Attachment 16 PHASE 2 Public Comments submitted on August 24, 2023-Phase 2From:
Will Magnuson
To:
Levitan, David; Martin, Michelle; Citizens Arch Design Board
Cc:
Szafran, Michele; McLaughlin, Susan
Subject:
Re: FW: Updated Meeting Packet/Materials for August 24 ADB Meeting
Date:
Thursday, August 24, 2023 12:07:37 PM
Attachments:
23-08-24 ADB Main St ants wm comments.odf
Greetings,
Please find my attached comments for today's ADB meeting for phase 2 review of the Main
Street apartments.
Thank you,
Will Magnuson
Edmonds, WA
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:26 PM Levitan, David <David. Levitancnr,edmondswa.gov> wrote:
Good Afternoon Parties of Record:
Below is information on updated meeting materials for the 611 on Main project (PLN2022-
0085), which is scheduled for a Phase II design review public hearing before the
Architectural Design Board on August 24, 2023 at 6 pm.
David Levitan I Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
City of Edmonds, WA
425-771-0220, ext. 1223
david.l evitan(&,,edmondswa. gov
From: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:20 PM
To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>
Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin@dmondswa.gov>; Szafran, Michele
<Michele. Szafran@,edmondswa.gov>; Martin, Michelle
<MichelIe.Martin&edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Updated Meeting Packet/Materials for August 24 ADB Meeting
Importance: High
Good Afternoon ADB Members (bcc'd):
Following the publication of your August 24 meeting packet, the applicant submitted
additional materials reflecting changes to the project design, which are summarized in the
staff report addendum (attached and included in the updated meeting packet).
The updated meeting packet (with new attachments 12-15) is available through the same
links provided below. This new information will also be sent to parties of interest/record.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
David Levitan I Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
City of Edmonds, WA
425-771-0220, ext. 1223
david.levita@edmondswa.gov
From: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin&edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Citizens Arch Design Board <citizens-archnu.edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw&gmail.com>; McLaughlin, Susan
<susan.mclaughlin@.edmondswa.gov>; Szafran, Michele
<Michele. Szafran(g edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Next meeting agenda - ADB August 24th @ 6pm
Greetings ADB members,
The agenda packet for the next meeting to be held before the Architectural Design Board is
available for your review below:
Architectural Design Board
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 24, 2023 6:00 PM
121 5th Ave N - City Hall - 3rd Floor, Edmonds, WA 98020
Download PDF Agenda Packet View Web Agenda Packet
Download PDF Agenda Cover View Web Agenda Cover
Regards,
Wt" U4,zem I Senior Administrative Assistant
City of Edmonds Planning & Development
425-771-0220, ext 1335
Michelle.Martin&edmondswa. gov
The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm for Telephone and
Digital/Remote access.
In -Person walk-in service is currently available M-F 10:00am to 2:00pm: appointments are
encouraged.
For general service: Phone 1 425.771.0220 1 Email
Devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov
Greetings,
The Main Street Apartments building exterior appearance is marginally improved. The sloped
roof line and eclectic building elements are improved over the bland rectangular structure
previously proposed. I still feel there are numerous design challenges with this project, but I
would like to focus on the entry elements beginning with the commercial entry.
The commercial component in the BD zone should include a prominent entry and outdoor space
for relief from the sidewalk. This outdoor space should provide room for commercial use as a
public space. The proposed commercial entry is located below grade accessed by a minor
ramp to a landing at the single commercial entry door on the SW corner of the building. A small
canopy brings more attention to the commercial entry but the outdoor space including a ramp
and landing do not "promote gathering by providing shelter" as stated in the narrative. This
commercial entry space is no more than a circulation space with ramp and is not a "porch" as
described. The commercial glazing is minimal, further reducing the commercial element on the
site. Additionally, this commercial space has evidently been designed for a specific tenant who
has not yet been announced.
The residential entry is merely accessible from the sidewalk and not prominent from the
sidewalk or street. The site and sidewalk grades will likely pose challenges to this design but
there is a larger safety issue related to this below grade entry. The narrative provided by the
development provides a couple descriptive statements. (1) "the entrance to the apartments is
from a large plaza accessed from the sidewalk with signage and another canopy communicating
point of entry to the residential space". (2) "the plaza will also have landscaping at the east side
to provide privacy for those on the plaza as well as those on the adjacent property". So this
means the residential entry requires signage to locate it and once descending the stairs or ramp
into the entry circulation area (described as a plaza in the narrative) the entrance is screened
from view to provide privacy. This does not sound like a safe passageway to the front door.
