Loading...
2021-12-01 Architectural Design Board Packet()V E D_4 Architectural Design Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, December 1, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting at: https://zoom.us/s/95360544929?pwd=ZmdOREFORkE3RkRaeVdBRmpkNUxMZzO9 Meeting ID: 9536 0544 929. Password: 818962 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 A. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived B. Approval of Agenda C. Approval of Minutes 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5956) Approval of Minutes Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve September 1st, October 6th, and November 3rd minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • September 1, 2021 Minutes (PDF) • October 6, 2021 Minutes (PDF) • November 3, 2021 Minutes (PDF) D. Public Hearings E. Board Review Items Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. Architectural Design Board Page 1 Printed 1112412021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda December 1, 2021 F. Board Discussion Items 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5957) Multifamily Design Standards Discussion Background/History On June 24, 2021, City Council formally asked staff to begin the code amendment process for multifamily design standards. These standards were part of a larger list of housing related policy options recommended by the Citizen's Housing Commission. Then on September 7, 2021, City Council asked that green space requirements also be considered for this possible amendment. The City Council minutes pertaining to this topic are provided (Attachment 1). Staff met with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on October 6, 2021 to introduce the topic and interview the Board about challenges with the current regulations. Staff Recommendation No recommendation at this time. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- City Council Minutes (Abbreviated) (PDF) • Attachment 2- Residential Multifamily (RM) Zoning Regulations (DOCX) • Attachment 3- Multifamily (RM) Existing Design Guidelines (PDF) • Attachment 4- Presentation Part A (Draft) (PDF) • Attachment 5- Presentation Part B (Draft) (PDF) 2. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5958) Election of Officers for 2022 Background/History Elections are held at the end of the year for the upcoming year. Staff Recommendation Elect a Chair and a Vice Chair G. ADB Member Comments H. Adjournment Architectural Design Board Page 2 Printed 1112412021 C.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve September 1st, October 6th, and November 3rd minutes. Narrative Draft meeting minutes attached, pending approval. Attachments: September 1, 2021 Minutes October 6, 2021 Minutes November 3, 2021 Minutes Packet Pg. 3 C.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom September 1, 2021 Chair Lauri Strauss called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Lauri Strauss Alexa Brooks Maurine Jeude Kim Bayer Joe Herr BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bruce Owensby STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Call Meeting to Order Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Kernen. Call the meeting to order. It is 7:04 p.m. And let's do a roll call. Roll Call Kernen Lien: Lauri Strauss. Lauri Strauss: Present. Kernen Lien: Bruce Owensby. And I got an email from him saying he couldn't make it tonight. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kernen Lien: Maurine Jeude. I do not see her in the attendee list yet. Kim Bayer. Kim Bayer: Here. Kernen Lien: Joe Herr. Joe Herr: Here. Kernen Lien: That's everybody. And we have a new member. Alexa, what's your last name? Q Packet Pg. 4 C.1.a Alexa Brooks: Brooks. Present. Lauri Strauss: Thank you, everyone. I think that is all of us. So, I'd like to welcome Alexa to the board. This is her first meeting tonight. Alexa — I'm glad Alexa could join tonight because Alexa's our landscape professional. Kim Bayer: Yay. Move Approval of Agenda to Front of Agenda Lauri Strauss: She will be a big help tonight on any questions that come up for this one. So, the public portion of the meeting — I'd like to just do one thing before we do that. I want to move the approval of the agenda to right before the public portion just to make sure that the — it seems kind of weird to me that the agenda is after we've already done several things on here. If we move the approval of the agenda to item No. 2, is everybody okay with that? Kim Bayer: Yes. Lauri Strauss: Is there a motion? Kim Bayer: Motion to move. Alexa Brooks: Second. Lauri Strauss: Okay. All those in favor? Joe Herr: Aye. Kim Bayer: Aye. Alexa Brooks: Aye. Agenda Approval Lauri Strauss: Aye. Okay, great. All right. So,1 just want to look at the agenda then. Make sure is everybody okay with the agenda. Is there a move to approve the agenda? Kim Bayer: I motion to — Joe Herr: Move we approve the agenda. Kim Bayer: Second. Lauri Strauss: All right. All in favor? Kim Bayer: Aye. Lauri Strauss: Aye. Joe Herr: Aye. Alexa Brooks: Aye. Public Portion of Meeting — Point Edwards Design Review Application Q Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 C.1.a Lauri Strauss: Okay, agenda is approved. Okay. Now, the next item is the public portion of the meeting. So, I am going to flip the script. All right. The purpose of this open record hearing is for the ADB to address the Point Edwards Homeowners Association design review application regarding a landscape modification and vegetation maintenance plan in the common areas of the Point Edwards development. The public hearing is now open. I would like to ask your cooperation in the following procedure. The city will make a recording of the proceedings. Therefore, if you address the ADB, please begin by stating your name and address. Speak slowly and clearly. Only one person will be allowed to speak at a time. This hearing is open to public testimony. Because this is an open record hearing, the staff, the applicant, and any member of the public will have an opportunity to introduce evidence into the administrative record. This evidence can be in the form of public testimony and/or through the submission of written comments or other documents. Evidence should be germane to the design review criteria. It will be of great assistance to the board and staff if speakers could identify the design review criteria that they're comments are intended to address. If you would like an opportunity to speak at any future appeal of this manner, you will need to testify today to ensure that you preserve your ability to participate in the future. The appearance of fairness doctrine requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance, and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair; it also must appear to be fair. Therefore, I would like to ask whether any member of this decision -making body r has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. Board members? 0 Kim Bayer: No. 0 Lauri Strauss: All right. Did I get everyone? Alexa? Joe? 0. Q. Joe Herr: Yeah, I have no comment. Nothing, yes. a Alexa Brooks: No. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Great, perfect. Is there any member of the board who has a conflict of interest or believes that he or she cannot hear and consider this application in a fair and objective matter — manner? Kim Bayer: No. Alexa Brooks: No. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who objects to my participation or to any other board member's participation as a decision -maker in this hearing? And, Kernen, I assume if there was, they would click the "Raise Hand" button in the Zoom meeting. Kernen Lien: Yeah. So, if anybody objects, go ahead, and raise your virtual hand. If you're on the phone, to raise your hand it's star -nine. That's if you object. Somebody raised their hand. Lauri Strauss: If there are any objections, the chair must ask for the reason for the objection. Kernen Lien: They unraised their hand. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Maybe they were just practicing. Kernen Lien: Okay, nobody else has their hands up. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Because we are making an evidentiary record that may be relied upon in the future, it is important that the board members ask any and all questions of speakers during the hearing. One of the most important purposes of this hearing is to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light through this process. So, if board members have questions, they should ask them. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 At this point, I would like to ask that everyone planning to testify today stand and raise their right hand. It's kind of hard to stand, but Kernen and I assume you can virtually do this. We'll need to turn everybody on so we can hear them and say: Do you affirm that the testimony that you are about to give will the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Male Speaker: I do. Male Speaker: I do. Bel Johnson: Yes, I do. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kernen Lien: Bel, do you have — is everybody in that same window who's going to be presenting tonight? Bel Johnson: Actually, there was one other hand that was over here, and he wasn't showing up. There he is. to N Kernen Lien: But I don't need to let anybody else in? Bel Johnson: No. No, you're good. o Kernen Lien: Okay. o L Q Bel Johnson: You got us all. Q- a Lauri Strauss: Okay. Next, we will begin with the testimony from staff. So, Kernen, you are up. m Kernen Lien: Okay. I'll share my screen. s All right. Good evening, everyone. I'm Kernen Lien with the City of Edmonds Planning Division. And we're here tonight at public hearing for the Point Edwards landscape modification. And click over here. All right. So, I'll run through a review of the process for what ADB is reviewing tonight and give an overview of the proposal. Then I have my staff presentation/recommendation. And then this will be followed by some questions from the ADB. And the applicant will have an opportunity to present. And then we'll open it up for the public hearing. And I'll be letting people in to speak at the public hearing, and it will like a Council meeting and run kind of similar to that. Then will be questions from the ADB and further deliberation by the ADB. So, just an overview of the process. Got a little bit of history on this to give some background on the Point Edwards development site. So, the Point Edwards is a master plan site. So, Ordinance No. 3411 adopted the Point Edwards Master Plan and a contract rezone. And that applies both to the Point Edwards