Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-10-02 Architectural Design Board Packet
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ti3 f!}:qr Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board 't j4yx COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 2, 2019, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Draft Minutes of September 4, 2019 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Main Street Commons - Phase 2 District -based Design Review (PLN20190024) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process ADB MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda October 2, 2019 Page 1 2.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/2/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes of September 4, 2019 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: ADB190904d Packet Pg. 2 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Joe Herr, Chair Kim Bayer (excused) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Tom Walker (excused) Kemen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Cary Guenther Jeannie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Maureen Jeude Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Bruce Owensby ,�1]i�1 �I1`11yY11;1 VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of District -Based Design Review for Main Street Commons Located at 550 Main Street (File Number PLN20190024) Mr. Clugston reviewed that Phase 1 of the two-phase hearing began on July 3'd and was continued to September 4' for Phase 2. Unfortunately; the applicant was unable to provide a resubmittal in time to make the September 4' agenda. As a result, the Board must take formal action to continue the hearing. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MAIN STREET COMMONS APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 2, 2019. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 1 of 14 Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing on Proposed 18-Unit Multi -Family Development Located at 22810 Edmonds Way and zoned RM-1.5 (Applicant: Kisan Enterprises LLC) (File Number PLN20190003) Chair Herr explained that this is a public hearing for an 18-unit multi -family development located at 22810 Edmonds Way. After accepting public testimony, the Board will deliberate and make a decision on the project. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. Next, he asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believes he/she would be unable to hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. Again, all Board Members answered no. Last, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members' participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and no one raised a concern. At his invitation, all who wanted to participate in the hearing were sworn in. Mr. Lien reviewed that applications that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III permit processes. Until a few months ago, they were Type III-B processes, where the Board's decisions were appealable to the City Council. Now they are Type III -A decisions, so appeals to ADB decisions are to the Superior Court. The ADB is required to make finding for general design review projects such as this one that are consistent with ECDC 20.11.030, the Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Chapter, and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lien provided a map to illustrate the location of the proposed project, which is on the bend along Edmonds Way. The site is currently developed with one single-family residence that takes access directly off of Edmonds Way. There is another driveway cut that is not currently being used. The site is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5), which means one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. Mr. Lien referred to the Staff Report and highlighted the following: • Setbacks: Required setbacks include a 15-foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 15-foot rear setback. In the RM zone, parking is not allowed within the street setbacks, and the applicant is proposing none. • Height Limit: The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 30 feet, but the roofs on buildings above 25 feet must have at least a 4:12 pitch. The applicant is proposing a hip roof over each of the residential units, and each property would also have a shed element with a bump out. The applicant is proposing a 4:12 pitch on the portions of buildings above 25 feet. The applicant is not requesting a height variance. • Parking: The parking standard for multifamily development is based on the number of bedrooms. While he is not sure the number of bedrooms proposed within the development, the maximum required is two spaces for units with three or more bedrooms. Each of the units in the proposed development would have a 2-car garage, so regardless of the number of bedrooms, the project would comply with the parking requirement. • Landscaping: Type III landscaping will be required all the way around the exterior of the development, and the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that complies. In addition, street trees are required along the frontage improvements, and there is also a planter strip. • Screening: The general design standards in the ECDC and Comprehensive Plan Goal A.11 both talk about screening mechanical equipment from street view. This is often an issue after design review when unsightly utilities pop up. Because he doesn't yet know where all the utilities will be located, he is recommending a condition of approval to ensure all of the utilities are screened. • Massing, Roof Modulation and Window Variety: Three design standards talk about the overall layout of the buildings (massing, roof modulation and window variety). The project includes four different buildings, and they all have a similar look. As per the proposed design, the buildings will be subdivided both horizontally and vertically so that each unit stands out. There is roof modulation on the buildings, with a different hip for each unit, as well as the shed roof. There is also a variety of window sizes and forms. • Vehicular Access: The Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing the number and width of driveway cuts in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety. The existing two driveway cuts on Edmonds Way will be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 2 of 14 Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a eliminated and the proposed project will take access via an ingress/egress easement that was granted to the public. Pedestrian Access: A Comprehensive Plan goal calls for locating the building in proximity to the street to facilitate pedestrian access. One building will be against the street setback, and pedestrian access from the development will connect in with the new sidewalk along the front. Connections On and Off Site: The Comprehensive Plan calls for designing 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. There is no transit directly in front of the site, but there is transit to the west. Ms. McConnell explained that access to the site is one of the project elements that will be reviewed by the Engineering Division. There are two existing driveway access points on Edmonds Way that will be eliminated as part of the project, and access is proposed to be taken from an ingress/egress easement to the public. This will meet the Comprehensive c Plan goal of reducing the number of access points along Edmonds Way, focusing access at the signalized intersection N and improving pedestrian safety. Staff reviewed the proposal, looking for alignment with the existing signal, traffic flow into and out of the site, and vehicle queuing. They required the applicant to hire a transportation consultant (Gibson Traffic Consultants) to analyze the proposal and provide a report, which was attached to the Staff Report. The City's m Transportation Engineer agreed with the report and the proposed layout meets all of the City's requirements (signal Q. alignment, traffic flow and queuing). Eliminating the driveways along Edmonds Way is also seen as a positive change. to She explained that at the design review stage, staff is looking for feasibility. Striping, pavement markings, curbing, o additional signage, etc. are not elements that staff deals with at this stage. Staff will work with the applicant to further fine tune the project at the building permit phase. c Ms. McConnell provided a map to illustrate the applicant's proposal for access, as well as a layout proposed by the property owner to the west (Cascadian Apartments). The adjacent property owner's preferred layout would have a o single ingress lane and a single egress lane. However, no analysis on this particular layout has been done by a traffic c consultant. From the City Transportation Engineer's cursory review, there was a concern with queuing for vehicles entering the site, whether they would be turning into the new project or the Cascadian Apartments. Without this further L analysis, staff is not certain the layout would be feasible. Staff did not ask the applicant to review the alternate layout a because the one provided in the application meets the criteria for feasibility that staff was looking for. The City's a Transportation Engineer preferred having two ingress lanes coming into the site. 0 Mr. Lien advised that an additional comment letter from Reid Shockey was submitted after the Staff Report was issued CD last week, and copies were provided to the Board Members. He summarized that staff is recommending approval of the m proposed project, with the six conditions outlined in the Staff Report. o Q Vice Chair Strauss requested more information about why the City's Traffic Engineer prefers two ingress lanes but only one egress lane. Ms. McConnell responded that when reviewing access to the site and the turning movements off of E Edmonds Way onto the site, it was noted that this specific location is on a curve and traffic speeds are fairly high. Two lanes would provide dedicated lanes, one for the Cascadian Apartments and another for the proposed development. a People turning in using the westernmost lane would have a dedicated right turn only to the Cascadian Apartments, and the easternmost lane would be a dedicated left turn into the proposed development. Separating the two traffic flows on the site would allow for individual queuing, if necessary, within that area to get vehicles off of Edmonds Way and onto the site and into the respective developments. One egress lane is appropriate because there is sufficient space on the site for any queuing necessary for people leaving the site onto Edmonds Way at the signalized intersection. Chair Herr asked how the ingress lanes shown in the alternative proposal would be separated. Ms. McConnell responded that the plan is preliminary and conceptual in nature. The City has not done a full review to dictate what they would want to see if the alternative proposal moves forward, but her understanding is that the separation could be either striping or curbing. In the applicant's proposal, the two ingress lanes would be separated with striping, and c-curb would be used to separate the ingress and egress lanes. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 3 of 14 Packet Pg. 5 2.1.a Rob Michel, Edmonds, was present to represent the applicant, Kisan Enterprises, LLC. He thanked Mr. Lien for his thorough report. He pointed out the irregular shape of the site, which is nearly 32,000 square feet. Although up to 20 units would be allowed on the site, the applicant is proposing just 18 units in four buildings. The four buildings will be more pleasing to the eye than one massive building. He pointed out that the irregular shape of the lot allowed them to do some extra things that are not normally done with townhomes. For example, the units on either end of Building A are different shapes and sizes, allowing more modulation and light. The other buildings have units with varied floor plans, as well. There is a sizeable space near the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unit, and every unit will have a 2-car garage, so there will be no outdoor parking. This gives a more residential feel to the project. Chair Herr asked if visitor parking would be required for a project of this size. Mr. Lien answered that the City's code does not require visitor parking. Chair Herr asked if the units would be for sale or rent, and Mr. Michel answered that they would be rental units. Board Member Guenther asked the applicant to review the exterior elevations. He said he was a little concerned about the elevations facing Edmonds Way. From the drawings, it appears that the fagades would be flat. Mr. Michel referred to the site plan, noting that there would be quite a bit of modulation on the elevations facing Edmonds Way, with the sloped roof and modulation pointing out. Each individual building would be modulated, as well. Mr. Lien referred to Attachment 5, which labels all of the proposed materials. Chair Herr asked if the garage doors would be glass. Mr. Michel answered that they would be either glass or aluminum or wood that is painted to match. Chair Herr observed that glass doors would look much different than wood doors that are painted. Vice Chair Strauss asked if all of the units would be accessed from the site's interior. She also asked if the units would have doors to the outside or if the only access would come via the garage. Mr. Michel said the end units would have side entries at an upper grade that will access the level above the garage. The interior units would have walkways to the garage and a door from the garage to enter the interior. Vice Chair Strauss asked if all four buildings would meet the height requirement. Mr. Lien answered that all would meet the 30-foot height limit, with 4:12 pitched roofs for the portions above 25 feet. He emphasized that the height limit would be verified at the building permit stage. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the average grade was calculated for the entire project or for each separate unit. Mr. Lien said it was calculated separately for each building. Reid Shockey, President, Shockey Planning Group, Everett, said he is a planning consultant representing the adjacent property owners, Jeff and Lisa Sterling, who proposed the alternative access plan. He said he has submitted three letters, including the one that was provided to the Board Members at the meeting. They have also submitted other records that were attached to the Staff Report, including a document pertaining to the easement that was adopted in 1978 between two parties (the owners of the property that the Sterlings now own and Snohomish County). The easement has been "conveyed to the public," which is rather unusual language. He said the Sterlings have absolutely no opposition to the proposed project. Their concern is related to the easement and the access that is being proposed. He explained that the 100' x 100' foot easement lies on the Sterling's property. When the prior owners conveyed the easement that sits on top of their property to the public, the easement document indicates the reason was to provide for ingress and egress. It also allows the City to enter on the property for maintenance purposes. He said that, if asked, staff will indicate to the Board that once the townhouses are developed and the access is completed through the easement, it is not the City's intent to maintain the access on an ongoing basis. Mr. Shockey observed that the public easement is at an arterial intersection that is signalized, and three of the four approaches to the intersection are public right-of-way. The easement coincides with the development that occurred on the Sterling's property. It is the Sterling's position that the purpose of the easement was to make sure that the County and now the City could control what development occurs on the Sterling's property so that it is consistent with what happens on the other corners of the intersection. However, with the current proposal would essentially allow a private easement from the Kisan property to cross the boundary line onto the easement and then continue out until it exits on Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 4 of 14 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a Edmonds Way. He expressed his belief that it is incorrect to allow a private easement to occur on a public easement. The Sterlings would be willing to work with the City if the City wants to dedicate the easement area for public right-of- way so that a public street can be developed, but that is not what is being proposed as part of this application. Mr. Shockey summarized that if the design is corrected to address the Sterling's concerns, their objection to the access would go away. He referred to Page 14 of the Staff Report, which outlines the criteria that must be met before the ADB can approve a project. Specifically, the Board must make the finding that community facilities and public or quasi - public improvements do not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. In the Staff Report, the staff simply responded that the proposed building is not a community facility. He expressed his belief that staffs finding is incorrect. The private access drive that is being allowed to cross the public easement that occurs on the Sterling's property should be considered a quasi -public facility. He concluded that the current proposal conflicts with this requirement and an alternative design is needed to meet the criteria. Mr. Shockey explained that in an attempt to be constructive and cooperative, the Sterlings presented an alternative access plan, and staff reported that no analysis has been done of that alternative. When a developer proposes a plan and the public is notified that such a plan has been submitted, he asked why the City staff would tell an adjacent property owner who submits an alternative plan that the plan would not be accepted or considered by the City because an analysis had not been done. When a public comment is given, and an alternative is offered to satisfy a concern, the City should require the applicant to analyze the concern, as well as the alternative, and report back. That is common practice for development permits of this type. He emphasized that it is not the Sterling's responsibility to hire a consultant to validate an alternative plan that they offered in the spirit of cooperation to overcome a concern they have. Mr. Shockey said he and the Sterlings have had successful, well -intended and cooperative discussions with the applicant as late as this morning. When the meeting ended, they all agreed that further discussions should continue to resolve the issue. However, as he indicated in the letters he submitted, they must ask the Board to deny approval of the proposed project until there can be further discussions about what is going to happen to the easement on the Sterling's property that is causing them harm as far as the operation of their business (apartments). He asked them not to approve the design until these discussions have occurred and they come up with a mutually -agreed -to plan for the easement. He said the City has been very cooperative in these meetings, but he suggested they owe it to the Sterlings to analyze their alternative proposal and either agree it is equal as far as impact and meeting design standards to what the developer has proposed, or it is not. If it is the former finding, then it is a simple matter for the developers to accept the alternative plan, and then the Sterlings would be in total support of the project. Jeff Sterling, Edmonds, said he has owned the property at 9504 Edmonds Way (a 48-unit apartment building) for five years. After purchasing the property, they were surprised to learn the nature of the easement on their driveway. They have known about and had discussions regarding the easement for several years, but the nature of the easement has been a moving target. Over the past year, both of the property owners and the City came to realize that it was an easement to the public. In June of 2018, the City Attorney rules that, for the purposes of permitting, the City was going to treat the easement as a public right-of-way." That means that, for the purposes of permitting, his property will be appropriated for a period of time to allow a neighbor to reconfigure the flow patterns of the driveway in order to optimize the number of units that can be built. Mr. Sterling said his intention was to put together an alternative plan/offer so that his needs and the needs of his neighbor could be met within the easement. He paid a professional traffic engineer to develop the conceptual plan that would have allowed all of the traffic to stay within the easement. In the alternative plan, the existing pedestrian path to the sidewalk (near the crosswalk) would remain, but the applicant chose not to use the alternate plan. He voiced concern that the applicant's proposed plan would eliminate the pedestrian pathway that is located on his property and outside of the easement. Instead, the proposed ingress lane would extend outside of the easement, hugging the curb where his tenants used to walk down to the sidewalk. Secondly, the original study proposed that his turning lane could be reduced to 16 feet. It is already a 45-degree hairpin turn to get onto his property from Edmonds Way, and you are lucky if you can get your speed down to 15 miles per hour to make the turn without being hit by ferry traffic. In the current proposal, Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 5 of 14 Packet Pg. 7 2.1.a the radius would be tighter and the width would be reduced to 12 feet, and 4 feet would be outside of the easement. The applicant's proposal would push his western ingress lane out of the easement. Mr. Sterling said that when meeting with the applicant, he voiced concern that the proposal would eliminate the pedestrian pathway and push the lane over to a point where people can barely make a turn without transgressing into the other lane. He also voiced concern about the 90-degree radial turn coming into the subject property that is described as a hammerhead. The eastern ingress has been designed to maximize the applicant's ability to develop units. The applicant's only response to his concerns is to tell him not to worry, to wait for them to get through the process, and his concerns will be worked out. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a lot of confidence in that approach. Since the applicant proposed the two-lane ingress idea, he has been unable to find an example of this approach anywhere. There is no need for the two-lane ingress that pushes his traffic outside of the public right-of-way in order to gain access to the subject property using the public easement. He observed that the intersection is one of the most dangerous in the entire City. In his opinion, there are several parts of the applicant's proposal that are dangerous, including the sweeping turn that is required by the fire department. Traffic will not slow down and wait for traffic going the other way, and the intersection is already dangerous. Mr. Sterling said he is concerned that, once the project is permitted, he will be responsible for addressing all of the problems that are caused by the development. The applicant's proposal and the City's response is unacceptable. The current process of meeting with the applicant and City staff to resolve the issues is not working. The whole notion of designating the easement as a public easement for the purposes of permitting has iced him out of the process. This is the first time he has been able to voice his concerns in a public setting, and he appreciates that the Board is listening to him. Mr. Sterling suggested that if the City wants to support the developer and approve the project, the Board should ask for a continuance of the process until the City staff can work with him to declare the easement a public right-of-way. The City could then do the right thing to support both sides in the design and make the access safe for the residents of both properties. Anything short of that would be unacceptable to him. Chair Herr asked if the signal works well for the current residents to exit the Cascadian Apartments. Mr. Sterling said there is a detector in the ground that causes the signal to change for residents of his property to exit. Chair Herr pointed out that some of the danger that Mr. Sterling voiced concern about is mitigated by the signal at the intersection that stops traffic and allows his residents to exit onto Edmonds Way. Mr. Sterling said the danger would be caused by the traffic coming in from the eastern egress the developer would add. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the traffic coming in off the street without yielding to traffic that is already queued up to go out at the intersection. The applicant is proposing to cut in too close to where the traffic is coming in. Chair Herr pointed out that, in Mr. Sterling's alternate plan, emergency vehicles would not have adequate access if a curb is provided to separate the ingress and egress lanes. He asked why the City couldn't simply require one ingress and one egress lane to address the Mr. Sterling's major concern that the design encroaches onto his property. Ms. McConnell pointed out that, on the applicant's submittal, the western curb that falls outside of the easement is the existing curb and not the proposed layout. That is how traffic enters the site currently, and that wouldn't change. The City did not dictate that the developer propose an access in any specific way. Staff provided two options at one point based on previous conversations with the applicant and Mr. Sterling. They also felt at the time that Mr. Sterling was open to those two designs, one being the two-lane ingress design. The current design was presented by the applicant, and that is what staff reviewed as part of the application. Chair Herr asked why would the pedestrian path be eliminated by the applicant's proposal. Ms. McConnell explained that the City doesn't view it as a pedestrian pathway because it is in the driveway. A safe ADA-compliant pedestrian pathway would not follow the line of the driveway access to the site, and that would be especially true coming off of Edmonds Way. Mr. Sterling has indicated that pedestrians currently use the pathway, but if the City had a requirement for Cascadian Apartments to provide a pedestrian pathway; it would not approve a pathway that falls within a driveway. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 6 of 14 Packet Pg. 8 2.1.a City Attorney Taraday cautioned that it is important to distinguish between a pedestrian pathway and pedestrian use of the driveway. His understanding is that pedestrians sometimes use the driveway, but that doesn't mean there is an existing pedestrian pathway there. A September 2018 Google street view image was displayed, showing that there is an actual curb dividing the current ingress and egress. Chair Herr observed that there is already a landscaped area within the easement. Mr. Lien advised that a portion of the landscape strip would be removed and a new pedestrian path and landscaping would be installed. Chair Herr asked who currently maintains the landscaped area located within the easement. Mr. Sterling said it is on his property and he maintains it. Board Member Owensby referred to the parking spaces shown on the Google street view image and asked if these spaces would be lost as a result of the proposed project. Mr. Sterling answered affirmatively. Board Member Owensby asked if Mr. Sterling is voluntarily giving up these spaces. Mr. Sterling said that is yet to be determined. His development has sufficient parking stalls to meet the code requirement, and they can afford to lose a few. Board Member Owensby asked if the Cascadian's parking is ever full, and Mr. Sterling answered that it gets full in the evening. Board Member Owensby voiced concern that the applicant is trying to maximize the number of units at the adjacent property owner's expense by taking advantage of a loophole. The proposal does not provide for the people who will live in the units (i.e. no balconies, visitor parking, etc.). He questioned if the Board could make a decision relative to the easement other than to postpone the hearing. Chair Herr cautioned against using the word "loophole." It's not a loophole, the parking requirements are spelled out in the City's code. Board Member Owensby said he was referring to the loophole associated with the easement. He commented that, although the City doesn't require visitor parking, it is common sense that a development of the size proposed should provide it. Chair Herr cautioned that is a personal opinion, and not a code requirement. Chair Herr said he can imagine that the easement was proposed at the 4-way intersection to ensure safe access as development occurred. He asked if the easement was recorded before the Cascadian Apartments were constructed, and Mr. Sterling said it was the last thing done before the developer transferred the property to the previous owners. Again, Chair Herr suggested the City's intent was to establish an easement to maintain control over what happened at this 4-way intersection. Mr. Sterling said he believes the intent of the easement was to improve the entire intersection, including the two existing crosswalks that are unsafe. He explained that one of the crosswalks is adjacent to a driveway because of the way it was laid out 40 years ago. One of the developer's original proposals was to complete the sidewalk and curb and add a pedestrian walkway exactly where they are now saying it can't go. Given the 40-mile-per-hour traffic on Edmonds Way, a small pedestrian walkway with a C-curb on his driveway is nothing compared to the other dangers that people experience in the neighborhood. Chair Herr asked why the current ingress/egress is not good enough to provide access for the existing and proposed developments. The entrance already exists, and the applicant is simply proposing to put a line across the pavement to delineate there are two ways to go. He doesn't understand Mr. Sterling's objection that the applicant is moving his driveway out of the easement, since it's already out of the easement. Mr. Sterling clarified that the lane for his traffic would no longer be in the easement. Again, Chair Herr pointed out that Mr. Sterling's driveway already encroaches over the easement, and all the applicant would be doing is delineating a line on the pavement. Mr. Sterling explained that up until now, his property was the only one that used the public easement. All the traffic went the same way, and it works the way it was designed 40 years ago. Now two parties want to use the same easement, and according to the applicant's drawing, part of the 12-foot lane on the east side would have to be outside of the easement. His argument is that the easement is for everyone, and he wants his traffic to go within the public easement, too. Again, he suggested the City should declare the easement a public right-of-way. Chair Herr observed that the current access extends 4 feet beyond the easement. If the center line and one of the arrows were eliminated, the ingress would be 20 feet wide instead of 24 feet. He asked if Mr. Sterling would accept that solution. Mr. Sterling answered that he would accept a 20-foot wide access lane, as long as the traffic making the radial turn onto his property has a 20-foot radius. You have to allow space for the traffic going onto the applicant's property to go further south so they can queue up a car or two and still allow cars from his property to get past. In addition, when traffic comes in for the other property and reaches the point where they need to cross the outbound traffic, they need to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 7 of 14 Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a have a stopping point before making the turn. He said the alternative he presented is conceptual and intended to communicate his desire because he was not consulted in the access design. He said the City needs to step up. If they want to permit the project, they need to declare the easement as a public right-of-way. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the applicant intends to separate the two ingress lanes with curbing or paint. She asked if the applicant would be opposed to having a one wide ingress lane instead. She noted that some grading would be required to change the entrance, and she asked if the applicant would provide new curbs, etc. Mr. Michel answered that these issues will be addressed during the permitting phase, but the City has revealed that the current ramp is steeper than what is required at the stop light, and the bump would have to be removed. The existing C curb would have to be replaced, as well. The line separating the two ingress lanes would likely be painted. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the code requires a painted line, and Mr. Michel said the Traffic Engineer did not require a line. The line was provided on the drawing to delineate where the traffic would flow. Vice Chair Strauss commented that, even if there are two ingress lanes, people will pull in where ever they want unless there is a curb or wall that blocks them. It shouldn't matter if there are two lanes or one lane. Vicky O'Rico, Attorney for the Applicant, cautioned that this hearing is for design review and to consider the project's feasibility overall. She isn't a traffic engineer, and none of the Board Members are either. The technical details related to ingress, egress, pedestrian pathways, curbing, striping, etc. will be worked out by the City's Traffic Engineer during the permitting phase. She expressed her belief that, as outlined in the Staff Report, the application meets all of the criteria the Board must consider when reviewing an application. Mr. Shockey commented about whether the subject property was quasi -public, he didn't get into whether it was out of character with the neighboring properties, which is really the criteria the Board needs to be looking at. There has been a lot of discussion about stuff that the Board is not qualified to respond to, and that's why the City has a Transportation Engineer on staff. Her understanding is that the two ingress lanes are needed to prevent backups on Edmonds Way as they queue to turn in. Again, she suggested that these issues will be worked out during the building permit phase, as opposed to just the general feasibility layout. Vice Chair Strauss disagreed. Before an applicant proceeds to the permitting phase, he/she needs to have a plan. City staff will review the plan and determine whether or not it meets the code. Applicant's shouldn't wait for the City to design a project. They must have a plan in mind that includes access. Ms. O'Rico agreed and said a plan has already been submitted and City staff has determined that it is code compliant. The questions about whether there will be turtles or striping, etc. are details that will be worked out at permitting. Things may change, which is why the City has requested a condition of approval that allows the details to be tweaked later as additional information comes forward. Ms. McConnell referenced Attachment 7 of the Staff Report and explained that the dashed line is the ingress/egress easement granted to the public. In the initial discussions related to access to the site, it was really looked at from a perspective of keeping those accessing the Kisan development inside the easement area. If that entire drive approach were to stay open without a painted line to guide traffic for the Kisan development, then the residents of the new development would be crossing over an area that could fall outside of the ingress/egress easement. That was one of the considerations for the two ingress lanes coming into the site, and queuing was another element. The alternate concept of a singular ingress lane has not been determined to be insufficient, but an analysis would have to be done in order for the City's Traffic Engineer to agree or disagree. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that the applicant's access proposal would be confusing for people trying to get off the Cascadian Apartments property. Ms. McConnell said she understands the concern. The specific layout in the drawing, with signage and striping to guide traffic, has not been reviewed at that level of detail. However, staff has had discussions that the sweeping striping will not exist in the final development proposal. It needs to have an appearance that traffic can flow out through the area and not be blocked by the ingress lane into the Kisan development. The applicant is currently proposing striping rather than curbing to separate the lanes. However, staff is not providing comments back to the applicant at this time because these elements (stop signs, striping, turtles, arrows, signage etc.) will be dealt with at the Building Permit phase of the project. At this point, the Traffic Engineer's review focused on the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 8 of 14 Packet Pg. 10 feasibility of the layout at the intersection, alignment with the signal, queuing, getting traffic off of Edmonds Way, etc. The applicant's proposal meets the feasibility checks. Board Member Juenke asked if the easternmost ingress would be for traffic coming from 95' Avenue straight across. If you have queuing going eastbound on Edmonds Way, there's no way that two cars can turn in at the same time. She asked the purpose of having two lanes. Chair Herr pointed out that there is a left turn lane from Edmonds Way into the subject property. Ms. McConnell commented that the signal controls traffic through the intersection, which means people can come straight across or make a left or right turn into the subject property. She explained that queuing would happen on site. Regardless of where the traffic comes from, there will be vehicles on the site that either need to turn left into the Kisan development or right into the Cascadian development. With the 2-lane ingress and the length of the driveway before turning into the Kisan and Cascadian developments, the traffic consultant that did the analysis determined there would be sufficient space to get vehicles off of Edmonds Way and onto the site. Board Member Owenby recalled Mr. Shockey's point that the proposed use of the easement would be considered a "taking" of property. He asked if the City Attorney has weighed in on the issue. City Attorney Taraday said he has reviewed the issue. He explained that the City already has an easement conveyed to the public by deed, but they don't know what the exact circumstances were at the time the easement was granted. As has been eluded to earlier, it appears it was possibly a condition of approval for the Cascadian Apartments development. Regardless, there is an easement to the public, which means the public is entitled to use it for ingress and egress. That is the purpose of the easement that is set forth in the deed. From a real property rights standpoint, those rights have already been conveyed to the public, so it is hard for him to see what other right is being taken from the Sterlings that would support an inverse condemnation claim or something like that. Having said that, what was eluded to by Mr. Sterling and Mr. Shockey was the possibility of the Sterlings electing to dedicate the easement area as right-of-way to the City. There's a subtle difference between the ingress/egress easement that's been conveyed to the public and a full dedication of right-of-way. While it is difficult to articulate the exact differences, with a full dedication of right-of-way, there wouldn't be a lot left of the property owner's right to use the property. It would essentially be a City street. For the purposes of permitting the development, the City has opined that an ingress/egress easement conveyed to the public gives anyone that happens to abut that public easement the right to use it for ingress or egress, which this applicant is doing. That seems to be within the scope of the easement that was deeded to the public. If the Sterlings want to talk to the City about possibly accepting a dedication of the public easement area as right-of-way, he wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, but he cannot guarantee it would happen, either. It would have to be approved by the City Council. Board Member Owenby asked if the meaning of "public" is the same now as when the easement was dedicated. He asked if there were other easement dedications at the time that might give an indication of the City's thinking on "public" easements. He commented that this does not appear to be a typical public deed. Mr. Taraday explained that easements are interpreted according to the purpose stated on the face of the easement. In this case, the stated purpose is for ingress and egress and the recipient of the easement is the public. He is not going to take the position, necessarily, that this deed is the same as a deed of dedication, but the word "public" is frequently used in this context. It is not surprising to him that "public" was used in this instance, too. Chair Herr pointed out that the wording on the easement says "to the public for the authority to construct, improve, repair and maintain the easement for ingress and egress." It can't be any clearer than that. Mr. Sterling commented that the public (his residents) has been using the easement for 40 years for ingress and egress. His concern is that the applicant gets 100% of the say over what traffic circulation will look like for the public. The residents of his apartment building would comment if asked, but they have not been invited to share comments up to this point. His side of the public has as much right to determine what ingress and egress looks like in this new road as the person who is doing the permit, but they have been excluded from the process until tonight. There are reason for their concerns and why they don't simply accept the applicant's proposal. Lisa Sterling, Edmonds, said she is joint owner of the Cascadian Apartments. She pointed out that there is only one right-hand turn lane on Edmonds Way into the subject property, and a 2-lane ingress would be confusing. She expressed Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 9 of 14 Packet Pg. 11 2.1.a her belief that signage would be key because there are two developments using the same driveway. The Cascadian Apartments has a one-way traffic flow that makes a loop around the entire property. There is only one way out of the development, and having two arrows coming in will cause confusion. She and her husband are on the property every day, and their sons are resident managers on the property. They see the traffic flow there and understand the impacts, yet they were not asked to provide input to either the City or the consultant doing the traffic study. She said she was present at the hearing to represent her tenant's safety and wellbeing. To clarify Chair Herr's earlier comment, Ms. Sterling pointed out that the entire easement is on her property. The notion that they are being pushed on to her property implies to her that perhaps the City is already viewing it as a public right- of-way. As far as she knows, the easement is on her property and she has responsibility for maintaining it. This is the only forum for them to express their concerns, and she is grateful for the Board's attention. Chair Herr said he was simply following Mr. Sterling's logic when he said the driveway was pushed off the easement. Ms. Sterling explained that, based on the applicant's proposal, the new development's ingress/egress may trespass onto her property outside of the easement. While the painted line proposed by the applicant would guide people from the new development away from the Cascadian Apartment property, a better approach would be to simply guide all of the traffic down a single wide lane. It doesn't make sense to have two lanes. Mr. Lien recalled Mr. Shockey's comment relative to the design review criteria in ECDC 20.11.030.C.1, which specifically states that community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. He still supports the opinion he stated in the Staff Report that the proposed development is not a community facility, and therefore, the criteria is not applicable. He advised that ECDC 21.15.071 defines "community facilities" as "any use, structure, building or development that 1) is primarily used or dedicated for a use by members of the general public for educational, religious, informational, recreational, artistic or social purposes, or 2) serves members of the general public by providing for utility, transportation, police, fire, parking, or services, or 3) is primarily used or dedicated for use by local, state, regional, federal governments for the purposes of providing governmental services." He explained that Item 2 mentions transportation, but staff interprets this to apply to things such as a transit center, the waterfront connector, or other types of public transportation facilities. Other projects the criterion has been applied to include the Senior Center, school district projects and the Interurban Trail shelters and signs. A project done by the Edmonds Center for the Arts, which is a non-profit organization that is not public but within a public facilities district would be considered a quasi -public use, and others might include public utility projects and the senior center, itself. He summarized his belief that the proposed project would not be considered a public project, a community facility or a quasi -public facility. The criteria have never been applied to a private development that accesses a public easement or right-of-way. Just because it accesses a public easement, doesn't make it a public project. Next, Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 20.11.030.A, which states that the building should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. The Comprehensive Plan, which describes the City's vision for the future, designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Commercial Development Goal E, which is specific to the Edmonds Way Corridor designation, states that the corridor serves as a key transportation corridor and also as a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. It is an established pattern of multifamily residential development that lies along both sides of the corridor, with small businesses primarily near the intersections. A major concern is that intensive development occurring along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. There are four specific criteria for the Edmonds Way Corridor: 1. Permit uses in planned multifamily or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. 2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to the development. 3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR- 104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 10 of 14 Packet Pg. 12 2.1.a 4. Use design to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down buillding heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single-family development whenever possible. Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed project meets all of these criteria. The access plan was analyzed and found adequate by both the City Engineer and a traffic consultant. It will address concerns related to vehicle queuing and minimizes the number of access points. Mr. Sterling referred to the existing pedestrian use of the driveway, but there is also another pedestrian access on the Sterling property that connects directly to the transit bus stop in front of the site. In addition, the applicant is proposing a new pedestrian access. Once again, Mr. Lien summarized that the 20.11.030.C.1 does not apply to the subject property because it is not a community facility or a public or quasi -public facility. Even if it were, it would meet all of the criteria in ECDC r 20.11.030.A and fit with the character of the surrounding area. N Regarding Mr. Shockey's and Mr. Sterling's comment that they have been left out of the process, Mr. Lien explained that the proponent of the project submitted a specific application to use an easement that was recorded in 1978, and the m City has determined that they have the right to do so. The comment letters from Mr. Shockey concede that the applicant a probably has the right to use the easement, and the City has an obligation to process the application. Staff reviewed the application for consistency with the design standards and codes and determined that, for this design review phase, which c is just a feasibility stage, it meets the City's Development Code and Design Standards. It appears it will also meet the City's Engineering Standards once it moves to the permit phase. Mr. Lien said staff reviews the public comments that are submitted. There are many ways a site can be developed. Just because a public comment suggests an alternative way for the site to be accessed doesn't mean the City will do a detailed o analysis on the alternative. This applies to all development that occurs in the City. The City does do further analysis on c public comments when the public has information on the property that was not previously known, such as an additional @ easement, a potential conflict with a utility line, or a situation where the project does not comply with a code c requirement. Staff did not receive any public comments of this type. They have reviewed the application and found that a it meets the code and design standards. They have looked at the Sterling's proposal, and Ms. McConnell noted that, of Q the two access designs that have been presented so far, the 2-lane ingress is the City's preferred design. 13 Mr. Shockey emphasized that he is a land -use consultant and not an attorney. When he and Mr. Sterling met with the 0 0 applicant and City staff earlier in the day, the City staff set forth the ground rules, pointing out that the intent of the m meeting was to find a solution to the access issue. Staff indicated that the meeting was not intended to discuss the merits Q of the access easement and the right of the applicant to access the easement. However, twice during the public hearing, once by Mr. Taraday and again by Mr. Lien, a City representative began to open that door. He emphasized that the purpose of the hearing is not to discuss whether or not Kisan Enterprises has access to the easement. He urged them to E stick by the rules they all agreed to. He and Mr. Sterling are present to talk about the ADB reviewing alternatives for access within the existing easement. a Mr. Taraday explained that the meeting earlier in the day had a very different purpose than the public hearing. The earlier meeting was to try and resolve a conflict and get the two neighbors to agree on an access configuration. At the earlier meeting, City staff was present to facilitate the discussion and he indicated that arguing about legal rights would not be a productive use of time. However, this is a public hearing, and questions have been raised about the history and proper use of the easement. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for anyone, including Mr. Shockey, to speak to the easement issues. He apologized if Mr. Shockey was confused by the "ground rules" that were set forth for the earlier settlement meeting, but he didn't intend to bar him or anyone else from speaking about the easement during the hearing. Mr. Shockey said he clearly understood that the intent of the earlier meeting was to find a compromise on access. The Sterling's attorney, Mr. Cattle, also attended the meeting but chose not to attend the public hearing so they could stick to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 11 of 14 Packet Pg. 13 the issue of access to the property and various alternatives. At a minimum, if that door has now been opened, they need to continue the hearing so that Mr. Cattle has an opportunity, as attorney for the Sterlings, to appear at the next meeting and begin arguing the issue of access to the easement. Vice Chair Strauss said she understands the City's position that, because the easement has been granted to the public, it can be used by the proponent for access to the new development. She asked why the applicant didn't consider using the existing access that currently serves the single-family home on the subject property. Was it because the code encourages access from intersections? Mr. Lien referred to Urban Design Objective A.1, (Page 7 of the Staff Report), which calls for reducing the number and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety, and Commercial Development Goal E.3 (Page 6 of the Staff Report) again, which encourages the shared or joint use of driveway and access points by development along SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. He explained that the proposed project would reduce the number of potential driveways by using the existing entrance at the traffic light adjacent to the development. The applicant's access proposal is supported by both the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McConnell concurred that eliminating one driveway access and directing traffic through a combined access at the intersection would be the City's preferred approach. She referred to Attachment 19 of the Staff Report, which is an aerial photograph of Edmonds Way, and specifically noted the curvature of the highway. There is limited sight distance for vehicles exiting the subject property onto Edmonds Way, and the Transportation Engineer is asking that traffic be directed to the signalized intersection as the safer access. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the City would have denied a request by the applicant to use the existing driveway to access the new development. Ms. McConnell said previous proposals for the property used the existing driveway for access, and in both cases, the Traffic Engineer indicated that the access points on Edmonds Way had to be eliminated. Instead, traffic should be directed to use the access easement at the signalized intersection. Board Member Owensby said he understands that no visitor parking is required for the project, but commonsense tells him it is necessary. He pointed out that anyone who visits the residents of the new development will have to park off site and likely on the adjacent property without permission. He asked how the Board can resolve this concern. Mr. Taraday said the Board's purview is to determine whether or not the decision criteria are met. His understanding is that there is nothing in the Board's decision criteria that would allow them to require supplemental parking when it is not required by code. The Board might disagree with a legislative policy choice that is set forth in the code, but the choice was made a long time ago when the code was adopted. If the Board feels the policy is flawed, they could request a potential code amendment as a totally separate process from the application before them. Board Member Owensby voiced concern that the Board is being asked to approve a project that punishes an adjacent property owner because the applicant's proposal is consistent with the zoning code. Because the public easement would be used to access the subject site, visitors to the new development would likely use the easement for parking, too. If the existing access were used instead, there wouldn't be an issue with people using the public easement for parking. Chair Herr suggested that parking could be addressed by signage. Mr. Taraday cautioned that the City doesn't have any evidence that parking, in fact, would be diverted onto the Sterling property, and they can't just assume that is going to be the case. Parking is an issue that must be addressed by the property owners, and there are a variety of parking enforcement strategies that could be used. If parking becomes an issue, the Sterlings would have the right to prevent guests of the Kisan project from parking on their property. Mr. Lien reviewed the findings the Board must make when reviewing projects (ECDC 20.11.020): A. The proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.I L 030 and in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the urban design chapters of the Community, Cultural and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report details how the proj ect meets this criterion. B. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or a variance for modification has been approved Staffs finding is that the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements. The proposal Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 12 of 14 Packet Pg. 14 2.1.a complies with the zoning standards as presented in the Staff Report, and compliance will be verified again at the Building Permit phase. Chair Herr closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and the Board began its deliberations. He reminded the Board that they must decide whether the applicant has made the showing required by ECDC 20.10 and ECDC 20.11 and related design criteria if applicable. The Board must base its decision on evidence in the record. Board Member Guenther said he feels the Board is in a position of having to mediate between two property owners who can't come to a common ground. He commented that the Board's roll is to review the design of the building and site, but the discussion has focused solely on the access. That being said, the Board is also concerned with the health, safety and welfare of the community, and it appears that using the public easement for access would be the safest approach. He expressed his belief that having two ingress lanes is far better than one. His only concern is that there needs to be more space for vehicles waiting to enter Edmonds Way to queue up, but that would require the elimination of one or two units. He said he supports staff position that both properties should be able to use the easement for access. Vice Chair Strauss said her biggest concern is egress off the Sterling's property. As proposed, the lanes would be separated with painted lines and there would be no provision for getting people off the property and into the egress aisle. She wants to make sure this issue is resolved before a building permit is issued, and she is confident that City staff can work it out. She said she doesn't believe it is necessary to have two ingress lanes. While it can be wide enough for two lanes, people will do what they are going to do. Other than that, the proposal meets all of the code requirements. Board Member Juenke agreed that the proposed project meets all of the criteria. While the facades facing Edmonds Way are not the most attractive, the addition of sidewalks and landscaping will be a vast improvement over the current situation. She feels very unsafe when walking down that portion of the highway. Board Member Owensby agreed that the project meets all of the code requirements, and issues related to ingress and egress will be taken care of during the Building Permit stage. The building design meets the general idea of what the City would like, but not necessarily to the quality he would like to see. His biggest concern is the idea that there is no visitor parking requirement for multifamily residential development of this type. CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030 AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED KISAN 18-UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. 2. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING. 3. A FIRE HYDRANT IS REQUIRED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. 4. FIRE LANES MUST BE MARKED AND SIGNED PER SOUTH COUNTY FIRE STANDARDS. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 13 of 14 Packet Pg. 15 2.1.a 5. COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING CODES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE BUILING 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. 6. 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 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL THE OCTOIBER 2, 2019 MEETING. BOARD MEMBER JUENKE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the initial goal was for the Board to provide some recommendations for staff to take to the Planning Board on September 12'. However, there is no rush and the discussion could be postponed to a future meeting. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no comments from Board Members. I\I 1111111105104 " The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 14 of 14 Packet Pg. 16 5.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/2/2019 Main Street Commons - Phase 2 District -based Design Review (PLN20190024) Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History The Architectural Design Board held Phase 1 of this public hearing on July 3, 2019. During that meeting, the Board continued the hearing until September 4, 2019. On September 4, the Board continued the hearing again until October 2 to allow the applicant additional time to resubmit updated project materials. Staff Recommendation The Board is required to find that the proposed development is consistent with the zoning ordinance, the design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, and the design guidance provided by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions identified in the Phase 2 staff report and the associated exhibits, staff recommends that the Board approve the design of the Main Street Commons project with the conditions noted on page 15 of the staff report. Narrative This application is for design review of two commercial buildings and site improvements at 550 Main Street within the Downtown Retail Core (BD1 zone). The first part of the project includes extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9,000+/- sq. ft. building on the west side of the site and creation of an interior plaza to replace a portion an existing surface parking lot. The second part of the project will replace the remainder of the parking lot with a new 5,600 sq. ft. two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main St. and 6th Ave. S. The plaza will extend south of the new building to connect to 6th Avenue. Eight surface parking stalls will be provided that load from the alley to the south. Projects in the downtown business zones are subject to district -based design review according to Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). District -based design review applications that trigger SEPA review such as this are Type III-B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board. The purpose of the hearing continuance is to allow the applicant to revise the initial concept to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. The ADB will complete their review of the design of the project and make the final decision on the design proposal at the conclusion of the Phase 2 portion of the hearing process. The Phase 2 staff report is included along with 15 exhibits: 1. Applicant's Phase 2 cover letter 2. July 3 ADB minutes (annotated by the applicant to reference changes on plan sheets) Packet Pg. 17 5.1 3. Rendering of whole site looking southwest (Sheet 00) 4. Whole site elevations (Sheet 0) 5. Floor plans (Sheet 1) 6. East building elevations (Sheet 2) 7. West building elevations (Sheets 3 & 4) 8. Wall types (Sheet 5) 9. Pedestrian features (Sheets 6 - 8) 10. Landscape plans 11. PUD SEPA comment 12. Site aerials 13. Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing 14. Engineering letter of compliance 15. Phase 1 staff report and attachments Attachments: Phase 2 Staff Report Exhibit 1- Applicant Phase 2 cover letter Exhibit 2 - July 3 ADB minutes Exhibit 3 - Oblique rendering looking SW Exhibit 4 - Whole site elevations Exhibit 5 - Floor plans Exhibit 6 - West building elevation Exhibit 7 - East building elevations Exhibit 8 - Wall sections Exhibit 9 - Pedestrian features Exhibit 10 - Landscape plans Exhibit 11 - PUD SEPA comment Exhibit 12 - Site aerials Exhibit 13 - Courtesy notice of continued hearing Exhibit 14 - Engineering Design Review Approval Memo Exhibit 15 - ADB Phase 1 staff report and attachments Packet Pg. 18 5.1.a 'Ile. 1-g 9 V CITY OF EDMONDS 121511 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION'S REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD "PHASE 2" DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Project: Main Street Commons File Number: PLN20190024 Date of Report: September 2255, 2019 Staff Contact: / Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner ADB Meeting: Wednesday — October 2, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I. PROJECT PROPOSAL AND PROCESS David DiMarco, representing Mike McMurray and the Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, has submitted an application for design review of two commercial buildings and site improvements at 550 Main Street. The first part of the redevelopment project includes extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9,000+/- sq. ft. building on the west side of the site and creation of an interior plaza to replace a portion an existing surface parking lot. The second part of the project will replace the remainder of the parking lot with a new 5,600 sq. ft. two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main St. and 6tn Ave. S. The plaza will extend south of the new building to connect to 6t" Avenue. Eight surface parking stalls will be provided that load from the alley to the south. Projects in the Downtown Business zones are subject to district -based design review under the regulations of Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). According to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.12.010, district -based design review applications that trigger SEPA review are Type III-B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB held the Phase 1 portion of the public hearing on July 3, 2019. During that meeting, the Board continued the hearing until September 4, 2019. On September 4, the Board continued the hearing again until October 2 to allow the applicant additional time to resubmit updated project materials. Packet Pg. 19 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 According to ECDC 20.12.005.13, the purpose of the hearing continuance is to allow the applicant to revise the initial concept to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. The ADB will complete their review of the design of the project and make the final decision on the design proposal at the conclusion of the Phase 2 portion of the hearing process. Note that the applicant submitted building permit applications at the same time as design review and staff is reviewing those permits concurrently. The applicant is aware that those permits cannot be issued until design review is complete and that any changes required during design review must be reflected in the building permits applications. Commercial building permit applications are valid for one year with the opportunity for extension. The following Exhibits are included with this Phase 2 staff report: 1. Applicant's Phase 2 cover letter 2. July 3 ADB minutes (annotated by the applicant to reference changes on plan sheets) 3. Rendering of whole site looking southwest (Sheet 00) 4. Whole site elevations (Sheet 0) 5. Floor plans (Sheet 1) 6. East building elevations (Sheet 2) 7. West building elevations (Sheets 3 & 4) 8. Wall types (Sheet 5) 9. Pedestrian features (Sheets 6 — 8) 10. Landscape plans 11. PUD SEPA comment 12. Site aerials 13. Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing 14. Engineering letter of compliance 15. Phase 1 staff report and attachments II. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS A. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS The subject property is located near the eastern edge of the Edmonds downtown business core. The property is zoned BD1 (Downtown Retail Core) as are the properties to the north and west. Properties to the south and east are zoned BD2 (Downtown Mixed Commercial). Uses surrounding the project site include a mix of commercial, office and residential. Refer to Exhibit 12 for an aerial view of the site in relation to the surrounding area. I B. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS Since the hearing was continued to a date certain during Phase 1 of the hearing process, no additional public notice is required. However, staff mailed a "Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing" to property owners within 300 feet of the site. [Exhibit 13] This courtesy notice was also posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, Development Services Department, and at the Library. Page 2 of 16 Packet Pg. 20 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 No one from the public spoke at Phase 1 of the hearing and no comments have been received as of the date of this staff report. C. TECHNICAL STAFF REVIEW The Phase 1 portion of the application was reviewed and evaluated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue, Building Division, Public Works Department, and Engineering Division. Initial comments by these reviewers were included with the June 26, 2019 report to the ADB. [Exhibit 15] One additional SEPA comment was received after the Phase 1 staff report was prepared. Snohomish County PUD indicated that there is sufficient electric system capacity in the area but that any improvements needed to service the site must meet PUD standards and be provided at the expense of the developer. [Exhibit 111 South County Fire, Public Works, and the Building Division reserved further comment on the design review to focus on the associated building permit reviews. The Engineering Division reviewed the Phase 2 resubmittal and noted that the project is feasible but they will also focus review on the building permits. [Exhibit 14] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Downtown Retail Core" within the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center" overlay. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project include: Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. D.SCoordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation. Page 3 of 16 Packet Pg. 21 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 D.8 Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere with pedestrian and bicycle activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and mixed use areas in the downtown area. The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following specific goal for the Downtown Retail Core designation: Downtown Retail Core. The area immediately surrounding the fountain at 5th and Main and extending along Main Street and Fifth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail -compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service — e.g. art galleries, restaurants, real estate sales offices and similar uses that provide storefront windows and items for sale to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front fagades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area. Design objectives for the downtown area addressing site design, building form and building fagade are provided in the Comprehensive Plan (pages 125-127). Refer to Exhibits 3 —10 for building renderings and plans. Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place -making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. Findings: The redevelopment would remove two curb cuts from 6th Avenue and relocate off- street parking to the existing alley. B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. Findings: The existing and proposed buildings will be constructed nearly to the property lines and sidewalk. Crosswalks with bulbouts exist at the intersection of 6th and Main and no transit is located adjacent to the site. Page 4 of 16 Packet Pg. 22 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Findings: A new pedestrian entrance will be created for the west building to provide direction connection to Main Street. The east building has a primary entry at the corner of Main and 6th with secondary entrances further down both streets. Both buildings will have multiple access points from the central plaza. B.4 Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing each areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. Findings: The project updates the fagade of the existing west building while the proposed east building will fit in at the corner of Main and 6th Avenue. The pedestrian plaza between the two buildings creates a very attractive gathering space near the eastern edge of the downtown commercial area. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. Findings: The proposed buildings are consistent with the scale, proportion and character of other buildings in the downtown area. The new east building will share vertical siding elements with the existing west building but the facades will primarily be masonry similar to other downtown buildings. B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. Findings: Both buildings include large canopies over the primary building entries at the street front as well as within the plaza area. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. Findings: A series of blade signs are envisioned throughout the project along with two backlit wall signs. Signage will be reviewed by staff with future building permit applications. B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. Page 5 of 16 Packet Pg. 23 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 Findings: The site is not located within the 41h Avenue Arts Corridor but Main Street Commons includes a large central outdoor plaza for gatherings and events along with a series of mural walls that will be inviting to the public and artists alike. In the public right-of- way, street tree grates are part of existing and proposed frontage improvements but the ADB should consider recommending inclusion of additional hanging baskets and street furniture if there is sufficient room in the sidewalk area — a condition is proposed. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale. Findings: The proposed buildings are one- and two -stories consistent with the 30-foot height limit of the BD1 zone. B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building facades should respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. Findings: Neither building exhibits large masses at Main Street. The proposed east building is somewhat more massive than the existing west building but it is divided vertically using different materials. It is also divided into the forward high -bay entrance at the corner of Main Street and 6th Avenue with the main building mass behind that. Along 6th Avenue, the mass of the east building is divided using similar techniques. B.11 Building Fagade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base). Findings: The buildings provide variation in materials and form along the public frontages using human scale elements and each has a distinct top and base. B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade. Findings: Both buildings are dominated by clear, transparent glass windows and doors along Main Street. The east building is similar along 6th Avenue. Lower level windows have transom features and the door systems have heavier frames. The frames appear to be aluminum or metal. As conditioned, staff finds the proposal is consistent with the referenced goals and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 16 Packet Pg. 24 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 E. DESIGN GUIDELINES CHECKLIST During Phase 1 of the public hearing on July 3, the ADB established design priorities for the project based on the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area using the Design Guidelines Checklist. The minutes for that meeting are in Exhibit 2. 1. Site Planning. The proposed site plan modernizes what today is an auto -centric development from the 1950s. Both the existing and new buildings will be built to street property lines and will have direct connections to the sidewalk. Canopies highlight entries that are either recessed (west building) or project forward (east building). Human activity will increase along Main Street and 6th Avenue as well as at the plaza that runs between the buildings. Parking, while not required, is provided but de-emphasized. It is located well away from the corner of Main and 6th off the alley and is separated from the plaza by a low wall and the mural system. 2. Bulk and Scale. Transitions to less -intensive zones are not proposed since the site is in a mixed - use area. 3. Architectural Elements. The Board highlighted the importance of architectural elements and materials and the revised proposal addresses the high priority given to these items. Renovating the existing building and its keeping its distinctive arched roof form will provide a link to the past. Although a different form, the new building will be consistent with its surroundings as far as size, pedestrian amenities, and use of high quality materials. 4. Pedestrian Environment. The proposal improves the pedestrian environment near the corner of 6th and Main. Canopies over the sidewalks and entries will provide weather protection where there is none now. Site utilities and parking are located away from Main Street off 6th Avenue and are screened with a low wall and vegetation. 5. Landscaping. Existing street trees on Main Street will be protected while new street trees are proposed along 6th Avenue. Site landscaping includes planters, green walls, and a few specimen trees. Landscaping is proposed at 6th Avenue to buffer the parking area at the alley. Staff finds that the revised project design satisfies the Board's prioritization for Site Planning, Bulk and Scale, Architectural Elements, Pedestrian Environment, and Landscaping. F. APPLICABLE CODES New buildings like the proposed east building must comply with all current code requirements. Remodels like the west building must be designed with the goal of achieving as much compliance as possible, understanding that the original building was designed and constructed prior to the adoption of the current codes and standards. The overall site must meet all current code requirements. 1. ECDC 16.43 — Downtown Business Zone (BD1) A. ECDC 16.43.020 Uses. The site is located in the BD1 zone and so subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.43. The proposal is for two commercial buildings and site improvements with a loading area and surface parking along the alley off of 6t1 Avenue. These are all permitted primary or Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg. 25 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 secondary uses in the BD1 zone pursuant to ECDC 16.43.020. Outdoor dining is a secondary use that must meet the requirements of ECDC 17.75. B. According to ECDC 16.43.030, development standards in the BD1 zone include: Minimum Height of Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Ground Zone Lot Area Street Side Rear Floor within (Sq. Ft.) Lot Width Setback Setback' Setback' Height' the Designated Street Front4 BD1 None None 0' 0' 0' I 30' 15' ' The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. ' Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). "Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street -front" means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the "finished" ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. C. Setbacks. Since the subject site is not adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property, no setbacks are required for the proposed buildings. An associated lot combination request (PLN20190025) was approved to remove an interior boundary line in order to create a single parcel to facilitate redevelopment of the site. D. Height. The maximum allowed height in the BD1 zone is 30 feet with certain exceptions provided in ECDC 16.43.030.C.3. Height calculations were provided with the Phase 1 submittal. The elevations in Attachment 3 of Exhibit 15 show the west building at about 23 feet tall while the new east building is about 30 feet with additional rooftop features. E. Ground Floor. Per ECDC 16.43.030.13, several dimensional elements apply to the ground floor of new buildings within the designated street front at Main Street (6th Avenue does not have the requirement). First, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front must be directly accessible by an entry from the Main Street sidewalk. Second, the entry must be within 7 inches of the grade at the sidewalk and the ground floor must be within 7 inches of the entry. Third, the ground floor height within the designated street front must be a minimum of 15 feet. Page 8 of 16 Packet Pg. 26 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 Because the site is gently sloped, the ground floor of the new east building is divided into two levels. [Exhibits 5 & 7] The larger portion of the ground floor is accessed from the primary entrance at the corner of 6th and Main and meets the 7-inch requirement. The ground floor steps down in the western side of the building and that portion of the floor is also accessible from the sidewalk and meets the 7-inch requirement. The floors were redesigned after Phase 1 of the hearing in order to ensure that the full 45-foot depth of commercial space complies with the 15-foot floor -to -floor requirement. Regarding the existing west building, it was built prior to the adoption of the current BD zoning code and design standards. That said, the proposed remodel is able to meet the intent of current code. First, a new pedestrian entrance is proposed from Main Street where none currently exists. [Exhibits 5 & 6] The entrance does not meet the 7-inch requirement since the existing ground floor plate is well above the level of the sidewalk but creating a primary, covered entry at Main Street refocuses the building to the street Second, the ground floor will meet both the 45-foot commercial depth requirement as well as the 15-foot floor -to -floor requirement. The designated street front use requirements in ECDC 16.43.030.13 apply to both buildings as measured 45 feet perpendicular from the Main Street property line. Only commercial uses may be located within the designated street front area and Exhibit 5 shows ground floor tenant spaces such as a restaurant and retail shops that would meet this criterion. Staff will review future uses in the tenant spaces through business license applications and inspections. F. Parking. Per ECDC 16.43.030.D, no parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1 zone. While no parking is required for this project, eight (8) stalls are proposed off the alley near 6th Avenue South. G. Open Space. In accordance with ECDC 16.43.030.E, at least five percent of the lot area must be devoted to open space. With a lot area of 19,788 square feet, 990 square feet of open space is required. The proposal provides about 1,000 sq. ft. of open space along the Main Street property frontage. Additionally, the large pedestrian plaza runs from that space between the buildings and wraps around the south side of the east building to meet 6th Avenue. As always, all zoning requirements (and related building, engineering and public works codes) will be verified through review and approval of permits for the buildings (BLD20190529 & BLD20190530) and site improvements (BLD20190528) and through inspections during the construction process. 2. ECDC 22.43 ❑esign Standards for the BD Zones Design standards applicable to the BD zones are provided in ECDC Chapter 22.43. A. ECDC22.43.010 Massing and Articulation. Intent— To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box -like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by Page 9 of 16 Packet Pg. 27 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Comments: The existing west building has a visually distinct base and a strong arched roof form. The proposed east building now includes a projecting cornice near the top of the building with a material change at the parapet. The base includes a variety of storefronts and canopies together with a variety of materials 2. Building facades shall respect and echo historic patterns. Where a single building exceeds the historic building width pattern, use a change in design features (such as a combination of materials, windows or decorative details) to suggest the traditional building widths. Comments: Older building widths in the downtown area typically vary from about 30 to 60 feet. The existing west building is about 66 feet wide at Main Street while the proposed east building is about 77 feet wide at Main Street and 56 feet wide at 6th Avenue. The pedestrian plaza between the buildings is about 34 feet wide at both Main Street and 6th Avenue. Both buildings use a combination of material changes, projections, windows and storefronts to further divide fagade width. B. ECDC 22.43.020 Orientation to Street. Intent— To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. 1. Building frontages shall be primarily oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot or alley. Comments: Both buildings address the adjacent streets. 2. Entrances to buildings in the BD1, BD2 and BD4 zones shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. Comments: Entrances to both buildings are visible from Main Street and 6th Avenue and accessible from the sidewalk. Secondary access into both buildings is available from the plaza. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of the following elements: a. Higher bay(s); b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet), c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. Comments: The new entrance to the west building at Main Street is recessed. A high -bay entrance to the east building is at the corner of Main and 6th. Other street - side entrances are visually distinct using canopies and an entry plaza. C. ECDC 22.43.030 Ground Level Details. Intent — To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. 1. Ground floor, street facing facades of commercial and mixed -use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements: a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets; Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg. 28 Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 5.1.a b. Medallions, c. Belt courses; d. Plinths for columns; e. Bulkhead for storefront window, f. Projecting sills, g. Tile work; h. Transom or clerestory windows; i. Planter box; J. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Comments: Numerous ground level details provide visual interest on both buildings, including: lighting and hanging baskets with ornamental brackets; planter boxes; a sitting area in front of the east building at Main; small balconies with metal railings off the north facade of the west building; transom windows; and, large storefront windows. 2. Ground floor commercial space is intended to be accessible and at grade with the sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC 16.43.030. Comments: The commercial spaces in the new east building are accessible and at grade with the sidewalk at Main and 61h. The ground floor of the west building is not at grade with the sidewalk but rather is oriented toward the existing parking lot, as was typical of buildings constructed in the mid-1950s. The proposed remodel includes a new recessed pedestrian entry at Main Street via several stairs. Accessible entry will still be available off the plaza (reconfigured parking lot). D. ECDC 22.43.040 Awnings/Canopies and Signage. Intent —1) To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. 2) To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way -fin ding for visitors. 3) To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. 1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. Comments: Structural canopies are proposed over the sidewalk on both buildings. Additional canopies are located over pedestrian entrances off the plaza. 2. Awnings and canopies shall be open -sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. Comments: All canopies are open -sided. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted. Comments: None of the canopies are marquee, box, or convex in shape. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. Comments: No retractable awnings are proposed. Page 11 of 16 Packet Pg. 29 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame store- fronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies should be hung just below a clerestory or transom window, if it exists. Comments: The proposed canopies frame the storefronts along Main Street and hang just below transom windows. 6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple -storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Comments: The canopies used on both buildings are similar but not identical 7. Nonstructural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Comments: Nonstructural awnings are not proposed. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Com- binations of sign types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Comments: Signs in the BD zones are subject to the design standards in ECDC 22.43.040. While staff will approve signage through future building permits, a series of blade signs are anticipated along with indirectly lit wall signs. These would be in keeping with the code. 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are preferred. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less are permitted and are not counted when calculating the amount of signage permitted for a business in ECDC 20.60. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under ECDC 22.43.O3O(B). Comments: See #8 above. 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Comments: See #8 above. 11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Comments: No signage was included with this proposal. Signage will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards of ECDC 22.43.040 and the sign code requirements of ECDC 20.60 when a sign application is submitted. 12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or con- tributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or on a city council -approved historic survey. Comments: Not applicable. The subject site is not on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, nor on a city council -approved historic survey. Page 12 of 16 Packet Pg. 30 Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 5.1.a 13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An historic sign may be used to meet this standard. Comments: See #8 above. ECDC 22.43.050 Transparency at Street Level. Intent — To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. 1. The ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have transparent windows covering a minimum of 75 percent of the building facade that lies between an average of two feet and 10 feet above grade. Comments: Main Street has the designated street front requirement while 6tn Avenue does not. The existing west building is a remodel but includes a large number of new windows at Main Street making that facade consistent with the intent of the 75% transparency requirement. [Exhibit 3] The proposed east building was redesigned after the Phase 1 portion of the hearing to be compliant with the 75% requirement at Main Street. 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Comments: A condition is proposed. 3. Where transparency is not required, the facade shall comply with the standards under ECDC 22.43.060. Comments: The east facade of the east building is not subject to transparency requirements but includes a variety of windows and other features to ensure it is not a blank wall. 4. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk. Comments: A condition is proposed. ECDC 22.43.060 Treating Blank Walls. Intent — To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under ECDC 22.43.050). At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street facing facade: a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block), b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; c. Belt courses of a different texture and color, d. Projecting cornice, e. Decorative tile work; f. Medallions, g. Opaque or translucent glass, h. Artwork or wall graphics; Page 13 of 16 Packet Pg. 31 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 i. Lighting fixtures, j. Green walls; k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Comments: There are no blank walls proposed as part of this project which abut streets or are visible from residential areas. G. ECDC 22.43.070 Building HVAC Equipment. Intent — To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other building utility features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. If these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g., rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. Comments: Rooftop HVAC is shown to be below a parapet or screened. According to ECDC 21.40.030, elevator penthouses may exceed the height limit by three feet provided the horizontal cross section of the elevator penthouse does not exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section. Height limits and elevator penthouse requirements will be verified with the building permits. 2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on adjoining properties. Comments: All HVAC equipment is roof mounted on both buildings. However, there appears to be a utility pad at the southeast corner of the site by the sidewalk at 61h Avenue. [Exhibit 5] A condition is proposed to relocate, bury or screen any utility cabinets. Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with design standards contained within ECDC Chapter 22.43. 3. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for commercial projects. Each proposal must meet those requirements as well as the standards in the City's Street Tree Plan. Exhibit 10 shows the proposed landscaping on the site. Existing street trees along Main Street will be retained and new street trees are shown along 61h Avenue. Two specimen trees and other pedestrian -scale landscaping is proposed throughout the plaza area and in front of the east building at Main Street. The east building will also be partially covered by green walls. Additional landscaping could be provided to soften the appearance of the block wall separating the plaza from the parking area or more attractive wall materials could be used. Because eight parking stalls are proposed, 140 square feet of Type V parking lot landscaping is required. A 280 square foot landscaped area is shown at the east end of the parking area Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg. 32 5.1.a Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 and a condition is proposed to use ensure the landscaping used in that area meets the Type V parking lot landscaping standards. As conditioned, the proposed landscaping is consistent with the requirements of the Street Tree Plan and ECDC 20.13. 4. ECDC 20.60 Sims Signs in the BD zones are subject to the design standards in ECDC 22.43.040. While staff will approve signage through future building permits, a series of blade signs are anticipated along with indirectly lit wall signs, which would be in keeping with the code. Murals require a sign permit per ECDC 20.60.015.C. III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020, when approving proposed development applications, the ADB is required to find that the proposed development is consistent with the zoning ordinance, the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and the specific design criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and exhibits of this report, staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board APPROVE the proposal under File No. PLN20190024 with conditions as stated in the following recommended motion: THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43, AND APPROVES THE PROPOSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. STREET -LEVEL WINDOWS ON BOTH BUILDINGS ALONG MAIN STREET MUST BE TRANSPARENT AND UNOBSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH ECDC 22.43.050.B. 2. ALL UTILITY CABINETS MUST BE RELOCATED, BURIED, SCREENED WITH VEGETATION, OR CAMOUFLAGED WITH ART TO REDUCE THEIR VISUAL IMPACT AT THE SIDEWALK LEVEL. 3. LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE V REQUIREMENTS IN ECDC 20.13.030.E MUST BE PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPED AREA AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE BY 6T" AVENUE AND THE ALLEY (HATCHED AREA ON EXHIBIT 5). 4. ADDITIONAL HANGING BASKETS AND STREET FURNITURE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN OTHER REQUIRED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES. 5. ADDITIONAL INTEREST MUST BE ADDED TO THE LOW WALL BETWEEN THE PARKING STALLS AND PLAZA. THIS COULD TAKE THE FORM OF LANDSCAPING, VARIED MATERIALS, OR THE LIKE. 6. MURALS REQUIRE A SIGN PERMIT PER ECDC 20.60.015.C. 7. 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 Page 15of16 Packet Pg. 33 Main Street Commons File No. PLN20190024 5.1.a AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. IV. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121— 5th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 David DiMarco 1319 E. Howell St. Seattle, WA 98122 Mike McMurray 535 5th Ave. S Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 34 5.1.b David J DiMarca I AIA • CPHC A1319FHOW FLI 5T5FATTI FWA96122 P206.355.6795 dimareearrhiLee tura eo— Design Review Hearing Responserevised 91111195:39PM PROJECT Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds WA 98020 OWNER Mike McMurray/Seattle-Snohomish Mill Company Inc. 533 5th Ave S Edmonds WA 98020 425.263.2474 gecko8080(c�gmail.com Michael Clugston, AICP Senior Planner City of Edmonds 425-771-0220 x1330 ARCHITECT David DiMarco DiMarco Architecture 1319 East Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 206.355.6795 architect@icloud.com CONTRACTOR Sean Giudice Build Love Global LLC 6502 26th Ave NW Seattle WA 98177 206.579.1575 seangiudice@gmail.com Mike, The work enclosed is intended to supply the required new information to comply with being on the October 2nd hearing agenda. Attached please find our response to your comments from the first ADB hearing meeting notes dated July 3, 2019. Architectural Design Board Minutes of Regular Meeting dated July 3, 2019 There are three documents enclosed for your review. 1. Our revised architectural set now shows: a. A revised design that specifically addresses the Board's comments. b. Annotated 3D views, wall elevations and details that cite specific ECDC section compliance. c. The Board's specific comments have been numbered and annotated on the sheets as well. 2. Our revised landscape set now shows: a. A revised design with improved greenery that addresses the Board's comments. b. Calls out specific Code compliant plantings for required screening. 3. Your July ADB hearing meeting notes now show: a. Important Code compliance items and design suggestions are highlighted. b. Each item is numbered and corresponds to the numbered annotations in the architectural set. In addition, the following explanations address additional comments made related to Engineering, Building Code, Fire and Trash Collection Area. EXHIBIT 1 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 35 5.1.b Engineering Memo dated June 4, 2019 Transportation Engineer Review by Betrand Hauss: 1. See the enclosed revised traffic impact worksheet to reflect the new use of the existing building as Specialty Retail per 5/24 email from Jeanie McConnell to Mike McMurray. General Engineering Review by JoAnne Zulauf: 1. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. 2. Please refer to the revised colored landscape plan that now shows bike racks. 3. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. Utility Engineer Review by Mike Delilla: 4. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. 5. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. Building Division Memo dated June 7, 2019 Building Code Review by Leif Bjorback: 1. This item has already been addressed. Leif Bjorback has a signed and approved form that classifies the West Building as an existing building to be remodeled. rtment of Fire Protection Memo dated June 6.2019 Fire Comments by Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE: 1. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. 2. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. 3. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. 4. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. 5. This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. Public Works Memo dated June 27, 2019 Trash Collection Area plan review by Steve Fisher: This item shall be addressed in our building permit application responses. The proposed tenants in the remodeled West Building have been revised from two full service restaurants to one. If this revision to tenant type is satisfied by the proposed trash area width, no further revisions will be made. If not, we can widen this area by 5 feet be reducing the adjacent loading dock width. The screening requirement will be met with a newly proposed roll up gate. Please call with any questions. We'll see you in October. David DiMarco, DiMarco Architecture. 206.355.6795 EXHIBIT 1 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 36 5.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Joe Herr, Chair Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Kim Becker Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Tom Walker (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Phase 1 District -Based Design Review for Main Street Commons Located at 550 Main Street (File No. PLN20190024) Chair Herr explained that tonight is Phase 1 of the design review hearing for the Main Street Commons Project. After accepting public testimony, the Board will provide feedback to the applicant and continue the hearing to a date certain in order to take additional testimony, deliberate and make a decision on the project. He emphasized that no decision would be made tonight. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Chair Herr asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. Next, he asked if any member of the Board has a conflict of interest or believes he/she cannot hear and consider the application in EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 37 5.1.c a fair and objective manner. Again, All Board Members answered no. Last, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and no one raised a concern. At his invitation, all who wanted to participate in the hearing were sworn in. Mr. Clugston explained that the application requires a two -phased design review because of its location in a Downtown Business (BD) zone and because it triggered State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. During the Phase 1 hearing, the applicant will provide conceptual design and the Board will prioritize the design by checklist and continue the hearing to a date certain. During the Phase 2 hearing, the applicant will respond to the guidance provided by the Board at the Phase 1 hearing. The Board will review the revised proposal based on its previous guidance and the applicant's response and issue a decision. Mr. Clugston referred to the Staff Report, which includes 13 attachments: Two additional attachments were provided just prior to the meeting: A series of color schemes (Attachment 14) and trash enclosure comments from the building permit submittal (Attachment 15). He explained that, typically, design review is done first, followed by building permits. In this case, the applicant has applied for design review and building permits at the same time, and staff is reviewing the applications concurrently. Any modifications or conditions identified by the Board during design review must be reflected in the building permit. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photograph and a site plan and explained that the applicant is proposing two commercial buildings and site improvements on property located at 550 Main Street. Phase 1 of the redevelopment project will include extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9000 square foot building on the west side of the site and creation of an adjacent plaza to replace a portion of an existing surface parking lot. Phase 2 will replace the rest of the existing parking lot with a new 5,600 square foot, two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main Street and 6"' Avenue South. The plaza will be extended south of the new building to connect to 6 h Avenue South and eight surface parking stalls will be created that load from the alley on the south side. Mr. Clugston reviewed that there are no setback requirements in the BD-1 zone because it is not adjacent to residential. The height limit is 30 feet and the lot coverage requirements allow for development lot -line -to -lot -line. The BD-1 zone also requires that the buildings address the designated street fronts, which in this case is the Main Street side of the project. That means the ground floor height must be at least 15 feet and the depth of the commercial space must be at least 45 feet. The majority of the east building will meet the 15-foot height requirement, but a portion of it will not. Because the west building is a remodel, it does not have to meet the 15-foot height requirement. Both the new building and the existing building will meet the commercial depth requirement. Mr. Clugston advised that no parking is required for commercial uses in the BD-1 zone, but the applicant is proposing to provide eight stalls off the alley. The project is required to provide 990 square feet of open space (5% of the lot area), and the applicant is proposing approximately 1,000 square feet of open space at the northern edge of the site along Main Street between the buildings. The plaza wrapping around the new building will provide additional open space and touch 6'b Avenue South on the southeast corner of the project site. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the Phase 1 hearing is to primarily address zoning issues, but there are a few design elements that are important to highlight as something the applicant will need to address prior to the Phase 2 hearing. West Building. There is a question about whether the proposal for this building should be classified as a " remodel or new construction. If it is determined to be a new building, all of the current building and zoning d code requirements and design standards would apply and the building would have to be redesigned from what is z being proposed. The threshold for a remodel is 75% of the valuation of the building. One of the main features of the BD design code is to provide a pedestrian connection, including weather protection, between the primary Q building and the street (Main Street). As currently shown, there would be no pedestrian connection to Main Street. Also, the proposed design does not meet the requirement that 75% of the fagade of the building must be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 2 of 11 EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 38 5.1.c transparent between 2 and 10 feet. Lastly, the applicant is proposing two restaurants and other commercial uses, and the Recycling Coordinator questioned if there would be sufficient room for the trash facilities in the rear of the west building off the alley. The Board should consider whether the proposed trash facility is adequate or if additional facilities will need to be provided with the new building. East Building. The design of this building is fairly industrial looking, there is not an identifiable top and base, and the building does not provide sufficient transparency to meet the 75% requirement. He suggested that the utility doors in the center of the building could be relocated to the back of the building to open up space for more transparency along the street front. The building meets the 15-foot minimum height requirement for the front 45 feet of the ground floor, but the last 5 to 10 feet does not. There are no exceptions in the code for the floor height requirement, so the entire ground floor height will need to be 15 feet. This will require the floor plans to be altered. Lastly, it appears that the rooftop HVAC unit will extend beyond the 30-foot height limit. Mr. Clugston referred to the Design Guideline Checklist (Attachment 5 of the Staff Report), which the Board will review and provide guidance to the applicant. At the conclusion of the Phase 1 hearing, he recommended the Board schedule the Phase 2 hearing for October 2nd. This will provide sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the design guidance and the initial round of building permit corrections. It will also allow staff sufficient time to review the building permit and design review submittals and prepare the Staff Report for the Phase 2 hearing. Chair Herr asked if the west building would have to meet the 75% transparency requirement if it is determined to be a remodel rather than new construction. Mr. Clugston answered that there are some building and zoning requirements that would not have to be met with a remodel, but the connection to Main Street and transparency requirements would still apply. The floor -to -floor height requirement would not apply to a remodel, but most of the other requirements would have to be met. He summarized that, if the west building is classified as new construction, the form of the building will have to change substantially. Chair Herr asked who would determine whether the west building is a remodel or new construction. Mr. Clugston said the Building Official provided a checklist to help the applicant do a valuation for the proposed project. If the replacement value of the building is greater than 75% of the value of the existing structure, it would be considered new construction and would have to meet all of the current codes. The determination has not been made yet. Board Member Owensby asked if the 75% transparency must happen between 2 and 10 feet, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Board Member Owenby asked if there is an allowance for taking the transparency down to the floor level only when the floor level is higher than the street. Mr. Clugston answered that, in the past, an existing building has been allowed to provide transparency horizontally rather that at an angle. In this case, the criterial would be satisfied if the building above the foundation is 75% transparent. Board Member Owensby asked if tradeoffs can be made by providing more windows higher up, and Mr. Clugston answered no. That is why it can be difficult to reuse existing buildings and bring them up to today's standards. Chair Herr voiced concern that the transparency requirement could kill the project because it would not be possible for the applicant to put windows below the existing floor. Mr. Clugston clarified that, if the building is considered a remodel, the applicant would not have to cut down into the foundation to provide windows, and the transparency area would be measured above the foundation. However, if the building is considered new construction, the 2 and 10 measurement would follow the track of the sidewalk. Board Member Becker observed that the only parking for the project will be the 8 stalls along the 6d' Avenue alley. She pointed out that parking is a growing issue for retailers in the downtown, and this project would add to the concern. Again, Mr. Clugston advised that no parking is required for commercial uses in the BD zones, but the applicant is providing 8 stalls that are not required. Mike McMurray, Applicant, pointed out that there are currently curb cuts along Main Street that serve the property. These will be closed off and four new public parking spaces can be provided along the street. If the City agrees to EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 39 5.1.c change to angle parking then six additional public parking spaces could be provided in front of the subject property and the angle parking could extend down the street, as well. Mr. McMurray said some of his motivation to take on the project is to bring variation to the downtown. The BD-1 zone is special and was created for commercial development. He said there has been some push back from the community because he has been letting people park in the parking lot for free since he purchased the property in 2017. Sometimes there is a perception that something is being taken away, even though it was never really theirs to begin with. He said he is sensitive to parking and even lobbied for designated parking at Civic Field, which is just two blocks away. Density expansion around the City is enormous and he anticipates 20,000 to 30,000 more people with a 6-mile radius of Edmonds in the next five years. Parking needs to be taken seriously. Mr. McMurray commented that his proposed project is risky. He enjoys the existing building that was built in 1954 and was the main grocery store in town. Mid-century style development (warehouse style with large, open beams) is not common now. His goal is to bring the building back to its former glory, removing all of the country -western features that were added later. The goal was to design a building that fits with the character of the downtown. Walkability is a central amenity in the downtown, and the proposed new building would be set back rather than consuming the entire lot. He shared a picture of the inside and outside of the original Thriftway Building that was constructed in 1954. Mr. McMurray explained that the development of Civic Park just two blocks north of the subject property had a significant impact on the design of his project. He felt it was important to assimilate his project into the pedestrian - friendly downtown Edmonds. He can imagine people leaving events at the park and filtering down 6 b Avenue to get to Main Street, and the proposed plaza would provide a nice place for people to walk through. The plan calls for four small-scale shops on the ground floor of the new building. Mr. McMurray advised that public feedback and participation is key to the project. He solicited public feedback via My Edmonds News, a website, etc. and received over 200 emails from local residents. For the most part, he responded to each comment he received. His original plan had an outdoor bar and restaurant. However, public feedback indicated a strong desire for a small performance stage for local musicians, and the bar was switched to a music stage. Mr. McMurray said the landscape consultant for the project is the same company that did Salish Crossing. The goal was to make the plan as agriculturally based as possible to tone down some of the more industrial appearance of the two buildings. A plaza would be located between the two buildings, with a walkway along the alley. The idea would be for people to hang out in the plaza area, and seating would be provided similar to the Hazel Miller Plaza. The proposed commercial paver system would be attractive yet durable. A mature tree would be installed at the back side of the property where there is currently an asphalt lot. Mr. McMurray observed that his half acre parcel is located in the middle of downtown. Rather than a large, 2-story condominium building, his idea was to create a project that assimilates into the culture of the downtown. Based on public feedback, it appears that people are generally happy with the proposed project that is intended to contribute to other elements of what makes Edmonds unique (farmers markets, arts festivals, murals, art walks, etc.) He shared the concept of a mural alley that provides three mural panels to contribute to Edmonds' growing mural scene. The panels and awnings could be used to create two farmer's market like stalls to house multiple vendors for a variety of purposes. He pointed out that the panel closest to 6 h Avenue would be turned slightly so that people stopped at the intersection of 6'b Avenue and Main Street could see part of it. As people continue down Main Street, they would actually be able to see the murals through the warehouse -style windows on the new building. Mr. McMurray provided a rough floor plan for the existing building and explained that the whole point of keeping the E building is to retain the nostalgic feel of the 1954 architecture. He hopes the Board and the City can be somewhat forgiving in regards to code requirements. The cost of retrofitting the building to bring it back to its original glory will Q be significant. The idea is to create space for a family -style pizzeria restaurant. He referred to Mr. Clugston's earlier comment about having a door on Main Street and explained that the architect for the project has been designing Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 4 of 11 EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 40 5.1.c restaurants for over 20 years and has cautioned against putting a door directly on Main Street because patrons would be confused about where the restaurant is located. It makes more sense to locate the restaurant entrance towards the plaza, which is the showpiece of the property. Mr. McMurray said about two-thirds of the building will be open to create a safe place for families and teenagers to hang out. A game area would be located on the second floor and he envisions a miniature bowling facility. There would also be space to host private small events. This is in direct response to the community's desire for a place to have fun. Mr. McMurray advised that the new building would house four boutique retail spaces on the ground floor, and he already has an agreement with an ice cream company to locate in the corner. The top floor of the building would be designed as special event space. He described the difficulty of constructing a two-story building on a sloped lot given the 15-foot ground floor height requirement. In this case, there would be a 3-foot rise on the east side of the building to accommodate the slope and meet the code requirements. Mr. McMurray said he considered the option of providing underground parking, but the cost would be astronomical. It is hard to justify underground parking for 800 square foot retail spaces. However, he listened to the community concerns about parking and is providing 8 spaces that are not required. It would not be feasible to leave the existing parking lot in place and only renovate the existing building. The parking lot must also be developed to make the project pencil out. He explained that property taxes are assessed based on best use, which is condominiums for the subject property. The only way he can get more parking is by building condominiums and apartments, which is not why he acquired the property. He recalled that four or five families own most of the properties in downtown Edmonds, and his family's acquisition of the property is an opportunity to create six new businesses to the downtown core that are in character with the existing downtown. Mr. McMurray shared several more pictures to illustrate the proposed balcony with steps so that people can enjoy the music or hang out in the courtyard. He shared an example of a similar building in Portland where two rectangular, modern, 2-story commercial spaces were situated around a parking lot to create an alley walkway for pedestrians, with shops on both sides. This project uses an open -beam design similar to what he is proposing for the new building. Mr. McMurray summarized that he made a concerted effort to not rush the project. The current proposal is the result of a 2-year process that included a lot of community involvement. He shared color and material samples and explained that, based on feedback from the public and a variety of experts, the color of the buildings was adjusted to create a more comfortable appearance that will last for a longer period of time. The roof of the existing building appears as a giant mass to people coming down Main Street, and it is the first thing that will be seen. The color must be toned down to be less visible. The currently proposed earth tones will be different from but complement existing development in the downtown. He commented that a lot of buildings in Edmonds look the same, and the proposed design for the existing and new buildings will be different and more modern. However, the proposed landscaping will help them blend in and fit with the surrounding development. Mr. McMurray explained that if the existing building is not classified as a renovation, he does not believe it will be feasible for him to completely demolish the building and put in a new foundation. He hopes this is not something the City requires him to do. He also explained that it is not possible to put brick on the facade of the existing building without pouring a new foundation. The metal siding is a way to give the building a new look without breaking the bank. He is doing all he can to preserve the integrity of the architecture. Board Member Owensby requested clarification on the large number of elevations that were provided in the Staff Report. Mr. McMurray said the elevations were provided to illustrate how the project design evolved over time based on feedback from the public, the City, etc. Mr. Clugston clarified that Attachment 2 contains the previous design concepts, and Attachment 3 outlines the current proposal. Mr. McMurray added that Page 4 of Attachment 14 is the final schematic. EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 41 5.1.c Chair Herr requested more information about the original building, and Mr. McMurray advised that the element along the top was added later and would be removed as part of the project. He explained how the windows bring in a lot of natural light into the half-moon warehouse and how the building can be renovated to activate the street front. He said there are only a few pictures of the original building. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Vice Chair Strauss referred to staff s comment about the lack of a clear base, middle and top on the new building. She expressed her opinion that the element along the top of the existing building should be retained since it is consistent with other buildings in downtown Edmonds. Perhaps the element could be worked into the design in a different way. She understands the intent to restore the building to its original design, but sometimes that isn't a great look. Vice Chair Strauss said she understands the design standard that calls for having an entrance on Main Street, but she likes the garage type opening where people can look out but it is partitioned off. She asked if the alleyway could be the entrance onto Main Street via an arch, canopy, etc. She felt this could take the place of providing an entrance into the new building from Main Street. Mr. McMurray pointed out that the existing building has two entrances, one for each of the tenants, as well as an outdoor area that is more defined. This entrance to the courtyard could be built up more to better define the space. He noted that the new building design uses signage that wraps around the building from Main Street to lead people to the entrances to the retail spaces. He said the architect preferred having an entrance on Main Street, but it was much easier to meet the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements via an entrance from the courtyard. Vice Chair Strauss agreed that the proposed entrance locations from the courtyard would work, but she is interested in better defining the entrance to the alley. Mr. McMurray pointed out that there would be an archway on 6t' Avenue to define the entrance to the alley. The thought was to do the same on the Main Street side, but it didn't feel right. There is a utility equipment at the corner, so landscaping is needed to disguise it. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the design of the new building, but it is lacking definition between the base, middle and top. In addition, there are only two entrances on the Main Street side. Mr. McMurray said that, when looking at the site plan, the new building design appears sterile, but there would be a tree in front of the two smaller doors at the center of the building. There would also be sunken seating along Main Street and planter boxes. He pointed out the entrances to the ice cream shop and pizzeria, noting that each would have a canopy. Vice Chair Strauss said she would like to see a little more design to emphasize the base, middle and top of the building. Mr. McMurray described some of the potential uses for the retail spaces, noting that if possible, he would like to have a pop-up gallery where people could lease the smaller boutique spaces on a short-term basis. Vice Chair Strauss voiced concern that the proposed mural walls will appear as large billboards. She said the art on the buildings in downtown is at street level where people can walk by and feel a part of it. The proposed mural walls would end up blocking views and would not connect with the pedestrians. Art walls are more spontaneous and are used to cover blank walls. She suggested that the mural walls should be brought down to a pedestrian level so they aren't so imposing. Mr. MacMurray asked if Board Member Strauss would support a continuous wall, and she answered no. Board Member Owensby commended Mr. McMurray on taking such a risk to do a project that is special for the community. He worries about the fagade of the existing building. He understands the intent to restore the original building, but sometimes original buildings are ugly. He voiced concern that the design is too flat. When walking along the street, people will encounter a frontal plane they will want to bypass. Something needs to be done along the fagade to capture people's vision. Board Member Owensby expressed his belief that a lot more windows are needed on the Main Street fagade of the existing building. Mr. McMurray explained that putting in more windows is challenging because he has to have a certain amount of sheer wall. Board Member Owensby suggested that perhaps a rear wall behind the facade would provide enough depth to allow more openness at the front with a sheer wall 10 feet back. He also asked if the architect EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 42 5.1.c considered a steel, rigid frame. Mr. McMurray answered that a considerable amount of construction engineering was involved in the design to renovate the existing building, and a metal frame would be added across the front. There will also be some sheer walls inside with some openings to get the building up to code. Some sacrifices will have to be made in order to retain the existing building. Board Member Owensby commented that it would be nice to have a canopy or awning along the street. He would like to see something that helps him identify the project as a place. Perhaps an awning or canopy could expand between the two buildings to create a gateway to development. Mr. McMurray agreed that is a possibility. Board Member Owensby explained that activating the space requires more opportunities for people to interact. However, he cautioned that the space will seem less active if they allow too much space between the buildings. He suggested they consider making the building larger and the public space smaller to tighten up the public space to create better interaction. Mr. McMurray commented that the proposed plaza would only be 3,500 square feet, which is similar in size to the Hazel Miller Plaza. Again, Board Member Owensby suggested the plaza might be too big for the number of people who will use it. He asked if the proposed evergreen tree would be visible from the street to draw people into the plaza area. Mr. McMurray said it would be seen from some the street over the balcony. Again, Board Member Owensby cautioned that the proposed commercial space may not create the level of activity the applicant is envisioned. Whatever can be done to activate the space will make the project more successful. Board Member Owensby said he likes the proposed mural walls. However, he is concerned about the space behind them. He asked if a third building could be built as a backdrop above the parking. Mr. McMurray said the mural walls will have a more subtle backside. Board Member Owensby said he likes the fact that, as you walk down the alleyway, there will be a backdrop other than the building across the way. This allows you to contain the space rather than letting it dribble away. Mr. McMurray explained that the cost of developing another boutique building is not feasible in today's market. Even the boutique building on 6`h Avenue and Main Street is a bit of a stretch. The existing building can be renovated to be feasible, but it is hard to make a small-scale building pencil out. Board Member Owensby suggested the applicant consider a building above the parking as a Phase 3 option to implement if the project is successful. Board Member Jeunke asked if locating the trash enclosure near the parking would result in a loss of parking stalls. Mr. McMurray responded that the proposed plan includes a cutout for the trash enclosure on the alley. He advised that the sushi business that was looking to locate next to the pizzeria rescinded their offer, and the space is now designated as a yoga studio. Therefore, the proposed trash enclosure should be adequate to meet the City's requirement. Board Member Jeunke commented that it is not easy to renovate an old building. She loves the idea of having a walkway, a venue for music events, etc. However, she agreed with Vice Chair Strauss that something else is needed on the front fagade. She also agreed with Board Member Owensby's recommendation for a canopy extension between the two buildings. She concurred that the proposed mural walls could appear as billboards. She suggested they solicit feedback from the arts community. Mr. McMurray pointed out that the mural walls would be part of Phase 2, so there would be plenty of time to reach out to artists. Some artists prefer a continuous wall and others prefer separate panels. Board Member Juenke said it is important that people can interact with the murals without having to look up. She commended the applicant on the proposed pop-up gallery. More places for art and galleries will be a wonderful addition to the City. Board Member Owensby referred to his earlier comment about the mural walls and the building behind them and suggested it may be possible to make the walls somewhat transparent. He referred to artwork he saw on a stainless -steel wall with holes. You could see the images on the murals, but also the stuff behind the wall. There was another image on the backside, as well. Board Member Guenther asked if the proposed mural walls would be considered signage or murals. Most murals are at pedestrian level, but the proposed mural walls would be up in the air. He likes the idea of having images to focus people Q down the alley, but some of the murals in town are not permanent. Mr. McMurray said that Francis Chapin, the City's Cultural Services Manager recommended that two of the murals be changed out every four to five years, but one of them Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 7 of 11 EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 43 5.1.c could be permanent. This would allow artists an opportunity to use the space, but the permanent one could serve as a marquis mural. Mr. Clugston explained that, typically, murals in the City are located on blank walls. This is a different approach, but they would likely be treated as murals rather than signage. Mr. McMurray commented that the City would prefer to see a continuous wall, and it might also be more palatable to the community. Vice Chair Strauss again commented that the proposed walls are too tall to be continuous. Board Member Guenther suggested it wouldn't be too difficult for the applicant to delineate a horizontal band across the east building facade to break up the building and satisfy the design requirement. The detail could also be repeated across the top of the building to break up the fagade. Mr. McMurray said the architect for the existing building originally indicated he would include a pinstripe element to break up the building, and he was surprised that this element was not included on the new building, too. Mr. McMurray suggested that perhaps the mural panels could be placed directly on the ground. Board Member Owenby voiced concern that this change would eliminate the potential for market areas below the panels. Mr. McMurray said they could still accommodate the market space as long as the awnings are retractable. Mr. McMurray said he is very open to making cosmetic changes to make the project better. Vice Chair Strauss asked the staff or applicant to respond to the concern that a portion of the new building would not meet the 15-foot ground floor ceiling height requirement. Mr. Clugston responded that a portion of the restroom area on the ground floor does not meet the height requirement, and the applicant will have to adjust the floor plan to address this code standard. Awnings and canopies on the west building will also need to be addressed in the next phase of design review. Chair Herr asked if the City has a variance process to address the elements of the project that do not meet code. If the height and transparency requirements cannot be met, the project cannot go forward. He summarized that the Board appears to like the project, yet the zoning requirements may kill it. Mr. Clugston confirmed that the project cannot be approved if it does not meet the code requirements, and there is no variance process for waiving the zoning and design standards. He acknowledged that it is difficult to shoehorn a new code on an existing building, but said he believes it is possible to tweak the proposal to meet the code requirements. Mr. McMurray suggested that the doors on the Main Street fagade where there is currently a railing for restaurant patrons could be changed to an entrance with steps. The main entrance from the courtyard could provide the ADA access. Mr. Clugston agreed that it makes sense to have the main entry on the east side of the building. As long as the east entrance is ADA accessible, providing an entrance with steps on the Main Street fagade would meet the code requirement for access. It would better meet the requirement if it were relocated to the corner of the building. Mr. McMurray commented that relocating the door to the corner would be problematic because of the utilities, etc. However, he would support providing steps to make an entrance to meet the nuances in the code. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that the face of the building is right on the sidewalk, so the steps would have to be inside the building or the entrance would need to be recessed. Board Member Owensby asked how far the utilities are located from the corner of the building, and Mr. McMurray answered they are quite close. Mr. Clugston provided a map to illustrate the location of the utilities, and Mr. McMurray explained that the landscapers have proposed decorative plantings to camouflage the utility equipment. Board Member Owensby asked if there could be an entrance at the corner, with steps coming up off of Main Street. He noted that if the entrance were located at the corner, it would be at or near grade level for an ADA entrance. Mr. McMurray agreed to consider that options but said he is just now learning that his building needs to have an entrance on Main Street. Chair Herr said he is confused about why the applicant must provide an entrance on Main Street when there is no entrance on the existing building now. Why does changing the inside of the building require changes to the outside, too. Mr. Clugston explained that if this were a straight tenant improvement project, the entrance would not have to change. EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 44 5.1.c The existing entrance, which is at the corner of the building facing Main Street and is a bit recessed, would meet the code requirement. However, the proposed renovation has the entrance pointing away from the street into the interior plaza. Mr. McMurray expressed his belief that altering the doors that are proposed at the center of Main Street facade to provide an entry from the street would meet the code requirement. He agreed to take the Board's advice to clean up the roofline to make it more aesthetically pleasing, add more awnings, and tweak some other elements to make the project better. However, he is apprehensive about redesigning the project at this stage. Chair Herr suggested the applicant could leave the entrance in its current location at the corner of the building and eliminate the entrance from the courtyard. The current entrance is already ADA compliant, and using this entrance would also allow for more windows to meet the transparency requirement. The Board reviewed the checklist and provided the following guidance: A. Site Planning Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics. They agreed that this would X X be a high priority for the existing building and a low priority for the Existing New new building that will replace an existing parking lot because there Building Building are no site characteristics they want to reinforce. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. They agreed this X X would be a high priority for the existing building and a low priority Existing New for the new building that will replace an existing parking lot. Building Building 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street. It was noted that this is X not only a high priority, but a code requirement. 4. Encourage human activity on street. The applicant's intent is to X pull people off the street to the courtyard. The thought is that the project would encourage people to walk further down the street. 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites. This is a X corner lot, so there would be no intrusion into privacy on adjacent lots. Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, X privacy and interaction (residential projects). 7. Maximize open sace opportunity on site (residentialprojects). X 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining X property. This is a high priority and the proposal addresses the issue adequately. The proposal provides parking that isn't even required. 9. Discourage parking in street front. X 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on X public street fronts (corner lots). They felt the applicant has accomplished this. B. Bulk and Scale Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 45 5.1.c 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones. It X was noted there are no less -intensive zones nearby. C. Architectural Elements and Materials Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to X nearby historic structures. 2. Unified architectural concept. It was noted that Edmonds is very X eclectic, with a lot of different types of architecture. However, the buildings all have similar height, canopies, bases, middles, tops, etc. They agreed this is a high priority when talking about design elements, details and massing. 3. Use human scale and human activity. X 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials. X 5. Minimize garage entrances. X D. Pedestrian Environment Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. X The Board referred to discussions relative to canopies. 2. Avoid blank walls. X 3. Minimize height of retaining walls. While there would be a X retaining wall, it would be minimal. 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on X pedestrian areas. It was noted that the applicant has accomplished this by providing parking that was not required. 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures. X 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. The trash enclosures X would be located on the alley side and appear to have screening. 7. Consider personal safety. This has to do with providing adequate X lighting, clear sight lines, semi -transparent security screening, avoiding blank windowless walls, clear directional signage, etc. E. Landscaping Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. It was X discussed that street trees are a priority in the downtown and would constitute the bulk of the landscaping that is provided as part of the project. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. X 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. There are X no special site conditions. EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 46 5.1.c Mr. McMurray asked about the process for modifying the proposal to meet code requirements and to incorporate the Board's guidance. Mr. Clugston explained that the modified proposal would be presented to the Board at the Phase 2 hearing for final approval. He said he would expect staff to provide their comments relative to the Building Permit application sometime in the next month. It will likely take the applicant a month to make the necessary modifications and submit an updated proposal. The project could be submitted for a Phase 2 design review hearing on October 2nd Mr. McMurray asked if they could attempt to have the proposal ready for the Phase 2 hearing on September 41h. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be possible, but if the submittal is not ready at that time, the Board would still have to meet on September 4d' to open the hearing and continue it to October 2nd. The hearing would also have to be re -advertised. Given his experience with projects of this type and the fact that the necessary changes are not insignificant, his recommendation is to schedule the Phase 2 hearing for October 2nd Mr. Clugston announced that the Phase 2 hearing for the Graphite project is scheduled for August 7 h. Both the September 4d' and October 2nd meetings are open at this time. There was a back and forth conversation with the applicant about whether or not the project modifications would be ready in time for a September 4`h hearing. Mr. McMurray assured the Board he could be ready in September as long as the staff submits their comments to him in a timely manner. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that perhaps they could have the Phase 2 hearing for design review on September 4 h regardless of the status of the building permit. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be possible. CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 41", 2019. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Mr. Clugston announced that the Planning Board would like to hold a joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board on July 24d' at 7 p.m. to talk about moving them out of the decision -making processes and become more involved in policy making. He announced that the City Council recently voted to get out of the quasi-judicial appeal process. The intent is to go back to what the Architectural Design Board was originally intended to do in the early 1970s, which is more policy work, guidance and recommendations. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. EXHIBIT 2 PLN20190024 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 47 5.1.d ROOFTOP HVAC EQUIPMENT PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.070.B.1 GREEN WALLS PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.060.B.1.j ADB KEYNOTE LEGEND Orient buildings to street, provide a protected pedestrian entry between buildings and street Provide at [east 75%facade transparency between 2 and 10 feet above the ground level Building facades shall convey a visually distinct base and top Provide a minimum floor -to -floor height of 15 feet for the entire ground level Aerial view Looking Southwest SCALE: 1:29.21 PROJECTING CORNICE HIGHER ENTRY BAY INDIRECTLY LIT SIGNAGE PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.040.B.11 MASONRY TRANSOM WINDOWS PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.030.B.1.h STRUCTURAL CANOPIES PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.040.B.1 ORIENTATION TO STREET PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.020 A & B TRANSPARENCY AT STREET LEVEL PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.050.131 FORECOURT &ENTRANCE PLAZA PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.020.B.3.c DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: OVERVIEW 00 Printed: 9/10/19 EXHIBIT 3 Packet Pg. 48 PLN20190024 111111011 -- I---- I---■ 1ON ,MEI I� _ _I.-----■ , ----I ---- NNN �� �- � , _— I--�� � Imo■■--P -- -- _—I MEMNONMOM IN I---- I� -- _� I■■-■■--- I--II—I - MOM 1 �I Irk---- — — MOM��� 1—I ----I — - --- EM MEMO 1— u ..lam _ Lw111■�. 4 1 � N �.•• � � 7 f _ ■� 'z 1 A. T ` AAM— AL 1 I F� �i N ► t , It JIM!' �..1 1 ! JS �•�Mf l5 - 5 I ti- ■■■ w �■—■—■—■--■ �r•i J�■—�. MEN mono------i -- -- 1------ 1—I NON Ilk 1------ ■ ■ ■ ■ MPF i 1� iAIN e� I_ _�jSr A_ 1—gpj ��_mil■ III J III r _ - -- — -�__�� 1 lot J ■ _ � �1'�. , � , - , Ire ��� ���r; �� � \ A*Q s -moo r I • Jk ik! MEN in omro WEIR, RTATI 1 [*1 [L� 19 JY Do [III -on 00090 on omra MIN F in WOMEN IN ■ L yyy L 1----------■ ■I -■ ---^. =r1 �,NO ■ ,war ��� �---r--vr�r' L_ �-r"AIII r•_—■■ -.01 �■ — - — --- MON - ------ ----- l� L . 7. .----- --- ■■ ■� Ili ■—■ IL AN 7----- ----=��—. �! -- -----I ---- —_ '► in ■■■-■ ■■■- m--m ---m--rm--� —► I---W \■■�1—I ---- -■ .. .—. ■C !- , --- w--L . � i�-------- —L .—I --- . .. jffllice—-----r��.aw- --- — i, ,ar —i- - 7■■--• �r-- — - ■--- — NO III ]—✓ _—i �— -IN—'7— 7 n ���■ Ai—P` - �V�� ��■■■��101 IN I ME ■I NMI E; -- J■1 !■■II 5; — - : 1 III I III1� IlillllllllllllIIIII llllllllll"�II NORTH AT A:146.35 s MA/ PRIVATE OFFICE A:132.35 sq ft STAI RWAY A: 8/.61 sq i, REC ROOM LOBBY A: 97.97 sq ft Anrgin #LayID O SECOND FLOOR PLANS SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" O n— ❑ ❑ C �L❑ O ❑ _L _L UPPER LEVEL(W/O ATTICS) A: Z,060.17 sq ti EXIT STAIRWELL A: 93.44 sq ft #DrglA #LayID 1 L_ -- --J UPPER LEVEL A: 2,523.45 sq ft D DD) MS ROOM A:151.06 sq ft MR ROOM A:109.93 sq. STAI RWAY A: 75.28 sq ft GROUND FLOOR PLANS SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: FLOOR PLANS 1 Printed: 9/10/19 N O O 0 N Z J a_ 3 a> .y 0 m N R 2 �L N N N 0 z a 0 0 V d L M C M 0. 0 0 Ln x w c m z a EXHIBIT 5 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 50 5.1.g East (Courtyard SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" Elevation South Alley SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" Elevation DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2 Printed: 9/10/19 North (Main Street) Elevation SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT 6 Packet Pg. 51 PLN20190024 5.1.h DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3 Printed: 9/10/19 East Building East Elevation SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" East Buildinq North Elevation # Plaza Level SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT 7 Packet Pg. 52 PLN20190024 5.1.h East Building West Elevation SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4 Printed: 9/10/19 r Q L East Building South Elevation 4 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT 7 Packet Pg. 53 PLN20190024 Lo 4;w, El 29 ZVO 000 1000 A .or \AI 41,50M .0 �4q Mhl Am pf Iwo b I wo IF Abb 4 A. IL AN '4M r 4m A& Ar— AL 'go W"' HANGING FLOWER BASKETS AJV 7VE lop CREATES SEASONAL COLOR CHANGED QUARTERLY, •,• , . - ► �, J ► - WELCOMES THE PEDESTRIAN TO THE ART ALLEY LIGHTING AT EACH BASKET MARKS A SAFE EVENING ENTRANCE � 1� PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.O2O.13.1.a LANDSCAPING � 114V WAIST HEIGHT PLANTINGS CREATE ASAFE BORDER =i= CLEARLY DEFINES THE SIDEWALK FROM THE ENTRANCE 0.0 INVITING COLORFUL SOFT -TEXTURED PLANTINGS • PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.O2O.13.1.i � � FORECOURT & ENTRANCE PLAZA THE ART ALLEY GATEWAY MARKS ENTERING INTO A SPECIAL PLACE SUN SHINES THROUGH CUT OUT LETTERS ADDS A FUN TOUCH TO THE SIDEWALK JUST WITHIN THE GATEWAY ARE SEASONAL MARKET STALLS UNDER CANVAS AWNINGS THIS FORECOURT IS ALSO SERVES THE 2ND FLOOR EVENT SPACE PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.O2O.B.1 & ECDC 22.43.O2O.B.2 & ECDC 22.43.O2O.B.3.c 6th AVENUE GATEWAY Ijr 1i lii Furl DFCORATIVF I IfHTING 00 SHAPELY COLORED GLASS LIGHTS CREATE AWARM PLEASING ATMOSPHERE SET AT A HEIGHT TO CAST LIGHT ONTO THE SIDEWALK, BUT NOT BE IN THE WAY HISTORICALLY MATERIALS OF WROUGHT IRON AND REEDED GLASS ADD TO A SMALL TOWN FEEL PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.O3O.13.1.a DECORATIVE LIGHTING -AN TILi, R r- -- THREE RETRACTABLE AWNINGS COLORFUL CANVAS AWNING OFFERS A SHADED OUTDOOR AREA OPEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES 010 RECITAL SPACE FOR LOCAL MUSICIANS COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES -------------------- BLEACHER OPEN SEATING FOR CASUAL INTERACTION -------------- PLAZA VIEW ff DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: PEDESTRIAN FEATURES 6 Printed: 9/10/19 EXHIBIT 9 Packet Pg. 55 PLN20190024 5.1.j DECORATIVE LIGHTING IM11111 DECORATIVE CHANDELIER CREATES 1 1 RESIDENTIAL -TYPE D11 IMPRESSION EACH BLADE 1, 1 1 DECORATIVE ,11 WALL SCONCE ADJACENT 1\. IS IT' IS \I \ �: �t� �i ■ l 1 , 1 1FIXTURE THAT ILLUMINATESSIDEWALK AREA AT NIGHT PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.030. B.1.a Aw INC NAM i�� .,sow _ ii,: m HIGHER BAY, , RECESSED ENTRIES bad'l O 1 1D & RAIN O 1 OI PEDESTRIANS HIGHLIGHTS THE STORE ENTRANCE 1 -- PENDANT , 1 1 , 1 LIGHTING IS ELEGANT& PRACTICAL RECESSED COVERED ENTRY SAFE , 1 ► , ADA-COMPLIANT 1 =1PId / PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.020.B.1 & ECDC 22.43.020.B.3.a & ECDC 22.43.020.B.3.b r RECESSED ENTRIES COMMUNITY SEATING COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES 00 RETRACTABLE UMBRELLAS OFFER A FESTIVE SHELTERED SPOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES 00 OPEN SEATING FOR EACH STORE ACTIVATES THE SPACE FOR PEDESTRIANS COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES PERMANENT OPEN SEATING FOR CASUAL INTERACTION BLADE SIGNAGE BLADE SIGNAGE .;" VT% .;. SHOWCASE HIGHLIGHTS EYE CATC H I I EASILY SEEN PURSUANT OF E I11=110111 k1, DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: PEDESTRIAN FEATURES 7 Printed: 9/10/19 EXHIBIT 9 Packet Pg. 56 PLN20190024 5.1.j 4bM Irl �- jmdk- 0 ADVENTUROUS OUTLOOKS 010 PUBLIC EVENT SPACE BALCONY OVERLOOKS THE PLAZA & ART PANELS 010 PUBLIC EVENT SPACE TERRACE OFFERS GREAT TERRITORIAL VIEWS ARTWO R K 014 PEDESTRIAN -SCALED 3 DIMENSIONAL ART ADDS INTEREST PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.060.13.1.h hJ�YY1�l/(7� A THREE MURAL PANELS CONTRIBUTING TO EDMONDS TRADITION OF MURAL ART ART PANELS SHOWCASE LOCAL ARTIST THEY CREATE AN ART DESTINATION ALONG A FORMER UNSIGHTLY ALLEY THE TYPICAL SERVICE 'BACK OF BUILDING' IS REPLACED SET BACK FROM MAIN STREET & 6TH AVENUE THEY CREATE A'THIRD PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK' COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES RETRACTABLE CANVAS AWNINGS OFFER SHADE & RAIN PROTECTION =s= SANITARY TILE 1/2 WALLS SHIELD PEDESTRIANS FROM PARKING AND THEY CREATE A PUBLIC MARKET FEEL CONVENIENTLY LOCATED ADA RAMP ALLOWS ACCESS CHALLENGED VISITORS AN EASY PATH TO THE MAIN PLAZA COMMUNITY -MINDED AMENITIES 010 FREE ACCESS MARKET STALLS HELP SUPPORT LOCAL VENDORS AND ARTISTS SEASONAL FARE HELPS TO KEEP EDMONDS RESIDENTS HAPPY AND TOURISTS INTERESTED MARKET DAYS STRUCTURAL CANOPIES CREATES A SHELTERED HUMAN -SCALED DINING SPOT =i= HIDDEN LIGHTING PROVIDES FOR SAFE NIGHT TIME ACTIVITIES PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.040. B.1 ARTWORK 010 PEDESTRIAN -SCALED 3 DIMENSIONAL ART ADDS INTEREST PURSUANT OF ECDC 22.43.060.13.1.h DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ISSUED: PEDESTRIAN FEATURES 8 Printed: 9/10/19 WELCOME TO MAIN STREET COMMONS PLAZA EXHIBIT 9 Packet Pg. 57 PLN20190024 LANDSCAPE PLAN CONCRETE W/ SCORING SEE CIVIL FOR SECTION, W/THE FOLLOWING � EXCEPTIONS: -SAND COATED THROUGH JOINTS -SAW CUT JOINTS -FINISH: LIGHT SAND BLAST -SCORE PER PLAN PAVERS METROPOLITAN SERIES, STANDARD REPEATING PATTERN SHOWN, AVAILABLE FROM ABBOTSFORD CONCRETE PRODUCTS, 1-800-663-4091 SAND SET, INSTALL PER MFG. INSTRUCTIONS STONE SLAB L 2' W X 24" HT (18" HT AT FIN. GRADE), REF. 4' L L1.1/DET. 3, SALT & PEPPER GRANITE W/SAWN TOP AND BOTTOM, SPLIT FACES. AVAILABLE FROM MARENAKOS, 425.392-3313 SEE DETAIL FOR DEPTH. PLANTERS RECTANGULAR PLANTERS, REINFORCED CONCRETE, BY TOURNESOL SITEWORKS, WILSHIRE COLLECTION, SIZE: 96" L X 24"W X 36" HT, COLOR: SHADOW 00 SHIM 1"ABOVE GRADE MODULAR CONTAINER IRRIGATION SYSTEM, CWMR1620-4K, 0-) BY TOURNESOL SITEWORKS 0-) rn TU® UP LIGHTS C% TREE UPLIGHTS AT EACH TREE: BK LIGHTING, MODEL: LS-8-BLP-7-9-1 1 PROVIDE OUTLET & POWER AT EACH TREE REF. ELEC. FOR ATTACHMENT & POWER,TO BE _- LOCATED IN FIELD BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT., N ry C-) p O O 1 4.7' EXHIBIT 10 PLN20190024 L O rr vv \ vv \ vv u v Fog Fine LJJ t,� ' y Pk P � c N 89°58'53" E 5.98' P ` SS SS r Q MATERIALS Metropolitan Series, Abbotsford, Natural with Charcoal a L i H AM- P. n I � 1111 ti11��11���� 1111111� 3' X 3P-QAVd' Accessories KIVA, (Edmonds Standard) Salt & Pepper Granite, w/Sawn Top And Bottom, Split Faces 0 m L• Tournesol Planters, Wilshire Collection � y C H r s - Packet Pg. 59 "Oahu No Scratch Circular Bike BK Lighting, LS-8-BLP-7-9-1 1 Jakob Wire PLANTS HNOW- PLANT LIST -- SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME , Y o i o STREET TREES A__FX. TREE, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED t, N GINKGO BILOBA'BLAGON' �' J a (APPROVED BY CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEER d JEANIE McCONNELL 4/09/2019) 3 ti ON -SITE TREES r m SPECIMEN, DECIDUOUS t== SPECIMEN, CONIFER SHRUBS . xF� ��' �`��"'°� .� � :,, }�,�� r �R •N --BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA 'WINTER GEM'' CORNUS STOLONIFERA'KELSEYI' ®-HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA 'PEE WEE' ILEX CRENATA Existing maples on Main Gingko biloba 'Blagon' Abies procera Quercus garryana aLONICERA PILEATA Goldspire Gingko Noble Fir Garry Oak ,�� r� r V A�SPIRAEA X BUMALDA'DENISTAR' , rq. �, 6�� r!�'T�.+�ff f C PIERIS JAPONICA 'CAVATINE' ' a, .,5.•_ �' ' +i P,� 04 POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM 0— VIBURNUM DAVIDII ✓,!RA.x -ESCALLONIA'FRADESII' (NON -DWARF) IL GROUNDCOVERS ®-URIOPE SPICATA e DRYOPTERIS ERTHROSORA C g-PACHYSANDRATERMINALIS EPIMEDIUM ALPINUM 1`` ,� 4) OPHIOPOGON PLAN ISCAPUS 'N IGR ESCENS' Buxus japonica 'Winter Gem' Hydrangea quercifolia 'Pee Wee' Ilex crenata 'convexa' Lonicera pileata L. 'Winter Gem' Japanese Boxwood 'Pee Wee' Hydrangea Japanese Holly Boxleaf Honeysuckle VINES - m D— AKEBIA QUINATA y , F d� J Spiraea x bumalda 'Denistar' Pieris japonica 'Cavatine' Viburnum davidii Escallonia fradesii Superstar Spirea 'Cava tine' Japanese Andromeda David's Viburnum Escallonia _ - X w r Y �Y i EXHIBIT 10 Liriope spicata Dryopteris erythsora Epimedium alpinum Akebia quinata PLN20190024 Creeping Lilyturf Autum Fern Epimedium Five -Leaf Akebia Packet Pg. 60 5.1.1 IP• • • I��,yj j'{ � I�1D Providing quality watei; power and m- ice at a Competitive price that our customers value PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRFCT NO. June 25, 2019 Michael Clugston City of Edmonds 121 5"' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Clugston: Reference No.: Main Street Commons District DR Number: 19-118 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 1802-75'h Street S.W. • Everett, WA r 982031 Mailing Address: P,O, Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783-4300 • Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 r www.snopud.com EXHIBIT 11 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 61 so k Jlp I Alit . 4W do ELUJWII JIM Omni IMF— .2 20) 04 4) U) m m 0 E E 0 L) 4) Al 11=11 m 4) m Cl) C14 Main Stree x r doo4zj A. -AA QL 4r Packet Pg. 62 IM No .era :F. � ■ No ■�\ ��f , ■ ■ � �� ' ■■■ � tin—M � � lm Lzol � A; - . - � LAW _ .� - .�� |. . � � , *� •� «� % 2� � m�} � \�■� � � � f , mop # � _ .......... 1. -MCM m •e Ir pp • i L go's { . 4... vp � r � "" -� ■ ., -' - � i �- �� - •ram - µ . _ # rt y OF Its Shoo LI 1.0 MOM OPM mow OR ,• + ` _ 111 { y y Y k `�4 i I� l '1 .._ AW . #IF ti= 4 lb _ 16m- � r M Jt' Rk . ' T�q4 r 4 LO # t rt w - 4 -pm r N .1, /A Z - fD 3 Cm CL ' _ *L#r "• C ■ dWl s IP • ; G U i o •.;ir ip N +South y " — ILGth Aire i 4 - W Wee 'W Q: vir ar L g yAi Ar- i + IAN 4...RW -_ I pp as +► { - ` Packet Pg. 65 L i i L f1 - 5.1.n aV e LD)_4 CITY OF EDMONDS COURTESY NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Main Street Commons, two commercial buildings and site improvements in the Downtown Business (BD1) zone. Phase 1 of the project includes extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9,000+/- sq. ft. building on the west side of the site and creation of an adjacent plaza to replace a portion an existing surface parking lot. Phase 2 of the project will replace the rest of the existing parking lot and includes a new 5,600 sq. ft. two- story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main St. and 6th Ave. S. The plaza will be extended south of the new building to connect to 6th Avenue and eight surface parking stalls will be created that load from the alley to the south. District -based design review projects that require a SEPA determination such this require a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). PROJECT LOCATION: 550 Main Street (Tax ID #: 00434212001500 & 00434212001700) NAME OF APPLICANT: David DiMarco (rep. Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, Inc.) FILE NO.: PLN20190024 DATE OF APPLICATION: May 9, 2019 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 30, 2019 DATE OF NOTICE: September 18, 2019 REQUESTED PERMITS: District -based design review, SEPA determination OTHER REQUIRED Building permits, lot combination PERMITS: REQUIRED STUDIES: None at this time EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA checklist, critical area checklist, traffic impact analysis COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: October 2, 2019 EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 66 5.1.n PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Phase 2 of the two-phase public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020. Phase 1 of the hearing began on July 3 and was continued to September 4 at that time. On September 4, the hearing was continued until October 2 to allow the applicant additional time to resubmit updated project materials. 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 anytime prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application is available 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 AM — 12:OOPM only on Wednesdays) or through the City's website(https:Z/permits.edmonds.wa.us/Citizenl) and search for permit PLN20190024. .,! City of Edmonds Main Street Commons ?0=0 � .�� _ a • 4 Main Street Commons - 1: 2,257 µ - ��^ 0 Notes ` Alchhec4 •el ��g+BwN Review I •' relN a�atic w[oul rrw. un l�Iernel.... ......ORlur S50I.laln Street xlerrvnouN rwulaler.IM1m appas nn Ur mrl nrcay •n. Lrauuralr, Fla a PLN2019D.'130 WGS IBp�Wh Ne•:e v AN I aryS�he a �oehewlx relrNe [CR/ o' [tlmentls THIS LIAR IS MST 10 0[ US[D !O0. SIGN Of COYSIRUCIOI: EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 67 00434202102600 EWING DEBORAH 500 KAPALUA DR 24 T1 LAHAINA, HI 96761 00434202101500 MCEACHRON DIANE 560 BELL STREET EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202102300 S & E PARTNERS LLC 539 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202103000 TAX TABLE PROPERTIES LLC 725 HINDLEY LN EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209803500 BELL RALPH R JR & REED RENEE 615 MAIN ST STE C EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212000500 WILSON GREG & DEBORAH PO BOX 1298 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212002400 JANTZ INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 700 EDMONDS, WA 98020 09[8/09190 AaanV oane algl}edwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z tewaot op oRanbq 0918/09 G5® IGanV glInn algljedwoo „8/9 Z x,,[ ozls lagel 00434209703100 00434202101200 BLANCHARD RANDALL L & MAE L NELSON ASSOCIATES & FAMILY LLC N 14720 14TH AVE SE 9710 WHARF STREET o MILL CREEK, WA 98012-1345 EDMONDS, WA 98020 C 00434212003300 EDMONDS MASONIC CENTER ASSN 515 DAYTON STREET EDMONDS, WA 98020 00629000000100 NAKAMA RANCE K & VANDER YACHT LISA 623 MAIN ST #1 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202101800 STEWART BRYAN R R & CHERYL L 400 SUNSET AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202102800 523 MAIN LLC PO BOX 1477 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209600100 CHIGARAS NICK J 604 DAYTON EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209804000 HARRIS LAURENCE & CAROLYNNE TRUSTEE 43012TH PL N EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212000600 MCDEVITT INVESTMENTS LLC 330 DAYTON ST #2 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212002600 HURST RONNIE E PO BOX 971 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212100700 STOVEL MARY L 522 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00682200000100 WARREN DENISE 1 626 MAIN ST #1 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202101900 STD A BRYAN R R & CHERYL L 400 S SET AVE ED OND , WA 98020 00434202102900 THE FOUR R S LLC 533 5TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209703400 KENNEDY JOHN JR 617 DAYTON #7 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212000302 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH PROPERTIE; LLC PO BOX 151 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212001200 COLUMBRO FMLY ENTRPRS LLC 542 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212003100 EDM DS ASONIC CENTER ASSN 515 DA N STREET EDM D WA 98020 00434212101800 STANTON WAYNE G 558 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00682200000300 PERKINS DARRELL 626 MAIN ST UNIT 3 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 1m5160/8160 Packet Pg. 68 09 [8/091.98 Aaany OW algltiadwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z temao; op 9:49nbl13 09 G8/09 G9@)fu9AV gjIM alg1t7adwoo «8/g Z x „G azls lagsl c® 00682200000400 00682200000600 00682200000700 YELLIN NANCY HUDAK MARIAN M ROFF MARIAN E 626 MAIN STREET #4 626 MAIN ST UNIT 6 626 MAIN STREET #7 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ._ r_ s__..__a nr -- .. n� A-- ®Fi G Packet Pg. 69 00682200001000 CHRISTIANSEN JACK E/ANN L 626 MAIN ST UNIT 10 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3051 00682200000500 LARSON CLIFFORD P 626 MAIN ST UNIT 5 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3090 00434202100300 UNGER CONRAD R & MICHELE R 506 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3147 09 L8/09 G9@ IGaAV oans algltsdwoo ww L9 x ww gZ tswaol op 9-.anbl13 r= 09 L8/09 Lg@) haaAV ql!m olgltedwoo „9/9 Z x , L azls logs) 00629000000300 00682200000200 HALL JOHN PHILLIP FORTUNE WILLIAM M & ADELE M N 623 MAIN ST UNIT 3 626 MAIN ST UNIT 2 CD 0 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3066 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3090 � 0 00682200000800 ROPPO RAYMOND H 626 MAIN ST UNIT 8 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3090 00434202101600 JACOBY JAMES & DIANA 555 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3149 00694300120100 00694300130100 KISSINGER JOHN PETER/BARBARA ANN NEWMAN BARBARA 518 BELL ST UNIT 201 518 BELL ST UNIT 301 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 00434209700100 600 MAIN STREET LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434212002100 555 DAYTON LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 01007200020100 LENGFELDER TERRY L & JOYCE J 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3483 01024600010100 DEMPSEY CAIRNS C/BRIAN P 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 101 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 01024600020200 RUTHRAUFF CLIFFORD B 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 202 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 0062WTN 0400 SHUF ROGER & JUDY 2255E KIRK �ii 9i8�0 33 PLN20190024 00434209700300 610 MAIN STREET LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434212003000 MATSEN MICHAEL C 531 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3431 01007200020200 MOE DONALD G 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 202 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3483 01024600010200 JOHNSON GEORGE M /JACQUELYN M 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 102 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 00434212002800 MUIR REBECCA E 1042 8TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020-4019 0043420210 00 EDMO CITY OF 250 5T A N EDMO DS, WA 98020-3146 00694300110100 WHITE JACK V 518 BELL ST UNIT 101 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 00434209600200 LOUCKS SCOTT 751 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434209803700 611 MAIN STREET LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434202102100 PETOSA VINCENT D & KAREN 515 6TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020-3457 00844700010200 LONG WILLIAM/KENDRA 540 DAYTON ST UNIT 102 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3493 01024600020100 HOWARD BONNIE 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 00844700020100 CHALUPNIK JAMES & JANET 540 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98026 00434209803900 00434202103100 PAIGE DOUGLAS & MICHELLE CAMWEST INC r 23407 65TH PL W 2228133RD ST SW a MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 Packet Pg. 70 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible witli Avery°5160/8-160 09 L8/09 L90 AJOAV 39AE algltutlwoo ww L9 x ww gZ lewaoj op @U90113 09 L8/09 Lg® AaaAV q}Inn alq I-edwoo «8/g Z x „L azls lagal 00682200000900 00682200001100 00682200001200 WRIGHT JANIS SCHULER JAMES J/BEVERLY J SHEPHERD DEAN P/AMY C N 626 MAIN ST UNIT 9 626 MAIN ST UNIT 11 626 MAIN ST UNIT 12 c EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 CD 0 N Z J 00694300110200 00694300120200 00694300130200 9, GLENN JILL MANSSON CARL E & YVONNE RAUGI GREGORY J TTEE 518 BELL STREET #102 518 BELL ST # 202 11040 SOUTH DEER DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 WOODWAY, WA 98020 c T y 00805900000100 008 0000 201 00805900000301 0 PROMISE PLACE LLC PR6mi LACE LLC PRO1G41SE LACE LLC PO BOX 700 PO BO QD PO BO EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDM DS, WA 98020 EDMO S, A 98020 .L 00844700010100 00844700020200 00881300050800 ZITZMANN RICHARD G TOVAR PATRICIA Y MILLER MICHELE M/MICHAEL a 540 DAYTON ST # 101 540 DAYTON ST UNIT 202 508 BELL ST a EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 a 00881300051000 00881300051200 00881300051400 BELL STIR BLDG ASSOC LLC BELL ST E BLDG ASSC LLC WILSON CHRISTINE SEXTON 510 BELL STREET 510 BELL REET 514 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMON S, A 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00952600000400 00952 000005 0 00952600000600 LOPEZ SERGIO LOPEZ 0 KOKONASKI WILLIAM/RANDI 1223 CORONADO PL 1223 CO NADO PL 618 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMO S, A 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00953500010100 00953500010200 00953500020100 BORDER ANNETTE ANTTILA JENNIFER A FIREMAN JERALD A/MORTON LYND 600 BELL UNIT101 709 7TH AVE S 600 BELL ST UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00953500020200 00953500030100 00953500030200 SWAN DAVID P/ANN C SHOUP DALE/CHERLYN ERWERT WILLIAM/ROBERTA A 600 BELL ST UNIT 202 600 BELL ST UNIT 301 600 BELL ST UNIT 302 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 01007200010100 01007200010200 01007200030100 BAILEY FORREST/CHERRYL MCDEVITT CHRIS/TERRI TTEE DENGEL BARBARA TTEE 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 101 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 102 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 301 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00952600000100 00952600000200 00952600000300 DUBNO AVA C CORWIN ALAN MASSOUD MEDHAT r 608 BELL ST 612 BELL ST 616 BELL ST a EDMONDS, WA 98020-3020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3020 EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 71 Mabel size 1y' x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 __a:u_ _..__ n...... nr4enif) ar_n 09l.8/0912@ fj9AV o9Ae 9jgltedwoo ww Lg x ww 9Z }swaot op eUonbl13 09GS/091994jeAV ql!m algltsdwoo ,,8/5 Z x „G azis lags) 00629000000200 00434202101100 00434209703700 BELZMAN JESSICA A HOEL DAKOTA JAMES 6TH AND DAYTON LLC 1214 TAYLOR AVE N UNIT 401 674210TH AVE NW 2117 NW 95TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98109 SEATTLE, WA 98117 SEATTLE, WA 98117 00434209703702 00434212000900 00434209600500 6TH,N DAYTON LLC ELSIA LLC LEUNG SARAH W/WILSON DAVID R 2117 W 95TH ST 18411 AURORA AVE N 1031815TH AVE NW SE l-, WA 98117 SHORELINE, WA 98133 SEATTLE, WA 98177 00434202101000 00434212 1500 00434212001700 00434202 APARTMENTS LLC SEA L-SN01MISH MILL COMPANY SE�;TTLE-SNOHOMISH MILL COMPA FINNIGA27821 36TH AVE NW INC INC STANWOOD, WA 98292-9461 9525[11R ORTWAY 9525 A� RT WAY SNOISH, WA 98296 SNOT OMISH, WA 98296 00434212000700 00434212001100 524 MAIN LLC TULL INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 1208 6501 SOUTH D ST KINGSTON, WA 98346 TACOMA, WA 98408 EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 rpffffa label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Packet Pg. 72 5.1.n ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of AppliiXnt or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1 d Residing at RECEIVE[) MAY 2 9 2090 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER 7y ' �ton,�Q� .4wy LQ �'ti • COL • 'Q �.-- •' P `rr+S'AOF r E 01 EXHIBIT 13 ?k' 0Q29V30/I1 P2 - Adjacent Property Owners List Packet Pg. 73 5.1.n File No.: PLN20190024 Applicant: David DiMarco DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 18th day of September 2019, the attached Courtesy Notice of Continued Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 18th day of September, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: �d�G� EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 74 5.1.n FILE NO.: PLN20190024 APPLICANT: MAIN STREET COMMONS DECLARATION OF MAILING COURTESY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On the 18 day of September, 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 18 day of September, 2019 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed.. w-v Cal��z EXHIBIT 13 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 75 5.1.0 MEMORANDUM Date: September 25, 2019 To: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Program Manager Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Mike Delilla, Utility Engineer Subject: PLN20190024 —Design Review Main Street Commons — 550 Main St Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards 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. EXHIBIT 14 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 76 5.1.p '')c. 189� CITY OF EDMONDS 12151h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.Pov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM "PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE 1" To: The Architectural Design Board (ADB) From: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner Project: Main Street Commons (File No. PLN20190024) Date of Report: June 26, 2019 Public Hearing: Wednesday — July 3, 2019 at 7:00 P.M.* (Phase 1) Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 * Note: The public hearing will be continued to a date certain for Phase 2 of the two -phased design review process. PROJECT PROPOSAL Architect David DiMarco, representing Mike McMurray and the Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, has submitted an application for design review of two commercial buildings and site improvements at 550 Main Street. Phase 1 of the redevelopment project includes extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9,000+/- sq. ft. building on the west side of the site and creation of an adjacent plaza to replace a portion an existing surface parking lot. Phase 2 of the project will replace the rest of the existing parking lot and includes a new 5,600 sq. ft. two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main St. and 6th Ave. S. The plaza will be extended south of the new building to connect to 6th Avenue and eight surface parking stalls will be created that load from the alley to the south. It should be noted that the applicant submitted building permit applications at the same time as design review and staff is reviewing those permits concurrently (BLD20190528, - 0529, and-0530). The applicant is aware that those permits cannot be issued until design review is complete and that any changes required during design review must be EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 77 5.1.p reflected in the building permits. Commercial building permit applications are valid for one year with the opportunity for extension. li. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS The subject site is located within the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone, which requires district -based design review when necessary. Since the project triggers a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design is reviewed as part of a two -phased public hearing process before the Architectural Design Board (ADB). This design process was developed in order to provide for public and design professional input at an early point in the permitting process. The process is laid out in Chapter 20.12 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and is summarized below. This submittal (Attachments 1- 4) initiates Phase 1 of the two -phased ADB public hearing process. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.005.A, for Phase 1 of the process, the applicant must provide a preliminary conceptual design and must also provide a description of the property to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB will use this information to make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and will prioritize the design guideline checklist (Attachment 5) based on these facts in addition to the design objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and within the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following public testimony at the Phase 1 hearing and completion of the design guideline checklist by the ADB, the public hearing is continued to a date certain, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing date. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.005.13, the purpose of the continuance of the hearing to Phase 2 is to allow the applicant to design or redesign the initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. Once this is done, the design will be submitted to staff, who will review the proposal and schedule the project for final review (Phase 2). Staff will provide a more detailed analysis of the proposal's compliance with the prioritized design guidelines and criteria as part of the Phase 2 hearing. The ADB will further review the design of the project and will make the final decision on the design at the conclusion of Phase 2 of the public hearing. III. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Topography. The site is relatively level with a gentle downwards slope from east to west with an elevation change of about 8 feet across the 185-foot wide site. 2. Critical Areas. A critical areas checklist was reviewed under file CRA20190075 and it was determined that no critical areas were located on or adjacent to the site; therefore a "waiver" from further critical area study was issued. 3. SEPA Review. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required for this proposal because the new building and remodel exceed 4,000 square feet of Main Street Commons PLN20190024 — Phase I Page 2 of 8 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 78 5.1.p building area. A SEPA checklist was submitted with the application and a determination of Nonsignificance was issued on May 23, 2019 (Attachment 9). A notice of the SEPA determination was included with the Notice of Application and Public Hearing for the project, and declarations of posting and mailing and an affidavit of publication of the SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance are included for reference with the public notice materials in Attachment 10. No comments were received. IV. TECHNICAL STAFF REVIEW The Phase 1 portion of the subject application was reviewed and evaluated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue, Building Division, Public Works Department, and Engineering Division. South County Fire identified what deferred approvals would be needed and offered several comments (Attachment 11). The Building Division noted that the proposed remodel of the west building may exceed 75% of the value of replacement cost (Attachment 12). If that is the case, the building would be considered new construction and need to be redesigned to comply with all current codes. The Engineering Division provided comments on the trash enclosure, parking and frontage improvements and utilities (Attachment 13). The traffic impact report submitted with the Phase 1 materials must be revised as noted. V. DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS 1. ECDC 16.43 — Downtown Business Zone BD1 A. ECDC 16.43.020 Uses The site is located in the BD1 zone and subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.43 (Attachment 6). The proposal is for two commercial buildings and site improvements with a loading area and some surface parking along the alley off of 6th Avenue South. These are all permitted primary or secondary uses in the BD1 zone pursuant to ECDC 16.43.020. Outdoor dining is a secondary use that must meet the requirements of ECDC 17.75. B. According to ECDC 16.43.030, development standards in the BD1 zone include: Main Street Commons P�L�N20190024 — Phase I EXFieBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 79 5.1.p Minimum Zone Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) None Minimum Minimum Minimum Street Side Lot Width Setback Setback' None — 0' � 0' Minimum Rear Setback' Maximum Height' 0' 30' Minimum Height of Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front4 i 15' ' The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. ' Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 4 "Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street -front" means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the "finished" ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. C. Setbacks. Since the subject site is not adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property, no setbacks are required for the proposed buildings. An associated lot combination request (PLN20190025) was approved to remove an interior boundary line in order to create a single parcel to facilitate site redevelopment. D. Height. The maximum allowed height in the BD1 zone is 30 feet with certain exceptions provided in ECDC 16.43.030.C.3. Height calculations were not clearly provided but the remodeled west building is about 23 feet tall (Sheet A.wb.3.1 of Attachment 3) while the new east building appears to be about 30 feet with additional roof -top features (Sheet A.eb.3.3 of Attachment 3). Height calculations per ECDC 21.40.03 are required for both buildings with the Phase 2 resubmittal. E. Ground Floor. The designated street front requirement found in ECDC 16.43.030.13 applies to both buildings as measured 45 feet perpendicular from the Main Street property line (6th Avenue is not a designated street front). Only commercial uses may be located within the designated street front area — it appears the spaces created in both buildings could meet this criterion (Sheet A2.6 of Attachment 3). Uses of the individual tenant spaces will be verified through review of future business license applications. Main Street Commons PLN20190024 — Phase I Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 80 5.1.p In addition to the use requirement, several dimensional elements apply to the ground floor. First, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front must be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk (on Main Street, in this case). Second, the entry must be within 7 inches of the grade at the sidewalk and the ground floor must be within 7 inches of the entry. Third, the ground floor height within the designated street front must be a minimum of 15 feet (for new buildings). The east building is divided into two levels with an entry near the corner of 6th and Main and a separate entry by the plaza area. Sheet A.eb.3.3 of Attachment 3 indicates the entries are within 7 inches of the ground floor and the ground floor height in the two spaces appear to be greater than 15 feet. However, the architect indicated that the south lobby and adjacent restrooms would have only a floor -to -floor of 10' 4" within a portion of the designated street front (Attachment 2). There is no exception process that would allow the Board to waive the 15' floor -to -floor requirement; only a variance request to the Hearing Examiner could provide that relief. It is unlikely a variance request could be supported given that this a new building that could be designed to meet all current code requirements. No entry to Main Street is shown for the west building (Sheet A.wb.3.1 of Attachment 3). This is not consistent with ECDC 16.43.030.B.10.h. An entry at Main Street must be added consistent with ECDC 16.43.030.B.5.a. The ground floor height requirement would not apply if the west building is considered to be a remodel (per ECDC 16.43.030.B.10.c) but it would if it is considered new construction. In that case, the west building must meet all current BD zone standards. F. Parking. Per ECDC 16.43.030.D, no parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1 zone. While no parking is required for this project, eight (8) stalls are proposed off of the alley by 6th Avenue South. G. Open Space. In accordance with ECDC 16.43.030.E, at least five percent of the lot area must be devoted to open space. With a lot area of 19,788 square feet, 990 square feet of open space is required. The proposal provides about 1,000 sq. ft. of open space along the Main Street property frontage. A large pedestrian plaza connects to that space and runs between the buildings and wraps around the south side of the east building and connects to 6th Avenue South (Sheet A1.2 of Attachment 3). As always, all zoning requirements (and related building, engineering and public works codes) will be verified through review and approval of permits for the buildings (BLD20190529 & BLD20190530) and site improvements (BLD20190528) and through inspections during the construction process. Main Street Commons PLN20190024—Phase I Pa 5of8 E 71BIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 81 5.1.p 2. ECDC 20.12 District -Based Design Guidelines A. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.070.A, the ADB must use the design guidelines and design review checklist applicable to the district -based design review process in conducting its review. These guidelines and checklist are included for reference as Attachment 5. The ADB will use the checklist to prioritize the design guidelines for the subject proposal. B. Compliance with the district -based design guidelines will be reviewed by the ADB during Phase 2 of the review process. 3. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements A. ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. B. As is typical with most development in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, the majority of the Site will Li covered by the proposed buildings and site improvements since no setbacks are required. That said, there is landscaping in the open space area adjacent to Main Street and some throughout the plaza (Attachment 4). C. Street trees are required in order for the project to comply with the City's street tree requirements. 4. ECDC 22.43 Design Standards for the BD Zones A. Design standards applicable to the BD zones are provided in ECDC Chapter 22.43 (Attachment 7). B. Compliance with the BD design standards will be reviewed more fully by the ADB during Phase 2 of the review process. However, there appear to be several areas where the east building may be deficient, including: lack of a distinct 'top' and 'base' (ECDC 22.43.010.6); and, less than 75% transparency between 2 and 10 feet (ECDC 22.43.050.B.2). The west building appears to be deficient relative to: lack of pedestrian orientation to the street (ECDC 22.43.020.13); lack of awnings/canopies (ECDC 22.43.040.13); and, less than 75% transparency between 2 and 10 feet (ECDC 22.43.050.B.2). 5. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Objectives A. In addition to the design guidelines applicable to the district -based design review process (Attachment 5) and the BD design standards (Attachment 7), the proposal must also comply vOth the applicable downtown design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan due to the site's location within the "Downtown Retail Core" and within the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center" designations of the Comprehensive Plan. Refer to Pages 123 through 127 of the December 2017 Comprehensive Plan for the downtown design objectives (Attachment 8). Main Street Commons PLN20190024 — Phase I Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 82 5.1.p B. Compliance with the downtown design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed by the ADB during Phase 2 of the review process. VI. PUBLIC NOTICE A "Notice of Application, Public Hearing and SEPA Determination" was issued on June 11, 2019. This notice was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and at the Library. The notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site and published in the Everett Herald. The public notice materials are included as Attachment 10. No public comments have been received. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION According to ECDC 20.12.020.A.1, the purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing process is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist (Attachment 5). In identifying the relative importance of the design criteria, the ADB must use the applicable design guidelines of the BD1 zone, the downtown design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant district -specific design objectives of ECDC Chapters 20.12 and 20.13. Staff recommends that the ADB conduct the following after the public comment portion of the Phase 1 public hearing: 1. The ADB should consider all applicable design guidelines and standards referenced throughout this report and must complete the design guideline checklist (Attachment 5), prioritizing all applicable design guidelines and objectives. 2. Additional issues to be addressed by the applicant prior to Phase 2 of the hearing include: a. Whether the west building remodel exceeds the 75% valuation threshold noted by the Building Division (Attachment 12). If it does exceed 75%, the project must be redesigned to meet all current codes. b. Building height calculations must be provided for both buildings consistent with ECDC 21.40.030 and meet the requirements for the BD1 zone in ECDC 16.43.030. c. Provide an entry to Main Street for the west building consistent with ECDC 16.43.030.B.1- 6 and 10 (c) and (h). d. Ensure the full 45' depth of the east building meets the 15' ground floor height requirement in ECDC 16.43.030.B. e. Comments from Fire and Engineering (Attachments 11 & 13). f. Possible deficiencies relative to the design standards in ECDC 22.43. Main Street Commons PLN20190024 — Phase Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 83 5.1.p 3. The public hearing must be continued to a date certain for Phase 2 of the public hearing process, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 meeting date. Staff recommends October 2 to allow sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the Board's direction and for staff to review the resubmittal and prepare the staff report for Phase 2. VIII. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds David DiMarco 121 5th Ave N 1319 E. Howell Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98122 IX. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land use application 2. Applicant's cover letter and previous concept drawings 3. Preliminary project plans (Phase 1) 4. Preliminary streetscape and landscape rendering (Phase 1) 5. Design Guideline Checklist 6. ECDC 16.43: BD — Downtown Business 7. ECDC 22.43: Design Standards for the BD Zones 8. Comprehensive Plan excerpts General Design Objectives and Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center 9. SEPA determination of nonsignificance and checklist 10. Public notice materials for notice of application, Phase 1 hearing and SEPA DNS 11. Fire District comments 12. Building Division comment 13. Engineering Division comments Main Street Commons PLN20190024—Phase I Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 84 5.1.p City of Edmonds ,r ' Land Use Application W ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT F'1LE # " ZONE ' 1l I A ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DA � � S � REC'D BY �rft I� D ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FL, RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT F1 HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REzoNE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: ■ PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITIIIN THE APPLICATION ISA PUBLIC RECORD ► PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 550 Main Street, Edmonds WA 98020 PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Main Street Commons PROPERTY OWNER Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company Inc. PHONE # 425-263-2474 ADDRESS 5355th Ave S, Edmonds WA 98020 E-MAIL gecko8080®gmaii.com FAX # TAxAccouNT # 004342-120-015-00 & 004342-120.017-00 SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) ALB Review {Type i!! B decision] to create the Main Street Commons at the corner of Main Sheet and 0Avenue. Pralect includes the _ renovation of an existing former grocery store building and a new 2-story commercial building with an 'U-shaped pedestrian plaza, DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT David DiMorco pHONE # 206-355-6795 ADDRESS 1319 E Howell Street E-MAIL architect®icloud.com FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT David DiMarco _PHONE # 206-355.6795 ADDRESS 1319 E Howell Street E-MAIL architect®icloud.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE May 9, 2019 Property Owner's Authorization I Mike McMurray certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE May 9, 2019 ppuue tions? Call (425) 771-0220. EXHIBIT 15 ATTAG�HMENT 1 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024kevtsed on 8122112 B -Land Use Application Page I of 1 Packet Pg. 85 5.1.p *1k Fl 1. �1f 1:i•[*J���;�+1:1 i � �� i�l:i � Dovid J DiMerco I AIA • CPHC A 1319 F HOIN ELL ST SEATTL E YVA 93122 P 206.355.6795 dirnareearehiLee ture_eem TOTAL PAGE COUNTS Design Review Application revised 6113119 10:31 AM COVER LETTER PROJECT ARCHITECT Main Street Commons David DiMarco DiMarco Architecture 550 Main Street 1319 East Howell Street Edmonds WA 98020 Seattle WA 98122 OWNER 206.355.6795 architect@icloud.com Mike McMurray/Seattle-Snohomish Mill Company Inc. CONTRACTOR 533 5th Ave S Sean Giudice Build Love Global LLC Edmonds WA 98020 6502 26th Ave NW 425.263.2474 aecko8080 anamail.com Seattle WA 98177 206.579.1575 seangiudice@gmail.com Here is a brief description of how the project has evolved since it's beginning in October 2017. Contributing to a strong unique Edmonds community has always been the consistent idea behind the Main Street Commons project. Mike McMurray, an Edmonds born native has lived here his entire life and is committed to raising his family in a thriving friendly town. His passion and drive for community building has been essential to the Main Street Commons. His community outreach and involvement is unprecedented. He created a website over a year ago that asked his neighbors what they wanted. Their suggestions of what is unique for Edmonds and what is lacking have influenced the project's evolution. Public suggestions included: • More open space for casual recreation • A performance space for local music and performances • An open-air marketplace to support local craftspeople and vendors • More murals (an Edmonds tradition) to highlight local artist's work • More parking • A rental hall for special occasions �ave More trees, plants and green space We worked closely with the great people at the Edmonds Building Division to develop the final scheme you can see in our permit set currently under review. In particular, Brad Shipley, Leif Bjorback, Kristin Johns and Jeanie McConnell have been consistently helpful and encouraging during and since two separate per -application meetings. As a result of their guidance, we made changes throughout our schematic design, design development and construction document phases that included: • A 2-building scheme; the renovation of a mid-century former grocery store building (our West Building) that includes a family -oriented restaurant and a new 2-story building (our East Building) that includes street - facing retail shops and an event space on the 2nd level. • A large pedestrian plaza between the 2 buildings promotes casual public interaction and offers a performance place for local school groups and musicians to share their talents. The Art Alley along the EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 86 5.1.p southern side of the property offers complementary market stalls open to local crafts persons and vendors to share their wares. Along the Art Alley are 3 double -sided mural panels that showcase local artists and promote a long Edmonds tradition. • Within BD-1 zones parking is not required, yet we have provided 8 convenient parking spots for Main Street Commons patrons. This provides the mobility -challenged visitor a convenient way to arrive and shop. • Large special event spaces are limited in the downtown Edmonds district. The 2nd floor of our East Building provides a great centrally located place for wedding receptions, business meetings, community get- togethers and other celebrations. • Throughout the open space plaza and Art Alley we have included landscaping and mature trees to help create a healthy restful refuge open to the public all day and night. Attached to this letter are the 5 previous schemes (dated for sequence) we considered then improved upon to arrive at our current preferred scheme now submitted for building permit. We hope that this gives you an insight into how the project was first conceived, then revised to reflect public suggestions and Edmonds Building Division guidance. How does our proposal satisfy the applicable requirements and standards of the Comprehensive Plan and Edmonds Community Development Code? Chapter 16.43 BD DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 16.43.010 Our project is located at 550 Main Street within the B1 zone. Our project is located on a Designated Street Front (Main Street). 16.43.020 A. BD1 Zone GFSF. Our existing west building had an existing mezzanine level along Main Street that is to be removed. This results in an arched roof single floor. Our new East Building has floor -to -floor heights of 15-1 V within the entire building except for the entrance lobby and service restrooms accessed from the south from the new pedestrian court within the lot. These secondary spaces have a floor -to -floor of 10'-4 V. Although these secondary spaces are within the required 15-foot / 45-foot from public rights-of-way/sidewalk zone; our hope is that this may be an expectable configuration for minor spaces not visible or accessed from the public right-of-way. 16.43.030 B. Our setbacks are all 0'-0". Our maximum height is 30 feet. Our existing West Building shall be 22'-8'/4". Our East Building uses the height averaging process described to us by Brad Shipley. A rectangle was drawn around the building footprint and the finished elevations were recorded then averaged resulting in a maximum height of 32'-6". Please refer to sheets A.0.1, A.eb.3.3 and A.eb.3.4 for related graphics. C. All interior finished floors have been established to meet existing public right-of-way grades. All spaces open to the public have entries at existing sidewalk grades along Main Street and 6th Avenue. All public -accessed spaces within the courtyard areas are on grade. All entrances re ADA compliant. D. Off-street parking is not required within BD1 zones. We are providing 8 parking spaces along the alley for community convenience. All associated grading is Code compliant and an ADA compliant space is provided. E. An over -abundance of open space is provided for public use between our West and East Buildings (The Plaza) and along the south side of the East Building (The Art Alley). Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS 22.43.000 Our project is located at 550 Main Street within the BD1 zone. 22.43.010 A. Our project reduces the mass and bulk of large box -like buildings. Our renovated arched -roof West Building: 1. Creates a base wainscot below the new central window/door recessed balcony. 2. The wall sconce lighting and signage breaks up the fagade face to more human scale. Our new East Building: EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 87 5.1.p 1. The building creates a simple brick fagade that has a pleasant texture, color and non -reflective surface. 2. The 1-story northeast volume offers a lower -scaled face that is compatible with neighboring buildings across the street. I: 1. Our entry canopies on Main and 6th create a human -scaled face to the sidewalk and offer shelter from weather. Our West Building's distinct and historic arched roof profile is renovated to its original profile along Main Street and the southern alley. Our East Building's brick masonry pattern looks familiar and approachable. Its large -scaled cornice detail is defined by a soldier brick pattern and steel horizontal shadow line clearly seen from the sidewalk. 2. Our East Building's northeast and west 1-story volumes help to reduce the scale of the building to human scale along Main Street and the internal pedestrian plaza. The vertical and horizontal metal siding creates a pattern similar to residential -type siding that is familiar and comforting. 22.43.020 A. Our intention is make Main Street Commons a welcoming community meeting place. B. 1. Our buildings face Main and 6th. 2. Our West Building's central large windows and doors help to visually connect a busy restaurant interior with walkers at the sidewalk level. 3. a. Our East Building's large (Soho -type) multi -paned windows offer plenty of natural light into the interior spaces and make walking by an engaging, inviting experience. b. Our East Building northeast entry is recessed at the important Main and 6th corner. c. Our main goal is to create a public -oriented outdoor meeting place for Edmonds. Our outdoor plaza; located between the West and East Buildings include free amenities that include outdoor seating, dining, a community stage and free market stalls for seasonal food, art and social events. 22.43.030 B. 1. 5 elements included: a. Each entry shall have wall & overhead lighting with potted seasonal plantings. b. Our East Building shall have unique back -lit signage along the 2nd floor cornice that is a reference to 201h century warehouse -type signage. c. Our West Building has a wainscot along its base on Main Street. d. na e. na f. Our East Building will have projecting brick detailing. g. Under the 3 art panels along our Art Alley partial -height walls are faced in glazed tilework that is reminiscent of public market stalls. This tilework could be designed by local school groups. h. All of our ground level doors and windows have transom windows above. i. Numerous planter boxes and planted areas are planned throughout the plaza. j. Blade signage at each tenant entry is planned. Each tenant door will be painted to reflect the unique character of each business. 22.43.040 A. 1. As stated entry canopies are placed throughout the project including a series along the West Building for sheltered outdoor dining. a 2. See above. 3. See above. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 00 5.1.p 22.43.050 B. 22.43.060 B. 22.43.070 B. 1. In addition to entry canopies, 3 retractable canvas awnings under each Art Panel along our Art Alley creates a festive atmosphere with sun shade and rain protection. 2. See above. 3. See above. 4. See above. 5. See above. 6. See above. 7. See above. 8. Each tenant entry shall have lit unique blade signage. 1. Our street front doors and windows strive to create an engaging, inviting streetscape while maintaining a historically accurate window -to -wall relationship. All of our windows are transparent. 1. Edmonds has a long history of including large -scaled art installations throughout the downtown area. We want to encourage and celebrate that tradition. We have proposed 3 art panels along the southern alley. These panels will display local artist's work on both sides of each panel. We hope this bold contribution will make the Main Street Commons a unique experience that fits well into our City's unique arts -first community. 1. All our HVAC equipment is placed on rooftops. It shall be screened from view. Thank you, David DiMarco of DiMarco Architecture 206.355.6795 r , "A 4l , 4Fj?,.rj r EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 89 j•- , { r T ■ - r 3 4 r - t F Von— O -q _P rti = w + - i ■� - i1 + db 46 s F '% —41PS i r - r IL may' 16 ir j4. k W 3� r F16 J ! ' C: ' } JIF Vicinity Map ft 1" = 50, LIP PIP dL Id l . ida • 1 J T - �71 _ J=,. r i EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 �i r j # 4J6i 1 } 6 6r - +:AL P. p i R �'• + Y P. F' � - r • •� r z I � I � IUUI! r� IgIlII 4,1111 ,PIP r r 1 ti i rFF ilk F _ Working Notes _ - 1. Building height is 30' 16.43.030 Table 16-43-2 . � g 9 [ ] a. _ 2. Towers and turrets can be 5' taller [16.43.030.C.3.a]. t 3. Railings can be 42" taller [16.43.030.C.3.b]. 4. Ground floor must be 15' tall floor to floor within 45' perpendicular to r ' designated streetfront Main Street [16.43.030.B.2 and Figure 16.43-11. 5. There is a required 5% open space for our lot. Proportions must be width 'N at least 75% of depth, 16.43.030.E.1 2 &3 . Therefore 19,789 sf lot x 5% •* = 990 sf. '` ' ' � 6. Parking [17.50.010.C.1 &21: No commercial use requires parking in BD 1, [16.43.030.D.2 & 31. i 0114111111%Full width parking stall measures 8.5'x16.5'. _ Any building with a footprint:5 4800 GSF has no required parking. Residential use required 1 stall per unit. ti Restaurants are 'commercial use' therefore exempt. t d. Motel/Hotels are 'other use' and may require parking; must verify. • No new curbcuts are permitted along Main Street. i,. 7. FYI: Macrina Cafe on 1st Ave is 1200sf. Bakery portion is 18000 sf. Pagliacci is 2100 sf. Starbucks are 1700-2000 sf. i fi , ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: 1- Building 2-Storey Vicinity Map B I Printed:11/17/17 Packet Pg. 90 "01 = "9111 5.1.p 0 o Q IT C O z W I, I' Imo! u011an313 1a311S uiaW I I RETAIL A / RETAIL B RETAIL C i f ; A:1,968.74 sq fl / I I II I I I ----------- I I --- -------------------- ---------------- ��'•. `,•••�: i r� IFIFT� ��-1-IF IFir-0-n-Irk i II II II II II IP j II II II II II II II II II i ! ! 