Lighting this area will be restricted to avoid disturbing tenants and neighbors. Security cameras
are a liability unless monitored 24/7, so I believe this residential entry is a liability for the project.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide additional comments. I feel the ADB is
more than challenged in this process to assess the needs of the community and the intent of
BD design guidelines. Additionally, I am disappointed the planning department summarized a
recommendation for the ADB to approve the project design while recognizing numerous project
design deficiencies still requiring attention.
Thank you,
Will Magnuson
From:
Martin, Michelle
To:
Szafran. Michele; Cluaston. Michael
Cc:
Levitan, David
Subject:
FW: re ADB
Date:
Thursday, August 24, 2023 12:14:23 PM
FYI
-----Original Message -----
From: Shirley Oczkewicz <socz@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 10:09 AM
To: Martin, Michelle <michelle.martin@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: re ADB
Please add my total objection to the public comments re the 611 Main St. Mixed -Use proposal. "Boxes" such as this
shouldn't be allowed in the Edmonds bowl!
Shirley Oczkewicz
Edmonds
From:
Lynda Fireman
To:
Levitan, David
Cc:
Szafran, Michele
Subject:
Comments for the ADB meeting 8.24.23
Date:
Thursday, August 24, 2023 12:49:38 PM
Attachments:
8.24.23 Comments PLN2022-0085 to ADB Paae 2.odf
8.24.23 Comments PLN2022-0085 to ADB Page l.pdf
Please forward this to the ADB this afternoon before the ADB meeting this evening.
Thank you,
Lynda Fireman
From: Lynda Fireman <lynda.fireman@outlook.com>
Sent: August 24, 2023 12:38 PM
To: Lynda Fireman <lynda.fireman@outlook.com>
Subject: Files from Lynda Fireman
August 24, 2023
To: The Architectural Design Board
Comments on Proposal: File No, PLN2022-0085, 605 & 611 Main Street
From: Lynda Fireman
600 Bell Street
have to begin by saying that the whole process concerning 605/611 Main has been very disrespectful and a
waste of time, resources and money to all concerned — The Planning Board, The Edmonds City Council, The
Architectural Design Board, and the Citizens of Edmonds.
Then, on Wednesday, August 23rd at 4:26, 1 received an e-mail from David Levitan saying that there was an
updated meeting packet for tonight's meeting. I doubt that many "Parties of Record" and even the ADB
noticed this. The attachment was a 1-page letter showing that the changes were submitted August 17th &
18th. The changes are not on all the drawings — it's very confusing. The plans have not been done correctly,
completely and with attention to detail. With all of that, the Planning Board is still recommending that the
ADB approve it as it. How can that be?
This meeting should have been postponed immediately at this point and I'm asking for that to happen now.
We should all have had this information at least a week before the meeting.
This project is being treating as a game by the Architect and the Developer. It's all smoke and mirrors. Instead
of beginning with a thoughtful, well -designed building that fits into our quaint & historic downtown, we're
now coming up on 2 years with another (I believe it is the 51h) rendition, every one of which has been different
and with different problems and a lack of attention to detail or consideration of those who will live there or
those who are impacted by this building. It's being dragged out hoping that we'll lose interest or that time will
run out and they won't have to make changes.
There are some improvements to the building but it still needs many changes and it is not at the stage of
completion.
It's difficult to comment on the new changes as the drawings are not consistent. Even before I received the
latest rendition, which shows a complete lack of attention to detail, I have concerns about:
Elevator: There is still no elevator to the 2nd floor.
The ADA Units and compliance:
Note: My husband became disabled a few years ago. From experience, I realize how vulnerable the disabled
are and how easy it is for others to disregard their needs and safety.
1. For safety, the outside ramp should have remained as it was with the switch back. Although you say
the new straight design is ADA compliant, there are no measurements of the elevation from the
sidewalk and the straight design seem too short, too steep and too dangerous for someone using a
cane, a walker, a scooter or wheelchair. Taking this away for a little space should not be done.
2. Units 102 & 104 each only have one small window overlooking the parking ramp. What is the actual
size and where is it located in the suite? Can it be made bigger? These units look very claustrophobic
as there is no available common space in the building.
3. What is the door width going into these units? Will it accommodate wheelchairs?
The Lofts:
You don't give the ceiling heights of the lofts. What are the ceiling heights in the level 2 kitchens and
the level 3 loft areas? Are they to code and can they be reduced, in total, by the 1 foot you're asking
for in elevation?
• Why so many small windows? What is the actual size of all the windows?
Other Comments:
1. The Architect's Design Review is almost word for word to parts of The Planning Department report.
Who wrote it?
2. The Site plan still says 24 units, not 18 (again, attention to detail).
3. How will refuse from ADA apartments be addressed? Sound Disposal will not bring up and return
garbage cans to the parking area. I asked.