development as well as the lower yard, the Unocal site. The ADB originally approved the master plan for Point Edwards development underneath ADB-2002-226. And it's been kind of modified a couple times over the year since then. And each modification to that had been reviewed by the ADB as well. The latest modification being the Building 10, 50 Pine. Decisions before the ADB are Type III -A permit decisions. That means they are appealable to Superior Court, not appealable to the council. And this is being reviewed by the ADB because it's a landscape modification, change to the landscape that was approved with the Master Plan for the Point Edwards development. The ADB's reviewed recommendation, basically, it's got to be consistent with ECDC 20.11.030. Those are the general design guidelines within the city code, the Comprehensive Plan Urban Design chapter. And it has to be consistent with the zoning ordinance. So, those are the criteria that they ADB is using when they're reviewing the proposal. The zoning vicinity map of the site, the MP 1 zone, the Master Plan 1, is the Point Edwards development site. MP2 is the lower yard. And always of interest, the open space area over here is the Edmonds Marsh. Went too far. There we go. An aerial photo of the site, Point Edwards development. And really where the landscape modification is these lower slope areas over here. Primarily, the north slope is this area right here. And this area over here is Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 C.1.a called the west slope. There were 260 trees that were inventoried in that area. And based in the application, includes 35 removals — as far as where all this is when we get into detail a bit later. Twenty-two trees are going to be coppiced, basically cut down and maintained as large shrubs. Eighty trees are going to be pruned. There's going to be 31 wildlife snags created, 16 live and 15 dead. And no action on 89 of the trees other than water. The proposal also includes planting 45 new trees, 201 shrubs of various sizes, 90 ferns and groundcover to increase species and diversity on the project site. So, this was included in the staff report. Not going to spend a lot of time on this. This was attachment three of the staff report that identified all the trees and activity that's going to be happening to the different trees. There was also a tree inventory associated with it that associates with this. It has some numbers and exactly what is happening with each tree. So, I'm going to go into the review criteria for what the Architectural Design Board's looking at now. So, this area's in the Master Plan Hillside Mixed Zone. The site is on MP1, so it's subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.75 ECDC. That's basically the chapter that was adopted with the master plan for this site. There's no change to the use for development footprint of the site. It's really just kind of changing the landscape area in there, so no change to the intensity of the development site. And the proposal's consistent with the zoning and the Point Edwards Master Plan. Next is the general design criteria. to N So, Chapter 20.11 ECDC has the whole chapter. Not all the chapter applies to this proposal the 20.11.030 really deals with buildings. There are no buildings associated with this. So, it's really just the site treatment portion that applies to this development. So, that whole section is listed here. Not going to go through all of it. But the staff report contains a detailed o analysis of it. Touching on a few things. Grading, vegetation removal, and other changes shall be minimized where natural 0 beauty exists. Large cut and fill in impervious surface should be avoided. So, there's no cut and fill associated with this. c Obviously, there is some tree cutting associated with it. But of the 260 trees after inventory, only 36 are proposed for removal, Q. and 46 is what I noted for replanting along with additional shrubs. Landscape treatment should be provided to enhance building Q design or other site improvements. One of the reasons that we're doing this is the landscape modification also includes a maintenance plan. And I'll be talking about critical areas later. But one of the things — the maintenance, I think, is a big aspect of this, and slope maintenance. The landscape treatment — this area was largely I think left out from the greater Point Edwards development when you look at the landscaping of the site. The upslope, it's very formal landscaping, well -maintained. It was planted and cared for, initially planted by developers, and cared for by the HOA over the years. But this lower slope area really isn't tied into the rest of the site. So, this landscape modification, one of the goals is to generally tie the whole site together, especially now that they HOA is maintaining the site. Landscaping treatment should provide buffer for development from surrounding property, or a conflict may result. There really is not conflict as shown from the site plan. It's similar zone down below, but there is no development there right now. Think that's all we'll touch on for that. The proposal also has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan urban design element. So, like the general design guidelines, there's not a lot that just applies to this proposal. I got a couple of criteria spelled out here. So, one is open space for residential settings. Create greenspaces to enhance the visual attributes of development. And provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. So, this is in the open space area of the Point Edwards development. Still remain open spaced. As far as spaces for interaction, there is a public trail that goes down into this area. There was an easement that was associated with that one at the Point Edwards Master Plan. So, that is opened to the public. It's not private, at least down to the viewing point area, which I'll show a little bit later. Integrating site features with the natural landscape — natural landscape features and unique landforms, such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees, into site design wherever possible. And like I already mentioned before, I think this proposal, one of the goals of it, at least from my mind talking with Point Edwards over the years, has been to the pull the site in with the larger Point Edwards Development, particularly with the maintenance long term on this. Touching on landscaping. So, buffering the site was mentioned before. And landscaping is really one of the parts of the code that applies to this development well. I do want to note there was something that was left out of my staff report that I did send Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 C.1.a to the ADB this week. It's the lower image here. One of the plan sets inadvertently got left out. So, there are the revegetation plants that are shown over on the right there. So, the landscaping requirements are spelled out in Chapter 20.13 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. The ADB's allowed to interpret and modify the landscape requirements. Basically, this area of the development would require Type III landscaping, which is intended to provide a visual separation between compatible uses, as I noted that site down below is also an MP zone. General requirements are trees have to planted 30 feet from center, and 50 percent of them have to be evergreen species. And there's ground covers and shrubs associated with that too. So, as noted, there's going to be 45 new trees that are planted. And if you look at the plants to the right, the brown that you can see there are existing trees that are going to remain. And the green is basically new plantings that are going to be going in. So, the proposed modification is consistent with Type III landscaping requirements. Let me take a quick drink. Another part of the review of this development was critical area reviews. So, the image on the right is the critical area map for the site. The red areas are slopes greater than 40 percent, so those are potential landslide hazard. The yellow areas are erosion hazard, 15 percent, 40 percent. So, as you can see, the area that I highlighted earlier where the landscape modification is happening is really in these slope areas down here. N N Not shown on the map to the right but also a critical area review was done on this. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species layer - that's what PHS stands for - identified a blue heron colony on the site. As 2 far as comments that came in on this, that was kind of the primary concern where we had comments on this development. There — was a geotechnical report associated with the development, consistent with requirements of ECDC 23.80, which is the geologically hazardous areas that evaluated the proposal, did not find the development would impact slope stability. In fact, it c would help maintain slope stability, particularly with the maintenance of the trees over on the side there. There are short pines Q. over there - the ones that haven't been pruned over the years are kind of misformed, getting tall, and been falling over and Q impacting slope stability. So, by maintaining these, it'll help improve that slope stability. There is no real tree removal over on �- this side. It's more of maintain the area. 0 And I didn't include this in my staff report, but there was a settlement agreement with the developer. I assume many of you are aware of the clearcutting that occurred on that hillside years ago of the development. So, that was the developer that did that. That was not the HOA that did that. But the maintenance plan is basically consistent with development agreement that came together with the developer on there as far as where you maintain the trees on that hillside at different elevations. Regarding the blue heron, there was a wildlife technical memorandum that was included in here that concluded that, the PHS layer, they had conversations with WDFW on there, and WDFW said that the colony information was from 2002. And the technical memorandum noted that there had not appeared to be activity on the site for at least 10 years. We received comments from a local group, Save Our Marsh, that has several birders that are associated with it and local citizen scientists that provided information that there has been blue heron activity in that area over the years. I'm going to go down one slide, and then I'll come back up. The wildlife report that was put together did identify one kind of old heron nest site on the property. So, this here is kind of an ugly photo of the site. This little inset up over here is from the wildlife report. So, they identified an old nest site up over in this corner, which would be about over here on this site. The wildlife memorandum also identified some old nests kind offsite on the Unocal property down over here, which would be kind of generally in this area down over here. The Save Our Marsh group forwarded their comments to the ADB and sent them photos that were taken from the viewing points over on the other side of the Harbor Square property. Where there are viewpoints are over there, where the figure is shown across. They identified a number of locations where there could be nest sites. One of the photos, I think, picked up this nest site that was over here. But the other photos that identified nest sites were more down over in this area over here. One thing I didn't note when I was showing the aerial photos, you can see here this red line here is basically the parcel of the Point Edwards development. Lauri Strauss: Hey, Kernen. Kernen Lien: That basically runs on the inside - Lauri Strauss: Kernen? Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 Kernen Lien: — of these older trees back in this section over here. So, it's really just these evergreens that's on the Point Edwards site. Lauri? Lauri Strauss: Yeah, I can't see your mouse on the screen. Kernen Lien: Oh. Lauri Strauss: So, I don't know if you could maybe just point — when you say, "Over here," could you just kind of say, "To the left of the screen or down the center of the..." Just give a little more information about where... You said that they've taken some photos. But I'd like to know where that is exactly. Kernen Lien: Yeah. I can show that there. I'm going to see if I can — whoops. Hopefully I can draw on here so you can see something. I don't know if this is going to work. I'll try. Lauri Strauss: At least make it — yeah, there I can see the mouse going around. to N Kernen Lien: You can at least see my mouse now? 2 Lauri Strauss: There I can see — yeah. Yeah, I can see that little line. So, yeah, that's better. Just something. — Kernen Lien: All right. So, the property line basically runs on the backside of all the trees that you see here. There's a bunch c of short pines back in here. That's the Point Edwards property. All the trees you see over here is not on the Point Edwards Q. property. This path here is that public pedestrian trail that I noted, and it goes into a viewpoint down over here. So, that's the Q end of the public easement for pedestrian access in there. ., Basically, from here over this way, there is no tree removal associated with it. That's just pruning that is occurring. The primary area where tree removal is going to occur is over here by the stormwater pond. So, this over here is the stormwater pond associated with the development. And there's a span of alders over here. Again, not all these trees are on Point Edwards' site. Think maybe about half of those could be, I think, Point Edward. We'll talk about that too. Most of the heron nests that are identified are kind of this area, Willow Creek, kind of outlet here. You can see it there. It runs along here. And a lot of the heron nests that have been identified are kind of down in this area and a long way from the project site, not on the Point Edwards site, and are not going to be touched by this development. The one old nest that is on the Point Edwards site, that tree is going to remain standing. I'm going to go back up a slide. Need to come up here. So, this project also underwent SEPA— blue herons were the primary concerns with this development, as well as kind bird species in general on there. And so, there were a couple of conditions that were associated with ADB. So, two of them kind of have to do with the wildlife on there. So, no cutting activity during the nesting season, which I believe was primarily February through September on that, spelled out in the condition there and the wildlife report. And also looking for annual reports and bonding for the planting that's associated with this. And we have a couple other conditions with it. So, the wildlife report, while it didn't identify any current activities on the site, noted that some would be — there was some- no heron activity on the site or adjacent. There is documentation of local heron activity on the site. That being said, as far as the impact to the former blue heron site, the wildlife report found that any revegetation occurring outside of the nesting season, while increasing the overall species diversity, leading to the development of high -quality, large native trees through planting and maintenance would enhance the overall habitat quality of the site. And it also made a finding with regards to kind of wildlife in general on the site. Again, reading from the wildlife technical memorandum, "We would expect an increase in the overall wildlife species diversity using the project site because of increased plant community diversity and increased overall tree health from maintenance. Replacing the relatively sparse vegetative understory that include invasive species with a variety of native shrubs and groundcovers will increase plant species richness and structural diversity, which would benefit wildlife habitat over time. Additionally, in the creation of snags through the management of the red alder trees will promote further species diversity by encouraging use of the project site by cavity -nesting Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 C.1.a species such as pileated woodpeckers." So, critical areas were a big aspect of this. So, that's necessarily part of these reviews, but I did want to highlight the critical area issues of this. So, staff has recommended approval of the proposal with four conditions. One of them is no cutting activity during the nesting season. These conditions are spelled out in more detail in my staff report. The engineering division had a condition with regards to utility locates before cutting because there's some utilities that cut through the area. They didn't really think there was any in the area where the trees would be removed but just out of caution, they wanted a call for utility locate. A cost estimate in bonding for the landscaping. That's with the associated- planted for it. And annual reports for five years after everything has been planted on there. That five years is for the critical area code. So, that's what I have for a presentation. Any questions from the ADB? Lauri Strauss: Yeah, I have a question. The reports that must be done; would those go back to the city? Is that what that is? Kernen Lien: The annual reports would be to the Planning Department. Basically, documenting how everything's been planted. Is it surviving? Do they need to do some replanting to make sure everything's surviving in there? So, that's what the annual reports are. And that's typical with developments within the critical area. to N Lauri Strauss: Okay. And then I have one more, and then I'll give the floor to everybody else. But what is a live snag and dead snag? I don't know what that means. Kernen Lien: So, a snag is basically a tree that's going to be topped — the Point Edward folks can talk about this in more C detail too — but the trees are going to be topped I think about 18 feet, plus or minus a couple of feet. Some of them are going to c be killed. They'll probably girdle around the bottom, so they'll be a dead snag there. And some of them are going to be kept Q. alive, so we'll cut off. But it's going to bush out, and the trees will stay alive. If you top them, generally, they stay alive. So, Q- there's going to be some wildlife snags that are killed and some that are kept alive, but not as tall. Q Lauri Strauss: It's basically a tree that's being cut, not a snag to catch wildlife. Alexa Brooks: So, I think — Kernen Lien: If this was a forest environment, trees die, and they stay standing for a while. And those are trees that are — they're soft, so things like woodpeckers can peck in the side of it and get it. And then when woodpeckers do that, other birds use those woodpecker holes. So, they're wildlife snags. They're important to the environment and are arguably missing from urban areas. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Alexa, did you have something? Alexa Brooks: Oh, I was just going to ask if the main point of that is to kind of provide more of a wildlife viewing. Because I see woodpeckers on live trees with branches all the time. And so, I don't think they need a snag to access insects. So, I guess my question would be, is that for bird watching mostly? Kernen Lien: I'll let the Point Edwards talk about that when they go. And they have their arborist and wildlife biologist to answer those type of questions. Alexa Brooks: Okay. Lauri Strauss: Great. Anybody else have any questions for staff? Kim Bayer: I have a question. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kim Bayer: So, just to get clarification so I understand. So, the blue heron situation, they haven't seen activity or much activity for quite a while it sounds like. But the concern from Save Our Marsh folks was that they think there is some blue Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 heron and that — did they come to any conclusion as to if these trees are cut, would they just migrate to another area of the marsh? I didn't quite understand that piece. Kernen Lien: So, the wildlife report that was submitted, they had conversations with WDFW. And that PHS notification was from 2002. In conversations with WDFW, they said there had been no other reports since then. And when the wildlife person reviewed the site, he didn't notice any activity on the Point Edwards site as well. The Save Our Marsh comments provided information that there had been recent activity, at least in and around the marsh on the site. So, I know there was some nesting there that happened this year. And there has been some sporadic nesting around the marsh over the years. So, they wanted to point that out, and that's one thing that they were contesting in the wildlife report. When I was showing that aerial photo on there and the photos on the nest that were shown by the Save Our Marsh group — share my screen again. Am I sharing the right screen? Can't tell. Are you seeing the PowerPoint? Lauri Strauss: Yep. Kim Bayer: Yeah. Alexa Brooks: Yes. d r 3 Kernen Lien: So, the photos I was showing by Save Our Marsh, they did identify in the photos the one kind of old nest that cE was over here on the Point Edwards site. But all the other photos that showed the nest were generally down in this area down — here along the marsh and in these trees that are not on