4 i �•• - 'II II III II II II II II II II II II II II; rIF�r-r-Ir� TT-n-n-IrirT-n-nff II II II II $ T - - - -- RETAIL B MEZZANINE II III II ! II II II II II IE ! II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II i 4 „ A� ;o6.ossgn II I II II I II II N�II II II--i-�I II II II II II II II II II .%� •��� •` •` _�_._• i I I I TT Tr ;� II II II II II II II II II II I II II II I Ilr,r II ,r, I II II II II II II II II II ' li II_ III_I _ II iF �r —i �j RETAIL C MEZZANINE II�II I I I j��r---_A:6s3.o3sga--- II II � � � I 'i ' 0 � I II II II II II II II II II I II II II II II II II II II i I ill II II II II II II II II II�II II II II II II II II I� Ili / ; II II II II II II II II II II ; II II II II II II II II I II ' RESTAURANT D A: 4,192198sq tt I' i LIVEIWORK#1 i / j RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD i A'. 673.98 s5 fI ' A: fi46.5P sp f1 I I 1 I I i I I I i i •• ------------- I 1 11 ' I ' I i `••`� I . '--------- LIVE 1 WORK #6 ! i =___� i RESIDENTIAL LOBBY '3 A. 645.66 sq R i ' ' A 775 81 sq fl i rl TTTTTTTTTTT� ! I I I I i i RESIDENTIAL PARKING / STORAGE! 1 -- -------------- , I I I -- - - - -- - Ll 1 1 ' Ground Level Plan 1116" = 1'-0" Alley Elevation 1116" = 1'-0" ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ iIlls- Middle Level Plan Top Level Plan d" VvP DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect#icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: 1-Building 2-Storey Plans & Elevations B*2 Printed:11/17/17 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 91 II 1i i I 11 k .......... .......... v lizz zz:t AS It M Fro F-M 5.1.p DIMARCO ARCHITECTU David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA arch dectfficloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of s are and shall remain the property of the Archite They are not to be used on extensions of the prr ar other projects, except by agreement in writin appropriate compensation to the Architect. The 6enerat Contractor is responsible for confin and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for constructim means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and progr in connection with the project. ©Di Marco Architecture Feasibility Studies M 1-Building Site Plan 1-Building site plan it EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 SCALE:1" = 50' 9 Packet P 93 1-ra V &A / I I / / I ---------------- / S I I I / RETAIL A / A: 1,968.74sgft / I --------------- I ------ ���--�.- .-----� I - , O ! i l AL,—, 0 ---------------------------- -- -- pop. —. All RESTAURANT D — — — T — T — — A:4,192.98 sq q I I Y I 0 I I rim EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 I I , — — — — — t — — — — — — — — — — II I I ' RETAIL B I RETAIL C �! A:1,540.5 sq ft A:1,956.03 sq ft I / ------------------------------------------- I- --- — --- -- -- --------------- -- / - - - -------------------------- -I I I I I I T— IF 7 —T 11—Ir IF T 11 —0 IIIIIII � IIIIII IIIIIIII '$III�IF TTTTT! T! Y R� II II II II II II IFI - lETAILBMEZZANINE r--1rI11 i� TiII 1II —IrIrI -II 1 11 I Ii! �k Il�II I .A: 506.03 sq ft 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 111 ��1" 17 TTTTTTT .. .. .. .. - RETAIL C MEZZANINE 1 I II II II II II II II II II II II II II ; II II II II II jl; Aa6BDaaD[L2l I II II_ II _ II _ II ! 16.43.°3°.B. II IF IF II II II IL II II II .. k 62103 JM — ' ll II II II II II II II II II � II II II II II II II II II II t II � ! II II II II II II II II II II I', II II II II II II II II II III it 11 11111 11I LIVE 1 WORK # I.. J 1 / - ;=�Irir —'� RESIDENTIAL COURTYARDI � A: 673.98 sq fit / / '' T' Tr, A: 646.52 sq ft �! I i I i -- I i I i ;' `,�`•� i I LIVE /WORK #6 =___` (RESIDENTIAL LOBBY ; a'9t4� A: 645.66 sq fit — A: 775.81 sq ft ° ! ' I i I ----------- -- - -- - -------------- i I 1 1 i i I �J ;RESIDENTIAL PARKING; - �Bu ldi � % I I A:1,637.94 sq ft I 9 i A: & 0316 sq ft_U I - — ------ � it I Q I TRASH 1 RECYCLE Az„m,qu I � I 1-Building Ground Floor Plan ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 SCALE:1/16" - T-0" 0 5.1.p DIMARCO ARCHITECTU David DiMarto 1319EHowell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@iclaud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com fY 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of G are and shall remain the property of the Archite Q They are not to he used on extensions of the prr a otherprojects, except by agreement in writin appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confin and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construclioI means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and progr in connection with the project. C DiMarco Architecture O Feasibility Studies sSUED: 1-Building main floor plan B-3 Packet Pg. 94 I� 0 0 I� V EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 — PLN20190024 PLN20190024 m,cioa�o - -A 1-Building 2nd floor lJLull SCALE:1/16" = T-0" 5.1.p DIMARCO ARCHITECTU David DiMarco 1319EHowe ll Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@iclaud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Iry 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of G a re and shall remain the property of the Archite Q They are not to be used on extensions of the prr a otherprojects, except by agreement in writin appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confin and correlating dimensions at the job site. The 0 Architect will not be responsible for construclim means, methods, technigues,seguences, or r procedures, or for safety precautions and progr in connection with the project. C Dillarco Architecture O Feasibility Studies SSUED: 1-Building 2nd floor plan BA Packet Pg. 95 Courtyard Elevation, New Building SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0" Courtyard Elevation, Existing Building SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0" 6th Avenue Elevation SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0" Main Street Elevation 5.1.p DIMARCO ARCHITECTU David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@iclaud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of s are and shall remain the property of the Archite They are not to be used on extensions of the prr ar other projects, except by agreement in writir appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confin and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for constructim means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and progr in connection with the project. DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies 1-Building Elevations M EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 SCALE:1/16" = 1'-0" Packet Pg. 96 1 •-- AN •t �. r� _fit r A � —M � r rrr- 1 . I — • 1 jmmhmfi� 40 417- I 71.J=,. r _- EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 IL mi. MEr ' A Vicinity Map t 1" = 50' ftaKme-9m., , L 3— ��I1 �a a I I I I I �I _ F db AA t r J r ° L-aF I 64 • i _° I 1 ro 16 i L I Working Notes _ - 1. Buildingheight is 30' 16.43.030 Table 16-43-2 . 9 [ ] . _ 2. Towers and turrets can be 5' taller [16.43.030.C.3.a]. 3. Railings can be 42" taller [16.43.030.C.3.b]. 4. Ground floor must be 15' tall floor to floor within 45' perpendicular to r ' designated streetfront Main Street [16.43.030.B.2 and Figure 16.43-1]. - 5. There is a required 5% open sace for our lot. Proportions must be width at least 75% of depth, [16.43.030.E.1, 2 &3]. Therefore,19,789 sf lot x 5% = 990 sf. 6. Parking [17.50.010.C.1 &21: No commercial use requires parking in BD 1, [16.43.030.D.2 & 31. A Full width parking stall measures 8.5'x16.5'. Any building with a footprint:5 4800 GSF has no required parking. Residential use required 1 stall per unit. ti Restaurants are 'commercial use' therefore exempt. t d. Motel/Hotels are 'other use' and may require parking; must verify. • No new curbcuts are permitted along Main Street. 7. FYI: Macrina Cafe on 1st Ave is 1200sf. Bakery portion is 18000 sf. i Pagliacci is 2100 sf. Starbucks are 1700-2000 sf. ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: Pinwheel 3-Storey Vicinity Map A I Printed:11/17/17 Packet Pg. 97 U01JDAa13 1a011S UiaW Main Streeet I I I I I I i i i i i Main Level Plan 1/16" = 1'-0" Alley Elevation 1/16" = 1'-0" ILA \ ----------------- 1 DESIGNATEDSTREETFRONTI5' TALL GROUND FLOOR 111,41,111,11,11 77, I I 1 i TI I I � I __—__—__— _—__—_—__—__—_ 1 1 1 Lot 512e I I I re I II pp� Q I �N ITENANT PARKING 1 -------------------------------------------------,-----------------------,-------- q -- f f� Krrrrr: T' ArrrrT IT' f� f� Upper Level Plan 1/16" = T-0" LIVE Rfi L e51.0R 6 I HALL I.- C C- ME R DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: Pinwheel 3-Storey Plans & Elevations A02 Printed:11/17/17 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 98 i4 It sit 111111 Fill, -77 tt-2Q, arm! i igmem, mgege � . Qw—=M1VM=w-al Ilk III Ili. im lid, ukocir�K- IR 1 � Al ar =It mlaw -al F 14 44a. 7'xr, All � n o low_ iw Poll a4w -40%77�744Z__- - lailliotoll all 'I [gl OWN 11111 loll jil gill 11 .Z y j •- - - 't r �. r IL 110 AJ pr I-L l • 1 �,1 - .J=,. r III EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 do 1 Now Vicinity Map 1" = 50' r r L i dw P _ JF AWL ti i _ Working Notes _ - 1. Building height is 30' 16.43.030 Table 16-43-2 . � g 9 [ ] . _ 2. Towers and turrets can be 5' taller [16.43.030.C.3.a]. t 3. Railings can be 42" taller [16.43.030.C.3.b]. 4. Ground floor must be 15' tall floor to floor within 45' perpendicular to r ' designated streetfront Main Street [16.43.030.B.2 and Figure 16.43-11. 5. There is a required 5% open space for our lot. Proportions must be width at least 75% of depth, 16.43.030.E.1 2 &3 . Therefore 19,789 sf lot x 5% = 990 sf. 'IF%. -�� -VIM r` — • 6. Parking [17.50.010.C.1 &21: No commercial use requires parking in BD 1, [16.43.030.D.2 & 31. i 011411111%Full width parking stall measures 8.5'x16.5'. _ Any building with a footprint:5 4800 GSF has no required parking. Residential use required 1 stall per unit. ti Restaurants are 'commercial use' therefore exempt. t d. Motel/Hotels are 'other use' and may require parking; must verify. • No new curbcuts are permitted along Main Street. i,. 7. FYI: Macrina Cafe on 1st Ave is 1200sf. Bakery portion is 18000 sf. Pagliacci is 2100 sf. Starbucks are 1700-2000 sf. i JRL ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: Pinwheel 3-Storey Vicinity Map Al Printed:12/14/17 Packet Pg. 100 �o II ITI r— CD C Z Main Level Plan 1/16" = T-0" Alley Elevation 1/16" = T-0" / I I / I I / I / Main Streeet "0 1 = "91/1 U01Jana13 1a011S UiaW Upper Level Plan 1 �\ 1/16" = T-0" I _ I / ___________T &_____ � II II II II 1,�11 II II II II II II I II II � 1 1 II T "IN II II ` T "li 11 II II II_ II II II II II � II `�I Win-" II II "II �II 1 1 I I � I I II I I I� II II I II /III OUIit 11 11 ORHII WLBdI II I1I I II II II 11 11 II11 11 fl II II II II II II II L r ' II `1 11 ` , II 1�zll�l�l A' II re �'911 II °A 11 /� I � - II Iliell II II � II II II II � II II II 1Y 11 � V i I i II II II II �I II II II II II I II � II II II II II II I II II II II II II II II II � II II II II II II 11 II II II II II II II III II ,�. ; i;I c i II II II II II II I II --1—II1- —I-IIIIr<—n-1-IIIIr �IIIIIIIr --i-IIIIrIIII �JIIIIIIII I-IIIIr—IIII N II II II II II II II II IJ-IIr IF — J--III-rLII -IJ-IIIrLIII --1JIII17 - J—IIIrLIII LII -J--IIIII—rLIIII —1J—IIIIrLIII LIII 1 II II II II II II III II _ —J1 J1+1p iII1�LII1 JIIIIFLIII -iJ-IIIrLIII -iJIIIrLIII IJIIIrLIII IJIII—rLIII LIII II iI -=- II III IIrII 11 aETAIL"B 11 flI� III 1♦ 1-f `� �.-.♦ I I I I yr' "'' i Il�llmll II H II III II A' „425'a5,'gnII II II � II II II II II II II II II II II II II II /II II II Ij II II II II IIIII II II ��II�� II II II II II II f II JI 11-11 III II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II li II II II II II II II II If II II II II III II 11 II I I I ; I I I j II II II II a� �' III II II II II II II II II II II II II II li II II II II II II II II II II RF1ausERUICEEB1AaecE I II II II II II III II II = „y, II II I I I; I I - II I ! I I l A.3,64T 23 sA It I I i i II II II II II II II II II II II - 'Tso �i ° trl tlMi _m.- ti•M r� I If I �:..°. I II 1 II II II II II li II II II II II II i II I II II II II II II II II ; II I! II II II II II II II , II fl II II II II II II II ° i II II II II II II II II u u11u1u1u RETAIL II II II II II II II A 1,422.22.3l s9 n II � II II II II II II II II ' II I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II A II II II II II II II II -JL- JL JL JUL JL-JL JL-JL A_ IFl�-i�lr-ir77TrlrI II N II II II II II II II II II I� II II II II II II II II II 11 II II II II II II II II II I! II II II II II II II II II li II II II II II II II II ° § II � II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I ONTDOOA KITCHEN / I I A: 192 sqH - ♦ ``� RESIDENTIAL PARKING / ♦ A:J"B5,23sgX 1 I i1i j-- 1 I I , u , u / ---- .., 1 I TRASH/RECYCLE A: 206.21 sqn --- - II 'A121-Isd I � i i i I / OUTLINE OF REMOVED FACADE A 1 DE1IGNATEDSTAEETFRONT11- TALL GROUND FLOOR 16.43.030.11.2 / ------ ti I TI I RESIDENTIAL LOBBY II , �. ylla ry Lt -- ------ -------- BIKES 9{ 1 0 11 Lots 11 I _—__— _—__ ---------- ---------- I I II Q II y _* I �N / TENANT PARKING II II II II II II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I nnnnnnnnnnl Ill nnnnnnnnnni 111LE1 nnnnnnnnnni 111LE1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III �011-A LIVE d5 A:993.Msgtt LIVE Y4 A:5150BmX HALL A nl.utgn ME C— M; DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: Pinwheel 3-Storey Plans & Elevations A02 Printed:12/14/17 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 101 B 1111 Fill live OR WSKY REW PUB ` �i .. J ��._ I ��.: ,�1 ,� il�- .'1 �-, J1 z to b Z.- I 71 27-1 im Lp -- AC' Z11111111,111 Z "MMINIMMII, 7!1 WR waft 77' we --.—z Aw Sly" tit! i I 11 f WALKING ALONG MAIN I .I NOT I f1 III!( I1`I`' �k II F _ k HOT STRETCH YOGA III •. � ,y'��'I '�: ti'y4y;:'1...�4, '??�, � ' �5. BREWSKY BREW PUB MAIN STREET COMMONS VP DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: Pinwheel 3-Storey 3D Views (1) AA Printed:12/14/17 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 103 k r MEGAN LOFTS N 6th AVENUE ALLEY l I, I .I �I I I i i I� 1 1 OMBU SALON + SPA DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com 550 Main 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Feasibility Studies ISSUED: Pinwheel 3-Storey 3D Views A.5 Printed:12/14/17 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 104 ti \] ._-r` r, J --_ '�i.. 1� � y. .� �1 . s �1.P•. 1 I �. •� -,.r.,� 4 �-.. I _ --Win:..._ •ex l - ��� I i y, _ -'v ' : i , -v �, ! 'j ':.v �:3 's _ I a I 1 a. r �� -.... .: ally _,'yb..::^°-. �' •. r. ..._,aS.lr ::'"' 'v�' Y:gM i I'.iy S � - - .. _... ___ .( .'s) q 1 � 1 L •f- 3.,_ _ Vi' - �Z. `.a:, w.j. . �.k � .`� Y-,:.-''� � +rVJI� � _ :. r..� 1.�' I - - I h r � s r 11 g i a u .°4 � z' �, k'3z t '�. �I •.�. �.. i-�g� �_';; r fir. J.` • T 4 HAT 1. I . �! l s 1 I o _ }f 1ff t' - 1 j u ' c I 'v: J r � I 3 ZVEF �0or .. rmd*-� •.i '( I' 1 �}u, is � z:,•�r. � /''f - i , _ c a SS �. _ _ _ F D' ..,E �• a•- a :r'e 1 L If u i �_ 1! ►v - '�., A n J W "4 7 a. s i e•a .�g ^ r: E. q ma's i f� y 0 I Y SDK � '"' `� •C `�1'• _. ..` v I �`^y 'e }''- !�� F/' _ Jam- _ _ la ` r . .. 1IN ':� x s r , � r �. �&�. ,� d� �1I �� a i •kip ,,> 1� l � ;l 1 d} v 9 IJI j 1 >j J. rviku . ..\ ' aerial view DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Overview 1 Printed: 6/13/19 N 0 0 rn r 0 N Z J d 3 m 0 c .y CD d N cC R r to a N d N M t d N C G E O U r d L C N Y C d i V M r M G Q L N a Ln Q r i K W V f0 Q EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 105 5.1.p Ia19II J&k ill I IIIII, 'WO Von F I' II �I I IlH!Pr Main Street from West iiii� View from Corner of 6th Avenue and Main Street rpr View of Mural Alley from 6th Avenue 1 I IOA, �ilk Nl DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Exterior Views 2 Printed: 6/13/19 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 106 5.1.p .` . r' ... �. I. ...-..._. .. -.... . . I ..... ... . 4r ' . r - - I- _ iIi 1 i I t � - ' }rI i ,il . I , 'i iIS• _ s yJ +I•I ,, k - - - -- - -- ' I. _ - — -~— '-' ... --- - --- '----- i ; --- ��- t,�i --' #1 ,�..y,-•n�. gulf ,11 ii ; sl .r I Fi :T",.'.., i i 4I € ! iii i ;'I €; -1 `i' i ill ;j ��� .'! -' €� i,!i 1• I I: ' I . _ -- - i li. 1 ill I 'I i. {: ,i I�, f iI t : # ' €I j I' i,i I if:{gq I 3.I C r.. -- -. _ - ,&• �y' r i' I. :Ifs ,�.,.� I I 1 I �I r. I I. f I T. d� I I f ti .. a 1 ).. r '•I I 7 ,, : - a :.� . d °fie" T I'' L. i• .:a'• - _ F� a? I b 4, '.1 : �. ' '-'' ii s'-f \, " V i - - - �� L' i s w,x 'fir I. I� >>i+= w.. . c= I.. -111P r "� �• _ _ rem. - -' . -.�_ _ ..-11. - ly q _ is,_�` - -.+ -N - rJ_ - v_K._ - Y -�` r V 5x _ s = - �'S� - '� ter.--' _ . ��_= _ �-' 1 ___ --�:'', y � ,�-•• . --�+ram- _'� ��„� 7 _I r:,'- �'_.. _ - .t• _ter � .-�..."ter - - •ter:=�,�_ -�=>~- _ - - 1.. - a e:< - _ _ �z --.""��. _ -... �-,a. - -.c _ - - 1. �' - -�'r'`ai. 'x - - - :a•• �. -x-�-- Y '---i�_-- - .�Y-� -.L Zt may, ,:7_•. _ - - --r+�" .. _ r. _ _ -x�v t' -`--�•-_ram _ - �-''-' �',� = `1 - - ;-�<�--�----- _ _ ti .,.- - ce--- - - i. - - ��-- - --- - - - ��r..-__ { :l_am `_�: 55-- � " y _�-� _ _ _ ice. `I--- �'-1--� " --�- - i If i I . 1 r I 1 i`• r I - ,' r 1 . 1t f- . .i i \ I L ., . 1. , i r E . i I - '-- - �— . . p µh � . >� • - i. - - _:�_ d1 : _ zs V l ri ,' -- .,iJ _ x i i - :yi j. - :'i ,:c r r• 5 I i � S- - :- }r. f _ _ it is ,r I �;u - y' - - --:- - _ F- r -- - r. i I I I L: , r d 1 1 _ -i..._ - '..' - r- !!T. _.._ i.. ./ f. ti i r I .- - i I rr i 7� r. ` f' _] I ;:� I . i _ ---- Ir f I..... - -. . > 2 CIO EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 #4 #7 -- - .. r,' i . .' €'- - r� , .. .a :I.,. __ _ . , .. �I i .1:; . a, . - - _ I 4-1 I - - :. -ii , �i - I - I I I - I A - l - )' L ,'�'- . -.:;ram'-"`- - - ;.L�i. ,II 44 .r:I .S'. 7.. : J ._ e .._ .I i i. ii I'.i . •LIIF� r . - - - - - _--,'�'171 1-1 E - - -- [' ! :i:Y rr r _ - - - T•, ; - - . . - ...I ''[ _ , I' b - _ ,.. f i ii , f ! I �1 - i' I S Y - i - i •L r k y 'i II rt}. 'Nk f J �' � I I - - 1. M- �ti r. 4 p -'; I[} _ L i J LI I 1 VS r -C r - III I 1I: •,Cy _ `i" �,: .... .. . _. I I' I - - .LL F[ - '.. f'ss ii; >� - ,- Ali ,r _ k2 �_ I [� :�r"Y = `" _ _ -_ - I.r- a - - .. = ram ' . F. 2 ii _ : _ - - x r - r J ;.- = , - _ '- =: L-. _F _ -� - r - . - r ti� t� _ r y� �• -t._ - - =� j• %_ --� - {.. t�Yti -- - - t _ fir _ - -ti ^ , --�:_ ��.. I : sir ''_ r �- ' #2 ...:7- 1�"'15 t� -- :�F - - . -- - �i 4�,I O , - .. _.-- ..._ .. .. -,r" __ . I I - c _ I _ - I.iV. _ _ _. - I' , - - I '� - -I - I - 'I� i W I I - ,�• it _ _ I I' i. 4 _ 4 - ;II - - r' - i :L I �::' - " ; r , t c'.. -•Y. •!. I - - f + E 1:'' . { is - 4 —.. __. 'I r - Ir' Y ci l i —_-_J - ! fr . . �- Y' II = _ i• .JJ I L. I " 1. iI - - - :-� - t'-'- - -- --- "' --- ... s. .. k - .F:.� €i 5; .i. -{: s - I' - -LYE. rl. ��i---'- -I rl ._ -- It r - ='u`- { _ �. _ s d " ice' JK: ' �. - I I�i D- ' Y a.. _... - Y �.a. a k� .� H"i t. I '! --�-! _ _ �='= -. - - I_ I. t k 9 � I -I -AY _-L I i I' -L_ fb : 5 - Y'- - - r - '•/ d { I Fes' p i° �Y i , �t - j - k 9 .t 'rEt .�_.- - - 1 - YI -,?fit..:. �',-=-'_:''� �-��; P 'I - a-- fir. r� I' x }': r _ .F '; I�- �I - I �3 'F` fk]'�'i I - - - � k k - i;I - r - rF_ I _ � I;rI r \ - - Y _ - _ 'Y _ r, li r• 7 5 �` r_ L'� x fir. :� - � r✓✓�: t-• - w - rr -- x• x. _r y r f ter-- - J� y � �ti 4 ` _r , >;'i s --1 - a � ., 1:5--♦F :� . ��92 Y ~� �ti y _ ! --�• .��?. - .1 t mar I -'\ �� '. .}- ' - z r ` a•� r � �, ✓: - Gr t /�'�F/`� irk s 1 f -� l f - �, -� < - f/ 7 � / +_ I-� - F. _ i� r -�`� ._ I` . #5 /+/'i� 1 . .. - YL 17i}•8+ �, /ry�p� h"!'4,.. ----'---•\ rI'I1 y, I . , T f r:, :,.: , . . \ •f.,� ,�r[ i s F i - Y - n V .. 'if'`ill v is :;s I �` I,'' .� .. .:.. ^.Ltl s E" - 1 5i� i:r - - — - ,, F :, ', _ l j� i' .:. :: I F r � i it i+'. !„ -?-- .. - -51' - ,I 9 1 ,. ", i .. . j.; is r .� ru. -. k _ z„ J' . r �.0 I "a. r' I i 1 - _ y.;' ; :; f.. - N - =- m =' M Tt --' _ :. =;w �. - - --- _ ii.n k. . �r +: =; . - _ �• t. d c' '�;r I.0 � Lhi' �yJ1111 u 'li hh i .I .:k f- • _ FS�'.w `i i' •-1 i II Ij' gg _ I 5'� li . -,I- ' - i i t i r . r tir - FL �. n 3 �..., tl• _ '..r .'1 : .r.i �w i , i �u .. `��. -- - y I]� - »I 1 1. . �.-. . _. y - - r - is • _ 4 - g i — - I�F ir ,i;. � I a Y �9 I - i r I' .1_ L� 1 ` - ..L ... ... i.. 1 . ! "- --- V: r r�� - "yam_ _r_ _ j =V _ _ :fir �! i - ~ .1 :ii lil - -I- -- 'i _ It : i. 4' "' _. _ - _ -- _- .- _ I I - - y Y - rr 3 _... - - -•': r - - n..er.. �- _+�:. _. ..... I•r Y _�. _ _ _ _ - �. _.:.-_._._v }' _ - _ f - i I f�s•� ":L - - . I ''l!.- sir - - .. :I , 's 4- ham~ , lam+• z rl -� _ _ _ .... j? _ i �'I li •1 y, I'I •s § :I III` �W: fr:; u... i -3°:; �. :I. 1 z fi -r Ill :L I' _i - { :, J - L L } �, ¢ _ ,m - f :i Rf 1 I d. I I p �` IJ' - -� i - 2"" � 11 lW}�' 4 ..F1. - •iv - S .. - . I -r -9' h. - _a - .. _ �.rt ?x kn . C- ke W� 9 ' ~• r . ". _ � . , = r- �� . i- -= . 0 } �� . �= i �.: y. .-. -C S-_ - .. ''.r. `' f' - •�y. - .. . 7y #3 --r T' r I yy I' ti JJ T E . .... . !.- . .. -... - - -.-- 'f t j,l �l[ I'i Jfa I.� a f i SI - I . i I' r§ 4' i I ;I it Ii {{ I' i i;i''i ' i 1 ' ' i' i. Tr;:ff • i' + riI _ 4' Ire 5 1' i i . i .'< '1' r f; f . J - ¢4 I � r• I r :•4 j' is• - 3 ,r F• s• f�; i 2 r S' i. k' f s. .i d ��_ S J.. -` h " r I y, ��I - - w s _ !-• - _ 1�-- _ .- }1jj - " C - -=r . - l _ S: S _ ' �Y i" _ :. _ 'iAll r - 4, n nri "iIR - r is - oaf :�! _ _ _ II - 1 i- 3. �_ i _ _ _ _ _ ," _ _ ..cam._ `1` `?^ - I g II _-- r . ry� I _ 1 <'r _ .-a• = - i' ' ._ ' ti i. - I - i. _ -,r y. :x--�'� i'-'� y - . �: C- }' ,r�a - - - - {�` - �, . .,.�: mod...._ . �sr= _ � �-�'"�.- . � .t _ '.'� _ : -1 s' •-- _ L- r li _ .F V r. :. F f Jr :...:- p CF j u— . I .. I f z - R 1 - _ µ ]_ F } >F l� �.i ry)f 1 _ �llk yjr- __ .. 1 J $ - r T- �I°I i' 4 =I - f �w =.y.. _ - I 3 , F t _-`7..r r .�1 a, �l-5� II. gg 7 -- �. ^ a. - rl r t sL �• - •5 �` t_ - a '-x.r - -- t'- I f 1 '`'- - i �y '.r I #6 I } I i I ''\ . . 'I i I r I .I ! '� I i 1 [1 . --'-' -'---- -- - 4 - l i -f I - Lam'. 3; I I - - - j : - -Z' -' .. ._ _. _�..----._I .......I. ----- -'---- _I . -� • - -'-I" ----' - .i._.- -'- --...--''---' I- ;� - - p . . - I ' - -- - -�F Il C I �'i - I. I --- i. II I i. T s -- I I+ _....-..- ._ J_ .. i..... J,% �..._.:. .. .... . . I _ -i t :!} '. ' I" -'- J.......I.. r ' "__:_ _._.._ _.. __...._.._.�._..... w.' ... -... ._ .. .... .. - r rf•: :n 4i fsr• ��. ,. I,.. } .. .. . .._.. .• _ .ir - s =' �.. . , t. I�. f' r= s b.. 1; :� - "`' - 1 ' I Q, - fi' F� y.,Hw ,�'i� 4 h' , r L� _ . IY'' -` - 5 II+. - br- � II 1 { L fT I� 1 a { yj � {.- 5 I i it f :: 'P �I I I Tr `:II . I: I .I II Oil: h a • t' I ,11 rJ I- ` I .} .I! I 1i' l jI},�. {. � " : . I � �� .. I i a i { [v - r j I I 4 .'i �I i�. __ 97 { i I P w.-- M N"' #9 ... d'' .1 i' =r ' I I- . ., ' y .. Y,r 'J I.� . I. I . E'I S ,ry '!'. _ , K .i rI .. I: w`' J ::'i'. ,rI i:. �#=. s �:'^ ..'.... , .: ' ti. a' a': r i' r a t. y. i . ... .. �.vf . r "t: is r. I. z.r :f .: - _ ! , —_ R. '- r �r fl 4 If - �f' i _t•IJ S.. i.. _ 9 s '..:: _ n R I I. -r I 1 S1i� •� 'Il• ' ) ' • r !k.r� ?.�" - -'i . f+Y- r:- l r yay. . - } • rE - II, %: +c �}. -7~I ;t l '� i �- r r `. . i _ a "�iy I: 4, Nu ; €, 'p� 1 S } i r� _ yy N t' 11 i wz- •d . il I. r �. l_ 1 - r:. I ' 31 i fl. r �:. I. Y f. I I �. i f' F" rr •j� .. H: � J. Lf ; .I.. �. 'I s �r t I ! i S. ,i I - �. r I' c' �°, � 'fir,! p ,�J.. iI L 1s l s ''�1 yyII f !I � I � ]I M + fi 'il� 1 n 1. ly.. if : l�; ,, i I> `'1 i'• I r:3 :: i ii '! I !`. !iL }' 1 'I4 __ - - . � x.. vi VP DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the of the Architect. property The are not to be used on extensions of the project, 9 P 1 > or other projects, except b agreement in writing and P 1 � P 9 9 9 appropriate ensation to the Architect. compensation The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Courtyard Sequence 3 Printed: 6/13/19 1* N O 0 aw 0 N Z J a_ 3 m d IX C .21 N O 0 d N R R r .c _N 0 N O N M t a N C O E E O U r O !D , v/ C .7 E N C O E V fC r..r M M C R r L O CL d L- M N d W M s a CO 0 a LO x w C O V + a ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 107 5.1.p DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Plans 4 Printed: 6/13/19 a EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 108 5.1.p i OPEN TO STAIR BELOW II THE REC ROOM A:1,303.11 sq ft 'dmuno lvll a3un`J aNnoa o_ Dodo Z3Nvl a31Lno lvlj a3une oNnoa oNIddtlo Nan13a Tv9 r r r — 6�°" T-0• m I I I a311no lvll a3un'J Mnoa T 3 i rl I I I I I `3Ntl1 � Ip pllp pllp �I OPENT�BELOW 3 1 N" a311mo ltlll a3un`J oNnoa GROSS FOOTPIR III IIIIII IIIIII a3uno lull 83uno aNnoa 7 � OPEN TO I I I I I q II II II II II A: 230.�6 S It 000o Z3Nb'l A a31Lno lull a3une oNnoa 1 a JUICES/ III IIIIII IIIIII U°8 U°8 = SALADS D a31155lvld a3uno ONloa 3 m - - o w l3Nv, = oNlul BELOW 3 a3uno lull 83uno oNnoa D e 1- 11 X 1 1 m'o" 15RIJIU19/32.' 11-0 ri 17RISE 19164" I 15RUN�11112") 17RUN)103116") X --� COURT TERRACE sky Niht ROSS FOOTPRINT a e; L__� - I 411.06sgft ' I L 115R (11� 2") � J 98 x08 3'- ' x 68" --I 1< Jnd hOA MNTiPAdOPNTO GRO S FOOTOINT RESTAURANT A: o 226.49 sq ft --� DINING BELOW I� I F— 7 / — 22RISE 747164" I I -- - 22RUN)1111T') I I � I I I I I I I I I I -- OPEN TO EXERCISE BELOW OPEN TO RESTAURANT I KITCHEN BELOW I I I J i sklit yghky4lit OPEN TO EXERCISE BELOW OPEN TO RECEIVING BELOW ?�� skylight $kyllghlt L--� L--� Upper Level Plan 118" = T-0" N DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Plans 5 Printed: 6/13/19 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 109 5.1.p 1--- 14-1 6th Avenue Elevation ' 11 .r :■..---------- Main Street Elevation DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Exterior Elevations 6 Printed: 6/13/19 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 110 5.1.p - a 1 'A'..%• i b • F�1 i.6 � L1 I I _-------=11 _----------=11 _----------=11 11------------8------------11 ■ ■ II _—_—__—■--______—__—■=—______—__—■ ■=___________■=___________■ ■------------------■ I I n n u u u u ■---------- ■ I I a rsl a �1 u u u u ■ ■ �' NEI II u u u u u u ■ ■ ■ oil n Alley Elevation Alley Elevation III.�I III INTO 1II Courtyard Elevation, Existing Building .1 11 11 11 11 111111 1 ■■ 1 1 Ir Courtyard Elevation, Existing Building ATTACHMENT 2 - PLN20190024 11 2-7 III �I DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except b agreement in writing and p l � p 9 9 9 appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Presentation Set ISSUED: Exterior Elevations 7 Printed: 6/13/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 111 5.1.p BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS: WEST BUILDING OCCUPANT LOAD EXITING PLUMBING FIXTURES TENANT STORY SPACE GROUP FUNCTION SIZE LOAD FACTOR LOAD # OF EXITS CPoET EATD WC (M) WC (W) LAVATORY MEN: WC LAV WOMEN WC LAV per 303.3 per Table 1004.1.2 per Table 1006.2.1, ' per IBC 1017.2 3 Upper Private Office A-2 Assembly 132.Osf 1 per 15sf net 8.80 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 4.4 0.06 0.02 4.4 0.06 0.02 Upper Loft Dining A-2 Assembly 380.Osf 1 per 15sf net 25.33 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 12.7 0.17 0.06 12.7 0.17 0.06 Upper Balcony Circulation A-2 Business O.Osf 1 per 130sf gross 0.00 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 Upper Rollerball Tables & Chairs A-3 Assembly 249.Osf 1 per 7sf net 35.57 2 n/a 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 17.8 0.24 0.09 17.8 0.24 0.09 Upper Rollerball Built-in Bench A-3 Assembly 23.01f 1 per 1.51f net 15.33 n/a 250ft 1 per 12! 1 per 65 1 per 200 7.7 0.06 0.04 7.7 0.12 0.04 Upper Rollerball Lanes A-3 Assembly 3 lanes 5 per lane net 15.00 n/a 250ft 1 per 12! 1 per 65 1 per 200 7.5 0.06 0.04 7.5 0.12 0.04 Upper Rollerball Circulation A-3 Business 98.Osf 1 per 130sf gross 0.75 n/a 250ft 1 per 12! 1 per 65 1 per 200 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.4 0.01 0.00 Upper Storage/Equipment S-1 Storage 146.Osf 1 per 300sf gross 0.49 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 10(1 per 10( 1 per 100 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.00 Upper Attic Space n/a unoccupied 476.Osf 1 per 300sf gross 1.59 n/a n/a n/a subtotal: Upper Level occupant load 102.87 2 per 1006.3.1 subtotal: 0.59 0.25 0.71 0.25 1 Main Dining A-2 Assembly 3135.Osf 1 per 15sf net 209.00 2 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 104.5 1.39 0.52 104.5 1.39 0.52 Main Stairs/Storage A-2 Business 185.Osf 1 per 130sf net 1.42 300ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 0.7 0.01 0.00 0.7 0.01 0.00 Main Restrooms A-2 Business 251.Osf 1 per 130sf gross 1.93 300ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 1.0 0.01 0.00 1.0 0.01 0.00 Main Kitchen A-2 Comm. 06 844.Osf 1 per 200sf gross 4.22 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 2.1 0.03 0.01 2.1 0.03 0.01 subtotal: Tenant 1 occupant load 216.57 subtotal: 1.44 0.54 1.44 0.54 subtotal: shared facilities for tenants 1 & 3 2.04 0.80 2.15 0.80 2 Main Dining A-2 Business 798.Osf 1 per 15sf gross 53.20 1 100ft 300ft 1 per 25 1 per 25 1 per 40 26.6 1.06 0.67 26.6 1.06 0.67 Main Kitchen A-2 Business 413.Osf 1 per 200sf gross 2.07 1 100ft 300ft 1 per 12! 1 per 65 1 per 200 1.0 0.01 0.01 1.0 0.02 0.01 Main Restrooms A-2 Business 84.Osf 1 per 130sf gross 0.65 0.3 0.3 subtotal: Tenant 2 occupant load 55.27 per 1006.3.1 subtotal: 1.07 0.67 1.08 0.67 subtotal: Main Level occupant load (tenants 1 & 2) 271.84 Basement Storage (exist'g to remain) S-1 Storage 873sf 1 per 300sf gross 2.91 250ft n/a n/a n/a subtotal: Basement Level occupant load 2.91 1 75ft subtotal: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 total area: 4395.0 377.61 TOTAL BUILDING OCCUPANT LOAD TOTAL FIXTURES 3.1 1.5 3.2 1.5 footnotes: Assembly spaces are unconcentrated loads (tables & chairs) unless noted otherwise CPoET = common path of egress travel (maximum distance allowed for spaces with one exit) EATD = exit access travel distance IEBC Compliance prescriptive Method Change of Use (ref IEBC 1012.4.1) from M (retail) to A (restaurant) from B (salon) to A (restaurant) - increased hazard level requires compliance with IBC Chapter 10 for means of egress Sprinklers yes Building Type (ref IBC 602) V-B Existing arched glu-lam roof beams and T&G roof decking to be exposed from the interior Ext Wall Fire Rating (ref IBC Table 602) fire separation distance < 10': 1-hour west & south walls to be 1-hour rated fire separation distance >_ 10': 0-hour east & north walls to be unrated Allowable Area (ref IBC 506) A-2:18,000sf. A-3:18,000sf. S-1: 27,000sf Allowable Height (ref IBC 504.3) 60' Allowable Stories (ref IBC 504.4) A-2: 2, A-3: 2, S-1: 2 Above Grade Plane Occupancy (ref IBC 508.4) A/A: 0-hour, A/S-1:1-hour Senaration Mezzanine (ref IBC 505.2.1) Egress: Corridor Width (ref IBC 1020.2) no less than 44" Stairways (ref IBC 1005.3.1) 0.3" per occupant Upper Level exit stair:103 occupants x 0.3" = 30.9" Other Components (ref IBC 1005.3.2) other components: 0.2" per occupant 103 x 0.2" = 20.6" (so 44" per 1020.2 governs) Encroachment (ref IBC 1005.7) Open doors shall not reduce required width by >7". Doors in any position shall not reduce req'd width by >112 Locks & Latches (ref IBC 1009.1.3) In buildings in occupancy group A with an occupant load <300, main door can be lockable Panic Hardware (ref IBC 1010.1.10) Doors serving spaces with an occupant load >_50 in a Group A occupancy shall have panic hardware or fire exit hardware (except as allowed per 1009.1.3 abc Exit stair (ref IBC 1023) 1-hour fire rating Shaft enclosures (ref IBC 713.4) 1-hour fire rating at elevator hoistway and kitchen exhaust stacks Fire extinguishers (ref IBC 906.1.1) required in Group A and S occupancies (ref IBC 906.1.2) required within 30 feet of commercial cooking equipment BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS: EAST BUILDING TENANT STORY SPACE GROUP FUNCTION SIZE LOAD FACTOR LOAD # OF EXITS CPOET EATD WC (M) WC (W) LAVATORY I MEN: WC LAV I WOMEN WC LAV Upper Event Space A-3 Assembly 1986.Osf 1 per 15sf net 132.40 2 n/a 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 66.2 0.88 0.33 66.2 0.88 0.33 Upper Kitchen A-3 Kitchen 84.Osf 1 per 200sf gross 0.42 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 0.2 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.00 0.00 Upper Storage A-3 82.Osf 1 per 300sf gross 0.27 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 10(1 per 10( 1 per 100 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.1 0.00 0.00 subtotal: upper level occupant load 133.09 2 per 1006.3.1 subtotal: 0.89 0.33 0.89 0.33 4 Main Dining A-2 Assembly 797.Osf 1 per 15sf net 53.13 2 n/a 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 26.6 0.35 0.13 26.6 0.35 0.13 5 Main Dining A-2 Assembly 489.Osf 1 per 15sf net 32.60 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 16.3 0.22 0.08 16.3 0.22 0.08 6 Main Dining A-2 Business 387.Osf 1 per 15sf net 25.80 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 12.9 0.17 0.06 12.9 0.17 0.06 7 Main Dining A-2 Business 453.Osf 1 per 15sf net 30.20 1 75ft 250ft 1 per 75 1 per 75 1 per 200 15.1 0.20 0.08 15.1 0.20 0.08 Main Restrooms A-2 Business 232.Osf 1 per 130sf gross 1.78 1 subtotal: main level occupant load 143.52 subtotal: 0.94 0.35 0.94 0.35 total area: 5179.0 276.61 TOTAL BUILDING OCCUPANT LOAD TOTAL FIXTURES 1.8 0.7 1.8 0.7 footnotes: Assembly spaces are unconcentrated loads (tables & chairs) unless noted otherwise CPoET = common path of egress travel (maximum distance allowed for spaces with one exit) EATD = exit access travel distance Sprinklers yes Building Type (ref IBC 602) V-B Ext Wall Fire Rating (ref IBC Table 602) fire separation distance >_ 10': 0-hour Exterior walls to be unrated Allowable Area (ref IBC 506) A-2:18,000sf. A-3:18,000sf. Allowable Height (ref IBC 504.3) 60' Allowable Stories (ref IBC 504.4) A-2: 2, A-3: 2 Above Grade Plane Occupancy Senaratinn (ref IBC 508.4) A/A: 0-hour Egress: Corridor Width (ref IBC 1020.2) no less than 44" Stairways (ref IBC 1005.3.1) 0.2" per occupant Upper Level exit stair:134 occupants x 0.2" = 26.8" Other Components (ref IBC 1005.3.2) other components: 0.2" per occupant 134 x 0.2" = 26.8" (so 44" per 1020.2 governs) Encroachment ref IBC 1005.1 ( 1 > > Open doors shall not reduce required width b 1 . Doors in an position shall not reduce re d width b 112 p q y any q y Locks & Latches (ref IBC 1009.1.3) In buildings in occupancy group A with an occupant load <300, main door can be lockable Panic Hardware (ref IBC 1010.1.10) Doors serving spaces with an occupant load >_50 in a Group A occupancy shall have panic hardware or fire exit hardware (except as allowed per 1009.1.3 abc Exit stair (ref IBC 1023) 1-hour fire rating Shaft enclosures (ref IBC 713.4) 1-hour fire rating at elevator hoistway Fire extinauishers (ref IBC 906.1.11 reauired in Grow A occupancies Project Site- Puget Sound VICINITY MAP � aP Qae ryc �eo�a 410 / St ryca '� Q m` W Dayton St Dayton St Caspers St 0 a Carol Way Aloha St a� `aP Glen St Bth Ave N GIen St GI Daley St Daley St Fa �ryry�,s Sprague St Sprague St Be2�S < `0 m .4 S Z a rBell St m Bell St M y Z Z 4 - Maple Way S 3 m Maple St m < Maple St N CA (n (n o � Alder St Alder St > Alder Beck Ln m Walnut St Walnut St En Shelleberger Holly Dr Creek > > Hemlock way m m (n N Cedar St m 5 Spruce St Spruce St > � S N HernIock St y 2i Laurel St Site Plan SCALE: 1" = 10' APPLICABLE CODES ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM WITH: - 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) WITH STATE AMENDMENTS - 2015 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE WITH STATE AMENDMENTS - 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE) WITH STATE AMENDMENTS - 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE WITH STATE AMENDMENTS - 2015 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE WITH STATE AMENDMENTS - 2015 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE (WAC 51-11) - 2015 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE - EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE - 2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL PLUMBING, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. ALL SUCH WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES. 2. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. USE ONLY WRITTEN DIMENSIONS. VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS IN FIELD PRIOR TO EXECUTING WORK. IN THE EVENT OF DISCREPENCY, CONTACT ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 3. STRUCTURAL DRAWING NOTES PREVAIL OVER ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING NOTES. 4. THESE DRAWINGS ARE PERMIT DOCUMENTS. THE OWNER/DEVELOPER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARTICULARS AND DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, VENTILATION, WEATHERPROOFING, INSTALLATION OF PRE - MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS AND ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE WORK NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THESE DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL UTILIZE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND PRACTICES STANDARD AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, FOLLOWING ALL MANUFACTURER'S AND TRADE ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ARCHITECT DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION OR DETAILS NOT INCLUDED IN THESE DRAWINGS. THE ARCHITECT IS AVAILABLE TO CONSULT, REVIEW AND ADVISE AS REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION UPON SIGNED AGREEMENT. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE AND ARRANGE ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND/OR SPECIAL INSPECTION AGENCIES. 6. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FINISHED FACES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7a. WIND EXPOSURE B, WIND SPEED 85MPH WITH 3-SECOND GUSTS, SEISMIC ZONE D, GROUND SNOW LOAD 25 SPF, DESIGN LOADS I.E. LIVE, DEAD, WIND AND LATERAL PER IBC CHAPTER 16. 7b. SOIL BEARING CAPACITY PER GEOTECHNICAL SOILS REPORT. 7c. SEE CHART ON THIS SHEET FOR OCCUPANT LOAD AND FLOOR AREA INFORMATION. BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATIONS CAN BE FOUND ON THIS SHEET SITE PLAN. 7d. BOTH THE WEST AND EAST BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE FIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. 7e. SITE DOES NOT REQUIRE PARKING. WE ARE PROVIDING 8 PARKING SPACES. 7f. REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE LISTED ON SHEET S1.2. 7g. REQUIRED DEFERRED SUBMITTALS ARE NOT YET DETERMINED. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT TEAM SITE ADDRESS: OWNER 550 Main Street Mike McMurray, SEATTLE-SNOHOMISH MILL COMPANY, Edmonds, Washington 98020 533 5th Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020 PARCEL NUMBER: gecko808O#gmaii.com (425) 263-2474 004342-120-015-00 AND 004342-120-017-00 (BEING COMBINED UNDER SEPARATE APPLICATION) ARCHITECT & CONTACT PERSON LEGAL DESCRIPTION: David DiMarco, DiMARCO ARCHITECTURE LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 120, CITY OF EDMONDS ADDITION, ACCORDING 1319 E Howell Street TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, Seattle, WA 98122 RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. architect@icloud.com (206) 355-6795 AND; BUILDING ENVELOPE ENGINEER Telman Gasanov, BUILDING ENVELOPE ENGINEERING LOTS 11,18,19 AND 20, BLOCK 120, CITY OF EDMONDS ADDITION, W Dayton Street, Suite 206 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, E Edmonds, WA 98020 d PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. telman@bee-engineers.com (425) 672-3900 COMBINED LOT SIZE: 19,791 SF CIVIL ENGINEER BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE PER FLOOR: Laurie Pfarr, LPD ENGINEERING LLC WEST BUILDING: LOWER FLR 874 SF, MAIN LEVEL 6,573 SF, UPPER 1932 First Ave, Suite 201 LEVEL 2,060 SF = 9,507 SF TOTAL Seattle, WA 98101 EAST BUILDING: MAIN LEVEL 3,173 SF, UPPER LEVEL 2,523 SF = 5,660 lauriep@lpdengineering.com (206) 725-1211 SF TOTAL BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WEST BUILDING: 7,464 SF Siew Tan, PAN GEO INCORPORATED EAST BUILDING: 3,668 SF TOTAL:11,132 SF OR 56.25% OF 19,791 SF LOT 3213 Eastlake Ave E, Suite B Seattle, WA 98102 SCOPE OF WORK: stan@pangeoinc.com (206) 262-0370 PHASE 1 INCLUDES WEST BUILDING: RENOVATION OF (E) STRUCTURE, CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (M) TO ASSEMBLY (A-2). (E) BASEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STORAGE AREA (S-1) TO REMAIN. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING Karen Kiest, KAREN KIEST LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS BUILDING TO DEMOLISH (E) ENTRY & ROOFTOP PARAPETS, ADD 2 NEW 111 West John St, Suite 306 ENTRIES. INTERIOR ALTERATIONS INCLUDE DEMOLISHING (E) Seattle, WA 98119 MEZZANINE LEVEL & MOST INTERIOR PARTITIONS, ADD NEW 2ND LEVEL kkiest@kk la.com (206) 323 6032 FLOOR & DORMER. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS & WINDOWS ARE TO BE REPLACED. A NEW PEDESTRIAN PLAZA IS CREATED WITH LANDCAPING & MECHANICAL ENGINEER ART PANEL WITH STAGE. PHASE 2 INCLUDES NEW 2-STORY EAST BUILDING, COMPLETION OF PEDESTRIAN ART ALLEY &ART PANELS. Nathan Byers, SIDER + BYERS 192 Nickerson St, Suite 300 DEFERRED SUBMITTALS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: Seattle, WA 98109 FINAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, PLUMBING, HVAC, ELECTRICAL, nathan@siderbyers.com (206) 285-2966 COMMERCIAL HOOD/HOOD FIRE SUPPRESSION, FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Dan Fenton, QUANTUM CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED BUSINESS: 15113rd Avenue #323 TO BE DEFERRED UNTIL APPLICATION FOR FINAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT Seattle, WA 98101 ZONING: dfenton@quantumce.com (206) 957-3903 BD1 CONTRACTOR OCCUPANCY: Sean Giudice, BUILD LOVE GLOBAL LLC MAIN LEVEL: A-2, LOWER LEVEL: S-1 6502 26th Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98177 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: seangiudice@gmail.com (206) 579-1575 V B WA STATE LICENSE #BUILDLG684KO SYMBOL LEGEND N W I'li u �- a o 0 CD 0 N Emerald Land Surveying Inc 14407 63rd Drive SE Snohomish WA 98296 425-359-7198 3 DIMENSION LINES REVISION TO DOCUMENT NORTH ARROW EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CMU TO REMAIN EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL 1-HOUR FIRE RATING CAVITY INSULATION ABBREVIATIONS A ALIGN GA ABBR ABBREVIATION GALV AB ANCHOR BOLT GC ADJ ADJACENT GO AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR GWB @ AT HB BLDG BUILDING HDR BLKG BLOCKING HP BM BEAM HT B.O. BOTTOM OF INCL CIS CENTER IN SPACE INSUL CL CENTER LINE I.F.O. CLG CEILING INT CLO CLOSET CLR CLEAR JT CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CO CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR LAM COL COLUMN LP CONIC CONCRETE LT CONT CONTINUOUS MATL DIA DIAMETER MAX DIM DIMENSION MECH DIR DIRECTION MEMB DN DOWN MFR DS DOWNSPOUT MIN DWG DRAWING MTL (E) EXISTING (N) EA EACH NIC EL ELEVATION NTS ELEC ELECTRICAL EXT EXTERIOR 0/ EQ EQUAL OC 0. F.O. FIN FINISH OPG FF FINISH FLOOR OPP F.O. FACE OF ... (e.g. STUD) OSCI FT FOOT/FEET FTG FOOTING OSOI GAUGE GALVANIZED GENERAL CONTRACTOR GAS OUTLET GYPSUM WALLBOARD HOSE BIB HEADER HIGH POINT HEIGHT INCLUDE/INCLUDING INSULATION INSIDE FACE OF INTERIOR JOINT LAMINATE LOW POINT LIGHT MATERIAL MAXIMUM MECHANICAL MEMBRANE MANUFACTURER MINIMUM METAL NEW NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE OVER ON CENTER OUTSIDE FACE OF OPENING OPPOSITE OWNER SUPPLIED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OWNER SUPPLIED, OWNER INSTALLED 2� 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (P) PROPOSED PC POWDER COATED PERF PERFORATED PIP POURED IN PLACE PL PLATE PLYWD PLYWOOD PT PRESSURE TREATED PTD PAINTED R RISER REQ'D REQUIRED RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING SD SMOKE DETECTOR SHT SHEET SIM SIMILAR SOG SLAB ON GRADE SQ SQUARE STL STEEL STN STAINED STO STORAGE STRUCT STRUCTURAL T TREAD T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE T.O. TOP OF ... (e.g. PLATE) TYP TYPICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VIF VERIFY IN FIELD VERT VERTICAL W/ WITH WC WATER CLOSET WIN WINDOW WD WOOD W/O WITHOUT SHEETINDEX CIVIL C1.0 TESC & DEMO C1.1 TESC & DEMO DETAILS C2.0 GRADING & DRAINAGE C2.1 GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS C2.2 GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS C3.0 UTILITIES & PAVING C3.1 UTILITIES & PAVING DETAILS C3.2 UTILITIES & PAVING DETAILS LANDSCAPE L1.0 LANDSCAPE LAYOUT & MATERIALS PLAN L1.1 HARDSCAPE DETAILS L2.0 IRRIGATION PLAN L3.0 PLANTING PLAN L3.1 PLANTING DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL AO.1 COVERSHEET AO.2 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A1.1 SITE SURVEY A1.2 PROPOSED PLAZA PLAN A2.1 DEMO PLAN: LOWER LEVEL A2.2 DEMO PLAN: GROUND LEVEL A2.3 DEMO PLAN: UPPER LEVEL A2.4 DEMO PLAN: ROOF LEVEL A2.5 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A2.6 GROUND LEVEL PLAN A2.7 UPPER LEVEL PLAN A2.8 ROOF LEVEL PLAN A.wb.3.1 WEST BUILDING ELEVATIONS A.wb.3.2 WEST BUILDING ELEVATIONS A.eb.3.3 EAST BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.eb.3.4 EAST BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.wb.4.1 WEST BUILDING SECTIONS A.wb.4.2 WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS A.wb.4.3 WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS A.wb.4.4 WALL SECTIONS & DETAILS A.eb.4.5 EAST BUILDING SECTIONS A.eb.4.6 EAST BUILDING SECTIONS A.eb.4.7 EAST BUILDING WALL SECTIONS A.eb.4.8 EAST BUILDING WALL SECTIONS A.wb.5.1 WEST BUILDING EXTERIOR DETAILS A.eb.5.2 EAST BUILDING EXTERIOR DETAILS A.eb.5.3 EAST BUILDING EXTERIOR DETAILS A.wb.6.1 WEST BUILDING INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A.eb.6.2 EAST BUILDING INTERIOR ELEVATIONS ENERGY & BUILDING ENVELOPE WEST BUILDING: BE000 NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS BE002 MATERIAL LOCATION DIAGRAMS BE100 BELOW GRADE DETAILS BE200 WALL DETAILS BE300 PENETRATION DETAILS BE400 DECK & ABOVE GRADE DETAILS BE500 WINDOW & DOOR DETAILS BE501 WINDOW & DOOR DETAILS BE600 ROOF DETAILS BE700 AIR BARRIER INTERIOR DETAILS BE800 AIR BARRIER NOTES BE801 AIR BARRIER DIAGRAMS BE901 BUILDING ENVELOPE ENERGY FORMS EAST BUILDING: BE000 NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS BE002 MATERIAL LOCATION DIAGRAMS BE100 BELOW GRADE DETAILS BE200 WALL DETAILS BE300 PENETRATION DETAILS BE400 DECK & ABOVE GRADE DETAILS BE500 WINDOW & DOOR DETAILS BE600 ROOF DETAILS BE700 AIR BARRIER INTERIOR DETAILS BE800 AIR BARRIER NOTES BE801 AIR BARRIER DIAGRAMS BE900 BUILDING ENVELOPE ENERGY FORMS BE901 BUILDING ENVELOPE ENERGY FORMS S1.0 GENERAL NOTES S1.1 GENERAL NOTES S1.2 ABBREVIATIONS & SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SCHEDULE S.wb.2.0 FOUNDATION & LOWER LEVEL PLAN S.wb.2.1 GROUND LEVEL PLAN S.wb.2.2 UPPER LEVEL PLAN S.wb.2.3 ROOF LEVEL PLAN S3.0 FOUNDATION DETAILS S3.1 DETAILS S3.2 DETAILS S4.0 DETAILS S4.1 DETAILS S4.2 DETAILS S4.3 DETAILS S4.4 DETAILS S4.5 BUILDING SECTIONS S5.0 STEEL DETAILS S5.1 STEEL ELEVATIONS S5.2 TYPICAL STEEL STAIR DETAILS S6.0 DETAILS S7.0 TYPICAL LIGHT GAUGE DETAILS MECHANICAL & PLUMBING M0.1 COVERSHEET MO.2 COVERSHEET MO.3 SCHEDULES MP1.2 DEMO PLAN: GROUND LEVEL M2.1 WEST BUILDING LOWER LEVEL PLAN M2.2 WEST BUILDING GROUND LEVEL PLAN M2.3 WEST BUILDING UPPER LEVEL PLAN M2.4 WEST BUILDING ROOF LEVEL PLAN M2.5 EASTR BUILDING GROUND LEVEL PLAN M2.6 EAST BUILDING UPPER LEVEL PLAN M2.7 EAST BUILDING ROOF LEVEL PLAN ELECTRICAL E0.1 COVERSHEET EO.2 NOTES EO.3 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM E1.0 SITE PLAN E2.1 WEST BUILDING POWER PLAN: LOWER LEVEL E2.2 WEST BUILDING POWER PLAN: GROUND LEVEL E2.3 WEST BUILDING POWER PLAN: UPPER LEVEL E2.4 WEST BUILDING POWER PLAN: ROOF LEVEL E2.5 EAST BUILDING POWER PLAN: GROUND LEVEL E2.6 EAST BUILDING POWER PLAN: UPPER LEVEL E2.7 EAST BUILDING POWER PLAN: ROOF LEVEL E3.1 WEST BUILDING LIGHTING PLAN: LOWER LEVEL E.3.2 WEST BUILDING LIGHTING PLAN: GROUND LEVEL E.3.3 WEST BUILDING LIGHTING PLAN: UPPER LEVEL E3.5 EAST BUILDING LIGHTING PLAN: GROUND LEVEL E3.6 EAST BUILDING LIGHTING PLAN: UPPER LEVEL DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture rrE ' HEdI�t�E;�tZ David J. Dim h SATE OF WAStGiGW Permit Set ISSUED: Coversheet Al • Printed: 5/8119 PLN20190024 Packet ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 g LN2000 5.1.p •t t. l I I 4 y� tl f 01 �I ICI Iti , I Imo;' Y — r r ry I�; I tY �1 I I I k 5 I I I II — ! I - ' mI� '{I. L i i, - - Y I. N I� i I f 4 ' I f � ,, ;ii:;I;Illi:� i!::;+; j II I ' ^I' ' ' "' IIIllilllliiliillll�il�iilllklllllll,l'I ['Iiiliillllliiii�ii�iiii kIIIIIIIIiIjiNi ' ' � ,Ili li h iIi�iilillliiliiilllli�iillilillll 'Ii 6th Avenue View ..................................................... . .,... I I II - I' , II , !I I ', II ' e I II I , I it , •_ ,I �: II ' II II I II I I' I! II i ' I I ! „ I I' II --�.., •_ -•,� „ I. I I II'I II ! I I'I 'I I ,i i ill I I'' '.I �,�._.. 1 1 I ' I I Ili ii I II I II � I I i t li I I I I I I I -•:.-. `���! ii ',' i i i I �. � II ! I �I ! I II I I I I I ",.,�-� II'I 'I 'i ',i II l u l II p I I •IIII I II III I.I 1 I -{ I I II I it I 11+HI1' I II I 11 I I I III III II ' i II II i i s — I III , I I tii I I I I I I.i I` I n II - i I I 'll I II � lil II I i I I II. I I �I 'i I II I I i � II III: IIII I I �II� ' I• I I ' I �I II � I I I II II I , II ll , I I , , • I ,i l I ' I I II I I � I I I I I I 1. II II I I j- II I r II I I I I I I I I � I I I: II I I• ,I II 1 .. - -. _�. I •I'� I III I' I� I, I I I' �.>��' - � f �� 'f1.1 IUIu II - �.fri41 I 4 �4 - r f' J•- I- I IIII w , LiIL ems. I' I I i �ii• ,i ii II I I I I 1_ I •I •I ' I LL I ''IIII II I - i I i • 4 I� I� I - �i I I I I I r IIII L I j I - I L 'lli� _I I•I f I I_ I I I I;' f — I -- I. I _ — I 'i II - -- II Outdoor Dining ............. [7- ++I - f I k I z I _ y il I I a I� II 1 • • 1 1 I V. � - ._ _ _ �_ 11 I 'I - _ I - uuu � II III 1 I 1 Y I11. III III 1 1 M� _ _ i l III I• II _ I F I !• I I- -- J-. I -. I ,- a- IIjI 11Jr� I w � • I �-- I _'-_____-' , - ..•.• III�11µ1,IJ7I'I - IIIIIIIf - } �I i Market Stall Art Alley Main Street Commons Overview l i � I I I I I I I , ��•� '' I , I =' ii I li I � II �I y•� i I I' - I I- i II I I Ik' I I'I f I S 'i I - I -- I I� I l i I , I I I ii L:. i 1' .1 - 1 a - i I II I II II I I i ' .•�.•' � � II J I I li I I l I 'I — 51 I i I i I I II I I I I I i I u i II i i I' I II I II i I II _ E P - I r Community Stage Plaza Entry ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 14, t< , 1,' ,' �.- _ �-�._ it :►� - - I 1 I II I l h 1 r II L LI _ r _ - I ' r I ri• - - I I_ T � • —"�'— - . — � ��- - 5' li e, - 5 I d r: � I — 15 - I. r I - I 1 i 1 I - r�I�._.— a ' JY.._r:: 'F• 1 IL — �li'lilllIT Llfil I I itiit flil':i "I{i' [ i[I� li i.l � i l'' r i. I I1li I' I .._ I,�IIII'; "I lils'll';i Ik it ss sllli'' ,,:, , ;,•'' •': u u ll''iI'iilli;�1.fL iI,.L, ,I!„-. I S:1SI��..I.I.I:..::.:..:.:L_aaf!.uaLL."J!'.•.'u.:.u.I..u1�.,L'` tf�Il;i�L' .I�... ..-.:.:.:.::.:::.�5:.].W� JStl31k_ i,. _........':J.._.!!_.. l..:..u!I!: Main Street at 6th Avenue I I I I I I' - / I I - I I I I i I I I I I I I ' 'raj ,/ I I I I I I I I ' I I I I II I I • I I I I I I' I I I u I I - I I _ sl �I I I I-� I I I _ I '� IIII I _l. I I I I I I� I I I I n - I I I I I. - I I R `p Iekj�fjf]I Illijj111 j14 Ik [ jIII I .---- .li!�Il��i�11611illllll I I i111�1 II��I�I l i IU�mm� PV II'1 r Ali_ +l fill l Main Street Commons Plaza . tiY' J.. � ,�'• ,. '�_ � k I k I -I I �� ' I I Ill y ' 1 ' I'I II I' I 4I - :r.: II ii I I - I' I I. ' �Y I II JII d� Y' I I I 't 'II I 9I � I III I ail I + �I III I I nl , IIII II �' i III i I �- •I I— 1 �• (IIII I I fl I I� III I 1 I I 1 i 1 I Q I z: nu11I IIIIIIIII i I! .. - II I III I 4 I II. 1 1 - il lIIIII I ! 1I iI, III IIr - ,y II �4 I-.• ' -. IIIIIII LI , IIIIIII 11 II' .• III �' � �� ��,��, I I , I T—r r i Iili.iili Ali i...I l,,1 Main Street View DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the of the Architect. property The are not to be used on extensions of the ro•ect 9 P 1 or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate ensation to the Architect. compensation The General Contractor is responsible for confirming g and correlatingdimensions at the job site. The 1 Architect will not be responsible for construction means methods techniques, sequences,or q procedures, or for safety precautions and programs P 9P P 9 in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEdISi-E�t3 ��.vid.1. Dilw h SATE OF WASGiGW Permit Set ISSUED: Perspective Views A002 Printed: 518119 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 113 11111" Found MIC, Tack in Lead, Down 1.25' 0iin Lo Oi ZI i - v I CBType 1 CBType 1 w o GE 79.60 Solid Lid 9�� IE N 75.75 4" PVC GE 81.29 / CB e 1 IE S 75.40 12" PVC IE N 79.64 4" PVC CB T e 1 w CBT e 1 w GE 92.04 48" SDMH BTM 74.15 IE E 78.64 12" DI Solid Lid Solid Lid IE W 90.29 8" DI GE 79.61 IE S 78.29 12" PVC GE 83.62 GE 84.97 y IE E 90.24 8" DI IE N 73.86 12" PVC BTM 76.94 IE N 81.87 4" PVC IE W 82.47 12" DI tamped a BTM 89.59 CBT e 1 IE S 75.96 12" PVC IE W 81.07 12" DI IE S 83.62 6" PVC Brick Conc ' ' GE 92.31 IE W 73.81 12" PVC BTM 79.52 BTM 81.27 SD IE W 90.46 8" DI BTM 71.26 . BTM 90.11 .. ,, ... .a Conc. Curb & Gutter (typ) Main Street U) n SD .) og Line CO Asphalt Street p 0 �� I Asphalt p U E 0 . , „ N 89°59 06 E 659.84' Calc d (660 Plat) Co m I Found o� . _ - _ �n- - - - - \ - Yellow C/L Stripe - \ -Surface Mon m - 48" SDMH W W W_ W W a- o W Ash St p GE 81.52 `ram 3 Hour \ \ N IE N 77.17 12" PVC \ Parking Fog Line 3 Hour STOP \ IE SE 77.17 12" PVC \ \ Flower Hangers Parking \ I\ IE W 76.67 12" PVC / / / \ on Utlity Pde �i o \ BTM 75.17 " ' . l � S0� ` �M4y 6. _ Coneretej O 5'D Can. _ - M4 Q "5'p e Concrete '� - - r .. . • .. , r Bench Concrete Walk I Car Char er Irrigation x3 9 °� r' Stamped Brick Conc p CBT e 1 ,. ----- - -- ie --- -1 - .., ° Pt P1 � GE 92.71 T CBT e 1 54.6' CB T 1 NW Bldg Corner 59,98' 61.8' I` mop LlIE IE SE 89.46 12" DI SW 89.41 12" DI 119.97' XOC GE 79.57 e w 0.09' E & 0.01' S .� 7n, IE N 76.37 12" PVC Solid Lid Fence I o CBT e 1Wood g'p 'so BTM 89.01 IE S 76.57 4" PVC IE S 76.52 6" PVC GE 81.82 IE NW 78.97 12" PVC between Bldgs Brick Wall ' J' Co 1 GE 91.26 IE 89.16 8" DI Y I r I CBT e 1 BTM 74.82 IE E 79,07 12" DI 7.3 Curb Inlet BTM 87.46 GE 92.07 IE S 80.32 4" PVC \ GE 85.98 a. " I IE NE 89.27 12" DI BTM 77.97 Ln IE N 84.5814" PVC I CB T e 1 w IE W 89.22 12" DI IE S 84 58 6" CP Solid Lid BTM 88.57 Building #542 U • . I 'o BTM 84.38 ' GE 91.42 . •0 I IE N 89.17 8" DI p0)j O 5 2' j I Mphc t Par" IE E 89.17 12" DI Qj O IE S 89.17 8" CP o I 06 � O to I IE •n' I r ` BTM 87.87 Q :: Lot 16 / l '.0 I ' I .Car Charger Building #550 I Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 :`vo. I % Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 FF 86.82 (Ombo) Lot 17 I o I �' I 3 N FF 87.10 (Pet Store) [if "a� .L ° Q XCC QO . I O 0.25' Overhang w XCC I o ,�. a ^ 41 N O N1 o 1 I a I 41N 0 :30 0 z V) 0 O 00 Inlet I 1 Hour o I Z z GE 86.05 II arking ian IEN84.606"CP tQ :30 EM IE S 84.60 6" CP BTM 84.45 c ° _LnCB Type 1 a It Ithdt N -C ay GE 92.07 _ s I I IE N 88.47 8" CP U .. �� 1 }� o IE E 88.52 8" CP o CBT e 1 = Q E S 88.57 8" CP ^� 4 6.4' I I BTM 87.77 I IE E 91046 6" DI U SW Bldg Corner E E 91.31 8" DP Culvert 0.04' E & 0.27' N 1 I N E W 91.31 8" CP IE 83.99 6" PVC / 10 68.7' a BTM 90.96 Sri = N 89°58'53" E 59.98' N �9'58'53" E 119.95'` ° IN 0) P2 EI:127.3 Alley Asphalt Alley Conc Gutter �S SS SS:. N SS SS SS SS SS -S SS SS-� - - - HVLiVL LVL HVL LVL-HVL 0 H EI_L21 5 / VL G __\ 48" SSMH a - - - - LVL Lo HVL I -HVL Rim 93.26 = 8�� C -I iUb Li-HVL �^-_� IE W 85.76 8" DI � 20.2' 57.4' � - � iiOflC GYttlr sip z , . � IE E 85.86 8" DI Building Corner I 7'D \ 7'D z HVL 2.73' W & 1.67' S Paidnq Garage Building (� o I^ o N O O 10 z I 30' R/W I � �I Lot 28 Lot 27 Lot 26 Lot 25 Lot 24 Lot 23 Lot 22 Lot 21 )l Building Corner 0.37' W & 59.82' S11 LO In I 0 m I I � I Dayton Street 0) Found MIC, Plate w/ Scribe, Down 1.0' N 89°58'41" E 659.70' Calc'd (660' Plat) �a a� m 0 0 m L 0 1 Z Found MIC, 3" Disk w/ 'X', Down 0.25' MERIDIAN ASSUMED 20 GRAPHIC SCALE 10 20 40 (IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 120, CITY OF EDMONDS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AP N : 004342-120- 015- 00 AND; LOTS 17, 18, 19 AND 20, BLOCK 120, CITY OF EDMONDS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AP N : 004342-120- 017- 00 TREE DESCRIPTIONS D Deciduous M Maple (Acer) PROPERTY CORNERS P1 Set Tack in Lead w/ Tag, LS 30581, 2' Offset P2 Set Mag w/ Tag, LS 30581, 2' Offset P3 Found Rebar & Cap, 0.01' E & 0.09' N SURVEY NOTES INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SET 5 EDM METHOD USED: FIELD TRAVERSE APPROXIMATE POINT ACCURACY: ±0.05' SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS PER WAC 332-130-090. MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON WERE VISITED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2017. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE ON THE INDICATED DATE AND CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS THE GENERAL EXISTING CONDITION AT THAT TIME. NO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS OR RESERVATION OF RECORD WHICH WOULD BE DISCLOSED BY A TITLE REPORT ARE SHOWN. VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 88 CONTOUR INTERVAL - 2 FEET BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: V-297: Brass Disk in Conc-Station mark is a benchmark disk at Edmonds. Along 5th St between Main & Bell Streets, set vertically in the West conc. wall of the Edmonds Museam, 0.5' N of the SW corner of the building, 48' E of the C/L of the 5th St & about 2' higher than the ground. Elev: 69.84 Q EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 114 5.1.p TO 4 Plaza Plan A1.2 SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 LN2000 E a 11 CL STREET DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' PEOISTERED rrE avid J. ON h STATE OF WAW'91ON '_,r Permit Set ISSUED: Proposed Plaza Plan A102 Printed: 5/8/19 c d E z ii M M M 1. O d L M r d N t a m 0 Q u� z x w c as E z M Q Packet Pg. 115 5.1.p N N N N N N M O I Demo Plan: Lower Level SCALE:1/8" = V-0" N DEMO PLAN NOTES 1. LOCATE ALL (E) UTILITY LINES AND CONNECTIONS. PRIOR TO DEMO, SHUT OFF AND SECURE WATER, POWER, GAS, AND ALL LV SERVICES. 2. DURING DEMO ENTIRE WORK AREA SHALL BE FENCED AND INACCESSIBLE OF THE PUBLIC. 3. PREVENT ALL ACCIDENTAL FALLS BY USING TEMPORARY GUARDRAILS AT ANY DROP GREATER THAN 30 INCHES. 4. ALL WORK AREAS HAVE MANDATORY HARD HAT USE. 5. REMOVE AND RECYCLE ALL (E) DOORS AND WINDOWS. 6. REMOVE AD RECYCLE ALL BUILDING MATERIALS. 7. REMOVE AND DISCARD ALL (E) ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT. DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture PE OISTE E • avid J. 0iw h S-.ATE OF WAW1 iON -- '-,r Permit Set ISSUED. - Demo Plan: Lower Level Al Printed: 5/8/19 115 PLN20100900 24 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 LN20 Packet Pg. 116 5.1.p N FO -1 REMOVE (E) SLAB FLOOR TO ACCOMMODATE (N) ELEV. TOWER VERIFY LOCATION ON A2.6 N REMOVE (E) SLAB FLOOR TO ACCOMMODATE (N) STAIR. VERIFY LOCATION ON A2.6 v M O _ I\ REMOVE (E) WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLY TO ACCOMMODATE LOADING DOCK & TRASH AREAS. VERIFY LOCATION ON A2.6 3'- 12' TAKE EXTRA CARE TO SUPPORT ARCHED ROOF ASSEMBLY & STEEL TIE RODS ALONG GRID LINE 8 PRIOR TO DEMO. ______________________---------- __--------------- ____ _____------------------------- _ - �_______-- - I -----�--- - i I \\ m I — I REMOVE (E) PAVEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE \\ /' (N) CONSTRUCTION i I/' \\ I ` I I -- - - - - - - - "vv (E) WATER SERVICE VAULT ` k•-�-•r� TO BE MAINTAINED W/ NEW LID L--- '� III ________________________Vc ----__� L ---------------� V I III I `� /7 I // r _____________________ __ u I _ REMOVE THIS PORTION OF (E)MAIN LEVEL CONIC SLAB IIII L -- L— T II II I�y51 JjI I II (E) WATER CONN ECTIONS _- ------ 4------ i TO BE RELOCATED I _.------- --��1 -1------------- -1-------- I � �--------� 1----------------- ----- ------ L____- - - — _ _ _ _ _ _y \ 111 111 MS RESTROOM A:14.5 sq ft 1 I I R--T =------- ------ I /X\ I I I I 1 I Ib o---------- - -[----------- ------------_��Tfi � C C ITyIIIII I -1II �— - REMOVE ENTIRE FLAT ROOFED III _11_g11 PORTION EAST OF GRID LINE 8 �iS I \\ // I I I I♦ / I I /// I I `I' I I \ , I / ♦ I FF +87'-1n PIP CONIC FLOOR --- ----------------- ------------ ----------------------�--------------JI I I I I I////III i i I i // I I I I (E) W SFCTION BEAM' w 1 it 1 r// III ° 1 r REMOVE (E) SLAB FLOOR (E) (2) W SE60N BEAMS', - @ COLUMN LOCATIONS, TYP. ////'IIIII II III I C e VERIFY LOCATION ON A2.6 ////` �I =_ Z'=i===71 IC--T IC T I /X\ I I /X\ I I I Ihl II I I III PORTION OF (E) ASPHALT ;� I vim/ PAVING TO BE REMOVED - - - - - �I - - - I ' + - - - - J ik I / / IIII , , V I I I / / III I--4 I i--I----I I/ / /IIIII -I 1 , t I; I C r--- -t-----------=-rf- oar I,--- L ________F\ I I AI I III - — -------- -:_1 -�T+---, I I -, - 41 ------- - - - - 1I I L__J _ - I , -L JJ 1 1 1 II 1 1 r I I I I III I I I I I I I II O E ELEC. POWER LINE TO BE REPLACED i! V JJ WIN O UNDERGROUND SERVICE I I Ir--, I I I I II 1 1 I I I 11 I L4 I h l 1 \\ I I I 1 1 1r 1-------�' 'r-----J I I `--� I I� 1 C J I RT-a I I III I I I � � - I--� --I- LH--- --fi- 3 Ir I I I II - - - - - I A \ I ��7 11L==J l i-i -ij \ I r� I `\ II �YI� I I Ir , \� " - I �+ I I \ II II J I o I L----il I }+�- 28 -D I I I I I \ II R I I I I 11 3 E_ I- - I L--J -J 11---------- --- 1L-------- -y I I jl*II T--- I I i r ��� I I ----f I I II I C II 11�------ `\ 1 T T I I I + III I l mil' 11 1 �1D_ I I 11 I 9RU - - � 10 B116TI I I I \ rf - I r � L -- --I-- U E WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLYJ_ REMOVE (E) WOOD FLOOR ASSEMBLY TO ACCOMMODATE (N) UTILITY CLOSETS I I I Demo Plan: Ground Level SCALE:1/8" = 1'-O" —1 N DEMO PLAN NOTES 1. LOCATE ALL (E) UTILITY LINES AND CONNECTIONS. PRIOR TO DEMO, SHUT OFF AND SECURE WATER, POWER, GAS, AND ALL LV SERVICES. 2. DURING DEMO ENTIRE WORK AREA SHALL BE FENCED AND INACCESSIBLE OF THE PUBLIC. 3. PREVENT ALL ACCIDENTAL FALLS BY USING TEMPORARY GUARDRAILS AT ANY DROP GREATER THAN 30 INCHES. 4. ALL WORK AREAS HAVE MANDATORY HARD HAT USE. 5. REMOVE AND RECYCLE ALL (E) DOORS AND WINDOWS. 6. REMOVE AD RECYCLE ALL BUILDING MATERIALS. 7. REMOVE AND DISCARD ALL (E) ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT. DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED rTc ]avid J. Did _ h STATE OF WAS `GiGW Permit Set ISSUED. - Demo Plan: Ground Level A292 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 117 5.1.p N v M O REMOVE ENTIRE (E) SECOND LEVEL FLOOR ASSEMBLY SELECTIVELY REMOVE (E) CMU BLOCK WALL TO ACCOMMDATE WINDOWS, SEE SHEETS A2.6 & A2.1 FOR MORE INFO. -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I _ - I I I I I II I I I I I I I I - -=F-F- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - �--------- i II I I I I I I I I I II II II II I I I II I II II II I II I I I I I �� I I I i I I I II I I II I --tl I I III II I I II I I II I I I II / I l-------------------------- �---------------- I 1 --------------------- II i� I I IIIE----------------------•N---- - --- �-------i-----------1T1 I I I I 1 LTA= jl r---------- II _ - - - - - - I- I I I I I I I I 9 I T----- ------� I I I I I I III I I I ALL II li -- I I I I II I II I II `\ / I I --------------- --------------_U-�-_- J---------------------------- _-------------- --_-_-_- - - _ - A ___ 17RISEV19/64D_______-I 16RUN(10316") 1-----------------�--- -------- \ I / / OPEI+T0 GR00D LEVEL f (OW I / / i \ \\ ` I I I III � I \ I I FF-------------------------+� o------- - `\I ------ - +II I I II I I� I� II i III i' f�---�- -, C-r-------- I II II -----�--- ----sr-l----- ----t---- _-------- -ti ei--t� j i I III III III (III I I I I I I I I- I I I I III L -- I I I II L s�-- 1 1 - -------' '� I I I I I I I I I I I I III Demo Plan: Upper Level SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" SELECTIVELY REMOVE (E) CMU BLOCK WALL TO ACCOMMDATE WINDOWS, SEE SHEETS A2.6 & A2.1 FOR MORE INFO. --------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TAKE CARE TO (LEAVE ALL ARCHED BEAM STEEL TIE RODS IN PLACE UNTIL SELECTED ONES ARE REPLACED. i I I I I I I I I I I - I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I N DEMO PLAN NOTES 1. LOCATE ALL (E) UTILITY LINES AND CONNECTIONS. PRIOR TO DEMO, SHUT OFF AND SECURE WATER, POWER, GAS, AND ALL LV SERVICES. 2. DURING DEMO ENTIRE WORK AREA SHALL BE FENCED AND INACCESSIBLE OF THE PUBLIC. 3. PREVENT ALL ACCIDENTAL FALLS BY USING TEMPORARY GUARDRAILS AT ANY DROP GREATER THAN 30 INCHES. 4. ALL WORK AREAS HAVE MANDATORY HARD HAT USE. 5. REMOVE AND RECYCLE ALL (E) DOORS AND WINDOWS. [mIu[fly]9:u1;"1Evil 19:111;1a11aI►[ou►lIaflIA41 7. REMOVE AND DISCARD ALL (E) ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT. DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED rE avid J. I3iva h STATE OF WAW'91ON -- '_,r Permit Set ISSUED. - Demo Plan: Upper Level A2,0 Printed: 5/8/19 Q EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 118 5.1.p N N N N N )'-2 3/4'0 12' I 12' I 12' I 12' I 12' 03 i REMOVE (E) HVAC EQUIPMENT PLATFORM nnin DADADET 1AIA1 i s I)MA i TO n MKIAi REMOVE PORTION OF (E) ARCHED ROOF FOR NEW 2ND LEVEL ADDITION. TAKE CARE TO SECURE SEVERED ARCHED ROOF BEAMS AND TIE RODS. REMOVE (E) ARCHED ROOF ASSEMBLY. VERIFY DEMO SEQUENCE W/ STRUCT. ENGINEER TO MAINTAIN (E) ADJ. ROOF ASSEMBLY. VERIFY DIMS ON A2.1 N' STRIP (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING LAYERS DOWN TO (E) CARDECKING M O J Roof Level SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" REMOVE PORTION OF (E) ARCHED ROOF FOR NEW FLAT -ROOFED ENTRY, TYP OF 2 REMOVE PORTION OF (E) ARCHED ROOF FOR NEW FLAT -ROOFED ENTRY, TYP OF 2 N DEMO PLAN NOTES 1. LOCATE ALL (E) UTILITY LINES AND CONNECTIONS. PRIOR TO DEMO, SHUT OFF AND SECURE WATER, POWER, GAS, AND ALL LV SERVICES. 2. DURING DEMO ENTIRE WORK AREA SHALL BE FENCED AND INACCESSIBLE OF THE PUBLIC. 3. PREVENT ALL ACCIDENTAL FALLS BY USING TEMPORARY GUARDRAILS AT ANY DROP GREATER THAN 30 INCHES. 4. ALL WORK AREAS HAVE MANDATORY HARD HAT USE. 5. REMOVE AND RECYCLE ALL (E) DOORS AND WINDOWS. 6. REMOVE AD RECYCLE ALL BUILDING MATERIALS. 