4. Thank you for clarifying that: The City issues permits to residents moving in or out of a building to
use 3-hr parking for limited periods of time and does not allow alleys to be blocked for this
purpose.
5. How big is the new covered porch and how is it accessed? I can only see stairs from the first floor.
Is it ADA accessible?
6. What is the "slight reduction in shadows cast on adjacent structures" actually mean? What are the
specifics?
7. All the multi -story condos on both sides of Main between 6t" & 7tn have set -backs. They are not on
the lot line. There is landscaping, not a row of shrubs.
8. The entrance to this apartment has a "small" concrete Plaza, not "large" or "generous" and it is not
"conducive to socializing" and does not "maximize an open space opportunity" because the design
does not allow for open space.
9. An alley is a right of way and not a set back and the plan does not minimize intrusion on the condos
behind or the residence to the West.
10. The Bulk and Scale does not provide a "sensitive transition" to surrounding properties whatever
that means. Landscape screening is very minimal.
11. Only a single, row of small shrubs along approximately half the perimeter does not reinforce or
enhance the existing landscape character of the neighborhood. The new design on the alley is not
clear or consistent on the drawings
12. The alley is still a problem. The conflicting drawings are not clear. There needs to be "clear"
"picture renderings" (not just the drawings) of all sides of the building i.e., each side straight on,
including the North side, not from above or on an angle, and including measurements - nothing
hidden. Decisions cannot be made from the incomplete, unclear, inconsistent information given.
13. "STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT
CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE
APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER
DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT
ORIGINALLY APPROVED."
Considering the ongoing problems with this project, what does "minor changes" or "substantially
similar" actually mean? What oversight does the ADB have even if the Planning Board considers
them minor? Will they be made public to the Parties of Record?
From:
michelle dotsch
To:
Levitan, David
Cc:
Martin, Michelle
Subject:
Re: FW: Updated Meeting Packet/Materials for August 24 ADB Meeting
Date:
Thursday, August 24, 2023 1:47:27 PM
Good Afternoon David,
This is a written public comment for the ADB meeting tonight based on the emails you and
Michelle Martin sent above:
I am writing this in reply to a brand new ADB agenda packet sent yesterday, Wednesday, Aug
23 at 4:21 pm to the members of the public parties of record and the ADB members
themselves only hours prior to the 2nd public hearing of a major development on 611 Main
that has generated much public interest. The developer and architect had months to put
together the required completed information for the 2nd public hearing that was sent to the
public and ADB members, logically assumed to be the complete and final packet, to review 1
week prior to the 2nd public hearing. I received this packet on Thursday, Aug 17 at 3:31 pm
from Michelle Martin as seen via the email chain above.
Please advise the developer/architect as well as the ADB members, that a new packet
delivered hours prior to a long -planned 2nd public hearing is not sufficient time for anyone to
be able to review and have a clear understanding of what is being presented to make an
informed decision and input. I, for one, did not have the additional time starting from late last
night when I saw the email, let alone have time to flush out the new vs old information in it, to
be able to provide competent public comments on this project with the new information
received with only hours to prepare. This made my original input I had planned to use for
tonight's hearing no longer valid. This is very disrespectful to the parties of record involved.
There is no rush to hold this hearing tonight and if the developer/architect and
subsequently the staff, did not have sufficient time to properly put together a complete packet
the week prior to a public hearing, then it should be extended to another date. There should be
no decision made on this project tonight.
Thank you for considering my quickly typed comments for this 2nd public hearing process.
There should be all efforts made by those putting on a public hearing process to allow for
well-informed ADB members, public and staff themselves, to make this critical step a success
for all involved. The burden is on the one putting a project out for public hearing to have all
of their information ready in a reasonable amount of time, and I think we can all agree that
hours, not days prior, is not a reasonable amount of time.
Michelle Dotsch
Edmonds Resident and Party of Record
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:26 PM Levitan, David <David.Levitana�edmondswa.gov> wrote:
Good Afternoon Parties of Record:
Below is information on updated meeting materials for the 611 on Main project (PLN2022-
0085), which is scheduled for a Phase II design review public hearing before the
Architectural Design Board on August 24, 2023 at 6 pm.
David Levitan I Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
City of Edmonds, WA
425-771-0220, ext. 1223
david.levitan@edmondswa.gov
From: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:20 PM
To: Levitan, David <David.Levitan@EdmondsWa.Gov>
Cc: McLaughlin, Susan<susan.mclaughlin&edmondswa.gov>; Szafran, Michele
<Michele. Szafrancni� edmondswa.gov>; Martin, Michelle
<Michelle.Martin(&edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Updated Meeting Packet/Materials for August 24 ADB Meeting
Importance: High
Good Afternoon ADB Members (bcc'd):
Following the publication of your August 24 meeting packet, the applicant submitted
additional materials reflecting changes to the project design, which are summarized in the
staff report addendum (attached and included in the updated meeting packet).
