.indary; d Mixeduse Commercial EDISON. Neighborhood Commercia Master Plan Development Multt Family High Density OMulti Family Med Density Single Family Small Lot OSingle Family Large Lot; m t'arklOpen Space �j Note This map depicts land use t tkf within the Downtown Activity j Center. Refer to the Edmonds s " Comprehensive Plan Concept Mapfor land use_ in other: "- tc areas ' � # e terf e •s a Fr Dayt: s : Ynst • rk.- Pi ea Planning Area ` � Walnut St e -Marsh Park m - Pine St p P I - k9 WesEgatel �OOCIUVaj/ -' r 1 Unincorporated 1211/99 4 Packet Page 294 of T �.— +'. /: Alternative Development ,. ks CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Downtown Waterfront Plan that was adopted as an element of the city's Comprehensive Plan took a close look at the Point Edwards site as a focal point for a multi -modal transportation center that would become a "regionally important transportation facility." This center would integrate a relocated ferry terminal, inter -city and commuter rail, buses, and park -and -ride facilities. Of the three alternate sites identified by the city, Point Edwards was named as the preferred alternative for the transportation center. The Downtown Plan also allowed for further development of the site, suggesting specific redevelopment options that would complement the transportation center. The Comprehensive Plan notes that development of a multi -modal transportation facility helps to solve a number of problems throughout the city: • the existing ferry terminal location creates traffic conflicts due to its close proximity to downtown. • access to the existing terminal is sometimes blocked by the at -grade crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks. • the ferry holding area creates a barrier between downtown and the waterfront. • the ferry location restricts the expansion of downtown, reducing potential economic growth. • congestion created by ferry traffic discourages new businesses from locating downtown. By relocating the ferry terminal to the Point Edwards site, the city can create a more pedestrian -friendly downtown area that is tied more closely to the waterfront. At the same time, traffic congestion could be reduced by creating a true multi -modal center where passengers can access an integrated mass -transit system via road, rail, or water. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA f68 Packet Page 295 of 774 MAY 14, 2002 The city's Comprehensive Plan identifies the Point Edwards property as a part of the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center." Within that activity center, the planning area is designated for "Master Plan Development." The Point Edwards property is one of several that share the Master Plan Development designation. Some other properties within that area have already drafted a master plans, with each plan intended to promote mixed -use development: ® The Port of Edmonds submitted a Master Plan for its properties to the city, which plan was adopted by the city in January 2002. ® Owners of the Harbor Square property entered into a "contract rezone" agreement with the city, and are proceeding with development in accordance with this "master plan" concept for its redevelopment., In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, this Master Plan is based upon the proposed adoption by the city of a "Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use" (MP)4 zone. This designation would create two separate and compatible zoning districts, that would be applied to the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard, respectively. The MP1 zone for the Upper Yard would permit a range of uses that include multi -family residential, office, hotels/motels, some restaurants, conference centers, day care, and certain secondary uses. For the MP2 zone, neighborhood -oriented retail uses and multi -modal transportation centers are added. The application of these zones to the study area will be illustrated in greater detail in the following section, Alternative Development Strategies. This Master Plan sets forth two alternatives for future development of the properties within the study area. Each of these alternatives has been designed to conform to the requirements of the proposed MP zoning. A map illustrating the proposed zoning boundaries is shown in Figure 3. A plan illustrating the mix and relationships of land uses in the preferred alternative is shown in Figure 4, and an alternative plan that would permit development without a multi -modal transportation facility is shown in Figure 7 This second alternative is set forth to permit reasonable development within the planning area in the event that a multi -modal facility is not pursued within a reasonable period. It should be noted that Figures 4 and 7, illustrating proposed development alternatives, are intended as conceptual designs only. It is anticipated that reasonable adjustments will be made to these conceptual designs as more definitive development plans are devised, as part of a project -specific review. However, the boundaries of the MP and M22 zones will remain constant. 4 See Appendix A for the full text of the proposed zone. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN Pi� �9 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA u 7 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 296 of 774 m WC - WATERFRONT COMMERCI OS - OPEN SPACE MP - MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE os I it wc ♦> 0 s MP2 Y, <7� TO X, wc TO RESIDENTIAL: CITY OF WOODWAY rM x 'x/ - I,- �J� -I I 'Oel X., 14" NIN, X�'! �,M K, 44- 41 W X% cwviism =10 SDCS ............ \`•. r/ 411�11 elON NOU-06SLaW CSNOMBaBU/MaN 0 r I'd V lmm&m� Ril iwR ,OOC L :31YOS 009 00C 0 /'A THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Multi -Modal Center The primary focus of the Preferred Alternative is to create a multi -modal transportation center that will integrate a relocated ferry terminal, a railroad terminal, bus service, park - and -ride facilities, and accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. The multi -modal center would realign SR 104, taking advantage of site topography to create an overpass over the BNSF railroad tracks for ferry access, complete with stacking lanes. Immediately to the north of the highway realignment, a train/transit station with an oversized parking lot would be developed. The siting of this building will create a link to the railroad tracks that border the study area to the northwest. The SR 104 realignment would run roughly along the boundary between the MP 1 and MP2 zones, extending west to a ferry access ramp. The realignment route would be wide enough to accommodate stacking lanes for the ferry. The highway realignment would occupy approximately 6.3 acres of land within the study area, while the adjacent multi - modal facility would occupy an additional 3.6 acres. Multi -Family Residential In the Preferred Alternative, the land shown in the MP 1 zone (the Upper Yard) would be devoted primarily to multi -family residential use. At a permitted density of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit, the maximum number of dwelling units that would be allowed on this 24.06-acre site would be 419. However, after setting aside land for roads and open space, accounting for site limitations related to steep slopes, and observing setback and height restrictions, the probable density would be lower than the maximum permitted density. Densities at build -out will be consistent with urban densities contemplated by Washington's Growth Management Act, and the city's Comprehensive Plan. Pockets of open space would be located to the north and west of the residential development, providing a measure of buffering between the Upper Yard and the Lower Yard. In addition to the designated open space areas in the Upper Yard, smaller pockets of public open space would be integrated into the site design. Where feasible and appropriate, these public open spaces would be connected through pedestrian pathways that may incorporate sidewalks on Pine Street. The residential development would constitute phase 1 of site development within the planning area, with sub -phases in this area to be determined as development is proposed. Multi -Modal Transportation and Mixed Use Development As noted earlier, the area located generally to the north of the realigned highway (the Lower Yard) would be devoted to a multi -modal transportation facility, and to development that complements that facility. Adjacent to the multi -modal facility is an area designated for mixed use development. The primary use of this area is anticipated to be office space, with supporting retail and service uses. This mixed use area encompasses approximately 4.6 acres. To the southeast of this area lies a small site designated as a commercial node of less than one acre. This area is intended to provide REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 12 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0172 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 299 of 774 goods or services to residences and businesses located within the study area. The location takes advantage of visibility from the realigned highway, and is located at the intersection that leads to the mixed use area. Located to the northeast of the mixed use area is a portion of the study area that will be devoted to open space, a buffer for the abutting marsh, and possibly for storrnwater management. This area, which includes a site currently used as a salmon hatchery, provides a transition to the abutting property to the northeast. Circulation and Access The realigned SR 104 would be the main thoroughfare through the study area. Internally, Pine Street Extension will provide access to the multi -family use on the Upper Yard along its existing right-of-way. Access to the northerly portion of the study area, and to the multi -modal facility, will necessitate the relocation of the existing Unoco Road. The alignment for the relocated access road will result in a signalized intersection at SR 104, and may necessitate some encroachment into the wetland buffer. Potential intersection designs are shown in previous site studies, and are expected to be further refined during the development review process. The ferry access will be achieved via an overpass across the railroad tracks. This access will also include provisions for pedestrians and bicycles. The multi -modal facility will improve rail access to the community, permitting rail passengers to gain access to ferries, buses, and the local highway system. Site conditions including steep slopes and railroads are generally not favorable to facilitating pedestrian access. The steep slopes and highway location will serve to discourage pedestrian access between the upper and lower yards. In addition, the railroad tracks create a barrier that effectively isolates the site from port and waterfront property to the west. Despite the physical limitations imposed by site topography, the Downtown Waterfront Plan contemplates pedestrian access from the Upper Yard to the waterfront as part of the Edmonds Crossing project. Upper Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate such access as it may be included in connection with the future Edmonds Crossing development. The issue of access and circulation is discussed in greater detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was prepared in 1995 for the proposed Edmonds Crossing project. That study evaluated traffic related to automobiles, rail, and ferries. Utilities The study area is served by or has available all necessary public utilities. Public water, sewer, and storm drainage are provided by the City of Edmonds, while electricity and natural gas are available through Puget Sound Energy. The capacity of sewer lines REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PACy�3 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA u MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 300 of 774 within the study area may need to be upgraded to accommodate anticipated development. This capacity will be analyzed in greater detail prior to development approvals. As provided in City of Edmonds regulations, all utilities that serve the site will be placed underground as development occurs. Building Dimensions and. Relationships In the Upper Yard (governed by the proposed MPl zoning regulations), the residential buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. Building heights will be limited to 35 feet, except that an additional five feet in height will be allowed as part of an approved, modulated roof design. Building height will be calculated according to approved city standards. To encourage the appearance of smaller building masses, building heights will be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building. Because the realigned highway will be built into a hillside, allowances will be made for the height of the highway's supporting structure and its relationship to the multi -modal facility. Thus, in the MP2 zone, heights of up to 45 feet will be allowed. Because building in the lower yard area will be significantly lower in elevation than the steep slopes immediately to the south, 45-foot buildings will not obstruct views from surrounding properties. Due to this more liberal height allowance, no additional credit would be granted for roof features as part of an approved modulated roof design. The 45-foot height limit in the lower yard would pern it four-story buildings. However, due to the limited area available for development, it is likely that the first floor of buildings would be devoted primarily to structured parking5, with some supporting retail uses. Upper stories would be devoted primarily to offices. However, the potential for residential dwellings on the upper floors of buildings may be considered. Given the size of the area set aside for mixed use development (less than five acres) and the need forparking and landscaping, the maximum amount of floor area devoted to individual land uses may occur as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Development Potential, MP2 Zone FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 parking; retail/service 30,0006 2 office; residential 100 000 3 office; residential 100,000 4 office; residential 80 000 TOTAL 310,000 s If structured parking is not constructed, then the amount of required surface parking will result in less ground area available for buildings. Thus, the assumption that structured parking will be used should not impact the site's overall development potential. 6 Does not include parking. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 14 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0174 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 301 of 774 It should be noted that the numbers and uses shown in Figure 5 are not absolute. For example, a first -floor restaurant or bank may extend onto the second floor, or may choose an upper floor location. Also, the total square footage of development may occur in one building, or in several buildings that would add up to the total square footage shown above. For purposes of calculating the potential for residential development, an average of 1,500 square feet is assumed for each dwelling unit. Thus, if the upper floors of buildings were devoted to residential uses, the number of potential dwelling units per floor would be calculated as follows: Figure 6: Potential Residential Development, AIP2 Zone FLOOR MAXIMUM SQUARE POTENTIAL MAXIMUM # FOOTAGE DWELLING UNITS 1 30,000 07 2 100,000 66 3 100,000 66 4 80,000 53 TOTAL 310,000 185 In the calculations illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, dwelling units are substituted for office space at a ratio of 1: 1,500, or one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of office space. Thus, total potential site development would consist of up to 310,000 square feet of office space or as many as 185 dwelling units, or some combination thereof. Phasing The size and topography of the site lends itself to a phased development approach. Phase 1 would be the residential and open space development of the Upper Yard. Due to the size of this project, sub -phases will be identified when specific development plans are submitted. Because adequate access to the Lower Yard would be required for development, Phase 2 would be the Edmonds Crossing multi -modal facility. Phase 3 would encompass the mixed -use, `transit -oriented' development in the Lower Yard that would support the multi -modal facility. While the timing of these development phases has not been firmly established, it is likely that plans for Phase 1 development would be submitted to the city within one year of adoption of this Master Plan. The timing for Phase 2 will depend upon state funding for Edmonds Crossing. Portions of Phase 3 may commence prior to the completion of Phase 2. ALTERNATIVE - The city's Comprehensive Plan clearly identifies the development of a multi -modal facility as a high priority, and selects the Point Edwards planning area as the preferred 7 The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 15 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0175 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 302 of 774 location for that facility. However, the development and construction of such a facility (including the highway realignment) will not be possible without the active cooperation and support of the ferry system, the railroads (both Burlington Northern and Amtrak), the state's Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, and local transit service providers. Getting support and financial commitments from all of these entities, especially in an era of tight budgets, may prove to be an impossible challenge. This Master Plan recognizes the possibility that plans for a multi -modal transportation facility may not be pursued by these third parties in a timely manner, and provides development options in Alternative Two that address this possibility. As noted earlier, cleanup of the Lower Yard is expected to commence by 2004. Planning and environmental studies prepared by the City of Edmonds and others suggest that planning for components of a multi -modal facility should be underway within this same general time frame. In the event that site -specific planning for a multi -modal facility is not commenced by 2004 or 2005, current or future owners of property within the planning area should have the flexibility to develop the site using Alternative Two. This alternative is conceptually depicted in Figure 7. Balanced Development Alternative Two attempts to balance development types throughout the study area, using the same basic mix of uses (excluding the multi -modal facility) that are planned in the Preferred Alternative. Multi -Family Residential The multi -family development planned for the MPl zone in the upper yard remains essentially the same as in the Preferred Alternative. The open space area to the west of the housing development is expanded to include much of the steep slope area that was dedicated to the highway realignment, and the need for the open space area to the east is eliminated when the highway is removed. Mixed Use Development The area of mixed use development in the lower yard is expanded to include the area that was designated for the multi -modal facility. This expanded area encompasses approximately nine acres, plus a one -acre commercial node at the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. Circulation and Access The key to safe and efficient traffic circulation in this alternative is the realignment (and perhaps signalization) of the intersection of Pine Street Extension and Unoco Road. This realignment will result in improved sight distances, fewer turning movement conflicts, and increased traffic safety. REVISED FINAL - POINT'EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 16 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0176 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 303 of 774 4 kSIORMWATE52 \ 300 0 300 600 "IMA SCALE: 1" = 300' MANAcMEN7 `\ MIXED? \ i �N A SITE ACCESS USE v i 'r ` b�vEibPMEA76 \ x NOTE: CONCEPTUAL DRAWING ONLY. \ f�F fig, t YgHp rk LINE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. �. �. ✓ t� /=�/ euFFER/ � � z EDGE OF WETLAND r .t'./� ._ x,? «`.� I%� ��� r l r � M1 � x5t"� � ,7yi\, �, s,. ��♦�� .. _ ` r vtil,' y� \ I oe ti ` .. - %'�7 Jam#'" \ � / a fi r�'.. ,� t f c k �f5�,�.c� �� '^ t.- �' `���♦'` � \ - ''l ✓ ��� `' F <` ° 1 rj"!,,y �� ` Fir`.? { � -� rt it RE9DENTIAL"F�Yv ,�' r� �°, x ? w �^ x ` ♦��" r\ \.., l f OPEN !♦ �� \k \ ySr i.; j y✓ K _ ..,` /�%�t/f/l �/�' I ,${DACE. � "�2 t t, � e r•i x >\i' � ✓'. 4 ;ri..„i`��.k' '' � � ..^_ ; ''�\'i �,` 5'`,� � \ ` � _ "`t` I ��,�rj/cat /: f�?`� ` :< ` / aa�''k ;"�1. 4 `5S. '\,�1,`'�C "•4 tS,�K y vt''r b�✓c\ ♦ ` \,,� J I �renewtTmoa tEI f '.',%� r „ a \ '\<� r _,`/`/ '{ ^,rJ TI.: W�`\��• .,,` \� .•�91,. t t t°1 t -" \,:, `^�I� >`mAII� fr .` t y r �",! : .�, c=. a; .1 '� •. '� ;,,�,, k 1 ti�...r x ?`�1n,^' k "� w Z 'tr :, t .,�. COM.MERAL, ' =• I` � ��'` 1 g! j t Dave r . 3w f'�/ 't.t/ •+� 'J t�...';2.: �,� t ; s' lYt� S.. her ..>.\ `t '�\ �,• t �,;r "`Y _ ■ �. �• I ...__t , } Its i 1C �., Poomorsema.m mccom / � �%{ IF t r ./ � -�, � '��__.+u. .�.ri_r.1r1 ,...Lt.,,? _,;k '—•.'^t�--,.�-.rq�� Ro. �..i.� �' _ / I ��' t � .....✓ r �, Al 4 .. ,, ,•. � t } \ .r t r y: � w:;: _ � I � t t iv 11 1 � t ' r.�. ^ r, ?.i ! � �� 1. ti ^ �\ � �� i t _ •.. .,ra, A�k,�, t �t:, A REALIGNED INTERSECTION i ® 1 Pine Street Extension from SR 104 provides the only access to the planning area, and improvements to this street such as sidewalks and turning lanes will be required to ensure safe and adequate site access. The railroad continues to present a barrier to site access from the west. With the elimination of the ferry access and the multi -modal facility, projected traffic volumes to and from the study area will be significantly lower. Without the Edmonds Crossing project, pedestrian access from the site to the waterfront becomes problematic. Aside from topographic and engineering constraints, the high costs associated with providing a grade -separated access across the railroad, including negotiating an appropriate easement or license from the railroad, would create great difficulty. However, the design and development costs alone should not preclude the potential of providing such access. Accordingly, Upper and Lower Yard development will be designed to reasonably accommodate future pedestrian access to the waterfront. To the extent that waterfront access is later afforded with Lower Yard development and benefits site development, the developer(s) may contribute to this effort through the donation of land, or through other mutually agreeable means. Building Dimensions and Relationships Height, bulk, and overall dimensional requirements for Alternative Two do not differ from the Preferred Alternative. Due to the increased size of the area designated for mixed use development, the development potential in this area is increased as shown in Figure 8. Figure 8. Development Potential, MP2 Zone Alternative Two FLOOR LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION 1 parking; retail/service 55 000" 09 2 office; residential 180,000 120 3 office; residential 180,000 120 4 office; residential 140,000 93 TOTAL 555,000 833 Phasing As with the Preferred Alternative, the first phase of development would feature the residential and open space development on the Upper Yard. Development of the Lower Yard would occur in Phase 2. The timing of these development phases has not yet been determined. For each phase, sub -phases of development would be shown as plans are submitted to the city for review. $ Plus parking. v The proposed MP2 Zone does not permit residential uses on the ground floor of a building. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 18�� DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0178 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 305 of 774 CONCLUSION The Point Edwards site is one of the few significant development opportunities remaining in the City of Edmonds. The significance and visibility of the site is evidenced by the high degree of interest shown by local, regional, and state governments and agencies. However, despite the high level of interest shown, and despite the clear documentation of the need to improve ferry access by moving its associated traffic congestion away from Downtown Edmonds, little has been done by any public agency to secure the Point Edwards site for use as a multi -modal facility. This Master Plan preserves the option for a multi -modal facility, while acknowledging that such a development may not come to pass within a reasonable period of time. Unocal Corporation, the property owner, has enjoyed a long history of cooperative working relationships with city government and other involved agencies. The type and intensity of development illustrated in this Master Plan is intended to meet the spirit and the letter of the city's Comprehensive Plan, to encourage action toward the development of a multi -modal center on the property, and to promote the efforts of those who wish to maintain a high quality of life in Edmonds. A multi -modal facility or other development of comparable scope at Point Edwards will benefit the city by providing a development that complements Downtown Edmonds. As noted in the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, the relocation of rail and ferry service from their current locations will improve traffic congestion in the downtown area. At the same time, the site of these relocated facilities can benefit from increased exposure by creating a mixed -use development that maximizes development opportunities while creating an atmosphere that is faithful to the vision set forth in city plans. REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PA�1$A DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 777 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 306 of 774 Appendix A: Proposed Text of MP Zones Appendix B: List of Environmental Studies REVISED FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN PAGE 20 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0180 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 307 of 774 FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0181 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 308 of 774 y... �_ J'q;11�11111qii III �:11 • ,, 16.75.000 MP -MASTER PLAN HILLSIDE MIXED USE ZONE This chapter establishes the hillside mixed use zoning district comprised of two distinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided for in 16.75.010 and 16.75.020 ECDC. 16.75.005 Purpose The MP1 and MP2 zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. To reserve an area where potential exists for planned development that can benefit the public by providing new tax revenue; B. To reserve an area where a mix of land uses can take advantage of site conditions and water views; C. To permit construction in accordance with a master plan concept and site design that is visually pleasing; and D. To promote a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses in a manner that is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and with the Downtown Waterfront Plan that has been adopted as a part of the comprehensive plan. The mix of uses is contemplated to occur throughout the MP1 and MP2 zones; mixed -use development is not required on any specific parcel of land. 16.75.010 Ekes A. Permitted primary uses in MP1: 1. Multi -family Residential 2. Office 3. Hotels/Motels 4. Restaurants, excluding drive-in businesses 5. Local Public Facilities as defined in ECDC 21.55.007 6. Mixed Use Development for any use permitted in this zone. 7. Secondary Service and Retail Uses to the primary use, but excluding trailer sales and service, car lots, heavy equipment sales and service, and any other retail activity that relies primarily on outdoor display of merchandise 8. Conference/Performing Arts Center 0182 Packet Page 309 of 774 9. Day Care 10. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 B. Permitted primary uses in MP2: 1. All uses permitted in 16.75.010(A), except that residential use is prohibited on the ground floor of any building 2. Neighborhood oriented retail uses intended to support other uses in the immediate area, but excluding trailer sales, car lots, heavy equipment sales and service, and any other retail activity that relies primarily on outdoor display of merchandise 3. Service uses as a primary use intended to support other uses in the immediate area, but excluding trailer, car, boat, and equipment services 4. Multimodal transportation center 5. Educational facilities. C. Permitted secondary uses in MP1 and MP2: 1. Off-street surface parking and structured parking to serve a permitted use 2. Shared parking facilities to serve more than one permitted use 3. Off-street loading facilities to serve a permitted use. D. Uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit 1. Buildings or structures that exceed the maximum height limit. This permit is intended to be limited to the approval of a `landmark' building or structure, such as a clock tower, viewing platform, or similarly unique structure that contributes to the overall development. Not more than one such landmark structure shall be permitted for each zone. 16.75.020 Site Development Standards A. Any development located in MP1 or MP2 zones shall be subject to design review in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC. B. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Sub Minimum Minimum . Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum Minimum District lot area lot width street side rear height coverage . floor lot area setback setbacks setback2 % area3 per 1 For residential buildings, setbacks apply to exterior lot line only, and not to any interior lot lines within a development. 0183 Packet Page 310 of 774 dwelling unit S.F. M131 none none 15, 10, 15' 3514,5 75 3 sq.ft./s.f. 2,400 of lot area MP2 none none none none none 45' 75 4 sq.ft./s.f. 2,400 of lot area C. Signs, Parking, and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC. D. Master Plan Required. 1. No development shall be permitted in an MP1 or MP2 zone unless a master plan has been prepared, identifying potential land uses and densities as set forth in 16.75.020(D)(2). 2. A Master Plan shall describe the land use parameters and relationships to guide future site development. The plan shall, in a general manner, define the site layout by showing development areas by type of use, circulation patterns, site access, residential densities (if applicable), maximum square footage of non-residential uses (if applicable), and any open space areas and buffers. The plan shall also illustrate the relationship between the site and adjoining properties. 3. All property identified in the master plan shall be developed in a manner consistent with the provisions of the master plan. 4. It is intended that site layouts, the range and intensity of uses, access, and circulation shall be depicted in both graphic and narrative form in a general manner. Subsequent to the adoption of a master plan, more detailed site and design information shall be submitted for review in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC. The applicant also has the option of submitting a master plan concurrently with a specific site design. Other necessary applications, such as subdivision, Binding Site Plan (BSP), or Planned Residential Development (PRD), may also be submitted concurrently. If submitted concurrently, the city shall review the applications concurrently. However, no site design or other approval shall be granted until such time as the master plan is approved. Figure A: 2 See footnote 1. 3 The Maximum Floor Area is intended to limit the size of non-residential development only. In the case of a mixed -use development that includes residences, the Maximum Floor Area calculation shall be applied to the residential use as well. 4 Roof may extend up to five feet above the stated height limit if designed as part of an approved modulated design in accordance with 20.10 ECDC. 5 Building height may be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building as illustrated, but not limited to, Figures A, B and C. 0184 Packet Page 311 of 774 A building is considered to have two or more clearly separated portions when each portion is separated by a one-story high (min.) space above a plaza or roof. Multiple floors above the plaza may be connected by an open-air bridge no wider than 10'-0". Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the plaza or roof as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations. See figure below: Figure B: A building is considered to have two or more clearly separated portions when the line of the roof changes (a vertical shift). Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the wall below the shift in roof heights as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations. See figure below: Figure C: A building is considered to have two or more clearly separated portions when the floor plates shift (.a horizontal shift). Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the wall along the shift in floor plates as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations. See figure below: 0185 Packet Page 312 of 774 5. A master plan may be approved as a comprehensive plan amendment, a Planned Residential Development (PRD), or as a contract rezone. The planning advisory board and city council shall review -and act upon a proposed master plan in accordance with the provisions of 20.100.020 and 20.100.030 ECDC, except in the case of a PRD, which shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of 20.35 ECDC. 0186 Packet Page 313 of 774 FINAL - POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EDMONDS, WA 0187 MAY 14, 2002 Packet Page 314 of 774 01, 1 k I 1, , GeoEngineers 1986. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for UNOCAL Corporation. December 4. GeoEngineers 1987. Progress Report No. 1, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. August 31. GeoEngineers 1988a. Progress Report No. 2, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. October 10. GeoEngineers 1988b. Report of Geotechnical Services, Subsurface Contamination Study, Upland Fuel Tank Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1988c. Phase I Site Assessment Report, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1989a. Progress Report No. 3, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. September 19. GeoEngineers 1989b. Technical Report, Phase H Site Assessment, Lake McGuire, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1989c. Report of Geotechnical Services, Site Contamination Assessment, Waste Soil Stockpile Area, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1990 Results of Site Characterization, Marine Diesel Spill, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1991 a. Progress Report No. 4, Subsurface Product Recovery Program, Edmonds Fuel Terminal. April 19. GeoEngineers 1991b. Site Contamination Assessment, Lower Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington GeoEngineers 1993 Supplemental Subsurface Contamination Assessment, Upper Yard, Edmonds Fuel Terminal and Burlington Northern Railroad Properties, Edmonds, Washington EMCON 1994a. Free Petroleum Product Recovery System Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 20. EMCON 1994b. Background History Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 15. EMCON 1995a. Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 26. .1 0188 Packet Page 315 of 774 EMCON 1995b. Final Upland Sediments Evaluation Work Plan. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 1. EMCON 1995c. Addendum, Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, April 26, 1995. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 31. EMCON 1995d. Existing Monitoring Well Assessment and Proposed Monitoring Well Network, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. September 21. EMCON 1996a. Interim Deliverable, Drainage System Inventory Results, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. February 8. EMCON 1996b. 1995 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 29. EMCON 1996c. Final Feasibility Study Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. April 12. EMCON 1996d. Preliminary Upper Yard Hydrogeology Evaluation, Unocal Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. May 6. EMCON 1996e. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal RI/FS, Combustible Gas Monitoring and Evaluation. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. July 25. EMCON 1996f. Draft Remedial 'Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. August 23. EMCON 1997a. 1996 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 27. EMCON 1997b. Revised RI Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. October, as amended March 26, 1998. EMCON 1998a, 1997 Interim Product Recovery Operations, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. March 24. EMCON. 1998e. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation Asset Management Group. October 19. EMCON 1999. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, August 1998 and February 1999 Groundwater Data. May 13. Maul Foster & Alongi 1999. 1998 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 1. 2 0189 Packet Page 316 of 774 Maul Foster & Alongi 2000a. 1999 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. January 31. Maul Foster & Alongi 2000c. Unocal Edmonds Terminal, February 2000 Groundwater Data, July 25. Maul Foster & Alongi. 2001 a. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. February 2. Maul Foster & Alongi. 2001b. 2000 Interim Product Recovery Operations Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal. February 6. Documents concerning Marina Beach, Tidelands and Neighboring Properties: MFA. 2001 a. Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. MFA. 2001b. Draft Interim Action Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. MFA. 2001c. Draft Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. MFA. 2001 d. Updated Feasibility Study Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. June. WA. 2001e. Bidding Documents for Lower Yard Interim Action, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. July 10. WA. 2001f. Letter to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding Unocal Edmonds Terminal, September 2001 Surface Water Data. November 21. MFA. 2001g. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. Updated November 29. U FA. 2001h. Letter to David South, Department of Ecology, regarding Unocal Edmonds Terminal, 2001 Groundwater Data. November 29. MFA. 2001i. Technical Memorandum. Terrestrial Ecological Evaluation of Upper Yard, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. November 30. MFA. 2001j. Draft Storm Water Management System, Operations and Maintenance Manual, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. December 28. 3 0190 Packet Page 317 of 774 MFA. 2002a. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. Cultural Resources Monitoring Procedures for Groundwater Monitoring Well Borings Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Lower Yard. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 21. MFA. 2002b. Addendum to Sampling and Analysis Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal. Cultural Resources Monitoring and Survey Procedures, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Upper Yard. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 25. MFA. 2002c. Draft Whole Effluent Toxicity Work Plan, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. Prepared for Unocal Corporation. January 31. MFA. 2002d. Draft Lower Yard Interim Action As -Built Report, Unocal Edmonds Terminal, Edmonds, Washington. January 31. 4 0191 Packet Page 318 of 774 pvsp� �%.k a. FILE NO. ADB-06-97: An application to modify the design of the upper floors of building 10 on the Point Edwards project. BOARDMEMBER UTT MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER, TO APPROVE THE POINT EDWARDS PROJECT, ADB-2006-97, WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES, INCLUDING THE HEIGHT CALCULATIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 2. THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS MUST INDICATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE BULK REGULATIONS OF THE MPI ZONE AND THE ADB APPROVED PLAN FOR THE SITE. BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.10, ADB CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED (4-1; CHAIRMAN ANDERSON ABSTAINED). b. FILE NO. ADB-06-124: Requested approval for a new wall -mounted sign for the Edmonds Center for the Arks and a pylon sign for the Center's gymnasium. BOARDMEMBER UTT MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER KENDALL, TO APPROVE ADB-2006- 124 FOR THE SIGNAGE THAT IS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: None. 8. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): None. 9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: None. 10. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: Boardmember Utt requested a correction to the September 6, 2006 ADB meeting minutes. CHAIRMAN ANDERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER, TO ALLOW A CORRECTION TO BE MADE. MOTION CARRIED. Boardmember Utt explained that the word previously spelled as "cowl" wall several times in the minutes should be corrected to reflect "Cal" wall, c-a-1. BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER WHITE, TO CORRECT THE WORD "COWL" TO REFLECT CAL, SPELLED C-A-I. Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 October 4, 2006 - Synopsis 0192 Attachment 6 Packet Page 319 of 774 e75. ',6._ CITY OF EDMONDS t' - 121 5THAVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WASBM • (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT I17 e . is (01 Planning • Building • Engineering Letter of Transmittal Date: October 6, 2006 To: ADB Applicants Subject: ADB Meeting of 10/4/06 Transmitting Architectural Design Board Synopsis For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: Comment: Enclosed is your copy of the ADB Synopsis. Please call if you have any questions. Note attachments: X Sincerely, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Diane M. Cunningham, Administrative Assistant • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City 041an, Japan Packet Page 320 of 774 To: From: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT October 4, 2006 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION VISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ste)* Bullock, Senior Planner Date: SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 ADB-2006-97: An application to modify the design of the upper floors of building 10 on the Pt. Edwards project. A. Applicant/Property Owner ArchitectlRenresentative Pt. Edwards, LLC Weber + Thompson Pier 702801 Alaska Way, Suite 107 425 Pontius Ave. N. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle, WA 98109 B. Site Location: 50 Pine St. C. Introduction: The applicant was before the Architectural Design Board at their September meeting to address the proposed addition. After reviewing the submitted drawings, the ADB continued the item to their October meeting to allow the applicant to submit more descriptive drawings. Those drawings have been submitted and are included for the Board's review. The initial design of building 10 of the Pt. Edwards project had the western half of the building approximately a floor taller than the eastern portion of the building. After reviewing their allowed capacity on the site and the demand for units, the applicant is proposing to have the entire building project up to the upper limit. They have submitted information that shows how their modified proposal will comply with the height limits of the zone. D. Background: 1. Zoning: The proposed modification of building 10 does not increase the density of the development beyond what is allowed for the site. The entire project continues to comply with all the MP 1 bulk regulations. 2. Environmental: Review: The City has adopted the previous Environmental Determination for the project in that no additional adverse impacts will be created by the proposed modification that City codes don't have the ability to resolve. 3. Issues: Staff must confirm the compliance of the project with the bulk standards of the MP 1 zone and other city regulations like parking and critical areas. The Architectural Design Board Page 1 of 3 0194 Packet Page 321 of 774 wr' Staff Report for ALB-2006-97 PI Edwards Bldg 10 Modification must determine whether the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria found in ECDC 20.10 and 20.12 and also with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. In the Urban Design Guidelines, the subject property falls under the direction of the Downtown Activity Center — Multi -Family Residential. E. Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Compliance : The following is staffs analysis of the project's compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 1. ECDC 16.75 MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed —Use Zone: a. The MP I zone specifically provides for Multi -family development as a permitted primary use. b. No change to the original site plan which complied with zoning requirements of the MP I zone is proposed. Also, the applicant will have to continue to show with their final building permit submittal how the project complies with the height limit of the MP I zone. 2. ECDC 17.50 Parking: a. The applicant will have to show as part of their building permit submittal how all the required parking is provided. F. Staff Analysis of Design Criteria and Urban Design Guidelines: The following is an analysis of the project's compliance with ECDC Chapters 20.10 and 20.12 and the Urban Design Guidelines. This project is subject to the specific standards for Multi -Family Residential in the Downtown Activity Center as outlined in the Urban Design Guidelines (see Attachment 2 Appendix D of this packet). 1. Site Design: a. Site Organization: No change. b. Parking: No change. c. Landscaping: No change. d. Streetscape: No change. e. Signage: No change. f. Lighting: No change. g. Screening: No change. h. Dumpster Enclosures: No change. i. Context. No change. 2. Building Design: a. General: As the drawings, photos and site plans submitted indicate the proposed building is intended to retain the same character as the overall complex a. This is consistent with the design guidelines and the complex. b. Materials: The same colors and materials are being used. c. Shapes and Forms: Similar shapes and forms are being used. d. Details and Fenestration: Details and fenestration reflect what is already being used on the site. Page 2 of 3 0195 Packet Page 322 of 774 Staff Rq*rt for ADB-2006-97 Pt Edwards Bldg 10 Modification e. Size, Height and Bulk: The size, height and bulk continues to be consistent with what is approved for the site. F. Summary: 1. With the proposed conditions, staff feels that the development is consistent with the bulk standards, use requirements and other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. 3. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the requirements of the criteria of ECDC sections 20.10 and 20.12. Typically, compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines indicates compliance with the Design Review Criteria. G. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Board approve ADB-2006-97 with the following conditions: 1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits. 2. The building permit submittals must indicate compliance with all the bulk regulations of the MP 1 zone and the ADB approved plan for the site. Because with these conditions the board finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies, the staff has found the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes of ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria, Attachments: 1. Drawings and photo package Page 3 of 3 0196 Packet Page 323 of 774 0 W v PROPOSED BUILDING #10 FOR POINT EDWARDS WEBER+THOMPSON september 20, 2006 RECEIVED SEP 2 12006 PERMIT COUNTER PANT EDWARDS COMMUNITY PROPOSAL FOR MODIFICATION TO BUILDING #10 graphics and images for architectural design review board supplemental package presented by WEBER+THOMPSON 425 Pontius Ave N Suite 200 Seattle WA 98109 206 344 5700 CID www.weberthompson.com on September 20, 2006 to Steve Bullock City of Edmonds ARB and Point Edwards LLC COPYRIGHT 2005 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPROOUCEO WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION Executive Summary The proposed alteration to Building #10 will be the continuation of the higher roof line carried from the west to the east end. This will also allow for the addition of 8 to 9 units on the east end. The building will continue to use the same architectural language in exterior materials, volumes and roof line modulation as the previous buildings on the site. ii M: r 0 Q O N 0) Q a U T , Z000 (0to� �� T T T T T JJ�V),IJ so am Packet Page 326 of 774 09/20/06 2 Section Cut "B" Ant POINT EDWARDS I ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN WITH SECTION CUTS INDICATED " COPYRIGHT 2006 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION O N O 09/20/06 3 i Fi "Oil Lam" I -�-� - SITE SEOTION 'D' Fr.t.Mr4r I- _____-_..----------- ------_--_:.�____---. Ll�fw! -r�"� rrrr.�.rrrw..rrr_w_r_..rrrrrw .rwN_M11 Ia1T w —-w_w—w_•�:�.i..l �_=wrrr�r� ..�..«—�rw�.�r—w�.w—_..r_«.-� ��— N ---..____-M_ -w___ w -_r.-w__w.w_.»-rr�_w�-+�.-._-..--w_-w_�www.w ....- �--....-..,r.w-_w. �--r....w_w..s-_-w• .,�r-rr_r._rrrrwr� --- •_ __ �.ela.oa�Ioa SITE BEC710M '01 �� wn�arrfr�rrllt POINT EDWARDS I ORIGINAL SITE SECTIONS C AND D LA On COPYRIGHT 2005 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION T d m sy CD m w N co O_ J v A N N COPYRIGHT 2005 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION POINT EDWARDS I ORIGINAL SITE SECTIONS E AND F S E MOM 'P' �r■w-v 09/20/06 4 LA m T v m w w 0 0 N W OOPYRIGHT 2005 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN F ERIAMSION POINT EDWARDS I ORIGINAL BUILDING SECTION 10E AND 10W 09/20/06 5 U 0 N 0 I / 1 WA } Ilil5y55`41 BLDi7 Nb.101N r 1 \ ! 1 AVG. GRADE 157.50' MAX HGT. 1925" \ . R 188.5' \\ x \ L5 177.5' ' L4 1K5' (LOBBY, COUR7) eLDG No AVG. GRADE 14 • • , LS 1555' (P1) . `: 14UP HGT. 182C •� ., % \\�\\. R .5' u 1 OBBYJ ..\.\ .,..� -�-- L3 155. (Pi------- L2 14& ' 1334,04 �W m ss� THE METHOD PRESUMED USED HERE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION IS TWO 1 SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WERE USED 425 Pantlus Ave N Sulu 200 Seattle WA 98100 t 206 3" 5700 f 206 749 5005 weberthompeon.com PROJECT NAME L A Point Edwards Buidling 10 SHEET THEE ram SHEET NO. WEBER +TH O M P S O N FMMIT A: CURRENT MASTER PLAN PLLO PROD. N0. 064)42 1 i-'--�»sue PIERIl` LII E 15(0.0 Lik;: :,n,� i I ,'r - - - `- AVC� QItAaE a6S47 09/26/06 6 t \ m ,, ---- �% lI � `♦♦ 1 5 1 \ \ \\ \ \ \ 1 AVG. GRADE = 114' + 15(o + 13� 5' + 145' � 4 '� 153.4' S`� MAX HEIGHT ALLOWABLE = 153.'4 + 35' = 188A' ,c-VK'T1A11- rA 425 Pontius Ave N Sults 200 Seattle WA 98109 t 206 344 5700 f 206 749 5005 weberthompson.com PROJECT NAME L A Point Edwards Buidling 10 SHEET TILE ISSUE SHEET NO. WEBER +T H O M P S O N E31MIT B: PROPOSED ROOF LINE P L L O PROD. NO. 06-042 POINT EDWARDS I EXHIBIT A AND B ii COPYRIGHT 2006 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED Wn'HOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION O O N r 7Z1 - . - . - . - . . - . - . - s!e�e o:oe MIN BUILDING #10 SECTION THROUGH EAST END -ORIGINAL 09/20/06 7 �'�' 1�7'0� IilRli� Rol mom Il1Al� Ml rARr OF m N.F N I MMA RD DR m RGrY wo CCOR[ mm .—.—.—.—. FGI?w_ma ------.....�...�..� • • - . - . - • - . - . Ii Ji1� lila.yr - I •�_.��li Ii Ii Ii I-li - IIU T�l ri . - . - . - . - . - . - f ._.-.-._.-._ --� - - - - - mr . - . - . .- ------------------- - �. _ _ Awl mR u__ - - - - . - . YMLY 1 ----------------------- ------ 1-1 ------ BUILDING #10 SECTION THROUGH EAST END - PROPOSED POINT EDWARDS I BUILDING 10 PROPOSED ROOF LINE ALTERATION SITE SECTION COMPARISON `A COPYRIGHT 2005 WEBER+TNOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION �„�• ,�� lid ..._ _' � � yy n � .sir a 1--� i .. i .�.xas. ea,.a - - i-%' i w w i t i�i� a i i �SIRR•� V','W ■. � _ _Liter s _ t: 1 F-_ '" _ _ I�, _ -._9! ____T. • 9 I II A!A LIT s. ,y I 4 i• f s � r " M-1 LJ U,, A c NOW nft-w, lu yLJ IT ;�.., z , , 1 LVJ LU t........w�..,.� ���'{ a r - � ��►..r` .�....r .w.-�rJr►w- ��'�""^ -`'r'M+wIPa�"'� ....w - 1 F Lal -''� `Y r.Wa•t'�4wccssA s. F., .. _. __ .. _._.__._. � - } F.. - r is .. -.'•.. ...,,,,A �.i -rye �---X-� -gin ail R ' � Tf 5. 1 LULf ILU LIE l Pi._ LJ U r , L Y . F. • , - - - -- a' '!' �. - F k 1. � - � �.seT�._ � - :tip .! ,.a% - 't^' - - . �•�/ �-3�1.�- `,,....' y i �� f -•'�-iil�"' �"!�'�r~ arm. - .r{�`_ M. •h J J , „_.'`^y i +�� �y'_ � �� ` �4$- . . � - � _�Y i y ��.�; : i f .;,Ra s � .. , a`t t , .� - i�R � -way .• i ,µif`.., -� •�-v �� ~.i,[ - }t ry. }` �'{" - � - `��- i. •t �� ��' t WRT h �4,4er f ' !.. ay• r. Y. _ 1. _ ., .t .4 p, �—_ - - .`4 {/y.` e'a ♦1 {_1 YI OW .- ,�.. . ! E - ei.i �.� +-:, El-��„ to � � - �y j 1.• :. - r YY '1 r • {a .�. x - ° ` -�� � ♦� § i _ - i ♦-, t� - �'�'}'• �+,.�`,ti 'w -;lid _ � 1'• h �' ►h 4Y -i•-•�«•3 � - - }, .r J" •! -fie. _ _ �_� - ��`�g - ��+1sY_- •; has __ �[' '.l, ,1 �': 54�._ - e i �� 4 psis, -�.. _... .-. -_• .•4 ._.. i l ._..✓�'.a li_�' -� �'+�r,�, —;.� Y. • ,. _ - -,�: �..i�'.r° k —r- - —€ -- 'ate'"!". i�>a� { �'• w � �' � ��,---...�.�.�4—+mac-��eK _ •�.• .,� 1 � .�.—O ;,f- J•" 1_,�.F.� � ;.' i{.�%T 1gR►JSRT�",�.;�. +�. LIr '�`•.R _ram r!� � `` � _ •r.. - �-...�t��.�r _ r!. �. _ ;_i��Air _� t„"'".+ _ -lipc .... '�- •. •} i tV ,��' - - r' ;/ ts•.' -�- ,� - Y� �+lF,, w{ r � ryiy� �' � �.�.o- ' - �Y t � , .. '! , �,-T� *,,,ey � � _� ��+L ,. !• '•try+-� -. i sf r .Y r M " — r x r n i' aim .4., L'{ • � 7-� .3'""`'�lit�."'�yr .,,r,.. :gam �" �':. �• 1711 __ 4_0 "P 4T �f- -fy-P �f. P• -y.� ` - t N. �' - ` a.- fir.: �' i:�-.� -•-s •Y r•'1,-.-w• - 0 N 0 existing building #3 north elevation; building #10 to have similar materials and landscaping existing building #4 east end; building #10 to be similar buildings #1 and #2 south elevation; building #10 to be similar 09/20/06 12 POINT EDWARDS EXISTING BUILDINGS #1 THROUGH #4 1 MATERIALS, LANDSCAPE AND HANDSCAPE LA COPYRIGHT 2005 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED 1MITHOLFT WRITTEN PERMPSSION �40* v4w CHAPTER 20.12 — LANDSCAPING, AND STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c. FILE NO. ADB-06-94: An application to refurbish Old Milltown. The site is located at 20, 51' Avenue South and is zoned Community Business (BC). BOARDMEMBER KENDALL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SMITH, TO APPROVE MINOR PROJECT ADB-2006-94, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THOSE CODES AND APPROVALS (LE. PARKING AND ADB APPROVAL); • THE APPLICANT IS TO PROVIDE A FINAL PLANTING PLAN WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT WHICH WILL BE APPROVED BY STAFF; • THE AWNINGS ALONG FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS AND EXTEND FIVE TO SIX FEET OVER THE SIDEWALK AT THE ARCHITECT'S DISCRETION; BECAUSE WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, THE STAFF HAS FOUND THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES THE CRITERIA AND PURPOSES OF ECDC SECTION 20.10, ADB CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED (4-1; BOARDMEMBER MICHEL OPPOSED). d. FILE NO. ADB-0 -97: An application to modify the design of building 10 of the Point Edwards project. Instead of a building that has a stepped roof design for the upper two floors, it would have an upper floor that covers the entire building. The site is located at 50 Pine Street and is zoned Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use (MI'l)• BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SMITH, TO CONTINUE FILE NUMBER ADB-06-97 PROJECT TO ANOTHER MEETING IN ORDER TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROJECT AND TO CONSIDER IT FURTHER MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: None. $. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): b. FILE NO. ADB-06-99: An application by the Bank of Washington to build a new bank building, including drive through. The site is located at 202 5d' Avenue South and is zoned Community Business (BC). BOARDMEMBER MICHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ADB-06-99 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 September 6, 2006 - Synopsis 0211 Packet Page 338 of 774 Date: To: Subject: � �w CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www6edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning *.Building • Engineering Letter of Transmittal September 8, 2006 ADB Applicants ADB Meeting of 9/6/06 Transmitting Architectural Design Board Synopsis For Your Information: X As you requested: For your file: Comment: Enclosed is your copy of the ADB Synopsis. Please call if you have any guestions. Note attachments: X Sincerely, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Diane M. Cunningham, Administrative Assistant Packet Page 339 of 774 • Incorporate Est 11,1890 • Sister City ekinan, Japan 40� To: The From: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT September 6, 2006 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION VISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Senior Planner Date: AUGUST 31, 2006 ADB-2006-97: An application to modify the design of the upper floors of building 10 on the Pt. Edwards project. A. Aunlicant/PronelU Owner Pt. Edwards, LLC Pier 702801 Alaska Way, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98121 B. Site Location: 50 Pine St. C. Introduction: Arch itect/Reyresentative Weber + Thompson 425 Pontius Ave. N. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 The initial design of building 10 of the Pt. Edwards project had approximately half of the building a floor taller than the rest of the building. After reviewing their allowed capacity on the site and the demand for units, the applicant is proposing to have the entire building project up to the upper limit. D. Background: 1. Zoning: The proposed modification of building 10 does not increase the density of the development beyond what is allowed for the site. The entire project continues to comply with all the MP I bulk regulations. 2. Environmental Review: The City has adopted the previous Environmental Determination for the project in that no additional adverse impacts will be created by the proposed modification that City codes don't have the ability to resolve. 3. Issues: Staff must confirm the compliance of the project with the bulk standards of the MP 1 zone and other city regulations like parking and critical areas. The Architectural Design Board must determine whether the proposal is consistent with the design review criteria found in ECDC 20.10 and 20.12 and also with the City's Urban Design Guidelines. In the Urban Design Guidelines, the subject property falls under the direction of the Downtown Activity Center -- Multi-Family Residential. Page 1 of 3 0213 Packet Page 340 of 774 '111140- Staff Report for ADB-2006-97 Pt Edwards Bldg 10 Modification E. Development Code and Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The following is staffis analysis of the project's compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code and the City's Comprehensive Plan. 1. ECDC 16.75 MP — Master Plan Hillside Mixed —Use Zone: a. The MP zone specifically provides for Multi -family development as a permitted primary use. b. No change to the original site plan which complied with zoning requirements of the MP 1 zone is proposed. Also, the applicant will have to show with their final building permit submittal how the project complies with the height limit of the MP 1 zone. 2. ECDC 17.50 Parking: a. The applicant will have to show as part of their building permit submittal how all the required parking is provided. F. Staff Analysis of Design Criteria and Urban Design Guidelines: The following is an analysis of the project's compliance with ECDC Chapters 20.10 and 20.12 and the Urban Design Guidelines. This project is subject to the specific standards for Multi -Family Residential in the Downtown Activity Center as outlined in the Urban Design Guidelines (see Attachment 2 Appendix D of this packet). 1. Site Design: a. Site Organization: No change. b. Parking: No change. c. Landscaping: No change. d. Streetscape: No change. e. Signage: No change. f. Lighting: No change. g. Screening: No change. h. Dumpster Enclosures: No change. i. Context: No change. 2. Building Design: a. General: As the drawings, photos and site plans submitted indicate the proposed building is intended to retain the same character as the overall complex a. This is consistent with the design guidelines and the complex. b. Materials: The same colors and materials are being used. c. Shapes and Forms: Similar shapes and forms are being used. d. Details and Fenestration: Details and fenestration reflect what is already being used on the site. e. Size, Height and Bulk. The size, height and bulk continues to be consistent with what is approved for the site. Page 2 of 3 0214 Packet Page 341 of 774 *41MV Staff Report for ADB-2006-97 Pt Edwards Bldg 10 Modification F. Summary: 1. With the proposed conditions, staff feels that the development is consistent with the bulk standards, use requirements and other regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. 3. It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the project is consistent with the requirements of the criteria of ECDC sections 20.10 and 20.12. Typically, compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines indicates compliance with the Design Review Criteria. G. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Board approve ADB-2006-97 with the following conditions: 1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits. 2. The building permit submittals must indicate compliance with all the bulk regulations of the MP 1 zone and the ADB approved plan for the site. Because with these conditions the board finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted city policies, the staff has found the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes of ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria. Attachments: 1. Letter and site plans submitted by the applicant 2. Drawings and photo package Page 3 of 3 0215 Packet Page 342 of 774 M July 31, 2006 Mr. Steve Bullock City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Point Edwards Land Use Action Dear Steve, While entertaining visitors and prospective buyers at Point Edwards over the last couple of years as well as through market analysis, we have received a great deal of commentary and ideas on refining the future of Point Edwards. We have already proposed and have been approved an increase of units allowed on site (up to 350) and the second Amenities building. (Please reference the MDNS adopted on May 23, 2005). This approval of additional units has permitted us to re-examine the site allowing additional units on Building 10. In re-examining the height calculations for our last building, it appears the original architect that performed the height calculations did not consider including another floor on the east end of Building 10. As this item was re -visited, we found, and you have confirmed, that this additional level is well within the allowable height. To achieve additional homes we are requesting to extend the roof line from the western elevation to the eastern elevation. To extend the roofline, we have also had to reexamine the site/grading to allow for a higher elevation on the west end. In coordination with lowering the building slightly, we are able to incorporate this continuous roofline and still remain below the maximum building height. We will continue to use the same forms, materials and modulation in both the roof line and the exterior elevations. The extended roofline will allow for 8 to 9 more units in this building. The underground garage will be slightly enlarged, ensuring we will be able to accommodate the increased parking required. All other issues as discussed in last year's MDNS have been addressed. The maximum number of units on the overall development will be below the 350-unit maximum approved in 2005. Sincerely, Poi t Edwarrds LLC Ross W. Woods CC: Rick Gifford Valerie Sargent 2801 Alaskan Way, Suffe 107 Seattle, WA 98121 RossAoointedwards.com 206-374-0414 office 206-374-0415fox 206-617.71SS cellular ATTACHMENT 1 AOB-06-97 0216 Packet Page 343 of 774 LE E va � Rm I I I too � WW 009- 1 1 I 1 i 1 \1 111111 t'?41� �y1 ' ti11�4i ti•1 MAX. HGT. 192.5" R \�� L5 L4 177.5' 166.5'(LOBBY, COURT) BLDGN0. •`\ �`� L3 155.5' (Pi) AVG. GRADE 14 . kcil 2 145.17' 2j . HGT. 182.5' `� ij R 7.5' ::. •• \ L4 16 . ' LOBB1? ...�� N._ L3 155. (PI COURT) - — L2 14-5. 134.84 I J-Hi I I �Q N W m THE METHOD PRESUMED USED HERE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION IS TWO 1 SEPARATE MEASUREMENTS WERE USED 425 Pontius Ave N Suite 200 Seattle WA 98109 t 206 344 5700 f 206 749 5005 weberthompaon.com PROJECT NAME L A Point Edwards Buidiing 10 MEET TITLE ISSUE SHEET NO. WEBER +T H O M P S O N EXBIIBiT A; CURRENT MASTER PLAN P L L a PROD. NO. 06-042 0217 Packet Page 344 of 774 -+i�..C_�,t4 \`\`� \\` \\ 1\\ �i may♦ �\ �' ^� FR �r--- ♦ �� Tom, � w � '\\ \�``�` \\ \ t \ \ \\ \ \� \. 1 1OPER3Y. LIKE � • \ \� \ ♦ i \!\}ttty _ _ �� \ • \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ .t 15(0.0 ✓� 'f AVG. GRAE 457.50' ; \`\ \\` �� \ + \ i \ ♦\ vz ♦\� `\ y t y \ j 5 \ `` BLDG IMU. f \ t 4 1 (LOB" wit - - - - - �t.� t' ♦`♦ 555 CWRTjZO '04' \ iy ` it AVG. GRADE 1�4' + 156' + ,134.5' + 14 ' ' 1 4 '� 153.4' MAX HEIGHT ALLOWA5LE = 153.'4 + 35' = 188.4' r"VICTIArr r4") O 42Pontius Ave N Suite 200 Seattle WA 98109 t 206 344 5700 f 206 749 5005 weberthompson.com PROJECT NAME L J Point Edwards Buidling 10 SHEET 111LE 15511E SHEET N0. w E S E R +TH O M P S O N EXHIBIT B: PROPOSED ROOF LAVE P L L O PROD. NO. 06-042 0218 Packet Page 345 of 774 *400' %&W Z O 0 LL O r 0 Z J_ m cc PT w r r) I ATTACHMENT 2 ADB-0b-97 0219 Packet Page 346 of 774 v v W 41 V 0 V v EDWARDS COMMUNITY PROPOSAL FOR 1ITY PROPOSAL FOR BUILDING #10 :s and images for architectural design review board presented by VMBERaTHOMPSON 425 Pontius Ave N Suite 200 Seattle WA 98109 206 344 5700 www.weberthompson.com on July 27, 2008 to Steve Bullock City of Edmonds ARB and Polr t Edwards LLC Executive Summary The proposed alteration to building 10 will be the continuation of the higher roof line carried from the west to the east end_ This will also allow for the addition of 8 to 9 units on the east end. The building will continue to use the same architectural language in exterior materials, volumes and roof line modulation as the previous buildings on the site. fir►' r z y all,w 0221 Packet Page 348 of 774 07/26/06 3 T N c) 77 CD N (D Point edwards BGrrertt proposed building $10 point edwards proposed alteration to building 110 roolline f.n,Owaon war mn w rApwonuc= VA*iOur w vrroN .aaa.i PROPOSED BUILDINGS 10 MASSING LA OV26/W 4 i building $3 north elevation, building #10 to be materials and landscaping r .TO AMPGM WV NOT x6moO D�v rr.w &aN exlsting building #4 east end, building t10 to be similar bu#dkV #1 + 2 south elevation, building #10 to be simAar POINT EDWARDS EXISTING BUILDING #I to 4 MATERIALS, LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE `+ CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Bruce O'Neill, Vice Chair Lois Broadway Tom Walker Cary Guenther APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Bryan Gootee, Chair (excused) Rick Schaefer (excused) Michael Mestres (excused) Staff Present Kemen Lien, Senior Planner BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2012 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER WALKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS WRITTEN. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: There were no minor projects. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: File Number PLN20120040: Public hearing on proposed revisions to Point Edwards Building 10 and associated landscaping. Mr. Lien provided a brief overview of the Point Edwards Development. He explained that, consistent with the Point Edwards Master Plan, a contract rezone for the site was approved in 2002 and identified the upper yard where the Point Edwards Development is located as Master Plan (MP) 1 and the lower yard as MP2. The lower yard is envisioned for Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 1 of 15 0225 Attachment 7 Packet Page 352 of 774 mixed -use development associated with the Edmonds Crossing Project, which has been postponed to a future date. The upper yard was intended to be residential type development with a density of about 419 units. The Point Edwards Development was originally approved in 2003 (File Number ADB-02-226) for 295 residential units. In 2005, the developer approached the ADB with a request to increase the number of units to 350. After an appropriate review process, the request was approved. He recalled that the ADB attached a number of conditions to their original approval, and the applicant is present to specifically discuss the following two conditions: Staff shall confirm the landscape plan has not significantly changed from the current proposal or it must return to the Board for final approval. Staff shall confirm that the materials and colors used are consistent with the design of the development or they must be brought back to the Board for final approval. Mr. Lien explained that the surface parking lot associated with Building 10 was originally approved for 27 parking stalls, and the current proposal is for 74. In addition, the proposed landscaping for Building 10 includes a water feature and patio area (east side of Building 10) in a location that was previously designated as a landscaped area. He also advised that the design and materials currently proposed for Building 10 have changed from the original and subsequent ADB approvals. Because the two conditions were given through a public hearing process, the City Attorney felt the proposed changes should be referred back to the ADB for further review and a public hearing. Mr. Lien said staff feels the landscaping proposed by the applicant is consistent with code requirements. However, they recommend that the landscaping be increased along the rockery that is located on the southern side of the parking area. He provided a picture of the existing rockery, which is about seven feet tall. He noted that there are brambles growing on the top of it. Given that the surface parking area has expanded significantly, staff feels it should be screened better from the residents to the south. However, there are some constraints given that only one foot of property on top of the rockery belongs to the property owner. Mr. Lien advised that the applicant provided a narrative (Pages 33-35 of Attachment 3) to demonstrate how the proposed Building 10 complies with the design guidelines contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that viewing Building 10 as a stand-alone development, it may meet many of the design characteristics identified in the applicant's narrative. However, it is the last building of the Point Edwards Development and should be reviewed in the context of the overall master plan, which has guided development of the site up to this point. He emphasized that Building 10 will crown the Point Edwards Development; it is significantly higher and will stand above the rest of the buildings on the site. Staff believes the building should blend in better with the rest of the development. Mr. Lien specifically referred to Comprehensive Plan Design Objective C.8.c, which calls out the need to "retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. " He provided elevation drawings to illustrate the significant differences between the design currently being proposed by the applicant and the design most recently approved by the ADB in 2006. He noted that the previously approved Building 10 and other existing Point Edwards residential structures provide both vertical and horizontal modulation with large decks at different elevations. The modulation in the roof is also more pronounced. The current proposal provides some vertical modulation, but it lacks the horizontal modulation and many of the trim features that are included on the existing buildings. He reminded the Board that the MP zone has a height limit of 35 feet, with an additional 5-foot height bonus for a modulated roof design. Given the lack of specific guidance in the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan about what a modulated roof design is, staff is seeking input from the Board about whether the proposed roof design has sufficient modulation to warrant the additional five feet in height. While the Staff Report indicates otherwise, the applicant recently submitted new elevations showing how the proposed building would meet the current height standards if the five-foot height bonus is allowed. Mr. Lien said the City received a number of comments regarding the proposal. Many were provided in the Staff Report, and those that were received after the Staff Report was published were included in the packet the Board received just prior to the meeting. He summarized the comments as follows: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 2 of 15 0226 Packet Page 353 of 774 • Concern was expressed that the proposed design of Building 10 was significantly different in style than the rest of the development. Mr. Lien said staff generally agrees. Concerns were raised about the number and size of the units proposed for Building 10. Mr. Lien emphasized that the approved master plan envisions up to 419 units for the Point Edwards Development. The project was ultimately approved for up to 350 units, and 261 units have been developed to date. The proposal would place the remaining 89 units in Building 10. The units would be smaller than the other units on the site, and concern was expressed that this would lead to rental properties rather than condominium ownership. He explained that the City views the development as multi -family, which is a permitted primary use in the MP 1 zone. Whether the units are condominiums or apartments, staff believes the proposed 89 units would be consistent with the approved master plan and zoning. • People expressed concern about the number of parking spaces provided, particularly with overflow and on -street parking. Mr. Lien explained that the City's parking standards require 144 off-street parking spaces (see Page 5 of Staff Report), and the applicant's proposal would meet the requirement. A number of people felt the proposed Building 10 is not in keeping with the developer's declaration and offering statements provided when they purchased their units. Mr. Lien explained that it is not within the City's purview to address this issue. • Another item of concern is that the residents associated with a new 89-unit building would overrun the amenities provided at Point Edwards. Mr. Lien said this issue is also outside the scope of the City's design review. He recalled that there was only one amenity building when the Point Edwards Development was approved in 2003. Since that time, the applicant has added another amenity building for the development. Based on the analysis and attachments included in the Staff Report, Mr. Lien said staff does not feel the proposed Building 10, as currently designed, is consistent with the height standards established by Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.75.020.B or the Urban Design Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the ADB require the applicant to modify the design of Building 10 and address the following issues: 1. The design of Building 10 should be more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards under the Point Edwards Master Plan. 2. Building 10 must be designed to meet the height standards established in ECDC 16.75.020.B. 3. Additional landscaping should be provided along the rockery along the south side of the surface parking lot. Rick Gifford, 600 Main Street, Suite E, said he has been involved as land -use counsel for the Point Edwards project from its inception more than 10 years ago. He said he appreciates the opportunity to present the proposed building design for 50 Pine Street to the Board for review. He noted that the Point Edwards Development, including Building 10, was first reviewed by the ADB starting in 2002 and approval for the overall project design was issued in 2003. A revised building -specific proposal for 50 Pine Street was presented to the Board and approved in 2006, but the design was never built. They are now presenting a new design proposal for the Board's consideration. Mr. Gifford said the Staff Report asserts that the ADB's review of the proposal is necessitated by two of the 12 approval conditions the Board issued in their 2003 design approval for the project. The two conditions require additional ADB review if the landscape plan is significantly changed from the current proposal or the materials and colors used in the proposal are inconsistent with the design of the development. He said the Staff Report identifies the increase in surface parking and the addition of the new water feature and patio amenity on the east side of the building as significant Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 3 of 15 0227 Packet Page 354 of 774 changes to the previously approved landscape plan. As such, further ADB review would be required. Staff has also recommended additional screening along the southern boundary of the property. He said staff found the proposed colors for Building 10 to be consistent with earlier approvals, but they point to changes not only in materials, but other design aspects that are nowhere mentioned in the approval condition. He expressed the applicant's view that the staff has improperly expanded the approval condition to cover changes in general design and not just in materials as the condition actually states. Comments in the Staff Report about the building exterior focused almost entirely on various design aspects other than materials, despite the actual language of the approval condition. He expressed the applicant's position that the Board's review should concentrate on the building materials, admittedly within the context of a more general design assessment. He emphasized that the central issues before the Board are more narrowly drawn under the terms of the referenced conditions, which direct the Board's attention primarily to the changed features of the landscape plan and to the proposed materials and colors for the building. Mr. Gifford said the Staff Report confirms the design's compliance with all the bulk and use requirements for the MP 1 zone (ECDC 16.75), and Mr. Lien has already addressed the applicant's oversight with respect to building height. This error was corrected and new drawings were submitted to verify that the building, as designed, meets the height, bulk and use standards of the MP1 zone. Mr. Gifford reviewed that the Board's evaluation and its authority to condition or deny the proposal are limited by the specified design criteria that are set out in the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, most particularly those matters enumerated in the two approval conditions relied upon by staff. As correctly noted in the Staff Report's summary of public concerns and staff s comments, the views and considerations that are unrelated to the design criteria and zoning standards are not part of the review. Mr. Gifford summarized that the proposed 50 Pine Street Building has been shown to meet all of the zoning provisions, subject to the Board's assessment of the modulated roof design. The applicant also believes it satisfies the applicable design guidelines and would be a compatible addition to the Point Edwards community. The applicant understands and appreciates the valid concerns of citizens, including some Point Edwards residents, and acknowledges the oversight role provided by the Board in matters of design. They will listen carefully to all relevant comments and input, and they look forward to successfully completing this important, final component of the Point Edwards Master Plan. Joe Kolmer, Associate, Weber Thompson, pointed that the proposed design for Building 10 maintains the chevron shape that is found at other Point Edwards buildings. The buildings sit on lots that are bordered by Pine Street, and the south boundary line separates Edmonds and Woodway. He provided a map to identify the footprint of the previously approved Building 10 and explained that the proposed new design would reduce the footprint by 27%. A notch was created at the knuckle where the two wings of the building meet, which helped break up the mass of the building and bring natural daylight into its common areas. Reading areas are provided at each floor level, which take advantage of the view to the north. The previous design incorporated the height bonus, and the proposed building was also designed with the height bonus in mind, as well. Mr. Kolmer said the design premise is to combine the colors and materials of the residential building with the clean, modern lines of the amenity structures and the homes to the south. He noted that amenity buildings are located on both ends of the site. While they utilize a different architectural style than the residential structures, they were viewed substantially consistent with the Point Edwards Development. The applicant feels it is appropriate to embrace these designs. He noted the green belts that buffer most of the existing development in the Town of Woodway, with the exception of the home to the south where the screening was bolstered. Mr. Kolmer provided pictures of the existing development on site to illustrate how the redesign would blend in with the Point Edwards Development as a whole. He noted that design cues were taken from the existing residential buildings, while also borrowing the clean, modern lines and fenestration found at the Point Edwards amenity buildings. He provided several images of the proposed design for Building 10 to illustrate how it is consistent with the design guidelines found in the Comprehensive Plan. He specifically noted Guidelines E. La (diversity in design), C.8.a (variety in articulation to avoid monotonous forms/0, D.2.b and D.3.a (reduce bulk and mass of buildings at the rood, D.3.d (provide ways for additional light into the building) and E. Le (individual identity of buildings should be created). Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 4 of 15 0228 Packet Page 355 of 774 Mr. Kolmer reviewed that the proposed materials would blend with the surrounding environment and offer a distinct design as noted in the design guidelines. The fiber cement and lap siding that is used on other buildings in the Point Edwards Development would also be used on Building 10. Metal siding would be used instead of cedar shake siding. The bays articulate the fagade and extend above the roof line to provide modulation. Building 10 would lack the heavy cornice and ornamentation and cedar shakes that were popular in the 90's, but the colors and materials would be relatively consistent with the surrounding development. A variety of windows would be used to address privacy and views. The expansive windows on the bays would allow natural daylight to penetrate deep into the interior and are typical of luxury residential properties. He said the initial building had two vehicle entrances into the structured parking, and the revised design would remove one. The remaining entrance would be located 25 feet off the sidewalk and screened by the finished grade and landscaping. Mr. Kolmer provided a view of the proposed building from the northeast and identified the location for the proposed new amenity area that would be located at the east end of the site. The patio area would provide a fire pit and barbecue. He also pointed out the location of the proposed new water feature. Once again, he said the vehicular entrance would be screened by plantings and the finished grade. He said that while the proposed screening for the parking area would exceed the City's requirement, the applicant is willing to work with adjacent property owners to find a balance between views and the screen they are developing. Mr. Kolmer pointed out that the main building lobby would be located at the center of the structure. Weather protection would be provided, as would translucent treatment to allow additional light into the building. The media and/or party room would be located of the e floor. He noted that amenities areas have been created at every level of the building. A drop off area would also be located in front of the main entrance to the building. Mr. Kolmer provided pictures to illustrate the views from the residential units to the outdoor amenity. He noted that the proposed garden room would utilize a translucent canopy and fully -articulated window walls to create an indoor/outdoor environment. He also provided pictures to illustrate the fitness space, which would utilize the same canopy and window treatments as the garden room for weather protection and light penetration. Mr. Kolmer provided elevation drawings to illustrate the proposed colors of the building. He said the proposed building height would utilize the 5-foot modulated roof bonus. The number of floors and building height are consistent with the previously approved building design. Forrest Jammer, Thomas Rengstorf Associates, said he has been the landscape architect for the project from the beginning. He explained that Type V screening is required along the southern edge of the proposed surface parking area. He pointed out that the landscape plan calls for two trees per island in the center areas, as well as single trees around the edges and at the corners. This will help create a mixed appearance. The trees would be positioned in a modulated rather than straight line. The landscaped areas would be fully planted with shrubs, ground cover, and perennials, consistent with those located elsewhere in the Point Edwards Development. He emphasized that the proposed landscaping in the parking area would exceed the code requirement by 437 square feet. About 2,353 square feet of landscaping would be provided for the 74 parking stalls, which equates to just less than 32 square feet of landscaping per stall compared to the City's requirement of 25.9. Mr. Jammer provided a drawing to illustrate the location of the existing retaining wall and bramble patch, as well as the adjacent residential property. He acknowledged that the parking area backs right up against the rockery, and the applicant is willing to plant as much landscaping as reasonable given the limited space. He noted that a lot of plant materials would simply grow up the wall and would not provide relief for the property owner to the south. He observed that the vegetation is already taller than the 5-foot wall, providing an approximate 12-foot vertical buffer. As pointed out by staff, there is a fairly narrow area for plantings. It is even narrower given the riff raff and backfill that exists behind the rockery. There is not a lot of room for soil, and cutting back any of the existing vegetation would eliminate the existing screen that the south property owner already enjoys. While they can certainly infill with plant materials, he Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 5 of 15 0229 Packet Page 356 of 774 recommended that the existing landscaping remain in place. He pointed out that the canopy of the existing trees has been lifted substantially to open the views. He cautioned against adding more vertical trees in the area that would eventually block the southern property owner's view. He pointed out that a number of plant materials have been proposed throughout the site to exceed the City's code requirement for landscaping. He acknowledged that the southern property line is a unique situation because it is so tight, and he would like the ADB to take the existing buffer into consideration. Mr. Jammer said that, as proposed, the amenity space would be expanded to provide more room for outdoor seating, barbecue, fire pit, etc. The applicant believes the proposed design for the amenity area provides a more aesthetic - pleasing and contemporary type of situation that is more enjoyable for the residents. The plant materials proposed in the amenity space would provide additional modulation, be full of color and attract more wildlife. Mr. Jammer summarized that the proposed landscape plan is very consistent with the existing landscaping on the property. They tried to make sure the proposed new design followed the master plan illustration that was presented at the original Board meeting as closely as possible. The large waves and drifts of plant material flowing through the site reflects the contour as you move up the hill and provides a contrast in color, deciduous and evergreen, height, etc. Overlooks are located throughout the site for people to enjoy the views. Tor Langasater, Woodway, 21600 Chinook Road, said his home is located kitty-corner to the proposed new development. He expressed concern that the proposed Building 10 is out of character with the other buildings in the Point Edwards Development. He particularly noted that a portion of the building will be five levels, which is taller than any building in downtown Edmonds. He pointed out that this building would stick out given that adjacent single-family properties have a minimum lot requirement of 2 acres. He said his neighbor has this same concern. He asked that the Board consider the character of a 5-story building next to 2-acre, single-family development. Tom Nichols, 41 Pine Street, Unit 106, Edmonds, said he is a 40-year practicing civil/environmental engineer. He pointed out that the increase in parking would also result in a commensurate increase in heat flow as far as runoff is concerned. While he suspects this issue has been taken into consideration from the standpoint of conveyance via drainage ditches, box culverts, swales, etc., he doubts consideration was given when the site civil was done on the development 10 years ago and the existing stormwater retention pond may be undersized. He briefly explained the rational method civil engineers use to look at stormwater runoff and recommended the Board consider the issue further. Jeff Yocom, 45 Pine Street, Unit 108, Edmonds, referred to the letter he submitted to the Board dated November 30th. He thanked Mr. Lien for helping him understand, via his presentation, the massive changes to exterior materials and height of the building. He expressed concern about the lack of human scale that would result from a five -story building towering over the sidewalk. He emphasized that all of the changes require ADB approval. He particularly focused on the issue of density and recalled that the Point Edwards Master Plan approved 350 units on a 23 to 24-acre site, and the developer had options as to where to place the units across the site. He suggested that placement of the units must conform to ECDC 20.10. It may not be possible to put 25% of the permitted units on this one remaining lot, which consists of only 10% of the total area. Under ordinary circumstances, the lot could support 38 or 39 units, and the applicant is proposing 89. With 75% of the master plan units now constructed on over 90% of the area, any design changes that were permissible before should be considered in relationship with the existing buildings. While the density might fit what should be allowed in the MP 1 zone, the density does not fit in the Point Edwards Development. Mr. Yocom said that if he understands Mr. Gifford's comments correctly, he would like them to believe that if they previously approved the buildings as a red circle, and they came in with a plan for a blue triangle, the Board is only allowed to look at the color. He said he does not believe this makes sense. All issues should be reviewed for complete adherence, and not just the two conditions recommended by staff for referral. Ralph Swenson, 45 Pine Street, Unit 205, Edmonds, reminded the Board that since the attorney attempted to use technical reasons to circumvent the consideration of this building, the senior planner has recommended that the plan be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 6 of 15 0230 Packet Page 357 of 774 denied. If the proposal is denied, the City would have an opportunity to correct many problems with the building design, which is so different than the existing buildings at Point Edwards. He noted that the applicant's representatives were allowed a significant amount of time to make their presentations, and he hoped the Board would allow sufficient time for members of the audience to have their say, as well. He urged the Board to reject the proposal for Building 10 based on lack of parking on the south side of Pine Street, excessive building height, buildings and patios too close to the sidewalk, no amenity park in the right place, lack of enough underground parking, and lack of consistency with other Point Edwards buildings. He said it is unfair to have only three spaces on the south side of Pine Street compared to 25 on the north. The 25 spaces on the north side are already fully used, and Pine Street is curved, steep and often fast. Building 10 would add 150 to 175 extra cars and people. He noted that the north part of the lot has rows of parking with standard width between. There is no room for wide and long moving trucks to back into the lot without blocking traffic. Building 10 assigned parking should be placed in the third -floor, underground garage, just like other Point Edwards buildings instead of having what looks like a used -car lot in back with lights all night long. This would leave the north parking lot available for moving trucks, deliveries, extra unassigned parking spaces, and a turn around. The south part of the lot needs a sunny, level view park that is assessable to people with disabilities. In addition, 15 feet is needed for recessed parking on the south end of Pine Street. He suggested there is a way to move the lower level to the back of the east end, making the lowest building on level 2 and reduce the height with proper landscaping of the building. Charles Gold, 75 Pine Street, Unit 303, Edmonds, read a letter he submitted in advance of the hearing requesting that the Board use its office to enforce the original Point Edwards permit documents, along with the agreements and commitments to the City of Edmonds and the purchasers' (now citizens and taxpayers of Edmonds), and not allow the non -conforming and damaging new plan to proceed. Denial of the plan would be in the best interest of the City and all its residents and would reflect the entire purpose of the ADB and the permitting process. If a developer can promise one thing to the City and buyers and then manipulate from high -quality, low-rise, beautifully -landscaped, and maintained condominiums sited in a prominent position with a view of Edmonds to lower -quality, vast and larger, non -conforming, architecturally -unrelated, high-rise apartments with a built-in leasing office, then there is no enforcement of development plans. He said it is not surprising for the full build out of planned communities to take longer than anticipated due to the developer losing financing. However, that does not negate the obligation and premises the developer used to obtain original approval for the site, which was used as representation to perspective buyers and realtors. Mr. Gold said that, as built so far, the Point Edwards community is an asset to the appearance, desirability, and attractiveness of Edmonds. It presents a high -quality, low-key, low -height, visually -compatible development between Edmonds and Woodway and has only enhanced both communities. The proposed destruction of the plan to make a small amount of one-time developer profit on this final building at the long-term expense of everyone in the area in terms of quality of life, property values, congestion, pressure and infrastructure would be disastrous. He expressed his belief that the ADB would be well within its rights and charge to require the developer to complete what the offering documents promised; a building similar in materials, population density, colors, and style to the rest of the Point Edwards buildings, with underground garages that are not exteriorly illuminated with sodium vapor or other all-night lighting in the middle of a restful and visually -spacious environment that is free of noise and safety issues at present. He added that the proposed outside patio would not use the same materials and would create additional noise. Mr. Gold said he and a large number of property owners and taxpayers agree with the comments made previously by Mr. Yocom about conflicts with the proposed building compared with the original plan. There is no doubt that the buyers of the Point Edwards Condominiums, who pay a substantial amount of property taxes for the quality of living situation they enjoy, have a major cause against the developer if the proposed plan goes forward. The developer was sued successfully for over $15 million in repairs for shoddy construction to the Regatta Condominium near Gas Works Park, which just underwent a two-year repair. They do not want this to happen in Edmonds and adjacent to Woodway. Finally, Mr. Gold pointed out that the developer has already settled a legal action by the City of Edmonds for violation during the construction of Point Edwards. That action was necessary to the welfare of Edmonds, and they feel strongly that the current attempt by the same developer to again subvert the prior agreement on the quality of construction at the same development is especially relevant. The success of Point Edwards is closely tied to the success of the current and future properties in Edmonds, particularly those that are highly visible and showcase local Edmonds. He urged the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 7 of 15 0231 Packet Page 358 of 774 Board to use its authority as intended to protect the community. Developers must heed their commitments or the review or permitting process becomes irrelevant. Don Ricker, 51 Pine Street, Unit 308, Edmonds, said he has lived at Point Edwards since January 2006. He referred to the written comments he previously submitted. He reminded the Board of the developers' own words describing their vision regarding the Point Edwards Development. He said the vision is what made he and his wife purchase a home at Point Edwards. It also convinced the previous ADB to sign off on the project. He said when he was looking to purchase his home, he was given the following statement: "The developer, Point Edwards LLC, has a vision to create this new community of stylish, romantic, condominium homes in a resort -like village atmosphere. Point Edwards LLC directed Weber Thompson Architects, an award -winning Seattle architectural firm, to design up to 350 very special residences that would foster a relaxed and comfortable lifestyle. Point Edwards consists of unique and very livable residences. The homes have both open and spacious floor plans and large windows that welcome light. " He recalled that in March 2005, construction began on Phase 2 of the six phase project. Prices for the homes at that time ranged from $300,000 to over $1 million. The ADB will hear a lot tonight about how the size of the building has been reduced, creating a smaller footprint. However, they should keep in mind that