1. REMOVE AND DISCARD ALL (E) ROOF MOUNTED HVAC EQUIPMENT. DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture HEL31Si'E;�t3 _)avid J. Did h SATE OF WAS�`GiGW Permit Set ISSUED: Demo Plan: Roof A294 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 LN2000 Packet Pg. 119 5.1.p Exterior Door Schedule ID Building Oty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes D.1 west bldq 1 9'-11"x8 1-111121, 89.42 ® ❑ D.2 west bldq 4 2'-3 "X8'-1" 18.88 ® ❑ D.3 west bldq 2 3'-8 "4-1" 30.18 D.4 west bldq 3 7'-61IX8'-3" 62.43 ® ❑ D.5 west bldq 3 3'-4"X6'-10" 22.78 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.6 west bldq 3 3'-10"x6'-10" 26.19 ❑ ❑ D.7 west bldq 1 31-41lx1'-2" 24.63 ❑ ZI D.8 east bldq 2 1'-8 1IX8'-2" 14.07 ® ❑ D.9 east bldq 1 31-10"X8'-2" 31.73 D.10 east bldq 2 31-411X7'-2" 23.89 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.11 east bldq 1 7'-61IX8'-3" 62.47 D.12 east bldq 4 2'-1 "X8'-1" 17.52 ® ❑ D.13 east bldq 2 1'-8 11x7'-1" 12.22 ® ❑ D.14 east bldg 1 3'-1 "x7'-03 " 25.97 ® ❑ D.15 east bldq 4 l'-811411x12'-0 " 20.73 ® ❑ D.16 east bldq 6 2'-0 "X8'-2" 17.32 ® ❑ D.17 east bldq 2 3'-7 "x12'-0 " 44.23 D.18 east bldq 2 3'-8 114-1" 30.18 D.19 east bldq 3 3'-10114'-2" 32.21 D.20 east bldq 1 3'-41144" 22.99 ❑ ❑ exterior storage access D.1 9-11 x8-11 112 ,, 0. I E H 9 ID 111 -11 11 -1 �- . P 0 ___1 0 D.2 D.3 DA D.5 D.6 D.7 D.8 D.9 DID D.11 D.12 D.13 D.14 D.15 D.16 D.17 D.18 D.19 D.20 2 -3112 x8 -1 3 -8vn X8.1 7.21/44-1 3 -0 x6 -8 3 -6 x6 -8 3 -0 x7 -0 1-81/4 x8 -2 3 -10 X8 -2 3 -0 X7 -0 1-21/4 x8 -1 2 -1vz 4-1 1-81/4 x7 -1 3 -7vz x7 -03/4 1-81'4 x12 -0112 2 -01/2 x8 -2 3 -11/z x12 -01'2 3 -8 1/41, x8 -1 3 -10 X8 -2 3 -4 x6 -8 SYMBOL LEGEND E a o DIMENSION LINES O O � v � � a a v 0 0 0 3 REVISION TO DOCUMENT N NORTH ARROW EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVE[ Q EXISTING CMU TO REMAIN 0 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN 0 NEW WALL 1-HOUR FIRE RATING CAVITY INSULATION PLAN NOTES DOORS & WINDOWS All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent with their products. RAINSCREEN All cladding shall be installed as a rainscreen. Refer to detail drawings for more information. INSULATION At exterior wood stud walls (west building), cavity insulation shall be R-21 batts. At exterior steel stud walls (east building), cavity insulation shall be R-13 batts. At interior walls, cavity insulation shall be acoustic batts. Refer to detail drawings for more information. FIRE -RATED ASSEMBLIES CMU Wall (Reference IBC Table 721.1(2) item #3-1.1): An 8" thick concrete masonry unit wall is adequate to provide a 1- hour fire rating. Framed Wall (Reference Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual GA-600-2015, File No. WP 8136): EXTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsum sheathing or glass mat gypsum substrate (sheathing) applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wow studs 16" o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. INTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsum wallboard or gypsum veneer base applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wood studs 16" o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. Vertical joints centered over studs and staggered one stud cavity on opposite sides. Horizontal joints on opposite sides need not be staggered. (LOAD -BEARING) PROPRIETARY GYPSUM PANEL PRODUCT United States Gypsum Company 5/8" SECUROCK Glass -Mat Sheathing Panels 5/8" SHEETROCK Brand UltraLight Panels FIRECODE X Fire -rated walls may be insulated or uninsulated per General Explanatory Note #11 of the manual. Larger framing members may be substituted per General Explanatory Note #18. Structural plywood sheathing may be added per General Explanatory Note #25. I I I I I I I I rA F 1 A.wb.4.1 V 2 A.wb.4.1 J)_- - - I I` I I I I I I I L7�t I I I I I I I I I I I ❑ --------- I I A.wb.41 L Ff V z I I --- MAIN LEVEL SLAB ON GRADE ABOVE THIS AREA, TYP- L I Ft I 2 I A.wb.4.1 I L� I I b 2'-8" I i L -_J Ll (N) PIP CONCRETE WALLS - AROUND (N) STAIRWELL 11 I (E) LOAD BEARING WALL WI H UNDER -SCALED ROOF GLU-LAM BEAM ABOVE FF (E) PIP CON TO REMAIN (E) LOAD BEARING WALL WI L - - UNDER -SCALED ROOF GLU-LAM BEAM ABOVE I I I IL I I I Lower Level SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" - _L - CRETE WALL - �- I co 5 _g STORAGE - (E) PIP CONCRETE WALL I (E) 4x10 DROPPED BEAM A: 874.36 sq ft 1 TO REMAIN (E) 4x4 POST- (E) 2xl2 @ 16"O/C W12X o CAR DECKING ABOVE, TYP L < (E) 7.25 x15.25 FLUSH BEAM , (E) 8x8 POST (E) 4x4 PbST_�' (E► MAIN FLOOR LEVEL ASSEMBLY (ABOVE) SAWCUT (E) SLAB ABOVE TO ACCOMMODATE (N) WALLS ' RESTRIC ED 19EADROGM (E) 8x16 PILASTER--;, AREA � I � REMOVE MAIN FLOOR LEVEL ASSEMBLY (E) PIP CONCRETE WALL TO REMAIN I a I I I I I I Interior Door Schedule ID Building Oty Nominal W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes iD.1 west bldq 5 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.55 ❑ ❑ iD.2 west bldq 1 21-81IX6'-8" 19.13 ❑ ❑ iD.3 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.38 ❑ ❑ iD.4 west bldg 2 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.5 west bldq 2 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ® ❑ half lite iD.6 west bldq 1 6'-2 11x7'-1" 47.27 iD.7 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.38 ❑ iD.8 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-0" 19.26 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.9 west bldq 1 31-01lx3'-6" 11.46 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.10 east bldq 3 31-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.11 east blda 4 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ ❑I ❑ iD.1 iD.2 iD.3 iD.4 iD.5 iD.6 iD.7 iD.8 iD.9 iD.10 31-01141" 2'-8"x6'-8" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-01144" 3'-0"x6'-8" 6'-211,,x7'-1" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-011x6'-0" 3'-0"x3'-6" 31-01141" Window Schedule ID Building Oty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes W.1 west bldq 1 10'-0"X5'-4" fixed 53.76 ❑ ❑ W.2 west bldq 3 81-011x7'-0" fixed 56.46 ❑ ❑ W.3 west bldq 4 51-41lx7'-0" fixed 37.74 ❑ ❑ W.4 west bldq 7 51-41lx2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ W.5 east bldq 4 4'-0"x4'-O" fixed 16.34 ❑ ❑ round window W.6 east bldq 12 81-0"X8'-0" fixed 64.50 ❑ ❑ W.7 east bldq 3 81-0"x5'-4" fixed 43.06 ❑ ❑ W.8 east bldq 9 81-0"x2'-8" fixed 21.61 ❑ ❑ W.9 east bldq 6 5'-4"X8'-0" IN 43.11 ❑ ❑ W.10 east bldq 3 51-41lx5'-4" fixed 28.78 ❑ ❑ W.11 east bldq 5 51-41lx2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ Skylight & Roof Hatch Schedule ID Building Oty Unit Size W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes RI east bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ R.2 west bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ S.1 west bldq 9 4'-3114-3" 162.54 ❑ ❑ W.1 W.2 10'-0"X5'-4" 81-011x7'-0" W.3 WA W.5 5'-4"x7'-0" 51-411X24" 41414-0" W.6 W.7 81-0114-0" 8'-0"x5'-4" Wa ll Types W.8 W.9 W.10 W.11 81-01IX21" 5'-4"x8'-0" 5'-4"x5'-4" 51-4"x2'-8" ID building desc assembly Cladding per WALL A West Existing Block Wall elevations; Air Space; WRB; CMU Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL B West New Typical Exterior Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL C West New Exterior Walls Along 1/2"(nom) Plywood East Edge Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 1-1/2" R-9.5 Rigid Insulation; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL D West New 1-Hour Exterior Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 5/8" Gypsum Board; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 2" R-10 Rigid WALL E West New Furring @ CMU Insulation; 2x4 Wd Studs wl insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL F West New Typical Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL G West New 1-Hour Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 3-518" Brick;1 318" Air Space; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL H East New Brick Veneer Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" St[ Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations ; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL I East New Bay Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" Stl Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL J East New Typical Interior Wall 2"x6" Stl Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board N2" R-10 Rigid WALL K East New Furring @ Conc Wall Insulation; 2"x2" St[ Studs; 5/8" Gypsum Board DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture HEO STEREO rrE • • avid J. Div "+ STATE OF WAS VDTON Permit Set ISSUED: Proposed Lower Level Plan A295 Printed: 5/8119 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 120 Exterior Door Schedule Interior Door Schedule Window Schedule 5.1.p ID Building Oty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes D.1 west bldq 1 9'-11"x8 1-111121, 89.42 ® ❑ D.2 west bldq 4 2'-3 "X8'-1" 18.88 ® ❑ D.3 west bldq 2 3'-8 "4-1" 30.18 D.4 west bldq 3 1'-61IX8'-3" 62.43 ® ❑ D.5 west bldq 3 3'-4"X6'-10" 22.78 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.6 west bldq 3 3'-10"x6'-10" 26.19 ❑ ❑ D.7 west bldq 1 31-411X7'-2" 24.63 ❑ D.8 east bldq 2 1'-8 1IX8'-2" 14.07 ® ❑ D.9 east bldq 1 3'-10"X8'-2" 31.73 D.10 east bldq 2 31-411X7'-2" 23.89 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.11 east bldq 1 1'-61IX8'-3" 62.47 D.12 east bldq 4 2'-1 "X8'-1" 17.52 ® ❑ D.13 east bldq 2 1'-8 11x7'-1" 12.22 ® ❑ D.14 east bldg 1 3'-1 "x7'-03 " 25.97 ® ❑ D.15 east bldq 4 1'-8 "X12'-0 " 20.73 ® ❑ D.16 east bldq 6 2'-0 "X8'-2" 17.32 ® ❑ D.17 east bldq 2 3'-7 "x12'-0 " 44.23 D.18 east bldq 2 3'-8 114-1" 30.18 D.19 east bldq 3 3'-10114'-2" 32.21 D.20 east bldq 1 3'-41144" 22.99 ❑ ❑ exterior storage access 0L-1 L-JU L-A 11 1 1 E H 9 D.1 D.2 D.3 DA D.5 D.6 D.7 D.8 D.9 DID D.11 D.12 D.13 D.14 D.15 D.16 D.17 D.18 D.19 D.20 ,, ,, ,, 11 II 11 1, 11 " '1 " 0 " II 11 ❑ 11 " P " 11 11 ,, 11 1 �� �� 11 11 11 II ,, " ,, 11 11 ll II 11 " " 9 -11 X8 -11112 2 -31'2 x8 -1 3 -8,i4 x8.1 7 _Zv4 x8 -1 3 -0 X6 -8 3 -6 X6 -8 3 -0 x7 -0 1-81'4 X8 -2 3 -10 x8 -2 3 -0 x1-0 1-21'4 X8 -1 2 -11'2 X8 -1 1-81'4 X7 -1 3 -71�2 X7 -03'4 1-81'4 X12 -01'2 2 -01'2 x8 -2 3 -11'2 x12 -01'2 3 -81'4 X8 -1 3 -10 x8 -2 3 -4 x6 -8 SYMBOL LEGEND a C)DIMENSION LINES 0 0 a a v 0 REVISION TO DOCUMENT N NORTH ARROW ---- EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVE[ Q EXISTING CMU TO REMAIN 0 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN 0 NEW WALL L7 1-HOUR FIRE RATING CAVITY INSULATION PLAN NOTES DOORS & WINDOWS All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent with their products. RAINSCREEN All cladding shall be installed as a rainscreen. Refer to detail drawings for more information. INSULATION At exterior wood stud walls (west building), cavity insulation shall be R-21 batts. At exterior steel stud walls (east building), cavity insulation shall be R-13 batts. At interior walls, cavity insulation shall be acoustic batts. Refer to detail drawings for more information. FIRE -RATED ASSEMBLIES CMU Wall (Reference IBC Table 721.1(2) item #3-1.1): An 8" thick concrete masonry unit wall is adequate to provide a 1- hour fire rating. Framed Wall (Reference Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual GA-600-2015, File No. WP 8136): EXTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsum sheathing or glass mat gypsum substrate (sheathing) applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wow studs 16" o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. INTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsum wallboard or gypsum veneer base applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wood studs 16" o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. Vertical joints centered over studs and staggered one stud cavity on opposite sides. Horizontal joints on opposite sides need not be staggered. (LOAD -BEARING) PROPRIETARY GYPSUM PANEL PRODUCT United States Gypsum Company 5/8" SECUROCK Glass -Mat Sheathing Panels 5/8" SHEETROCK Brand UltraLight Panels FIRECODE X Fire -rated walls may be insulated or uninsulated per General Explanatory Note #11 of the manual. Larger framing members may be substituted per General Explanatory Note #18. Structural plywood sheathing may be added per General Explanatory Note #25. ID Building Oty Nominal W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes iD.1 west bldq 5 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.55 ❑ ❑ iD.2 west bldq 1 21-81IX6'-8" 19.13 ❑ ❑ iD.3 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.38 ❑ ❑ iD.4 west bldg 2 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.5 west bldq 2 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ® ❑ half lite iD.6 west bldq 1 6'-2 11x7'-1" 47.27 iD.7 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.38 ❑ iD.8 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-0" 19.26 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.9 west bldq 1 31-01lx3'-6" 11.46 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.10 east bldq 3 31-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.11 east blda 4 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ ❑I ❑ iD.1 iD.2 iD.3 iD.4 iD.5 iD.6 iD.7 iD.8 iD.9 iD.10 31-01141" 2'-8"x6'-8" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-01144" 3'-0"X6'-8" 6'-214"x7'-1" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-011x6'-0" 3'-0"x3'-6" 3'-0"X61" 117'-7" ID Building Oty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes W.1 west bldq 1 10'-0"X5'-4" fixed 53.76 ❑ ❑ W.2 west bldq 3 81-011x7'-0" fixed 56.46 ❑ ❑ W.3 west bldq 4 51-41lx7'-0" fixed 37.74 ❑ ❑ W.4 west bldq 7 51-41lx2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ W.5 east bldq 4 4'-0"x4'-0" fixed 16.34 ❑ ❑ round window W.6 east bldq 12 81-0"X8'-0" fixed 64.50 ❑ ❑ W.7 east bldq 3 81-0"x5'-4" fixed 43.06 ❑ ❑ W.8 east bldq 9 81-0"x2'-8" fixed 21.61 ❑ ❑ W.9 east bldq 6 5'-4"X8'-0" IN 43.11 ❑ ❑ W.10 east bldq 3 51-41lx5'-4" fixed 28.78 ❑ ❑ W.11 east blda 5 51-41lx2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ Skylight & Roof Hatch Schedule ID Building Oty Unit Size W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes RI east bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ R.2 west bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ S.1 west bldq 9 4'-3114-3" 162.54 ❑ ❑ W.1 W.2 W.3 WA W.5 W.6 10'-0"X5'-4" 81-011X7'-0" 5'-4"x7'-0" 51-4"X2'-8" 41414-0" 81-0114-0" 1 PHA E 2 A.wb.3.1 BUILAING LU w +11, 8 z Q 9 1 11 112; 13 14�) Aft tt " " tt i n �If -V_ n i n 4 " 4 " ° ZIJ 15' 0" 4' 6" 6'-0" 6'-0" 4'-6" 15' 0" ZIJ $$'_Q" - WALL I XI v WALE x ® � Cladding per elevations o o / 2" R 10 Rigid Insulation °' 29 0 oa 2 2" R 10 Rigid Insulation o 2x4 d studs wl insul Z z 5 1/2'(nom) Plywood Shtg � " EAST BLDG LOT COVER WALL addi per elevations 5'-6" 5'-6" 518" Gypsum Board EST BUILDING LOT COVERAGE � " Ln I 2"A" Stl Studs wl Insul 6' 0" 6'-0" A: 3,668.46 sq ft Airs ce shotcrete s ea anel N N A:1,463.78 sq ft PHASE 1. PLAZA PEDES RIAN AREA o n s A: 3,131.65 s f o , �, 518" Gypsum Board WRB 8" PIP Conc a Wall Shot rete Shear Panel g 6 0 6 0 fO 60 4�4-0"6 0 A: 3,136.9 s ft MAIN LEVEL F.O. SHEATHING �I a3" DIA. KYNAMAIN LEVEL CMU Q W 4 a 8" PI Concrete WALL C 88&STEM WALLFIN. DS q A: 6,572.78 sq ft Cladding per elevations _ '(-A-)+ Rainscreen Gap - - - - - - - - - - - WRB - WALL I - - - - - - - - - - A Cladding per elevations ° W.2 W.3 W.3 W 2 b 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg 2" R 10 Rigid Insulation W 6 1'- ��� 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul 112" n WALL B = (om) Plywood Shtg I nsu tlon C DOOR, o 0 1112 R 9.5 Rigid Insulation 2"x6" Stl Studs w/ Insul 112" no PI woo Sht ZL NI M g Q Cladding per elevations Q M "' 518" Gypsum Board N INDOW, o WRB o _ 5 yp 518" Gypsum Board d 2"Ali Stu s wl nsul 9 �' N 1189° Z Z zo WALL F 3 � M x PENING, Fn 0 112" nom Plywood Shtg X I 518" G um Board j w 1" D 6 D. 9 D 6 3' DIA. KYNA 1 �1 CANOPY X 2x6 Wd tuds wl Insul J 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul / _ 11 FI . D z_ D.16 D.19 D.16 W GypsumlBoard W 518" Gypsum Board 1'-101, 8 1 3 4" -' 314"g'_4v2 - - - y�=14 8'-9" x 9'-11v4" 12' 3 J6'00' x 7')0" 13'-4" 10' 0" )C 15'-0" 6'-0" x 7')0" 13' 4" p g - - - - - - -, - - - - - =� N - - - - - - �� - - - - - - - - - E , r - B E IT � 110-6 10-61 (N)DS F.u.SHEATHiiJG +2" W6 �� 0 + 10314 MS ROOM 2 14'-3112i' 4'-31/2" N "- A:151.06 sq ft z WALL F J z ±0" � o IN. DS o 51 LPI! TILL I I M W 61 1�2 +� CC = 2 CL COL *87 25 ELEC CLO WATER CLO o a 518 Gypsum Board a 1 +81.10' rn 1 - v 6" DIA CAST IRON MAIN A: 78.48 sq ft A: 52.17 sq ft N TO GRID 10 ROOF DRAIN LINES + �_ o o wb.4.4 � -N- 5 518 GypslmsBoa dui �, " 1 �` " " �J �J A42s M 60 TENANT 4 6 0 6 0 iv �,� a v� _: I Lu o q 4 IA. KYN R &GRID 10'-103/" CL WALL �„ �' FI . DS WALL J 518" Gypsum Boa d 14D.1 I &GRID o - A.eb.4.7 i +2 L ���-' ,•A: 3 sq ft 2x StlSswl st�Fu44 N a 2'_ `" OPENING I - C1, 3" 4'-4" 2'-0" 1 UP2RISEI6°) „ - - - - - - -4, A _ +87.25 - - - - - - - - -1 RUN (11") 518 Gypsum Board _ 1 C �° INSUL IN LOC'NS .wb.. A.eb.4.5 sia" �� SHOWN, SEE PLAN-- 4';8aia„ - - o Eo 5 7 Ln 9 3 x NOTES 0 1 �� o WALC7 P sRISE s5i6' 3 0 A.wb.4.3 2'-4° is ��•�0.00° N � Jeb.4.5 i �, - + _ 518" G sum Bo rd "? BRUN 1ri 1 o EL CLO WALL "' o 1' 3114° 2"x6" Stl Studs 1 Insul A:45.78 sq ft 518" Gypsum Board _ v 9 ° M I - 1 _ i o - 54" Gyps n-B- oprcl 2"x tl Studw Insuu 3" DIA. KYNAR 10 TENANT 1 -I 518 G psum Board v4" FIN. DS wb.4. A.wb.4.1 WEST F.O. WALL �_ I N MR ROOM iD.1 - 2,_4„ N ALIGNS WIGRID 3 e A: 4,642.75 sq ft iD.11 0 1-5 -8 1/4 F3 CL WALL I "Lin n ' ° KYNA I oT. GRHiPABLE A:109.93 sq ft DID 1012" & GRID 11 CONT. GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL BOTH p � � i o ll �, � � TENANT 1 HANDRAIL 36" � � D 4„ va 11 SIDES,36" ABOVE NOSINGS, EXTENDED - - 1z - - - I - - - _ - - - 1tBOVENOSINGS 1 HR RATED - D I A: 452.91 sq ft M STAIRWAY 4'-10 6 " 8RI E 43 64" o W BEYONp 1ST &LAST RISER BY 1 TREAD a m � WALL K � � EXTENDED BEYOND � CL ELEV SHAFT = +�24 -10 3/4 � 1 CL DO R, A:15.28 s ft 4 1 RU (12') 4 11 DEPTH o L� _ o " �' M&LAST RISER = &JOIST M a� WIND W, �_�_ 2 R-10 Ri id Insulation � A:100.5 S o BY1 TREAD DEPTH TENANT 6 OPENI Szs q A.wb.4.3 -- - A.wb.4.3 1 I �. a I N 2"x2" Stl Studs o o "' 1 518" G sum Board WALL K q A: 387.31 sq ft CAN Y o - 1'-0114" o I o - 9p IL 2 R 10 Rigid Insulation co �„ o I I o A.wb.4.1 ZI 5 9 CLR 3 3 A.wb.41„��T„ I W 5� 2"x2" Stlstutls £ R 11 NEW CONIC SLAB, 4 4 F. ^AHA ���� i 518" Gypsum Board I MS o A: 267.86 sq ft b THIS AREA ix Ji uri VVMLL - L o J 3" DI . KYNAR = �� : 131.05 S o MOP CLO s 1 HR RATED WALL F FIN. DS 6911 4 I I 8' - 6'_1" _ A:43.4sq ft _ 9l SHAFT 51$" Gypsum Board N �� s P PLANTP TFORM +2 , „ p _ - -1 A.eb.4.8 IU 5 RISE 2 13n6') 5.4" - - - - 10 314- - __ ALIGN F.O.F. WI 1 s:��„ 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul 4 RUN (33") z + , +87.25 C�l_ W.0 E 518 Gypsum Board a _ _ 11 N F.O. COLUMN _ (E) CMU WALL, NO - vr' „ a o �- - - - - 2 D.19 18 IS 6 511 0 2' 5 10' 0" 60.00° L O° W.5 E IT 11 11R N( 1") ` ' o W.6 6' DIA CAST IRON MAIN CLADDING ALONG -- ELEV CL - 1 CONT. GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL 36 ABOVE A.eb.4.6 A.eb.4.81 00 1 RI E 1 116' b E IT PROPERTY LINE A: 41�32 sq ft iD.5 10'-0" x 6'-8" 1 NOSINGS EXTENDED BEYOND 1ST &LAST I C�, �1P 14RU (1 ") 4' 3"LCR - ROOF DRAIN LINES ,. 61,61/2" - z„ RISER BY 1 TREAD DEPTH o j _ r o TENANT q q RATED EXIT STAIRWELL a1 i = _ _ 1T 8112" - - - p� - 3' 0" A:41.1s ft A TENANT 2 RR B I A: 41.7 s ft 1 H R R A. 72.53 sq ft a - EDGE OF W 8 _- 11 _ IA. KYNAR 1-HR RATED VENT SHAFTS IN KITCHEN 6'-814 6'-81'4" 4'-4"2 D.16 D.16 FIN. DS o L 'gin > $ r a v -STAIR ABOVE - - 112"- 6' D° 3' 4° - - + ro 3,4 UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT c - - ��.,Ici, I ________ 1 Zo F L��J-� +1-10'-10" - M UP a o _ �J� 1 i 7 10 -6 18 RISE (611116") 11 I �r _ 6 WALL H AIR SHAFT 11 RUN (11" - a - o �_ 3-518 Brick 1-HR RATED i 318" Air Space _ M 2'x2' CLR INSIDE �� T� I N KITCHEN 1� = ID.1 ID.1 o v a ` 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation ---- Lq (N) DS �J A: 843.89 s ft CL WALL 1 112 nom Plywood Shtg 1 a, q a _ 2"A" Stl Studs wl Insul &GRID _ � i o a I N N I CL WALL = 2 -0" 2'-0" _ 1 W.3 4�� A. KYNAR _ - - - - ---ca a o .e �L ward I L+J r i M 2'_5vr' 12' 0" &GRID 2' 04' 0" x 6' 8" %FIN. DS UP 2 RISE (s°�� - - -; - _ - _ _ _ - G Q 1RUN�z J_ - - - - - - - - - - - G: SEE NDS SEE ENTRY - -- - - -- - p ------ _ WALL E 1-HR RATED iD.4 2' 6" 1'-31/2" O GRID B1C-8 I q L 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation WALL G N - I.I. OF POST - - - - - STAIRWAY q FOR MORE CL CL a 4'-5112°EAST OF GRID 10 p ST 5 2x4 Wd Studs wl insul 518 Gypsum Board CLO o -� SEPARATES MAIN _ ��DIM. INFO. P qT DST = s-o°NORTH OFGRID H eb.5.3 r 518 Gypsum Board LLEVEL OWER LEVEL 518" Gypsum sum Boa d ul A:49.2 sq ft o o W 6i 8' q1 Bit20' 0" 8° ° -- - _ _ _ 1 pq 1 MAKE UP AIR SHAFT q 6�_ 1 18' 8" 4 _ - - - 5'212" 6'-113"" N-------- - - p Si ������ AR"� � 2 �� 8--- TENANTCL OF POS ---- �-' r --- II 3' T n _ n m C o CL 4 18'- " 8" ------ =_ ___-1'51/2" OUHOOFGRDIH 2 x2 CLR INSIDE 2 4 +0 M A: 2 5 s ft A:1,456.18 sq ft - 8 (E) LOAD BEARING WALL WI r ' -ANFI - - - - UNDER -SCALED ROOF GLU-LAM 314" ° - - CLOFPOST CLOFPosT - 26'-0"4'r 16'-4" EAST OF GRID 8 36'-4" EAST OF GRID 8 Ir'-Q'1 8 ° BEAM ABOVE = - 4 FF D . KYNAR 1'-8" NORTH OF GRID H 1'-8" NORTH OF GRID H Q D.6 D.611 WALL B _ FIN. S 8" Cladding per elevations 8 0„ 174112" Rainscreen G�p WRB RECEIVING DOCK + lq nom Pl wood Sht N ¢ I A: 345.02 sq ft _2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul E - - E - - E - - 518' Gypsum Board (E) LOAD BEARING WALL WI 42" TALL PARTIAL - `� UNDER -SCALED ROOF GLU-LAM HEIGHT WALL 11-9""" _ 16' 3""" w I 8"THKCONCRETE 2'-5"1+84.67' KIIfCHEN - ° `e) `" BEAM ABOVE I 4 9.35 s ft _ ° I dod ALL WATER CLO STO CLO ELEC CLO o I I\ RECYCLE &GARB - A: 43.42 sq ft A: 42.91 sq ft A: 92.82 sq ft A:166.07 sq ft > D.5 =6" ° 2 10"1}184.25 ° 2' 1"1+84. I y L r - ,� -�_ - - - - -- - --- - - - J; 21'9"x1'0" `QJ 11' 11'2" 3'-9" \__ Shotcrete Shear Panel 901 8" PIP Concrete Wall � I 9 10 11 12, 13 14 15; PHASE _ _ _ _ _ _ PHASE2I I C I L 1 BUILDING A.wb.3.2 1 2 5; 6; 7 8 /V8a �4 Ground Level A2.6 % SCALE: 1/8" = l'-0" 186 1 .4.6 C'V w a W.7 W.8 W.9 W.10 Will 8'-0"x5'-4" 81-01IX2'-8" 5'-4"x8'-O" 5'-4"x5'-4" 51-4"x2'-8" Wa U Types NOTE: Omit cavity insulation in locations shown on floor plans. ID building desc assembly Cladding per WALL A West Existing Block Wall elevations; Air Space; WRB; CMU Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL B West New Typical Exterior Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood 92 Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL C West New Exterior Walls Along 1/2"(nom) Plywood East Edge Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ WALL H 3-518" Brick Insul; 1-1/2" R-9.5 1-318" Air Space Rigid Insulation; 5/8" 2" R-10 Rigid Insu Gypsum Board 112"(nom) Plywoo 2"x6" Stl Studs wi 518" Gypsum Boal Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL D West New 1-Hour Exterior Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 5/8" Gypsum Board; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 2" R-10 Rigid WALL E West New Furring @CMU Insulation; 2x4 Wd Studs wl insul; 518" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL F West New Typical Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL G West New 1-Hour Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 92'-011 I N 92 92 3-5/8" Brick; 1-3/8" Air Space; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL H East New Brick Veneer Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"6" Stl Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations ; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL I East New Bay Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" Stl Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 518" Gypsum Board; WALL J East New Typical Interior Wall 2"x6" Stl Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 2" R-10 Rigid WALL K East New Furring @ Conc Wall Insulation; 2"x2" Stl Studs; 5/8" Gypsum Board DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture '02 HEL31STE • awid J. Di STATE OF WA�Pa`fsiQN Permit Set ISSUED: Proposed Main Level Plan A2. Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 121 Exterior Door Schedule Interior Door Schedule Window Schedule 5.1.p ID Building Qty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes D.1 west bldq 1 9'-11"x8 1-111121, 89.42 ® ❑ D.2 west bldq 4 2'-3 "X8'-1" 18.88 ® ❑ D.3 west bldq 2 3'-8 "4-1" 30.18 D.4 west bldq 3 1'-614'-3" 62.43 ® ❑ D.5 west bldq 3 3'-4"X6'-10" 22.78 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.6 west bldq 3 3'-10"x6'-10" 26.19 ❑ ❑ D.7 west bldq 1 314"X7'-2" 24.63 ❑ D.8 east bldq 2 1'-8 1IX8'-2" 14.07 ® ❑ D.9 east bldq 1 31-10"X8'-2" 31.73 D.10 east bldq 2 31-411X7'-2" 23.89 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.11 east bldq 1 1'-614'-3" 62.47 D.12 east bldq 4 2'-1 "X8'-1" 17.52 ® ❑ D.13 east bldq 2 X7'-1" 1'-8 11 12.22 ® ❑ D.14 east bldg 1 3'-1 "X7'-03 " 25.97 ® ❑ D.15 east bldq 4 1'-8 "X12'-0 " 20.73 ® ❑ D.16 east bldq 6 2'-0 "X8'-2" 17.32 ® ❑ D.17 east bldq 2 3'-7 "X12'-0 " 44.23 D.18 east bldq 2 3'-8 114-1" 30.18 D.19 east bldq 3 31-10"X8'-2" 32.21 D.20 east blda 1 3'-41144" 22.99 ❑ ❑ exterior storage access L 91 0 111 1 11 1 � 1� P 0 1. D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 D.5 D.6 D.7 D.8 D.9 DID D.11 D.12 D.13 D.14 D.15 D.16 D.17 D.18 D.19 D.20 ,, 11 ,, ,, II 11 1, 11 " ❑ " II " II 11 ❑ 11 " 11 ll 11 ll ,, " " 1 ❑ 1, 1, " �� ,, " ,, 11 11 ll II 11 " 11 9 -11 x8 -11112 2 -3112 x8 -1 3 -8114 X8.1 7.2v4 x8 -1 3 -0 X6 -8 3 -6 X6 -8 3 -0 x7 -0 1-8114 X8 -2 3 -10 x8 -2 3 -0 X7 -0 1-2114 X8 -1 2 -1v2 X8 -1 1-8114 X7 -1 3 -71'2 x1.0314 1-81'4 x12 -01n 2 -01n x8 -2 3 -1112 x12 -01'2 3 -81w X8 -1 3 -10 X8 -2 3 -4 x6 -8 SYMBOL LEGEND a o DIMENSION LINES i O O W a a v 0 0 0 REVISION TO DOCUMENT N NORTH ARROW EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVE[ Q EXISTING CMU TO REMAIN 0 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN 0 NEW WALL [_7 1-HOUR FIRE RATING CAVITY INSULATION PLAN NOTES DOORS & WINDOWS All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent with their products. RAINSCREEN All cladding shall be installed as a rainscreen. Refer to detail drawings for more information. INSULATION At exterior wood stud walls (west building), cavity insulation shall be R-21 batts. At exterior steel stud walls (east building), cavity insulation shall be R-13 batts. At interior walls, cavity insulation shall be acoustic batts. Refer to detail drawings for more information. FIRE -RATED ASSEMBLIES CMU Wall (Reference IBC Table 721.1(2) item #3-1.1): An 8" thick concrete masonry unit wall is adequate to provide a 1- hour fire rating. Framed Wall (Reference Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Manual GA-600-2015, File No. WP 8136): EXTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsum sheathing or glass mat gypsum substrate (sheathing) applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wow studs 16" o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. INTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsum wallboard or gypsum veneer base applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wood studs 16" o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. Vertical joints centered over studs and staggered one stud cavity on opposite sides. Horizontal joints on opposite sides need not be staggered. (LOAD -BEARING) PROPRIETARY GYPSUM PANEL PRODUCT United States Gypsum Company 5/8" SECUROCK Glass -Mat Sheathing Panels 5/8" SHEETROCK Brand UltraLight Panels FIRECODE X Fire -rated walls may be insulated or uninsulated per General Explanatory Note #11 of the manual. Larger framing members may be substituted per General Explanatory Note #18. Structural plywood sheathing may be added per General Explanatory Note #25. ID Building Qty Nominal W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes iD.1 west bldq 5 3'-0"X6'-8" 21.55 ❑ ❑ iD.2 west bldq 1 21-81IX6'-8" 19.13 ❑ ❑ iD.3 west bldq 1 3'-0"X6'-8" 21.38 ❑ ❑ iD.4 west bldg 2 3'-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.5 west bldq 2 3'-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ® ❑ half lite iD.6 west bldq 1 X7'-1" 6'-2 11 47.27 iD.7 west bldq 1 3'-0"X6'-8" 21.38 ❑ iD.8 west bldq 1 31-0114'-0" 19.26 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.9 west bldq 1 31-01lX3'-6" 11.46 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.10 east bldq 3 31-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.11 east blda 4 3'-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ ❑I ❑ 1D.1 iD.2 iD.3 iD.4 iD.5 iD.6 iD.7 iD.8 iD.9 iD.10 3'-0"X6'-8" 21"4'-8" 31-0114'-8" 31-011 4'-8" 3'-0"X6'-8" 6'-214"x7'-1" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-011x6'-0" 3'-0"x3'-6" 31-01141" ID Building Qty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes W.1 west bldq 1 10'-0"X5'-4" fixed 53.76 ❑ ❑ W.2 west bldq 3 81-011X7'-0" fixed 56.46 ❑ ❑ W.3 west bldq 4 51-41lX7'-0" fixed 37.74 ❑ ❑ W.4 west bldq 7 51-41lX2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ W.5 east bldq 4 4'-0"X4'-0" fixed 16.34 ❑ ❑ round window W.6 east bldq 12 81-0114-0" fixed 64.50 ❑ ❑ W.7 east bldq 3 81-0"X5'-4" fixed 43.06 ❑ ❑ W.8 east bldq 9 81-0"X2'-8" fixed 21.61 ❑ ❑ W.9 east bldq 6 5'-4"X8'-0" IN 43.11 ❑ ❑ W.10 east bldq 3 51-41lX5'-4" fixed 28.78 ❑ ❑ W.11 east bldq 5 51-41lX2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ Skylight & Roof Hatch Schedule ID Building Qty Unit Size W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes RI east bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ R.2 west bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ S.1 west bldq 9 4'-3114-3" 162.54 ❑ ❑ W.1 W.2 W.3 W.4 W.5 W.6 10'-0"X5'-4" 81-011X7'-0" 5'-4"x7'-0" 51-411X2'-8" 41414-0" 81-0114-0" I 1 A.wb.3.1 CIL BUILDING LT-2 IT-314" 314" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12' 0" 12'-0" 12'-0" MQ 2 n UPPER LEVEL(WIO ATTICS) � 6 ° A: 2 060.17 sq ft Q 1 1 3" DIA. KYNAR 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" 6'-0" FIN. DS -A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� I I I M I M q 3D.13 D 4 D.13 UPPER LEVEL M " D A. KYNAR 1 FIN. S 1 20' 1/2 A: 2,523.45 sq ft M � 1 6'-0" x 1'-0" 13'-4" 1 10'-0" 1 15'-0" I 6'-0" x 7�-0" 13'-4" I N ATTIC SPACE _ __ _ - - - - - - - - - nC C _ B ! - - UNDERI XISTIN T - - - - - -- - - - I I �� - - O _- - - - - - - - - - CURVED ROOF��� W.6 W.6 W.6 11 9RI E 916" 1 WALL D i j CL LANDING CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: 11" 1'� Cladding per elevations NORTH ATTIC \ , CHANNEL TO I 36" TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES I `a o Rainscreen Gap 14 . C O.F.O. FRAMING DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. WRB I%% CL WA 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg & GRI M 5/8" Gypsum Board 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul �, Q 5/8" Gypsum Board 1 +15' 4" CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: 1 -- - ---- 42" TALL GAPS BETWEEN STILES-E eb 4 5 0 1 `V A.wb.4.1 T__ ROOF DRAINLINE EXIT ACCESS - q STAIRWAY 2 `V A.wb.4.1 STAIRWAY A 87.61 sq ft 0 WALL D Cladding per elevations Rainscreen Gap WRB F 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg 5/8" Gypsum Board 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul 5/8" Gypsum Board N FLAT FRAME TO ENCLOSE COLUMN & ROOF DRAINLINE N N M Cladding per elevations Rainscreen Gap WRB 0 N 1/2"(nom) Plgwood Shtg 5/8" Gypsum Board 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul 5/8" Gypsum Board (E) LOAD BEARING WALLWD O UNDER -SCALED ROOF GLU-LAM BEAM ABOVE MAKE UP AIR SHAFT 1-HR RATED-- = 2'x2' CLR INSIDE (E) LOAD BEARING \ WALL WI UNDER -SCALED ROOF J I I ATTIC SPACE UNDER EXISTING CURVED ROOF Upper Level SCALE:1/8" = 1'-0" 7 0 ° A.wb.4.1 L M 9-p�, � / o = DO NOT ALLOW 4 SPHERE TO PASS. N 2.2114„ 3 °"x�,0" 60. 0 J ' c14 eb.4.5 0 �' N W.7 3c , `'' w _ ROOF-AMESS ° PRIVATE OFFICE CLWALL LOFT BAR 0 3.5'ITALL \ a sq o c-CADCD DERHATCH CD CD -- o GUARDRAIL, 5'-4314" �4'-41/2" 3" DIA. KYNAR A:132.35 sq ft & GRID A. 378.81 sq ft M o TYP. OF 8 \ C 3Ut -FIN. DS -------�- ❑ --------- - - - --- -- - -- - _�- o : 0' 6� Z - e 1 � I I I 1❑ 3.5 TALL _ -> GUARDRAIL 1-HR RATED SHAFT o SEE GROUND LEVEL PLAN / ` FOR ELEV WALL DIMS. M o `� ----------- ----=' KITC EN M �. o : 83.9 sq t A.eb.4.6 iz^ c ------------------------ +'-4' W I I I I I I CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL e 114" 10 RtSE 615/1 - - - - - 1 STORAGE - y`: z: -- -�- -- - - - - -- - -- - - IT REC ROOM LOBBY 10 o d\ ,'rq. - - - - - ❑ A: 97.97 sq ft Q 30.00� 11 10'-5" 11" 4� 5�� 'a, .o'-� WALL G ti6 5/8" Gypsum Board iD.6 �- �= �� a 1 33� 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul CLWALL 5/8" Gypsum Board & GRID 10'-9" 1 \ 1 � E T ------------------ �, 3'- 6v2„ ❑ REC ROOM A:1,067.16 sq ft 3-LANE ROLLERBALL MINIATURE BOWLING 7'-O" I,1 �1-HR WALL +1= 7' HEAD CLEARANCE 9 UN (11°) UP l W 9 36 TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES IT W.10 I� zo DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS.- ti 9RI a: � s A.eb.4.6 W.6- -W.6 -W.6- u (11 ), +2 ' 31-W.10 •• W 5 10'-9" 3' DIA. KYNAR FIN. DS -------------------- -- - - - - - - F; R F A S W 11' 6' 0" 6' 0" DN 18RISE611/16" EXIT STAIRWELL LA7)DER &HATCH EXIT \, 17RUN 11°) AIR SHAFT b.4.3 '- 11' kw 4.3 A: 93.44 sq ft M 1-HR RATED a 2'x2' CLR INSIDE o W SERVICE AREA / L 1 OF 3 A:175.56 sq ft A.eb.3.4 ALIGN 1 / `"! Q 0 - - - - - 1 kwh_5.1 - - - - - - COOR. FINAL OPE I G LOCATION WIBOWLING Y TEM MANUF. OPEN TO TENANT-2 BELOW ----_ ----_ a ------ / - l - - -- - --- - - ---�----__' _-- L `-4 CIL L & GR DL \ 1 - - - OPEN TO / y� TENANT-2 \ I I I I I I BELOW / OPEN TO OPEN TO STORAGE PLAZA CLO ELEC UTIL j I FT BELOW CLO BELOW I a '-6" 6'-0" 6'-0" 4'-6" +1=1' HEAD 1 CLEARANCE Nor L A.wb.3.2 � 6 BUILDING 5 \6 W.7 W.8 W.9 W.10 W.11 8'-0"x5'-4" 81-01IX2'-8" 5'-4"x8'-O" 5'-4"x5'-4" 51-4"x2'-8" Wa ll Types ID building desc assembly Cladding per WALL A West Existing Block Wall elevations; Air Space; WRB; CMU Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL B West New Typical Exterior Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL C West New Exterior Walls Along 1/2"(nom) Plywood East Edge Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 1-1/2" R-9.5 Rigid Insulation; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL D West New 1-Hour Exterior Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 5/8" Gypsum Board; 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 2" R-10 Rigid WALL E West New Furring @ CMU Insulation; 2x4 Wd Studs w/ insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL F West New Typical Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL G West New 1-Hour Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 3-5/8" Brick; 1-3/8" Air Space; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL H East New Brick Veneer Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" St[ Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations ; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL I East New Bay Wall 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" Stl Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 5/8" Gypsum Board; WALL J East New Typical Interior Wall 2"x6" Stl Studs w/ Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board N2" R-10 Rigid WALL K East New Furring @ Conc Wall Insulation; 2"x2" St[ Studs; 5/8" Gypsum Board DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. \ DiMarco Architecture HEL31STE ME • • awi� J. Di Al STATE OF WAW 3711QN Permit Set ISSUED: Proposed Upper Level Plan A2 07 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 122 Exterior Door Schedule Interior Door Schedule Window Schedule 5.1.p ID Building Oty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes D.1 west bldq 1 9'-11"x8 1-111121, 89.42 ® ❑ D.2 west bldq 4 2'-3 "X8'-1" 18.88 ® ❑ D.3 west bldq 2 3'-8 "4-1" 30.18 D.4 west bldq 3 1'-614'-3" 62.43 ® ❑ D.5 west bldq 3 3'-4"X6'-10" 22.78 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.6 west bldq 3 3'-10"x6'-10" 26.19 ❑ ❑ D.7 west bldq 1 314"X7'-2" 24.63 ❑ ZI D.8 east bldq 2 1'-8 1IX8'-2" 14.07 ® ❑ D.9 east bldq 1 31-10"X8'-2" 31.73 D.10 east bldq 2 31-411X7'-2" 23.89 ❑ ❑ util closet access D.11 east bldq 1 1'-614'-3" 62.47 D.12 east bldq 4 2'-1 "X8'-1" 17.52 ® ❑ D.13 east bldq 2 1'-8 11x7'-1" 12.22 ® ❑ D.14 east bldg 1 3'-1 "x7'-03 " 25.97 ® ❑ D.15 east bldq 4 1'-8 "X12'-0 " 20.73 ® ❑ D.16 east bldq 6 2'-0 "X8'-2" 17.32 ® ❑ D.17 east bldq 2 3'-7 "x12'-0 " 44.23 D.18 east bldq 2 3'-8 114-1" 30.18 D.19 east bldq 3 3'-10114'-2" 32.21 D.20 east bldq 1 3'-41144" 22.99 ❑ ❑ exterior storage access L-J 11 1 � 1� P 0 11 1E H 9 0 0 D.1 D.2 D.3 D.4 D.5 D.6 D.7 D.8 D.9 DID D.11 D.12 D.13 D.14 D.15 D.16 D.17 D.18 D.19 D.20 " 11 ,, 11 II 11 1, 11 " ❑ " I II " II 11 ❑ 11 " 11 " 11 11 ,, 11 1' 11 11 11 " �� ,, " ,, J' 11 11 II 11 " " 9 -11 X8 -11112 2 -31�2 x8 -1 3 -81�4 x8.1 7.2va x8 -1 3 -0 X6 -8 3 -6 X6 -8 3 -0 x7 -0 1-81�4 X8 -2 3 -10 x8 -2 3 -0 x1-0 1-21�4 X8 -1 2 -11�z X8 -1 1-81�4 X7 -1 3 -71�z X7 -03�4 1-81'4 X12 -01�2 2 -01�2 x8 -2 3 -11�z x12 -01'2 3 -81�4 X8 -1 3 -10 x8 -2 3 -4 x6 -8 SYMBOL LEGEND E a DIMENSION LINES o O O a-- O O O I 3 REVISION TO DOCUMENT (A u - - I I N � I 0 NORTH ARROW I g- - - -,-- - - - _ I I EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVE[ EXISTING CMU TO REMAIN I I I 0 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN 11 A.wb.4.3 0 NEW WALL C ROOF DRAINS \��o 2 SEPARATE DRAIN LINES, TYP I 1-HOUR FIRE RATING AT NORTHWEST & SOUTHEAST ---- ROOF CORNERS CAVITY INSULATION A.wb.4.1 I I I D SLOPE 1/4":12" _ -_ _-_OPE " 12HVAC UNIT, SEE MEP _ _ _ - TO DRAIN TO DRAIN ELEVATOR TOWER - - - DRAWINGS PLAN N EW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 01 I I OT ES :D RIGID INSUL 7" MIN. (R-38 MIN.) "' 1/2" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 2 L - - FRAMING A.wb.4.1 N I I A.wb.4.1 DOORS &WINDOWS 2 LAYERS 518" TYPE X GWB - All door rough openings are noted as 2 above unit height. �lo All window rough openings are noted as 112" above unit old NI height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent - withtheirproducts. HVAC UNIT, SEE MEP r----- u,lo RAINSCREEN DRAWINGS I i 01101 NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY L - - - -RIDGE RIDGE - All claddingshall be installed as a rainscreen. Refer to detail EW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 01 LINE LINE :D RIGID INSUL 7" MIN. (R-38 MIN.) 1 drawings for more information. 1/2" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 2X CAR DECKING 0/ l��c clI INSULATION GLB PURLINS ON STEEL BEAMS F -- --o�- - - -�- - - - At exterior wood stud walls (west building), cavity insulation ROOF ACCESS HATCH NI �� shall be R-21 batts. At exterior steel stud walls (east WI WALL MOUNTED LADDER 3'-O" building), cavity insulation shall be R-13 batts. At interior i 1 4' o" N walls, cavity insulation shall be acoustic batts. Refer to 0 detail drawings for more information. SLOPE 114":12" N ROOF DRAINS - -TO DRAIN - 0 SLOPE 114"1:12" 2 SEPARATE DRAIN LINES, TYP - - - - - TO D/4 FIRE -RATED ASSEMBLIES AT NORTHWEST & SOUTHEAST ROOF CORNERS I I I I I I I I I II ROOF DRAIN AT EACH ENTRY, TYP OF 2 \ SLOPE 1/4":12" TO DRAIN I �y ID Building Oty Nominal W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes iD.1 west bldq 5 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.55 ❑ ❑ iD.2 west bldq 1 21-81IX6'-8" 19.13 ❑ ❑ iD.3 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.38 ❑ ❑ iD.4 west bldg 2 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.5 west bldq 2 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ® ❑ half lite iD.6 west bldq 1 6'-2 11x7'-1" 47.27 iD.7 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-8" 21.38 ❑ iD.8 west bldq 1 3'-0"x6'-0" 19.26 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.9 west bldq 1 31-01lx3'-6" 11.46 ❑ ❑ attic access iD.10 east bldq 3 31-0"X6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ iD.11 east blda 4 3'-0"x6'-8" 22.78 ❑ ❑ ❑I ❑ iD.1 iD.2 iD.3 iD.4 iD.5 iD.6 iD.7 iD.8 iD.9 iD.10 31-01141" 2'-8"x6'-8" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-011441' 3'-0"X6'-8" 6'-21a"x7'-1" 3'-0"x6'-8" 31-011 X6'-0" 3'-0"x3'-6" 31-01141" 1 1 A.eb.4.5 I JI JI A.eb.4.6 JI MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLATFORM PRECAST CONC PAVERS 01 PEDESTAL SUPPORT SYSTEM 01 ROOF ASSEMBLY SEE STRUCT. FOR LOAD CAPACITIES ROOF DRAIN AT EACH ENTRY, TYP OF 2 9 10 12 I N Lq Q I I I I I I I I I I I I ID Building Oty Unit W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes W.1 west bldq 1 10'-0"X5'-4" fixed 53.76 ❑ ❑ W.2 west bldq 3 81-011x7'-0" fixed 56.46 ❑ ❑ W.3 west bldq 4 51-411x7'-0" fixed 37.74 ❑ ❑ W.4 west bldq 7 5'-4"X2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ W.5 east bldg 4 4'-0114-0" fixed 16.34 ❑ ❑ round window W.6 east bldg 12 81-0114-0" fixed 64.50 ❑ ❑ W.7 east bldg 3 8'-0"X5'-4" fixed 43.06 ❑ ❑ W.8 east bldg 9 8'-0"X2'-8" fixed 21.61 ❑ ❑ W.9 east bldg 6 5'-4"X8'-0" IN 43.11 ❑ ❑ W.10 east bldg 3 5'-4"X5'-4" fixed 28.78 ❑ ❑ W.11 east blda 5 5'-4"X2'-8" fixed 14.45 ❑ ❑ Skylight & Roof Hatch Schedule ID Building Oty Unit Size W x H Type Total SF Tempered Fire Egress Notes RI east bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ R.2 west bldq 1 31-0114-0" 12.00 ❑ ❑ S.1 west bldq 9 4'-3114-3" 162.54 ❑ ❑ W.1 W.2 W.3 W.4 W.5 W.6 101-011XTA" 81-011X7'-0" 5'-4"x7'-O" 51-411X2'-8" 41414-0" 81-0114-0" OUTDOOR TERRACE AT UPPER LEVEL as - - - - - - \\ I I I I I s - - - \ 0 \\ 3'-0' \ \ \ 4'-0' \,r I I \ \l�A I o, q� \\ NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSUL 7" MIN. (R-38 MIN.) \ - _ - 1/2" PLYWOOD DECK 01 _ \\ 2X CAR DECKING 0/ \ GLB PURLINS ON STEEL BEAMS I 00 - CMU Wall (Reference IBC Table 721.1(2) item #3-1.1): An 8" - thick concrete masonry unit wall is adequate to provide a 1- I 9i hour fire rating. - Framed Wall Reference Gypsum Association Fire Resistance SLOPE v4":12" TO DRAIN ( yp Design Manual GA-600-2015, File No. WP 8136): o A.wb.4.4 Q m a o EXTERIOR SIDE: One layer 5/8" proprietary type X gypsumCD z = o sheathing or glass mat gypsum substrate (sheathing) I applied parallel or at right angles to 2x4 wow studs 16" H- o.c. with 1-5/8" Type S drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs z O M when applied parallel to framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. z a O 0 �o INTERIOR SIDE: One layer 518" proprietary type X gypsum wallboard or gypsum veneer base applied parallel or at z right angles to 2x4 wood studs 16" o.c. with 1-518" Type S w drywall screws 12" o.c. to studs when applied parallel to I� - - o o - - - - E3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- framing or 8" o.c. when applied at right angles to framing. I I I I Vertical joints centered over studs and staggered one stud cavity on opposite sides. Horizontal joints on opposite sides need not be staggered. (LOAD -BEARING) I PROPRIETARY GYPSUM PANEL PRODUCT - n - - 1 United States Gypsum Company (TI V 518" SECUROCK lass -Mat Sheathing Panels s 518" SHEETROCK Brand UltraLight Panels FIRECODE X M Fire -rated walls may be insulated or uninsulated per 9 10 11 General Explanatory Note #11 of the manual. Larger framing members may be substituted per General Explanatory Note #18. Structural plywood sheathing may be added per General Explanatory Note #25. 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 Roof Level SCALE:1/8" = 1'-CI" Ln N Q I I I I 12 13 14 15 B MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLATFORM PRECAST CONC PAVERS 0/ - PEDESTAL SUPPORT SYSTEM 0/ ROOF ASSEMBLY SEE STRUCT. FOR LOAD CAPACITIES 1 A.eb.4.5 HVAC UNIT, SEE MEP DRAWINGS ROOF ACCESS HATCH WI WALL MOUNTED LADDER -D ELEVATOR TOWER NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSUL 7" MIN. 1/2" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ FRAMING 2 LAYERS 5/8" TYPE X GWB HVAC UNIT, SEE MEP DRAWINGS E ROOF DRAINS _ 2 SEPARATE DRAIN LINES, TYP AT NORTHWEST & SOUTHEAST ROOF CORNERS F W.7 W.8 W.9 W.10 Will 8'-0"x5'-4" 81-01IX2'-8" 5'-4"x8'-O" 5'-4"x5'-4" 514"x2'-8" Wa ll Types ID building desc assembly Cladding per WALL A West Existing Block Wall elevations; Air Space; WRB; CMU Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL B West New Typical Exterior Wall 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL C West New Exterior Walls Along 112"(nom) Plywood East Edge Shtg; 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 1-1/2" R-9.5 Rigid Insulation; 518" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations; Rainscreen Gap; WRB; WALL D West New 1-Hour Exterior Wall 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 518" Gypsum Board; 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 518" Gypsum Board 2" R-10 Rigid WALL E West New Furring @ CMU Insulation; 2x4 Wd Studs wl insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 518" Gypsum Board; WALL F West New Typical Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 518" Gypsum Board 518" Gypsum Board; WALL G West New 1-Hour Interior Wall 2x6 Wd Studs wl Insul; 518" Gypsum Board 3-5/8" Brick; 1-3/8" Air Space; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL H East New Brick Veneer Wall 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" St[ Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board Cladding per elevations ; 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation; WALL I East New Bay Wall 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg; 2"x6" Stl Studs wl Insul; 5/8" Gypsum Board 518" Gypsum Board; WALL J East New Typical Interior Wall 2"x6" St[ Studs wl Insul; 518" Gypsum Board N2" R-10 Rigid WALL K East New Furring @ Conc Wall Insulation; 2"x2" St[ Studs; 518" Gypsum Board DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture A"00�FW�AW�STON � E • •Al Permit Set ISSUED: Proposed Roof Plan A2.0 Printed: 518119 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 123 5.1.p Fmt Rijildinn Fmt Hpution SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" +33'-41/4"(+120.45') Elevator T.O. Roof FnO Rifildinn North FlPvntinn SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" PLAN NOTES DOORS & WINDOWS — All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent with their products. CLADDING TYPES ID BLDG TYPE LOCATION FINISH NOTES Clad1 west 26ga standing seam metal panels arched roof metal color 1 Clad2 west 26ga standing seam metal panels typical walls metal color 2 Clad3 west fiber cement board exterior of open-air entry bay paint color 1 Clad4 west fiber cement board inset at north face paint color 2 Clads west stained cedar 1x T&G interior of open-air entry bay stain 1 Clad6 west existing CMU to remain along west property line paint color 3 Clad1 west fiber cement board receiving/trash area paint color 4 Clad8 east brick typical walls Clad9 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad10 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad11 east fiber cement board inset at south face paint color 5 Clad12 both fiber cement board elevator tower paint color 6 +01_011 Project El. Reference DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' PEOISTERED rrE avid J. ON h STATE OF WAW'91ON '_,r Permit Set ISSUED: East Building Exterior Elevations A.eb.3.3 Printed: 5/8/19 Q EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 124 5.1.p PLAN NOTES DOORS & WINDOWS — All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent with their products. 13'-2" 1 12'-0" 1 12'-0" 1 12'-0" CLADDING TYPES I D BLDG TYPE LOCATION FINISH NOTES Clad1 west 26ga standing seam metal panels arched roof metal color 1 Clad2 west 26ga standing seam metal panels typical walls metal color 2 Clad3 west fiber cement board exterior of open-air entry bay paint color 1 Clad4 west fiber cement board inset at north face paint color 2 Clads west stained cedar 1x T&G interior of open-air entry bay stain 1 Clad6 west existing CMU to remain along west property line paint color 3 Clad1 west fiber cement board receiving/trash area paint color 4 Clad8 east brick typical walls Clad9 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad10 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad11 east fiber cement board inset at south face paint color 5 Clad12 both fiber cement board elevator tower paint color 6 JLL _ I LrJ QJ r Q d r Q East Building West Elevation SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 12'-0" +33'-4 1/4"(+120.45') 10 11 12 13 14, 15 Elevator T.O. Roof 1 121-0" 1 12'-0" 1 12'-0" 1 12'-0" 1 12'-0" 1 12'-0" 1 Fn.�t Rid1dinn Sniith Hputinn SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' PEOISTERED rrE avid J. ON h STATE OF WAW'91ON '_,r Permit Set ISSUED: East Building Exterior Elevations A.,eb.,3.4 Printed: 5/8/19 Q EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 125 5.1.p +32'-6"(+119.6') Max. Building Ht. +32'-41/2"(+119.48') T.O. Top Plate +30'-51/2"(+117.56) T.O. Roof Subdeck +23'-81/2" T.O. Guardrail +01-211 East Building T.O. Slab +0'-01/8"(81.23') Fin Grade Outside Entry r-2 Cross Section Looking East •eb•4• SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (9� 10 11 12 13 14 15 +32'-6"(+119.6') Max. Building Ht. ` 12'-0" � 12'-0" ,� 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" ,� 12'-0" +32'-41/2" +119.48' T.O. Top Plate +30'-51/2"(+117.56') —— —— —— —— —— —— —- T.O. Roof Subdeck NEW FLAT ROOF/TERRACE ASSEMBLY 2" PRE -CAST CONIC PAVERS ON PVC RISER SYSTEM ON NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSULT' MIN. (R-38 MIN.) 112" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 2X CAR DECKING 0/ EVENT SPACE GLB PURLINS ON STEEL BEAMS FRAMED FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab 2 r] M /�-(N) 2x4car deck wd A.eb.4.1 11 T / III) GLB purlins +19'-31/4" T.O. Top Plate +15'-3 3/4" West Space T.O. Fin Slab FN +14'-71/4" T.O. Subdeck +01-211 East Building T.O. Slab +0'-01+ Project El. Reference rrncc Cnrtinn I nnliinn Alnrth SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 1"r= SLAB FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab (N) R-10 rigid insul for 24" @ perimeter compacted gravel I/ FRAMED FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab (N) 3/4" T&G plywd (N) 2x car deck (N) GLB purlins n J TENANT CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: 36" TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. - —PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. --------- 3 PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP.--I------------------- I L U SLAB FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab (N) R-10 rigid insul for 24" @ perimeter NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSUL 7" MIN. (R-38 MIN.) ------ 1/2" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 2X CAR DECKING 0/ GLB PURLINS ON STEEL BEAMS +20'-3" East Space T.O. Fin Slab +4'-11" East Building Tenant 5 Slab DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture PEOISTE rrE S"r�TE OF WAW'91ON Permit Set ISSUED: East Building Sections A.eb.4.5 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 126 5.1.p (� 10�11� 12 13 14 +32'-6"(+119.6') Max. Building Ht. +32'-41/2"(+119.48') \ - - - - - - T.O. Top Plate +30'-51/2"(+117.56') T.O. Roof Subdeck H +01-2n East Building T.O. Slab Project El. Reference Cross Section Looking North "b. SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EVENT SPACE CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: ��� I��� ��� �j� ��� )nPTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. 36" TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES ������ ��"�'�`��° DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. UPPER LEVEL FRAMED FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab (N) 3/4" T&G plywd (N) 2x car deck INl fl R mirlinc --- PTO GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. TENANT 6 TENANT 7 MS RM BY F----------- -- — PTO GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. - SLAB FLOOR CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: ° N PIP conc floor slab 36" TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES (N) R-10 rigid insul for 24" @ perimeter DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. compacted gravel SLAB FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab (N) R-10 rigid insul for 24" @ perimeter compacted gravel 15 NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSUL 1" MIN. (R-38 MIN.) - ----- 1/2" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 2X CAR DECKING 0/ FIE GLB PURLINS ON STEEL BEAMS +18'-10 3/4" East Space T.O. Fin Slab East Building Lobby Slab DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture avid oiw �+ S-;PTE OF WAS GiGW Permit Set ISSUED: East Building Sections A.eb.4.6 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 127 4 A.eb.5.2 I 5.1.p +32'-6"(+119.6') Max. Building Ht. +32'-4112"(+119.48') T.O. Top Plate +30'-51/2"(+117.56') T.O. Roof Subdeck +18'-11" Event Space Fin Flr +18'-101/2" North Terrace T.O. Pavers +4'-10 3/4" Tenant 5 T.O. Slab North Wall # Covered Entr SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" 10 _ A.eb.5.2 9 A.eb.5.2 +15'-31/2" West Terrace T.O. Pavers East Building T.O. Slab Reference West Wall Section, TUp. SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" I I I I a A.eb.5.2 MSC Exterior Wall 7 A.eb.5.2 I I I I L _ 6 A.eb.5.2 +32'-6"(+119.6') Max. Building Ht. +11'-d 1/?"I+11Q AR'1 Brick Veneer Wall Section. TUD. SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED rrE avid J. ON h STATE OF WASI '91ON '_,r Permit Set ISSUED. - East Building Wall Sections A.eb.4.7 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 128 5.1.p +18'-9112" T.O. Terrace Guardrail CONT HAND/GUARDRAIL CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED RAILING 42" TALL @ LANDING, 36" TALL @ STAIR, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. M +15'-31/4" �, r Landing Fin Flr I I I 3 A.eb.5.3 EGRESS STAIR POWDER COATED STEEL STAIR 11 EQUAL RISERS 10 EQUAL TREADS SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO +8'-11" Landing Fin Flr STEPPED PLANT PLATFORM PIP CONCRETE STEPS 5 EQUAL RISERS 4 EQUAL PLATFORMS SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO +0'-0 1/8"(+87.19') Fin Grade @ Stair Terrace Stair# Bleachers SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" POWDE SEE ST Lam STEP SEE Sl SEE ST +O'-01/ Fin Gra Terrace Stair .eb-0 SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" 0 CONT HAND/GUARDRAIL CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED RAILING 36" TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. c CANTILEVERED LANDING PRECAST CONCRETE LANDING W/ 11'-0114" STEEL POWDER COATED CHANNEL OUTSIDE FACE OF CHANNEL O END OF STRINGER FRAME W/RAILING 0/ o TWO TUBE STEEL POWDER COATED OUTRIGGERS SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO 0 } I 1 o M A.eb.5.3 "ir 6' 1" +15' 31/4" + LANDING EDGE TO F.O. BRICK 110�37' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — EGRESS STAIR 1 10 E 6 1 /16" — — — PRECAST CONCRETE STEPS W/ DN UN' �) STEEL CLOSED RISERS ON I D STEEL ANGLE TABS ON INTERMEDIATE STEEL CHANNEL STRINGERS 4'-2" 8' 3" 11" D SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO CLEAR FROM TOP RISER TO F.O. CHANNEL LANDING D ° CONCRETE FACE WHERE EGRESS D STAIR MEETS PLANT PLATFORM 4'-3" CLEAR FROM TOP RISER TO F.O. BRICK D ° D EGRESS STAIR D PIP CONCRETE STAIR J,+g_11" U I1 ° 15 EQUAL RISERS +96 02' W 6 STORAGE 14 EQUAL PLATFORMS SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO D ° D CONT HAND/GUARDRAIL CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED RAILING 36" TALL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES D DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. CL OUTRIGGER & ° WALL FRAMING I +0'-3 3/4'(+81.25') D Storage Slab Fir �/F D D ° I D / 3-� Terrace Stair Upper Level SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" Terrace Stair 4 Ground Level SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTE t3 rrE S"r�TE OF WAW'GiGW Permit Set ISSUED. - East Building Wall Sections k e b.. 4. 8 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 129 5.1.p COMMON BOND BRICK FACE TIED TO SHEATHING PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS CREATE WEEP VOID @ VERTICAL GROUT EVERY 2' O.C. POWDER COATED L1Ox1Ox3/4 DATUM BRICK LEDGER @ ALL 4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS. CONT. DRIP EDGE AT BOT LEG LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER 26 GA HEAD FLASHING ALUM CLAD WOOD DOOR UNIT WITHIN VYCOR WRAPPED RO WITH 5/4" PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SILL CASINGS ROUGH OPENING WEATHER TAPE 14 Door Head @Datum eb•5-Z SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" ROUGH OPENING WEATHER TAPE - LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER - CONTIN000S ROOFING STOP TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION 4-1/2"- _ 2"THICK PAVERS T.O. ROOF PAVERS ON PEDESTAL ROOF DECK SYSTEM 3 � Door Threshold eb•5.7 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" COMMON BOND BRICK FACE TIED TO SHEATHING PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS CREATE WEEP VOID @ VERTICAL GROUT EVERY 2' O.C. POWDER COATED L7x1Ox3/8 DATUM BRICK LEDGER - @ ALL 4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS. CONT. DRIP EDGE AT BOT LEG LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER CONTINUOUS BACKER ROD AND SEALANT @ JAMBS AND HEAD, TYP. ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW UNIT WITHIN VYCOR WRAPPED RO WITH 5/4" PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SILL CASINGS ROUGH OPENING WEATHER TAPE - ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW Ul VYCOR WRAPPED RO PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SIL 24GA RO SILL TURNED UP @ JAMI LIQUID APPLIED WATE CUSTOM METAL TRANS SUPPLIED BY MANU SUPPORTED ON METAL HAT ALUM CLAD WOOD DOOR Ul VYCOR WRAPPED RO PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SIL ROUGH OPENING WEA 12 North Bag Door & Transom eb•51 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" COMMON BOND BRICK FACE TIED TO SHEATHING - --- PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER -- WEATHER TAPE - --- -- CREATE WEEP VOID @ VERTICAL GROUT EVERY 2' O.C. CONTINUOUS ROOFING STOP TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION POWDER COATED L7x4x3/8 BRICK LEDGER CONT. DRIP EDGE AT BOT LEG 4-1/2" 2" THICK PAVERS T.O. ROOF PAVERS — ON PEDESTAL ROOF DECK SYSTEM 'J l� / MEMBRANE ROOFING SYSTEM - - ••••••••••••■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�;[Ill Ill i!G1111!1IUPf--•p:::::::::::::::::::::::.................................... .................................... ........................ ........................................ ........................ +01-011 T.O. FINISHED FLOOR P.I.P. CONCRETE 1/2" PLYWOOD 2X CAR DECK +0'-Off T.O. FINISHED FLOOR — P.I.P. CONCRETE 1/2" PLYWOOD ' 2X CAR DECK 11 EastBuildin 2nd Floor West WallTerrace ",. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" +19'-21/2" Top of Guardrail PANEL MOUNTING CLIP HORIZ SUBGIRT STANDING SEAM RIB - - LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER - o� West Wall Guardrail, Typ. A.5.2 SCALE:1 1/2"= 1'-0" PANEL MOUNTING CLIP HORIZ SUBGIRT STANDING SEAM RIB LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER 9 , West WalllTerrace Detail, Typ. eb•51 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" HORIZ SUBGIRT PANEL MOUNTING CLIP STANDING SEAM RIB WEATHER SEAL WINDOW FRAME West Wall Window Head, Typ. •eb.5.Z SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" +0'-2if East Building T.O. Slab +01-011 Prniart Flauntinn WINDOW FRAME STEP SILL AT FACE OF BLOCKING 26GA SILL, SLOPE MIN 2% West Wall Window Sill, To. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER WEATHER TAPE \ 6 West Wall Footing, Typ. .eb•5• SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" +32'-41/2" _ _ PARAPET ASSEMBLY Top of Framing 24GA KYNAR COATED CAP HOOKED @ OUTSIDE EDGE W/ CONT. METAL CLIPS @ 2'-0" O.C. \ BRICK SOLDIER COURSE ---- SCREW FASTENED TO INSIDE EDGE @ METAL CLIPS 2'-0" O.C. W/ CONTINUOUS SEALANT __ -- 0/ WEATHER TAPE WI BACKER ROD @TOP, 0/ LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER TYP. @ FOUR BLDG FACES i 0/ WEATHER TAPE 0/ FRAMING i COMMON BOND BRICK FACE HARDIE PANEL TIED TO SHEATHING ------ - - PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS i CONTINUOUS ROOFING STOP TO ALLOW � EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION i = I MEMBRANE ROOFING SYSTEM ' w Z RIGID INSULATION co 112" PLYWOOD PARAPET ASSEMBLY 2X CAR DECK 24GA KYNAR COATED CAP HOOKED @ OUTSIDE EDGE W/ CONT. METAL CLIPS @ 2'-0" O.C. SCREW FASTENED TO INSIDE EDGE @ METAL CLIPS 2'-0" O.C. 0/ WEATHER TAPE — 0/ LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER 0/ WEATHER TAPE 0/ FRAMING 5 Brick Wall Cornice, Typ "b. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" SLAB FLOOR (N) PIP conc floor slab (N) R-10 rigid insul for 24" @ perimeter compacted gravel 32" HIGH X 1" THICK STEEL LETTERING WITH LED BACKLIGHTING, FASTENED THROUGH BRICK TO SHEATHING COMMON BOND BRICK FACE TIED TO SHEATHING PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS CREATE WEEP VOID @ VERTICAL GROUT EVERY 2' O.C. POWDER COATED L1Ox1Ox3/4 DATUM BRICK LEDGER @ ALL 4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS. CONT. DRIP EDGE AT BOT LEG LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER CONTINUOUS BACKER ROD AND SEALANT @ JAMBS AND HEAD, TYP. ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW UNIT WITHIN VYCOR WRAPPED RO WITH 5/4" PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SILL CASINGS ROUGH OPENING WEATHER TAPE 4 Upper Level Brick Wall Window Head, T 3.51 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW UNIT WITIN VYCOR WRAPPED RO WITH 5/4" - PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SILL CASINGS CONT. KYNAR FACED FLASHING ACROSS ENTIRE BRICK SILL TURNED UP AT - WINDOW RO BRICK SOLDIER COURSE SILL W/STEEL ANCHORS SET AT 15% FOR DRAINAGE IN MORTAR BED OVER CONT. FLASHING - FROM WINDOW RO TO FACE OF BRICK DRIP EDGE 3 Brick Wall Window Sill, T� eb.51 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" COMMON BOND BRICK FACE TIED TO SHEATHING PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS CREATE WEEP VOID Cd VERTICAL GROUT EVERY 2' O.C. -- POWDER COATED L7x10x3/8 DATUM BRICK LEDGER @ ALL 4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS. CONT. DRIP EDGE AT BOT LEG LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER -- CONTINUOUS BACKER ROD AND SEALANT @ JAMBS AND HEAD, TYP. ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW UNIT WITHIN VYCOR WRAPPED RO WITH 5/4" --- PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SILL CASINGS ROUGH OPENING WEATHER TAPE --- Ground Level Brick veneer Wall Window Head, Typ. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW UNIT WITIN VYCOR WRAPPED RO WITH 5/4" PLYWOOD HEAD, JAMB & SILL CASINGS CONT. KYNAR FACED FLASHING ACROSS ENTIRE BRICK SILL TURNED UP AT WINDOW RO BRICK SOLDIER COURSE SILL W/STEEL ANCHORS SET AT 15% FOR DRAINAGE IN MORTAR BED OVER CONT. FLASHING FROM WINDOW RO TO FACE OF BRICK DRIP EDGE +01-211 East Building T.O. Slab Project Elevation Reference 1 Brick Veneer Wall Footing. Typ. ",. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" SLAB FLOOR DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ITc avid J. Did h S-;PTE OF WASH GiGW Permit Set ISSUED. - East Building Exterior Details A.,eb,,5..2 Printed: 5/8119 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 130 5.1.p 8" LASER -CUT STENCIL LETTERS, CENTERED ON TOP, VERIFY FINAL FONT W/ ARCHITECT U-SHAPED 1"' THICK PLATE STEEL POWDER COATED ENTRY PORTAL M � N S 1 2- 011 12'-0" 5 Portal Roof Plan .eb.5. SCALE:1:12.05 60 N. CI W El ZA a Z34 0 Typical Plaza Portal Street View SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" 42" TALL LANDING GUARDRAIL, 4" SPHERE CANNOT PASS THROUGH FACE +15'-3-1/4" T.O. STAIR LANDING POWDER COATED C-CHANNEL FRAME ON NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH LANDING SIDES 2" PRECAST CONCRETE LANDING POWDER COATED TUBE STEEL OUTRIGGER, SEE STRUCTURAL Terrace Stair 9 Cantilever Terrace Stair 42nd Level SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" A.eb.5J SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" COMMON BOND BRICK FACE TIED TO SHEATHING HAPED1"'THICK PLATE STEEL POWDER PER MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS ATED ENTRY PORTAL LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER ON SHEATHING AND LAPPED OVER -- FLASHING 26 GA 3"A" CONT GALV FLASHING — CREATE WEEP VOID Cd VERTICAL GROUT EVERY 2' O.C. LDED BASE PLATE SITE FASTENED TO EL. +8-11" BEDDED ANCHOR BOLTS T.O. STAIR LANDING Brick Wall 0 Terrace Stair Landin SCALE: 1 1 /2"= 1'-0" 36" TALL GRIPPABLE STAIR RAILING 2" PRE -CAST CONCRETE LANDING POWDER COATED CUSTOM STEEL STAIR RUN, SEE STRUCTURAL PRE -CAST CONCRETE TREADS ON WELDED ANGLE SIDE SUPPORTS, SEESTRUCTURAL POWDER COATED SOLID RISERS SCREWED INTO UNDERSIDE OF TREAD, TYP. POWDER COATED TUBE STEEL OUTRIGGER, SEE STRUCTURAL DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED rrE avid STATE OF WAW'91ON '_,r Permit Set ISSUED. - East Building Exterior Details A.,eb,,5..3 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 131 5.1.p WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR (1-1/4"-1-1/2" DIA BAR 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) WC TISSUE DISPENSER FLOOR -MOUNTED WC �o MS Room North .eb.6. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" 5 MR Room North "A.,. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" MR Room East SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" 9 MS Room East .eb.6. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" 3 MR Room South .eb.6. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" 8 MS Room South .eb.6. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" RESTROOM FIXTURE &ACCESSORY SCHEDULE FIXTURE QUANTITY DESCRIPTION F1 2 Kohler Brenham wall -mounted bath sink w/shroud #K-1999-lN in white ADA compliant with Kohler Sculpted Insight Touchless DM Faucet #K-13463-CP in polished chrome ADA Compiant F2 5 Kohler Kingston Bowl #K-4323-L-0 in white with Kohler Tripoint DC 1.28 GPF WC Flushometer #K-10956-SV-CP in polished chrome Kohler Stronghold Quiet -Close Commercial Elongated Toilet Seat #K-4131-GC-0 in white ACCESSORY QUANTITY DESCRIPTION Al 2 Bobrick B-369 ClassicSeries Recessed Paper Towel Dispenser and Waste Receptacle A2 5 Bobrick B-301 Recessed Toilet -Seat -Cover Dispenser A3 6 Bobrick B-58061-1/4" 0 stainless steel grab bar with snap flange — size and configuration per elevations A4 2 Bobrick B-388 Recessed Multi -Roll Toilet Tissue Dispenser A5 2 Koala Kare Products model KB110-SSRE horizontal recessed mounted stainless steel finish baby changing station WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR (1-1/4"-1-1/2" DIA BAR 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) WC TISSUE DISPENSER FLOOR -MOUNTED WC 0 CL WC & CL WC & SEAT COVER SEAT COVER DISPENSER DISPENSER i — I A2 — o-u 0 U - p Z 0 F2 I F2 I MS Room West SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" o n CL C & CL WC & SEAT OVER SEAT COVER DISPENSER DISPENSER — A2 A3IT-- F F2 F2 I I , IL 2 MR Room West .eb.6. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" HCESSED WC SEAT ;OVER DISPENSER FLOOR -MOUNTED WC RECESSED WC SEAT COVER DISPENSER FLOOR -MOUNTED WC 6 MR Restroom Plan "b. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" MS Restroom Plan ".eb. SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISi'ERED rrE avid .1. Dh STATE OF .= .ON Permit Set ISSUED: East Building Interior Elevations A.eb.6.2 Printed: 5/8/19 Q EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 132 5.1.p T 10'-73/4" 12' 0n S.1 S.1 � S.1 12'-0" TT I D.5 -_ W.2 D.2 i D D.2 oa -51/4" FINISH GRADE AT BLDG CORNER • IL Clad4 Clad2 F — (N) FOUNDATION PROFILE I I I I I I I I I I L 2 East (Courtyard) Elevation .Wb.3.f SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 12'-0" 1--� W.3 (N) SIGN 9 .wb.4. (--- — —— — — — —— I l— -71/8" FINISH GRADE � \ll (N) FOUNDATION PROFILE - PLAN NOTES CLADDING TYPES DOORS & WINDOWS ID BLDG TYPE LOCATION FINISH NOTES — All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. Clad1 west 26ga standing seam metal panels arched roof metal color 1 All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit Clad2 west 26ga standing seam metal panels typical walls metal color 2 Clad3 west fiber cement board exterior of open-air entry bay paint color 1 height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent Clad4 west fiber cement board inset at north face paint color 2 with their products. Clads west stained cedar 1x T&G interior of open-air entry bay stain 1 Clad6 west existing CMU to remain along west property line paint color 3 Clad1 west fiber cement board receiving/trash area paint color 4 Clad8 east brick typical walls C1ad9 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad10 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad11 east fiber cement board inset at south face paint color 5 Clad12 both fiber cement board elevator tower paint color 6 11 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 13'-2" Q I I ROOFTOP HVAC ELEVATOR TOWER ROOFTOP HVAC BEYOND BEYOND BEYOND W W +25'-8" T.O. PARAPET Clad11 Clad1 +22'-81/4" T.O. PARAPET _ Clad1 T.O. RIDGE S.1 SURFACE ----MOUNTED WALL SCONCE, TYP OF 2 North (Main Street) Elevation SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" i D.1 N Q D.4 o D.4cm)D.2 D.3 D.2 F. • Clad4 Clad2 — — — — — — — — W.2 S.1 I I I I J, 12'-0" .I. 12'-0" J, 12'-0" .I. �W s (N) STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING, ROOF RADIUS IS 68'. S.1 DL -- I �V _I_( WA I(_W_3_)I CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: W/ IPE TOPRAIL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. (E) FOUNDATION PROFILE ASSUMED, VERIFY ONSITE.