The updated meeting packet (with new attachments 12-15) is available through the same
links provided below. This new information will also be sent to parties of interest/record.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
David Levitan I Planning Manager
Planning and Development Department
City of Edmonds, WA
425-771-0220, ext. 1223
david.levitan@edmondswa.gov
From: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin&edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 3:31 PM
To: Citizens Arch Design Board <citizens-arch(aedmondswa.gov>
Cc: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw&gmail.com>; McLaughlin, Susan
<susan.mclaughlin o,edmondswa.gov>; Szafran, Michele
<Michele.Szafrann_ edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Next meeting agenda - ADB August 24th @ 6pm
Greetings ADB members,
The agenda packet for the next meeting to be held before the Architectural Design Board is
available for your review below:
Architectural Design Board
Regular Meeting
Thursday, August 24, 2023 6:00 PM
121 5th Ave N - City Hall - 3rd Floor, Edmonds, WA 98020
Download PDF Agenda Packet View Web Agenda Packet
Download PDF Agenda Cover View Web Agenda Cover
Regards,
7&Z 4X4tr t I Senior Administrative Assistant
City of Edmonds Planning & Development
425-771-0220, ext 1335
Michelle.Martin &edmondswa.gov
The Development Services Permit Center is open M-F 8:00am to 4:30pm for Telephone and
Digital/Remote access.
_i �i . s . •i a si 1 Ilea ll�i� ���� i �.� ,
encouLaged.
For general service: Phone 1 425.771.0220 1 Email
Devserv.admin@edmondswa.gov
From: Lila Param
To: Martin, Michelle
Subject: Fw: There is a new comment to Architectural Design Board Aug. 24 to continue public hearing on Main Street
apartment building
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2023 12:21:05 PM
Dear Ms. Martin and Architectural Design Board - I live in a condo in downtown
Edmonds. I moved here over 12 years ago because of it's charming, small town feel
and walkable design. All the buildings downtown around the fountain (with the
exception of the monstrosity that is attached to the new Edmonds Commons) have
some character, something that is interesting and has some history. Building a big,
ugly box store/apartment building in the immediate downtown area really does go
against everything that Edmonds downtown currently is. Are you going to allow some
developer that really doesn't care about the character of our downtown to ruin it?
This building as proposed will block the ally between Main and Bell every time anyone
has to move in or out of that building unless you are proposing to block Main St in
front of the building for these events. Traffic is already packed on weekends when
you want everyone to gather in the downtown area, so this could be a nightmare.
And if you are thinking that this will solve affordable housing for the "missing middle"
then you haven't looked at housing prices in the bowl, especially near the fountain, in
a long time. My concerns are:
1. The building is too close to Main St and the ally behind it. This will cause lots of
traffic problems and make it difficult for those folks that live across the ally from
the proposed building to get into and out of their driveways.
2. It's just plain ugly! It is about as esthetic as a Costco
3. 1 thought all 3 story buildings had to have a 5 foot architectural feature on the
roof. This building doesn't have any architectural features at all, much less on
the roof.
4. Although they are going to do a big dig and have underground parking, there
will only be one space for each apartment when most likely 2 folks will live in
each unit and have 2 cars. Where are those cars going to park?
5. A developer is trying to squeeze as many units as he/she can into that space
and make a ton of money then run and leave those of us who live here to live
with and deal with the consequences.
Please reconsider this design and at least require them to maintain the standards of
design that make Edmonds Edmonds. Please be on the side of the residents of this
city, not the developer.
Thank you,
Lila Param
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: My Edmonds News <myedmondsnews@gmail.com>
To: "IiIa. param@yahoo.com" <lila.param@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 09:32:03 AM PDT
Subject: There is a new comment to Architectural Design Board Aug. 24 to continue public hearing on
Main Street apartment building
There is a new comment on Architectural Design
Board Aug. 24 to continue public hearing on
Main Street apartment building.
Comment link: https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/08/architectural-design-board-aug-24-to-continue-
public-hearing-on-main-street-apartment-building/#comment-502633
Author: Shirley Oczkewicz
Comment:
Thanks, Roger, for the email address for reaching the ABD re this proposed uglification of Edmonds. I
hope many object to it via email or at the meeting. "Boxes" in the bowl shouldn't be allowed.
Permalink: https://mvedmondsnews.com/2023/08/architectural-design-board-aug-24-to-continue-public-hearing-on-main-street-
apartment-building/
Manage your subscriptions I One click unsubscribe