the Point Edwards site. 0 Lauri Strauss: So— a Q. Kernen Lien: I'm sure they will comment here in the public period on this as well. And they can elaborate on your concerns. Q rn m Kim Bayer: Okay. I'll let it move forward then. Thank you. c Lauri Strauss: Yeah. N O Kernen Lien: And whoever does comment for Save Our Marsh, I do have your photos and whatnot I can pull up during N your public comment period. i d Kim Bayer: And there are questions, Kernen. I didn't know if you saw that. But — E r a Lauri Strauss: Yeah. I think, Kim, this is the point where the board gets to ask questions of the staff. We'll get to public testimony shortly. I assume that person is a part of the public. But if there's no more questions for Kernen, I would like to move on and get testimony from the applicant. Maybe we'll get some of our questions answered. E Kernen Lien: All right, Bel, you're up. Bel Johnson: Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Bel Johnson, and I've been with Point Edwards for about Q 12 years now. Most incredible place to be a part of a great community. My background is design and build and manage, and I've done that for about 25 years. I'm also a master gardener. I want to take the time as well to introduce a couple other people that are with us this evening that will be of some help to answer some of those questions regarding trees and be able to answer questions in regard to some of the blue heron questions that you've got as well. And we've got a consulting arborist whose name is Justina Kraus. She's with Champion Tree Care. And she also has been an incredible advisor for many years. Probably about five years we've been working on this, as Kernen knows. And she has helped us to advise regarding how we want to put our landscape master plan together. She has helped us to also work with the permit that we've done, and in the beginning end as well as the amendments that we also recently put in. So, she's an ISA-certified arborist. She's tree risk assessment qualified. As I said, she's an owner of Champion Trees; and urban forest ecologist; bachelor and Master's from the University of Washington. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 C.1.a We have Andrew Rossi here with Raedeke Associates. He's from the University of New Hampshire. He is a wildlife biologist working with wildlife rehabilitation, wetland mitigation, monitoring endangered species, and habitat surveying. We as well have Mike Mitchell, who is our board president at this time of Point Edwards. And he is also a past chair for the Landscape Committee. So, that kind of introduces all of us here. And we'd like to start out by thanking the Architectural Design Board as well Kernen to allow us to present today for the permit we're trying to get clarified and also approved. Also, to thank Kernen for all the crazy questions that he's answered for me through the years. We've worked together for about 10 years now. And I just appreciate the guidance that he's given us. So, as well, we couldn't have done this without the Point Edwards community. They have been amazing in being able to help with this development, just volunteering their time — incredible people. So, thank you. So, we're probably on to — let's see — the presentation for Point Edwards Type III -A Permit and Updated Landscape Master Plan. We can go ahead and go to the next PowerPoint. Thank you. This just kind of gives you guys — gives everybody an overview of what Point Edwards is. That is not show everyone the whole entire area. But it does show — it gives you a pretty good picture of the north slope of what we're going to be speaking about. So, Point Edwards Homeowners Association board of directors is seeking a permit to improve and maintain the vegetation on part of the PE grounds. Point Edwards stewards over 20 acres and approximately 7 acres of critical slopes. And so, the part that r you're looking at is about 4 acres, and there's another 3 acres that goes around the corner, which is what we call the west slope. Our purpose with this project is to protect our critical slopes into the future. We have been charged with responsibility by the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds to manage these slopes so that C they remain stable and provide shelter and food for a variety of wildlife. We have worked non-stop over the last five years, c with stops and starts, a few ways along the way, to develop a plan with total dedication to preserving the integrity of the slopes Q. while creating habitat sustainability for our wildlife. We all care about our wildlife. We are part of a very big piece of that Q wildlife. Part of the City of Edmonds as a great, great community, they're able to come along as public pathways. They're able ., to go up to three different outposts that show you a great outlook of the marsh as well as the views of water, as well as the ferries that go by. We're all very, very fortunate. And that's just one picture that kind of shows that for us. So, if we can go on to, I think it's the next — it might be my next picture there. s Okay. So, as we mentioned — it's on page 25 of the permit — there are six specific goals that Point Edwards has. We want to maintain slope integrity. This comes first. And the next goals will build on that slope stability as well. So, No. 2 is the habitat improvement for wildlife, to create and maintain forage and nesting opportunities for birds and small mammals. This goal is not secondary to the first. But if you don't maintain those slopes, if we don't pay attention to those, then we have nothing to be able to help that wildlife [inaudible]. We have got to take care of our critical slopes. We have got to make sure that they are stabilized. And we work at that all the time. So, No. 3 is to maintain the public views, maintaining public pathway viewpoints towards the marsh, towards the marina, and toward the mountains. And there are small corridors that are left at this time, that are left for the public and the Point Edwards community, the City of Edmonds as a whole, to be able to walk along these public pathways. Years and years ago, maybe back into seven or eight years ago, all the trees that are on the Chevron property were a lot smaller. And you'd be able to view the marsh from that public pathway. I think the only place you can now view that is up on what we call marsh landing. It's where the public outlooks. It's up on Pine Street. So, we would like to see that perhaps there are some view corridors that are open. But perhaps we will be able to maintain a couple of those areas, which would be great. We will show you pictures later in the presentation which are top -down views taken by drones, and they'll show you the diversity or the density of the alders so you can kind of get a feeling for that. So, No. 4, we want to use best available science and methods. And what we mean by that is we use handheld tools when we go into the critical areas, and we also do a lot of scatters so that we keep everything that's smaller than 12 inches. When with scatter it out, we try to make sure that it hits the ground so that it will breakdown and go back into our landscape and provide nitrogen and all the things that it would do. So, we're very aware of those areas as well. No. 5 is to continue building a relationship of trust and collaboration with Point Edwards, with the City of Edmonds, and with the community as a whole. And No. 6 is to use foresight now to positively guide future landscape benefits. And what we mean by that is that we want to preserve these slopes. We want to have wildlife diversity. And we also want to be diverse in an urban Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 C.1.a forest. And we want to do this for our future generations. We, at some point, will be turning all of this over to our grandchildren and their grandchildren. And as it moves along, if we don't do what we need to do to provide that, then there won't be those wonderful primary trees that are coming back in. The evergreen cedars that are taking hold, that's what we want to see along with our deciduous trees. So, if we can move on to probably the next page as well. Thank you. So, in December of 2020, we submitted Point Edwards permit. And since we have, there were some things that have come up regrading what we needed to do regarding further information. And it sounds like Kernen definitely hit on some of those areas. So, we have amended some of our documents, and we have added some additional exhibits. So, Kernen had requested some further detail on implementation and timing of the project. What he wanted to be able to know is, what exactly are you guys doing? Because I understand the thesis. I understand there's phase one, phase two, phase, three. But what do you want to do with this? And how are you going to provide the timing to make sure that the implementations happen when they should be happening? So, we can speak to that in a little bit. And he also asked that we investigate and plan for the presence and for the use of how the blue herons will be — I mean, what if they did come? What would you do? So, those are things that we believe in the amended phase that we put in there, that we've addressed a lot of that by Raedeke helping us in those areas. So, as well as we did have a couple comments. There were a couple comments. And we want to thank everyone for those public comments. While we did that, we included exhibit nine that speaks to the project evolution due to those public comments. So, at the City of Edmond's request, we had the expert recommendations. You can see the amendments regarding that, those public comments that are on page 17, as well as exhibit nine. So, if you want to move on to the next one as well. Thank you. Raedeke and Associates were hired. And there were multiple site visits where Raedeke had to build technical memorandum. That's exhibit seven. This memorandum recorded their findings, and the recommendations were incorporated into the permit. o We changed our SEPA, we changed our landscape management plan, to better address the wildlife, the birds, and, in more Q. detail, the timing of the project. So, let's talk about the timing of the project. Q- a The timing was adjusted so that phase one — as Kernen had mentioned, that removal phase is phase one, which happens in one specific area, which we'll be able to show you, will be done in late -August through the early part of February. The reason that has been chosen is it is during the offseason for the nesting of birds. So, it will allow us to be able to get that done and will allow us to be able to come in, start with revegetation