- n c I—� W.3 I I 12'-0" 3'-2314" ELEVATOR TOWER ---- --------------- ---- ----- BEYOND WA �LL _� a rn o c W.2 +9'-11114° T.O. PLATE TENANT SIGNAGE (UNDER SEPARATE FUTURE PERMIT) -71/8" FINISH R ,k +25'-8" T.O. ELEVATOR TOWER +22'-81/4" T.O. PARAPET +20'-2 7/8" T.O. RIDGE 4-111/4111/4" T.O. PLATE 0" T.O. FINISH FLOOR ,I, 4-11/4" FINISH GRADE AT BLDG CORNER DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HE0161'ERED rrE S"r�TE OF WAS�`GiGW Permit Set ISSUED: West Building Exterior Elevations A,,wb..31 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 133 5.1.p I I I 13'-2" 12'-0" 12'-0" I I I n PLAN NOTES DOORS & WINDOWS — All door rough openings are noted as 2" above unit height. All window rough openings are noted as 1/2" above unit height. Verify with unit manufacturers that this is consistent with their products. I I I I 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-011 I I I I I I I I ROOFTOP HVAC ROOFTOP HVAC 12'-0" CLADDING TYPES ID BLDG TYPE LOCATION FINISH NOTES Clad1 west 26ga standing seam metal panels arched roof metal color 1 Clad2 west 26ga standing seam metal panels typical walls metal color 2 Clad3 west fiber cement board exterior of open-air entry bay paint color 1 Clad4 west fiber cement board inset at north face paint color 2 Clad5 west stained cedar 1x T&G interior of open-air entry bay stain 1 Clad6 west existing CMU to remain along west property line paint color 3 Clad1 west fiber cement board receiving/trash area paint color 4 Clad8 east brick typical walls Clad9 east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad1O east 26ga standing seam metal panels walls at north & west bays metal color 3 Clad11 east fiber cement board inset at south face paint color 5 Clad12 both fiber cement board elevator tower paint color 6 H, I, J 12'-011 10'-73/4" I I I 1 +?5'-R" I 1 I 1 1 1 ___________________■ -________________-i ' 1 IGRADE AT BLDGCORNER I I I I I I I I I I —------------------------- (E) FOUNDATION PROFILE ASSUMED, VERIFY ONSITE. n I II I I Fr F NOTE: MOST OF THIS ELEVATION IS OBSCURED BY ADJACENT BUILDING 2 West Elevation .Wb.3. SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" \6 1 � 31_23/4" 12'-0" 121_0" 12'-0" 121_0" 12'-0" 3'-31/4" ROOFTOP HVAC ROOFTOP HVAC M South (Alley) Elevation SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" JIMIR IV LVMVIIIV vvl.n MER LOWER LEV L INFILLED LOWER LEVEL I I I li M Q — -- t - -- DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ME avid J. Di C F WtA STATE * +'GTCNI Permit Set ISSUED: West Building Exterior Elevations Amb.3.2 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 134 EXHIBIT 5.1.p I I 10'-13w" 12'-0" i EXISTING ARCHED ROOF ASSEMBLY (N) STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING 0/ NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ 112" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ NEW 2X8 SLEEPERS W/ 7" RIGID INSUL (R=38 MIN.) 0/ NEW 1/2" PLYWOOD DECKING 0/ EXISTING 3X CAR DECK 0/ EXISTING GLULAM BEAMS (ROOF RADIUS IS 68') W N 0 _X_ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - WRAP STL COLUMN W/ 0 5/8" TYPE 'X' GWB 0 --- - PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. --------- 3 I I I I I I I 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 13'-2" NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY ELEVATOR TOWER - - NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSUL 4" MIN.(R-20 MIN.) 3/4" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ ROOFTOP HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND E ROOFTOP HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND 11-7/8" TJI JOIST FRAMINGW/ BATT INSUL WITHIN BAYS (R=30) 0/ 5/8" PTD GWB (N) PARAPET AT (N) �-_DORMEREDGE, BEYOND I I -- —— (t) LAIL laIb" O/C \ (N) 5/8" type X GWB \I WRAP EXPOSED (N) SAWCUT BATT INSUL TO R-30 BEAMS TO PROVIDE OPENING FOR PROVIDE 1-HR OCCUPANCY SEPARATION 1-HR FIRE RATING ACCESS TO (N) STAIRWELL BETWEEN LOWER LEVEL & MAIN LEVEL - INSTALL (1) LAYER 5/8" TYPE 'X' GWB AT ry N STAIRWAY UNDERSIDE OF (E) JOISTS PER PLAN NOTES ;; WI CONT. GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL 11" + ABOVE NOSINGS EXTENDED BEYOND 1ST STORAGE & LAST RISER BY 1 TREAD WIDTH II II C 31, Long Section Looking West "-W, SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ TAPERED RIGID INSUL 4" MIN. (R-20 MIN.) 3/4" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 11-7/8" TJI JOIST FRAMING W/ BATT INSUL WITHIN BAYS (R=30) 0/ 5/8" PTD GWB CONT. 5/8" TYPE X GWB TO COMPLETE 1-HOUR RATED -- SHAFT ENCLOSURE 1-HR RATED ELEVATOR SHAFT 5/8" GWB 0/ 2X6 WD FRAMING @ 16" OC 0/ 5/8" GWB (PURSUANT OF UL U379) +10'-O" 2 Upper Level HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR (THIS UNIT UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) (E) 4" SLAB ON GRADE +0" 1 Ground Level NEW T-3" SLAB FOOTING ON - COMPACTED GRAVEL '2 Elevator MAY SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" I I I 12'-0" 3'-23/4" +2211/4" T.O. Framing +20'-1/2" B.O. Framing (N) FRAMED FLOOR 3/4" nom plywd 11-7/8" TJI @16"o/c typ uno 5/8" gwb 0 CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED HANDRAIL: - -- 36" TALL, WALL MOUNTED, EXTENDS 1 TREAD WIDTH BEYOND FIRST AND LAST o RISER, TYP. +10 0 il 2 Upper Level Top of Subflr MAIN TENANT 1 STAIRWAY WOOD -FRAMED STAIR WITH CONT. 5/8" -- - TYPE X GWB ON UNDERSIDE , SEE STRUCTURAL SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL o INFO. 0 +O" 1 Ground Level W Top of Fin Slab J_ (N) CENTER BEAM - REC ROOM STEP FIR FRAMING TO I [LOW FOR DEPTH OF MINI BOWLING - EQUIPMENT \ (N) FRAMED FLOOR CONFIRM DEPTH W/ MANUF- 3/4" nom plywd MINI BOWLING 11-7/8" TJI @16"o/c tgp uno 5/8" gwb EQUIPMENT PER MANUF F (E) ARCHED GLB, TYP--- (N) CENTER BE (E) 4" SLAB ON GRADELl 1-1 �1 - EXISTING ARCHED ROOF ASSEMBLY (N) STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING 0/ NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ 112" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ NEW 2X8 SLEEPERS W/ 7" RIGID INSUL (R=38 MIN.) 0/ NEW 1/2" PLYWOOD DECKING 0/ EXISTING 3X CAR DECK 0/ EXISTING GLULAM BEAMS (ROOF RADIUS IS 68') CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATER GUARDRAIL: 42" TALL, W/ IPE TOPRAIL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. --------- i 5 4 3 2 1 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 3'-2314" — ROOFTOP HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND 11 NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY wb.4. NEW SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOFING 0/ R00 TOP HVAC EQUIPMENT BEYOND ELEVATOR TOWER E - TAPERED RIGID INSUL 4" MIN. (R-20 MIN.) CONT. FLAT COt T. FLAT 3/4" PLYWOOD DECK 0/ 1 ROOF ROOF 11-7/8" TJI JOIST FRAMINGW/ VENTILATION VENTILATION BATT INSUL WITHIN BAYS (R=30) 01 A.wb.4.4 11 5/8" PTD GWB wb.4. �� �— — — —N I ENTRY VOLUME BEYOND - 5 TENANT SIGNAGE (NOT �44 9 IN THIS PERMIT - -- A.wb.4.4 APPLICATION) CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATED GUARDRAIL: 42" TALL, W/ IPE TOPRAIL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. M +10'-0" -----1 - Ipper Level — Tenant 1 Dining I Q I PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. I � I I I 8 A�� \ ound Level I Cross Section at Loft Bar .Wb.4J SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" Loft Bar Private Office ----- —SEE A.wb.6.1 FOR MORE INFO Restroom OPEN TO KITCHEN BEYOND Ell �W 'l 0 0 0 +10'-0" 2 Upper Level Top of Subflr Ait 1 Ground Level Top of Fin Slab -8'-31/2" -1 Lower Level Top of Fin Slab +22'-81/4" T.O. Framing +20'-1/2" B.O. Framing +10'-0" 2 Upper Level Ait 1 Ground Level DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture _182 7PEOISTERED r1-c Oki. J. 0i - h S"r�TE OF WAW19i-OW Permit Set ISSUED. - West Building Sections Amb.41 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 135 5.1.p SELF -ADHERING BUTYL AllFLASHING TAPE i; PANEL MOUNTING CLIP HORIZ SUBGIRT ��,. D (-13- Typ. Window Jamb •wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" SEALANT & PANEL RETAINER FASTENER EXTEND INTERIOR JAMB FLASHING BELOW SILL OPENING MIN 1/2" WEATHER SEAL Ins FLASHING EXTEND WRB(DASHED) PRIMARY AIR SEAL, PER MANUF RECOMMENDATIONS MARINE -GRADE PLYWD LINER CURVED ROOF ASSEMBLY MORZIP METAL ROOF PANELS MEMBRANE ROOFING R-38 RIGID INSULATION PLYWOOD DECK 3x T&G DECK #12 x 7/8", HEX WASHER HEAD, W/W, DO NOT PENETRATE PANEL FOAM BLOCK W/BUTYL TAPE 26 GA RAKE TRIM CONT. PTD 44 CEDAR BLOCKING ON CONT. 2x INSULATION BLOCKING Roof # North & South Wall, Typ. .wb•4•z SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" HORIZ SUBGIRT PANEL MOUNTING CLIP STANDING SEAM RIB WEATHER SEAL WINDOW FRAME Typ. Window Head SCALE:1 1/2"= 1'-0" HORIZ JOINT BTWN WINDOWS BY MANUF 10 Upper Window Sill "b. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" WINDOW FRAME STEP SILL AT FACE OF BLOCKING 26GA SILL, SLOPE MIN 2% 9 Lower Window Sill .wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" MARINE -GRADE PLYWD LINER MARINE -GRADE PLYWD LINER D ° D D- 8 Wall Base SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" North & South Wall, Typ. ".wb-4- SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" 26 GA HEAD FLASHING 11 U-CHANNEL - 26 GA FLASHING COVERS BOTTOM OF CMU 6 Inset Transition ".wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" FIBER CEMENT BOARD 26 GA HEAD FLASHING 5 Window Head at Inset ".wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" STEP SILL 3/8" AT FACE OF BLOCKING 26 GA SILL, SLOPE MIN 2% FIBER CEMENT_ BOARD 4 1 Window Sill at Inset A•wb.4.2SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 26 GA HEAD FLASHING 3 Door Head at Inset A.wb.4.2 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 2 wb.4. D D D D D D D ° v Av > ii Avv Door Threshold at Inset SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" nvvi rwJLinuLi Standing Seam Metal Roofing Membrane Roofing 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg Insulation (Rigid) 1/2"(nom) Plywood Shtg North Wall at Inset SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" 5" 1'-1" 5"� 1'-11" DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED rrE S-.ATE OF WAW'GiGW Permit Set ISSUED: Wall Sections & Details A.wb.4.2 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 136 5.1.p FLASHING TO MATCH PLANE OF ARCHED - ROOFBEYOND REMOVE CMU TO T.O. SUBFLR FOR EXTENT OF — DORMER MTL FLASH & WRB --� O/ OVERFRAMING +10'-0" West Building T.O. Subflr (E) PILASTER (E) CMU - -- --- 12Base of Dormer Wall wb.4.3 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" ARCHED ROOF ASSEMBLY (n) standing seam metal roofing (n) membrane roof (n) WRB (n)112" plywood roof deck (n) rigid insulation between 2x8 framing (n)1/2" plywood deck (e) 3x T&G roof deck (e) arched alu-lam beams EXISTING 3X CAR DECKING EXISTING ARCHED— GLU-LAM 11 Dormer East Parapet .Wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" +22'-8114" Top Plate +20'-112" -- B.O. Roof Framing ARCHED ROOF ASSEMBLY • WALL D Cladding per elevations Rainscreen Gap WRB 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg (' 5/8" Gypsum Board 2x6 Wd Studs w/ Insul 5/8" Gypsum Board WALL E 2" R-10 Rigid Insulation 2x4 Wd Studs w/ insul ' 5/8" Gypsum Board WALL B Metal Siding Trim Pluwood Sheathin Wood Framing Plywood Sheathin Cement Board I NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY membrane roof +22'-8114" fop Plate +20'-1/2" B.O. Roof Framing tapered rigid insulation W-112" plywood roof deck 0'-5112" Wood Framing + Insulation 0'-5/8" Gunsum Board IkRi lip► f�i 1 1 1 111 1 11 11 11� I 1 1 1 1 1 QlIBA■■■■■■■■■■..:...---=— ----------------- ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■... (n) standing seam metal roofing (n) membrane roof (n) WRB (n)1/2" plywood roof deck (n) rigid insulation between 2x8 framing t (n)112 plywood deck (e) 3x T&G roof deck (e) arched qlu-lam beams 10 Dormer Sidewall at Rake •wb•0 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY membrane roof tapered rigid insulation 1/2" plywood roof deck 11-7/8" Wood Framing + Insulation 5/8" Gypsum Board WALL F 5/8" Gypsum Board 26 Wd Studs w/ Insul 5/8" Gypsum Board REC ROOM (N) FRAMED FLOOR 3/4" nom I. wd 3 11-7/8" TJI @16"olc typ uno A.wb.4.3 518" gwb 2 Upper Level L TENANT 2 RR B TENANT 2 RR B SEE SHEET A.wb.6.1 for additional info. +o„ 1 Ground Level Exit Stair wb.4.3 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP. ----� 1-HR RATED EXIT STAIRWELL (E) 4" SLAB ON GRADE STANDING SEAM RIB SEE 9/A.wb.4.4 FOR CALLOUTS IN COMMON - HORIZ SUBGIRT PANEL MOUNTING CLIP — STANDING SEAM RIB — WEATHER SEAL — WINDOW FRAME a � Typ. Window Head &Roof @East Wall wb.4.3 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 6 T p. Wall Base wb.4.1 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" MARINE -GRADE PLYWDI LINER I Tlyp. Window Sill SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" WINDOW FRAME STEP SILL AT FACE OF BLOCKING 26GA SILL, SLOPE MIN 2% (N) EXIT STAIRWAY W/ CONT. GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL 36" ABOVE NOSINGS EXTENDED BEYOND 1ST & LAST RISER BY 1 TREAD DEPTH u +10'-0" 2 Upper Level 2 b.4.3 1 Ground Level I I I I I l� ■ Y1111 l'(r (JJ 1 ■ Cil 11 112"(nom) Plywood Shtg 26 Wd Studs w/ Insul 3/0 k7yP5U111 CSUUIU 7 — J A.wb.4.3 +0'-0" o 5 00A 4 ,A ('_5_-� Typical East Wall •wb•4•3 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" CUSTOM STEEL POWDER COATER GUARDRAIL: 42" TALL, W/ IPE TOPRAIL, GAPS BETWEEN STILES DO NOT ALLOW 4" SPHERE TO PASS. (N) FRAMED FLOOR 3/4" nom plgwd 11-7/8" TJI 016"o/c tuD uno PTD GWB THROUGHOUT, TYP.-------- N STAIRWAY AIRWAY W/ CONT. GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL 36" ABOVE NOSINGS EXTENDED BEYOND 1ST WEST BUILDING LOT COVERAGE &LAST RISER BY1 TREAD DEPTH Exit Access Stair wb.4.3 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" (N) FRAMED FLOOR rubber sheet flooring 3/4" nom plywd 11-7/8" TJI @16"o/c tgp uno 5/8" awb +10'-0" 2nd LEVEL T.O. SUBFLR NON -SLIP RUBBER TRANSITION NOSING NON -SLIP RUBBER TREADS & RISERS WOOD FRAMED STAIR 2x12 STRINGER 12" OC WITH 26STRONGBACK SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO r L '3 Top of Exit Stair wb.4.3 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" WOOD FRAMED STAIR 2x12 STRINGER 12" OC WITH 2x6STRONGBACK SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO -- -- NON -SLIP RUBBER TREADS & RISERS NON -SLIP RUBBER RISER TRANSITION TO RUBBER SHEET FLOORING +01_011 (E) CONC SLAB (N) PIP CONC STAIR FOOTING, i SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO 2 Base of Exit Stair wb.4.3 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" +01_011 West Building T.O. Slab LOADING DOCK N PIP conc floor stab 1/4":12" slope to south to drain -- compacted gravel PIP CONC STAIR, SEE STRUCT FOR MORE INFO 44 518" \ T.O. Stair Southern Loading Dock Edge 8" PIP CONC PARTIAL HT D WALL WITH BACKFILL TO o CREATE LOADING DOCK 4" PIP CONC SLAB SLOPED SOUTH TO (E) ALLEY SURFACE N E ALLEY PAVEMENT 1 Loading Dock Stair Nb•4. SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEdIST'ERM rrE avid .1. o;w �+ S"r�TE C* WANZiON Permit Set ISSUED: Wall Sections & Details A.wb.4.3 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 137 5.1.p I UUL JI LLL rUJI VVI I HIIV HALL FnAIVI IIYV io West BuildingCanopy Plan,Tgp. wb-4-4 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" :f:) East Wall at Cano wb-4-4 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" COURTYARD PAVERS OVER COMPACTED SAND OVER COMPACTED GRAVEL s New Foundation atT p. Bag .wb•4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" OUTRIGGER ASSEMBLY U'LITE POLYCARBONATE PANEL PER MANUF U'LITE BATTEN PER MANUF POWDER COATED STEEL TUBE JOISTS OUTRIGGER ASSEMBLY I VVIIV FUVVULR LVMILU JILLL PLATE OUTRIGGERS 6 wb.4 rnDD rnD 3 � � .Ih n T.O. Parapet: 14'-6 1/4" East Wall at Entru Ba SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" 5 Roof atTgpicalEast Wall .Wb.4. SCALE: 1 1 /2"= 1'-0" - - - STANDING SEAM PANEL RIB ADDED STRIP OF ICE & WATER SHIELD TO OVERLAP TRANSITION FLASHING MOUNTING CLIP KEYHOLE CLOSURE BASE'J' TRIM TRANSITION FLASHING __ MEMBRANE ROOFING LAPS FLASHING 3 Entry Bay Roof to Arched Roof Wb•4• SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 2 Entry Bag Ceiling .wb•4. A4 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" New Foundation at Entru Ba SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 8 26GA PARAPET CAP W/ DRIP EDGES FIBER CEMENT BOARD CONTINUOUS ROOFING STOP TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER MEMBRANE ROOFING SYSTEM — COURTYARD PAVERS OVER COMPACTED SAND OVER COMPACTED GRAVEL 4 Entry Bay Wall to Roof .wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED E S-.ATE OF WAW'91 ON Permit Set ISSUED: Wall Sections & Details Amb.4.4 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 F Packet Pg. 138 5.1.p I UUL JI LLL rUJI VVI I HIIV HALL FnAIVI IIYV io West BuildingCanopy Plan,Tgp. wb-4-4 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" :f:) East Wall at Cano wb-4-4 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" COURTYARD PAVERS OVER COMPACTED SAND OVER COMPACTED GRAVEL s New Foundation atT p. Bag .wb•4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" OUTRIGGER ASSEMBLY U'LITE POLYCARBONATE PANEL PER MANUF U'LITE BATTEN PER MANUF POWDER COATED STEEL TUBE JOISTS OUTRIGGER ASSEMBLY I VVIIV FUVVULR LVMILU JILLL PLATE OUTRIGGERS 6 wb.4 rnDD rnD 3 � � .Ih n T.O. Parapet: 14'-6 1/4" East Wall at Entru Ba SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" 5 Roof atTgpicalEast Wall .Wb.4. SCALE: 1 1 /2"= 1'-0" - - - STANDING SEAM PANEL RIB ADDED STRIP OF ICE & WATER SHIELD TO OVERLAP TRANSITION FLASHING MOUNTING CLIP KEYHOLE CLOSURE BASE'J' TRIM TRANSITION FLASHING __ MEMBRANE ROOFING LAPS FLASHING 3 Entry Bay Roof to Arched Roof Wb•4• SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 2 Entry Bag Ceiling .wb•4. A4 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" New Foundation at Entru Ba SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" 8 26GA PARAPET CAP W/ DRIP EDGES FIBER CEMENT BOARD CONTINUOUS ROOFING STOP TO ALLOW EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION LIQUID APPLIED WATER BARRIER MEMBRANE ROOFING SYSTEM — COURTYARD PAVERS OVER COMPACTED SAND OVER COMPACTED GRAVEL 4 Entry Bay Wall to Roof .wb.4. SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED E S-.ATE OF WAW'91 ON Permit Set ISSUED: Wall Sections & Details Amb.4.4 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 F Packet Pg. 139 5.1.p 2 wb.5. I I I I I I I I I I 1 / t------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- C Art Panel .Wb.51 SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 14 13 12 11 10 (9� Typical Art Pane[ SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" '3-� Top of Plaza 112 Wall @ Screenin Wb.5J SCALE: 11/2"= 1'-0" Typical Plaza 112 Wall Foundation Wb.5.1 SCALE:1 1/2"= 1'-0" MARKET STALL 112 WALL 8x16x8 NOMINAL GLAZED FACE CMU BLOCK WALL W/ SHAPED CORNER & TOP EDGE PIECES O/ PIP CONC STEM/ FOOTING CONT FELT JOINT ALONG ALL SIDES AT AD] PAVEMENT, TYP. W11I FLU Jvnrl HLVIVV )ALL JIULJ HI Hui rRVLIVILIV I, I1r. MARKET STALL 112 WALL 8x16x8 NOMINAL GLAZED FACE CMU BLOCK WALL W/ SHAPED CORNER & TOP EDGE PIECES 0/ PIP CONC STEM/ FOOTING fr1NT FFI T MINT AI nNr, Al I CInPC AT on I DAIIFMFNT TVD a� Art Panel Section Wb.5.1 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" DIMARCCI ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTE E 57ATE OF WAS�`GiGW ` .- 1--Z-1 Permit Set ISSUED. - West Building Exterior Details Amb.51 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - PLN20190024 LN2000 Packet Pg. 140 5.1.p 0 0 CLWC& CLWC& CLWC& SEAT COVER SEAT COVER SEAT COVER DISPENSER DISPENSER RECESSED WC SEAT DISPENSER COVER DISPENSER A2 — I I = FL OR OUN ED W M = F F = VELI 15 MS Restroom West .Wb.6 J SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 � MS Restroom South •Wb•6 J SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" RESTROOM FIXTURE &ACCESSORY SCHEDULE FIXTURE QUANTITY DESCRIPTION F1 4 Kohler Brenham wall -mounted bath sink w/shroud #K-1999-1N in white, ADA compliant with Kohler Sculpted Insight Touchless DM Faucet #K-13463-CP in polished chrome, ADA Compliant F2 6 Kohler Kingston Bowl #K-4323-L-0 in white with Kohler Tripoint DC 1.28 GPF WC Flushometer #K-10956-SV-CP in polished chrome Kohler Stronghold Quiet -Close Commercial Elongated Toilet Seat #K-4131-GC-0 in white F3 2 Kohler Steward Hybrid High Efficiency Urinal (HEU) #K-5244-ER ACCESSORY QUANTITY DESCRIPTION Al 4 Bobrick B-369 ClassicSeries Recessed Paper Towel Dispenser and Waste Receptacle A2 6 Bobrick B-301 Recessed Toilet -Seat -Cover Dispenser A3 12 Bobrick B-58061-1/4" 0 stainless steel grab bar with snap flange — size and configuration per elevations A4 4 Bobrick B-388 Recessed Multi -Roll Toilet Tissue Dispenser TILE WAINSCOTTING W/INTEGRATED TILE BASE, TYP. io MR Restroom West Wb•6.1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-O" 6'-03/4° I I I I WALL -MOUNTED MIRROR Al I I I WALL -MOUNTED SINK J0 a TILE WAINSCI TTING q W/ INTEGRATED TIL BASE, TYP. 13 MS Restroom East Wb.6.1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR (1-114"-1-112" DIA BAR 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) WC TISSUE DISPENSER FLOOR -MOUNTED WC WALL -MOUNTED MIRROR INK TILE AINS OTTI G Z , TIL BAS , TYP. - CV = --- 8 MR Restroom East .Wb.6• SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3'-4" WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR WALL -MOUNTED MIRROR (1-1/4"-1-1/2" DIA BAR 43 ' 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) WALL -MOUNTED SINK A3 2'-8' o F1 WC TISSUE DISPENSER TILE WAINSCOTTING = Z W/INTEGRATED ?a TILE BASE, TYP. N FLR-MOUNTED _ WC - F2 12MS Restroom North Wb.6J SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 3'-43w° I RECESSED PAPER TOWEL DISPENSERS WALL -MOUNTED Al I MIRROR I o SINK F1 I WA ULNS TEWALL-MOUNTED I �II URIN I - NSTTIN QC '9 MR Restroom South Wb•6.1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" RECESSED WC SEAT COVER DISPENSER A3 I WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR (1114" 1112"DIA BAR 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) A2 A CL C & A SEAT OVE PEN ILE WAINSCOTTING = TILE BASE TYP. F2 FLIOCIR-M 117 1 tu C MR Restroom North wb.6.f SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" I WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR (1-114"-1-112" DIA BAR A3 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) WALL -MOUNTED RECESSED WC SEAT MIRROR COVER DISPENSER A CLWC & A4 SEAT COVER DISPENSER M o TILE WAINSCOTTING F2 W/INTEGRATED c9 TILE BASE, TYP. 5 Restroom A West 4 Restroom A South 3 Restroom A East "wb. SCALE: 1/2 1 -0 .Wb.61_ SCALE: 1/2" = 1'4" .Wb.6. SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" Restroom A North �-Wb.6.1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" WALL -MOUNTED GRAB BAR (1-114"-1-1/2" DIA BAR 1-1/2" WALL OFFSET) WC TISSUE DISPENSER FLOOR -MOUNTED WC i ,Tenant 1- MS Restroom Plan Wb.6 1 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" s Tenant 1- MR Restroom Plan SCALE: 1/2" = 1'4' i ,Tenant 2 - Restrooms A & B Plans .Wb.61 SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 5'-0"0 TURNING SPACE i MIN 30"A8" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AT LAV DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 USA architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects, except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture ' HEOISTERED I rE S"r�TE OF WASM'GiGW Permit Set ISSUED: West Building Interior Elevations A.,wb,.61 Printed: 5/8/19 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 F Packet Pg. 141 W- MAIN STREET - �5'D \ 89 °88 53, LANDSCAPE PLAN — SITE PLAN SCALE I" = 10' - 0'' EX. STREET TREE GRATE, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. EX. STREET TREE, TO REMAIN \ AND BE PROTECTED. \ TREE PROTECTION, \ TYP. )M4 D J 0 10, 20' EX. IRRIG EX. LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED, TYP. PROTECTION FENCING oo�000 000� ooc;� 000 \0 °°0 0 C ° PROPERTY LINE �LP1 EX. TREE TO REMAIN fi�L J AND BE PROTECTED, / TYP. EQ. EQ. 3' c0- — SCORE PATTERN — EDGE OF EX. CONC. L1.1 TREE GRATE, REF. MATERIALS LIST, TYP. EX. PP EX. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGER, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. 0 0 co W Z W Q 1-O MATERIALS LIST — RIGHT OF WAY CONCRETE PAVING °° SEE CIVIL FOR SECTION, MATCH EX. SCORING NORTH/SOUTH AT CORNER, EAST/WEST SCORING PER PLAN. COORDINATE PAVING W/ TREE GRATES PER STD DETAIL TR-551 - — —T — — THROUGH JOINT TREE GRATE F@1 3' X 3' PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD, SEE DETAIL TR-551, APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER JEANIE McCONNELL 11 /1 /2018 r _1 TREE PROTECTION 4'-6" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE, FOUR SIDES, L J TO ENCLOSE ENTIRE TREE GRATE, TYP. EACH TREE, OR PER CITY OF EDMONDS "AL ALIGN MATERIALS LIST — ON SITE CONCRETE W/ SCORING SEE CIVIL FOR SECTION, W/ THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: -SAND COATED THROUGH JOINTS -SAW CUT JOINTS -FINISH: LIGHT SAND BLAST -SCORE PER PLAN PAVERS METROPOLITAN SERIES, STANDARD REPEATING PATTERN SHOWN, AVAILABLE FROM ABBOTSFORD CONCRETE PRODUCTS, 1-800-663-4091 SAND SET, INSTALL PER MFG. INSTRUCTIONS ER /"`/\KITIA II I/'11 IC M//- r!r\/-C I7rCT17 A IN IT MANUFACTURED BY PAVE -TECH INC. PROVIDE PAVE EDGE RIGID EDGE RESTRAINT AND ALL ASSOCIATED PARTS, INCLUDING GALVANIZED STEEL SPIKES (10"X3/8"), WHERE PAVERS ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OTHER PAVING. INSTALL PER MFG. RECOMMENDATIONS. BIKE RACK - REVIEW W/ OWNER ''OAHU NO SCRATCH CIRCULAR BIKE RACK" BY SPORTWORKS, EMBED, STAINLESS STEEL FINISH, INSTALL PER MFG. RECOMMENDATIONS STONE SLAB 2' W X 6XL X 24'' HT (18'' HT AT FIN. GRADE), REF. L1.1 /DET. 3, SALT & PEPPER GRANITE W/SAWN TOP AND BOTTOM, SPLIT FACES. SEE DETAIL FOR DEPTH. 0 PLANTERS RECTANGULAR PLANTERS, REINFORCED CONCRETE, BY TOURNESOL SITEWORKS, WILSHIRE COLLECTION, SIZE: 961 X 24''W X 36" HT, COLOR: FLAT BLACK SHIM 1''ABOVE GRADE MODULAR CONTAINER IRRIGATION SYSTEM, CWMR 1620-4K, BY TOURNESOL SITEWORKS TUA UP LIGHTS TREE UPLIGHTS AT EACH TREE: BK LIGHTING, MODEL: LS-8-BLP-7-9-1 1 PROVIDE OUTLET & POWER AT EACH TREE REF. ELEC. FOR ATTACHMENT & POWER,TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PA PLANTING AREA ON -GRADE TOPSOIL: 1. TOPSOIL: TWO-WAY MIX, AVAILABLE AT PACIFIC TOPSOIL, KENMORE, WA (800)884-7645, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. PREPARATION: LOOSEN SUBGRADE SOIL TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES W/CULTIMULCHER OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT. REMOVE STONES, GRAVEL, STICKS, ETC. 3. PLACEMENT: TOPSOIL MINIMUM DEPTH 8". SPREAD APPROX. 1 /2 THE THICKNESS OF PLANTING SOIL MIX OVER LOOSENED SUBGRADE. MIX THOROUGHLY INTO TOP 4-INCHES OF SUBGRADE. SPREAD REMAINDER TO MEET REQUIRED GRADES. HOLD 3" BELOW ADJACENT PAVED WALKS, CURBS, AND PLANTER WALLS. MULCH: 1. BARK MULCH: PACIFIC GARDEN MULCH, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AND SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 2 OR MORE THAN 4 YEARS OLD. MINIMUM DEPTH 2". SHEET LIST L1 .0 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS & LAYOUT PLAN L1 .1 HANDSCAPE DETAILS L2.0 IRRIGATION PLAN L3.0 PLANTING PLAN L3.1 PLANTING DETAILS 9 \\\ o DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons West Building 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job sife. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques sequences, or procedures, or for sgfety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Karen Kiest Landscape Architects 1 1 1 west john street suite 306 seattle washington 98119 206 323 6032 www.kk-la.com of WASH S. o o U S� 860 Q EXP.P� 44NDSCAPE Permit Set ISSUED: 2019.05.08 Landscape Layout & Materials Plan L 1 . EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 142 5.1.p NOTES: 1. TREE GRATE SHALL BE URBAN ACCESSORIES MODEL KIVA 3'x3' OR EQUIVALENT. TREE GRATE FRAME SHALL BE URBAN ACCESSORIES MODEL TYPE "S" OR EQUIVALENT. 2. SLOTS IN GRATE SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 1 /2" IN ONE DIRECTION, 3. HOLES (SQUARE OR ROUND), SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 1/2" IN DIAMETER. 4. WITH ELONGATED OPENINGS, LONG DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE PERPENDICULAR TO THE DOMINANT DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING TREE GUARD (OPTIONAL) f3'-5/8" 00 00 I I �_oo0 0000 +I -H 0 0 o O OWN �0000�00000 0 �00o��00D0 �O��D�DDDD0000Oo� 0 0 �0�000��0 NO"%'Rn 0000OD o000 ADA STANDARD TREE GRATE (SEE NOTES 1-4) FINISH GRADE CONCRETE PAVEMENT 3" DEPTH PEA GRAVEL MIN 18" DEPTH x MIN 6" WIDE TO BOTTOM OF GRATE U U U U CONCRETE SUB —SLAB ROOT FINISH GRADE UNIT PAVING BARRIER BAND, OR 18" DEPTH APPROVED ROOT BARRIER 1 MATERIAL AT SIDE OF PLANT PIT. 00 J o > a �\��/\\/i y` //may/NIyNyof c� ILL. = a Q/�' ' COMPACT SUBGRADE TO 95% (TYP) FINAL GRADE BACKFILL , COMPACT SPECIFIED FREE VARIES DRAINING PLANTING SOIL 6" MIN CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT `St. 181 - TREE GRATE SCALE: NTS PERFORATED PIPE IN PEA GRAVEL TRENCH, WRAP WITH FILTER FABRIC. CONNECT TO STORM SYSTEM. REVISION DATE JANUARY 2018 TREE GRATE STANDARD DETAIL APPROVED BY: R. ENGLISH T R - 5 51 G PAVERS EDGE RESTRAINT LEVELING SAND, 1" DEPTH 3/4" MINUS CRUSHED ROCK, COMPACTED TO 95%, DEPTH 8" PLANTING MEDIUM, SEE PLANTING PLAN COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE: FOR DRAINAGE, REF CIVIL CONCRETE PAVERS ON GRAVEL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" STONE SLAB SCALE: 1" = 1' - 0" ROUNDED CORNERS, THERMALED /HONED TOP,TYP STO N E, PER PLAN MULCH AND PLANTING SOIL NOTE: LENGTH PER PLAN 9 40/( DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons West Building 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job sife. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Karen Kiest Landscape Architects 1 1 1 west john street suite 306 seattle Washington 981 19 206 323 6032 www.kk-la.com OF WASH S. o o U Q EXP.P� �,INDSCAPE Permit Set ISSUED: 2019.05.08 Hardscape Details Ll 1 N O 0 0 N Z J a T) m c P N a) 0 0 N d N fC t a c 0 E E 0 U a> L N .C� C E (i L 0 Q L r d i a m 0 a r t X w r c a� E a EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 143 I it 00 / � I O ` \� W \ SO \ \ F MAIN STREET 5' D EX. 3/4" METER TO BE RETAINED FOR IRRIGATION, REF CIVIL CONTROLLER Al INSTALL RPBA DOWNSTREAM OF METER IN ABOVE- GROUND HOT BOX, PER C CITY OF EDMONDS, PROVIDE POWER, a POINT OF CONNECTION POC DRIP 1 1" - GPM 30 PSI I DRIP 2 3/4" - GPM 30 PSI LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN SCALE I'' = 10'- 0" \ A / TREE PROTECTION, TYP. ZONE DESIGNATION, TYP. w L _o =1= � O I Al I I w w— w---w---- w w ------ — ---- O A2 ( TENANT DS I— �I II I ENTRY I.0 I II I I I II I II I STUB OUT FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE I LOCATION FOR PLANTER I II II I TENANT A2 I I I ENTRY II III II II I II I I I II TENANT ENTRY SLEEVING, TYP. I I II II II A2 II li -- --------------------------- F-- i I -------------- 70 Al - rri Sinn x3 0)V ` Found EX. IRRIG S r ace M o n \I O - - - 000 \ o00 O° OD °° O P 1 PROPERTY LINE _ — o D v _�- I I -I ���� I L■J i I I TENANT I ENTRY i N � I U PHASE 2 DS I I it PROVIDE IRRIGATION AT VINE POCKETS I LOBBY g ENTRY JS I ------ I I L ---- ----- � TREES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE II I ONLY, TYP. FOR LOCATION AND II I SPECIES, REF. L3.0 0 0 0 0 SSA I I SALI F Y- X 'D7 x X 0 10, 20' IIIII 1 II I II I I I I I SCHEMATICE LAYOUT, ROUTE IRRIGATION AROUND EX. UTILITIES AND AS NEEDED, TYP. �1 �1� DRIP r I 3 1 3 4" 0A3 1 - GPM 30 PSI cn w� I I � l Z W > Q 2� III I �I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT LEGEND IRRIGATION NOTES 1. ALL PROPOSED PLANTING AREAS WILL BE WATERED WITH A COMPLETE IN -GROUND AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE OF THE SPRINKLERS (30 P.S.I.) AND THE MAXIMUM FLOW DEMAND OF -- GPM FOR STATIONS PROPOSED. THE ESTIMATED STATIC PRESSURE FOR THE POINT OF CONNECTION IS --- PSI AT THE STREET LEVEL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AVAILABLE WATER PRESSURE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE IRRIGATION IS OPERATIONAL AS DESIGNED. 3. LOCATION OF POINT OF CONNECTION, MAINLINE AND SLEEVES AS SHOWN ARE SCHEMATIC. LOCATE MAINLINE AND VALVES TO AVOID ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND PLANTING, UTILITIES, PAVEMENTS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. 4. DO NOT WILLFULLY DESIGN AND INSTALL THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT OBSTRUCTIONS, GRADE DIFFERENCES, OR DIFFERENCES IN THE AREA DIMENSIONS EXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ENGINEERING. SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS OR DIFFERENCES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE EVENT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SLEEVES AND CHASES UNDER PAVING, THROUGH WALLS, ETC, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. WHERE THE FIELD CONDITIONS REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS, HEADS SHALL BE ADDED OR DELETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IRRIGATION LEGEND OR MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. PIPE SIZING SHALL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY, AND WATER VELOCITY SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 FEET PER SECOND. 7. SIZE PIPE PER PIPE SIZING CHART 8. INSTALL BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL CODES AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. REFER TO PLUMBING PLANS. 9. IN ADDITION TO THE PIPE SLEEVES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CONTROL WIRE SLEEVES OF SUFFICIENT SIZE UNDER ALL PAVED AREAS AND TO CLOCK LOCATION AT INTERIOR OF BUILDING. 10. ROUTE COMMON AND CONTROL WIRE FROM THE CONTROLLER TO CONTROL VALVES. CONNECT TO MAINLINE, EXCEPT AT SLEEVES. PROVIDE ONE SPARE WIRE FROM THE CONTROLLER TO THE FARTHEST VALVE ON THE SITE AND AT THE ENDS OF THE MAINLINE RUNS. 11. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO BE WINTERIZED THROUGH THE DRAIN VALVE AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION. COMPRESSED AIR CAN ALSO BE USED THROUGH THE QUICK COUPLER VALVE AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION FOR BLOW-OUT. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION POINT OF CONNECTION: ❑M EX. 3/4" METER Da GATE VALVE - NIBCO T-1 13, BRASS, LINE SIZE POC N BACKFLOW PREVENTER & RPBA -PER CITY OF EDMONDS e MASTER VALVE -SUPERIOR NO. 3000, BRASS, LINE SIZE QUICK COUPLER - RAINBIRD 44LRC, SUPPLY HOSE KEY AND SWIVEL MAINLINE -PVC SCH 40, 1" SIZE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE LATERAL LINE -PVC CLASS 200, SIZE PER PIPE SIZING CHART. - - - - - - - SLEEVE -PVC SCH 40, SIZE = 2 x LINE SIZE, 2" MIN DRIPLINE -NETAFIM TECHLINE CV TLCV6-12XX DRIP VALVE ASSEMBLY - TORO DZK-700-1-LF, 1"LOW FLOW DRIP ZONE KIT © CONTROLLER MANUAL FLUSH VALVE -NETAFIM TLSOV PIPE SIZING CHART Zmt GALLONS /MIN. PIPE SIZE 0-7 3/4 INCH 7 - 14 1 INCH 14 - 24 1-1/4 INCH 24 - 34 1-1 /2 INCH 34 - 54 2 INCH 9 Y DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons West Building 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirmingg and correlating dimensions at the job sife. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Karen Kiest Landscape Architects 1 1 1 west John street suite 306 seattle Washington 98119 206 323 6032 www.kk-la.com of WASH S. O �FQ 860 EXP. 12 PSG 4gNDSCAPE Permit Set ISSUED: 2019.05.08 Irrigation Plan L2.0 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 144 9 Y DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons West Building 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirmingg and correlating dimensions at the job sife. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Karen Kiest Landscape Architects 1 1 1 west John street suite 306 seattle Washington 98119 206 323 6032 www.kk-la.com of WASH S. O �FQ 860 EXP. 12 PSG 4gNDSCAPE Permit Set ISSUED: 2019.05.08 Irrigation Plan L2.0 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 144 O :Dt 14 O O 0 O O W 3 Hour N 89008'53" LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN SCALE 1 " = 10' - 0" EX. STREET TREE GRATE, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED. —� �i — EX. STREET TREE, TO REMAIN xx AND BE PROTECTED. EX. FLOWER BASKET HANGERS TREE PROTECTION, ON UTILITY POLE, TO REMAIN TYP. AND BE PROTECTED. MAIN STREET v L— L i 0 I PLANT LIST SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 1 STREET TREES EX. TREE, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED GINKGO BILOBA 'BLAGON' (APPROVED BY CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEER JEANIE McCONNELL 4/09/2019) ON -SITE TREES SPECIMEN TREE TO BE SELECTED 0 10' 20' IIIII I SIZE COND. SPACING GOLDSPIRE GINKGO 2-1/2" CAL. B&B PER PLAN SPECIMEN SIZE B&B, PER PLAN MULTI LARGE SHRUBS 0 LAGERSTROEMIA 'NATCHEZ' 'NATCHEZ' CREPE MYRTLE 15 GAL. CONT. PER PLAN STANDARD SHRUBS / GRASSES - TO BE CHOSEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: � BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA 'WINTER GEM' 'WINTER GEM' JAPANESE BOXWOOD 5 GAL. CONT. 30'' O.C. CORNUS STOLONIFERA 'KELSEYI' 'KELSEYI' RED TWIG DOGWOOD 1 GAL. CONT. 24" O.C. HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA 'LIMEMOUND' 'LIMEMOUND' OAKLEAF HYDRANGEAI GAL. CONT. 30'' O.C. ILEX CRENATA JAPANESE HOLLY 5 GAL. CONT. 30'' O.C. OLONICERA PILEATA BOXLEAF HONEYSUCKLE 5 GAL. CONT. 36'' O.C. �SPIRAEA X BUMALDA 'DENISTAR' SUPERSTAR SPIRAEA 2 GAL. CONT. 30'' O.C. OPIERIS JAPONICA 'CAVATINE' 'CAVATINE' JAPANESE PIERIS 5 GAL. CONT. 24'' O.C. GROUNDCOVERS 50% EPIMEDIUM ALPINUM 50% EPIMEDIUM 25% ASTILBE X ARENDSII 'PEACH BLOSSOM' 25%'PEACH BLOSSOM' ASTILBE 25% POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM 25% SWORD FERN OPHIOPOGON PLAN ISCAPUS 'NIGRESCENS' BLACK MONDO GRASS VINES AKEBIA QUINATA FIVELEAF AKEBIA TYPE III LANDSCAPING - 4' W MIN. AT PARKING PER CITY OF EDMONDS CODE 20.13.030, (SHRUBS WITH GROUNDCOVER BETWEEN, SPACING PER BELOW) 000000 50% VIBURNUM DAVIDII DAVID'S VIBURNUM 50% ESCALLONIA 'FRADESII' (NON -DWARF) ESCALLONIA (NON -DWARF) EPIMEDIUM ALPINUM (BETWEEN SHRUBS, SPACING AT NOTED) EPIMEDIUM 1 GAL. CONT. 18'' O.C. 1 GAL. CONT. 18'' O.C. 1 GAL. CONT. 18'' O.C. 1 GAL. CONT. REF. DET 3/1-3. 5 GAL. CONT. AS SHOWN 5 GAL. CONT. 36" O.C. 5 GAL. CONT. 36" O.C. 1 GAL. CONT. 18'' O.C. a Found Mon EX. LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED, TYP. PROTECTION FENCING - PROPERTY LINE EX. TREE TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED, TYP. EX. CAR CHARGING STATION w Z w, QI L1.1 STREET TREE PLANTING WITH GRATE I II CLEARANCE ZONE FOR VAULTS, REF. CIVIL/MECH TYPE III LANDSCAPING AT PARKING, 4' W MIN. PER CITY OF EDMONDS CODE 20.13.030 i I I .I ON -GRADE TOPSOIL: 1. TOPSOIL: TWO-WAY MIX, AVAILABLE AT PACIFIC TOPSOIL, KENMORE, WA (800)884-7645, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. PREPARATION: LOOSEN SUBGRADE SOIL TO MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES W/CULTIMULCHER OR SIMILAR EQUIPMENT. REMOVE STONES, GRAVEL, STICKS, ETC. 3. PLACEMENT: TOPSOIL MINIMUM DEPTH 8 SPREAD APPROX. 1 /2 THE THICKNESS OF PLANTING SOIL MIX OVER LOOSENED SUBGRADE. MIX THOROUGHLY INTO TOP 4-INCHES OF SUBGRADE. SPREAD REMAINDER TO MEET REQUIRED GRADES. HOLD 3'' BELOW ADJACENT PAVED WALKS, CURBS, AND PLANTER WALLS. MULCH: 1. BARK MULCH: PACIFIC GARDEN MULCH, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AND SHALL BE NO LESS THAN 2 OR MORE THAN 4 YEARS OLD. MINIMUM DEPTH 2''. NOTE: 1. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS TO RECEIVE PERMANENT IN -GROUND IRRIGATION. SEE IRRIGATION PLANS. DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons West Building 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job sife. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Karen Kiest Landscape Architects 1 1 1 west john street suite 306 seattle washington 98119 206 323 6032 www.kk-la.com of WASH i S. k,�sIX o � 2 U0 ^oXIti \� �Fp 8s� EXP. 12 PSG �gNUs APE Permit Set ISSUED: 2019.05.08 Planting Plan L3.0 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 145 5.1.p n DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING SCALE: NTS NOTE: SEE L3.0 FOR PLANT SIZE AND CONDITION. (4) SHRUBS PER PLANTER, SEE PLANS FOR SPECIES LOOP EACH TIE AROUND TREE AT HALF HEIGHT, PROVIDE 1''SLACK FOR TRUNK GROWTH 'CHAINLOCK' OR EQUAL TREE TIE MATERIAL (1" WIDTH), NAIL OR STAPLE TIE TO STAKE TO HOLD STAKE VERTICAL 2"x2"x8' WOOD STAKE, KEEP CLEAR OF ROOTBALL SET CROWN OF ROOTBALL 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE AND REMOVEY2 BURLAP AND ALL STRAPS FROM ROOTBALL MULCH, SEE PLANS FOR TYPE AND DEPTH FINISH GRADE PLANTING SOIL, SEE PLANS FOR TYPE AND DEPTH ROUGHEN SIDES OF PLANTING HOLE COMPACTED SUBGRADE PLANTER, SEE MATERIALS LIST 1-1.0, AND PLANS Iv z EDGE OF GROUNDCOVER AREA/ WALK EDGE DISTANCE FROM EDGE IS 1 /2 THE SPECIFIED O.C. SPACING ROW PLANT CENTER TRI-SPACE, AT SPECIFIED O.C. DISTANCE - EQUIDISTANT NOTES 1. BARK MULCH SHOULD NOT COME IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKS OR SHRUB BRANCHES & STEMS. 2. SCARIFY EDGES OF ALL PLANTING PITS TO ENCOURAGE WATER PERCOLATION AND ROOT PENETRATION. 2'' DEPTH MIN. MULCH, EXCEPT AT GREEN ROOF ROOTBALL AMENDED TOPSOIL (ON GRADE CONDITION) OR LIGHT WEIGHT PLANTING SOIL MIX (ON STRUCTURE CONDITION) NATIVE SOIL OR PLANTER 2 SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SCALE: NTS WALL OR FENCE ill 2" DEPTH MULCH (14) OPHIOPOGON PLANISCAPUS 'NIGRESCENS' / MONDO GRASS PLANTING III III III III SOIL 2 X 8 PLANTER PLANTING LAYOUT @ PLANTERS SCALE: 1" = 1'= 0'' MANUF. PLANTER - SOIL DEPTH SCALE: NTS I'GAP VINE PLANTING SCALE: NTS TRAIN VINE AGAINST ADJACENT SUPPORT. PROVIDE STAKE & VINE TIE, TYP. PLANT VINE AT THE SAME LEVEL AS GROWN IN NURSERY MULCH, TAPER TO AVOID CONTACT W/ STEM ADJACENT PAVING nog' s ROOT BALL REMOVE ALL BINDINGS FROM TRUNK/STEM NATIVE SOIL AND SUBGRADE 9 DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE David DiMarco 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 architect@icloud.com 206.355.6795 www.dimarcoarchitecture.com Main Street Commons West Building 550 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Drawings and Specifications as instruments of service are and shall remain the property of the Architect. They are not to be used on extensions of the project, or other projects except by agreement in writing and appropriate compensation to the Architect. The General Contractor is responsible for confirming and correlating dimensions at the job site. The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the project. © DiMarco Architecture Karen Kiest Landscape Architects 1 1 1 west john street suite 306 seattle washington 98119 206 323 6032 www.kk-la.com of WASH S. o � 2 o U s� EXP 0 8S�2 G� Q P� �gNDSCAPE Permit Set ISSUED: 2019.05.08 Planting Details L3. 1 N 0 0 0 N z J a 3 W 0 W 0 N d N M t a c 0 E E 0 U a> L E L 0 CL L r a m 0 a r X w E a EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 3 - P L N 2 0190024 Packet Pg. 146 MAIN STREET COMMONS MATERIALS LIST - RIGHT OF WAY CONCRETE PAVING PER CITY OF EDMONDS STD DETAIL TR-531, MATCH EX. SCORING NORTH/SOUTH AT CORNER, EAST/WEST SCORING PER PLAN. COORDINATE PAVING W/ TREE GRATES PER STD DETAIL TR-551 ---T -- THROUGH JOINT ■ TREE GRATE 3' X 3' PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD, SEE DETAIL TR-55, APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER JEANIE McCONNELL 11/1/2018 HANGING FLOWER BASKET POLE PER CITY OF EDMONDS STD DETAIL TR-552 MATERIALS LIST - ON SITE PAVERS METROPOLITAN SERIES, STANDARD REPEATING PATTERN SHOWN, AVAILABLE FROM ABBOTSFORD CONCRETE PRODUCTS, 1-800-663-4091 SAND SET, INSTALL PER MFG. INSTRUCTIONS CONCRETE W/SCORING LIGHT SAND BLAST W/ SAWCUT JOINTS SCORE PER PLAN BIKE RACK - TO BE LOCATED ON SITE "OAHU NO SCRATCH CIRCULAR BIKE RACK" BY SPORTSWORKS, EMBED, STAINLESS STEEL FINISH, INSTALL PER MFG. RECOMMENDATIONS STONE BENCH 2' W X 6XL X 18" HT AT FIN. GRADE, SALT & PEPPER GRANITE W/SAWN TOP AND BOTTOM, SPLIT FACES. SEE DETAIL FOR DEPTH. PLANTERS RECTANGULAR PLANTERS, FIBERGLASS, BY TOURNESOL SITEWORKS. 961 X 24"W X 36" HT, WILSHIRE COLLECTION COLOR: FLAT BLACK SITE FURNITURE �1r OWNER FURNISHED o FESTIVAL LIGHTING EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 rf ce Mor P OPERT Qi TENANT TENANT .I % ENTRY � ENTRY a 1.... _. I — + m TENANT ENTRY — AL Ov w � Z Lu PHASE 2 AL > Q 1 I --"�'- I LOBBY ENTRY I �I ALI I� I i MURAUALLLLEY1-7 — TIx I NIA q. AL , I O � ALI U �y 53 _ i G -SS � -SS A I I F Y— Y SS _ In 22 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLN20190024 N d N R t a N C 0 E 0 U m m L C .C� C y C d t ci TC C to 0 Q TC N N R t a m a Lo t x LLI C t 0 m Q I Packet Pg. 147 5.1.p STREETSCAPE — — N �❑ C 'r C m 0 0 a wl LL, 0 =l = o E- - - 0 d M MATERIALS LIST - RIGHT OF WAY — \ N CONCRETE PAVING PER CITY OF EDMONDS STD DETAIL TR-531, MATCH EX. SCORING NORTH/SOUTH AT _ di CORNER, EAST/WEST SCORING PER PLAN. COORDINATE AI PAVING W/TREE GRATES °._ TENANT TENANT PER I, JENTRY C ---1 -- THROUGH JOINT ° ° I U d TREE GRATE ■ 3' X 3' PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARD, I SEE DETAIL TR-55, APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER JEANIE McCONNELL 11/1/2018 — AL � HANGING FLOWER BASKET POLE TENANT _ ca PER CITY OF EDMONDS STD DETAIL TR-552 - f ENTRY p LH A (` O r fl AS � AL +, I p ®Q a I y L LJ � r I' Qi \ (n LOBBY t Q j aENTRY 1 d m AL Q LL, IMU�f ,� �I ,�, ° 34 III Ab- -r_ a I f 4 i ALLEY � fa a ° ° ° ° I ° L — s I� �° a_ W _ Li —I f 0 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 1 8771 SITE MATERIALS LIST - ON SITE PAVERS METROPOLITAN SERIES, STANDARD REPEATING PATTERN SHOWN, AVAILABLE FROM ABBOTSFORD CONCRETE PRODUCTS, 1-800-663-4091 SAND SET, INSTALL PER MFG. INSTRUCTIONS CON CRETEW/SCORING LIGHT SAND BLAST W/ SAWCUT JOINTS SCORE PER PLAN BIKE RACK -TO BE LOCATED ON SITE "OAHU NO SCRATCH CIRCULAR BIKE RACK" BY SPORTSWORKS, EMBED, STAINLESS STEEL FINISH, INSTALL PER MFG. RECOMMENDATIONS STONE BENCH 2' W X 6XL X 18" HT AT FIN. GRADE, SALT & PEPPER GRANITE W/SAWN TOP AND BOTTOM, SPLIT FACES. SEE DETAIL FOR DEPTH. PLANTERS RECTANGULAR PLANTERS, FIBERGLASS, BY TOURNESOL SITEWORKS. 961 X 24"W X 36" HT, WILSHIRE COLLECTION COLOR: FLAT BLACK SITE FURNITURE OWNER FURNISHED O —e-- FESTIVAL LIGHTING 4,1 L LI 5 F Lul w I N. �. .� ■■�IN TENANT rl r TENANT ENTRY II b b I 7 I I � aaa a 0 1 1` 10 PHASE 2 F A-0 a I� I LOBBY ENTRY A� AL I MURALIALLEY -__ I QI — T EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 1 9771 � k� s as � T'.) � ' �:►�11ba��`Y ;�l 114 ROW JAWt it w w _ }w 5.1.p Materials Metropolitan Series, Abbotsford, Natural with Charcoal O tt6 Light Sandblast Finish with Sawcut Joints Stone Slab Bench N d N L i' d Z 1 0 f CD GI 11 L / - s c • �_ • -. ea Stepstone Narrow Mod.' Pavers Tectura Plank Pavers (Google) Brick Pavers (Permeable C � H � d rn J � ++ N R d r Festival Lights Q EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 151 PLANTING PLAN --,� wIw a � rf ce Mor -- t P OPERT � I I I 7_�� - PLANT LIST TENANT TENANT ENTRY SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME I` ENTRY Iw STREET TREES —EX. TREE, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED m m A@ w Z MAGNOLIA DENUDATA (SPECIES SENT TO CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEER JEANIE TENANT ENTRY PHASE 2 I I w McCONNELL FOR APPROVAL 3/20/2019( _ AL � ON -SITE TREES Q SPECIMEN TREE - -Iq q- + _ y LARGE SHRUBS -I.. LAGERSTROEMIA'NATCHEZ' SHRUBS / GRASSES -TO BE CHOSEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: _ - - +__BUXUSMICROPHYLLAJAPONICA'WINTER GEM' ""` LOBBY CORNUS STOLONIFERA'KELSEYI' ENTRY I a I ®-HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA 'LIMEMOUND' ILEX CRENATA I � I ALI aLONICERA PILEATA 'DENISTAR' - -"- °,;,p I q C� AL -' &—SPIRAEA X BUMALDA I IMU RALIALLEY 0NANDINA DOMESTICA'GULF STREAM' Q PIERIS JAPONICA'CAVATINE' - I ---- A_ - I - T_ L "I &VIBURNUM DAVIDII -11 -- — ti �. Ir I T- I ®ESCALLONIA FRADESII (NON -DWARF) GROUNDCOVERS ---- ----� ° --- I N 50% EPIMEDIUM ALPINUM 25%ASTILBEXARENDSII 'PEACH BLOSSOM' - I • •. • .. J - 4 - --� --`-- � AL _� 25% POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM ° . ° ° " a: O I ALI U � I CD CD IT~— \X N 89°58'53 E 5 98' �y 53° /I SS ALF�Y� SS — 22 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 152 5.1.p Plants I Plants I Pots PLANT LIST SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME STREETTREES —EX. TREE, TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED MAGNOLIA DENUDATA (SPECIES SENT TO CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEER JEANIE McCONNELL FOR APPROVAL 3/20/2019) ON -SITE TREES SPECIMEN TREE LARGE SHRUBS LAGERSTROEMIA'NATCHEZ' SHRUBS / GRASSES -TO BE CHOSEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: +--BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA 'WINTER GEM' CORNUS STOLONIFERA'KELSEYI' ®-HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA 'LIMEMOUND' ILEX CRENATA aLONICERA PILEATA &—SPIRAEA X BUMALDA'DENISTAR' O—NANDINA DOMESTICA'GULF STREAM' 0 PIERIS JAPONICA'CAVATINE' VIBURNUM DAVIDII ®ESCALLONIA'FRADESII' (NON -DWARF) GROUNDCOVERS 50% EPIMEDIUM ALPINUM 25%ASTILBE X ARENDSII'PEACH BLOSSOM' 25% POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM Japanese Maple Sweetbay Magnolia N AL, W w c a FL Pine N O Beech EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 4 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 153 5.1.p Applying the Design Guidelines When designing projects and issuing permits for new developments, applicants and City staff will rely on these guidelines to help define specific design conditions that will be required for project approval. As these design guidelines get applied to particular development projects, some important things to remember are: 1. Each project is unique and will pose unique design issues. Even two similar proposals on the same block may face different design considerations. With some projects, trying to follow all of the guidelines could produce irreconcilable conflicts in the design. With most projects, reviewers will find some guidelines more important than others, and the guidelines that are most important on one project might not be important at all on the next one. The design review process will help designers and reviewers to determine which guidelines are most important in the context of each project so that they may put the most effort into accomplishing the intent of those guidelines. 2. Project must be reviewed in the context of their zoning and the zoning of their surroundings. The use of design guidelines is not intended to change the zoning designations of land where projects are proposed; it is intended to demonstrate methods of treating the appearance of new projects to help them fit their neighborhoods and to provide the Code flexibility necessary to accomplish that. Where the surrounding neighborhood exhibits a lower development intensity than is current zoning allow, the lower -intensity character should not force a proponent to significantly reduce the allowable size of the new building. 3. Many of the guidelines suggest using the existing context to determine appropriate solutions for the project under consideration. In some areas, the existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, the new project should be recognized as a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In light of number 2 above, the site's zoning should be considered an indicator of the desired direction for the area and the project. 4. Each guideline includes examples and illustrations of ways in which that guidelines can be achieved. The examples are just that — examples. They are not the only acceptable solution. Designers and reviewers should consider designs, styles and techniques not described in the examples but that fulfill the guideline. 5. The checklist which follows the guidelines (Checklist) is a tool for w determining whether or not a particular guideline applies to a site, so that the guidelines may be more easily prioritized. The checklist is neither a regulatory device, nor a substitute for evaluating a sites conditions, or to summarize the language of examples found in the guidelines themselves. a Page 1 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 154 5.1.p Considering the Site Edmond's Land Use Code sets specific, prescriptive rules that are applied uniformly for each land use zone throughout the city. There is little room in the Code's development standards to account for unique site conditions or neighborhood contexts. A project architect can read the Code requirements and theoretically design a building without ever visiting the site. However, to produce good compatible design, it is critical that the project's design team examine the site and its surrounding, identify the key design features and determine how the proposed project can address the guidelines' objectives. Because they rely on the project's context to help shape the project, the guidelines encourage an active viewing of the site and its surroundings. For a proposal located on a street with a consistent and distinctive architectural character, the architectural elements of the building may be key to helping the building fit the neighborhood. On other sites with few attractive neighboring buildings, the placement of open space and treatment of pedestrian areas may be the most important concerns. The applicant and the project reviewers should consider the following questions and similar ones related to context when looking at the site: ■ What are the key aspects of the streetscape? (The street's layout and visual character) ■ Are there opportunities to encourage human activity and neighborhood interaction, while promoting residents' privacy and physical security? ■ How can vehicle access have the least effect on the pedestrian environment and on the visual quality of the site? ■ Are there any special site planning opportunities resulting from the site's configuration, natural features, topography etc.? ■ What are the most important contextual concerns for pedestrians? How could the sidewalk environment be improved? ■ Does the street have characteristic landscape features, plant materials, that could be incorporated into the design? ■ Are there any special landscaping opportunities such as steep topography, significant trees, greenbelt, natural area, park or boulevard that should be addressed in the design? ■ Do neighboring buildings have distinctive architectural style, site configuration, architectural concept? Page 2 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 155 5.1.p Design Guidelines Checklist This checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines. It is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. A. Site Planning N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Encourage human activity on street ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Discourage parking in street front ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Bulk and Scale N/A Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less- ❑ ❑ ❑ intensive zones Page 3 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 156 5.1.p C. Architectural Elements and Materials N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Unified architectural concept ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Use human scale and human activity ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize garage entrances ❑ ❑ ❑ D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Avoid blank walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Minimize height of retaining walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Consider personal safety ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Landscaping N/A Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site ❑ ❑ ❑ conditions Page 4 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 157 5.1.p A-1: Responding to Site Characteristics The siting of buildings should respond to specific site conditions and opportunities such as non -rectangular lots, location on prominent intersections, unusual topography, significant vegetation and other natural features. Explanations and Examples Site characteristics to consider in project design include: 1) Topography • Reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. For instance, buildings should be designed to "step up" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. • Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions in their sites in a consistent and positive way, consider similar treatment for the new structure. • Designing the building in relation to topography may help to reduce the visibility of parking garages. 2) Environmental constraints • Site buildings to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. 3) Solar orientation • The design of a structure and its massing on the site can enhance solar exposure for the project and minimize shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. 4) Existing vegetation • Careful siting of buildings can enable significant or important trees or other vegetation to be preserved. 5) Existing structures on the site Where a new structure shares a site with an existing structure or is a major addition to an existing structure, designing the new structure to be compatible with the original structure will help it fit in. A-2: Streetscape Compatibility The siting of buildings should acknowledge and reinforce the existing desirable spatial characteristics of the right-of-way. Explanation and Examples The character of a neighborhood is often defined by the experience of traveling along its streets. We often perceive streets within neighborhoods as individual spaces or "rooms." How buildings face and are set back from the street determine the character and proportion of this room. Page 5 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 158 5.1.p A-3: Entrances Visible from the Street Entries should be clearly identifiable and visible from the street. Explanation and Examples Entries that are visible from the street make a project more approachable and create a sense of association among neighbors. A-4: Human Activity New development should be sited and designed to encourage human activity on the street. Explanation and Examples Livelier street edges make for safer streets. Ground floor shops and market spaces providing services needed by residents can attract market activity to the street and increase safety through informal surveillance. Entrances, porches, awnings, balconies, decks, seating and other elements can promote use of the street front and provide places for neighborly interaction. Siting decisions should consider the importance of these features in a particular context and allow for their incorporation. Also, architectural elements and details can add to the interest and excitement of buildings and spaces. Elements from the following list should be incorporated into all projects. Projects in pedestrian oriented areas of the City should include an even greater number of these details due to the scale of the buildings and the proximity of the people that will experience them. • Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets • Belt courses • Plinths for columns • Kickplate for storefront window • Projecting sills • Tilework • Transom or clerestory windows • Planter box • Variations in applied ornament, materials, colors or trim. • An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Page 6 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 159 5.1.p In pedestrian oriented areas, ground floor commercial space is encouraged to be at grade with the sidewalk. If the entrance can not be located at the grade of the sidewalk, special care must be taken to ensure that there is both a visual and physical connection between the pedestrian way and the entrance that enhances the pedestrian orientation of the building. The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to street fronts in the CW, BC, BN, and BP zones shall have transparent windows to engage the public. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under the section Treating Blank Walls'. In the Downtown Commercial Core The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to streets should have a substantial amount of transparent windows, especially in the retail core. A primary function of the pedestrian oriented retail core is to allow for the visual interaction between the walking public and the goods and services businesses located on the first floor are providing. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under the section Treating Blank Walls'. Buildings that are entirely residential do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all -residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the guidelines under the section 'Treating Blank Walls'. That portion of Ground level spaces that opens up to the sidewalk through means of sliding or roll up doors shall be considered to comply with any transparency requirements regardless of the amount of glass in the opening. Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. They may be structural (permanently attached to and part of the building) or non-structural (attached to the building using a metal or other framework). To enhance the visibility of business signage retractable awnings are encouraged and should be open -sided. Front valances are permitted and signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. Marquee, box, or convex awning shapes are not permitted. Awnings should be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings should also be hung just below a clerestory or "transom" Page 7 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 160 5.1.p window, if it exists. Awnings on a multiple -storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high - gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Structural Awnings should be designed to incorporate natural light. Artificial lighting should only be used at night. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail is consistent with the design elements mentioned above that enhance the interest of the area. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Signage in the "Arts Center Corridor" defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places A-5: Respect for Adjacent Sites Buildings should respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings. Explanation and Examples One consideration is the views from upper stories of new buildings into adjacent houses or yards, especially in less intensive zones. This problem can be addressed in several ways. • Reduce the number of windows and decks on the _ proposed building overlooking the neighbors. • Step back the upper floors or increase the side or rear setback so that window areas are farther from the property line. • Take advantage of site design which might reduce impacts, for example by using adjacent ground floor area for an entry court. • Minimize windows to living spaces which might infringe on the privacy of adjacent residents, but consider comfort of residents in the new building. • Stagger windows to not align with adjacent windows. Page 8 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 161 5.1.p A-6: Transition Between Residence and Street For residential projects, the space between the building and the sidewalk should provide security and privacy for residents and encourage social interaction among residents and neighbors. Explanation and Examples The transition between a residential building and the street varies with the depth of the front setback and the relative elevation of the building to the street. A-7: Residential Open Space Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well -integrated open space. Examples and Explanations Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site planning elements: • Courtyards which organize architectural elements, while providing a common garden or other uses. • Entry enhancement such as landscaping along a common pathway. A-8: Parking and Vehicle Access Siting should minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties and pedestrian safety. Explanation and Examples Techniques used to minimize the impacts of driveways and parking lots include: • Locate surface parking at rear or side lots. • Break large parking lots into smaller ones. • Minimize number and width of driveways and curb cuts. • Share driveways with adjacent property owners. • Locate parking in lower level or less visible portions of site. • Locate driveways so they are visually less dominant. Access should be provided in the following order of priority: i) If there is an alley, vehicular access should use the alley. Where feasible, the exit route should use the alley. V /N Page 9 of 22 Revised by ADB 311 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 162 5.1.p ii) For corner parcels, access should be off the secondary street rather than the primary street. iii) Share the driveway with an adjacent property. This can be a driveway with two-way traffic. iv) A driveway serving a single project is the least preferred option. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., should comply with the following: i) Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. ii) Drive -through speakers shall not be audible off -site. iii) The entrance and exit from the drive -through shall be internal to the site, not a separate entrance and/or exit to or from the street. A-9: Location of Parking on Commercial Street Fronts Parking on a commercial street front should be minimized and where possible should be located behind a building. Explanation and Examples Parking located along a commercial street front where pedestrian traffic is desirable lessens the attractiveness of the area to pedestrians and compromises the safety of pedestrians along the street. A-10: Corner Lots Building on corner lots should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. Parking and automobile access should be located away from corners. Explanation and Examples Corner lots offer unique opportunities because of their visibility and access from two streets. (above and below) Corner lot treatments. Page 10 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 163 5.1.p B-1: Bulk, and Scale Compatibility Projects should be compatible with the scale of development anticipated by the applicable Land Use Policies for the surrounding area and should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to near -by, less intensive zones. Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived bulk, and scale between anticipated development potential of the adjacent zones. Explanation and Examples For projects undergoing Design Review, the analysis and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts will be accomplished through the Design Review process. Careful siting and design treatment based on the technique described in this and other design guidelines will help to mitigate somE bulk and scale impacts; in other cases, actual reduction in the bulk and scale of a project may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts. Design Review should not result in significant reductions in a project's actual bulk and scale. Bulk and scale mitigation may be required in two general circumstances: 1. Projects on or near the edge of a less intensive zone. A substantial incompatibility in scale may result from different development standards in the two zones and may be compounded by physical factors such a s large development sites, slopes or lot orientation. 