the average square footage of units at Point Edwards was 1,230 in 2005. Presently, the average unit size is 1,618 square feet. The average size of the units proposed in the new building is 860 square feet. He questioned how the units could be considered equal and built in the same manner as the original buildings. Charles Schaaf, 45 Pine Street, Unit 203, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Yocom's point that the proposal is not consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.10. He said the owner's representatives failed to mention that the new building would be five stories, which would be a massive, towering building that does not belong at Point Edwards. He encouraged members to look uphill from Pine Street towards the development to visualize the nearly 80- foot massive towering structure that is being proposed. Steve Reibman, 45 Pine Street, Unit 308, Edmonds, commented that the current residents of the Point Edwards Development are very troubled that their neighborhood, which they cherish and take great pride in, would be badly damaged in many ways if the ADB approves the proposal. They must defend their community and property values from this oversized building and the visual blight the structure would present. He said the building is totally out of conformity in its size, design and construction materials with the remaining nine buildings at Point Edwards. It will tower over the surrounding buildings and be a large blemish on the hillside, clearly standing out and very visible from the waterfront area and the Edmonds bowl. Considering the building's appearance, construction materials and size of the living units, it is clear the building is designed as an apartment house and not a condominium building. Mr. Reibman said he believes the premise of the building, as it is now designed, would have a very significant negative impact on the property values of the 261 Point Edwards condominiums that fit so well into the hillside above the marina and local parks. The proposed 89-units will present parking and traffic issues that concern the residents and should be a concern to the City. If the developer no longer plans to build what was originally intended for the property, regardless of whether or not it is part of the Point Edwards Homeowners' Association, the City should insist that what is built is harmonious in scale and appearance with the surrounding neighborhood and environment. Considering sales in Building 9 and recent resells, it makes no sense that the developer does not feel there is a market for what has come before and what was originally planned. He commented that this is a very serious matter to the residents, and they need the City officials to do what they all know is the right course of action and deny the project in its present form, not just for the Point Edwards community, but for the City of Edmonds, as well. Kim Walters, 45 Pine Street, Edmonds, said he is a real estate agent. He said the proposed Building 10 looks more like the apartments on SR-104 than the current development at Point Edwards. He questioned why the developer wants to deviate from the design that was originally proposed. Currently, the market has the lowest inventory in six years. From a real estate point of view, there are not a lot of homes on the market. If the developers build a quality product that blends in, they could make a nice profit based on fair market prices. He recalled that when he moved into his home about 11/2 years ago, there were about 18 homes on the market at Point Edwards at all times. Now there is one. There is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 8 of 15 0232 Packet Page 359 of 774 a market for all prices, and all the developer has to do is make the development blend in with the rest of the units and they will sell. The design, as currently proposed, would devalue the other properties in the development. Reid Schoenfeld, 41 Pine Street, Unit 105, Edmonds, provided a super -imposed picture to illustrate what the proposed new Building 10 would look like from the ferry loading dock. He also provided a picture to illustrate how the fenestration, glass and steel of the proposed new building are very different than the nine existing buildings. He recalled that, in the past, the ADB's purpose was to make sure the buildings blended with nature and that the planned development was consistent with the environment. It is obvious that the proposed new building would not meet this requirement. Because it sits on top of the hill, everyone in Edmonds would notice it. It will be unsightly. Floyd Smith, 45 Pine Street, Unit 204, Edmonds, said he has always known that Building 10 would be constructed on the hill, and many of his friends have expressed a desire to purchase a home in the new building, but not an apartment. He said his wife has lived in Edmonds for 61 years, and he for 30 years. He said they are against the proposal for Building 10 on what they consider prime property in Edmonds. Susan Matheson, 41 Pine Street, Unit 101, Edmonds, expressed concern that three of the seven Board members are absent. She asked if the absent Board Members would be allowed to vote on the final decision. If so, she questioned how the citizens' well-founded concerns would be communicated to them. Mr. Lien explained that four members must be present for the Board to have a quorum. The Board can act on the proposal with just the four members present. Theresa Jensen, 31 Pine Street, Unit 310, Edmonds, said she was present to speak on behalf of Christy Cufley, 51 Pine Street, Unit 309, Edmonds, who is president of the Point Edwards Homeowner's Association. She noted that she and several of the association's board members were present. She said the pictures that have been shown of the proposed project are worth 1,000 words. The proposed design does not even remotely resemble the existing nine buildings. It is a striking and significant departure and clearly resembles a towering, commercial apartment building. The massive structure is completely different in architectural design and out of character with the overall complex. It conflicts with the harmony of the nine existing buildings. The parking lot feature does not exist on the property at this time, which is in response to the City's zoning requirements. The building does not blend into the site environment, nor does it purport to use the same colors or materials. The details and the fenestration do not reflect what is already being used on the site. Even the developer defines the building as having a unique identity. Ms. Jensen said the proposal has given rise to a number of serious concerns, as stated by a number of owners. They rely on the ADB to assemble and evaluate all of the information presented concerning the construction of Building 10, which is truly an unfortunate situation. The developer transformed an ugly hillside into a lovely, residential community that is now home to approximately 500 taxpaying residents who enhance the economy and contribute to the overall quality of the community. The taxpayers, not the developer, are the constituents. They respectfully submit that the Board's first duty is to fully address the concerns they present and weigh them against and balance them with the appropriate City codes. When the City of Edmonds first granted approval for the project, it did so based on good -faith belief that the developer would create an aesthetically -pleasing and uniform residential community. The approval was conditioned on the developers' representation that there would be a total of 10 structures of like kind and build. The developers were true to their word for nine buildings, but they are deviating drastically and unexpectedly with regard to the last and final building. On behalf of the 500 citizens currently residing at Point Edwards, the Board of the Point Edwards Homeowner's Association strenuously opposes the project as presented thus far and respectfully requests the City to hold the developers to their original representation for consistency in development. They also request that drawings be prepared and submitted that truly reflect the original intent for completion of the project and that are architecturally similar to the existing structures. David Inadomi, 21603 Chinook Road, Woodway, expressed concern about the proposed parking lot. He said his family moved to the property in 2004 with the understanding that there would be a small parking lot (about 20 stalls). He said the footprint of the parking lot is close to the easement to his property, which creates concern about traffic, noise, general unsightliness and a potential reduction in property values. The existing development at Point Edwards is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 9 of 15 0233 Packet Page 360 of 774 attractive and the grounds are well -maintained. The proposed building is of a much larger scale than was originally anticipated. Jill Ballo, 65 Pine Street, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for more than 40 years. She said it is important for the Board to not only consider the impact the proposed project would have on the Point Edwards residents but for other residents of Edmonds who live in the bowl area. She said the picture makes it clear that the project would impact more than just the residents of Point Edwards. She recalled that when the Point Edwards project was originally proposed, people living in the bowl were very concerned about what they would see on the hill. She suggested that more of them would be present to comment if they had a clear understanding of what the developer is proposing. David Huneke, 61 Pine Street, Unit 202, Edmonds, said he has lived in his home for a year. He observed that all those who have participated in the hearing have spoken against the project, and no one has spoken in favor. He asked the Board to take this into consideration. Bonnie Martin, 41 Pine Street, Edmonds, recalled that citizens have expressed concern about parking, stormwater runoff, and issues related to the proposed structure's lack of similarity with the existing buildings. She said it is also important for the Board to keep in mind that people's lives will be negatively impacted by the proposal. The Board should take note of the overriding impacts to citizens of Edmonds rather than the developer. Harry Rutledge, 45 Pine Street, Unit 106, Edmonds, agreed with all of the comments made. However, his specific concern is related to the proposed parking. Guest parking on the Point Edwards site is already inadequate, especially around Building 45. The buildings have been developed lot -by -lot with approximately 35 units per building, and a certain amount of guest parking was required. The proposed new building would consist of nearly three times more units, which would triple the guest and visitor parking needs. He expressed concern that parking would spill out all the way down the hill and put pedestrians at risk. He summarized that the parking situation is a critical factor, and he urged the Board to take it into consideration as they come to a decision. The Board took a 10-minute break at 8:35 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. They invited members of the audience to ask questions of the Board, staff and applicant. Tom Rwaggener, 65 Pine Street, Unit 103, Edmonds, asked the Board to explain their role in the review process in layman's terms. He also asked them to inform the public of how the process would move forward. Mr. Lien explained that the ADB could make a decision after the public hearing, or they could continue the public hearing to consider new materials. The ADB's decision, whether for approval or denial, could be appealed to the City Council. The City Council would conduct a closed record hearing, based on the information that was submitted to and reviewed by the ADB. Only parties of record can appeal the ADB's decision, which includes the applicant or any members of the public who submitted written or oral comments on the proposal. He reminded those present that the proposal was referred to the ADB because of two specific conditions in the original proposal having to do with landscaping and building design changes. While the applicant's attorney has argued that the Board's review must be limited to materials and colors, the condition also requires that the building to be consistent with the design of the development. Staff believes that review of the proposed building design is within the Board's purview. However, the number of units allowed on the site was previously decided, and the height limit is based on the existing zoning code. Vice Chair O'Neill said the Board's position is that height, parking and density requirements have been established by code, and the ADB does not have the ability to change the code. The Board's responsibility is to review the quality of the design and its compatibility with the community. A member of the audience asked if Building 10 would still be considered part of the Point Edwards Development if it is removed from the Point Edwards Homeowner's Association. Would the residents of this new building be allowed to take advantage of all of the amenities that have been provided on the site? Mr. Lien said he has raised this issue to the City Attorney, but he has not yet received clear guidance. At this point in time, staff s position is that Building 10 would Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 10 of 15 0234 Packet Page 361 of 774 be considered the last of the Point Edwards Development. The Point Edwards Master Plan did not address whether the buildings must be condominiums or apartments. It simply stipulates that the development be multi -family residential. Staff considers Building 10 to be part of the original master plan development. Rich Pettit, 31 Pine Street, Unit 103, Edmonds, noted that the three-dimensional rendition of the Point Edwards Development on display in the sales office for the past nine years shows all ten buildings with approximately the same scale. He asked why the rendition has not been updated to reflect the developer's current plans. Mr. Gifford emphasized that Building 10 has never been part of the Point Edwards Homeowner's Association (HOA). The developer had the option to have it included in the association. He said he cannot answer why the rendition was never updated. He explained that Building 10 is part of the overall Point Edwards Development that was approved under the master plan. The zoning standards that were approved as part of the master plan apply independently to the project. However, it has always been the developer's option to add the properties to the HOA as they were constructed in phases. Prior to the public hearing, the developer informed the HOA Board that they would not add Building 10 to the HOA. One reason has been concerns conveyed to them by the Board on behalf of residents about overburdening amenities within the existing HOA. Again, he said the building would not be part of the HOA and would not burden the existing amenities, including the second amenity building that was voluntarily constructed by the developer. These facilities will be utilized solely by the residents of Buildings 1 through 9. Mr. Pettit expressed his belief that Mr. Gifford did not adequately respond to his question. Again, he asked why the rendition on display in the sales office was never updated to identify the changed scale of Building 10. This results in immediate misrepresentation to individuals who come into the sales office. Vice Chair O'Neill cautioned the members of the audience and the applicant's representatives about debating issues during the public hearing. He said it is not the Board's responsibility to mediate between the residents, the HOA and the developer. Reid Shoenfeld, 41 Pine Street, Unit 105, Edmonds, asked the procedure for changing codes if someone feels the height limit should be limited. He said that in addition to limiting the development to 350 units, the master plan should also address fenestration and underground parking requirements. Mr. Lien said individuals can submit code amendment applications to the Planning Division. Code amendments take time to process, as review and public hearings by both the Planning Board and City Council are required. A member of the audience asked if it is within the ADB's purview to consider traffic impacts associated with the proposal, which will result in more cars, people, and J-walking on a road that is steep. Mr. Lien said the City assesses traffic impact fees for all new development, including Point Edwards. Vice Chair O'Neill asked if the applicant submitted a traffic mitigation plan for the project. Mr. Lien said a traffic mitigation plan was submitted for the Point Edwards Development, but a separate plan for Building 10 was not required. Board Member Broadway asked if the traffic mitigation plan was updated to address the additional 44 parking stalls the applicant is proposing. Mr. Lien said the traffic impact study was done as part of the initial Point Edwards Master Plan when the developer was requesting 295 units. He said he does not know if the study was updated in 2005 when the number of units was increased to 350. However, the City did conduct a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, which included an analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the additional units. Nancy Bittner, 31 Pine Street, Unit 214, Edmonds, asked if the master plan includes just the nine existing buildings or Building 10, as well. If it includes all 10 buildings, she asked why Building 10 has been parceled off as not being part of Point Edwards. Mr. Lien explained that the Point Edwards Development is the implementation of the Point Edwards Master Plan, which was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The master plan resulted in a contract rezone for the Point Edwards site (MP 1 and MP2). The Point Edwards residential development is in line with the plan for the upper yard site, and Building 10 has been part of the master plan review throughout the entire process. Mr. Gifford pointed out that the master plan prescribed the number of units allowed, but it did not stipulate the number of buildings that must be constructed. Mr. Lien agreed but added that the number of buildings was prescribed in the original ADB approval of the Point Edwards Development. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 11 of 15 0235 Packet Page 362 of 774 Jim Matheson, 41 Pine Street, Unit 101, Edmonds, asked if the developer has consulted with the City of Woodway. Mr. Lien answered that Mayor Nichols has reviewed the proposal and indicated that the Town of Woodway would not submit comments. A member of the audience asked that the detailed results of the 2005 traffic reevaluation be added to the record. Mr. Lien said the 2005 SEPA report is still on file, and traffic impacts were considered as part of the review. However, he does not know if the traffic impact study was specifically updated at that time. The applicant did not have any further comments to provide but offered to answer questions of the Board. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Broadway asked if the applicant followed the methodology in the zoning code when calculating the average grade and establishing the height of the building. Mr. Kolmer answered affirmatively. He said that when submitting their initial designs for Building 10 six months ago, they were informed that only administrative review would be required. It wasn't until later that staff informed them that ADB review would also be required. He said that two pre -application meetings were conducted, as well. He specifically referred to Page 8 of the application, which describes in detail how height was calculated. Mr. Lien explained that, typically, height is measured from an average grade, which is determined by drawing the smallest rectangle that can fit around the development and averaging the elevation at the four corners. The MP1 zone also allows developers the option of calculating the height rectangle separately for different portions of a building. With the current proposal, the developer elected to use the strategy of drawing the smallest rectangle that would encompass the building and then averaging the grade of the four corners, which is consistent with the code. He noted that the height rectangle also included the underground parking garage, which is consistent with how height was calculated elsewhere in Edmonds. Board Member Broadway pointed out that Cross Section A on Page 26 of the application extends the site line just beyond the parking. She asked if the applicant also extended the cross section all the way to the rockery, including the hill and the property beyond, to understand what the site line from these properties would be. Mr. Kolmer said the building that was approved in 2006 took these extended cross sections into consideration. Mr. Lien pointed out that the 2006 review was included in the Staff Report as Attachment 6. Vice Chair O'Neill asked if it would be unfeasible to create a buffer zone between the rockery and the parking area where there is currently no vegetation shown on the plan. Mr. Jammer said there is a narrow profile at the base of the rockery. The applicant is more than willing to consider opportunities to amend the landscape plan to add soil that is suitable for plantings, but the selection of plant materials would be somewhat limited. Larger plant materials would create maintenance concerns and could impact the parking spaces, but plant materials that climb up the rockery could be added to provide color and relief from the south side of the property line. Board Member Broadway expressed concern about the significant amount of surface area that has been proposed for the parking area. She said she is attracted to some of the features that exist at Point Edwards such as trellises at the entryways and along the walkways. She asked if there would be an opportunity to introduce trellising in the parking area. Rather than using the rockery and the berm to conceal the visual impact of the vehicles from the single-family residence, trellises would provide greater greening of the parking area without eliminating stalls. Mr. Jammer agreed that trellises would add character to the parking area. Board Member Broadway said she also wants to be assured that the species is hearty enough to survive in the environment given the heavy winds that occur on the bluff. Mr. Jammer agreed that the environment limits the types of plants that can be used in this area, wind being the primary factor. It would take time for the plant materials to grow up on the trellis structures, obtain a secure foothold and begin to make a visual impact. He suggested the plants would have a better chance of survival if they are planted directly into the ground rather than in raised beds. Board Member Broadway recommended the applicant find a way to reduce the appearance of overall surface area, understanding that sacrificing parking stalls would be detrimental to the applicant's ability to provide sufficient parking. Mr. Jammer agreed to address this recommendation. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that trellises are not allowed within the setback areas, and a trellis along the rockery would be contrary to the zoning code. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 12 of 15 0236 Packet Page 363 of 774 Mr. Jammer added that they must also consider vehicular access when determining locations for light standards, trellises, trees, etc. Board Member Walker observed that, as proposed, parking would be located right up to the retaining wall. Mr. Jammer said there is an opportunity to excavate some of this area and replace it with soil. However, a certain amount of aggregate would have to remain to facilitate drainage. Board Member Walker recommended additional plant species in this location to break up the hillside. Mr. Jammer cautioned against species that grow to a height that would eventually impact the view from properties to the south. Board Member Guenther said that, as a new member of the Board, he reviewed the previous plan for Building 10 that was more consistent with the rest of the development. He requested further information about why the building design was significantly changed. Mr. Kolmer said they wanted to do something that was more modern, but use materials and colors that would blend in with the existing buildings. With the new amenity buildings, the developer saw an opportunity to use clean, modern lines that were more fashionable. While they took design cues from the existing buildings, they wanted to incorporate the more contemporary lines on the amenity buildings. He noted that they must also be sensitive to how the building responds to the development located to the south. Board Member Broadway referred to pictures of the existing buildings at Point Edwards (Page 10 of the applicant's submittal). She specifically pointed out the very broad overhangs and the Pacific Northwest rusticated look of the existing buildings. The fenestration is at a residential scale, and the lines of the buildings represent a prairie style. She observed only the center photograph on Page 41 of the applicant's submittal is somewhat consistent with the existing development style. None of the other images the applicant used for design inspiration were consistent. She expressed concern that the design has drifted too far from the original intent of the broad overhangs, Pacific Northwest rustication, residential -sized fenestration, and prairie -style lines. Mr. Kolmer explained that the current building is designed with lap siding, just like the existing buildings. However, the cedar shake style does not seem appropriate for a building of this size. He emphasized that the pictures were not intended to be specific design cues, but design inspiration and ideas. Vice Chair O'Neill asked for clarification of the metal siding the applicant is proposing. Mr. Kohner said the applicant is proposing to use standing -seam, metal siding. He referenced pictures on Page 41 of the application to further illustrate the type of siding the applicant is proposing. Page 41 provides images of balconies, as well, to illustrate the types of materials that could be used. He explained that the intent is to use materials that are relatively transparent to take advantage of the views. Board Member Broadway expressed concern that the north elevation has lost some of the horizontal cues that Point Edwards currently has. She said that, regardless of the current height of existing buildings at Point Edwards, they include some very strong horizontal features that come from the bungalow prairie style. There are no prominent horizontal design features in the new proposal to accentuate the floor levels. While the height of the north side of the proposed building meets the code, the applicant has done a disservice by accentuating the height rather than trying to minimize it with more horizontal visuals to bring the building down. Mr. Kolmer referred to the photograph in the center of Page 10, which illustrates how bays were used to modulate the building. He noted that a number of bays were also incorporated into the design for Building 10 to help break up the fagade. Vice Chair O'Neill referred to the General Design Review and Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Elements (ECDC 20.11). He pointed out that one criteria in the objectives is to retain connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of materials, proportionate forms, masses or building elements. While scale is beyond the scope of the Board's review, it appears that most of the citizens are concerned that the proposed building does not fit within the Point Edwards Development. He concluded that the proposal does not follow the guidelines of staying in character with the quality and design of the community. Mr. Kolmer pointed out that the design guidelines also call for diversity in design and variety in articulation to avoid monotonous forms. They also call for the creation of individual building identity. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 13 of 15 0237 Packet Page 364 of 774 Board Member Broadway expressed her belief that the applicant can make the building unique and separate it from being monotonous. She observed that the residents of Point Edwards purchased their properties based on the pictures of beautiful architecture that were provided by the developer. She encouraged the applicant's representatives to walk around the site and look at the detail on the buildings. She emphasized the intricate connections between the broad overhangs and the scale of the windows. She expressed concern that the proposed design includes too many windows that are far larger than residential scale. Because it is a residential building and not an amenity building, it must blend in with the existing residential development. She noted that none of the beautiful elements on the existing buildings were incorporated into the design of Building 10. She suggested the applicant consider incorporating at least some. Board Member Walker agreed with Board Member Broadway, particularly her comments about the horizontal lines. Because height is of particular concern, the applicant should make design adjustments to lower the height from a visual standpoint. He also expressed concern that the proposed new building is out of character with the existing nine buildings on the site, which all have similar characteristics. He suggested the design should incorporate a northwest theme, with more wood materials and large overhangs. The developer's representatives agreed to make adjustments to the design based on the Board's recommendations. Board Member Broadway referred to the staff's conclusion and recommendation in the Staff Report regarding the height issue. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that, subsequent to the Staff Report, the applicant has adequately addressed the height issue. The height of the proposed building would be consistent with ECDC 16.75.020.B, as well as the Urban Design Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE AND THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFY THE DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR BUILDING 10 AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE DESIGN OF BUILDING 10 SHOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED AT POINT EDWARDS UNDER THE POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN. 2. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ROCKERY OR IN THE PARKING LOT ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SURFACE PARKING LOT. 3. THE APPLICANT SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING DESIGN ELEMENTS PRESENT IN THE EXISTING POINT EDWARDS BUILDINGS: RESIDENTIAL FENESTRATION, BROAD OVERHANGS, MORE HUMAN SCALE, DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLOOR -TO -FLOOR HEIGHTS, AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS. 4. THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT SAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There were no administrative reports. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Election of 2013 Officers Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 14 of 15 0238 Packet Page 365 of 774 The Board postponed this item to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19, 2012 Page 15 of 15 0239 Packet Page 366 of 774 RICHARD E. GIFFORD PLLC March 25, 2013 RECEIVED Rick Gifford E-mail: rick@rgiffordlaw.cont A 2 1 0 1 Mr. Kernen Lien DEVELOPMENT Senior Planner COUNTE173 City of Edmonds Hand Delivered 121 - 5`1' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: City of Edmonds PLN 20120040, 50 Pine Street building design review Applicant's notice of withdrawal Dear Mr. Lien: On behalf of Edmonds Pine Street LLC ("Owner") and its architect, Weber Thompson, you are advised that the above -referenced design review application filed with the City on November 2, 2012 is withdrawn. This action is in response to changed conditions affecting the application that were introduced by the City in mid -January. A new design review application for the project incorporating the City's modified requirements will be submitted in the near future. We initially hoped to tweak the pending application and move on with minimal adverse impact, but have concluded this is the safer and cleaner approach. It adds redundancy, delay, and cost, but better aligns with applicable statutory and code provisions and benefits public process. These issues are the latest and most disruptive challenges in the City's administration of this matter, including inconsistent communication, confusion over process, and shifting standards. A summary of the proposal's history leading to this point follows. The proposed structure will be the final residential building in the Point Edwards master planned development. It is presented as a stand-alone project. A five story, 69 unit proposal was approved by the City in 2006 but never built. Owner subsequently acquired the property and has been working with the City on a revised design over the past 11 months. The architect supplied floor plans and three-dimensional color renderings detailing the design concept for the initial pre -application meeting with you last May, and for the second formal pre -application meeting in September. You retained these materials in the City's project files. The design approach and architectural style of the building remained essentially the same throughout the pre -application process. At the outset you mistakenly thought the building was limited to 34 units under the 2003 Point Edwards approval. You corrected your findings to acknowledge that 89 units were allowed after learning the City approved an increase in total units from 295 to 350 in 2005. The building's layout and orientation were finalized on this basis. 600 MAIN STREET, SUITE E . EDMONDS, WASHINGTON . 98020 PHONE: (425) 673-9591 • FAX: (425) 673-0631 0240 Attachment 8 Packet Page 367 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien March 25, 2013 Page 2 There was minimal comment on building design during the pre -application discussions. Your September 13, 2012 report referenced two changes in the landscape plan (increased surface parking and a new water feature/patio) that you felt triggered ADB review. No other building design or architectural features were mentioned. You confirmed in writing the City's acceptance of its prior SEPA reviews, including the 2003 mitigated determination of non -significance for Point Edwards ("MDNS"). Accordingly no SEPA checklist or other documentation was required, although a Critical Areas Checklist was submitted as a precaution when you were unsure whether or not it was needed. There also was uncertainty about the City's process under ECDC Ch. 20.11. You went back and forth on whether the ADB or staff would conduct design review, then settled on a public meeting before the ADB, with no public hearing required. The design review application was submitted shortly thereafter. No SEPA checklist was included, due to the City's express waiver. A traffic study was not required. Subsequently, you advised that a public hearing would be conducted after all. The architect and I met with you and City Attorney Jeff Taraday on November 13, 2012 to resolve procedural matters (the public hearing requirement was confirmed), go over the final design package, and address the scope of review. We asked for confirmation that the only issues before the ADB were the two identified changes to the landscape plan. You commented that in looking over the application package, you realized the building also was changed in some significant ways from earlier approved designs. This was not new information. Changes to the building were readily visible in the design materials provided to the City beginning last May. We were baffled that you were only now bringing them up, as matters of first impression in your consideration. You advised that these changes also would be reviewed by the ADB under a condition relating to consistency in building colors and materials. You did not otherwise comment on the changes. After the meeting, the architect followed up with you to provide certain supplementary materials relating to the landscape plan, and to acknowledge staff's determination that the two landscape items and the changes in architectural style of the building were "significant changes" and should be reviewed by the ADB. You determined the application to be complete. The December 13 staff report for the Planning Division, issued a week before the hearing, reiterated the City's reliance on prior SEPA review and the MDNS. It did not address traffic impacts, noting that technical review by affected City departments would occur later. We were blindsided by the substance and conclusions of the staff report. You found the proposal incompatible with the City's Urban Design Objectives in several respects and recommended that the ADB require changes. These findings were at odds with all earlier design disclosures and discussions. During the months that the design concept was in front of the City, staff gave no indication that it did not support the proposed design or recommended adjustments. 0241 Packet Page 368 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien March 25, 2013 Page 3 The pre -application vetting process is designed to flag problems and concerns at an early stage to assist applicants, the City, and the public. This saves resources and time by avoiding costly and disruptive surprises. Inexplicably, staff gave no help with the design before striking out at it in the staff report. In retrospect, the pre -application process was a waste of effort. Worse, the applicant was misled by staff's silence on building design, the central issue. No explanation has been given for the City's failure to address design changes in a forthright and timely manner. The ADB hearing was heavily attended and polarized. We knew you were receiving extensive input and inquiries from interested parties, principally in opposition to the proposal. Upwards of 35 comment letters were submitted to the City. You summarized the proposal and staff recommendations, after which the applicant outlined the design concept and the Board received testimony from the audience. SEPA issues did not arise, but there were questions about traffic impacts associated with the proposal. You referred to the City's traffic ordinance and its applicability to the project and also confirmed that a separate traffic study was not required. You referred to traffic impact analysis and mitigation in conjunction with the City's 2003 and 2005 project decisions, but admitted you did not know if the traffic study was updated in 2005 when the number of allowed units was increased to 350. Someone asked that the results of any 2005 traffic analysis be made part of the record of these proceedings. You reiterated your earlier comments and disclaimer concerning traffic impact assessment. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board gave feedback and made suggestions for refinement of the design. This was the first constructive input from the City on building architecture and style. We affirmed our willingness to re -assess the design in light of the Board's commentary. The hearing was continued for that purpose. A month later when redesign was well underway came the next surprise. You notified the architect of an incomplete MDNS condition. Funds deposited with the City in 2003 for SEPA traffic mitigation were not applied by the City as specified, nor returned to the developer under state law. No notice of these conditions was not given by the City to the original developer. Owner was not involved with the MDNS and knew nothing about the referenced condition. The funds in question were supplied by the original developer and thereafter held by the City. After the hearing, you also had researched the City's records and found that no new traffic analysis was performed for the Point Edwards unit count increase in 2005. We met again with you, Mr. Taraday, and other staff, to assess the implications of these belated discoveries. Mr. Taraday advised the City not to further rely on the MDNS, and to require new SEPA review. An updated traffic study also was ordered. In the interest of avoiding prolonged delay, we did not contest these determinations. Imposing SEPA review mid -stream altered the procedural landscape. As you know, SEPA review customarily is at the front end, and triggers particular statutory and code procedures for coordinated review and consolidation. Under the City's SEPA ordinance (ECDC20.15A.240) 0242 Packet Page 369 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien March 25, 2013 Page 4 appeals of threshold determinations are to the Hearing Examiner, not the ADB. We were already engaged in the ADB hearing process, on a disparate review/appeal track. It was unclear whether or how the inchoate process could be effectively integrated with SEPA review. Peculiarities in the City's code further clouded the question. The City's expanded requirements put the proposal squarely on the procedural fence, in a precarious position. The applicant was left with a choice between lesser evils. After further analysis and consultation with you and Mr. Taraday, we opted for the safer, though arguably costlier, alternative of a re -start. This approach accommodates the City's altered requirements while tying up procedural loose ends. It serves the best interests of the City and the public, and, in consideration of all variables, likely is the path of least resistance. All of this comes at the applicant's expense. Owner cannot afford further interference. Following re -submittal, we expect the City's administration of this matter to proceed uneventfully. The updated design will reflect the ADB's comments at its December hearing. While that process has been abandoned, it provided pertinent and useful direction for the building re- design. Contemporaneous SEPA review will facilitate the consideration of aesthetics. Staff and the ADB are familiar with the proposal. Expedited processing should follow. We have been informed that standard application fees apply to the new application. Under the circumstances, we request that duplicative fees and charges from the earlier submittal be refunded, to the extent not already utilized by the City for necessary out-of-pocket costs such as public notice. Please advise immediately if anything more is required for these purposes. cc: John Goodman Joe Kolmer, Weber Thompson Myer Harrell, Weber Thompson Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Ve ruly our and E. Gi rd Attorney for Edmonds Pine Street LLC 0243 Packet Page 370 of 774 bF Ell41 O 35.E CITY OF EDMONDS �s� i 890 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Environmental Determination for the construction of a new 300 unit complex at the Unocal tank site. Approximately 10 different buildings will be constructed with all required improvements needed to provide access and utilities. Approximately 135,000 cubic yards of grading is anticipated for the construction of the proposed buildings and roads to access them. File No. ADB-2002-226 Proponent: Pt Edwards LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: xx Pine St., This is located on Pine St. west of State Route 104. It is commonly refered to as the Unocal "Upper Yard". Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures 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, or mitigations measures have been included as part of this determination which alleviates any probable significant adverse environmental impact. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May 23, 2003. Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: May 9, 2003 Signature: --� XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than June 6, 2003, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. 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 9, 2003, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of 3 POINT EDWARDS ENDTRM.DOC 0244 5/9/03.SEPA Attachment 9 Packet Page 371 of 774 Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section ( XX Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX AT&T Broadband Ouside Pjpnt Engineer, North Region 20811 84 Ave. S., Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Bret Carlstad, Planning and Property Manager 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Olympic View Water & Sewer District 23725 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation XX Port of Edmonds TSM&P/Land Developer 336 Admiral Way PO Box 330310 Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Burlington Northern Railroad XX Washington State Dept. of Community, 2900 Bond Everett, WA 98201 Trade & Economic Development906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 XX National Marine Fisheries Service Olympia, WA 98504-8300 Northwest Regional Office 7600 Sand Point Way NE XX Parks and Recreation Commission Seattle, WA 98115-0070 7150 Clean Water Lane KV-11 XX Puget Sound Energy Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 90868, M/S XRD-1 W XX Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Bellevue, WA 98009 P.O. Box 40900 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 XX EIS Reviews Metro King County Environmental Planning XX DNR SEPA Center 821 2nd Avenue P.O. Box 47015 Seattle, WA 98104 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 XX Point Edwards LLC XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Ross Woods 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Engineers P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98121 Seattle, WA 98124 XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Public Works Attn.: Environmental Coordinator 2930 Wetmore, #101 Everett, WA 98201 XX Town of Woodway Attn.: Clerk -Treasurer 23920 113th Place West Woodway, WA 98020 XX Unocal Carl Kellar 11720 Unoco Ro, Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Rick Gifford 600 Main St., Suite E Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Weber Thompson 425 Pontius Ave. N., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 POINT EDWARDS ENDTRM. DOC 5/12/0ISEPA Packet Page 372 of 774 Page 2 of 3 0245 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. The city accepts the applicant's proposed traffic mitigation fee of $22,000 for signalization improvements to the Pine St/SR-104 intersection and $32,000 for trip mitigation. 2. The applicant is required to provide adequate sewer service to the development consistent with adopted city standards. Construction of a new sewage lift station to replace the existing lift station is required. There are two options available to accomplish this. The first optioin is to replace the current lift station and build it to current city standards, sized to achieve the required capacity. This option would allow for use of the existing line under SR 104 that connects to the City sanitary line. The second option would be to construct a lift station only for this development that would then have to provide its own connection to the City sanitary lines on the east side of SR 104. 3. For the water main required as part of the development, the applicant shall coordinate with the City, the property owner and Burlington Northern railroad to establish an appropriate use right across the BN right-of-way, preferably underground. Furthermore, the applicant shall be required to install the water main in the location approved by the City. 4. An easement, dedication or some other instrument acceptable to the City shall be established that will give the general public the right to use the lower (northern) walkway. In addition, the instrument shall provide for the future construction and potential connection with the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project which would allow for the continuation of this walkway to the shoreline. Attachments pc: File No. SEPA Notebook Page 3 of 3 POINT EDWARDS ENDTRM.DOC 5/9/03.SEPA 0246 Packet Page 373 of 774 of _111b)-hro CITY OF EDMONDS Fsr. 189� 1215TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-965 Adoption Notice ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Adoption of (check appropriate box) 9 DNS ❑ EIS ❑ Other Description of current proposal: An increase in the total number of units anticipated for the Pt. Edwards proiect. from 300 to 350. The zoning for the property would allow up to 419. The current proposal also makes a slight change to the footprint of building 5. Other changes have yet to be determined. Proponent: Pt Edwards LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 85 Pine St. Title of document being adopted: Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance for the Pt Edwards Project Agency that prepared document being adopted: -City of_EdmondS Date adopted document was prepared: Mav 2. 2005 Description of document (or portion) being adopted: The environmental determination for the Pt Edwards Rr6ect. If the documet being adopted has been challenged (WAC 197-11-530), please describe: The document is available to be read at (place/time): City offices and attached. We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. The document meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decisionmaker. Name of agency adopting document: City of Edmonds Contact person, if other than responsible official: Steve Bullock Phone: 425-771-0220 Responsible official: Rob Chave Position/Title: Planning Manager Phone: 425.771.0220 WAC (4715M) Packet Page 374 of 774 L. MYLANNINGTortns & Handouts\Staff Repo ISEPA Adopt' n Natica form doe 12/14/01 `J``} XttacEment 10 bf Fla* G%j - N it�ai i iss ia■� k 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) `7MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of prop`dsai: Environmental Determination for the construction of a new 300 unit complex at the Unocal tank site. Approximately 10 different buildings will be constructed with all required improvements needed to provide access and utilities. Approximately 135,000 cubic yards of grading is anticipated for the construction of the proposed buildings and roads to access them. File No. ADB-2002-226 Proponent: Pt Edwards LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: xx Pine St., This is located on Pine St. west of State Route 104. It is commonly refered to as the Unocal "Upper Yard". Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures 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, or mitigations measures have been included as part of this determination which alleviates any probable significant adverse environmental impact. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by May 23, 2003. Responsible Official: Robert Chave Position/Title: Manager - Planning Division Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: May 9. 2003 Signature: i XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chive, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than June 6, 2003, by filing a written appeal citing the reasons. 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 9. 2003, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page i of 3 POINT EDWARDS ENDTRM.DOC 024 "103.SEPA Packet Page 375 of 774 Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section t XX Edmonds School District No. 15 De artment of Ecoio Attn.: Bret Cartstad, Planning and Property Manager P.O. Box 47703 gy 20420 68th Avenue West Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX AT&T Broadband Ouside Pont Engineer, North Region 2081184 Ave. S., Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation TSM&P/Land Developer PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX XX XX Washington State Dept. of Community, Trade & Economic Development906 Columbia Street SW P.O. Box 48300 XX Olympia, WA 98504-8300 XX Parks and Recreation Commission 7150 Clean Water Lane KV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 XX Puget Sound Water Quality Authority P.O. Box 40900 Olympia, WA 98504-0900 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Public Works Attn.: Environmental Coordinator 2930 Wetmore, #101 Everett, WA 98201 XX Town of Woodway Attn.: Clerk -Treasurer 23920 113th Place West Woodway, WA 98020 Olympic View Water & Sewer District 23725 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Burlington Northern Railroad 2900 Bond Everett, WA 98201 National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Regional Office 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115-0070 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 90868, MIS XRD-1W Bellevue, WA 98009 XX EIS Reviews Metro King County Environmental Planning 821 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 XX Point Edwards LLC Ross Woods 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98121 XX Unocal Carl Kellar 11720 Unoco Ro, Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Rick Gifford 600 Main St., Suite E Edmonds, WA 98020 XX Weber Thompson 425 Pontius Ave. N., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98109 POINT EDWARDS ENDTRM-DOC 5/12/03-SEPA Packet Page 376 of 774 Page 2 of 3 0249 XX MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL: 1. The city accepts the applicant's proposed traffic mitigation fee of $22,000 for signalization improvements to the Pine SYSR-104 intersection and $32,000 for trip mitigation. 2. The applicant is required to provide adequate sewer service to the development consistent with adopted city standards. Construction of a new sewage lift station to replace the existing lift station is required. There are two options available to accomplish this. The first optioin is to replace the current lift station and build it to current city standards, sized to achieve the required capacity. This option would allow for use of the existing line under SR 104 that connects to the City sanitary line. The second option would be to construct a lift station only for this development that would then have to provide its own connection to the City sanitary lines on the east side of SR 104. 3. For the water main required as part of the development, the applicant shall coordinate with the City, the property owner and Burlington Northern railroad to establish an appropriate use right across the BN right-of-way, preferably underground. Furthermore, the applicant shall be required to install the water main in the location approved by the City. 4. An easement, dedication or some other instrument acceptable to the City shall be established that will give the general public the right to use the lower (northern) walkway. In addition, the instrument shall provide for the future construction and potential connection with the Edmonds Crossing multimodal project which would allow for the continuation of this walkway to the shoreline. Attachments pc: File No. SEPA Notebook Page 3 of 3 POINT EDWARDS ENDTRM.DOC 5/9103.SEPA 0250 Packet Page 377 of 774 CITY OF EDMONDS v ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST �� _ i 515E ej a 4�'3 1 Purpose of Checklist. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C 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. NOTE: Projects generating new traffic will be required to submit a Traffic Study prepared by a licensed Professional Civil Engineer. Specific requirements for the Traffic Study may vary depending upon the project, and will be provided by the City Engineer upon request. Please contact the Engineering Division at 425-771-3202 for specific study requirements. City review of the Traffic Study may require assessment of the "Development Project Peer Review" fee of $45 plus the cost of the review. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For 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. flmr-ffl' • Name of proposed project, if applicable: 50 Pine Street 2. Name of applicant: Pine Street, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107, Seattle, WA 98121 Contact: Matt Parent, 206.215.9734 *See list of attachments following this checklist scpa thr.�ksi�'�L"�is�1�3�"�f8 of 774 P102511i Attachment I I 4. Date checklist prepared: January, 29, 2013 5. Agency requesting checklist: City ofEdnionds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable)._, Site work & construction 2013-2014 (STAFF Cc)M:'trIrNTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None are planned. (STAFF C:C VENT N TS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal * Phase 1 permit (2008) for 162,583 square foot structure; DOE MTCA letter of compliance (2003); SEPA checklist prepared in December 2002 by Point Edwards LLC, Conditions, Recommendations, & Request For Consideration Report for Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm & Pt. Edwards Greenbelt Forest (2002); SEPA checklist prepared February 2002 by Unocal Corporation, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by City of Edmonds May, 1995; Draft EIS (DEIS) prepared for prospective development of "Edmonds Crossing" at adjacent site (1995); The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife (1995); RCW197-11-965 Adoption Notice (2005). *See Attachment A for list of additional environmental documents related to subject and adjacent properties. (STAFF COMMENTS), 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. None known. (STAFF COMMENT MEET scp� ciieckli�i 4>ublit.dnc'_ i�}, pp,i Paza.2-yJ4 Packet Page 379 of 774 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Architectural Design Board approval; critical areas assessment & steep slope exemption; grading and building permits. (STAFF CONINt 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Proposed development at 91,418 square foot lot includes approximately 116,500 sf of building construction built into hillside with 85-89 residential units and 144 parking stalls (parking at sub -grade garage and surface). Landscaping and landscape elements will extend from the building footprint to the property line, creating private and common area spaces. See attached site plan for additional information. (STAIN~ LOOM TENTS) 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: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020. Subject site is located at the southern portion of the former Unocal tank farm facility south of downtown Edmonds. The lot is surrounded by Pine Street on west, north, and east sides; the south property line borders the city of Woodway. Legal description: PARCEL III OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8101160175, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASINGTON, BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 26 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. See also attached civil site plan, zoning & vicinity maps. P02)5!j' "Im ch kI06t,k& 0 9' � M6 of 774 B. ENVIR.CiNMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Hilly with flat areas. (STAFF COMM b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Limited areas have a slope of approximately forty-five percent. (STAFF CC)l' INI NTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, Kitsap silt loam, dense silt, and hard clay. (STAF f,CJlt°Is"L ENTS)�_— d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) se .r cbetklisi • pat�lic.�,{ue��.ttl,fi3i}q p�� 4 Packet Page 381 of 774 e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading, cutting, and filling is necessary to construct building foundation (including sub -grade parking garage) and will also be required for surface parking and landscape elements (@ private & amenity areas, etc.). Cut is estimated at roughly 21,000 CY; fill at roughly 250 CY (all from site), (STAFF COMNIENTS)___ f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? if so, generally describe. Some surface erosion is possible during site preparation and building construction; no erosion anticipated upon completion of the development. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately seventy-five percent. (STAFF CONIINIENrs) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion and sediment control plan will include Best Management Practices and other measures required by the City during construction. Stormwater management plan will include Best Management Practices & other measures required by the City to control erosion. (STAFF CONIMENTS) 2. AIR 2. 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. Dust and equipment emissions will occur during construction; Automobile emissions will occur at completion of project. (STAFF CONIM lb"#4 Nepa d1C(kf)'ae6f Fb'dj6"z�� of 774 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known, (STAFF COMMENTS c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: Compliance with air quality regulations. Water will be sprayed on exposed soils as needed to reduce dust. Rock entrances to the site will be constructed. Streets will be washed as needed. (STAVE COiNUNI 3. WATER a. 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. Edmonds Marsh lies northeast of the site. A class 3 wetland is located north of the site. The Willow Creek riparian corridor runs through the Deer Creek fish hatchery which is located northeast of the site. (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. No. (STAFF COMMEN (3) Estimate the amount of fill 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. (STAFF COMMENT scp; OiMl;st- dog 2.10.2004 p6bd4 Packet Page 383 of 774 (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (STAFF COINIMl?,NTS) m (5) Does the proposal Iie within a 146-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. (STAFF CCJNiMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) ._. b. Ground- (1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No ground water will be withdrawn and no water will be discharged to ground water. (STAFF COMMENTS P02574 s<pa zheck'Packbt Pabd 344 of 774 (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. Development will be connected to the public sewer system. (STAFF CQM C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (I) 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. Source of runoff will be stormwater. Runoff will be collected using a system of roof drains, area drains, and catch basins, and conveyed by pipe to the public storm sewer in Pine Street. This storm sewer discharges flow to an onsite wet pond providing treatment prior to release to the down stream receiving system that flows to Puget Sound (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe, It is unlikely that waste materials could enter ground or surface waters. (STAFF CO d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Drainage design will be in accordance with Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and with the City's 4/20/10 Stormwater Code Supplement. As with prior phases of this development, stormwater flow control (detention) is not needed since all site runoff indirectly discharges to Puget Sound, a designated receiving water. Stormwater treatment will be provided by the existing wetpond constructed with the first phase of Point Edwards. Adequacy of wet pond volume will be verified as part of this project. If necessary, the pond will either be enlarged or additional treatment facilities (e.g.: Stormfilters) will be installed onsite to accommodate the project in accordance with current standards. (STAFF COMMENTS). scpa chtC.list - public doc:; 10 MY4 "�zi� Packet Page 385 of 774 4. Plants a, Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, others birch, ash clttarry X evergreen tree: 1r, cedar iue, otllcritka spruce . X shrub, vine maple, Scoff broom, English ivy, Indian plum, blackberry, thistleberry, s Bras "card grass, fescues, velvetgrass, woodrush, timothy, bluegrass, bear pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other, �rpl�ooSestrife luster plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: X other types of vegetation: _. The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife (attached) includes a detailed listing of plant species, some of which might be found on this site. (STAFF COMM b, What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Any vegetation on the portion of the site proposed for development will be removed. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife does not note the presence of any threatened or endangered plant species on the site. (STAFF Ia CO ,'v2t§4 5t?, CkWP�d4 & 06jd J96 of 774 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See attached preliminary plant schedule and site plan. (STAFF C011tUM 5. Animals a. Check or circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: X birds: hati l<, heron, eagle, songbirds o#leer. prow, seagull, swallows, wrens, sparrows, wo6dpeclter X mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other, Clultrei8 X fish: bass, saE, tres)terring, shellfish, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife indicates that Willow Creek, off site, at the east and north has a small run of coho salmon as a result of plantings made at the Deer Creek Fish Hatchery. Stray chum salmon and cutthroat trout have also been observed. Bald eagles were observed perched in nearby trees, but no eagle nests were observed. (STAFF C'ONINI C. is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is part of the Western Flyway for migratory birds (as is most of Western Washington) (STAFF CO spa ch�.'klist-gab�ir.dac:?.1S),2G(2J 10260¢ Packet Page 387 of 774 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: See the attached preliminary planting schedule/site plan. (STAFF COMM U,NTS b. 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. Natural gas and electricity will be used for heating and appliances. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Proposal would not prohibit potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. Affect if any beyond existing topography, vegetation, and structures to the south would be negligible. (S'i"FiF t,t3�llYll Ni'fi)_ __ 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: Washington State Residential Energy Code requires that all multiple residence buildings contain energy conservation measures. Additionally, fenestration and landscape strategies will be incorporated allowing for passive solar benefits. (STAFF C{)NIME Ts) 1102s124 sco d,zAPa(*19 rP-aOdO38!8 of 774 Environmental Health Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. The Point Edwards site was used for storage and transfer of petroleum products which resulted in contamination of the property. See attached D.O.E. compliance letter, confirming cleanup requirements were met. (STAFF COO (1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are anticipated. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Action plan submitted and approved by Ecology in 2001 leading to Unocal's voluntary removal of tanks and lines on site and removal of plume contamination on lower portion of the Unocal property to the north of the project site. Plan called for complete cleanup of the project site consistent with regulations under MTCA. As noted above, compliance letter is attached. (STAFF COMMENT b. Noise (1) What Types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise typically found in urban/suburban residential neighborhoods which will not affect the project. (STAFF CO Py��r,�ir..4 Atpei��o#c1isG p:�blir,_Elom:?,id3:N011 6 — Packet Page 389 of 774 (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, Short term: construction noise created by the project during work hours. _ Long term: Automobile noise from residents' vehicles would occur. (STAFF COMM ENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Those consistent with City regulations. During construction, use of muffler systems and equipment in good repair; adherence to normal construction hours. (STAFF C:t3i1rlMENTS) g. Land and Shoreline Use A . What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is vacant. Properties to the south are single family residences. Properties to the west, north, and east are occupied by multifamily structures. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) p Ptj�)z4 s+rpa c0echl�ati�, F'���), S of 774 C. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on site with the exception of a boulder retaining wall along the south property line. � (STAFF CC}EY1MI+ANTS) Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. (STAFF C;C3lfNIENTS) What is the current zoning classification of the site? Mpi - (STAFF CO f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Master Plan Development. (5"l. FI, COMM g, If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? Not applicable. set>� Y cletcklist � puhGeAse:2J0'_IXid 6264 Packet Page 391 of 774 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Limited portions of the topography at north end of the property have a slope of approximately forty- five percent. Issues with steep slope, if any, will be addressed with retaining wall, grading, landscaping, and drainage strategies. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Based on the regional average of 2.2 persons per household, approximately 187-196 people would reside at the project. (START COMMENTS) j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None are needed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Compliance with the City of Edmonds Master Plan approved for the. site and zoning regulations. P(I!J"24 sn"°'-1Pt8 li f-ft9W of 774 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Approximately 85-89 units of middle and high -income housing would be provided. (STAFF CO<<IiJENT`i) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. (STAFF COMM C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are needed. (STAFF COMM 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? Structure with articulated roof/facade will be a maximum of 40' high from average historic grade. Principle exterior cladding to be painted fiber cement (lap siding) similar to adjacent structures. P sepa :Pit:klisc - �n�b.i.,dorl.l?,?i;i'�t 6266 Packet Page 393 of 774 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? View of the hillside from adjacent buildings, marina area, and downtown Edmonds would be altered; view from single family residence to the south would be altered. (STAFFCOMMENTS c. Proposed treasures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Modulated facade/roofline, Landscaping will surround all sides of building; vegetation & trellis elements will screen building & surface parking. Materials, modulation, & color to be analogous to those found at existing Pt. Edwards buildings and home to the south. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Site and building lighting would occur during evening hours. Glare from residential windows could occur during late afternoon and early evening hours, b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? It is unlikely glare would be a safety hazard. Impacts glare might have on views would not be unlike those at adjacent development and structures. (,STAFF CONINMENTS C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Those typical at urban/suburban neighborhoods (street lights, sun glare reflecting off adjacent building windows, lighting at adjacent buildings). Afternoon or evening glare from Puget Sound might affect units at the west end of the site. (S`i'AT{'T` CC3NENI P92"4 sepa ciieci peEllf �g�i Of 774 Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Lighting will be in accordance with City standards. On -site lighting would be low intensity and shielded or directed downward. Building orientation, landscaping elements, and shading devices will help to mitigate daytime glare. (STAFF COMMENTS)_ 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Amenity areas are proposed at all floors of the building and at east end of the site. A city park is located approximately 1/2 mile to the east. Edmonds public beaches and waterfront parks can be found within a 1/2 mile radius to the west and northwest. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. (STAFF CO C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Fitness and gathering rooms occur within the building and will incorporate construction methods to help isolate sound. Outdoor amenity area will bescreenedby existing and modified topography, landscaping, and other landscape elements. (S'F"r1FF CONINi :' TS saps ,fiect�lisG � p�bi�t.duc.;.l 11'_�1?-3 �U268 � Packet Page 395 of 774 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. (STAFF COMMENTS)-_ b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. (STAFF CC}i`bIMEN`CS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are needed. _ (STAFli Cf)i1IMENTS) 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by Pine Street (or 216th St SW) which curves into a connection with Chinook Rd to the south/southwest. Pine Street connects to Hwy 104 to the east. (START+ COM Pg2"4 scC> 6'NkP15(5&f�° g8 of 774 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Per commtrans.org, the nearest stop is located 0.55mi away at 5th Ave S & Pine St. (STAFFCOMMENTS C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 144 vehicle parking spaces are proposed (plus approx. IS bicycle spaces); the project would eliminate none. d. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Proposal will require removal of existing concrete curb, gutter & driveway aprons along Pine Street on the north & west sides of the development. North driveway will be replaced with new concrete vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The two west driveways will be replaced/relocated to provide access to parking garage & provide a main entrance to the project with access to surface parking. Type 2 curb ramps will be installed at each new driveway. Concrete sidewalk will be extended from new driveway at project entrance south to connect to and match the existing sidewalk. Additional asphalt paving, concrete curb, gutter & sidewalk repair will be required to accommodate storm drain connections to existing catchbasins, & water service connections to the existing main in Pine Street. (STAFF COM e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. An Amtrak station is located at the waterfront area of downtown Edmonds on Railroad Ave., approximately 200 meters south of the Washington State Ferry dock. (STAFF COMMENTS) P e2M, squ ene.� r�s; . pub;i�. duc:?. l u.?t}U4 Packet Page 397 of 774 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project is estimated to generate 592 trips per day based on 89 apartment units. The peak volumes are estimated to coincide with the commute peak hours. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: R.O.W. improvements. 15. Publi a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe, Existing fire protection & police services, and the Edmonds school district will serve the project. (STAFF COYIiNIENTS)—- b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None are needed. It is anticipated current services are adequate for the project. (STAFF COMi`IENTS)_ P(1.1"24 „01"' ;O8&f 069'6'i§� of 774 16. Utilities a. b, tilities currently available at the site a ectricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, SewC se 3tic S 'Stem, other: ion and Internet service (STAFF COMMENTS). 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. Water/sewer service by City of Edmonds; electricity by Snohomish County PUD; natural gas by Puget Sound Energy; telephone service by Verizon; cable television/internet service by Comcast; refuse service by Allied Waste. (STAFF Cf)N;<iMENTS) C. SIGNATURE The above answers e true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its deeist'g)iJ _%, SiWature of Lute Submitted stpa cdlm""t' pobhofoc.2.10.2004 Packet Page 399 of 774 p02'tL Q 50 Pine Street SEPA Checklist Attachments (order corresponds to initial reference at checklist) -Attachment A (environmental document list noted at Pt. Edwards LLC 2002 SEPA checklist) -Department of Ecology MTCA letter of compliance -Pt. Edwards LLC SEPA checklist (2002) -Conditions, Recommendations, & Request For Consideration Report for Edmonds -- Unocal Tank Farm & Pt. Edwards Greenbelt Forest (2002) -Unocal Corporation SEPA checklist (2002) -The Edmonds Crossing Discipline Report on Vegetation, Fisheries, and Wildlife (1995) -City of Edmonds RCW 197-11-965 Adoption Of Existing Environmental Document (2005) -Landscape site plan & planting list -Civil site plan -Zoning map -Vicinity Map -Steep slope diagrams (2002) 0273 Packet Page 400 of 774 William Popp Associates Transportation Engineers/Planners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com t J or11,41 t PineDt�' � ffixa €9 s>t E St New Multi -Family Residential Building Prepared for: Edmonds Pine Street, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98121 Prepared by: William Popp Associates 14-400 Building, Suite 206 14400 Bel -Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98007 March 25, 2013 14-400 Building ® Suite 206 ® 14400 Bel -Red Road ® Bellevue, WA 98007 0274 Attachment 12 Packet Page 401 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Introduction.........................................................................................................1 I. Project Description ..................................................................................1 II. Site Inventory............................................................................................1 Existing Roadway Network..............................................................................................1 Transit Service...................................................................................................................3 Pedestrian Services............................................................................................................3 III. Project Trip Generation...........................................................................4 Table 1 Project Vehicular Trip Generation.........................................................................4 IV. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment...............................................4 Table 2 Trip Distribution Summary (PM Peak Hour).........................................................5 V. Site Access Roadway/Driveways and Safety.........................................5 Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................................5 SightDistance....................................................................................................................6 Table 3 Stopping Sight Distance(SSD)..............................................................................7 Levelof Service..................................................................................................................7 Channelization Warrants.................................................................................................7 Queuing..............................................................................................................................8 Table 4 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Queues (ft) a....................................................................8 Parking Supply and Demand...........................................................................................8 Accident History................................................................................................................9 VI. Traffic Volumes........................................................................................9 Existing Traffic Counts.....................................................................................................9 Historical Growth...........................................................................................................10 Table 5 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Total Entering Vehicles) ........................10 VII. Level-of-Service.....................................................................................10 Table 6 Intersection Level -of -Service Criteria.................................................................. I I Table 7 PM Peak Hour Level of Service (at Off -Site Intersections)................................12 Vill. Conclusions............................................................................................13 William Popp Associates 0275 Page i Packet Page 402 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St The following report was prepared to identify the traffic related impacts of the proposed 50 Pine Street new multi -family residential building located in the southwest vicinity of the City of Edmonds downtown area. Based on preliminary project traffic impact estimates submitted to the city, the city requested the analysis address the project impacts at the following intersections: • Edmonds Way (SR 104)/Dayton Street • Edmonds Way (SR 104)/Pine Street • Edmonds Way (SR 104)/15th St SW/226th St SW • Edmonds Way (SR 104)/100th Ave W 1. Project The proposed development is located at the west end of Pine Street, west of SR 104, adjacent to the Town of Woodway. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. There is one building proposed. It is proposed as a multi -family residential building with a unit count ranging between 85 and 89 units. The units will be either apartment or condominium. In an effort to provide a worst -case scenario given the project parameters, this traffic study shall assume the building will be an apartment use with 89 units. This building will be on the south side of Pine Street, adjacent to the Point Edwards Condominiums. It will have two access points to Pine Street, a surface lot access directly across from the Point Edwards Condominiums internal loop road (Pine Dr), and a garage access approximately 80 to 90 feet north of the surface lot access. The garage parking capacity is 70 stalls, and the surface lot is 74 stalls. The development is expected to be completed and occupied by 2015. The proposed site plan is presented in Figure 2. II. Site Invento Existing Roadway Network The major roadways serving the site include Pine Street, and Edmonds Way (SR 104). These roadways are discussed below: Pine Street is a two roadway running east and west from the site to 9th Ave S. However, vehicular east -west travel is not permitted through the SR 104 intersection. The present roadway classification is a local access street west of SR 104 and a Principal Arterial to the east between SR 104 and 3rd Ave S. In the vicinity of the William Popp Associates 0276 Page 1 Packet Page 403 of 774 North X- s mo , l `13I1 Seattle Heights < g+ > #r 3. `' S SITE E5peranee 3 to y tR� 51 ooa 3.r�Ft3 a' ��' ?33,tITCji�' v, r ,i : WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 VICINITY 50 Pine St Bellevue, WA 98007 MAP 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com �.^ 89 MF Units 0277 Packet Page 404 of 774 North i ditYE'►.TATIuN aC pNU(.F0 ,Mgy,x�jU STALLS WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 SITE PLAN 50 Pine St Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppassoc.com 0278 Packet Page 405 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) SO Pine St site the roadway is approximately 24 feet wide with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on both sides. There is some "stub out" parallel parking on both sides with the majority of on street parking on the north side. The final pavement grading in the site vicinity is not yet completed thus there are no channelization markings. It is anticipated that there will be no pavement centerline markings with the final pavement lift. Near SR 104 on the west side, the roadway is 40 feet wide with 2 travel lanes. There are 5 foot asphalt sidewalks on both sides. The speed limit is 25 mph. There are no pedestrian crosswalks at the SR 104/Pine Street intersection. Pine Street east of SR 104 is two-lane roadway with primarily a residential character. Edmonds Way (SR 104) is a 4/5 lane arterial running generally north and south (in the vicinity of the site) from the Kingston Ferry Terminal to SR 99 and I-5 to the southwest. The present roadway classification is principal arterial. Two of the three northbound lanes are designated as ferry storage loading lanes. The speed limit is 40 mph between Dayton Street and 5th Ave S and becomes 35 mph southwest of 5th Ave S. In the vicinity of Pine Street, there are curb and gutter on both sides, and a 5 foot asphalt sidewalk on the west side. There is a sand/gravel walkway on the east side. The roadway also includes ample street lighting. In addition to these two roadways, a brief discussion of each of the four analysis intersections are discussed below: SR 104/Dayton Street: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is two-phase with no protected left turn phases. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs. This intersection is configured as follows: • 4 lane northbound approach; 1 general purpose use left turn lane and one general purpose thru/right lane, plus two ferry lanes. ® 3 lane southbound approach; left, thru and thru/right. • 3 lane eastbound approach; left, thru and right. • 2 lane westbound approach; left and thru/right. During busy ferry loading times, the two designated northbound ferry lanes are controlled with police or ferry personnel. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs. SR 104/Pine Street: This is a non -signalized intersection. This intersection is configured as follows: ® 3 lane northbound approach; 1 left turn lane and one general purpose thru lane along with a right turn pocket across the curb lane ferry lane, and one thru lane for ferry storage. ® 3 lane southbound approach; two thru lanes, plus a short right turn pocket/lane. ® 1 lane westbound approach; right turn only. ® 2 lane eastbound approach; left and right only movements. The through movement is not permitted. The left turn movement has use of a center lane refuge/acceleration lane northbound on SR 104. The storage distance is 100 feet, plus approximately 250 feet of closing transition taper. The right turn lane has a William Popp Associates 0279 Page 2 Packet Page 406 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St soft 100-foot radius with 100' acceleration lane plus an approximate 200-foot taper subject to a yield sign through the radius. There is a large right turn island separating this movement. There are no pedestrian crosswalks. SR 104/15th St Sw/226th St SW: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is three-phase with protected left turn phases on the mainline only. This intersection is configured as follows: • 3 lane northbound and southbound approaches; 1 left turn lane, one thru lane, and one thru/right lane. • 2 lane eastbound approach; left/thru and right. • 2 lane westbound approach; left and thru/right. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs except the north leg. SR 104/100th Ave W: This is a signalized intersection and the signal phasing is a typical 8-phase signal with protected left turn phases on all approaches. This intersection is configured as follows: • 3 lane northbound, southbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches; 1 left turn lane, one thru lane, and one thru/right lane. There are pedestrian crosswalks on all legs. Transit Service The City standard for bus service is 1/4 mile walking distance, Community Transit will allow up to 1/2 mile walking distance. There is no transit service in the vicinity of the site. The nearest bus stops within safe pedestrian walking distance are located north at the SR 104/Dayton Street intersection vicinity, which is approximately 0.7 miles (3,600 feet) from the site. Transit Service through Edmonds is provided by both Community Transit and King County Metro. Community Transit routes in this area include 110, 116, 130, 196 and 416. In addition to the transit service, there is an Amtrak Station located between Dayton Street and Main Street on Railroad Avenue. Pedestrian Services With the recent development of the Point Edwards Condominium project, there is sidewalks on both sides of Pine St in the project vicinity (within Edmonds city limits) and a sidewalk on the southside of Pine St connecting east to the existing asphalt sidewalk near SR 104. The nearest pedestrian crossing of SR 104 to the opposite side is at Dayton Street. William Popp Associates 0280 Page 3 Packet Page 407 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Project• Generation Trip generation for the proposed project was calculated using trip generation rates obtained from the Eighth Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Report, 2008. As noted in the Project Description, Section I., the development's proposed use will be a multi -family residential building, either as condominium or apartment use. The unit would is estimated to be between 85 and 89 units. The average trip rate for general condominiums is approximately 14% less than for general apartments. Therefore, in an effort to present a worst case scenario for traffic impacts associated with the project, this study shall assume the estimated upper limit unit count of 89 units, and the higher traffic generating land use; apartments. For this site, trip generation rates are associated with Land Use Code 220, General Apartments, were used. It should be noted that a more refined category of apartments may be appropriate for this specific site, however, for conservative trip estimating purposes, the general apartment category was used. The results of the trip generation analysis are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Project Vehicular Trip Generation ITE Land Use AM Peak PM Peak Code Size AWT Total In Out Total In Out 220 a 89 units Rate 6.65 0.510 0.200 0.800 0.620 0.650 0.350 Vol 592 45 9 36 55 36 19 a LUC 220 — General Apartment category per ITE As shown in Table 1, the proposed project is estimated per ITE to generate a total of 592 average weekday daily trips, 45 AM, and 55 PM peak hour trips. In comparison, an 89- unit condominium development is estimated to generate 517 daily, 39 AM, and 46 PM peak hour trips. Trip distribution patterns used to determine the PM peak hour the project traffic assignment were nominally based on existing PM peak hour turning movement counts surrounding the site as well as the assumed project trip assignment for Point Edwards Condominiums. The estimated distribution percentages are shown in Table 2. William Popp Associates 0281 Page 4 Packet Page 408 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Table 2 Trip Distribution Summary (PM Peak Hour) Distribution Project Trips Roadway Percentage Inbound Outbound SR 524 east of 9th Ave N 10% 3 2 Main St east of 9th Ave 10% 4 2 100`h Ave W north of SR 104 5% 2 1 SR 104 east of 100th Ave W 40% 14 7 100th Ave W south of SR 104 10% 4 2 Chinook Road south of Pine St 5% 2 1 Intrazonal; southwest Edmonds 5% 2 1 Downtown Edmonds 10% 4 2 Edmonds Waterfront 5% 1 1 Total 100% 36 19 Based on these traffic patterns, it was estimated that of the total project trips, the majority (55%) of the project trips (30 vehicles) will be to/from the southeast on SR 104, 40% of the project trips (22 vehicles) will be to/from the north towards downtown Edmonds on SR 104, and 5% (3 vehicles) will be south through Woodway. The project PM peak hour traffic assignment to the surrounding roadway network is shown in Figure 3. V. Site Access Roadway/Driveways and Safety Traffic Volumes The current year 2013 PM peak hour volume on Pine Street west of SR 104 is 109 vehicles; 70 westbound and 39 eastbound. This PM volume equates to approximately 1,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Based on pre Point Edwards (2002 counts), the PM peak hour volume on Pine St west of SR 104 was counted at 64 vehicles (34 west, 30 east), thus it is estimated that approximately half of the current count at 109 vehicles is likely volume associated with Point Edwards Condominiums and the other half likely from Woodway. With the inclusion of the project traffic on Pine Street (west of SR 104), the future year 2015 daily volume is estimated to increase approximately 560 vehicles per day. As a general rule of thumb for local access streets, the maximum desirable volume threshold sometimes cited by planners for the neighborhood character of a residential street is approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. This is a subjective value based on interviews of residents in San Francisco urban neighborhoods, as documented in a study entitled "Livable Streets". The 2015 daily volume with project on Pine Street east of Nootka Rd is estimated to be 1,560 vehicles per day. The daily volume on Pine Street west of William Popp Associates 0282 Page 5 Packet Page 409 of 774 North 3 2 ♦ Cj 2 5% 3 3 q, 2 3 4 0% C1BD 2 1 1 1 9 9 7 4 Puget 1 5 5 3 2 Sound it 5% E > -0 < SITE w -2 Cl) 14 8 '2 34 Pine St 18 1 2 *6 0 0 z 20 0 10 Tn 2 WOODWAY 5% 4 2 I 226th St SW 722�t LEGEND xx - Project PM Peak Hour Trips 'ps (assumes full occupancy) Project Distribution Percentage 0 WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 Bellevue, WA 98007 425.401.1030 info@ wrnpoppassoc,corn Gaspers St 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 n ONO 1_ 0 0 9 10ti 0 n/a n/a 8 n/a 10 C11 5% 4 2 0 14 7 2 1 2 20 10 40 J14 7 2 4r ' 50 Pine St 89 MF Units Packet Page 410 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) SO Pine St Nootka Rd and the primary Point Edwards entrance is estimated to be approximately 1,000 vehicles per day. Assuming that the PM peak hour volume is approximately 10% of the daily volume in this area, the PM peak hour volume on Pine St just north of the project's garage access is approximately 100 vehicles, including project traffic. The garage access volume is estimated to be approximately 27 vehicles (18 in, 9 out), with 73 vehicles through on Pine St. The surface lot access is estimated to be approximately 28 vehicles (18 in, 10 out), with 45 vehicles on Pine St, half of which estimated to be to/from the Point Edwards back entrance and the remainder to/from Woodway. Sight Distance There are two sight distance parameters generally applicable towards site development. One is intersection (or entering) sight distance from project driveways and the other is stopping sight distance at the project driveways. Intersection sight distance requirements are the design parameters set forth in order to provide sufficient sight distance for entering vehicles such that they do not impede the mainline traffic speed and in -turn do not reduce the capacity of the roadway. It should be noted that the intersection sight distance deals with the ability of side street entering and mainline left -turning motorists to see oncoming vehicles with sufficient time to make crossing or entering maneuvers without significantly impeding the flow of mainline traffic. Intersection sight distance thresholds generally allow a vehicle to enter the major street from a side street and attain 85 percent of the design speed before being overtaken by an approaching vehicle. As a result, it is understood that intersection sight distance relates more to driver comfort and roadway capacity rather than safety. Also, it should be noted that some major jurisdictions rely solely on stopping sight distance for driveway adequacy checks especially on lower functional class facilities such as Pine St. In this specific case, the project volumes exiting the site and the mainline traffic are estimated to be low such that the average major street operating speed is not significantly lowered with project entering traffic. Therefore, for low volume driveways accessing low volume streets, it is suggested that available intersection sight distance at the project site access points be based solely on safe stopping sight distance requirements. The available (stopping) sight distance on a roadway should be sufficiently long to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. The minimum acceptable values for safe stopping sight distance were obtained from the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2004, Exhibit 3-1 and adjusted for grade based on AASHTO Equation 3-3: d=V2/[30((a/32.2) ± G)] The minimum SSD is 155 feet at 25 mph for a roadway grade between -3% and +3%. The sight distance conditions and the computed distances are shown in the appendix. William Popp Associates 0284 Page 6 Packet Page 411 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Table 3 Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) Design Required SSD b Measured Intersection Speed a grade SSD (ft) SSD (ft) ° Pine St/Surface Lot access (Station 10+65) looking left (south) 25 mph -9% 175' 200' + looking right (north) 25 mph +10% 140' 162' d Pine St/Garage access (Station 11+55) looking left (south) 25 mph -10% t80' 200' + looking right (north) 25 mph +9% 140' 167' d a Design speed calculated at 24 mph based on 150' curve radius in the vicinity of Station 12+00 on Pine St. Design speed assumed at 25 mph. b Per 2004 AASHTO, Exhibit 3-2 & Equation 3-3; Stopping Sight Distance on Grades. Grades are on Pine St. All sight lines assume low growth ground cover landscaping and high canopy trees within the building setback line. Sight lines also assume no vehicles parked on Pine St in the sight line zones. c Based on plan and profile features. Sight lines assume driver eye setback of 14.5' from edge of traveled way (curb line extended), and in profile assume an eye height of 3.5' and an object height of 2'. d This is the traversed distance of approaching vehicle as it travels through curve. Sight distance line as measured does not encroach beyond building setback line. As shown in Table 3, the measured SSD from the proposed site plan indicate that the minimum sight distance at the two driveways meets or exceeds the minimum safe stopping sight distance requirement per AASHTO. This conclusion presumes that proposed landscaping will not conflict with sight lines and there will be no on -street parking in these zones. Level of Service A PM peak hour level of service analysis was not conducted at either of the two driveways due to the fact that the estimated traffic from the project as well as the volume on Pine St will be significantly low such that the anticipated level of service will more than likely be LOS A. As noted above in the Traffic Volume discussion in this section, the PM peak hour driveway volume (at each of the two site driveways) is estimate to about 28 vehicles turning against through volumes on Pine St ranging between 45 and 75 vehicles. Channelization Warrants Based on the low volumes on Pine Street and the relatively low volumes entering and exiting the site, it is safely concluded without analysis that this development will not warrant the need for a left turn pocket nor a right turn pocket/taper on Pine Street at either location. William Popp Associates 0285 Page 7 Packet Page 412 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Queuing A queue summary analysis was conducted at the SR 104/Pine St intersection for the PM peak hour conditions. The City requested 501h percentile queue as well as 95a' percentile queue. The queue results were based on one hour simulation runs conducted using SimTraffic and subsequent output results. SimTraffic is a sub -program of Synchro. The results are shown in Table 4. Table 4 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Queues (ft) a 2015 2015 2020 2013 without with with Approach/ Existing project project b project b Intersection Movement 50th` 95th° 50th 95th 50th 95th 50th 95th SR 104/Pine Street' EB Left 16 46 15 45 22 50 21 53 EB Right 22 39 22 45 20 44 22 51 NB Left 8 27 12 34 18 38 20 45 All queues noted below are represented in terms of feet. All data based on 1-hour traffic simulation runs. Results can vary slightly between runs for similar traffic volume conditions. Project full occupancy; based on 89 apartment units. 