Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-04-03 Architectural Design Board Packet
o Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 3, 2019, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Draft Minutes of October 3, 2018 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Election of Officers for 2019 2. Update on ADB Roles 6. MINOR PROJECTS 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The site is located at 23830 Edmonds Way and is zoned RM1.5 (File No. PLN20180069). 8. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS 9. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda April 3, 2019 Page 1 2.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/3/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes of October 3, 2018 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the draft minutes Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments: ADB181003d Packet Pg. 2 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting OCTOBER 3, 2018 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:02 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Rob Chave, Development Services Director Joe Herr, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recorder Cary Guenther Joshua Shope Athene Tarrant Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2018 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There was no one in the audience. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a Process. Scone and Roles of the Architectural Design Board (ADB Mr. Clugston reviewed that last winter, the ADB met with the Planning Board to talk about the ADB's role in design review. At that time, it was noted that the ADB's design review was less meaningful at the project -review level. Projects are often completely designed by the time they come to them for review, and the ADB only has the ability to offer input on minor details. At the same time, the City Council has indicated a desire to see code changes that remove volunteer boards, such as the ADB, from the quasi-judicial decision -making process (Resolution 1367). Lastly, the Board indicated an interest in doing post -project reviews to see if the existing design guidance and standards are resulting in the type of development envisioned for Edmonds and, if not, propose refinements to the guidelines and standards that would result in better projects in the future. Mr. Clugston advised that the ADB's Powers and Duties were first incorporated into the code in about 1972 and have not been updated for almost 50 years. What was envisioned 50 years ago may not be the same as today. Perhaps the process for design review could be changed or streamlined, as well. The intent of tonight's discussion is to obtain feedback and direction from the Board about potential changes to their power, scope and role in the design review process. Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the ADB, noting that when he arrived at the City in the 1990's, the Supreme Court case Anderson Vs. Issaquah presented a watershed moment for design review. The Supreme Court found that Issaquah's design guidance was too vague. It was clear that jurisdictions needed to have very specific standards in place so that an applicant coming into the design review process has a clear understanding of what is expected. Even though the City of Issaquah was the defendant in the court case, it is important to understand that Issaquah's design guidance was mirrored after the City of Edmonds' Urban Design Guidance. Although the City of Edmonds was not on trial, the Court's decision was really applicable to the City's codes. At that time, the City had a reputation for having a very difficult design review process because it was unpredictable and applicants did not have a clear understanding of the features needed in project and it was difficult to predict the outcome of design review. Mr. Chave advised that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to help produce a set of pretty thorough design guidelines that went through the ADB, the Planning Board and the City Council for review. However, because of big push back from the development community who felt they were too specific, the guidelines were never adopted. Instead, the City incorporated the objectives outlined in the draft design guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave continued that the City hired Mark Hinshaw, a well-known urban designer in the region, in 2004 to help the City incorporate more specific design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. In 2006, the design review process was adjusted to incorporate a district -based design review process. The idea was that the district -based process would provide very specific standards for each area of the City. However, because the City only had specific design standards in place for the Downtown Business (BD) zones and some portions of Highway 99, design review for the remainder of the City was based on generalized standards and process. Since that time, the City has implemented design standards for Westgate and Highway 99, and the intent is to do the same for other parts of the City. However, until this occurs, the City continues to use the generalized process for design review. Mr. Chave explained that the City heard feedback that the design review process for the BD zones was convoluted and not producing good results. They hired another consultant to review the process rather than the standards. Because the consultant had experience with the City of Seattle, he used Seattle's multi -phased design review process as a model. In retrospect, staff is very skeptical about the process, which is intended to bring applicants in early to look at the parameters of the project and provide guideposts as they continue to design the project. However, the multi -phased process has not been very effective for the City because they don't see the projects early enough and even in this early -stage review, applicants tend to present projects that are nearly finished designs. Staff believes the only way to make the review early enough in the process is to use a process similar to Seattle's, which can take years to complete. He expressed his belief that this approach would not be feasible for Edmonds and not something that applicants would be willing to go through. He voiced concern that the two -phased design review process used in the downtown is extremely awkward because it Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a requires the ADB to conduct one hearing and then hold it open for the second part of the review. This makes it difficult for applicants, citizens and staff. Mr. Chave summarized that the City is still working to get design standards in place throughout Edmonds. They now have them for Westgate and design standards for Five Corners and multi -family zones will be coming in the next year. That means that with just a few small exceptions, all areas of the City will be covered. Another goal for the coming year is to get a single design review process rather than a district -based versus generalized process. The intent is to nail down the design standards they have wanted for quite some time, and the ADB could play a really important role in this process. For example, the ADB could review projects that have been built according to the existing standards and code and identify potential changes. They could also provide input as the City wrestles with the issue of specificity versus flexibility and creativity. Mr. Chave recalled that in the 80s and 90s everything related to design review went before the ADB, and their agendas often included upwards of 20 projects, both large and small. Anderson Vs. Issaquah pointed out the need for really strong design standards and more specificity in the code and cautioned against making arbitrary decisions. It became fairly obvious that staff could or should approve a lot of the minor applications. Over the years, the ADB's agendas have gotten smaller because more design decision making has been standard -driven and made by staff rather than in a public hearing situation. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the City currently uses a district -based, two -phased public hearing process for design review in the BD zones and a general design review process elsewhere. Currently, staff does design review for smaller permits, but projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review still come to the ADB, with the exception of the General Commercial Zone where all projects come before the ADB for review. One option for the Board to consider is removing the ADB from quasi-judicial decisions and eliminating the two -phased hearing process. Design review would become a Type I staff decision (with no notice) if SEPA is not required and a Type H staff decision (with notice) if SEPA is required. Design review could be a Type III -A Hearing Examiner decision if the applicant is requesting exceptions to the standards. In these situations, the ADB could make a recommendation and the Hearing Examiner would make the final decision. Mr. Clugston pointed out that if the design standards and guidance are done well, staff decisions should be doable for most projects, and the Hearing Examiner should be able to take on the judicial role of projects requesting exceptions to the standards. He noted that a similar process was adopted into the Highway 99 code last year, but there haven't been any projects come through the process yet. Mr. Clugston reviewed the current Design Review Scope. Whether design review is done by the ADB or staff, the design scope applies to all development, including both public and private. He said the proposed new Design Review Scope would be very similar, but worded a bit differently. It would look at the same exterior features of a project, but would also explain the design review process so developers have a clear understanding of the steps involved. Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, certain types of development are exempt from design review, including parks developed under a master plan, permitted primary and secondary uses in single-family residential zones, detached single- family homes or duplexes in multi -residential zones, additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, fences, signs, and underground utilities. While it makes sense to continue to exempt projects in the single-family residential and multi -residential zones, the exemptions could also include public projects whose design has been reviewed by the ADB and approved by the City Council. To date, the ADB hasn't reviewed public projects at all, and the intent would be to emphasize that as an advisory role the Board should have. hi addition, an exemption could be added for minor changes to previously -approved plans that the Director determines do not alter the intent of the approved design. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board was established in 1973 and was originally called the Amenities Design Board. Its powers and duties included four responsibilities that talk about recommendations for a Comprehensive Architectural Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 5 2.1.a Design Plan, and the fifth responsibility talks about reviewing other matters referred to them by the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission or Planning Department. However, over the last 20 to 30 years, the Board has become more of a project review board. They used to review projects with fewer standards, but now they have more standards and review fewer projects. He suggested the Board's powers and duties could be changed to include: reviewing public projects and providing recommendations to the City Council, providing design support to staff, establishing guidelines and standards citywide and for design districts, reviewing selected built -out projects to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and recommending refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is getting the designs it wants, and providing review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Possible future projects could include: reviewing Board and staff -approved and constructed projects since 2007 when existing standard and processes were adopted, reviewing existing Comprehensive Plan guidelines and code standards and recommending updates as necessary, providing input on next rounds of public projects, creating multi -family guidelines and standards, and creating Five Corners District guidelines and standards. He summarized that, as proposed, rather than having a decision -making role, the Board's role would be recommendations, guidance, and input. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Board's current powers and duties do not actually include reviewing building projects. It talks about having a role in creating policies, objectives, and design plan goals, which is something the Board has expressed a desire to do. Board Member Guenther recalled that when the City Attorney made a presentation about the Board's responsibilities, he was excited about the prospect of actually getting to do what the Board Members are trained to do. For example, the ADB should have been involved in the process of developing design standards for Westgate. At the very least, they should have been invited to provide input to the Planning Board and City Council. However, they were left out of the discussion, and their only responsibility has been to interpret and apply the guidelines that have been adopted. He expressed his hope that the ADB could be more useful in future projects such as developing design guidelines for Five Corners and the multi -residential zones. He felt it would also be useful for the Board to review developed projects to determine how the existing design standards and guidance works and what changes are needed in the future. He would also like the Board to have an opportunity to review and provide input on public projects. Mr. Clugston advised that, based on feedback from the Board, staff could update the decision -making processes, the Scope of Design Review and the ADB's Powers and Duties and bring draft language back for the Board's continued discussion in a few months. Staff is not yet sure how to organize a post project review, and they welcome input and suggestions from the Board. Another issue that warrants further discussion is the Board's future meeting schedule. Board Member Tarrant suggested that the design guidance and standards should be based on the district and not by building type. Vice Chair Herr agreed that a district -based approach makes more sense. For example, he cautioned against blanketing the entire City with a 25-foot height limit that is intended to protect the views in a very few areas of the City. He said he likes the idea of not applying a comprehensive code the same throughout the entire City. Certain areas have more priority than other areas for certain standards. Board Member Broadway also expressed support for a district -based approach. She pointed out the different way that Mountlake Terrace is being redeveloped, which clearly indicates that code changes have occurred in certain areas. This has not yet happened in Edmonds to encourage growth to come. She would like the Board to step back and look at what their role should be in making appropriate changes happen. She said she is less concerned about the color of a building, how large a window is, or where the door is placed. Instead, the Board's focus should be on the proposed size, scale, massing, location and circulation. She said she works with the Department of Health on a daily basis, using a process called Early Technical Assistance where a developer presents a very preliminary design and the discussion focuses on design guidance about circulation, building size and location, life safety, etc. The applicants then move forward to design their projects based on the feedback provided. If the City wants to have a multi -phased design review, it would be helpful for the applicant to present early conceptual site plans (one sheet drawings) for the Board's review. The Board could then provide one or two pages of written notes that outline things for the applicant to think about when designing the project. Board Member Walker asked how the approach outlined above by Board Member Broadway would be different than the standards already called out in the zoning and building codes that address scale, height, fagade, massing, etc. Board Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a Member Broadway commented that the ADB may have expectations that are not specifically called out in the zoning code. In these situations, the Board could provide code interpretation to let the applicants know what they mean. Board Member Tarrant said it would be helpful to have a digital version of the City showing all of the important elements of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This would allow a developer to present conceptual drawings that address all of the critical elements that will be required and would be more valuable than the current process of the ADB conducting design review when the design work has all be done. Board Member Shope said that in his experience in Seattle, projects are presented at the preliminary stage to the design review board, and the submittal package must include a 9-block radius around the building. These packages almost always include 3d drawings, and usually a client has already purchased the property at that point. Board Member Tarrant asked if it would be possible to see an example of an application package that has been submitted to the City of Seattle, and Board Member Shope answered that all application files are available on line. Board Member Walker commented that if the Board wants to provide input to an applicant early in the process, having application submittal requirements would be helpful. He recalled Mr. Chave's earlier caution that involving the Board earlier in the process could significantly lengthen the review process. He asked if this would still be true if the ADB were to substitute what they do now with an earlier reading. Mr. Chave said people who do design review in Seattle have advised that it is a fairly lengthy process and the scale of the review is much different. Most of the City of Edmonds' projects are small, and the developers are simply not accustomed to the degree of sophistication required by Seattle's process. When the consultant proposed a process similar to Seattle's, there as a lot of pushback from developers who were particularly concerned about how the proposed process would lengthen the design review timeline. Board Member Broadway said her office is currently working with unincorporated Pierce County, which has a very small code that is difficult to interpret. They know they want a 50,000 square foot building, but there are currently three proposals for how the building will fit onto the site. While all three options would meet the code requirements, they are interested in hearing from Pierce County as to what they want to see. Providing feedback at this point is much more valuable to the client and allows cities and counties to address issues such as steep slopes, trees, street view, etc. before design work progresses too far. The City has gone from a vague code to a much more specific code that has reduced the number of projects the ADB reviews. The specific code has also resulted in projects that are more designed before they come before the ADB. Now she is hearing that perhaps the ADB's review should be done as a pre -application meeting before the design gets too far along. She summarized that, with the more prescriptive codes, the ADB has not had a lot of opportunity to influence a project if it has been determined to meet the code. Mr. Clugston explained that the City does offer a pre -application meeting, but it is not a requirement. People with larger projects typically take advantage of the opportunity. They also have a tree development meeting at the conceptual level. During these early meetings, staff points to the design standards in the Development Code and design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. Although projects are often well into the design by that point, staff can help them decide what to focus on. Mr. Clugston said he understands the Board's frustrations about its ability to provide input on projects. However, the City Council has expressed a desire for the ADB to move away from the quasi-judicial decision -making process. That means they need to work on the guidance and standards to make sure they are clear and meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. There are numerous provisions in the zoning code that influence the design of buildings, and the Board can provide overarching guidance and create standards for districts that enable them to affect every project that comes in and not just those that meet the threshold that requires ADB review. Board Member Walker summarized that, as proposed by staff, all of the districts would have their own set of standards, and some would be more stringent than others. In addition, different design processes could be required based on the district. The design standards would apply to both public and private projects. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 7 2.1.a Vice Chair Herr explained that one reason for zoning codes and guidance is to help a developer determine whether or not a project will be feasible. If the City's standards and guidance are too vague and arbitrary decision are made during design review, the City will be open to potential lawsuits and they are likely to receive pushback from developers. Someone looking at the site from an aesthetic standpoint will not realize the amount of work that went into getting a proforma together for a piece of property. Board Member Broadway said she is not suggesting that the City not have specific design guidance and standards. She is suggesting that the Board could provide early technical assistance before a project gets to the point where they simply follow the guidelines. For example, when the Key Bank project was presented to the Board for design review, the main entrance was facing the parking lot rather than the street. Following Board feedback, the applicant did more to accentuate the pedestrian entrance. She is not proposing that the Board provide input on the types of uses allowed, height, etc. Applicants must meet all of the code requirements, which address these issues. However, there may be opportunities for the Board to comment on how the building is situated on the site, pedestrian circulation, etc. Mr. Chave pointed out that these issues should also be addressed by the code. For example, the Downtown and Westgate Design Standards both talk about building orientation. Staff would like the Board to become more involved in helping develop good design guidance and standards for different areas. They do not want design standards that apply citywide. Staff would also like the Board to conduct retrospective reviews of projects that have been developed consistent with the current code. He pointed out, for example, that landscaping can change the appearance of a building tremendously over time. He referred to the Compass Development on SR-104 and the PCC Market, which look entirely different now with mature landscaping than they did just after construction. He summarized that it would be educational for the Board and staff to review projects and come up with potential design standards and guidance changes. Perhaps the Board could present an annual report to the City Council with a list of recommended changes. It would also be educational for the City Council and citizens to understand the relationship between projects, codes and time. Board Member Tarrant commented that just because a project satisfies all of the design standards and guidance doesn't mean it will be the most wonderful project. She felt it would still be appropriate for the Board to review projects at the conceptual stage and provide input. Mr. Chave explained that when a project is submitted to the City, staff must evaluate it against the codes to decide whether or not to approve it. The Board is discussing the idea of influencing a project at the outset of the design review process. One way to accomplish this is to have the ADB function as the pre -application board so they are no longer the quasi- judicial decision maker. A developer could present an idea for a project, and the Board's role would be to point to the codes or specific issues that an applicant should consider rather than the big picture design and site issues. This process would be quite different but might be more valuable. Board Member Broadway said she would like the Board to spend its time reviewing projects early on, serving as a pre - application board. As a Board member, she is interested in making the fabric of neighborhoods better and influencing how projects impact neighborhoods. Board Member Walker cautioned that the Board would not have the ability to require an applicant to do something that is outside of the code. As long as a project meets all of the code requirements, an applicant would not be bound to implement recommendation made by the ADB during the pre -application meeting. Chair Strauss emphasized that when reviewing applications during pre -application meetings, the Board may identify potential code changes that are needed. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that the Board's role could include the ability to introduce potential code amendments for the City Council's consideration. Board Member Guenther asked what the process would be for presenting potential code amendments. Mr. Chave answered that, currently, all zoning code amendments are presented to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. The ADB could initiate a proposed amendment and perhaps meet jointly with the Planning Board to discuss the change. Another option would be for the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 8 2.1.a ADB to work directly with the City Council. The Board could be the initiator of design standard changes and code changes, and they could be presented as often as necessary. Mr. Chave said that, with the new scheme, he could see the Board spending all its time on pre -application meetings, reviewing projects related to code, and coming up with new standards based on districts. The would be well within the realm of what was envisioned by the Board's existing powers and duties. Chair Strauss asked if the Board should provide a recommendation relative to the proposal to remove it from quasi-judicial decision making. Mr. Chave said this decision will ultimately be made by the City Council. If the Board is proposing to no longer do project review, they will no longer have to worry about the quasi-judicial rules. He said staff would report the Board's discussion to the City Council and provide a copy of their minutes. Board Member Broadway suggested that perhaps the Board's name should be changed to Design Guidance Board. Board Member Tarrant asked if the Board's current meeting format is conducive to a pre -application meeting or would it be better to have a working format around a table. Mr. Chave said both the meeting format and the Board's name are open to discussion. Board Member Shope agreed with Vice Chair Herr that most developers know at the outset of a project whether or not it will meet all of the code requirements and be feasible. He cautioned against changing the process to make it more difficult for developers to build in Edmonds. However, he agreed that it would be useful for the Board to provide guidance to developers to look at the standards more closely. Board Member Broadway said she is particularly concerned about pedestrian and vehicular access, and Chair Strauss said she is interested in what a developer is doing for. Mr. Clugston commented that these issues need to be addressed adequately in the design standards and guidance. Perhaps the City could provide a list of options to meet the standards and guidance without being too specific. Board Member Walker asked how the Board would introduce public project design review. Would that be an additional role for the Board? Mr. Clugston answered that there have not traditionally been good design standards for public projects, and he is not quite sure how it will work moving forward. However, staff believes that the Board should have an opportunity to review these projects and provide feedback. Chair Strauss asked what would trigger the pre -application meeting requirement. Mr. Clugston answered that the pre - application process can be written into the code. At this time, pre -application meetings are not mandatory, but they could be made mandatory. The requirement could be based on location, size, etc. Board Member Shope cautioned that when it comes time for the Board to consider potential code amendments, they must be cognizant of the type of place Edmonds is. For example, Redmond required two bike stalls for each unit in a project he was working on. While this sounds like a great amenity, it is too much. They must be realistic about what Edmonds is and needs and what they are trying to achieve. Regarding future meeting schedules, Vice Chair Herr cautioned that the Board would need to be available on a regular basis if they are going to require pre -application meetings. They don't want to stall an application for two or three months while the applicant waits for the next ADB meeting. He suggested that the Board may need to conduct pre -application meetings on an on -demand basis. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that retrospective project review, as well as review of potential code amendments, could be scheduled on a quarterly or bi-monthly basis. He pointed out that it would not be necessary for all Board Members to attend the pre -application meetings, and perhaps they could come up with a schedule to ensure that there are at least three members present. A quorum would be preferable when considering potential code amendments. However, the Board could assign subcommittees to conduct retrospective project review and report back to the Board. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a Again, Mr. Clugston said staff will bring back ideas and a proposal for the Board's consideration in a few months. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None of the Board Members made additional comments. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 10 0 0 N M L d ra 0 0 d Cam_ C L 0 0 L Q Q Q M O O 0 m Q C E t C� r r+ Q 5.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/3/2019 Election of Officers for 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History Staff Recommendation Elect Chair and Vice Chair Narrative At the beginning of each year the ADB elects a Chair and a Vice Chair. Packet Pg. 11 5.2 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/3/2019 Update on ADB Roles Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History The Board had a discussion about this topic on October 3, 2018. Staff Recommendation This is potentially a final discussion on this subject prior to approaching the Planning Board with the ADB's ideas on how it sees its role changing. Narrative The ADB has indicated a desire to provide design guidance earlier during the project review cycle rather than making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of projects when they are typically fully designed. The City Council has also stated their desire to remove volunteer boards like the ADB from the quasi-judicial role (Resolution 1367). In addition to working on projects earlier in the design cycle and removing themselves from the decision -making role, the Board also would like to do post -project reviews to analyze completed projects. The intent would be to see whether the design language in the code and comprehensive plan is resulting in well -designed projects that fit with the character of Edmonds, providing the Board with an opportunity to propose changes to the appropriate design guidance and standards. This would enable the Board to provide greater input into the development of design guidance and standards for multifamily development projects, for future design districts such as Five Corners, and the like. Attachment 3 is a chart summarizing the Board's current roles (identified in ECC 10.05) and the possible roles described above. You'll note that the current roles identified in ECC 10.05 are actually pretty similar to what the Board has discussed; it appears to be in line with how the ADB would like its role to change in the future. While the ADB no longer wants to make quasi-judicial decisions on projects, the Board would still provide its expertise during the project review cycle. Attachment 4 is a flow chart showing a sample review process concept where the Board could provide input before project reviews rather than making the final decision. Attachments: Attachment 1 - 10 03 2018 powerpoint Attachment 2 - draft ADB minutes 10 03 2018 Attachment 3 - Roles table Attachment 4 - Possible review process flowchart Packet Pg. 12 OV EDft�� � Design Review -Processes, Scope and Roles OCTOBER 3, 2018 ADB has noticed less meaningful input at project -review level Council Resolution 1367 - update codes to remove quasi-judicial decision making Have not done post -project reviews to see if what was approved was what was intended or desired Packet Pg. 14 5.2.a A brief history... Processes Scope ADB powers and duties Discuss possible code changes to bring back for future review Packet Pg. 15 District -based, two -phased public hearing process in BD zones General process everywhere else ADB quasi-judicial decisions - projects where SEPA is required (except CG zone) Public hearing w/notice Staff decisions - everything else No notice a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a 0 L 0 0. 00 O N Cr) O 0 C 0 E a w a Packet Pg. 16 Remove ADB from quasi-judicial decisions Eliminate two -phased hearing process Staff decisions Type I, if no SEPA (no notice) Type II, if SEPA is required (with notice) HE decision if exceptions to standards are requested ADB makes recommendations to staff, HE makes final decision Type III -A a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a 0 L 0 0. 00 O N Cr) O 0 C 0 E a r w a Packet Pg. 17 5.2.a Design review is intended to apply to all development, except for those developments specifically exempted from review under subsection (B) of this section. "Development" includes any improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored. [ECDC 20.10.020.A] a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a r 0 0. 00 O N Cr) O O 0 E a w a Packet Pg. 18 5.2.a Design review is intended to promote development that enhances the environmental and aesthetic quality of the City. Design review applies to all types of public and private development open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, screening, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, and amenity spaces. When required, design review must be completed before any building permits can be issued or construction begins. If design approval is granted, compliance with all applicable site development and engineering standards is subsequently verified through building and engineering permit review, as appropriate. a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a 0 0 0. 00 0 N M 0 0 E a w a Packet Pg. 19 5.2.a 1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds city council. 2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in IRS - single-family residential districts. 3. Detached single-family homes or duplexes in RM - multiple residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds historic preservation commission. 5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit. 6. Signs that meet all of the standards contained in Chapter 20.60 ECDC. 7. Underground utilities. [ECDC 20.10.020.13] a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a 0 L 0 0. 00 0 N M O 0 E 0 a a Packet Pg. 20 5.2.a 1. Public projects whose design has been reviewed by the Architectural Design Board and approved by City Council including but not limited to public art in ECC 3.13, parks developed under an approved master plan, and public improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Single family dwelling units and permitted secondary uses in IRS - single- family residential districts. 3. One or two dwelling units and permitted secondary uses in RM - multiple residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds historic preservation commission. 5. Minor changes to previously approved plans which the Director determines do not alter the intent of the approved design. Packet Pg. 21 A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and policies for each established design district. E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]. Packet Pg. 22 a� 0 W m 0 Q C 0 a� r 0 0 0. 00 N Cr) O O C 0 E a w a 5.2.a Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council. Provide decision support to staff. Establish guidelines and standards city-wide and for design districts. Review selected built -out projects to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and recommend refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is getting the designs it wants. Provide review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Packet Pg. 23 a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r L 0 0. 00 N M O E a a 5.2.a Review Board- and staff -approved and constructed projects since 2007 when the existing standards and processes were adopted Review existing guidelines (in Comprehensive Plan) and standards (ECDC) and update as necessary Provide input on next rounds of public projects Create multifamily guidelines and standards Create Five Corners district guidelines and standards a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a 0 0 0. 00 0 N M O O a w a Packet Pg. 24 5.2.a Update decision making processes - ECDC 20.01, 20.10, 20.11 & 20.12 Update ADB's `powers and duties'- ECC 10.05.040 How to organize post -project reviews? Meeting schedule... monthly, quarterly? a� 0 W m 0 Q c 0 a� r a 0 L 0 0. 00 0 N Cr) O 0 C 0 E a w a Packet Pg. 25 5.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting OCTOBER 3, 2018 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:02 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, d 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. c W Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present o Lauri Strauss, Chair Rob Chave, Development Services Director Q c Joe Herr, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner G Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recordercc a) 13 Cary Guenther a Joshua Shope Athene Tarrant 00 T Tom Walker c APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2018 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There was no one in the audience. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS: There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 26 5.2.b Process, Scope and Roles of the Architectural Design Board (ADB) Mr. Clugston reviewed that last winter, the ADB met with the Planning Board to talk about the ADB's role in design review. At that time, it was noted that the ADB's design review was less meaningful at the project -review level. Projects are often completely designed by the time they come to them for review, and the ADB only has the ability to offer input on minor details. At the same time, the City Council has indicated a desire to see code changes that remove volunteer boards, such as the ADB, from the quasi-judicial decision -making process (Resolution 1367). Lastly, the Board indicated an interest in doing post -project reviews to see if the existing design guidance and standards are resulting in the type of development envisioned for Edmonds and, if not, propose refinements to the guidelines and standards that would result in better projects in the future. Mr. Clugston advised that the ADB's Powers and Duties were first incorporated into the code in about 1972 and have not been updated for almost 50 years. What was envisioned 50 years ago may not be the same as today. Perhaps the W process for design review could be changed or streamlined, as well. The intent of tonight's discussion is to obtain M feedback and direction from the Board about potential changes to their power, scope and role in the design review Q process. r- 0 d Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the ADB, noting that when he arrived at the City in the 1990's, the Supreme Court case Anderson Vs. Issaquah presented a watershed moment for design review. The Supreme Court found that Issaquah's design guidance was too vague. It was clear that jurisdictions needed to have very specific standards in place 00 so that an applicant coming into the design review process has a clear understanding of what is expected. Even though c the City of Issaquah was the defendant in the court case, it is important to understand that Issaquah's design guidance M was mirrored after the City of Edmonds' Urban Design Guidance. Although the City of Edmonds was not on trial, the c Court's decision was really applicable to the City's codes. At that time, the City had a reputation for having a very difficult design review process because it was unpredictable and applicants did not have a clear understanding of the features needed in project and it was difficult to predict the outcome of design review. E Mr. Chave advised that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to help produce a set of pretty thorough design guidelines that o went through the ADB, the Planning Board and the City Council for review. However, because of big push back from a the development community who felt they were too specific, the guidelines were never adopted. Instead, the City incorporated the objectives outlined in the draft design guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan. 13 Mr. Chave continued that the City hired Mark Hinshaw, a well-known urban designer in the region, in 2004 to help the N = City incorporate more specific design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. In 2006, the design review process was E adjusted to incorporate a district -based design review process. The idea was that the district -based process would provide very specific standards for each area of the City. However, because the City only had specific design standards Q in place for the Downtown Business (BD) zones and some portions of Highway 99, design review for the remainder of the City was based on generalized standards and process. Since that time, the City has implemented design standards for Westgate and Highway 99, and the intent is to do the same for other parts of the City. However, until this occurs, the E City continues to use the generalized process for design review. Mr. Chave explained that the City heard feedback that the design review process for the BD zones was convoluted and r a not producing good results. They hired another consultant to review the process rather than the standards. Because the consultant had experience with the City of Seattle, he used Seattle's multi -phased design review process as a model. In retrospect, staff is very skeptical about the process, which is intended to bring applicants in early to look at the parameters of the project and provide guideposts as they continue to design the project. However, the multi -phased process has not been very effective for the City because they don't see the projects early enough and even in this early - stage review, applicants tend to present projects that are nearly finished designs. Staff believes the only way to make the review early enough in the process is to use a process similar to Seattle's, which can take years to complete. He expressed his belief that this approach would not be feasible for Edmonds and not something that applicants would be willing to go through. He voiced concern that the two -phased design review process used in the downtown is extremely Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 27 5.2.b awkward because it requires the ADB to conduct one hearing and then hold it open for the second part of the review. This makes it difficult for applicants, citizens and staff. Mr. Chave summarized that the City is still working to get design standards in place throughout Edmonds. They now have them for Westgate and design standards for Five Corners and multi -family zones will be coming in the next year. That means that with just a few small exceptions, all areas of the City will be covered. Another goal for the coming year is to get a single design review process rather than a district -based versus generalized process. The intent is to nail down the design standards they have wanted for quite some time, and the ADB could play a really important role in this process. For example, the ADB could review projects that have been built according to the existing standards and code and identify potential changes. They could also provide input as the City wrestles with the issue of specificity versus flexibility and creativity. Mr. Chave recalled that in the 80s and 90s everything related to design review went before the ADB, and their agendas often included upwards of 20 projects, both large and small. Anderson Vs. Issaquah pointed out the need for really strong design standards and more specificity in the code and cautioned against making arbitrary decisions. It became fairly obvious that staff could or should approve a lot of the minor applications. Over the years, the ADB's agendas have gotten smaller because more design decision making has been standard -driven and made by staff rather than in a public hearing situation. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the City currently uses a district -based, two -phased public hearing process for design review in the BD zones and a general design review process elsewhere. Currently, staff does design review for smaller permits, but projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review still come to the ADB, with the exception of the General Commercial Zone where all projects come before the ADB for review. One option for the Board to consider is removing the ADB from quasi-judicial decisions and eliminating the two -phased hearing process. Design review would become a Type I staff decision (with no notice) if SEPA is not required and a Type II staff decision (with notice) if SEPA is required. Design review could be a Type III -A Hearing Examiner decision if the applicant is requesting exceptions to the standards. In these situations, the ADB could make a recommendation and the Hearing Examiner would make the final decision. Mr. Clugston pointed out that if the design standards and guidance are done well, staff decisions should be doable for most projects, and the Hearing Examiner should be able to take on the judicial role of projects requesting exceptions to the standards. He noted that a similar process was adopted into the Highway 99 code last year, but there haven't been any projects come through the process yet. Mr. Clugston reviewed the current Design Review Scope. Whether design review is done by the ADB or staff, the design scope applies to all development, including both public and private. He said the proposed new Design Review Scope would be very similar, but worded a bit differently. It would look at the same exterior features of a project, but would also explain the design review process so developers have a clear understanding of the steps involved. Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, certain types of development are exempt from design review, including parks developed under a master plan, permitted primary and secondary uses in single-family residential zones, detached single- family homes or duplexes in multi -residential zones, additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, fences, signs, and underground utilities. While it makes sense to continue to exempt projects in the single-family residential and multi -residential zones, the exemptions could also include public projects whose design has been reviewed by the ADB and approved by the City Council. To date, the ADB hasn't reviewed public projects at all, and the intent would be to emphasize that as an advisory role the Board should have. In addition, an exemption could be added for minor changes to previously -approved plans that the Director determines do not alter the intent of the approved design. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board was established in 1973 and was originally called the Amenities Design Board. Its powers and duties included four responsibilities that talk about recommendations for a Comprehensive Architectural Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 28 5.2.b Design Plan, and the fifth responsibility talks about reviewing other matters referred to them by the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission or Planning Department. However, over the last 20 to 30 years, the Board has become more of a project review board. They used to review projects with fewer standards, but now they have more standards and review fewer projects. He suggested the Board's powers and duties could be changed to include: reviewing public projects and providing recommendations to the City Council, providing design support to staff, establishing guidelines and standards citywide and for design districts, reviewing selected built -out projects to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and recommending refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is getting the designs it wants, and providing review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Possible future projects could include: reviewing Board and staff -approved and constructed projects since 2007 when existing standard and processes were adopted, reviewing existing Comprehensive Plan guidelines and code standards and recommending updates as necessary, providing input on next rounds of public projects, creating multi -family guidelines and standards, and creating Five Corners District guidelines and standards. He summarized that, as proposed, rather than having a decision -malting role, the Board's role would be recommendations, guidance, and input. �°. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Board's current powers and duties do not actually include reviewing building projects. It m Q talks about having a role in creating policies, objectives, and design plan goals, which is something the Board has r_ 0 expressed a desire to do. Board Member Guenther recalled that when the City Attorney made a presentation about the +; Board's responsibilities, he was excited about the prospect of actually getting to do what the Board Members are trained to do. For example, the ADB should have been involved in the process of developing design standards for Westgate. At the very least, they should have been invited to provide input to the Planning Board and City Council. However, they 00 were left out of the discussion, and their only responsibility has been to interpret and apply the guidelines that have been c adopted. He expressed his hope that the ADB could be more useful in future projects such as developing design M guidelines for Five Corners and the multi -residential zones. He felt it would also be useful for the Board to review c developed projects to determine how the existing design standards and guidance works and what changes are needed in the future. He would also like the Board to have an opportunity to review and provide input on public projects. y Mr. Clugston advised that, based on feedback from the Board, staff could update the decision -making processes, the Scope of Design Review and the ADB's Powers and Duties and bring draft language back for the Board's continued discussion in a few months. Staff is not yet sure how to organize a post project review, and they welcome input and suggestions from the Board. Another issue that warrants further discussion is the Board's future meeting schedule. Board Member Tarrant suggested that the design guidance and standards should be based on the district and not by building type. Vice Chair Herr agreed that a district -based approach makes more sense. For example, he cautioned against blanketing the entire City with a 25-foot height limit that is intended to protect the views in a very few areas of the City. He said he likes the idea of not applying a comprehensive code the same throughout the entire City. Certain areas have more priority than other areas for certain standards. Board Member Broadway also expressed support for a district -based approach. She pointed out the different way that Mountlake Terrace is being redeveloped, which clearly indicates that code changes have occurred in certain areas. This has not yet happened in Edmonds to encourage growth to come. She would like the Board to step back and look at what their role should be in making appropriate changes happen. She said she is less concerned about the color of a building, how large a window is, or where the door is placed. Instead, the Board's focus should be on the proposed size, scale, massing, location and circulation. She said she works with the Department of Health on a daily basis, using a process called Early Technical Assistance where a developer presents a very preliminary design and the discussion focuses on design guidance about circulation, building size and location, life safety, etc. The applicants then move forward to design their projects based on the feedback provided. If the City wants to have a multi -phased design review, it would be helpful for the applicant to present early conceptual site plans (one sheet drawings) for the Board's review. The Board could then provide one or two pages of written notes that outline things for the applicant to think about when designing the project. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 29 5.2.b Board Member Walker asked how the approach outlined above by Board Member Broadway would be different than the standards already called out in the zoning and building codes that address scale, height, fagade, massing, etc. Board Member Broadway commented that the ADB may have expectations that are not specifically called out in the zoning code. In these situations, the Board could provide code interpretation to let the applicants know what they mean. Board Member Tarrant said it would be helpful to have a digital version of the City showing all of the important elements of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This would allow a developer to present conceptual drawings that address all of the critical elements that will be required and would be more valuable than the current process of the ADB conducting design review when the design work has all be done. Board Member Shope said that in his experience in Seattle, projects are presented at the preliminary stage to the design review board, and the submittal package must include a 9-block radius around the building. These packages almost aa) always include 3d drawings, and usually a client has already purchased the property at that point. Board Member W Tarrant asked if it would be possible to see an example of an application package that has been submitted to the City of M Seattle, and Board Member Shope answered that all application files are available on line. Q c 0 Board Member Walker commented that if the Board wants to provide input to an applicant early in the process, having +; application submittal requirements would be helpful. He recalled Mr. Chave's earlier caution that involving the Board earlier in the process could significantly lengthen the review process. He asked if this would still be true if the ADB were to substitute what they do now with an earlier reading. Mr. Chave said people who do design review in Seattle 00 have advised that it is a fairly lengthy process and the scale of the review is much different. Most of the City of c Edmonds' projects are small, and the developers are simply not accustomed to the degree of sophistication required by M Seattle's process. When the consultant proposed a process similar to Seattle's, there as a lot of pushback from c 0 developers who were particularly concerned about how the proposed process would lengthen the design review timeline. Board Member Broadway said her office is currently working with unincorporated Pierce County, which has a very small code that is difficult to interpret. They know they want a 50,000 square foot building, but there are currently three proposals for how the building will fit onto the site. While all three options would meet the code requirements, they are interested in hearing from Pierce County as to what they want to see. Providing feedback at this point is much more valuable to the client and allows cities and counties to address issues such as steep slopes, trees, street view, etc. before design work progresses too far. The City has gone from a vague code to a much more specific code that has reduced the number of projects the ADB reviews. The specific code has also resulted in projects that are more designed before they come before the ADB. Now she is hearing that perhaps the ADB's review should be done as a pre -application meeting before the design gets too far along. She summarized that, with the more prescriptive codes, the ADB has not had a lot of opportunity to influence a project if it has been determined to meet the code. Mr. Clugston explained that the City does offer a pre -application meeting, but it is not a requirement. People with larger projects typically take advantage of the opportunity. They also have a tree development meeting at the conceptual level. During these early meetings, staff points to the design standards in the Development Code and design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. Although projects are often well into the design by that point, staff can help them decide what to focus on. Mr. Clugston said he understands the Board's frustrations about its ability to provide input on projects. However, the City Council has expressed a desire for the ADB to move away from the quasi-judicial decision -making process. That means they need to work on the guidance and standards to make sure they are clear and meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. There are numerous provisions in the zoning code that influence the design of buildings, and the Board can provide overarching guidance and create standards for districts that enable them to affect every project that comes in and not just those that meet the threshold that requires ADB review. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 30 5.2.b Board Member Walker summarized that, as proposed by staff, all of the districts would have their own set of standards, and some would be more stringent than others. In addition, different design processes could be required based on the district. The design standards would apply to both public and private projects. Vice Chair Herr explained that one reason for zoning codes and guidance is to help a developer determine whether or not a project will be feasible. If the City's standards and guidance are too vague and arbitrary decision are made during design review, the City will be open to potential lawsuits and they are likely to receive pushback from developers. Someone looking at the site from an aesthetic standpoint will not realize the amount of work that went into getting a proforma together for a piece of property. Board Member Broadway said she is not suggesting that the City not have specific design guidance and standards. She is suggesting that the Board could provide early technical assistance before a project gets to the point where they simply aa) follow the guidelines. For example, when the Key Bank project was presented to the Board for design review, the main W entrance was facing the parking lot rather than the street. Following Board feedback, the applicant did more to mo accentuate the pedestrian entrance. She is not proposing that the Board provide input on the types of uses allowed, Q height, etc. Applicants must meet all of the code requirements, which address these issues. However, there may be c opportunities for the Board to comment on how the building is situated on the site, pedestrian circulation, etc. +; 13 91 Mr. Chave pointed out that these issues should also be addressed by the code. For example, the Downtown and Westgate Design Standards both talk about building orientation. Staff would like the Board to become more involved in 00 helping develop good design guidance and standards for different areas. They do not want design standards that apply c citywide. Staff would also like the Board to conduct retrospective reviews of projects that have been developed M consistent with the current code. He pointed out, for example, that landscaping can change the appearance of a building c tremendously over time. He referred to the Compass Development on SR-104 and the PCC Market, which look entirely different now with mature landscaping than they did just after construction. He summarized that it would be educational for the Board and staff to review projects and come up with potential design standards and guidance changes. Perhaps the Board could present an annual report to the City Council with a list of recommended changes. It would also be educational for the City Council and citizens to understand the relationship between projects, codes and time. m Board Member Tarrant commented that just because a project satisfies all of the design standards and guidance doesn't mean it will be the most wonderful project. She felt it would still be appropriate for the Board to review projects at the conceptual stage and provide input. Mr. Chave explained that when a project is submitted to the City, staff must evaluate it against the codes to decide whether or not to approve it. The Board is discussing the idea of influencing a project at the outset of the design review process. One way to accomplish this is to have the ADB function as the pre -application board so they are no longer the quasi-judicial decision maker. A developer could present an idea for a project, and the Board's role would be to point to the codes or specific issues that an applicant should consider rather than the big picture design and site issues. This process would be quite different but might be more valuable. Board Member Broadway said she would like the Board to spend its time reviewing projects early on, serving as a pre - application board. As a Board member, she is interested in making the fabric of neighborhoods better and influencing how projects impact neighborhoods. Board Member Walker cautioned that the Board would not have the ability to require an applicant to do something that is outside of the code. As long as a project meets all of the code requirements, an applicant would not be bound to implement recommendation made by the ADB during the pre -application meeting. Chair Strauss emphasized that when reviewing applications during pre -application meetings, the Board may identify potential code changes that are needed. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that the Board's role could include the ability to introduce potential code amendments for the City Council's consideration. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 31 Board Member Guenther asked what the process would be for presenting potential code amendments. Mr. Chave answered that, currently, all zoning code amendments are presented to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. The ADB could initiate a proposed amendment and perhaps meet jointly with the Planning Board to discuss the change. Another option would be for the ADB to work directly with the City Council. The Board could be the initiator of design standard changes and code changes, and they could be presented as often as necessary. Mr. Chave said that, with the new scheme, he could see the Board spending all its time on pre -application meetings, reviewing projects related to code, and coming up with new standards based on districts. The would be well within the realm of what was envisioned by the Board's existing powers and duties. Chair Strauss asked if the Board should provide a recommendation relative to the proposal to remove it from quasi- judicial decision making. Mr. Chave said this decision will ultimately be made by the City Council. If the Board is W proposing to no longer do project review, they will no longer have to worry about the quasi-judicial rules. He said staff ca would report the Board's discussion to the City Council and provide a copy of their minutes. Q c 0 Board Member Broadway suggested that perhaps the Board's name should be changed to Design Guidance Board. +; Board Member Tarrant asked if the Board's current meeting format is conducive to a pre -application meeting or would it -a be better to have a working format around a table. Mr. Chave said both the meeting format and the Board's name are 0. open to discussion. T_ Board Member Shope agreed with Vice Chair Herr that most developers know at the outset of a project whether or not it T 0 c" M will meet all of the code requirements and be feasible. He cautioned against changing the process to make it more c difficult for developers to build in Edmonds. However, he agreed that it would be useful for the Board to provide guidance to developers to look at the standards more closely. 0 c Board Member Broadway said she is particularly concerned about pedestrian and vehicular access, and Chair Strauss E said she is interested in what a developer is doing for. Mr. Clugston commented that these issues need to be addressed o adequately in the design standards and guidance. Perhaps the City could provide a list of options to meet the standards a and guidance without being too specific. L 13 Board Member Walker asked how the Board would introduce public project design review. Would that be an additional N role for the Board? Mr. Clugston answered that there have not traditionally been good design standards for public = projects, and he is not quite sure how it will work moving forward. However, staff believes that the Board should have E an opportunity to review these projects and provide feedback. 0 Chair Strauss asked what would trigger the pre -application meeting requirement. Mr. Clugston answered that the pre- Q application process can be written into the code. At this time, pre -application meetings are not mandatory, but they could be made mandatory. The requirement could be based on location, size, etc. E z Board Member Shope cautioned that when it comes time for the Board to consider potential code amendments, they a must be cognizant of the type of place Edmonds is. For example, Redmond required two bike stalls for each unit in a project he was working on. While this sounds like a great amenity, it is too much. They must be realistic about what Edmonds is and needs and what they are trying to achieve. Regarding future meeting schedules, Vice Chair Herr cautioned that the Board would need to be available on a regular basis if they are going to require pre -application meetings. They don't want to stall an application for two or three months while the applicant waits for the next ADB meeting. He suggested that the Board may need to conduct pre - application meetings on an on -demand basis. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that retrospective project review, as well as review of potential code amendments, could be scheduled on a quarterly or bi-monthly basis. He pointed out that it would not be necessary for all Board Members to attend the pre -application meetings, and perhaps they could come up Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 32 5.2.b with a schedule to ensure that there are at least three members present. A quorum would be preferable when considering potential code amendments. However, the Board could assign subcommittees to conduct retrospective project review and report back to the Board. Again, Mr. Clugston said staff will bring back ideas and a proposal for the Board's consideration in a few months. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None of the Board Members made additional comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 8:37 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 3, 2018 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 33 5.2.c Current ADB Powers and Duties (ECC 10.05) The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor, city council, planning commission and the planning department on matters hereinafter enumerated and on such matters as may be specifically referred to the board by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department: A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and policies for each established design district. E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]. THIS MORPHED OVER TIME INTO STRICTLY PROJECT REVIEW AND QUASI- JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING 1 Work preferences expressed by ADB • Get out of quasi-judicial decision making —they don't feel like they have useful input at that stage of project development • Review projects prior to submittal to provide more meaningful input and context • Contribute to establishing design districts and standards (e.g. RM zones, 5 Corners) • Review built projects to see if what was approved and constructed fits the character of the area — if not, suggest new or modified standards to improve future projects • Annual report to Council about recent work and analysis of built projects to show how they've `aged' into their surroundings Packet Pg. 34 Ir_ do Review PrecQ Pre -Application meeting required for all projects that require SEPA (ADB participates with staff) Type II Design review by Staff SEPA notice Application Submitted Is SEPA required? (or project > 75' in CG zone) Type III -A Design review by Hearing Examiner SEPA/public hearing notice Type I Design review by staff Staff Decision Hearing Examiner Decision w/ Building Decision Permit 7.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/3/2019 Public Hearing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The site is located at 23830 Edmonds Way and is zoned RM1.5 (File No. PLN20180069). Staff Lead: Michele Q. Szafran Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michele Szafran Background/History See narrative Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions. Narrative The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The 10 units are proposed in a new three (3) story building with a mix of studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Parking for the units will be located adjacent to the building along the northwest end of the property. Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination (those that are not categorically exempt from SEPA) are reviewed by the ADB in a public hearing. According to ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a Type III-B decision, which is appealable to the City Council. Attachments: PLN20180069 Staff Report and Attachments Packet Pg. 36 7.1.a 111C. 189%J CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Edmonds Crossing Apartment File Number: PLN20180069 Date of Report: March 26, 2019 Staff Contact: Michele Q. Szafran, PI lner Public Hearing: Wednesday — April 3, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250-5th Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The 10 units are proposed in a new three (3) story building with a mix of studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Parking for the units will be located adjacent to the building along the northwest end of the property. (Attachments 1-10). II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: RNK Eastside LLC 2. Applicant: Haynes Lund; Haynes, Wilson, Lund (HWL) Architects LLC 3. Tax Parcel Number: 00463301000302 4. Location: 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 (Attachment 8) 5. Size: The subject property contains 15,682 square feet. 6. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM — 1.5) with a maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. 7. Existing Use: There are currently two single family residences and one duplex structure on the property. Packet Pg. 37 7.1.a 8. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The 10 units are proposed in a new three (3) story building with a mix of studios, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Parking for the units would be located adjacent to the building along the northwest end of the property. 9. Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination (those that are not categorically exempt from SEPA) are reviewed by the ADB in a public hearing. According to ECDC 20.01.003, review by the ADB in a public hearing format is a Type III-B decision, which is appealable to the City Council. II�*I4J_109:1.4*11:[0U701:1#4RAIIIiLT-A119I►1 Review under SEPA is required for this project because the project exceeds four (4) multifamily residential units.. The applicant submitted a SEPA Checklist for the project which is included in Attachment 6. The City of Edmonds determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and issued SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on January 22, 2019 (Attachment 7). The City has not received any appeals of the SEPA determination. IV. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS A "Notice of Application and SEPA Threshold Determination" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on January 22, 2019. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 12 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Application and SEPA determination. The "Notice of Public Hearing" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on March 20, 2019. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 14 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Public Hearing. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03 (Public Notice). Two written comments have been submitted on the proposal; one from Snohomish County PUD and the second from Peter Alm on behalf of WSDOT-NW Region Development Services. Snohomish County PUD No. 1 noted the district has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development; however, the existing facilities in the area may requiring upgrading. PUD noted any relocation, alteration or removal of District facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the developer and must be coordinated with PUD in advance (Attachment 19). Page 2 of 16 Packet Pg. 38 7.1.a Staff Response: Utilities will be included on the civil portion of the building permit and it will be the responsibility of the developer to coordinate with PUD. Peter Alm inquired about any changes to the existing curb, gutter and/or pavement of SR- 104 so that the proposed changes may be reviewed. Staff Response: Staff emailed the proposed plans to be reviewed and no additional comments have been received. (Attachment 20) V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed by South County Fire, City of Edmonds Public Works, Engineering and Building Divisions of the Development Services Department. The Building Division had no comments at this time. Compliance with all applicable building codes will be reviewed under the building permit application. (Attachment 15). South County Fire provided comments regarding 1) access width and turning radius to conform to South County Fire access standards, 2) Fire land Markings to conform to Fire Lane marking standards, 3) Knox key box to conform to access standards and 4) Fire alarm and Sprinklers (Attachment 11 and 16). Comments 2-4 will be reviewed with the building permit application for compliance with South County Fire. Comment 1 regarding the turning radii must be addressed as it could impact the overall layout of the site. Revised plans from the applicant where received on March 1, 2019 (Attachment 3 and 13) and routed to departments for review and comments. Fire had no additional comments. Compliance will be further reviewed with a building permit application. The Public Works -Recycling Coordinator commented on the proposal and requested that the designated outside waste container staging area be shown on the proposed plans. The revised plans received on March 1, 2019 (Attachment 3 and 13) adequately show the designated staging area for the resident's waste containers however it has been requested that the curb be eliminated for ease of access of the trash collection. Trash collection access will be reviewed further under the building permit application. (Attachment 11 and 17). The Engineering Division noted that the proposal is consistent with Title 18 ECDC and the City's Engineering Standards (Attachment 18). Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be further reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Trees within the right-of-way will be determined at a later date by the Parks Manager and has been made a condition of approval. Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 39 7.1.a VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Edmonds Way Corridor." The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines provide in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a detailed analysis on how the proposal complies with the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. Staff Findings: The subject property is a triangular shaped lot that is accessed from Edmonds Way. A one-way semicircular drive is proposed off of Edmonds Way. In addition to providing access the semicircular drive will also allow service vehicles to access the site without the need to turn around and will allow vehicles to pull safely off of Edmonds Way. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. Staff Findings: The proposal locates the building as close to the front of the site as possible with balconies along the street setback line. Parking is located to the side of the structure. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. Staff Findings: There is no need to integrate access between adjacent developments since this is a private residential development which is adjacent to other private residential developments on all sides except for the commercial property located south of the site. The main access to the building is directly from the sidewalk. There is a pedestrian walkway from the parking area to the building. Bicycle parking is underneath the stairs along the walkway. There are existing bus stops within easy walking distance (less than 800 feet). A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. Page 4 of 16 Packet Pg. 40 7.1.a Staff Findings: The main building entry faces the street and there is a direct path to it. The building is oriented towards the front of the site and is parallel with the street. The proposal includes gathering space in front of the entries of each unit as well as a common patio on the second floor along the street front portion of the building. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Staff Findings: Project meets the setbacks requirements for the zone and landscaping is provided within and around the perimeter of the development consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. Staff Findings: The RM 1.5 zone does not provide specific open space requirements; however, the proposal includes site landscaping, a rooftop courtyard above the studio unit, and outdoor decks/patios. The rooftop courtyard appears to be able to accommodate seating as well as the decks/patio areas. While the onsite landscaping will enhance the visual attributes of the site, they are not intended to provide places for interaction, play, seating or other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. Staff Findings: The project uses traditional materials but arranges them in a unique manner responsive to the characteristics of the site. The building height along with the pedestrian paths will help with way -finding. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Staff Findings: Covered entries are provided. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. Staff Findings: Adequate site lighting will be provided for the parking lot, for all pathways to the building, all walkways within the structure and at all unit entries. (Attachment 3, Sheet E10). Page 5 of 16 Packet Pg. 41 7.1.a A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. Staff Findings: No signage proposed at this time. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. Staff Findings: Most utility systems will be located toward the side of the building away from the street, some utilities are shown on the plan near the site entrance but will be screened by landscaping. The trash storage will be hidden from public view within the structure. A trash staging area is to be provided adjacent to the entry drive. (Attachment 3; sheet A20, and sheet L-1.3) A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. Staff Findings: No significant features exist on the site. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Staff Findings: Landscaping is provided consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. See the discussion on landscaping in Section 7.D below. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. Staff Findings: The proposed building offers an arrangement of forms, rooflines, windows and other elements that is unique to this building which is not repetitive or monotonous. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. Page 6 of 16 Packet Pg. 42 7.1.a Staff Findings: The proposed building is broken up into individual unit blocks that minimize the bulk of the building. It presents a number of railing, stairways, doors and individual window units which provide a human scale to the building. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. Staff Findings: The proposed building provides varied roof pitches and projections, which help identify the separate units within the building and provide modulation to the overall roof form. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Staff Findings: The proposed exterior walls of the building are modulated by continuous bands that break the facade down by floors. Finish materials are varied between building elements, to provide variety in the facade. The proposed site landscaping also helps break up the building facade. (Attachment 4, and 3 sheet A30 and L-1.3) Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. Staff Findings: The proposed building is oriented along the street setback line parallel to Edmonds Way. The proposal establishes the streetscape while providing a structure with strong individual identity. The overall theme of the development has a unified residential appearance. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. Staff Findings: The design utilizes windows clustered at the building corners to provide a recurring element to the facade. Locating the windows at the corners of the building allows for light and air to the building interior. Window size and variety are provided. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg. 43 7.1.a Staff Findings: As mentioned above, there is good variety in fagade materials and design elements on all sides of the building. VII. DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Chapter 16.30 ECDC - Multi -Family Residential Zone: The subject property is located with the Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zone and subject to the development standards of Chapter 16.30 ECDC. ECDC 16.30.010 Uses Staff Findings: Multiple dwellings is a permitted primary use pursuant to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1, so the proposed development is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM1.5 zone. ECDC 16.30.030 Development Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Subdistrict per Street Side Rear Maximum Maximum Dwelling Height Coverage Setback Setback Setback Unit (Sq. Ft.) RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25" 45% 'Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Staff Findings — Density: The subject property contains 15,682 square feet of lot area. With a density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area, a maximum of 10 dwelling units can be constructed. The proposal is for 10 dwelling units within a three (3) story building so the proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Setbacks: Since the subject property is an irregular shape there is no rear setback. The minimum street setback is 15 feet and the minimum side setbacks are 10 feet. The proposed structure is compliant with the setback requirements. The proposal is consistent with the setback requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Height: The maximum allowed height for the proposed structure is limited to 25 feet and 30 feet with a slope of 4 inches in 12 inches or greater. The proposed structure appears to have been designed to comply with the height requirements of the RM-1.5 zone as it is shown as being 25 feet above average original grade to the roof line with an additional five feet above the height limit for a sloped roof of 4 inches in 12 inches or greater Attachment 3. Page 8 of 16 Packet Pg. 44 7.1.a Staff Findings — Coverage: ECDC 21.15.110 defines coverage as the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. The application notes a building ground coverage of 3,757 square feet for a coverage of 24% of the 15,682 square foot lot. The proposal is consistent with the coverage requirements of the RM-1.5 zone (Attachment 3; Sheet A00). B. ECDC 17.50.020 — Off -Street Parking Regulations Off-street parking requirements for multifamily developments are detailed in the table in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b. The table below provides the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b along with the number of units of each dwelling unit type and the number of required parking spaces. Type of multiple Required parking Number of units Number of dwelling unit spaces per in proposal parking spaces dwelling unit required Studio 1.2 1 1.2 1 bedroom 1.5 6 9 2 bedrooms 1.8 3 5.4 3 or more 2.0 0 0 bedrooms Total Spaces Required 15.6 (16) The proposal provides 16 parking spaces. The parking spaces are proposed along the northern property boundary. The proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC (Attachment 3, Sheet C2.0). C. Chapter 20.11 ECDC — General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. ECDC 20.11.030.A Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; Staff Findings: A variety of materials and forms are used which creates a building harmonious in scale, line and mass within the development and which will integrate well with the surrounding area. Page 9 of 16 Packet Pg. 45 7.1.a 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area, Staff Findings: The proposed colors scheme avoids excessive brilliance or brightness (Attachment 4). 