2. Projects proposed on sites with unusual physical characteristics such as large lot size, or unusual shape, or topography where buildings may appear substantially greater in bulk and scale than that generally anticipated for the area. Factors to consider in analyzing potential bulk and scale impacts include: • distance from the edge of a less intensive zone • differences in development standards between abutting zones (allowable building width, lot coverage, etc.) • effect of site size and shape • bulk and scale relationships resulting from lot orientation (e.g. back lot line to back lot line vs. back lot line to side lot line) • type and amount of separation between lots in the different zones (e.g. separation by only a property line, by an alley or street, or by other physical features such as grade changes). Page 11 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 164 5.1.p In some cases, careful siting and design treatment may be sufficient to achieve reasonable transition and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts. Some techniques for achieving compatibility are as follows: • use of architectural style, details (such as roof lines or fenestration), color or materials that derive from the less intensive zone. (See also Guideline C-1: Architectural Context.) • creative use of landscaping or other screening • location of features on -site to facilitate transition, such as locating required open space on the zone edge so the building us farther from the lower intensity zone. • treating topographic conditions in ways that minimize impacts on neighboring development, such as by using a rockery rather than a retaining wall to give a more human scale to a project, or stepping a project down a hillside. • in a mixed -use project, siting the more compatible use near the zone edge. In some cases, reductions in the actual bulk and scale of the proposed structure may be necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts and achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. Some techniques which can be used in these cases include: • articulating the building's facades vertically or horizontally in intervals that conform to existing structures or platting pattern. • increasing building setbacks from the zone edge at ground level • reducing the bulk of the building's upper floors • limiting the length of, or otherwise modifying, facades • reducing the height of the structure • reducing the number or size of accessory structures. C-1: Architectural Context New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Explanation and Examples Paying attention to architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, especially historic buildings, can help new buildings be more compatible with their neighbors, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar: • building articulation • building scale and proportion • or complementary architectural style • or complementary roof forms • building details and fenestration patterns • or complementary materials Even where there is no consistent architectural pattern, building design and massing can be used to complement certain physical conditions of existing development. In some cases, the existing context is not so well-defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a new project can become a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. Page 12 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 165 5.1.p In most cases, especially in the downtown commercial area, Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base' and 'top'. Abase' can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Architectural Features Below are several methods that can help integrate new buildings into the surrounding architectural context, using compatible: architectural features fenestration patterns, and building proportions. Building Articulation Below are several methods in which buildings may be articulated to create intervals which reflect and promote compatibility with their surroundings: • modulating the facade by stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade • repeating the window patterns at an interval that equals the articulation interval • providing a porch, patio, deck or covered entry for each interval • providing a balcony or bay window for each interval • changing the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval • changing the materials with a change in the building plane • providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature with each interval C-2: Architectural Concept and Consistency Building design elements, details and massing should create a well-proportioned and unified building form and exhibit an overall architectural concept. Buildings should exhibit form and features identifying the functions within the building. In general, the roofline or top of the structure should be clearly distinguished from its facade walls. Explanation and Examples This guideline focuses on the important design consideration of organizing the many architectural elements of a building into a unified whole, so that details and features can be seen to relate to the structure and not appear as add-ons. The other objective of this guideline is to promote buildings whose form is derived from its function. Buildings which present few or no clues through their design as to what purpose they serve are often awkward architectural neighbors. For example, use of expansive blank walls, extensive use of metal or glass siding, or extremely large or small windows in a residential project may create architectural confusion 1"Ilm'I'm `I6 middle base Page 13 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 166 5.1.p or disharmony with its neighbors. Conversely, commercial buildings which overly mimic residential styles might be considered inappropriate in some commercial neighborhoods. Often times, from an architectural design perspective buildings will convey a visually distinct base' and 'top'. A base' can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Other architectural features included in the design of a building may include any number of the following: • building modulation or articulation • bay windows • corner accent, such as a turret • garden or courtyard elements (such as a fountain or gazebo) • rooflines • building entries • building base Architectural details may include some of the following: • treatment of masonry (such as ceramic tile inlay, paving stones, or alternating brick patterns) • treatment of siding (such as wood siding combined with shingles to differentiate floors) • articulation of columns • sculpture or art work • architectural lighting • detailed grilles and railings • special trim details and moldings • a trellis or arbor W "MI top base Page 14 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 167 5.1.p C-3: Human Scale The design of new buildings should incorporate architectural features, elements and details to achieve a good human scale. Explanation and Examples The term "human scale" generally refers to the use of human -proportioned architectural features and site design elements clearly oriented to human activity. A building has a good human scale if its details, elements and materials allow people to feel comfortable using and approaching it. Features that give a building human scale also encourage human activity. The following are some of the building elements that may be used to achieve better human scale: • pedestrian -oriented open space such as a courtyard, garden, patio, or other unified landscaped areas • bay windows extending out from the building face that reflect an internal space such as a room or alcove • individual windows in upper stories that o are approximately the size and proportion of a traditional window o include a trim or molding that appears substantial from the sidewalk o are separated from adjacent windows by a vertical element • windows grouped together to form larger areas of glazing can have a human scale if individual window units are separated by moldings or jambs ■ windows with small multiple panes of glass ■ window patterns, building articulation and other treatments that help to identify individual residential units in a multi -family building ■ upper story setbacks ■ a porch or covered entry • pedestrian weather protection in the form of canopies, awnings, arcades or other elements wide enough to protect at least one person ■ visible chimneys C-4: Exterior Finish Materials Building exteriors should be constructed of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing are encouraged. Explanation and Examples The selection and use of exterior materials is a key ingredient in determining how a building will look. Some materials, by their nature, can give a sense of permanence or can provide texture or scale that helps new buildings fit better in their surroundings. Page 15 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 168 5.1.p Materials typical to the northwest include: • clear or painted wood siding • shingles • brick • stone • ceramic and terra-cotta tile Many other exterior building materials may be appropriate in multifamily and commercial neighborhoods as long as the materials are appropriately detailed and finished, for instance, to take account of the northwest's climate or be compatible with nearby structures. Some materials, such as mirrored glass, may be more difficult to integrate into residential or neighborhood commercial settings. D-1: Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrance Convenient and attractive access to the building's entry should be provided. To ensure comfort and security, paths and entry areas should be sufficiently lighted and entry areas should be protected from the weather. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian -oriented open space should be considered. Explanation and Examples If a building is set back from the sidewalk, the space between the building and public right-of-way may be conducive to pedestrian or resident activity. In business districts where pedestrian activity is desired, the primary function of any open space between commercial buildings and the sidewalk is to provide visual and physical access into the building and perhaps also to provide a space for additional outdoor activities such as vending, resting, sitting or dining. Street fronts can also feature art work, street furniture and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building's setting. Where a commercial or mixed -use building is set back from the sidewalk a sufficient distance, pedestrian enhancements should be considered in the resulting street front Examples of desirable features to include: • visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) into the site from the public sidewalk • walking surfaces of attractive pavers • pedestrian -scaled site lighting • areas for vendors in commercial areas • landscaping that screens undesirable elements or that enhances the space and architecture • signage which identifies uses and shops clearly but which is scaled to the pedestrian • site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, benches, pergolas, kiosks, etc. Examples of features to avoid are: asphalt or gravel pavement adjacent unscreened parking lots adjacent chain -link fences Page 16 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 169 5.1.p • adjacent blank walls without appropriate screening The following treatment of entrances can provide emphasis and interest: • special detailing or architectural features such as ornamental glazing, railings and balustrades, awnings, canopies, decorative pavement, decorative lighting, seats, architectural molding, planter boxes, trellises, artwork signs, or other elements near the doorway. • visible signage identifying building address • Higher bay(s) • Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) • Forecourt D-2: Blank Walls — See pages 8-9 from guidelines blank walls Buildings should avoid large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. Where blank walls are unavoidable they should receive design treatment to increase pedestrian comfort and interest. Explanation and Examples A wall may be considered "large" if it has a blank surface substantially greater in size than similar walls of neighboring buildings. The following examples are possible methods for treating blank walls: • installing vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plants materials • setting the wall back and providing a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, including plant materials that could grow to obscure or screen the wall's surface • providing art (mosaic, mural, decorative masonry pattern, sculpture, relief, etc.) over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface • employing small setbacks, indentations, or other means of breaking up the wall's surface • providing special lighting, a canopy, horizontal trellis or other pedestrian -oriented features that break up the size of the blank wall's surface and add visual interest • An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent D-3: Retaining Walls lighting mode projecting cornice — masonry belt course metal canopy Z4 recess Retaining walls near a public sidewalk that extend higher than eye level should be avoided where possible. Where higher retaining walls are unavoidable, they should be designed to reduce their impact on pedestrian comfort and to increase the visual interest along the streetscapes. opaque glass windows. Blank walls shall be treated with architectural elements to provide visual interest. Page 17 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 170 5.1.p Explanation and Examples The following are examples of methods to treat retaining walls: • any of the techniques or features listed under blank walls above • terracing and landscaping the retaining walls • substituting a stone wall, rockery, modular masonry, or special material • locating hanging plant materials below or above the wall D-4: Design of Parking Lots Near Sidewalks Parking lots near sidewalks should provide adequate security and lighting, avoid encroachment of vehicles onto the sidewalk, and minimize the visual clutter of parking lot signs and equipment. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate some considerations to address in highly visible parking lots: Treatment of parking area perimeter the edges of parking lots pavement adjacent to landscaped areas and other pavement can be unsightly and difficult to maintain. Providing a curb at the perimeter of parking areas can alleviate these problems. Security lighting provide the appropriate levels of lighting to create adequate visibility at night. Evenly distributed lighting increases security, and glare -free lighting reduces impacts on nearby property. Encroachment of cars onto the sidewalk without wheel stops or a low wall, parked cars can hang over sidewalks. One technique to protect landscaped and pedestrian areas from encroachment by parked cars is to provide a wide wheel stop about two feet from the sidewalk. Another technique is to widen a sidewalk or planting bed basically "building in" a wheel stop into the sidewalk or planting bed. This is more durable than wheel stops, does not catch debris and reduces tripping hazards. Signs and equipment • reduce sign clutter by painting markings on the pavement or by consolidating signs. Provide storage that is out of view from the sidewalk and adjacent properties for moveable or temporary equipment like sawhorses or barrels. Screening of parking screening of parking areas need not be uniform along the property frontage. Variety in the type and relative amount of screening may be appropriate. screen walls constructed of durable, attractive materials need not extend above waist level. Screen walls across a street or adjacent to a residential zone could also include landscaping or a trellis or grillwork with climbing vines. screening can be designed to provide clear visibility into parking areas to promote personal safety. Page 18 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 171 5.1.p D-5: Visual Impacts of Parking Structures The visibility of all at -grade parking structures or accessory parking garages should be minimized. The parking portion of a structure should be architecturally compatible com with the rest of the structure N' -"� �' p Illi..:'''`' y .:. and streetscape. Open parking spaces and carports should be ! 1�i screened from the street and adjacent properties. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate various methods of improving the — appearance of at -grade parking structures: • incorporating pedestrian -oriented uses at street level can reduce the visual impact of parking structures in commercial areas. Sometimes a depth of only 10 feet along the front of the building is enough to provide space for newsstands, ticket booths, flower shops and other viable uses. • setting the parking structure back from the sidewalk and installing dense landscaping • incorporating any of the blank wall treatments listed in Guideline D-2 • visually integrating the parking structure with adjacent buildings ■ continuing a frieze, cornice, canopy, overhang, trellis or other devices at the top of the parking level ■ incorporating into the parking structure a well -lit pedestrian walkway, stairway or ramp from the sidewalk to the upper level of the building ■ setting back a portion of the parking structure to allow for the retention of an existing significant tree • using a portion of the top of the larking level as an outdoor deck, patio or garden with a rail, bench or other guard device around the perimeter D-6: Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas Building sites should locate service elements like trash dumpsters, loading docks and mechanical equipment away from the street front where possible while maintaining access to utilities. When elements such as dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot be located away from the street front, they should be situated and screened from view and should not be located in the pedestrian right-of-way. Explanation and Examples Unsightly service elements can detract from the compatibility of new projects and create hazards for pedestrians and autos. The following examples illustrate considerations to address in locating and screening service areas and utilities: ■ plan the feature in a less visible location on the site ■ screen it to be less visible. For example, a utility meter can be located behind a screen wall so that it is not visible from the building entrance. ■ use durable materials that complement the building ■ incorporate landscaping to make the screen more effective ■ locate the opening to the area away from the sidewalk. Page 19 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 172 5.1.p • incorporate roof wells, utility rooms or other features to accommodate utility and mechanical equipment needs. D-7: Personal Safety and Security Project design should consider opportunities for enhancing personal safety and security in the environment under review. Explanation and Examples Project design should be reviewed for its contribution to enhancing the real and perceived feeling of personal safety and security within the environment under review. To do this, the question needs to be answered: do the design elements detract from or do they reinforce feelings of security of the residents, workers, shoppers and visitors who enter the area? Techniques that can help promote safety include the following: - • providing adequate lighting • retaining clear lines of site • use of semi -transparent security screening, rather than opaque walls, where appropriate • avoiding blank, windowless walls that attract graffiti and that do not permit residents or workers to observe the street • use of landscaping that maintains visibility, such as short shrubs and pruning trees, so there are no branches below head height • creative use of ornamental grille as fencing or over ground floor windows in some locations • absence of structures that provide hiding places for criminal activity • design of parking areas to allow natural surveillance by maintaining clear lines of sight both for those who park there and for occupants of nearby buildings • clear directional signage • encouraging "eyes on the street" through placement of windows, balconies and street -level uses • ensuring natural surveillance of children's play areas. E-1: Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with Adjacent Sites Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of neighboring properties and abutting streetscape. Explanation and Examples Several ways to reinforce the landscape design character of the local neighborhood are listed below: • Street Trees If a street has a uniform planting of street trees, or a distinctive species, plant street trees that match the planting pattern or species. Page 20 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 173 5.1.p Similar Plant Materials When many lots on a block feature similar landscape materials, emphasis on these materials will help a new project fit into the local context. Similar construction materials, textures, colors or elements Extending a low brick wall, using paving similar to a neighbor's or employing similar stairway construction are ways to achieve design continuity. E-2: Landscaping to Enhance the Building and/or Site Landscaping, including living plant material, special pavements, approach, screen walls, planters, site furniture and similar features should be appropriately incorporated into the design to enhance the project. Examples Landscape enhancements of the site may include some of the approaches or features listed below: • Soften the form of the building by screening blank walls, terracing retaining walls, etc. • Increase privacy and security through screening and/or sharing. • Provide a framework such as a trellis or arbor for plants to grow on. • Incorporate a planter guard or low planter wall as part of the architecture. • Distinctively landscape open areas created by building modulation. • Incorporate upper story planter boxes or roof planters. • Include a special feature such as a courtyard, fountain or pool. • Emphasize entries with special planting in conjunction with decorative paving and/or lighting. • Screen a building from view by its neighbors, or an existing use from the new building. E-3: Landscape Design to Address Special Site Conditions The landscape design should take advantage of special on -site conditions such as high -bank front yards, steep slopes, view corridors, or existing significant trees and off -site conditions such as greenbelts, ravines, natural areas, and boulevards. Explanation and Examples The following conditions may merit special attention. The examples suggest some ways to address the issue. High Bank Front Yard Where the building's ground floor is elevated above a sidewalk pedestrian's eye level, landscaping can help make the transition between grades. Several techniques are listed below. • rockeries with floral displays, live ground cover or shrubs. • terraces with floral displays, ground covers or shrubs. ■ low retaining walls with raised planting strips. ■ stone or brick masonry walls with vines or shrubs. Page 21 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 174 5.1.p Barrier -free Access Where wheelchair ramps must be provided on a street front, the ramp structure might include a planting strip on the sidewalk side of the elevated portions of the ramp. Steep Topography Special plantings or erosion control measures may be necessary to prevent site destabilization or to enhance the visual qualities of the site in connection with a neighborhood improvement program. Boulevards Incorporate landscaping which reflects and reinforces . Greenbelt or Other Natural Setting • Minimize the removal of significant trees. • Replace trees that were removed with new trees. • Emphasize naturalizing or native landscape materials. • Retain natural greenbelt vegetation that contributes to greenbelt preservation. • Select colors that are more appropriate to the natural setting. On -site Vegetation • Retain significant vegetation where possible. • Use new plantings similar to vegetation removed during construction, when that vegetation as distinctive. Page 22 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 5 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 175 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 1 of 15 5.1.p Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards — BD zones. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.000 Purposes. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. C. Identify supporting arts and mixed -use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ The "downtown business" zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are: BD1 — Downtown Retail Core; BD2 — Downtown Mixed Commercial; BD3 — Downtown Convenience Commercial; BD4 — Downtown Mixed Residential; BD5 — Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 176 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 2 of 15 5.1.p 16.43.020 Uses. ......... A. Table 16.43-1. Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF(1) BD2 BD3 BD4 BD Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A A A A A A Offices A X A A A A Legal/law firms A X Financial A X Advising A X Mortgage A X Banks (without tellers) A X Accounting A X Counseling A X Architecture A X Engineering A X Advertising A X Insurance A X Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club) A X Service uses A A(2) A A A A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A A Automobile sales and service X X A A X X Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents C X A A A X Printing, publishing and binding establishments C X A A A C EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 177 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 3 of 15 5.1.p Permitted Uses BD1 BD1 GFSF�1� BD2 BD3 BD4 BD Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC1 A A A A A A Residential Single-family dwelling A X A A A A Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must be located on second floor or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights -of -way A X A A A A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A A A A A A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A A Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) A X A A A A Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C C A C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A A Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B X B B B B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B X B B B X Commercial parking lots C X C C C X Wholesale uses X X X C X X Hotels and motels A A A A A A Amusement establishments C C C C C C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C X C C C C Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities) X X C A C X Laboratories X X C C C X Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X X C X X Day-care centers C X C C A C Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X X C C A X EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 178 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 4 of 15 5.1.p Permitted Uses 13131 BD1 GFSF0) BD2 BD3 BD4 BD Medical uses, e.g., A X Physicians A X Dental A X Optometrist (without retail) A X Physical therapy (without retail) A X Counseling A X Other similar medical services A X Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C X C C C A Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers X X C C A X Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D X D D D D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X X D D D D A = Permitted primary use B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted NOTES: (1) BD1 Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights- of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements. (2) Services — by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary component of the business are not allowed within BD1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate offices, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 179 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 5 of 15 5.1.p For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met: 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following: a. Architectural features or details; b. Artwork; c. Landscaping. B. Exception to the BD1 GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD1 zone may apply for an exception from the restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the following criteria: 1. The space is less than 500 square feet; 2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk; 3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and 4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § 6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.030 Site development standards. A. Table 16.43-2. Minimum Sub Minimum Lot Minimum Street District Area Lot Width Setback Minimum Minimum Side Rear Setback' Setback' Minimum Height of Ground Flo within the Maximum Designates Height Street Fron BD 15 0 0 0 0 0 30' 15' BD25 0 0 0 0 0 30' 12' BD35 0 0 0 0 0 30' 12' EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 180 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 6 of 15 5.1.p Minimum Minimum Minimum Sub Minimum Lot Minimum Street Side Rear Maximum District Area Lot Width Setback Setback' Setback' Height BD435 0 0 0 0 0 30' BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' Minimum Height of Ground Flo within the Designates Street Fron 12' 12' The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property. 2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C). 3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details. 4 "Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street -front" means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the "finished" ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example. 5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone. Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 181 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 7 of 15 5.1.p i Designated Street Front DAYTO err >. ALDER ST as WALN f ; -4 Silo Tr 1 U9 f _MAPLE ST 7�= Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 182 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 8 of 15 5.1.p I l B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. 1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of "ground floor" contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply. 2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street front for all properties lying within the BD zones. The designated street front is defined as the 45 feet measured perpendicular to the street front of the building lot fronting on each of the mapped streets. 3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (13)(2) of this section. 4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (13)(2) of this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 183 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 9 of 15 5.1.p the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply with the access requirements specified in this section. 5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (13)(4) of this section, the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be designed so that either: a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the grade level of the entry; or b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk. c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on 4th Avenue. 6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within the designated street front. 7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. 8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (13)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (13)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern. 9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (13)(7) of this section. When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements: a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. "Orientation to 4th Avenue" shall mean that: i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 184 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 10 of 15 5.1.p ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian (i.e., ground floor) level. iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be located between the building and the street front. b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on -site. i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. "Live/work space" means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation use can be established within the space. Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street. Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the street. 10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in subsections (13)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifications: a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use. b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 185 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 11 of 15 5.1.p c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the ground floor requirements for height. d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be located within that 45 feet). e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case shall the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30 feet. f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary uses, then permitted multiple -family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial uses. g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4). h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. C. Building Height Regulations. 1. The basic height limit for each BD zone is described in Table 16.43-2 (see definition of "height" detailed in ECDC 21.40.030). 2. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms. a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments. b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection (C) (2)(a) of this section, a building step -back shall be provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-foot step -back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the "average level" as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step -back is required along both street fronts. If a building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 186 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 12 of 15 5.1.p 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to provide the required step -back on both street fronts, then the step -back may be waived facing the secondary street. 3. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building. b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height limit within any building step -back required under subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section; provided, that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels. D. Off -Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off -Street Parking Regulations, the provisions of this chapter shall apply. 1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street. 2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones. E. Open Space Requirements. 1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any combination of: a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food service establishments); b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public; c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public. 2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story. 3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line). EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 187 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 13 of 15 5.1.p Figure 16.43-5. Building Size, Width and Open Space Example - Building is an four lots. each 30020 feet_ ■ Building width is 120 Feel. • Open space is required due to building width, and due io lot area. Open space provided exceetls the 5% of lol area requirement. ------- Lot Linim $gilding ArO$ r--------------- ---------------- -------- --------r--------------- % i 1 ■ i r ! 1 ■ 1 . a 1 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ k F r ! # i Total Lat Area = 14.400 5q. ft. Y 1 k 1 1 * 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! + { Building Foclprinl = 13,650 sq. 1 ft, i 1 1 ■ 1 ! Open Space Required Y 720 sq. r 1 ■ ft; 1 ! i 1 1 ■ 1 1 * 1 i 1 ! ` $uil-ding Width Parallel 1 20.-D„ to SkeeVROW ` ai i 1 i 1 ■ ■ 1 F 1 ■ 1 1 k 1 i Open Space 750 sq. ft. 1 1 ■ 1 ! 1 1 1 1 � / 1 ■ 1 ■ F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. 1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC). a. Building step -backs required under subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section. b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section. 2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC 17.50.070(C). 3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is retained on -site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring that EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 188 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 14 of 15 5.1.p the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold. G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that portion of the BD zone that is in residential use. I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone. J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 4140 § 1, 2019; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3865 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.035 Design standards — BD zones. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Design standards for the BD zones are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except: 1. Public uses such as utilities and parks; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040; 8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC; 9. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Property Performance Standards. C. Interim Use Status — Public Markets. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 189 4/26/2019 Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Page 15 of 15 5.1.p 1. Unless a public market is identified on a business license as a year-round market within the city of Edmonds, a premises licensed as a public market shall be considered a temporary use. As a temporary use, the city council finds that any signs or structures used in accordance with the market do not require design review. When a location is utilized for a business use in addition to a public market, the public market use shall not decrease the required available parking for the other business use below the standards established by Chapter 17.50 ECDC. [Ord. 3932 § 7, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3902 § 1, 2012; Ord. 3894 § 5, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 6 - PLN20190024 https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds 16/Edmonds 1643.html Packet Pg. 190 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page I of 11 5.1.p Sections: 22.43.000 22.43.010 22.43.020 22.43.030 22.43.040 22.43.050 22.43.060 22.43.070 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BD ZONES Applicability. Massing and articulation. Orientation to street. Ground level details. Awnings/canopies and signage. Transparency at street level. Treating blank walls. Building HVAC equipment. 22.43.000 Applicability. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. The design standards in this chapter apply to all development within the BD1, BD2, BD3, and BD4 downtown zones, except for multifamily buildings in the BD4 zone. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.010 Massing and articulation. ............................................................................................................................ A. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box -like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. B. Standards. 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Buildings should convey a distinct base and top. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 191 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 2 of 11 5.1.p fop base The base can be emphasized by different material(s). 2. Building facades shall respect and echo historic patterns. Where a single building exceeds the historic building width pattern, use a change in design features (such as a combination of materials, windows or decorative details) to suggest the traditional building widths. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.020 Orientation to street. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Intent. To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design. B. Standards. 1. Building frontages shall be primarily oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot or alley. 2. Entrances to buildings in the BD1, BD2 and BD4 zones shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. 3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of the following elements: a. Higher bay(s); EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 192 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 3 of I I 5.1.p b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet); c. Forecourt and entrance plaza. Taper bay Buildings shall be oriented to the street. Entrances shall be given visually distinct expression. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.030 Ground level details. A. Intent. To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. B. Standards. 1. Ground -floor, street -facing facades of commercial and mixed -use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the following elements: Q a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets; EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 193 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 4 of 11 5.1.p b. Medallions; c. Belt courses; d. Plinths for columns; e. Bulkhead for storefront window; f. Projecting sills; g. Tile work; h. Transom or clerestory windows; i. Planter box; j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. 2. Ground floor commercial space is intended to be accessible and at grade with the sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC 16.43.030. den cause der baskef and Agh h 'f it r fdeW" meda5m cJ�resfary NINI =WA fin S. � WRIM/1 w0i EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 194 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 5 of I I 5.1.p Ground floor details encourage visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.040 Awnings/canopies and signage. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Intent. 1. To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public streetscape. 2. To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way -finding for visitors. 3. To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements. B. Standards. 1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. 2. Awnings and canopies shall be open -sided to enhance visibility of business signage. Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. 3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted. 4. Retractable awnings are encouraged. 5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies should be hung just below a clerestory or transom window, if it exists. 6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple -storefront building should be consistent in character, scale Q and position, but need not be identical. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 195 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 6 of I I 5.1.p Open -sided nonstructural awning with front valance. Is Open -sided structural canopy. 7. Nonstructural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. 8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. 9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are preferred. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less are permitted and are not counted when calculating the amount of signage permitted for a business in Chapter 20.60 ECDC. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required elements under ECDC 22.43.030(B). EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 196 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 7 of 11 5.1.p 10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. 11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. 12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or on a city council -approved historic survey. 13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An historic sign may be used to meet this standard. Retractable and open -sided awnings allow signage to be visible. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 197 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 8 of I I 5.1.p Examples of projecting signs using decorative frames and design elements. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. 22.43.050 Transparency at street level. Awning or canopy shapes: 4., S ran dwrd 80.�e Ca rr►ax riiarge+ee A. Intent. To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building. B. Standards. 1. The ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have transparent windows covering a minimum of 75 percent of the building facade that lies between an average of two feet and 10 feet above grade. 2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 198 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 9 of 11 5.1.p 3. Where transparency is not required, the facade shall comply with the standards under ECDC 22.43.060. Ground level facades of buildings should have transparent windows between two to 10 feet above grade. Windows shall provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside the building, and therefore should not be mirrored or use darkly tinted glass. 4. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk.* [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. *Code reviser's note: Subsection (13)(4) of this section was formerly codified as ECDC 16.43.030(B)(10)(g). 22.43.060 Treating blank walls. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. B. Standards. 1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under ECDC 22.43.050). At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground floor, street -facing facade: EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 199 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 10 of I I 5.1.p a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block); b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; c. Belt courses of a different texture and color; d. Projecting cornice; e. Decorative tile work; f. Medallions; g. Opaque or translucent glass; h. Artwork or wall graphics; i. Lighting fixtures; j. Green walls; k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. iPKr9 60we apagw gfass matfa&M, ` 0" 51 �rti ■ra as rrrrrnr rrrrN*■ boo J�r�r.arr��i _ Row a�ii■l WMIZZ moms � r. Buildings shall not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html Packet Pg. 200 4/26/2019 Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS Page 11 of 11 5.1.p 22.43.070 Building HVAC equipment. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ A. Intent. To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other building utility features are designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape. B. Standards. 1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. If these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g., rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these features with the design of the building. 2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on adjoining properties Rooftop equipment should be screened from view. [Ord. 3918 § 2 (Att. 2), 2013; Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4146, passed March 19, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. n u EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 7 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 201 https://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds/html/Edmonds22/Edmonds2243.html 4/26/2019 5.1.p • improve business opportunities, • protect natural environments using sustainable design practices, • protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds. General Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tieing each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Community Culture and Urban Design 123 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 8 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 202 5.1.p A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. A.12 Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Community Culture and Urban Design 124 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 8 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 203 5.1.p 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. 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. 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. Urban Design Goals & Policies for Specific Areas In addition to the general design goal and objectives described above under Goal A, supplemental design objectives are outlined below for specific areas or districts within the city. Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place -making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. Community Culture and Urban Design 125 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 8 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 204 5.1.p B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the - =l4f visual attributes of the development and R r� encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing beach areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4t1i Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale. B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building fagades should respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. Community Culture and Urban Design 126 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 8 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 205 5.1.p B.11 Building Fagade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vsthe pedestrian level or building base). B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade. Urban Design Goal C: Highway 99 Corridor. Additional Design Objectives for the Highway 99 Corridor should support its function as a locus of commercial and potential mixed use activity, building on the availability of multiple forms of transportation and its proximate location to surrounding neighborhoods. C.1 General Appearance and Identity. Design of buildings and spaces along Highway 99 should encourage a feeling of identity associated with different sections of the highway. C.2 Site Design. Site design should allow for vechicular access and parking as well as safe access and circulation for pedestrians. Whenever possible, sites should provide connections between adjacent businesses and between businesses and nearby residential neighborhoods. C.3 Landscaping and Buffering. Landscaping, fencing or other appropriate techniques should be used to soften the street front of sites and also used to buffer more intensive uses from adjoining less intensive use areas (e.g. buffer commercial from residential development). Urban Design Goal D: Neighborhood Commercial Areas. Design in neighborhood commercial areas should seek to support the function of the neighborhood center while paying close attention to its place within the neighborhood setting. D.1 Landscape and Buffering. Special attention should be paid to transitions from commercial development to surrounding residential areas, using landscaping and/or gradations in building scale to provide compatible development. Community Culture and Urban Design 127 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 8 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 206 A CITY OF EDMONDS Est. EBAk) 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Main Street Commons, two commercial buildings and site improvements in the Downtown Business (BD1) zone. Phase 1 of the project includes extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9,000+/- sq. ft. building on the west side of the site and 'creation of an adjacent plaza to replace a portion an existing surface parking lot. Phase 2 of the project will replace the rest of the existing parking lot and includes a new 5,600 sq. ft. two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main St. and 6th Ave. S. The plaza will be extended south of the new building to connect to 6th Avenue and eight surface parking stalls will be created that load from the alley to the south. (File Number PLN20190024). Proponent: David DiMarco (rep. Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, Inc.) Location of proposal, including street address if any: 550 Main Street (Tax ID #: 00434212001500 & 00434212001700) 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 June 25, 2019_ Project Planner: Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: Tun Signature: at" XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue m North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the a appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than _July 2. 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 June 11, 2019, at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety w Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. E XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. c� a Page 1 of 2 9 BtTR"NAT10N PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 9 - PLN20190024 VLAW90024 Packet Pg. 207 5.1.p The SEPA Checklist, project plans and DNS are available at https:[/permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for file number PLN20190024. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. Notice Mailed to the following: XX COMCAST Outside Plant Engineer, North Region 1525 75'h St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 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 Community Transit Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 pc File No. SEPA Notebook 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 David DiMarco DiMarco Architecture 1319 E. Howell St. Seattle, WA 98122 XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 Page 2 of 2 FE MOtTRISNAT10N PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 9 - PLN20190024 IPENWM0024 Packet Pg. 208 --7— 5.1.p " City of Edmonds Main Street Commons 10 1 0 94.04 188.1 Feet I 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. (D City of EdmEr)(NIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 9 - PLNY9rt9Q@24S NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION w. N N x ....... �re.�a.E 00 E Legend E ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLIN rtV, <all other values> d L 1 (n 2 M 5; 4 9;71;7;8 y r C d E t V f0 a+ M C O !Z L r N M t a m a x w c m E Notes U r r Architectural Design Board Review Q 550 Main Street File # PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 209 1 5.1.p � C7F ED�G #P71 CITY OF EDMONDS RECEIVED 3 MAY 2 3 2019 m ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST st lg9� OEVELOPO NTER SERVICES Purpose of Checklist: 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: Main Street Commons 2. Name of applicant: David DiMarco 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1319 E Howell Street Seattle WA 98122 206-355-6795 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds May 17, 2019 Revised otrRflgj615 ATTPA(HNW14POEqMY 024 Pa e I of 27 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 210 5.1.p 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): —. Construction to begin August 2019. Phase 1 to be completed February 2020. Phase 2 to begin November 2019 to be completed September 2020. (STAFF COMMENTS) 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. -We have a geotechnical report available upon request. (STAFF 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 do not know of any other approvals are pending. (STAFF COMMENTS)be fzeq d vi? tv —Pt- l 7 v I q no ?—, l or GM 61 I J — I-nlzo 00 b�,I�,n r - ,�cD�o -Z UJ 6V-dc�� �r3LQ��iq�52� �-� *NI &'f qo � l� Revised otLo(� 6615 ATlPA?,4HNW1400CM�64024 Pn e 2 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 211 5.1.p 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. We have applied for an Edmonds building permit, a Lot line Adjustment, a Critical Area Assessment and Administrative Architectural Design Review. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: FINAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, PLUMBING, HVAC, ELECTRICAL, COMMERCIAL HOOD/HOOD FIRE SUPPRESSION, FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM (STAFF COMMENTS 1 e�"� i� �J� �i C �t'' Dlf cl ,0 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. PHASE 1 INCLUDES WEST BUILDING: RENOVATION OF (E) STRUCTURE, CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (M) TO ASSEMBLY (A-2). (E) BASEMENT STORAGE AREA (S-1) TO REMAIN. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING BUILDING TO DEMOLISH (E) ENTRY & ROOFTOP PARAPETS, ADD 2 NEW ENTRIES. INTERIOR ALTERATIONS INCLUDE DEMOLISHING (E) MEZZANINE LEVEL & MOST INTERIOR PARTITIONS, ADD NEW 2ND LEVEL FLOOR & DORMER. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS & WINDOWS ARE TO BE REPLACED. A NEW PEDESTRIAN PLAZA IS CREATED WITH LANDCAPING & ART PANEL WITH STAGE. PHASE 2 INCLUDES NEW 2-STORY EAST BUILDING, COMPLETION OF PEDESTRIAN ART ALLEY & ART PANELS. (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. ADDRESS: 550 MAIN STREET EDMONDS WA 98020 PARCEL #S: 004342-120-015-00 AND 004342-120-017-00 LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 120, CITY OF EDMONDS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AND LOTS 17,18,19 AND 20, BLOCK 120, CITY OF EDMONDS ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2 OF PLATS, PAGE 39, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised oTEMW15 ATAEFT4W 0K'06*&24 Pa e 3 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 212 5.1.p TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: THE SITE IS COMPLETELY DEVELOPED. AN EXISTING FORMER GROCERY STORE BUILDING OCCUPIES THE WESTERN PORTION. THE REMAINING SIE IS AN ASPHALT SURFACE PARKING LOT. THE SITE SLOPES UP FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER BY 4-FEET. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? THE SITE SLOPES UP FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER BY 4-FEET. IT IS A CONSISTENT SLOPE OF 1.92%. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, and muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. SEE THE ATTACHED SOILS REPORT. (STAFF COMMENTS) rs tf� C�t�t S& `ki-vVII4-arerIt/ c-nlvJ 1co61VI Is -7CZ rI,9re_(' d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised otk"If 15 ATIMH46W 47bK%' 6*024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 213 5.1.p 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. PHASE 1 INCLUDES THE RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. PHASE 2 INCLUDES ESTABLISHING A NEW 2-STORY BUILDING WITH A PEDESTRIAN PLAZA IN BETWEEN. THE COMBINED CUT IS 181 CY. THE COMBINED FILL IS 53 CY. SOURCE OF FILL HAS NO BEEN DETERMINED. (STAFF COMMENTS) f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO. THE SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT. (STAFF COMMENTS) g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? APPROXIMATELY 93% OF THE LOT WILL BE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: SEE ATTACHED STORMWATER SITE PLAN REPORT. (STAFF COMMENTS) I S S tJ f( kit L 2 0 rf �7 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. -NOTAPPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised 0046" 5 ATTFZfiM9TF49C*TWd14M24 Pa e 5 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 214 5.1.p b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. 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. NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) (2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) (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. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised oER41� 115 ATTR6�"T49CPLel 14TO24 Page 6 0 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 215 5.1.p (4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) (5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) (6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Ground: (1) Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised ot�k�%if 15 ATIWdH460 OP-L b46024 Pa e 7 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 216 5.1.p (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. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Water Runoff (including storm water): (1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. SEE ATTACHED STORIAWATER SITE PLAN REPORT. (STAFF COMMENTS)A i S OC ! Je d V.-I (2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) 8 of Revised 01EW46ffii15 ATT1A�� CN21&V 4M24 2 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 217 5.1.p d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: SEE ATTACHED STORMWATER SITE PLAN REPORT. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other:_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: shrubs grass pasture cron or urain NONE. Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised orENW- i 15 ATIPA7 ( M�11� 00f�,'�646024 Page 9 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 218 5.1.p C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF COMM d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other materials to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: SEE ATTACHED LANDSCAPE PLAN SET. (STAFF COMMENTS) $ S w L N2 0o 2 i c� i�o e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF COMM 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: _ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: NONE KNOWN. Revised ojr=kl WW 615 ATA&N9& d�Ekild'fff024 Pa e 10 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 219 5.1.p (STAFF COMMENTS) b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS} e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. NONE KNOWN. Revised O'LWH'Nf 15 PLN20190024 AT A&MW1001'46'f4bb24 Pae11o27 Packet Pg. 220 5.1.p 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 WILL BE USED FOR LIGHTING AND HVAC. NATURAL GAS WILL BE USED FOR PATIO HEATING AND COOKING. (STAFF COMMENTS) _ b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NO. PARCEL IS IN A SOUTHWEST CORNER POSITION. PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE SHADING ON ADJACENT PARCELS. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: SEE ATTACHED ENERGY AND BUILDING ENVELOPE SET. (STAFF COMMENTS) I SUC f �. i �C Z<J( �� �2 �� J- L� 2019 S' c) 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. Revised ot%H'[W(-`l5 ATfUk* d7 PE1V M4&24 Page 12 of 27 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 221 5.1.p (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF C (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. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ABATEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN PERMITTED AND PERFORMED. i (STAFF COMMENTS) C� /" /�. 4 I . (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. NONE PLANNED. (STAFF COMMENTS) (4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised o EXH1W 15 ATTPA7GF4410 OrLfV V96024 Page 13 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 222 5.1.p (5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NONE KNOWN. (STAFF COMM b. Noise (1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NONE KNOWN. (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. NONE KNOWN. (STAFF COMMENTS) (3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1 1 CC Revised Ott-W91 f 15 ATfWd{Hq9PW PKAWF 96024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 223 5.1.p 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 CURRENT USE INCLUDES 2 RETAIL SPACES AND A SURFACE PARKING LOT. ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE RETAIL AND OFFICE USE. THE PROPOSED USES ARE AS FOLLOWS AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES: PHASE 1 INCLUDES WEST BUILDING: RENOVATION OF (E) STRUCTURE, CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (M) TO ASSEMBLY (A-2). (E) BASEMENT STORAGE AREA (S-1) TO REMAIN. A NEW PEDESTRIAN PLAZA IS CREATED WITH LANDCAPING & ART PANEL WITH STAGE. PHASE 2 INCLUDES NEW 2-STORY EAS BUILDING, COMPLETION OF PEDESTRIAN ART ALLEY & ART PANELS. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) (1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: NO. (STAFF COMMENTS)- -C . Describe any structures on the site. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS AN ARCHED ROOF FORMER GROCERY STORE. IT HAS A GLU-LAM BEAM, CAR DECK, COMPOSITION ROOF ASSEMBLY AND CONCRETE BLOCK EXTERIOR WALLS. THE REMAINING PROPERTY IS AN ASPHALT SURFACE PARKING LOT. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised o"EW%ff 15 ATTA7dH46W y hKM'1646024 Pa e 15 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 224 5.1.p d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO. (STAFF COMMENTSt t d� de M-D �n /57L,020ia(q?q e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? DB-1 (STAFF COMMENTS) t .a VV0%' a r f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? UNKNOWN. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master plan designation of the site? UNKNOWN. (STAFF COiNIMEVTS) ALcjI fe la 1-0 [T m h. Has any part of the site been classified critical area by the city? If so, specify. UNKNOWN. (STAFF 7 rct�� Revised 01044fkffi15 PLN20190024 ATTPAUHN&Wd�Ck2dIM24 P of 27 Packet Pg. 225 5.1.p i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 32. (STAFF COMMENTS} rAJd r 11�- 0 (tI JOA 1 J ,J.,s :W-' I j, Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 0. (STAFF COMMENTS) k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE CITY PLAN. (STAFF COMMENTS) m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised orE-Afl4J-515 AT1XUHqt" 0PUN46099024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 226 5.1.p 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS). 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principle exterior building material(s) proposed? 32 FEET. THIS HEIGHT WAS DETERMINED USING EDMONDS AVERAGING PROCEDURE. (STAFF Revised ort-N41f 15 ATfAEHNW 400EW646024 P o PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 227 5.1.p b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE. (STAFF COMM C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts; if any: NONE. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO. (STAFF COM-MENTS) C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised o"EMW 15 AT1VAIdFT4E0 y"h"% 6024 Pa e 19 of 27 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 228 5.1.p d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NONE. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? THE AMENITIES OF THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS CORE ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. (STAF COMMENTS)Park— TS YUUO rs a� �&r t 6lo r 04 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. NO. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: -NONE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised of -VAIN f 15 ATIPWdH460 PPL 6�6024 P ° 27 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 229 5.1.p 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in, or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. THE NEIGHBORING BUILDING TO THE WEST IS A REGISTERED HISTORIC BUILDING. (STAFF COMMENTS) E-d t&,1 { Q lit urn (Vr'C', � V, 1 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. NOT KNOWN. (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. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) I A 4 F' 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. NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) Revised ot�46/ 615 ATTPA6�iT"T 9Cf9E 1*b24 Pa e 21 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 230 5.1.p 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. THE SITE IS AT THE CORNER OF MAIN STREET AND 6TH AVENUE. MAIN PUBLIC STREETS ARE MAIN STREET AND 9TH AVENUE SOUTH. IT IS SERVED BY STATE ROUTE 104 TO THE WEST, STATE ROUTE 99 TO THE EAST AND STATE ROUTE 524 TO THE NORTH. (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? BUSES 11, 12, 116, 119, 130, 196, 413, 511 AND 512 SERVE 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? PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED WITHIN THE DB-1 ZONE. PROJECT IS PROVIDING 8 PARKING STALLS. (STAFF COMMENTS)�llL�aiil)<ti"L!t ■�u�rrr���������.al�r !1 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). NOT KNOWN. Revised 0 LW49Pf15 ATTPA&� r "T 49C*fUk1�024 1 Pa,L22 27 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 231 5.1.p e. f. 9. (STAFF COMMENTS) 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} �~ % tl Ad 7-r f t ��l yr 1 Z M five S r 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? NOT KNOWN, (STAFF COMMENTS) Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. NOT KNOWN. (STAFF COMMENTS) h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. Revised on&M 15 AT�A��RIbS�iVV'� OWM M496024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 232 5.1.p 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. NOT KNOWN. (STAFF COMMENTS} b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: NOT APPLICABLE. (STAFF COMMENTS) 16. Utilities a. Cir � ' ities currently available at the site: electricity natural gas ►►atee, refuse service telepho�ie, sanitary sewer optic system, other: (STAFF COMMENTS) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general a construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Revised o"A'Ai f 15 ATfA(;HMEgl OPM16496024 Noe 24 of 27 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 233 5.1.p ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, WATER, REFUSE SERVICE, TELEPHONE AND SANITARY SEWER WILL BE USED. ALL PROVIDERS WILL NOT CHANGE FROM EXISTING PROVIDERS. (STAFF COMMENTS) C. SIGNATURE I declare under penalty of perjury laws that the above answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. w Mike McMurray Signature of Proponent Date Submitted Revised o%NN 15 ATTACHf K&P9C WEU2 fi6A 024 Page 25 of 27 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 234 5.1.p CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION, SEPA DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING `11c. WV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Main Street Commons, two commercial buildings and site improvements in the Downtown Business (BD1) zone. Phase 1 of the project includes extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9,000+/- sq. ft. building on the west side of the site and creation of an adjacent plaza to replace a portion an existing surface parking lot. Phase 2 of the project will replace the rest of the existing parking lot and includes a new 5,600 sq. ft. two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main St. and 6' Ave. S. The plaza will be extended south of the new building to connect to 6th Avenue and eight surface parking stalls will be created that load from the alley to the south. District -based design review projects that require a SEPA determination such as this are Type III-B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). PROJECT LOCATION: 550 Main Street (Tax ID #: 00434212001500 & 00434212001700) NAME OF APPLICANT: David DiMarco (rep. Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, Inc.) FILE NO.: PLN20190024 DATE OF APPLICATION: May 9, 2019 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: May 30, 2019 DATE OF NOTICE: June 11, 2019 REQUESTED PERMITS: District -based design review, SEPA determination OTHER REQUIRED Building permits, lot combination PERMITS: REQUIRED STUDIES: None at this time EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: SEPA checklist, critical area checklist, traffic impact analysis COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: July 3, 2019 PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Phase 1 of the two-phase public hearing will be held by the Architectural Design Board on Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 250 - 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020. The hearing will be continued to a date certain for Phase 2 of the public hearing during the July 3 meeting. Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 235 5.1.p Information on this development application is available 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 AM—12:OOPM only on Wednesdays) or through the City's website(https:lLpermits.edmonds.wa.us(Citizenl) and search for permit PLN20190024. SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. DATE OF ISSUANCE: June 11, 2019 SEPA COMMENTS DUE; June 25, 2019. Comment may be submitted in writing to City of Edmonds Planning Division, 1215th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 or via email to the contact person below. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than July 2, 2019. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-022O EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 236 5.1.p ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Attach this notarized declaration to the adjacent property owners list. On my oath, I certify that the names and addresses provided represent all properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Signature of AppfirZnt or Applicant's Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1— day of Mi W,k 6 1--• • ti�►t► ttt t tt r++r►rr� rrr4 WS No ry Public in and for the State of Wa_ jton�Q0 , 4,�9 0 zti . _ 0 '' ••• ��� • Residing at ., • • -,. r •►••STATE RECEIVED MAY 2 9 2019 I)EVELRiENT SEF;iillCES COUNTER EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 PA_bQLWg%24/30/11 P2 -Adjacent Property Owners List Packet Pg. 237 00434202102600 EWING DEBORAH 500 KAPALUA DR 24 T1 LAHAINA, HI 96761 00434202101500 MCEACHRON DIANE 560 BELL STREET EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202102300 S & E PARTNERS LLC 539 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202103000 TAX TABLE PROPERTIES LLC 725 HINDLEY LN EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209803500 BELL RALPH R JR & REED RENEE 615 MAIN ST STE C EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212000500 WILSON GREG & DEBORAH PO BOX 1298 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212002400 JANTZ INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 700 EDMONDS, WA 98020 0918/091 Gq AJ9AV pane alglledwoo Will L9 x ww 9Z ILuaot op 911anbi13 I/0919®IGaAV ql!m alglledwoo «8/9 Z x „G azls lapel 00434209703100 00434202101200 BLANCHARD RANDALL L & MAE L NELSON ASSOCIATES & FAMILY LLC 14720 14TH AVE SE 9710 WHARF STREET MILL CREEK, WA 98012-1345 EDMONDS, WA 98020 3 00434212003300 EDMONDS MASONIC CENTER ASSN 515 DAYTON STREET EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202101800 STEWART BRYAN R R & CHERYL L 400 SUNSET AVE EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202102800 523 MAIN LLC PO BOX 1477 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209600100 CHIGARAS NICK J 604 DAYTON EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209804000 HARRIS LAURENCE & CAROLYNNE TRUSTEE 43012TH PL N EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212000600 MCDEVITT INVESTMENTS LLC 330 DAYTON ST #2 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212002600 HURST RONNIE E PO BOX 971 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212100700 STOVEL MARY L 522 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00629000000100 00682200000100 NAKAMA RANCE K & VANDER YACHT WARREN DENISE I LISA 626 MAIN ST #1 623 MAIN ST #1 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434202101900 STEWA YAN R R & CHERYL L 400 S SET AVE ED NDS, WA 98020 00434202102900 THE FOUR R S LLC 533 5TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434209703400 KENNEDY JOHN JR 617 DAYTON #7 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212000302 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH PROPERTIE'c LLC PO BOX 151 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212001200 COLUMBRO FMLY ENTRPRS LLC 542 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212003100 EDMONDMASONIC CENTER ASSN 515 DAy ON STREET EDMONDS, WA 98020 00434212101800 STANTON WAYNE G 558 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 00682200000300 PERKINS DARRELL 626 MAIN ST UNIT 3 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 wfflmn ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 05160/8160 .- — -- ne .,,.... - c'7 A,,am ®Fi 9 Packet Pg. 238 09L8/09 Lgo AJany aaAe ajgltedwoo uaw L9 x ww gZ jewao; ap 91490113 3/09 L9®iGany u31M algl3eduin «8/5 Z x L ails lequf 5.1.p 00682200000400 00682200000600 00682200000700 YELLIN NANCY HUDAK MARIAN M ROFF MARIAN E 626 MAIN STREET #4 626 MAIN ST UNIT 6 626 MAIN STREET #7 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 R ■ ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 5160/8160 d.. ;--+ 0C -- v C7 -- --+ihln mmn fixtam GM 9 Packet Pg. 239 00682200001000 CHRISTIANSEN JACK E/ANN L 626 MAIN ST UNIT 10 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3051 00682200000500 LARSON CLIFFORD P 626 MAIN ST UNIT 5 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3090 00434202100300 UNGER CONRAD R & MICHELE R 506 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3147 09L8/091 G8 AaanV oan algl3sdwoo ww L9 x ww gZ puo3 ap 9:anb133 3/09 Lg® AaanV 431nn 91g13'edwoo „9/9 Z x „L azls label - 00629000000300 00682200000200 HALL JOHN PHILLIP FORTUNE WILLIAM M & ADELE M 623 MAIN ST UNIT 3 626 MAIN ST UNIT 2 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3066 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3090 00682200000800 ROPPO RAYMOND H 626 MAIN ST UNIT 8 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3090 00434202101600 JACOBY JAMES & DIANA 555 MAIN ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3149 00694300120100 00694300130100 KISSINGER JOHN PETER/BARBARA ANN NEWMAN BARBARA 518 BELL ST UNIT 201 518 BELL ST UNIT 301 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 00434209700100 600 MAIN STREET LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434212002100 555 DAYTON LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 01007200020100 LENGFELDER TERRY L & JOYCE J 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3483 01024600010100 DEMPSEY CAIRNS C/BRIAN P 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 101 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 01024600020200 RUTHRAUFF CLIFFORD B 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 202 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 00629000000400 SHURTLEFF ROGER & JUDY 225 5TH AVE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 00434209700300 610 MAIN STREET LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434212003000 MATSEN MICHAEL C 531 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3431 01007200020200 MOE DONALD G 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 202 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3483 01024600010200 JOHNSON GEORGE M /JACQUELYN M 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 102 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 00434212002800 MUIR REBECCA E 1042 8TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020-4019 00/ONDS, '60100 EDCITY OF 25VE N ED WA 98020-3146 00694300110100 WHITE JACK V 518 BELL ST UNIT 101 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3164 00434209600200 LOUCKS SCOTT 751 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434209803700 611 MAIN STREET LLC 710 WALNUT ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3422 00434202102100 PETOSA VINCENT D & KAREN 515 6TH AVE S EDMONDS, WA 98020-3457 00844700010200 LONG WILLIAM/KENDRA 540 DAYTON ST UNIT 102 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3493 01024600020100 HOWARD BONNIE 550 DAYTON ST UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3629 00844700020100 CHALUPNIK JAMES & JANET 540 DAYTON ST EDMONDS, WA 98026 00434209803900 00434202103100 a PAIGE DOUGLAS & MICHELLE CAMWEST INC 23407 65TH PL W 2228 133RD ST SW MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043 LYNNWOOD, WA 98087 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 240 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery°5160/8160 09I-8/09 Lqq k@AV oane algjedwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z t-ewioi op a3janblt3 3/09 G5®fGaAV Uilnn alq!jadwoo ..8/5 Z X j azls loge'. 00682200000900 00682200001100 00682200001200 WRIGHT JANIS SCHULER JAMES J/BEVERLY J SHEPHERD DEAN P/AMY C 626 MAIN ST UNIT 9 626 MAIN ST UNIT 11 626 MAIN ST UNIT 12 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 as 00694300110200 00694300120200 00694300130200 GLENN JILL MANSSON CARL E & YVONNE RAUGI GREGORY J TTEE 518 BELL STREET #102 518 BELL ST # 202 11040 SOUTH DEER DR o EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 WOODWAY, WA 98020 a �a R r 00805900000100 00805900000201 00805900000301 •2 PROMISE PLACE LLC PROMIS LACE LLC PROMIS LACE LLC y PO BOX 700 PO E 700 PO B❑ 700 N EDMONDS, WA 98020 ED NDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 N a 00844700010100 00844700020200 00881300050800 y ZITZMANN RICHARD G TOVAR PATRICIA Y MILLER MICHELE M/MICHAEL c 540 DAYTON ST # 101 540 DAYTON ST UNIT 202 508 BELL ST E EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 00881300051000 00881300051200 00881300051400 BELL STR BLDG ASSOC LLC BELL STREET BLDG ASSC LLC WILSON CHRISTINE SEXTON 510 BELL STREET 510 BE L STREET 514 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00952600000400 00952600000500 00952600000600 LOPEZ SERGIO LOPEZ S G10 KOKONASKI WILLIAM/RANDI 1223 CORONADO PL 1223 C ONADO PL 618 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDM DS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00953500010100 00953500010200 00953500020100 BORDER ANNETTE ANTTILA JENNIFER A FIREMAN JERALD A/MORTON LYND/ 600 BELL UNIT101 709 7TH AVE S 600 BELL ST UNIT 201 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00953500020200 00953500030100 00953500030200 SWAN DAVID P/ANN C SHOUP DALE/CHERLYN ERWERT WILLIAM/ROBERTA A 600 BELL ST UNIT 202 600 BELL ST UNIT 301 600 BELL ST UNIT 302 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 01007200010100 01007200010200 01007200030100 BAILEY FORREST/CHERRYL MCDEVITT CHRIS/TERRI TTEE DENGEL BARBARA TTEE 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 101 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 102 530 DAYTON ST UNIT 301 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 00952600000100 00952600000200 00952600000300 a DUBNO AVA C CORWIN ALAN MASSOUD MEDHAT 608 BELL ST 612 BELL ST 616 BELL ST EDMONDS, WA 98020-3020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3020 EDMONDS, WA 98020-3020 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 �..w,..� Packet Pg. 241 v�a�:I�� .+., label size 1" x 2 compatible with Avery 051 0 E+:......++..s....,,..+ .....v.— .. nc G7 w..r. +ihh n�mn A--- ry ori®Gi Gn/S21 GA 09 L8/09 1 G� fU@AV 09AU ag1ledwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z t�waot ap a anbll3 1/09 L90 AaaAV ql!m algl}udwoo «8/9 Z x ,, L ozls lagq 00629000000200 BELZMAN JESSICA A 1214 TAYLOR AVE N UNIT 401 SEATTLE, WA 98109 00434209703792 6TH AND D ON LLC 2117 NW TH ST SEATTJ,�. WA 98117 00434202101100 HOEL DAKOTA JAMES 674210TH AVE NW SEATTLE, WA 98117 00434212000900 ELSIA LLC 18411 AURORA AVE N SHORELINE, WA 98133 00434209703700 6TH AND DAYTON LLC 2117 NW 95TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98117 00434209600500 LEUNG SARAH WMILSON DAVID R 1031815TH AVE NW SEATTLE, WA 98177 00434202101000 00434212001500 00434212001700 FINNIGAN APARTMENTS LLC SEATTLE-SNOHOMISH MILL COMPANY SEA/AIORT HOMISH MILL COMPAt 27821 36TH AVE NW INC INC STANWOOD, WA 98292-9461 9525 AIRPORT WAY 9525 WAY SNOHOMISH,WA 98296 SNOWA 98296 00434212000700 00434212001100 524 MAIN LLC TULL INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 1208 6501 SOUTH D ST KINGSTON, WA 98346 TACOMA, WA 98408 EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 Y' ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery /55160/8160 ....L. F.....«..i AG __ — G7 __ nn +W. mro Al ,nne @Ri F Packet Pg. 242 5.1.p File No.: PLN20190024 Applicant: David DiMarco DECLARATION OF POSTING Notice of Application, SEPA Determination & Public Hearing On the 1 1 th day of June, 2019, the attached Notice of Application, SEPA Determination and Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance and in any event where applicable on or near the subject property. I, Michael D. Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 1 1 th day of June, 2019, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: w/' EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 243 5.1.p FILE NO.: PLN20190024 APPLICANT: Main Street Commons DECLARATION OF MAILING NOTICE OF APPLICATION, PUBLIC HEARING & SEPA DETERMINATION On the 10 day of June, 2019, the attached Notice of Application, Public Hearing & SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. 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 10 day of June, 2019 at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: 4'lv CAK)M- EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 10 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 244 5.1.p SOUTH COUNTY FIRE 12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208 tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249 www.southsnafi re.arg Cities of Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace Department of Fire Prevention Fire Comments DATE: 06/06/2019 JOB NAME/ADDRESS: Main Street Commons — 550 Main St Edmonds CONTACTS: Mike McMurray GECK08080(a)_gmail.com FIRE COMMENT NOTES: 1. Fire Alarm is required 2. Class 1 hood will need to be integrated into fire alarm 3. Location of sprinkler riser room. Riser room will have an outside entrance. Call out on building plans. Fire Control Panel will be located in this room with an annunciator panel at front entrance. Location TBA 4. Location of FDC will be approved by South County Fire and be within 50 feet of a Fire Hydrant. Call out on next submittal 5. Separate permits for Fire alarm, class 1 hood and for fire sprinklers 6. Exiting and occupancy loads to be determined at submittal Thank you, Karl Fitterer CFI, FPE Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Prevention Services 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 0: (425)771-0213 VM: (425)551-1980 kfitterer southsnofire.org SERVING SOUTH 5NOHOM15H COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD + MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 11 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 245 5.1.p Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM June 7, 2019 Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Leif Bjorback, Building Official Main Street Commons, Design Review 550 Main St PLN2019-0024 The City of Edmonds Building Division has performed a preliminary building code review of the plans that were submitted under the referenced application number, and have the following comments. The construction project involves demolition of a significant portion of the existing structure. Please be aware that structures that are demolished to the level that meets or exceeds 75% of the replacement cost of the structure will not be allowed by city code to be rebuilt except to full -on standards for new construction. Reference Edmonds Community Development Code section 17.40.020(F) and the following excerpt from a Building Official Interpretation regarding building restoration after significant demolition. "For any structure, whether residential or commercial, that is destroyed, damaged or demolished in an amount equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, ECDC section 17.40.020(F) shall apply. In such case, any subsequent reconstruction will be considered to be under the category of "New" construction, and be subject to all applicable requirements for a new structure, including for land use, utilities and site related provisions. All permit -related documents, such as site plans, construction drawings, and other related documents shall reflect current code requirements." In order to verify that your project does not meet this threshold, the following must be provided to the city: a. A cost breakdown showing the demolition is less than 75% of the replacement cost of the building. Please see the attached cost worksheet that may be used as a template for your convenience; however this worksheet is not the only format that may be used to provide the necessary information. Please contact the building official directly if assistance is required. Thank you. Q City of Edmonds c�a Building Department EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 12 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 246 Permit # 5.1.p v � O Address: Home Owner: Contractor: This form may be used to help establish the percentage of demolition work performed to an existing home in the course of a remodel. Once demolition has met or exceeded 75% of the value of the existing home's replacement cost, the structure will be required to be rebuilt to the standards of new construction. Replacement cost of existing home $ How was the value determined? Component Value of Existing Component Percentage removed Replacement cost of removed component Notes Foundation Floor Framing Floor Insulation Wall Framing Wall Insulation Siding Roof Framing Attic Insulation Windows Doors Plumbing Electrical HVAC D rywa I I Cabinets Painting, Flooring and Finishes Deck Other Total of total removed Percentage of Removed equals 'Total of Column 4 divided by Full Replacement cost' equals Owner Contractor Date Date EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 12 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 247 5.1.p Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM June 4, 2019 Mike Clugston, Senior Planner JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Zachary Richardson, Stormwater Engineer Mike Delilla, Utility Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer PLN20190021—Design Review Main Street Commons — 550 Main St. The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents submitted for the subject application. Additional information is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following. Transportation Engineer Review: The following comments are provided by the City Transportation Engineer, Bertrand Hauss. Please contact Bertrand directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Bertrand.hauss&edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. 1. Please revise traffic impact worksheet to reflect the new use of the existing building as Specialty Retail per 5/24 email from Jeanie McConnell to Mike McMurray. General Engineering Review: The following comments are provided by the Engineering Technician, JoAnne Zulauf. Please contact JoAnne directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Joanne.Zulauf(a�edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. The sidewalks are called out as 10' in width but the scaling does not appear to match. Please revise and resubmit plans. 2. Please show the location of bike racks on the plan. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 13 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 I Packet Pg. 248 5.1.p 3. The City of Edmonds does not allow private force mains to connect directly to the public catch basin (or in the right of way). Revise design to show a gravity connection from property line to catch basin. Utility Engineer Review: The following comments are provided by the Engineering Technician, Mike Delilla. Please contact Mike directly at 425-771-0220 or by email at Mike.Delilla(d),edmondswa.gov with any specific questions you may have regarding his comments. 4. The invert elevations provided for the storm line from the pump to the catch basin appear to conflict with the placement of the water and fire lines. Please revisit to review elevations of line placement. 5. Each water service and the fire line shall have individual connections to the public main. (also, water meters shall be placed at back of curb within the "streetscape zone".) Thank you. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 13 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 249 5.1.p EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 14 - PLN20190024 Option 1 East Building brick: black bags: bronze West Building walls: light beige roof: medium grey a DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE Packet Pg. 250 5.1.p EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 14 - PLN20190024 Option 2 East Building brick: black bays: bronze West Building walls: cream roof: medium grey a DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE Packet Pg. 251 5.1.p EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 14 - PLN20190024 Option 3 East Building brick: black bays: light beige West Building walls: cream roof: medium grey a DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE Packet Pg. 252 5.1.p EXHIBIT 15 PLN20190024 ATTACHMENT 14 - PLN20190024 Option 4 East Building brick: light grey bays: medium grey West Building walls: cream roof: medium grey a DIMARCO ARCHITECTURE Packet Pg. 253 5.1.p MEMORANDUM June 27, 2019 TO: Dimarco Architecture FROM: Steve Fisher, City of Edmonds Public Works, 425-771-0235 RE: Plan review for trash collection area BLD 20190529 — Main St. Commons remodel, 550 Main St., Edmonds The proposed trash collection area is correctly located adjacent to the alley on the south side of the property. An adjustment to the size of the area will need to be considered to meet the volume of waste expected with 2 full service restaurants plus inclusion of waste from the other new building. Comments from the waste hauler (Sound Disposal) has them predicting the upper limits of their service options which would likely use three 2-cubic yard containers picked up daily, or almost daily (except Sundays). 15 feet of width for this area is too tight for 3 containers which need space around each container for maneuvering (rolling to and from the truck) and for access and use by the building tenants. Either the width needs to increase by minimum of 5 more feet or a secondary separate enclosure needs to be sited for the other building's waste. Another consideration is for the screening required along the alley. Gates are typically required but not shown on this plan. Due to the narrow alley at this location, a roll -up door is more sensible and works well on similar alley scenarios in downtown Edmonds Other questions regarding having food scrap compost container service and whether the different businesses would be sharing containers or have separate accounts were also brought up since that will have impact on the ultimate trash area size(s). Please let me know if you have any questions. EXHIBIT 15 ATTACHMENT 15 - PLN20190024 PLN20190024 Packet Pg. 254 6.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/2/2019 Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History After a joint meeting with the Planning Board on July 24, the ADB discussed potential roles and scope on August 21- see Attachment 1. Staff Recommendation Develop a recommendation for presentation at a future joint meeting with the Planning Board. Narrative This is a continued discussion by the ADB regarding its broader role in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific role in the project design review process. The goal is to develop a consensus proposal to present to the Planning Board at a future joint meeting. Documents for discussion include: 1) A table of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with desired roles that have been discussed recently (Attachment 2). In the end, more time is intended to be spent on policy, guidance and standard development but it would be useful to refine the 'proposed' list to accurately reflect the Board's desires. 2) A flowchart outlining revised Board involvement in project reviews (Attachment 3). As has been noted, quasi-judicial decision making at the end of the project review cycle is not the best use of Board member time and expertise. The City Council recognized this too, passing Resolution 1367 which states their intent to remove volunteer boards like the ADB from the quasi-judicial decision making role. As envisioned, the Board would have two possible touches of a project during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development. The second would be if the Board wants to remain within the project decision cycle by reviewing submitted projects and making recommendations on their design to the final decision maker (likely the Hearing Examiner). There was some discussion about this topic on August 21 so this will need to be resolved. Doing the recommendation will require more project review work but it would also allow the Board to take another look at a project to see if it addressed the Board's design vision discussed at the pre -application phase. Packet Pg. 255 6.1 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Minutes from the August 21 ADB meeting Attachment 2 - Recommendations on ADB Roles in Design Review (draft) Attachment 3 - Possible Design Review Process Flowchart Attachment 4 - Design review and the ADB summary slides - Aug 212019 Packet Pg. 256 6.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Joe Herr, Chair Tom Walker Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kim Bayer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Clugston invited each of the Board Members to introduce themselves and share information about their background and training. • Board Member Guenther said he has served on the ADB for several years. Prior to that, he served on the Planning Board for 9 years. He lives in Edmonds and is an architect by training. He has served as chair on both boards. • Board Member Bayer said she is the newest member of the Board, but has lived in Edmonds since 1979. Her background is corporate, but she is now retired and works as a business coach. She joined the ADB because she is passionate about preserving the beautiful aesthetic value of Edmonds as growth occurs. • Board Member Herr said he has been involved in residential construction and design for 46 years and has always been a designer/facilitator of residential construction of all types. • Board Member Strauss said she is an architect, doing primarily industrial and commercial development. For the last 20+ years, her focus has been on sustainable design and construction. She lives in Edmonds and owns her Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Pagel of 8 Packet Pg. 257 6.1.a own firm with an office on Main Street in Edmonds. She loves the eclectic downtown and wants to retain that character. Board Member Jeude said she grew up in Richmond Beach and moved to Edmonds about 30 years ago. She recently retired from the Seattle Times, but while there, she watched the area change from warehouses to a place that attempts to build community. She joined the ADB because she wants to be part of the changes that are happening in the City. Board Member Owensby said he is also an architect by trade, and his love is urban design. He shared how he has been influenced by the experiences and the environments he has lived in throughout his life. He joined the ADB because he wanted to get involved as the City evolves. MINOR PROJECTS No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation) There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ROLES OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) Mr. Chave advised that when he was hired by the City 29 years ago, the ADB typically reviewed about 20 projects each meeting, but most of them were small projects such as signs. That changed in 1993 when the Washington Court of Appeals issued a decision in Anderson vs. Issaquah, which held that the city's generalized standards or guidelines were unconstitutionally vague. Since Issaquah's design code was patterned after Edmonds, it was clear that the City had to change its approach to design review. He explained that prior to 1993, the City's code contained flowery language and applicants didn't have a clear understanding of what was expected at the outset of a project design. There was no predictability as to how long the design review process would take and which projects would eventually get approved. Mr. Chave explained that Edmonds followed the court ruling with a steady effort to provide more specificity and predictability in both the City's design standards and its design review process. As the design standards and codes became more specific, many of the small projects that used to go to the ADB for design review became staff decisions that were routinely approved as part of a building permit. This sped up the design review process a lot. Mr. Chave reviewed that Ordinance 3636 established the City's current district -based design review process, and the intent was that it would be used as a model for development once specific design standards had been drafted for all areas of the City. The district -based design review model also included a two -phased design review process, wherein the first stage was intended to occur early, with the ADB looking at conceptual designs. The proponents would then work out the details and present the designs to the ADB a second time for final approval. The problem with this process is that proponents have typically already settled on most of their design solutions before the first phase review is accomplished. Mr. Chave further explained that both the City Council and the ADB have come to realize that the code now provides specific design standards, and developers are generally designing projects according to the codes and standards in place. Because of that, by the time the ADB is presented with a project, it is fait accompli and the Board doesn't have a lot of discretion to require modifications. In order to influence design, the ADB has expressed a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle. In addition, the City Council has stated a desire to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial role. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 258 6.1.a Mr. Chave presented a flow chart, outlining a potential design review process that would allow the ADB to provide early input. As proposed, the proponent would be required to participate in a preapplication meeting with the ADB prior to submitting a building permit application. The intent would be for the ADB to review conceptual designs that illustrate how is the site situated, what the code parameters are, what is the context, what design decisions need to be made, etc. No design plans would be reviewed at that time. If the Board wants to retain its review role without being the quasi- judicial decision maker, the City could require proponents to meet again with the ADB after a design is in hand and permit applications have been submitted. This would not be a public hearing, but it would allow the ADB to review the design and provide comments or a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Rather than simply running through the checklist of code requirements, the Board would be able to look more holistically at the design solutions. The Hearing Examiner would review staff reports, ADB recommendations, etc. to make the final quasi-judicial decision. Mr. Chave advised that while the Hearing Examiner would not be required to accept the ADB's recommendation, the Board would have more freedom to share comments and suggestions. It would also help them better identify disconnections between what the Board wanted to see and what was actually developed as code compliant design. He said staff would like the ADB to be the body that clearly understands the design standards and their relationship to what actually gets built. The Board's main job could be to review the design standards and codes against projects that occur and recommend potential code amendments that would have a meaningful impact on what actually gets built in the future. Mr. Chave referred to the Board's recent 10-year review of projects that have occurred in Edmonds and suggested that the review should take place on an annual or semi-annual basis. It will be important for the Board to compare approved building plans to what actually gets built. It will also be important to take note of what a project looks like five to ten years after construction, since maturing landscaping and how the building weathers over time can significantly change the community's view of a project over time. These annual reviews would allow the Board to apply a time element when identifying potential amendments to the landscape standards and other codes. The Board could also use the annual reviews as an educational piece when meeting jointly with the City Council and Planning Board in a public setting. Mr. Chave summarized that there would be some value to the ADB holding a preapplication meeting with proponents, followed by another review later in the process. However, the Board's bigger value will come from reviewing the codes and standards and their overall impact on design and proposing changes over time. City Attorney Taraday said he was invited to the meeting to guide the Board's discussion about the design review process and the ADB's role in land use permitting. He was also asked to talk about the legal context that creates the Board's role. Vice Chair Strauss asked if City Attorney Taraday's firm, Lighthouse Law Group, represents other cities, and City Attorney Taraday answered that his firm represents two other cities in a city attorney capacity. Vice Chair Strauss asked if he lives in Edmonds, and he answered that he lives in Seattle. He said he has represented the City of Edmonds since 2011, City Attorney Taraday explained that code adoption is a legislative activity, but land use permitting is not. Because of that, the discretion a decisionmaker has when deciding a permit application is constrained. The City's code that defines the Board's role is a mixture of legislative, quasi -legislative, and quasi-judicial functions. The Board's capacity to recommend design code changes is a legislative function that has broad discretion. However, that is not the case when reviewing a specific application. He explained that a court has to measure against something in order to review a decision and determine whether it was fairly decided, and that's why having objective decision criteria is important. Not only does it provide guidance to decisionmakers, but it also gives someone reviewing the decision down the road (the court) the ability to determine whether the decision was fairly made or not. However, if the Board's role is changed from decisionmaker to meeting with applicants in preapplication conferences, the decision criteria would not be so limited. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 259 6.1.a City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to land use decisions that determine the legal rights of parties in a public hearing and requires decision makers to act as impartial and fair judges, without any preconceived ideas. Because no public hearing is required for administrative decisions, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would not apply. It also doesn't apply to legislative actions. When policies are being adopted, the City Council has extremely broad legislative discretion to determine what policies it wants to adopt. City Attorney Taraday explained that one limitation that applies in a quasi-judicial setting is a prohibition against ex parte communication. As soon as an application is filed there is a pending proceeding, during which members of a decision -making body cannot engage in ex parte communications with either proponents or opponents of the project. The doctrine also limits a decisionmaker's consideration of evidence to what is in the record. A judge can only review a decision if all of the factors that went into the decision are in the record. For example, a Board Member might make a site visit and absorb information about the neighborhood setting, traffic, etc. While that information may affect the decision, it is not part of the record. In addition, he explained that the doctrine prevents decisionmakers from participating in a decision if they have outright bias in favor or against a pending application. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that she often walks by the sites the Board is reviewing. If she happens to mention something that she saw when she walked by, it would be on the record. City Attorney Taraday agreed and explained that this knowledge could be disclosed as ex parte information by putting what you know on the record and letting the parties to the proceeding respond. In addition, any discussions that occur outside of the hearing should also be disclosed as ex parte communications, regardless of whether or not they will have an impact on the final decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that, if the Board ends up retaining its quasi-judicial role, he could provide more in-depth training. City Attorney Taraday advised that State Law requires that any city can have no more than one open -record hearing and one closed -record appeal on any given application. Based on this law, it would be illegal for the ADB to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation or decision on a component of an application and then send it off to the Hearing Examiner or City Council for another public hearing. The one -hearing rule would be violated if people were allowed to provide evidence in support or opposition to an application at each of those stages. Because of this law, the City must decide where it makes the most sense to have the open -record hearing and which body is best situated to be the primary recipient of evidence in support of or opposition to an application. The trend seems to be that the Hearing Examiner is the most appropriate body to hear most applications. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the Hearing Examiner is just one person. Mr. Taraday answered affirmatively and added that it is generally the same person unless there is a conflict of interest. The City retains its Hearing Examiner by contract, and the current Hearing Examiner is a lawyer by training and has the expertise to perform the task he is assigned. However, because he is not an architect or builder, he benefits from the ADB's recommendations with respect to design features. He also benefits from the Board's assistance in drafting an objective design code that gives fellow architects sufficient guidance to design buildings without having to guess at what the City wants. Board Member Owenby requested clarification on the Design Guidelines, and Mr. Clugston advised that they have not been adopted as code. City Attorney Taraday suggested that it will be important for the Board to keep the design guidelines in mind as they review the design standards in the code. However, they are not enforceable or mandatory. It is extremely important to understand where the code mandates something and where it merely suggests something. Board Members with architectural backgrounds can utilize their professional experience to provide guidance on whether or not the design standards go too far. Feedback from the Board will help the City find the right balance between what is mandatory and what is simply a suggestion or guideline. Mr. Chave reviewed that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to come up with Design Guidelines, which contained a number of higher -level objectives, as well as a lot of specificity. The City Council conducted hearings to potentially adopt the Design Guidelines into the code, but there was some push back that they contained too much detail. Ultimately, the high-level design objectives were adopted into the design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and all of the detailed guidelines were eliminated. The Design Guidelines provide vague guidance, but they are not mandatory. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 260 6.1.a This sets up frustration by the review body. He suggested it would be valuable for the ADB to review the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and translate them into code as appropriate. He reviewed that the City's overall approach has been to regulate what is important, but figuring out what is important and how to provide guidance and specificity is a challenge. If you go too far in specifying detail, development ends up looking the same. On the other hand, you must regulate what is important to provide overall context within the community. It seems that the ADB would be the best body to accomplish that task. Board Member Owenby asked staff to provide the Board Members with a complete package of everything they need to understand which of the guidelines have been codified, which ones are mandatory, etc. Mr. Chave suggested it would also be helpful for the Board Members to review the 2001 study to learn more about the approach that was considered at that time. Board Member Owenby voiced concern that the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan appear to be a one -size -fits -all approach that doesn't really fit Edmonds. If the ADB wants to undertake this work, City Attorney Taraday cautioned against them getting too hung up on what the current code makes mandatory versus what is not mandatory. He suggested it would be more productive to focus on the future. Board Member Owensby commented that setback requirements are extremely important. A lot of design can be controlled by controlling how much setback is required and/or allowed. Traditionally, setbacks in cities were used to create public spaces in front of court houses, post offices, libraries, etc. He expressed his belief that setting buildings back too far from the street can destroy the urban character of a city. He would like a better understanding of all of the zoning standards before he can make any recommendations for change. City Attorney Taraday commented that, as a body that recommends policy change, no changes would be off limits to the Board's consideration, regardless of whether or not they are mandatory at this time. Board Member Bayer commented that, as a lay member of the Board, it would be very helpful to have additional information that outlines the current code requirements that relate to design. She referred to the scenario where the Hearing Examiner was the decisionmaker and asked how the ADB would provide feedback for the Hearing Examiner to consider. City Attorney Taraday answered that it depends on whether or not the Board wants to include the review meeting component that is shown on the flow chart as an optional part of the process. He noted that this is an optional part of the process, which gives the Board Members an opportunity to convey their opinions about a project's design and ask the Hearing Examiner to impose certain conditions on a development. However, the Board's recommendation would be nonbinding and the Hearing Examiner may decide that the code does not support such a condition. On the downside, this additional review could be time consuming and limit the Board's ability to provide policy guidance. He said he doesn't have a recommendation one way or the other. Mr. Chave summarized that staff s intent was to sketch out a process that would take the ADB out of their quasi-judicial decision -making role, but still keep them involved in design review. However, by retaining their role in design review, the ADB will continue to function similar to the current process. He said he is not sure the ADB will benefit from continuing with design review if they want to devote their time to the codes, standards and design guidance, which is where they can have the greatest impact. He explained that, in addition to general design standards that apply throughout the City, the City is also trying to do more subtle nuanced design standards based on districts (i.e. Westgate, Five Corners, Downtown, Highway 99, etc.). Creating district design standards will require a lot of the Board's time. The Board must decide what their most important role is and then allocate their time accordingly. City Attorney Taraday said that if the Board decides not to continue in their design review function, staff would review applications and submit a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner with respect to whether or not the project meets the adopted design criteria. However, some may feel that staff would not perform with the same expertise as the ADB. Vice Chair Strauss expressed her belief that staff has been doing a great job of reviewing applications and providing detailed staff reports. She said she supports a process that requires applicants to meet with the ADB in a preapplication meeting. She asked if the Board would favor making the preapplication meeting mandatory or optional. She also asked if the City currently charges a fee for preapplication meetings. Mr. Clugston explained that there are two types of Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 261 6.1.a preapplication meetings. One is a higher -level meeting that is free, and the other is a paid preapplication meeting where applicants receive notes, etc. He said staff s initial thought is that preapplication meetings with the ADB would occur during their regular evening meetings. Mr. Chave added that the preapplication meeting could be mandatory for projects that meet a certain threshold, but the format could be less formal. It would be up to the Board to establish the thresholds and decide the meeting format. When considering the option of moving design review earlier in the process, Vice Chair Strauss cautioned that the ADB needs to understand that their role is not to design projects and they must be careful with their suggestions. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the idea of reviewing the current Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and identifying potential changes, as well as opportunities to codify them as standards where appropriate. If the Board's goal is to affect what Edmonds looks like, this will be the best approach. With the current process, the Board does not really have a chance to change anything as long as a project meets all of the design standards. Board Member Guenther agreed that the ADB should still be involved with project review, but the best approach has yet to be determined. He suggested that before working on design guidelines and district -based design standards, it would be helpful for the Board to review the design element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is frequently cited in the Staff Reports and contains all of the policy statements related to design in the City. Board Member Owenby asked staff to describe the process the ADB would follow when recommending changes to the design standards and other code requirements. City Attorney Taraday answered that the way the code is currently written, changes to certain section of the code automatically go before the Planning Board. However, they may want to revisit this provision to try and eliminate some of the redundancy of one recommending board reviewing another recommending board's work. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the Planning Board makes recommendations on certain code chapters to the City Council, and that includes everything related to design standards and zoning. However, he agreed it might be appropriate to change the code so that design -related issues are the purview of the ADB, which means the ADB would make recommendations directly to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that streamlining the process so the ADB could make recommendations directly to the City Council on design related issues would certainly speed up the process. However, he emphasized that the City Council would still be responsible for making the final decision. Board Member Owensby asked if the ADB would be required to conduct public hearings on proposed code changes before sending a recommendation to the City Council, and City Attorney Taraday answered that a public hearing would likely be required. He explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that there be a public participation process for land -use related code changes. Board Member Owensby pointed out that some of the Board's design -related amendments might also involve zoning amendments. For example, creating a walkable community will require less setback. He referred to Highway 99 and observed that the further buildings are set back from the street, the further people will have to walk to get from one business to another. Mr. Chave advised that the setback requirements along Highway 99 were recently revised, and future development will be much closer to the sidewalks. City Attorney Taraday commented that setbacks have historically been within the reahn of the Planning Board. He advised that some code amendments can be under the purview of the ADB, but others might require a joint recommendation from both boards. Board Member Bayer said she supports streamlining the amendment process so that the ADB's recommendation can go directly to the City Council. However, she is curious about how the ADB would work with the Planning Board when joint recommendations are required. Mr. Chave explained that the current code requires that the ADB's recommendations go to the City Council via the Planning Board. City Attorney Taraday said his thought is that the process could be changed to allow the ADB to forward recommendation related to design directly to the City Council. Mr. Chave suggested that they focus on the most basic changes first (i.e. the Board's role in design review and recommendations to the City Council related to design policy changes). Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 262 6.1.a Board Member Guenther suggested that, until the code is changed to allow the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will be important for the Board to follow its recommendations through the Planning Board and City Council public hearings. Recommendations are often changed as they make their way through the process. Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 24', and they would like to meet jointly with the ADB prior to that meeting. This would be an opportunity for the ADB members to voice their thoughts on potential changes that the Planning Board could share with the City Council. The idea is to obtain direction from the City Council before taking the proposed changes any further. He suggested it might be appropriate for a few ADB members to be present at the j oint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board. Board Member Bayer asked if it would be appropriate to draft some ADB Bylaws that outline their processes. This might be particularly important as the Board takes on a different role. City Attorney Taraday responded that the ADB is governed by ECDC 10.05, which creates the ADB and establishes its powers and duties. He recommended they each review this chapter and identify potential amendments. He explained that, in general, whenever the Board is unable to reach a consensus, the majority would rule. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Attorney General's Office has an on-line training video that explains the Open Public Meetings Act and how it applies to bodies such as the ADB. He recommended that all Board Members should view the video as soon as possible. As the Board becomes more involved in policy issues, there will be a temptation to discuss issues with fellow Board members outside of the regular meetings. These discussions can accidently result in illegal meetings. He agreed to email the Board Members a link to the video. He said he can return to a future ADB meeting to discuss any questions the Board Members might have after watching the video. Board Member Owenby commented that some of the ADB's work appears to overlap with work being done by the Economic Development Commission. He commented that urban design and architecture can influence economic development and suggested that a joint meeting might be appropriate. City Attorney Taraday agreed there is some overlap between the various boards and commissions. In the ADB's case, there is some overlap with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and Tree Board. Nothing prevents two boards from meeting jointly. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the ADB's existing Powers and Duties are listed on Page 22 of the Staff Report, and potential Powers and Duties, as well as possible Future Projects are listed on Pages 26 and 27 of the Staff Report. He encouraged the Board Members to review the list of existing Powers and Duties and see how they have morphed into what the Board currently does. He also recommended that they review the lists of potential Powers and Duties and Future Projects and identify additional items. Mr. Chave requested feedback from the Board on whether or not they were ready to meet jointly with the Planning Board on September 11' to share their thoughts on how the ADB's role might change or if more discussion is needed. He summarized that it appears the Board is interested in taking on the role of working on design standards and codes that will determine what kind of design happens in the future. They are also interested in pursuing a preapplication role in design review rather than the current quasi-judicial role. Explaining their thoughts on these two subjects would be valuable to the Planning Board so they can, in turn, highlight the proposed changes and gauge City Council support. If the City Council offers general support, the ADB can work on more specific changes. The Board agreed to place this issue on the September 4' agenda. They asked staff to distill their discussions thus far into a one -page list for them to review. The Board could the discuss any changes and agree upon a proposal to present to the Planning Board on September 11'. They discussed whether groups of Board Members could meet together to discuss ideas, but City Attorney Taraday cautioned that any meeting of four or more Board Members would have to be noticed as a special meeting. The rule applies to email chains, as well. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to email their questions to staff, and staff could forward their responses to all of the Board members. Staff could also meet individually or with two or three Board Members. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 263 6.1.a Board Member Guenther said he is not sure he supports taking the ADB out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process. While he understands the advantages of this change, he felt more discussion was warranted before making this recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Owensby concurred. The Board agreed to discuss the pros and cons of this particular change at their September 4' meeting. Board Member Owensby said he would like staff to provide links to all of the plans and codes that the ADB would be responsible for based on the proposed changes. He also requested a link to ECDC 10.05. Mr. Chave commented that the design standards are scattered throughout the code, but staff could provide links to the main policy documents. Board Member Bayer asked staff to share their perspective on the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said staff supports all of the proposed changes discussed by the Board. Staff supports the ADB taking on a much stronger role as design standard policymakers and in reviewing the relationship of projects to codes and design standards to gain an understanding of how they work together and what changes need to be made. The biggest problem with the ADB's role as quasi-judicial decision makers is that the makeup of the Board changes frequently, and Board Members are often not well trained in quasi-judicial decision making and the rules are hard to understand. He said he would really like to see a board of design professionals and interested lay people actually devote their expertise to what they are good at, which is design, rather than quasi-judicial positioning, which is the Hearing Examiner's job. Board Member Juenke asked City Attorney Taraday to explain the Board's current quasi-judicial roles. City Attorney Taraday answered that there are certain types of design review applications that only go before the ADB for approval. Mr. Clugston added that the last two applications that came before the Board are examples of projects in which the ADB makes the decision on design. Mr. Chave advised that, until recently, certain ADB decisions could be appealed to the City Council. However, the City Council decided to retain appeals on variances and conditional uses, but not on design issues. Board Member Owensby recalled that at the ADB's last joint meeting with the Planning Board, there was some discussion about affordable housing and housing variety and types. He asked if it would be appropriate for one or two ADB members to meet with the Planning Board to share their experiences and knowledge. City Attorney Taraday answered that Board Members can approach the Planning Board as individual citizens, but they cannot provide input to the Planning Board as representatives of the ADB. Mr. Chave added that ADB members can submit written commentary to staff related to items on the Planning Board's agenda. Another option is to provide oral comments at their meetings. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no additional Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Q Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 264 Recommendations from the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on Design Review Introduction The Architectural Design Board (ADB) has served in Edmonds for several decades. Over the years, the ADB has observed certain concerns about design in Edmonds. Notably, the ADB believes that design standards are incomplete and, in some cases, are not necessarily yielding the results either the Board or the Edmonds Community would like to see. In general, the Board feels it has spent too much time "approving" already -designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process, particularly before applications have been submitted. This can be accomplished in two ways, by having a role earlier in the process (at the pre -application stage before a design solution has been arrived at), and by having a role in the review and development of design standards that are the principal drivers of general design and development in the City. Current ADB Powers and Duties (adopted in 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]. Desired roles expressed by ADB (2019) • Develop and recommend city-wide design guidelines and standards (e.g. for landscape treatments, multifamily development), as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts (e.g. Downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, Highway 99) Packet Pg. 265 • Review projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and, if not, recommend refinements to adopted design guidelines and standards • Do pre -application meetings for certain "significant" projects and provide recommendations to the Hearing Examiner when quasi-judicial decision -making is required (similar to how consolidated permit reviews operate now) • Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council • Provide decision support to staff (which may relate to various design -related topics) Recommendations To implement these desired roles, the ADB recommends that its meetings change in emphasis, focusing more on: • Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted (see separate flow chart for an example); • Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects (both at completion and at, for example, 3-5 years after the project has been built); • Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. To implement this role effectively, the code should be clarified so that the sections of the code relevant to design are identified and the ADB's role made clear. Packet Pg. 266 Projects that Require SEPA Projects > 75' Projects that (Outside HWY 991 0 in Height Within Do Not Require Planned Area) HWY 99 Planned Area SEPA Review Meeting With ADB (Not a Public Hearing) ' Preapplication ' Meeting With ADB (Not a Public Hearing) Development Application to City (May include Building Permit) Staff Report SEPA / Public Hearing Notice Public Hearing Type III -A Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Decision Optional Preapplication Meeting With City Staff Development Application to City (May include Building Permit) Type I Design review by Staff Staff Decisio esign Review may coincide with Building Permit Approval Building Permit Approval 6.1.d 0 a n K P.. v i ej Packet Pg. 268 6.1.d ► To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; ► To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; ► To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; ► To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; ► To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. [ECDC 20.10.000 — Purposes] Packet Pg. 269 6.1.d "...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 - Scope] Packet Pg. 270 6.1.d 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 - Scope] Packet Pg. 271 6.1.d 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 architectural design plan and the goals, established design district. the implementation of the comprehensive objectives and policies for each 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. [ECC 10.05.040, Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973] Packet Pg. 272 6.1.d ► District -based design review in BD & CG zones (ECDC 20.12) ► General design review in all other zones (ECDC 20.11) ► ADB quasi-judicial decisions ► Projects where Environmental Determination (SEPA) is required (except Hwy 99) ► Public hearing w/notice (Type III -A) ► Staff decisions ► All other projects (including Hwy 99 buildings under 75 feet in height) ► No notice (Type 1) Packet Pg. 273 6.1.d The ADB has basically functioned as a strictly quasi-judicial decision making body. The ADB has very rarely dealt with design standards and how design has - or has not - worked within the community. Packet Pg. 274 6.1.d ► ADB has noticed that it has less meaningful input at the decision -making level; there is a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle where it can have more influence on building design. The board would also like to review and influence the development of design guidance and standards that are the primary drivers of how buildings are designed ► Council Resolution 1367 (2016): update codes with the general goal to remove quasi-judicial decision making from city council and other volunteer boards ► Council revised their quasi-judicial participation in July 2019 Packet Pg. 275 6.1.d ► Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council. ► Provide decision support to staff. ► Establish guidelines and standards city-wide and for special design districts. ► Review selected projects post -hoc 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. 276 6.1.d ► Review existing policy guidelines (in Comprehensive Plan) and standards (ECDC) and update as necessary ► Create multifamily guidelines and standards ► Develop or modify special district design standards as needed Packet Pg. 277