50t percentile queue represents queue that will not be exceeded 50 percent of the analysis period. The 951h percentile queue suggests that the estimated queue will not exceed this distance 95 percent of the analysis period. The eastbound approach on Pine Street at SR 104 is wide enough for a two-lane approach and the right turn island and acceleration lane implies a two-lane approach, however there is no designated striping other than a centerline skip stripe. Therefore, it is assumed the storage distance for the left and right movements is approximately 400 feet extending back to the Union Oil Company Road. The northbound left turn pocket striped storage distance is approximately 125 feet not including the opening transition zone. As shown in Table 4 above, the 50th and 95th percentile queues for both eastbound movements as well as the northbound left turn movement do not exceed the storage distances available. In addition, it should be noted that the queue results with project traffic indicate that queues will not be significantly different than without project. No noticeable vehicle queuing is anticipated at either of the two project driveways given the very low volumes predicted. Thus, no analysis was conducted. Parking Supply and Demand As per the proposed site plan, there are proposed 70 garage and 74 surface parking stalls for a total of 144 stalls. There is also on -street parallel parking on Pine Street east of the site. William Popp Associates 0286 Page 8 Packet Page 413 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation manual, Ott' Edition', the anticipated peak weekday parking demand for the residential apartment use in a suburban setting (per the ITE equation (P = 1.42 [X] - 38) would be 88 vehicles, estimated to occur between 10 PM and 6 AM. The average rate in ITE (versus the equation) yields a slightly higher demand. The rate is 1.23 vehicles per dwelling unit. Per the rate, the peak parking demand would equate to 109 vehicles. Therefore, parking supply is estimated to be adequate at 144 stalls. Based on this source for parking demand, it is estimated that there could be an excess supply of between 35 and 56 parking stalls on site. If the site were developed as a condominium project, the estimated parking demand would be approximately 122 vehicles, thus the proposed supply would remain adequate. Accident History The City requested a 3-year accident history evaluation at the SR 104/Pine St intersection, due to the fact this is the primary access to the surrounding area. There were only two accidents identified by the City of Edmonds Police Department at or near the SR 104/Pine St intersection within the past 3 years. These are both summarized below: 1. Accident report 1 identified a ferry queue related accident that occurred 7/31/2010. This accident was a 2-vehicle rear -end accident property damage only that occurred in the ferry storage lane approximately 300 feet north of Pine St. The ferry queue was stop and go. 2. Accident report 2 also identified a ferry queue related accident that occurred 8/10/2012. This accident was a 2-vehicle rear -end accident property damage only that occurred in the ferry storage lane just south of Pine St. The ferry queue extended back through Pine St. VI. Traffic Volumes Existing Traffic Counts Manual PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected by Traffic Data Gathering (TDG, Inc.) in January 2013 at three of the four analysis intersections. The count at the SR 104/100th Ave W intersection was obtained from the Walgreen's Traffic Study provided by the City. The PM peak hour turning movements at these intersections are presented in Figure 4. 'ITE 4"' Edition Parking Generation manual, 2010, page 53. William Popp Associates VLa Page 9 Packet Page 414 of 774 Puget Sound - WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 Bellevue, AVA 98007 425.401.1030 info@wmpoppassoc.com m? m R' c m Caspers St m M �- 24 JIL —223 94 17 —J 233 --- I d, 105 m c� o_ro O0N rZ' Main St 00 N m Dayton St J j 50 r } Maple St 22 14 --1 ( �) �MN > Walnut St o Ct E cn > W v ¢ - m _3_ ED M N a� 2, '2 `r J I L 41 1 4 51 r Pine St 43 — I no o M r — 110 > c( 00 M vN`O 211 — — — 1 — 600 i 145 r 61 � 618— 159 to Co N Net r 226th St SW I I F Ala CJ b p of o 0 0 4 50 Pine St 89 MF Units 4 Packet Page 415 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Historical Growth As recommended by city staff, the background growth rate to be utilized in this traffic study should be 2.0 percent per year. The City has identified one land use development to include in the background traffic forecasts. This project is the Walgreen's development located at SR 104/100th Ave W. Table 5 identifies the total entering PM peak hour volume at each of the analysis intersections for the various volume conditions. Table 5 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Total Entering Vehicles) 2015 Project 2020 2013 2015 Project with Impact with Intersection Existing Background' Trips b Project M ° Project SR 104/Dayton St 1,201 1,250 22 1,267 1.7% 1,397 SR 104/Pine St 919 956 52 1,008 5.2% 1,108 SR 104/15th St 1,928 2,006 30 2,036 1.5% 2,245 SR 104/100th Ave d 3,008 3,192 30 3,222 0.9% 3,554 a Background volume includes an annual 2% per year growth factor, plus City identified land use development. b Project volumes are based on 89 apartment units. ° Project volume divided by 2015 total entering volume. d March 2012 count. As shown in Table 5, the maximum project volume impact occurs at the SR 104/Pine Street intersection, as expected since Pine St is the primary access to the project and this intersection has the lowest overall intersection volume (total entering vehicles). The project impact here estimated to be 52 vehicles during the PM peak hour, or approximately 5% of the total intersection entering vehicles by 2015. The project impact at the three signalized intersections ranges from 1% and 2%. The 2015 background PM peak hour traffic volumes are presented in Figure 5. 2015 PM peak hour with project traffic is presented in Figure 6. The 2020 PM peak hour volumes are shown in the appendix. V11. Level -of -Service Level -of -service (LOS) is a term defined by transportation and traffic engineers as a qualitative and quantitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of these conditions by motorists and/or passengers. There are several quantitative indices utilized depending on the type of intersection control present. There are six levels -of -service that are given letter designations from "A" to "F", with "A" being William Popp Associates 0289 Page 10 Packet Page 416 of 774 Caspers St �Nco 25 J — 232 98 18 242 �' a 109 wcoa occa to 0DN TZ N Puget Q' Sound Qa r Main St 00 N M Da on St I �— 52 ���✓' Maple St 23 __J c a�N j a Lo co Walnut St a o Er P w SITE a co ¢ L 43 / 53 ---------- _ _\ — — —::-- Pine St — Pine St 45� 114� r�.M r� cc z o Z o o 4; �\ Lo M 24 224 J ! 637 154 IF_— ��-�qq65 O A i`� 656 169 c2 a)a) r N i l ro4 ;1 226th St SW 3 ) o I 4 4. 3b xx - 2015 PM Peak Hour Volume (without project) o I g �:iI WILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 AC VOLUMES 50 Pine St Bellevue, OVA 98007 425A01.1030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppassoc.com Fio-uie 5 0290 Packet Page 417 of 774 North Gaspers St 1 � � b Qry �NM �25 232 J 1 (— 107 18 } } r ` 242 -- r 110 moor ^ u to m Cl Puget v�- Q. Sound 2 , as �o r Main St m v coco Dayton St J , 52 Maple St 31 _J 25 —� `r w ohN m o M Walnut St y o fY ' Pam`` w -o _ SITE m 3 -.—, w >JjL M mom 22 43 \ n 4 53 } Pine St 45 --- Pine St co Y Q cc o L o ypc 5n n n N r 224 — — — 651 154 O A 7 6666 3 — 1 171 � 04 N i 1 226th St SW I — o Y 4,, alp >� 3' v xx - 2015 PM Peak Hour Volume (with project)o o o 3� 1iILLIAM POPP ASSOCIATES 14400 Bel -Red Rd #206 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT50 Pine St Bellew425. 01.11030 89 MF Units info@wmpoppmoc.com Figure 6 0291 Packet Page 418 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St the best, or minimum delay conditions, and "F" being the worst, with maximum delay or jammed conditions. LOS "C" or "D" is generally considered acceptable for planning and design purposes, while LOS "E" represents operating conditions at or near capacity with freedom to maneuver being extremely difficult. The level -of -service for the four analysis intersections were calculated using the Trafficware Synchro intersection analysis software. It is important to note that both software packages and summary results presented herein are per the HCM signalized and unsignalized methodology. In addition, it should be noted that the analysis of unsignalized intersections utilizes the full hour volumes whereas the analysis of signalized intersections utilized the peak 15-minute volumes by approach within the peak hour. In general, full hour volumes are used in the analysis of unsignalized intersections because short-term fluctuations will generally not present major difficulties at such locations. In this specific case at SR 104/Pine St, the southbound approach has regularly occurring specific spikes in volumes for approximately 10 to 15 minutes each hour due to unloading of ferry traffic. Level -of -service criteria and definitions for signalized and non -signalized intersections are presented in Table 6. Table 6 Intersection Level -of -Service Criteria Level of Stopped Delay Per Vehicle Service Definition signalized non -signalized A Little or no delay B Short traffic delays C Average traffic delays D Long traffic delays E Very long traffic delays F Extreme delay 1 Delay; seconds per vehicle < 10.0 sec < 10.0 sec > 10 to 20 sec > 10 to 15 sec > 30 to 35 sec > 15 to 25 sec > 35 to 55 sec > 25 to 35 sec > 55 to 80 sec > 35 to 50 sec > 80 sec > 50 sec The existing 2013, future with and without project (year 2015) weekday PM peak hour, as well as 2020 with project level of service at the analysis intersections are presented in Table 7. Note the delay presented for unsignalized intersections represents the delay for the critical approach or movement and not the overall intersection, whereas the delay for signalized intersection represents the overall intersection delay only. William Popp Associates 0292 Page 11 Packet Page 419 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St Table 7 PM Peak Hour Level of Service (at Off -Site Intersections) 2015 2015 2020 Approach/ 2013 without with with Intersection Movement Existing project project a Project SR 104/Dayton St overall ` B (15.8) b B (16.4) B (16.9) B (18.8) SR 104/Pine Street' WB right B (11.2) B (11.3) B (11.3) B (11.8) EB left C (23.0) C (24.4) C (27.4) D (33.1) EB right A (9.4) A (9.4) A (9.5) A (9.7) EB approach C (17.7) C (18.5) C (19.4) C (22.8) NB Left A (8.2) A (8.2) A (8.3) A (8.5) SR 104/15th St SW overall' B (14.1) B (13.9) B (13.9) B (14.9) SR 104/100th Ave W overall ° C (29.5) C (32.0) C (32.2) D (36.2) a Project full occupancy; 89 apartment units. b signalized intersection, representative delay is for overall intersection, (xx) - Delay, seconds per vehicle stop sign control on Pine Street; LOS represented for each side street movement and approach and major street left turns. Ferry lane traffic omitted from the analysis. SR 104/Dayton St - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B and will continue to do so in the future. The average delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by approximately 0.5 seconds per vehicle (s/v) with project full occupancy. The analysis does not include the ferry loading traffic. SR 104/Pine Street - During the manual count and observations at this intersection, the side street approach delay was very minimal for most of the 2-hour period. Of course, during ferry unload times, the southbound traffic on SR 104 increases dramatically and the corresponding potential for delay on the Pine Street approaches increases accordingly. The level -of -service results at this intersection are based on a full one hour period, for the peak hour. As shown in Table 7, the eastbound approach LOS for the existing 2013 case is estimated to be C (17.7 s/v delay). The critical side street movement, the eastbound left, is estimated to be C (23.0 s/v delay). For the 2015 without project case, the eastbound approach LOS is estimated to be C (18.5 s/v delay); with the eastbound left LOS estimated to be C (24.4 s/v delay). For the 2015 with project condition, the eastbound approach LOS is estimated to be C (27.4 s/v delay); with the eastbound left LOS and delay estimated to be C (19.4 s/v delay). With the project the estimated increase in the eastbound left turn lane delay is estimated to be approximately 3 seconds per vehicle based on the 2015 "with-" and "without -project" LOS results. The estimated delay for the 2020 with project condition for the eastbound approach is C (22.8 s/v delay). The critical side street movement, the eastbound left, is estimated to be D (33.1 s/v delay). SR 104/15th St SW - This intersection is currently operating at LOS B and is estimated to continue to do so in the future with or without the project. The average delay at this William Popp Associates 0293 Page 12 Packet Page 420 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St intersection is estimated to increase by approximately only one second per vehicle (s/v) from 2015 with project to 2020 with project. It should be noted that the overall delay actually improves slightly from the 2013 existing condition to the 2015 without project condition. This is a result of the project increasing the weighting of a movement (major street thru movements) operating at a high level of service. SR 104/100th St W - This intersection is currently estimated to be operating at LOS C and will continue to do so in the future with or without the project in 2015. The average delay at this intersection is estimated to increase by approximately 3 seconds per vehicle (s/v) from 2013 to 2015 with project. The intersection is estimated to operate at LOS D in 2020 with project. A summary of the calculations are attached in the appendix. Based on the foregoing analysis for the proposed 50 Pine St Multi -Family Residential development, the following traffic impact conclusions have been made in regards to the surrounding arterial network: This traffic study assumes a worst -case land use and unit count for trip generation, parking, and traffic impacts. The study assumes the project would be developed as an 89 residential apartment building. Based on 89 apartment units, the site is estimated to generate 592 average weekday daily trips, 45 AM, and 55 PM peak hour trips. The final development unit count is estimated to range between 85 and 89 units. Should the site be developed as a condominium project, the estimated trip generation would be approximately 14% less. Based on the trip generation estimate and the project trip distribution and assignment, five percent (5%) of the project trips (only 3 PM peak hour trips) are estimated to utilize the roadway infrastructure through the Town of Woodway. All of these trips would be on Chinook Rd. The project driveways level of service during the PM peak hour period is assumed to be LOS A given the very low volume of traffic. A level of service analysis was not conducted given the low volumes. • The available sight distance at the two proposed driveways for vehicles exiting the site is calculated to exceed the safe stopping sight distance requirements per 2004 AASHTO assuming adequate sight line zones are maintained to be free of sight line obstructions. This sight distance analysis was based on Stopping Sight Distance criteria given the local access street character and the estimated low volumes on Pine Street as well as the two driveways. William Popp Associates 0294 Page 13 Packet Page 421 of 774 Traffic Impact Analysis (3125113) 50 Pine St All of the signalized analysis intersections are estimated to operate at satisfactory levels of service with project traffic impacts. Likewise, with the traffic impacts associated with the project, the LOS grade remains the same as the without project condition. The largest increase in delay with inclusion of the project traffic at the three subject signalized intersection is approximately 0.5 s/v. This occurs at the SR 104/Dayton St intersection. The eastbound approach at the SR 104/Pine Street intersection is estimated to operate at LOS C for 2015 with project. This result is based on a peak hour volume scenario within the 2-hour PM peak period. The critical eastbound left movement level of service is estimated to be LOS C (24.4 seconds per vehicle [s/v] delay) in 2015 without the project and LOS C (27.4 s/v delay) in 2015 with the project. Thus, the average delay for the eastbound left increases 4 s/v with the project in 2015. The estimated delay for the eastbound left in 2020 with the project is LOS D (33.1 s/v). ® The 2015 PM peak hour volume forecast on Pine Street west of SR 104 (east of Nootka Road) with the project is estimated to be approximately 165 PM peak hour vehicles. The daily volume is estimated to be approximately 1,560 vehicles per day. • The estimated PM peak hour volume just north of the project access points is estimated to be approximately 100 vehicles, including project traffic. The garage access volume is 27 vehicles, with 73 vehicles through on Pine St. The surface lot access is 28 vehicles with 45 vehicles on Pine St. ® Based on accident history at the SR 104/Pine St intersection, there were only two accidents recorded, thus it is concluded that there is not enough of an accident history to warrant this location as a significant traffic safety concern. ® The proposed parking supply of 144 stalls is estimated to be adequate for either an apartment or condominium use with 89 units. Mitigation Recommendations The mitigation recommendations for the 50 Pine St Multi -Family Residential project are as follows: 1. The City's GMA transportation impact fee will be formerly assessed at building permit approval. 2. At the two project driveways including the surface lot and the garage access, sight lines shall be maintained to meet the minimum required stopping sight distance criteria noted in this report. Typical sight obstructions to avoid include abnormally tall landscape ground cover, street trees with low canopies, utility vaults/boxes, and on -street parking. William Popp Associates 0295 Page 14 Packet Page 422 of 774 William Popp Associates Transportation EngineerslPlanners (425) 401-1030 FAX (425) 401-2125 e-mail: info@wmpoppassoc.com FOR March 25, 2013 CONTENTS: ✓ PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes 2012 PM Peak Hour (existing) 2015 PM Peak Hour without project 2015 PM Peak Hour with project 2020 PM Peak Hour with project ✓ Accident Data (SR 104/Pine St) ✓ Sight Distance Sketches ✓ Level of Service Calculations (Queue Results for SR 104/Pine) 2012 PM Peak Hour (existing) 2015 PM Peak Hour without project 2015 PM Peak Hour with project 2020 PM Peak Hour with project 14-400 Building ® Suite 206 ® 14400 Bel -Red Road e Bellevue, WA 98007 0296 Packet Page 423 of 774 1 SR 104/Dayton St EBLT EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT WBRT NBLT NBT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 50 Pine St PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Existing 2013 PM PK 2015 Future Growth Ferry Traffic Q 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr 2015 PM PK 5-yr growth ` Long Range 2020 PM PK 17 1 9 4 4 9 1 6 3 1 1 8 1 1 3 170 18 1 9 1 2 5 4 18 2 20 233 242 242 25 268 105 109 110 11 122 94 98 107 10 117 223 232 232 24 256 24 25 25 3 28 149 155 156 16 172 83 86 88 9 97 21 22 27 2 29 36 37 37 4 41 199 207 211 22 233 17 18 18 2 20 1201 49 174 1250 22 1272 130 1402 1.7% 1521 -21% ' Background growth: City identified as 2% per year. Based on 89 apt units (general apt) not including project traffic 2 SR 104/Pine St EBLT EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT WBRT NBLT NBT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT Existing 2013 PM PK 2015 Future Growth' Ferry Traffic Q 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr 2015 PM PK 5-yr growth ` Long Range 2020 PM PK 22 1 1 0 2 2 15 1 15 1 1 29 56 23 8 10 20 14 31 2 33 x 14 15 25 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 X 50 52 52 5 57 42 44 64 5 68 369 384 384 40 424 23 24 24 2 26 X 368 383 383 40 423 25 26 40 3 43 913 37 86 950 52 1002 99 1101 5.2% 1047 -13% ' Background growth: City identified as 2% per year b Based on 89 apt units (general apt) ` not including project traffic Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR 252 124 389 341 355 290 398,253 Background Traffic 2015 PM PEAK HOI IR 262 129 405 355 369 302 414 263 Horizon Yr 2015 PM PEAK HOUR 266 131 406 364 370 307 428 271 Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR 393 441 #VALUE! 50 36 #VALUE! 382 434 Background Traffic 2015 PM PEAK HOUR 409 459 70 52 37 24 397 452 Horizon Yr 2015 PM PFAK HOUR 423 467 104 52 55 24 407 472 50Pine Turns.xls, PM turns William Popp Associates 0297 Packet Page 424 of 774 3 Edmonds Way/226th St SW EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 50 Pine St PM Peak Hour Turn Volumes Existing 2013 PM PK 2015 Future Growth Pipeline Project 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr 2015 PM PK 5-yr growth ` Long Range 2020 PM PK 51 2 2 4 0 2 1 4 32 1 1 27 2 4 53 20 10 1 53 6 59 43 45 45 5 49 110 114 114 12 126 4 4 4 0 5 41 43 43 4 47 21 22 22 2 24 107 111 111 12 123 785 817 837 85 922 32 33 33 3 37 17 18 18 2 20 671 698 708 73 781 46 48 48 5 53 1928 78 4 2006 960 -2% Background growth: City identified as 2% per year. b Based on 89 apt units (general apt) ` not including project traffic 4 Edmonds Wav/100th Ave W EBLT EBT EBRT WBLT WBT WBRT NBLT NBT NBRT SBLT SBT SBRT 30 2036 209 2245 1.5% Existing 2012 PM PK 2015 Future Growth' Pipeline Project 2015 Background Traffic Project Trips b Horizon Yr 2015 PM PK 5-yr47108F8 growthK ange 0 61 4 38 10 9 37 13 13 26 8 10 15 3 1 3 1 2 3 65 1 7 2 14 4 2 66 7 618 656 663 68 159 169 171 18 145 154 154 16 170 600 637 651 66 717 211 224 224 23 247 205 218 222 23 244 423 449 449 47 496 128 136 136 14 150 163 173 173 18 191 248 263 263 27 291 47 50 52 5 57 3008 184 10 3192 30 3281 -8% a Background growth: City identified as 2% per year. b Based on 89 apt units (general apt) ` not including project traffic 3222 332 3554 0.9% Existing 2013 PM PEAK HOUR 734 857 194 66 204 92 785 924 Background Traffic 2015 PM PFAK Hni IR 764 892 202 69 212 96 817 961 Horizon Yr 2015 PM PEAK H01 IR 774 912 202 69 212 96 827 981 Existing 2012 PM PEAK HOUR 458 695 852 956 838 909 552,756 Background Traffic 2015 PM PFAK Hr)I IR 486 738 904 1015 889 965 586 802 Horizon Yr 2015 PKA PFAK I-Irl1 IR 488 739 924 1029 899 972 588,806 5nPine Turns.xls, PM turns William Popp Associates 0298 Packet Page 425 of 774 C F TRAING�TCtN PO COLLISION REPORT V r STYRE rN 'SSTF:-'eT FIRE 011 I ' i� 'E Lw l CTH'"f; l._ ira dJ firTFt�fi' if L�Ril V �❑ CTl1LLl Hl-1QVI n I-zsl��l+rE �t,s" iu:t:t'e7r7 TuT L I CIF -DR3 C TRIBAL UNITS 2 swf'._ . FluaERVATt9N fit, SFt- L; I:° Y Y Y Y I I IL 1;NOX L WI, IY R MUG' — C�II Y g c>s-E s- 31 21L - � �� [;Lli,l 7 - 1440 ,� `I r� _ � � 3 65 a — � �r ,� i❑ vla{ �: ttAMY THAff—,+ 'A5;>~:r'i *1I ERSEC'i ION NON IN fEV,SEC IOIN B SR `� C�G1 PLOCK'4`�t,� 111FFC' T � 3�71u1 � �I G STANCE j7?:� tit ! N F 1. F 1HFFkfi1-:Ni h, 1 hC ti S I E.. _m FINE czT FEET i L LJ f.1.IT9;ssi G'FfVii,. UNIT 01 ILMILl � �YCLL � 3.t'.iKiiF, 7'F::RJM _t17�k1_T F-i t,n — FH't1E {�'!" ')' �'- (2 3) 21� 5400 1= in- 14 EC F] 2111 22F] pe 24 Mx, 2511-1 2E m L'^-hLh1dE IVILLIANil FIF::-,TNAME Lc�PEITh 11111TLAL �9 WELLS AVE N - - - G'ITY' RE'J ON sr kF+1A zip 930575610 C.0 kr-�TFIIOTTINS fi ci . }AFra1C; ;T.hTZ �J3A :�:�' F L; - 1� - 1§a�0 Ds WILLILK401NL a„o:,.(;:Y nFi IJ r 3T TL51 AIRUA � €U:TR, 4 GILOT � rLI�tET dPJ IRr -1 uetcr ;rlt,;�lrrr, uL _•vl I•LFalt k 870SAA alma � JTD9- F32KX4027'28r-33- ���� Ili t `3 I'1AlLFti .,�dil-_;. A FrYL� ruu' F Pta,'L:?, r�.>ieca,� ",�M4I Y'ER tJ{•{,,.. - �.---L�.•- - .a•#r In_ - Y£i �td4: . nF!;I-FRFD M-HFI%INFO. VEHICLE Ni}, t tl klll IP¢:d 4ti d.� ,aetrk 'f,:j.��l1�E CO. I� L' SPG'Lt Yc NIS'lI"'.7t`•i r'i �`:1{�t�.1 a ti- i6a E (dd5 �Pt'td31k "' XY0377507 '�fAF{�� FOLLOW TOO CLO E I rr. r..rraa -• - UNIT02 M0T(.n R'n4;- j � ) �IA51ri, h`1 rnirrriTY C .Vo.gE THFEEH'JLr, MET vp; tllJ FllidlC .j 58'7t f vGHlr t�'rC.L6 CF.'dGSfl [DV+lA DIS _ FIHAI a{At,,t DABL1=hJE I �irr ai KI _K1 % fig_ 16261 VV 15T 1 ST t;" CITt PORT AN GELES sr I VVA I M 73363819345 {ihi ;�p$7HIC:17TJN: � [it('j.� ,1AEtf?`, =1-)wARPIK42-)4BI%J :3fAII, I 'OVA ::1,h F ti•.a'u ; '> 1 I 1958 _M%T,-S ; IR21LG 1 2 RESTR_ 4 EIEvT 1 jJ£E ^ � n4 P�UE 321)ZGX ;TXr fit' -,IA QINP KMJ'-11°IU6K[.I9AU022 017 PLATE u . .., IAt �9�lLEP IATF %a 1 , L.149 2010 U 4dla 1 �Li I tat9L It :F•+1tlt#.1 LL"llur, hs' ':E l a Ln-Ct ,: ! w r�t'£util,ri vG� 9 I'.t� rt ray.=RS star- halt FALK, E N:A31A.; e I:t: EIi t7 {PIS }11 t"�531 G _a cttis�rt+ I1„ rr,st,: M VEHICLE NO, 2 GI iaA�L Pl C: qr: Fa=U Af'r R a 1 I�, rnF,,rnn .s }J E �- 1337 — --l_•aWA0310200 PAGE 01 or 1 4 P' 8ETPa6e:ubS,6,efi:;t74;.-,.,t,, E061707 41 COLLI !$TATE Of VIA-5HINOTON POLICIEETRAFrIC CORRECTM REPORT 140 SION REPORT N.610�� 410,; 1, HF*J, kll:U-='NI I VLr SIMONS, JENNIFER R Renton. PunLr cR F-26 VA. 98055 lSExj F I. D.O.11- "F 87 1932 ""IT 2 ::t rs, r P,.. F. ir 2 1 1 HELVE1 W/I I [ t 4 EDWARDS, STEPHEN W V67, FIRU, kirfj-2 P1 WE ,V-'cfE:u &' 1 vi3 v.) i,,,T-HST Port Angeles. VVA 98,363 (360) 809-3064 �%EALM WOO __2 ... 'A Sli h\ C I 4 Fvl IN I I S F-1 1-hj I 1 0 2 ,;PAT 3 1 AJHH-7�6 121 91-filK 14 1 I jHRUzT 7-1] UlJRE!3 iilA ijAM, FIRFT, hirn. 2 IIITLAI', kFHUN= w D kkUl n wfr-E�&s F1 I r� 6 AT I_ j Hlir�4=T-1 4j) k J Rf,1 HATL19E_Uf NAIFIE�i ("3r I GF RT P Y i.r.f 01 AFft 1.1 N ri F R P FNA TV OF P,--rj LMY (IN D P R THE I NXIq QF T -4p -57.47 F 17JF WA:3. A I IG7()t4 THAT -I- P F Q P F GL74 t4 0, 10 TqU F :Wrj Ci',RR F173T I PIC W AA. 7P. 0 95) F FALK 802010 Vl rl r-� 3 r r-F,,G s:735-NT- ;F IJNI- Or, PJST DrT rI)AITcr, Ti,-7-r :sic,75 kv — I Bard, Michael 0028 UA1 RAE,-,E 01". ID 0 11307 1 oFil - I WA03,10200 i TIME ::0J(.E R��PAPAFD � -46 PM I 2 PM PAXU et Rowtivat ifr-• U.3vu PAOEF-2-1017F-41 4 1 M%4FM I WOff . i® W If td. JOTS; SR 104 is a eastiv/est highway, However, the location of the collision Occurred where the iighway runs north/south. For the narrative I will refer to the direction of the vehicles as east/west in elation to the highways direction. )nit's 1 and 2 were westbound SR 104 in the right ferry holding lane, The traffic was stop and go, At ie time of the collision Unit 2 was stopped when Unit 1 struck the rear of Unit 2, The driver of Unit 1 old me she was distracted and took her foot off the brake, Causing Unit 1 to move forward and strike )nit 2. *he front license plate frame and its attachment screw head of Unit 1 left an indent in the right rear Umper of Unit 2. The driver of Unit 2 said the trunk lid no longer functioned properly. 0301 Packet Page 428 of 774 PAGE 3 OF 4 Kepari ivumner: tut)-i rvr PAGE 4 OF 4 0302 Packet Page 429 of 774 $TSsTF. �F 1VJi5MINCTON i :+ SATIFOF X51-11 INN 1 REPORT NC?E186645 COLLISION REPORT El Flf i♦-Fil_v'.�T�C(E 5`aTF.�"T Hl �- L A ti7-E. hY.]U7E u CJH=r', a ate Nx I ° 1 f 'A .61-,J mI w HIT Ilr IFJN4 c;tJ�F"rr� r�I:�.urtias� 3n:r,1'.t Tf:tT l- d uFFil yP C 7H113 AL UNITS 2 sTrN C, : RE15ERVAPON g u, U U Y Y > 1I RAI: I'Y t7L `:1,7 J 8 - 10 - �11 Lk ilk 11 == ,, = w a t7F s� KF1 2f ] 2-IF] 2.2F] ?I= 24 I I 25u] 79M 2 412 a dw lep. MAWY IRAFf-t ?ti kf7 (PJ CER9E 111'.7M tJ4?'J ihJ I EFvEi%71t�?J 104 E l; t 1 IF Fi' .T __.� ----- .-- UIaTANAE {}F 1,tiFFFi-9kNr.;;= ;1F I'MC;CS ti i 90 0 NIILE_ Ft N F En P��IE STREE T .- FEET / 8 L �s��' t.4:iT1'r$ r-c-�f�a �. - - - UNIT 01 vuur�R (; Y(;1_L t�.sur;ti rF w:Ju7tJ}sa,a F-- w — wNGnE 7`S.4 '-� - _ (2CX3) 29 1295 Q FUJAVA 1 if: T tr�11AE p.I�ILf�� KIIITi_AL D ��_= --- — - —,_ _. ----- - - —--------------T H S T-------------- - - -- 3��1fJ � 13t�TH �T,�,PT 15V faTY SEAThu si ��1 SIP 13 21 2 CJl _ F- ,Tkif TCIhJ;� Ca#trl tAFW r 'Ic=ti-UTAVPD126K5 m Y'TATL ti hh rt:aE. �� _ 1�,88 J p„gyp, Y 7,7. _ ��LbiET IN �.JRe art •r�;ruJ;tinr; t`7tP IJTy' _TAILS AIi7CIF iJE'�TF?. 4 EJEuT 1 try .. u` B�3421LI rar t1a',ii 'alrJa 4KLC�1EE1R5'�'tJ11Q23h�1 � I LAit II*A I PI ATF 4 4iT�°,T� I'talhklJ 51 ATF 4 - ' 17,1r7 atrr.= ,t>-:�ca-- ISL1 'B?k VA Y6411CS CE NFfih LLC, 6F0 �,. ttrr 'Tawa} ...-Y u ,NUI`:rta4ti �a-E `ia. F.ST.C.E t:C a ti7r c r. iJrrrrY •!� sPc�.s::Va 'ONTINENTAL „E,.:TERN BQP2.8W123 it c - ` k aw°a.FoU' 2ZO'593t351 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE UNITn/�r� mou"i7 ♦ f' Nl'. rx.lA?`Iri'.,l j ( (. I � I ff7�'furay j EVVL 6E TK-ESW-'-L6 f,t=r _. "I NINE �[1�q Ll1YIT VL 4[nliSs. v t;'rti.iE "� 1 fflttlfiR ( Yfl: IJii �.il:•�j �...�C! ..1 LA4 pJ 111F_ `II #;LADLE g]j FIN[�I r{4p4� r1APK mini I I D -. .--J nTP r 9300 W MALL DR APT A41.3 rITY EV'ERETT Tr I VIA I CIF 1 9,92082164 {IL7L ski IHi(;IIfJtJS k1:La) tAEt3i TRtJiNJDLJ._ VVA •*Jt M{,.'dU�"YYYv 3 1985 ---- - tCLMET N Aff .� �••<nt".�, [}r ltLhrJrS — �STATLS AIRSIC. J;ESTF;_ E,lEGT 1 fuss r NS;. LIB a� PLIkIT 602ZST .JF IGI16B6a7AG8,0969 2010 'IJ3h JW;f�RECt �4't3, 1EML,,'.Tnl:R,� ,f, rc:a one Hai. u, ILULIa ..ar.'nts� inI tJ. VEHICLE NO .a P4.La 7 F�. 1:1.: PPi U^�T fi.�vi7� YC. ry3J�t'�i1�-{I NONE ;.ri "�.' '11AN-NA r+"a rasa,: Y11ItI Tj HARBINSON.. STEVEPd 1467 2 A. 'et IAAtL r7 4*ii': h;i=U riF�x s 1 .aL-1 �ii: •i PD EDP'a ONDS •.. F%RTPAeAaG,6ft717,4;::,,.', 85645 P��L f VIN111TConiqEC-MM REPORT NO.4ISION 115POR lout 71 CA$E # 12-2906 NkMli; iu,* t. HK9 1. 1 V.Q T.AUAL0. MARCUS T rl142SE24�THPLA201 l p4 1 r' 'I 2t I I;-' Kent. MM00e,206'1118-1154 k1moDyy*?" - - F(w-, ;P.ir 4 F f� I HSiItnE C+ PIMFIES , " L-J- , N COERF3ER, CHRISTOPHER D jLAS7,FIr,!T, 12-�03 HARBOUR PTE BLVD EE-306 MUNIteo,k-VA962762923 (426) 4 23 1982 01,111 0 1 2 F AT 3 AIHKA(i 2 �IkSJR 4 HF 7 171AIPY KELLOGG, AARON M 1 IC87 9617 197H ST Snohorrash, WA 982901442 (425) 923-6799 E1-37�Mj-,/] wfrtjEssF]j1)f-jrro 1! 1 2 .3FAT L - 2, AIR &'(d 1 [-;csTp. IEf;T I- - E11,111-1PL C* PIIIIFII�l _ss p ( X�*. -1 --- -- , F I (,rP,,T FY tr,,Ff,'l ARFj I)NDFR PFNA 7? OF P--TI(JqY UNDFR TIAF IA!A(4 OFT -IF S,7.47- OF WK.3-IING70N THAT-1-F FORFG17.040 It TRUP M%Irj 0�!FIFIP77 IFIC'N qA.7;1.0R5J STEVEN HAR13,111SON 8/1112012 sG*r,:iE IJNI- Or, UST CIET DATEC. 1 iy Roth, Karl 886 FLAUSIG1,C0 I RX-GE OR ID 0 114017 1 cim - I WA03'I 02M �TWE z02GE P*PATT3NED 4 -11 " 00 A M I WOE 0:11YED I '11 '0 1 A 1`14 1 PPQTket PagV411& 7W' PAGE F2-10 F56-1 1511 2GLJ F-1 21F] 2211 21-11 $UPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC POLICE 001-1-1$10M REPORT -CASE- Y-- 1 -1 1 2-2 1 OC4 1 3 I�rFl"JA-F�_L IN-BASTATF UNIT,H 1 Z,:CCT I r _L _ _141C_ r _ F 7-, E _ LP TYPE - -------- -- ADORES-, NAME + H I 50L)HU W;TD=, U 1E UNIT # I I LJ Wj INKN I LA xTLJ;d.1E FIP57 '0ME rlflrjca F Ury IT ZIP F I I 'FNSF li [A- L -:LV-=T IMURY STATIJS "dRolf-5 :irS-rp. IdECT I 1j,!p GLAh, I,1(7CN.qR NA I PI ATF- A TRAILER TFVIL2R PINTF- at STA-F I I P-ATE 1; ST."Te VIEH'rU,R I I P;CDEL I S-)r-E I vpj ��- A T 1 Wfo F ri D It .ti WX 1711 L' 01dAGLD Ai -LA 7: -7 t 4 To !— t T IF u1j w" Cd IEII,11 r-1 UNIT # 'VICUlt"Ll F F-1 I MIT NAMP omi MIDL�s ST-,IEET LICE'NSI: A r ---------- _--I TLV71 NJURY ON LjJ1Y SDM us Ail"'ILIAG Ht-S411, ULCJ' Ulic I I I I LJ(;ENbE I'LAII, it TRAILIR TFV11LER PLATE: 0 STA C P-ATF V STATL PEQISTERED,M21NEF ff*a- SHarfz ri C-1%1d1%1:i=jAf--E,11 z 1 -T 4 E A 1 10 UND.R x-LPIA1.1" ":f� 0c111-111Y of"A'11 WfC LAW11� I P-, �VAIL ijk'HL I ftj 1HUtANJ WLIAO-?G).QLSv -STFVFN HARBINSON 811112012 ItNr I IGAI N`3 S1(q-4A'I-1f,, LAID I (,X-: LWS I Om I D,,V L::: Y - .0k: 1: '3 "'i, ri b 1467 rpl V'+arAt)310't 0305 Roth VED 2 Y XTE PAGEI 3, OF Packet Page COLLI&ON LEVEL DESCRIPTICONS: [[,,-)C,ATC-)N ('HARD CTFR F)F,5CRIFTl0Nj - FERRY H01-nING, LANE 0306 Packet Page 433 of 774 PAGE 4 OF 6 101 (ehicle 2 was stopped on SIR 104 near Pine Street due to a large volume of ferry traffic. Vehicle 1 wa! :-aveling northbound on SR 104 in the outside lane. The driver of Vehicle 1 looked at his GP S and did iot notice Vehicle 2 was stopped for traffic. Vehicle I attempted to move left and slow in an attempt tc niss Vehicle 2. Vehicle 1's right front corner impacted the left rear corner of Vehicle 2. No injuries vere reported at the time of the collision. The driver of Vehicle 1 admitted he was distracted by his :')'PS for just a second. Driver 1 was cited for following too close, 0307 Packet Page 434 of 774 PAGE 5 OF 6 O O 0 LO co MINIMUM SSD THRESHOLDS J QHDFA('f: nf:?I\/r-%A/AV SIGHT LINE CLEAR ZONE F �,k�all Uffl,-� GIAI.AH, Packet Page 436 of 774 0309 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Dayton St & SR 104 2/4/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR ; NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations t r 1 T Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1752 1818 1787 1881 1599 1736 3430 Flt Permitted 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 667 1881 1599 642 1818 978 1881 1599 1267 3430 Volume (vph) 17 233 105 94 223 24 149 83 21 36 199 17 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.55 0.55 0.55 Adj. Flow (vph) 24 333 150 125 297 32 175 98 25 65 362 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 7 0 0 0 10 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 24 333 42 125 322 0 175 98 15 65 385 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 499 424 170 482 589 1132 963 763 2065 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03 c0.19 c0.18 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.67 0.10 0.74 0.67 0.30 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 16.9 19.8 16.7 20.2 19.8 5.8 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 3.4 0.1 15.2 3.5 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 17.2 23.1 16.8 35.4 23.3 7.1 5.2 4.9 5.3 5.6 Level of Service B C B D C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 21.0 26.6 6.3 5.5 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St Page 1 0310 Packet Page 437 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Dayton St & SR 104 2/4/2013 Lane Configurations 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1752 1818 1787 1881 1599 1736 3429 Flt Permitted 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 642 1881 1599 618 1818 963 1881 1599 1264 3429 Volume (vph) 18 242 109 98 232 25 155 86 22 37 207 18 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.55 0.55 0.55 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 346 156 131 309 33 182 101 26 67 376 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 7 0 0 0 11 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 346 48 131 335 0 182 101 15 67 401 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 175 513 436 168 496 574 1121 953 753 2044 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03 c0.21 c0.19 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.67 0.11 0.78 0.68 0.32 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 16.8 19.7 16.6 20.5 19.8 6.1 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 3.5 0.1 20.1 3.6 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 17.2 23.2 16.7 40.6 23.4 7.6 5.4 5.0 5.5 5.8 Level of Service B C B D C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 21.0 28.2 6.7 5.8 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.9 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2015 PM PK without Project 50 Pine St Page 1 0311 Packet Page 438 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Dayton St & SR 104 2/8/2013 Lane Configurations T � Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1752 1818 1787 1881 1599 1736 3430 Flt Permitted 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 650 1881 1599 625 1818 956 1881 1599 1260 3430 Volume (vph) 18 242 110 107 232 25 156 88 27 37 211 18 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.55 0.55 0.55 Adj. Flow (vph) 26 346 157 143 309 33 184 104 32 67 384 33 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 108 0 7 0 0 0 13 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 346 49 143 335 0 184 104 19 67 409 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 3% 3% 3% 1 % 1 % 1 % 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 179 519 442 173 502 567 1116 948 747 2034 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 0.19 0.06 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.10 c0.23 c0.19 0.02 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.67 0.11 0.83 0.67 0.32 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 19.7 16.5 20.8 19.7 6.3 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 3.2 0.1 26.4 3.4 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 17.1 22.9 16.7 47.2 23.0 7.8 5.5 5.2 5.6 6.0 Level of Service B C B D C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 20.7 30.1 6.8 5.9 Approach LOS C C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 61.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2015 PM PK with Project 50 Pine St Page 1 0312 Packet Page 439 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Dayton St & SR 104 2/8/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations f tr f t.) Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 1881 1599 1752 1818 1787 1881 1599 1736 3430 Fit Permitted 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 593 1881 1599 569 1818 912 1881 1599 1249 3430 Volume (vph) 20 268 122 117 256 28 172 97 29 41 233 20 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.55 0.55 0.55 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 383 174 156 341 37 202 114 34 75 424 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 105 0 6 0 0 0 14 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 383 69 156 372 0 202 114 20 75 452 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1 % 1 % 1 % 3% 3% 3%° 1 % 1 % 1 % 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 Effective Green, g (s) 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 177 562 477 170 543 524 1082 919 718 1972 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 0.21 0.06 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.11 c0.27 c0.22 0.02 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.68 0.15 0.92 0.68 0.39 0.11 0.02 0.10 0.23 Uniform Delay, di 16.4 19.5 16.3 21.4 19.6 7.3 6.1 5.8 6.1 6.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 3.4 0.1 45.4 3.6 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 16.8 23.0 16.4 66.8 23.1 9.5 6.3 5.8 6.4 6.9 Level of Service B C B E C A A A A A Approach Delay (s) 20.7 35.9 8.1 6.8 Approach LOS C D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St Page 1 0313 Packet Page 440 of 774 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/5/2013 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations r r + r ft Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 22 0 14 0 0 50 42 369 23 0 368 25 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 0 14 0 0 50 42 369 23 0 368 25 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TW LTL None Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 871 844 184 637 846 369 393 392 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 368 368 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 503 476 vCu, unblocked vol 871 844 184 637 846 369 393 392 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 90 100 98 100 100 92 96 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 223 396 833 350 291 634 1169 1163 Direction, Lane # EB1 €B 2 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 i SB 2 SB 3' Volume Total 22 14 50 42 369 23 184 184 25 Volume Left 22 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 14 50 0 0 23 0 0 25 cSH 223 833 634 1169 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.22 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 1 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 23.0 9.4 11.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C A B A Approach Delay (s) 17.7 11.2 0.8 0.0 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 60 2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) 50 Pine St Page 1 0314 Packet Page 441 of 774 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 14.4 1.0 3.9 2.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 4.6 1.3 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 3.2 2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) 2/7/2013 SimTraffic Report Page 1 0315 Packet Page 442 of 774 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/7/2013 Movement EB WB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum Queue (ft) 66 45 26 Average Queue (ft) 16 22 8 95th Queue (ft) 46 39 27 Link Distance (ft) 901 660 180 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay; Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2013 PM Peak existing count (60min) SimTraffic Report Page 2 0316 Packet Page 443 of 774 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/7/2013 Lane Configurations Sign Control Grade Volume (veh/h) Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) Volume Total Volume Left Volume Right cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length 95th (ft) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS f Stop Stop Free Free 0% 0% 0% 0% 23 0 15 0 0 52 44 384 24 0 383 26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 23 0 15 0 0 52 44 384 24 0 383 26 TW LTL 1 None 907 879 192 664 881 384 409 408 383 383 524 496 907 879 192 664 881 384 409 408 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 6.5 5.5 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 89 100 98 100 100 92 96 100 208 384 824 334 277 620 1153 1147 23 15 52 44 384 24 192 192 26 23 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 52 0 0 24 0 0 26 208 824 620 1153 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.23 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.02 9 1 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 24.4 9.4 11.3 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C A B A 18.5 11.3 0.8 0.0 C B Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 60 2015 PM Peak without project (60min) 50 Pine St Page 1 0317 Packet Page 444 of 774 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 15.0 1.0 4.7 3.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 4.8 1.4 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 3.4 2015 PM Peak without project (60min) 2/7/2013 SimTraffic Report Page 1 0318 Packet Page 445 of 774 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 2/7/2013 Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 Movement EB WB NB Directions Served L R L Maximum 'Queue (ft) 66 64 = 48 Average Queue (ft) 15 22 12 95th Queue (ft) 45 45 34 Link Distance (ft) 901 660 180 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2015 PM Peak without project (60min) SimTraffic Report Page 2 0319 Packet Page 446 of 774 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/5/2013 Lane Configurations Vi r Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 31 0 25 0 0 52 64 384 24 0 383 40 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 31 0 25 0 0 52 64 384 24 0 383 40 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 947 919 192 704 935 384 423 408 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 383 383 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 564 536 vCu, unblocked vol 947 919 192 704 935 384 423 408 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 84 100 97 100 100 92 94 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 192 366 824 304 252 620 1140 1147 Direction, Lane # EB1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 31 25 52 64 384 24 192 192 40 Volume Left 31 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 25 52 0 0 24 0 0 40 cSH 192 824 620 1140 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.03 0.08 0.06 0.23 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 2 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 27.4 9.5 11.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A B A Approach Delay (s) 19.4 11.3 1.1 0.0 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary Average Delay 2.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 60 2015 PM Peak with project (60min) 50 Pine St Page 1 0320 Packet Page 447 of 774 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 16.2 1.1 5.3 3.4 0.6 0.1 0.9 5.0 1.8 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 3.7 2/7/2013 2015 PM Peak with project (60min) SimTraffic Report Page 1 0321 Packet Page 448 of 774 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/7/2013 Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) 66 63 46 48 Average Queue (ft) _ 22 20 18 3 95th"Queue (ft) 50 44 38 19 Link Distance (ft) 901 660 180 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 70 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 2015 PM Peak with project (60min) SimTraffic Report Page 2 0322 Packet Page 449 of 774 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Pine St & SR 104 2/5/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 33 0 26 0 0 57 68 424 26 0 423 43 Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 0 26 0 0 57 68 424 26 0 423 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 1 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1040 1009 212 772 1026 424 466 450 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 423 423 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 617 586 vCu, unblocked vol 1040 1009 212 772 1026 424 466 450 tC, single (s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.5 5.5 tF (s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 p0 queue free % 80 100 97 100 100 90 94 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 161 340 800 270 222 584 1099 1107 Direction, Lane # EB1 EB 2 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 "' SB 2 SB 3 Volume Total 33 26 57 68 424 26 212 212 43 Volume Left 33 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 26 57 0 0 26 0 0 43 cSH 161 800 584 1099 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.03 0.10 0.06 0.25 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.03 Queue Length 95th (ft) 19 3 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 33.1 9.7 11.8 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS D A B A Approach Delay (s) 22.8 11.8 1.1 0.0 Approach LOS C B Intersection Summary; Average Delay 2.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 60 2020 PM Peak with project (60min) 50 Pine St Page 1 0323 Packet Page 450 of 774 SimTraffic Performance Report Baseline 2/7/2013 3: Pine St & SR 104 Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR WBR NBL NBT NBR SBT SBR All Delay / Veh (s) 19.6 1.1 5.9 4.0 0.6 0.1 0.9 5.4 1.9 Total Network Performance Delay / Veh (s) 4.0 ShTraffic Report Page 1 0324 Packet Page 451 of 774 Queuing and Blocking Report Baseline 2/7/2013 Intersection: 3: Pine St & SR 104 Directions Served L R L R Maximum Queue (ft) - 66 68 - 48 48 Average Queue (ft) 21 22 20 3 95th Queue (ft) 53 51 45 21 Link Distance (ft) 901 660 180 Upstream BlkTime (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) StorageBay' Dist (ft) 70 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 0325 Packet Page 452 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1553 1805 1804 1787 3553 1787 3540 Fit Permitted 0.78 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1430 1553 1290 1804 1787 3553 1787 3540 Volume (vph) 51 43 110 4 41 21 107 785 32 17 671 46 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.70 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 54 138 6 59 30 126 924 38 24 959 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 118 0 26 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 118 20 6 63 0 126 960 0 24 1020 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 6.6 44.6 0.9 38.9 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 6.6 44.6 0.9 38.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.66 0.01 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 208 226 188 263 175 2355 24 2046 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 0.27 0.01 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.72 0.41 1.00 0.50 Uniform Delay, di 26.8 24.9 24.7 25.5 29.5 5.2 33.2 8.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 13.3 0.5 183.7 0.9 Delay (s) 30.3 25.1 24.7 25.9 42.7 5.8 216.9 9.3 Level of Service C C C C D A F A Approach Delay (s) 27.5 25.9 10.0 14.0 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St Page 1 0326 Packet Page 453 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013 I Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +' 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1553 1805 1804 1787 3553 1787 3540 Flt Permitted 0.78 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1428 1553 1246 1804 1787 3553 1787 3540 Volume (vph) 53 45 114 4 43 22 111 817 33 18 698 48 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.70 Adj. Flow (vph) 66 56 142 6 61 31 131 961 39 26 997 69 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 121 0 26 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 122 21 6 66 0 131 998 0 26 1061 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 7.9 46.7 1.2 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 7.9 46.7 1.2 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.66 0.02 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 213 232 186 269 201 2357 30 2011 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 0.28 0.01 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.65 0.42 0.87 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 27.9 25.8 25.6 26.4 29.9 5.5 34.5 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 7.4 0.6 108.1 1.0 Delay (s) 31.6 26.0 25.7 26.9 37.3 6.1 142.6 10.4 Level of Service C C C C D A F B Approach Delay (s) 28.6 26.8 9.7 13.5 Approach LOS C C A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2015 PM PK without Project 50 Pine St Page 1 0327 Packet Page 454 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013 Lane Configurations Vi 11� Vi tT41 Vi 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1553 1805 1804 1787 3554 1787 3540 Fit Permitted 0.78 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1428 1553 1246 1804 1787 3554 1787 3540 Volume (vph) 53 45 114 4 43 22 111 837 33 18 708 48 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.70 0.70 Adj. Flow (vph) 66 56 142 6 61 31 131 985 39 26 1011 69 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 121 0 26 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 122 21 6 66 0 131 1022 0 26 1075 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 7.9 46.7 1.2 40.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 7.9 46.7 1.2 40.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.66 0.02 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 213 232 186 269 201 2358 30 2011 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 0.29 0.01 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.09 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.09 0.03 0.24 0.65 0.43 0.87 0.53 Uniform Delay, di 27.9 25.8 25.6 26.4 29.9 5.6 34.5 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 7.4 0.6 108.1 1.0 Delay (s) 31.6 26.0 25.7 26.9 37.3 6.2 142.6 10.5 Level of Service C C C C D A F B Approach Delay (s) 28.6 26.8 9.7 13.6 Approach LOS C C A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2015 PM PK with Project 50 Pine St Page 1 0328 Packet Page 455 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: 226th St SW & SR 104 2/4/2013 Movement EBIL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 1553 1805 1804 1787 3554 1787 3540 Fit Permitted 0.77 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1415 1553 1195 1804 1787 3554 1787 3540 Volume (vph) 59 49 126 5 47 24 123 922 37 20 781 53 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 61 158 7 67 34 137 1024 41 22 868 59 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 135 0 29 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 135 23 7 72 0 137 1063 0 22 922 0 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 6.6 44.0 0.8 38.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 6.6 44.0 0.8 38.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.66 0.01 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 206 227 174 263 177 2352 21 2034 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.08 c0.30 0.01 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.10 0.04 0.27 0.77 0.45 1.05 0.45 Uniform Delay, di 26.8 24.6 24.4 25.3 29.2 5.4 32.9 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 18.8 0.6 212.0 0.7 Delay (s) 34.1 24.8 24.5 25.8 48.0 6.1 244.9 8.9 Level of Service C C C C D A F A Approach Delay (s) 29.1 25.7 10.8 14.3 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St Page 1 0329 Packet Page 456 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013 Lane Configurations Vi � 0 Vi 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3431 1770 3401 1770 3416 1770 3455 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3431 1770 3401 1770 3416 1770 3455 Volume (vph) 61 618 159 145 600 211 205 423 128 163 248 47 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 66 672 173 158 652 229 223 460 139 177 270 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 41 0 0 36 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 816 0 158 840 0 223 563 0 177 301 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 23.3 8.8 28.3 11.4 15.6 10.2 14.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 23.3 8.8 28.3 11.4 15.6 10.2 14.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.32 0.12 0.38 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 91 1082 211 1302 273 721 244 673 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.24 c0.09 0.25 c0.13 c0.16 0.10 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.64 0.82 0.78 0.73 0.45 Uniform Delay, di 34.5 22.7 31.5 18.7 30.2 27.5 30.5 26.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.7 3.0 13.5 1.1 17.0 5.5 10.2 0.5 Delay (s) 59.3 25.8 45.0 19.8 47.2 33.0 40.7 26.7 Level of Service E C D B D C D C Approach Delay (s) 28.2 23.6 36.9 31.7 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2013 PM PK -- Existing Conditions 50 Pine St Page 1 0330 Packet Page 457 of 774 ACM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations fly 0 0 fl� Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3430 1770 3401 1770 3416 1770 3455 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3430 1770 3401 1770 3416 1770 3455 Volume (vph) 65 656 169 154 637 224 218 449 136 173 263 50 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 71 713 184 167 692 243 237 488 148 188 286 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 43 0 0 36 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 868 0 167 892 0 237 600 0 188 320 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 23.8 8.9 28.9 11.8 16.3 10.4 14.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 23.8 8.9 28.9 11.8 16.3 10.4 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.32 0.12 0.38 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 89 1083 209 1304 277 738 244 683 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.25 c0.09 0.26 c0.13 c0.18 0.11 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.68 0.86 0.81 0.77 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 23.6 32.4 19.4 31.0 28.1 31.3 26.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 37.6 4.3 18.9 1.5 21.9 6.8 13.9 0.5 Delay (s) 73.0 28.0 51.2 20.9 52.9 34.9 45.3 27.3 Level of Service E C D Cr D C D C Approach Delay (s) 31.3 25.5 39.8 33.7 Approach LOS C Cr D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2015 PM PK without Project 50 Pine St Page 1 0331 Packet Page 458 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations fr+ t ft, tlt+ Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3430 1770 3404 1770 3416 1770 3451 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3430 1770 3404 1770 3416 1770 3451 Volume (vph) 66 663 171 154 651 224 222 449 136 173 263 52 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 721 186 167 708 243 241 488 148 188 286 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 42 0 0 36 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 878 0 167 909 0 241 600 0 188 322 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 3.8 23.9 8.9 29.0 11.9 16.3 10.4 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.8 23.9 8.9 29.0 11.9 16.3 10.4 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.32 0.12 0.38 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 89 1086 209 1307 279 737 244 676 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.26 c0.09 0.27 c0.14 c0.18 0.11 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.70 0.86 0.81 0.77 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 23.7 32.4 19.5 31.0 28.2 31.4 26.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 39.8 4.5 18.9 1.6 23.1 6.9 13.9 0.5 Delay (s) 75.3 28.2 51.3 21.2 54.1 35.0 45.3 27.4 Level of Service E C D C D D D C Approach Delay (s) 31.7 25.7 40.3 33.8 Approach LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.5 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2015 PM PK with Project 50 Pine St Page 1 0332 Packet Page 459 of 774 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: SR 104 & 100th Ave W 2/4/2013 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL I NBT NBR` SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1 Vi 0 Vi 0 t T Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3431 1770 3403 1770 3416 1770 3452 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3431 1770 3403 1770 3416 1770 3452 Volume (vph) 72 731 188 170 717 247 244 496 150 191 291 57 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 76 769 198 179 755 260 257 522 158 201 306 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 41 0 0 36 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 939 0 179 974 0 257 644 0 201 345 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 25.4 9.0 29.8 12.1 17.7 10.0 15.6 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 25.4 9.0 29.8 12.1 17.7 10.0 15.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.33 0.12 0.38 0.15 0.23 0.13 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 104 1116 204 1298 274 774 227 690 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.27 c0.10 0.29 c0.15 c0.19 0.11 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.73 0.84 0.88 0.75 0.94 0.83 0.89 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 24.5 34.0 20.9 32.6 28.8 33.5 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 23.0 5.9 31.8 2.5 37.6 7.6 30.9 0.6 Delay (s) 59.1 30.3 65.8 23.4 70.2 36.4 64.4 28.4 Level of Service E C E C E D E C Approach Delay (s) 32.4 29.8 45.7 41.1 Approach LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 2020 PM Peak (with project) 50 Pine St Page 1 0333 Packet Page 460 of 774 y OF ED41 O Al +O CITY OF EDMONDS Pt. jg9121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Architectural Design Board review for a revision of the last of ten multifamily residential buildings approved for the Point Edwards development. The proposed Building 10 includes 85 residential units, 144 off-street parking stalls, and associated landscaping. Proponent: Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson on behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency 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 WA 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by April 26, 2013 Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Senior 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: Signature: J_vl_'_�_ 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 April 26, 2013. 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 April 12, 2013, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit(cD-ecy.wa.gov). Mailed of property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.EdmondsWa.gov through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20130022. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION.DOC 0334 4,I2,I3.SEPA Attachment 13 Packet Page 461 of 774 Mailed to the following XX COMCAST Outside rlant Engineer, North Region XX 1525 75` St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard XX Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 XX 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Town of Woodway Attn.: Clerk -Treasurer 23920 113th Place West Woodway, WA 98020 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 Attn.: Stephanie Hall 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn.: Brent Russell 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 Attachments pc: File No. SEPA Notebook Puget Sound Energy Attn: Elaine Babby PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 Joe Kolmer Weber Thompson 225 Terry Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 Betty Tobin Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Donna J. Bunten Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 XX Kojo Fordjour Department of Ferries Environmental Manager 2901 3`d Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3014 XX Kristin Kelly Snohomish Co/Skagit Co Program Director 1429 Avenue D, PMB 532 Snohomish, WA 98290 kristin futurewise.org XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETEMUNATION.DOC 0335 4/12/I3.SEPA Packet Page 462 of 774 FILE NO.: PLN20130022 APPLICANT: PINE STREET, LLC D E(CILARAi' tON OF MAILING ING On the 1 st day of May 2013, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 1st day of May, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: f G_t�� {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0336 Attachment 14 Packet Page 463 of 774 FILE NO.: PLN20130022 Applicant: PINE STREET LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 1 st day of May, 2013, the attached Notice Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Center, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 1st day of May, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: (�kQA (BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ ) 0337 Packet Page 464 of 774 THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND SHOULD BE BILLED TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NAME OF APPLICANT: Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson on behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC FILE NO.: PLN20130022 LOCATION: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Architectural Design Board review for a revision of the last of ten multifamily residential buildings approved for the Point Edwards development. The proposed Building 10 includes 85 residential units, 144 off-street parking stalls, and associated landscaping. REQUESTED APPROVALS: Design review approval for Building 10. Design reviews requiring a public hearing before the Architectural Design Board are Type III-B decisions. Design review for Building 10 is subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 16.70, 20.10, 20.11, 20.13, and design review guidelines in the City's Comprehensive Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: May 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. Architectural Design Board Public Hearing City of Edmonds Council Chambers 250 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 COMMENTS DUE: May 15, 2013. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person. All comments received prior to the public hearing will be provided to the Architectural Design Board. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services 0338 Packet Page 465 of 774 Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday or between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 12:00 PM on Wednesday or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20130022; all materials for the three permits have been associated with this permit number. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Kemen.Lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 PUBLISH: May 1, 2013 0339 Packet Page 466 of 774 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING pp NAME OF APPLICANT: Joe Kolmer of Weber on behalf of Edmonds Pine SL LLC FILE NO.: PLN20130022 LOCATION:50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Architectural Design Board review for a revision of the last of ten multi family residential buildings approved for the Point Edwards development. The proposed Bullding 10 includes 85 residential units, 144 off-street parking stalls, and associated landscaping. REQUESTED APPROVALS: Design review approval for Buildingl0. Design reviews requiring a public hearing before the Architectural Design Board are Type III-B decisions. Design review for Building 10 is subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 16.70, 20.10, 20.11, 20.13, and design review guidelines in the City's Comprefiensive Plan. PUBLIC HEARING: May 15, 2013 at 7 p.m. Architectural Design Board Public Hearing City of Edmonds Council Chambers 250 51h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 COMMENTS DUE: May 15, 2013. Comment may be submitted In writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person. All .comments received prior to the public hearing will be provided to the Architectural Design Board.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. o the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, rf no open record predecision hearing Is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined In ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday or between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 12:00 PM on Wednesday or online through the City's website at www edmondswa.gov through the Online Permits link. Search •for permit PLN20130022; all materials for the three permits have been associated with this permit number. CITY CONTACT: Kamen Lien, Senior Planner Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Published: May 1, 2013. Account Name: City of Edmonds Afvavft of Pubfir-a-flon S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Public Hearing Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson Edmonds Pine St. LLC a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: 01, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Subscribed and swom to before me this day of May, 2013 Notary Public in and for the State of County. Account Number: 101416 0340 1st HENS C° NOTARY d+ sid g at rpat..1010ho is� (P�, 2-17_2016 �O OF WAS�\t, Order Number: 0001819056 Packet Page 467 of 774 FILE NO.: PLN201300122 APPLICANT: POINT IEDWARDS DIECCILJARATII N OF Ai PPUCCA'II'MN AND SIEPA DIE'1['IERPVIIl[I`VA'll'II N MA` IIILIING On the 12th day of April, 2013, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Diane Cunningham, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing• is true and correct this 12th day of April, 2013 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: Ulam, Lu*_ L {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ ) 0341 Packet Page 468 of 774 FILE NO.: PLN20130022 Applicant: PINE STREET LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 12th day of April, 2013, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Center, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 12th day of April, 2013, at Edmonds, Washington. C Signed: - {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 0342 Packet Page 469 of 774 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 ® Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ® PLANNING DIVISION 'vc. 189\3 April 12, 2013 Subject: New Application for Point Edwards Building 10 Architectural Design Review File Number PLN20130022 Dear Interested Party: You are receiving this letter as a courtesy because you submitted comments or testified at the December 19, 2012 Architectural Design Board public hearing on the proposed Building 10 located at 50 Pine Street in Edmonds. The application you commented on (PLN20120040) has been withdrawn. The property owners have subsequently reapplied for a new proposed Building 10 incorporating the recommendations of the Architectural Design Board meeting from December 19, 2012. Although you submitted comments on the previous application, you are not automatically considered a party of record for the new application. The City of Edmonds' code is very specific on who a party of record is. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 20.07.003, the term "parties of record," means: 1. The applicant; 2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application; 3. Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or 4. The City of Edmonds. If you wish to be a party of record on the new application for Building 10, you must submit new written comments on the current application or comment during an upcoming public hearing on the proposal. Enclosed is the Notice of Application and SEPA threshold determination for the new application on the proposed Building 10, PLN20130022. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, 425-771-0220, kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov. �Si rely, emen Lien Senior Planner 0343 Packet Page 470 of 774 CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION 1 11C. l R9v PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Architectural Design Board review for a revision of the last of ten multifamily residential buildings approved for the Point Edwards development. The proposed Building 10 includes 85 residential units, 144 off-street parking stalls, and associated landscaping. PROJECT LOCATION NAME OF APPLICANT FILE NOS.: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson on behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC PLN20130022 DATE OF APPLICATION: March 26, 2013 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: April 11, 2013 DATE OF NOTICE: April 12, 2013 REQUESTED PERMITS: Architectural Design Review OTHER REQUIRED Building Permit PERMITS: . REQUIRED STUDIES: Traffic Impact Analysis EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA Checklist, Traffic Impact Analysis, other associate environmental documents related to the former UnoCal Tank farm and the Point Edwards Master Plan. COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: April 26, 2013 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday or between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 12:00 PM on Wednesday or online through the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20130022. SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. 0344 Packet Page 471 of 774 DATE OF ISSUANCE: April 12, 2013 SEPA COMMENTS DUE: April 26, 2013. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 1215t" Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than April 26, 2013. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 0345 Packet Page 472 of 774 ,L Of FDA, CITY OF EDMONDS C1 N FiI. ts�° 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Description of proposal: Architectural Design Board review for a revision of the last of ten multifamily residential buildings approved for the Point Edwards development. The proposed Building 10 includes 85 residential units, 144 off-street parking stalls, and associated landscaping. Proponent: Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson on behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency 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 43.21 C.240' and WA 197-11-153 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement 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. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by April 26, 2013 . Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 (425-771-0220 C � Date:'" ' _ t > 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 April 26, 2013. 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 April 12, 2013, 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 of property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at www.EdmondsWa.gov through the Permits Online link. Search for file number PLN20130022. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETEILWNATION.DOC 4/1MISEPA 0346 Packet Page 473 of 774 Mailed to the following: XX COMCAST Outsidetrlant Engineer, North Region XX Puget Sound Energy 1525 75 St. SW Ste 200 Attn: Elaine Babby Everett, WA 98203 PO Box 97034, M/S EST-11 W Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 XX Department of Fish & Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard XX Joe Kolmer Mill Creek, WA 98012 Weber Thompson 225 Terry Avenue North XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Seattle, WA 98109 Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 XX Betty Tobin 15700 Dayton Ave. N. Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 330310 PO Box 1107 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Tulalip Tribal Council XX Donna J. Bunten 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South XX Kojo Fordjour Department of Ferries Everett, WA 98208-5764 Environmental Manager 2901 3`d Ave., Suite 500 XX Town of Woodway Seattle, WA 98121-3014 Attn.: Clerk -Treasurer 23920 113th Place West XX Kristin Kelly Woodway, WA 98020 Snohomish Co/Skagit Co Program Director 1429 Avenue D, 532 XX Edmonds School District No. 15 982 Snohomish, WA 8290 Attn.: Stephanie Hall 20420 68th Avenue West kristin(r�futurewise.org Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic XX Community Transit Preservation Attn.: Brent Russell P.O. Box 48343 7100 Hardeson Road Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Everett, WA 98203 Attachments pc: File No. SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION.DOC Q347 4/12/13.SEPA Packet Page 474 of 774 Affidnvft of Pubfic tioa STATE OF WASHINCTON, I COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND SEPA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AOrchititecturalR Design DETEION Board review for a revision of the last of ten multifamily residential buildings ppuiilldingggd 10r the includes 85wresidentialrds ounits,t 144 proposed PROJrEnCT LOstallsCATION:and 50 associated nelandsca St Street, Edmonds, WA. NAME OF APPLICANT: Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson FILE NOS.: PLN201300on behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC DATE OF APPLICATION: March 26, 2013 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: April 11, 2013 DATE OF NOTICE: April 12, 2013 REQUESTED PERM ITS Architectural Design Review v uMENTS: SEPA Checklist, Traffic Impact Analysis, other associate environmental onmental documents related to the former UnoCal Tank farm and the Point Edwards Master Plan. COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: April 26, 2013 Any person has the right to comment on this application during ppublic comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearinq.s, and request a copy of the decision yyou the application. Th.closing ofnthe record of aincopenrr cordap edecisiontime phearing If any, or, if no open record Predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information or) this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the yy hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 the hours ofn8:00 A M. and 12:00 aPM on Wedand nesday sday or ore online through the Clty's website at www.edmondswa aov through the Online Permits link. Search for permit PLN20130022. SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice Is Hereby Given that the City of Edmonds has Issued a Determination of Nonsionificance under WAC 197-11-340(2 above project. DATE OF ISSUANCj�.for Aprilthe 12, 2013 . SEPA COMMENTS DUE: April 26, 2013. Comment may be 5th submitted in writing to Cittyy of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 Ave Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact pe SEPAerson bellow. APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than April 26, 2013. CITY CONTACT: Kemen Lien, Senior Planner kemen.lien@edmondswa.gov Published: April 13, 2013, 0220 Account Name: City of Edmonds S.S. The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County and that the notice Notice of Application/Threshold Determintaion Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson File Nos. PLN20130022 a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely: 13, 2013 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. Knt �0 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of April, 2013 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, County. Account Number: 101416 Snohomish t" -per 2-97-2016 �� Order Number: 0001817170 Packet Page 475 of 774 0348 , , V", Cl.. OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVI�,JN COMMENT FORM 0 PW-Engineering ❑ Fire to PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: Applicant's Name: POINT EDWARDS -BUILDING 10 el Property Location: 50 PINE STREET Date of Application:_3/26/2013 Date Form Routed: 3/27/2013 Zoning: MASTER PLAN (MP1) Project Description: 85 MULTIFAMILY UNITS (REDESIGNED) **PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 4/12/2013 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Kernen Lien Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: 6� ' ( `i`1 c l %�'�'► S Title: �> 1,0 � L t �- I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date Signc Phone/E-mail:_ Packet Page 476 of 774 0349 Attachment 15 a C.. OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVk_.ON COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20130022 Applicant's Name: POINT EDWARDS - BUILDING 10 Property Location: 50 PINE STREET Date of Application: 3/26/2013 Date Form Routed: 3/27/2013 Zoning: MASTER PLAN (MP1) Project Description: 85 MULTIFAMILY UNITS (REDESIGNED) **PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 4/12/2013 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Kernen Lien Ext. 1223 ************************************************************************************************************** Name of Individual Submitting Comments:_ %� p� Title: ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. 01 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure corn requirements of this departmeGt (PI ase attach memo if additional space is nei �p 1 `n om 1D L P P / X 6-i evs 4ac t / 5wo q" t S Date: 3 Z 1 A 3 Z41 i Signature: Phone/E-mail: NOTTOPA1511 Co. "FIRE �y DISTR T John J. Westfall , Fire Marshal jwestfaLl@ilredistriotl.org 12425 Meridian Ave. Everett WA 98208 phone: 425-551-1200 fax: 425-551-1249 0350 Packet Page 477 of 774 www.firedistrict I -org CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance X Parks & Rec. ❑ Building ❑ Economic Dev. ❑ Parks Maintenance Project Number: PLN20130022 Applicant's Name: POINT EDWARDS - BUILDING 10 Property Location: 50 PINE STREET Date of Application: 3/26/2013 Date Form Routed: 3/27/2013 Zoning: MASTER PLAN (MP1) Project Description: 85 MULTIFAMILY UNITS (REDESIGNED) "PER ECDC 20.02.005 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS FORM WAS ROUTED: DUE BY 4/12/2013 If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: Kernen Lien Ext. 1223 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Title: �� c �, L , u�� / a.-v .� /1'!.(�- p� I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Co menus (please attach memo if additional space is needed): ,L) 1 Lf The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Date: Signature: Phone/E-mail:— Packet Page 478 of 774 0351 IM MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2013 To: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner From: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, Traffic Engineer Subject: PLN20130022, ADB Design Review Point Edwards, Building 10 — 50 Pine Street Engineering has reviewed and approved the subject application and requests the following conditions and information be noted in the staff report. Please also note, approval of the design review phase of the project shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. The proposed development must comply with water quality requirements and plans submtited during the building permit phase of the project will need to confirm polution-generating contributing surface areas as well as conveyance capacity in the existing stormwater system. The applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. The layout of travel lanes, on -street parking, sidewalks, etc. along Pine Street was reviewed and approved during the initial design phase for the entire Point Edwards development. At that time an access point was proposed (and later constructed) along the north side of Building 10. The current proposal no longer includes a driveway approach at this location and in light of the expressed need for additional on -street parking, the City will require the on -street parking area to the east of said constructed driveway approach to be extended towards the west to provide approximately 3 additional parking spaces. A depiction of this extended on -street parking area is depicted below: i J. T -: A 1 �— Packet Page 479 of 774 0352 Attachment 16 As noted in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by William Popp Associates and dated March 25, 2013, the traffic impact fee for the development will be assessed at building permit approval. In addition, sight lines at the two project driveways shall be maintained to meet the minimum required stopping sight distance criteria noted in the traffic impact analysis report. Typical street obstructions to avoid include abnormally tall landscape ground cover, street trees with low canopies, utility vaultsiboxes and on -street parking. Thank you. City of Edmonds 0353 Packet Page 480 of 774 09/20/06 13 1A SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WEST - ORIGINAL PLAN 1 B SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WEST - PROPOSED ADDITION as POINT EDWARDS I SITE CONTEXT VIEW `i COPYRIGHT 2006 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION Packet Page 481 of 774 0354 Attachment 17 09/20/06 14 2A SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM EAST - ORIGINAL PLAN 2113 SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM EAST - PROPOSED ADDITION 'zaks POINT EDWARDS I SITE CONTEXT VIEW LA COPYRIGHT 2006 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION 0355 Packet Page 482 of 774 09/20/06 15 3A SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WOODWAY - ORIGINAL PLAN 313 SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WOODWAY - PROPOSED ADDITION POINT EDWARDS I SITE CONTEXT VIEW Li COPYRIGHT 2006 WEBER+THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION 0356 Packet Page 483 of 774 Clair & William Widing 21605 Chinook Rd• Woodway, Wa 980200 Phone: 4.25-771-7081 • Fax: 425-775-8403 E-Mail: «uding2@comcasLnet Date: April 26, 2013 Keren Lien Senior Plainer City of Edmonds 121 5m Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: �1*4 An 2lT 2�13 0EVELOPME141 E RVICES �a I am writing this appeal to try to modify some important issues that have not yet been addressed with the new proposal of 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. My family and I have lived in Woodway for the past 18 years, at 21605 Chinook Rd. This is just south of die adjacent proposed site. While I know we cannot change certain criteria, we do believe there should be some modifications as stated below. 1. Lighting: We are very concerned with the lighting, with respect to the parking lot. As I am sure you are aware Woodway is known for a non -lit city, for the past 18 years we have been able to enjoy the marry benefits this gives us in die evening sky. There are not many areas where you can live close to a major city and see the night sky light up in its own natural beauty. With this said, we are concerned this will be taken away from us. In viewing the proposed plan for lighting, (as stated to add security for die owners) we don't disagree security is important. However, if the developers had stayed within the original plan and had parking underground, (as they have to the north of them),this would not be an issue. Our proposal is to have all parking underground. This would also levitate another concern we have, in resulting in the noise. As I am sure you know that with 85 new units, comes widh 170 new residents, resulting in cars coming and going at all hours of die day and night. As younger people tend to rent versus retired adults we are afraid on the level of noise this will bring. We are very disturbed as to how this will affect our way of life. While we know there is nothing that carp be done about apartment building versus condo's, as it is coded for a multifamily building, there are ways to be a good neighbor to the homes on the south end. I believe the amount of lighting and noise will infringe our privacy mid enjoyment of our property as we have had for the past 18 years. 2. Glare mid View: Our backyard currently has a view of Mt Baker and the Puget Sound. With this new proposed building our view now will be into decks mid apartment living areas and the new residents view will now be looking into our yard and living spaces. This is not what we had envisioned. If the top portion could be taken off and put on the lower portion of the site it would mitigate this issue. It will also help the city in setting a precedent of 5 story high rises in die City. With many new construction sites coming up in the downtown area is this what the city wants for the future of downtown Edmonds? While we fought hard for Brightwater to not be in our back yard we now get to see apartments, noise and lighting. If die developer had left the original plan to build the condos none of this would be an issue and no one would be fighting this. I would like die council to take note that, after speaking with someone from the developer's team I was asked why no one had brought up these concerns back in 2007, when the developer asked for the modifications to include more housing units. I would like you to know that no one in Woodway was aware or notified of the proposals or 0357 Attachment 18 Packet Page 484 of 774 an modifications. While I know we do not live in die city of Edmonds, this impacts us greatly. I feel the developer slipped this under without notifying Woodway residents, (if you remember the tree incident when die building first began). The developer does not live in this area, and mill not have to live with any of die building consequences. The council should be mindful of whose needs should be protected and send a message to the developers that we all love Edmonds aid wait to protect it as best we earl. What ever happened to being a good neighbor? Thank your for your time and I hope that we earl come to an arrangement that will satisfy die majority. Sincerely, Clair and William Widing 0358 Packet Page 485 of 774 April 23, 2013 City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. Planning Division Attn: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner 121 51h Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Permit # PLN20130022 Design Review - 50 Pine Street Dear Kernen, Hand delivered this date with Electronic copy by email. 2 no zf. DEVEL0F1viEi4l SLhVi`C! S While I am pleased to see that some changes were made based on the ADB's comments as to the hearing on PLN 20120040, the changes are not significant enough to warrant approval or cure non -conformity with the Master Plan. The proposal must be measured against the Site Master Plan. Ordinance 3411 adopted the Site Master Plan for Point Edwards, in July 2002 based upon the Final Site Master Plan of May 14, 2002. Comments which led to approval and the Contract Rezone include: • "2. Future Development Restricted. Any future use, development, modification or improvement ...shall be subject to the restrictions of the MP 1 and MP 2 zones ... and subject to and consistent with the provisions of the Site Master Plan for Point Edwards as presented to the Edmonds City Council as Exhibit 1 in Agenda Memo #7 on June 18, 2002 (the "Master Plan')..." Contract Rezone, Ref. R-2002-38 pg 2 • "4. Covenant to Run With the Land. The restriction contained herein shall be a covenant running with the land, and shall be binding upon the Grantor, its heirs, executors and assigns forever." Contract Rezone, Ref. R-2002-38 pg 2 The ADB approval of the Master Plan, File ADB-02-226, reflects the following statements: • "conditions of approval includes: o Staff shall confirm that the materials and colors used are consistent with the design of the development or they must be brought back to the board for final approval; o Glazing for the development shall be selected for its ability to minimize glare" • "...all the proposed buildings are significantly below the maximum height allowed."Pg 2 of 8 0359 Packet Page 486 of 774 • "A majority of the required parking for the proposed residential units will be provided in subterranean garages in the proposed buildings..." Pg 4 of 8 • "...most of the required parking is propsed to be provided in parking garages. Guest parking and overflow parking are provided by on street parallel stalls or small parking areas in front of individual buildings..." Pg 4 of 8. • "The Design Guidelines state that buildings and site development should be designed to fit in with their surroundings..." Pg 5 of 8 The proposal must be rejected for failure to meet certain ECDC provisions and for failing to meet the Master Plan. Keep the above information in mind when considering the following points. The Building does not meet ECDC 16.75 Height requirements ECDC 16.75 was created by Ordinance 3402, passed on July 2, 2002, as part of the contract rezone agreement which was incorporated into the City Comprehensive Plan with the upper portion, which included 50 Pine Street, designated as MP1. It was recognized that the topography of the site presented unique issues which are addressed in 16.75.020 B. Not yet having a Master Plan but needing to control of building height on the steep slopes (35 feet) three specific illustrations (Figures A, B and C) to assure clarity in how the allowed 35 feet would be measured were included in the Code. There is a consistency in the wording and diagrams of all three examples, the 'rectangle' used to determine the mean altitude from which measurement is calculated is around the walls of the visible portions of the building. Specifically: Figure A - "Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the plaza or roof as one edge of the rectangle used to average existing grade elevations." Figure B - "Building height would be calculated using the centerline of the wall below the shift in roof heights as one edge of the rectangle..." Figure C - "...using the centerline of the wall..." It is clear from the drawings, and the words, that it was the visible portions of the structure that were to be enveloped by the rectangle for measurement, a method unique to just the MP zones created by the contract rezone, due to the topography of the site. It is clear that of placing the rectangle around the visible portion is the best method to control the observable height of the structure. The applicant has misapplied this code by expanding the rectangle to include the underground parking facility which services the building. As this method of measurement is unique to zones MP1 and MP2 such a mistake is understandable. However, theADB must require that the code be properly applied to this structure. The rectangle should be around the walls, or perhaps roofs, of the structures. The City was aware of the site issues as the Ordinance specifically provides in 16.75.005 F the 0360 Packet Page 487 of 774 following at the time of passage: "The height limit and calculations procedures established for the MP1 and MP2 zones have been adopted after full consideration of the topographical constraints of sites within the zones. Variances are not available under current City code provisions in order to make more profitale use of a property. In adopting these provisions, the City Council has specifically provided for, and made allowances for, the site constraints and topographical features inherent in development of the designated MP1 and MP2 sites. Therefore, no other height variance would typically be available absent a special showing of constraints unanticipated at the date of adoption of this ordinance." It is clear that the City Council passing this ordinance expects the ADB to fully enforce the Code provisions created by the ordinance without tweaking or variance and certainly not for the pure purpose of making it more profitable for the applicant. Given the topography of the site and the need to reduce the apparent mass of the structure, it would be wise to consider measuring height consistent with footnote 7 to the Table. This allows for measurement of each structure independently, again using a rectangle around the visible walls, which would likely present a building similar to Figure B. This would greatly reduce the apparent mass of the building as well as the height, all better fitting the topography and fitting the structure to its environment which is the essential functions of the codes with the purposes stated in ECDC 20.10 Site Master Plan Final May 14, 2002 as referred to in Ord 3411 at page 14 states: "To encourage the appearance of smaller building masses, building height will be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building." This is the likely genesis of Footnote 7 to 16.75.005. Properly applying the code requirements in this instance reduces the average altitude by about five feet! An exhibit of the proper measurement of the mean altitude is attached for reference. The proposed building does not comply with ECDC 16.75 or the Master Plan and must be rejected It certainly does not meet the observations as to the Master Plan that all structures are well below the maximum allowed height, making this unit incompatible with the neighboring structures Additional Height of 5 Foot Not Warranted The submitted plan, on the summary page (pg 3) states as a comment to the 15 foot setback requirement that ECDC 20.10 allows an additional 5 foot height for the proposed structure. It is my sense that the comment was actually intended to modify the 35' maximum height. The applicant has added an additional 5 feet to the allowed height base upon having a "modulated roof". It is my understanding that a modulated roof aids in reducing the apparent mass of a structure. While the current design is better than that submitted under the prior permit request, the "modulation is still insufficient to have any impact on the visual mass of the structure. I don't believe that the roof presented in the plan is sufficiently "modulated" to alter the apparent mass of 0361 Packet Page 488 of 774 the structure and therefore should not be allowed the additional 5 feet of height. Consider the comments in ADB-02-226 regarding approval of the Master Plan in these regards: o "Shapes and Forms: In examining the building footprints and elevation drawings and perspectives, it is apparent that the designs are internally consistent. That is to day similar roof pitches, building volumes and architectural features are used throughout the buildings which allow both individual buildings and the group of buildings to look a little different on each side, while at the same time looking like one building or development. It is apparent that care was taken to minimize unbroken walls, ridge lines and other building elements which could lead to large uninteresting buildings." Pg 6 of 8 o "Details and Fenestrations: ...Trellis', arbors, bay windows, and/or bump outs are indicated on the buildings. A number of window types and sizes ranging from small squares to large window walls are show on their elevations. Exposed beams and implied columns all give the buildings richness and complexity that should allow them to remain interesting." Pg 6 of 8 o "Size, Height and Bulk: The Design Guidelines state that large multi -family development should be broken down into smaller house sized elements through the modulation of the facades and roof. The perspective drawings are very descriptive of how the buildings will be broken into many smaller house sized pieces. Also, the section drawings show how the buildings have been tucked into the slope and how buildings at the different levels of the site will break up the apparent mass of buildings upslope of them. Furthermore, the fact that the buildings have remained substantially under the maximum allowed height has minimized the impact the project could have had regarding height and bulk. It has also protected views from within the property and adjacent properties." Pg 6 of 8 The comments describing the virtues of the Master Plan approved hardly seem applicable to the proposed structure. The proposed structure must meet the requirements of the Master Plan. The existing structures in the area use setbacks at the upper levels in conjunction with other architectural devices as modulation which are effective in altering the apparent mass of the buildings, yet none exceed 35 feet in height. Such is not adequately presented in the plan submitted and the additional 5 feet in height is not warranted Particularly when considering the City Councils language in Section F of the Ordinance codifying 16.75 as previously cited The proposed unit sizes fail to meet the Master Plan In developing the Master Plan an average unit size of 2,400 square feet was first considered then it 0362 Packet Page 489 of 774 was recognized that after area dedication for roads, utilities and common areas etc. that such was too large. The Master Plan submitted by Unocal on May 14, 2002 at page 15 states: "For purposes of calculating the potential for residential development, an average of 1,500 square feet is assumed for each dwelling unit." This was also contained in the section beginning on page 14 "Building Dimensions and Relationships". This figure is also applied on page 15 relative to the trade-off between residential and `office space' for MP2 as well The current developer's predecessor addressed this issue in its communications with the City and ADB when an additional floor was added to the prior 50 Pine Street proposal, for which a building permit was issued At that time the developer wrote to state that the 1,500 square foot average would be met when the then proposed property was fully built. The current units average about 1,400 square feet per unit, the proposal provides an average unit of 900 square feet per unit which will result in the final build subject to the Master Plan having an average of about 1,240 square feet per unit representing a significant reduction in the average unit size called for in the Master Plan. The previously permitted structure did not reduce the current average; this proposed structure reduces the existing (inadequate) average by over 10%. The unit count [density] produces an average unit size that is far less than the 1,500 of the approved Master Plan and must be rejected Given the 76.500 square feet for residences the building could not exceed 54 units to reach the existing 1,400 square feet average per unit that currently exists and only 51 units to reach 1,500 square feet per unit for the building. The proposal fails to meet the Master Plan and must be rejected The proposal does not fulfill ECDC 20.10.000E Consider the ADB's comments in the conformance summary approving the Master Plan [ADB-02- 226]: o "...The top story of each building also steps back." Pg 5 o "...New buildings are terraced into the site's steep terrain...." Pg 5 o "...Property values are protected and enhanced by this development." Pg 5 o "Proposed structures are heavily modulated both in plan and sections (terraced) to add scale and avoid "stereotyped, boxy multiple unit residential buildings. Numerous decks, balconies, courtyards and patios enliven the surface of each building and add opportunities to inhabit the building exterior." Pg 6 o ":...Buildings designed to fit with topography and terraced to conform to ridgelines and utilize the headlands as backdrop." Pg 7 0363 Packet Page 490 of 774 o "Shapes and Forms/Details and Fenestration: ... The 'penthouse' story is setback, further reducing the bulk of each building and providing another inhabitable surface. This may be reminiscent of the superstructure and deck of top of a ship's hull and this 'nautical' metaphor may be reinforced in details..." Pg 8 "Building facades area heavily modulated and characterized by 2-story bays corresponding to individual dwelling units. These elements are similarly reflected in bays on the top floor, which express at the modulated roofline as..." Pg8 o "...theme of overhangs and protections on other parts of the facade. Numerous cantilevered bays and balconies also engage this interplay of surfaces and indicate residential development."Pg 9 o "Fenestration ranges from floor to ceiling "window -wall" assemblies to small porthole -like openings. The various sizes roughly correspond to privacy needs of the individual spaces within and are composed to add variety and rhythm to the building face." Pg 9 o "Transitions: The closest existing structures occupy a ridge above the Point Edwards site and, benefiting from their elevated location, overlook any proposed development. With the measures to reduce building mass outlined above little impact upon their views is anticipated." Pg 9 The proposed structure fails to meet any of these general observations as to the conformance of the Master Plan. It doesn't fit in the community and it is not consistent with the Master Plan. Additionally, the proposed building does not fit the community because: • The approved master plan calls for average unit size of 1,500 sq. ft., current units average just over 1,400 sq. ft. and the proposed structure's unit's average 900. • No other building in the neighborhood has an exterior parking lot. • The sheer volume of surface area in glass is not compatible with the community and will be a reflective sight blight to all in the bowl or on the Sound. • No other building in the development uses sliding glass doors, let alone to the extent proposed. • While there are some vertical lines in the design, on a much smaller scale than the prior buildings, the horizontal lines are absent. • While the prior buildings use setbacks to add horizontal lines and fit the structure to the topography, the proposed building makes no attempt to blend with the topography but simply sticks out of the ground in a vertical rise of non -human scale. • The building fails to enhance the site or to blend with the environment. • The approved Master plan called for the buildings to set back into the hillside in order to blend with the topography. It appears this is being ignored in the design of the last building. 