while we're moving into phase two to get the revegetation started, and be able to make the right things happen so by the springtime and when things are going on that we would be out of that area. So, Raedeke recommended that all revegetation be changed to native. And we did that. I had a couple shrubs in there, there were also a couple trees, that were not all the way considered native. So, we are going to put in birch. We'll be putting in cedar. We'll be putting in Dogwood. So, there's a lot of variety by natives. So, Andrew returned yesterday at our request, which is obviously for 2021, and he confirmed the exact proximity of the identified heron next so that we will be able to speak with that. And he will be going through a couple pictures that we have at the very end of our presentation for him to be able to get everybody up to date. And go back, Kernen, not quite yet. Oh, that's just about, yeah. There are no great blue heron that have been found on Point Edwards property at this time. And Kernen did mention that we did have one tree that Raedeke had seen. And he did note that tree. That tree was one of them that was removal, and we took that off the removal list. And we now have it as standing over the remain area, even though that nest — which could've been heron; it also said it could've a large hawk. We don't know. But we know that it's probably over 10 years old. But we will be retaining that tree. So, again, we go to our onsite meeting, which was with Save Our Marsh representatives. On March 25, 2021, the slopes and wildlife meeting was written up by Larry Vogel and published in My Edmonds News. We share common goals with Save Our Marsh to improve buffer habitat on PE's private property. The goal of the meeting was to show our guests where the proposed work would be done. And so, what we tried to show them — which is kind of interesting — as Kernen has mentioned, again, there are a lot of missing sections as far as where the fence line is on the Unocal property, Chevron property. That fence line is kind of — it really doesn't state where our property is. Unocal slash Chevron is really kind of the midrange on what everyone considers to be Point Edwards property, which it's not. So, we have kind small slices. We'll be showing you some of that as well that can give you an idea of that. So, we've added exhibits. We've accepted the specific timing of activities, as mentioned above, and changed the wording based on Raedeke's technical memorandum recommendations. At the suggestion of Save Our Marsh, Point Edwards recently received Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 1 I Packet Pg. 14 C.1.a certification from the National Wildlife Federation. And we have our placards up by the Charter Club area, so we're very pleased with that. And so, we can go on to the next page then, Kernen. I'll take a drink of water here. Just a second. So, we can go ahead to the next one. There we go. There we go. On this picture, we have made a property line marker from the light pole on Pine Street. So, you're looking at Pine Street. And that very first section that you see is what is map L 102. So, we wanted to just make sure that what you're seeing — you can kind of get your idea where we're at. So, we're close to the Charter Club, close to the maintenance office. And then right by that light is where our property moves on. So, we have identified and tagged about 260 trees on our north slope and a small portion of our west slope. We incorporated the recommendations that Raedeke made regarding the 260 trees. Our amended permit is requesting removal of 35 trees. We have made changes to the tree count, which was originally 45, to 35. And you can refer to page 19 on that. We're coppicing 22, which we had changed originally from 28. We will be pruning 80 trees. One of the things that we want to speak about with this is we have — as he said, we're trying to get up to date on the north slope. The west slope has been maintained. There was a settlement agreement that was set up. We were able to follow those guidelines. We have used those guidelines to be able to work with the guidelines that we'd like to see for the north slope. In fact, with that happening, what needs to happen is there are trees in certain areas that have never been under that pruning umbrella, like we have done with some. So, L102, L103, L104, there are some that have been pruned, but there are others that have not. So, we're trying to get that back up to date, so that's where it says pruning 80 trees. Creating 31 wildlife snags, or 16 live and 15 dead. That original permit was 24. And there will be no action to 89 trees. And what we mean by that is there are small pines. There are some that are only 2 inches. Some are 10 feet tall. We just want to monitor those because there's no reason to really be working on them. They're alive; they're doing well. And so, we want to just be in that monitoring phase with those. And with our tree inventory list that we have developed, we have the DBH of the trees. We have the height of the trees. We have tagged all these trees with numbers. So, each one stands on its own, which will allow us — as we begin some of this work, it will allow us to go on to some of those line items and keep track of what we're doing, tree by tree by tree. So, we're very pleased by that. As mentioned above, the north and the west slope makes up approximately 7 acres of the 20-plus acres of the PE property. Throughout our entire slope, there are over 600 trees. So, what we're talking about here is the north slope, which is mainly about 4 acres, and the west slop is about 3 acres. We're not even including the formal grounds and their trees. But we're talking about the west and north slope, which is 600 trees altogether, and that does include our vine maples as well. So, again, 260 trees, the aggregate. We are talking to remove 57 trees. That's coppicing and removal of 35. To do routine pruning for those 89 trees, and that will be monitored. The north slope, as we said, it is a bit larger. But the interesting thing is that — well, I'll go through, and we'll break down some of what this is about so that you can get an idea specifically of how we have had to break down the maps because of how big the slopes are. So, they're broken into six different maps. L106 is the west slope, and it will not be a portion of this presentation. L105, also, there is a portion of L105 that will not be a part of this presentation because it is part of the west slope. There will be a very small portion of L105. So, if you want to move on to the next page there. Okay. So, what this gives us is kind of a picture of the way L102 is. Then you kind of see it combine into L103. Then down we go by the detention pond that moves passed the public pathway is where L104 is, which is where most of the work will occur. So, let's talk about L102. In L102, it's closest to Pine Street, and it comes around kind of where you see where that end portion is. That's page 33 on the permit. There's a lot of information that you can also look at. There are approximately 3/4 of an acre, and it stands about 300 lineal feet. There are 47 trees in this section. There are two alders. There is no removal. We have a request to prune 18 trees. There is no action in 27 trees. And I'm kind just going to go into 103 because it'll give you an idea that the two are similar, and I think that Kernen had mentioned that too. So, what will happen though in L102 is, in phase thee, which is a revegetation planned phase, there will be 25 trees added in this area on those 45 trees that we will be adding revegetation planning. So, it gives us an idea of map L102. So, let's move on to map L10 — well, this is map L103. Let's go to page nine. It would be the next — I think it's the next page. a Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 C.1.a Okay. So, this is map L103. And this is also on page 33 of the permit. It's approximately 1 acre plus or minus a little bit, and it spans about 550 feet. There are 37 trees in this section. There are, I believe, two alders. Map 103 has had trees uproot. And this is kind of a special area that we've worked with. So, with the wind loads and with some of the snow loads that have occurred in the last few years, we have had — it was probably three years ago this started happening — there are about four to five trees that have uprooted. And there are two that we have been able to stake, and they are still living. There are two that have died. There's one that is on the ground that's trying to remain alive. And we're working with that one, kind of constrict that up again. And we're hoping that that will continue to survive. So, what we have found is that these trees on this slope, on this critical slope, which is quite steep, those that have not been pruned — these are the ones I'm speaking about — are the ones that uproot. Those that we have been able to prune in this area and in other areas, we have never had any of them uproot. So, I just wanted to note as well. So, we will have no removal in this area as well. We'll do repeat pruning on 18 trees. That means, again, that we have already been pruning in this Japanese style, which further on I will have Justina speak to. And so, there are 18 of those that we are currently pruning and will continue to. We will prune 17 trees, and we will create two wildlife snags in this area. So, they'll be a top -down picture. I think it'll kind of give you an idea of that location as well. to N So, for picture B — and I think that I've got this. It shows a picture of the marsh. We'll figure that out later. Let's go ahead and go to the next section. So, this picture gives us a great idea. This is also on page 33 and 34 of the permit. This is approximately 2 acres in this area, and it spans quite a ways. And I'm not even sure what the lineal foot is, but it's quite a ways. There are 112 0 trees in this area. This is the area of concern. This is the area where we have a lot of monoculture. This is the area where there is a lot of density with the Alder coverage. This is an area where we have a lot of these alders that are growing into some c beautiful cedars that are down there that are maybe — oh, what would you say, 30 feet wide? Fifty feet wide? They're quite Q. large — 35 feet tall, 40 feet tall. But there's a lot of, again, alders that are running into them. So, we are planning on the removal Q of 31 trees in this area; the coppicing of 13; the creating of 25 snags; the repeat pruning of 13; pruning of 28 trees; the monitoring �- of four trees. And there's a couple more pictures (inaudible). So, that's the area for