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Staff Findings: A PUD vault is proposed near the driveway entrance but is within the landscape area and will be screened from street view. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturally detailed entries; iv. Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials; Staff Findings: The proposed building provides variation in materials and projecting roof forms that help break of the bulk of the building both vertically and horizontally. Additionally site landscaping helps break up massing of the building (Attachments 3 & 4). 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not currently propose any signage. Any signage will be reviewed under a subsequent building permit application. ECDC 20.11.030.8 Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect natural resources, limit disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development. Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg. 46 7.1.a Staff Findings: The site currently contains two single family structures and a duplex with associated parking. The site is basically level and does not have a great deal of existing vegetation or other elements of natural beauty. The site will be re -landscaped after redevelopment is complete as shown in Attachment 3. There will be an increase in impervious surfaces over existing (roofs, driveway, walkways, patios, etc.) but not in excess of what would be expected with the redevelopment of an underutilized multifamily -zoned parcel. All stormwater will be managed in accordance with the City's stormwater codes. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC is being provided with the development. See the discussion on landscaping requirements in Section 7.D below. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Staff Findings: Landscaping is being provided consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC and will provide buffers from surrounding properties and soften and shade the parking area. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Staff Findings: Landscaping within the surface parking area will be protected by curbing. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. Staff Findings: The proposal includes a trash enclosure located along the rear side of the proposed building, interior to the site, which will provide adequate screening. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Staff Findings: The landscaping requirements in Chapter 20.13 ECDC for the perimeter include a mix of evergreen and deciduous species that will be effective in screening the site year round. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Staff Findings: Not applicable. Page 11 of 16 Packet Pg. 47 7.1.a 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. Staff Findings: Adequate site lighting is provided via the parking lot, pathways to the building, all walkways within the structure and at all unit entries. (Attachment 3, Sheet E10). ECDC 20.11.030(C) Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Staff Findings: The proposed building is not a community facility. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Staff Findings: No specific street furniture is proposed or required. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the design standards of ECDC 20.11.030. D. Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscape Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. Three types of landscaping are required for the proposed development. Type II landscaping is required along the south property boundary to buffer the site from the adjacent single-family developments and commercial use to the south; Type III landscaping is required along the property boundaries adjacent to the parking lot and Edmonds Way; and Type V landscaping is required within the surface parking area. ECDC 20.13.030 provides the requirements for each landscaping type. Type II Landscaping. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center; and 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Type II landscaping is provided along the southern property boundary. Page 12 of 16 Packet Pg. 48 7.1.a Type 111 Landscaping. Type 111 landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years, or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Type III landscaping is provided adjacent to the parking lot and Edmonds Way. Type V Landscaping. Type V landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. 1. Required Amount. a. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking spaces, at least 17.5 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section for each parking stall proposed. b. If the parking area contains more than 99 parking spaces, at least 35 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section for each parking stall proposed. c. If the parking area contains more than 50 but less than 100 parking spaces, the director— or his designee — shall determine the required amount of landscaping by interpolating between 17.5 and 35 square feet for each parking stall proposed. The area must be landscaped as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section. Page 13 of 16 Packet Pg. 49 7.1.a 2. Design. a. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in any direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one-half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. b. A landscaped area must be placed at the interior ends of each parking row in a multiple lane parking area. This area must be at least four feet wide and must extend the length of the adjacent parking stall. c. Up to 100 percent of the trees proposed for the parking area may be deciduous. d. Repealed by Ord. 4085. e. The minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. f. The maximum area per planter is 1,500 square feet for parking lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Planters shall be spread throughout the parking lot. g. Shade trees are required at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 150 square feet of planter. Staff Findings: With 16 parking spaces provided in the surface parking area 280 square feet of Type V landscaping is required. The proposal includes landscaping in excess of what is required and thus meets the Type V landscape requirements within the surface parking area. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the intent and requirements of the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13. VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when recommending approval of proposed development applications, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments within this report, staff recommends that the ADB APPROVE the design for the proposed development under file number PLN20180069 with the following motion and recommended conditions of approval: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGIULATIONS AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MULTI- FAMILY HOMES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg. 50 7.1.a IX. X. 1. TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PARKS MANAGER. 2. THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 3. 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. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121— 5t" Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RNK Eastside LLC Attn: Constantine Korovkin 2603 78t" Ave. N E. Medina, WA 98039 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC Attn: Haynes Lund 385 101s' Ave. SE. Bellevue, WA 98004 ATTACHMENTS WSDOT-NW Region Development Services Attn: Peter Alm P.O. Box 330310 MS 240 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133 Snohomish County PUD Attn: Jason Zyskowski P.O. Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Plan Set and Lighting Details 4. Color Elevations 5. Preliminary Drainage Report 6. SEPA Checklist 7. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 8. Zoning and Vicinity Map 9. Critical Area Determination 10. Edmonds Utilities Consortium (EUC) 11. Letter of Complete Application — Request Additional Info Page 15 of 16 Packet Pg. 51 7.1.a 12. Notice of Application Documentation and SEPA Determination Documentation 13. Applicant Response Letter 14. Notice of Public Hearing 15. Building Division Comments 16. Fire District Comments 17. Public Works Trash Collection Comments 18. Engineering Division Memo of Consistency 19. Snohomish County PUD Letter 20. WSDOT Email Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 52 City of Edmonds 7.1.a Land Use Application X ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: FILE # ZONE DATE REC'D BY FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB L CC • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED 1I ITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 23830 Edmonds Way PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Edmonds Crossing Apartments PROPERTY OWNER Rnk Eastside LLC PHONE # ADDRESS 2603 78th Avenue NE Medina WA 98039 E-MAIL kKkorovkiin@gmaii.com FAX TAX ACCOUNT # 00463301000302 SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) construct new 10 unit apartment building and associated parkin DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) see attached cover fetter APPLICANT Haynes Lund P14ONE# ADDREss 385 101 st Avenue SE, Bellevue WA 98004 E-MAIL HWLArch@comcast.net 425-643-3921 FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Haynes Lund _PHONE # 425-643-3921 ADDRESS 385 101 st Avenue SE Bellevue WA 98004 E-MAIL HWLArch@comcast.net FAX# The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information famished 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 2 4-fl� DATE 26 NOV 2018 Property Owner's Authorization 1, Constant! naKorovki n certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of�in/j'�'/` Lion and posting attendant to this application. r7 SIGNATURE OF OWNER `�/ ��Q�l r, . __ / 115> rI- I 1 5? Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on8122112 B- LandUseAplrcatian Page Iofl PacketPg. 53 ATTACHMENT 1 7.1.a Date: November 30, 2018 Design Review for Edmonds Crossing Apartments 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Pre -Application File #PRE2018005 Description of Proposal The site for this project is located along Edmonds Way a short distance south of the intersection with 238t" Street SW. It is a triangular lot containing (2) single family residences and (1) duplex residence which were built in 1938, 1965 and 1968. None of these building have any architectural character and all will be demolished for this project. The site is overgrown with trees and shrubs which dominate the appearance from Edmonds Way. The adjoining properties are mostly residential uses, except for an automotive sales lot to the south and a small office building across the street. Edmonds Crossing Apartments would clear the existing site and construct a new 3-story building near the front of the lot. This building will house 10-residential units consisting of a mix of studios, 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom apartments. Parking for these units would be located beside the building along the northwest end of the property. The only street that connects with the site is Edmonds Way. Because of an existing concrete median, access to the site will be strictly right -in and right -out. A one- way semicircular drive has been included along the highway to accommodate the limited access options. This drive also enables service vehicles, such as trash trucks, to access the site without the need to turn around. The existing street frontage is a 4' wide sidewalk immediately back from the curb. Since there is a driving lane adjacent to the curb, and traffic moves on Edmonds Way at a brisk pace, this situation is not conducive to pedestrian use. This project will revise the street frontage, per City of Edmonds standards, to provide a 4' wide planting strip between the sidewalk and the curb. This planting strip will extend the full length of the site. The building is set close to the front of the site with a common entry facing Edmonds Way. There is a walkway from the street directly into the structure. Since the ground floor of the building is slightly above the sidewalk elevation, there will be a short flight of stairs on this walkway. To provide accessible access, an alternate path out to the sidewalk is provided which will meet ADA requirements for slope. Edmonds Crossing Apartments is essentially a courtyard arrangement, with all the units being accessed from a central court. What is different about this project is that, on the ground floor, there is a 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC page 1 ATTACHMENT 2 f 'p 7.1.a studio unit occupying the courtyard space, and the common outdoor space is raised a level to the roof of this unit. On each side of the courtyard are symmetrical 3-story elements. All of these units, as well as the studio unit, have patios or balconies that face Edmonds Way, which gives the building an open inviting presence on the street. The primary exterior material for this project is lap siding, which is a common finish material in the area. To provide some variety in the fagade there are also some areas of vertical siding. The other exterior wall materials are vinyl windows and painted trim. At the base of the wall will be a small strip of rigid insulation with a cementitious coating. The roofing will be asphalt shingles. All of these materials are commonly used for residential construction in this area. Compliance with Urban Design Goals & Policies Design Objectives for Site Design. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. While this project has 2 curb cuts, they are each designed for one-way traffic and will facilitate easy exit and entry from Edmonds Way. The site entry arrangement also has the advantage of providing a staging area for service vehicles that allows them to pull off the street not have to turn around. See Sheet C2.0. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. This project locates the building as close to the front of the site as possible, with the outer edge of the balconies on the front setback line. Parking is located to the side of the structure. See Sheet C2.0 and Sheet A20. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. The main access to the building is directly from the sidewalk. There is a pedestrian walkway from the parking area to the building. Bicycle parking is underneath the stairs along this walkway. There are existing bus stops within easy walking distance (less than 800'). See Sheet A20 and Vicinity Plan on Sheet A00. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. The main building entry faces the street and there is a direct path to it. The building is sited toward the front of the site and is parallel with the street. There is gathering space in front of the entry of each unit. See Sheets C2.0, A20, A21. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. The adjacent sites to this project are a mixed bag of parking lots and residential structures set back from the street. It would be impossible to connect a building on this site with its neighbors in any meaningful way. By pushing the building forward, this project creates the beginnings of a street 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC n _I Packet Pg. 55 7.1.a wall while street providing a small area for landscaping that will be both attractive and provide some degree of privacy for the units. See Sheet L1.0. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. This project has some open space at the south end of the site as well as in the courtyard on the roof of the studio unit. This courtyard will include planter boxes as well as a vegetated wall along one side. It will have sufficient space for seating and other casual outdoor activities. See Sheet L1.0. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. This project uses traditional materials but it arranges them in a unique manner responsive to the characteristics of the site. See Sheets DR1.0 and DR1.1. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. All walkways within the building are covered. See Sheets A20, A21. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. This project will provide lighting for the parking lot, for all pathways to the building, all walkways within the structure and at all unit entries. See Site Lighting Plan. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. This project does not contemplate any signage other than an address number at this time. It is possible that the owner may decide to provide a monument sign to identify the building. See Sheet A30. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. All utility systems will be located toward the side of the building away from the street. Trash storage is hidden from public view within the structure. There is a concrete trash can staging area adjacent to the entry drive. See Sheet A20. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. The existing site does not contain any significant trees or other notable landscape features. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. The landscape design utilizes native plant materials to provide buffers along the perimeter of the site, and in front of the parking area. Landscape buffers are also provided at the ground floor patios to enhance the privacy of the units. See Sheet L1.0. 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC Packet Pg. 56 7.1.a Design Objectives for Building Form A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. This project offers an arrangement of forms, rooflines, windows and other elements that is unique to this building and is certainly not monotonous. See Sheets DR1.0, DR1.1, A30. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. This building is broken up into individual unit blocks that minimize the bulk of the building. It presents a number of railings, stairways, doors and individual window units which provide a human scale to the building forms. See Sheets DR1.0, DR1.1, A30. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. Because of the manner in which the building is broken into individual unit blocks, the roof form is simplified in order to tie the structure together. However, it still has variety through projections and changes of level. See Sheets A21, A30. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. The exterior walls of this project are modulated by continuous bands that break the fagade down by floors. Finish materials are varied between building elements to provide variety in the facade. See Sheets DR1.0, DR1.1, A30. Design Objectives for Building Facade A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building facades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. The building is sited close to the front setback line parallel to Edmonds Way. It establishes the streetscape will providing a structure with strong individual identity. See Sheet C2.0. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. The design utilizes windows clustered at the building corners, typically, to provide a recurring element to the fagade. By locating the windows at the corners direct sunlit penetrates into the building for longer hours of the day. There are operable units within each cluster allowing the opportunity for natural ventilation. See Sheet A30 and floor plans. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building facades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. The primary finish material on the exterior walls is lap siding. Those areas are further broken down by accent bands at the floor lines. Variety is provided by some of the building forms having vertical siding as the finish material. See Sheets DR1.0, DR1.1, A30. 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC page 4 Packet Pg. 57 7.1.a Compliance with Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas This project is not located in any of the specific areas listed in this section, so none of these urban design goals apply to this project. Compliance with Streetscape and Trees Goals & Policies Streetscape and Street Trees Goal A. Enhance the public realm through streetscape and street tree choices. Very few or the specific goals of this policy apply to this project. This project will provide trees in the planting strip across the front of the site in compliance with City standards. See Sheet L1.0. Conformance with General Zoning regulations The lot for this project is zoned RM-1.5. The primary permitted use for this zoning is multiple dwellings at a maximum density of 1500 SF of lot area per unit [ECDC Sec.16.30]. The area of this lot is 15, 682 SF. The maximum number of housing units allowed on the lot is 10. This project will provide 10 units. Per the Site Development standards [ECDC Sec. 16.30.030, Table A], the minimum street setback is 15 and the minimum side setback is 10'. Because this site has a triangular shape, there is no edge of the site for which a rear setback would apply. This project complies with all of these setback requirements (see Sheet C2.0). The maximum coverage for this site is 45%. The project complies with this coverage limitation (see Sheet A00). The maximum allowable building height for this site is 25', which may be extended to 30' if the portion of the building above 25' has a roof slope of 4 in 12 or greater. This project complies with these height limitations (see Sheet A01). This project will provide (1) studio apartment, (6) 1-bedroom apartments and (3) 2-bedroom apartments. The off-street parking requirement for this building is a total of 15.6 parking spaces [ECDC Sec. 17.050.020.A.1.1 . This project provides 16 off-street parking spaces on the same lot at the side of the building (See Sheet C2.0). These parking stalls are all at least 8.5' wide by 16.5' long, which meets the requirements for full width parking stalls. The accessible van stall that is included is 9' wide which meets the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act. The parking aisle width meets the width requirement for 2-way traffic per Figure 18-1 (see Sheet C2.0). This project fully complies with all regulations regarding off-street parking. 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC ---- r_ Packet Pg. 58 7.1.a Clearing of the site will be required for this project. A Clearing and Grading permit will be obtained before any such work is undertaken. It is anticipated that all trees and shrubs on the lot will be removed for the construction of this project. The site contains no environmentally sensitive areas or any native growth protection easements. There are no wetlands on the site nor is any portion of the site within the setback area for a wetland. There is no significant vegetation or wildlife habitat on the site that should be protected. All requirements of ECDC Section 18.45.050 will be complied with by this project. As required by ECDC Section 18.30.060, stormwater drainage from this site will comply with the requirements of 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. This will include constructing stormwater collection, conveyance, detention and water quality facilities. The project is proposing a combined water quality and detention vault that will collect and detain stormwater to predeveloped flow rates. Clean stormwater from the vault will be released to the existing storm drainage system located within Edmonds Way (SR 104). Low impact development (LID) best management practices will be evaluated as part of the project based on their feasibility. Because of the few number of daily trips generated by this project, a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. This direction was provided by Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds Transportation Engineer, in an email dated 9/5/2018 (attached). No further information regarding the traffic impact of this project is submitted herewith. We believe this project complies fully with all City of Edmonds Design Guidelines and Zoning Regulations that are applicable to this site. We hope that the information we have submitted with this Design Review application will receive your prompt approval. Sincerely, Haynes Lund, AIA LEED° AP Architect Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC ---- r- Packet Pg. 59 Nauss, Bertrand RE; PRE20100Q05, Multi -family housing at 23e30 Edmonds Way To; Haynes Lund, Cc. Zulauf, JoAnne Good morning, September 5, 201B at 722 AM Details Based on the latest ITf Trip Generation ai anaaf (101h Edition), the number of trips for an apartment complex during the PIVI peak hours is — 0.5 per apartment dwelling units. Therefore, a TO -unit apartment complex will generate " 5 trips during those same hours (well below the 25 PIVI peak hour trip threshold => no Traffic Study needed). Please include this email when submitting your handout. Thanks and let me know if you have any additional questions. Bertrand Sm more tro n May"Ios Lu rid 30 November 2018 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC n - Packet Pg. 60 7.1.a EDMONDS CROSSING APAPTMENTS DRAWING LIST ZONING RESTRICTIONS MAX. NO. OF UNITS: 10 SETBACKS: STREET 15' SIDE 10' TRIANGULAR SITE HAS NO REAR SETBACK MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 25' MAY BE INCREASED TO 30' IF THE HEIGHT ABOVE 25' SLOPES AT A RATE OF 4 IN 12 OR HIGHER. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 45% LOT AREA = 15,682 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 3,451 SF ACTUAL LOT COVERAGE = 22% BUILDING CODE INFO USE CLASSIFICATION: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: SPRINKLER SYSTEM: BASIC ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: NUMBER OF STORIES: PROPOSED HEIGHT: PROPOSED LARGEST FLOOR: PROPOSED TOTAL BLDG AREA R-2 V-B YES, NFPA 13R 60' 4 7,000 SQ FT ASSUMES NO PERIMETER INCREASE 21,000 SQ FT 3 STORIES, 35' 3,451 SQ FT 9,929 SQ FT (GROSS AREA INCLUDING STAIRS, WALKWAYS, DECKS) SITE DATA PARCEL NO.: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ZONING: • EXISTING USE: PROPOSED USE: 00463301000302 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 RM-1.5, MULTI -FAMILY 1500 SF OF LOT PER UNIT 0.36 ACRES (15,682 SF) MULTI -FAMILY WITH 3 BUILDING ON SITE (TO BE REMOVED) MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING 10 UNITS 3 STORIES BUILDING ENCLOSED FLOOR AREAS (EXCLUDES EXTERIOR STAIRS, DECKS, ROOF GARDENS) FLOOR 1 2486 SF FLOOR 2 2421 SF FLOOR 3 2421 SF TOTAL 7,688 SF UNIT CONFIGURATION STUDIO 1-BEDROOM 2-BEDROOM 1 UNIT (FLOOR 1 ONLY) 6 UNITS (2 PER FLOOR) 3 UNITS (1 PER FLOOR) BUILDING WILL HAVE FIRE SPRINKLERS BUILDING WILL HAVE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. A00 COVER SHEET A02 BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION A20 FLOOR PLANS LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 A21 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 & ROOF CONSULTANT NAME / CONSULTANT LOGO A30 BUILDING ELEVATIONS C1.0 CIVIL TITLE SHEET C2.0 PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN C2.1 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN L1.0 PLANTING PLAN L1.1 PLANTING SCHEDULE L1.2 PLANTING NOTES & DETAILS PROJECT TITLE/ PROJECT ADDRESS E1.0 SITE LIGHTING LAYOUT New Construction d BUS STOP, TYPICAL VICINITY PLAN NO SCALE PROJECT SITE E A s T . Y NORTH (I for EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA. 98026 REVISIONS DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 11-30-2018 1DES. REV. RE- SUBMITTAL 2-15-2019 PERMIT DOCUMENTS BID DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY HL CHECKED BY HWL DATE 27 OCT 2017 ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SEAL SHEET TITLE PROJECT DATA VICINITY PLAN SHEET NUMBER AOO © 2016 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects, Ilc ATTACHMENT 3 1 Packet Pg. 61 7.1.a 1. LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION LOT AREA = 15,682 SF MAX. LOT COVERAGE = 45% TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 3,757 SF ACTUAL LOT COVERAGE _ (3757 / 15682) = 24% BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION 3/16" = 1'-0" AVERAGE LEVEL CALCULATION CORNER POINT ELEVATIONS SINCE SW CORNER IS OUTSIDE PROPERTY, THAT CORNER ELEVATION IS TAKEN AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS WHERE THE RECTANGLE CRnc,gFC THE PRnPFRTY I INIF SITE PLAN /BASE ELEVATION MAP 1 /8" = 1'-011 0 8' 16' 32' 48' N GRAPHIC SCALD /16"= 1'-0" CONSULTANT NAME / CONSULTANT LOGO PROJECT TITLE / PROJECT ADDRESS New Construction for EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA. 98026 REVISIONS DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 11-30-2018 10 DES. REV. RE- SUBMITTAL 2-15-2019 PERMIT DOCUMENTS BID DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY HL CHECKED BY HWL DATE 27 OCT 2017 ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SEAL SHEET TITLE BUILDING HEIGHT & LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION SHEET NUMBER 0 2'-8" 5-4" 10'-8" 16' GRAPHIC SCALE3/16"= 1'-0" A02 © 2016 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects, Ilc Packet Pg. 62 7.1.a 0 CONSULTANT NAME / CONSULTANT LOGO PROJECT TITLE / PROJECT ADDRESS New Construction for EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA. 98026 REVISIONS DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 11-30-2018 1& DES. REV. RE- SUBMITTAL 2-15-2019 PERMIT DOCUMENTS BID DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SEAL HL HWL 27 OCT 2017 SHEET TITLE FLOOR PLANS LEVEL 1 & LEVEL 2 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN 1 /8" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4' 8' 16' 24' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" © 2016 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects, Ilc Packet Pg. 63 7.1.a 0 ZZ CONSULTANT NAME / CONSULTANT LOGO PROJECT TITLE / PROJECT ADDRESS New Construction for EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA. 98026 REVISIONS DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 11-30-2018 10 DES. REV. RE- SUBMITTAL 2-15-2019 PERMIT DOCUMENTS BID DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SEAL SHEET TITLE FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 3 & ROOF PLAN HL HWL 27 OCT 2017 ROOF PLAN 1 /8" = 1'-0" LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4' 8' 16' 24' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 /811= 1'-0" © 2016 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects, Ilc Packet Pg. 64 7.1.a EAST ELEVATION 0 EDMONDS WA 1/8" = 1'-0" REFERENCE ELEVATION 100'-0" = ACTUAL ELEVATION 399'-9" DECKS HAVE BEEN OMITTED TO SHOW WALL BEYOND WEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" NORTHWEST ELEVATION 0 uu[[p El �E El M, LEI ANGLED WALL, SEE DETAIL 4 THIS SHEET 0 4' 8' 16' 24' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION (TO PARKING LO 1/8" = 1'-0" SOUTHWEST ELEVATION (BACK 1/8" = 1'-0" CONSULTANT NAME / CONSULTANT LOGO PROJECT TITLE / PROJECT ADDRESS New Construction for EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA. 98026 REVISIONS DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 11-30-2018 0 DES. REV. RE- SUBMITTAL 2-15-2019 PERMIT DOCUMENTS BID DOCUMENTS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROJECT NUMBER DRAWN BY HL CHECKED BY HWL DATE 27 OCT 2017 ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SEAL SHEET TITLE BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NUMBER 1/8' = 1'-0' A30 © 2016 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects, Ilc Packet Pg. 65 THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 31, T 27 N., R 4E. 04I 7.1.a SURVEYOR GEODETIC SURVEYING SERVICES P.O. BOX 133 MUKILTEO, WA 98275 (425) 299-1739 CONTACT: RICHARD VAISVILA, PLS ENGINEER SITE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES 1724 W. MARINE VIEW DRIVE #140 EVERETT, WA. 98201 (425) 486-6533 ex. 101 Bhelsley@sdaengineers.com CONTACT: BILL HELSLEY, PE OWNER CONSTANTINE KOROVKIN 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 APPLICANT HAYNES WILSON LUND ARCHITECTS, LLC 385 101ST AVENUE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98004 (425) 643-3921 hwlarch@comcast.net CONTACT: HAYNES LUND, AIA EDMONDS APARTMENTS DESIGN REVIEW IT- _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ -7-- -7-- -7-- -7-- -7-- -7-- -7-- -7-- _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ _T__ FEBRUARY 15, 2019 ----------------------------- Civil Engineering P(. Project Management Planning 1724 W. Marine View Drive, Suite 140; Everett, Washington 98201 Office:425.486.6533 Fax: 425.486.6593 www.sdaengineers.com VICINITY MAP N (J) 1 "=2000' Oy = 226TH � 20s = 228T F SW PL W 000 ST SW 228T 9� �=ro aw' PROJECT °� a LOCATION 10 gg Lake T 238TH ST SW Ballinger O s 0 0 < 9LF 244TFI ST SW N 20 TH S 10 N 20 TH N 200TH S ST z z 3 Z w Z z a w a z w z o Q > X: a co o w M � � w z a yy �O R N RIC 3.0 O O o w BEACH � 0 185TH 1,1L I IbbiT FS7F Sheet List Table SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE C1.0 TITLE SHEET C2.0 PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN C3.0 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 I PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN TAX PARCELS 00463301000302 SITE ADDRESS 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 7nKiIA1t'-' N-1 , VERTICAL DATUMN NAVD 88 BENCHMARK WSDOT BENCHMARK NO. GP31099 ELEV. = 431.915 MERIDIAN RECORD OF SURVEY REC. NO. 200608185004 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE LINE BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF 238TH ST. SW. WITH EDMONDS WAY AND E. MONUMENT OF 86TH AVE W AS DEPICTED HEREON BEARING N89°44'26"E CONSTRUCTION HOURS WEEKDAYS: 7AM-6PM SATURDAY ONLY: 10AM-6PM NO WORK SUNDAYS AND/OR FEDERAL HOLIDAYS NOTE A SEPARATE RIGHT—OF—WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT—OF—WAY. RIGHT—OF—WAY PERMIT APPLICATION WITH CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION PLANS. N 20' 0 20' 40' qqmw 1 "= 20' Know what's below. Scale Feet Call before you dig. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACTS 3, 4 AND 5, BLOCK 10, HANBURY'S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20 RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID TRACT 5, NORTH 89*45' EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 80.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 5, THENCE 89*45' EAST ALONG SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACTS 5, 4 AND 3, A DISTANCE OF 271.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1—W; THENCE NORTH 51*12' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGINAL LINE 220.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36°44'20" WEST 173.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED IN SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 116066 FOR SR 104. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: BY: in C Z O O n C > N � 0 61 Z m OCD N C C T= .y Y v = d 05 I I- �M 0. r 4; Zia Z a Ip a 63:¢ c,4 p 00 N NZ O N O O I .+ 0 O N O � N CD O r = I > V a 0 N a o C o � c � N C C ° 3 E � _0 N rn � > aLU C} LU U r- •o .o C3 CO U CL v LO Ui v o a 3 > M m LO 10 i v 00 � i 3 CV N o w Z w a, c � o w00 > a' F ¢ i ° Z o 0 W N Cn Z W W W J C1.0 CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION R:\Projects\410 (LZG Construction)\002-18 (Edmonds Apt)\Dwg\sheets\Design Review\EW—t101.dwg 36x24 Packet Pg. 66 7.1.a E z a U) J n i 0 N N n THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 31, T 27 N., R 4E. \ \ \ o,xoo \ \ EXISTING POWER POLE TO BE RELOCATED Cn z 0 Cn W x In inIn rn m 4) d T N C C 'O = Y V = > O I L Ln ya maar Z p Z p (� Q N p0I p OIZ 00 I t) N N Z Cl) CD CDv ++ O N N I CT N I I O y 2 1 > 1W a .00 17.08 I \ os \ �\ 87°53'04"E \ I � 3g 1 a 4" FIRE LANE �•50 I \ \ N 0 STRIPING (TYP) 4,2g.27,18„ ° `� I \ �\ 01 01 0 41 \ \ Ou o ONIJIiltld ON- 1 32lhl 00 \ \ N E 3 a S• a w \ ° m 04 d l• `\ > / a � �2 0 \\ PROPOSED STREET o a �� \ TREE (TYP) 3 m co a c 6 00 p• / d %K \ U \ N r \ \ 4C1 d `IV Oy \ N Know what's below. Call before you dig. 10' 0 10' 20' 1 "= 10, Scale Feet APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: AIM c O U Z Y > W O Ix Z O W rn Y � M W Z o Z Wco C) ZCn Q Q H 2 H 0 n Z 0 o p W N Z J Q a Z W J C/) W J cr IL — L) C2.0 .N rn 0 0 c 0 W rn co O O 0 0 N Z J IL c a� u a c R 0 a Q �a co rn W 0 0 0 0 N Z d c m t U R a CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION R:\Projects\410 (LZG Construction)\002-18 (Edmonds Apt)\Dwg\sheets\Design Review\EW—s101.dwg 36x24 Packet Pg. 67 THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 31, T 27 N., R 4E. 7.1.a z a U) J n 0 N CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM / / / / PROPOSED CONTROL STRUCTURE V J V �N89\-44'52))E O �O � \ 44 10' 0 10' 20' 1 "= 10' Scale Feet APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: Z 0 Cn W x In in m rn m 4) d T N C C O x 'ya Y o x > O I L maar Z p Z p C. Q N p0I CI O p OIZ 00 I t) N N Z O O ++ 0 N pj N II O y x I > 1W (L 0 04 Off. O C O 0) c N C C ° m 3 � rn ^, A 3N ^, c W 0) C: w U •o .O C 00 O L- U CL � <nLO 04 �i a 3 LL m M cM C 10 00 r O z Y > W O Ix Z O W rn Y � M W Z O Z W00 C) zCn Q Q H Lx r 0 r� Z_ V o p W N I Z Q J a— w Q Z 0 a Z 2 J W CIO N C) Know what's below. Call before you dig. AIM CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION R:\Projects\410 (LZG Construction)\002-18 (Edmonds Apt)\Dwg\sheets\Design Review\EW—dr01.dwg 36x24 Packet Pg. 68 7.1.a N n Ll- THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 31, T 27 N., R 4E. S � \ C h ` \ I - \ RIM 393.6a IE(14) 389.31 SE NW \ E(8") 389.91 SW 'x�o \ \ o a° \` `\ EX. SSM I-� \ °� ` RIM 395.15 \ \ \` E(MC) 388.14\ O / EXISTING POWER p \ \\ \\�\ �\ ,, Inm mo POLE TO BE / d \`\ �\ ` ` 0° 4) m > N = L u, RELOCATED `\\ CONNECT TO EXISTING •y a m a T \�• SIDE SEWER 4C`O z o z o v ¢ 1 o PROPOSED ` 1410 00 POWER d \\ PROPOSED FIRE OS �o o VAULT HYDRANT ASSEMBLY in in c z CD 0 ♦ ♦ �] "� PROPOSED DOUBLE \ ' `; 'o oT' o O pj `� \\ CHECK VALVE �5,4 x I > a ASSEMBLY FOR FIRE j0 SPRINKLER SYSTEM A9 PROPOSED WATER ♦ ��' METER id EXISTING WATER '0�x N ♦ p\ , �\ \ N ♦ �\ o CV 41 d `\\ \ u r�D -- ♦ p \ \ a)V ♦ C i \ \ N •� p 0 70 V W Lo Lu C: 489; 24 ,,. ` I \\10 vp d° 2 0"� > Cl) Lo 10 00 p \�CX \ \ N v� v 04 +� / 0 dAr d d \ \ 4 d \ \ / d p ♦ d \ 0 Z } d pd 4 d `VA W Z o Z W 00 / 4 ♦ ♦d p \\ Z } Q Q / / a d z� Q . O r- Z v 12 d\`� d p / d Za. \J2" a -- L LI / I 10 „ 1\ 4 ♦ --- }/ \ \ J — — — — — — — N89044'52"E 255.96' N o a I Z z 10' 0 10' 20' 0 2 1 "= 10' J Scale Feet Q W • APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION W ® CITY OF EDMONDS Q � DATE: Know what's below. C4.0 Call before you dig. I BY: CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION R:\Projects\410 (LZG Construction)\002-18 (Edmonds Apt)\Dwg\sheets\Design Review\EW—ut01.dwg 36x24 Packet Pg. 69 7.1.a 10 ° I - o d e• d d •e e � I / e e / p O \ ; . e• a 0a 9� IY y . a 0 113S� OF �E \MII P RKING LOT NDSCAPING o N 1 e D t. .e / \ / 10 to 0 t e 293 SF OF TYPE t� • e g L� V PARKING LOT \ \ • ee I \ LANDSCAPING I a a a - Jv L 0 \ \ e o o TYPE V PARKING LOT LAN C S CAPE, e e o e e 7J . ec ��nne 1 c TYP. 16 SPACES L� 00 a X 17.5 SF — \ 1 " " \ 280 SF REQUIRED \ 0°000� °00 00 ; , °a to ; ° OF LANDSCAPING \ o o e l i �./ \ R !RED. \ \ 0 + • ° e •� e \ TYPE II 0 10 ° . a \ 0 LANDSCAPE, °o 0IN, TYP. a a 9 i 1 \ ok + ++ +++ ++++*++++ a \ ° ++ ++4. ++ 1 305 SF OF TYPE + V PARKING LOT I + + v LANDSCAPING o + +++ a I ++ + ++++ ++++ I ++ I Q ++++ ++++ ++ +t++ + ++ ++ + I \ ( ° +++ + + ++ + + +++++ + + + v + v p ++ +++ +++ + \ +++++++++ + + I \ /. • . e e e 00 00 o a di • e0.'.0'. cc> • / vQ / + . + I / 0 d d . ° d �I' / + I .o. ... °o°o .moo°; ; ° �2ND FLOOR / + + I I TYPES OF ood e / I 00 PLANTERS �Q I PARKING LOT 000 / 11 e o �o bo • ° °oo 10 \ \ a / II1/ + + I LANDSCAPING �� ■ e �ASO . .� a oe I I II I �� +++ \ eJ Le e e 0 e y, a e( Y Q e ,� •`_ / .eUL ��^n a O; .• eA. v'•,./; a �O •s ; •o e e e e • V O V v Q a ° °//� • L- ■ e e .° a N^0o0()O O e° a °• e° ° a �— .� / / � 'Illy /n Uvl'L inn .• e e •Q o • a °e • • d • e e e e d • • d d e Q 1 LG• �• C • A ° ++ + + + +++++ +++ ++ + + + 1 • F e • e e O • e " e �, e• e ++++ + +¢ + + +++ / • (�Jfs + + + + S Ar ++ ++++ ++�1++ +++++ I O , n e e W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Y W •r W W 44- W A a — / e " . W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Q W W L� p V�..� W W W • Y Y Y W W W W 1Y �Y 1Y �Y W W 1Y �Y W W — — — -- — -- — — v Aff �1— — — v — a — — — — — v -- — --- -� —1—, — --Ml -----5— `� �5-----S-----S-----s----- -----5-----s-----S-----S-----S-----s-----s- \ \ \ LTYPE III LANDSCAPE, TYP. EDMONDS WAY �9 —S-----S /1 11 01 FAJ VIAN d I ---TYPE III I LANDSCAPE, TYP. '7 ° a.1 Design Two Four/Two Six,,nc. 14835 161ST COURT SE RENTON, WA 98059 ph. (425) 881-2426 cll. (206) 335-7719 www.design2426.com Landscape Architecture •Irrigation Planning• Athletic Field Design -Construction Management MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 RNK EASTSIDE LLC 2603 78TH AVENUE NE MEDINA, WA 98039 Design Team Design JA \ \ Drawn A Checked JA Date w^ 02/15/2019 Y l 2426 Project No. 1 792 1 Approved/Date 1 1 Revisions No. Date Description 10, 5' 0' 10, 209 Key Plan Registration � �P�oNnnA�s /V C\ ad b� z \�ExP�2°j Sheet Title PLANTING PLAN Sheet No. L�l . 0 © 2018 DESIGN 2426 INC. NORTH Packet Pg. 70 7.1.a PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT :. ACER CIRCINATUM / VINE MAPLE B & B ECORNUS KOUSA CHINENSIS / CHINESE DOGWOOD B & B GINKGO BILOBA `MAGYAR` / MAGYAR GINKGO B & B • 0 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII / DOUGLAS FIR B & B 000.000000000 • STEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIA / JAPANESE STEWARTIA B & B IKTHUJA PLICATA / WESTERN RED CEDAR B & B O THUJA PLICATA `EXCELSA` / WESTERN RED CEDAR B & B SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE AGAPANTHUS X `NORTHERN STAR` / NORTHERN STAR AFRICAN LILY 1 GAL ARBUTUS UNEDO `COMPACTA` / DWARF STRAWBERRY TREE 5 GAL BERBERIS THUNBERGII `SUNSATION` / SUNSATION BARBERRY 5 GAL BLECHNUM SPICANT / DEER FERN 1 GAL O CAREX OSHIMENSIS `EVERGOLD` / VARIEGATED JAPANESE SEDGE 5 GAL O HEMEROCALLIS X `STELLA DE ORO` / STELLA DE ORO DAYLILY 1 GAL 41 KNIPHOFIA X `THE ROCKET` / RED HOT POKER 5 GAL JJ1 V IiLL • LEUCOTHOE FONTANESIANA `RAINBOW` / RAINBOW LEUCOTHOE 3 GAL c 7 nnc MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM / OREGON GRAPE 2 GAL NANDINA DOMESTICA `GULF STREAM` TM / HEAVENLY BAMBOO 2 GAL OSMANTHUS DELAVAYI / DELAVAYI OSMANTHUS 3 GAL PICEA ABIES `NIDIFORMIS` / NEST SPRUCE 3 GAL POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM / WESTERN SWORD FERN 5 GAL Oi RHODODENDRON AZALEA `BOW BELLS` / AZALEA 5 GAL RHODODENDRON KURUME `HIND CRIMSON` / KURUME AZALEA 2 GAL • SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS / COMMON WHITE SNOWBERRY 5 GAL + THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `SMARAGD` / EMERALD GREEN ARBORVITAE B & B VACCINIUM OVATUM / EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY 2 GAL VACCINIUM PARVIFOLIUM / RED HUCKLEBERRY 5 GAL. CONT., FULL VIBURNUM DAVIDII / DAVID VIBURNUM 5 GAL GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA—URSI / KINNIKINNICK 1 GAL. EUONYMUS FORTUNEI / WINTERCREEPER 4" POT GAULTHERIA SHALLON / SALAL 4" POT +++++++ ++++++ +++++++++++++ MAHONIA REPENS / CREEPING MAHONIA 4" POT +++++++++++++ +++++++++++++ e SARCOCOCCA HOOKERIANA / SWEET BOX 4" POT Y W W W . TURF HYDROSEED SEED W W W W W CAL SIZE OTY MULTI —STEMMED; MIN. 3 LEADERS 4`-6` MIN. HT. 4 2" CAL. STREET TREE QUALITY 3 2" CAL. STREET TREE QUALITY 5 6`-8` MIN. HT. 7 2" CAL. STREET TREE QUALITY 4 6 6`-7` MIN. HIT. FULL, NOT SHEARED. 