6 0364 Packet Page 491 of 774 In failing to fit with the community the proposal fails to meet ECDC 20.10.000E. Traffic Impacts will be negative The traffic study submitted by the applicant may as well be Greek to me, it is most difficult to comprehend I will attempt to make my comments in common sense terms. The proposal places 25% of the units on one lot representing 10% of the area; this will focus a significant number of vehicles in one spot serviced by only one road The impact at rush will be greater than suggested by the traffic study submitted, the majority of those in an apartment house will be employed rather than retired Current street parking is inadequate for the existing structures. A 25% increase in the units attracting visitors will render a difficult situation impossible. The parking on Pine Street for the proposed structure is simply inadequate to account for guest's visitation which will occur. The sight lines present hazards for pedestrians crossing the street near the proposed building. There is no crosswalk providing safe pedestrian access and egress to SR104 For all of the above reasons the proposed structure should not be approved by the ADB. Sincerely yours, Jef rey Yocom Catherine Yocom 45 Pine St.108 Edmonds, WA 98020 0365 Packet Page 492 of 774 10 AVG. HISTORICAL GRADE EDMONDS PINE ST LLC I POINT EDWARDS BUILDING 10 1 HISTORICAL AVERAGE GRADE PLANE �s /Y 156.6E WEBER THOMPSON M O /T (//!52 +Ad i, i + ✓Ste) ', `� / 5 . S 41 Pine St Condo 101 Edmonds WA 98020 April-22, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121. Fifth. Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien; AP _ 2013 I am writing as a resident of Point Edwards who is concerned about the monstrosity being proposed by the developer of building 50. 1 am amazed that, after rejection by the architectural board, he has the audacity to make superficial changes to his plans and expect approval. His biggest change was to add a few ugly bolt -on balconies, not at all in harmony with the rest of the development as required by the master plan. His plan still violates both the letter and spirit of the master plan that he is required to comply with. He is clearly trying to dupe the city, and the community, into thinking that because he pulled the new building out of the homeowners association, the master plan does not apply. The developer needs to be instructed that he is still constrained by that plan. According to the master plan, and city planning principles in general, the developer also needs to conform to the basic design philosophy, the look of a high-grade community, as well as to limitations on the number of units and the parking accommodations. Regarding the parking, every other unit has all resident parking underground. The streets are only for visitors. The new building should do the same, or we will have new residents parking anywhere they can and making excessive disturbances in a quiet neighborhood. He has packed so many small units into his giant high-rise building, that this building could easily become the neighborhood slum. The authorized master plan. assumes an average unit size of 1500 square feet, but this new plan is for an average unit size of 900 square feet: clearly out of compliance. Please tell him so! These small units will attract apartment dwellers without pride of ownership. The building is massive, partly because it does not have a modulated roofline following down the slope of the hill. I think that the architectural committee already asked for more modulation. Such a long building needs to be broken up into more appealing segments, by various architectural treatments, including reduction in the height of the roofline as the building progresses down the hill. This treatment would also lower the number of units ,packed into the giant sardine can., helping to bring it into compliance with the master plan. While his tall flat roofline may conform to a particular height calculation, it does not conform to the master plan or good esthetics for a building that will be at the high point, overlooking the city. This structure will become Edmonds "signature" building — what do you want? In addition the proposed outdoor parking lot presents a hydraulic problem. My civil engineer friends tell me that the site is not set up to handle the run off from a large sealed parking lot. The site probably cannot absorb this runoff, which if allowed to flow wherever it likes may in turn destabilize the existing structures. As it is, the berm has had a few small landslides, is being carefully watched by outside 0367 Packet Page 494 of 774 engineers, and more ground saturation could create a problem. The engineering design to move the water elsewhere has not been shown in this plan, for example down Pine Street into the Edmonds storm drain system, which probably would have to be modified to handle this new flow. Does the developer or the City pay for any needed storm drain capacity increase? The present Point Edwards retention pond was not designed for this additional water runoff capacity, and it is now under the ownership and management of the present homeowners association, which does not now serve building 50. As far as I know, engineering designs and legal arrangements have not been developed for this alternative either. The developer should be required to provide underground parking like the rest of the development, so the site does not create new water runoff problems. Lastly, no matter what is built, there will be huge traffic and pedestrian problems for the City of Edmonds to contend with. Presently, Point Edwards's pedestrian and auto traffic cannot easily cross at Pine Street: for cars it is illegal and pedestrians have to run for their lives at a legal but poorly marked crossing. This situation will only get worse with more residents. Residents of Building 50 will be tempted to take the back way to Edmonds, through.Woodway, onto Third Street to -get into.downtown.Edmonds. Woodway may retaliate against heavy traffic on residential streets by cutting off access, putting all of the traffic down Pine. I see many accidents waiting to happen. What about public safety considerations? Should the developer be required to fund a full crossing light at the Pine Street intersection with Edmonds Way? 1 am surprised that this developer apparently thinks that he can wear down the Edmonds community by resubmitting unsatisfactory plans with superficial modifications. I hope that the City of Edmonds will not be taken in! Sincerely, James E Matheson 0368 Packet Page 495 of 774 41 Pine St., #101 Edmonds, WA 98020 April 22, 2013 Mr. Kernan Lien, Senior Planner 121 Fifth Ave., N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: Have we all been led down the Primrose Path by a deceiving and unprincipled developer? The developer of Point Edwards began with an award -winning design, in tune with the natural environment, unobtrusive and pleasing to the eye. Those of us who purchased here before the final completion of the development were shown the attractive models of the future buildings, fitting in nicely with the overall design. With confidence we bought into Point Edwards. Suddenly, the area is to be completely changed with the building of a huge apartment house that will cover the entire hill. Is it any wonder that a great furor has arisen! Besides the general, overall concern, I have several specific ones. Concerns regarding the outdoor parking lot: First of all, the City of Edmonds requires underground parking. Why is this building permitted to be an exception? The existing water runoff systems are not adequate to handle the extra water runoff that will come from the inability of water to permeate the sealed parking lot. Tall bright lighting will be required 24/7 to illuminate the parking area, causing light pollution and intrusion for surrounding neighbors. The drivers coming and going, shutting their doors will make the area noisier. Concerns regarding the 5-story building: Although there is a convoluted formula for figuring the legal height of a building in Edmonds, this building will nevertheless be 5 stories high near the Nootka and Pine Street crossing! This does not conform to the expressed desire on the part of the City of Edmonds to limit height. Concerns regarding size and scope of building: It would be a massive building covering the entire top of the hill overlooking the city and the port. It would be a high -density apartment building, 85 units, each at only +/- 900 square feet. Because of the high density, there will not be enough underground (and therefore unobtrusive) parking, requiring a large outdoor lot (see parking lot concerns above). Concerns regarding traffic: 0369 Packet Page 496 of 774 The high -density building is going to increase traffic considerably. If the Town of Woodway blocks off Chinook (which they undoubtedly would, if legal) then all of the traffic will be funneled down Pine Street to Sunset. This certainly will require stop signs and/or traffic lights to cope with the increase in the number of cars in order to prevent traffic accidents. I have no explanation as to why a developer, having developed a harmonious and thoughtful parcel of urban planning would want to tamper so thoughtlessly and carelessly with the design, without concern for the either the neighborhood or the citizens of the city. I can only assume that the developer neither lives in nor cares about Edmonds. This behemoth, if permitted, would be a detriment to the city. Sincerely yours, '0/ 04mw Susan Matheson 0370 Packet Page 497 of 774 Frank and Dolores Dean 45 Pine Street, #209 Edmonds, WA 98020 425 743-9696 April 14, 2013 City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Attn: Kernan Lien, Senior Planner 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Design Review — 50 Pine Street Dear Mr. Lien, As noted in our letter sent to you last December, we purchased our home at Point Edwards in mid-2011. We had closely monitored the progress of Point Edwards since shortly after ground was broken. Both of us are real estate professionals. I held a broker's license for over twenty years. Dolores has held a Realtor license for about thirty years. Additionally I had extensive experience with multi -family properties including control over a dozen apartment properties in the Seattle area including Edmonds Highlands. I was also a member of the Edina, Minnesota zoning board and their zoning board of appeals. In our professional and personal opinions the proposed building ten does not fit the Point Edwards community nor is it consistent with its surrounding area. It is too large, not compatible with the design you approved years ago, will substantially increase traffic on Pine Street and within Woodway, will exacerbate an already problematical parking situation and will negatively impact the value of the existing Point Edwards condominiums. The latter will adversely impact our property valuations resulting in reduced property tax revenues from the existing 261 units. Throughout the three or four years during which we negotiated with the sales staff on two different units we were consistently assured that building ten would be architecturally similar to the rest of the buildings. The legal documentation further assured us of this. Had we known otherwise we would never have purchased our home directly across Pine street. 0371 Packet Page 498 of 774 It is obvious that the developer originally intended to develop the property as a cohesive whole since the first six phases are architecturally and unit size/design similar. The proposed building violates the consistent appearance of the existing structures and sticks up like a "sore thumb", particularly when viewed from Pine Street. Put bluntly it just does not fit into the neighborhood. We sympathize with the Woodway residents who will have their views replaced by an apartment building and lighted outdoor parking lot. Please note in particular that prior to this proposal the developer provided enclosed parking for all the parking spaces required by the Edmonds building code and even a few extra. Thank you very much for giving consideration to our concerns. We ask that you deny the developer's request. Sincerely yours, 0372 Packet Page 499 of 774 AFR 2 2 2013 Mr. Kernan Lien, Sr. Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, Lois Rathvon 71 Pine St. #302 Edmonds, WA 98020 April 19, 2013 This letter is to express my concern with building 50 designed for construction at the Point Edwards complex. I believe the plans do not comply nor fit the spirit of the Edmonds Master Plan for Pt. Edwards. For instance the size of the proposed units is much smaller — 900 sq. feet versus approx. 1500 sq. feet. This potential increase in population also increases car traffic in and out of the neighborhood. The building will be almost twice as long as existing buildings. It will be excessively tall. How can a 5 story tall building be just 40 feet tall when it will rise 58 feet from the foundation and 71 feet from the sidewalk/street? The extensive use of glass will create a distracting glare evident to the downtown Edmonds population. The ugly concrete parking lot, lit 24-7, will eliminate green space and aggravate water run-off issues. Given these negative impacts, I believe it is justifiable to do another careful examination of the project measuring it against the original plans which as purchasers and homeowners we were led to believe would be followed. Thank you for your serious consideration of the above issues. L07 � Lois Rathvon Cc: Mayor Dave Earling City Council members 0373 Packet Page 500 of 774 April 17, 2012 fzecio If�. . AF t4 1 City of Edmonds R 1,9 2p,� Development Services Department Planning Division �(A��%/� Attn: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner (j 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Concerns over the New Application for Point Edwards Building 10 Design — File Number PLN20130022 Dear Kernen Lien, We purchased a unit in the Point Edwards condominium complex three years ago and have resided there since. We have concerns in regard to this proposed development. Our unit is directly across Pine Street from the proposed development site and all of the windows in our unit face to the South directly into that area. The picture (below) was taken from one of our upstairs windows and shows our current view into proposed development site. As this picture illustrates, the proposed development will dominate the view from our unit: The proposed building would essentially blot -out the upper 40% of this picture. Thus, the design of any development of this property is of great concern to us. We have been aware that this property would eventually be developed with a new residential building constructed since we've lived here. Like others, we were led to believe that any new construction at 0374 Packet Page 501 of 774 Point Edwards would follow the architectural design and usage principles (unit to building ratio) of the existing residential buildings. We feel that the current design for the new building and surrounding grounds is not consistent with the existing Point Edwards look -and -feel. There are two additional items of importance to us. First would be the elimination of our view into the greenbelt areas across Pine Street. Those areas are frequently visited by bald eagles and hawks, which can be readily seen from our home. This is surely something precious and significant to us that will be lost because of the magnitude of the proposed new building. Second, we feel that our privacy will also be negatively impacted by the magnitude of the new building. As the number of units in the proposed new building increases, the number potential spectators with a view into our living space increases: As this number increases, our sense of privacy decreases. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns during this design review. Sincerely, l� Douglas Julien Anne Julien 65 Pine Street #201 Edmonds, WA 98020 0375 Packet Page 502 of 774 Robert J. Campbell April 17, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: 45 Pine #103 Edmonds, Washington 98020 APR 1 � 2013 PtANNING D . �r. My name is Bob Campbell and I live at 45 Pine #103. We purchased our condo approximately one year ago. It now appears we were misinformed about the future of Point Edwards. We were told that Building 50 would be the same as the other buildings at Point Edwards. We were given paper work indicating that this was a master -planned development. The now planned small apartment -style units, being five stories high and with above ground parking, does not meet with the previous master plan. I believe this will hurt my property value which will force me to take legal action. The traffic issue is not good at the present time on nice week -ends so I can't imagine if they were allowed to build another 85 units with only a 70 car parking garage. By my calculations this building will be over 70 feet above Pine Street and will block many of the existing views. I am a developer and general contractor in Houston, Texas and cannot believe a small city like Edmonds would allow this to happen. Sincerely, Robert J. Campbell 0376 Packet Page 503 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: 1550 NW 195s Street, #111 Shoreline, WA 98177 ..W ,`�s� ••ram• AFR 1 ZOI,? PLATMMIG DEp 3 Although I live in nearby Richmond Beach, I am a frequent visitor to Edmonds. Its charm is like no other area in our region. I come to Edmonds to stroll along the waterfront and to shop or eat in Edmonds' lovely retail district. When I have visitors in from out of town, if I cannot host them, I recommend that they stay in Edmonds. Visiting friends often arrive in Edmonds by train, or we depart from Edmonds to visit Port Angeles, Port Townsend, or Victoria. It always cheers me to visit Edmonds! As an experienced horticulturist, I value Edmonds' attention to plantings along its sidewalks and marina. Thwe truly exquisite. In short, Edmonds is a gem — due in large part to the excellent urban planning it demonstrates. However, I have concerns about the development above the marina area. For one thing, removal of the local trees created a stark effect that is unattractive at the crest of the bluff and inconsistent with the local emphasis on horticulture and the environment. Secondly, as a professional horticulturist, I have learned the consequences of removing vegetation from slopes. I worked to remediate a slope after a slide in a prestigious garden located in The Highlands. It was exceedingly expensive and the engineers couldn't guarantee the slope's stability in the long run. In my experience, it may be the developers or homeowners who remove trees to secure an uninterrupted view, but it is sometimes taxpayers who foot the bill when a slide occurs. It may not be true, but I have heard that, in the case of the bluff development, the developer was willing to pay the fines that resulted from tree removal. This gives the impression that money talks and developers are free to disregard local regulations. In this era of suspiciousness of developers and bankers, I feel that it behooves Edmonds' planners to stick to the letter of the law and the wishes of the electorate moving forward. Sincerely, IAq�o Carolyn Jones 0377 Packet Page 504 of 774 APR 162013 PLANNING DEPT. Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Kernen, David Inadomi 21603 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 I am writing this in response to the latest revision of the building proposal for Point Edwards "50 Pine Street". Although I appreciate the modifications to the face of the structures, the fact remains that this vast complex is way too large for the footprint upon which it is scheduled to lie and the accompanying population density associated with this structure is out of character with any of the other buildings of Point Edwards. My house at 21603 Chinook Road, Woodway is the sole residence to the South of the proposed building. The current Developer's vision is a perverse exaggeration of excess compared to that of the original plan, and this will be extremely deleterious to my everyday life for the following reasons: Views of Puget Sound I find the actual height of the new building difficult to determine in relation to my residence. Some references seem to indicate that it might be lower than that of the previous Developer while others suggest that it will be higher. My sense is that given the fact that the new high rise is slated to be 5 stories tall, it will impair my view to a greater degree than described before. 2. Traffic flow In order to preserve better curb appeal on Pine Street, a majority of the vehicular traffic flow (with attendant pedestrian volume) will be directed towards the enlarged parking lot of 70+ parking spaces directly in front of my residence. This, coupled with the fact that the new building will house primarily apartments rather than condominiums and will therefore have presumably higher turnover rates, most likely will create an abhorrence of noise for me in an otherwise tranquil environment. 3. Concealment The almost 4 foot easement (which was granted without ever consulting me or even discussing the impact of such an action) towards my property line along the rockery to accommodate the enormous hardscape parking lot essentially precludes any meaningful vegetation to be planted to conceal the complex by sight or sound. Basically, for any real privacy to be obtained, a majority of the plantings will have to occur on my side of the property at considerable cost to me. Additionally, the lighting necessary to illuminate such a large parking area will only add to the feel of looking at a "shopping mall parking lot" 24/7, not to mention the lights shining into my house all night long. 0378 Packet Page 505 of 774 To summarize the shortcomings of this proposal as it pertains to me: I will most likely have a worse view of Puget Sound with a majority of noisy traffic directed towards a gigantic, well lit parking lot in front of my residence without a reasonable plan for concealing the complex unless it is out of my pocket. I moved to my current residence with my family in 2004. At that time, the Developer had no such grandiose ideations as the one proposed currently. Had I known then what I know now, I would have absolutely considered alternate locations in which to live. Though this may not meet the legal definition as such, this certainly has the feel of a "bait and switch" to me as a consumer. There is a simple answer to this entire dilemma. Revert back to the original Developer's vision/proposal. Fewer units = less traffic = smaller parking lots = more available space for vegetative concealment. I strongly urge you to vote against this current proposal. Respectfully, f David Inadomi 0379 Packet Page 506 of 774 Steve and Denise Reibman 45 Pine St. Apt. 308 Edmonds, WA 98020 Kernen Lien Associate Planner; Planning Division City of Edmonds April 12, 2013 My wife and I are Point Edwards residents and we're writing to voice our opposition to the current plan submitted to the city for the building at 50 Pine Street, the final phase of the Point Edwards development. Although there have been design improvements this building still represents a significant departure from what was originally proposed by the developer and approved by the city as part of the Point Edwards Master Plan. This deviation violates the substance and spirit of the agreement the developer made with the city of Edmonds and the 261 current residents who were assured the final phase would be a condominium building of similar design and quality to the rest of the Point Edwards development with 60 owner occupied units. Points of significant departure are as follows: 1. Different design and construction quality 2. Lack of sufficient underground parting 3. Five residential stories vs. three 4. Small bolt on decks S. 900 sq ft average unit size vs.1450 sq ft average for other 9 buildings 6. We were assured 60 units; now 85 are proposed 7. Likely an apartment house rather than condominium 8. Minimal setbacks contribute to massive appearance , 9. Less open space -more cement for added parking The proposed building will dominate the hillside and be a visual blight on the landscape from the waterfront area and city center. The increased units will have a very significant negative impact on traffic and parking. Property values in the neighborhood are likely to be adversely impacted. We believe the city has an obligation to protect property values. 0380 Packet Page 507 of 774 Although the building may not violate the MP1 zoning code, it is not consistent wits. what was originally approved. The Point Edwards community is strongly opposedi to this building and has the support of a large number of Edmonds residents per the recent petition. Our city leaders need to protect the values of the Edmonds community and find that this building is not appropriate or harmonious for this location. Is it more important that a developer is able to maximize his profit or that the city insists that what is constructed is consistent with the surroundings and is desired by the citizens of Edmonds? Im Denise Reibman Packet Page 508 of 774 0381 Mr. Kermin Lien and Associates City of Edmonds Senior Planner Mr. Lien l i�r tc o 9, A,013 My name is Tom Murphy. My wife, Gail and I live at 55 Pine Street in Point Edwards, just across the street from the proposed five story building at 50 Pine Street. I am sure you are aware that the parking on Pine Street is minimal to inadequate at best. Also at times, Pine Street is a speedway. Imagine what effect an eighty nine unit apartment building will have on both the parking and traffic conditions. As it is, even now, our guests find it hard to find parking within a reasonable distance to our building. Please consider the original purchasers who signed binding contracts on their condos and pay taxes that help support our beautiful city of Edmonds. They chose to live in a promised condominium complex with ample parking for themselves and their guests, without the traffic and the noise of a large apartment complex that was not part of the original Condominium Village plan. The controversy over the 50 Pine Street Complex seems to boil down to this. Is your loyalty to the home owners of Point Edwards, who purchased homes in Edmonds based on promises of our builder that did not include a five story, 89 unit apartment: or to the contractor who wants to back out of his conmitments, only to enlarge his own profits without regard to what he originally proposed. We bought our unit with the understanding that the Point Edwards project would be completed as was shown on the model in the sales office at the time. These changes may be profitable to the builder, but surely will deplete the value of our existing homes. In closing I would like to ask 2 questions: 1. Does his proposal fit with the original plan for Pt. Edwards, or are you more concerned with the developer's wishes rather than the current homeowners concerns? 2. What is good for Edmonds? Family homes with 45 units in the building as originally promised, or an 89 unit complex of temporary housing with the parking, traffic problems and congestion the will result? Thank you for letting us express our concerns regarding this matter, as it could have life changing results for some of the original owners at Point Edwards. Packet Page 509 of 774 April 10, 2013 Dear Mr Lien, ceq v l) p,�R 1 � 2p13 PLaNNI�� oE�� As property owners at Point Edwards, we are strongly opposed to the Building 50 proposal. Please refer to the existing, approved model of all the buildings which is on display at the Charter Club building. As a gigantic monolith, Building 50 is an entirely different concept from that approved model. Edmonds has a building height restriction of 35 feet for the purpose of keeping the city architecturally harmonious and preserving view and light corridors. The proposed building site is very steep both north -south and east -west. As a result we are faced with a proposed building height of 58 feet (70 feet above street level) because of an "average height" clause. This is very clever and contrived mathematics but it totally ignores the spirit of the 35 foot rule. Because of the steepness of the building site and the vast outdoor asphalt parking lot, the project would have a serious water runoff problem with a large percentage of the site impervious to water absorption. The above mentioned and very large asphalt parking lot would destroy the possibility for green open space. Basically it trades asphalt for living green plants and lawns. The parking lot lights would greatly reduce any night sky vision. Building 50 would greatly increase traffic on Pine Street which is already heavily used. The intersection with HWY 104 would become much more congested and, as is, it's very hazardous. Street parking for guests of all the buildings would become difficult to impossible. If this massive building is allowed to be built, it will become a dominant blight on the southern Edmonds skyline for the next half century or more. As presented to our board of directors, the developer stated that he wanted densely configured rental units because condos were not selling. Since they came up with that plan, the real estate market has changed. Now people are looking for condos, not rentals. You would be doing the developer a favor by denying this design and steering him back to the original approved design of two smaller, compatible buildings with larger condos and underground parking. Sincerely, Rhys and Gail Wilkie y 0383 Packet Page 510 of 774 April 12, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: On March 26, 2013, developers submitted a new plan regarding the construction of 50 Pine Street in Edmonds (PLN 20130022). While the exterior features of the new design are an improvement over the previous submission, the proposal still raises serious issues, among them the following: • Size. This will be a five -story, densely populated structure unlike anything else in Edmonds for its size and visibility. Sitting atop a hill, it will be seen from all areas that Edmonds holds in pride, including the marsh, marina, beaches, and ferries. The large amount of glass on the surface of the five -story building will invite glare and thereby magnify the building's visibility. The outdoor parking lot will add artificial lights that will be seen 24 hours a day. This looming building will be a visual blight inconsistent with city codes. • Safety. This area of the Pacific Northwest is prone to heavy rains and mudslides, as evident in the recent mudslide near Coupeville on Whidbey Island and the unacceptably frequent mudslides blocking trains north of Edmonds, which have derailed an AmTrak train and seriously interfered with commerce and commuter travel. No one expected these mudslides, yet they occur all too frequently. With the height and density of the proposed 50 Pine Street, it is difficult to predict what will happen with unusually heavy rains. The small patch of ground at 50 Pine Street will be covered with impervious surface and present run-off challenges. Any ground shifting will affect existing Point Edwards units as well as the 85 new units. • Traffic and noise. A building of 85 small units will create traffic, noise, and parking problems. Many dozens of new residents and guests will park along Pine Street, which already is widely used. New traffic patterns will need to be policed on Highway 104. • Inconsistency with master plans. A five -story apartment building is inconsistent with the city's intention when approving a Master Plan for Point Edwards. It also is inconsistent with what was told to residents of Point Edwards when they bought their property. When I moved to Edmonds last year I was told that Point Edwards is the "pride of Edmonds." This may soon be a memory. I urge the city to approve a revised plan that calls for fewer units in a less densely populated structure. This can be done by dropping the height to three stories and offering a smaller number of units to reduce traffic and parking problems. Sincerely, / Andrea Bonnicksen, 75 Pine Street # 204, Edmonds WA 98020, bonnicksen22R mail.com 0384 Packet Page 511 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien and Edmonds City Officials: 41 Pine Street, #21 1 Edmonds WA 98020 APR 0 9 2013 PLANNING DEPT. This letter is in regard to the new building permit control number - PLN20130022 on Pine Street just above the present Point Edwards condominiums. The new Proposal reflects minor improvements. These proposed changes will make the building's exterior materials more harmonious with the other nine buildings in Point Edwards. Still, the building will be a very large five -story, densely -occupied multi -family apartment building posing significant traffic & parking congestion issues on Pine Street and will completely dominate the hillside with its massive "loud" architecture and structure. Serious Concerns • The Proposal envisions a building which does not comply with the City of Edmonds' Point Edwards Master Plan. A taller, more massive, more densely - populated apartment building with an above -ground parking lot ignores the letter and spirit of the City's Master Plan for Point Edwards. • The building will be too massive and densely -populated, with the average apartment size of around 900 square feet.This is compared to an average of approximately 1400 square feet in the other nine Point Edwards buildings. The City of Edmonds' Master Plan for Point Edwards assumes that the size of Point Edwards' units will be in the 1500 square feet range. • Its length will be almost twice that of any other Point Edwards building. To conform with the City's Master Plan, 50 Pine should be considered as two buildings (not "Wings), complementing the other neighborhood structures. • The structure will be five stories high (58 feet), towering above the street over 71 feet, dominating the Point Edwards hillside and the views from 0385 Packet Page 512 of 774 Harbor Square and downtown Edmonds. The Proposal lists the building height calculation as 40 feet. Clearly, the calculated height does not reflect the §ILirit of the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. How can a five - story tall building be just 40 feet tall when it rises 58 feet from the foundation on the street side and 71 feet above the sidewalk/street? • The roof line is not sufficiently "modulated" to qualify for a height exception in the MP1 zoning code. The code permits "approved modulated designs", adding five feet to the 35 foot maximum height, but it does not define what design elements are required for approval. This modulated roof design doesn't appear to meet the intent or purpose of allowing exception to normal height limitations. The Proposal relies on this exception. • There will be extensive exterior glass, presenting glare, especially on the building's west and northwest face. When viewed locally and from downtown Edmonds, this further detracts from the community. • Too much of the 50 Pine Street lot will become impervious surface. Serious runoff issues could arise. • The Proposal calls for an environmentally ugly, above -ground 70-car parking lot with lights and noise in lieu of secure and hidden underground parking. This deprives citizens of cherished green space. The existing Point Edwards structures, and the vast majority of downtown Edmonds residences, have secure under -building parking garages for its residents. Why should the City make an exception for 50 Pine Street? • There will be significant increases in traffic on the sole access road to Point Edwards or Woodway from Edmonds. 85 more units with about 150 more residents, their cars, and their guests' cars on Pine Street will present too much traffic, too many safety concerns, too much congestion and over- crowding of already insufficient on -street parking. Plus, there is inadequate provision for frequent moving -company truck traffic, inevitable given that 50 Pine will most likely be a densely -occupied rental apartment building. • There will be negative impacts on nearby property values for all the above reasons. For all of the above reasons, I urge the city to deny this proposal and suggest that the builder return to the original plan of a less dense condominium building to match the buildings already at Point Edwards. Sincerely, 0386 Packet Page 513 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Kernen, APR PLA/V/V,AdG DE'�T As a resident of Pt Edwards, Edmonds, I am responding to the newest developments by the developer of Bldg 50, Pt Edwards. The existing development is an owner occupied successful enterprise, tasteful, successful, credit to the city of Edmonds with ample amenities and no way a detriment to the overall community of Edmonds. It is a relatively expensive community and provides a considerable tax base for the city and county. Any effort to reduce this value would be a disaster to the residents, city, county and state. I might add although not specific to Edmonds, if I was the Mayor of Woodway, I would start the process of closing Pine Street to exit only just as was done to the North. The thought of a massive (big and high) rental complex with surface parking certainly was never anticipated by the residents and for that matter the city planning and permit agencies. Conforming is generally the word used in these situations and everything about Bldg 50 is NON CONFORMING! The design, the size, the apt size compared to Pt Edwards condos, the parking, the economics ie rent vs. sale and the potential for parking lot water run off problems in the future. Think Whidby Island. Mr. Kernen, this is an appeal to your agency to do diligence and consider the legacy this departure from the surrounding area will have on the city. The only positive thing I can think of is the profitability for the developer at the expense to the neighborhood and city. Sincere W. Step en Burgess 41 Pine Street #207 Edmonds, WA 0387 Packet Page 514 of 774 April th 201 ' 4.m Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner APR n9�� City of Edmonds M 121 Fifth Avenue North PLAT , , ,,, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. We are owners at Point Edwards and have many concerns over the new building at 50 Pine St. under review. Here are the list of concerns we have. 1. The Proposal calls for an environmentally ugly, above -ground 70-car parking lot with lights and noise in lieu of secure and hidden underground parking... We will see many cars parked on pine street as well as in our community as there is not sufficient parking. The builder should have the same parking stalls as on their previous buildings such as the ones we are in. We will more than likely have to put in gates just to keep the people in Building 50 away from our parking areas we have grown to enjoy for guests and other events. 2. The building will be too massive and densely -populated, with the average apartment size of around 900 square feet. This is compared to an average of approximately 1400 square feet in the other nine Point Edwards buildings. The City of Edmonds' Master Plan for Point Edwards assumes that the size of Point Edwards' units will be in the 1500 square feet range. 3.There will be significant increases in traffic on the sole access road to Point Edwards or Woodway from Edmonds. 85 more units with about 150 more residents, their cars, and their guests' cars on Pine Street will present too much traffic, too many safety concerns, too much congestion and over- crowding of already insufficient on -street parking. Plus, there is inadequate provision for frequent moving -company truck traffic, inevitable given that 50 Pine will most likely be a densely -occupied rental apartment building. 4. If this design is approved, a building which exceeds the City's existing design requirements --as we believe this Proposal does —sets a precedent. This makes it much harder, perhaps impossible, for the City to deny future permits using similar approaches to disregard required design, density, and height limits. Please help us defend what we have purchased here and the balance and harmony we have in this community now. Thankyou Lane and Laura James 31 Pine St # 207 Edmonds Wa 98020 0388 Packet Page 515 of 774 April 4, 2013 ;r .. Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner AIR �� 241� City of Edmonds RLANNE&G C' �1 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, As residents of Pt Edwards on Pine Street in Edmonds, we are responding to the latest developments by the developer of Bldg 50 at Pt Edwards Condo Community. The existing community is a tasteful owner -occupied enterprise, and a credit to the City of Edmonds, as well as a considerable tax base. The thought of a massive rental complex with surface parking certainly was never anticipated by the residents who purchased at Pt Edwards. The developers original plans did not call for Bldg 50 to be a massive building of rental apartment units. The size of the building, as well as the surface parking, and the potential water run- off are huge problems; not to mention it would reduce the value of the existing condos, and take away the peaceful feeling we now enjoy. Mt. Lien, we are appealing to your agency to exercise due -diligence and consider the impact such a massive building would have not only on the residents of the existing community, but also on the traffic up and down Pine Street and the overall community. Sincerely, Gordon and Ursula Johnson 51 Pine Street, #311, Edmonds, WA 0389 Packet Page 516 of 774 April 3, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Building Permit PLN20130022 for 50 Pine Street Dear Mr. Lien: pec 46 APR Q � ?0 13 PLANNING OE r. I am writing to you regarding the proposed 50 Pine Street building, as reflected in the plan submitted to you on March 26 by the developer. We are residents of Point Edwards at 65 Pine Street, located just across Pine Street from 50 Pine. We feel that we will be adversely affected by the developer's plan. Upon our review of the March 26 plan, our primary concerns are these: 1. The building, as proposed, is inconsistent with the City of Edmonds Point Edwards Master Plan ("the Master Plan") adopted in 2002. It will be considerably taller, longer, and much more massive than any of the other nine buildings in Point Edwards. a. Its proposed height significantly exceeds the height limitations of the MP1 Zone defined in ECDC 16.75. The portion of 50 Pine Street that will directly face my own residence at 65 Pine will be five -stories in height and will actually tower 71' from the sidewalk level. Yet, ECDC 16.75.020 specifies a 35-foot maximum building height, which can be extended for an additional 5 feet only "if designed as part of an approved modulated design in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC." In calculating what he asserts is a building which will be just 40 feet tall (he is relying on the "modulated roof" exception), the developer employs a novel methodology which appears inconsistent with the City's various intended methodologies as illustrated in ECDC 16.75.020, Paragraph 4. The City's clear intent is to require measuring the actual building's average height above the ground by placing a rectangle around it. The City does not provide for measuring height by including a portion of a surface parking lot which is not part of the structure itself, as this developer has done. If this on -ground, surface parking lot had not been part of the developer's plan, and in its place he had left a green space, his building -height calculation methodology would be readily seen as obviously false. Green space is not part of a building. But by including surface pavement -- conveniently located at the highest point of the lot --he seems to assume it can be considered part of the building's structure, thus allowing him to disregard normal height requirements. Lastly, ECDC 16.75.005 says that "The height limit and calculations procedures established for the MP1 and MP2 zones have been adopted after full consideration of the topographical constraints of sites within the zones. Variances are not available under current City code provisions in order to make more profitable use of a property." [Italics are mine] 0390 Packet Page 517 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien April 3, 2013 b. The building's modulated roof design does not seem to serve the City's intention to reduce the apparent height of a building by lessening the adverse visual impact of its height and mass. This developer's modulated roof design has a minor visual impact and appears to have been inserted into the design primarily or solely to obtain a height limit exception. It is not consistent or harmonious with the other nine buildings in the Master Plan, though it is an improvement over the plan the developer submitted to you last fall. c. The Master Plan anticipated a residential density averaging 1,500 square feet per unit. 50 Pine Street, however, will average less than 900 square feet per, which is not only inconsistent with the Master Plan but also with the other nine buildings' current average of approximately 1,400 square feet. The developer should reduce the number of units in 50 Pine to make his building comply more fully with the Master Plan. 2. The building provides insufficient under -building parking for residents. All other Point Edwards buildings provide for secure under -building resident parking, as do almost all downtown multi -family residential buildings. There is a reason for this: Under -building parking is less unsightly than surface parking, it provides for greater security, less crime, and lower neighborhood noise. Why should 50 Pine Street be allowed an exception? 3. The building's dense population will create traffic congestion on Pine Street and over- crowding of on -street parking. There will be 85 units and perhaps 150 new residents on Pine Street, significantly increasing traffic and noise on the sole access road to Point Edwards from Edmonds. Frequent moving vans —which are inevitable with rental units —will add materially to the traffic and parking congestion. The additional traffic load has not been addressed adequately by the developer's plan. 4. We fear that all these concerns will effectively reduce property values at Point Edwards and in nearby neighborhoods of Woodway. We believe that massive rental apartment buildings like this one, which will dominate the hillside view from downtown Edmonds and with its associated traffic and parking congestion issues, detract from property values when erected in significantly lower -density multi -family residential zones like MP1. Instead, such buildings should be located in areas the City properly has zoned as high -density multi -family residential. Sincergly, 7 Dr. Nancy L. Ja Mr. George B. Fotheringham 65 Pine Street, Apt 301 Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425-582-9666 2 1 P a g e lq�(�w,gh&n 0391 Packet Page 518 of 774 April 26, 2013 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 AFR 2 0 2013 PLANNING DEFT WASHINGTON Re: Recommended Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of "50 Pine Street" on Adjacent Woodway Residents Dear Mr. Lien: Thank you for distributing a copy of the DNS for Building #10 of the Point Edwards condominium project to the Town of Woodway. We have reviewed the documents referenced in the City of Edmonds planning file #PLN 2013-0022 on the City's website and herein submit timely comments for consideration by the Architectural Design Board during their review and final decision on this significant project proposed adjacent to our jurisdiction. Materials reviewed by the Town include the DNS dated April 12, 2013, the Environmental Checklist dated March 26, 2013, the ADB packet dated March 26, 2013, and the Traffic Impact Analysis dated March 25, 2013. Given that the construction of Building #10 will have an impact on the residents to the south of the project, the Town has several concerns dealing primarily with aesthetics, parking, and glare. Please see the attached letter from nearby residents who have joined the Town in submitting comments. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, SECTIONS 10a, b, and c: AESTHETHICS The environmental checklist at sections 10a and b states that the building will be 40' from average grade and that views from the south will be altered. Section 10c states that measures to mitigate the impacts include modulated rooflines and landscaping and trellis elements to screen the surface parking lot. While we appreciate that trellis features will be added to the parking lot, we find, upon close examination of the ADB packet at sheets 28 and 29, that the applicant does not propose any landscape treatment of the existing rock retaining wall on the south property line. Proposed Mitigation Measure #A1. The Town proposes that the ADB require a landscaped trellis feature to be constructed atop the retaining wall to better mitigate for the "altered view" listed in the environmental checklist. This trellis should be extended to the eastern most property line. Proposed Mitigation Measure #A2. Expand the landscape buffer to the Town's ROW, which is adjacent to the proposed building. The Town of Woodway is willing to grant the 23920 113TH PLACE W. I WOODWAY, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE: (206) 542-"o-3AJJ FAX: (206) 546-9453 Packet Page 519 of 774 applicant an easement so that appropriate landscaping materials can be installed. These materials should not impede the views of the adjacent neighboring properties. Adding a well -designed trellis and associated landscaping would better address the Design Guidelines listed in C.2.c and C.14.a and b at sheets 35 and 36 of the ADB packet. Proposed Mitigation Measure #A3. Conduct a private property view corridor study of the residents to the south to determine the extent of current views that will be "altered" by the proposed building. Based on conclusions of the private property study, consider eliminating the fifth floor of the building and relocating those units to east side of the building. This may require reduction of a portion of the proposed public space areas. The removal of the top story and relocation of those units to the eastern edge of the building would also serve to mitigate sunlight and glare refraction from the upper story windows to adjacent properties. Proposed Mitigation Measure #A4. Reduce outside parking by six surplus spaces for the purposes of installing additional landscape screening. Proposed Mitigation Measure #A5. Increase the number of covered parking spaces by returning to the previous proposal for Building 10, which included two levels of structured parking. This Mitigation measure would provide consistency to the overall Point Edwards community and be consistent with Design Guideline C.2.c. and C.4.c. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, SECTIONS 11a, b, and c: LIGHT AND GLARE The environmental checklist at section 11 states that light and glare from residential windows could occur during late afternoon and early evening hours. The light and glare will be mitigated through consistency with City standards and on -site lighting will consist of low intensity lighting. We appreciate the proposal for bollard lighting for the surface parking lot and what appears to be low - intensity patio lighting on the building fagade. Our concern, however, deals with the streetlight on Pine Street at the entrance to the project driveway. In a previous agreement with Triad (see attached), the developer was to include "architectural lighting standards" for the street lights. This was not implemented by Triad when the utility plans were submitted to the City. Although the standard Cobra street light standards are currently installed along the north side of the project on Pine Street, we strongly urge the ADB to honor the Triad agreement with the Town and require that architectural street lights be included on the western portion of Pine Street as it connects with Chinook Road within Woodway. Proposed Mitigation Measure #LG1. Please see proposed mitigation measure above (Aesthetics Measure #A3). 0393 Packet Page 520 of 774 Proposed Mitigation Measure #LG2. Replace Cobra street lights with existing architectural quality street lights standards that exist throughout the Point Edwards neighborhood. This would be more consistent with Design Guideline C.10.a. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, SECTIONS 16a and b: UTILITIES The environmental checklist at sections 16a and b lists the existing and proposed utility services for the project. Existing telecom services are attached to overhead wires and poles located in the Prospect Street ROW. These overhead wires currently have a negative impact on views from adjoining properties to the south. Proposed Mitigation Measure #U1. Install overhead wires underground. Our community looks forward to a productive discussion and consideration of our suggested mitigation measures that will result in a more compatible Building #10. We believe a revised site/building design will be an attractive addition to both the City of Edmonds and the Town of Woodway. We respectfully submit these and request your acknowledgement of such. Sincerely, � Car a A. Ni , May r a Enclosures: Letter from Woodway residents Street Light Agreement cc: Town of Woodway Councilmembers 0394 Packet Page 521 of 774 April 26, 2013 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 1215th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 APR 2 6 201.3 PLANNING DEPT WASH I NGTON Re: Recommended Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of "50 Pine Street" on Adjacent Woodway Residents Dear Mr. Lien: We, the Woodway residents listed below, would like to officially join the Town of Woodway in submitting comments on the City of Edmonds' DNS determination for Building #10 of the Point Edwards condominium project. Mr. & Mrs. Bill & Ruth Anderson 11515 Bella Coola Road Woodway, WA 98020 Ms. Robin Beresford 21800 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Dr. Carol Cornejo Dr. David Inadomi 21603 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. & Mrs. Jeffrey & Shelli Critchlow 21720 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Dr. & Mrs. Jon & Laura Fleming 21635 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Ms. Marsha Dickow Greenberg Mr. Charles M. Greenberg 21612 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Scott & Sharon Hovik 11701 Bella Coola Road Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. & Mrs. Kevin & Penny Kaldestad 21810 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. & Mrs. Tor & Cheryl Langesater 21600 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. & Mrs. Justin &. Lisa Marquart 1 Point Edwards Place Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. & Mrs. K.C. & Melody McGowan 21900 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. & Mrs. Bill & Clair Widing 21605 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Packet Page 522 of 774 23920 113TH PLACE W. I WOOLDWAY, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE: (206) 542- 443 FAX: (206) 546-9453 Thank you for your consideration of the Town's suggested mitigation measures, and we look forward to a productive discussion that will result in a more compatible Building #10. Sincerely, The above -listed Woodway residents 0396 Packet Page 523 of 774 0 C v CD N A CD A STREET LIGHTS AFR 2 C 201j- INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS AGREEM `NINU' DE, Developer: Point Edwards LLC Developer's Address 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107, Seattle, WA 98121 Legal Description of SEE EXHIBIT A Property Property's Tax 270326-001-024-00, 270326-001-026-00, 270326-002-006-00 Parcel ID #: Point Edwards LLC, a Washington limited liability corporation, its successors and assigns (hereinafter "Developer"), and the Point Edwards Homeowners Association (hereinafter the "HOA") (HOA and Developer are referred to collectively as "Point Edwards"), hereby acknowledge private ownership of the 10 (ten) decorative street lights on Pine Street and all their appurtenances (hereinafter the "Lights"). Point Edwards accepts full responsibility for all costs, including but not limited to, the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and reconstruction of the Lights. Point Edwards hereby releases from liability, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, an optional code municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and the Town of Woodway, Washington, a code city (hereinafter "Woodway") from liability from any claim arising or resulting from the ownership of the Lights or failure of Point Edwards to perform its obligations hereunder. Furthermore, in the event Point Edwards fails to perform its full obligations with regard to the Lights as stated above, Woodway agrees to perform Point Edwards' obligations to maintain the Lights. Woodway hereby releases from liability, and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold hannless the City from any claims as a result of the failure by Woodway to perform its obligations hereLuider. In the event Woodway perfonns such obligations on behalf of Point Edwards, Point Edwards shall remain liable to Woodway for Woodway's expenses, fees and costs resulting there from, and Woodway may take such measures as it deems necessary or appropriate to collect all expenses, fees and costs it has so incurred (including attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing its rights hereuulder), and may file a recorded lien against Point Edwards for - unpaid expeises, fees and costs incurred by Woodway in connection with the Lights. Furthermore, in the event Point Edwards and Woodway both fail to perform their obligations with regards to the lights!as stated above, Point Edwards agrees to replace at its expense the Lights with street lights and all appurtenances that meet current City standards (at the time of replacement) and that these replacement street lights and appurtenances will be dedicated to the City. In the event that Point Edwards fails to replace the Lights, the City will have the right to replace them and Point Edwards shall be liable to the City for all of the City's expenses, fees and costs resulting there from, and the City may take such measures as it deems necessary or appropriate to collect all expenses, fees and costs it has so incurred (including attorneys fees and costs incurred in enforcing its rights hereunder), and may file a recorded lien against Point Edwards for unpaid expenses, fees and costs incurred by the City in connection with the Lights and/or their replacement. SIGNED THISA)�- day of AMahOl , 2004 OWNER: POINT EDWARDS LLC Print Name: e i c k TOWN OF WOT WAY By: �r Print Name:w( A • /�°��/� �s Its:/�� . Change From PUD Light Standards To 13-foot Ornamental Lighting -A I 2- p", 2 50 1co Z,\ — J12 21 #13 #14 #15 L :IE_- G E � T C. Aw 0 C( R. st-: Packet Page 525 of 774 398 April 26, 2013 Kernen Lein Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, Wa 98020 Dear Mr. Lein We are writing this letter in order to comment on the proposal of 50 Pine Street in Edmonds. We are a family of 5 and have lived on Chinook Road for nearly 11 years. Our home and property is going to be severely and adversely affected by the building in its current design. Please review the following comments and consider them as you make your final decisions on the plans for 50 Pine Street. 1. Original Plan Variation When we built our home in this neighborhood initially, we extensively researched the planned condominium construction plans and although not ideal, decided that we could live with the design. Those plans have significantly changed with completely different designs. The current plan changes the character of the neighborhood entirely. Further, if this design were proposed in the Edmonds bowl, even at the bottom of the bowl, the entire City would be up -in -arms. Why should something of this magnitude be built at Point Edwards? 2. Lighting We are extremely concerned about the current proposal of above -ground parking lot. The lights for this lot will ruin the integrity of our non -lit neighborhood. We spend our summer evenings on our back patio enjoying the stars and relishing the privacy we now enjoy. Frankly the notion of having 170 cars in a parking lot (for the 85 units) is deplorable. Part of the charm of Woodway and Edmonds is the privacy and serenity of both of our neighborhoods. One hundred and seventy cars in a lit parking lot detract completely from the standard our two cities have adhered to for decades. If this building is imminent, as it appears to be, please at least, require underground parking and low lighting on the street as opposed to high street lights. 3. Glare and View Currently our back yard has a view of Puget Sound, Mt. Baker, and a partial view of the downtown portion of the City of Edmonds. If the building at 50 Pine Street is constructed with current plans, we would have the distinct honor of looking into our neighbors' apartments and onto their decks. Furthermore, they would have the pleasure of looking into our back yard. The 0399 Packet Page 526 of 774 top story of this building should not be allowed; A five story building is not a precedent Edmonds should set. 4. Wildlife Although this may not have merit, we feel it necessary to voice an additional concern. The eagle that lives in the tree just adjacent to the proposed building site has become an icon to our family and to the neighborhood. Every spring when Elijah (the name we have given him) appears we rejoice. He is the herald of warmer weather, tulips, longer days, lilacs, and rebirth. When Elenor (his mate) arrives, we are thankful that we live in such a wonderful place: to enjoy the lifecycles of these eagles is truly a priceless gift. quite certainly Elijah and Elenor will find another place of residence after this construction. The relationship Woodway has with Edmonds, during the time we have lived here, has been harmonious and mutually beneficial. Our children love riding their bikes to Edmonds to get frozen yogurt, go to a movie, or eat lunch. We love to frequent the neighborhood restaurants, shops and coffee houses. Our hope and prayer is that the council will be mindful of the Woodway residents. We love Edmonds, just as you do. Please let's keep the integrity of your beautiful city. Sincerely, Jon and Laura Fleming 0400 Packet Page 527 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: mjmartin3@mindspring.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 10:48 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: SEPA Application and Determination for 50 Pine Street, Point Edwards Regarding: http://www.edmondswa.gov/component/rsevents/event/859-notice-of-application-and- sepa-determination.html?Itemid=783. As an Edmonds resident for 3.5 years and a homeowner at Point Edwards, I am expressing my concern and opposition to an determination that absolves the applicant Edmonds Pine Street LLC. The structure raises concerns including: 1. Large above ground footprint inconsistent with existing development. 2. Potential impact to stability and structure of the environment on which it sits. 3. Lack of plans on how to handle drainage, prevention of ground or mud slippage, or slope deterioration. This has become a significant issue in this area of the Puget Sound. I am a Sounder train rider and understand the risk to the Sound and to residents that use the train transit, and to myself as a Point Edwards residents. Slope and deterioration issues already exist a Point Edwards development. 4. Lack of recognition of traffic and parking impact to existing residents. The current outside (non -garage) parking is limited and congested even without considering the 50 Pine Street impact. 5. Road pattern at 50 Pine Street already has limited visibility. To explain, Woodway, 45 Pine Street (and roundabout to Eagle's Nest) and slope down Pine converge at this point. The slope, grade and terrain necessitate traffic slow down and recognize limited visibility issues exist. The plan does not account for the increased traffic and breadth of this building, and consider this visibility constraints. One outlet for above -ground and underground parking aggravates a known safety risk at this location. 6. Heightened traffic for Pine Street throughout Point Edwards. Pedestrians are at risk as traffic increases for ingress or egress to Sunset. There is no traffic light and walking across the street in that area is fraught with risk. There is also insufficient lighting down Pine Street for pedestrians. 50 Pine Street aggravates these issues. Please ensure I am listed as capable of commenting on the 50 Pine Street development reviews by the City of Edmonds and as a concerned resident of this community. I am disappointed that the City of Edmonds has chosen to allow such development that compromise quality of life, and allow projects that may heighten risk of the safety of area residents. Thank you. Monica J. Martin 41 Pine #309 Edmonds, WA, 98020 208.284.1031 04b1 Packet Page 528 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Nancy Bittner [nancy_bittner@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:44 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Point Edwards Bldg. 10 ADR #PLN20130022 Mr. Lien - As an owner and resident of Point Edwards I am writing to you to voice my concern over the developers proposed plan for Building 10. While I agree that the modifications he was required to make to the exterior of the building after the December 2012 ADB meeting are a very slight improvement, there are more than a couple of areas that I still oppose. One is just the total number of units that he wishes to build which equates to a very tall and large building that does not fit into the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The only way to describe it is it becomes an eye sore to all of the residents of the city of Edmonds and to visitors who may be riding the Kingston ferry. Another point of opposition is that of parking and traffic. The homes in the neighborhood, including the city of Edmonds and the city of Woodway, all have garages and/or plenty of off the street parking. What the developer proposes in number of parking spaces may be adequate but to have only half of them housed under the building and a minimum of 70 being in a parking lot behind the building is also not in character with the surrounding area. No amount of tasteful landscaping can hide 70 cars. The lighting involved with where these cars will be parked is also a huge negative to me. I continue to strongly oppose the developers new application and proposed plans for Building 10. Sincerely, Nancy Bittner Point Edwards owner and resident #31-214 04b2 Packet Page 529 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Robyn Beresford [robbyberesford@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:15 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Concern about new Condo/apartment Hi Karnen, I'm writing to voice my concern about the new building they are planning on building over at Point Edwards. We live up on Chinook and are very upset about a five story building blocking our views and reducing our home values. Is there any way that they could reduce it by one story and build those units to the east of the main building. With a plan like that maybe they could also add more underground parking with a new building and get rid of the parking lot that is causing so much uproar in our neighborhood. We just think this building is so different from what was originally planned and it's going to ruin the whole look of the hillside and also I would think with a five story building that's just going to open it up for more builders to try and do the same in Edmonds. Also we would appreciate it if they would change the lighting on the street to the original plan. I'm really not sure how this builder is able to change this building after selling everyone at the condos with the idea of the last building was suppose to be the gem on the hillside... It's very sad to me that he doesn't care about our community but maybe with these changes it would not be as severe. Thank you for taking the time to read this! Robyn Beresford 040 Packet Page 530 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: May Knapp [knapptimel08@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:41 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Re: traffic Pine St. Dear Mr. Lien, I hope you are the proper authority to write to. I am very concerned about the apartment proposed on Pine St. Going west up the hill to Pt. Edwards is virtually a dead-end street. I can't imagine how that street can accomodate 150 more cars. Parking on the street is tight already, and the traffic going up the hill will be terrible. Also, merging onto 104 will be more congested. Hopefully, the 89 units proposed, will be lowered to 45 ! Thank you, May Louise Knapp 61 Pine St. Unit 108 Edmonds, Wa. 98020 04b4 Packet Page 531 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Katherine Gold [kgoldcg@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:07 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Permit PLN20130022 - Comment on 50 Pine St. Proposal Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds Dear Mr. Lien: This response is to let you know my dismay at the tactics and dishonesty of the Point Edwards developer seeking to build an unexpected large one bedroom and studio high density building between Woodway and Point Edwards. There are two issues here: Misrepresentation to the City, the people of Edmonds, and the buyers of property in Point Edwards and Woodway. As he has done before in Ballard, as I understand it, the builder has promised to build one thing that is an asset to the community, and switched to another thing that is an asset to himself and a detriment to the community. In Ballard, he apparently promised to build the required marine business on the commercial site of the Azteca Restaurant next to Ray's Boathouse, but instead ended up building a 14,500 sq. ft. private view residence for himself, including a 600 sq. ft. "caretakers" office as a technicality, and using slight of hand that left a shocked city. In this case, the builder would not have received permission to build Point Edwards at all if he had not represented it as an upscale unique condo development that added to the value of Edmonds. This is what he advertised in full page color ads in Alaska Airlines Magazine for years to attract buyers, with pictures of the lifestyle and amenities, and Weber+Thompson Architects touted their creation of a new Northwest design with shingled exterior, large balconies, and other things not included now. (They also told you at the public hearing that they didn't need shingles, for instance, because the Amenity Buildings were of a more modern design, but if you look at those, you will see the same materials, including the shingles, which are not on the more "modern" proposal and deemed fussy). Of course, the most direct misrepresentation was to the purchasers of Point Edwards condominiums, who were presented with a safe, quiet and exceptionally beautiful community created here that deserved a premium price, and now, only at the end on the last building after the others have sold (some recently), is a high density rental building being revealed and thrown at us. As a result, many older and single female older buyers were a predominant part of the buyers, people that add a great deal to Edmonds through their financial power, as well as their property taxes. The result of this building, if it is allowed to proceed, will inevitably be a decrease in quality and revenue and an increase in problems from this area, all of which are unnecessary if the builder delivered what he had promised you. The last thing is tactics, which are central to this kind of pump and dump attitude toward municipal governments. You have now received a lawyer letter accusing you of changing your requirements, etc. intended to intimidate you into going along with anything the builder asks, under threat of supposedly being sued. It is my opinion that his publically documented advertising, sales materials, published articles, and original representation to the City show a drastic intent to manipulate and mislead the City into believing that they had a desirable high -quality condo development that would be located overlooking Edmonds, and I believe the builder knows he would have a problem defending his bait and switch in court with all of this evidence and potential testimony. 04b5 Packet Page 532 of 774 Either Edmonds can stand up and say this to the developer, that they want what they thought they were getting, not what some fine print that was slipped in might allow, or Edmonds is headed for a downgrade. If someone proposes a beautiful development worth protecting as you did by a major settlement with the developer over shoddy landscaping in the early stages that was not as promised, then that is what the people that have to live with it should get. Just because someone asks for the moon and gets it, doesn't mean they then can claim to be "reasonable" for giving you a piece of junk in return. Thank you, and I appreciate the pressures you are under, but bullying the City that is my home is disagreeable. Sincerely, Katherine Gold 75 Pine Street, #303 (Point Edwards) z 0406 Packet Page 533 of 774 Megan McDonald and Kevin O'Keefe 75 Pine Street, Unite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 kevinfokeefe(c�comcast. net 206-919-0146 April 22, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: PLN20130022 — Proposal for 50 Pine Street, Point Edwards Dear Mr. Lien: My wife and I, full-time residents and owners of a home in Point Edwards since 2005, write to convey our strong opposition to the proposal for 50 Pine Street, PLN2013022, for the following reasons. There will be significant increases in traffic which will overwhelm the neighborhood. Eighty-five more units with about 150 more residents, their cars, and their guests' cars on Pine Street raises safety concerns, creates overwhelming congestion and over crowds already insufficient on -street parking. In additon, there is inadequate provision for frequent moving - company truck traffic, inevitable given that 50 Pine will most likely be a densely -occupied rental apartment building. Woodway may prevent exit from Point Edwards into Woodway via Pine by putting up a traffic sign as Woodway has already done this with done with another street. • The proposal is a plan for a building which does not comply with the City of Edmonds' Point Edwards Master Plan. A taller, more massive, more densely -populated apartment building with an above -ground parking lot ignores the letter and spirit of the City's Master Plan for Point Edwards. • The building will be too massive and densely -populated, with the average apartment size of around 900 square feet. This is compared to an average of approximately 1400 square feet in the other nine Point Edwards buildings. The City of Edmonds' Master Plan for Point Edwards assumes that the size of Point Edwards' units will be in the 1500 square feet range. • Its length will be almost twice that of any other Point Edwards building. To conform to the City's Master Plan, 50 Pine should be considered as two buildings in keeping with the other neighborhood structures. • The structure will be five stories high (58 feet), towering above the street over 71 feet, dominating the Point Edwards hillside and the views from Harbor Square and downtown Edmonds. The Proposal lists the building height calculation as 40 feet. Clearly, the calculated height does not reflect the �i r of the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. How can a five - story tall building be just 40 feet tall when it rises 58 feet from the foundation on the street side and 71 feet above the sidewalk/street? • The roof line is not sufficiently "modulated" to qualify for a height exception in the MP1 zoning code. The code permits "approved modulated designs", adding five feet to the 35 foot maximum height, but it does not define what design elements are required for approval. This modulated roof design doesn't appear to meet the intent or purpose of allowing exception to normal height limitations. The proposal relies on this exception. 0407 Packet Page 534 of 774 • There will be extensive exterior glass, presenting glare, especially on the building's west and northwest face. When viewed locally and from downtown Edmonds, this further detracts from the community. • Too much of the 50 Pine Street lot will become impervious surface. Serious runoff issues will arise. • The proposal calls for an environmentally ugly, above -ground 70-car parking lot with lights and noise in lieu of secure and hidden underground parking. This deprives citizens of cherished green space. The existing Point Edwards structures, and the vast majority of downtown Edmonds residences, have secure under -building parking garages for its residents. Why should the City make an exception for 50 Pine Street? • Property values in Point Edwards will fall for all the above reasons. Sincerely yours, Megan McDonald & Kevin O'Keefe 0408 Packet Page 535 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Dana Davies [dfdavies@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:31 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Re -submitted plan for 50 Pine Street Dear Mr Lien, Like many of my neighbors, I am writing to express my dismay at the proposed building plans for the final phase of the Point Edwards development. The updated proposal is, in my opinion, "lipstick on a pig": minor changes to the exterior materials and even smaller changes to density don't obscure the extreme variation from the original plan. It is my understanding that the community of Edmonds (or a substantial segment) was opposed to the Point Edwards development at its inception and that a number of important concessions were negotiated to improve its fit within the town. This helped result in a balanced development that is popular, attractive, and well maintained. The current proposal for 50 Pine is not aligned. Understanding that your purview does not encompass the agreements between the developer, homeowners, and the home owner's association, I am restricting my comments to the appearance, scale, and density of the proposed building. • The plans for 50 Pine Street show a monolithic structure that is visually unrelated to (and unlike) the current buildings at Point Edwards as well as the neighboring areas. It's faux urban loft appearance simply doesn't fit. • The extent of the design's hardscape is inconsistent with the development and surrounding area and poses concerns about runoff. • The height of the building as well as its length will create a canyon effect on Pine Street. • The proposed occupancy is also a substantial concern especially as it relates to parking. o The large outdoor parking lot with 24 hour lighting is completely inconsistent with the surrounding area (and downtown Edmonds as well.) o During holidays, on street parking for guests visiting Point Edwards is just barely adequate as it is; with the addition of the new building, the situation will become a daily problem. • The increase in traffic is also a very big concern. It is certain to impact neighboring Woodway creating the potential for disputes. While this may extend beyond the scope of the design review, I am compelled to add my concerns about the developers. While they may be within their legal rights to build what appears to be an apartment building at Point Edwards, having buried contractual loopholes during the sales process, there are (and should be) serious concerns about the veracity of the developers and their intent to honor the community vision for Point Edwards. I appreciate that your office will continue to include the concerns of and input from the Edmonds community as the plans for 50 Pine Street progress. Thank you, Dana Davies d a n a d a v i e s, m p h 1 45 pine street 4105 1 ecirnonds, woshington 98020 1 4 2 5- S 8 2- 0 :3 5 4office ( 7 C) 7 -;3 2 6- 6 6 8 9 cell 04b9 Packet Page 536 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: james pellegrino Damesbp@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 1:28 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Regarding 50 Pine Street Building I would like to comment on the building permit application for 50 Pine St., Edmonds. 1. The building will be too massive and densely -populated for the area. Also, the building length will be a lot more than any other building in the area. 2. The structure will be five (5) stories high, towering over the street, dominating the hillside (58 feet) . 3. The building does not have enough under ground parking, which adds to the impervious surface. 4. With the large number of units, which will cause significant increase in traffic on the sole access road(Pine St.) to Point Edwards. 5. If approved, this will set a major precedent for the City to disregard required design, density and height limits. Thanks Jim Pellegrino 45 Pine St., Edmonds, Wa. 98020 0410 Packet Page 537 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Ralph Swenson [ralphswen@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:12 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Chave, Rob; Spellman, Jana Subject: Building 50 My wife and I are residents of a condo just across the street from the Building 50 site. We write to oppose the current plan and propose improvements. At the last ADB meeting, many comments were made about the excessive height of Building 50. The latest plan does not address the height issue adequately. It is quite different than other nearby buildings. The eastern five floor wing is out of balance with the western four floor wing. This increases the apparent height of the eastern wing. The cut in the hill for the patio east of the eastern wing digs down three levels below the back parking lot. This increases the tall effect. It may also be detrimental to the trees along the side border. There is a way to improve this plan and retain the same number of condos. This involves placing the base of the eight condos from Level One onto Level Two. The eight condos would be stacked in two columns of four each, like the other front condos. This would lengthen the east front partially over the east patio, which would be enlarged to the side border, and also raised to the Level Two. This would decrease the cut into the hill. The fitness room would be raised to a similar area on Level Two. Raising the base of the east wing by 10.5 feet would increase the distance from the sidewalk and give more privacy. The current plan with large patios is near the sidewalk level and unlike nearby buildings. Raising the buildings base level and placing shrubs in front of patios give more privacy and suggest a less tall building. With a large number of small open or one bedroom condos (54 out of 85) having only one assigned parking space at Building 50, more street parking for extra cars is needed on Pine Street. Parking is already full most nights and weekends. The owner has provided only three street parking spaces on Pine Street. These are in the city right of way and not on the owners property. There is room for up to ten more parking spaces on the owners property at Pine Street. They are needed. We urge rejection of the current plan and consideration of our recommendations. We feel these changes are reasonable and necessary. Sincerely, Ralph Swenson Marjorie Swenson 45 Pine Street, Unit 205, Edmonds, WA 98020 0411 Packet Page 538 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Lee Shobe [lee@shobefamily.com] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:18 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: PLN20130022 I would like to go on record as opposed to approval of the plan submitted for an apartment project at 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA. I am an Edmonds resident and property owner at 31 Pine Street, #208. My opposition rests on the following points: The Proposal envisions a building which does not comply with the City of Edmonds Point Edwards Master Plan in either scale, density or purpose. The proposed building is almost twice the length of any other Point Edwards building and should be considered as two smaller structures. The structure will be five stories high towering above the street over 71 feet dominating the Point Edwards hillside and the views from downtown and the marina. The roof line is not sufficiently modulated as suggested by the ADB in their last application nor does it qualify for a height exception in the MP zoning code. There will be excessive traffic created by 85 living units on the sole access road to Point Edwards or the western edge of Woodway. I urge the ADB to reject the PLN20130022 submission. Lee A Shobe 31 Pine Street, #208 Edmonds, WA 98020 O412 Packet Page 539 of 774 April 20, 2013 To: Mr. Kernen Lien — Senior Planner Subject: PLN20130022 (Developer — Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson on behalf of Edmonds Pine St. LLC) 50 Pine Street Edmonds, WA Dear Mr. Lien: As a 27 year resident of Edmonds, I am very concerned about the 5 story, 85 unit apartment complex currently proposed to be built at 50 Pine Street. Edmonds has the character of a charming and quaint community nestled on the shores of Puget Sound. This proposed mega structure, which would sit high on prime view property, does not fit into the Edmonds we have all grown to love and enjoy. Development on this property can be accomplished within the limits and boundaries the rest of Edmonds has followed. Please take this into consideration as the developer continues his march to proceed. I ask that you, as the governing council for the city of Edmonds, look at the impact this mega structure would have on the residents of Edmonds in terms of additional traffic, runoff issues and parking let alone the visual eye -sore. Your decision will set a precedent not only for now, but for future development as well. I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Ruth "JR" Thompson cc: Council's Administrative Assistant 0413 Packet Page 540 of 774 Tom and Jan Barrett 45 Pine Street, #310 Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Kernan Lien City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Proposed Building 10, PLN20130022 Dear Mr. Lien: While we appreciate the redesign of the building that has been done to address some of our concerns, we wish to make known our distress over the still large number of units proposed for this location. We feel strongly that this will have a significant and negative impact on their Point Edwards and Woodway neighbors, for the following reasons: 1. This building will be the only one of the ten buildings to have units directly facing into existing units, greatly affecting our privacy. Ours is among those units. 2. Street parking is already at a premium, especially during warmer months and on Sundays. Because there are many fewer spaces allotted per unit in and behind the proposed building, parking for current residents and their guests will be much more difficult or impossible. 3. Traffic on Pine Street (the public street that continues into Woodway) will be a problem, causing hazardous conditions for those leaving Point Edwards and Woodway, and to pedestrians, many of which are older. 4. Five stories, and up to 55 feet in height, will be unsightly, and create an inroad for these and other builders to repeat this disfigurement to the beauty of our city. 5. With the significantly smaller average size unit, it will bring a different demographic to the neighborhood, with more traffic, noise, exterior lights on all night, and a negative impact on the environment, which currently supports a wide variety of flora and fauna. 6. The "threat" of this building has already caused Point Edwards and Woodway property values to decrease; completion of the project as proposed will seal that fate. We sincerely hope that you will take our concerns into account before issuing a final approval of the plan as proposed. Sincerely, Tom & Jan Barrett Cc: Edmonds City Council 0414 Packet Page 541 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner April 17, 2013 City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 Ref: 50 Pine Street PLN 20130022 (3/26/2013) Dear Mr. Lien: I've received your recent message regarding 50 Pine and the pending review of the new Proposal submitted on March 26, 2013. I would like to submit these comments for your consideration in review of this new 4 Proposal and in formulating the Planning Division report to the ADB. I am attaching a brief document contrasting the "technical" vs. actual real world view of this proposed structure looking up from Edmonds toward the North profile of the structure. As you are aware, there is considerable controversy regarding what is a 35 ft. (or 40 ft.) building. The bulk and massing of the proposed structure is still well beyond anything related to a `common' understanding of height, which will be 58 ft. (exposed) at the NE corner, and 71 ft. above the adjacent Pine Street sidewalk and street level. Please include this attachment as a formal part of this submission. 1. The new Proposal document is disappointing but about what I expected. The "new" proposal does have some added vertical lines with the windows and decks. Changes to the roof seem either non-existent or quite marginal. The segmentation of the N. building face is marginal. This is an improvement but grosses over a number of significant issues that remain. I am noting my concerns below. 2. The overall dimensions of the proposed structure are essentially unchanged. However, this new document and graphic views generally stress the partial North-West profile, and the document cover only shows the West Wing from a NW angle, giving only an impression (visual) of the corner with 3 level visible floors, proceeding eastward to just 4 levels. The East end (NE profile) is largely ignored. See the graphics presented on the cover page. Pp. 11-14 and pp. 34-36. 3. Developers have assumed a bonus of an additional 5 ft. elevation based on roof modulation. While subjective, this does not appear to be the case. The graphics use a strange mixture of proposal sheets from earlier documents, including the 2006 "ADB Approved Concept", the 2008, and the prior 2012 withdrawn proposal, in addition to the `new' graphics as now currently proposed. The relevance and purpose of these earlier proposal graphics is not made clear and easily detract from the actual attributes of the current proposal. However, the contrast between the current proposed rooflines easily illustrates the lack of modulation relative to earlier proposals. For example, illustrations of the four directional views (p.11,13,15,16) show the lack of modulation. The comparisons provided with the "previous elevations, 2008 Permit Set" (pp46-51) in fact emphasize the reduction in modulation with what purportedly was "approved" earlier by the ADB. 0415 Packet Page 542 of 774 1 4. The proposal now reads "85" residential units (p. 3) - a minor and insufficient change. The proposal is cited as a new `stand-alone' proposal in the letter submitted by Richard E. Gifford dated March 25, 2013 (para. 4) without further elaboration but presumably asking that this be reviewed and evaluated separately from the existing Point Edwards Condominium complex also established under the same Master Plan. The current proposal nevertheless seeks to `justify' the approved number of units based on the amended Master Plan for 350 total residential units. Thus the indicated 85 units are not in fact `stand-alone' but rely on this interpretation of the relationship to the total Master Plan provisions and conditions, leaning heavily on the numerical relationship to the `other' nine buildings. 5. The determination of the "Historical Average Grade" continues to be a troublesome and highly artificial calculation, which seriously impacts building height and mass. The attachment to this letter is the simple example of how a 40 ft. building (if a modulated roof is approved) can in reality reach 58 ft. from the exposed NE foundation and 71 ft. from the sidewalk/street. This vertical view of the `daylight' side of the building is grossly distorted when considering `height' by the steepness of the hillside and thus `measuring' from a `baseline' that is almost 18 feet above the 1st level grade. Regardless, this is the community view from the downtown Edmonds area, the Marina and waterfront, and those utilizing the Washington State Ferry. Neither does it promote the blending with the surrounding community as strongly implied by the planning guidelines. 6. The "rectangle" surrounding the building footprint is also a convoluted and inappropriate application of the common-sense guidelines for closely bracketing the baseline. Throughout the new Proposal reference is made to the "East Wing" and the "West Wing". The building is clearly segmented and is never explicitly revealed to be almost 235 ft. in spread along the E-W face along Pine Street. Provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Code describe the use of close rectangles around the visible portions of the structure to establish grade. The proposed structure is explicitly segmented, and should be evaluated as two separate structures, and with a `close rectangle' of only the visible portion of the buildings used for each segment or Wing separately. The graphic presented on P.8 defies any logic relative to the specifications for the Comprehensive Code, is (ECDC 16.75.020 Site Development Standards). 7. The graphics and plans presented make it quite clear that the separation between "East and West" Wings is void of any residential space, and that the 1st level only extends across the East "Wing" (p. 2) Level 2 indicates essentially open space between wings (p.22). Levels 3-5 (pp.23-25) show significant open separation for the North face, and only partial `administrative' use for the South portions. The Proposal cover sheet only shows one (West) "Wing". The new proposed building graphics (pp. 11-14) focus respectively and separately on the individual "Wings". The "Proposed Elevations" (p.46), clearly show the segmented structures and the separation. This stands in stark contrast to the continuous North face of the structures shown as "ADB Approved Concept 2006" (p. 45) and the "Previous Elevations 2008 Plan Set" (p. 47). 