L104. This area is down by the retention pond. And what it does is L104 goes a little bit into L105. And so, we can probably go ahead and go into page 11. Or, excuse me, that would be next picture. There we go. So, we felt that this picture gave a really good, clear understanding. It still honestly doesn't depict how large and how wide that Chevron/Unocal area is. But what it does show you is it does show you what's happening with the pines that are down there. There's a lot of Scot Pines down there. And you're seeing that's what happening on the backside of them is they're dying. Well, they're actually — a lot of them are dead. The alder is encroaching on all of this, all these pines from along there, as well as any of the shrubbery that we have down in that area, which we'll show you at a later point here. We'll show you that there is some blackberry, and there's just a lot of ivy. And over in the one section where there's a very large bulkhead, it's about 50 feet long, about 8 feet wide. It was there back from when the oil tanks were there. It was just covered with ivy. And through the last two, three years, we've been trying to get ahold of this ivy. But that's pretty much all you'll see in there, and it's all that's growing. And there really are no — there's really no gnats. There are really no squirrels. There's not a lot of wildlife. There aren't even any bunnies in that area anymore because there's just no place to be able to protect them. There's really not food down there. And that's what we really hope to do. We want to bring that back. We want to have that thriving. We want to be able to bring that wildlife back and enhance that wildlife. In this L105, which as you're looking at this picture will be closer to the left area where you kind of see some of the brown area — and there's one dead pine in there, which again tells you there's a huge encroachment that's going on behind there of the alders. And that one has died. So, we're wanting to remove four trees in that area; to coppice nine; to create six snags; to repeat prune six trees; to prune 17 trees; to monitor 24 trees. So, in summary, we want to thank you for this opportunity to work with the city and citizens of Edmonds, the Edmonds community. So, let's go ahead now and show that — excuse us. What we want to be able to do is really — that's not the last of it because we do have some other pictures that we want to be able to show you. But let's go ahead and just wrap this in that regard, and then we'll come back to some pictures. We wanted to just tell everyone that we believe we all have the same common goal. We want to enhance our surroundings. We want to protect our trees, our wildlife, and strengthen the health of our critical slopes. But to remember that we, Point Edwards, Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 C.1.a we are the stewards of these critical slopes. We have been required to do specific things in order to keep these slopes healthy. So, as the stewards, that's our responsibility, and we take it pretty seriously. So, what we'd like to be able to do is we'd like to move on to a couple picture to give you some shots of this area so you can kind of go inside and look at what we're talking about. And then we will also look at some pictures where we can go back to some heron pictures that we also have. So, if we can go on to that next picture. So, all this really does is it shows you — you're looking now from L105, some of a portion of L105, back toward L103 and trying to go on up through where the pond is up by where that public pathway is, which you can't really even see in there. But it just shows you where that one pine is that has just died recently. So, that's one that we wanted to show you. And go ahead and go to the next picture, Kernen. Thank you. This is a picture that shows us a small portion of one of the cedars that's in that area, and what it really depicts is being able to show you some of the alders that are coming through that, and kind of not a lot of foliage in that area. Andrew Rossi: We cleared that. Bel Johnson: Yes. So, we — yes. So, some of the ivy — because that was all ivy. So, you can still see some of the ivy, but we started to try to get control of that ivy because it's just starting to blanket and go up the trees as well, going up into the cedar r trees and so forth. So, we did try to do a lot of work there. And the next picture if we could, Kernen. So, this gives you another idea of what you're looking at with this. So, you come off pathway; there's a gravel pathway that 2 — separates this area from where the pond is. Over the fence is where the pond is. And you're looking at kind of flat area right 0 here that was built up, it looks like, by the oil tankers. What you can't really see is there's a rock wall that's straight down. And c that rock wall is maybe, oh, I don't know, like 3 feet tall or so. But we're trying to get you to be able to look in there into this Q. picture and able to see. So, you'll see some that have tags for removal, which is red, and some that have tags which are blue, Q which are the coppicing. So, we can move to that next picture. ., So, this kind of gives you a bit of a sense of this down — looking down on some of the property. And what it does is it showing some of the slope area that goes down toward the pond and then goes down into some of the critical slope area. So, that's really what we were — Justina Kraus: This is the west slope. Bel Johnson: Yes. And this is part of the west slope as well, yes. This shows the density that we've already had in this section. And that L105 section is really what that is, but you can't see L106 and L104. There is already a lot of density in there regarding — we're talking about L105 now, which is fir and hemlock and cedar, and there's a lot of that in that section. So, with the removal of a couple of those trees, we are actually trying to save a couple more that are getting kind of choked out with what's happened from the combined trees that are in there from when the developer, I think, planted those. So, we can go to that next picture. So, this picture, I believe, was taken by a gentleman named Rich... Justina Kraus: David Richman. Bel Johnson: David Richman. And thank you for this photo, Dave. This gives you an idea of the picture that we had seen regarding this heron nest that had been found. Isn't, Andrew, the one that had the fledglings in it? Andrew Rossi: No, this is not. Bel Johnson: This is not, okay. So, this is another — Andrew Rossi: Hold on. It's not the one that was included on the website. Bel Johnson: Gotcha. Okay. Okay, gotcha. So, what we wanted to do is we take — we took this very seriously. And we immediately had our experts Justina, who is a certified arborist who's worked with us along the way, and to have Andrew Rossi, Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 a biologist that has helped with this, Raedeke Associates, and they came out. And we went down to the marsh area. We had a drone. We had pictures taken. And we also were able to do some measurements. So, we're going to move on to the next picture to be able to show that to you. This is what you just saw. This is the same. That white circle shows you where we are in comparison to where that picture was taken. So, we believe that we were in the same place because we kind of were able to find out what — weeping birch, we believe it is. And so, with felt it was important to kind of give you an idea of where this is at from the marsh. And then what you see is that flat area, which is Chevron, which is kind of a big open space. And then you go a little bit further, and you'll see a roadway. If you go a little bit further passed that whole section of trees, you will also see another road that is in there. And then you'll go into those trees. And those trees are all Chevron's as well. And then you'll come to Point Edwards' area, which is about halfway up I think in that section. We're about halfway up on that slope. So, what I'd like to do is I'd like to introduce Andrew Rossi. And he is the one who has been involved with us and helping us [audio cuts out] pictures that he had taken. So, you can go ahead and go to that section. Andrew Rossi: Yeah. Thank you. Bel Johnson: So, here's Andrew. d r 3 c Andrew Rossi: Hi, everybody. Yeah. So, we were able to identify the nest that was pointed out to us by Save Our Marsh. That's over right there. And then if we could go to the next slide. This is a picture that we took of the nest from that viewpoint. o Believe it's the same viewpoint that the picture that Save Our Marsh provided us was from. We didn't see any herons when we were out there. But the herons were reported to have been there this year, so we're definitely incorporating that into what we're c doing here. So, just wanted to show that we were able to pinpoint exactly where it was and try and get a gauge of what exactly Q. is going on there. So, I think you can go to the next one. Q- a Bel Johnson: Go to the next slide. Andrew Rossi: Yeah, the next slide. Thank you. So, then this is another nest. So, the Save Our Marsh folks were able to point out two nests to us. And I was able to locate the second nest, and it's at the north end of the marsh. So, quite a ways off the Point Edwards property. And this nest is right along the edge of a parking lot. So, it kind of — this one kind of can show you the kind of levels of tolerance that the herons are able to adapt to in various areas. But we were able to identify the second nest. So, just wanted to demonstrate that we had incorporated that into what we're doing as well. So, we go to the next slide. Yeah, and this is just another photo. You can kind of see towards the top and the middle of the photo that's where the nest is located. It's just in the photo kind of demonstrating where that nest is. I think if you go to the next one. And we observed herons on the western mudflats of the Edmonds Marsh area. So, we are aware that herons are using this area, and there are nests in various portions in this region. So, we just wanted to show also that we are aware that they're around, and were incorporating that into the landscape management plan. So, we can go to the next photo. And this was a graphic that I was able to create after locating the nests that the Save Our Marsh folks had indicated. You'll see all the way towards the left there's a yellow dot on the Point Edwards property, and that is the nest that was identified in initial report that could potentially had been a heron nest, or it could've been a stick nest of another raptor species or something of that nature. But we had incorporated that into our original reporting. We're kind of just treating it as if it is a heron nest or an old heron nest, just to be as careful as possible in developing this vegetation management plan. And then as you go, there's the first kind of long, orange line. And it shows you that there's about 1200 feet of space between the edge of the Point Edwards property and the northern nest that's kind of along the south end of that parking lot there. And then the next line, I think it's about 360 feet, if I remember correct, is the next one. And that's the one that you can see from the deep right, kind of across the way. This graphic kind of illustrates that there are the trees that are behind that nest, immediately behind it. And there's the road. And there's another kind of head row of trees there that provides another layer of screening. And there's even a couple trees in front of that on the Unocal property. And then it's the Point Edwards property. And then the other, the last line, is a measurement of the original next that we included in our initial report. We didn't see any activity in those nests, but we just kind of included it to make sure that we were incorporating that into the landscape management plan. I think that might be the last slide. Yeah. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 C.1.a Bel Johnson: Kernen, from there, I guess we would open it up to questions the Architectural Design Board might have for US. Kernen Lien: You're muted, Lauri. You're muted, Lauri. Joe Herr: Lauri, you're muted. Lauri Strauss: I clicked the button, but I guess it didn't go. So, thank you for the presentation. That was very good, very informative. I would like to now open it up to questions from the board. Do you have questions for the applicant? Alexa Brooks: Yeah, I have a question. What species of trees will mainly be coppiced? Justina Kraus: It's mostly red alders and black cottonwoods. And when you coppice a tree, you are removing it, but you are not expecting it to die. It is going to [audio cuts out] red alders and black cottonwood are both known to do that. Alexa Brooks: Right. And then it seems like — it seemed like this is all very well thought out and researched. And there will r be very minimal impact when there's tree removal and replanting. But I just was wondering if anyone had asked about potential runoff during planting, if it's going to affect any of the marine life, specifically the coastal cutthroat. But it seems like it's far enough from the property line that that water would have a lot of distance to travel. But I just wondered if that is something o that's been discussed as well. Justina Kraus: I'm not sure we discuss it in this presentation. It has been considered. And it's written into our be.. Q. management practices to make sure that, if any soil is exposed, that it's covered. Because it's often the runoff and also the 0 < weight of water in the soil that can cause it to erode. And so, I know that the stormwater, there were no changes to any of the drainage. And so, we were required by engineering to have any stormwater designs because there was no expectation of it. And m we are using methods that have been used on the west slope and have been shown to not have erosion, not have water runoff. Alexa Brooks: Great. Justina Kraus: Hope that answers your question. Alexa Brooks: Yeah, thank you. And, I have one more. I know you mentioned snags. But is there any consideration in maybe nurse logs or — Justina Kraus: None of the material is leaving the site. So, even the removed trees, all that wood will be exactly as you say. In forestry, you call it coarse woody debris. But they're nurse logs that offer moisture and nutrients, and hiding places for amphibians, and all sorts of benefits. And so, yeah, we're going to do all those ecological forestry techniques — leaving the debris on site. In some cases, we will chip up and be able to spread those wood chips back on the new plants, so just recycling all those materials. Bel Johnson: I think it's maybe a good time to be able to also mention, there will be no heavy equipment that will be used. Alexa Brooks: Right. Bel Johnson: This area, you can't get any of that there. So, what would have to happen is this is like manual labor, but definitely a labor of love which we will be working with. So, there'll be a chipper of there so that we brush somewhere that we use. But then once we chip that, we're going to be able to use that. So, we're trying to think — you know, if we've got the logs down, we're able to use those. We plant those firs around. And we plant that [inaudible]. We get those shrubs in, have those trees, get that understory, and let that just breakdown with good nitrogen. And we just keep it going. So, we have thought about it. Alexa Brooks: Great. All right. Well, I think this is fantastic. So, thank you for answering my questions. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 C.1.a Bel Johnson: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Anyone else on the board have any other questions? You're muted, Joe. Joe Herr: No question, just a statement. I'd like to thank the applicants for what seems to be a very well thought out presentation. Lauri Strauss: I would echo that. Yeah, you guys did a really thorough job. I actually read through a lot of the material before the meeting tonight. So, none of it was a surprise. But, yeah, it seems like it's been well thought out and well -researched. So, thanks. Bel Johnson: Thank you so much. Thank you. Lauri Strauss: All right. So, let's — if there's no other questions from the board, let's continue with the testimony from the public. Anybody have their hands raised? Kemen Lien: Yeah. So, those who want to speak, raise your virtual hand. I'll let you in one at a time to speak. If you're on r a cell phone, if you push star -nine, that'll allow you to raise your hand. And star -six will unmute. So, I'll start with people that start raising their hands. Lauri Strauss: Kemen, there's also some questions in the chat. I don't know. Do you want me to read those? Or do you want C to read those? c L Q Kemen Lien: Let's start with the comments first, and then we'll kind of end with this. So, I'm going to allow Marjie Fields Q in to talk first. Go ahead and unmute yourself, Marjie. ., Marjie Fields: Okay. Can you hear me fine? Lauri Strauss: We can. Marjie Fields: Okay. Marjie Fields. 327 Second Avenue North in Edmonds. I want to say that I'm sure the whole Edmonds community has been very impressed with how the Point Edwards Homeowners Association has come together with the city and the Save Our Marsh group to protect the ecosystems on and around the Point Edwards hillside. Revisions to their original landscape plan are a valuable step towards addressing the needs of wildlife inhabiting the area. Scheduling landscape work so it doesn't conflict with bird nesting periods is a very significant improvement too. And reduction in the number of trees removed or cut will greatly benefit birds and wildlife. Point Edwards is to be commended for hiring a wildlife biologist as part of creating a landscape plan. Unfortunately, the study initially missed some essential information about the great blue heron nesting on or near the Point Edwards slopes and elsewhere around the marsh. It's great to hear that that has now been noted. Local birders have provided extensive documentation of heron nesting this year and in the recent past. And I think it's important that we all understand that heron may return. I guess maybe they frequently return to previous nesting sites that they haven't been in for a few years. So, protection for heron nesting sites must be included in the Point Edwards landscape plan. And it sounds like that is now. I'm not positive, but it sounds like it. And this means at least that mature alder trees preferred for heron nests should be protected, maybe not all of them, but we've got to save some of them. And I want to thank everyone, the Architectural Design Board, as well as the city, and Point Edwards homeowners group for working together to create a plan protecting great blue heron as well as more than 200 other bird species using the marsh. Lauri Strauss: Thank you, Marjie. Kemen Lien: Next is Ronald Eber. And go ahead and unmute yourself Ronald. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 C.1.a Ronald Eber: Yes, my name is Ronald Eber. I live at 50 Pine Street, Unit 204. So, I'm actually a neighbor of Point Edwards and appreciate all the great work that they do. My comments earlier when I submitted was on the heron issue. And I think the presentation tonight really, in pinpointing those nests and demonstrating that they are offsite, clarifies, I think, that the work that will go forward will not necessarily impact those nests. And so, I think, as Marjie was saying, the new information is worked in, it's noted, even since the letters went in. Air photos and additional work was done by Point Edwards, and they really are to be commended for that work. I'm a retired land use planner after 30 years, and I'm extremely impressed with the detail of the application and the staff analysis. And I think that clarification really helps. So, I think approval with the conditions imposed and with the added notes of the herons and, I think, the concern to keep an eye on that and where they come and go is really important and is good. So, I thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to make a presentation. Lauri Strauss: Thank you, Ronald. I just want to interject before we get to another question. I want to clarify. So, the one nest that you found on the north — I think it was L 105 — in a tree up there, you plan on keeping that tree now. That was scheduled for removal, but now you're going to keep the tree. And the nest will stay there. Andrew Rossi: Yep, that's correct. And I also, just to speak to the heron question in general, want to mention that even though our reports did not — the initial report that we wrote did not include these two nests that Save Our Marsh was able to indicate to us. The mitigation measures that we recommended to Point Edwards are those from the Department of Fish and Wildlife E management guidelines for herons that are for when you think there are herons present. So, they already agreed to the mitigation — measures — retaining as much green as possible, retaining as many trees as possible, especially ones that might have potential nesting structures. Those were incorporated even before these new nests were discovered. And then we're taking the new nests c equally as seriously. So, we're trying to consider all