2 FIELD2 FIELD3 QTY 4 3 3 5 18 11 10 14 3 41 12 7 15 7 13 4 3'— 4' HT. 5 MIN. 24" HT. 27 10 12 FIELD2 FIELD3 SPACING (STY 24" o.c. 737 SF 18" o.c. 749 SF 18" ox. 724 SF 24 to O.C. 711 SF 18" ox. 2,963 SF 798 SF Design Two Four/Two Six,Inc. 14835 161ST COURT SE RENTON, WA 98059 ph. (425) 881-2426 cll. (206) 335-7719 www.design2426.com Landscape Architecture • Irrigation Planning -Athletic Field Design .Construction Management MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING 23830 EDMONDS WAY E E DMONDS, WA 98026 RNK EASTSIDE LLC 2603 78TH AVENUE NE MEDINA, WA 98039 Design Team Design JA Drawn JA Checked JA Date 02/15/2019 2426 Project No. 792 Approved/Date Revisions No. Date Description Key Plan Registration Q' � P50NMAN� ^ S tiVC\ v O u u \!� ��ocPosl2°% Sheet Title PLANTING SCHEDULE Sheet No. © 2018 DESIGN 2426© 2018 DESIGN 2426 INC. Packet Pg. 71 7.1.a 6" DEPTH JB/GROUNDCOVER )EPTH MULCH 3H GRADE 6" TOPSOIL 3—WAY TOPSOIL COMPACTED PLANTING MIX SHRUB/GROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Wil 5ECTION PLAN VIEW OF STAKING PLANTING NOTES 1. ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECS AND SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REP. PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL MATERIALS TO BE DISPOSED OF OFFSITE ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF IN A LAWFUL LANDFILL AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. CALL DIAL —A —DIG 811 PRIOR TO DIGGING. 4. AVOID DAMAGE ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND TO EXISTING PLANT MATERIALS TO REMAIN. 5. PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH SPRINKLER IRRIGATION HEAD LOCATIONS TO AVOID CONFLICTS. 6. GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PLANTED IN A TRIANGULAR PATTERN AT SPACING SHOWN IN LEGEND OR SCHEDULE. WHERE GROUNDCOVER ABUTS CURBING, WALLS OR WALKS, MINIMUM PLANTING DISTANCE SHALL BE NINE (9) INCHES FROM SAME. 7. FINISH GRADES STEEPER THAN 3:1 SLOPE SHALL BE COVERED W/ EROSION CONTROL NETTING PRIOR TO PLANTING SEE SPECS. NETTING SHALL BE TOP DRESSED WITH TWO (2) INCH DEPTH OF BARK MULCH PER SPECS. 8. ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS DISTURBED BY WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DRAWINGS & SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO PRE —CONSTRUCTION CONDITION. 9. ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL TO RECEIVE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. DI AAITIAInC WALK, FENCE OR WALL S = SPACING AS SHOWN ON PLANS GROUNDCOVER PLANT SPACING NOT TO SCALE PROVIDE (3) 2" BVC ROUND STAKES SPACED EVENLY AROUND TRUNK. PRE —STAIN STAKES DARK BROWN 'CHAIN LOCK" TREE TIES OR APPROVED EQUAL (Tie loosely to allow some movement.) SECURE CHAINLOCK TO BVC WITH 2 PENNY NAIL 'CHAIN LOCK" TREE TIES OR APPROVED EQUAL (Tie loosely to allow some movement.) (3) 2" BVC ROUND STAKES SET STAKES OUTSIDE ROOTBALL (Remove after 1 year.) PROVIDE WATER BASIN AROUND ROOT BALL 2" DEPTH MULCH 3—WAY TOPSOIL CUT AND REMOVE TWINE AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF ROOTBALL. (Remove all wire baskets.) COMPACTED PLANTING MIX NOTE: DRIVE STAKE TO ACCEPTABLE DEPTH TO PROPERLY SUPPORT NEW TREE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL 1/2 s PLAN VIEW OF STAKING PROVIDE (3) 2" BVC ROUND STAKES SPACED EVENLY AROUND TRUNK. PRE —STAIN STAKES DARK BROWN G 'CHAIN LOCK" TREE TIES OR APPROVED EQUAL (Tie loosely to allow some movement.) t I. SECURE CHAINLOCK TO BVC WITH 2 PENNY NAIL 'CHAIN LOCK" TREE TIES OR APPROVED EQUAL (Tie loosely to allow some movement.) (3) 2" BVC ROUND STAKES SET ON NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF TREE 2" DEPTH MULCH TOPSOIL 6" DEPTH CUT AND REMOVE TWINE AND BURLAP FROM TOP AND SIDES OF ROOTBALL. (Remove all wire baskets.) COMPACTED PLANTING MIX FOR SUPPORT EVERGREEN TREE DETAIL NOTE: DRIVE STAKE UNTIL FIRM IN GROUND TO SUPPORT TREE Design Two Four/Two Six,1nc. 14835 161ST COURT SE RENTON, WA 98059 ph. (425) 881-2426 cll. (206) 335-7719 www.design2426.com Landscape Architecture -Irrigation Planning -Athletic Field Design .Construction Management MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 RNK EASTSIDE LLC 2603 78TH AVENUE NE MEDINA, WA 98039 Design Team Design JA Drawn JA Checked JA Date 02/15/2019 2426 Project No. 792 Approved/Date Revisions No. Date Description Key Plan Registration Q' � PSoNMAN� ^ S tiVC\ v o \U U ��ocPosl2°% Sheet Title PLANTING NOTES 8 DETAILS Sheet No. as c .y 0 U c 0 E 13 w O t0 O O 00 O N z J a NOT TO SCALE SECTION NOT TO SCALE L 1 2 © 2018 DESIGN 2426 INC. Packet Pg. 72 7.1.a O nl nl O V Q / M Ln ~ U N ' + + + + + + + + + + + /+ + + + + + _ 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 �.� 2.0 2.1 2.0 .8 1.5 1.2 cu V V N N 0.4 0.5 0.5 O 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.6 .4 2.0 1.6 J ,X 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.30 1.6 .0 .4 2.8 .1 2 8 2.4 1.9 �-�--� E DATA SUMMARY Q� M 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 11, 4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.1 3. 3. 2.6 2.1 O N M 0 J X + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + N Q 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 �:1 1. 1 1.7 2.0 2.2_-- 2. 2. 2.5 2.1 O �••U S LL 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 O 1.0 .3 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5 2. 2.2 2.0 .11 (10 0.5 0.6 0.7 , .9 1.1 1. 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.7 + + '+ +� + + + + + + + + + + + I + + 0.5 0,7/ 0. 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 \+ + + + + + + + + + I + + LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE ,0.6 0.7 1.(�O� 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 / I / + + + + + + + + + + - + + I + + .6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 OY.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 + �� + + + + + + + + + I + + + + + I + + / 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 2. .3 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 .9 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.7 .7 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 I 1.1 1.0 / + + + + \+ + + + + + + I+ + / 1. .7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3. 2.8 2.4 2.1 1. 1.5 .4 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 I / 1.3 1I8 2.4 2.9 3.2 28 2.4 2.0 ' 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.0 .9 10.8 0.7 , / -¢- 1 \ + + + + + + + s0.7 +0.6 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE / !"#$%&5 ° 9 3. 3.0 .7 2.3 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.9 I 5./0)1**2 � (61# 7/012 +%"0 %( &'&&%(- + + + + + + + + + + + 2.7 .7 2.6 .4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 1-2- 0.8 .7 I0.6 0.5 / z _� + + + + + + + + + + + +� + - .4 .3 .1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 7 3 .6 0.4 / \ 0809$ % 12 - /°(------------ i ZZ 100E R .0 2.0 2.0 .9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.9 �.6 0.4 z F=-M 1 � �J + + + + + + + + + + + O / ;i 1.6 1.7 �1.8 1.� 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1 4 0 .6 0.4 --------------- / - - + + + + + + + +' + 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1. 0 7 0.5 / \%L1 LL / + + + + + + + + + 1 1.7 i 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.5 1. 0. 0.6 s° - - z z + + + + + + + + + + / Q 1" - JI' _ 1" ° ' D - 1" D I 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.2 1 9 1. 1. 0.6 + + + + + + + + + + � 1.5 1.I 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.1I 0.7 + + + + + + + - b 1 1 1.9 2.3 2.7 2. .8 2.3 1.8 1.2 0.7 - I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 5 0.6 0.8 .0 1.2 1.4 .5 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.9 2.3 1.7 1.2 I 0.7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0.1 0.1 �13� 0 �.11.7 0.4 0:3 0.3 0.4 0.5 .7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.7 I I + ���0 O b + +O\O + + �- O'a 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0.7 .8 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.2J 1.8 1.4 1. 0.6 -� . - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + �+ + + + + + + + + + 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.3 6.3 5.4 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 .3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.2 0. 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 4 0.5 0.7N1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 0, Numeric Summary Project: All Projects Label Calc Type Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Numeric Summary Illuminance Fc 1.5 7.4 0.1 15.0 : 1 74.0 : 1 Type Symbol Manufacturer/ Catalog # Description Lamp Description # of Type ® UTOPIA LIGHTING Mounted 25ft Above Grade. 72W LED 3 Tot. LAP-2G-72LED TYPE3 Type Symbol Manufacturer/ Catalog # Description Lamp Description # of Type � UTOPIA 25W LED 1 Tot. LIGHTING BLD1-A-25LED 7.1.a \ � I �`.:.... x • I 0 x �_8 \ \ ° x 113 SF OF I 1 TYPE V PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING A I z\\ / 110 1 � / < 293 SF OF TYPE • V PARKING LOT J .� \ LANDSCAPING 0 �['� ' TYPE V PARKING LOT LAN C S CAP E, ; \ TYP. 16 SPACES 1 _ J • X 17.5 SF ' 280 SF REQUIRED ' a OF LANDSCAPING �..., 0:� REQUIRED. TYPE II LANDSCAPE, \ \ TYP. 90k r v • 305 SF OF TYPE --TYPE III i V PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE, TYP. LANDSCAPING c� .Nil \ ' o v '� \Z,_ o \ .., va I , 157 SF OF '\ 2ND FLOOR I . .. I TYPE V PLANTERS • • �����- .....::-/ PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING l� I ........ ... <0 6 CD J 41 L'I x <T� 00 I , c // // //�';// /////�' /////'//�' ////////�' /////// ///////%/''/ /////%/: / /- / /r /%/%ter////,/' ..,// /%�%ter% / /%�%�/%/ •// J i •oo /. /r / " / // / ''Yi/�/// � �' i/�/// � �./i� j/// / /./i �% �/L� L/� �i �''/ �i// �i � '/ �/ � ice. � �i// �� i'�% �i// �i (fY] \ - - _°- ° •-t i ---- - 4-M-----mm -- -•• ---- - -----5—�7 ----S-----S-----S-----S-----S-----S-----s----- \ \ \ \ TYPE III LANDSCAPE, TYP. EDM ON DS WAY �9 --S-----s NORTH —S-----S-----S--- LJ, S-----S— Design Two Four/Two Six,In,�. 14835 161ST COURT SE RENTON, WA 98059 ph. (425) 881-2426 cll. (206) 335-7719 www.design2426.com Landscape Architecture • Irrigation Planning • Athletic Field Design -Construction Management MULTI —FAMILY HOUSING 23830 EDMONDS WAY E E DMONDS, WA 98026 RNK EASTSIDE LLC 2603 78TH AVENUE NE MEDINA, WA 98039 Design Team Design JA \ \IN, Drawn Checked JA \ Date w^ 02/15/2019 lY 2426 Project No. 1 792 1 Approved/Date 1 1 Revisions No. Date Description 10, 5' 0' 10, 209 Key Plan Registration OF W A Sy P0NMANDFjyS , Sheet Title RENDERED PLANTING PLAN Sheet No. L�l . 3 © 2018 DESIGN 2426 INC. a� E .y N O U c O W O 0 0 00 O N z J a Packet Pg. 74 7.1.a PLANT SCHEDULE TREES BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT .. ACER CIRCINATUM / VINE MAPLE B & B • CORNUS KOUSA CHINENSIS / CHINESE DOGWOOD B & B • GINKGO BILOBA `MAGYAR` / MAGYAR GINKGO B & B • PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII / DOUGLAS FIR B & B • STEWARTIA PSEUDOCAMELLIA / JAPANESE STEWARTIA B & B • THUJA PLICATA / WESTERN RED CEDAR B & B .: THUJA PLICATA `EXCELSA` / WESTERN RED CEDAR B & B SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE AGAPANTHUS X `NORTHERN STAR` / NORTHERN STAR AFRICAN LILY 1 GAL rQ) ARBUTUS UNEDO `COMPACTA` / DWARF STRAWBERRY TREE 5 GAL n BERBERIS THUNBERGII `SUNSATION` / SUNSATION BARBERRY 5 GAL BLECHNUM SPICANT / DEER FERN 0 CAREX OSHIMENSIS `EVERGOLD` / VARIEGATED JAPANESE SEDGE HEMEROCALLIS X `STELLA DE ORO` / STELLA DE ORO DAYLILY KNIPHOFIA X `THE ROCKET` / RED HOT POKER D LEUCOTHOE FONTANESIANA `RAINBOW` / RAINBOW LEUCOTHOE MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM / OREGON GRAPE NANDINA DOMESTICA `GULF STREAM` TM / HEAVENLY BAMBOO (Q) OSMANTHUS DELAVAYI / DELAVAYI OSMANTHUS PICEA ABIES `NIDIFORMIS` / NEST SPRUCE POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM / WESTERN SWORD FERN RHODODENDRON AZALEA `BOW BELLS` / AZALEA o RHODODENDRON KURUME `HIND CRIMSON` / KURUME AZALEA • SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS / COMMON WHITE SNOWBERRY THUJA OCCIDENTALIS `SMARAGD` / EMERALD GREEN ARBORVITAE VACCINIUM OVATUM / EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY C� VACCINIUM PARVIFOLIUM / RED HUCKLEBERRY VIBURNUM DAVIDII / DAVID VIBURNUM GROUND COVERS BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNICK EUONYMUS FORTUNEI / WINTERCREEPER GAULTHERIA SHALLON / SALAL MAHONIA REPENS / CREEPING MAHONIA SARCOCOCCA HOOKERIANA / SWEET BOX ==y TURF HYDROSEED 1 GAL 5 GAL Iitel_l1 5 GAL CAL SIZE MULTI -STEMMED; MIN. 3 LEADERS 4`-6` MIN. HT. 2" CAL. STREET TREE QUALITY 2" CAL. STREET TREE QUALITY 2" CAL. STREET TREE QUALITY FIELD2 6`-8` MIN. HT. 6`-7` MIN. HIT. FULL, NOT SHEARED. FIELD3 t 0 7 4 Al 2 k! R 18 11 10 Design Two Four/Two Six,Inc. 14835 161ST COURT SE RENTON, WA 98059 ph. (425) 881-2426 cll. (206) 335-7719 www.design2426.com Landscape Architecture • Irrigation Planning • Athletic Field Design -Construction Management MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 RNK EASTSIDE LLC 2603 78TH AVENUE NE MEDINA, WA 98039 Design Team Design JA Drawn JA Checked JA Date 02/15/2019 2426 Project No. 792 3 GAL 14 Approved/Date 2 GAL 3 Revisions No. Date Description 2 GAL 41 - - 3 GAL 12 3 GAL 7 5 GAL 15 5 GAL 7 Key Plan 2 GAL 13 5 GAL 4 B & B 3`-4` HT. 5 2 GAL MIN. 24" HT. 27 Registration 5 GAL. CONT., FULL 10 �F W AS P P�ONMAND,E , ��G� O 5 GAL 12 ad bb o CONT FIELD2 FIELD3 SPACING OTY 1 GAL. 24" ox. 737 SF cAAFtc 4" POT 18" ox. 749 SF Sheet Title RENDERED 4" POT 18" ox. 724 SF PLANTING 4" POT 24• ox. 711 SF SCHEDULE Sheet No. 4" POT 18" ox. 2,963 SF SEED 798 SF L�lm4 © 2018 DESIGN 2426 INC. Packet Pg. 75 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a Revised: LAP-2G APPLICATION For all applications in site, area, and general lighting requiring high uniformity, excellent vertical light distribution, reduced offsite visibility, reduced on -site glare and effective security light levels. The LAP luminaire delivers exceptional performance in a low -profile design. CONFIGURATIONS FEATURES: • Die-cast aluminium construction body on which electrical components. • Die-cast integral heat sink to provide thermal management. MOUNTING: • PMS: Pole mount arm available for 3", 4" and 5" square pole. • PMR: Pole mount arm available for 3" (PMR3), 4" (PMR4) and 5' (PMRS) dia. round pole. • SF: Adjustable slip fitter mount available for pipe installation (1-21/32"O.D to 2-3/8"O.D) • WM: Wall mount plate. • Mounting arm bolts are 304 stainless steel and zinc - plated steel. • MA: Available for 2.375"(0.D) sized Mast Arm Pole. • MA2: Availabel for 1.900"(O.D) sized Mast Arm Pole. LED: • Color Temperature: 3000 / 4000 / 5000K • Color Rendering Index: 70+ CRI. • Nichia LED. • Lifetime: over 50,000 hours. • Optical lens is used to reduce glare. ELECTRICAL: • UL, FCC certified input voltage range: 100V-277V, 50/60Hz • Power factor >90%, THD <20% • 72LED: Class 2 LED electronic driver. • 108LED, 141 LED, 188LED: Class 1 electronic driver. • Fixture for ambient minimum operating temperatures from -40oC to 40oC (110W can reach +50oC). • Provided with integrated surge protection (6kV line - line, 10kV line -earth). • Optional integrated 10kV/10kA surge protection available (SP10). • Over Voltage Protect: Hiccup mode. The power supply shall return to normal operation only after the power is turn -on again. • Short Circuit Protect: No damage shall occur when any output operating in a short circuit condition. The power supply shall be self -recovery when the fault condition is removed. • Over Temperature Protect : 110°C • Meets ANSI/IEEE C62.41 Category C (outdoors) High. • Waterproof (IP67) and UL Dry / Damp / Wet Location outdoor LED driver. OPTIC: • UV stabilized polycarbonate lens. LISTING: • UL / CUL listed. • DLC listed. 9 • ARRA compliant. (optional) • Suitable for wet location. • Tested to IESNA LM80 standards. • LM79, LM80. • 5 years limited warranty. • 7 or 10 years limited warranty. (optional) 4 • IP66 Rating. • Certified to ANSI C136.31-2010, 3.OG Level 2 for Bridge/Overpass Applications. Type Input Rating Lumen Output (Im/w) Total Lumen Output Drive Current per LED EPA Rating (sq ft max.) B.U.G. Rating Weight (Ibs/kg) 72 T2 72W 106.11m 76441m 1.4 A 1.39 B3-UO-G3 23.17 Ibs / 10.51 kg T3 123.31m 89771m B2-UO-G2 T4M 124.51m 90641m B2-UO-G2 T5S 127.41m 92511m B3-UO-G2 108 T2 108W 107.81m 123591m 2.1 A 1.56 B3-UO-G3 25.38 Ibs 111.51 kg T3 109.71m 117531m B3-UO-G3 T4M 127.21m 136501m B3-UO-G3 T5S 129.61m 139321m B4-UO-G3 141 T2 141W 110.71m 157681m 2.8A 1.73 63-U0-G3 26.7lbs/12.11kg T3 115.51m 163701m 133-UO-G3 T4M 126.81m 178541m 133-U0-G3 T5S 131.91m 188311m 134-UO-G3 188 T2 188W 112.31m 215541m 3.8 A 2.08 134-U0-G4 27.36 Ibs / 12.41 kg T3 131.91m 246451m B4-UO-G4 T4M 121.61m 228621m 63-U0-G3 T5S 137.21m 258561m BS-UO-G3 www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notice. Packet Pg. 76 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G ORDERING INFORMATION Polar Candela Distribution (TYPE 3 medium + House Shield) Downward Street Side 8,120.0 92.1 % Downward House Side 701.5 8% Downward Total 8,821.5 100% Polar Candela Distribution (TYPE 3 medium) Downward Street Side 7,304.4 62.2% Downward House Side 4,448.7 37.9% Downward Total 11,753.1 100% EXAMPLE: LAP-2G-108LED/50-T3-UNV-DM-BZ-WM MODEL LED COLOR TEMP. DISTRIBUTION VOLTAGE DIMMING FINISH LAP-2G 72LED 72W /30 3000K T2 Type II t UNV 120-277V (Std.) DM 0-10V Dimming. BZ Dark Bronze (Std.) 108LED 108W /40 4000K 347 347V (Std.) GR Gray 141LED 141W /50 5000K(Std.) T3 Type1I1 S 480 480V WH White 188LED 188W BK Black T4M Type IV Medium 'Available custom color (RAL) T5S Type V Short Please provide us with the RAL number. MOUNTING OPTIONS SF Slip Fitter HS House Shield FSP-211 0-10V Dimming Control Occupancy Sensor' z WM Wall Mount RC N EMA twist -lock receptacle only (no controls) (1-2) FSP-1_2 Lens @ 8' height (up to 44' diameter) PMS Square Pole Mount Arm RC7 NEMA 7-wire receptacle only (no controls) (1-3) FSP-1_3 Lens @ 20' height (up to 40' diameter) PMR3 3" Round Pole Mount Arm TLPC1 3-Pin NEMA Twist Lock Receptacle Photocell 120V (L4) FSP-L4 Lens @ 40' height (up to 60' diameter) PMR4 4" Round Pole Mount Arm TLPC2 3-Pin NEMA Twist Lock Receptacle Photocell 277V (1-7) FSP-1_7 Lens @ 40' height (up to 100' diameter) PMR5 5" Round Pole Mount Arm TLPC3 3-Pin NEMA Twist Lock Receptacle Photocell 120V - 277V ARRA Assembled in USA for Buy American act MA Horizontal Tenon Mount TLPC-SC Shorting Cap BR Bird Guard, Stainless Steel Spikes (Mounts to 2" IP, 2.375" O.D) IRS Remote handheld configuration tool for FSP-211 07W Optional 7 Years Limited Warranty 4 MA2 Horizontal Tenon Mount ' Contact Factory for mom options 010W Optional 10 Years Limited Warranty 4 (Mounts to 1-1/2" IP, 1.900" O.D) SP10 Integrated 10kV/10kA surge protection NOTES: 1. Must specify lens. (1-2, L3, L4, L7) 2. Default settings are Title 24 compliant for all spaces that do not require daylighting. For spaces that do require it, adjustments will be necessary for the Hold Off Setpoint and the Photocell functions. 3. DesignLights Consortium@ (DLC) qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC qualified. Please check the DLC Qualified Products List at www.desic�nliahts.ora/QPL to confirm which versions are qualified. 4. This limited warranty covers electrical parts only and does not apply to labor, equipment lease, or defect from improper installation or operation. 5. Standard dimming 0-10V, ANSI C136.41, Photocell and shorting cap by others. MO N d www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notic L I G H T I N G Packet Pg. 77 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G r7M..nt,.g for R .. d Pole LAP-2G-72LED-T2 Illuminance at a Distance Center Beam Fc Beam Width 603 Fc A 3.3 ft 1.7R 3.3R 160 fc 6.4 ft 5.OR 69.7 fc 9.6 ft 6.7R 38.8 Fc 12.9 ft 8.3R 25.3 fc 16.0 ft 10.OR 17.4 fc 19.3 ft ■ Vert. Spread: 87.91 ■ Horiz. Spread: 43.51 LAP-2G-108LED-T4M Illuminance at a Distance Center Beam fc Beam Width + 872 Fc ■ 1.5 ft 1,7R 33R 231 Fc 4L 3.0 Ft 101 Fc 'F 4.5 ft 5,0ft 6 7ft 56.1 fc 6.0 ft 83ft 36.6 fc 7.5 ft 10,0ft 25.2 fc 9.0 ft ■ Vert. Spread: 48.51 ■ Horiz. Spread: 25.81 LAP-2G-188LED-T2 * Optional TLPC shown Mounting for Square Pole Horizontal Tenon Mount * Effective Projected Area (EPA) with Square Pole Mounting. LAP-2G-72LED-T4M LAP-2G-108LED-T2 Illuminance at a Distance Illuminance at a Distance Center Beam fc Beam Width Center Beam fc Beam Width 1.4 Ft 1,7R 597 Fc 1.8 Ft 0.8 Ft 1,7R 1,157 Fc 3.0 Ft 16.5 Ft 2.6 ft 3 3ft 1S8 Fc 3.5 Ft 1.5 Ft 33R 307 Fc 5.8 Ft 32.0 Ft 4.0 ft S,OR 69.0 Fc 5.2 ft 2.3 ft S,oR 134 Fc 8.7 Ft 48.5 Ft 5.3 Ft 6 7R 38.4 Fc 7.0 Ft 3.0 Ft 6 7ft 74.5 Fc 11.7 ft 65.0 Ft 6.6 ft 83R 25.1 Fc 8.7 ft 3.7 ft 83ft 48.5 Fc 14.5 Ft 80.6 ft 8.0 ft 10,6R 17.3 Fc 10.5 Ft 4.5 ft 10,0ft 33.4 fc 17.4 ft 97.1 ft ■ Vert. Spread: 55.21 ■ Vert. Spread: 82.21 ■ Horiz. Spread: 25.41 ■ Horiz. Spread: 156.71 LAP-2G-141 LED-T2 LAP-2G-141 LED-T4M Illuminance at a Distance Illuminance at a Distance Center Beam fc Beam Width Center Beam fc Beam Width 0.8 ft 1,416 Fc * 3.1 ft 15.5 ft 1,184 Fc 2.9 ft 8.8 Ft 1.7R 1,7ft 1.5 Ft 3.3R 376 Fc 6.1 ft 30.1 ft 314 Fc 5.6 Ft 17.1 ft 2.3 ft 5.0ft 164 Fc 9.2 ft 45.6 ft 33R 137 Fc 8.5 ft 25.9 Ft 3.1 ft 6 7ft 91.1 Fc 12.3 ft 61.2 ft S,Oft 76.3 fc 11.4 ft 34.7 ft 3.8 ft 8.3ft 59.4 Fc 15.2 Ft 75.6 ft 6,7ft 49.7 Fc 14.1 ft 43.0 ft 4.6 ft 40.9Fc 10.oR 18.4ft 91.3ft 83ft 34.2 Fc 17.0 ft 51.8 ft ■ Vert. Spread: 85.1' 10,0ft ■ Vert. Spread: 80.61 ■ Horiz. Spread: 155.31 ■ Horiz. Spread: 137.81 Illuminance at a Distance Center Beam Fc Beam Width 1.7R 1,923 Fc 3.3 Ft 16.2 Ft 3,3R 510 Fc 6.4 Ft 31.4 Ft 222 fc 9.7 Ft 47.6 Ft s.oR 6,711 124 Fc 13.0 ft 63.8 Ft 80.7 fc 16.1 ft 79.1 ft 83ft 10,0ft 55.6 Fc 19.4 ft 95.2 Ft ■ Vert. Spread: 88.2° ■ Horiz. Spread: 156.31 LAP-2G-188LED-T4M Illuminance at a Distance Center Beam Fc Beam Width 1.7R 1,584 fc 3.2 ft 1.5 ft 3.3R 420 Fc 6.2 ft 3.0 Ft 5.OR 183 fc 9.5 ft 4.5 ft 6.7R 102 fc 12.7 Ft 6.0 ft 83R 66.4Fc 15.7ft 7.4ft 10.OR 45.8 fc 18.9 Ft 9.0 ft ■ Vert. Spread: 86.81 ■ Horiz. Spread: 48.31 3 www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notice. Packet Pg. 78 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G 72w • • • * Optional FSP-211 shown Optional TLPC shown 18.22 8.7 2.2 (220.9) (55.4) Mounting for Square Pole 5.7 (144.8) 17.74 (450.8) 15.46 (392.8) 3.5 (90) 10.4 2.2 (262.9) (55.4) Wall Mount 2 (50.8) 0.4 (10) 19.49 (495.2) 15.46 (392.8) e 0000 ® 00`00 0 0006 0000 ® 0000 0000 o 0000 2.2 9.7 (55.4) (246.6) 0 Mounting for Slip Fitter 19.01 0.39 8 (200.8)-] (10.0) � 50.0 6.6 (168) 0 ).22 2 59.7) (50.8) 0 0.47 (12.0) 1 (25.4) 8.7 2.2 (220.9)t�ff�� (55.4) 5.7 Mounting for Round Pole (144.8) 21.25 (539.8) 15.5 (394.8) 2.625 (66.8) 2.5 (63.3) 10.25 (259.7) 6 2.125 (151.5) (55.4) Horizontal Tenon Mount MO N d www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notic L I G H T I N G Packet Pg. 79 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G 108W Optional FSP-211 shown • * Optional TLPC shown 20 S� z Al 8.7 2.2 (220.9) (55.4) Mounting for Square Pole 5.7 (144.8) 19.7 8 0.39 (200.8)/11 (10.0) a 50.0 3.5 6.6 (90) (168) 21.5 2 (50.8) 0.4 (10) 2.2 9.7 (55.4) (246.6) 0 Mounting for Slip Fitter F:rq 2.2 10.4 (55.4) (262.9) Wall Mount 21 (533.8) 17.47 (443.8) 000000 ® 00.00-00 ° 000000 10.22 2 o 0 00 0.0 0 (259.7) (50.8) 000000 000000 0 ® 000000 0.47 (12.0) (25.4) 2.2 8.7 (55.4) (220.9) 5.7 Mounting for Round Pole (144.8) 23.2 (588.8) 2.4 2.5 (62.0) (64.5) 10.22 259.7) 5.9 2.2 (151.5) (55.4) 5.7 8.3 7.3 1.9 (145.0) (210.0) (184) (49.8) 5 www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notice. Packet Pg. 80 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G 141 W • • • • • ` Optional FSP-211 shown Optional TLPC shown 22.2 199A M .22 9.7) 2 (50.8) 0.47 (12.0) LA 2.2 8.7 (55.4) (220.9)7=- 5.7 Mounting for Square Pole (144.8) 23.4 (594.8) 22 ).7) 2.2 8.7 (55.4) (220.9) Mounting for Round Pole 5.7 (144.8) 21.7 (551.8) 19.5 8 0.39 (494.8) (200.8) (10.0) 00000 0 • •0 0.0 0 0 0.0 10.22 3.5 6.6 ® 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (259.7) (90) (168) O)00000 0000000 0000000 1 (25.4) 2.2 (55.4) Wall Mount 25.2 razQ Al 23.5 frQri 91 .22 9.7) 2.2 9.7 (55.4) (246.6) o Mounting for Slip Fitter 2.4 2.5 (62.0) (64.5) ).22 59.7) -1 2 (50.8) •U) ® O L 0.47 V (12.0) N C O E W 5.9 2.2 (151.5) (55.4) 5.7 8.3 9.3 1.9 (145.0) (210.0) (235) (49.8) Horizontal Tenon Mount MO N,& www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notic L I G H T I N G Packet Pg. 81 O O O O O O N Z J (L LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G 188W • • • * Optional FSP-211 shown Optional TLPC shown 26.4 (669.3) 22 o ).7) 2 (50.8) 0.39 (10.0) 2.2 8.7 (55.4) (220.9) Mounting for Square Pole 5.7 (144.8) 26 22 ,7) 10.4 (262.9) Wall Mount 27.7 t o I�� aeeeaaeeaa eeea eeea= ,,.'��' aeeeaae aa,= i •aeeeaae�a ' _ eea eee 2.2 9.7 (55.4) (246.6) 0 Mounting for Slip Fitter 26.4 (669.3) 0.39 (10.0) 2 (50.8) 22 ° .7) 0 0.39 (10.0) 1 (25.4) 2.2 80. (55.4) (220.9) Mounting for Round Pole 5.7 (144.8) 29.2 17d1 M 2.4 2.5 (62.0) (64.5) .22 9.7) 5.9 2.2 (151.5)LL�: (55.4) 8.3 13.3 1.9 (210.0) (337.0) (49.8) Horizontal Tenon Mount www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notice. 31, Am. Packet Pg. 82 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G FSP-211 Digital High/Low Passive Infrared Fixture Integrated Outdoor Sensor by Wattstopper tip; • a s°zle I q=', Fully adjustable high and low dimmed light levels Designed for LED fixtures; rated for extreme temperatures and up to 200,000 on/off cycles j3;d¢j Hold off setpoint with automatic calibration option for convenience and added energy savings '__ Adjustable via handheld wireless configuration tool J • IP66 rated with choice of lenses for wet and outdoor locations, and mounting heights from 8' to 40' Adjustable time delay and cut off delay Product Overview Description: • The FSP-211 mounts in an outdoor lighting fixture and provides multi -level control based on motion. The sensor also includes a photocell to measure the ambient light level. It controls 0-10 VDC LED drivers or dimming ballasts, as well as non -dimming ballasts and, with an FSP-Lx Lens, is rated for wet and cold locations. All control parameters are adjustable via a wireless configuration tool capable of storing and transmitting sensor profiles. Wireless Handheld Configuration Tool: • Initial setup and subsequent sensor adjustments are made using a handheld configuration tool (FSIR-100). This tool enables adjustment of parameters including high and low modes, sensitivity, time delay, cutoff and more. The FSIR-100 is also used to initiate automatic calibration of the FSP-211 ambient light level setpoint. The setpoint is used to hold the controlled lighting off or at low level when there is sufficient daylight. The wireless tool stores up to five sensor parameter profiles to speed configuration of multiple sensors. Features • Provides line voltage On/Off switching and 0-10 VDC dimming control • Works with ballasts or LED drivers • High and low modes fully adjustable from 0 to 10V • Time delay from 5 to 30 minutes • Optional cut off delay • Adjustable ramp up and fade down times • Optional daylighting setpoint features automatic calibration, or permits manual adjustment • Configuration tool stores five sensor profiles for quick setup and adjustment of multiple sensors • Polycarbonate construction; flame retardant, UV resistant, impact resistant, recyclable • UL244Aand U1_508; IP66 rated (when fully assembled and installed) for use in wet locations Operation: • The sensor ramps lighting On to the selected High mode level when motion is first detected and the ambient light level is below the hold off setpoint. After the sensor stops detecting movement and the time delay elapses, lights fade to the Low mode level. If there is no motion during the subsequent cut off time delay, the lights will turn Off. If the sensor detects motion before the lights turn Off, it ramps the light level back to High, unless the daylight contribution is sufficient to hold lighting at Low. Applications: • The slim, low -profile FSP-211 is designed for installation inside the bottom of a light fixture body. When fully assembled and installed in an IP66-rated fixture, the sensor and FSP-Lx lenses are IP66 outdoor rated. The sensor is ideal for areas such as parking facilities, gas stations, pedestrian pathways and warehouses. A choice of four lenses ensures complete coverage for mounting heights up to 40'. Specifications • 120/277 VAC, 50/60Hz - Load @120 VAC 0-80OW ballast or incandescent - Load @277 VAC 0-120OW ballast • 230 VAC, 50Hz; Load 0-30OW ballast • Relay life rating: 200,000 cycles (120/277 VAC); 50,000 cycles (230 VAC) • High mode: 0-10 V; default 10 V • Low mode: Off, 0-9.8 V; default 1 V • Time delay: 30 sec., 5-30 min.; default 5 min. • Cut off delay: none, 1-60 min. 1-5 hrs.; default 1 hr. • Sensitivity: none, low, med, max; default max • Setpoint: none, 1-250 fc, auto; default 4 fc • Ramp up time: none, 1-60 sec.; default none • Fade down time: none, 1-60 sec.; default none • Operating temperature:-40-167°F (-40-75°C) • Operating Humidity: 20-90% • Weight: 2.8 oz (80 grams) • IP66, CE compliant • TUV, UL and cUL listed • Five year warranty MO N d www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notic L I G H T I N G Packet Pg. 83 LED AREA / PARKING / STREET LIGHT 7.1.a LAP-2G Dimming Wiring Diagram Dimming Driver 9 w z w J z NEUTRAL LOAD 1 II Non -Dimming Wiring Diagram Non -Dimming Driver NEUTRAL LOAD w� z w J z GROUNDGROUND GRAY (-) VIOLET (+) The FSP-211 must be properly grounded. .N N O L U rn C O E W O O O 00 O N Z J a 9 www.utopialightingus.com UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notice. Packet Pg. 84 H: Height A: Wall Thickness LB. Shaft Size Hand Hole DESIGN The standards as shown in this section are design to withstand dead loads and theoretical dynamic loads developed by variable wind speeds as charted with an appropriate gust factor under the following conditions: The luminaire(s) and/or mounting bracket(s) center of gravity is assumed to be located at the pole top for all designs. For purposes of design, effective projected area (EPA) is considered to be the product of the actual projected area and the drag coefficient. The listed weights include luminaire(s) and/or mounting bracket(s). The wind velocities are based on 10 mph increments from 80 mph through 100 mph. Standards to be located in areas of known abnormal conditions require special consideration. For example: coastal areas, airports, and areas of special winds such as the Chinook type along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains. POLE SHAFT The pole shall be a one section design fabricated from standard 11 gauge (0.120") steel or 7 gauge (0.180"). Each section shall be fabricated from hot rolled carbon steel. Hot dipped galvanized to ASTM-A-1 23/ A-1 23M with a minimum yield strength of 55,000 psi. HAND HOLE The reinforcing hand hole rim consists of a nominal 3" x 5" rectangular shaped tubing material. It is provided with a cover plate, attachment bar and machine screw. GROUNDING Shaft is furnished with ground bolt located inside pole on wall opposite hand hole and a ground bolt will be welded. ANCHOR BOLTS Anchor bolts are hot dipped galvanized in accordance to ASTM-A-153. Anchor bolts are fabricated from hot rolled steel bar with a minimum yield strength of 50,000 psi. Four anchor bolts are provided per pole. Each anchor bolt is furnished with two hex nuts and two flat washers and one lock washer. ANCHOR BASE PLATE The anchor base is fabricated from structural quality hot rolled carbon steel with a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi. The base plate telescopes the pole shaft and is circumferentially welded top and bottom. The base is provided with bolt slots. POLE BASE COVER The base cover is fabricated from hot -rolled carbon steel. The covers are two piece assemblies secured together with two fasteners. POLE TOP Each pole will be provided with removable top cap with drill -mount poles or 2-3/8" x 4" pole top tenons. (Optional other sizes available) FINISH All pole, mounting brackets and platforms are furnished with polyester powder coated or hot dipped galvanized. 7.1.a SSS SQUARE STRAIGHT STEEL 10'- 35' Mounting Height OPTIONS: AT: 2-3/8"OD x 4" Tenon BT: 2-7/8"OD x 4" Tenon CT: 3"OD x 4" Tenon BC: Base Cover DR: Duplex Receptacle GFI: Ground Fault Inter. FINISH: BZ: Dark Bronze BK: Black GN: Green WT. White GA: Hot Dip Galvanized CC: Custom Color EPA (ft2) with 1.3 gust SSS-11-410 .120" 4" SQ. 10' 9" 3/4" 9-3/8" 3/4"x16"L 19.0 75# SSS-11-412 .120" 4" SQ. 12' 9" 3/4" 9-3/8" 3/4"x16"L 14.9 90# SSS-11-414 .120" 4" SQ. 14' 9" 3/4" 9-3/8" 3/4"x16"L 11.8 100# E: Base Plate SSS-11-416 .120" 4" SQ. 16' 9" 3/4" 9-3/8" 3AN16"L 9.0 115# Thickness SSS-11-418 .120" 4" SQ. 18, 9" 3/4" 9-3/8" 3/4"x24"L 6.8 125# SSS-11420 .120" 4" SQ. 20' 9" 3/4" 9-3/8" 3/4"x24"L 4.6 140# SSS-11-4251 .120" 4" SQ. 25' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 1.0 160# SSS-7-420 .180" 4" SQ. 20' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 11.9 155# Base Cover SSS-7-4251 .180" 4" SQ. 25' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 5.5 210# Anchor i Bolt SSS-11-520 .120" 5" SQ. 20' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 9.5 188# SSS-11-5251 .120" 5" SQ. 25' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 3.8 230# Projection SSS-11-5302 .120" 5" SQ. 30' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x36"L 2.1 272# [Li SSS-7-520 .180" 5" SQ. 20' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 16.1 260# SSS-7-5251 .180" 5" SQ. 25' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 9.6 385# SSS-7-5302 .180" 5" SQ. 30' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x36"L 4.1 470# Base Detail SSS-11-620 .120" 6" SQ. 20' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 17.2 212# SSS-11-6251 .120" 6" SQ. 25' 12" 3/4" 12-3/4" 3/4"x24"L 8.5 295# NOTE: Bolt Circle 1. Install with two fixture or more, use longer anchor bolts : 3/4"x30"L T2. Install with two fixture or more, use longer anchor bolts : 1 "x36"L D: Width ORDER GUIDE: MODEL OPTION FINISH Pole Shaft Base Plate SSS-11-420 BC BZ UTOPIA LIGHTING reserves the right to change specifications, drawings, dimensions without prior notice. www.utopialighting. c Packet Pg. 85 UM ,1, Design Review Submittal EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 ATTACHMENT 4 REAR VIEW FROM NORTHWEST REVISED: DATE: 15 FEB 2019 30 NOV 2018 DR 1 1 Packet Pg. 86 .y N 0 U c 0 E W 0 t0 O O 0 0 N Z J a c a� E z U r Q c 0 Q. m c� co CD W 0 0 0 0 N Z J a r c 0 E U 2 a ---------------- -------------- -- Design Review Submittal EDMONDS CROSSING APARTMENTS 23830 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026 FRONT VIEW FROM NORTHEAST REVISED: DATE: 15 FEB 2019 30 NOV 2018 DRI Packet Pg. 87 7.1.a February 19, 2019 Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report 23830 Edmonds Way SDA Project #410-002-18 r � r r r it I f f r - Prepared for: Constantine Korovkin 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98026 CIVIL ENGINEERING I PROJECT MANAGEMENT I PLANNING S D A 1724 W. Marine View Drive, Suite 140, Everett, WA 98201 1 425.486.6533 1 www.sdaengineers.com a, c .y N 0 L U c 0 E W 0 t0 O O 0 0 N Z J a ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Pg. 88 7.1.a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Prepared For: Constantine Korovkin 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Prepared By: SDA Engineers 1724 West Marine View Drive, Ste 140 Everett, WA 98201 (425) 486-6533 Last save by: Ken McIntyre on 2/20/19 R:\Projects\410 (LZG Construction)\002-18 (Edmonds Apt)\Technical\Reports\2019-02-19 EW Drainage Report.docm Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 89 7.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Executive Summary • Vicinity Map SECTION 1 - PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS • Step 1: Site Analysis: Collect and Analyze Information on Existing Conditions • Step 2: Prepare Preliminary Development Layout • Step 3: Perform an Off -Site Analysis • Step 4: Determine and Read the Applicable Minimum Requirements • Step 5: Prepare a Permanent Stormwater Control Plan • Step 6: Prepare a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix 1A — Existing Condition Summary Documents • Appendix 1 B — Downstream Flowpath Analysis • Appendix 1 C — Upstream Basin Analysis SECTION 2 — CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (SWPP) . 1.0 - Introduction . 2.0 - Site Description • 3.0 - Construction Stormwater BMPs • 4.0 - Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation • 5.0 - Pollution Prevention Team • 6.0 - Site Inspections & Monitoring . 7.0 - Reporting & Recordkeeping Appendix 2A - Site Plan with BMP Measures • Appendix 2B - SWPPP Project Summary • Appendix 2C - Alternative BMPs Appendix 2D - General Permit • Appendix 2E - Site Log & Inspection Forms SECTION 3 — SOURCE CONTROL OF POLLUTION • Source Control of Pollution SECTION 4 - PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS . Natural Drainage Course Description SECTION 5 - ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT • Performance Standards • Existing Site Hydrology • Developed Site Hydrology . Appendix 5A — Basin Mapping c .N N 0 L U c 0 E w rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 90 7.1.a SECTION 6 - RUNOFF TREATMENT • Runoff Treatment SECTION 7 - FLOW CONTROL • Existing Site Hydrology Synopsis • Developed Site Hydrology Synopsis • Flow Control Performance Standards • Appendix 7A —Flow Control Design Calculations SECTION 8 - WETLANDS PROTECTION SECTION 9 — OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 91 7.1.a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a� c .y N O L U c O E W O 0 0 00 r 0 N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w W W Cu N Cn to O O 00 r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 92 7.1.a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project proposes the construction of an apartment building on a single existing parcel occupying approximately 0.36-ac on the southwest side of Edmonds Way. The project is located in the SW'/4 of Section 31, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, W.M. More specifically, the project is located at 23830 Edmonds Way, and occupies Snohomish County Tax Parcel No. 0043601000302. A vicinity map has been included as Figure 1 of this document. The site is currently developed, and appears to contain two residential buildings as well as an accessory structure. The remainder of the project contains some ornamental trees and traditional residential lawn and landscaping. The project site is triangular in shape, and bounded on the northeast side by Edmonds Way (SR 104). The project is bounded on the northwest and south sides by existing residential parcels. The underlying topography generally falls moderately to the north and northwest. Surface runoff can be expected to follow this topography, following the existing slope to the north and northwest. The project appears to be within a single threshold discharge area, as all runoff from the site appears to be intercepted within the Edmonds Way right-of-way within a short distance of the site. The USDA Web Soil Survey identifies the underlying soil unit as a "till' variety of soil, which typically will not support infiltration of surface runoff, so the project will utilize underground stormwater detention as a flow -control measure. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 93 220TH ST ,SW 7 �9 228THI VST SW 99 238TH ST SW // PROJECT LOCATION 244T ST SW N 20 TH I ST N 200TH ST z z N w �J > o Q Q w E U w � Q � v Z YCOp OC)p M w CO00 NtF— !Y � NRICBEACH RD gF�C p C: U M N N J NKJ o 4 Design o `y / N KJ Engineering -1nDrawn Project Management ® ®® o 2-13-19 Planning 1724 W. Marine View Drive, Suite 140; Everett, Washington 98201 Date 410-002-18 Otrc :425.486.6533 Fac 425.486.6593—.stlaenglneers.com a / Project No. .. w Q Q � Q d Q Ld 2 EDMONDS APARTMENTS VICINITY MAP � SW a� .y N 0 U rn c 0 E W CD t0 O 0 00 r 0 N C) z J a 47 r La ke E Ballinger N.T.S. Scale 1 Packet Pg. 94 7.1.a SECTION 1 PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS (Minimum Requirement #1) Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 95 7.1.a PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS The project is required to provide stormwater management techniques consistent with Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This code generally adopts the 2014 Edition of the WA Dept. of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, with an addendum issued by the City dated 12/21/2016. These two documents will be referred to throughout this report as "DOE Manual" and "City Addendum", respectively. This report, along with the accompanying plans, is intended to satisfy the site plan preparation requirements outlined in the regulatory documents listed above. Stormwater site plans are prepared by completing the steps below, as outlined in Volume 1, Chapter 3 of the DOE Manual: Step 1: Site Analysis: Collect and Analyze Information on Existing Conditions A boundary and topographic survey was prepared for the project site, and was used as a basis for the engineering plans. The USDA Web Soil Survey identifies the underlying soil unit as "McKenna gravelly silt loam". McKenna soils are typically considered to be a glacially -consolidated till soil, with a hardpan layer. These soils typically exhibit moderate runoff rates and very little capacity for infiltration. The map also shows a very small portion of the site as being underlain by "Alderwood-Urban Land Complex", which is another till unit. There may be an interface between these two soil units at or near the site, but both can be expected to exhibit similar hydrologic responses. A USDA Web Soil Survey map is provided in Appendix 1A of this report. FEMA identifies the project site on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel #53061C1315, which is a non -printed panel. The project site is not expected to be within a flood hazard area. A portion of the FIRM map is provided in Appendix 1A of this report. The City's GIS database identifies an erosion hazard area on the site, due to a slope that ranges between 15% and 40%. This slope extends through the middle of the site, essentially being a step between the two existing building pads on -site. The slope is less than 10-ft high, and the proposed apartment building will be constructed over this slope, so the erosion hazard is not expected to remain following the proposed development. The project will create a 2HAV slope along the southern boundary of the site, which can be stabilized with vegetation. No other critical areas were identified on or near the site. A critical areas map is provided in Appendix 1A of this report. Step 2: Prepare Preliminary Development Layout A set of engineering plans are being provided to the City with this report to depict the proposed development layout. Step 3: Perform an Off -Site Analysis A site visit was conducted on January 31, 2019, and the conditions were clear and cool, with no significant rainfall having occurred within the previous couple of days. No surface runoff was observed at the project site or the nearby downstream flowpath. The site topography generally falls to the north and northwest, and is ultimately tributary to the public storm drainage network in Edmonds Way. The public drainage network extends northwesterly beneath Edmonds Way for the entire'/4-mile downstream analysis zone. The downstream flowpath is depicted on a map in Appendix 1 B. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 96 7.1.a The entire'/4-mile downstream flowpath is contained within an underground pipe network. From surface - visible observation, the downstream pipes appear to be concrete, ranging from 12-inch to 36-inch in diameter. No significant issues or concerns were noted during the field investigation. The project site appears to lie at a relative high point, and there does not appear to be any significant upstream runoff contribution to the site. The Edmonds Way frontage and parcel to the west lie below the elevation of the site itself. The topography along the southern property boundary appears to fall roughly parallel to the boundary itself, so no significant off -site runoff is expected to be received from the south. Step 4: Determine and Read the Applicable Minimum Requirements The project proposes more than 5,000 square feet of new/replaced hard surface, and therefore, all minimum requirements from the City Addendum are applicable to all new/replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. This requires preparation of Category 2 Stormwater Site Plans, as prescribed by the City Addendum. Step 5: Prepare a Permanent Stormwater Control Plan A set of engineering plans are being provided to the City with this report to depict the proposed development layout. Step 6: Prepare a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan The accompanying engineering plans include an erosion & sediment control plan for the project. That drawing, along with Section 2 of this report are intended to be the stormwater pollution prevention plan for this project. The project site proposes less than 1-acre of disturbance, so a DOE Construction Stormwater Permit will not be required for this project. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 97 7.1.a APPENDIX 1A EXISTING CONDITION SUMMARY DOCUMENTS a� c .y N O L U c O E W O 0 0 00 r 0 N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w W W Cu N Cn to O O 00 r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 98 «� ,s zZZT \ M,_ZZT 01 09U:m OZEZU:9 $ \ :ec _ C �mszZZT � Elio ) mCz6zq ate, / E • 0 Q 2 \ 0 E � w k \ T- k z � a \ � �k ( � \7 ( ` \ E § � 2&/ 0 � � 2 ) Co $ Co o $ k k = f / = ) 2 a{ \ £ 0005z, } Packet Pg. 99 7.1.a c O rn c t C6-C;� T E C� 3 @ O O U L � O E C w U a as ME 0 Z LU 0 LU J a a E O U L a U O 0 a O U ? E0) U _O a) @ a'o @ m Em C m — 0) o .L O C " N �-3 m a) O_ O C O N O L E O 4a) > w C > Q C O CO a a� m O f4 N E. E m m Erm- m�N N (n 0 E o) E O c a) a m O cN C O U � w E _ U y C6 a) (D E m m r m m � m 3 U) a 3 C o 0 to w O CON U O O C m O E (n 3 Q N Y (Dj O al 'O N L m ° �n O� ` di a :E a) CO (n m >> E n uo) .00 O O y O w a) C� Z m oV a Q n N cc >@ i O 2 > j w @0 LE �E L o N O O d C a M O O @ C O_ O N N C O V) Q O Q CO CO (D $ fO 0Y o a) a) w 3 !n U m a 0) o Q= m10 a o m Zap m �'c n a)m E m m o- CO U (0 0O p =-a -0— O L N 3 E N 0 Q 3 m O_ V O Q o C CO N C O U> N N N .� .L.. 0 a) CL' Z E 2 a) o- 6 m o a) N aci :? io m m p N O Q .. O 'c O .L.. p C >' (D W> CO L M y a) CO y a3coo Q (0 w E 0) >. 3 O Q T 3 In 3 a U C U O 7 .L CO 7 0 fC O m a E 2 U� .O„ 0=m E N ooa)m o N �Q ao N m M a 0.0 o N 3 N U In 'C-O U C i m a Q> 3 T �� a) OO � N � a) f00 j >0 O 2 a) v DLO.. � +v0-' N E m CL E (n > U 2 Q 'a Q m H O (n (n (n CJ N H U In N i y a C 6cc LL U N - L D N a) a m N N rn O CO a Q C J N m E° m 'CO O w COL a CL r a) o wo U m In > O _WD m m o a 5 0 a O a) * d l a [ CO M y w aom� o= 9 o o Q Ca �Z; Uam) a wa N E ` a a 3 m N 'o a ° ° a QC Rf N t6 o a) m y Ci C O C 2 O 0 0 w � o N O U. 3 3 U) O T U N m > m > = 'o a CO t i O N 0 N U N � T � 2 > O Y O a) a N d d¢ .O •0 m m •� !n C O •o m LO N m U O U (i0 0 2 0 N J > J CO C_ h N O N N a) C "O O m a c � 3p( pq i y Q M c .N N 0 L) N C O LIA to O O O O N Z J a i Packet Pg. 100 Soil Map —Snohomish County Area, Washington 7.1.a Edmonds Apartments Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 6 32 Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.0 0.2% 99.8% McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.5 Totals for Area of Interest 0.5 100.0% usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/19/2019 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 101 7.1.a E W CO 3 p W N w C CD h., _ T E U D O E IDQ. W W4' C7 u m o O Q d Cm Cm lL d 61J z A d nng =y cs W Si U'O O O N LL' OLu CD � _•._ F �v y d N c O N w nc'�.n d0 1—e.. N Z O V 'QM Vm 6 Q A J W Lbi w N� N � O Ul O Q C ob I.i W j m z � z E-1 era a W Z � E��� m c 6= ^ O t+ ¢ o T m a 0 Cn O C Fti q ) E E LL Cy yO Zy O w w ¢ ODD c OQ fW— faJZ F+ p-1 O oo¢o>w N O N C Lu TRH li! 2 o V Q c C 9 a� LL V/ X Q iii G o Z w z> 000sz i. 00.0 r LL o •�% F-+ Zi C w o 0 0 o °o ° ��,Mewr o z ii6 ii i/� r� t--r a ° w � 3 � � W `o E � r O_ > LLL N U U Q O C 3 L E � TN! H'8 RYk'FD l6 � N E v O U, C O, C 0-0 ELL 0 C p O Y m c o E n x o 0 m rn L Nmma�O LJ F3o=a` O t0 80TH v~ AVENUE WEST 76TH AVENUE SOUTH O O — :7 ��O Q F F z w O W N �° N Lu J N I A W M -ld HILL d 78TH AVE 78FH AVE W F o _ W E N ` N u F7 = W V N F M i N S = = 0 F M M dO Q N N N D Co LL ` Co O O x 00 r Lu CD z N ® d _ 317H 3Eb Packet Pg. Pg. 102 1 a E O U e v C Lny V o Z a Ln f0 a 16 i m '6 a i LU a v c w a c a 3 x a g m c v f6 41 Q 7 Co G mLU m a m Y O m a O 2 O N m = CC £ L m E_ N f6 m N 2 C -a in N O N O N cC N O C �h O Oy II J V {n W G LL {n W ❑■❑❑ rn M U-1 00 Ln 00 A� W V1 E H 4-0 6Z98 m CL 00 m Q N E W £ZL 0 N A�1 N .� ML tr [98 -m- p N � r Y Y N 00 0000 00 N N N O �c0 Q N d', 0 N a G O N N N am 5 �6H ba6EZ 00 f V) Q + z 0 r- Ln N N N 00 r) oo � CCCQ 00 00 M CO Ln 00 N N N C%N N_N_N_N 00 00 00 1 t) 00 00 N 00 Co .n 0000 011 l 88 N 00 Pack( v a i v I Pg. 103 7.1.a APPENDIX 1 B DOWNSTREAM FLOWPATH ANALYSIS a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 r 0 N Z J a c m E z u r Q c O a m c� rn w 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E Q Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 104 " City of Edmonds Downstream Flowpath WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere © City of Edmonds This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Legend Storm Catch Basins ❑ <all other values> ❑ Yes Storm Manholes p <all other values> p Yes P Detention Facilities Culvert • <all other values, • Yes Q Facility Feature Creeks Storm Line <all other values> Yes Facility Lines Storm Ditch Contour Lines 10 50; 100 1:4,514 Notes 7.1.a x rADUDiIdw Packet Pg. 105 1 7.1.a Photo #1 Looking south at site frontage Photo #2 Looking northwest, from site frontage a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 106 7.1.a Photo #3 Looking northwest, approx. 600-ft downstream of site Photo #4 Looking northwest, approx. 900-ft downstream of site c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 0 N z J a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 107 7.1.a SECTION 2 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (Minimum Requirement #2) a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL E a O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 108 7.1.a CSWPPP ANALYSIS & DESIGN This section, along with the Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan contained in the engineering drawings, is intended to serve as the construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP is outlined in conformance with the Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (DOE Manual). 1.0 — INTRODUCTION An introductory overview of the project has been provided in the Executive Summary of this report. 2.0 — SITE DESCRIPTION A general site description has been provided in the Executive Summary of this report. Additional detailed information is provided through the rest of this report. 3.0 — CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMPs 3.1 — 12 BMP ELEMENTS Element #1— Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land -disturbing activities begin. Trees that are to be preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the field and on the plans. In general, natural vegetation and native topsoil shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent possible. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits are identified in Appendix 2B. Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. Element #2 — Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads, and wheel washing, street sweeping, and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 109 7.1.a Element #3 - Control Flow Rates In order to protect the properties and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater discharges from the site will be controlled. The specific BMPs for flow control that shall be used on this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Alternate flow control BMPs are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit. To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In general, discharge rates of stormwater from the site will be controlled where increases in impervious area or soil compaction during construction could lead to downstream erosion, or where necessary to meet local agency stormwater discharge requirements (e.g. discharge to combined sewer systems). Element #4 - Install Sediment Controls All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged to an infiltration facility. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs at the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize tracking of sediments on vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize wash off of sediments from adjacent streets in runoff. Whenever possible, sediment laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level, vegetated areas (BMP C240 paragraph 4, Volume II page 116). In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or biofiltration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or detention ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be used to control sediment discharge during construction, the structure will be protected from excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the permanent stormwater BMP will be restabilized with vegetation per applicable design requirements once the remainder of the site has been stabilized. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 110 7.1.a Element #5 - Stabilize Soils Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be used on this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Seeding will be used on disturbed areas that have reached final grade or that will remain unworked for more than thirty days. Plastic Covering will be used on the temporary stock pile areas and elsewhere on the site as needed. Dust control will be implemented as needed, to prevent it being required all roadways and driveways to be paved will receive early application of gravel base. Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, no soils shall remain exposed and unworked for more than 7 days during the dry season (May 1 to September 30) and 2 days during the wet season (October 1 to April 30). Regardless of the time of year, all soils shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on weather forecasts. In general, cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. Element #6 - Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner than minimizes erosion. The specific BMPs that will be used to protect slopes for this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Alternate slope protection BMPs are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. Element #7 - Protect Drain Inlets All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However, the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) will be implemented for all drainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted by sediment -laden runoff on and near the project site. The inlet protection measures to be applied on this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 111 7.1.a If the primary BMP options are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D), or if no BMPs are listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options. Element #8 - Stabilize Channels and Outlets Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural drainage point, efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project are identified in Appendix 2B. Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix 2C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the primary BMP(s) are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix 2D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, all temporary on - site conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the expected peak 10 minute velocity of flow from a Type 1A, 10-year, 24-hour recurrence interval storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10-year, 1-hour peak flow rate indicated by an approved continuous runoff simulation model, increased by a factor of 1.6, shall be used. Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance systems. Element #9 - Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, well -organized, and free of debris. Any required BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are identified in Appendix 2B. The contractor shall implement the following measures as much as is practicable, in order to mitigate pollutant impacts from vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing: • All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills. • On -site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall include secondary containment. • Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment. • In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 112 7.1.a • Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. • The contractor shall implement the following concrete and grout pollution control measures: • Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling measures (BMP C151). The contractor shall implement the following Solid Waste pollution control measures: • Solid waste will be stored in secure, clearly marked containers. Element #10 - Control Dewatering Foundation, vault, and trench de -watering water, which shall have similar characteristics to stormwater runoff at the site, shall be discharged into a controlled conveyance system prior to discharge to a sediment trap, pond, or other specified facility. Channels must be stabilized as specified in Element #8. Clean, non -turbid de -watering water, such as well -point groundwater, can be discharged to systems tributary to state surface waters, provided the de -watering flow does not cause erosion or flooding of receiving waters. These clean waters should not be routed through stormwater sediment ponds. Highly turbid or contaminated dewatering water shall be handled separately from stormwater. Element #11 - Maintain BMPs All BMPs should be monitored and maintained regularly to ensure adequate operation. A TESC supervisor shall be identified at the beginning of the project to provide monitoring and direct the appropriate maintenance activity. As site conditions change, all BMPs shall be updated as necessary to maintain compliance with local regulations. Temporary BMPs can be removed when they are no longer needed. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after construction is completed and the site is stabilized. Element #12 - Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: • Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. • Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control. • Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed. • Keep runoff velocities low. • Retain sediment on site. • Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 113 7.1.a • Schedule major earthwork during the dry season As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: Phasina of Construction The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site during construction. • Revegetation of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction, per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). Seasonal Work Limitations • From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of the local permitting authority that silt - laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: o Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and o Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and o Proposed erosion and sediment control measures. • Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the local permitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. • The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations: o Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs; o Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and o Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions • Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and scheduling the construction work. Inspection and Monitorina • All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary skills to: o Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and o Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 114 7.1.a • A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on -site or on -call at all times. • Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP • This SWPPP shall be retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site. • The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. • The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. 3.2 — SITE SPECIFIC BMPs Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC plan sheet(s) in Appendix 2A. 4.0 — CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The list below provides an estimate of the anticipated construction schedule. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May 1 to September 30, and the wet season is considered to be from October 1 to April 30. 5.0 — POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM 5.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the SWPPP, including the following: • Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) — primary contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any ESC measures. • Resident Engineer — For projects with engineered structures only (sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.): Site representative for the owner that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or representative. • Emergency Ecology Contact — Individual to be contacted at Ecology in case of emergency. • Emergency Owner Contact — Individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an emergency. • Non -Emergency Ecology Contact — Individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner that can be contacted if required. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 115 7.1.a • Monitoring Personnel — Personnel responsible for conducting water quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the CESCL. 5.2 TEAM MEMBERS Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team are provided in the project summary in Appendix 213. 6.0 — SITE INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters of concern, and documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site log book will be maintained for all on -site construction activities and will include: A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; Site inspections; and, Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection forma and water quality monitoring forms included in Appendix 2E of this report include the required information for the site log book. This SWPPP may function as the site log book, if desired, or the forms may be separated and included in a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site log book must be maintained on -site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.1 SITE INSPECTION All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) per BMP C160. The name and contact information for the CESCL is provided in Section 5 of this SWPPP. Site inspection will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be documented in the site log book or forms provided in this document. All new BMPs or design changes will be documented in the SWPPP as soon as possible. 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any rainfall event which causes a discharge of stormwater from the site. For sites with temporary stabilization measures, the site inspection frequency can be reduced to once every month. 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in Appendix 2E. The site inspection log forms may be separated from this SWPPP document, but will be maintained on -site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 116 7.1.a 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling Monitoring requirements for the proposed project will include turbidity sampling to monitor site discharges for water quality compliance with the 2010 Snohomish County Drainage manual and Snohomish County Code Title 30.63A NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix 2D). Sampling will be conducted at all site discharge points at least once per calendar week. Turbidity monitoring will follow the analytical methodologies described in Section S4 of the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix 2D). The key benchmark values that require action include 25 NTU and 250 NTU for turbidity. If the 25 NTU benchmark for turbidity is exceeded, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Ensure all BMPs specified in this SWPPP are installed and functioning as intended. 2. Assess whether additional BMPs should be implemented and make revisions to the SWPPP as necessary. 3. Sample the discharge location daily until the analysis results are less than 25 NTU (turbidity) or 32 cm (transparency). If the turbidity is greater than 25 NTU but less than 250 NTU for more than 3 days, additional treatment BMPs will be implemented within 24 hours of the third consecutive sample that exceeded the benchmark value. Additional treatment BMPs will include, but are not limited to, off -site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment. If the 250 NTU benchmark for turbidity is exceeded at any time, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Notify Ecology by phone within 24 hours of analysis. 2. Continue daily sampling until the turbidity is less than 25 NTU. 3. Initiate additional treatment BMPs such as off -site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment within 24 hours of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 4. Implement additional treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 7 days of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 5. Describe inspection results and remedial actions that are taken in the site log book and in monthly discharge monitoring reports. 6.2.2 pH Sampling Stormwater runoff will be monitored for pH starting on the first day of any activity that includes more than 40 yards of poured or recycled concrete, or after the application of "Engineered Soils" such as, Portland cement treated base, cement kiln dust, or fly ash. This does not include fertilizers. For concrete work, pH monitoring will start the first day concrete is poured and continue until 3 weeks after the last pour. For engineered soils, the pH monitoring period begins when engineered soils are first exposed to precipitation and continue until the area is fully stabilized. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 117 7.1.a Stormwater samples will be collected daily from all points of discharge from the site and measured for pH using a calibrated pH meter, pH test kit, or wide range pH indicator paper. If the measured pH is 8.5 or greater, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Prevent the high pH water from entering storm drains or surface water. 2. Adjust or neutralize the high pH water if necessary using appropriate technology such as CO2 sparging (liquid or dry ice). 3. Contact Ecology if chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging is planned. 7.0 — REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING 7.1 RECORDKEEPING 7.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on -site construction activities and will include • A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; • Site inspections; and, • Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in Appendix 2E of this report include the required information for the site log book. 7.1.2 Records Retention Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition S5.C. 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with permit condition S5.G. 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.13, and S9.B.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potential for discharge, of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven days of determination based on inspection(s) that Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 118 7.1.a additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct problems identified, and an updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 7.2 REPORTING 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms will not be submitted to Ecology because water quality sampling is not being conducted at the site. 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the terms and conditions of the permit are not met, and it causes a threat to human health of the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section S55: 1. Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply. 2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. In accordance with permit condition S2.A, a complete application form will be submitted to Ecology and the appropriate local jurisdiction (if applicable) to be covered by the General Permit. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 119 7.1.a APPENDIX 2A SITE PLAN WITH BMP MEASURES a� C .y N O L U C O E W 0 0 CO O N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w Cu N Cn to 0 Q CO r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 120 7.1.a APPENDIX 2B SWPPP PROJECT SUMMARY a� c .y N O L U c O E W O 0 0 00 r 0 N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w Cu N Cn to O O 00 r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 121 7.1.a PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS: Title Certified Erosion & Sediment Control Lead Name(s) Phone Number Resident Engineer Bill Helsley (425) 486-6533 Emergency Ecology Contact Puget Sound Office (425) 649-7000 Emergency Owner Contact Non -Emergency Ecology Contact Northwest Region (425) 649-7000 Monitoring Personnel ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: • Construction Start Date June 2019 • Install ESC Measures June 2014 • Construction End Date Sept 2020 CONSTRUCTION BMP LIST: • High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) • Plastic Covering (BMP C123) • Topsoiling (BMP C125) • Dust Control (BMP C140) • Materials on Hand (BMP C150) • Interceptor Dike and Swale (BMP C200) • Check Dams (BMP C207) • Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) • Silt Fence (BMP C233) • Straw Wattles (BMP C235) • Detention Pond Or Vault Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 122 7.1.a APPENDIX 2C ALTERNATIVE BMPs a� C .y N O L U C O E W 0 0 CO O N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w Cu N Cn to 0 Q CO r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 123 7.1.a The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for each of the 12 elements not described in the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP for a specific element is not functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented. Element #1 - Mark Clearing Limits • High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C103) Element #2 - Establish Construction Access • Wheel Wash (BMP C106) Element #3 - Control Flow Rates • (none) Element #4 - Install Sediment Controls • Straw Bale Barrier (BMP C230) • Vegetated Strip (BMP C234) • Materials on Hand (BMP C150) Element #5 - Stabilize Soils • Dust Control (BMP C140) • Topsoiling (BMP C125) • Sodding (BMP C124) Element #6 - Protect Slopes • Straw Wattles (BMP C235) • Grass -Lined Channels (BMP C201) Element #7 - Protect Drain Inlets • (none) Element #8 - Stabilize Channels and Outlets • Level Spreader (BMP C206) Element #10 - Control Dewatering • (none) Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 124 7.1.a APPENDIX 2D GENERAL PERMIT a� C .y N O L U C O E W 0 0 CO O N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w Cu N Cn to 0 Q CO r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 125 7.1.a Construction Stormwater General Permit The project proposes a disturbance less than 1-acre, so a DOE Construction Stormwater General Permit is not required. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 126 7.1.a APPENDIX 2E SITE LOG & INSPECTION FORMS a� c .y N O L U c O E W O 0 0 00 r 0 N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w Cu N Cn to O O 00 r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 127 7.1.a Site Insaection Forms (and Site Lo The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested that the inspection report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection information in one document, but this is optional. However, it is mandatory that this SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date/times b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection, approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours. c. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. Locations of BMPs inspected, ii. Locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. The reason maintenance is needed iv. Locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and V. Locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why. e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen shall be noted, as applicable. f. A description of any water quality monitoring performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP r repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. i. Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection; and the following statement: "I certify under penalty of law that this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief'. When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance; correct the problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.F of the permit. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 128 7.1.a Site Inspection Form General Information Project Name: Inspector Name: Title: CESCL # : Date: Time: Inspection Type: ❑ After a rain event ❑ Weekly ❑ Turbidity/transparency benchmark exceedance ❑ Other Weather Precipitation Since last inspection In last 24 hours Description of General Site Conditions: Inspection of BMPs Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP kw Location Inspected F nctio ing Problem/Corrective Action NIP Element 2: Establish Construction Access BMP: Location Inspected Functionin Problem/Corrective Action Y I N I Y N NIP -1LTA Ia Location Ins io ing Problem/Corrective Action Ycted YunN NIP a, c .y N 0 U c 0 E w rn to 0 0 0 T- 0 N Z J a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 129 7.1.a Element 3: Control F/owrates BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 1i•W Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Element 4: Install Sediment Controls BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP am Location Inspected io Problem/Corrective Action YunN NI Element 5: Stabilize Soils BMP: Location Inspected Functi ning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP M", Location Inspected F nctio Problem/Corrective Action NIP Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 130 7.1.a Element 6: Protect Slopes BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 1i•W Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP am Location Inspected io Problem/Corrective Action YunN NI Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP: Location Inspected Functi ning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP M", Location Inspected F nctio Problem/Corrective Action NIP Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 131 7.1.a Element 9: Control Pollutants BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP 1UTW Location Ins Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Ycted Element 10: Control Dewatering BMP: Location Inspected Functionin Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N I NIP NN Location Inspected io ing Problem/Corrective Action YunN NIP Stormwater Discharges From the Site Observed? Problem/Corrective Action Y N Location Turbidit Discoloration Sheen Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 132 7.1.a Water Quality Monitoring Was any water quality monitoring conducted? ❑ Yes ❑ No If water quality monitoring was conducted, record results here: If water quality monitoring indicated turbidity 250 NTU or greater; or transparency 6 cm or less, was Ecology notified by phone within 24 hrs? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Ecology was notified, indicate the date, time, contact name and phone number below: Date: Time: Contact Name: Phone #: General Comments and Notes Include BMP repairs, maintenance, or installations made as a result of the inspection. Were Photos Taken? ❑ Yes ❑ No If photos taken, describe photos below: a, c .N N O U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J a c as E M U r a c O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E M a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 133 7.1.a SECTION 3 SOURCE CONTROL OF POLLUTION (Minimum Requirement #3) a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL E a O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 134 7.1.a Source Control of Pollution The project is not classified as a high -use site, and no hazardous materials requiring source control BMPs are proposed to be stored on -site. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 135 7.1.a SECTION 4 PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS (Minimum Requirement #4) Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 136 7.1.a PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS AND OUTFALLS The project lies at a relative high point, and generally discharges runoff to the north and northwest. All runoff from the site can be expected to follow this topography and discharge runoff to Edmonds Way, along the northern edge of the site. The project proposal will collect on -site runoff, provide detention & treatment, then discharge to the public storm drainage system within Edmonds Way. The downstream flowpath beyond this point will be the same as it was prior to development. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 137 7.1.a SECTION 5 ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (Minimum Requirement #5) a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL E a O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 138 7.1.a Performance Standards The project is required to provide stormwater management techniques consistent with Chapter 18.30 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This code generally adopts the 2014 Edition of the WA Dept. of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, with an addendum issued by the City dated 12/21/2016. These two documents will be referred to throughout this report as "DOE Manual" and "City Addendum", respectively. For Minimum Requirement #5, the City Addendum refers to Section 18.30.060.D.5 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This section of the ECDC identifies the project as a Category 2 project, since it will discharge to the public storm drainage system. As such, it is required to satisfy all nine minimum drainage requirements. It must also evaluate the feasibility of several low -impact stormwater management features, and implement them to the greatest practical extent. The required feasibility evaluation is provided below: Surface On -site BMP Feasibility Analysis Manual Reference Post -Construction Soil FEASIBLE - This BMP will be utilized by retaining the duff layer in an undisturbed state Lawn & Quality &Depth where no grading is needed. In areas where grading is expected to occur, the existing Landscape (BMP T5.13) topsoil shall be removed and stockpiled in a designated location, and reapplied to other portions of the site upon reaching the finished grade. Full Dispersion (BMP T5.30) NOT FEASIBLE — This BMP requires 65% of the site to be protected in a (BMP T5.30) native (forested) condition. This project site was previously cleared of native vegetation, and 65% of the site is not available to be set aside for dispersion. - or - —or— Downspout Full Infiltration (BMP T5.10A) NOT FEASIBLE — The portions of the site scheduled for development are (BMP T5.10A) underlain by a dense till soil unit which is not expected to support infiltration. NOT FEASIBLE — The underlying soil in the development area is identified as a till soil unit Bioretention which is not likely to support infiltration. With this in mind, the facility would require an (Vol. V, Ch. 7) underdrain to collect and convey runoff. The bioretention soil media allows percolation of runoff to the underdrain at a rate which does not provide any meaningful flow control Roofs & benefit. Other Hard Surfaces Downspout Dispersion NOT FEASIBLE — The required dispersion flowpath lengths are not available at the project (BMP T5.10B) site. Perforated Stub -out (BMP T5.10C) FEASIBLE — Perforated stub -out connections will be provided for all of the proposed lots. Detention Vaults/Pipes FEASIBLE — A detailed stormwater detention design is discussed in Section 7 of this report. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 139 7.1.a Existing Site Hydrology The project site occupies a single drainage basin which flows to the north and northwest toward Edmonds Way. For hydrologic modeling purposes, the existing site conditions are assumed to be fully forested, to mimic the historic conditions that existed prior to any previous development of the site. A map depicting the existing site hydrology is provided in Appendix 5A. Developed Site Hydrology The proposed development activity will involve site grading to accommodate the proposed apartment building, and associated driveways, parking areas, hardscape and landscape features. Surface runoff from the site will be collected via roof drains and catch basins, and will be routed to an underground stormwater detention facility. That facility will ultimately discharge to the public storm drainage system within Edmonds Way. A map depicting the developed site conditions is provided in Appendix 5A. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 140 7.1.a APPENDIX 5A BASIN MAPPING a� C .y N O L U C O E W 0 0 CO O N Z J d U1 C O E t V fC r Q C r L O Q w Cu N Cn to 0 Q CO r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 141 7.1.a 17 EXISTING BASIN TOTAL BASIN AREA = 0.45 AC (ASSUME 100% FORESTED) do " \ / f 116 1 70 / \ W M� S.F.R. ��, ,' �\�\ �\ to � \ o 1952 ��; ,�' s� sue\ \ \ 00 ± „f 402 I \ R:\Projects\410 (LZG Construc D`(Y 12 rL ------ ---- �\ �S, \ oILO 00 N �Q 1 z b � J -o N NKJ Design NKJ 0 20 Drawn 2/1 1 "= 20' D te19 Scale Feet 410-002-18 Project No. 002-18 (Edmonds Apt)\Dwg\figures\TIR Figures\EW—Predeveloped.dwg 11x17 \ �\ ��— — U -P Q C l--- r-- T---7--_7---_. ®®® civil Engineering Project Management Planning 1724 W. Marine View Drive, Suite 140, Everett, Washington 98201 EDMONDS APARTMENTS Office:425.4%.6533 Foc 425.486.6593 v w vsdoengineers.com I P R E D E V E L O P E D BASIN MAP Sheet: Packet Pg. 142 1 I 7.1.a SECTION 6 RUNOFF TREATMENT (Minimum Requirement #6) a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL E a O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 144 7.1.a RUNOFF TREATMENT Surface runoff from the site will be collected and routed to an underground stormwater detention vault. The lower portion of this vault will contain a wetpool storage component intended to provide basic treatment, as prescribed by the DOE Manual. The primary goal of basic treatment is to remove sediment, and the wetpool storage acts as a plug -flow vessel, which provides sufficient residence time to promote settlement of suspended sediment prior to discharge. Wetpool sizing calculations are included in the flow control calculations, provided in Appendix 7A of this report. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 145 7.1.a SECTION 7 FLOW CONTROL (Minimum Requirement #7) a� c .y N O L U c O E W 0 0 00 0 N Z J d E r a r L O Q w CU N Cn to 0 Q 00 r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 146 7.1.a FLOW CONTROL Surface runoff from the site will be collected and routed to an underground stormwater detention vault. The lower portion of this vault will contain a wetpool storage component, and the remainder of the vault will be utilized for stormwater detention. Prior to discharge from the underground vault, water will pass through a multiple -orifice flow -control riser, which is intended to release flows at rates and durations that approximately mimic those that existed historically. Stormwater detention pond and control riser design has been performed using MGS-Flood hydrologic modeling software. This software utilizes a locally -calibrated continuous runoff simulation, and is approved by the WA Dept. of Ecology for the design of stormwater management facilities. Flow control design calculations are provided in Appendix 7A of this report. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 147 7.1.a APPENDIX 7A FLOW CONTROL DESIGN CALCULATIONS a� c .N N O L U c O E Lu rn 0 0 0 r 0 N Z J a E M a O a m c� rn w 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E M a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 148 7.1.a Existing Basin Conditions Existing Basil Developed Basin Conditions M Developed Basil Detention Vaul ** Su66asin Land Use - Existing Basin o O Edit Runoff Components Qk Cancel Area lac} OA-rvl1J 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4500 Existing Basin Coverf5oil Type Till Forest Till Pasture Till Grass Outwash Forest Outwash Pasture Outwash Grass Wetland Green Roof User 1 User 2 User 3 Impervious Total [acres] 0 Su66asin Land Use- Developed Basin �0 0 Edit Runoff Components Developed Basin Qk Cancel CoverlSoiIType Area{ac} Till Forest 0.00H Till Pasture 0.00H Till Grass 4.1544 0utwash Forest 0.0000 0utwash Pasture O.UUUU Outwash Grass IHN-13 Wetland IHN-13 Green Roof U.UUUU User 1 0.0U1) User 2 0.0U1) User 3 O.M10 Impervious 0 29w LL- Total [acres] 0.4500 Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 149 7.1.a Detention Facility Design MGS FLOOD PROJECT REPORT Program Version: MGSFlood 4.46 Program License Number: 201110001 Project Simulation Performed on: 02/20/2019 3:08 PM Report Generation Date: 02/20/2019 3:09 PM Input File Name: 2019-02-13 Detention Vault Sizing.fld Project Name: Edmonds Apts Analysis Title: Detention Vault Sizing Comments: PRECIPITATION INPUT Computational Time Step (Minutes): Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected Climatic Region Number: 15 15 Full Period of Record Available used for Routing Precipitation Station : 96004005 Puget East 40 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097 Evaporation Station 961040 Puget East 40 in MAP Evaporation Scale Factor 0.750 HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1 HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default ********** Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) *************** ********************** WATERSHED DEFINITION *********************** Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary Predeveloped Post Developed Total Subbasin Area (acres) 0.450 0.450 Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000 Total (acres) 0.450 0.450 ----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 1 ---------- Subbasin : Existing Basin -------Area (Acres) --- Till Forest 0.450 Subbasin Total 0.450 ----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 1 ---------- Subbasin : Developed Basin -------Area (Acres) ------- Till Grass 0.160 Impervious 0.290 Subbasin Total 0.450 Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 150 7.1.a ************************* LINK DATA ******************************* ----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED Number of Links: 0 ************************* LINK DATA*********************** ----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED Number of Links: 1 Link Name: Detention Vault Link Type: Structure Downstream Link: None Prismatic Pond Option Used Pond Floor Elevation (ft) Riser Crest Elevation (ft) Max Pond Elevation (ft) Storage Depth (ft) 3.50 Pond Bottom Length (ft) Pond Bottom Width (ft) Pond Side Slopes (ft/ft) Bottom Area (sq-ft) Area at Riser Crest El (sq-ft) (acres) Volume at Riser Crest (cu-ft) (ac-ft) Area at Max Elevation (sq-ft) (acres) Vol at Max Elevation (cu-ft) (ac-ft) Massmann Infiltration Option Used Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) Depth to Water Table (ft) Bio-Fouling Potential Maintenance Riser Geometry Riser Structure Type Riser Diameter (in) Common Length (ft) Riser Crest Elevation Hydraulic Structure Geometry Number of Devices: 2 390.00 393.50 394.00 92.0 24.0 L1= 0.00 2208. 