2 0416 Packet Page 543 of 774 8. As noted in the accompanying letter submitted by Richard E. Gifford dated March 25, 2013 (para. 4) the new Proposal is now a "Stand Alone" proposal. It references the documents and 2006 `approved' proposal for a five story, 69 unit structure but "was never built." The current documents propose using the amended Master Plan limit of 350 units (total) and thus determine allowable residential units now under the overall Master Plan as 89, and propose 85. The Master Plan for Point Edwards, and the MP1 allowance for 350 units, is accepted as the controlling planning authority. IF this logic is to be followed, the same reasoning should also apply to the determination of average unit size as discussed in that same Point Edwards Master Plan. In this document ("Site Master Plan for Point Edwards" dated 5/14/2002) submitted by Unocal (p. 15) it is clearly stated: "For purposes of calculating the potential for residential development, an average of 1,500 ft. square feet is assumed for each dwelling unit." This is contained under the section beginning on p. 13 "Building Dimensions and Relationships". Based on the data contained in the new Proposal (p. 4) the 85 proposed units with a floor area of 77,491 ft. sq. will average only about 900 ft. sq. - well below the Master Plan specification. The existing Point Edwards Condominium units built to date (261 units) average about 1400 ft. sq. In order to satisfy this requirement of the Master Plan, the proposed units fall far short and would require at least a 50 percent increase on average. IF the full Master Plan goal of overall average size is 1,500 ft. sq. the added units would need to exceed that size by an additional 300 ft. sq. PER UNIT to order to the achieve the Master Plan average of nearly 1,500 ft. sq. Although filed as a "new" Proposal, this present document under review and evaluation presumptively provides the response by the Developer to the Edmonds Architectural Design Board (ADB) serious reservations and issues identified in December 2012 for further elaboration. The testimony by those appearing at the December 19th hearings consistently and forcefully raised numerous concerns about the appropriateness of the proposal well beyond the exterior colors and landscaping. It is hoped that the ongoing Planning review of the new current proposal can revisit these public concerns and evaluate the substance of the new document completely and objectively in light of the significant wide public interest. Sincerely, Thomas R. Waggener 65 Pine Street, Unit 103 Edmonds, WA. 98020 425-582-0410 0417 Packet Page 544 of 774 3 Why does the 50 Pine Street Proposal look so BIG? Recent public discussions of the Harbor Square Port Master Plan proposals suggests what can go wrong when planning concepts about "height' and building mass get confused with the reality of life in the streets and the downtown waterfront. This is the situation with the proposal submitted for the 5-story development at 50 Pine Street, the hilltop uphill of the existing Point Edwards Condominiums. As a separate development, if built as is currently designed, this structure will dominate the skyline out of proportion to the low-rise buildings snugging the hillside below the ridge. It is evident that a large number of folks familiar with the Developer's proposal for a new building on Lot 50 Pine Street is simply that it is 'just too big". It is judged as bulky, out of proportion with the neighborhood, and aside from a differing architectural design, it is seen as dominating the southern Edmonds skyline. Why? Edmonds zoning just allows buildings up to 35 feet tall. True? Well, OK, up to 40 feet with a 'bonus' for a modulated roofline. The answer is fairly simple and straight -forward. Thep 4 attached graphic helps to 'explain' how a 35 foot (or 40 foot) building can and does actually appear to be much taller, in fact more than double this 'zoned height limit. The "official" height limit is a statutory value set in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan as well as the Point Edwards Master Plan. But - isn't height simply the measurement from top to bottom? Not so, according to the planners and Developers. The "bottom" by Code is the historic 'average grade' of the parcel of land where the building will be located. On a flat surface, this is reasonably well understood. However where the parcel is not flat like the highly sloped Pine Street Lot 50, the 'bottom" needs to be calculated. This is known as the "Historic Average Grade". As the slope gets steeper and steeper, the difference between the 'historical average' and the 'bottom' becomes more significant. The 'historic average grade' is reportedly 151.02 ft. (above sea level) IT IS FROM THIS CALCULATED ELEVATION that the technical zoning calculations of elevation (building height) are applied. The graphic based on Developer's documents shows the corresponding values for the Northeast corner of the proposed building, the view of the proposed building facing downtown Edmonds. In this graphic, the LOWER RED line indicates the calculated 'historic average grade" level. The TOP RED line indicates the official 'zoning height' of 35 ft. above this, the PURPLE line indicates the Developer -requested 'Bonus" addition of five feet potentially allowed for a modulated roofline. Thus, from the lower RED to the PURPLE section of the building is in fact the 40 ft. This is the height that City Planners and the Developer debate and contest. However, the rest of us are concerned about the 'rest of the story." It is clear that the 'historic average grade" (Lower Red) is not the actual, visible "bottom" of the building. The proposed foundation level (BLUE line) is actually an additional 18.25 feet 'below grade' at the Northeast corner and is highly visible for approximately half of the east -west span of the north face of the building. Like a daylight basement, the 0418 Packet Page 545 of 774 4 entire north face of the proposed building is exposed by the dropping slope of the hillside, and is simply just another part of the overall structure. When this segment of the building is considered, the physical structure is now looking like a 58.25 ft. building! But, that's not all. The baseline (BLUE line) is itself not at the "bottom" of the community view for those viewing the building from Pine Street, the adjacent sidewalk, or from downtown Edmonds. This street -level viewpoint is another 12.75 ft. below the baseline and is as represented by the GREEN line. That makes the building as VIEWED by the Edmonds community now fully 71 feet, top to bottom. And this is what citizens of Edmonds and passengers on the Washington State Ferry will actually see. This public view is double the planner's 'technical building height' embedded in zoning and the submitted Master Plan documents. Clearly, the Edmonds policy/administrative approach to "determining" building height does not well serve the broad community interests when there is a steeply -sloping hillside at issue. THAT's why a 40 foot proposed building appears to be 71 feet in height. That's what would be highly visible to the Edmonds community at large. 0419 Packet Page 546 of 774 0 0420 Packet Page 547 of 774 Let's Do the Math! 50 Pine Street AS Proposed: How Tall IS this Building? OR HOW A ZONED 35 Pr BUILDING CAN NOROW TO 7f Fr AS SEEN FROM EDMONDS TAI. rT;, 11 FT1,1 ;.11 LEV. 't,4Y7 Street -Sidewalk 120.0 ZONING (Permitted) = 35 Feet Ave. Historic Grade to Roof (Planning Formula) BONUS (Modulated Roofline) = 5 Feet Roof to Maximum Height (Zoning Bonus) BELOW Grade Structure =18'3" Baseline (Foundation) to Ave. Historic Grade = 18' 3" SIDEWALK TO BASELINE = 12' 9' Street Level to Baseline Height Increment RED TO RED 35.0' • Top RED to PURPLE 5,01 BLUE to Bottom RED 18.25' t7'AGREEN to BLUE 12.75' TOTAL AS SEEN FROM EDMONDS= 71.0 FT Lien, Kernen From: Janis Smith Usmith@thevilla.org] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:08 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Building 50 Pine Street/Point Edwards Dear Mr. Lien, My husband and I recently bought a condo at Point Edwards in building #45. After buying we were quite dismayed to learn that the developer had changed paths in regards to finishing the Point Edwards condominium community with a proposal that does not comply with the City of Edmonds' Point Edwards Master Plan. The building is very large with smaller units, and will be five stories high. The architecture does not fit the rest of the development with little roof line modulation, and lots of glass that will cause glare. Environmentally the enlarged above ground parking lot will be an impervious lighted surface, not conducive to the quiet neighborhood we have grown to love. Traffic will increase, as will noise. We'd hate to see what has happened in Ballard, Juanita Beach, Redmond, and Kirkland happen here. Edmonds is one of the last "small towns" on the water near Seattle that still has that small town atmosphere, and that's exactly why people come here to visit and live. Let's keep Edmonds a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Thank you for taking our comments into consideration and for representing us in this matter. Sincerely, Janis and Floyd Smith 45 Pine Street #204 04!12 Packet Page 549 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Zoe Gurevich [zoe_gurevich@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:42 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: 'Zoe Gurevich' Subject: Building 50 Pine Street Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov From: Zoe Gurevich 31 Pine St., #305 Edmonds, WA 98020 Zoe Gurevich(@hotmail.com Dear Mr. Lien, I strongly feel that if the building 50 Pine Street built as it proposed now, there will be negative impacts on nearby property values and the overall quality of life in the Point Edwards community will be decreased. a) This five stories building will be 58 feet high, so it will tower above the street over 71 feet, and will completely dominate the hillside with its massive "loud" architecture and structure. b) The building length will be almost twice that of any other Point Edwards building; it will be too massive, it will have an extensive exterior glass, presenting glare, especially on the building's west and northwest face. When viewed locally and from downtown Edmonds, this further detracts from the community. c) The building will be densely -populated. There will be 85 units with about 150 more residents (with the average apartment size of around 900 square feet). The residents of the building 50 Pine Street, their cars, and their guests' cars on Pine Street will present too much traffic and many safety concerns, increased congestion and over -crowding of already insufficient on -street parking (and probably, the buildings 45, 55, and 65 will lose most of the street visitors parking). d) The Proposal calls for an above -ground 144-car parking lot (with lights and noise) instead of secure and hidden underground parking. The majority of the 50 Pine Street lot will be water-resistant surface, which may create serious water runoff. Sincerely, Zoe Gurevich httl2://www-personal.umich.edu/-zoe/ 0493 Packet Page 550 of 774 April 16, 2013 Mr. Kemen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: PLN20130022 (50 Pine Street) Dear Mr. Lien: My husband and I are writing to express our continued grave concerns regarding the above permit for construction at 50 Pine Street. Although the developer did make some minor alterations to the exterior after the last Architectural Design Board meeting, there still remains the following fact(s) which raise continued concern: The fact remains that this building is huge!! This building, as proposed, is a monolithic structure which will tower over anything else here at Point Edwards. With its five stories, reaching 58 feet at one point and 71 feet at another, add that it is twice as long as any other building at Point Edwards and well, one should be easily able to get the picture! ! ! Now add the extensive use of exterior glass glaring off of the hill, 50 Pine Street is sure to make quite an impression for those enjoying our waterfront, residents living in the Bowl and those visiting and shopping in our lovely downtown Edmonds. Is this the type of building that we should allow and is this the impression that we want people to take away from Edmonds — "Who allowed an ugly apartment building to be built up there?!!" The fact is 50 Pine Street is an apartment building. It is not a building of condominiums as is the rest of Point Edwards, nor is it single family dwellings as represented in Woodway. It is an apartment building which does not, in any way, shape or form, go along with what is now represented here at Point Edwards. I want to make this clear; we have no problems with apartment buildings as we recognize that all types of housing should be made available to residents of a city. However, what is wrong here is that this does not go along with what the Master Plan is!!! The average square footage of a condominium at Point Edwards is 1400 square feet — the average size of apartments proposed is 900. I believe the City of Edmonds should recheck what the Master Plan for Point Edwards was to be, which was in the1500 square foot range. Discrepancy here, YES!!!! 0424 Packet Page 551 of 774 The fact is this structure does not comply at all with what the Master Plan for Point Edwards was. We bought based on what was presented to us at the Sales Office and all buildings represented were of similar height and exterior finishes. All parking was underground, except for a few precious spots located street side within the complex. To now have an above ground parking area for 70 cars is ludicrous. This is what is found in shopping complexes, not condominiums. This is not found in any other condominium structure in Edmonds and not only poses excessive lighting and noise, but takes away an opportunity for more green space. Not only will this parking area be sight blight, the amount of hard surface presented may result in serious run-off, possibly posing a huge problem for the buildings below and the marsh! Mudslides could be a real problem for certain areas of Point Edwards. The last fact, but far from least, is the issue of this many cars being added to the traffic here at Point Edwards. There is one road in from Edmonds Way and there is one road in from Woodway. Neither of these seems able to handle the additional cars generated from 150 people, occupying 85 units. The walk ability factor at Point Edwards would score very high at this point — add the number of cars generated by this building and the limited roads and it will fall significantly. Imagine adding a 5 story, 85 unit apartment building on Main Street or 5th Street in Edmonds — do you think there would be a huge impact to the area? I have a very difficult time understanding how one Master Plan can be filed with 9 of the 10 buildings built over the past 10+ years, number 9 just completed a little over a year ago. Now the developer is able to drastically alter what was initially brought to the City of Edmonds and what was initially brought to the current residents of Point Edwards? This was to have been the developer's "crown jewel" — well, if this Sight Blight for Edmonds is his "crown jewel, then shame on him and shame on whoever allows this to be built. Master Plans are developed for a reason and they should be adhered to as presented, not changed to satisfy the developer's whim to switch from condominiums to apartments. He can build apartments elsewhere!! Respectfully submitted, Earl W Larson and Susan J Larson 41 Pine Street, # 107 Edmonds, WA 98020 0425 Packet Page 552 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Frances Velling [fvel ling @comcast. net] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:40 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Point Edwards proposal We are writing about the proposed Building Ten at Point Edwards under the new permit PLN 20130022. We are concerned over the size of the building being proposed at 70- feet tall, 5 stories on the NE corner. An outdoor parking lot will detract from the peacefulness and current beauty of Point Edwards, not to mention the noise and lights. It must be underground as originally planned not an eyesore to Point Edwards residents and the city of Edmonds. Outdoor parking lots cheapen developments making them look like apartment buildings with low income residents. The changes appear to be a long way from the 'original Point Edwards Master Plan." We have owned 2 properties in the Seattle area that have had significant land slides greatly diminishing the value and quality of our properties. Is this where Point Edwards is headed? There is no excuse for not having environmental studies and soil tested. Edmonds is on the news each year with their landslides and closing the train tracks. So what happens if there is a landslide in a few years? The residents would have to pay special assessments and the builder would be free and clear. This is an unreasonable approach. Why does the builder need to make changes and cheapen Point Edwards? It appears he is cutting corners. It is a beautiful development and we would like to see it kept that way with the "Original Master Plan." Frances andWichaefVeffing 04126 Packet Page 553 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Cunningham, Diane Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:47 AM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: FW: New submission from 'Contact Development Services'! Diane cunninghamPd.edmondsma.us Cunningham Administrative 425,771.0220 x 1335 Assistant From: NoReply Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 6:03 PM To: Planning Cc: Building Subject: New submission from 'Contact Development Services'! You have a new submission. Your Name: Edward Morris Your Email: stron ca�bingyahoo.com Subject: comment Message: When we first purchased our condominium at Point Edwards we were assured that it was a high quality, medium density project with a master plan approved by the city of Edmonds. The first plan proposed by the new developer reminded me of the buildings built in the old Soviet Union! To the credit of the planning commission the plan was sent back for revision. However the proposed higher density of 89 units in my opinion lowers the standard of living and does not meet the standard set in the original master plan for Point Edwards. By creating many small apartments in place of larger owner condominiums traffic increases and I believe will lead to a lower standard of care. It may increase the developers bottom line, but will it contribute to a better community as your mission statement states? Please require this project to meet the original master plan. Send Packet Page 554 of 774 0427 JAMES PETERS 45 Pine Street, Apt 207 Edmonds, WA 98020 425-412-3831 April 15, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, It is my understanding that The Planning Department and the ADB will be reviewing the latest proposal submitted by the developer for a 5-storey, 85 unit apartment complex, to be built on a lot at 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, adjacent to the Point Edwards condominiums and the town of Woodway. I have some grave concerns regarding these plans for this apartment complex that I would like you, the Planning Department and the ADB to take under consideration. 1) The building will be five stories high (58 feet), towering above the street over 70 feet. To my knowledge, this height allowance is exceptional in Edmonds, and sets a dangerous precedent for future developments. This towering height appears not to be in compliance with, or in the spirit of, the Point Edwards Master Plan. 2) Nine completed buildings in the Point Edwards community are all designed within a uniform architectural style (texture, articulation, windows, balconies). 50 Pine Street, in addition to being far more massive (85 units) than any surrounding buildings, will have an average size unit of approximately 900 square feet, as compared to an average size in all other buildings in Point Edwards of approximately 1500 square feet. It is ugly and looks out of place. 3) The proposed building plans show an aboveground parking area for 70 vehicles. All other Point Edwards buildings have discrete underground parking, with a modest number of street parking slots available for visitors. I would think that this aboveground parking lot would cause significant runoff during a storm, which could impact the frog habitat, the fishery and the marsh. 4) An apartment this size, with this many new residents, will generate increased traffic, both down Pine Street to the highway, and through the town of Woodway. A smaller building, more in keeping with the existing Point Edwards structures and consistent with the Point Edwards Master Plan should be required. Thank you, Mr. Lien, for your review of these concerns, and for passing them on to the ADB, the Planning Department, and if you think appropriate, the City Council. Sincerely, James Peters 0428 Packet Page 555 of 774 April 14, 2013 City of Edmonds Development Services Dept. Planning Division 121 5t" Avenue North u . 11 .��i%�%1ii►�i7 Attention: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Building Ten (10) at Point Edwards under the new permit PLN20130022. The few minor and insignificant changes that the developer has made continue to leave me deeply concerned with the contractor's "new" set of plans. The size of the building remains 70 feet tall on the northeast corner; and it is still two massive 5 story buildings. Although the developer likes to refer to it as "wings" the fact remains it is two buildings. To call it anything else is ridiculous. The environmentally ugly, outdoor parking lot with its glaring lights and noise in lieu of the originally planned underground parking space will be seen all over the neighborhood and most certainly will be seen from downtown Edmonds. Not only does this drive the eagles away who are nesting very near this proposed parking lot it in addition deprives citizens of cherished green spaces The change from eighty nine (89) to eighty five (85) units is a long way from anything that is acceptable or was in the "original Point Edwards Master Plan". The fact remains that the minor changes that were made do nothing to relieve population density which will impact the neighborhood with parking and street congestion, significantly. The possibility of slides and run off from the hillside due to the lack of landscaping and the extensive use of concrete is an environmental issue that is untested and is extremely worrisome. The quality of the construction of the building itself and the visual harmony is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood or the rest of the City of Edmonds. Respectfully Mary D. Pintler "Dixie" 65 Pine Street #305 Edmonds, WA 98020 425-967-3357 0429 Packet Page 556 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Terry Walsh [terryhw@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:31 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: Terry Walsh Subject: Permit # PLN20130022, Saving Edmonds Waterfront April 14, 2013 City of Edmonds, Development Services Dept. Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Attention: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Building Ten (10) at Point Edwards under the new permit PLN20130022. The few minor and insignificant changes that the developer has made continue to leave me deeply concerned with the contractor's "new" set of plans. The size of the building remains 70 feet tall on the northeast corner; and it is still two massive 5-story buildings. Although the developer likes to refer to it as "wings" the fact remains it is two buildings. To call it anything else is deceptive. The environmentally unpleasant, outdoor parking lot with its glaring lights and noise in lieu of the originally planned underground parking space will be seen all over the neighborhood and most certainly will be seen from downtown Edmonds. Not only does this drive the eagles away who are nesting very near this proposed parking lot it in addition deprives citizens of cherished green spaces The change from eighty nine (89) to eighty five (85) units is unacceptable, is not in line with the original "Point Edwards Master Plan", and does nothing to relieve population density which will impact the neighborhood with parking and street congestion significantly. Moreover, I am irritated that this proposal is even being considered. 0430 Packet Page 557 of 774 The lack of substantive changes makes me think that is not only wasting City and citizens' time and funds, but appears to be a ploy to get citizens to give up their fight to save the unique environment and eagle habitat of the Edmonds waterfront. The possibility of landslides and run off from the hillside due to the lack of landscaping and the extensive use of concrete is an environmental issue that is untested and is extremely worrisome. This could indeed be a big liability for the City of Edmonds should a landslide effect the stability of buildings uphill from it. I urge you to deny the proposal of Building Ten at Point Edwards. Respectfully, Terry H. Walsh 348 NW 112th Street, Seattle, WA 98177 206-363-4014 Carkeek Park Advisory Council, former Committee Chairperson, Environmental Project Coordinator, Recipient of Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods Matching Grant 2 0431 Packet Page 558 of 774 April 13, 1013 Shirley Oczkewicz 41 Pine Street #208 Edmonds, Wa 98020 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: This letter is to inform you of my opposition to the current PLN20130022 proposal for 50 Pine Street. The developer's plan still inadequately blends with the neighborhood of Point Edwards and with the city of Edmonds itself for these reasons: 1. More green space needs to apparent on the developer's property. This proposal depends too much on the green belt surrounding the property (which may or may not exist in the future) rather than on incorporating more green space on his property. 2. Even though the recent SEPA issued a DNS, both underground residential and above ground guest parking for 85 units are inadequate. If the underground parking were doubled to two levels or enlarged on one level, the above ground parking could be minimized yet allow for more guest parking while more surface soil could be available for drainage and green space. 3. Density and height is too extreme for a residential street in this neighborhood. A member of the ADB has said that five stories fits the zoning, but I'm asking for an exemption to that. Given that the intrusive buildings of Key Bank and Compass Apartments as businesses along SR104 gained obvious set -back exemptions, it is fair that residents of Edmonds be allowed an exemption from permissive zoning which allows for five stories in a residential area of existing three story buildings. 4. The many purchasers, including myself, of condos in Point Edwards were shown a diorama of only three story buildings for all ten buildings. The developer has negated his implied promise in now proposing a building with five stories. This developer misrepresentation should not be rewarded with city approval. Public trust is at stake. Thank you for considering the reasons for my opposition to the current proposal for 50 Pine Street. Our city government needs to expect more of this developer whose proposals thus far have been for only his own enhancement and not that of the neighborhood or Edmonds. Sincerely, Shirley Oczkewicz 0432 Packet Page 559 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Spellman, Jana Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 9:58 AM To: 'Janis Smith' Cc: Lien, Kernen Subject: RE: Point Edwards Building 10 @ 50 Pine Street, Edmonds,Wa. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith, My only suggestion would be for you to contact Mr. Kernen Lien in the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 or e- mail him if you need further information or have questions on this land -use matter. Thank you. Sincerely, ja,y� spaU*w / Edmonds City Council Assistant 425.771.0248 From: Janis Smith [mailto:jsmith@thevilla.org] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:46 AM To: Spellman, Jana Subject: Re: Point Edwards Building 10 @ 50 Pine Street, Edmonds,Wa. Thank you, Jana. Would you suggest we do something more? Janis and Floyd Smith On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Janis Smith <jsmithgthevilla.org> wrote: Dear City Council Members, My husband and I recently bought a condo at Point Edwards in building #45. After buying we were quite dismayed to learn that the developer had changed paths in regards to finishing the Point Edwards condominium community with a proposal that does not comply with the City of Edmonds' Point Edwards Master Plan. The building is very large with smaller units, and will be five stories high. The architecture does not fit the rest of the development with little roof line modulation, and lots of glass that will cause glare. Environmentally the enlarged above ground parking lot will be an impervious lighted surface, not conducive to the quiet neighborhood we have grown to love. Traffic will increase, as will noise. We'd hate to see what has happened in Ballard, Juanita Beach, Redmond, and Kirkland happen here. Edmonds is one of the last "small towns" on the water near Seattle that still has that small town atmosphere, and that's exactly why people come here to visit and live. Let's keep Edmonds a desirable place to live, work, and visit. Thank you for taking our comments into consideration and for representing us in this matter. Sincerely, Janis and Floyd Smith 45 Pine Street 4204 04�3 Packet Page 560 of 774 City of Edmonds Development services Department Planning Division Attn, Kernen Lien, Associate Planner 1215`h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 4/14/2013 Permit number :20130022 Applicant: Edmonds Pine Street LLC Address: 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, WA 98020: Below are our comments regarding the above',application to build a 85 unit apartment house at 50 Pine Street Edmonds, WA 98020. We have reviewed the most recent plans submitted by the above applicant. Although some changes have been made this building does not "fit' in to the style of the previously erected buildings. The massive increase in glass, the five story fifty eight foot height and the average square footage of nine hundred square feet just does not blend in with three story horizontal / shingle sided prairie style homes with an average square footage of fifteen hundred square feet. His structure as presented is an apartment house verses a condominium home development. This is definitely not the "vision" that what the developer originally "sold" to the City Of Edmonds. In addition, 70 plus space outside parking spaces do not exist in any of the previously erected 9 buildings. In fact all previous nine buildings units have at least one underground parking space for each home. To emphasize again none of the prior buildings rise 58 feet above the ground at the street level and we do not feel the citizens of Edmonds want such, tall buildings as surely represented with the Port of Edmonds "pulling the plug" on their five story', development. Certainly the residents of Woodway do not want a five story apartment building at one of the entrances to their town. Though the developer is putting the "required: number of parking spaces, we all know that the "overflow parking will move in to Woodway and the surrounding streets. At the present time there are no open parking spaces on Pine Street. When we purchased our home (January 2006) we were "sold" on the idea of a "condominium of architectural blending of ten buildings of similar size, with similar amenities and a place for homeowners to come and purchase with the confidence that when the project was completed it all would blend 0434 Packet Page 561 of 774 together and be a complete homogeneous community. The application for 50 Pine Street does none of these. This is an apartment house. The size of the units tells all. This building does not fit at Pt. Edwards. This application should be declined,, Thank you for taking the time to read our letter. As we will not be in town for the meeting, we felt it necessary to be sure our views were heard. Sincerely �Do a ro 51 Pine Stree' Edmonds, W/ 0435 Packet Page 562 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Clay [cinseattle61@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:51 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: PLN20130011 23320 Hwy 99, Edmonds, Wa Dear Kernen Lien, My name is Clayton Cain and I live directly behind the above address and planned Medical and Dental clinic. My address is 8021 234th St SW, the Breve Condos. Other addresses for the Breve are 8017 and 8025. The complex consists of 65 units. My deck directly overlooks this property. Myself, and others here, have specific concerns about the project and how it will affect our daily lives. 1. The added traffic trying to enter or exit from 234th St SW to Hwy 99 going north or south. The intersection is not controlled, and is at best, hard to navigate now. To get to the north bound bus zone is nearly impossible to cross Hwy 99. 2. The added noise, from cars and people, accessing a 25,000 square foot Medical complex is of special concern. I hope that noise abatement will be addressed between the two properties. Mature or fast growing evergreen plantings to block noise and the view of the business/parking lot would be appreciated. 3. There are currently deciduous trees between the properties that would help block the view/noise during the summer. Once the leaves fall there are 6 months of nothing to block the added business noise. I hope that these would remain in place and that added plantings would augment them. Also are the plans for the project available online? I would be very interested in seeing how the business is going to be located on the property. None of my concerns are to stop or hinder the project, only to make for friendlier neighbors. Thank you for your time. Clayton R Cain 8021 234th St SW #229 Edmonds, WA 98026 cinseattle6l Ryahoo.com 04136 Packet Page 563 of 774 David Inadomi 21603 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Kernen, I am writing this in response to the latest revision of the building proposal for Point Edwards "50 Pine Street". Although I appreciate the modifications to the face of the structures, the fact remains that this vast complex is way too large for the footprint upon which it is scheduled to lie and the accompanying population density associated with this structure is out of character with any of the other buildings of Point Edwards. My house at 21603 Chinook Road, Woodway is the sole residence to the South of the proposed building.. The current Developer's vision is a perverse exaggeration of excess compared to that of the original plan, and this will be extremely deleterious to my everyday life for the following reasons: 1. Views of Puget Sound I find the actual height of the new building difficult to determine in relation to my residence. Some references seem to indicate that it might be lower than that of the previous Developer while others suggest that it will be higher. My sense is that given the fact that the new high rise is slated to be 5 stories tall, it will impair my view to a greater degree than described before. 2. Traffic flow In order to preserve better curb appeal on Pine Street, a majority of the vehicular traffic flow (with attendant pedestrian volume) will be directed towards the enlarged parking lot of 70+ parking spaces directly in front of my residence. This, coupled with the fact that the new building will house primarily apartments rather than condominiums and will therefore have presumably higher turnover rates, most likely will create an abhorrence of noise for me in an otherwise tranquil environment. 3. Concealment The almost 4 foot easement (which was granted without ever consulting me or even discussing the impact of such an action) towards my property line along the rockery to accommodate the enormous hardscape parking lot essentially precludes any meaningful vegetation to be planted to conceal the complex by sight or sound. Basically, for any real privacy to be obtained, a majority of the plantings will have to occur on my side of the property at considerable cost to me. Additionally, the lighting necessary to illuminate such a large parking area will only add to the feel of looking at a "shopping mall parking lot" 24/7, not to mention the lights shining into my house all night long. 0437 Packet Page 564 of 774 To summarize the shortcomings of this proposal as it pertains to me: I will most likely have a worse view of Puget Sound with a majority of noisy traffic directed towards a gigantic, well lit parking lot in front of my residence without a reasonable plan for concealing the complex unless it is out of my pocket. I moved to my current residence with my family in 2004. At that time, the Developer had no such grandiose ideations as the one proposed currently. Had I known then what I know now, I would have absolutely considered alternate locations in which to live. Though this may not meet the legal definition as such, this certainly has the feel of a "bait and switch" to me as a consumer. There is a simple answer to this entire dilemma. Revert back to the original Developer's vision/proposal. Fewer units = less traffic = smaller parking lots = more available space for vegetative concealment. I strongly urge you to vote against this current proposal. Respectfully, David Inadomi 0438 Packet Page 565 of 774 April 11, 2013 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: Let this serve as written record our opposition to the building proposed for 50 Pine Street in Edmonds, WA. After review of the new building plan for this property it appears design, density, height limits, & traffic concerns are being disregarded. Our objections are listed below. *The building is too large in size & in the number of residents to occupy such. Does this comply with the City of Edmonds "Point Edwards Master Plan"? We do not believe this was the intent of the city's "Master Plan" for Point Edwards. *The length of the proposed building should be built as two separate buildings, in order to conform to other neighborhood structures. *The towering height of the structure is visually offensive; 71 feet above street level. *Above ground parking for 70 cars adds to additional impervious surface, creating environmental issues associated with such. The lights from the parking lot & in/out vehicle traffic make a huge distraction to the east facing residences of 45 Pine St. Most downtown Edmonds condos & apts. have secure under building parking garages. Why is there an exception for 50 Pine St.? This is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. *As it stands now, parking on Pine St. in that neighborhood is inadequate. With a large influx of residents, the safety and congestion in that area should be a major concern for the city. If this is developed as a densely occupied rental building, what is the provision for frequent moving truck traffic? Guest parking on Pine St. is already extremely limited. *In addition, all nearby property values will be adversely affected. Respectfully submitted, Harry & Judith Rutledge 45 Pine St. #106 Edmonds, WA. 98020 425-678-8182 0439 Packet Page 566 of 774 April 10, 2013 Dear Mr Lien, As property owners at Point Edwards, we are strongly opposed to the Building 50 proposal. Please refer to the existing, approved model of all the buildings which is on display at the Charter Club building. -As a gigantic monolith, Building 50 is an entirely different concept from that approved model. Edmonds has a building height restriction of 35 feet for the purpose of keeping the city architecturally harmonious and preserving view and light corridors. The proposed building site is very steep both north -south and east -west. As a result we are faced with a proposed building height of 58 feet (70 feet above street level) because of an "average height" clause. This is very clever and contrived mathematics but it totally ignores the spirit of the 35 foot rule. Because of the steepness of the building site and the vast outdoor asphalt parking lot, the project would have a serious water runoff problem with a large percentage of the site impervious to water absorption. The above mentioned and very large asphalt parking lot would destroy the possibility for green open space. Basically it trades asphalt for living green plants and lawns. The parking lot lights would greatly reduce any night sky vision. Building 50 would greatly increase traffic on Pine Street which is already heavily used. The intersection with HWY 104 would become much more congested and, as is, it's very hazardous. Street parking for guests of all the buildings would become difficult to impossible. If this massive building is allowed to be built, it will become a dominant blight on the southern Edmonds skyline for the next half century or more. As presented to our board of directors, the developer stated that he wanted densely configured rental units because condos were not selling. Since they came up with that plan, the real estate market has changed. Now people are looking for condos, not rentals. You would be doing the developer a favor by denying this design and steering him back to the original approved design of two smaller, compatible buildings with larger condos and underground parking. Sincerely, Rhys and Gail Wilkie 0440 Packet Page 567 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds Dear Mr. Lien, April 9, 2013 I am writing, as an owner -resident of Point Edwards, about the new proposal for Building 50. (New building permit control number PLN20130022.) I believe that the new plan is not in accordance with the letter nor the spirit and intent of the City of Edmonds Point Edwards Master Plan. Firstly, the proposed building would be gigantic -five stories tall, with many small apartment units. This means more traffic and congestion than the original Point Edwards plan could accomodate as it is now. This congestion will spill onto the rest of the development and the roadways, causing more traffic in the already tight roads and insufficient parking already in place here. The smaller size of the individual units will allow for more people, but probably as rentals, not as owner -occupied units. A nine hundred square foot unit is quite tiny and not very appealing to home -buyers! And more rental units will make for more turnover and moving truck congestion on an ongoing basis. Our roadways cannot accomodate this type of congestion. Because of our spacious units, many of my neighbors and I call Point Edwards our home. Of course there are other reasons, such as its beautifully manicured grounds, views and amenities, but a large part of feeling this is our home comes from the units themselves being comfortable and not claustrophobic. Many of us have downsized to move into Point Edwards, and we've been able to keep some our treasured keepsakes because the units are a good size. My 2 bedroom home is about 1700 square feet. The new building as proposed is not, for many reasons, what many condo buyers are looking for in a new home. Whereas some concerns for uniformity with the other buildings here were addressed in the new proposal, this new, larger building will still be an eyesore for Edmonds. It will dominate the whole development and will easily be the focus of attention when seen from Edmonds. It will have more windows which leads to more glare. It will, furthermore, cut down on the views of neighbors in the adjacent community of Woodway. The building height is an issue that needs to be examined in detail. This larger building plan includes an outdoor parking lot, which I find very unattractive, as well. I'd rather have more greenery than an unsecured parking lot in that space. I understand that there is a financial incentive for the developer to build as large a building as possible with as many units as it can possibly hold. But I have chosen to live here because of the previous plans that were followed in building the community up till now. These plans included green spaces, underground garages, shorter buildings, spacious units and architectural symmetry and uniformity. I am asking you to please visualize what a disruption in continuity this new proposal will present if actualized. I hope that you will do what is good for the whole community. I am so glad to have this process whereby I have a voice in the further planning of beautiful Point Edwards. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for taking into account the feelings and desires of all of us who have invested in Point Edwards and in Edmonds in general as our home. And thank you for considering the voices of those in Edmonds who do not live at Point Edwards but who also have a say in the development of their city. Many hold the same opinions and feelings as I do about Point Edwards. Maureen Rivelle, 51 Pine Street, Unit 207, Edmonds, WA 98020 0441 Packet Page 568 of 774 *avid & Bonnie Huneke 61 Pine Street #202, Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: New building permit control number - PLN20130022 (50 Pine Street) We are writing to express our deep concern about Edmonds Architectural Design Board's review of the requested proposal for a new building at Point Edwards, 50 Pine Street. Our concerns are many, some of which we have outlined below. 1. Our main concern is the significant increases in traffic on the sole access road to Point Edwards and north Woodway from Edmonds. 85 more units with about 150 more residents, their cars and their guests' cars on Pine Street will present too much traffic, too many safety concerns for residence, too much congestion and over- crowding of already insufficient on -street parking. What provision for moving - company truck traffic, inevitable given that 50 Pine will most likely be a densely - occupied rental apartment building, has been made? We honestly do not believe that either Edmonds or Woodway Police Departments, nor the Fire Marshall, is pleased about this limited access to so many residence. Let alone the real possibility of restricted space for large fire trucks with many cars parked on a very narrow roadway. 2. The Proposal for 50 Pine calls for an above -ground 70-car parking lot with lights in lieu of secure and hidden underground parking. This deprives Edmonds/Woodway citizens of cherished green space. The existing Point Edwards structures, and the vast majority of downtown Edmonds residences, have secure under -building parking garages for its residents. Why would the City of Edmonds make an exception for 50 Pine Street? 70 car parking lot above ground does not conform with the rest of our beautiful Edmonds bowl area. Plus, where will overflow vehicles park when the street parking on Pine is full? Woodway streets? Bet our neighbors in Woodway would not be too pleased with Edmonds cars using their streets for parking. Edmonds is a better neighbor than that. 3. Street parking is a very serious problem and concern for safety. Just this past weekend, without the addition of cars from 50 Pine, there was not a street parking spot to be found in all of Point Edwards. Cars were parked along Pine street, all the way to the Hatchery. One car was actually parked across the walkway by the entrance to Woodway. With all of the pedestrian foot traffic, (from Point Edwards, Woodway, and the numerous individuals using this location to watch birds), having cars parked anywhere and everywhere, which restricts sight of drivers, is a serious safety issue. The "parking/traffic study" can say what it wants - it is simply wrong, and does not 0442 Packet Page 569 of 774 *avid & Bonnie Huneke 61 Pine Street #202, Edmonds, WA 98020 meet the "Reasonable Person" doctrine. In other words, any reasonable person knows that adding approximately 160 plus vehicles is a problem - - - both for parking, and certainly for traffic flow. 4. 50 Pine Street parking lot will be impervious surface. Serious runoff issues could arise. This is a safety issue - and could adversely effect not only Point Edward's residence, but the surrounding hillsides (think mudslides) and the Edmonds Marsh and wildlife area. 5. Simply put, the proposed building 50 Pine does not comply with the City of Edmonds' Point Edwards Master Plan. A densely -populated apartment building with an above- ground parking lot ignores the letter and spirit of the City's Master Plan for Point Edwards. Building 50 Pine as proposed will be too densely -populated, with the average apartment size of around 900 square feet. This is compared to an average of approximately 1400 square feet in the other nine Point Edwards buildings. The City of Edmonds' Master Plan for Point Edwards assumes that the size of Point Edwards' units will be in the 1500 square feet range. 6. The structure will be five stories high (58 feet), towering above the street over 71 feet, dominating the Point Edwards hillside and the views from Harbor Square and downtown Edmonds. The Proposal lists the building height calculation as 40 feet. Again, the calculated height does not reflect the sWirit of the Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. These are just a few of our concerns, but a sufficient number that we hope the Edmonds Architectural Design Board and Edmonds' City Management takes our concerns seriously. It is important for the city of Edmonds, especially the downtown area, that the proposal for 50 Pine Street be rejected as submitted. The building should conform with the ORIGINAL City of Edmonds' Master Plan for Point Edwards. Thank you for taking into consideration our concerns. David & Bonnie Huneke 61 Pine Street #202 Edmonds, WA 98020 0443 Packet Page 570 of 774 Er-rdwWrow Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner MMMITERP,, Subject: PLN20130022 Sir: We would like to voice our concerns regarding the recently revised building proposal, dated March 26 2013, for 50 Pine St. in the Point Edwards Development. We feel that the developer has made very few, and mostly cosmetic, modifications from his previous plan. He has not made any real attempt to reduce the impact of such an enormous structure or of the large paved footprint of the combined building and above -ground parking lot. He has not addressed the impact on the already inadequate street parking and traffic congestion that such a large high -density apartment complex will impose on the immediate neighborhood. His proposal is totally out of place for the Point Edwards Community and for the City of Edmonds and will only result in cheapening the "Edmonds experience" both for city residents and for our many out of town visitors. Specifically, we are of the opinion that the building height (stated as 40' in the builder's plans but realistically over 70' at street level at the East end) is in violation of City of Edmonds height restrictions and the City's Master Plan. It will be an eyesore dominating the southern skyline of the Edmonds bowl, highly visible from the downtown core, the ferry landing and the entire waterfront. The allowance of a surface -level parking lot with 74 spaces is much too large for the available land area. There will be very little unpaved ground; surface -water runoff will likely become a problem. All other structures in the Point Edwards Development provide underground parking for all residents. The proposed parking lot will be a noise and all-night lighting nuisance for nearby neighbors. The developer's summary states that the above -ground parking lot will be shielded from view on Pine St. That 0444 Packet Page 571 of 774 is inconsistent with the architectural plans showing the parking lot entrance (and the resulting traffic) highly visible from both the southern end of Point Edwards building 45 and from nearby Woodway neighbors. The builder shows "green belts" which will be "left in place" to the South and South -East of the structure and lot but the fact is that these "green belts" are neither owned or controlled by the developer and are out of his control. In summary, the City of Edmonds neither needs, nor should it allow, the construction of an enormous 85 unit apartment building which will be visible from throughout the Edmonds bowl, will impact traffic and parking congestion, and will lessen property values. Our City is a unique gem in the Puget Sound area and should be kept that way. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Keith and Janet Dawson 45 Pine St. #302 Edmonds, WA 98020 dawsik(@comcast.net 0445 Packet Page 572 of 774 Carolynne Harris, Edmondsfroglady@hotmail.com Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Kernen, We own a townhouse at 65 Pine Street at Pt Edwards, which is across the street from the new proposed building. I have never been happy about this building, even when it was going to be as first planned as Pine Street is already impacted to the max and there is very little parking on the street, plus it is a narrow street and people from Woodway Park use it as well. I do not feel the proposed building meets any of the standards of style, size, height or architecture we paid for and were promised in the beginning when we purchased. We are already disliked by half of Edmonds. Why make it worse? Fortunately it isn't a sewer treatment plant. I am against the new plan as I was the old plan. The city has made a lot of mistakes in allowing inappropriate building, including taking wetlands and allowing contractors to build on them. If the proposed building is allowed Pt. Edwards it will no longer be a village, it will appear to be a ghetto and when too many people are packed into a space there is a ghetto mentality. Open space would be my first choice. A building the size of 65 Pine St. my second and probably only option considered. Thank you for your work. Carolynne Harris kernen.lien(a)edmondswa.gov. counciladmin(a)-ci.edmonds.wa.us. 0446 Packet Page 573 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: Ruff Sharon [ruff.sharon@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 6:55 PM To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Proposed Building at 50 Pine Street Dear Mr. Lien, I live across from the proposed building at 50 Pine Street. When I moved here nearly six years ago, my view was of trees and birds. Eventually, the trees were cut down, and the birds disappeared. However, the eagles in the remaining fir trees provided entertainment and solace. Mostly, I enjoyed the quiet of this lovely place. I knew that eventually another building would rise up across the street, but I assumed it would look much like the building I live in which is non -intrusive and relatively small with some 36 units. Now I understand that the building may bear no resemblance to the building proposed years ago. I do not believe the proposed building should be built for the following reasons: • The building is twice as large as originally proposed and it will not blend in with the surrounding structures. • The increased traffic on the street next to me will be unacceptable and dangerous. Pine Street is narrow, especially with the parked cars on the street. I can imagine increased noise and virtual traffic jams created by so many additional cars. I have seen children from Woodway riding their bicycles down this street and think the increased traffic could seriously threaten their safety. • The above ground parking proposed will require blacktop or concrete, preventing a way for runoff to seep into the soil. If this happens, my retaining wall may be threatened and my terrace may be ,flooded So far, the settling pond on the property has been able to deal with the current runoff, but with a new massive building without an underground garage in the plans, I fear we would be creating a formula for catastrophe. • The increased lighting surrounding the building and the height of the building itself will discourage wildlife from inhabiting the area. Eagles, frogs, hummingbirds, dragonflies and other wildlife will leave the area because of the massive size of the building and its lighting requirements. The two eagles and their offspring will surely be impacted with the proposed structure. Our amenities center nearby is called The Eagle's Nest. It is sad that the reference to the actual nest will be only a reference and not a reality. • Finally, the value of my property will be severely reduced. I do not expect the city of Edmonds to be responsible for this last condition, but surely you might be able to do something about the rest of my concerns above. At least, I hope so. Sincerely, Sharon Ruff 55 Pine Street, Unit 212 425-776-6778 0447 Packet Page 574 of 774 Why the Stakes are So High 2 0448 Packet Page 575 of 774 A , A April 26, 2013 City of Edmonds Kernen Lien, Senior Planner 121 5ch Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Permit 4 20120040 Re: Appeal of DNS for "50- Pine Street" and Recommendation that a MDNS be issued. Dear Mr. Lien: My family lives in Woodway on Chinook Road just south of Point Edwards. We usually use Pine St. for ingress/egress from our home. Over the years we have observed Point Edwards growing and evolving. From my vantage point, thus far, the complex has been true to the original design intent and in my opinion overall the project has been unobtrusive. Now all of a sudden the developer seeks to diverge from the original design concept of, condos - adding small apartments, outside parking, and most imposing - a 5 story building. The new Proposed Building 10 is of a completely different character than the rest of the complex. If ECDC 20.11.030A is to have any meaning whatsoever -avoiding conflict with the existing and planned character of the surrounding area -this project should not be allowed in its current configuration. I recognize that the economy is not what it was. This doesn't give the developer the right to change the entire concept for the project. Consider the following: The developer now wants to add more extra floor units, parking stalls and exterior lights — more than those that were originally permitted. Isn't the City making itself susceptible to a lawsuit if it allows the Developer to change the context for the project as is being done here? Clearly, the ADB has the authority and sufficient reason to reject this proposal. If not because of the S.E.P.A., then certainly under the City of Edmonds Municipal code. For the reasons articulated alone, we urged the city to do the right thing, avoid liability and 209 Dayton Street, Suite 105, Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 774-0138 Fax (425) 672-7867 Packet Page 576 of 774 triad@triadia4wgrooup.com reject this proposal. Sincerely, /s Charles M. Greenberg 209 Dayton Street, Suite 105, Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 774-0138 Fax (425) 672-7867 triad@triAMsrPoup.eom Packet Page 577 of 774 Lien, Kernen From: John Lampe 011ampe@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:31 PM To: Lien, Kernen Cc: 'Lynn Lampe'; reidshoenfeld@gmail.com; jell@yocom.org Subject: PLN20130022 We reside at 65 Pine Street #209, Edmonds WA 98020. We wish to maintain status as "Parties of Record" with respect to this permitting process. We are currently not able to attend the May 15, 2013 scheduled public hearing on this permit/project. We use this email to enter our position with respect to this project/permit as being consistent with the positions presented by Mr. Jeffrey Yocom and Catherine Yocom as presented in their April 23, 2013 letter to you. Please consider our comments formally submitted for the record of this hearing. Please inform me by return email of any additional/alternative actions we might be required to pursue to effect our intentions as above stated. Thank you for your consideration. John B Lampe and Lynn L Lampe, 65 Pine Street #209 Edmonds, WA 98020. Telephone: 206-295-8504 04151 Packet Page 578 of 774 May 3, 2013 Mr Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, I am in the process of buying a condo at 61 Pine Street at Pt. Edwards. I think the existing complexes are beautiful, well built and well maintained. I think they were intelligently designed to take advantage of the fabulous view but not tower over the landscape. The proposed design of 50 Pine Street is out of scale with the other buildings at Pt. Edwards. At a proposed five stories, it is much too high, at 85 units it is much too large, while at 900 sq ft, the proposed units are much too small. No building should be built there without adequate underground parking for the residents. Any building there should also be primarily resident owned, not rentals. Pine Street cannot accommodate the traffic that such a large project as the one proposed would certainly bring. Not only would we be losing too much green space to a much too large, too densely populated complex, but the noise and traffic of that many more residents and their guests is out of balance with the exiting units. I urge you to turn down this "revised" plan for the 50 Pine Street development. Any plan eventually receiving the go ahead from the City Council needs to be smaller and in keeping with the rest of the Pt. Edwards community. Thank you for your consideration, Janet L. Lewis 0452 Packet Page 579 of 774 ml WEBER THOMPSON - 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS ADB MEETING ADDENDUM MAY 15, 2013 EDMONDS PINE STREET, LLC TRIAD nssacin�Es Packet Page 580 of 774 0453 0454 Packet Page 581 of 774 e`er �i _ r EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I ADB APPROVED CONCEPT (2006) 05. 15. 13 -�W---Rftt WEBER THOMPSON 0455 Packet Page 582 of 774 www.weberthompson.com EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM PUGET SOUND PROPOSED BUILDING 05. 15. 13 www.weberthompson.com 21 -�W---Rftt WEBER THOMPSON 0456 Packet Page 583 of 774 7- V FENESTRATION & MASSING DIAGRAM r �..,� i. A � _ Im f' lid Val. EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM NORTH @a EDMONDS MARSH TRAIL 05. 15. 13 u1 i Y 3 ! Ju 3 r f. • � ki+� _� •ter s ul -�W---Rftt WEBER THOMPSON 0457 Packet Page 584 of 774 www.weberthompson.com EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM MARINA / ADMIRAL WAY 05. 15. 13 www.weberthompson.com 4 WEBER THOMPSON 0458 Packet Page 585 of 774 WINDOW MULLION COLOR NI BUILDING ACCENTS WINDOW 7� *ALL COLOR SAMPLES REPRESENT FIBER CEMENT SIDING I O F14 DECK RAIL ASSEMBLY EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I MATERIALS PALETTE / MODULATED ROOF DESIGN hapter 16 Community Development Cade (E ft ) Exampfes of MDdubled Roof Designs Note: Diagrams have been taken from BC section of the code which has a 25height limit. The 50 Pine Street project is zoned MP1 which allows for a maximum roof height of 35' pluaa 5' modulation bonus (rieigI bonus modulation diagrams could not be found at the MP 1 section of the E G D ), —t lNmit wed rncAtatetI root 7== P7� -It haq4t built ■ Nil 05. 15. 13 5 �.'A FDIC wr rtixu: k roof *30-k Itlrnt w9i wd&eh root 25- t 1*0 Wit —�W---Rftt WEBER THOMPSON 0459 Packet Page 586 of 774 www.weberthompson.com •_. DECEMBER 2012 EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I NORTHWEST VIEW COMPARISON (2012 ADB AND CURRENT) ice- 7•' .. ;.- . 105.15.1315.13 www.weberthompson.com 61 -�W---Rftt WEBER THOMPSON 0460 Packet Page 587 of 774 I I ■i�i' �s' li�liiil�rK �r -- •. �r� �r __-- �Mimi OEM doll .�met� ■■ �- .00 TI:.. \_ 1� P DECEMBER 2012 EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I NORTHEAST VIEW COMPARISON (2012 ADB AND CURRENT) 05. 15. 13 www.weberthompson.com 7 II , MAY 2013 -�W-_-Rftt WEBER THOMPSON 0461 Packet Page 588 of 774 DECEMBER 2012 sr r , lQdrsr -" EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I SOUTHWEST VIEW COMPARISON (2012 ADB AND CURRENT) ►."_' � -- �_ ��+' `tiff_ 05. 15. 13 www.weberthompson.com 8 WEBER THOMPSON MAY2013 0462 Packet Page 589 of 774 PLN20130022 Point Edwards Building 10 Public Hearing Architectural Design Board May 15, 2013 Outline • History • Proposal Overview • Staffs Recommendations • Public Comments Point Edwards • Point Edwards Master Plan — Text Changes: MP1 and MP2 Zone (CDC-2002-37) — Rezone (R-2002-38) • Original Development Plan (ADB-2002-226) • Increase in Total Units (ADB-2005-49) EDP 0 0fm . re WNTSM KljwjA M w 0 1;A-' - P Q.: -77- =1- Z-- F'INE:STnEET RtJILDINQ ICE . . . . ......... PINE STREET BUILDING low JAIALDING SECTION 9 BLDG. J OE & I O-W Ll POINT EDWA RDS 0466 D(] kc M:y me[IiI_1B7: PHOTO COMPOSITE OF PROPOSEE) BUILDING 10 - ORIGINAL PLAN lifileRs PHOTO COMPOSITE OF PIROPOSED BUILDING 10 -MODIFIED ROOF PLAN { POINT E❑WAR❑5 I PROPOSED ROOF LINE ALTERATION TO BUILDING #10 44�i;R3py n w c PaceiageW€ 0T / /4Mmyrrn xv�p �E6WRHO TriY f EhPERHY890H Building 10: PLN20120040 .-N- AmIlL 3uildina 1 C West 0 East ,T-n. 11K Olt Aw Aw 0469 Packet Pa 596 of 774 -.1 -M IM PLN20120040 to PLN20130022 . • Public Hearing December 19, 2012 (PLN20120040) — Continued Public Hearing and referred to applicant for modifications • SEPA — MDNS issued May 23, 2003 (ADB-2002-226) —Adopted May 2, 2005 (Increased Units) — Condition regarding signalization improvements to the Pine Street/SR-1 04 intersection IM PLN20120040 to PLN20130022 . • Procedural concerns with issuing new SEPA determination • Applicant withdraws PLN20120040 application • "New" application PLN20130022 • SEPA Review — Traffic Impact Analysis — DNS Issued April 12, 2013 ADB Recommendations • Design more consistent with other Point Edwards Development • Additional landscaping for surface parking lot • Consideration of design elements • Sample of proposed materials :gymr.rr@T; West IlBrac"USI� 06 East C C � r U. aci 2. 4 0473 o„ Packet Pa a 600 of 774 Height — Modulated Design Landscaping _7111,11"I 0 ti � T777 AhyAh Step Down • Staff recommended eastern portion of Building 10 be stepped down to four stories • ... buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside" PEMP, Pg.14 • "Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of building along steep sloping sites." (pg.96) • "Retain a connection with the scale and character..." (pg. 95) • Design Objectives for Massing (pg. 97) • "Reinforce existing building patterns found in Edmonds." (Edmonds Comp. Plan, pg.98) umo(] dajS Public Comments • Parking • Number and size of units • Traffic impacts Questions? Richard E. Gifford PLLC 23901 Edmonds Edmonds, •98026 RE: PLN20130022 Testimony on behalf of Edmonds Pine Street LLC, applicant May 15, 2013-50 Pine Street (Building 10)--General Design Review Public Hearing before the Edmonds Architectural Design Board Good evening. My name is Rick Gifford. My business address is 23901 Edmonds Way and my residence address is 9309 — 192"d Place SW, both in Edmonds. I represent the property owner and applicant, Edmonds Pine Street LLC. My client John Goodman, the principal in Edmonds Pine Street LLC is here tonight. I also would like to introduce the project architects, Joe Kolmer and Myer Harrell of Weber Thompson, landscape architect Forrest Jammer of Tom Rengstorf and Associates, and Rick Tomkins of Triad Associates, the civil engineers for the project. Mr. Kolmer and Mr. Jammer will present the details of the design to you and Mr. Tomkins will speak briefly to some of the technical issues that have come up in public comments. We all will be available to answer any questions Board members may have about the proposal. Before we move into the substantive presentation, I want to supply some relevant background and context as a framework for tonight's hearing. We would like to reserve up to 15 minutes for rebuttal after public testimony has been received. • • • The structure planned for this site has been generically labeled "Building 10" for the past decade. For ease of reference and familiarity, we sometimes refer to it by that name, or by the property address, 50 Pine Street. Nine multi -family buildings already have been erected in Point Edwards, plus two amenity buildings for use by residents. As an aside, the applicant notified the Point Edwards homeowner's association late last year that this building will not be part of that association. This step was taken in response to concerns expressed by the association board and some Point Edwards residents that access by Building 10 residents to amenity facilities owned by the association might overtax those facilities. The history of Building 10 is lengthy. This is the second public hearing for the project in the last five months, and the fourth time overall that this Board has been involved in a public design review process affecting the development of 50 Pine Street. 0481 Packet Page 608 of 774 Building 10 was part of the initial 2003 development review for Point Edwards. A skeletal concept of the building was shown at that time. Since then, the Board has considered specific building designs for the 50 Pine Street site on three occasions, most recently last December 19th in a public hearing. As a point of reference, I have some of the images presented to the ADB by the Point Edwards development team in 2003. The design packet was considerably less sophisticated that today's materials, and was more of a broad overview, since site -specific designs were not being presented. As you can see from the image on the screen, Building 10 was shown on the site as a large, hinged building angled across the Pine Street loop generally from west to east, with a surface parking lot behind it, on the Woodway side to the south. There were rough cross sections for a conceptual Building 10, and even a view perspective from the south property line abutting Woodway. All of these images depicted the building as broadly envisioned at that time, with four above -ground residential stories on the downhill side of each wing and two stories visible on the uphill (Woodway) side. The current proposal resembles the original Building 10 concept in structural form, layout, and scale, however, the new building has a smaller footprint and less mass overall. It also is toed, or stepped into the hillside, with only two visible floors on the south side of the property toward Woodway, and more visible floors on the north (downhill side), much like the original concept, which was for two four-story building wings with the eastern wing somewhat lower in roof elevation than the western wing. The general concept was changed in 2006 to accommodate a five -floor east wing, as I will discuss, and the current proposal retains the adjusted building form. 295 multi -family living units were proposed for the entire project in 2003, although the MP 1 zoning allowed 419 units on the 44.5 acre site. The maximum density later was increased to 350 units by this Board's action in 2005, still well below the code limit. In 2006, the Point Edwards developer submitted the first specific design proposal for a building at 50 Pine Street. It initially mirrored the 2003 concept, with two-four story wings and different roof elevations for the two wings. A design change was proposed for a level roof with the western and eastern wings at the same elevation, allowed under the City's codes and development standards and not prohibited by the master plan or approved design guidelines and planning policies The re -designed building with five residential stories in the east wing and four stories in the west wing contained 69 units. Among other things, site context views were presented to staff and the ADB clearly showing the differences between the original stepped roof and the proposed level roof. These depictions are included as Attachment 17 to the Staff Report and are shown on the screen. To orient you, Building 8, 1 believe, is seen under construction in the foreground in front of 50 Pine Street to the north and below the Pine Street loop. After formal design review, the ADB entered the finding that the revised building design as presented was "consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies", and approved the change from a stepped roof and four stories in each wing, to a level roofed 2 0482 Packet Page 609 of 774 Building 10 consisting of five floors in the east wing and four floors in the west wing. For the Board's finding and decision, I refer you to Attachment 6 to the Staff Report. The north elevation of the approved 2006 design from Pine Street shown at sheet 45 of your design packets and on the screen, also was part of the design package reviewed by the Board. This was the first detailed, site -specific building design approved by the Board for 50 Pine Street. A building permit for the approved design was issued in 2008, but expired. Additional elevation drawings for the approved Building 10 from 2008 are included in your design packets for purposes of comparison. 2012 Re -design —Level roof; five -story east wing; little staff comment A second design proposal for this building was presented to the City a year ago for pre - application review. The 2012 design was similar in size and layout to the approved 2006 building, though somewhat lower in elevation, with a smaller building footprint and significantly reduced mass (more than 25% less bulk than the approved 2006 version). The building was visually different —more current, with cleaner lines and less activity in the fagade, for example, but based on the building framework previously supported by staff and approved by the ADB in 2006. Like its 2006 predecessor, the new building included a level roof and a five -story east wing. The governing MP 1 zoning standards and relevant Comprehensive Plan provisions, including applicable urban design guidelines, also were unchanged. In May 2012, in preparation for the first of two all -hands pre -application meetings, the architects supplied staff with the information and materials relating to the proposal required under City Publication #1358 dealing with the pre-app process, including site and floor plans, unit layouts, and similar project information. In addition to the required elements, the architects provided three-dimensional color renderings of the proposed building showing architectural and design elements, such as colors, siding, materials, trim, fenestration, decking, fagade articulation, and roof features and modulation. The proposed design was vetted twice, in May and again in September 2012. The architects provided the same information each time, with appropriate changes and more design refinement supplied in September. The design was adjusted after the first meeting and the unit count was reduced from 97 to 89 units, in accordance with the approved project density of 350 units and development standards. The exterior appearance of the building, its size, its roofline, and other key elements remained essentially the same throughout the six-month pre-app review period. No changes were suggested or required by staff and no serious issues or concerns arose. Staff noted two landscape features that it deemed significant changes from the original 2003 proposal requiring additional ADB review under a specific 2003 approval condition. There were no further comments, criticisms, or suggestions relating to the architectural style of the building or its design during the September 2012 pre-app meeting or in the written summary of that meeting prepared by Mr. Lien. The pre -application process —for which the City charges a fee— is outlined in the City's handout #858. The purpose is to extract necessary information from applicants and to then inform them of significant substantive and procedural issues early in the process. I have yellow -highlighted 0 0483 Packet Page 610 of 774 the key language. The idea is timely disclosure of major items to help applicants navigate the City's permit and approval maze. In other words, to avoid bad surprises and since its PRE-app, especially surprises late in the game. The pre-app process only works as intended to the extent there is full mutual disclosure, sharing of accurate information, and dialogue. In this case, the applicant more than did its part. Beginning last May, the project architects provided all information required under Publication #658, plus supplementary information specifically designed to give staff a clear and accurate impression of the proposed building, its design qualities, its size and scale, and its placement on the site and in relation to the project and the broader surroundings. The color perspective images now showing on the screen gave staff a comprehensive view and understanding of the project. The first set of color images were part of the May 2012 pre -application submittal, and were left with the City together will all other submitted materials. The second set of images were refined after the May meeting and show more design detail in terms of colors, fenestration, roof design, facade modulation, and other building features and shapes. The basic design, layout, scale, shape and orientation of the proposed building changed little over the course of the pre -application review, and staff gave no indication that further change would be recommended. The altered landscape elements were identified and signaled for ADB review. That was it. Understandably, the applicant was optimistic given the extent and depth of project information shared with the City over a six-month assessment, the limited comments from staff, and the close connection with the 2006 approval. The building itself met all zoning, bulk, parking, and other standards, and only needed design approval from this Board. Although staff provided very little comment on design, the pre -application discussions did allow the parties to confirm the correct number of total units at 350 for the project (staff at first mistakenly believed the project still was limited to 295 units). It also served to identify the two landscaping changes that would need to be assessed by the ADB. Staff also verified (though incorrectly) that the City could and would rely on its SEPA analysis from 2002-2003 and the previously issued MDNS for the Point Edwards project so that a new SEPA review and determination was not required. There were some procedural and other misfires, but we eventually got things straightened out with staff and determined that the design review would be in the context of a public hearing before the ADB. The application was submitted in early November last year. Little had changed over the period of review and scrutiny by staff, except that the proposed unit count was lowered from 97 to 89 units, which staff expressly confirmed was allowable under the Code and master plan approval. The City received numerous comment letters and emails leading up to the December hearing, most from Point Edwards residents. The adjoining Town of Woodway did not submit comments or participate in the hearing. Many of the points raised, such as unit count, unit size, apartments versus condominiums, parking and traffic matters, and such, were understandable questions from the existing residents, but were beyond the scope of the ADB's review. By way of reminder, the new Building 10 came back to the ADB last December under two express conditions of its 2003 approval: 9 0484 Packet Page 611 of 774 The first of those conditions states that staff shall confirm the landscape plan has not significantly changed from the current proposal or it must return to the Board for final approval; and The second cited condition requires staff to confirm that the materials and colors used are consistent with the design of the development or they must be brought back to the Board for final approval These were the conditions cited by staff then and again tonight. Mr. Lien sets them out on page one of both his December 13, 2012 and May 9, 2013 Staff Reports. As I stated on the record at the December 19, 2012 hearing, and reiterate tonight, we assert the scope of the Board's review authority is defined by and limited to these conditions, and framed by them. They call for and authorize only the Board's reconsideration of landscaping changes and variations in building color and materials. With all due respect, we submit that these targeted conditions do not allow the City and this Board to re -open and fly -speck all aspects of the project. Staff has gone far afield, and the applicant has not objected, while reserving its rights, so long as the additional matters discussed are reasonably related to design aesthetics and are not unduly burdensome or overreaching. This remains the applicant's position: reasonable accommodation in an effort to reach an acceptable design for Building 10 to complete the build out of the master planned development. It was in this spirit that the applicant received the Board's several comments at the end of the December hearing and addressed all of them in the requested re -design of Building 10, whether or not they technically fell within the scope of the enumerated review conditions. After prolonged scrutiny by staff in the design review process without any substantive comments, the December 13, 2012 Staff Report for the Planning Division was quite a surprise. It was issued only six days ahead of the public hearing and made an unannounced U-turn. Mr. Lien for the first time identified several design questions and criticisms not brought to the architect's or applicant's attention in a timely fashion during pre-app review. After flagging only two landscape matters for review during the pre-app examination, and acknowledging that building colors appeared acceptable, Mr. Lien recommended that the Board require changes to make the design more consistent with the surrounding project in a number of different aspects. The staff comments were so tardy that there was no time or opportunity to make adjustments, and we wanted to receive the Board's assessment and input on the design issues. The public hearing went forward as schedule and the applicant presented the design that it had been discussing with staff for seven months without known objection. In addition to Mr. Lien's remarks and the applicant's presentation of the design proposal, there was extensive public comment, after which the Board asked questions and discussed the proposed design before offering constructive criticisms and design suggestions, as shown in the excerpt from the approved minutes of the December 19, 2012 hearing. The Board adopted some of Mr. Lien's points in the staff report and asked the applicant to consider certain design elements and aesthetics to make the building more consistent with existing Point Edwards buildings. 0 0485 Packet Page 612 of 774 The applicant accepted the Board's design input and the architects went to work to further refine the design proposal accordingly. Considerable effort has been made to account for and incorporate the Board's input and accommodate a more integrated design philosophy while retaining architectural diversity and a dynamic building signature as encouraged by the design guidelines. The architects will explain how the resulting proposal aligns with the urban design guidelines as a whole, appropriately balances the natural tension in the guidelines between uniformity and uniqueness, and satisfies related design considerations within the Board's purview. To this point, the applicant has not stood on its entitlements under the strict terms of the governing land use codes and policies and has not insisted on strict conformance by the City with its own approval conditions. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to allow a broader assessment by the Board that has extended well beyond the specific review conditions identified and cited by staff, and remains willing to accommodate the City's reasonable interests, even though they may go beyond what is lawfully permissible for the City to require or impose. In this spirit, the applicant proceeded with an extensive re -design of the building in response to your comments and as reflected in the materials in your packets. The objective was to address all reasonable points in an effort to better satisfy the City and its citizens and to provide a more consistent and pleasing building. We will continue to cooperate with the City, as we have thus far, but there are limits to what is reasonable and the applicant cannot be expected to address extraneous conditions that impose undue burdens on the project. Returning to the comments offered by the Board after the December 2012 hearing, Mr. Kolmer and Mr. Jammer will demonstrate how these points have been addressed in the new design before you tonight. Technically, this is a new application and these are new proceedings, but we have relied heavily on the guidance previously offered by staff and this Board in re -vamping the design and formulating the proposal presented to you this evening. 2013 Re -designed Building 10 In mid -January, while the architects were busy revamping the building's design, staff alerted us to newly discovered information and changes in the City's position regarding key review elements dealing with SEPA assessment and traffic impacts. Mr. Lien summarizes the City's discoveries on pages 2 and 3 of his current Staff Report and the City's resulting determinations that a new SEPA review would be needed and an updated traffic study for the proposed building also would be required. We were surprised and disappointed by these late revelations, but worked with the City to determine the best way to deal with them. In order to avoid potential procedural pitfalls, the applicant concluded, with the City's concurrence, to withdraw its pending application and re -submit a revised design proposal responsive to the Board's input as a new application. We knew this would cost time and expense in the short run, but concluded it would result in more appropriate and constructive on 0486 Packet Page 613 of 774 public process. The pending application was withdrawn in late March and a new application filed conforming to the City's latest requirements. That brings us to the proposal before you tonight. The design presented in your packets reflects the Board's commentary and conclusions at the December 2012 public hearing. While technically and procedurally a new application, in terms of design input and the substance of the proposal, it is a continuation of a process that began in 2003, became more definitive and specific in 2006, was re -instituted a year ago, and has evolved through an extensive pre - application review process to the 2012 design submittal now modified as directed by the Board in December. This iteration is the third specific design proposal for Building 10 at 50 Pine Street that you have examined for the City. Like the 2006 and 2012 proposals, this version conforms with all applicable development standards —height, bulk, lot coverage, parking —as the Planning Division's staff report acknowledges. It is demonstrably responsive to all input received from staff and from the Board to date, with the exception of the new issue raised by Mr. Lien's second Staff Report last Thursday. We believe it satisfies the spirit and intent of the Point Edwards Master Plan, City code, and the City's Urban Design Guidelines. The architects will cover the design features and nuances in greater detail, but I want to underscore the extent of the effort by pointing out that in direct response to the Board's comments last time, in order to introduce more facade articulation horizontally and vertically, and correlate more closely with existing Point Edwards residential buildings, the top floor has been stepped back and now offers greater articulation with roof overhangs and other preferenced features, and these changes resulted in the loss of four units and the reduction in the total unit count from 89 to 85. The changes that have been made were based on the direction received from this Board, and they are not insubstantial. In refining the design, the architects didn't go back to the drawing board completely, but they did thoroughly revisit the exterior of the building, its presentation, and its integration with its surroundings, built and unbuilt, within and without the Point Edwards development, as urged by the Board in the December hearing. The overall thrust of the re -design, in accordance with the Board's commentary and first directive, was to make the building's design "more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Pont Edward under the Point Edwards Master Plan". I will leave it to them to articulate more specifically and coherently the style and expression of the modified design and its integration into the surrounding development. It is impossible to satisfy completely every constituency and every competing interest. That is why we have design guidelines to focus our attention and provide a framework for sensible and economically feasible development. Mr. Kolmer will address the relevant guidelines in more detail, but together they call for a mixture of compatibility, sensitivity, creativity, and variety. The design we offer tonight reflects those qualities while respecting the direction given by the Board in December. Work on the revised design began in early January and progressed through completion in March while we continued talking with the City about its modified requirements. After deciding 0487 Packet Page 614 of 774 on our approach to the altered SEPA and traffic elements, we withdrew the pending application and presented the new one to the City on March 26, 2013. Staff did not comment substantively on the new application or the design revisions. The City issued a determination of non -significance under SEPA and gave notice of that action and tonight's hearing. No SEPA appeal was filed in the two -week appeal period. Once again, the City received numerous written comments on the proposal. The Town of Woodway, after not commenting on the 2012 application or appearing at that hearing, submitted written comments containing mitigation requests, most of which are more appropriately SEPA- related issues, but were not raised or appealed in that context. Unfortunately, when the latest Staff Report came out less than a week ago, we again were surprised by unexpected changes introduced by Mr. Lien. He affirmed conformance with zoning and development standards and generally found the revisions responsive to the Board's requirements and acceptable. However, out of the blue, he added a new recommended condition requiring the building to be stepped down, possibly by the removal of a full floor on the east wing. In his statements tonight, Mr. Lien has explained that he did not require removal of a floor of the building, but that he would like to see some break or shift in the building that at least visually gives the impression of a change in elevation from one wing to the other. However explained or characterized, this notion is entirely new. Although Mr. Lien touched on many topics for the first time in his December staff report —items similarly not brought to the applicant's attention in a timely manner —he said absolutely nothing about stepping down the building at any time. Until last Thursday, he never even implied such a requirement. It seems the idea came to him It never came up during the seven months leading up to the first application or in the pre - application meetings. No one raised the idea before, during, or after the December 12 public hearing. No one commented at all about a stepped building. It simply never came up. Probably the closest anyone came was when Vice Chair O'Neill noted during public discussion that building scale was outside the scope of the Board's review. Immediately prior to the Board's summary of its findings, Mr. Lien reiterated that the height of the proposed building "would be consistent with ECDC 16.75.020.13, as well as the Urban Design Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan." In view of the ADB's and the City's express approval of the redesigned building roof in 2006 adding a fifth floor to the east wing and bringing the roof level across both wings of the building, the idea of reverting to the prior concept never crossed the applicants' or apparently anyone else's mind, until Mr. Lien put his latest report together. As was the case with his change of position in the December staff report, despite opportunities, and discussions with him about the pending application and issues on review, he never brought this up and the applicant had no idea it was in his thinking until the May 9 report was issued. The building presented to you in December, and the revised design before you now, followed the expressly approved 2006 format, but in a smaller, less massive package. We do not Packet Page 615 of 774 understand where this idea came from, how it is considered valid by Mr. Lien or anyone at the City, why it now is treated a vital deemed when it was never even mentioned previously, and why in the world staff didn't bring it up at all until now, so far along in a protracted review? The City's planning and permitting processes, augmented by features like pre -application review, are designed and must be applied to maximize consistency, predictability, clarity, and timeliness at all levels. There is a long-standing precedent for this design. The City has had seven years, the last 12 months of which has been spent in active discussion and review of a design based on that precedent, to back track and change direction. It has never attempted to do so, until now, at the applicant's expense and in disregard of its own administrative standards. Substantively and procedurally, this is backwards and without merit or justification. Aesthetically and from a code and planning perspective, it is unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and unfair. Twice, the applicant has been blindsided by new issues raised at the last moment, with no advance notice or opportunity to consider, discuss, or respond. Matters of such magnitude are not easy to address, and, even if feasible, involve considerable time, energy, and resources. The City is not following its own full disclosure and timeliness requirements by introducing a significant and questionable new demand very late in the game. Once again, this matter is before you tonight because of two conditions the Board imposed on the Point Edwards master plan when it approved the project in 2003 relating to major landscape plan changes and to building colors and exterior materials. The December 13, 2012 went well beyond those subjects, but in consideration of the Board's sensible comments, the design was further and more broadly refined for greater consistency with existing Point Edwards buildings. We feel quite strongly that the modified design addresses all points raised by the Board and goes beyond what is required under the review conditions, even as they may be most broadly construed. Aside from the requirement for a stepped building, the suggestions and recommendations in the staff report seem reasonable and achievable. Proposed conditions two through five are acceptable to the applicant and consistent with prior discussions and comments, even though we do not consider some of them obligatory. It appears feasible to add two -three parking stalls along Pine Street as noted in Condition 2; A short fence -like trellis can be installed on top of the rockery at the south property line, so long as it is allowed under the code, and we are willing to talk with the owner of the adjacent residence directly south of the site about appropriate landscape screening for his property as contemplated in Condition 3. Conditions 4 and 5 are mandated by the code. The applicant and architect have to this point listened to all comments from staff and the Board, regardless of whether they are within the scope of the stated review conditions and have attempted to be responsive to all reasonable comments to date. The applicant's aim has been to produce a quality building that conforms with the allowances and requirements of the code and offers an appropriate and compatible design under City guidelines and standards. The design presented tonight is such a plan in our estimation. The applicant has accommodated concerns and issues well beyond the letter and the spirit of the referenced conditions and the design review parameters for these proceedings. K i-•• Packet Page 616 of 774 The revised plan addresses all of the Board's input regarding landscaping and design flavor and amenities. It is for a building similar in exterior materials and color palette to those previously approved in Point Edwardsl that we believe satisfies the referenced design conditions. Other design enhancements have been offered by the applicant in good faith and in the interest of achieving a building that is both distinctive and compatible. As for the specific development standards applicable to the building, the submittal materials demonstrate, as staff again has concluded, that all requirements for height, mass, lot coverage, parking, screening, and the like, are satisfied with this proposal, leaving only the design aesthetics to be reviewed by the Board in these proceedings, and these within the parameters of the two approval conditions expressly cited by staff in its report to you. At this time, the applicant must register disapproval of the condition calling for stepping the building down for the reasons specified, and asks the Board to forego that condition and approve the proposed re -design subject only to the other conditions specified in the Staff Report, Nos. 2 through 5. The applicant is entitled to operate and build within the allowances of the governing development standards that dictate the dimensional and volumetric elements of a proposed building, subject to the valid design review considerations applicable under the City's planning, design, and architectural directives. The Board provided all necessary and appropriate direction last December and should not add new requirements now, particularly with matters not properly within the scope of its review such as the scale and mass of the proposed structure. I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks. I am available to entertain questions from staff or the Board at this point, or after the presentation of design details. To the extent necessary, the applicant reserves time for comment and rebuttal at the conclusion of public testimony. ThwK,yQh. Ri and I Gifford Richard E. Gifford PLLC 23901 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98026 IN 1'8k Packet Page 617 of 774 krc lw;• loeffoom • f 1 1 �; .. 1 Comments on specific Design Review issues: Height Calculation and methodology. Staff has confirmed that the method of calculating the maximum height for the proposed building complies fully with code requirements. We concur with the discussion of this issue in the Staff Report at pages five and six, pursuant to ECDC 16.75.020.B Development Standards for the governing MP 1 zone classification applicable to the subject site. The building roof has been presented with a modulated design and we submit it qualifies as a modulated design under Ch. 20.10 ECDC and the provisions of Design Objective for Roof Modulation, Urban Design objective D.3. There are no specific standards or requirements for a modulated roof design, making it a subjective design assessment by the Board, but ECDC 16.50.020, establishing an identical 5' height bonus for a modulated roof design in the BZ zone, provides more specific guidance on modulated roof design and includes sample illustrations: 2 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed or other similar roof form (see illustrations). Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs with a pitch of less than 3-in-12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25-foot height limit unless they are part of an approved modulated design. Examples of Modulated Roof Designs NIIIIN-111fig-11 0I111 JIM NM _� ram■ .. .ter =_ min a 30-ft limit isilh modulated roof 25-ft height limit 0491 Packet Page 618 of 774 Based on this information and the Board's history in dealing with this issue generally and specifically in its reviews for the Point Edwards master planned development, we are confident that the proposed roof design qualifies for the additional 5-foot height allowance. Lot Coverage. As proposed, the building will occupy only 42.9% of the site, far less than the allowed 75% lot coverage under the applicable zoning. With the building, total lot coverage for Point Edwards will be less than 29%, again, considerably less than the 45% maximum allowed lot coverage for the project as a whole. Density/unit size. As noted in the Staff Report, Point Edwards has been approved by the City for up to 350 multifamily residential units, and the proposed building, with 85 additional housing units, would bring the total for the project to 346 units. The 85 units are allowed under the zoning code and amended master plan approval. In addition, several comments submitted for this hearing incorrectly assert that there is an average unit size target of 1,500 square feet. The cited reference to page 15 of the Master Plan as finally approved by the City in 2003 applies not to this project and the governing MP1 zoning, but to the MP 2 zoning applicable to the lower portion of the former Unocal site, commonly known as the "lower yard". The 1,500 square foot reference in the MP 2 zoning discussion is an assumed residential unit size for purposes of allocating residential and commercial/residential uses and development areas. It has nothing to do with this site, the proposed development, or the Point Edwards project. The distinct zoning classifications covered by the Master Plan and the Mixed Use Hillside zoning ordinance may have confused members of the public commenting on the project. There is no required unit size, average unit size, or other restriction on the size or nature of residential units other than the 2,400 square feet/dwelling unit mandated under the Code that would produce a maximum allowed density on the site of 419 units. The approved 350-unit maximum is significantly less than this upper limit. The addition of 85 units in the proposed building is within the allowed unit count for the project. Some comments have questioned the use of a single rectangle in determining the maximum height. The MP 1 zoning site development standards specified in ECDC 16.75.020.13 implementing the master plan stipulate that building height may be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building as illustrated, but not limited to Figures A, B, and C shown therein. None of the illustrations is representative of the subject building as proposed, which is a single, connected structure on the same, or functionally the same level. Moreover, use of two or more rectangles is elective with the applicant under the zoning code. And, in any event, use of a dual rectangle methodology would produce the same or better results. `1K 0492 Packet Page 619 of 774 BLDG 877 REV- B9 apacoa r-gW(pd 74 apace- provltlad o w• o-• tp• te7 LJ Y-a0 WEBlER+THompSC3N 425 POtt Avg N Sint- 200 . S..tOp WA 98709 BLDG 8 49 apacoc roqultad 45 apacae pt vldad t5LOG 9 48 apace- required 44 -porn- PMvldod BLDG 5 46 SURFgCE 47:pots- ragWtmd STALLS 47 -porn- proHdad .