2,208. 0.051 7,728. 0.177 2208. 0.051 8,832. 0.203 L2= 0.00 W1= 0.00 W2= 0.00 0.00 100.00 Low Average or Better Circular 12.00 0.000 393.50 ft ---Device Number 1 --- Device Type Circular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) 390.00 Diameter (in) 0.34 Orientation : Horizontal Elbow : No Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 151 7.1.a ---Device Number 2 --- Device Type Circular Orifice Control Elevation (ft) 392.50 Diameter (in) 0.75 Orientation : Horizontal Elbow : Yes **********************FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DURATION STATISTICS******************* ----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED .-. Number of Subbasins: 1 Number of Links: 0 N N O L U ----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED Number of Subbasins: 1 Number of Links: 1 0 E w ***********Groundwater Recharge Summary ************* CD Recharge is computed as input to Perind Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures o 00 Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation N Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft) z J Subbasin: Existing Basin 77.593 Total: 77.593 Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft) Subbasin: Developed Basin 19.554 Link: Detention Vault 0.000 Total: 19.554 Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158) Predeveloped: 0.491 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 0.124 ac-ft/year ***********Water Quality Facility Data ************* ----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED Number of Links: 0 ----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED Number of Links: 1 ********** Link: Detention Vault ********** Basic Wet Pond Volume (91 % Exceedance): 1450. cu-ft Computed Large Wet Pond Volume, 1.5*Basic Volume: 2175. cu-ft Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 152 7.1.a Infiltration/Filtration Statistics -------------------- Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 162.20 Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 162.20 Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00% Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 162.17 Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00 Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00% ***********Compliance Point Results ************* Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Subbasin: Existing Basin Scenario Postdeveloped Compliance Link: Detention Vault *** Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data *** Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------' 2-Year 9.589E-03 2-Year 4.365E-03 5-Year 1.563E-02 5-Year 9.563E-03 10-Year 2.106E-02 10-Year 1.479E-02 25-Year 2.670E-02 25-Year 1.695E-02 50-Year 3.407E-02 50-Year 1.838E-02 100-Year 3.692E-02 100-Year 1.938E-02 200-Year 5.747E-02 200-Year 1.974E-02 ** Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals Flow Duration Plot Fla.v Control Performance Exrmsbr at E-Y-=:-5-.4:-: PASS Ex^Lr-br F•D:'a.-• tO',.:t: 7.4:'> PASS Ex rsiDr -a2 to ntl-2.3-r> PASS Pos ExCLrsior' ; to w',5: 6.0'.s PASS :C i ]r76 1 Di-5 1 ]r:' 1 Jr73 1 Jr76 1 Jr31 1 X4r>) Exceedance Probability Predeveloped f Postdeveloped c .N N O L U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N z J a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 153 7.1.a SECTION 8 WETLANDS PROTECTION (Minimum Requirement #8) a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL E a O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 154 7.1.a WETLANDS PROTECTION There are no wetlands identified on -site, or within the downstream flowpath, so this requirement is not applicable. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 155 7.1.a SECTION 9 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (Minimum Requirement #9) a� c .N N O L U c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL E a O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 156 7.1.a OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Stormwater facilities and BMPs shall be inspected, operated and maintained in accordance with Sections 18.30.060.D.9 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The following is a selection of operations/maintenance recommendations specific to the site, obtained from the current DOE Manual. Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 157 7.1.a No. 3 — Closed Detention Systems (Tanks/Vaults) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected Component When Maintenance is Performed Storage Area Plugged Air Vents One-half of the cross section of a vent is Vents open and blocked at any point or the vent is damaged. functioning. Debris and Sediment Accumulated sediment depth exceeds 10% All sediment and of the diameter of the storage area for 1/2 debris removed from length of storage vault or any point depth storage area. exceeds 15% of diameter. (Example: 72-inch storage tank would require cleaning when sediment reaches depth of 7 inches for more than 1/2 length of tank.) Joints Between Any openings or voids allowing material to All joint between Tank/Pipe Section be transported into facility. tank/pipe sections are sealed. (Will require engineering analysis to determine structural stability). Tank Pipe Bent Out Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape Tank/pipe repaired or of Shape more than 10% of its design shape. (Review replaced to design. required by engineer to determine structural stability). Vault Structure Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any Vault replaced or Includes Cracks in evidence of soil particles entering the repaired to design Wall, Bottom, structure through the cracks, or specifications and is Damage to Frame maintenance/inspection personnel structurally sound. and/or Top Slab determines that the vault is not structurally sound. No cracks more than Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any inch wide at the jooinin t of the inlet/outlet inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil pipe. particles entering the vault through the walls. Manhole Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Manhole is closed. Any open manhole requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts with proper tools. into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread (may not apply to self-locking lids). Cover Difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid Cover can be Remove after applying normal lifting pressure. Intent removed and is to keep cover from sealing off access to reinstalled by one maintenance. maintenance person. Ladder Rungs Unsafe Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design misalignment, not securely attached to standards. Allows structure wall, rust, or cracks. maintenance person safe access. Catch Basins See "Catch Basins" See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). See "Catch Basins" (No. 5) (No. 5). a� c .N to 0 U c 0 E w rn 0 0 0 0 N z J IL c m E t U 0 Q c 0 a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r 0 N z J a r c a� E t Q Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 158 7.1.a No. 4 - Control Structure/Flow Restrictor Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected Component When Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Debris Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or 1 Control structure (Includes Sediment) foot below orifice plate. orifice is not blocked. All trash and debris removed. Structural Damage Structure is not securely attached to Structure securely manhole wall. attached to wall and outlet pipe. Structure is not in upright position (allow up Structure in correct to 10% from plumb). position. Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight Connections to outlet and show signs of rust. pipe are water tight; structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes --other than designed holes --in the Structure has no structure. holes other than designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or Missing Cleanout gate is not watertight or is missing. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and maintenance person. down easily and is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or Chain is in place and damaged. works as designed. Gate is rusted over 50% of its surface area. Gate is repaired or replaced to meet design standards. Orifice Plate Damaged or Missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and missing, out of place, or bent orifice plate. works as designed. Obstructions Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation Plate is free of all blocking the plate. obstructions and works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all potential of blocking) the overflow pipe. obstructions and works as designed. Manhole See "Closed See "Closed Detention Systems" (No. 3). See "Closed Detention Systems" Detention Systems" (No. 3). (No. 3). Catch Basin See "Catch Basins" See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). See "Catch Basins" (No. 5). (No. 5). a� c .N N O L U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N z J IL c m E t U r Q c 1` O a m rn co 0 0 0 r O N z J a r c a� E t Q Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 159 7.1.a No. 5 — Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed General Trash & Trash or debris which is located immediately No Trash or debris located Debris in front of the catch basin opening or is immediately in front of blocking inletting capacity of the basin by catch basin or on grate more than 10%. opening. Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No trash or debris in the percent of the sump depth as measured from catch basin. the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of six inches clearance from the debris surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe Inlet and outlet pipes free blocking more than 1/3 of its height. of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could No dead animals or generate odors that could cause complaints vegetation present within or dangerous gases (e.g., methane). the catch basin. Sediment Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No sediment in the catch percent of the sump depth as measured from basin the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance from the sediment surface to the invert of the lowest pipe. Structure Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Top slab is free of holes Damage to inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch and cracks. Frame and/or Top Slab (Intent is to make sure no material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame the riser rings or top slab from the top slab. Frame not securely and firmly attached. attached Fractures or Maintenance person judges that structure is Basin replaced or repaired Cracks in unsound. to design standards. Basin Walls/ Bottom Grout fillet has separated or cracked wider Pipe is regrouted and than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot at the secure at basin wall. joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ If failure of basin has created a safety, Basin replaced or repaired Misalignment function, or design problem. to design standards. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more No vegetation blocking than 10% of the basin opening. opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints No vegetation or root that is more than six inches tall and less than growth present. six inches apart. a� c .N N O U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N z J IL c m E t U r Q c O a m rn co 0 0 CO r 0 N z J a c a� E t Q Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 160 7.1.a No. 5 — Catch Basins Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed Contamination See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1). No pollution present. and Pollution Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in place. Catch basin cover is Cover Place Any open catch basin requires maintenance. closed Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts proper tools. Not Working into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot remove lid Cover can be removed by to Remove after applying normal lifting pressure. one maintenance person. (Intent is keep cover from sealing off access to maintenance.) Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, not Ladder meets design Unsafe securely attached to basin wall, standards and allows misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets (If Applicable) Unsafe design standards. Trash and Trash and debris that is blocking more than Grate free of trash and Debris 20% of grate surface inletting capacity. debris. Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s) of the Grate is in place and Missing. grate. meets design standards. a� c .N N O L U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL c m E t U r Q c O a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r O N Z J a r c as E Q Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 161 7.1.a No. 12 — Wetvaults Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance Results Expected When Component is Needed Maintenance is Performed General Trash/Debris Trash and debris accumulated Remove trash and debris from vault. Accumulation in vault, pipe or inlet/outlet (includes floatables and non- floatables). Sediment Sediment accumulation in vault Remove sediment from vault. Accumulation in bottom exceeds the depth of the Vault sediment zone plus 6-inches. Damaged Pipes Inlet/outlet piping damaged or Pipe repaired and/or replaced. broken and in need of repair. Access Cover Cover cannot be opened or Pipe repaired or replaced to proper Damaged/Not removed, especially by one working specifications. Working person. Ventilation Ventilation area blocked or Blocking material removed or cleared plugged. from ventilation area. A specified % of the vault surface area must provide ventilation to the vault interior (see design specifications). Vault Structure Maintenance/inspection Vault replaced or repairs made so Damage- personnel determine that the that vault meets design specifications Includes Cracks vault is not structurally sound. and is structurally sound. in Walls Bottom, Damage to Frame and/or Top Slab Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at Vault repaired so that no cracks exist the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe wider than 1/4-inch at the joint of the or evidence of soil particles inlet/outlet pipe. entering through the cracks. Baffles Baffles corroding, cracking, Baffles repaired or replaced to warping and/or showing signs of specifications. failure as determined by maintenance/inspection staff. Access Ladder Ladder is corroded or Ladder replaced or repaired to Damage deteriorated, not functioning specifications, and is safe to use as properly, not attached to determined by inspection personnel. structure wall, missing rungs, Replace sign warning of confined has cracks and/or misaligned. space entry requirements. Ladder Confined space warning sign and entry notification complies with missing. OSHA standards. a� c .N N 0 U c 0 E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL c m E t U 0 r Q c 0 0 a m c� rn co 0 0 0 r 0 N Z J a r c as E 0 a Edmonds Apartments Drainage Report Packet Pg. 162 7.1.a of EDyV #P71 ,mooAI CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist. RECEIVED G 1 32018 WFLOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals complete this checklist and the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (Part D). the lead agency may exclude any question for the environmental elements (Part B) which they determine do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposed nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Edmonds Crossing Apartments 2. Name of applicant: Haynes Lund 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 385 1015Y Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98004 4. Date checklist prepared: 26 NOV 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds Revised on 9116116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 1 of 18 ATTACHMENT 6 Packet Pg. 163 7.1.a 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicabley We propose to begin construction in spring/summer of 2019 as soon as building permit is issued. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for any future expansion of this proiect on this site. (STAFF COMMEN 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Soils Report will be prepared by a licensed eotechnical engineer. (STAFF COMMENTS) YVW\/&r �1 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We are not aware of any such applications or proposals. (STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA. doc Page 2 of 28 c .y N O L V c O E w rn to 0 0 00 0 N Z J a Packet Pg. 164 7.1.a 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Design Review Board approval; Demolition permit; Building permit (and associated construction permits, plumbing, such as electrical, sprinklers);_ possible Street Use permit. (STAFF COMMENTS) _COOf`JSCY-11)' C](l 1 �� Cti n-, 1 , V tel 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. Demolish existing residences on the site (5 units) and construct a new 3-story 10-unit apartment building with associated parking. (STAFF COMMENTS) 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Site address: 23820 Edmonds Wav Parcel No. 00463301000302 Legal description. See survey. (STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 3 of 28 Packet Pg. 165 7.1.a TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Site slopes generally up from the street frontage toward the southeast, with a bit of a hill in the center. c .y N 0 L (STAFF COMMENTS) V 0 E w b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Im 0 There is a small area located in the center of the project that is at a slope of 80%, but there is only a four foot 00 T grade difference at this location. The site generally has a grade of approximately 10%. N Z J IL (STAFF COMMENTS) VAC'cnc-rki iv, to C1 „Lt 1�001 r.��� .� ► 1 Owl �2f D -C— C- r1 P-n-,-ls, inn hn C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. At the lower end of the site there is granular fill over hardpan. At the upper end of the site there is significant loose fill sail overlying loose fine to medium sand with trara to come tilt and ornvak (STAFF COMMENTS)+(r S 6LCC-d_ -An) 1 � 1 --1 r r^ r1 -+ cJ d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None that we are aware of. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 Ed Xing-SEPA.doc Page 4 of 28 Packet Pg. 166 7.1.a e. Describe the purpose, type, total area and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. There is approximately 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 500 cubic Yards of fill proposed for the project. The area where gradin is proposed to take place is a pproximatelV 0.46 acres in size which is the majority of the site. The fill material will consisit primarily of structural backfill and crushed rock as a base for the proposed pavements sections. (STAFF COMMENT f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of clearing of the site for the proposed building and parking lot but standard erosion and sediment control best management practices will be implemented during the construction of the project. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be prepared for the project which will outline specific erosion and sediment control measures to be installed and inspected on a reigular basis. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 75% of the site will be covered bV impervious surfaces. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard erosion and control measures will be implemented during construction. A site sp cific stormwater pollution prevention plan SWPPP will also be prepared for the promect. (STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 5 of 28 Packet Pg. 167 7.1.a 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. There will be dust and vehicle fumes during the construction of the project. There should be no significant air impacts after construction, other than vehicles driven by the occupants. (STAFF COMMENTS) a� c N O V b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. -a c None that we are aware of. O - E (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: None are required. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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. N.n_ (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. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA. doc Page 6 of 28 Packet Pg. 168 7.1.a (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. No fill material will be placed in or removed from wetlands. (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are being Proposed as part of this promect. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 7 of 28 a� c .y N O U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. 169 7.1.a b. Ground: C. Revised on 9119116 (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. (STAFF COMM (2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Site is served by a sewer system. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. (STAFF COMM Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, LLCJII-IUC. Stormwater from the project will be p_enerated by the proposed new buildings and associated parking lot as well as from minor miscellaneous landscaped areas around the buildings. This stormwater will be collected and conveyed via a series of catch basins and pipes to an underground detention and water cLuality vault desi n to release storm water at predeveloped flow rates. This vault will outlet to the existing stormwater conveyance system located within Edmonds Way (SR 1041. (STAFF COMMENTS) EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 8 of 28 a� c .y N 0 L U c 0 E W o� to 0 0 0 T 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. TO 7.1.a (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The proposed drainage system does not alter affect drainafle patterns in the vicinity of the site. Stormwater will be released at the same discharge location as the predeveloped conditions. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Installation of a stormwater conveyance and detentions stem in accordance with City of Edmonds standards_ (STAFF COMMEN Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA. doc Page 9 of 28 a� c .y N O L U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. 171 7.1.a 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain at Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops .y N - 0 L wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: V water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: 0 E 13 LU (STAFF COMMENTS) _ on to 0 0 0 T O N Z - J IL b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most of the existing trees (about 10 fatal) and shrubbery on the site will be removed. Entire site will be re -graded and new landscaping will be installed. C. Revised on 9119116 (STAFF COMMENT List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None that we are aware of. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 10 of 28 Packet Pg. T2 7.1.a d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The landscape plan will utilize all native or naturalized plants. Landscape will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. (STAFF COMMENTS e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None that we are aware of. (STAFF COMMENT 5. Animals a� c .y N O L♦ U c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: None reported mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: No sightings have been reported fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Not Applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 11 of 28 Packet Pg. 173 7.1.a b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. This project will have no impact on threatened or endangered species. (STAFF COMMENTS) c .y N O L- C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. V This project will have no impact on any animal migration route. U) - O E w rn 0 0 — o 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) c N Z J IL d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: y No measures to preserve or enhance wildlife are proposed. r Q c (STAFF COMMENTS) m W c� N e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. rn o No invasive animal species are known to be on or near the site. 0 °r° N Z J d r C N E STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 12 of 28 Packet Pg. 174 7.1.a 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity from the power grid will be used to heat the dwelling units to provide hot water, and to provide power for lighting, cooking and other domestic activities. (STAFF COMMENTS b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This project will not affect the access to solar energy for any neighboring site__ (STAFF COMMENTS). C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: This promect will meet the Washington State Energy Code for commercial construction. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 13 of 28 a� c .y N O �L♦ V O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. 175 7.1.a 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. There is no indication of any possible contamination of the site from present oLpast uses. (STAFF COMMENT c .y N O L♦ U O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J a (2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no existing hazardous conditions in the area. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during_ the project's development or constructions, or at any time during the operating life of the project. No toxic or hazardous chemical will be stored at the site during construction or during occupancy. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 14 of 28 Packet Pg. T6 7.1.a (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No emergency services will be required be and what is normal for a multifamily residence. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No measures are required or proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The site is adjacent to Edmonds Way which is a major artery in the area. There are not other known sources of noise near the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. During construction noise will be created by the vehicles and equipment being used_ This noise will only occur during normal working hours. There should be no significant noise from the site after constrruction is completed. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA. doc Page 15 of 28 Packet Pg. 177 7.1.a (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: !None are required. (STAFF COM 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The site is currently used for residential, as are all the adjacent properties. This proposal will continue the current use of the site. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The site has been used for residential purposes since 1938. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 16 of 28 a� c .y N 0 L U w c 0 E w o� to 0 0 0 T O N Z J IL Packet Pg. T8 7.1.a C. Describe any structures on the site. The site currently contains 3 one-story buildings used as residences. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? a� y All 3 existing structures will be demolished. 0 �L♦ V 0 (STAFF COMMENTS) -0 LU rn 0 0 0 0 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N RM-1.5 Z J a c a� E z U (STAFF COMMENTS) Q c 0 a f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Edmonds WaV Corridor N rn to 0 0 0 r O N (STAFF COMMENTS) Z J d g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? Not Applicable (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 17 of 28 Packet Pg. 179 7.1.a h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. k. Revised on 9119116 No part of the site has been classified as a critical area. AFF COMMENTS] 1 al)4CI— Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The project will include 1 studio apartment, (6)1-bedroom apartments and (3) 2-bedroom apartments. Occupancy will be around 13 to 15 people. (STAFF COMMENT Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? There are 4 dwelling units on the site currently housing 7 people. _ (STAFF COMMENTS) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No measures to reduced displacement impacts are contemplated. (STAFF COMMENTS] r W W iv\/�(mobL— I n — V ry Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Project continues the existing land use on the site, which is compatible with neighboring land uses. (STAFF COMMENT EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 18 of 18 a� c .y N O V c O E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. 180 7.1.a in. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Pro'ect has no impact on agricultural or forest lands. No measure to control impacts are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. 10 housing units will be provided: they will be a mix of middle and low-income units. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. There are 4 middle and low income dwelling units on the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) 0A C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: This project replaces 4 existing dweliing units with 10 new dwelling units of a similar ty ems. No measures to reduce or control housing impacts are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 19 of 28 Packet Pg. 181 7.1.a 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum height of the building is 31'. The principle exterior material will be cement board horizontal siding, with some areas of vertical siding. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Some views of the highway from neighboring sites will be impacted by this project. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: This project will remove 3 older non-descript buildings and replace them with a larger structure having a stronger presence on the hi hwa . The exterior materials selected for this pnoject are compatible with neighboring structures. (STAFF COMMENTS) 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The only exterior lighting will be for the parking lot and for access to the building._ All exterior lighting will be _ designed to meet Edmonds criteria for spillage onto neighboring.pro erties. The parking lot will be lit only when necessary due to darkness. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 20 of 28 Packet Pg. 182 7.1.a b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? (STAFF COMME C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The primarV off -site source of light will be the glare from vehicle headlights on Edmonds Way. (STAFF COMMENTS) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Light and glare impacts will be controlled by complying with Edmonds Municipal Code standards regarding light spillage. (STAFF COMMEN 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no recreational spaces in the immediate vicinity. (STAFF COMM b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc a� c .y N 0 U c 0 E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL Page 21 of 28 Packet Pg. 183 7.1.a C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No such measures are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) C i', be- G}Sse,SS-?d- 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. Nn_ (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. There is no evidence of Indian or historic use visible on Lhe site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS date, etc. Since this site has been in residential use for many years any impacts on historic or cultural resources have already occurred. (STAFF COMMENTS)fiA7Z Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 22 of 28 .y N O V c O E W O O O O co O N Z J IL Packet Pg. 184 7.1.a d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. No such measures are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) CWS4"C ;:`Qn - 5:17,j C+nr }Aa.-6 � 14. Transportation Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site only has street frontage on Edmonds Wa . Due to an existing traffic divider in front of the site the only aceess to the site will be southbound on Edmonds Way (right in). Access from the site will be restricted to southbound on Edmonds Way right out). (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There are bus stops on Edmonds Way approximate[ 800 feet north of the site. There are also bus stops on 238th Street SW approximately 600 feet from the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or nonproject proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The new project will 16 parking spaces including one accessible van stall. The existing site has approximateIV 7 parking spaces. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 23 of 28 Packet Pg. 185 7.1.a d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proiect will revise the existine street frontaee to provide a planting stria between the sidewalk and the street. No other chafes to existing transportation systems are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The ITE Trip Generation Manual 101h Edition calculates the number of trips for an apartment complex during PM peak hours as 0.5 per dwelling unit. This project should generate around 5 vehicular trips during peak daily volumes. The only regular truck access to the site will be weekly trash pickup. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. (STAFF COMMENTS Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 24 of 28 c .y N O V c O E W O O O O O 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. 186 7.1.a h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No such measures are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) Yti C. CCry, E CAC Ir�e� 0 L U 15. Public Services w c a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police C protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. E u.l This protect will slightiv.increase the po ulation densitV on the site. The impact on public services will be Im minimal, 00 T 0 N Z J a (STAFF COMMENTS) w c m b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: No such measures are proposed. (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septie systent, other: (STAFF COMM Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 25 of 28 Packet Pg. 187 7.1.a b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical Service -- Snohomish County PUD; Water— Olympic View Water sewer District Sewer — Olympic View Water Sewer District; All these utilities currently serve the site or exist in the right of way along the front of the site. (STAFF COMMENTS) c N O _ �L♦ V C. SIGNATURE o E w I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand CD that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. o 0 0 0 N Z + J IL c a� E November 30, 2018 U Signature of Proponent Date Submitted I-p, «'.�- '�'D I)1T)2'0(q Revised on 9119116 EdXing-SEPA.doc Page 26 of 28 Packet Pg. 188 7.1.a OV EDA, L CITY OF EDMONDS �•� 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ar. 'o DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The 10 units are proposed in a new three (3) story building with a mix of studios, 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Parking for the units will be located adjacent to the building along the northwestern property boundary and access to the proposed development will be taken off of Edmonds Way. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III-B decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Proponent: Haynes Lund, HWL Architects LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 23830 — Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 00463301000302 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 WAC 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 43.21C.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 February 5, 2019 Project Planner: Michele Q. Szafran, Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: 'LZo Signature: - 7,eXL__ 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 February 12. 2019 . 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 January 22, 2019 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAuniO-ecy.wa.goy). Mailed to 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 hti sill ermits.edmonds.wa.uslcitizen. Search for file number PLN20180069. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DSEPA NATION ATTACHMENT 7 1/17/19 SEPA Packet Pg. 189 7.1.a Notice Mailed to the following: XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 1525 75th St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Paaooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 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 Fdmonds Rnhool Dictrint Nn, 15 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Attachments pc: File No. PLN20180069 SEPA Notebook XX Community Transit Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Olympic View Water & Sewer District 8128 2281h St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david.matulich@pse.com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD Pn Rnx 11 n7 Everett, WA 98206-1107 Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION 1/17/19 SEPA Packet Pg. 190 City of Edmonds Zoning and Vicinity Map 0 162.15 324.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web-Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION 7.1.a 170Unrldk N rn Legend c 0 ReZones 0 E — ■ -0 PRD W RoW O Zoning O O RS-6 C N RS-8 Z J RS-10 d RS-12 N © RSW-12 a+ ❑ RS-20 E t RS-MP R RM-3 a+ Q RM-2.4 C ■ RM-1.5 cc RM-EW 0 BD1 N BD2 lC N BD3 N N BD4 O BDS O O N OR ® WMU CN Z J ® BP d V BN ® FVMU E BC V f� a+ Notes Q Packet Pg. 191 1 #P2o Critical Areas Idle #: A I(Initial Determination - $100 ❑ Subsequent Deter ination - $50 Date Received: i Date Malted to Appli ant. G'f' �EmflIGElJ oTd �Gl�Nuc.� f� f![��Ni The purpose of this checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any critical areas and/or buffers are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes, are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are regulated to protect their functions and values. The City's critical area regulations are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 through 23.90. Property Owner's Authorization City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division. Phone: 425.771.0220 www,edmondswa.gov A property owner, or an authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. Staff will review the checklist, conduct a site visit, and make a determination of whether there are critical areas and/or critical area buffers on or near the site. If a "Critical Area Present" determination is issued, a report addressing the applicable critical area requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 may be required depending on the scope of the proposed activity. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection attendant to this application. The undersigned owner, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. �� i SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Owner: Applicant/Agent: Rnk Eastside LLC Haynes Lund Name Name 2603 78th Avenue NE 385 101st Avenue SE Street Address Street Address Medina WA 98039 Bellevue WA City State Zip City State Telephone: Telephone: 425-643-3921 Email address: _ kkorovkinQgmail.com Email Address: Text 98004 Zip HWLArchQcomcast.net a� c .y N 0 v c 0 E w rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J 96 Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 9 Packet Pg. 192 7.1.a CA File No: AZa,,Lo I � /L q #P20 Critical Areas Checklist DEC 12 2018 Site Information 11EVELONAENT SERVICES COUNTER 1. Site Address/ Location: 23830 Edmonds Way 2. Property Tax Account Number: 00463301000302 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 0.36 acres 15 682 SF 4. Is this site currently developed? 0 Yes ❑ No a, If yes, how is the site developed? 2 single family residences and 1 duplex residence c 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply, ci ❑ Flat to Rolling: No slope on/adjacent to the site or slopes generally less than 15% (a vertical -a o rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). E Moderate: Slopes present on/adjacent to site of more than 15% and less than 40% (a vertical Lu rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 25 to 66-feet). o ❑ Steep:Slopes of o P greater than 40% present on/ to site (a vertical rise of 10�-feet over a N horizontal distance of less than 25-feet). Z 6. Have there been landslides on or near the site in the past? ❑ Yes © No J 96 If yes, please describe: 7. Site contains areas of year-round standing water? ❑ Yes (approx. depth: } ✓❑ No E Site contains areas of seasonal standing water? ❑Yes (approx. depth: ) 0 No r8. a If yes, what season(s) of the year? 9. Site is in the floodway or floodplain of a water course? ❑ Floodway ❑ Floodplairi c c 10. Site contains a creek ,or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? ❑ Yes © No (D If yes, are flows year-round or seasonal? ❑ Year-round ❑ Seasonal (time of year: ) N 11. Obvious wetland is present on site? ❑ Yes © No co -_—� — --- For City Staff Use Only I. Zoning: j cj 3. SCS mapped soil type(s): 0)(,a o1 3. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site: C n ` RI MCN 4. Site within designated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA)? DETERMINATION CRITICAL ARE P ES NT � WAIVER Reviewed by: z Date: _4y �Dol Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Packet Pg. 193 I 7.1.a I " City of Edmonds Critical Area Map 0 28.66 57.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map mayor may not be accurate, WGS_1984_Web _Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION to Legend c Creeks E Seismic Hazard Areas LV 0 Earth Subsidence and Landslide) to 0 L i Minimum Buffer Adjacent to Has D C00 Wetlands o N Wetlands Boundary Z — Wetlara goundartes Not Completel i, n _ Wetland Known Extents fn Floodplains O O Storm Catch Basins E t o poll ot•`,,�r val�•_5-• V fC ■ yes Q Storm Manholes 'a C � =atl other values'r M r Yes r L O Q 0 Detention Facilities O Culvert colt other values Yes Facility Feature O O = Creeks 00 T" Storm Line CD N — �atl other Yalues� Z J Yes 11 Facility Lines r d �....._ n�._s. E tU Notes Q CRA20180214 23830 Edmonds Way Packet Pg. 194 7.1.a E U Edmonds Utilities Consortium ........................................ CUSTOMER - EUC CONTACT Form ti......................................... A coordinated utility environment which maximizes joint utility opportunities to provide quality service for the citizens of Edmonds YOU WILL BE GIVEN A CONFIRMATION NUMBER BY EACHUTILITY ONCE YOU HAVE INFORMED THEM OF YOUR PROJECT. SITE ADDRESS: FOUND # Mary McAllister - 425-670-3216 You will need to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service Questionnaire. PUGET SOUND # ENERGY New Customer Construction Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. You will need to Department - 1-888-321-7779 provide parcel number, contact phone number and mailing address. er, vNel�arne So 7hc Nawrroniicr You will need to provide Frontier with the location of your project, total line requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your Jeremy Fallt - 425.263-4024 development plan may be required. You will need to provide Comcast with the location of your project, a copy of your development and site plan (digital copy if available.) The date in which John Warrick 425 263-5328 service is required and a list of contact names, phone numbers 8z mailing addresses. �yµPIC VIF6b $ StwEa 425-774-7769 You will need to provide OVWSD with the survey map of your site and For customers in Olympic View Service Area complete a development information form. .y N O U c O E W CD to O O O 0 N Z J a THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF PERMIT SUBMITTAL Packet Pg. 195 ATTACHMENT 10 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'fly 1S9V January 10, 2019 Haynes Lund, HWL Architects LLC 385 101't Ave. SE. Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Letter of Completeness and Request for Additional Information Edmonds Crossing Apartments Design Review Application PLN20180069 Dear Mr. Lund, The City of Edmonds has reviewed the design review application for the proposed 10-unit Edmonds Crossing Apartments located at 23830 Edmonds Way for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. The City has determined that the application meets the procedural submission requirements and therefore is complete. Please accept this letter as the City's notice to applicant of determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. While the application is procedurally complete, additional information and clarifications are needed for continued review of the application. Please respond to the following so review of this application may proceed: Planning Division Comments: 1. Height: a. Height Calculations: Please expand and revise the height rectangle and calculations to include the decks as depicted on the building elevations along the east (Edmonds Way) and north (to parking lot) elevations and site plan. Please see the enclosed handout B41 Height Calculation Information for more details regarding height calculations. b. Elevation Views: Update as necessary with any changes to the height calculation as noted above. 2. Elevation: a. On sheet A30 please clarify the west elevation (0), it's unclear where the decks would be located in relation to the proposed floor plans and site plan. I understand that that multi -level decks are proposed along the north parking lot elevation, however the decks that have been omitted seems out of place. Please correct the plans as necessary. All decks must be included on the site plan to verify setbacks, height and lot coverage. ATTACHMENT 11 Packet Pg. 196 7.1.a 3. Setbacks: a. A retaining wall is proposed along the property boundary adjacent to the parking lot as shown on sheet C3.0 and L-1.0, please note that retaining walls may not be greater than 3 feet from original grade within the required setback area. Information has not been provided to verify the height of the retaining wall, please provide additional information. 4. Lot Coverage: a. It appears that the site will be well below the maximum lot coverage of 45%, however please note that lot coverage includes any upper level decks. Per ECDC 21.15.110 Coverage means the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. Please make any necessary changes to the lot coverage information provided. 5. Landscaping: a. Type III Landscaping: i. Type III landscaping along the northern property boundary adjacent to the proposed parking lot does not appear to be consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements. Trees are required at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center with no more than 50% being deciduous. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and living ground cover should cover the ground within three years of planting. Please ensure the proposed landscaping is consistent with the Type III landscaping requirements as detailed in in ECDC 20.13.030.C. ii. Type III landscaping along the eastern property between the front of the building and Edmonds Way appears to meet the intent of the landscaping requirements, however all the proposed trees are deciduous. If you would like to propose only deciduous trees, which is not consistent with ECDC 20.13.030.C, note that the Architectural Design Board may interpret and modify the landscaping requirements. Please revise or submit in writing how the deviation complies with ECDC 20.10.000, see section c. below. b. Type V Landscaping: i. Total amount: In calculating the required amount of Type V landscaping from the number of exterior parking spaces (16 spaces), 280 square feet of Type V landscaping is required (17.5 square feet per parking stall pursuant to ECDC 20.13.030.E). The landscape plan does not show the area provided for the Type V landscaping, please provide. Note that calculated areas may not be used more than once, so the type III landscape area may not also be counted for the Type V area. Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 197 7.1.a ii. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in any direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one-half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. iii. Minimum size of planting areas: Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.030.E.2.e the minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. Please ensure all the Type V planter areas are consistent the requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.E.2. c. Deviation from landscaping standards: i. ECDC 20.13.000 allows the Architectural Design Board to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13; provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. If the project proposes modifications of the landscaping requirements detailed in ECDC 20.13, please identify the proposed modifications and demonstrate how the proposed modifications are consistent with ECDC 20.10.000. 6. Parking: a. Parking Stall Dimensions: The angled parking space appears to be only 7.5 feet wide. The minimum parking width required is 8.5 feet by 16.5 feet. See Figure 18-2 of section ECDC 18.95.030. In order to use compact parking spaces, pursuant to ECDC 18.95.020. Lb(1) it must first be demonstrated that sufficient parking area is available to provide all required parking spaces at the full width dimensions. Either revise the plan so all parking spaces are full width, or if the intent is to provide compact parking spaces, please provide a plan demonstrating that the required parking can be provided at the full width dimensions as noted in ECDC 18.95.020. Lb(2). Note that compact parking spaces can be no narrower than 8 feet in width. 7. Signage: Page 3 of the cover letter #A.10 "Signage" states that no signage is contemplated at this time however see sheet A30 is referenced, please clarify if any signage is proposed. 8. Lighting plan: The lighting plan appears to only evaluate the proposed light poles within the vicinity of the parking area. The lighting plan should evaluate all exterior lighting associated with the development. The cover letter submitted with the application states that lighting will also be provided along pathways to the building, walkways within the structure, and at all unit entries. Please provide a lighting plan including exterior lighting, lighting location, height and style of fixtures and intensity of illumination. A complete lighting plan is necessary to evaluation design review criteria ECDC 20.11.030.B.8. 9. General Notes: a. Power vault is not shown on the landscape plan, if to be located within landscaping areas show on the plan and note that utilities should be screened from view at street level pursuant to ECDC 20.11.030.A.3. Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 198 7.1.a b. There are two Dashed lines provided on the civil plan sets, one appears to be the setback line and I'm unclear what the other dashed line represents, please label or eliminate unnecessary lines. Public Works — Recycling Coordinator: The applicant has successfully reconfigured the driveway entry area to accommodate waste collection trucks so to ensure that they are fully onto the property and off of Edmonds Way. The applicant needs to show a designated outside area where waste containers are to be staged and safely accessed for service. This area can be a flat widened sidewalk near to where the truck is situated. Containers will otherwise be housed inside a designated room that is to be used by residents. Please contact Steve Fisher at 425-771-0235 or by email at Steve.Fisher(kedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding comments. General Engineering Division Comments: For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary civil plans for feasibility. The following comments are provided by Engineering Technician, JoAnne Zulauf. Please contact JoAnne directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at JoAnne.zulaufgedmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding her comments. Frontage Improvements and Access: a. Edmonds Way corridor requires 4 ft landscape strip with street trees and a 5 ft sidewalk. Please show street trees in the landscape strip. Trees shall be 45 ft on center and spaced evenly across the frontage. Considering the wider accesses designed, a tree in the landscape area in the center of the "island" and then two trees on the longer frontage to the east will work the best spaced as evenly as possible. Utility locations may need to be adjusted to accommodate this. Please note on the plan "The species shall be determined at a later date by the Parks Manager." b. Sidewalk improvements shall be implemented across full frontage of property, transitions to existing conditions shall fall outside of the property frontage. Please extend sidewalk and landscape strip on the east end of frontage and begin transition after the property line. c. Please show curb ramp improvements at each side of the access points, and at the west and east ends of the property if needed to transition to existing elevations. d. Please confirm that the DCDVA can fit in the landscape area. Provide approximate vault dimensions 2. Utility. Pryor Information: a. Please complete a utility purveyor account number sheet (EUC Contact form City handout #28 available on the city website) and provide with resubmission. 3. Water and Sewer: a. Water and sewer utilities fall under the purview of the Olympic View Water & Sewer District. Please provide confirmation that OVWSD has been made aware of the proposed project and that the proposal is found to be feasible from their perspective. This can be in the form of an account number assigned by OVWSD to your project to complete the EUC utility handout form mentioned above. Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 199 7.1.a Stormwater Engineer Comments: City Stormwater Engineer, Zachary Richardson. Please contact Zack directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Zachary.richardson(c�r�,edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. A preliminary storm drainage report and plan shall be submitted to the City to confirm project feasibility. Stormwater management shall be provided consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 and the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual. Refer to Stormwater Addendum, Appendices and Checklists for additional information. Fire Department Comments: South County Fire provided the following comments: 1. Require access width and turning radii to conform to South County Fire access standards. 2. Require Fire lane Markings to conform to Fire Lane marking standards. (Attached) 3. Require Knox key box to conform to access standards. (Attached) 4. Deferred Fire alarm and Sprinklers. (Attached) Comments 2 — 4 may be addressed with the subsequent building permit submittal. Comment 1 needs to be address now as it may impact the overall layout of the site. Please show the turning radius on sheet C2.0 as specified in the attached Fire Land Standards. Please contact Karl Fitterer directly at 425-771-0213 or by email at Karl.Fitterer(ab,edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. According to ECDC 20.02.003.D, the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days (or by April 10, 2019) or the application will expire. Since the application has been determined to be procedurally complete, a notice of application will be posted on the subject property and mailed to adjacent property owners within the next two weeks consistent with ECDC 20.03.002. If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at mchele. szafrankedmondswa. gov. Sincerely, Michele Q. kafran/Planner Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 200 7.1.a OV E D,y�o city of edmonds development information Inc. 1890 Height Calculation Information PROCEDURE: Height must be calculated prior to any on -site grading or alteration of topography. It is understood that in rare occasions vegetation may have to be removed in order to gain access to grade. On formal subdivisions of property, a topography map is usually included in the recorded documents on file with Snohomish County or City of Edmonds. It is highly recommended that applicants utilize these maps for determination of height. To determine the maximum height permitted on a site, stake out the smallest rectangle (within the boundaries of the site) that encompasses all four corners of the proposed building outline/building pad at original, undisturbed soil. 2. Projections such as bay windows must be included within this rectangle. Exemptions: Chimneys and eaves projecting no more than 30 inches from the exterior wall of the building and uncovered decks. 3. Select a datum point to establish a starting mark to compute grade elevations at the designated four corners. The datum point must be a permanent point of reference. Use the top of a manhole cover, fire hydrant, or street monument. Reference the datum point elevation at +100. On the site plan describe the datum point and show its location and elevation. 4. Calculate the difference in elevation from the datum point to each corner of the rectangle (above or below the starting elevation of +100) at original, undisturbed soil. Next, add the four corner elevations together and divide by a factor of 4 to determine the average grade of the building pad. On the site plan show the elevations of the four corners and show the calculations of average grade. 5. Take the average grade number and add the maximum allowable height per the specified zoning district. This elevation is the maximum height allowed for the proposed location of the building. In the attached example, the single family average grade is +102.5, add +25 feet, for a maximum height of +127.5. As shown on the plot plan the actual height of the building is +125. Be sure the average grade, maximum allowed height and actual height are noted on the plot plan and elevation view. 6. As in the example on the submitted plot plan show all height calculations, the elevation of each corner, the datum point, the average grade, the maximum height allowed and the actual height of the building, and on one of the elevation views within the architectural plans, show the average grade, the maximum height allowed, and the actual height of the building. Revised 9/2010 Packet Pg. 201 #B 41 7. Height field verification shall be done by the applicant's agent/contractor and `observed' by the building inspector. The agent/contractor shall set up the equipment; establish the datum point and the point of average grade. These items must be consistent with the approved plan. If the proposed height of a building (as shown on the plans) is within 12 inches of the maximum height permitted for the zone an elevation survey is required. An elevation survey consists of three components, to be conducted by a licensed surveyor. • Prior to construction the surveyor shall establish average grade as specified in ECDC 21.40.030, and shall establish a reference datum point that will be undisturbed and can be freely accessed. • The surveyor shall locate the elevation of the first floor prior to the City under -floor inspection, • A final letter of height confirmation shall be provided upon completion of the structure Revised 9/2010 Packet Pg. 202 I 7.1.a Property Owner Name Property Address SAMPLE PLOT PLAN Tax Account Parcel # Scale: 1"=20' '-108 +cos IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS (SOLID SURFACES) -i 1 06 Exist. Building Roof Outline: 2200 sf. (constr. in 1962) Existing Covered Porch: 75 sf. (constructed in 1962) +1 04 ' Existing Driveway: 610 sf. (constructed in 1987) +1 2 / Existing Patio: 200 sf. (constructed in 1985) { Proposed Addition: 440 sf. Proposed Garage: 500 sf. 4 Proposed Deck: 90 sf. HEIGHT CALCS A = +99' B = +107' C = +100' D =+105' AVE GRADE = 302.75' ACTUAL = 123' MAXIMUM=127.75' LOT COVERAGE: I i a VA 4 +99 �� k 4 28-0 B • �6% +99'i :+107 - I I 3515 SQ.FT. (26%) .' LOT AREA: 13,527 SQ.FT. LOT SLOPE: 13 % of N r I I I I Existing Rockery \ Existing ' 25'-0" 1 Existing Residence Fuotm9�-1 Elevate W I I Concrete Patiol 2000 sq.ft. = A I r I � I I d o I Ii '¢ ''.cy I I . t Existing : d - Grade ' IeW 97rY7 agfr Contours t� i I Lon'urFno��k'r+h h � IN C} I 4E< I^ — — R t { l i Existing x t,3 Asphalt Driveway Slope 6 % ' I -, �3 ' Ico fs. 100, Sidewalk +� �. n Telephone Pole ® OopofDATUM PT. +100' ® Center Right -of -Way T ss Top of SS Manhole Cover L'\temp\building\handout\addi6on\plot.vsd 7104 ®Aq H M NT A 171 C .N N 0 V N c O w CD to O 0 00 0 N Z J a, - Revised 6/2009 Packet Pg. 2 3 7.1.a Ou roof SOUTH ELEVATION L:\temp\building\handout\addition\elev.vsd-4100 ATTACHMENT E Revised 6/2009 Packet Pg. 204 7.1.a OF EDP 0 Updated: Jan 2018 NOTE: Detailed plans must be submitted, and approved, prior to painting any new fire lane or modifying any existing fire lane. Fire Lanes must: 1) Be a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. *Fire lanes shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide in the immediate vicinity of any building over 30 feet in height above grade. Such fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the building. 2) Provide Fire Department access to within 150 feet of any portion of an un-sprinkled building. In buildings that provided with an automatic sprinkler, access may be increased, at the discretion of the Fire Marshal. 3) Provide Fire Department access to all on -site fire hydrants and fire department connections (FDC) for sprinkler and standpipe. A hydrant must be located to within 25' of a fire department connection. 4) Have adequate turning radius to allow maneuvering of fire apparatus: inside radius 25 feet; outside radius 45 feet. 5) Be circulating or have an approved turn -around if over 150 feet long. Have grades of no more than 12%. 6) Be paved with asphalt or approved equivalent and be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 7) Be marked with words "FIRE LANE — NO PARKING." Words to be painted on the pavement inside the lane. Letters to be a minimum of 12" high, 2" stroke, yellow in color, and alternately spaced every 50 feet. 8) Have perimeter striping/curbing to delineate the boundaries of the Fire Lane. Striping to be a minimum of 4 inches wide and striping/curbing to be yellow in color. 9) When required by the Fire Marshal, signs shall be used in addition to or in lieu of striping. Signs, when approved, shall meet the following requirements: a) Size: 18" high x 12" wide (min.) b) Mounting: Bottom of sign 48" to 60" above grade. c) Style: Industry standard (Vulcan %7-6-9, Rainbow 01-527, EMED TC 18816 or approved equivalent). d) Color: Red lettering on white background e) Spacing: 50' between signs or as required by Fire Marshal. 10) Fire lanes shall be established by these requirements to provide access to buildings during construction, alteration or demolition. Fire Code Supplemental Rules and Regulations are designated interpretations of the adopted International Fire Code, Edmonds Community Development Code and national standards allowed by IFC 102.7,102.8 and 102.9 and ECDC 19.25 which provide specifics and details to aid in conformance with the intent of the governing laws, statutes, ordinances and fire- and life safety -related requirements. Packet Pg. 205 1 OF EDP � O v MOU NTLAKE E. RACE Fire Prevention Series Emergency Access Standard Emergency Access Standard: The intent of this guideline is to define Snohomish County Fire District 1's Emergency Access Standard and to provide guidelines for its use and maintenance. The Emergency Access Standard is designed to give authorized Fire Department personnel access to keys for the protected occupancy whether vacant or occupied. This allows Department personnel to quickly gain access to buildings during an emergency and prevents the damage caused by forcible entry. The Department requires a key access system for all occupancies in which there is a fire protection system such as: sprinklers, fire alarm, special protection systems, etc., or where access and other conditions are determined to be unduly difficult. This is based on the rationale that rapid and efficient emergency operations will benefit the occupant by reducing property damage. Knox brand products are the only approved key access system for Snohomish County Fire District 1 area of response, including contract cities of Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. The Emergency Access Standard within Snohomish County Fire District 1 includes Knox Key Boxes, Knox Padlocks, and Knox Key Switches. In this procedure the term Knox Box may refer to any of the three types of Knox products listed above. Emergency Access Requirements: A Knox box shall be provided at the main entrance of buildings with interior common areas. An additional Knox box shall be provided at the exterior entrance to sprinkler riser/fire alarm control panel (FACP) rooms and other locations deemed necessary for building access. Once the Knox boxes are received, it is recommended that the contractor/owner discuss box placement approval with the Fire Marshal, or Deputy Fire Marshal. Typically boxes are located to the right of the main entrance door and/or Fire Alarm Control Panel/Fire Riser Room door. Boxes will be placed 5-6' above finished grade. Building Owners should provide the following keys depending on the requirements determined for the premises, and may include: 1. Main entrance (or Master) 2. Interior access (if no Master) 3. Fire sprinkler riser room/fire alarm control panel access 4. Electrical, mechanical, and elevator rooms 5. Fire alarm control panel/manual pull stations 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrictl.org Packet Pg. 206 Ad�w��, je*%6, LATERRACE F COUNTY MOUNTLAKE RE 6. Electronic/magnetic key cards OF EDP � O v On multiple -storied and larger buildings, additional keys may be necessary, for instance, providing roof hatch access or, sets of keys anticipated for multiple firefighting crews. The building Owner/Contractor should contact the Fire Prevention Office to discuss the required Knox box for their building/complex or situation. The Owner/Contractor will use the online ordering system at www.knoxbox.com to order Knox boxes. A more detailed guide for ordering is available from the Fire Prevention Office. Snohomish County Fire District 1's required Knox boxes include the 3200 Series boxes WITH HINGE. For facilities requiring a larger number of keys or magnetic cards etc, a 4400 Series box may be required. GATES ACROSS FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS Residential - Multi-Family/Private Community Access - Gates across public and private fire department access roads where serving more than two dwellings must meet the following requirements/design: 1. Must have automatic opening feature activated by Opticom compatible or other approved receivers that override all other opening systems. 2. Must have an approved Knox key switch which will be located on the entrance side of the gate. 3. Must have battery back-up or be designed with fail safe mode allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment or default to the open position. 4. In private communities where access is existing, any new gates must meet 100% approval from protected property owners. Residential — 1 and 2 Family Dwelling Access - Gates that obstruct Fire Department access roads/driveways that serve one or two dwellings and that are electrically operated, shall meet the following requirements/design: 1. Where gates are electric, must have an approved Knox key switch which will be conspicuously located at the entrance side of the gate. Non -electric gates may be accessed using requirements for "Occupancies other than residential" below. 2. Where gates are electric, must have battery back-up or be designed with fail safe mode when primary power is lost, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment or default to the open position. 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrict1.org Packet Pg. 207 X MOU NTLAKE TERRACE OF EDP � O v 3. Access gates must meet unanimous approval from protected property owners where access is existing. Occupancies Other Than Residential - Gates that obstruct Fire Department access roads must meet the following requirements/design: Electrically Operated Gates - The gate control shall be operable by an approved Knox key switch located conspicuously at the entrance side of the gate. In the event of a power failure, the gate shall automatically be transferred to a fail-safe mode allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment or default to the open position. In all occupancies, where approved, manually operated gates and barriers may utilize Knox padlocks. Approval is provided normally where conditions are such that delays in gate opening are not deemed as a priority for access urgency. On new construction, all Knox equipment shall be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Building owners will assure that access equipment is maintained and contact Fire District 1 where locks are re -keyed and conditions for emergency access is modified FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) ACCESS — Locking caps are not required for new or existing construction, but may be used where problems of theft and vandalism are occurring, on a case by case basis. Contact the Fire Prevention Office for more information. Edition: April 2017 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrictl.org Packet Pg. 208 7.1.a FDC Standard Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal, All FDC connections will be a 4 inch Storz type fitting, on a 30 degree elbow and away from the building. The FDC Connection shall be within 50 feet of a hydrant. The upright piping will be painted red and labeled with a minimum of four inch white numbering denoting the building address. All existing 2 1/2 inch "Y" fittings will be upgraded upon building improvements to the Storz type connection. Signage may be necessary to show where existing connections are located. 1 1 FD IFC 912.2.2 Wherever the fire department connection is not visible to approaching fire apparatus, the fire department connection shall be indicated by an approved sign mounted on the street front or on the side of the building. Such sign shall have the letters "FDC' at least 6 inches(152 mm) high and words in letters at least 2 inches (51 mm) high or an arrow to indicate the location. All such signs shall be subject to the approval of the fire code official. Product Description FDC Building Connection 4" Storz x 4" rigid female National Pipe Thread (NPT) Elbow. Features Secure Cap, Screen and Chain. Enables quick connections of hose by fire department to supplement fire sprinkler or standpipe system. color is powder coat black and silver. Other colors are available. Specifications • Forged storz heads with stainless steel locks • Aluminum extruded connections • Laser etching available • Exceeds NFPA 1963 requirements • Manufactured and assembled in the US • Rated pressure 200 psi • Nitrile gasket • Other choices - Hard coat, K-chrome and K-brass • "A" dimension - 7 7/8" • UL Listed UL Listed Manufactured to higher tolerances Precision Metal Face - no gasket needed • Cap features weep hole with 30 Degree large diameter The standard 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrict1.org a� .N N O L U c O E W to CD 0 Go 0 N Z J a Packet Pg. 209 7.1.a Notice of Application and SEPA Determination - File Numbers PLN20180069 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The 10 units are proposed in a new three (3) story building with a mix of studios, 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Parking for the units will be located adjacent to the building along the northwestern property boundary and access to the proposed development will be taken off of Edmonds Way. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III-B decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Name of Applicant: Haynes Lund, HWL Architects LLC Location: 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00463301000302 File Nos.: PLN20180069 (Design Review) Date of Application: December 13, 2018 Date of Notice: January 22, 2019 Date of Completeness: January 10, 2019 Requested Permits: Design Review. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. Other Required Permits: Building permits. Required Studies: None Existing Environmental Documents: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist Comments on Proposal Due: February 5, 2019. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 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. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from 8:30 a.m. to noon. Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen . Search under permit file number PLN20180069. City Contact: Michele Q. Szafran, (425) 771-0220, michele.szafrankedmondswa.gov STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed subdivision (File Nos. PLN20180069). SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. Date of Issuance: January 22, 2019 SEPA Comments Due: February 5, 2019 SEPA Appeal Deadline: February 12, 2019 at 4:00 p.m Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. ATTACHMENT 12 Packet Pg. 210 f } a W P J Z j e RZO m WO Ali laifAMfApN H<< W CO H Q T Z G Z J Z 0 s l i Z Q a =CVpcOa Y Z ' f III l W J J c .N N O L U w c O E LU rn 0 0 0 0 0 N Z J IL Packet Pg. 211 7.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180069 Applicant: Haynes Lund DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 22"d day of January, 2019, the attached Notice of Application 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, Debbie Rothfus, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 22"d day of January, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: .� {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 212 7.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180069 Applicant: Haynes Lund DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 22nd day of January, 2019, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Michele Q. Szafran, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 22"d day of January, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: i {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 213 Everett Daily Herald 7.1.a Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH842073 PLN20180069 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 01/22/2019 and ending on 01/22/2019 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee CO) such publication is $101.48. -��,\ti1\\11111 i I11 P 1-8 to J,r►h► Subscribed and sworn before me on this 44Np, `,ySON t`4-10+.,�p �rA _Z g'(A�r ?0 V, day of r ' W • i ►►►il i oF1 WAs` Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 MICHELE SZAFRAN Packet Pg. 214 7.1.a Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS Notice of RppHca4Dn a rd SERA Detrtrmina Elen - Fll0 Nurnballe PLN20180069 NOTICE OF APPLICATION Descn Df -uni mu -aI' The 'ant aalnfo construct a m apprng. The 10npaisopadp units are proposed In a new three (3) story busing with a mix of sludios, f-badrpom and 2-hadmorn units. Parking for the units will be iocaled adjacent to Ise building along Ino nonrtwasiom property boundarryy end access 10 (her proposed development will be Iaken Off dt a Iorgs way. Daslgn feview projacto which I110gar SEPA are Type lit-8 tloclsbna- The site Is located within the R 1 0 Zone (One dwaaing unit per 1,500 square feet of lot areal. Name off A licartt; Hayrus Lund, HWL Architects LLC DCarleL n. 23830 Edmonds WAY. EdmorM. WA DM;Ea a aV;. Ja nuary 10, 2019 ale 0 ca- if V. U. 2019 e ues ermi s: 4aalgn Review, Notice of Public Hearing will be pfov dea once a dote has been scheduled. OlherReatilred Pannitr Sullding permlla. a di NOno r Jr ir"ut phq,FomBlr7ffi; Critical Areas Detarmination. PA Erne rorlmen Comments on Amdbs�I Due Fab;bary 5, 2019. any person as I r grit to comment on WB appaca0on during the pubhc comment pari d, receive naf is and pafoclpale in any hearings. and request a copy of the decision on the application Tart Crly may accept pubim comments at any ume prior to the Claamg al the reLOfd of an open record pfedecieion haaning, mf any, Or, It nO open record pradneision hearing is provided, prior 10 the decision on the project perms. Only yantoa tecofd se defmad In ECOC 20.07 003 have elanding la AVoT. an a"Irlialrati" appeal. Information on this deveto ant aWallon can bB vid%vd of obtained at the City of Edindnds Devalopment Services 0eparlmonl, 121 - 61h Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fr;days from 8:00 a.m. to 4-30 pso., and Wednesdays from 830 am to neon Information can also be viewed Cfiune Through hie Cihys website at nSe n its.edm ndam ictttx . Search under permit file nlm r Pf.N T UUUMP C1ty Cp nlaia_ Michele 0 Szafran, (425) 771-0220, ACT lSEPAh NOTICE his City of Edmonda Is SEPA lead agency for the haon (File Not. PLN20180069) iii pry Notice Is hereby given that the City at fiance. January ?2, 2019 merits DUR' FebnAaty S, 2019 edI DDadtlna: Fadfuanf 12. 2019 DU o.m Appeals rd in writlng C g I spec lessons f Apjwa with d fee to the CIIyy of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 - Edmonds, WA $6020. January 22, 2019, EDH842073 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 01/22/2019 08:31:45 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 215 7.1.a YEN SHIU POO AYERS GERRIT R DAWSON LINDA 14611 13TH AVE SE PO BOX 459 PO BOX 846 MILL CREEK, WA 98012-5519 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 ROBINSON JENNA CURTIS TAMARA L KARNER KATHY PO BOX 1013 8719 238TH ST SW #13-1 8629 240TH ST SW C-2 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 GIUSTI RIANA/POTVIN RYAN HARLOWE JOHN D JODAR DAVID 8606 238TH ST SW 8809 240TH S W 8717 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 KNOTT MICHELLE/MICHAEL W NICKEL KENT C & TAMMY S ROBERTS ELIZABETH 8725 240TH ST SW 23822 86TH AVE W 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 206 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 CHEN BAOQUAN/WU XIAOYAN MCCOY CHRISTINA TERRENZIO LAURA C 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 303 8614 238TH ST SW #306 8713 238TH ST SW #A1 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 WAHLMEIER PATRICK J/HURD CLARK BRENT A & APRIL L WAALE VIENNA M ANNA L 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A3 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A6 8713 238TH ST SW # A 2 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 OSWALD LAURALEE N CLAUSEN BRENNA L CLIFFORD MICHAEL L/JOANNE 8713 238TH ST SW #A7 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A9 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A10 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 AUGENBRAUN JEANNE LEE RICHARD/MAHONEY HARRIS AMANDA C 8713 238ST SW A-11 KATHERINE 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-4 EDMONDS, WA 98026 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B3 EDMONDS, IAIA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 WEBB ARLA K TTEE NIELSEN ALBERTA MORGAN EAMON 8719 238TH ST SW # B6 8719 238TH SW #137 8711 231ST ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 RIGGS STEPHEN ELSON BAKER JERALD R YIN HONGJING 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C5 8723 238TH STREET SW UNIT C7 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT Al EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 Packet Pg. 216 7.1.a DAVIS KEVIN P/LYNNETTE K STENBERG ANDREA R RICE EMILY J/ROGERS 8629 240TH ST SW #A2 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT A5 JOHN/PAMELA G EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT A6 EDMONDS, WA 98026 TOM JAMIE YUAN CAN KERCI ENDRI/SAMOYLENKO 8629 240TH ST SW #131 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT B3 EKATERINA EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 8629 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 SMITH GREG BAYLESS JON J / LINDA C MILES EDWARD J 8629 240TH ST SW # B5 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT B 6 8629 240TH ST SW #C1 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 SYMONS CHANDLER D BRYSON JOAN E MIN JOON K 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT C-3 8629 240TH ST SW C-4 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT A2 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 WANG CHRISTINA TSERING TASHI/WANGMO MCLEOD SARAH/ GREG 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT 3 NGODUP 8828 238TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT A4 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 GEORGE STEVEN B MADRID ANGELINE HEMPELMANN JENNIFER 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT B2 8828 238TH ST SW #134 8828 238TH ST SW C2 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 LIM ALYS E H SCHULD JENNIFER L HALL JACQUELINE A 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT C3 8828 238TH ST SW #D2 8828 238TH ST SW # D4 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 DODD CHARLES K JR DEVOLI RANDOLPH J/ROBIN HINTZEN BARBARA 8828 238TH ST SW # D5 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT D6 22617 87TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, V'JA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8228 GEBREHANNA NURILIGN HEINE SHARON K TOFTDAHL DUSTIN W & RACHE 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT A-1 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT B3 E EDMONDS, WA 98026-8909 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8909 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT Cl EDMONDS, WA 98026-8909 ROBERTSON WILLIAM A SONG JACK/THERESIA BOERNER LYNN M 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT C4 8828 238TH ST SW UNIT D3 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A-4 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8909 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8909 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8916 Packet Pg. 217 7.1.a MCLEOD DONNA A 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A-5 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8916 HAYNES MECHELLE & NAM JONGHOON 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 102 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 HAAGA TERESA G 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 105 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 REYES JUAN 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 204 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8948 DUENAS PAUL F 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 302 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 THOMAS TERESA 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-2 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 KUSTER KAREN 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-9 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 VERNON VICTORIA V 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A-8 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8916 HUSSEN SANI/YIFIRU MULU 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 103 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 JANSSEN MARCELLA M 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 106 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 GHERMAN DIANE E 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 205 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8948 AMUNDSEN CAROL J 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 304 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 DEEGAN SHANE P 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-5 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 SHARMA ABHA 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-10 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 GREENFIELD-MATHISON ROBIN HOOPER ALAN K K 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-4 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-3 EDM0NDS, vv' l 98026-8982 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 ZINGLER KARI 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-11 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 ZAHARCHENKO ARTEM A & URBASIRENA 8729 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9018 PRATT DAVID T & LISA J 23828 86TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026-9000 NORDEEN KEVIN R 8805 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9019 THOMAS MARLENE S 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 101 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 CHRISMAN LORI A 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 105 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 KUONEN WILLIAM D 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 203 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8948 AL-QURISHI HAMED ALI & ERA 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 301 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 HERRING JENNIFER 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 305 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 BESS TERESA C 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-8 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 BULANYY IGOR & BULANA VALENTINA 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-2 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 MICHAELS SHEILA/ TRACY 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-8 EDMONDS, IAIIA 98026-8982 REMEDIOS A P 8721 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9018 ANSTEAD DAVID 8801240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9019 a� .y N O U c O E w a� 0 0 Co 0 N Z J a Packet Pg. 218 7.1.a STEWART SYLVIA B 8819 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9019 TUTTLE ELIZABETH C 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT A4 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 ADAM ELLIE 8028 238TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9265 EDMONDS WAY LAW CENTER LLC 23901 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026-9024 CHANG KANGOK L 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT B2 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 GERLACH DAVID PHILIP/ELIZABETH RAE 23318 29TH AVE W BRIER, WA 98036 SUNDE THOR ASAF AUDINEH C & DIAS 24225 85TH AVE SE RAFAEL/ASAF MOHAMM WOODINVILLE, WA 98072-9525 4104164TH ST SW UNIT 301 LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 MCCALLISTER TERRY 1702 192ND ST SHORELINE, WA 98155 GORONCZY KATHLEEN M TTEE 2 WHISPERING CEDARS CT BELLINGHAM, WA 98229-2794 GOLDEN ART LP 2614 COLBY AVE #1 EVERETT, WA 98201 CHEN SAM & HUA LAI 18421 36TH AVE SE BOTHELL, WA 98012 ZISSERMANN ANDREY D & KATHERINE L 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT A3 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 AOKI AYUMI J 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT C5 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 KUEHNESTEPHEN 6306 234TH ST SW MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 MACHARIA KAREN 1415 N 200TH ST #136 SHORELINE, WA 98133 REYNOLDS THURMAN & PRISCILLA 8621 VISTARAMA AVE EVERETT, WA 98208-3539 Packet Pg. 219 7.1.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. w 2016 1 L v DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided were supplied by the Office of the Assessor of Snohomish County and appear to represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. igna ur f Applicant or Applicant's Representativ/e,,, Subscribed and sworn to before me this c2 day of AIoWIV�� Notary Public in an(yfor the State of Washington Residing at Revised on 9130111 P2 -Adjacent Property Owners List State of ,ns� CLAUDIAIMIKELA g0HZ 01i M Y COMMISSION he M,g"Es June 11, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 220 February 22, 2019 City of Edmonds Attn: Michele Szafran 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Edmonds Crossing Apartments 23830 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Design Review Application PLN20180069 Dear Ms. Szafran: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter dated 1/10/2019 requesting additional information on the above referenced Design Review Application. We have described our responses to your comments below, and in the attached letter from SDA, dated 2/19/2019. The changes to the project that are described in these letters have all been clouded on the drawings that are included with this re -submittal. Plannine Division Comments: Height: The building height calculations on Sheet A02 have been modified to incorporate the decks into the rectangle encompassing the building. The average grade has been adjusted according to the new calculation. The finished floor elevation for the ground level has been revised so that the total height of the building conforms to the height limitations. 2. Elevation: Sheet A30 has been modified to add a northwest elevation which shows the decks at the 2- bedroom units. The decks are also shown on the southwest elevation. All decks are shown on the plans. 3. Setbacks: Sheet C3.0 has been modified to show the height of the retaining wall within the setback conforms to the 3' height limitation. Note that the retaining wall now has been moved to align with the curb line for the parking in order to provide sufficient planting area for trees. 4. Lot Coverage: Notes have been added to Sheet A01 to show the lot coverage calculation. The area of the building includes the areas of decks. 22 February 2019 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC rage a� .y N O L U c 0 E w a� 0 0 0 cw 0 N z J d ATTACHMENT 13 Packet Pg. 221 7.1.a 5. Landscaping: A. Type III Landscaping: I. The retaining wall has been changed in this area to allow for more planting. Trees and shrubs have been added. Planting reflects type III requirements. II. Plan has been revised to show 50% Deciduous trees. Planting reflects type III requirements. B. Type V landscaping i. Type V areas have been delineated on the plan. ii. Type V areas have been delineated on the plan. Square footage area exceeds required square footage. iii. Size of planting areas for type V are listed on plans. C. No deviations from landscaping standards are proposed. 6. Parking: Notes have been added to Sheet C2.0 to show that all parking stalls conform to the City's required dimensions for full sized stalls. 7. Signage: Sheet A30 has been modified to add the address number on the front of the building. That is the only signage for this project that is proposed at this time. 8. Lighting Plan: A new Sheet E1 has been added to the set which replaces the previous Site Lighting plan. The new drawing shows the light levels for the walkways to the building as well as the spillage beyond the parking area. 9. General Notes: a. The tentative power vault location has been indicated at the north corner of the site on both Sheet C4.0 and Sheet 1-1.0. We are assuming at this time that the power connection will be an underground pull vault. b. The second dashed line on the civil plans has been removed. The remaining dashed line indicates the required building setback and it is noted as such on Sheet C2.0. Public Works — Recvchne Coordinator A note has been added to Sheet A20 to indicate the designated area for trash & recycling staging for pickup. This area will be constructed as a concrete sidewalk. 22 February 2019 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC page 2 Packet Pg. 222 7.1.a General Engineering Division Comments: 1. Frontage Improvements And Access: See SDA response letter dated 2/19/2019. 2. Utility and Purveyor Information: See SDA response letter dated 2/19/2019. 3. Water and Sewer: See SDA response letter dated 2/19/2019. Stormwater Engineer Comments 1. Preliminary storm drainage report See SDA response letter dated 2/19/2019. Fire Department Comments 1. Access width See SDA response letter dated 2/19/2019. 2. Fire lane markings See SDA response letter dated 2/19/2019. 3. Knox box We will show the knox box location on our building permit submittal. The know box location and keys will comply with the standards provided. 4. Fire Alarms and Sprinklers We will provide a separate permit application to cover the fire alarms and sprinklers for this project some time after the building permit submittal. We appreciate your prompt review of this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or require any further information. Sincerely, Haynes Lund Architect 22 February 2019 Haynes Wilson Lund Architects LLC rage 3 Packet Pg. 223 7.1.a SDA February 19, 2019 City of Edmonds ATTN: Michele Szafran 121 - 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Crossing Apartments (PLN 2018-0069) Response to Review Comments SDA PROJECT NUMBER 410-002-18 Dear Michele: We are pleased to resubmit the accompanying documents in support of the Edmonds Crossing Apartments permit application. This package is submitted in response to a notice of complete application and request for additional information, issued by the City on January 10, 2019. The request for additional information included several review comments, which have been addressed. This letter is intended to address the Engineering Division comments, Stormwater Engineer Comments, and some of the Fire Department Comments. A list of those comments is provided below (plain text), as well as a response (bold italics), to indicate how each comment was addressed: General Engineering Division Comments: Review Staff: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician 1. Frontage Improvements and Access: Edmonds Way corridor requires 4 ft landscape strip with street trees and a 5 ft sidewalk. Please show street trees in the landscape strip. Trees shall be 45 ft on center and spaced evenly across the frontage. Considering the wider accesses designed, a tree in the landscape area in the center of the "island" and then two trees on the longer frontage to the east will work the best spaced as evenly as possible. Utility locations may need to be adjusted to accommodate this. Please note on the plan "The species shall be determined at a later date by the Parks Manager." The requested planter & walk have been added. Street tree locations are shown on the preliminary civil site plan (Sheet C2.0) and the landscaping plans. b. Sidewalk improvements shall be implemented across full frontage of property, transitions to existing conditions shall fall outside of the property frontage. Please extend sidewalk and landscape strip on the east end of frontage and begin transition after the property line. The requested planter & walk have been added. c. Please show curb ramp improvements at each side of the access points, and at the west and east ends of the property if needed to transition to existing elevations. The requested curb ramp improvements have been added to the plans. a� c .y N 0 L U c 0 E w a� 0 0 cw 0 N Z J d SDA 1724 W. Marine View Drive; Suite 140 Packet Pg. 224 Everett, WA 98201 7.1.a Michele Szafran February 19, 2019 Edmonds Crossing Apartments (PLN 2018-0069) Response to Review Comments Page 2 d. Please confirm that the DCDVA can fit in the landscape area. Provide approximate vault dimensions The DCDVA won't be in the planter strip, since the existing water main is beneath the proposed sidewalk (behind the planter). The DCDVA will be installed in a traffic -rated box within the driveway. 2. Utility Purveyor Information: a. Please complete a utility purveyor account number sheet (EUC Contact form City handout #28 available on the city website) and provide with resubmission. An EUC contact form is included with this submittal. 3. Water and Sewer: a. Water and sewer utilities fall under the purview of the Olympic View Water & Sewer District. Please provide confirmation that OVWSD has been made aware of the proposed project and that the proposal is found to be feasible from their perspective. This can be in the form of an account number assigned by OVWSD to your project to complete the EUC utility handout form mentioned above. An EUC contact form with OVWSD's project number is included with this submittal. Stormwater Engineer Comments: Review Staff: Zachary Richardson 1. A preliminary storm drainage report and plan shall be submitted to the City to confirm project feasibility. Stormwater management shall be provided consistent with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 and the 2014 DOE Stormwater Manual. Refer to Stormwater Addendum, Appendices and Checklists for additional information. A preliminary drainage report is provided with this submittal. Fire Department Comments: Review Staff: Karl Fitterer, South County Fire 1. Require access width and turning radii to conform to South County Fire access standards. The Civil site plan has been revised to show 25-ft inside turning radii, and 20-ft min. width on the driveway access. The interior parking lane is less than 150-ft long, and doesn't require a turn -around. 2. Require Fire lane Markings to conform to Fire Lane marking standards. (Attached) Fire lane markings have been added to the civil site plan (Sheet C2.0). SDA 1724 W. Marine View Drive; Suite 140 Packet Pg. 225 Everett, WA 98201 7.1.a Michele Szafran February 19, 2019 Edmonds Crossing Apartments (PLN 2018-0069) Response to Review Comments Page 3 3. Require Knox key box to conform to access standards. (Attached) Comment to be addressed by others. 4. Deferred Fire alarm and Sprinklers. (Attached) Comment to be addressed by others. This concludes our responses to the City's request for information. All comments not addressed in this letter will be addressed by others in separate letters. Feel free to call with any questions, or if we can provide anything further. Sincerely, SDA Kenneth J. McIntyre, PE Senior Civil Engineer a, c .N N 0 U c 0 E w rn 0 0 0 o 0 N Z J a m. SDA 1724 W. Marine View Drive; Suite 140 Packet Pg. 226 Everett, WA 98201 7.1.a 0r EDM I� ��� CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development and associated parking. The 10 units are proposed in a new three (3) story building with a mix of a studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units. Parking for the units will be located adjacent to the building along the northwestern property boundary and access to the proposed development will be taken off of Edmonds Way. The existing residences at the site will be removed. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III-B decisions. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). PROJECT LOCATION: 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 00463301000302 NAME OF APPLICANT: Haynes Lund, HWL Architects LLC FILE NO.: PLN20180069 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing in accordance with Chapter 20.06 ECDC will be held by the Architectural Design Board on April 3, 2019 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250-5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday — Friday (8:30 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through the City's website at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for permit PLN20180069. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. CITY CONTACT: Michele Q. Szafran, Planner Michele.Szafran@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 ATTACHMENT 14 1Packet Pg. 227 7.1.a Q Packet Pg. 2 8771 Everett Daily Herald 7.1.a Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH849103 PLN20180069 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 03/20/2019 and ending on 03/20/2019 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $72.24. Subscribed and sworn before mel on this fill, day of I ` � 10 N� 4 op IOTA.? L 0'� I ¢ � E N� '• 'O\a _ p _ . /,, F WAS'(' NIS_' 11i1111111������� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416 MICHELE SZAFRAN Packet Pg. 229 Classified Proof 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The UPOOnt Is pfopdsrn9 la construct a 10-ufill multl-farrllly development ano associated panang, The 10 uhlts are proposed In a new Into (9y slory Wilding with n min of a elrfd0, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom unft, Parking for the urdis %wil be located ad}acent to 00 building akrng Ile nermweslern property boundary and acCOM to the proposed doveropmant I'll,W rIIken off of Edmonds Way. The exksbng residenua at the site writ be removed. Dbslgn review Pfbjocts which ingger SEPA are Type ul-B decislena, The site Is located within the RM•T.6 zone (Oro dwelYrq ural per 1;500 square feat of lot area]. PROJECT LOCATION: 2303ff Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Number 004633010003D2 NAME. OF APPLICANT: Yteslund HWLArchaecteLLC FILE NO,: Pt N20SB0W� P ing in accordance Awith ChaptarRING R20DO ECDC will be held MATION: A pubic rby the Amhttacturai Design board an April 3, 2019 at 7 p.m. In the Council Chumbefa located at 2545th Avenue fdor7l, Edmonds, WA 98020. Any parson has the nght to cornmani on tide appilcalinn during publicrf�JfComment ported, receive notice and polsldpatd to any arid tThe —dr tiny accept put)k comm a copy OF InD nu al any time Mon on the en- to ire 0108rn9 01 the fecdrd of an Open record predeciaion hearing, if a a, If ftd open record radecision bearing Is orovided, prior w lho decision do Ere pralxt termll, Only psmcs of record as defined in ECDG 20.07.0033 pare standlnp to InBlate an aplMal. Information on this dsvalopmeril ap kcotion can be vtowed of obtained at the City of Edmonds DeVelopmant Services Dopartrneril, 121 51h Ave NDfa1 Edmonds, WA 98020 between it. hours or 8:00 A.M. and 4:rd0 P M. Monday • Friday (8:30 AM. to 12:00 P.M. only on Wednesdays) or online through trio Cityl; wobatte at aJ rml .edmdnd .wa.uWciWan, search for permit PLN241 copy a t sta report will be avoilable at feast Bevan days prior Io the hearing. CITY CONTACT. Mieheta O. Szafron. Planner Mlchele.5zatraniaNdmonchwa.9ev 425471.0220 Published: March 20. 2al9- EDH849103 Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 03/20/2019 08:23:26 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 230 7.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180069 APPLICANT: HWL Architects LLC DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On the 20 day of March, 2019, 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. 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 20 day of March, 2019 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: ill Packet Pg. 231 7.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20180069 Applicant: HWL Architects LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 20th day of March, 2019, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Michele Q. Szafran, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 20th day of March, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Packet Pg. 232 T Jll13/\t�-®�-00�-L �Wdn-dod pjogaj al jalangj ;uawaWe4D ®09LS ®A119AV iPLN a ul a ojn ae e e zal da ap sues , ja ad a sap wo�Aane-nn� M , P 4 4 I. I 31 I I YEN SHIU POO AYERS GERRIT R DAWSON LINDA 1461113TH AVE SE PO BOX 459 PO BOX 846 MILL CREEK, WA 98012-5519 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 ROBINSON JENNA CURTIS TAMARA L KARNER KATHY PO BOX 1013 8719 238TH ST SW #13-1 8629 240TH ST SW C-2 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 GIUSTI RIANA/POTVIN RYAN HARLOWE JOHN D JODAR DAVID 8606 238TH ST SW 8809 240TH S W 8717 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 KNOTT MICHELLE/MICHAEL W NICKEL KENT C & TAMMY S ROBERTS ELIZABETH 8725 240TH ST SW 23822 86TH AVE W 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 206 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 CHEN BAOQUAN/WU XIAOYAN MCCOY CHRISTINA TERRENZIO LAURA C 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 303 8614 238TH ST SW #306 8713 238TH ST SW #A1 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 WAHLMEIER PATRICK J/HURD CLARK BRENT A & APRIL L WAALE VIENNA M ANNA L 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A3 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A6 8713 238TH ST SW # A 2 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 OSWALD LAURALEE N CLAUSEN BRENNA L CLIFFORD MICHAEL L/JOANNI 8713 238TH ST SW #A7 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A9 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A10 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 AUGEN43R,AUN JEANNE LEE RICHARD/MAHONEY HARRIS AMANDA C $713 A35T S V A-11 KATHERINE R719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-4 EDMO, WA 98026 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B3 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 WEBB ARLA K TTEE NIELSEN ALBERTA MORGAN EAMON 8719 238TH ST SW # B6 8719 238TH SW #137 8711231ST ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 EDMONDS, WA 98026 RIGGS STEPHEN ELSON 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C5 EDMONDS, WA 98026 T i @09LS r6jAUB- AIV RI'A BAKER JERALD R 8723 238TH STREET SW UNIT C7 EDMONDS, WA 98026 W-L96p3 do-dod asnrl)ca - jaded paaj olaull6uolepia�i �=.. a� .y N O u c O E w rn 0 0 Co 0 N Z J a YIN HONGJING 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT Al EDMONDS, WA 98026 ®09 Packet Pg. 233 T AH3AY-09-008-L wo•Sine•nnu ,H,dn-docl p.imla.i al JaiaAW luawa6aeop a u e ann ee1e rahiclas ap sues � 009L5 @,aksT!I�A�V 1s!.1e 7 ai, a MCLEOD DONNA A VERNON VICTORIA V THOMAS MARLENE S 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A-5 8713 238TH ST SW UNIT A-8 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 101 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8916 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8916 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 HAYNES MECHELLE & NAM HUSSEN SANI/YIFIRU MULU CHRISMAN LORI A JONGHOON 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 103 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 105 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 102 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 HAAGA TERESA G JANSSEN MARCELLA M KUONEN WILLIAM D .y to ° 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 105 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 106 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 203 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8947 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8948 0 E w REYES JUAN GHERMAN DIANE E rn AL-QURISHI HAMED ALI & ER) to 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 204 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 205 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 301 0 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8948 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8948 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 10 N z J 96 DUENAS PAUL F AMUNDSEN CAROL J HERRING JENNIFER c 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 302 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 304 8614 238TH ST SW UNIT 305 E EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8949 U a THOMAS TERESA DEEGAN SHANE P BESS TERESA C 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-2 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-5 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-8 a EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 BULANYY IGOR & BULANA KUSTER KAREN SHARMA ABHA VALENTINA o 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-9 8719 238TH ST SW UNIT B-10 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-2 0 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8980 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 z GREENFIELD-MATHISON ROBIN HOOPER ALAN K MICHAELS SHEILA/ TRACY K 87 23 230 T H JT QW T T P C-4 8723 238TH cT CI111 TTNTT ('-R EDMONDS, NDTH A 98 UNIT C-3 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 ZINGLER KARI PRATT DAVID T & LISA J REMEDIOS A P 8723 238TH ST SW UNIT C-11 23828 86TH AVE W 8721240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-8982 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9000 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9018 ZAHARCHENKO ARTEM A & NORDEEN KEVIN R ANSTEAD DAVID URBAS IRENA 8805 240TH ST SW 8801 240TH ST SW 8729 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9019 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9019 YMONDS, WA 98026-9018 �j � Wla6P3 d:�-doh asvclxa �.� waded paaA � ®09 Packet Pg. 2 ®34 09L5 �AU�d �v i o4 aull Guuie puag ♦ ! ( - T AH3AV-09-008-L ,wdn-dod pjogaj al jalanaj Juap aoieLpsues f @09LS ®AU3AV llaeq wo:) �iaane°AMM ap uge aany�ey el a zallda� - salad salt 7.1.a STEWART SYLVIA B 8819 240TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9019 TUTTLE ELIZABETH C 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT A4 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 ADAM ELLIE 8028 238TH ST SW EDMONDS, WA 98026-9265 EDMONDS WAY LAW CENTER LLC 23901 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98026-9024 CHANG KANGOK L 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT B2 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 GERLACH DAVID PHILIP/ELIZABETH RAE 23318 29TH AVE W BRIER, WA 98036 ASAF AUDINEH C & DIAS SUNDE THOR RAFAEL/ASAF MOHAMM 24225 85TH AVE SE 4104164TH ST SW UNIT 301 WOODINVILLE, WA 98072-9525 LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 MCCALXIN ER TERRY 170219ST SHORE;, WA 98155 GORONCZY KATHLEEN M TTEE 2 WHISPERING CEDARS CT BELLINGHAM, WA 98229-2794 GOLD ART LP 2614 LBY AVE #1 EVE T , WA 98201 CHEN SAM & HUA LAI 18421 36TH AVE SE BOTHELL, WA 98012 ZISSERMANN ANDREY D & KATHERINE L 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT A3 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 AOKI AYUMI J 8629 240TH ST SW UNIT C5 EDMONDS, WA 98026-9026 KUEHNESTEPHEN 6306 234TH ST SW MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 MAC IA KAREN 141 200TH ST #B6 SH RE ENE, WA 98133 REYNOLDS THURMAN & PRISCILLA 8621 VISTARAMA AVE EVERETT, WA 98208-3539 a� .y N 0 u c 0 E w rn 0 0 Co 0 N Z J 96 T T wsa6p3 d,i-dud asuslxa , jaded paaj 1 009 Packet Pg. 235 i 009LS 0. u-a- v ms�i i olaull fuo;e p«09 v � � c 7.1.a ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. L 0 2018 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided were supplied by the Office of the Assessor of Snohomish County and appear to represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. eignatur f Applicant or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this c2J day of A101M 64V P 06 . Notary Public in angl1for the State of Washington Residing at Revised on 9130/11 &Aftlel,e ld 's-- - P2 -Adjacent Property Owners List No ti Stagy r: CLAUDIA MI cLA MME; C MY GOMMiSSION EXPIRE AIM 11, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 236 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS -- PLANNING DIVISION STAFF COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance 8 Building Project Number: PLN20180069 Applicant's Name: RNK EASTSIDE LLC Property Location: 23820 EDMONDS WAY Date Application Received: 12.13.18 Date Application Routed: 12.14.18 Zoning: MULTI FAMILY (RM-1.5) Project Description: 10-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MICHELE SZAFRAN Name of Individual Submitting Comments- LEIF BJORBACK Ext. 1778 Title: BUILDING OFFICIAL Date: 1/7/19 8 I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and 1 do not have any 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 the following comments or conditions: .y N O U c O E w rn 0 0 0 co 0 N Z J a ATTACHMENT 15 1Packet Pg. 237 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVISION STAFF COMMENT FORM 8 PW-Engineering 8 Fire ❑ PW - Maintenance 8 Building Project Number: Applicant's Name: Property Location: PLN20180069 RNK EASTSIDE LLC 23820 EDMONDS WAY Date Application Received: 12.13.18 Date Application Routed: 12.14.18 Zoning: MULTI FAMILY (RM-1.5) Project Description: 10-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff: MICHELE SZAFRAN Name of Individual Submitting Comments: Karl Fitterer Title: Assistant Fire Marshal ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and I do not have any 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. Ext. 1778 Date: 01 /02/2019 8 I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have the following comments or conditions: Require access width and turning radii to conform to South County Fire access standards Require Fire lane Markings to conform to Fire Lane marking standard (Attached) Require Knox key box to conform with access standards Deferred Fire alarm and Sprinklers ATTACHMENT 16 Packet Pg. 238 7.1.a OF EDP 0 Updated: Jan 2018 NOTE: Detailed plans must be submitted, and approved, prior to painting any new fire lane or modifying any existing fire lane. Fire Lanes must: 1) Be a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. *Fire lanes shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide in the immediate vicinity of any building over 30 feet in height above grade. Such fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the building. 2) Provide Fire Department access to within 150 feet of any portion of an un-sprinkled building. In buildings that provided with an automatic sprinkler, access may be increased, at the discretion of the Fire Marshal. 3) Provide Fire Department access to all on -site fire hydrants and fire department connections (FDC) for sprinkler and standpipe. A hydrant must be located to within 25' of a fire department connection. 4) Have adequate turning radius to allow maneuvering of fire apparatus: inside radius 25 feet; outside radius 45 feet. 5) Be circulating or have an approved turn -around if over 150 feet long. Have grades of no more than 12%. 6) Be paved with asphalt or approved equivalent and be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 7) Be marked with words "FIRE LANE — NO PARKING." Words to be painted on the pavement inside the lane. Letters to be a minimum of 12" high, 2" stroke, yellow in color, and alternately spaced every 50 feet. 8) Have perimeter striping/curbing to delineate the boundaries of the Fire Lane. Striping to be a minimum of 4 inches wide and striping/curbing to be yellow in color. 9) When required by the Fire Marshal, signs shall be used in addition to or in lieu of striping. Signs, when approved, shall meet the following requirements: a) Size: 18" high x 12" wide (min.) b) Mounting: Bottom of sign 48" to 60" above grade. c) Style: Industry standard (Vulcan %7-6-9, Rainbow 01-527, EMED TC 18816 or approved equivalent). d) Color: Red lettering on white background e) Spacing: 50' between signs or as required by Fire Marshal. 10) Fire lanes shall be established by these requirements to provide access to buildings during construction, alteration or demolition. Fire Code Supplemental Rules and Regulations are designated interpretations of the adopted International Fire Code, Edmonds Community Development Code and national standards allowed by IFC 102.7,102.8 and 102.9 and ECDC 19.25 which provide specifics and details to aid in conformance with the intent of the governing laws, statutes, ordinances and fire- and life safety -related requirements. Packet Pg. 239 1 OF EDP � O v MOU NTLAKE E. RACE Fire Prevention Series Emergency Access Standard Emergency Access Standard: The intent of this guideline is to define Snohomish County Fire District 1's Emergency Access Standard and to provide guidelines for its use and maintenance. The Emergency Access Standard is designed to give authorized Fire Department personnel access to keys for the protected occupancy whether vacant or occupied. This allows Department personnel to quickly gain access to buildings during an emergency and prevents the damage caused by forcible entry. The Department requires a key access system for all occupancies in which there is a fire protection system such as: sprinklers, fire alarm, special protection systems, etc., or where access and other conditions are determined to be unduly difficult. This is based on the rationale that rapid and efficient emergency operations will benefit the occupant by reducing property damage. Knox brand products are the only approved key access system for Snohomish County Fire District 1 area of response, including contract cities of Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. The Emergency Access Standard within Snohomish County Fire District 1 includes Knox Key Boxes, Knox Padlocks, and Knox Key Switches. In this procedure the term Knox Box may refer to any of the three types of Knox products listed above. Emergency Access Requirements: A Knox box shall be provided at the main entrance of buildings with interior common areas. An additional Knox box shall be provided at the exterior entrance to sprinkler riser/fire alarm control panel (FACP) rooms and other locations deemed necessary for building access. Once the Knox boxes are received, it is recommended that the contractor/owner discuss box placement approval with the Fire Marshal, or Deputy Fire Marshal. Typically boxes are located to the right of the main entrance door and/or Fire Alarm Control Panel/Fire Riser Room door. Boxes will be placed 5-6' above finished grade. Building Owners should provide the following keys depending on the requirements determined for the premises, and may include: 1. Main entrance (or Master) 2. Interior access (if no Master) 3. Fire sprinkler riser room/fire alarm control panel access 4. Electrical, mechanical, and elevator rooms 5. Fire alarm control panel/manual pull stations 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrictl.org Packet Pg. 240 Ad�w��, je*%6, LATERRACE F COUNTY MOUNTLAKE RE 6. Electronic/magnetic key cards OF EDP � O v On multiple -storied and larger buildings, additional keys may be necessary, for instance, providing roof hatch access or, sets of keys anticipated for multiple firefighting crews. The building Owner/Contractor should contact the Fire Prevention Office to discuss the required Knox box for their building/complex or situation. The Owner/Contractor will use the online ordering system at www.knoxbox.com to order Knox boxes. A more detailed guide for ordering is available from the Fire Prevention Office. Snohomish County Fire District 1's required Knox boxes include the 3200 Series boxes WITH HINGE. For facilities requiring a larger number of keys or magnetic cards etc, a 4400 Series box may be required. GATES ACROSS FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS Residential - Multi-Family/Private Community Access - Gates across public and private fire department access roads where serving more than two dwellings must meet the following requirements/design: 1. Must have automatic opening feature activated by Opticom compatible or other approved receivers that override all other opening systems. 2. Must have an approved Knox key switch which will be located on the entrance side of the gate. 3. Must have battery back-up or be designed with fail safe mode allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment or default to the open position. 4. In private communities where access is existing, any new gates must meet 100% approval from protected property owners. Residential — 1 and 2 Family Dwelling Access - Gates that obstruct Fire Department access roads/driveways that serve one or two dwellings and that are electrically operated, shall meet the following requirements/design: 1. Where gates are electric, must have an approved Knox key switch which will be conspicuously located at the entrance side of the gate. Non -electric gates may be accessed using requirements for "Occupancies other than residential" below. 2. Where gates are electric, must have battery back-up or be designed with fail safe mode when primary power is lost, allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment or default to the open position. 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrict1.org Packet Pg. 241 X MOU NTLAKE TERRACE OF EDP � O v 3. Access gates must meet unanimous approval from protected property owners where access is existing. Occupancies Other Than Residential - Gates that obstruct Fire Department access roads must meet the following requirements/design: Electrically Operated Gates - The gate control shall be operable by an approved Knox key switch located conspicuously at the entrance side of the gate. In the event of a power failure, the gate shall automatically be transferred to a fail-safe mode allowing the gate to be pushed open without the use of special knowledge or equipment or default to the open position. In all occupancies, where approved, manually operated gates and barriers may utilize Knox padlocks. Approval is provided normally where conditions are such that delays in gate opening are not deemed as a priority for access urgency. On new construction, all Knox equipment shall be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Building owners will assure that access equipment is maintained and contact Fire District 1 where locks are re -keyed and conditions for emergency access is modified FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) ACCESS — Locking caps are not required for new or existing construction, but may be used where problems of theft and vandalism are occurring, on a case by case basis. Contact the Fire Prevention Office for more information. Edition: April 2017 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrictl.org Packet Pg. 242 7.1.a FDC Standard Unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshal, All FDC connections will be a 4 inch Storz type fitting, on a 30 degree elbow and away from the building. The FDC Connection shall be within 50 feet of a hydrant. The upright piping will be painted red and labeled with a minimum of four inch white numbering denoting the building address. All existing 2 1/2 inch "Y" fittings will be upgraded upon building improvements to the Storz type connection. Signage may be necessary to show where existing connections are located. 1 1 FD IFC 912.2.2 Wherever the fire department connection is not visible to approaching fire apparatus, the fire department connection shall be indicated by an approved sign mounted on the street front or on the side of the building. Such sign shall have the letters "FDC' at least 6 inches(152 mm) high and words in letters at least 2 inches (51 mm) high or an arrow to indicate the location. All such signs shall be subject to the approval of the fire code official. Product Description FDC Building Connection 4" Storz x 4" rigid female National Pipe Thread (NPT) Elbow. Features Secure Cap, Screen and Chain. Enables quick connections of hose by fire department to supplement fire sprinkler or standpipe system. color is powder coat black and silver. Other colors are available. Specifications • Forged storz heads with stainless steel locks • Aluminum extruded connections • Laser etching available • Exceeds NFPA 1963 requirements • Manufactured and assembled in the US • Rated pressure 200 psi • Nitrile gasket • Other choices - Hard coat, K-chrome and K-brass • "A" dimension - 7 7/8" • UL Listed UL Listed Manufactured to higher tolerances Precision Metal Face - no gasket needed • Cap features weep hole with 30 Degree large diameter The standard 12425 Meridian Avenue S / Everett WA 98208 / 425-551-1200 www.firedistrict1.org a� .N N O L U c O E W to CD 0 Go 0 N Z J a Packet Pg. 243 7.1.a MEMORANDUM March 8, 2019 TO: HWL Architects c/o Haynes Lund FROM: Steve Fisher, City of Edmonds Public Works, 425-771-0235 RE: Trash collection area review PLN—20180069 Edmonds Crossing, 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds The correction on sheet A20 now indicates the designated area for staging of the residents' waste containers. The sidewalk that leads from the building to the drive aisle will need to meet the drive aisle at grade — not a curb. Then the full length of the staging sidewalk will also now be on grade — no curb. This will ensure smoother rolling of the carts to the collection trucks. One thing to point out — the 50 square foot space for container storage will likely handle 5, maybe 6 of the standard 96-gallon containers, rather tightly. This calls for residents sharing service in some manner. Some tenants could easily use their own 20-gallon containers (mini - can service rate) if individual service is desired by everyone. This could free up space. Please let me know if you have any questions. ATTACHMENT 17 Packet Pg. 244 7.1.a MEMORANDUM December 21, 2018 TO: Michele Szafran, Associate Planner FROM: Steve Fisher, City of Edmonds Public Works, 425-771-0235 RE: Plan review for trash collection scenario PLN20180069 — Edmonds Crossing, 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds The applicant has successfully reconfigured the driveway entry area to accommodate waste collection trucks so to ensure that they are fully onto the property and off of Edmonds Way. The applicant needs to show a designated outside area where waste containers are to be staged and safely accessed for service. This area can be a flat widened sidewalk near to where the truck is situated. Containers will otherwise be house inside a designated room that is to be used by residents. Packet Pg. 245 7.1.a Date: To: MEMORANDUM March 18, 2019 Michelle Szafran, Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: PLN20180069 —Design Review Edmonds Way Edmonds Crossing- 23830 Edmonds Way Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. It is requested that the following be included as a condition of project approval. Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. ATTACHMENT 18 Packet Pg. 246 Providing quality rater, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value February 6; 2019 Diane Cunningham City of Edmonds 1221 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 998020 Dear Ms. Cunningham: Reference No.: Edmonds Crossing Apartment District DR Number: 19-011 The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. The developer is required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements on all parcels where electrical facilities must be installed to serve the proposed development. It is unlikely that easements will be granted on District -owned property, or consents granted within District transmission line corridors. Existing PUD facilities may need relocations or modifications at the developer's expense. Any relocation, alteration or removal of District facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the project developer, and must be coordinated with the PUD in advance of final design. Please include any utility work in all applicable permits. Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements upon its property for any electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. Please contact the District prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's South County office at 425-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer. Sincerely, Jason Zyskowski Senior Manager Planning, Engineering, & Technical Services Cc: Haynes Lund 1802 — 75"' Street S.W. • Everett, WA • 982031 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783-4300 • Toll -free in Western Wasbington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 • www.snopud.com ATTACHMENT 19 Packet Pg. 247 7.1.a Szafran, Michele From: Szafran, Michele Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:11 PM To: 'Alm, Peter' Subject: RE: SEPA NOTICE (PLN20180069) 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Attachments: Site Dev. Plans & Lanscaping.pdf Peter Alm, I have attached the preliminary civil plan set for your review. Per the plans, the project will include curb cuts with a turnout and frontage improvements. I also have included the landscape plan. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or comments. Regards, Michele Q. Szafran / Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-0220, x 1778 michele.szafran@edmondswa.goy General permit assistance, online permits, and Web GIS: http://www.edmondswa-gov/handouts.html Permit Center Hours: M, T, Th, F 8:00 AM —4:30 PM Wednesday 8:30 AM —12:00 PM From: Alm, Peter <AlmP@wsdot.wa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 9:23 AM To: Szafran, Michele <Michele.Szafran@edmondswa.gov> Subject: SEPA NOTICE (PLN20180069) 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Hello Michele, If the developer is impacting the curb, gutter and/or pavement of SR 104, please let me know so WSDOT can review these changes. Thanks. Thank you, Peter Alm WSDOT— NW Region Development Services 206-440-4711 PO Box 330310 MS 240 15700 Dayton Avenue North Seattle, WA 98133-9710 I ATTACHMENT 20 Packet Pg. 248 7.1.a From: Cunningham, Diane<Diane.Cunningham@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:59 AM To: 'SEPA Unit' <sepaunit@ecy.wa.gav>; 'David Matulich' <dayid.matulich@pse.com>; 'Kate Tourtellot' <kate.tourtellot@commtrans.org>; 'Olympic View Water' <KellyB ovwater.com>; Pazooki, Ramin <PazookR@wsdot.wa.gov>; 'SnoPUD'<mlwicklund@snopud.com>;'Stewart Mhyre' <Mhy_res@edmonds.wednet.edu>; 'Zachary Lamebull' <zlamebull tulali tribes-nsn. ov>; Zweber, Kevin <Kevin.Zweber@edmondswa.g_ov> Subject: SEPA NOTICE (PLN20180069) 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Attached is a DNS and SEPA checklist for 10-unit multifamily development at 23830 Edmonds Way, Edmonds. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Michele Q. Szafran / Planner Michele.szafran@Edmondswa.gov 425.771.020 Packet Pg. 249