� _ c:..........:::::;".'St'..i'.•.�•�:: 504 457 U/G 74 OFF STREET SURFACE STALLS 531 TOTAL STALLS 'PUBLIC 16 PARALLEL PARKMG STALLS BLDG 2 (PINE ST.) 60 spaces roqulmd TOTAL ONSITE PKG: 547 69 -paces proHded NOTES: 1. PARALLEL STALLS 8'-6. x 20-0•. 2. OFFSTREET STALLS 8'-0' x 18'•0' OW) \' _ BLDG I 3 6a P acoa ul 't red apace- provlded BLDG 10 E/yy 28 SURFACE 95 ep-con c=od STALLS BLDG 4 i6 `PUBLIC" 40 spacoa7oqulred STALLS BLDG3 74 spacoo provided 34 spews provltlod 40 -ptws re quired J4 spaces providotl OFF STREET PARKING PLAN SCALE: 1" = 50'-O" All Y U d PINE STREET ole, — — — MF—r- ZzIff we '!STREET WEBER.,THOMPSON 2" PontlOO Ave N Suite 200 MIDENCE fiffiEmamom a �MDFNCE SIDENCE RF�JDENCE BUILDING 10E SCALE: 1/8-1=1--0-, mom K" ■ @ / Packet Page ew a774 It O\\\\\\\\ � . . . .... IA SITE CONTEXT MEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WEST - ORIGINAL PLAN 1B SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WEST - PROPOSED ADDITION 09/20/06 13 0 04 CD (D POINT EDVVARDS I SITE CONTEXT VIEW CIO Nor_-_ COPYRIGHT 2-6 WEGER,THOMPSON MAY NOT 812 -PR..UCEO WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION 6 CIO Attachment 17 0- 2A SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM EAST - ORIGINAL PLAN 2B SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM EAST - PROPOSED ADDITION 09/20/05 14 W i� V v r` 0 Lo N co Gl a a Pi�+5 POINT EDWARDS I SITE CONTEXT VIEW ;[ COPYRIGHT 20M WEBER.T OMPSON MAV NOT RE REPRODUCED W THOUT MR N PERMISSIONco `1 U d i�?'7T TS�a tr - �s.. �1ary j _ 9 .. i.'^l k 1 l6! R 3A SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WOODWAY - ORIGINAL PLAN 313 SITE CONTEXT VIEW OF BUILDING #10 FROM WOODWAY - PROPOSED ADDITION 09/20/06 15 T+Iafv1�T5 c � G�O�N�P" E®WAR®._ I SITE CONTEXT VIEW �. COPYRIGHT 200E WEBER.THOMPSON MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION 7P! 45 LDMONDSPINEST.LLC SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I ADB APPROVED CONCEPT (ZODb) WEBER THOMPSON - 1 7va 0 CV co N CD (6 d N Y U N D_ ExG,erPf gIi3[2ai2 K. � e" fil-e - 14 /Y S Building height may be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building as illustrated, but not limited to, Figures A, B and C. 'Total lot coverage for the entire site covered by an adopted master plan within the MP I zone cannot exceed 45 percent. Lot coverage for the individual building lots within the area covered by the master plan cannot exceed 75 percent. Individual lots may not be able to achieve the 75 percent maximum lot coverage due to compliance with master plan and code requirements that address such issues as circulation, open space, topography, buffers, and critical areas. Height: Height is measured from the average level of the undisturbed soil (predevelopment). Pursuant to ECDC 21.40.030.B "Average level" shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. The rectangle used to determine the average level for the proposed Building 10 is not the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building. Two options are available. First, when the building permit is submitted for, the smallest rectangle which encloses all of the building can be used. Rough calculations shows that this will drop the average level about 5 feet. The second option would be to calculate the height separately for each portion of the building as indicated in footnote 5 above. Coverage: Please note footnote number 6 above regarding total lot coverage. When the building permit is submitted for Building 10, please provide cover calculations for the entire Point E4wards site as well as the parcel that Building 10 is located on. Setbacks: According to ECDC 21.90.020, setback means the minimum distance that buildings/structures or uses must be setback from a lot line, excluding up to 30 inches of eaves. There are a few areas where uses or structures appear to be located within the setbacks. Along the southern property line parking spaces and a patio area are locating within the setback. There also appears to be some patio area located within the street setback of Pine Street. The patios and parking areas must be located outside of the setback areas. Design Review Building 10 underwent an updated design review in 2006 under ADB-06-97. The design review under ADB-06-97 was done in order to raise the eastern portion of Building 10 above that originally reviewed under ADB-02-226 in order to accommodate some of the additional units allowed in 2005. The materials submitted for the preapplication appear to be consistent with the Building 10 reviewed under ADB-06-97. However, there are some significant differences which would require the proposal to be reviewed by the ADB again. Particularly the number of parking spaces in the exterior lot increased from 26 to 76 spaces and the proposal includes a water feature/patio area that was not included in the original proposal. A condition of approval from ADB-06-97 was: • Staff shall confirm the landscape plan has not significantly changed from the current proposal or it must return to the Board for final approval; The addition of the water feature in an area previously identified for landscaping and the substantial increase in number of parking stalls in the exterior lot require that this proposal be returned to ADB for further review. Parking Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b, parking for multifamily residential development is to be provided at the following levels: Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking spaces per dwelling unit Studio 1.2 1 bedroom 1.5 2 bedrooms 1.8 Page 2 of 3 S7` 0501 Packet Page 628 of 774 OF ED V0 city of edm®nds development infrwMa 90n - �n. t g90 Pre -Application Meeting Information All major projects are highly encouraged to schedule a Pre -Application Meeting with the Development Services Department prior to making a formal application submittal to the City. The goal of the meeting is to identify MAJOR issues and processing procedures applicable to the project which are helpful for an applicant to determine feasibility, design issues, timing, and various processes required for a project. The fee is $655.00, but one half of this fee will be applied toward the future permit submittal. Staff from the Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Departments attend the meeting, provide written comments and answer questions regarding the project. Pre -application meetings are held on Thursdays starting at 1:30 p.m. To make an appointment, bring five (5) sets of folded plans and the required fee to the Development Services Department (2°a Floor City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North); a meeting will be scheduled within 2 weeks. A Pre -Application Meeting is Not a Formal Submittal. PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON PLANS: General Information: • Assessor's tax parcel number(s) for all lots • Site address(es) • Existing and proposed occupancy(ies) and uses • Building type of construction (e.g. VB, VA, IIIB) • Number of stories • Zoning designation • Number of dwelling units • Floor areas of each floor of the building • Fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system types • Lot area Site/Utility Plan: • Site drawings to scale (prefer 1" = 20') • Location/vicinity map • North arrow Existing and proposed structures, and dimensioned distances from property lines For subdivisions: proposed lot configuration, lot sizes, lot dimensions, existing and proposed access easements, existing and proposed points of access, existing and proposed rights -of -way Site/Utility Plan, continued: • Building address number(s) • Topography at 5 foot or 2 foot intervals • Trash enclosure location and orientation • Streets/alleys • Easements (utility, access, etc.) • Existing and proposed site access • Parking layout, typical stall dimensions, accessible parking and route of travel, drive aisles noted as one- wa and/or two way • Landscaped areas and signage • Water courses and drainage patterns • Location of mechanical/electrical equipment, transformers, generators, vaults, etc. • Location of existing and proposed utilities (sewer, storm, water, power, etc.) Floor Plans: • Existing and proposed floor plans (preferred scale'/4" = 1') showing uses, exiting, restrooms, and accessible route of travel, all existing and proposed building openings including windows/doors, etc. Revised 9/2010 0502 Packet Page 629 of 774 n NORTH ELEVATION (D SOUTH ELEVATION s 11 1�111■ull�ll�lllln�allul nm_ m^ nu ■npi!lu�!w��al��ll{iglu n■ a■ ng m nn•� [ Niel � 1o� lip 1�11r;�11c�1I �I, 1 �I 11 Iol�ll 11 1 111 11.1�1 Ini 1 I p I1111 � IJim Ron p I!1{ Al. I111; I lan 11{�1T,II Ini� a11, w; jiljj�mnpl1111-. pIIII'1�, pIA. Fri,4— nl Ial ua. a n+ � � iui �111iii='�JII NLI�IIIU ���IILIII IJ� ! III �,III!�III � IILIII-.. n EAST ELEVATION r!�,1111111 � s� III— �1191 ■ - mI��unull - 1Pn� - I�m1°1 ,F -i�1mi 10"It ©IIIu1m�1111 _i. II ilI lg i1 iII1111T1 n WEST ELEVATION WERE THOMPSON MT.t,..■A.mt &.o.t.,. vmeousmo I mlLlttttt PW ®WAIZ'JS etmnmo 110 tacottenaar,uc EXTERIOR N ELEVATX)NS 1 A3.00 m O 9 Z s< m -:E m X O K Z m EDMONDS PRE-tMICAMN 05.11.12 m O 3 1 D I li p I��! lPIH , g' � � I a s m - - - I ! it 0504L� a Z _ II III-L- a lY s oil, FROM NE �l VIEW FROM SE &1 VIEW FROM NW �1 VIEW FROM SW WEBER THOMPSON 2ZT.IMK8.b21S 3.0 01110111 P21011311RW f a7Ym06 -i POINT EDWARDS BULGING 10 �tlfl1EE11Hf,LLG iV11L�1�0 mm 0 0 EXTERIOR BUILDING VIGNETTES c� 7ga; pSe of . ^�,j4j�Ny.'e�i R- vr_•--I_ s t 771.4A,04� s AMENITY BUILDING ENTRY 0—EN-1 RF—E z AMENITY �w FC•G; WEBER THOMPSON 96T."MN•Wi2W y+YWA WIN P= w6?W 170ETiMN ...�.e.emooimn POWs ®WARDS BULLOING 10 ESR1�l PYEfRa&T,YL O EXTERIOR v BUILDING VIGNETTES 0 ae �4 a� VLL Jo b£9 abed MOed BOARDMEMBER LOWELL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER CHRISTIANSON, TO RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, FILE NO. ADB-03-38, AND TO FORWARD IT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR A DECISION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. MINOR PROJECTS: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — MAJOR PROJECTS: a. FILE NO. ADB-02-226: Application by Point Edwards, LLC. for a 295-unit multi -family development. Project will include all elements to provide access to the site. The subject property is located at xx Pine St. and is zoned Master Plan Hillside mixed use zone (MP 1). BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER UTT, TO APPROVE ADB-02-226 BECAUSE THE BOARD FEELS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BULK STANDARDS, USE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT THE BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CRITERIA OF ECDC SECTIONS 20.10 AND 20.12, AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS; • WITH ALL BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTALS, THE FINAL UNIT COUNT AND UNIT MIX MUST BE SUBMITTED TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS; • ALL TREE CLEARING AND REPLANTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SUBMITTED ARBORIST REPORT AND FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN; • ALL TRAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY IN CONFORMANCE WITH ECDC 20.15B.110; • STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY REQUIRING FENCING TO BE INSTALLED ALONG THE EDGE OF THE STEEP SLOPE BUFFER PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE, AND SAID FENCING OR A REPLACEMENT OF IT SHALL REMAIN PERMANENTLY IN PLACE; • STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREAS PROTECTION EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY THAT PRESERVES THE STEEP SLOPE CRITICAL AREA AS A PROTECTED AREA; • STAFF SHALL CONFIRM THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OR IT MUST RETURN TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; • THE DESIGN OF THE AMENITY CENTER MUST SUBSTANTIALLY BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGNS APPROVED FOR THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS OR IT MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; Architectural Design Board Meeting-ss Page 2 June 11, 2003 bLL to 9£9 abed MOed • STAFF SHALL CONFIRM THAT THE MATERIALS AND COLORS USED ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR THEY MUST BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL; • A ROUND -ABOUT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR TRAFFIC CALMING AT PINE AND CHINOOK, WITH A CENTER PLANTER; • GLAZING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SELECTED FOR ITS ABILITY TO NENEVIIZE GLARE; • STAFF SHALL REVIEW THE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS: None. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: ' % ° 11. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: CHAIRMAN MICHEL CALLED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING AT 10:39 P.M. Architectural Design Board Meeting-ss Page 3 June 11,2003 t,LL 10 9E9 956d 19136d 6090 Board Member Broadway referred to the staff s conclusion and recommendation in the Staff Report regarding the height issue. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that, subsequent to the Staff Report, the applicant has adequately addressed the height issue. The height of the proposed building would be consistent with ECDC 16,75.020.B, as well as the Urban Design Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE AND THAT THE APPLICANT MODIFY THE DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR BUILDING 10 AS FOLLOWS: I . THE DESIGN OF BUILDING 10 SHOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE, OTHER DEVELOPMENT APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED AT POINT EDWARDS UNDER THE POINT EDWARDS MASTER PLAN. el 2. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ROCKERY OR IN THE PAREING LOT ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SURFACE PAREJNG LOT. 3. T111E APPLICANT SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TIIE FOLLOWING DESIGN ELEMENTS PRESENT IN THE EXISTING POINT EDWARDS BUILDINGS: RESIDENTIAL FENESTRATION, BROAD OVERHANGS, MORE HUMAN SCALE, DISTINCTION BETWEEN FLOOR -TO -FLOOR HEIGHTS, AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS. THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT SAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED MATERIALS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHE R SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There were no administrative reports. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Election of 2013 Officers AreIrtectwal Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting December 19,2012 Page 14 of 15 m X 0 0 z . wt 0510 nT z Packet Page 637 of 774 prp- mi WiftdowMulllos RtwC,.tt f3aic—es Lap S:finF' *Fxpowe e1s4nrms Fiber Cement I Fiber Cemem I FbL-Ceffwm fib& Ce"- Fb-CeqmS,.d0 I, lap Side Lap S;d g- I Lap stm. & T. Sidv. Trim & Mullions, CDMONDS PINE ST LLC I -- -111 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM NORTHWEST I �-., 1 11 WEBER THOMPSON It Ln 0 Chapter 16 Community Development Code (ECDC) Exam*s of Modubted Roof Designs Note.- Diagrams have been taken from BC section of the code which has a 25'height limit. The 50! Pine Street prGlect is zoned MP1 which allows for a ma)dmurn roof height of 35" plus a 5' modulation bonus (height bonus modulation diagrams could not be found at the MP1 section of the ECDC). Y-4t hrilt A111h r r,,,;: A U� 03 a r Ao ot 4iaw WINW, awo ,Now "OW 25t yy 1161 fir k: e-I roof AAlth Fr-t--,du Mr 0512 Packet Page 639 of 774 May 15, 2013 Mr. Bryan Gootee, Chair Architectural Design Board City of Edmonds 121 5t" Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Chairperson Gootee, WASHINGTON The Town of Woodway appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Pt. Edwards Building 10 development application. While not present at the December 2012 public hearing, our Town Council and I have been following the community's reaction as well as the official documents that have been submitted by the developer. Let me first state the importance of the Architectural Design Board in this approval process. In our Town, we only have our ordinances and zoning codes to guide development. We do not have an ADB. The presence of a professional and layman organization that can evaluate the specifics of a project and assure that community cultural goals and design elements are addressed is very important, and the ABD's ability to preserve a community is essential. In short, we are glad you are here. In this case, not only the residents of Edmonds need you, but the residents of your neighboring community, the Town of Woodway, need you. As Mayor, I recall twelve short years ago when the then Edmonds mayor, Gary Haakenson, came to our Town requesting that our community not approve a walking path between the proposed Woodway Highland residential community and the Twin Meadows neighborhood in Edmonds. Edmonds residents did not want people walking close to their back yards. That kind of seems like nothing compared to a parking lot for 74 cars plus a five story building installed within a few yards of Woodway residences. We listened to Edmonds' request and we made adjustments based upon Edmonds' needs. Then again in 2002, Woodway participated in the Master Plan approval process for Pt. Edwards. At the time, we were accepting of what was proposed for the entire MP1 and MP2 area, but after many years and now a new landowner, this proposal has deviated from the original vision. And while the new proposal has been responsive in several ways to the ADB's conditions, it is crystal clear that the primary issues of consistency and scale to the rest of Pt. Edwards have not been adequately addressed. 23920 113TH PLACE W. I WOODWAY WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE: (206) 542-{j FAX: (206) 546-9453 Packet Page 640 of 774 My conclusions are based upon the City of Edmonds' own Comprehensive Plan. The Community Culture and Design Element on page 93 of the Comp Plan contains Urban Design General Objectives. In particular: Section C. Design Objectives for Site Design. As part of the introduction, it is stated: "Good design and site planning improves access ..., minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. The Comprehensive Plan continues by citing specific objectives of which I will highlight those that are related to this proposal and those that are important to the Town of Woodway. C.8.a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and massing in large multi -family or commercial projects. C8.c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. C.10.b Minimize potential for light to reflect or spill off -site C.13.d Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of the building along steep sloping sites. C.14.a Create a visual barrier between different uses C.14.b. Maintain privacy of single-family residential areas. (In this case, the privacy protection would be for Woodway residential areas. I am presuming that if this is an objective for Edmonds residents, it should also apply to adjacent residences in Woodway). The staff report repeatedly cites the fact that the scale of Building 10 is out of character with the rest of the Pt. Edwards development, as well as not being harmonious with the overall topography of the site. These are key, first step issues that must be addressed before any other conditions are considered. While the staff report recommends a step down of the eastern section of the building to better align with the natural topography of the site, it is our position that the entire building needs to be lowered by one floor. By lowering the building to four floors, the mass and scale are then responsive to Chapter 20.11.030. Section A. Building Design. "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." That means the character of Pt. Edwards should be the standard, not just unit count, maximum building heights, standard building code formulas. Section A. sets the stage for the rest of the project. After careful review of your Comp Plan goals and objectives and the Design Review Criteria, the Town of Woodway respectfully requests that the ADB approve the project with the conditions that were listed in the staff report but with these additional conditions: 2 0514 Packet Page 641 of 774 The building height for both the east and west sections of the building be lowered from five stories to four with appropriate horizontal modulation, appropriate setbacks and consideration for the existing topography. We support the staff report's recommendation to step the building down but it should be from four to three stories. This recommendation is a "deal breaker" for our community. If this recommendation cannot be a condition, then we are not supporting the "approval with conditions" recommendation as contained in the staff report. If the ADB accepts the preceding, then the following additional conditions should be added: 2. The staff report recommended a trellis on the existing rockery, which we support. This should be a requirement. 3. The lighting for Building 10 and western portion of Pine Street needs to be changed from industrial scale Cobra lighting to the existing architectural lighting standards that are currently in the Pt. Edwards development and on the eastern section of Pine Street. That was an issue when the original development was proposed and that was the Town of Woodway's major requirement. Communication issues resulted in a hodge-podge of lights being installed. It was Woodway's intention from the get go that our "dark skies, no street lights in Town" would be honored by the Pt. Edwards development by installing and maintaining lower decorative lighting. That's what we wanted in 2002 and we still want that. The project will have a large parking lot that is located adjacent to Woodway homes. This will be a large area requiring lighting for the new residents. The installation of decorative lighting rather than an industrial pole with a Cobra lamp would certainly be the choice of the Building 10 residents. Approval of this condition is a win -win for the new residents, the existing Pt. Edwards residents, and our Woodway residents. 4. The traffic analysis study reports a very small impact during peak traffic times to Woodway streets. That is a bit of an unknown and planning vs. reality may prove to be another story. There are many residents of Woodway and Pt. Edwards who evaluate local traffic during particularly evening peak hours and determine that SR 104 is "busy" so an alternate route through Woodway is chosen. To address this issue, we request a condition that the developer would be required to work with the Town of Woodway to evaluate traffic impacts (once the development is finalized and built) and if a significant increase in traffic is documented, then traffic calming devices would be installed at the intersection of Pine Street and Chinook Road. In conclusion, I would remind all of us that we need to step back a bit as this issue is under consideration. The communities of Edmonds and Woodway are intertwined and 0515 Packet Page 642 of 774 while municipal boundaries exist, the cultural values of both communities should be honored. While the applicant has been granted the right to increase the unit count for the Master Plan, that right also comes with responsibilities to address the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and more importantly, the Design Objectives that start with the criteria that development must be consistent with existing and adjacent structures as well as harmonious to the natural topography of the site. The applicant's descriptions of excessive review, time schedules, financial commitments should not sway the importance of addressing these core objectives. The rights of one party cannot overshadow the rights of an entire community that has clearly stated its goals and requirements for development and private investment. That's why we have a government and that's why we are here. you. L 0 Carla A.aeols, Mayor Town of Woodway 4 0516 Packet Page 643 of 774 Christy Cufley 51 Pine Street Unit 309 Edmonds, WA 98020 425-967-3666 christycufley(cbyahoo.com May 15, 2013 City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board RE: Permit No. 20130022 (formerly 20120040) Point Edwards Project Design Review -- 50 Pine Street (aka B10) Dear Board Members: Since this Board last met on December 19, 2012, there has been a great deal of additional information presented regarding the above -referenced project. But one premise remains true: A picture is still worth a thousand words. In comparison with the other existing nine buildings at Point Edwards, the proposed design for Building 10 looks markedly different in appearance. It will tower in height above the other buildings. It will be packed with small units. It will have dozens and dozens of above -ground parking spaces (and even with these additional spaces the parking will still be inadequate for the area if the building is constructed as planned). It will be filled with overwhelming amounts of exterior glass... it will stick out like a sore thumb. The number of proposed units far surpasses those in any of the existing buildings which range from 21 to a maximum of 39 units per building. These numbers are set forth specifically as follows: BUILDING NUMBER OF UNITS 1 (aka Pine Street 71) 21 2 (aka Pine Street 61) 34 3 (aka Pine Street 75) 23 4 (aka Pine Street 65) 22 5 (aka Pine Street 51) 41 6 (aka Pine Street 41) 29 7 (aka Pine Street 31) 31 8 (aka Pine Street 55) 31 9 (aka Pine Street 45) 29 10 (aka Pine Street 50) 85 proposed! When the City of Edmonds first granted approval for the initial Point Edwards project, it did so based on the good faith belief that the developer would create a beautifully landscaped project with a total of ten similar structures. The developer was true to its word for nine of those buildings, but for the tenth building has unfortunately deviated drastically and unacceptably from the original concept. This action has created 0517 Packet Page 644 of 774 suspicion and anxiety as to just what the impact on us will be, and has fueled community opposition which would have otherwise been non-existent. What happened to the original representation that Point Edwards was to be developed and built as an aesthetically pleasing and uniform residential community consisting of ten comparable structures? What happened to following the model still on display in the sales office which clearly shows ten little buildings all the same? That mock up of the completed Point Edwards project was relied on for years to demonstrate the finished product and also helped set the expectation for all of us who purchased homes here that future buildings would be similar to those already constructed. Indeed, the very designation "1310" implies that building is the tenth one in a series. Why is the final building such an explosively different creature? How can we not be worried about the disruptive impact on our Point Edwards community, and about the negative influence on our property values? Instead of welcoming with open arms into our community a building full of new neighbors, is it any wonder that we now worry about the divisive impact of an additional 85 families on existing amenities (pools, club houses) which instead of being shared must now be somehow segregated and their use policed? Is it any surprise that the residents of Point Edwards now feel deceived and mislead? Will the next topic of discussion involve making the existing Point Edwards a gated community? There is no question that there are legitimate business interests in developing properties, and no question that a developer is entitled to realize a reasonable profit in doing so. What is questionable, and what is deeply objectionable, is the insistence on deviating from the original intent. Rather than design the final building to slip perfectly into place as the final piece in the beautiful Point Edwards puzzle, rather than ensuring it flows with the overall geography of the area, rather than keeping with the overall tone and character of Point Edwards, the developer has instead chosen to construct an 85 unit bloated monstrosity which will adversely change the tenor and character of this area. insatiability for monetary profit has trumped commitment to creating one cohesive neighborhood with a consistency of design. There are approximately 500 citizens of Edmonds currently residing at Point Edwards — your tax paying, voting constituents. It is respectfully requested that you recommend the City hold the developer to its original representation for consistency in development, and direct that drawings be prepared and submitted which truly reflect the original intent for the completion of this building project (including underground parking and a lesser number of units in keeping with the other buildings). Thank you for providing the opportunity to address you this evening, but more importantly for your careful consideration of this issue. In doing so, you are asked not to lose sight of the bigger picture, and not to ignore notions of common sense to reach an appropriate conclusion. It is also respectfully requested that the developer do the right thing and go back to the drawing board. Sin 4erelyChriufley christycufley(abyahoo. com 0518 Packet Page 645 of 774 1----------------- 7.3 ------ -; -------------- AYG. HISTORICAL GRADE _ ,160.28' + 147.35' + 129.85' + 166.60' = 604.08' /4=151.02' ------------ EDMONDS PINE ST, LLC I POINT EDWARDS BUILDING 10 1 HISTORICAL AVERAGE GRADE PLANE \ 1 \ \ 1 \ \ 1 1 WEBER THOMPSON Yf A, .1 /Yt /5 -5) Nl- t Architectural Design Board May 159 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE I YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THIS PROJEC THANKYOU. I FILE NO: PLN20130022 POINT EDWARDS F 2 �;q Z117,--�? A/ 0 2-c, V A) 0 0 2a J C rj tj Al tr z- I "vit &) AL l SSG0 0 0 V[ q oZ6 Ed-a-ga r� C? �tewpu -C" 0520 Packet Page 647 of 774 Nl- Architectural Design Board May 15, 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, A[)[)PES5 AN[) ZIP CODE IF YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIE[) OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. � 9r-111 If - ( -8- r- D � � C &— ry r-, C Cb/' Olk� Wr -Q W /. &jXj��jCl Ore 45 PLAU 4 �&zo 4VL FpV Srgep-7- 30� :CO�mvoo"T' ted 3u 'I-T:C, C-') Packet Page 648 of 774 0521 Architectural Design Board v 15. 2013 PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY BELOW YOUR NAME, AW)RESS ANb ZIP CObE I YOU WISH TO BE NOTIFIEb OF FUTURE HEARINGS ON PROJEC THANKYOU. I POINT EDWARDS r� (1 Ut,/ !i(J/ 5. r SL I d (' S ZG C� C v � c h)CL�� 0522 Packet Page 649 of 774 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to Point Edwards Building 10 and Associated Landscaping Site Location: 50 Pine Street File Number PLN20130022 Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Michael Mestres (excused) Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Bruce O'Neill, Vice Chair Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Project Manager Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recorder Cary Guenther Rick Schaefer Tom Walker Chair Gootee: That brings us to our main project of Point Edwards, which is the 50 Pine Street at Point Edwards. It is the last wing of the Point Edwards. May I have the Staff Report, please. Mr. Lien: I am Kemen Lien, Senior Planner with the City of Edmonds. I am going to give a bit of a history on how we got here tonight with the whole Point Edwards Development, along with Building 10. 1 will go over the current proposal on Building 10, the staff's recommendations in regards to the current proposal, and I'm also going to touch on some of the many public comments that have been received tonight in my presentation. Mr. Lien: So the Point Edwards Development was originally approved underneath the Point Edwards Master Plan. There were to files in 2002. One was the text changes, which created the MP 1 and the MP2 zones, and then there was a rezone that changed the site from commercial waterfront to these two MP zones. This is the master plan, when we talk about the Point Edwards Master Plan. Any development on the site is supposed to be consistent with this master plan as it came out in the zone for the site. Mr. Lien: The original residential development for Point Edwards was approved underneath ADB File 2002-226. This file laid out the kind of overall layout of the development up there that came with the 10 residential buildings. Originally, there was one amenity center. Later there was another amenity center added. Underneath this original approval there were 295 units that were approved for development up there in Point Edwards. In 2005 ... From 2002 until now it's come back to the ADB for a number of reasons: modifications to some of the buildings, adding the amenity center, some landscape modifications. In 2005, underneath ADB 2005-49, this was a revision to Building 5. At that time, the developers asked for an increase in the allowable number of units up there. It got bumped up to 350 allowed residential units at the Point Edwards Development underneath that ADB. At that time, the City of Edmonds adopted the original SEPA for the site, recognizing the increase in the number of units. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 1 of 29 Packet Page 650 of 774 Mr. Lien: Building 10, itself, has also undergone a number of iterations. This is a profile view of Building 10 from the original approval. Building 10, itself, did not have an elevation view. They used Building 4 as kind of the typical building that would be built at Point Edwards. Underneath the original approval, the western building was set up higher and the eastern building was stepped down. Both of the buildings were four stories in height. Mr. Lien: In 2006, the developer came back with a proposal to raise the eastern portion of the building... I'm going to dim the lights a bit. In 2006, there was a proposal to raise the eastern portion of Building 10. So this is what it looked like underneath the original plan, this was the western side, four stories, and it's stepped down to the eastern side. In 2006, they applied for and were approved raising the eastern side to line up with the western side. This design was approved in 2006. The number of units here, according to the building permit that came in after this approval, there were 69 units in the 2006 version of Building 10. I could never find a unit count for the original version of Building 10. Mr. Lien: In 2012, the last time it went before the ADB on this, this was the proposal for Building 10. It was a redesign of the building over the rest of the buildings at Point Edwards. We had a public hearing on this on December 19th in 2012, and it was referred back to the applicant to make some changes. This version of Building 10 contained 89 units. Mr. Lien: Now we are here today. This is the current version that is before the ADB for review tonight. This version of Building 10 responds to some of the comments from the December 19th meeting and this version of Building 10 holds 85 units. A few units were lost when they stepped back the top floor. Mr. Lien: I wanted to touch on why we have a new application for Building 10 over December. When we were here in December, that was File Number PLN20120040. We held a public hearing on that. The ADB continued the public hearing for the applicant's to make some changes to Building 10. In between changes being made to the building there were some issues that arose, particularly in regards to SEPA. I touched on SEPA a little bit earlier. Originally, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. This was associated with the original ADB approval underneath ADB 2002-246. In 2005, that original MDNS was adopted, and that was for the increase in the number of units when the Point Edwards Development was approved for 350 units. At the last ADB meeting, I had indicated that this SEPA would cover the current version of Building 10, the 2012 version of Building 10. After that meeting, it was pointed out that one of the conditions in the original MDNS contained $22,000 for traffic signalization at Pine Street/SR-104. The signalization at that intersection was tied to the Edmonds Crossing Project, the ferry terminal that was going at that site. The $22,000 was Point Edwards' fair share of it. With the ferry crossing project basically going away or into the very distant future, the need for signalization at that intersection no longer existed. So we have this very specific condition in the MDNS that no longer needed to be met, but was being applied to Building 10. The City determined that SEPA needed to be redone for Building 10. Mr. Lien: With SEPA needing to be reissued, it raised several potential procedural concerns. Without going into great detail about that, we could have ended up with holding two open record public hearings, which is a no no in land use. To avoid the procedural issues that were raised, the applicant's withdrew their application (PLN20120040) and submitted a new application that basically reset the process on this. So while, technically, we are looking at a new application before the ADB tonight, the applicant's have responded to the comments from the ADB at the December 19th meeting. Mr. Lien: Underneath the SEPA review, there was an updated traffic impact analysis that was done on Building 10. Traffic was one of the concerns that was raised last time and whether or not there was a traffic analysis that was done when it went from 295 units up to 350 units. It turned out that there hadn't been an analysis done at that time. So with the new SEPA review, there was a new traffic impact analysis that was done for SEPA. The City issued a Determination of Non -Significance on April 12th of this year, and that kind of brings us up to where we are tonight. Mr. Lien: At the December 19th meeting, the ADB made four recommendations to the applicants. One, the design of Building 10 should be more consistent with other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards and with the Point Edwards Master Plan. Two, additional landscaping should be provided along the rockery or in the parking lot Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 2 of 29 Packet Page 651 of 774 along the south side of the surface parking. Three, the applicant should take into consideration the following design elements present in the existing Point Edwards Buildings: residential fenestrations, broad overhangs, more human scale, distinct floor -to -floor heights, and Pacific Northwest elements and materials. The final recommendation was that the applicant must submit samples of the proposed materials that are being used. Mr. Lien: So this is what the applicant came up with in response to the December 19th meeting. In staff's position, it's a vast improvement over what was originally proposed. One of the main concerns last time was how Building 10 fit in with the rest of the Point Edwards Development, particularly in regards to design standards. I'm not going to go into detail about how the architects responded to those conditions. I'll leave it up to Joe to touch on those, but generally, staff feels this building is much better tied in with the rest of the Point Edwards Development as far as overall design, colors, materials, and look. It doesn't look exactly like the rest of them, but it's tied in much better with the overall Point Edwards Development. Mr. Lien: One question of consideration for the ADB tonight is the modulated roof design. So the base height limit in the MP 1 Zone is 35 feet, and buildings can achieve an additional five feet in height if they have a modulated roof design. The code language references ECDC 20.10 for modulated roof design. There's no mention of a modulated roof design in 20.10. The Comprehensive Plan does have a little section on modulated roof design. So design objectives for roof modulation: to break up the overall massing of the roof, creates human scale in the building, use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building, and provide ways for additional light to enter into the building. That is basically the extent of our guidance of what a modulated roof design is. They have added the peaks to the roof, that comes up. And there's some fluctuation to the building that adds some modulation to it. So if the ADB finds that this is a modulated roof design, the height calculations that have been submitted with this application meet the 40-foot height limit with that additional bonus. There's a longer discussion in my Staff Report on how height calculations were done for this, and I won't go into detail on that unless you guys want me to. Mr. Lien: Another condition was with regards to landscaping, particularly in regards to the surface parking area. Staff's concern was how this was screened. This was a big change over the 2006 and the earlier approval on that. The original surface parking area had like 25 parking spaces out there, and currently there is 77 or 74 surface parking stalls out here. So it was a large increase in the surface parking area. There's a rockery that exists along the southern boundary here, which makes it difficult to screen the parking area, particularly from the house to the south here. One of the recommendations from the ADB was to include some trellises within the parking area, and the applicants have added trellises within the parking area. The thinking is that as you are looking down on top of the parking lot, that helps buffer that. Mr. Lien: The Town of Woodway submitted some comments on this, with the recommended condition that a trellis be installed along the top of the rockery. At the last ADB meeting, a similar suggestion came up and I had indicated that a trellis would be a structure and would have to meet setbacks. We talked this over with the other planners, and the condition that I recommended for approval on this, that a trellis no taller than six feet be installed along the rockery or the applicant work with the neighboring property owner to come up with some landscaping there. The change in thinking of that was that we are basically treating the trellis kind of like a fence because it is helping to screen the property. Fences up to six feet in height do not have to meet the setback requirement and that's why the change in the condition for the trellis there. So that was one recommended condition that we added. Mr. Lien: A lot of the comments that were received had to do with on -street parking. As I mentioned before, the original overall layout of Point Edwards was done in 2002, and that's when all the on -street parking and all that was looked at. As part of this proposal, originally there was a driveway cut that came into underground parking here one of the other versions of Building 10. That driveway cut is being removed with part of this proposal, so there will be access to underground parking up over here, and then the surface parking lot over here. Some street improvements were going to need to be done to eliminate this driveway, so staff has recommended that, as part of the street improvements, this on - street parking area that is just east of the driveway be extended up to provide possibly three additional on -street parking areas there. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 3 of 29 Packet Page 652 of 774 Mr. Lien: Staff has also recommended that the eastern portion of the proposed Building 10 be stepped down to four stories. I'm going to elaborate on my thinking behind that and would be willing to change that condition a little bit. Within the Staff Report I highlight a number of policies that I felt backed up that condition, and touching on a few of them here. From the Point Edwards Master Plan, in the upper yard governed by the proposed MP1 zoning, the residential buildings will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. From the Comprehensive Plan Design Objectives, integrate buildings into the site by stepping the mass of the building along steep, sloping sites. Also from the Design Objectives, retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. And there are also design objectives for massing, encourage human scale elements in building design, reduce the bulk and mass of buildings, and masses may be subdivided vertically or horizontally. There's a number of policies in my Staff Report that kind of talk to the same thing. Mr. Lien: So with these policies, my simplistic way of addressing those was to lop out one of the floors in the eastern portion of the building. The condition also says ... I will just read what the condition says. So the proposed condition was that the eastern portion of Building 10 shall be stepped down to four stories in order to conform to the Point Edwards Master Plan and the City of Edmonds Design Standards. The overall design of the building shall remain substantially the same, with the top floor stepped back and the modulated roof design retained as depicted in Attachment 3. So this is an image from Attachment 3. My thought was that by eliminating a floor from down here, or this level, and just stepping it down to four stories over there but keeping the overall design standards would address those design policies from the master plan and from the Comprehensive Plan in there and would bring the building kind of more back to what was originally proposed in 2002, how the building flows with the hillside a little better. Mr. Lien: With that said, if the same affect can be achieved through other design techniques while still maintaining five stories, staff would be supportive of that. So the condition is not limited to its got to be four stories over there. The main gist of that condition, and the thinking behind that condition, was that the eastern portion of the building would be stepped down a little bit to flow with the hillside and reduce the mass of the building a little bit and kind of be more consistent with the rest of the Point Edwards Development. Mr. Lien: I'm going to touch on a few of the public comments that were received. As of the time I was writing the Staff Report, there had been 57 comment letters received, and those were included in the Staff Report. I have provided the ADB with comment letters that have been received since the Staff Report was issued up to about 6:30 tonight I received the last comment, and that is included in the letters I gave to you. Mr. Lien: A number of recurring topics came up on these, so I'm going to address them in a little bit. One was the number of parking spaces being provided up there. There was a concern that there might not be enough and then the development is going to overwhelm the on -street parking. The Staff Report notes that the proposed development complies with the City's parking standards. And some of the purposes of the City's parking standards are to reduce street congestion and overcrowding of on -street parking and to protect adjacent property from the impact of use with inadequate off-street parking. By meeting the City's parking standards, given the purpose, the thought is that does not impact the on -street parking. Mr. Lien: Some of the other comments with regard to parking had to do with putting more of the parking underground. I did electronic searches of our code and the Comprehensive Plan, looking for references to underground parking. The only references that come to undergrounding have to do with utility lines and what not. There was no code, no policy statement nor anything that had to do with requiring parking to go underground. The development complies with the City's parking standards. Mr. Lien: Another concern that was raised was in regards to the number and the size of the units that are being proposed in Building 10. I've talked a little bit about the number of units that were allowed in Point Edwards. So they've been approved up to 350 units. To date, 261 units have been built. So with the additional 85, we're at 346 units. So we are still within the number of units that have been allowed up there. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 4 of 29 Packet Page 653 of 774 Mr. Lien: One of the concerns with the smaller units in there is that this building would be more of an apartment building as opposed to a condominium like the other buildings up at Point Edwards. Apartment buildings and condominiums are both considered multi -family development. Multi -family development is a permitted, primary use in the MP 1 zone, so even if it is an apartment building, that still complies with the zoning standards. It's a multi -family development. Mr. Lien: There was also with regards to the number and size, some comment letters that referenced a 1,500 square foot unit size for the apartments and the proposed condos. This number came from the master plan. But when you read the context of this 1,500 average size of apartments up there, that discussion was within the MP2 zone discussion, which is the lower yard area. They were looking at how many units might be worked in with the commercial development in the lower yard. In the upper yard, the number of units was determined by permitted density of 2,400 square feet per dwelling unit. The whole upper yard area was just over 24 acres, so 24 acres divided by 2,400 square feet gives a potential density of 419 units. All that was spelled out in the master plan. So they have been approved for 350, which is underneath the 419 that was envisioned in the master plan, so it is still within the overall density up there. Mr. Lien: I touched on traffic impacts a little bit already. There was an updated traffic impact analysis that was done with SEPA. The traffic impact analysis basically found no significant increase in traffic. All the intersections in the area would still meet the City's adopted level of service. With the Building 10 building permit, they will be assessed traffic impact fees according to the City's traffic impact fee ordinance. Mr. Lien: That's the extent of my Staff Report. If there's any questions before you want to hear from the applicant. Chair Gootee: Yes, that brings us to questions of the Board. Do you guys have any questions. Board Member Broadway: I have one question. If the eastern portion were reduced to four floors, has there been a calculation of how many housing units that would decrease. Mr. Lien: I think the applicant's will probably be addressing that. They've looked at ways to do that and are having trouble meeting that condition. I'm sure they may address that. Board Member O'Neill: Can you define what the eastern portion is? Mr. Lien: This is Pine Street here, and this is the Town of Woodway down here. There's a break in the building here. This is the western portion, this is the eastern portion. Board Member O'Neill: Show that on elevation. Mr. Lien: This is the western ring of it. Up there looking down from the top, there's a little bend in the building right there. This is the eastern portion of that, and there's the bend in the building right there. Board Member Schaefer: Kernen, the total number of parking stalls for Point Edwards would be brought to what, again? Mr. Lien: For ... Let me get my Staff Report here. Where did my Staff Report go? There it is. So I don't know for the total Point Edwards for development, but for Building 10. Building 10 was required to have, per the City's parking standards, 136 parking spaces. They've provided 144. Board Member Schaefer: I'm going up ... Throwing that on top of what's there to date. I'm looking at ... What I'm getting towards is sort of the ratio of underground parking as opposed to surface parking. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 5 of 29 Packet Page 654 of 774 Mr. Lien: All the other buildings have their parking underground and Building 10 had a surface parking lot. Building 10 was originally approved with a surface parking lot, although not of the size that we're looking at tonight. Board Member Schaefer: I was just trying to compare that to the ratios that were in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Lien: Right, so the same ratios that were in the Staff Report as far as the number of parking spaces required, those same ratios applied to all the other buildings. When the building permits were reviewed, it was confirmed that they met the parking standards. I didn't go back and see how many total parking stalls were required. But the same ratio in the Staff Report would apply to each individual building. Board Member Schaefer: I was just looking at the split between ... There was some surface parking provided for in the Design Guidelines. Somewhere in the order of about 10%. I think we're probably still below that in terms of an overall ... Mr. Lien: Overall. As I said, I don't know the total parking spaces provided. Board Member Schaefer: Okay. Thank you. Chair Gootee: So let me get this clear. On the east, its height compliant or within code as five stories. Mr. Lien: Yes. Chair Gootee: Staff is suggesting to four stories or modulation? Mr. Lien: My recommendation was four stories, but that recommendation could be altered. The gist of it was to get a step down in the eastern portion of that building so it flows better with the hillside, so the mass of the building was not up so high. If that can be achieved by other design standards and still have five stories, staff would be supportive of that. Chair Gootee: Thank you. More questions of the Board? Alright. That brings us to the applicant. Do you want to come forward? Please state you name, relationship to the applicant if not the applicant. And your address please. Mr. Gifford: Well, good evening. My name is Rick Gifford. My business address is 23901 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, and my residence address is 9309 — 192d Place Southwest in Edmonds. I represent the property owner, Edmonds Pine Street LLC. I have advised the developers of the Point Edwards project from inception, now more than a decade ago. My client, John Goodman, the Principal in Edmonds Pine Street, is here tonight. I'd also like to introduce the project architects, Joe Kolmer and Myer Harrell, on my left here, with Weber Thompson. Forrest Jammer, who is a landscape architect with Tom Rengstorf. TLA and Weber Thompson have been involved with the project from inception, also. We also have with us Tom Rickman, Rick Tompkins. I'm allowed, I'm 59. Rick Tompkins is an engineer with Triad Associates. They've been civil engineers on the project also from the beginning. Normally, we wouldn't bring a civil engineer to the project, or to the hearing, but a number of questions have been raised that bear on that, and Rick is going to speak briefly and be available to answer particular questions if the Board has some or if members of the audience have questions. Mr. Gifford: Before we move into the substantive presentation, which is going to be primarily handled by Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson, I want to supply some additional, relevant background and context as a framework for your consideration tonight. I'd also like to reserve, if I can, if it's necessary for me to specify, up to 15 minutes for rebuttal at the conclusion of the public testimony portion of the hearing this evening. Mr. Gifford: Kernen correctly noted that the history of Building 10 is a long one. It's as long as the history of Point Edwards, now exceeding 10 years. The structure, the plan for this site, has generically been labeled Building 10 from the beginning. The pads were all numbered, and for ease of reference we'll also refer to it as Building 10, sometimes by Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 6 of 29 Packet Page 655 of 774 the address, 50 Pine Street, at the top of the project. Nine multi -family buildings have already been erected in Point Edwards, plus two amenity buildings for use by residents, one of which was required. A second was volunteered by the developer to provide additional amenity facilities or the Point Edwards residents. As an aside, the applicant notified the Point Edwards Homeowners Association late last year that this new building, Building 10, will not be part of that association. This was principally in response to concerns expressed by the association board and by some Point Edwards residents that access by the new residents of Building 10 to the amenities would overtax them. So to eliminate that concern, we decided it would be appropriate to simply not have Buildingl0 be part of the homeowners association and its residents, therefore, won't have access to the amenity facilities. Mr. Gifford: The history of Building 10 goes all the way back, as I said, to 2002-2003 when the Point Edwards Master Plan Development was conceived. This is the second public hearing on this particular iteration of the building in the last five months. We were here in mid December before the Board. It's the fourth time overall that the Board has been involved in a public design review process affecting development at 50 Pine Street, the Building 10 site. Building 10 was part of the initial 2003 development review for Point Edwards. A skeletal concept of the building was shown at that time. As Kernan mentioned, most of the images of perspective buildings in the project were of Building 4. One was simply picked. It was shown as a typical building. There was one elevation, which ... Oh, Myers is ahead of me. Great. This shows the original site plan presented in 2003, conceptually Building 10 inside the Pine Street loop at the top of the hill. A large elbow building with surface parking behind, essentially the same building footprint that we're now talking about today, though the current footprint is considerably smaller and the overall mass of the building is 25% lower than previously approved. Mr. Gifford: As you can see, the design packet was considerably less sophisticated than today's materials, but it also was more of kind of a broad overview of Point Edwards since site -specific designs were not being presented at that time. There were also ... If you want to move onto the next screen. These rough cross sections of the building, Kernen had a couple of them up earlier, just cuts through the building. We're looking east/west through the building, with Pine Street below the building down slope. The original general concept of the building was four and four—four floors on the west wing, four floors on the east wing, with the east wing stepping down a little bit as generally conceived. Mr. Gifford: All of these images ... You can move on to the next one, too. Again, another cross section showing the buildings stepping down the hill. You don't have to take my word for it; but at the time this project was being discussed, most of the conversation about towing the buildings into the slopes, stepping the buildings, referred to stepping them down the hill as they necessarily do, tying them back into the slope, thereby keeping the buildings at or below code height limits and anchoring them more solidly into the building, as well. That's what we see working up and down the slope, that stepping kind of concept or towing of the buildings into the hill. Mr. Gifford: As I said, the current proposal quite closely resembles that original Building 10 concept in structural form, in layout, and in scale. But the new building has a smaller footprint, less mass overall, and it is towed (stepped) into the hillside as I mentioned. There are two visible floors on the Woodway. There are in the west wing, four visible floors; in the east wing, five visible floors on the down -sloped side. You have to turn and look up from the project to see that face. Looking down through the project, lines of sight are preserved. Those were some of the kind of premiere view considerations at the time, retaining views over the buildings in the forefront and view corridors through the buildings as they were placed across the site. Mr. Gifford: As Kernen also mentioned, the original approval was for 295 multi -family living units for the entire project, although the MP1 zoning would have allowed 419 units on the site, 44.5 acres in total. That maximum unit count was later increased to 350 units by the Board's action in 2005, still below the 419 code limit. In 2006, the Point Edwards developer submitted the first particular or specific design proposal for a building at 50 Pine Street. It initially did mirror the 2003 concept, two four-story wings, different roof elevations for those two wings. But a design change was then proposed, a stand-alone design change, requesting a level roof with the eastern and western wings at the same elevation, which was allowed under the City's codes and development standards and was not prohibited by the master plan or approved design guidelines and planning policies. That redesigned building, with five residential stories in the Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 7 of 29 Packet Page 656 of 774 east wing, four stories in the west wing, contained 69 units. Among other things, site context views were presented to staff and the ADB, (You can go to those now Myer) clearly showing the differences between the original stepped roof and the proposed level roof. The entire point of that redesign and public review to the ADB was to adjust the roof design. They are a little hard to see. Somebody help me out here a little bit. Maybe you can, Joe, but I believe the large building in the foreground of the sketched form of Building 10 is Building 8 in the center of the project. Do you think that ... It's either Building 4 or Building 8. I was just trying to give people some perspective if you know anybody in the audience. But the project at this point was under construction. Building 6 and 7 allowed wrapping around up toward Woodway. Not yet constructed Building 9 ... Someone in the audience: You are talking about Building 65. Mr. Gifford: That's the address. I don't know if that's 8. Someone in the audience: Building 8. Mr. Gifford: Building 8, yah, okay. I thought it was 8. But the point of our drawings was to show on the left the original plan, which has the east wing of Building 10 moderately stepped down and then on the right hand side, the proposed redesign, raising the level of that east wing one floor or approximately one floor, producing the building on the right. Can you go to the next one Myer? It's essentially, oh ... Gesturing isn't effective, is it? So, there you go, wow. That's the redesigned 2006 building that was approved by the ADB. Try the next slide. I think it's just a different perspective. Again, context view from above. You see the first house towards the ridge, is it Doctor Inadomi? Behind that the Whiting residence, and I'm not sure who owns the third home. But again, showing the proposed Building 10 in the foreground on the left, the original plan, somewhat stepped on the right, the proposal that was approved with a level roof, five stories on the east wing, four stories on the west wing. And then the final slide, the concept depiction. This is just a view of the north elevation as approved. It's the bottom half of the image that Kernen showed earlier. He showed the comparison, the before and after. This is the after. This is what was applied for and approved by the ADB in 2006. Mr. Gifford: After the formal design review, the ADB entered the finding that the revised building design, as presented, was "consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies" and approved the change from a stepped roof, with four stories in each wing to a level -roofed Building 10 consisting of five floors in the east, four floors in the west wing. If you want a specific reference to the Board's finding and decision, I refer you to Attachment 6 in Kernen's Staff Report. And then again, just briefly, on the north elevation, again, we're looking at a building that was 25% larger in overall bulk than the building that we're proposing, slightly higher, not substantially higher, but a little bit, with a 25% larger building footprint. Overall a considerably larger and more massive building. Mr. Gifford: Also, the developer at that time, who secured approval for the redesign in 2006 did apply for a building permit and was granted a building permit for the revised design by the City in 2008. But that building permit expired. That brings us forward now to 2012, the second site -specific design proposal for this building. It was actually presented to the City a year ago. Applicants are encouraged to go through pre -application design review, which we gladly did. The architects prepared thorough going materials (floor plans, site plans, everything required under the City's pre - application process) and submitted those materials initially a year ago in May of 2012. Again, basing the overall design, the skeleton of the building, that sort of hinged look along Pine, on the original design as modified by the 2006 ADB approval. Mr. Gifford: The first iteration of the building that came from Joe's team (Joe and Myer) in 2012 was different in appearance from the building that we're presenting tonight. It was cleaner. It was somewhat less modulated, and the Board commented on that. We talked quite a bit about that last time. It was visually different. But again, it was hung on the same framework, the same structure, the same layout, the same skeleton as this Board approved in 2006. Like its 2006 predecessor, it included a level roof, a five -story east wing, a four-story west wing. The governing MP1 zoning standards, the relevant Comprehensive Plan provisions, including the UDG's, are all unchanged as they apply to this proposal from 2006 when it was approved to now. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 8 of 29 Packet Page 657 of 774 Mr. Gifford: In addition to the materials required to be supplied by the applicant under the City's own guidelines, and by the way, the City charges applicants for pre-app design review. In addition to the required materials in the City's publication Number B58, and you can actually pull that up, I think that's coming next. Let's step back for a minute. I don't know if anybody can read that. That is an excerpt from Kemen's review report, actually from the September 13, 2012 pre-app meeting. We had two of them. We came with a full design package, supplemented with additional material to very clearly and comprehensively show the appearance of the building in all respects in May. And then we went through meetings with the City. We went back and did redesign, refined the design a little bit, but really it remained largely the same throughout the six/seven month pre-app process. We returned to the staff in an all -hands pre- app meeting in September and presented additional, moderately refined materials showing the building again to the staff. Mr. Gifford: These were the comments relating to design that came out of that second pre-app meeting, under design review ... I'm actually going to read from my paper version. It's a little easier to see. There are some significant differences which would require the proposal to be reviewed by the ADB again. Particularly, the number of parking spaces in the exterior lot increased from 26 to 76 spaces and the proposal includes a water feature/patio area that was not included in the original proposal. A condition of approval from ADB 2006-97, that's the original 2003 approval and was adopted in the 2006 approval, staff shall confirm the landscape plan has not significantly changed from the current proposal or it must return to the Board for final approval. The addition of a water feature in an area previously identified for landscaping and the substantial increase in the number of parking stalls in the exterior lot required that this proposal be returned to ADB for further review. Mr. Gifford: So the only comment that was made by staff after the initial four months of review, two design reviews, a modified iteration in response to staff comments was you've got some changes in landscaping, we do. We deem them significant changes, and a specific condition of the Board's 2003 approval was if there are such changes then staff needs to bring this back for us to review them. Us being the ADB. And that's what staff had to say in September of 2012 about our design revision, which at that time, we assumed was going to be the design we presented to the Board with the support of staff. Mr. Gifford: Now to the pre-app process, Number B58, if you can grab it Myer. That process is outlined in the handout that I mentioned, Number B58, with which I assume many of you are familiar. The purpose is to extract necessary information from applicants, on the one hand, and then inform them of significant substantive and procedural issues early in the process. I underscore "early in the process" when they mean something. I have yellow highlighted here the key language. The idea is timely disclosure of major items, to help applicants navigate the City's permit and approval maze. The goal of the meeting is to identify major issues and process and procedures applicable to the project, which are helpful for an applicant to determine feasibility, design issues, timing and various processes required for a project. The whole point of the drill is to avoid bad surprises. You know, to give people advance notice, and it works both ways. The City demands notification of the contours of development and they got it from us in spades. And then the City's responsibility, staff s responsibility, is to talk with us informatively about any issues of concern and problems that they see in the proposal. In this case, the case had ample opportunity to do that, two full all -hands meetings. And what came out of those meetings was expressed concern about the two landscape features that I mentioned. We've got an increase in surface parking, and staff wanted some additional landscape screening. We've worked them to do that. There was a water feature/patio feature, and staff wanted the Board to look at that. There really was no discussion of that. It's a nice amenity. I think that issue has been... We've passed over that. Mr. Gifford: Although staff provided very little comment on design, and I'll say, too, that I got involved in the process when we were encountering questions, issues and uncertainty about how the heck we were going to do this. Namely, who was going to do it? Would it be staff? Would it be staff working in conjunction with ADB? Would it be ADB in a public meeting? Would it be ADB at a public hearing? And we kind of went back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And I was asked to come in and referee. We finally determined, yah, we need a public hearing. And that's what got us in front of you the first time. It would be an ADB decision, with input from staff, but made in the public hearing context. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 9 of 29 Packet Page 658 of 774 Mr. Gifford: While we got very, very little comment and virtually no help on design in the pre-app discussions, those discussions did allow us to confirm that the correct number of total units was 350. Originally staff still thought it was 295, and we had to deal with that in the May meeting. I say we, the architects. The pre-app process also served to identify the two landscaping changes that I mentioned. They were identified. We were aware of them, but they were highlighted. They were specifically mentioned. We appreciated that. Staff also verified, though incorrectly, that the City could and would rely on its SEPA analysis from 2002/2003. As Kemen mentioned, there was an initial MDNS for the project as a whole. Staff relied on that in subsequent approvals, including the 2005 increase in density to 350 units and told us it would be able to do so again. So we went forward on that basis. There were further discussions, and we got things straightened out. We filed the formal application in early November of 2012. Mr. Gifford: We knew that this was a project of great concern. You can see there's a room full of concerned Point Edwards residents. That's good because they like their town, their city. They love their project, and they're understandably concerned about it and want to follow it and see what's going on. There were a lot of comment letters received for the first hearing, probably not as many as tonight. The citizens weren't as organized then as they are now. But there was a lot of comment, a lot of concern, a lot of issues were raised. They were understandable, but a lot of them did have to do with issues ruled not germane to this process, to design review. They were building permit related issues, concerns about unit count, about unit size, apartments versus condos, parking and traffic matters. Things that either have already been resolved in project approvals or will be fully addressed at the building permit stage. Storm drainage, for example. Mr. Gifford: And by way of reminder, this new building came back to the ADB last December under two express conditions of the original approval. The one I've already mentioned and I've got those two here. I've got ... Try going to the next one. Well, I can summarize them. The first condition was with regards to significant changes in landscaping. Staff identified a couple and said we would have to take those up with the ADB. And then, in the Staff Report, Mr. Lien identified a second condition, which provided that the materials and colors used must be consistent with the design of the development or they have to come back for ADB review. So we're talking landscaping and we're talking colors and materials. Those were the conditions that were cited by staff in the Staff Report, and again tonight on Page 1 of the December 13t' Staff Report and on Page 1 of the May 19, 2013 Staff Report. Mr. Gifford: I don't know what the general rule is, but in each case, we didn't see a Staff Report until six days prior to the hearing, with a weekend in between. And as I'll outline, in each case there were substantial shifts and additional items raised for the very first time in these staff reports. They had never been raised with us. They had never been flagged in the pre-app process. They had not even been implied. And we saw them for the very first time six days before the hearing last time, and unfortunately, it happened again tonight. That's something, regardless of the outcome of this hearing, that needs to be addressed. Again, I go back to the pre-app process, which is designed to help applicants identify and address significant issues in a timely way at the outset, not at the 11'i' hour and 59'i' minute. That defeats the purpose, runs it backwards. Mr. Gifford: But as I stated on the record in December, and I'll reiterate it tonight, we assert that, technically, the scope of this Board's review, its authority, is defined by and is limited to those two conditions. That's the framework — significant changes in landscaping and changes in color and materials. With all due respect, we submit that these targeted conditions just don't allow the City and this Board to reopen and flyspeck every aspect of the project. From our perspective, that's what it seems like. Multiple bites of the apple, new issues popping up all the time, intrusive and unduly burdensome requirements. Mr. Gifford: Staff... I think staff would even acknowledge that it went far afield, far beyond these conditions. The applicant didn't object. Well, privately we did. We reserved our rights, we reserve them tonight. But the thinking was that so long as the additional matters were sensible, enhanced the design, weren't overreaching, didn't demand excessive things from the project or the applicant, were fairly presented, we would work them. We've always worked with the City. This has been a collaborative effort from day one. It remains so. We don't have any intentions of changing that, Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 10 of 29 Packet Page 659 of 774 and some of the things we've done, the extent to which we've gone in the redesign of the building in response to comments that go far, far beyond the expressed conditions that brought this matter forward, that reflects our commitment to work with the City now and in the future. That remains the applicant's position, and that's reasonable accommodation in an effort to reach an acceptable design for Building 10, to finally complete the build out of the Point Edwards project, arguably the most important project in the history of the City of Edmonds, certainly the biggest. Mr. Gifford: It was in this spirit that the applicant received the Board's several comments at the end of December. Some of them related to the conditions, many of them didn't. We didn't argue. We didn't complain. We received those comments and then went to work to redesign the building in response to your comments. That's what we did. Again, after long scrutiny by staff in a design process that ran seven months, without any substantive comments beyond the two noted regarding particular landscape items, then came the December 13"' Staff Report, full of surprises. All kinds of comments. All kinds of criticisms. A formal conclusion that recommended denial and that the Board have the applicant redesign the project. After six months of nothing. Mr. Lien for the first time identified several design questions and criticisms not brought to the architect or applicant's attention in a timely fashion during the pre-app review. After flagging just those two landscape matters for review, after acknowledging that the building colors appeared acceptable, Mr. Lien then recommended that the Board require changes, a lot of them, to make the design more consistent with the surrounding project in a number of different aspects. Notably, he didn't say a thin about stepping the building down. Not a thing, ever. Well, until six days ago. Mr. Gifford: As I said, in addition to Mr. Lien's remarks and the applications presentation, there was a lot of public comment. Understandable. And then the Board opened things up, asked questions, and we engaged in a dialogue. We had a good exchange, and we finally received what we considered the first constructive guidance that we received from anybody at the City with respect to the design. That's why we didn't complain. The things you said made sense. We might not have agreed with all of them. Architecture and design is a subjective field. You guys know that. But they were good ideas. They made sense. They reflected fairness, and we didn't complain. Instead, the architects got busy to redesign the building in accordance with the specific guidance that you provided. Again, nobody said anything at all about stepping the building down. In fact, I think it was at that time Vice Chair O'Neill who said, "issues relating to the scale of the building are outside the scope of the Board's authority." We're not talking about building scale. We're not talking about mass. We're talking about design. At the tail end of the open hearing, just before the Board issued its comments, Mr. Lien again reiterated that the building met all of the height standards of the MP1 zone and was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan with regard to height. Now there was a great opportunity. If you want to talk about lowering the building, stepping the building and possibly pulling off a floor, you might mention it then. But it never came up. Not even remotely. Mr. Gifford: I'll be honest with you. We didn't anticipate this at all because we were working from an approved design plan by this Board in 2006 that specifically looked at that issue and passed on it. And the City then passed on it and issued a building permit. So it certainly wasn't on our radar screen at all. We were fully reliant on staff, if there was a concern like that, to address it with us, and to do so with reasonable timeliness. Mr. Gifford: Skip ahead to what we're presenting tonight. Well, just briefly, this has been a challenging process. It's been made infinitely more difficult by all kinds of procedural gyrations, and Kemen's talked about a few of them. We were told that the City would rely on the SEPA review from 2003, and then there were newly discovered facts related to the $22,000 fee that was paid voluntarily by the applicant to the City for signalization improvements at Pine Street. Never needed, never will be needed, and the City came and said, well gosh, we've still got your money. We said, that's not a problem, now what. You can reimburse, give it back. They said, yah, but there's more, because the fact that we still have your money and that condition was never fulfilled and it applied to Point Edwards, that 2003 MDS is invalid now and we have to do another one. Well, we were in the middle of a process already. We'd come to you and had a hearing, and now we're being told we have to step back and do SEPA. Mr. Gifford: And as Kernen acknowledged, and I will tell you he worked hard. We all did. The City Attorney and I, we spent a lot of time going up and down that tree trying to figure out what to do, being out of sequence and having a Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 11 of 29 Packet Page 660 of 774 new requirement like this thrust into the middle of an on -going project. Ultimately, we felt we had no choice. With the City's concurrence, we stepped back and withdrew the first application, and we started over and did it right, strictly in accordance with the City's code. A full, new environmental checklist, SEPA determination issued by the City, notice of that given, no appeals filed in the two -week wait period. AS part of that a full, new traffic analysis done for the stand- alone building. No problems there. Impact fees will be paid. That will all be determined at the appropriate time, building permit phase. Mr. Gifford: When we first got the news of the changed circumstances in the City's new requirements, again, there was a lot of discussions. We stepped back. We realized that technically meant this was a new application, but everyone knew that we were proceeding ahead. We were in the middle of a redesign of the building already in reliance on the information and comments that you had given, and so we continued. Then that brings us back to you tonight. We've waded through all that new process, started over again, did additional steps, waited out the SEPA review period. All completely in the open, working with the City, conceding to the changes, and then Joe and Myer and their colleagues redesigned the building. Addressed fenestration, addressed colors, addressed step back of the top floor, addressed roof modulation, addressed northwest style design, addressed coherence with the already constructed buildings in Point Edwards. Did their level best to respond to every single comment that the Board made, and the Board offered those comments in light of the surprising criticisms that were leveled against the first design for the first time by staff in the Staff Report. Again, we didn't yip about that. We redesigned the building. And like that 2006 initial approval by the Board of a very similar but larger building, and like the 2012 first iteration of this current proposal, this version again conforms with all applicable development standards: height, bulk, lot coverage, parking. And the Staff Report acknowledges that. That's never really been an issue. It is demonstratively responsive to all of the input that we got from staff, from the Board to date, with the one exception. It's a pretty glaring one, this new request that we step the building down. Mr. Gifford: We gave up four units in the redesign. The changes that we've made certainly weren't trivial. They were based on direction that we got from the Board, the staff input. They are not insubstantial. It takes a lot of time to redesign a building, a lot of time, a lot of money. In refining the design, admittedly, as the City knows and we all know, the architects didn't go fully back to the drawing board, but they did fairly revisit the exterior of the building, its presentation, its integration with surroundings, built and unbuilt, within and without the Point Edwards Development as urged by the Board in the December hearing. The Board said, take these things under advisement. Go away. Come back and we'll continue the hearing. That's what were expecting to do until everything changed and we wound up having to start over. But we've brought back to you the very same design we would have in a continuation of the initial hearing, one fully responsive to everything you asked us to do, in our view. Mr. Gifford: The overall thrust of the redesign, and I'll leave it to Joe to really highlight it in his inimitable style, but the overall thrust, in accordance with your commentary the first time around, was to make the building's design "more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards under the Point Edwards Master Plan. And staff agrees that it is. It's a much improved design in staff s view, responsive to what you said, more coherent, more compatible. You know, it's tricky. We're working with some, well, let's say some design guidelines that have a natural tension. They say, make it fit, but they say make it unique. Give it architectural integrity. Well, we think this is a building that fits, but its architecturally distinctive, just as the design guidelines ask us to do. You didn't tell us, do a cookie cutter. You said, give consideration to these issues, and that's what we did. Mr. Gifford: We know it's impossible to satisfy everybody completely. A lot of the citizens have said, well, nice try, but not nearly enough. And I guess I wouldn't expect them to say anything else. We know that every constituency has a perspective, and that's fine. We're glad that the Point Edwards residents care about where they live. I mean, we built it. We're very happy about that. But this fact that you can't satisfy everybody all the time is exactly why we have design guidelines, and its why we have code provisions, and its why we have pre -application review processes, and its why those processes call for disclosure of complete and accurate information in a timely way. We didn't get any of that. We go the information piecemeal. It came sporadically, and it came late. And it seems as though staff has reserved the biggest issue for the last. This is the hardest one, and we've waited until the last round of the second review (well, the Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 12 of 29 Packet Page 661 of 774 fourth review, but the second specific review) of this design. Honestly, I'm at a loss. I've asked, but I haven't really gotten a good answer. I don't know why in the world this came up now. For the life of me, if it is so critical and so central, then it should have been the first thing out of the block. I just ... We don't understand it, and I suppose at this point it doesn't matter. But for future reference, it needs to matter. Mr. Gifford: A lot of work was put into the revised design. We withdrew that first application on March 25th. We resubmitted the new application (full package, checklist, new traffic study, redesigned building) on March 2e, several weeks ago. Staff didn't comment substantively on the new application or on the design revisions. The City issued its Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). No appeals. And then we started working with the City to schedule these proceedings. We got them set for tonight. Then, unfortunately, when the second Staff Report came out six days ago, it happened again. Staff said we like the design, it's responsive, you've tried real hard, it's a whole lot better, it's acceptable to us with a couple of minor things. Add a couple of parking spaces in the street if you can. No problem. We'll do that. We don't have to, but we'll do it. Add some additional landscape screening or work with the neighbor up above. We're happy to do that. In fact, we think it's probably better that we do that because Doctor ... Is it Doctor Inadomi? Doctor Inadomi is obviously concerned about that. We don't know exactly what he wants and what will help, but we're going to talk with him, and I'm sure we'll work something out. Mr. Gifford: Those are fine. Those conditions are fine. And then the bomb dropped. Take a floor of the building off. Yes sir. Chair Gootee: I'd like to ... It's a very good presentation; but with all due respect, you have some more of the applicant's time that we need to have here. We're going to have time we're going to be needing or other public comment so... Mr. Gifford: Right. I'll move it along. Chair Gootee: I'm not trying to rush you too much, but I want to button up and get on to the next applicant here. Not to take away from your presentation. Mr. Gifford: I understand. No, you are right. We have limited time. And believe me, we're probably in a bigger hurry than anybody in the room because we've been on this case for a year. Chair Gootee: Understand. Mr. Gifford: We've gone through pre-app review, a full public hearing, with a second public hearing. And now we are facing a new issue. And understandably, we're not happy for different reasons than the residents aren't happy. But we want to move it along, and we want to get done, and we want to get the building built, and we hope we can have your support in that process. Mr. Gifford: Again, I'm going to leave it to Joe to speak to the details of the design. It's a superb design, as far as we're concerned. Staff seems to like it. There's absolutely nothing in the code, nothing in the Comp Plan, nothing in the UDG's, nothing in the history of the review of the project or the Board's own determination that even suggests that we have to step the building down or should. We think it's perfectly suitable for the site. It's within code to meet height standards and every other development standard applicable to the project. We submit it fully meets the standards of the master plan and the Urban Design Guidelines. With that, I'll draw my lengthy presentation to a close. I thank you for your attention, your patience. Let me just say, if I haven't, I do want to make sure that the written materials, which summarize what I've presented to you and the images which accompany that, which you have, are submitted into the record. Again, if possible, if time permits, we'd like to reserve rebuttal at the conclusion of the public portion of the testimony. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 13 of 29 Packet Page 662 of 774 Board Member Schaefer: I would ask that the audience be respectful of the speakers. We're trying to move it along, but we need some cooperation. Thank you. Mr. Gifford: And so, I'll introduce for the substantive part of the presentation and the discussion of the design, Joe Kolmer of Weber Thompson. Mr. Kolmer: Thanks Rick. I have an addendum that we threw together over the last week after receiving the staff report. Chair Gootee: Hold on just a minute. Go ahead and state your full name, your relationship to the applicant and your address, and I believe please use the podium please, too, for your presentation. Mr. Kolmer: Okay. My name is Joseph Kolmer, I'm with Weber and Thompson Architects. The address is 225 Terry Avenue North, Suite 200, and it's in Seattle, 98109. As I mentioned, I've got an addendum that I'd like to circulate to you all. We'll also be reviewing it on the screen and a materials board. Mr. Kohner: My presentation will be slightly shorter than Ricks. I would like to start off presenting the addendum, if that's all right, and then move straight on to the ADB packet. Yah, so you are familiar with this image by now. Some of this information will be redundant, and I'll try to speed through it. I apologize that some of this information in the addendum didn't make it into the original packet. As abundantly noted, we've had about a week to throw some of this together, so ... This Page 1 shows ADB and City staff approved design concept, and it's from 2006, which resulted in a permit for the project. The current proposal, as noted, has a 25% smaller above average grade ... I'm sorry, smaller above -grade footprint than the permitted building from 2008. One thing that was not noted was that one floor has been removed from the facade on the south side of the east wing. If you look on Pages 48 and 49 of the ADB packet, you will note that the approved building actually showed three stories there, and we had reduced it to two. Mr. Kolmer: I feel the following documents will show the proposed building designed as a microcosm of the Point Edward Building as a whole, or of the Point Edwards Development as a whole. Is that as focused as these get? Well, I think we're all pretty familiar with the site. This is an enlarged image from the packet, in any case. The proposed building is shown here in the Point Edwards Development, whose shape mimics, to a degree, the landscape and tree line above. As with the surrounding buildings, facade heights of the proposal vary relative to their position on the hillside. For example, the northwest corner is three stories, the northeast corner is five stories, and the entire south facade is two stories. Mr. Kolmer: This next image is a view from Edmonds Marsh Trail, showing a cluster of Point Edwards Buildings, some of which are in the neighborhood of a mere 60 feet apart. Portions of this development combine to show in upwards of six stories of building construction, uninterrupted by natural features or significant landscaping. The proposed structure is surrounded by Pine Street, which allows for a significant amount of horizontal relief. It proposes only 25% of its facade at five stories, and whose backdrop will be mature, greenbelt vegetation. Mr. Kolmer: Here's the last cluster image from the northwest direction. It's a view from the marina parking lot along Admiral Way. Another example of massing for the project. The next slide is just an electronic record of the materials board you have in front of you. The intent is to provide a scheme that is analogous with other Point Edwards Buildings. To the right are examples of modulated roof designs taken from the code. These actually come from the BC section of the code, but are relevant to taller structures, as well. Mr. Kolmer: I would like to briefly go over some broad strokes between the design submitted last December and the new proposal, which incorporates changes the ADB wanted to see implemented. Window panels have been broken down to a scale and layout similar to other buildings found at Point Edwards. The windows specified for the project are the same manufacturer who provided product for the adjacent buildings. You'll note that the architectural language for Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 14 of 29 Packet Page 663 of 774 the project has changed significantly from the clean, modern lines of the previous iteration to more traditional and ornate vernacular, including northwest craftsman details and prairie -style forms noted numerous times by the ADB. Mr. Kolmer: Modulation of a more vertical nature has been modified in favor of a more horizontal emphasis. This has been accomplished with floor -level accent banding, top -floor setbacks, material and color distribution. Chair Gootee: Excuse me just for a minute. Do we have a pointer here? Just so you can fully describe it to the folks. Mr. Kolmer: I think this one has slightly better batteries. If I can find my place again. Chair Gootee: Awe, it's okay. I just thought we had a tool here to help you designate your differences. Mr. Kolmer: And to clarify further, when I get into the actual ADB packet, I'll describe in greater detail what these elements are. We just wanted to do a side -by -side comparison. It's a pretty significant change from building to building. These are just broad strokes that I'd like to go over. I guess I'll start back over. Modulation of a more vertical nature has been modified in favor of ore horizontal emphasis. It's been accomplished with floor -level accent banding. Lois Broadway talked about emphasizing, you know, each floor level with the building design. So we've gone through with some detailing, which again, I'll describe in greater detail. Mr. Kohner: Next slide please. This is a view from the northeast, which shows the same strategy for material distribution and fenestration as the previous image. Please also note the setback at the top floor and an assortment of overhanging roof forms. Gable roofs have also be incorporated or sprinkled in for variety. Next slide. This is the last page of the addendum here. This is a view from the southwest, which has introduced hip -roof forms, which replace the shed roof assemblies in the previous iteration. Trellises and supplemental landscaping have been added at the surface parking area, which we'll review in greater detail with the ADB packet. That being said, we can go ahead and move onto that packet. Mr. Kolmer: Let's go ahead and jump to Page 4, please. Nothing exciting here, but this is the project summary sheet. Not much has changed here, with the exception of the reduction in unit count from the last building iteration of 89 units down to 85. This modification has allowed for increased square footages for the units and building setbacks at the top floor. Jump to Page 7. This is a familiar diagram from the last ADB packet, which compares current building with the approved 2008 building permit set. A dashed line indicates the 2008 building. As previously noted, the building footprint for the new design has been reduced by 25%. Again, the south fagade of the east wing was reduced from three stories down to two. Mr. Kolmer: Page 9. Again, another familiar diagram from the last meeting. Here we find the design cues for the site taken for the most part from existing Point Edwards Structures and landscape elements, and forms from the residents to the south, also. The site is flanked to the south by a mature greenbelt. Next page. Found here are design cues specific to the diagram on the previous page, which have been included in the building and site design, landscape elements, modulation, materials and color. Mr. Kolmer: This is the familiar view of the project from the northwest. A variety of colors and textures are shown that are typical of the project, for example, lap siding to match other Point Edwards Buildings, which will be installed with 4, 8 and 12-inch exposures, depending on color. Again, the horizontal banding at the floor levels. Roof overhangs. The deep roof overhangs were accomplished by being able to set back the top floor. These help to emphasize a horizontal building orientation. As is typical along the north side, we've set back on both wings these units. We were able to actually do this just be eliminating four units. The banding, again, occurs at each floor line here. The balcony assemblies and the fenestration are all more horizontally oriented than the previous iteration. Yah, the south side is back here, and then this is the north. So the north side is the hot topic. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 15 of 29 Packet Page 664 of 774 Mr. Kolmer: Cedar shakes won't be included in the pallet. Metal siding accents found in the previous design have been eliminated. Again, metal and glass rail systems utilize the same materials as the surrounding structures. Oh, we can go back ... We've already discussed briefly one of the improvements at grade has been the replacement of the secondary garage door, which occurred down here. That has been replaced with more residential frontage, increasing pedestrian safety and opening up the option for supplemental street parking. Mr. Kolmer: A more detailed look from the northwest, which better shows the components, such as light shelves, which are found on the top floor. These are north facing units. You know daylighting during the winter time comes at a premium. These help light penetrate further into the units as does the fenestration strategy. Sliding glass door assemblies at the living and dining areas. Glazing strategies, again, include these light shelves. These are elements that are encouraged by the design guidelines, most specifically Design Guideline D.3.d. The shallow hip -roof forms shown are common to the prairie style architecture noted numerous times by the ADB and fit well with surrounding buildings while embracing the design guidelines for both diversity and design and individual identity of the buildings. Building forms, the bay designs, for example, these elements here, are reflective of some of the design elements found at other Point Edwards Buildings. Mr. Kolmer: Let's jump to Page 14, please. This is a detailed view of the east wing or the five -story wing along the north side of the building. The approach used here with colors, materials and details are a common theme with the building design. The variety of roof forms found here help to avoid monotonous and repetitive building elements, which is consistent again with the City's design guidelines, in particular, C.8.a in this case. Here's a view from the southeast adjacent to the greenbelt, some of which is now shown here for clarity. This is one of the views from the southwest, showing more hip roof forms, which again, have replaced the shed roofs of the previous building iteration. A surface parking lot remains at the south side of the building, which is consistent with Design Guidelines, C.2.c. A number of trellises and landscaping have been added to the surface parking lot, which Forrest will touch on shortly. At the lower left hand corner of the image, very difficult to see, especially when it is blurry like this, but you'll note the garage door, which has been placed approximately 40 feet back from the property line has been screened by plantings and finished grade, which parallels standards, noted are Design Guidelines C.4.c and C.5.b. A roundabout located here will also be utilized at the adjacent vehicle entry to aid in pedestrian safety and screening of harsh visual elements. Mr. Kolmer: Looking on this page is a view to the exterior of the main building lobby, color and roof form of which vary slightly from the surrounding adjacent residential uses. So it's this form right here. A covered drop-off area has been added and has been designed for convenience and increased pedestrian safety in line with Design Guidelines C.9.c and C.5.b. That being said, these references, there's a summary of these design guidelines found on Pages 34, 35 and 36, which describe these particular design guidelines in greater detail. Hedges shown flanking this area provide privacy and a visual barrier between different uses consistent with the Design Guidelines C.14.a and b. Mr. Kolmer: Functions of the east amenity areas remain the same, though the level of northwest craftsman details has been incorporated to tie in better with the new building design, as noted by these more gabled -shaped roof forms. Prior to that we were reflecting the shed roofs on the building, and had metal roof forms rather than wood. The water feature, which is similar in scale to others found at Point Edwards, will provide a pleasant white noise and additional visual interest to the area. Mr. Kolmer: Here we find the fitness space patio, located at the middle of the building's north face. Gabled -roof forms and stone accents found at the building entry and east amenity areas and some other portions of the building. These mimic ... They help to provide some additional human scale to the property. You'll note here that there's an operational window wall, which sort of blurs the line between interior and exterior spaces when weather permits. With that, I'll turn the presentation over to Forrest, who'd like to present the rest of the project and landscaping for the next hour or two, I think. Thank you. Mr. Jammer: Good evening everyone. I'm Forrest Jammer. I'm with Thomas Rengstorf and Associates. We're the landscape architects for this project. We're located in Seattle, 911 Western Avenue, Suite 202. Obviously, as Joe has Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 16 of 29 Packet Page 665 of 774 said and Rick had indicated earlier, my portion of tonight is the landscape. If you would go to the big site plan. We'll be able to run through this, and I promise, we won't take more than an hour, as Joe had indicated. I'm kidding. What we've got, which isn't really any different than previous submittals, but we have several different areas here, and I'll start with our street trees flanking along Pine Street. It's to maintain the continuous theme throughout Point Edwards that we have. The project, as an overall theme, we've got these great street trees that add nice color and variety to it. Waves of color, or drifts if you will, of shrubs, perennials, grasses, conifer, evergreens, and deciduous plant material. We're maintaining a lot of that same kind of motion throughout this project and just continuing it as we come through here. Mr. Jammer: trying to add a little bit of interest and a little bit of variety, we swapped it out. We alternate with plant material. We've got shrubs, or actually we've got perennials and grasses a little closer to the sidewalk to give us more of a close residential feel, followed more of long panels in there so that, if you wanted to, you could certainly walk out there. That's continued through here. Some patios actually have access onto the grass areas, and others have the benefit of the shrubs and the perennials and grasses directly adjacent to them. Mr. Jammer: As you can see in the patios on the north, as well as the south side, we've got vegetation. Typically, plant material that will offer a certain amount of screening to these individual spaces. It's more of just kind of a visual relieve so that if somebody were to step out of their unit, they don't necessarily have to look at the guys dirty barbeque grill that's laying next door. And as I said, we've got the same thing on the south side, up in here. We've got a little bit more heavily vegetated along in here, as Joe had eluded, to kind of create more of a visual barrier between cars and residential units, but also to help develop or show the way into one of the main entrances into this facility. Mr. Jammer: One of the next areas that I'm going to talk about is this whole parking area. We've added two trees out here per parking island, which the parking islands also have a combination of deciduous and evergreen shrubs, perennials, grasses, that also maintain kind of a continuous theme throughout. We're using very similar, if not the same plant material, in certain cases at Building 10 here. One thing that has been noticed, and we've covered this before, is the trellises that we've added in this parking to give it a little bit of vertical relief. I know that Board Member Lois Broadway mentioned that, and we certainly took that queue and feel good about how those are going to feel in there and how they are going to work with our project. Mr. Jammer: Down along the south property line here, it had been mentioned before, we've got a retaining wall, a big rockery over here. It's right on the property line. What we are doing because it's there, because that's a difficult place to be able to grow some plant material, we are providing a certain amount of vines, some green space in there, that we can pocket plant and allow it to begin to cover some or all of that rockery as it begins to mature. Mr. Jammer: Just to the east of that, where the retaining or the rockery ends, we've got more of a kind of visual relief buffer that we have along the south property lines that obviously continues to the east and around the corner at the far east end of the building here. Again, we're using a mixture of deciduous and evergreen shrubs, perennials, grasses, mostly deciduous trees that are more along the line of an ornamental or flowering variety to give us some nice color in different parts of the seasons. Then wrapping over here into our amenity space. The amenity space we have is going to have a fire pit, outdoor grilling area, gathering spaces for multiple tables, chairs for just enjoyment of the views that you'll have from here, primarily obviously northern views of the Puget Sound, as well as a connection down to the street so you can walk along some of the overlooks that do exist as part of the Point Edwards Development. Mr. Jammer: As we've talked about, we've got the water feature over in here to help kind of create some background noise that will help diminish any other type of, you know, like cars driving by or anything. It also gives you a certain amount of relaxation, you know, hearing the soft noise from the water. As I've mentioned, we've got an outdoor grilling area that we want to include, as well, and including a fire pit in here, more circular in nature. Other things that you will see on here, we've got different pavement treatments in here so it's not just simply grey concrete. We're going to have some color relief in here, whether it's going to be integral color or it's going to be pavers, we'll decide that. But we are going to provide some interest. And again, all this area we've got surrounded by more plant materials that maintains the Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 17 of 29 Packet Page 666 of 774 theme that we currently have and designed for Point Edwards as a whole. I think that about covers it. I'm going to turn this over to Rick Tompkins, civil engineer for the project. Mr. Tompkins: Good evening. Yes, I'm Rick Tompkins, not Tom Rickens. I'm a consulting civil engineer with Triad Associates, speaking on behalf of the property owner. Triad Associates' business address is 12112 — 115"' Avenue Northeast, Kirkland, 98034. Really, I'm here today to be available to answer questions you may have on site civil related issues, anything external to the building. Hopefully, I can tackle that for you. Beyond that, I want to briefly describe some of the civil elements that are pertinent to the site. You're all pretty familiar with the site plan at this point, but the point I want to make is that the building is really plugging into an infrastructure that's existing that was extended and provided previously with the build out of the earlier phases, the building out of Pine Street. So, for example, surface water runoff from the surface parking area is collected in a system of catch basins and pipe and conveyed to an existing storm stub from a catch basin on Pine Street located right here. Mr. Tompkins: Roof drainage from the various roof elements are collected in a couple three different places and discharged to stubs, to existing catch basins, gain, stubbed into the site from facilities on Pine Street. Similarly, the sewer stub was extended into the site here above mid frontage, and all the project wastewater will be conveyed to that point and will be delivered to the sanitary sewer via that existing stub. Water ... There was an earlier fire vault installed, again as part of the infrastructure improvements or the earlier phases. That will supply fire flow to the building, which will enter somewhere in this location here. That's fed from the main that's in Pine Street. Domestic water will be served from a new meter service, that's this right here. Again, I can't remember if we're actually tapping in there again with the stub, but the water service will be delivered to a meter here and will supply the building. Mr. Tompkin: Really, from a civil standpoint, there's not a lot of new infrastructure being constructed to serve the property. There are some minor street improvements. For the earlier -approved project, curb cuts were developed in this location and this location, as well as right here in what is an additional garage entrance at this location. Those curb cuts need to be adjusted. There will be some repair and adjustment, relocation of the curb, gutter sidewalk, to accommodate these new access locations that are pretty minor. There has been discussion tonight about extending this on -street parallel stall assembly here to the west because we've got to repair or replace this other curb cut anyway. So we'll take advantage of that to accommodate some additional on -street parking, which we have no objection to at all. Mr. Tompkins: I guess, beyond that, there's really not a lot going on from a civil site improvement standpoint. Move on to the overall context slide. Thank you Myer. Sorry, this is a little blurry, but I just wanted to give you some additional context with respect to storm drainage. Here is Building 10.1 mentioned how we're collecting water from the site, from the surface parking, from the roof drainage, and connecting to the existing storm system in Pine Street. That system all drains through the lower division or lower phases and is treated in a large, wet pond. The drainage is treated in a large, wet pond in this area here that was sized initially for the entire development. We need to do a little work to confirm that the scope and scale of improvements here are what was anticipated for. If we're not commensurate with what the original design called for, we may need to do some minor enlargement of this pond, or perhaps we'll provide some on -site stormwater treatment facilities. Stormwater detention is not a requirement of this project because of our proximity to the Sound. It's really all I have to say, unless there's some questions. Chair Gootee: Is there any more presentation from the applicant? I think that brings us to questions of the Board. So are there any questions from the Board? Board Member Broadway: I have one, while you're still standing up there. As you described the catch basin patterning, will you confirm that the drainage from the surface lot is primarily from the southeast to the northwest, where you're picking it up at the catch basin. Did I understand you correctly? Mr. Tompkins: If I understand your question, yes, there's all of the parking lot drainage sheet flows ... Board Member Broadway: It goes in one direction? Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 18 of 29 Packet Page 667 of 774 Mr. Tompkins: It actually drains towards ... Current concept, it drains towards the building and is intercepted in a real shallow pavement swale directed to catch basins, where it enters the pipe system and is delivered here to the stub that exists. Board Member Broadway: Okay. Let me see if I can phrase this question correctly. It is going with the grade and the fall of the lot? Mr. Tompkins: Yah, the parking lot is graded to accommodate that. Board Member Broadway: So the grading falls lower towards the northwest? Mr. Tompkins: The low point is right here. It's not a single point. It's a series of low points where the catch basins are the four signal points. If these should plug ... Maybe your question has to do about ... Board Member Broadway: What I'm trying to determine in my mind is where is the high point on this site. Is that the southeast area of the lot? Mr. Tompkins: The high point is right along the base of these parking stalls. Board Member Broadway: Okay, that's all I wanted to confirm. I'm sorry. Mr. Tompkins: No problem. Any other questions before I sit down? Chair Goottee: I don't think there's any questions for anything on civil. Anything architecturally? Mr. Tompkins: Thank you. Board Member Broadway: I do have one question architecturally. On Page 46 of this book, your spiral book, your new east wing rendering shows some shadow lines, on the upper floor it shows some shadow lines that would indicate, as your renderings do, that the top floor is set back. What is that setback dimension. Mr. Kohner: It varies. Can you all hear me? That varies anywhere from 3.5 to 5 feet, depending on which unit it is. I don't have an average number, but ... Board Member Broadway: That's good enough. Chair Gootee: I had a question for clarity. Can you briefly, we're all anxious here, can you briefly show the 2006 elevation approved, then briefly show the 2012 elevation, and then address real quickly, again, the ADB comments that were addressed to the current elevation we have now proposed. That's 2006 approved? Because you were saying in 2006 it was approved. I want to see that elevation ... Mr. Gifford: I believe that's from the 2008 building permit package, which was based on the approved 2006 design, so you are right. Chair Gootee: Okay, that's what we're looking at here. Fast forward to 2012, it was presented in December. Mr. Kohner: That would be in the addendum, Myer. They're separate documents. Again, we had to throw this together in a week. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 19 of 29 Packet Page 668 of 774 Chair Gootee: I understand. That's kind of why I wanted to see ... For the folks out there, I wanted to see keenly what the ... Mr. Kolmer: There's not a flat elevation ... Chair Gootee: That's okay. So there on the left is 2012, reviewed in 2012. Now please address clearly on the current elevation the stuff that was addressed for the ADB. Mr. Kolmer: Actually, if we could just back to the addendum images. There you go. So sort of difficult ... You'll probably have an easier time if you look at your packet rather than the screen. One of the obvious things, though, are the roof forms. In this case here, we've got shed roofs, and in some cases, no traditional roof forms at all. It's more of a modern design approach. You'll also notice that we've stepped back the top floor along both facades, or I should say, both wings. The fenestration has been broken down into forms that are more representative of the other Point Edwards buildings. Material orientation is more horizontal with the new design, whereas with the design that was proposed back in December is oriented more vertically. As far as detailing and what not, in December we presented this more modern, clean -line approach, which was deemed unacceptable. So we went back to a more traditional approach. Lois Broadway wanted to see something more along the lines of prairie style and northwest craftsman motif, so we've included that. There's some images where we zoom in on the building, and you are better able to appreciate those. Mr. Kolmer: The bottom line is just if you read the Staff Report and the meeting minutes, there were, it basically had to do with changing the architectural style. The orientation or visual representation of the building being more horizontal as opposed to be broken down vertically. The ADB wanted to see the window treatments broken down further into something that appeared a little bit more residential, and of course, that's really getting into semantics there because there are obviously various forms and components that are residential. But these, obviously, are more consistent with the adjacent buildings. Mr. Gifford: They're the same windows, aren't they? Mr. Kolmer: Yes, these will be the same window. VPI, I believe, is the window manufacturer. So the same manufacturer for this building as the other Point Edwards buildings. I don't know, am I missing anything? I think those were the broad strokes that we addressed in any case. Chair Gootee: Any more questions from the Board? Anything about the east wing? Mr. Goodman: I think by stepping back the building like Lois ... Ms. Noyes: I don't have your name. Chair Gootee: You need to state your name and your address. Mr. Goodman: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is John Goodman. I'm at 281 Alaska Way, Seattle, Washington. I think by stepping the building back we wanted to give it more relief on that upper floor so it didn't look like a straight wall at five stories. I think that was ... We took to heart everything that was presented to us and tried to come back with exactly what we thought would be acceptable, irregardless of what we thought. Chair Gootee: Any more questions? We need to keep this moving. It's now come that time for public comment. So when you approach the podium, please respect. It's only three minutes. We have our little light that goes off. So please make it as brief as possible and to the point. We'll try to get through this as quickly as we can. Everybody wants to go home eventually. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 20 of 29 Packet Page 669 of 774 Mr. Lien: Just a comment on the light, it starts flashing at 2.5 minutes, and once it starts flashing, you've still got 30 more seconds to wrap up your comments. Then when it goes solid is when the three minutes is up. Chair Gootee: Go ahead and form a line or approach by row. Ms. McDonald: I just have a question. Ms. Noyes: What's your name? Ms. McDonald: Megan McDonald, 75 Pine Street, number ... Ms. Noyes: I don't need addresses, just your city of residence. So Edmonds? Ms. McDonald: Yes. I just was wondering if we could see the 2006, view all three together, and then I actually had a question for the builder. What was the thinking changing from the 2006 architectural structure to the 2012 structure? Chair Gootee: Can somebody address that? I think she's asking why the design change from 2006. Commissioner Schaefer: The applicant can address that in their rebuttal. Chair Gootee: Okay, fair enough. Mr. Wagner: I'm Tom Wagner, a resident of Point Edwards Condos, Edmonds. I'm going to proceed fast and, hopefully, can honor your time limit. Chair Gootee: Please state your exact address for the record. Ms. Noyes: I don't need addresses. Mr. Wagner: 65 Pine, 103. Ms. Noyes: I don't need addresses. Just the City of residence. Chair Gootee: My overkill. My apologies. Mr. Wagner: I'd like to address just three points that are interrelated: the size, bulk of the facility, the conformance to the site and the community, and third, the expectation of roof modulation. This is the proposed building. You've seen this picture before. This is the one that's on the cover, and it gives an incorrect picture of this proposal. This is only the west wing at a slant, a nice pleasant three-story, and it slopes down to four story. Why would anyone complain about the bulk and the size and the mass of this? This is the rest of the story, the east wing that goes from four story to five story. These two units are segmented but loosely connected in the middle, laterally, about 320 feet up and down Pine Street. Mr. Wagner: The new proposal, this is a composite, we are not presented with a profile of the north face of the building, so this has been constructed from the two segmented profiles that you've seen. Why the fuss? We have 57 respondents, 670 petitioners that say no, this simply doesn't work for Point Edwards. The public percept, too massive, does not fit the community, doesn't fit the neighborhood, doesn't fit the terraced hillside, inappropriate, not small scale as referred to in the master plan, and is too dominating on the skyline. Mr. Wagner: Just too big, but why? We have two conflicting concepts: the engineering concept of height and what I'd call the commonsense, citizen definition. In this case, they're grossly different. The commonsense, most of us say height is top to bottom, what you see is what you get, but let's take a look at do the math. The public expectation is that Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 21 of 29 Packet Page 670 of 774 the height is from the top to the bottom, what you see is what you get. You measure everything, and the engineering formula simply doesn't tell us what the height of this building is. Let's jump ahead. This is the legal building, legal building with modulation, leading building below grade, which adds to 58 feet, and from the 12.5 to 13-foot rise from the adjoining sidewalk, a 71-foot structure. This is what we see, not a 35 or a 40-foot building. Mr. Wagner: Okay, go ahead, jump ahead. These are your profiles. I don't want to dwell on that again. Flat roof . . Chair Gootee: Let me interrupt for a minute. You are down to three minutes, so the limit is three -minute presentations. Mr. Wagner: I'm sorry. I thought the thing came on at 2.5. I've just got one more after this, if I may. Chair Wagner: Please make it brief. Mr. Wagner: Flat roof, the lack of modulation, skylight enclosures, don't compute. One more. This was your 6206 profile. Let's just say no to flat roof and go back to the 2006 design if we really want modulation in both the siding, as well as the roof. Thank you. Mr. Yocum: Jeff Yocum, 45 Pine Street, #108, Edmonds. I commend to you my letter of April 23 for and extensive discussion based on the ADB's own comments in approving the original design plan. I also want to commend the staff. The recommendations in the report reflect a clear, cogent and comprehensive evaluation. Given the limited time, I'll focus on the application at 1674. While one of the common elements of the Edmonds Bowl is slope, this topography at this site is unique. To assure clarity in the methods to measure on this slope, the code specifically provided three illustrations and examples, A, B and C. In both the illustration and the language, it is clear that the rectangle used for the height calculation is to encapsulate the walls of the building. To these non -engineer eyes, those lines surround the walls. The site master plan states, "to encourage appearance of smaller building masses, building height will be calculated separated for each clearly separated portion of the building." This is also expressed as Footnote 2 in 16.75.020. As a consequence, I believe that the height ought to be measured with two rectangles, one for each building segment. In doing so, the eastern portion allowed height drops from what is presented. Mr. Yocum: The applicant has used one rectangle, and that rectangle has been expanded far toward the rockery, which is the high point of this site. That significantly increased the apparent mass of the building from the northern exposure. The argument is that the underground parking is part of the building; therefore, the rectangle is expanded out past it. If one considers servicing elements part of the building, why not include underground electrical, piping or anything else that requires soils to be moved. That does maximize height, but that was not the intent when the master plan was approved or the referendum passed. As a matter of fact, the stated intent was the exact opposite in the application of this code. Staff reports that the expansion of the triangle was allowed at the Gregory development at 5t' and Walnut. With all due respect, that property is not MP 1 zoning and doesn't present anywhere near the topographical challenges that this site has. And in comparison, it is not appropriate. Mr. Yocum: If you look at Page 6 of the proposal, the applicant, under the original, which through no fault of the applicant is the only package that was available for public review and comment, they've reduced the mass of the building by 25%. But in looking closely at that page, you'll note that they have excluded the bolt -on decks and the subterranean garage. Apparently, it's not part of the building, so why does the rectangle circumvent the underground garage. The proposal should not be accepted by the ADB, with the height being one of many reasons. The ADB should find the building proposed too long, massive, unbroken and monotonous, as is to be avoided under 20.11.030(4). Mayor Nichols: Good evening. I'm Carla Nichols, Mayor for the Town of Woodway. Obviously, I live there. I want to start by pointing out that I did hand you a letter. I'm not going to read it, but I am going to refer to it a couple of times because there are some important points. I want to start by first recognizing the importance of your Board. We don't have one of these in Woodway, but I think it's important that you are here because you can preserve a community. So Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 22 of 29 Packet Page 671 of 774 we're glad you're here, and I'm sure the residents of Edmonds are glad you're here, as well as the residents of my town, Woodway. Mayor Nichols: So 12 years ago, the Mayor of Woodway, or the Mayor of Edmonds, Gary Haakenson, came to my town and asked that we make some adjustments in a development that we were in the process of approving, and that was the Woodway Highlands. Part of the request, or one of the requirements, was to have a walking path between that development and Twin Meadows. Edmonds residents didn't want that. The Mayor asked that that walking path be deleted. We listened to that, and I guess people in Edmonds didn't want people in Woodway walking next to their backyards. That seems kind of small compared to what we are dealing with now —a five story building and 74 parking stalls about two or three yards away from resident homes in Woodway. Mayor Nichols: Again, we were here in 2002 when the master plan was before the City of Edmonds. We were asked to weigh in on it. We did agree with that plan, but we feel that what you are reviewing now is a very significant deviation. You've heard tonight how the new proposal has been more responsive to several of your conditions, but I don't think all design objectives are the same. It seems pretty clear that the primary issues of consistency and scale to the Point Edwards property haven't been adequately addressed. The Staff Report repeatedly sites this, and I think that's important to remember. Changing the color of the building, changing the roofs are not the same and they don't address the scale and the consistency. Mayor Nichols: I want to quote from your City's Comp Plan, Page 93, Urban Design Element, General Objectives. This is the concept behind why you're here and why we're all here. "Good design and site planning improves access, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development." In this case, that would be Woodway and Point Edwards. "Good design and site planning reinforces the character and activities within a district." That refers to the master plan. And "it builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment." That would refer to the sloped topography. In your design objectives in the Comp Plan, there are many that really speak to this proposal. They're on Page 2 of my letter, C.8.a and c, C.10.b, C.13A, C.14.a and d. Mayor Nichols: I know I have to hurry, but we would support the approval of this project with conditions if the following conditions were added. The first one is that you drop the height of the building from five stories to four and go from there. That's really a deal breaker for Woodway. If that doesn't work, then the rest really don't matter. But they are the trellis should be required. The lighting for Building 10 and all of Pine Street should be decorative, architecturally -appropriate lights. Not cober lights on a huge pole. We didn't want that in 2002 and we don't want it now. Lastly, traffic impacts to Woodway and Chinook Road, really, we don't know yet what those will be. I would like the developer to be required, once it's spelled out, for us to look at any significant impacts and to look at a traffic device at the intersection of Chinook and Pine. Finally, and lastly, let's just remember the big picture here. A private party has been granted a right for a number of dwelling units in a development, but that has to be balanced with the rights of a community. That community has taken time to figure out what's important through design objective. So please use them as you make your decision. Thank you. Ms. Elstrom Bauer: Hi, my name is Lisa Elstrom Bauer. My address is 21919 McCaw Road in Woodway. I come here as other residents of the community for both Woodway and Edmonds. Public speaking is not my favorite thing to do, so ... I can't say it any better than our Mayor Carla and/or some of the residents that are here to speak from Point Edwards. But I do have a few things to say on some additional points that maybe some people have not considered, and that's the Puget Sound area and the Puget Sound corridor, itself. Point Edwards, Edmonds and so forth is not the skyline of downtown Seattle, and I don't think it should begin to look like that. I think a lot of people perhaps need to come down the corridor of Puget Sound in a boat and look at the greenery and the landscape and the buildings that have been put in place as you come down there. How far out is this infrastructure going to change coming out to Edmonds. I clearly don't see that now, and I would really hate to see that in the future. Lastly, as far as the building process goes, the submittal process, the changes that have to happen. You guys are the big building guys. That's your job. Edmonds is not here to make your buildings, your changes, and so forth and so on. They're here to make sure you do it right. Thank you for your time. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 23 of 29 Packet Page 672 of 774 Mr. Swenson: I'm Ralph Swenson of Building 45, #205 in Point Edwards. I want to note that Building 10 is very large, with unusual numbers of extra cars to park. Building 10 is equivalent in number of condos to three other buildings across the street in Point Edwards, but has 2.5 more times as many small condos, with only one parking space per small condo. I want to say that again. Building 10 is equivalent in number of condos to three buildings across the street from it in Point Edwards. It has 2.5 more times as many small condos, with only one parking space per small condo. Many of these 54 small condos will have two working people per condo, and in many cases will have two cars per condo. That will mean there may be 20 to as many 40 extra cars that are not accounted for in the regular parking system. The three or six off-street parking spaces suggested by the developer or the planners are simply not enough. Few other off-street parking spaces are available on this particular street. Other parking and bus service is far away. There is room to add up to ten more spaces on Pine Street next to Building 10. After all, the sidewalk can be redone and it is part of the 15-foot separation area in the front setback. Now is the time to have the developer do this. The ADB should definitely reject the developer's minimal offer of only three spaces. That is really ludicrous when you consider all these small condos. The ADB should require as many spaces as possible and to recognize the unique parking needs of this isolated, short, hilly street with many extra cars. Ms. Cufley: Kristy Cufley, Building 51, Unit 309. Good evening members of the Board. Ms. Noyes: Could you spell your name? Ms. Cufley: Kristy Cufley, C U F L E Y. I have a letter, which I want to submit for the record. I'm going to go right to the gist of it. You've heard a lot of the points I make in the letter tonight. Basically, I would just echo that when the City of Edmonds first granted approval for the Point Edwards project, it did so based on the good faith belief that the developer would create a beautifully -landscaped project with a total of 10 similarly, situated similarly, appearing buildings. The developer was true to his word for Trine of the buildings but for the tenth building has unfortunately deviated drastically and unacceptably from the original concept. This action has created suspicion and anxiety and frustration among the residents of Point Edwards as to just what the impact on us will be and has fueled community opposition, which would have otherwise been nonexistent. We wouldn't be here if the developer had stuck to the original plan of even 60 units in that last building. I can't believe when the City approved the increase in units in 2005 that it ever dreamed that all of those increased units would be crammed into the last, final building. I don't think that was the message. Ms. Cufley: What happened to the original representation that Point Edwards was to be developed and built as an aesthetically -pleasing and uniform residential community, consisting of 10 comparable structures? What happened to following the model, which is still on display in the sales office for Point Edwards, which clearly shows 10 little buildings all the same? That mockup of the completed Point Edwards project was relied on for years to demonstrate the finished product and also help set the expectation for all of us who purchased homes here that future buildings would be similar to those already constructed. Indeed, the very designation B-10 implies that it is the tenth building in a series. Ms. Cufley: Why is the final building such an explosively different creature? How can we not be worried about the disruptive impact on our Point Edwards community and about the negative influence on our property values? Instead of welcoming with open arms into our community a building full of new neighbors, is it any wonder that we now worry about the divisive impact of an additional 85 families, which will not be part of the HOA, on the existing amenities, which instead of being shared, must now be somehow segregated and their use policed? Is it any surprise that the residents of Point Edwards now feel deceived and misled? Will the next topic of discussion involve making the existing Point Edwards a gated community? Ms. Cufley: There's no question that there are legitimate business interests in developing properties, and there's no question that a developer is entitled to realize a reasonable profit in doing so. What is questionable, and what has become deeply objectionable, is the insistence on deviating from the original concept and intent. Rather than design the final building to slip perfectly into place, the crown jewel, as the final piece in the beautiful Point Edwards puzzle, the Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 24 of 29 Packet Page 673 of 774 developer has, instead, chosen to construct an 85-unit, bloated monstrosity, which will adversely change the tenor and character of our neighborhood. It appears insatiability for monetary profit has trumped commitment to creating one cohesive neighborhood, with the consistency of design. There are 500 people that live in Point Edwards, and we ask that you carefully consider all of the information you've been provided. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to address you this evening. More importantly, in doing so, in considering this issue, you're asked not to lose sight of the bigger picture and not to ignore notions of commonsense to reach an appropriate conclusion. Thank you. And this letter, I would like to be included in the record. And I also would invite you to come look at the Point Edwards site and see for yourself. Ms. Anttila: Hello, my name is Jenny Anttila, and I live in Edmonds. I don't live in Point Edwards, but I was here the night City approved the Point Edwards plan. It was sort of presented in a way of Brightwater or Point Edwards. Of course, everyone wanted Point Edwards. The decision of 47 feet at the time was based on the oil tanks that were there. This serves notice to Edmonds, to any citizen in Edmonds that cares about the City, and that is the skyline would be deeply affected with this plan. How it got changed to 350 units in 2005 probably nobody knows here why. But I think we all have to consider how it will impact Edmonds, as a city, the look of our city. It's going to look like Kirkland, and it's also going to set a precedent. I think that we really need to consider the size of this building, not just for the Point Edwards people, but I feel for them, but for how it looks in general. It's going to be dominating skyline building. It's going to affect people in Woodway, and I think it's just going to affect the whole of Edmonds in general. It shows the citizens of Edmonds that when we're talking about the Harbor Square Development, how you really need to know at the beginning what is the proposal, and what are the details of the proposal. Obviously, the Point Edwards, when it was approved by the City Council, nobody really thought of the hill factor and should the top buildings, the one we're talking about now, should it have been proportioned so that it wasn't this massive scale. Now you have got a problem presented back to you with basically a new proposal because they had to start again. So it is back in your court to look at this building for the sake of Edmonds and Point Edwards people. Thank you. Mr. Inadomi: So I'm David Inadomi. I'm from Woodway. I live in the south residence there. I spoke last time. I thought it was kind of funny. Is it Rick who's the counselor for the developer who was up here kind of sounding like the victim in this situation? I kind of feel the same way. That's one thing we have in common. I wrote a list of my grievances already to the Board. You've probably read them, and I don't want to rehash them. But I did want to list a couple of things that I have a saying motif, it's kind of, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I think the density and volume of the units at Building 10 are too big for the real estate. I think when the allowance was made way back when to go from 300 to 350, 1 don't think the spirit was to have it all concentrated on one piece of property there. So again, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Mr. Inadomi: Going back to what Kernen was saying about the underground parking. Yeah, you can do a 50150 split, so you're doing 70 something/70 something. But the rest of the units at Point Edwards are not that way. It's primarily underground. By doing that conscience decision, you're affecting me, in particularly, directly a lot of traffic right in front of my house, with the attendant noise, volume, unsightliness with the lighting, and that decision not to have enough space for adequate vegetation creates some of the problems for concealment. If you have more underground parking, maybe if you went 70/30 or even more than 90/10, there would be more space available. So again, just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And I would be very interested in working with whoever is doing landscaping, whatever the outcome of this because, obviously, it affects us to a great degree. Thanks. Chair Gootee: Are there anymore public comments? I think at this time, it is an opportunity for rebuttal. For the applicant, if you so choose. For staff, I've got a quick procedural question on the rebuttal. Is there a time limit? There's no way to address all this stuff in three minutes. Mr. Lien: They asked for 15 minutes, which seems reasonable. Chair Gootee: Make it as brief as possible. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 25 of 29 Packet Page 674 of 774 Mr. Gifford: Yah, I think we can be pretty brief We appreciate the comments, the testimony that everybody has submitted and the concerns. One perhaps quick clarification. There was a comment made about the on -street parking proposed by the developer. We didn't propose that; it was suggested by staff that we add two to three on -street parking spaces where the replaced driveway cut was, and we're happy to do that subject to whatever code and engineering limits might exist. We're happy to do that. But that wasn't our idea, but we're agreeing to proceed in that way. Happy to work with the Inadomi's on the landscaping issues. Mr. Gifford: Again, we come back to the provisions of the code, the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Design Guidelines, the master plan approved for the project —all in place for over a decade. This building is fully in conformance with code and development standards. It meets the requirements of the Comp Plan. It meets the City's approved planning policies and objectives, in our view. We've tried very hard to accommodate the request of the City staff, the Board and even the citizens. I know that's not fully appreciated, and we don't expect it to be, but that's been our effort. We believe we have a fully -compliant building. We hope you will approve it. Chair Gootee: Thank you. I guess that brings it to time for Board deliberations. Board Member Schaefer: Is there any more public comment? Chair Gootee: Any further public comment? So it's now closed and that brings us to Board Member Walker: It looks like there's someone ... Chair Gootee: Come on up, please state your name, city of residence. Ms. Martin: Monica Martin, 41 Pine, Unit 309. There's a couple of things that weren't brought up that I think are important. I walk a lot around that area. I ride the Sounder train. I'm an avid walker. I know this terrain. I see a lot of people with pets. I see a lot of people walking around. That area is high sloped, it's not wide, there's a lot traffic, a lot of parking. The thing is that the grade where you come up around 45 down to Eagle's Nest is a blind spot. I've seen often people coming over, coming up and coming down Woodway, and increasing the amount of traffic based on this building doesn't compute. Even as it exists right now, it's a safety hazard. I've seen people almost hit. I've seen cars almost run into each other coming over the slope, and I see none of that addressed in this proposal. I'm just taking it from a person that lives there that sees basically, because a lot of people drive, but I walk everywhere. So I see what's happening to the safety, given the traffic implications of the building as it exists right now without any additions that are part of this proposal. I think that needs to be addressed, and I don't' see it being addressed now. Thank you. Chair Gootee: Okay, I'll do this one more time. Is there any more public comment? With that, it's officially closed for public comment. That brings us to Board deliberation, comments, questions? Where do we begin? Board Member Schaefer: Well, I'm never afraid to jump in, so I will. Chair Gootee: Please do. Board Member Schaefer: As one of the commenters mentioned, the big starting point is on the mass, the height of the building. If that gets dealt with, then a lot of the other things around that issue can be resolved. A few things with the mass. One is relying on the 2006 Board review, as far as height, needs to be tempered. The fact that that maximum height was calculated differently than it was calculated for this proposal. There is a difference right there. And so, I guess take the 2006 decision with a grain of salt, the approval, because it wasn't be approved to the same elevation. IN other words, five stories in 2006 is not the same as five stories today. We're talking about, it's a few feet, but a few feet is a half a story. That's something to keep in mind in terms of what was relied upon before. That's going to the process discussion that we heard. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 26 of 29 Packet Page 675 of 774 Board Member Schaefer: It may have, and I haven't measured it. It may have a smaller horizontal footprint, the building. But that's because they've moved parking out of the building and put it out in surface parking. So we really ... A lot of this situation, the issues, have been created by trying to skinny and raise that building and shove parking out into the side yard. And then raising the east side, I guess where I'm starting to go toward thinking about staff s suggestion about dropping the east wing down a story. When you look at it in context, and I'm going now to the design guidelines, which are looking at in comparison ... I remember the presentations when it was first proposed, and it was this Italian - style hillside terrace concept. I remember the phrase there. And that didn't describe a castle on top. It was this stepping. The problem is if you look at the photo here that was presented in the amendment package, you can see the stepping up (and I can't remember all the building numbers here) and you go from Building 6 to Building 9 to the west wing is one thing, but the jump going from Building 5 to Building 8 and then jumping up to the east wing is considerably different. That's where we lose our terracing and conforming to the hillside in this layout. Board Member Schaefer: (audience clapping) That's not what we are here for. We're deliberating at this point. This is just the Board. I'm speaking to everyone, but this is a Board deliberation at this point. Thank you. Board Member Schaefer: That's kind of ... We hear this morphing of the design over time, but that's the general movement I've seen in the design over time has been that the content of the building has changed and the shape of the building has changed. Moving some of this stuff out into a flat space out back at the high point of the site is causing some of this problem. Board Member Broadway: I feel like I'm kind of being pulled into a love triangle. I'll explain what I mean by that. As Kemen has explained, the design meets the code. We, as ADB members, so long as the design meets the code and the ordinances within the zoning code, any other comment is outside of our scope. That's one leg of this three-legged stool that I have. I feel like to comment on height when it s meeting the code is going beyond our responsibility. On the other side of that, I do appreciate what the doctor said about "just because you can doesn't mean you should" because there is a conscientiousness about design. And I have to commend you guys with the design that you've come back with because I was adversely against the design that you showed us in December. I do appreciate how you articulated the design this way. I appreciate the conscientiousness that you've put in the redesign, and I know that was not a small fete at all to do that. The third part of this love triangle that I'm struggling with is an image in my mind that comes with the Medici family commissioning Michelangelo to carve David and he's working with this solid slab of marble, and he knows it's got to be this wide and this big, and he gets to the finish carving David and the Medici family comes along and says, no, he's a foot too tall, cut the head off. Board Member Broadway: I'm struggling with that because the building envelope and how you determine building envelope, and you make that definition is one of the first things you have to do. You have to design, how big is my box? And then you fill up the box, and you articulate the box. But you've got to nail down the box first. What we're asking them to do is completely finish the design and then change the box. I'm struggling with that. Chair Gootee: Back to dovetailing on that, Rick, and I apologize, I was not here for the December and April meetings. I'm trying to ... We strive to be consistent, and you're concerns about stepping back, are we going above beyond what we requested in April. Again, everybody here respects this. We strive to be consistent, and we've given the message to a developer in April, here are your parameters, and one reason I want to repeat them again up there. I'm struggling with the fact, although it is very massive to me in my opinion, I'm struggling with the fact that we can't keep moving the goal posts here. But I don't know, since I wasn't here in April, I want to get that clear. I don't know ... Are you brining upon a new parameter to this developer? Board Member Schaefer: I guess kind of to address both. One is, code is not the only thing that the design board is charged with. We also have design guidelines to interpret, and that's why there's a Board. Woodway does not have a board, which was mentioned. All they have is code. We have design guidelines and district plans and that sort of thing to work with. We have project -specific guidelines, and those are what I'm point out is where this design has jumped from what it had been envisioned to be back a decade ago, and now has suddenly gone in a different direction. Now, Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 27 of 29 Packet Page 676 of 774 when did that happen? The whole process, we've heard a long litany from both staff as well as from the applicants on that. But, to me, it's gotten out of bounds in terms of how it sits on that site. That's just how I ... I just look at this image. It's nice to see the photograph where much of this development mirrors those original concept sketches, but this is an anomaly out of that. So we do have to consider something more than the code, and I do have an appreciation for projects that change. I'm a design professional. I have brought rocks before and been told no, a bigger rock, a flatter rock, no a blue rock. But as far as my interpretation of the design guidelines and this project is a mismatch. Board Member O'Neill: I would agree more with Lois and your guidelines, too. We've given them guidelines. The City, the staff, has given them guidelines. They've met those guidelines. They met the criteria that we gave them on the last, in the December meeting to change the design and bring into what we thought was more appropriate. But we never stated that their box had to be smaller. It's within code, and we've given them guidelines all along, and I don't think that we have the opportunity now to change the parameters for them. I think they did an admirable job in changing the concept and the design of the building. I'm also looking at the height thing, and I don't think they've varied from the 2006 height to the new height. In fact, it may be shorter by a couple of feet in looking at the elevations. That being said, I don't see how we can change the guidelines of the code and the guidelines that we've given them in the past. Board Member Walker: I'll just echo that and say that I agree with what you guys have said, Bruce, Bryan and Lois, about ... I feel like we were all pretty much in agreement last time with the very specific things that we asked them to do. In terms of changing building size, it wasn't mentioned. I understand this is a Board discussion at this time, and I don't know if it is appropriate to ask staff to address why they've made the recommendation they have at this point. Maybe that can give us more information to work with from your end. I don't know if that is appropriate or not. But I tend to agree with what you guys have said. Board Member Guenther: I also agree that back in December there was no mention of the bulk. We all agreed that it met the code, the zoning code, as far as height. But I see it's inappropriate now to start talking about pulling the floor out of the east side of that. I don't think that's part of our discussions. I think it's been outlined that we're, again, to talk about the consistency of the building with the rest of the site. Another point is that we had a discussion about the landscaping and the design materials, and we got to see a sample board that we requested. I feel like, you know, the whole discussion about height should not be a topic tonight. I feel like the building is approaching being consistent with the rest of the site as far as materials. It's not a cookie cutter, it's not meant to be. The materials, the scale, the articulation of the fagade, is more appropriate with the rest of the site. The landscaping. I think you may want to look at the drive when you go into the entrance for the underground parking. There's a couple of trees there that I think is blocking some views. We're talking about pedestrian safety, I think you need to look at that. Design elements, I think we're right on now. That's how I feel about it. Chair Gootee: Okay, anything else? Anymore ... Board Member Schaefer: I have stated what I thought, but I'm not getting any traction. Chair Gootee: I think it's time for a motion. Any of the Board Members would like to come forward with a motion? Board Member O'Neill: I'll make a motion. I move that the Board approves PLN20130022 with the following conditions: 1) On -street parking is required to be added at the location of the existing northern driveway approach which is no longer being used by Building 10. 2) A trellis no taller than 6 feet with associated plantings should be installed adjacent to the top of the rockery on the south side of the surface parking area, and the applicant should work with the adjacent property owner to provide additional screening landscaping. 3) The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 4) Height calculations are required with the building permit application in order to demonstrate that the project complies with the height requirements of the MP 1 zone. Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 28 of 29 Packet Page 677 of 774 Ms. Noyes: Can I clarify one thing. So, on the one about the trellises, you wanted to replace "or" with "and." You said "and" instead of "or." Board Member O'Neill: I want "and" instead of "or." ... and the applicant shall. Chair Gootee: Is there a second? Board Member Walker: Second. Chair Gootee: Time for a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Board Member O'Neill: Aye. Board Member Walker: Aye. Board Member Broadway: Aye. Chair Gootee: Aye. Chair Gootee: All those opposed. Board Member Schaefer: No. Chair Gootee: This motion passes. I certify that this verbatim transcript is complete and accurate to the best of my ability. Karin Noyes May 23, 2013 Architectural Design Board Meeting Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Page 29 of 29 Packet Page 678 of 774 APLao 13000D, May 21, 2013 M � SE�►c� ®G'� Town of Woodway Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Development Services Department -Planning Division 121 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 WAS H I NGTON RE: Appeal of Type III B Decision of the Architectural Design Board Regarding PLN20130022-Point Edwards Building 10 Dear Mr. Lien, The Town of Woodway is in receipt of the Notice of Final Decision dated May 16, 2013 regarding PLN20130022 by the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the Synopsis of the Meeting dated May 15, 2013. The Town of Woodway Town Council reviewed the above documents at its regularly scheduled meeting on May 20, 2013 and passed a motion to file a formal appeal of the ADB's decision. Therefore, the Town of Woodway herein submits a timely appeal pursuant to ECDC 20.07.004 Closed Record Appeals. In accordance with Section C, the following information is presented: 1. Appellant: Carla A. Nichols, Mayor Town of Woodway 23920 113th Place W. Woodway, WA 98020 2. Standiniz: The Town of Woodway submitted written comments to the Architectural Design Board's staff on April 26, 2013 regarding mitigation measures to be considered by the ADB's staff in preparing its staff report to the Board. That report was reviewed and deliberated at a public hearing scheduled for May 15, 2013. In addition, the Town of Woodway submitted a letter dated May 15, 2013 supporting the staff report recommendation for approval with conditions and suggested additional conditions be added to more substantially conform to the Urban Design Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, as Mayor of the Town of Woodway, I testified before the ADB public hearing on May 15, 2013. Thus, in accordance with EDC 20.07.003 the Town of Woodway meets the definition of a "party of record" and has standing to submit an appeal. 3. Application: PLN 20130022 — Point Edwards Building 10 — Design Review 23920 113TH PLACE W. I WOODWAY, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE: (206) 542-4443 1 FAX: (206) 546-9453 Packet Page 679 of 774 4. Statement of Grounds for Appeal and Statement of Facts: The decision of the ADB does not conform to nor meet the Design Criteria set forth in ECDC 20.11.030 and the Urban Design General Objectives of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to ECDC General Design Review 20.11.020, the ADB must find that "the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 " and "objectives contained in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the comprehensive plan. " Section 20.11.030 B.4. states that "long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of the code and the comprehensive plan. " The staff report on pages 8 and 9 states that, "the scale of building 10 is out of character with the rest of the Point Edwards development.....". The ADB did not consider the staff analysis for consistency with the Design Review Criteria set forth in ECDC 20.11.030. In addition to the code citations referenced above, the ADB did not make findings in their deliberations nor a final decision that the proposal was consistent with the relevant design objectives prescribed in the comprehensive plan. Specific sections that should have been addressed but were not include: C.8.a. Do not use repetitive monotonous building forms and massing in large multi family or commercial projects. While building materials and some horizontal modulation applications were added by the applicant, the issue of mass and scale were not substantively addressed. See Staff report XIII. Summary. C.8.c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Please refer to pages 7-9 of the ADB's staff report. Subsection L of the staff report (line 2) states: "the overall scale of the building is out of character with the Pt. Edwards development and is not harmonious with the site's topography." C.10.b Minimize potential for light to reflector spill off -site. The Town of Woodway requested that Cobra lamps on high poles be exchanged with low, shielded, architecturally appropriate lights (to match the existing Pt. Edwards lighting standards installed on the north side of Pine Street). Edmonds staff supported that request. Refer to Staff report, Section 3.(I.) It was not addressed by the ADB. C.13.d Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of the building along steep sloping sites. Packet Page 680 of 774 The Town of Woodway requested the reduction of one floor of the building in order to address all three of the above referenced design objectives. The Town of Woodway also supported the Edmonds' staff recommendation to step the eastern portion of the proposed building. 5. Specific Relief Sought: The Town of Woodway respectfully requests that the City of Edmonds City Council reverse or modify the decision of the ADB as prescribed in ECDC 20.07.005 H. If the Council chooses to modify the decision to conform with the design criteria in 20.11.030 and be consistent with comprehensive plan Urban Design Objectives, the Town of Woodway requests that the application be modified to: a. Reduce the building from five stories to four. b. Step the eastern portion of the building down to three stories. c. Require all street and parking lot lighting to be consistent with the architectural standards already installed in the Pt. Edwards community and on the north side of Pine Street. 6. Statement of True Facts: As Mayor of Woodway, I have read the appeal and submit that th contents are true. Carla 31fichols, May Town of Woodway CC: Woodway Town Council Eric Faison, Town Administrator Wayne Tanaka, Town Attorney Packet Page 681 of 774 Pf 1 May 28, 2013 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 1215th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien, I am writing this letter to appeal the decision made by the City of Edmonds ADB on May 15, 2013 to approve the current proposal (with previously stated stipulations) of the Developer for Building 10 of the Point Edwards project (PLN20130022). I am of proper standing to appeal by being a party of record through both written statements and spoken testimony at the ADB public hearing on May 15, 2013. While I appreciate the deliberation the ADB provided in ensuring that appropriate building codes have been satisfied and that proper procedure has been followed in the revision process, I don't believe that compliance with the City of Edmonds design codes and objectives has been thoroughly addressed and investigated. This is the basis of my appeal. I will be the first to admit my lack of knowledge as to the details of design codes. However, it seems to me that a five story, 85 unit structure on a relatively small piece of real estate is contrary to the spirit of these guidelines. No other building in Point Edwards (nor in the City of Edmonds) has these characteristics. Additionally, the aesthetically displeasing presence of a large, well lit surface parking lot and the inability to produce meaningful privacy through landscaping (especially as seen from the South), seems to violate the essence of the design objectives. The most straightforward way to mitigate the apparent non-compliance from a design perspective is to reduce the number of units by reducing the number of floors as described previously in many comments made thus far on public record. This minimizes the visual immensity of the complex and secondarily allows for a reduction in surface parking and more opportunity for privacy through landscaping options. Comments have been made regarding the lengthy process over several years that the Developer has undergone to achieve the current proposal and that any changes made at this stage are unduly requested at the "Eleventh Hour". However, I have lived at my residence since 2004 and have had no knowledge or opportunity to voice my opposition of such a radically changed proposal until approximately six months ago, whereupon the first public hearing was opened for comments. From my perspective, we are more at the "First or Second Hour" of the process. Packet Page 682 of 774 I humbly ask the City Council of Edmonds to step back for a moment and look at the whole picture with a fresh viewpoint. Temporarily set aside building code requirements and mandatory legal processes, and do not let a false sense of urgency influence your decision making. The crux of the Developer's proposal needs to satisfy a basic question. Does Building 10 embody the spirit of the design codes and objectives set forth by the City of Edmonds and is the proposal in compliance with them? Obviously, the outcome of this decision will set a precedent as to the fate of all Edmonds building proposals, such as this one, in the future. Thank you for your time. I have read the appeal and believe the contents to be true. Respectfully, t David Inadomi (Appellant) 21603 Chinook Road Woodway, WA 98020 425 673-7083 Packet Page 683 of 774 Christy G. Cufley 51 Pine Street -- Unit 309 Edmonds, WA 98020 425-967-3666 christycufleykyahoo.com May 30, 2013 Kernen Lien, Senior planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department —Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 /61Ar DEVELOPM ?013 Cot RVICES RE: Appeal of Type III B Decision of the Architectural Design Board Regarding PLN20130022 -- Point Edwards Building 10 Dear Mr. Lien: Enclosed please find a timely appeal to the Notice of Final Decision regarding Proposal No. PLN 20130022 issued on May 16, 2013 by the Architectural Design Board. Included with this correspondence and incorporated by reference herein are the following documents: Attachment 1: Summary and Content of Appeal including parties of record, statement on standing to appeal, identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal, statement of grounds for appeal with facts upon which the appeal is based (with references to facts in the record), the specific relief sought, and a statement that appellant has read the appeal and believe its content to be true; Attachment 2: Names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates/manner of participation in ADB process, and certification of additional individuals with standing to join in this appeal; and Attachment 3: Notice of Unavailabilty for Hearing from July 17 — August 7, 2013. This correspondence (including the attached documents) constitutes a timely appeal pursuant to ECDC 20.07.004. Please take note that I am acting solely in my individual capacity as a citizen of Edmonds and not as legal counsel for the Parties of Record. Attached is a check in the amount of $365 (three -hundred sixty five dollars) in compliance with the required filing fee set forth in ECDC 20.07.003B and Resolution No. 1192. Sincerely, Christy G. e fley Packet Page 684 of 774 r'iC%.P9=R'54= 3 DEVELOPMENT SEPVIOE13 Christy G. Cufley, individually and on behalf of the additional parties listed in Attachment 2 pursuant to ECDC Appellant(s) 20.07.003, has standing to appeal since every individual has submitted written comments to the Planning Division and ("Division") and/or provided testimony at the Architectural Design Board ("ADB") meeting held on May 15 2013. I, Standing Christy G. Cufley, submitted a written letter to the ADB and also presented verbal comments at the May 15, 2013 public hearing before the ADB. The standing of the other appellants is found on Attachment 2. ADB Approval on May 15, 2013 of PLN 20130022 Subject "Building 10" located at 50 Pine Street in the Point Edwards development The factual basis for each of these grounds is provided in Attachment I 1. The ADB failed to properly issue findings based on the recommendations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report date May 9, 2013 with respect to: 1.1 Design requirements for human scale and consistency with surrounding environment, Summary 1.2 Modulated roof exemption, and of Grounds 1.3 Parking. for Appeal 2. The ADB failed to consider the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The ADB and the Division failed to correct technical errors in the applicant's methodology for measuring Building 10's height and the adequacy of its 35-foot exemption request. 4. The Proposal failed to address adequately the specifics of the ADB's December 19, 2012 design recommendations for PLN 20120040 (the previous proposal for Building 10, withdrawn and resubmitted as PLN 20130022) 1. Set aside the ADB Approval of Proposal PLN20130022 issued on May 15, 2013 and remand for redesign and Specific resubmission as an independent new proposal without reference to prior findings and previous design Relief determinations. Sought 2. In the alternative, follow all five of the Planning Division's written recommendations as set forth in its Staff Report dated May 9, 2013. I, Christy G. Cufley, state that I have read the contents of this appeal and believe them to be true. The additional Statement individuals listed in Attachment 2 have affixed their signatures also certifying they have read the appeal and believe and the contents to be true.. ^ signature SIGNED 0 LO 00 to 0) cc a 0 U W d Facts Attachment 1: Factual Bases for Appeal of ADB Approval of PLN 20130022 Implications of approved PLN 20130022 The ADB failed properly to issue findings based on the The failure of the ADB to provide findings with respect to recommendations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated staff recommendations and conditions invalidates its May 9, 2013. approval. ,-!;-1--riuman Scale and Consistency with Surrounding Environme 7 ECDC Title 10 establishes the Architectural Design Board; the powers • The ABD directives issued in December 2012 clearly and duties to review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a relate to design and place the issue of the size and mass design standpoint are found in ECDC 10.05.040B of Building 10 squarely and properly before the ADB for ECDC Title 20.10 establishes criteria for Design Review in addition to the its full consideration. general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. • The conclusion of the ADB to prohibit further discussion The purpose for including design review in the community development in May related to items it specifically requested in code is set forth at ECDC 20.10.100 which lists the following factors to be December is not in keeping with its prescribed duties. considered: • Encourage aesthetic environments in Edmonds; • Promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; and • Encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments. Except for certain exemptions not relevant to this discussion, design review pursuant to ECDC 20.10.020 includes, but is not limited to, buildings, parking lots, and lighting. ECDC 20.11.030A specifically states that: "The building shall be There is no evidence, as cited below, that the ADB designed to ... avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of considered the extent to which the Proposal meets these the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated explicit requirements of ECDC 20.1 1.030A and B. 2 development, harmonious in scale, line and mass .... Long, massive unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and with the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. " ECDC 20.11.030B states that: "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. " Following the hearing held on December 19, 2012, the ADB made several Despite Staff Report citations of design inadequacy, the recommendations including: ADB ignored the Division's recommendations without • Directing the applicant to make the design of Building 10 more consistent with other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards and with the Point Edwards Master Plan. • Directing the applicant to "take into consideration the following design elements present in the existing Point Edwards Buildings... more human scale..." ADB Verbatim Transcript May 15, 2013 Public Hearing ("Transcript") pages 2-3. The Staff Report of May 9, 2013 regarding PLN 20130022 cites the lack of Building 10's overall design conformance with the Master Plan. Section VI.3.C, p. 8:... the scale of Building 10 is out of character with the rest of the Point Edwards development and the overall topography of the site. Section VI.L.4, p. 10: ... the scale and form of the building is out of character with other buildings in the Point Edwards development. Stepping the eastern portion of the building down would still result in one of the tallest buildings in the Point Edwards development, but would be closer in scale with the rest of the Point Edwards development, providing a more human scale.... VI.L.6, p 11: The five stories of the eastern portion of the proposed Building 10 do not maintain the smaller scale that is historically found in Edmonds. explanation; no alternatives were explored. • The construction of Building 10, as currently envisioned, does not comply with ECDC 16.75, the Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, or design codes found in ECDC Title 20. • Now envisioned by the applicant as a "stand-alone" building, it will be for more massive and much taller than any other Master Plan building. • Its proposed length (measuring in excess of 375 feet from East to West) is almost twice the length of the longest existing Point Edwards buildings. • It includes above -ground parking for 77 vehicles and provides 24-hour lighting. • The nine existing buildings at Point Edwards (constructed from 2005 to 20 11) all fit into a common set of Master Plan design elements and assumptions of unity and harmony with the site including: o Height (three residential stories) o Scale (2 1 -34 units per buildingone building has 41 units) o Building design and materials, 3 • Section VI.L.8, pl 1: As proposed, Building 10 would not reinforce o Landscaping the existing building patterns found in Point Edwards. o Underground residential parking spaces (only transient parking is accommodated with above ground parking.) • Building I 0 fails to conform to the Master Plan or to meet the design standards contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan, which the ADB is required to review and consider under ECDC 20.1 1.020 and 20.1 1.030. At the May 15, 2013 hearing several ADB members made the following 0The ADB selectively chose which conditions to enforce comments to indicate there was no jurisdiction to consider the bulk, mass, from its own December 19, 20 12 hearing and which and height of the Proposal including the following excerpts (found at conditions to ignore. Transcript pages 27-28): • Both the applicant and the Division explicitly • "The design meets the code;" acknowledged at the May 15, 2013 hearing that the • "To comment on height when it's meeting code is going beyond withdrawal/resubmission by the applicant rested on a our responsibility;" SEPA consideration and that the December 19, 2012 • "We are going beyond what we requested in April (sic);" conditions remained relevant to a review of the Proposal. • "I don't think we have the opportunity now to change the The comment by one member that the proposal is `approaching consistency" implies the proposal is not parameters for them (applicant);" and yet fully compliant and more information is needed. • "Changing building size wasn't mentioned." Failure to consider all relevant design issues based on an One member stated: "The building is approaching being consistent with (erroneous) conclusion that once a project 'meets code' the rest of the site as far as materials." (emphasis added). nothing further need be considered essentially eliminates the necessity for any review by a design board. 0 00 co to Modulated ' o i e i ECDC 16.75.020 outlines site development standards and at footnote 4 specifically The ADB and the Division failed properly to states as follows: consider the adequacy of the applicant's Roof "Roof may extend up to five feet above the state height limit if designed as part Modulation 35- foot height exemption request. of an approved modulated design in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC " Section VII, p.14 of the Staff Report discusses "Building Height:" "The ADB will have to determine if the roof design is modulated enough to warrant the additional five feet allowed by the zoning code. If the additional five feet is granted, the building as proposed appears to comply with the maximum allowable height for the MPI zone. While the building may comply with the maximum height allowed by the zone, the proposal must also meet site design standards. " "As discussed in detail above .... staff is recommending the eastern portion of Building 10 be stepped down to better conform with the site's topography and be more consistent with the rest of the Point Edwards develo ment. " Parking The nine existing buildings completed from 2005 to 2011 all fit into a common set • The ADB failed to apply appropriate review of Master Plan design elements and assumptions of unity and harmony with the standards to the issue of on street parking. site including: building design and materials, landscaping, and underground spaces • The ADB did not explain its rationale for relying (only Transient parking is accommodated for above -ground parking.) on ordinary City parking standards rather than • There were approximately 25 on -street parking spaces initially associated examining the increased parking numbers in with Building 10. Approved PLN20130022 includes an above- ground accordance with the Master Plan and parking lot with 74 stalls and 24-hour lighting. Comprehensive Plan. A more proper analysis • Mr. Lien acknowledges this was a significant change over the earlier 2006 would have been to compare the proposed design when he states, "... (i)t was a large increase in the surface parking increase with the surrounding development area." Transcript, page 3. which features 100% underground garage • No applicable regulations exist for underground parking. parking for residents in existing buildings. There are no codes related to underground parking, so the Division used general By failing to address how above -ground parking City parking standards to conclude above -ground parking was permissible. deviates from underground parking in all other Transcript, page 4. existing buildings, the ADB has failed to perform its design review function. 0 CO a - A$ Facts Implications of approved PLN 20 130022 Section C of the Comprehensive Plan states the following with respect to site While building materials and some horizontal design: applications were added by the applicant the • Do not use repetitive monotonous building forms and massing in multi family issue of mass and scale were not substantively or commercial projects (C.8.a.) addressed. See Staff Report XII. Summary. • Retain connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through Staff Report section I, line 2 states "the overall the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. scale of the building is out of character with (C.8.c.) the Pt. Edwards development and is not Section D of the Comprehensive Plan states the following with respect to design harmonious with the site's topography." objectives for building forms: Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller Further, the Master Plan clearly links the buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the "Building Dimensions and Relationships" to the city's Comprehensive Plan. Design guidelines. • D.2. Design Objectives for Massing. D.2.a. Encourage human scale elements in building design. D.2. b. Reduce bulk and mass of buildings. D.2.d. Explore flexible site calculations to eliminate building masses that have one story on one elevation and four or greater stories on another. • D.3. Design Objectives for Roof Modulation. D. 3. a. To break up the overall massing of the roof. D.3. b. Create human scale in the building. • DA Design Objectives for Wall Modulation. D. 4. b. Break up large building mass and scale of a facade. D. 4. c. To avoid stark and imposing building facades. D. 4. d. To create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds. D. 4. e. To become compatible with the surrounding built environment. The Master Plan states at page 14: "In the Upper Yard (governed in the proposed MP-1 Zone regulations), the residential buildings `will be designed to fit into the terraced hilltop and hillside. " :i iI�'i� 1 o Facts Implications of approved PLN 20130022 • ECDC Title 16.75 was created by Ordinance 3402 and was passed on July The Division's, and by extension the ADB's, 2, 2002, as part of the contract rezone agreement incorporated into the error lies in failing to require the applicant City's Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1995. to demonstrate that its use of the height • The upper portion of the zone, including the site of Building 10, was measurement methodology stated in designated as MP It was recognized that the topography of the site ECDC 21.40.030A will result in the some presented unique issues addressed in ECDC 16.75.020 B. number of allowed stories and the some • Not yet having a Master Plan, but needing to control building height on the overall height of the Building 10 site as steep slopes (35 feet), the City included three specific illustrations (Figures would the use of ECDC 16.75.020. A, B, and C of 16.75.020) to insure clarity regarding the measurement of • If the Division's stated goal is trying to the allowed height of 35 feet. achieve "consistency in application of the • There is a consistency in the wording and diagrams of all three examples: development code" this should have been The `rectangle' used to determine the mean altitude from which required. measurement is calculated is around the walls of the visible portions of the • The applicant obviously could not have building. It is clear from the drawings, and the words of this section, that it met this test, however, because is the visible portion of the structure that is to be enveloped by the application of ECDC 21.40.030.A at the rectangle for measurement, a method unique to the MP zones due to the Building 10 site results in measuring topography of the site. building height from a baseline almost 18 • The City was aware of the site issues at the time of adoption in 2002 feet above the I n level grade, a result because the Ordinance specifically provides in ECDC 16.75.005 F the which would have been impossible to following statement: "The height limit and calculation procedures achieve at a lesser -sloped site like that established for the MPI and MP2 zones have been adopted after full occupied by the Gregory Building. consideration of the topographical constraints of sites within the zones. At five stories tall as currently envisioned, Variances are not available under current City code provisions in order to Building 10 could not be built elsewhere in make more profitable use of a property. In adoptingthese hese provisions, the the Edmonds bowl. City Council has speci icalla provided for and made allowances for the site constraints and topographical features inherent in development of the designated MPI and MP2 sites. Therefore, no other height variance would typically be available absent a special showing of constraints unanticipated at the date of adoption of this ordinance. " (emphasis added). Despite citing the necessity for Building 10 to conform to the provisions of ECDC Title 16.75, the May 9, 2013 Staff Report instead used ECDC 21.40.030.A to justify the five -story proposed height for a portion of the building based on comparison with another property -- The Gregory Building stating at page 5: The height rectangle used to calculate the average grade for determining the maximum allowed height encompasses the underground parking structure. This is consistent with how height calculations were performed on the Gregory Building located at 505 Fifth Avenue South under ADB-2003-44. ® The Master Plan states at page 14: "To encourage the appearance of smaller building masses — building heights will be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building. " This is further emphasized in ECDC 16.75.020B. Footnote 5. This is a different measurement methodology than that found in ECDC 16,75.020 and is not appropriate here; the topography of the Gregory Building was virtually flat and highly dissimilar to the hilly sloping site at Building 10. Thus, the comparison is flawed and not justified. As noted above, the Division justifies ignoring ECDC Title 16.75 by citing the City's need for "consistency in application of the development code," thus potentially enabling the arbitrary use of any Edmonds building —rather than the MP I code —as the measurement standard. The "rectangle" applied is on irregular, non - square configuration inconsistent with the Master Plan directive. N 4. The Proposal 1 adequately address1 of concernnoted by the ADB at the December 1 2012 for PLN 20120040 previous proposal f1 Building 1 1uently withdrawn and resubmitted as PLN 20130022) Facts Implications of approved PLN 20130022 The Staff Report of May 9, 2013 regarding PLN 20130022 cites the lack • Despite Staff Report citations of design inadequacy, of Building 10's overall design conformance with the Master Plan. the ADB ignored the Division's recommendations • Section VI.3.C, p. 8:... the scale of Building 10 is out of character with without explanation; no alternatives were explored the rest of the Point Edwards development and the overall topography • Building 10 still fails to conform to the Master Plan of the site. or to meet the design standards contained in the • Section VI.L.4, p. 10: ... the scale and form of the building is out of City's Comprehensive Plan, which the ADB is character with other buildings in the Point Edwards development. required to review and consider under ECDC Stepping the eastern portion of the building down would still result in 20.1 1.020 and 20.1 1.030. one of the tallest buildings in the Point Edwards development, but • The ADB selectively chose which conditions to would be closer in scale with the rest of the Point Edwards enforce from its own December 19, 20 12 hearing development, providing a more human scale.... and which conditions to ignore. • VI.L.6, p 11: The five stories of the eastern portion of the proposed • Both the applicant and the Division explicitly Building 10 do not maintain the smaller scale that is historically found acknowledged at the May 15, 20 13 hearing that in Edmonds. the withdrawal and resubmission of the application • Section VI.L.8, pl1: As proposed, Building 10 would not reinforce by the applicant rested on a SEPA consideration the existing building patterns found in Point Edwards... and the December 19, 20 12 conditions remained relevant to a review of the new Proposal. However, addressing those conditions neither constitutes -- nor substitutes for — a thorough review of the new Proposal PLN20130022. 0 CO a Attachment 2: Additional Parties of Record With Standing To Join Appeal We, the undersigned, having provided written and/oral comments regarding PLN 20130022 on or before May 15, 2013, affirm that we have read the contents of this appeal, believe it to be true, and hereby join in this appeal. T C , �)'N L'q- +'-7Z 46 ? - s"'O ,i AJ N C & N a 1 C K S� ��-v.►� c c�eS� IS 4 ZS_ - L I $ - ©SO r A A,, b '-z k e- Li C -2- ` -Z.2 :Urn A CS4�:� -r)Ae- J-tn Ba vie, 7F- Lr, r4, `�S ; •� 3 05b 2 9 5G ,7 - s3 � o 1 �LA&c� N W.7 -3 v e - RECEEVED II q U c 0 2013 DEVELOPMENT SER%11(;(-,,' Packet Page 694 of 774 CCJFu`i'Eh Attachment 2: Additional Parties of Record With Standing To Join Appeal We, the undersigned, having provided written and/oral comments regarding PLN 20130022 on or before May 15, 2013, affirm that we have read the contents of this appeal, believe it to be true, and hereby join in this appeal. _ — 504 ST. I -IS yll L ��L ♦ V C �� G'. , L vq 7l flII)C- 3I Poe KOZL) zc:�' e 2�" S"2 7 7/ 2 /I W*j orie.- S VJe ��sb Qcv v�✓ Packet Page 695 of 774 Attachment 2: Additional Parties of Record With Standing To Join Appeal We, the undersigned, having provided written and/oral comments regarding PLN 20130022 on or before May 15, 2013, affirm that we have read the contents of this appeal, believe it to be true, and hereby join in this appeal. � e a 'f )-q1Z-- Im •SEA _ Pilo 20 Lf mo ��3 .� y o Z -1 Fe % � � C ?51' &\1 4,� - L40 61. 9 C-1 � Q /�� a � � L % � S a. i c� s �% Gil l G� ��✓c,�.�• z-0 'Sr 3g �. .z5. 7 4- f2-7•2— 1 7? ve`7 %t Lt,�� q2S-- �<J)1At:=, �o 3 Packet Page 696 of 774 Attachment 2: Additional Parties of Record With Standing To Join Appeal We, the undersigned, having provided written and/oral comments regarding PLN 20130022 on or before May 15, 2013, affirm that we have read the contents of this appeal, believe it to be true, and hereby join in this appeal. G 41 �U.c'aPij 2,0 -77/- 7 '12- X_s 76 -67 7 bIWA l�llU srj0 �a���✓J" '� 3 Packet Page 697 of 774 Attachment 2: Additional Parties of Record With Standing To Join Appeal We, the undersigned, having provided written and/oral comments regarding PLN 20130022 on or before May 15, 2013, affirm that we have read the contents of this appeal, believe it to be true, and hereby join in this appeal. EwtS UOLyoagy % ' - r E 06 � -2,6 ®.2 70 k 3 Packet Page 698 of 774 ,ftk-v Or Rr� fl p l w-: �� 1 K40PbS/ W"k ozo --p kone q 2_5-- qfo7- v g 6 3 LAtJ or Zcr3 5-(-A-il (U C) u t2 CoN Gu72-tj Pgo PosE-D r2E-p7-m- C® tit PL6-�z W c)ut_b r+-v C OrJ o wr2 aDft\ lh LkQi T V, U E t2c-k,8 r- Cod i t� ar: Wt -6� 1"'PREAL. --m 61 i RUE ty Ct i rz e�j oP-- Eb k oA),6s ,lJ p Is ry v7- ` LC-6, Cow 6 &Z r—vP-�-t E� e v Y� /j �, v�y fr seti: Packet Page 699 of 774 necc 'r . Christy G. Cufley I ' f 51 Pine Street --Unit 309 A'AY � 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 DEVELO 013 425-967-3666 CQ jNTEf R O68 christycufley a yahoo.com NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY TO: Kernan Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds You are hereby notified that the undersigned will be unavailable from: July 17 through August 7, 2013 Please do not set any dispositive motions, hearings, or other matters requiring a response or appearance by the undersigned during the designated time of unavailability. DATED: May 30, 2013 Packet Page 700 of 774 PQ June 13, 2013 City of Edmonds City Council, President Petso City Hall, First Floor 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Appeal of Architectural Design Board Decision of Building 10 Dear Council President Petso; WASH I NGTON The Town of Woodway has submitted a timely appeal of the May 15, 2013 decision of the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board (ADB) approving Point Edwards Building 10. The purpose of this letter to succinctly re -state how the ADB has erred in its decision and to request the City Council to reverse or modify the decision in order to conform to the City Comprehensive Plan and Design Criteria set forth in City code. The ADB excluded findings of consistency with the Edmonds Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan: 1. The decision of the ADB does not conform to nor meet Design Criteria set forth in ECDC 20.11.030 and the Urban Design General Objectives of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to ECDC General Design Review 20.11.020, the ADB must find that "the proposal is consistent with the 23920 113TH PLACE W I WOODWAY, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE: (206) 542-4443 1 FAX: (206) 546-9453 Packet Page 701 of 774 criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030" and "objectives contained in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the comprehensive plan. " Section 20.11.030 BA states that "long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of the code and the comprehensive plan. " The staff report on pages 8 and 9 states that, "the scale of building 10 is out of character with the rest of the Point Edwards development....." The ADB did not consider and excluded the staff analysis for consistency with the Design Review Criteria set forth in ECDC 20.11.030. 2. In addition to the code citations referenced above, the ADB failed to make findings in their deliberations and final decision that the proposal was consistent with the relevant design objectives prescribed in the comprehensive plan. Specific sections that should have been addressed but were excluded include the following: C.8.a. Do not use repetitive monotonous building forms and massing in large multi- family or commercial projects. While building materials and some horizontal modulation applications were added by the applicant, the issue of mass and scale were not substantively addressed. See Staff report XIII. Summary. C.8.c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. 2 Packet Page 702 of 774 Please refer to page 7 - 9 of ADB's staff report. Subsection L. of staff report (line 2) states: "the overall scale of the building is out of character with the Pt. Edwards development and is not harmonious with the sites' topography." C.10.b Minimize potential for light to reflect or spill off -site. The Town of Woodway requested that Cobra lamps on high poles be exchanged with low, shielded architecturally appropriate lights (to match the existing Pt. Edwards lighting standards installed on the north side of Pine Street). Edmonds staff supported that request. Refer to Staff report, Section 3.(I.) It was excluded by the ADB. C.13.d Integrate buildings into their site by stepping the mass of the building along steep sloping sites. The Town of Woodway requested the reduction of one floor of the building in order to address all three of the above referenced design objectives. The Town of Woodway also supported the Edmonds' staff recommendation to step the eastern portion of the proposed building. Specific Relief Sought: The Town of Woodway respectfully requests that the City of Edmonds City Council reverse or modify the decision of the ADB as prescribed in ECDC 20.07.005 H. If the Council chooses to modify the decision to conform to the design criteria in 20.11.030 and be consistent with comprehensive plan Urban Design Objectives, the Town of Woodway requests that the application be modified to: a. Reduce the building from five stories to four. 3 Packet Page 703 of 774 b. Step the eastern portion of the building down to three stories. c. Require all street and parking lot lighting to be consistent with the architectural standards already installed in the Pt. Edwards community and on the north side of Pine Street. Thank you for considering the above facts in this important project and we look forward to your decision to reverse or modify the ADB's decision. Sincerely, Carl ichols, M or CC: Woodway Town Council Woodway City Attorney EI Packet Page 704 of 774 Date: To: From: MEMORANDUM June 21, 2013 Edmonds City Council and Mayor Earling Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Subject: Point Edwards Building 10 Design Review PLN20130022 Closed Record Appeal APL20130002 — APL20130004 Introduction The three appeals submitted on the Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval and the written argument submitted by the Town of Woodway all reference staff s proposed Condition No. 1' and the analysis in the staff report in support of the proposed condition 2. At the May 15, 2013 Architectural Design Board public hearing on the proposed Building 10, staff provided some clarification on the proposed Condition No. 13 . This memorandum reiterates staff clarification of the proposed Condition No. 1 provided at the May 15, 2013 Architectural Design Board public hearing. Staff Proposed Condition No. 1 Section VI.3.L of the staff report notes that while, in staffs opinion, the proposed Building 10 complies with the zoning standards and a number of the design standards detailed in the Comprehensive Plan and Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.11, the 1 Record at 0018 2 Record at 0012 - 0014 3 May 15, 2013 Verbatim Transcript Page 4 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 705 of 774 proposed Building 10 is not consistent with the Point Edwards Master Plan or with a number of design standards and policies within the Comprehensive Plano. In particular, staff did not feel the proposed building was adequately integrated into the hillside or in similar scale and character to the remainder of the Point Edwards Master Plan Development. Please refer to the record at pages 0012 — 0014 for a full analysis. Staff concluded that if the eastern portion of the proposed Building 10 were stepped down to conform with site topography, as Building 10 was originally designed, the proposal would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Point Edwards Master Plan. Staff s simplistic way of achieving the step down was to propose the elimination one of the floors in the eastern portion of the building reducing the building to four stories while still maintaining the overall design (particularly the step back on the top floor and the modulated roof design). As staff noted at the May 15, 2013 Architectural Design Board public hearings, if the same affect (appearance of a step down to conform with the site topography and reduction of mass and scale) could be achieved through other design techniques while still maintaining five stories, the proposed building may still be found in compliance with the design standards and Point Edwards Master Plan. 4 Record at 0012 -0013. 5 May 15, 2013 Verbatim Transcript Page 4 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 706 of 774 Rick Gifford E-mail: rick@rgiffordlaw.com Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds, Planning Division 122 — 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Hand Delivered Re: PLN20130022, 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, Reply to APL20130002 Dear Mr. Lien: The following materials are submitted on behalf of Edmonds Pine Street LLC, the property owner and Applicant under the above File No., in reply to the appeal of the Town of Woodway ("Appellant") of the Architectural Design Board ("ADB") decision in this matter issued on May 16, 2013. The appeal ("Woodway Appeal") was timely filed and assigned City appeal number APL20130002. We acknowledge that Appellant Town of Woodway is a party of record with standing to appeal. Appellant also filed additional written materials under APL20130002 on June 14, 2013 in support of its appeal. This constitutes the Applicant's reply to Appellant's filed materials and the arguments contained therein. We will first outline the substance of the proposal and its procedural history during pre -application review and consideration, submittal, formal assessment by the ADB, and final decision, now on appeal. All citations to the Record are to the complete written record compiled by staff for this matter and available on the City Council's webpage, by stamped page number. References to the May 15, 2013 ADB transcript are shown as "Transcript at ®" I. Proposal The Applicant applied for design review of a proposed multi -family building at 50 EDMONDS WAY LAW CENTER 23901 EDMONDS WAY e EDMONDS, WASHINGTON e 98026 PHONE: (425) 673-9591 ® MOBILE: (206) 234-4444 Packet Page 707 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 2 Pine Street, the final building to be constructed in the Point Edwards Master Plan area after development of infrastructure and project improvements, nine multifamily structures, and two amenity buildings serving Point Edwards' residents. The current design configuration is a single building with two angled wings extending across the site generally from west to east, containing 85 residential units. Record 0005, 0028, 0035- 60. A similar design in bulk, height, scale, features, and footprint was first presented to staff for pre -application review and was subsequently modified based on staff and ADB input, to reach the design format presented to the ADB at its hearing on May 15, 2013. Record at 0483-90. II. Summary of Facts and Procedural History A. First Submittal Through its architects, the Applicant submitted an initial design to the City for pre - application review in May 2012. Record 0004-5, 0483-86. Based on that review and consultation with City staff, the design was refined only modestly. The submittal included substantial design and architectural detail, including color three-dimensional renderings. Record 0483. A second pre -application meeting was held with City staff to review the final proposed design in September 2012. The proposed project then contained 89 residential units, which would have brought the total number of units in Point Edwards to 350, the maximum number of units approved by the City. Record 0226-27 Staff generally approved the design through pre -application review, but identified two conditions of the ADB's 2003 approval of Point Edwards requiring further design review. Record 0004, 0485. These conditions related to the landscape plan, specifically an outdoor gathering area and water feature and an increase in surface parking, and consistency in the use of colors and materials. Id. There were no other comments or requirements identified by staff during pre -application review. Record 0240-41, 0484- 85. The proposal was submitted to the City for formal design review by the ADB on November 1, 2012. Packet Page 708 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 3 B. First Public Hearin The Planning Division's first staff report was issued on December 13, 2012, six days before the hearing. It contained new issues and comments not previously introduced by staff, and called for certain recommended design changes by the ADB. Record 0005, 0241-42; Transcript at 1-3. The ADB conducted its first public hearing on December 19, 2012. At the end of the proceedings, the Board publicly discussed the proposal, asked questions of the Applicant's architects, and provided direction for design revisions to make the project more consistent with the surrounding Point Edwards development, as follows: 1. The design of building 10 should be more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards under the Point Edwards Master Plan. 2. Additional landscaping should be provided along the rockery or in the parking lot along the south side of the surface parking lot. 3. The Applicant should take into consideration the following design elements present in the existing Point Edwards buildings: residential fenestration, broad overhangs, more human scale, distinction between floor -to -floor heights, and Pacific Northwest elements and materials. 4. The Applicant must submit samples of the proposed materials. Record at 0005, 0238. The public hearing was continued for this purpose, to be reconvened upon the Applicant's completion of the re -design mandated by the ADB. C. Re -design The Applicant worked with the building and landscape architects to revise the design in accordance with the ADB's directives and guidance. Re -design was underway when the Applicant was notified of irregularities in the City's environmental review processes and possible gaps in its assessment of traffic impacts. Record 0006, 0242. Re -design continued while these issues were under review. D. Re -submittal The City determined, contrary to its initial position, that the proposal would have to undergo a new environmental review and determination and that a stand-alone Packet Page 709 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 4 traffic study for the proposed building would be required under the Parking Ordinance. The Applicant decided to withdraw the pending application and re -submit its revised design for review together with the required environmental checklist for the City's threshold determination. The Applicant also arranged for its traffic engineers to conduct a new traffic impact analysis. The checklist and the traffic study accompanied Applicant's re -submittal of this proposal on March 26, 2013. Record 0240-43. E. SEPA Review The City determined the re -submitted application complete and conducted its required environmental review. A Determination of Non -Significance ("DNS") was issued by the City on April 12, 2013. Record at 0006, 0334-35. After public notice, a 14- day appeal period followed. No SEPA appeals were filed, making the determination final and concluding SEPA matters with respect to the proposal. Staff also confirmed the acceptability of the new traffic impact analysis in its SEPA process, with fees to be determined and applied in the context of building permit review and approval. Record 0271; Transcript at 2, 5. F. Second ADB Public Hearing The second ADB public hearing for the proposal was held on May 15, 2013. On May 9, 2013, the Planning Division issued it Staff Report. Staff found the revised proposal fully compliant with all zoning bulk and use standards under the governing Code provisions, including parking requirements. Record 0007-10; 0017. Staff recommended approval with conditions previously discussed and considered by all parties, and added a new recommendation that the top floor of the building's east wing be removed and the building physically stepped down from the west to the east wing. Record 0014, 18. The ADB considered the Staff Report, all materials in the written record, and testimony presented at the hearing, and found the revised proposal as submitted consistent with its directives, with City zoning and use requirements, and with Packet Page 710 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 5 applicable design guidelines. Transcript at 27-28. The Board conditionally approved the revised design proposal by a 5-1 vote. Id. at 28. The Board accepted all conditions recommended by staff except the new demand for removal of a floor and a stepped building, deeming the proposal as re -designed in conformance with City requirements and Board directives. Id. III. Closed Record Appeal Three appeals were filed by parties of record with standing, including the Woodway Appeal. These appeals are before the Council for review and decision exclusively on the record before the ADB under the provisions of ECDC Ch. 20.07. A. Design Review Standards. This proposal underwent general design review under ECDC Chs. 20.10 and 20.11 as a Type III-B decision (ECDC 20.01.030.A) requiring the Board's review and decision following an open -record public hearing conducted in accordance with ECDC Ch. 20.06. ECDC 20.11.020 calls for findings by the ADB that the proposal is consistent with City zoning standards and design guidelines, but does not specify a form that such findings must take or even that they be express or with any stipulated level of detail. In its first public hearing last December, the Board offered particular guidance for design alterations to the Applicant, as has been noted, and in its second hearing, the Board affirmed those changes as in conformance with design guidelines and responsive to the Board's particular direction in that regard. Notably, ECDC 20.11.020 acknowledges that "The City has the obligation to provide specific direction and guidance to applicants". The recommendations, suggestions, and findings called for from staff and the ADB as part of the review process, are for the benefit of applicants to provide clear direction and guidance. The ADB demonstrated the importance of definiteness in its initial directives to the Applicant last December, and its consistent analysis and decision at the May 2013 hearing. Transcript at 27-28. The City's process has not been uniformly clear and helpful. The Applicant has been confronted by changing rules and standards imposed by staff during the process, and by Packet Page 711 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 6 late shifts in position that do no align with the City's duty as stated in ECDC 20.11.020 to provide useful guidance and direction to project applicants. This responsibility also is embodied in the City's pre -application process, which is designed to identify issues and problems early in the process, long before hearings are held and appeals filed. Record 0483-84, 0502. Quoting from City Publication #58 regarding pre -application review: "The goal of the [pre -application] meeting is to identify MAJOR issues and processing procedures applicable to the project which are helpful for an applicant to determine feasibility, design issues, timing and various processes required for a project. ... Staff from the Building, Engineering, and Fire Departments attend the meeting, provide written comments and answer questions regarding the project." [Emphasis added]. The point of pre -application review, in the City's own words, is early detection, guidance, and sound information for applicants —timely issue spotting. The process failed completely in these goals for this project and actually resulted in greater confusion, cost, and delay for the Applicant. Record 0242, 0483-84. Information was overlooked by staff, or misinformation was given in some areas. Commentary on design was very narrow and limited, with staff identifying only two ADB conditions from the 2003 Point Edwards' proposal requiring further review, neither having to do with building height, mass, coverage, shape, or density. Record 0004, 0084-85. Twice at later stages of the design review process, after the design was refined in accordance with staff's pre -application input, staff raised issues with the project's design that were apparent from the beginning, but that staff either missed entirely, overlooked, or purposely reserved for later disclosure. Record 0228; Transcript at 9-12. B. ADB Hearings Two open record hearings have been held for the proposal, the second of which is the subject of this closed record review. Appeals from ADB design review decisions rendered after an open record public hearing are made to the Council as closed record appeals under ECDC Ch. 20.07. The first hearing was effectively put on hold when the ADB gave specific instructions to the Applicant for design revision, and then suspended Packet Page 712 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 7 when the original application was withdrawn for re -submittal. The second public hearing was for the purpose of reviewing the proposal as modified in accordance with the ADB's design requirements. Standards of review for open record design review hearings by the ADB are set forth primarily in ECDC Ch. 20.11 dealing with the general design review process and in ECDC Ch. 20.06 dealing with open record hearings generally. The ADB conducted the required public hearing in May, considered the written and oral evidence presented, and issued its decision of conditional approval under the provisions of ECDC 20.06.008. The burden of proof in the ADB hearing was on the Applicant to show that the proposal is supported by convincing proof and that it conforms with the applicable elements of the City's development regulations and Comprehensive Plan. ECDC 20.06.006.A. Following its consideration of the evidence presented, the ADB is allowed to close the public portion of the hearing and discuss the proposal in open deliberations, including further questioning of staff or anyone submitting evidence (ECDC 20.06.007.F), which the ADB did both in the first public hearing last December and in the second public hearing on May 15, 2013. Record 0236-37; Transcript at 26-29. The Board then expressed its conclusions and rendered its decision by motion from Member O'Neill and conditionally approved the proposal by a 5-1 margin. C. Closed Record Review. Closed record review under ECDC Ch. 20.07 is limited to the existing record before the ADB considered in light of key presumptions and giving deference to both staff and the Board in their respective areas of authority and expertise. No new testimony or evidence may be accepted or considered by the Council. ECDC 20.07.005.A & B. The ADB's decision is presumed valid (ECDC 20.07.005.C) and is entitled to substantial deference. The burden of proving error rests entirely with the Appellant, who must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the ADB's decision was "clearly erroneous." Id. This burden of proof is a higher evidentiary standard than a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). It requires an unequivocal evidentiary demonstration, Packet Page 713 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 8 from the record or a definitive legal showing that the ADB's determination is clearly erroneous. The benefit of the doubt, under this mandated standard, rests with the decision and decision maker below. The ADB's decision is presumptively valid. The challenger's proof must be made from the record and cannot rest on interpretation, opinion, legal conclusion, assumption, or any extrapolation from the record. The appeal must rest on fact, and it must rely only on the record. It is a high standard that affords appropriate weight to the decision maker charged with responsibility for considering the evidence, exercising discretion, and rendering a decision. There are two tiers of discretion in decision making in a design review case under ECDC Ch. 20.11. ECDC 20.11.030.E states that staff determinations that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance "shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence" presented by the Appellant. And such evidence must come from the record on review. The ADB is charged with deference to staff in these areas. Staff has confirmed that the proposal under review meets all bulk (height, mass, lot coverage, setback, etc.) and use standards under City Code, including parking requirements. Record 0007-09, 17. The Board received and accepted staffs determinations in these areas, properly deferring to staff, and then made its own independent review of the proposal and all evidence presented before concluding the revised design as conditioned in the approval met applicable design standards. The Board's design determination, like staff's assessment of zoning standards, is presumed valid and cannot be overturned absent substantial and convincing evidence in the record that it was clearly erroneous in light of the entire record. ECDC 20.07.005. Giving the requisite and proper deference to staff in zoning matters and to the ADB in design aspects, the Council is charged with sustaining the decision unless compelling evidence is presented by the Appellant showing unmistakably that the Board's conditional approval was clearly wrong. Packet Page 714 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 9 There has been no showing by the Appellant to justify overturning the Board's 5- 1 approval. The evidence in the record supports the staff's determinations of conformance with all zoning bulk and use standards, and the Board's approval of the design elements of the proposal. The ADB's decision should be upheld by the Council on review. IV. Reply to Appellant's Arguments Appellant is a neighboring jurisdiction to the City of Edmonds and has participated in public processes relating to the Point Edwards development at various times over the past 11 years. Mayor Nichols, who authored Appellant's appeal, has been actively involved in her official capacity. Woodway did not comment on the proposal or participate in the ADB's first hearing last December. Likewise, Woodway elected not to comment on or appeal the City's DNS following SEPA review earlier this year. Mayor Nichols did attend and testify at the ADB's second public hearing in May, and now appeals the ADB's conditional approval on the Town's behalf. The materials submitted by Mayor Nichols on May 24, 2013, and the supplementary materials submitted on June 14 address the same issues. The Applicants responses cover both instruments. Woodway contends that: (1) the ADB's decision does not meet the Edmonds design guidelines, relying on Woodway's independent interpretation of these guidelines and on advisory comments from City staff regarding design; (2) the Applicant should be required by the City to install the type of street lighting preferred by Woodway, not the City's standard specified street lighting; and, (3) the Applicant should be required to remove a floor from each wing of the proposed and redesigned building and step the eastern portion of the building down physically. Woodway Appeal at 2-3. Appellant offers no evidence or proof in support of its contentions, which amount to expressions of opinion and preference by a neighboring community. The record demonstrates the evidentiary support for the Boards review, assessment, and decision, and the Board made clear that it reached its conclusions based on the Packet Page 715 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 10 project's conformance with Edmonds' design guidelines and standards, prior staff and ADB input and direction, and consistency with existing conditions in Point Edwards. Transcript at 26-29. The record contains more than ample supporting evidence, and the ADB's decision cannot be overturned absent a contrary, substantial showing by the Appellant. Appellant selectively references the Urban Design Guidelines ("UDGs") and the non- binding commentary of staff to the ADB. Woodway Appeal at 2. The ADB is free to follow or depart from staff's suggestions on design, and made clear its reasons for not following the staff recommendation to lower the building. The design review process is a balancing and weighing process, among competing considerations. The decision maker must assess the valid evidence in the light of the applicable standards and guidance, and reach a reasonable decision that balances ideas that are in healthy tension. This is what the ADB has done. As ADB Member Guenther noted after the close public testimony and during Board deliberations, the proposed building "is not a cookie cutter. It's not meant to be [a cookie cutter]". Transcript at 28. Other Board Members expressed support for the revised design as fulfilling the City's design guidelines and satisfying the Board's specific direction to the Applicant at the December hearing. It seems Woodway, and possibly other appellants, want the building to look and feel identical to predecessor buildings, which not only is not required, but is inconsistent with other Edmonds design guidelines: UDG C.B.d. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety and diversity in building forms, color, materials, and individuality in buildings. UDG D.2.c. Masses may be subdivided vertically or horizontally. UDG E.1.a. Ensure diversity in design. UDG E.1.e Create individual identity of buildings. UDG E.3 The materials that make up the exterior fagades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the fagade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the Packet Page 716 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 11 eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. UDG E.4 The objective is to encourage new development that provides: • Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. • Visual interest and variety in building forms. • Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses. • Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. The City's design guidelines are a mixture of design, aesthetic, and architectural considerations and necessarily must be viewed holistically and weighed accordingly in arriving at a particular design decision. This is the ADB's job and is what the Board did in this instance. For sound and valid reasons, the Board ordered a design revision and gave specific instruction to the Applicant (See ECDC 20.11.020.A.), and then the Board proceeded consistently and coherently under the City's design standards and in accordance with its mandate to the Applicant. Appellant places particular emphasis on an excerpt from ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 stating that "long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided", but fails to place it in its necessary context, which includes the following clarifying language: "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! These are inherently subjective and variable considerations, relying on questions of aesthetics, architectural style, and informed interpretation and requiring the careful consideration of the ADB, which is afforded deference and a presumption of correctness/acceptability. The Board engaged in just such a holistic, comprehensive, balancing process in its review and concluded that, all relevant factors considered, the modified design meets the City's zoning and design requirements and that further changes are not needed and will are not required. Packet Page 717 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 12 Appellant's street lighting question is both untimely and out of place. It is fundamentally a SEPA issue (as Appellant treated it in Woodway's April 26 2013 comment letter to the ADB—Record 0392-93), and is foreclosed. In any event, the question is not part of this proposal and is not at issue in these proceedings. Woodway is free to initiate direct discussions between the municipalities on the subject. Edmonds can implement its street illumination standards and requirements, and may entertain related discussions with Woodway if it wishes. The Applicant has not proposed any changes to the City's lighting standards and neither municipality has approached it with any sort of proposal or request. The issue is not part of this design review process and is not in the ADB's or the Council's jurisdiction to address in this context. V. Conclusion and Requested Relief In summary, Appellant's concerns and arguments are not meritorious, lack evidentiary support, and fail to meet the required burden of proof. Based on the foregoing, the Woodway Appeal has no effect. The Applicant respectfully requests that the Council dismiss the Appeal and sustain the determinations and decision of the ADB reflected in its May 16, 2013 written decision. ltly y E. ' o Attorney for Applicant, Edmonds Pine Street REG/mmi Packet Page 718 of 774 Rick Gifford E-mail. rick@rgiffordlow.com Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds, Planning Division 122 — 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 June 21, 2013 UN 2 11 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERIACE3 09PffER Hand Delivered Re: PLN20130022, 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, Reply to APL20130003 Dear Mr. Lien: The following materials are submitted on behalf of Edmonds Pine Street LLC, the property owner and Applicant under the above File No., in reply to the appeal of David Inadomi ("Appellant") of the Architectural Design Board ("ADB") decision in this matter issued on May 16, 2013. The appeal ("Inadomi Appeal") was timely filed. We acknowledge that Appellant Inadomi is a party of record with standing to appeal. This letter incorporates by reference the provisions of Sections I, II, and III of the Applicant's reply to Woodway Appeal (APL20130002), also submitted to you this date. Citations to the record herein are by page number assigned in the complete written record compiled and issued by the City and available on the City Council webpage, and citations to the May 15 hearing transcript are to "Transcript at _" Appellant owns property in Woodway adjoining the subject site along a portion of its southern boundary. As stated in his appeal letter, he purchased his property in 2004, after the Point Edwards development was approved and site work was underway. Appellant has had notice of City actions and processes relating to the project and opportunity to participate in the public process. He appeared and testified at the ADB's first public hearing on this proposal last December, and again at its second public hearing on May 15, 2013. EDMONDS WAY LAW CENTER 23901 EDMONDS WAY e EDMONDS, WASHINGTON e 98026 PHONE: (425) 673-9591 o MOBILE: (206) 234-4444 Packet Page 719 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 2 The 2003 Point Edwards approval included a development concept for the subject site showing a large building with two wings of four floors each and a building mass and footprint quite similar to the present design. Record 0082-85; 0494-96-and Attachments 3 and 4 to ADB-2002-226. There was surface parking behind the building to the south, directly below Appellant's property. Id. Two floors of the building were above grade and visible from Appellant's property. Id. A specific design for the building on this site was submitted to the ADB and was approved by the ADB in 2006 and a building permit issued by the City in 2008. Record 0199 0203-05 17 18. This design tracked the original concept design closely, but was larger and taller, with greater mass than both its predecessor concept design and the proposal now under consideration. As approved by the ADB, the building had five floors in the east wing, four in the west wing, and a level but modulated roofline, like the subject proposal, and surface parking behind the building to the south was retained. Id. The Applicant's architect presented a useful and informative visual comparison of the 2003, 2006-08, and 2012-23 designs for this site (Attachment 1 hereto), and also a perspective view of existing Point Edwards from below showing looking south, showing building mass and a visual height of six building stories (Attachment 2, hereto). Record 0069-73, 0457-58, 0466-69. The current proposal approved by the ADB and under review consists of a similarly configured but smaller, less massive, moderately shorter structure that the 2006 approved version, still with only two visible floors from Appellant's property and surface parking behind the building as in 2003 and 2006. In fact, the approved 2006-2008 building design had two stories exposed at the west wing and three stories at the east, while the present design has been reduced to two stories for the entire south facing facade. Record 0072-73. Appellant now identifies three points of concern in his appeal, as follows: 1. The proposed structure, to him, seems not in the "spirit" of the City's design standards and guidelines. 2. The illuminated surface parking lot is aesthetically displeasing to him. Packet Page 720 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 3 3. He does not feel the proposed design permits meaningful privacy for his upslope property through landscaping. These concerns are understandable, but they do not establish clear error by the ADB. Matters of personal preference are not necessarily appropriate grounds for appeal of a land use decision. The Board concluded that the revised design meets its specified requirements and the provisions of the City's design guidelines and standards. Transcript at 27, 28. Appellant has a different opinion. The parking area illumination is a matter of City code requirements and security and was found fully compliant by staff and the ADB. Record 0011-12. Landscape design was reviewed extensively by staff and the ADB and additional requirements for landscape and privacy screening and consultation with Appellant regarding vegetative screening were imposed by the ADB. Transcript at 17, 28. Appellants' points are matters of personal interpretation and preference, insufficient to meet his burden of proof or to justify setting aside or altering the ADB's exercise of discretion in regard to the design proposal in light of the record as whole. I. Conclusion and Requested Relief Appellant has not shown by substantial and convincing evidence that the ADB decision was clearly erroneous, viewing the entire record before the Board. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Inadomi Appeal be dismissed and that the Council uphold the ADB's conditional approval of the revised design proposal as the final decision of the City in this matter. Ver rul ours, Ric and E. Gi Attorney for the Applicant, Edmonds Pine Street LLC Enclosures: Attachments 1 and 2 REG/mmi Packet Page 721 of 774 ca CL CL oc O M m cc a! O 4+ Z CW G V Q t 1141,..�� r ----PINE` STREET tUILDING 10E- ELM W I r aif2—J..— I PINE S MEFT BUILDING iOW O N n rn 81ALDING SECTION g BIDG. I OE & IOW. cu d � U � " �i'bi— —• POINTMWARM -- — —------- ,�'� 0466 3uildina 1(l PHOTO COMPOSITE OF PROPOSED BUILDING 10 - ORIGINAL PLAN PHO-O COMPOSITE OF PROPOSE[)UILCING 10 - MODIFIED ROOF PLAN eij�c a'ns POINT EDW C-1— 20.E ViEBER —1110N Marc III, — r_i`Q-I M W-0 LV -H 1ER1-011 MW:�IIDIL�: PROPOSED ROOF LINE ALTERATION TO BUILDING #10 v 0 0 M N I- N (M 0 a a) Y U m a Mm re rFiTo7M [IMCI I Ll VA9111 FAIIIIE'A 11 West It East 0468 ti 0 N N c (6 d N Y U (6 d 0 C CD CD N v N rr 0 V A Fri 69VO 7/ �—y} /L Ll Fy � TT p 07 LP- ; u .� �s Vle -- 7-7 r - - l�lilr 70f; L C ISaM Ellms-alJlLLre MAX IR 9 1or Lb ELEV. --- .ree1" W ELEV.- - .,�8" _ f NORTH ELEVATION (LAS" WING} I1 I r r I ji Irl �� Ir��ll �� 1�■ilk ilk■�� -- — --- — moll -- ■i �� �■■■ �� i■ I■,__ NEI li■�_ �r■ili ��� I�oll NORTH ELEVATION (WEST WING) EDMONDS PINE ST. LLC SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 0070 WEBER THOMPSON O CD (V n N rn N CL N Y U N d �I�t>•■Ivan. I � ��1 �� ■ ®am r � Via, Sim NORTH ELEVATION (EAST) NORTH ELEVATION (WEST) I■i■i�i re�■i I 47 EDMONDS PINE ST. LLC SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS. 2008 PERMIT SET WEBER T H O M P S O N 0071 0 rl- CV r N m @ a a) Y U a NNf. NEIDNT � ARTIODUTfD ({�E,pONUS T 0-R00F s LSEIEY. �� t4ElEV. A ..■Iw� ,I I■ I■ I■ I■ ■1 t���, III B"Imil �1 �N gig � u ! SOUTH ELEVATION (WEST WING) SOUTH ELEVATION (EAST WING) EDMONDS PINE ST. LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 0072 MAx HEwo MTC"MD +` WEBER THOMPSONm a r r 0 00 N N m CL N U ca SOUTH ELEVATION (WEST) I I , 1 4? EDMONDS PINE ST. LLC SO PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I PREVIOUS ELEVATIONS. 2008 PERMIT SET WEBER T H O M P S O N 0073 a L 2 2 EDMONDS PINE ST LLC I 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM NORTH ea EDMONDS MARSH TRAIL 0457 WEBER THOMPSON EDMONDS PINE ST LLC 1 50 PINE STREET AT POINT EDWARDS I VIEW FROM MARINA /ADMIRAL WAY 0458 WEBER THOMPSON June 21, 2013 Rick Gifford E-mail: rick@rgiffordlaw.com Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner City of Edmonds, Planning Division 122 — 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 RECE V -ter.% U, 2 2013 EVELOPeEVl_, Hand Delivered Re: PLN20130022, 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, Reply to APL20130004 Dear Mr. Lien: The following materials are submitted on behalf of Edmonds Pine Street LLC, the property owner and applicant under the above File No. ("Applicant"), in reply to the appeal of Christy G. Cufley, et al. (collectively, "Appellant") of the Architectural Design Board ("ADB") decision in this matter issued on May 16, 2013. We acknowledge that Appellant Cufley is a party of record with standing to appeal, and assume this is true of the parties joining in the appeal ("Cufley Appeal"). This letter incorporates by reference Sections 1-III of the Applicant's reply to the Town of Woodway's Appeal of the above ADB decision (APL20130002), also submitted to you this date. All citations herein to the record are by reference to the appropriate page or pages of the complete written record prepared by the City and available on the City Council's webage for this matter. Citations to the May 15 ADB transcript are shown "Transcript at A. Response to Appellant Appellant's arguments essentially are expressions of personal opinion or interpretation, and repetitions of staff advisory comments to the ADB, not factual showings. In summary, Appellant fails to meet the burden of proof required to justify modification or reversal of the ADB's determination as clearly erroneous. EDMONDS WAY LAW CENTER 23901 EDMONDS WAY ® EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ® 98026 PHONE: (425) 673-9591 ® MOBILE: (206) 234-4444 Packet Page 732 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 2 1. The Record Supports the Board's Decision ( See Cuflev Appeal sage 2) As acknowledged by staff in the May 9, 2013 Planning Division Report to the ADB ("SR II"), this proposal technically is a new application, but it arose in an existing context, after prolonged and detailed review by the staff and the ADB. Record 0005, 10; 0453- 62; 0481-512; . It reflects the Board's specific instructions and guidance for re -design given at the first public hearing last December. Transcript at 2-3, 27-28; Record 0485-88. The ADB's December terms [Record 0003, 0005] were precisely the sort of "specific direction and guidance to applicants" in design review that the City is obligated under ECDC 20.11.020.A to supply. The Board told the Applicant what was wrong with its initial design, and what was needed to rectify the deficiencies and bring it into design compliance. Record 0003; Transcript at 27, 28. At the May 15 hearing, the ADB considered for the second time an extensive record and a great deal of evidence presented by the Applicant, staff, and other parties of record, including Appellant. Design assessment of the proposal is the Board's prerogative and duty under the Code. ECDC 20.11.020. The Board deemed the revised design consistent with the City's design standards and with the detailed guidance it gave to the Applicant last December. Transcript at 26-29. The Board considered staff's late add -on condition for removal of a floor of the building or some unspecified structural adjustment, and declined to impose it. Id. In the process, Members repeatedly affirmed the modified design as appropriate and in conformance with City requirements, which the Board as a whole affirmed. Id. The Board's findings, conclusions, and logic are revealed, explicitly and implicitly, in its discussions on the record and its design determinations are supported and sustained by the record as a whole. Id. Appellant's assertion that the Board failed to make findings is contrary to the hearing record and the Board Members' explicit statements during deliberations immediately preceding their vote on the approval motion, as follows: Packet Page 733 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 3 Member Broadway, speaking of staff's late recommendation: "What we're asking them to do is completely finish the design and then change the box. I'm struggling with that." Chair Gootee: "We can't keep moving the goal posts here." Member O'Neill: "We've given them guidelines. The City, the staff, has given them guidelines. They've met those guidelines. They meet the criteria that we [ADBI gave them on the last, in the December meeting to change the design and bring it into what we thought was more appropriate. But we never stated their box had to be smaller." Member O'Neill: "I think they did an admirable iob in changing the concept and design of the building." Member Walker: I also agree .... [W]e were all pretty much in agreement last time with the very specific things that we asked them to do. In terms of changing the building size, it wasn't mentioned." Member Guenther: "I think it's been outlined that we're, again, to talk about the consistency of the Building with the rest of the site. Another point is that we had discussion about the landscaping and the design materials, and we got to see a sample board that we requested. I feel like, you know, the whole discussion about height should not be a topic tonight. I feel like the whole building is approaching being consistent with the rest of the site as far as materials. It's not a cookie cutter; it's not meant to be [a cookie cutter]" Transcript at 27-28 [emphasis addedl. The Board's thinking and the basis for its decision are clearly expressed in the record. Repetitious, generic findings were unnecessary. The ADB often includes perfunctory findings of conformance with regulations and policies in its design approvals, generally with staff assistance. The Board's decision conditionally approving the Point Edwards development proposal in 2003 is illustrative. Record 0077-78. The Board prefaced its decision with a general statement that the proposal conformed with the governing Code and Comprehensive Plan provisions. But findings are not always explicitly stated in summary by the Board, as its approval of a building for this site in 2006 reveals (ADB-2002-226), where no findings were included in the decision. Record 0192. Packet Page 734 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 4 In light of the Board's express statements of conformance here, additional formulaic findings would only be window dressing, are not needed and would add nothing to the record. ECDC Ch. 20.11 does not mandate any particular form for findings, only that they be made. On this record, the Board made clear and express findings that the proposal complies with development standards (as confirmed to the Board by staff in it written report —Record 0007-10, 17) and with design guidelines. 2. Appellant Substitutes Staff Suggestions for the ADB's Required Determinations and Selectively Applies Design Guidelines (Cuflev Appeal, pages 3, 4, 6, and 9) Appellant bases her contentions and arguments largely on staff commentary concerning design, aesthetics, and the application of selected design guidelines. Cuflev Appeal at 3, 4, 6, and 9. Staff input to the ADB on these topics is anticipated and appropriate, but is precatory. The ADB must exercise informed, independent judgment regarding design issues, on the whole record. ECDC 20.11.020.A. Staff exercises primary authority on zoning code matters and receives deference in interpreting and applying bulk and use standards under ECDC 20.11.020.13, but design review in this setting is the province and prerogative of the ADB. The ADB conducts the hearing, considers all relevant information in the record and City Code and policy, and renders the design decision accordingly. ECDC 20.11.010; ECDC Ch. 20.06. The ADB, not staff, is the designated decision maker in the case of any public hearing on design review under ECDC. Ch. 20.11, and acts in the place of staff for such applications. ECDC 20.11.010.A.1.c. Appellant's heavy reliance on staff's advisory, non -binding expressions and recommendations to the Board on design matters is misplaced, and overlooks key information supplied by staff at the hearing moderating and softening its position on further adjustment of the building. Similarly, Appellant's recitation of selected UDGs in isolation is a convenient oversimplification of the design review process and the ADB's role and mandate. Numerous design standards and guidelines apply to this proposal, many of which were presented to and balanced by the Board during the hearing and in its deliberations Packet Page 735 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 5 and decision. See Record 0010-15; 0058-60. All of the relevant design provisions in ECDC Ch. 20.11 and in the Urban Design Guidelines ("UDGs") in the Comprehensive Plan are part of the design review. It is a comprehensive, holistic weighting and winnowing process, not one of cherry picking the guidelines in favor of one view or another. The following UDGs are among those brought to the Board's attention by staff and parties to the design review process (Id.): UDG C.8.d. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety and diversity in building forms, color, materials, and individuality in buildings. [Emphasis added]. UDG D.2.c. Masses may be subdivided vertically or horizontally. UDG E.1.a. Ensure diversity in design. UDG E.1.e Create individual identity of buildings. UDG E.3 The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in the fagade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the eaves, a variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows the design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. UDG E.4 The objective is to encourage new development that provides: • Compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. • Visual interest and variety in building forms. • Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses. • Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood. The UDGs together are a recipe of design, aesthetic, and architectural considerations and necessarily must be considered in a coordinated and global manner in arriving at design decisions. This is the task assigned to the ADB by Code, and it is precisely what the Board did in this instance. Transcript at 27-28. Insight into the balancing process and tradeoffs in design review comes from ECDC 20.11.030.A.4. This Code section begins by urging that "long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided," then continues, "This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the Packet Page 736 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 6 massing, building forms, architectural details, and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous." In the same way that all elements of a building must be taken into account, not just certain aspects, all applicable design guidelines and considerations, some of which are in tension, must be part of the overall design review undertaken by the ADB. The ADB had input from staff, from Appellant and other interested parties, from the Applicant and its architect and legal counsel, as well as its own background and guidance given on the design issues at the December hearing. These are inherently subjective considerations, requiring the Board's careful consideration, another reason why the Board's exercise of judgment and discretion is given deference and presumed valid on appeal. The ADB properly exercised its responsibility and authority in reaching its design decision in this case. The question presented to the Council on closed record review is whether the Appellant has established by substantial and convincing evidence that the Board's decision was clearly erroneous. The staff's determinations on zoning code compliance (incorporated into the decision), and the ADB's findings and conclusion regarding design approval, are to be upheld absent a lack of support in the record and compelling contrary evidence. It is not a matter of opinion or substituted judgment, but of proof. Appellant looks to her own, non -expert opinions and interpretations, to the non- binding suggestions of staff to the decision maker (ADB), and to a stilted summary of the UDGs to support her position. This is not substantial, cognizable evidence on which the Council can rely that forms a valid basis for displacing the ADB's judgment. 3. Staff does not Seek or Require Removal of a Building Floor The Cufley Appeal and the two other appeals filed in this matter, make much of the staff's statements in SR 11 asking the ADB to consider removal of a full floor of the building. Record 0013, 18. At the hearing, staff spoke to the language of the Staff Report, expanded on his thinking, and clarified the meaning of the written recommendation. He acknowledged to the ADB that "to lop out one of the floors in the eastern portion of the building " was his "simplistic way of addressing" certain design Packet Page 737 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 7 guidelines talking about the concept of stepping buildings along steeply sloping sites. Transcript, Lien Testimony, at 4. He went on to testify that the design policies he mentioned do not require removal of a floor, and that "other design techniques having the same visual effect, while maintaining five stories", would be acceptable and receive the staff's support. Id. All appellants have picked up staff's admittedly "simplistic" and overly narrow language, have ignored staff's own qualification and broadening of its original idea, and now seek removal of at least a full floor of the proposed building. Staff stated otherwise to the Board, but still ask the ADB to consider additional design options to produce the desired effect. Id. Nothing specific on concrete was proposed by staff or anyone else. The Applicant opposed any further structural design changes. The ADB disagreed with staff on its modified recommendation, agreed with the Applicant that enough was enough, and found the proposal compliant as it stood, with only the minor changes called for in its conditions of its approval. Transcript (ADB deliberations) at 27-29. These issues were directly and extensively addressed by staff, the Applicant, other parties of record, and the ADB in the course of the hearing. Chair Gootee directly questioned staff about its position on stepping the building down and staff repeated the correction made earlier in his testimony to the effect that it was not necessary to pull off a full floor and that design techniques that would produce a similar visual effect would receive staff support. Transcript at 6. After still more focused discussion in deliberations, the Board came to its own conclusion, declining staff's modified suggestion of still more design changes. Id. at 27-28. There is no doubt about what the Board decided, and nothing in the record or that has been presented by Appellant justifying any alteration of its clear determination. 4. Approved Modulated Roof Design (Cufley Appeal, page 5) The proposal has always had a modulated roof design. Record 0453-62; 0474. The Applicant's architect addressed this explicitly in the design packet and in verbal presentation to the Board. Id.; Transcript at 14-16. Staff did not contest this evidence, Packet Page 738 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 8 nor did any other party of record. Staff made it expressly clear that the modulated design determination was for the ADB to make as part of its overall design assessment and spoke to the aspects of modulation in the design. Record 0008; Transcript at 3. At the second hearing in May, Applicant also presented to the Board a comparison roof modulation standard from the City's Code and described the consistency of this standard with the subject proposal. Record 0459 0474 0512 This, too, was uncontested on the record. The ADB ultimately approved the modulated roof design as represented and presented by the Applicant, with the applicable five-foot height bonus as part of the overall design approval. 5. Parking Standards Met (Cufley Appeal, page 5) Staff has initial and primary review authority over parking requirements, and found the proposal compliant with City parking standards Record 0009-10. The City's Parking Code does not require underground parking ECDC Ch. 1750; Transcript at 4-6 that surface parking is allowed and adequate. Record at 0009-10. The proposed on -site parking exceeds Code requirements. Id. The City is without legal authority to require underground parking. The proposal actually provides nearly half of its on -site parking below grade (70 stalls), with 74 surface spaces (not 77 as stated by Appellant). Record 0010, 0057; Transcript at 3, 5-6. The 144 spaces is more on -site parking than required by Code to be provided, and is fully compliant with ECDC Ch. 17.50 parking standards. Record at 0010; Transcript at 5 The Board did consider and properly required additional landscape screening, trellising, and other design amenities for the surface portion of the parking plan. Record 0003, 0080-82. The original concept plan for a building on this site in 2003 was approved with surface parking. Transcript at 6; Record at and surface parking was part of the site -specific design approved by the City in 2006. Record 0205. Staff clearly outlined the requirements of the City's on -site parking regulations, ECDC Ch. 17.50, and verified the proposal's compliance. Record 0009-10. The ADB accepted this determination and based its approval on it. Packet Page 739 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 9 6. Height Calculation (Cufley Appeal, pages 7 and 8) Appellant misconstrues Code requirements for height calculation and urges the Council to bypass clear standards and the City's past consistent practice. Her analysis is strained, but there is no need to give it any consideration, since the Code is definitive and staff has unequivocally confirmed this. The approved basis for the height calculation under Code is explained in detail in the Staff Report. Record 0008-9. "Height" is defined and the method of calculation is set forth in ECDC 21.40.030. Related definitions of "building'; "structure", and "roof" further inform the process. ECDC 21.10.040 21.85.070 and 21.90.150. Under the Code, "height" refers to the allowed elevation for any "building" or "structure", a structure being anything constructed permanently on the ground or attached to something permanently located on the ground, a "building" being any structure with a roof, and a "roof" meaning the top covering or structure of a building. Id. Applicant applied the Code's definitions and methodology in calculating the height, in consultation with staff and with staffs approval. Record 00089-9, 0017. ECDC 21.40.030 provides the only standard for the definition and measurement of maximum height. References in ECDC 16.75.020, Site Development Standards to "height" are to this definition and methodology, as staff made clear in it report. Appellant incorrectly interprets and applies the three illustrative diagrams provided at the end of ECDC 16.75.020.B. These illustrations relate only to Footnote 5 of the Code Section Table, which states, "Building height may be calculated separately for each clearly separated portion of a building as illustrated, but not limited to, Figures A, B and C". [Emphasis added]. They are examples of structures having "clearly separated portions", for which an applicant may, but need not, calculate building height separately. The illustrations do not apply as Appellant suggests. In any event, they are purely elective as stated in Footnote 5. The proposed structure is not "clearly separated", Applicant did not treat it as such, and staff had no problem with that. It is, in fact, a single, interconnected Packet Page 740 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 10 structure, with opposite wings on opposing ends of the central reveal or setback "hinge". The Applicant's architects have consistently and correctly calculated the allowed height of the building accordingly under the Code. Appellant suggests the Code should be interpreted to only take "visible" portions of a structure into account in determining height (Cufley Appeal at 4). This is pure fabrication and unsupported by Code language and staff application. Even if visibility was a requirement, the surface parking area of this project is actually exposed roof structure for the below -ground parking area, and is visible. Regardless, the below grade portion of the structure will be permanently attached to the ground, has a roof, and is properly includable as part of the area in the height rectangle. Appellant's assertion that a five -story building could not be built elsewhere in the Edmonds "bowl" is immaterial. The issue is what the City's Code and practice allow for THIS SITE given its topographic characteristics. Allowed height depends on Code standards and particular site characteristics. Staff reviewed and expressly approved the height limit and calculation method and results under ECDC Ch. 16.75, based on the foundational definitions and methodology specified in ECDC Ch. 21. There is absolutely no basis in law or fact to disturb these findings. 7. Appellant is Substituting the Suggestions of Staff and Her Lay Interpretations for the ADB's Exercise of Discretion as the Designated Decision Maker (Cufley Appeal page 9) Curiously, Appellant asserts the revised proposal does not address the ADB's December directives despite the Board's contrary statements on the record. Cuflev Appeal at 9; Transcript at 27-28. Again, she cites staff comments for support. The Board issued the directives, and the Board itself confirmed that the new design satisfies those directives fully. Transcript at 27-28. The Board considered staffs input as part of the record, and addressed it frontally in explaining why it found the design as presented acceptable. Packet Page 741 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 11 A great deal of evidence was presented concerning staff's new recommendation for lowering and/or stepping the building down across the site. Transcript at 4-6, 20, 26-29; Record 0488-90, 0497-0505. The Board by no means skipped over the issue, nor did it ignore pertinent staff input. The question was emphasized in testimony and by the Board in its deliberations. Transcript at 6, 13-15, 20, and 26-29. The Board focused on this issue more than any other and simply disagreed with staff on the point. All bulk and use determinations made by staff, and other recommended design conditions, were adopted. The Board found that the revised proposal, so conditioned, met all requirements. Transcript at 27-29. It rendered its conditional approval accordingly, supported by the record on review. 8. Extensive Evidence in the Record and the History of the Proiect Support the Board's Decision to Conditionally Approve the Revised Design This proposal has been vetted by staff and the ADB over a year of processing that encompassed five months of pre -application review with two all -hands staff meetings, project submittal, an initial public hearing in December 2012, re -design of the project in response to specific ADB direction at that hearing, new SEPA review required by the City mid -stream, a new, stand-alone parking study demanded by the City, and a second public hearing during which the revised design was again intensely scrutinized by the public, staff, and the ADB. Record 0004-6 0240 0481-90. The Applicant has been forthcoming about the design from the outset, and thorough in its submittals. It has supplied the City with everything required and requested, and more. It has given staff full detail and disclosure at all points concerning the design proposal and has answered and addressed every question and demand, including the ADB's particular directives last December for design modifications under the City's standards and guidelines. The core of the building, its size, shape, mass, and footprint, landscaping, the parking plan and configuration, and other important elements are unchanged, except for revisions stipulated by staff and/or the ADB. Record 0460-62 0468-69 0484 0487- 89, 0503-05. Packet Page 742 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 21, 2013 Page 12 The ADB-ordered re -design was conducted in good faith reliance on the Board's input. At the end of the day, the ADB still conditioned its final approval on a few design refinements. Record 0003; Transcript at 28-29. With the exception of the last-minute condition, it accepted staffs design recommendations. Id. The Board spoke directly to the issues and found the re -designed project responsive to its December mandate, compliant with City design guidelines, and an acceptable addition to the Point Edwards community. Transcript at 27-28. To borrow Chair Gootee's analogy, it was unwilling to "move the goalposts" on the Applicant in the advanced stages of design review. Id. B. Conclusion; Requested Relief The record on review clearly supports the decision of the ADB. The Appellant has made no material showing, and has not met her burden of proof to demonstrate by substantial, clear and convincing evidence, that the Board's decision, on the whole record, was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council affirm the ADB's decision. In the alternative, should the Council conclude that additional or clarified findings are necessary, then we ask that the Council remand this matter to the ADB for the limited purpose of supplementing its action by issuing additional confirmations of its findings, and, in that event, we further request, that the Council direct the City Attorney to assist staff and the Board in entering findings sufficient for such purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this reply to the Cufley Appeal. The Applicant appreciates the Council's consideration of this matter. V tr rs, Rand E. f d Attorney for Applicant, Edmonds Pine Street REG/mmi Packet Page 743 of 774 C-DEN MUVHY WALLACE ATTOR IV LYS June 26, 2013 City of Edmonds City Council City Hall, First Floor 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PLLC 901 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3500 SEATTLE, WA 98164-2008 RECEIVED JUN 2 ) 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER T 206,4477000 OMWLAW.COM F 206,447,0215 Kristin N. Eick 206.447, 7000 keick@omwlaw.com Re; Appeal of Architectural Design Board Decision on Point Edwards Building 10; Town of Woodway's Rebuttal Statement Dear Council President Petso: The Town of Woodway (Town) submitted a timely appeal of the May 15, 2013 decision of the City of Edmonds Architectural Design Board (ADB), approving Point Edwards Building 10. This letter is submitted as rebuttal to the response written by Mr. Richard Gifford, attorney for the Applicant. In sum, the Town submits that (1) the Applicant has misstated the legal standard of review that applies to the City Council's closed record review of the ADB's decision; (2) the ADB clearly erred by failing to produce any findings of fact supporting its conclusions that the proposed design meets the relevant design review criteria; and (3) the ADB did not engage in a "holistic, comprehensive, balancing process" in its review, weighing the relevant criteria, but rather based its decision upon irrelevant factors constituting errors of law. Each of these issues is described in detail below, with relevant citations to the record provided, KNE1081139 DOC;1\00074,900000\ Packet Page 744 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 2 1, The Edmonds City Council shall review the ADB's decision to determine if it was clearly erroneous. The Applicant correctly states that, pursuant to ECDC 20.07.005.C, the "appellant shall bear the burden to demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous given the record." However, the Applicant exaggerates what is required under the "clearly erroneous" standard to overturn an ADB decision. A decision is clearly erroneous if, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." See, e.g., Lauer v. Pierce County, 173 Wn.2d 242, 253, 267 P.3d 988 (2011). The clearly erroneous standard "mandates a review of the entire record and all the evidence rather than just a search for substantial evidence to support the administrative finding or decision." See, e.g., Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). The Applicant has failed to cite any case law or legal authority demonstrating that the ADB's decision is "presumptively valid." Response, p. 8. Moreover, the Applicant incorrectly states that the appeal "must rest on fact" and that "proof must be made from the record and cannot rest on interpretation, opinion, legal conclusion, assumption, or any extrapolation from the record." Response, p. 8. While the clearly erroneous standard applies to factual issues decided by an administrative body, a reviewing body determines issues of law de novo, with appropriate deference due to the local decisionmaker. See RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b); Lauer, 173 Wn.2d at 253. Thus, the Town is not precluded from raising errors of law made by the ADB, The Applicant also alleges ECDC 20.11.030.13 requires that the ADB`s decision "shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence." K1�'F 1081139,DOC;1\00074.900000\ Packet Page 745 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 3 However, ECDC 20.11.030.B solely provides that the ADB will afford such substantial deference and apply the "clear and convincing evidence" standard to staff determinations that the "bulk and use" requirements of the zoning ordinance have been satisfied. This provision is inapplicable in this case because the Town does not appeal or challenge the staff's determination' that the proposed Building 10 meets all "bulk and use" requirements of the zoning code. As shown in the staff report, the proposal may meet minimum setback requirements, maximum height limitations, and density and floor area calculations. Record 0008-9. Rather, the Town challenges whether the ADB's decision violates the design review criteria in ECDC 20.11.030, which is not a "bulk" or "use" requirement of the zoning code. Accordingly, ECDC 20.11.030.E related to the "bulk and use" requirements of the zoning code is inapplicable. 2. The ADB clearly erred by failing to produce findings of fact supporting its decision anoroving Point Edwards Building 10. As stated above, the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to the review of factual determinations made by an administrative body. However, findings of fact must be made in order to actually apply this standard. "The purpose of findings of fact is to ensure that the decisionmaker'has dealt fully and properly with all the issues in the case before he [or she] decides it and so that the parties involved' and the appellate court 'may be fully informed as to the bases of his [or her] decision when it is made."' Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn. 2d 26, 35, 873 P.2d 498 (1994). 1 see footnote 2, supra. KNEI081139.DOC;1\00074A0000\ Packet Page 746 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 4 Washington case law has clearly held that in the absence of sufficient findings of fact, decisions cannot be sustained upon review even under an "arbitrary or capricious" standard because the determinations lack sufficient support in the record. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Mount Vernon, 37 Wn, App. 214, 219, 679 P.2d 405 (1984) ("A governmental body's failure to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law in a rezone action constitutes arbitrary or capricious action."); Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn. 2d 26, 35, 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (hearing examiner's findings of fact in approving a conditional use permit were inadequate as a matter of law); Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978). The Edmonds Code specifically requires the ADB to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in ECDC 20.11.020: The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed development: A. Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the urban design chapter of the community culture and urban design element of the comprehensive plan. The city has the obligation to provide specific direction and guidance to applicants.... B. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration.... (Emphasis added). However, despite the requirement to do so, the ADB failed to make any findings of fact in its decision approving Point Edwards Building 10. The ADB's oral motion consisted of the following conclusory statements: KNE 1081139.DOC; I i00074.9000001 Packet Page 747 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 5 I move that the Board approves PLN20130022 with the following conditions: 1) On -street parking is required to be added at the location of the existing northern driveway approach which is no longer being used by Building 10. 2) A trellis no taller than 6 feet with associated plantings should be installed adjacent to the top of the rockery on the south side of the surface parking area, and the applicant should work with the adjacent property owner to provide additional screening landscaping. 3) The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up to the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 4) Height calculations are required with the building permit application in order to demonstrate that the project complies with the height requirements of the MP1 zone. Transcript at 28. The motion failed to incorporate any factual findings from the staff report or any other reasoning for the decision approving the proposal. In addition, the Notice of Decision issued by the ADB simply references the ADB's "decision," without including any written decision at all except for a copy of the meeting minutes summarizing the hearing. Finally, even if the City Council looks to the transcript of the May 15, 2013 meeting, the Board did not even address the requirements of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or the Design Criteria in ECDC 20.11.030 during its deliberations. Transcript at 26-29. Thus, there cannot be any question that appropriate findings of fact were not made. While the Applicant states that ECDC 20.11.020 "does not specify a form that such findings must take or even that they be express or with any stipulated level of detail," the ADB's findings of fact must meet some minimal standard which allows a reviewing body or court to determine that the ADB actually considered the relevant criteria and resolved any factual disputes. Response, p. 5. See, e.g., " Weyerhaeuser, 124 Wn. 2d at 36 (hearing examiner's decision consisted almost entirely of a summary of the evidence presented, "without any KNF t 08I 139,DOC;1\00074.900000\ Packet Page 748 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 6 guidance as to how issues involving disputed evidence were resolved..." and were inadequate as a matter of law); Hayden v. Port Townsend, 28 Wn. App. 192, 622 P.2d 1291 (1981) (the process used by the decisionmaker should be revealed by findings of fact and conclusions of law); State ex rel. Bohan, 6 Wn.2d at 695, 108 P.2d 663 (statements of the positions of the parties, and a summary of the evidence presented, with findings which consist of general conclusions drawn from an "indefinite, uncertain, undeterminative narration of general conditions and events", are not adequate). In this case, the ADB's decision lacks any findings as required by ECDC 20.11.020 with respect to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Design Criteria in ECDC 20,11.030. Accordingly, the City Council must reverse the decision of the ADB approving Building 10. ECDC 20.07.005.H. 3. The ADB did not engage in a balanced review of ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 or Consistency with the_Comprehensive Plan. The Town has alleged in its appeal statement that the ADB erred by failing to properly consider, in particular, ECDC 20.11.030.A.4. and consistency of Building 10's design with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 states: 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: 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. 1CNE1081139,DOC;11.00074.900000\ Packet Page 749 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 7 The Applicant states that this criteria encompasses "inherently subjective and variable considerations, relying on questions of aesthetics, architectural style, and informed interpretation and requiring careful consideration of the ADB .... The Board engaged in just such a holistic, comprehensive, balancing process in its review and concluded that, all relevant factors considered, the modified design meets the City's zoning and design requirements and that further changes are not needed and will [sic] are not required." This is simply not the case. First, whether or not the ADB considered other elements of the building's design, such as architectural details and finish materials, to counter the long, massive, and unbroken design of Building 10 is not clear from the record because the ADB failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law to support its decision. Thus, it is impossible for the City Council to confirm whether the ADB, in fact, did in engage in a "holistic, comprehensive, balancing process" with respect to the criteria in ECDC 20.11.030.A.4. More fundamentally, however, a review of the transcript of the ADB's deliberations reveals that the ADB specifically decided that a "holistic, comprehensive, balancing process" with respect to ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 was not required for two reasons: (1) the issue with respect to stepping down or eliminating floors of Building 10 was not previously addressed with the Applicant either by staff or by the ADB in previous hearings; and (2) the ADB believed if the height of proposed Building 10 otherwise complied with the zoning requirementsz it could not Z Although the Town did not raise the issue in its Appeal Statement, the Town notes that the staff report specifically noted that the ADB needed to decide whether Building 10's roof design was sufficiently modulated in order to take advantage of the 5 additional feet afforded by ECDC 16.75.020.E ("Roof may extend up to five feet above the state height limit if designed as part of an approved modulated design in accordance with Chapter 20.10 ECDC.") The ADB also failed to make any findings of fact with respect to the modulated design of the roof, and instead, in its deliberations, simply stated that the maximum height restrictions were satisfied. Transcript at 27. KNE1081139,DOC 1l00074,9000001 Packet Page 750 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 8 conclude that the design criteria were not satisfied. Transcript at 27-29. Both of these reasons for disregarding the criteria of ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 are unfounded and clearly in error. With respect to the issue that staffs proposed condition that the east wing of Building 10 be stepped down had not been raised by the ADB previously, Boardmember Broadway specifically stated: The third part of this love triangle that I'm struggling with is an image in my mind that comes with the Medici family commissioning Michelangelo to carve David and he's working with this solid slab of marble, and he knows it's got to be this wide and this big, and he gets to the finish carving David and the Medici family comes along and says, no, he's a foot too tall, cut the head off. I'm struggling with that because the building envelope and how you determine building envelope, and you make that definition is one of the first things you have to do. You have to design, how big is my box? And then you fill up the box, and you articulate the box. But you've got to nail down the box first. What we're asking them to do is completely finish the design and then change the box. I'm struggling with that. Transcript at 27 (emphasis added). Chair Gootee echoed this concern: Back to dovetailing on that, Rick, and I apologize, I was not here for the December and April meetings. I'm trying to ... We strive to be consistent, and you're concerns about stepping back, are we going above beyond what we requested in April. Again, everybody here respects this. We strive to be consistent, and we've given the message to a developer in April, here are your parameters, and one reason I want to repeat them again up there. I'm struggling with the fact, although it is very massive to me in my opinion, I'm struggling with the fact that we can't keep moving the goal posts here. But I don't know, since wasn't here in April, I want to get that clear. I don't know ... Are you brining upon a new parameter to this developer? Transcript at 27 (emphasis added). Boardmembers O'Neill and Walker also concurred: KNE1081 139.DOC,1\00074,900000; Packet Page 751 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 9 They met the criteria that we gave them on the last, in the December meeting to change the design and bring into what we thought was more appropriate. But we never stated that their box had to be smaller. It's within code, and we've given them guidelines all along, and I don't think that we have the opportunity now to change the parameters for them.... I'll just echo that and say that I agree with what you guys have said, Bruce, Bryan and Lois, about ... I feel like we were all pretty much in agreement last time with the very specific things that we asked them to do. In terms of changing building size, it wasn't mentioned. I understand this is a Board discussion at this time, and I don't know if it is appropriate to ask staff to address why they've made the recommendation they have at this point. Transcript at 28 (emphasis added). The ADB's concern, no doubt, originated as a result of the testimony provided by the Applicant's attorney during the meeting that during the pre -application process, staff had not flagged the issue that the long, unbroken design of Building 10 was inconsistent with the Point Edwards Master Plan and with a number of design standards and policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Transcript at 10-11; Response, pp. 5-6. However, regardless of whether the ADB failed to bring up the issue regarding the height of Building 10 in previous meetings or whether staff failed to notice the issue until the staff report was disseminated, these issues are completely irrelevant to whether the current application meets the established criteria in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. Whether the ADB and/or staff failed to notice the issue previously, the Town and certainly the City's own staff raised the issue for the ADB's consideration, and the ADB purposefully declined to make any reasoned inquiry into whether the design was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or, specifically, ECDC 20.11.030.A.4. The conscious determination by the ADB to refuse to consider the design's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Design Criteria constitutes a clear error KNE1081 L39.DOCJ\00074.400000\ Packet Page 752 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 10 because the ADB is required to consider all relevant criteria with respect to the application. Whether consistency problems were recently discovered by staff and the ADB is simply not a relevant criterion upon which the ADB may base its decision. With respect to the issue that the Board declined to consider the design's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Criteria because the height requirements of the zoning code were met, Boardmember Broadway stated: As Kernen has explained, the design meets the code. We, as ADB members, so long as the design meets the code and the ordinances within the zoning code, any other comment is outside of our scope. That's one leg of this three-legged stool that I have. I feel like to comment on height when it s meeting the code is going beyond our responsibility. Transcript at 27 (emphasis added), This reasoning is also flawed. As explained above, while the proposal may meet the specific maximum height limitations for the Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use Zone (MP-1), the ADB is still required by ECDC 20.11.020.A to make findings determining that the design is otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Design Criteria. a ecord at 0007-8. Simply because a maximum height restriction may have been satisfied, the Board is not excused from producing findings of fact and conclusions stating that the requirements of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Design Criteria in ECDC 20.11.030 have been satisfied. Thus, the ADB's decision should be reversed because it was not based on relevant criteria, 4, Street bights are an appropriate consideration for the City Council on appeal, The Town stated in its opening appeal that it had requested Cobra lamps on high poles be exchanged for low, shielded architecturally appropriate lights to match the existing Point KNF 1081139.DOC:;1100074.900000i Packet Page 753 of 774 City of Edmonds City Council June 26, 2013 Page 11 Edwards lighting standards installed on the north side of Pine Street, The Applicant in its Response argued that the Town's "street lighting question" is both untimely and out of place" because it is a SEPA issue. Response, p. 12. The Applicant incorrectly states that the street lighting issue is not before the City Council on appeal. Rather, as the Town has pointed out, one of the relevant design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan is to "minimize potential for light to reflect or spill off -site." Comprehensive Plan C.10.b. Accordingly, because the ADB was required to make findings determining that the proposed design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the ADB's failure to make such findings is directly before the City Council on review. Again, the ADB's complete failure to address the Town's arguments in its deliberations or in any written or oral findings of fact constitutes a clear error warranting reversal, In conclusion, the Town respectfully requests that the Edmonds City Council reverse or, at the very least, modify the ADB's decision as requested in the Town's appeal statement. The ADB's decision was based on multiple errors, including failing to make any findings of fact and deliberately ignoring the Design Criteria in ECDC 20.11.030 and the Comprehensive Plan in reviewing the design for improper reasons Very truly yours, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. Kristin N. Eick Woodway Assistant Town Attorney KNE/nkr KNE 1081 139,DOC;1\00074,900000\ Packet Page 754 of 774 PURCELL & ADAMS, PLLC ATTORNEYS 7127 1961h Street SW Office (425) 774-0444 Suite 201 Facsimile (425) 771-2711 DOUGLAS W. PURCELL Lynnwood, WA 98036 Email: dpurcell@purcelladams.com June 26, 2013 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner JUN 2 6 201 City of Edmonds, Planning Division OEVE'LOP ENT SERM,,c 122 — 51h Avenue COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: PLN20130022, 50 Pine Street, Edmonds, Rebuttal on APL20130004 Dear Mr. Lien: Attached is the rebuttal of the Appellant, Christie Cufley, et al, to the information provided by Richard E. Gifford, PLLC, on June 21, 2013, as an initial statement, the Appellant relies primarily upon the provisions of the filed appeal to proceed before the Council and is, in this rebuttal, addressing only specific issues raised by Mr. Gifford. This appeal concerns Building 10 of the Point Edwards development. Building 10 has always been envisioned as a compatible component of the development as it has been developed over the course of the last 10+ years. The 9 buildings already developed consist of three story condominium units containing approximately 261 condominium units. The buildings are stepped down the steep hillside from a location just below the proposed location of Building 10 and, as such, have significant facade facing toward the West and North,, but which facade appears to conform to the slopes of the hillside. The lot upon which Building 10 is to be placed is at the very apex of the development. It is proposed to be five stories in height with 85 units and a 74 parking stall surface parking. As such, it will loom over the Point Edwards development and be of a very different character with the prior development. Building 10 will be the most prominent and visually strongest component of the view of Point Edwards from the Edmonds Bowl and otherwise. It will stand high above its Pine Street location due to height calculation manipulations and will be a major shift or change in the nature of the Point Edwards development. While the long and convoluted history of this project has been well documented in the record, it is important to note that this appeal is taken from a decision made on a new application filed in 2013 in order to provide some procedural benefits to the applicant and the City. Thus, the applicant, having taken advantage of the new application process to avoid other potential procedural defects, cannot now be heard to argue that former determinations of the Architectural Design Board ("ADB") are binding on the current situation. Nor is the prior approval in 2006 of affirmative precedential value. Packet Page 755 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien June 26, 2013 Page 2 of 5 The thrust of the reply by the applicant is articulated on the first page of his submittal as follows: "Appellants arguments essentially are expressions of personal opinion or interpretation and repetitions of staff advisory comments to the ADB, not factual showings." Applicant Reply, Page 1. That statement is not correct. The thrust of Appellant Cufley, et al's position is that the ADB did not do its job on May 15, 2013, when it approved the applicant's submittal without taking into consideration a number of issues which it was required to undertake and without determining or making findings upon a number of other issues. Matters not considered include: "The ADB should review the proposed Building 10's roof design to determine if the roof design is sufficiently modulated to be granted the additional 5 feet and be granted an overall height limit of 40 feet." Record 0008. "The ADB must determine if the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan." Record 0008 "It is up to the Architectural Design Board to determine whether the Project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines. Staff feels the overall design elements of the building are consistent with the guidelines, but that the building's layout with respect to being designed to take existing topography into account and scale with respect to the rest of Point Edwards is not consistent with design guidelines. With the staff recommended condition that the eastern portion of the building be stepped down to conform with site topography as was originally proposed for Building 10 in 2002, staff feels the proposal would be consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines and other design guidelines in the City's Comprehensive Plan." Record 0017. The contention of the Appellant that none of these or the other steps required of the ADB were taken in its deliberations on May 15, 2013. A. The Board Inappropriately Relied Upon the Determinations Made at the December 19, 2012 Hearing. On December 19, 2012, the ADB continued a public hearing for the purpose of re- configuring Building 10. The Board at that time issued a set of proposed "guidance" to the applicant: "A. The Architectural Design Board reviewed a previous iteration of Building 10 at a public hearing during the December 19, 2012 ADB meeting (Attachment 7) under file number PLN20120040. The ADB moved that the public hearing be continued to a future date and that the applicant modify the design proposal for building 10 as follows: Packet Page 756 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien June 26, 2013 Page 3 of 5 1. The design of Building 10 should be more consistent with the other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards under the Point Edwards Master Plan. 2. Additional landscaping should be provided along the rockery or in the parking lot along the south side of the surface parking lot. 3. The applicant should take into consideration the following design elements present in the existing Point Edwards buildings: residential fenestration, broad overhangs, more human scale, distinction between floor -to -floor heights, and Pacific Northwest elements and materials." Record 0010. As previously noted, this is a new application. The December 19, 2012 hearing and its aftermath are not precedential. However, it is clear from many of the comments made by the Board during their discussion on May 15, 2013 that they considered many of the matters to be off the table. Board Member Walker: ..."I feel like we were all pretty much in agreement last time with the very specific things that we asked them to do in terms of changing building size, that wasn't mentioned." Tr. at Page 28. Board Member Gunter: "I also agree that back in December there was no mention of bulk. We agreed that it met the zoning code as far as height, but I see its inappropriate now to talk about pulling the floor out of the east side of that. I don't think that's part of the discussions ... I feel like, you know, the whole discussion about height should not be a topic tonight." Tr. at Page 28. As indicated by the above, the Board was apparently confused and felt it had previously determined certain issues with regard to height and bulk. And, as a consequence, it did not undertake the correct level of analysis to the issues that were to be addressed. B. The Board did not properly review the December 19 design criteria. Even if the Board felt that it was bound by the design criteria from December 19, 2012, as staff correctly points out on page 14 (Record 0017), the applicant by the May 15, 2013 hearing had complied with conditions 2 and 4 of the December criteria above, but did not, in staff's option, address either 1 or 3 relating to consistency with other development approved and constructed at Point Edwards or with regard to more human scale as provided in Paragraph 3. In fact, the staff stated the applicant's changes to the previous design reviewed under PLN20120040 (December 19th) had improved the connections in overall design of the building with the rest of Point Edwards development, but the scale of Building 10 is out of character with the rest of Point Edwards development in the overall topography of the site. Record 0011. Thus, at least in the interpretation of the staff and the clear language of the design criteria issues from the December 19, 2012 meeting, bulk and size of the property was an issue to be directly addressed. Packet Page 757 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien June 26, 2013 Page 4 of S 2. The Board Did Not Sufficiently Consider and In Fact Refused to Consider Height and Roof Modulation Issues Despite the Fact that Such Issues Were Directly Raised by the Staff Report. The Urban Design guideline which is frequently repeated throughout the record as it relates to roof modulation and bulk of buildings is stated as follows: ECDC 20.11.030A states that the building shall be designed to " ...avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an engraded development of harmonious scale, line and map .... long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and with the design objectives of the comprehensive plan." In evaluating the modulation aspect of the roof in this particular case, the ADB should take into account that aspect of whether the roof modulation is sufficient to meet Urban Design guidelines. Because of the location of Building 10, the roof modulation is of major importance. As regards a "streetscape" rooftop modulation, the facade of Building 10 as it meets the "height criteria" is sufficiently high so that there is no visual impact on persons walking along Pine Street. On the other hand, the massive nature of the building as it towers over Point Edwards as follows: "However Building 10 is the last of the Point Edwards development and as such it needs to be viewed in context of the overall Point Edward master plan. Building 10 will crown the Point Edwards development and will stand above the rest of the existing Point Edwards buildings." (Record 0011) When viewed from a distance, the roof modulations proposed by the applicant will disappear into a relatively flat roof line, creating from the view corridors looking down towards Point Edwards, a "long, monotonous building." 3. Conclusions and Requested Relief. As previously described, the Cufley Appellants continue to rely on the proposals and appealable topics as described in great detail in their appeal. In addition, this argument is addressed primarily to the failure of the ADB to address a number of very important issues which it had the responsibility to address in connection with the approval or disapproval of the applicant's project. It was clear from the 2 1/a pages of deliberation in the public hearing and on the Point Edwards project is that the Board misunderstood its role in resolving the issues which were before it and, as a result, may or may not have reached inappropriate conclusions because of its failure to consider various aspects of the project. The singular most important component to be addressed and which has been a consideration since the beginning of the Point Edwards project is the failure of Building 10 to conform to the master plan as originally proposed and the components of the development as the properties have developed. The Appellant requests that the Council return the application to the Architectural Design Board with specific instructions to consider and make findings as to the Packet Page 758 of 774 Mr. Kernen Lien June 26, 2013 Page 5 of S sufficiency of the roof modulation to avoid running afoul of the Urban Design standard related to monolific buildings, reconsideration and findings related to the overall size of the building and/or design modifications which will reduce the visible size of the building and which will bring it into conformance with the rest of the Point Edwards development. Respectfully submitted by: PURCELL & ADAMS W Douglas . Purcell, Attorney for Appellant Christie Cufley, et al DWP Cc: Client Packet Page 759 of 774 AM-5903 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 07/02/2013 Time: Submitted For: Department: Review Committee: Type: 10 Minutes Jeff Taraday, City Attorney City Clerk's Office Action Information Submitted By: Committee Action: Sandy Chase Subject Title Adopting an Interim Zoning Ordinance to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance, specifically Sections ECDC 23.40.210 and 23.40.320, to repeal the definition of Reasonable Economic Use and references thereto. Recommendation Temporarily remove the unnecessary and potentially confusing definition of "reasonable use" from the ECDC by adopting the attached interim zoning ordinance. Schedule a public hearing on the matter for sometime in the next 60 days. Ask the planning board to review the "reasonable use" criteria (including whether a definition should be included) and return to the city council with a recommendation on a permanent "reasonable use" regulation within the next 180 days. Previous Council Action Narrative Most cities that have a critical areas ordinance provide some type of an exception or variance that allows for some "reasonable use" of the property to be made. Edmonds, however, is a bit of an outlier with respect to its definition of "reasonable use". The example contained in Edmonds' definition ("For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family residential structure.") appears to be highly unusual. We recently reviewed the critical areas ordinances for Seattle, King County, Redmond, and Kirkland. None of those jurisdictions define "reasonable use" in a way that contains the example contained in the Edmonds ordinance. And some of those jurisdictions do not define reasonable use at all, leaving it to be determined on a case -by -case basis, presumably with advice from the city attorney, based on federal and state case law. We do not believe that a definition of "reasonable use" needs to be contained in the ECDC. And the current definition could be seen as going beyond the minimum "reasonable use" that the case law discusses. Attachments Interim Zoning Ordinance Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 06/27/2013 04:41 PM Packet Page 760 of 774 Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 06/27/2013 Sandy Chase 06/27/2013 05:03 PM Started On: 06/27/2013 01:27 PM Packet Page 761 of 774 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320, TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE AND REFERENCES THERETO. WHEREAS, the definition for "reasonable economic use" in the Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions Section of the Edmonds Community Development Code contains language that is atypical when compared to the critical areas ordinances of many other jurisdictions in the vicinity of Edmonds; and WHEREAS, many jurisdictions do not define "reasonable economic use" at all, preferring to rely upon guidance provided by state and federal law; and WHEREAS, urgent action should be taken to correct the unnecessary confusion and difficulty caused by the definition of "reasonable economic use" in the processing of reasonable use variances; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 23.40.210 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Variances," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through): 23.40.210 Variances. Packet Page 762 of 774 A. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized through the process of hearing examiner review in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.85 ECDC only if an applicant demonstrates that one or more of the following two conditions exist: 1. The application of this title would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility. A public agency and utility exception may be granted as a variance if: a. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas; b. The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public; c. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; d. The proposal attempts to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and e. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 2. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use (see the definition Af " easel�eceUs�'��T 40-.3of the subject property. A reasonable use exception may be authorized as a variance only if an applicant demonstrates that: a. The application of this title would deny all reasonable economic use of a property or subject parcel; b. No other reasonable economic use of the property consistent with the underlying zoning and the city comprehensive plan has less impact on the critical area; c. The proposed impact to the critical area is the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable economic use of the property; d. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title or its predecessor; Packet Page 763 of 774 e. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; f. The proposal minimizes net loss of critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science; and g. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. B. Specific Variance Criteria. A variance may be granted if the applicant demonstrates that the requested action conforms to all of the following specific criteria: 1. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of all reasonable economic uses and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone of the subject property under the terms of this title, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with such rights; 4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; 5. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title, and will not further degrade the functions or values of the associated critical areas or otherwise be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the subject property; and 6. The decision to grant the variance is based upon the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat. C. Hearing Examiner Review. The city hearing examiner shall, as a Type III -A decision (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC), review variance applications and conduct a public hearing. The hearing examiner shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny variance applications based on a Packet Page 764 of 774 proposal's ability to comply with general and specific variance criteria provided in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. D. Conditions May Be Required. The director retains the right to prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this title for variances granted through hearing examiner review. E. Time Limit. The director shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall void the variance, unless the applicant files an application for an extension of time before the expiration. An application for an extension of time shall be reviewed by the director as a Type II decision (see Chapter 20.01ECDC). F. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of a variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. Section 2. Section 23.40.320 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Definitions pertaining to critical areas," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfi e through): 23.40.320 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50, 23.60,23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those areas located within 200 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel and those areas located within 800 feet of a documented bald eagle nest. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. Packet Page 765 of 774 "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project - induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: Packet Page 766 of 774 1. "Restoration" means actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 4. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high -quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. Packet Page 767 of 774 "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "One - hundred -year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington who has earned a degree in geology from an accredited college or university and has at least five years of experience as a practicing geologist or four years of experience and at least two years of postgraduate study, research or teaching. The practical experience shall include at least three years of work in applied geology and landslide evaluation in close association with qualified, practicing geologists and geotechnical/civil engineers. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the Packet Page 768 of 774 species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, shorelines, coastal beaches, mudflats, eel -grass beds, and wetlands. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] Landslide Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(B).] "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions, which are listed in descending order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the Packet Page 769 of 774 site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Noxious weeds" means any plant which, when established, is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, as further listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff' means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For areas of potential geologic instability, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or geotechnical engineer. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. . ..... Oil 1,-- .111, .......... .... . ..... . . . . .......... "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the re- development of a property or subject parcel. Packet Page 770 of 774 "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. Seismic Hazard Areas. [See ECDC 23.80.020(C).] "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).] "Storm Water Management Manual" means the Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin by the Washington State Department of Ecology (as included in Chapter 18.30 ECDC). "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. [See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).] "Title" means all chapters of the City of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention Packet Page 771 of 774 facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. [See ECDC 23.50.010(B).] "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. Section 3. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 4. Severability. 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. Section 5. Effective Date. 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. UN99:TINTA9103 MAYOR DAVE EARLING Packet Page 772 of 774 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 773 of 774 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ECDC 23.40.210 AND 23.40.320 TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE ECONOMIC USE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2013 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 13 CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 774 of 774