the information that we've gotten from the public and from the Department Q. of Fish and Wildlife just into our calculus of what we're doing. Q- a Lauri Strauss: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. I just wanted to hear that clarification. Anyone else have any comments from the public. Kernen Lien: If you want to speak, please raise your virtual hand. Joe Scordino. Joe Scordino: Thank you. My name's Joe Scordino. I'm a retired fishery and wildlife biologist. Worked for NOAA Fisheries for 32 years. Very familiar with wetlands, and wildlife, and fish. And I want to say I'm not opposed to the landscape plan. What I'm concerned about is that the plan does not consider the best available science when it was developed relative to great blue heron nesting, nor does the staff report. All of what you've seen and all of what is in your attachments is based on this wildlife consultant report that says the last great blue heron activity was in 2002, and that's just not true. There's all kinds of data that's not included in that report and, therefore, not included in the landscape plan that should've been relative to ensuring that what's happening there doesn't affect great blue heron nesting. People in Edmonds are just greatly enthused that we're seeing two nests this year, one of them right next to Harbor Square, and it has actually produced chicks. And they fledged. We've got successful heron nesting. We haven't seen that for I don't know how many years. But on that side of the marsh, no one has ever reported it before this year. Therefore, everybody is really excited about the environment around the marsh is changing for the better for great blue herons. Now we have this landscape plan in front of us that's going to cut down the very trees that these birds nest in. That needs to be accounted for. Department of Fish and Wildlife has very specific management recommendations in areas around where great blue herons nest. That's not incorporated into the staff recommendations. It's no in the landscape plan. That needs to be addressed. The bigger problem we have with great blue herons is for the last three, four years, people — there's a lot of people that go down to the marsh and observe wildlife. And they've been reporting seeing herons with nesting material in their beaks. But until this year, no one spotted where the nests were, and we spotted two of them. These nests are very difficult to see. Just looking at the picture you saw of the Point Edwards area, you can't see a nest easily. The birds fly into it, and they disappear. You don't know if there's a nest. You don't know if the bird's just roosting. That must be considered. We need a precautionary approach. So, what I'm recommending is that this landscape plan be conditioned before any cutting of trees occurs, that there be an actual inventory of great blue heron nests throughout the area. Remember, it doesn't matter if it's on the Point Edwards property or if Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 C.1.a it's on the Unocal property. If it's on the proximity of the area, it will affect great blue heron nesting. That's very clear in the WDFW management recommendations. So, just saying we're protecting one tree that might've had a nest, that's not consistent with the WDFW management recommendations. Those are based on best available science. They should be taken into account. So, there should be an inventory. It should document where all the trees are that have nests in them, whether used, old, or not. Again, the science says these birds will come back and reuse a nest 10 years after it's been abandoned, so that has to be taken into account. So, I urge the board to put a condition in that says, "There's to be an inventory of great blue heron nests throughout the area," because again, the whole area is what is occurring here. The marsh is one environment. It doesn't matter if it's Unocal property, or if it's port property, or whatever it is. It's one environment. We need to know what the herons are doing in that area so that you can then take into account what you're doing to affect them when you start cutting their nesting trees. And that's my comment. I hope you guys will understand that this isn't simple stuff. I understand that. It's nothing against the Point Edwards people and their effort to improve their views. But we need to also ensure that we're not impacting what looks like a new and developing condition with herons again returning to the Edmonds marsh to breed. Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Thanks, Joe. Andrew Rossi: Can I respond? Lauri Strauss: Point Edwards, do you want to reply? Bel Johnson: Yes. Andrew Rossi: Yeah. Thank you, Joe. So, kind of a lot to touch on. In terms of our report not including the nest that you guys were able to point out to us, we had conducted the surveys for herons earlier in the year before the trees leafed out because it makes it really easy and conspicuous to see all the nesting structures of the herons, especially from far away. We kind of had to view them from that viewpoint that's from the north angle looking back towards the property. So, I remember in your letter you guys kind of encouraged the surveys — or kind of mentioned how it can be tricky to see the heron nests once the trees have leafed out. We also tried to be thorough in our matching investigations of looking for what potential heron activity could be around. We were in touch with the data scientist specialists from the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding heron data. So, we tried to look for the publicly available data. It's kind of tricky to be aware of the knowledge of the local birding groups. But when that information is brought to us, we try to incorporate that as we demonstrated. And I agree with you that the core area is defined not just as a tree. So, if there are herons nesting nearby to the site, you must be careful. You have to treat them all as heron habitat. That's what the Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines defined for habitat. It's the area with trees less whatever the buffer is. And so, based on the land use in the area, suburban buffer in the Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines was appropriate there. And some of the area, if those nests are active, are considered core habitat areas. But the Department of Fish and Wildlife also has some flexibility for when a project must be completed within a core area for certain purposes. And I think this project kind of falls under that umbrella because you're required to manage for the slopes, among other reasons. And I think, additionally, what they're going to be doing in terms of introducing new plant species, which will help with the plant species diversity, I think all those things will overall be improving the habitat. And the mitigation measures that WDGF outlines, including site of the project as far away from nests as possible, retaining as much visual screening as possible, and carrying out a project during the nonbreeding season, those are the requirements that are laid out in Department of Fish and Wildlife management guidelines. And I think that there are many things that the Point Edwards folks included, such as retaining the trees that we think could have the nests. They're not going to be impacting any of the trees of the screening that's offsite to the northeast on Unocal property. They're going to be changing land use to be invasive once the management plan has been completed. So, I think they've incorporated all of the mitigation measures necessary, as the Department of Fish and Wildlife a Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 C.1.a guidelines outline, to be consistent with the Department of Fish and Wildlife management guidelines. i don't know if you guys had other thoughts on that. Mike Mitchell: I have something. This is Mike Mitchell. I'm the president of Point Edwards HOA and I live 31 Pine Street. When you look at the Fish and Wildlife standards, you take a look at — they talk about what do you do when you find potential nesting sites. You've got abandoned nests. They used to nest here. They're not nesting now. Look at it in 10 years — for 10 years. And they say, "Find alternate sites." And what the Fish and Wildlife standards are, nesting — we recommend retaining several, not one or two, but several forested alternate nesting sites. What the Save Our Marsh organization is recommending is that you not cut down any trees, that you save each and every potential tree that birds might nest in. That's not the Fish and Wildlife standard. If you look at the hundreds of plants that Point Edwards wants to put into the map area L104, if you adopt the standards requested by the Save Our Marsh, those plants will not go in. There will be no berries. There will be no fruit. There will be no seeds for the birds, the little critters, the little squirrels. Why will the plants not go in? Because it's so dark there. The plants would die. Not every tree is a beautiful thing. Some trees kill other trees. Some trees drown out the sun. In L104, the sun can't get in. If you go back and look at the slides, you'll see patches of brown on the ground, and you'll see some green. The brown is where the homeowners of Point Edwards went in on their hands and knees and pulled ivy and cut brambles. The green is the edge of the Chevron property. That's the property line. It's ivy. There were a few sparse plants in that area. But most of them were brambles, black berries, and ivy. They were all invasive species. Kernen went down there once and told Bel, "You've got to get rid of those." And we did. But nothing else will grow there because it's all shade. And you've seen how many bunnies live in Point — in Everett. If the bunnies won't live there, nothing will. Okay. Save Our Marsh says, "Give us a balance between wildlife and what Point Edwards wants." What the Save Our Marsh recommendation is, it's not balanced. They're saying, "Save every tree. We don't care if there will be no new plants, no diversity in plants. There will be no increase in other wildlife." And like Andrew said, he put in the mitigation standards, not required, but suggested by the Washington State Fish and Wildlife department. He put in those standards before the blue heron nests were discovered. We agreed to those standards before there was a discovery. And if you look at alternate sites, there's very little alternate nesting sites on Point Edwards property. There are acres and acres of alternate nesting sites in the marsh on the west of Highway 104 and on the marsh on the eastside. There's habitat. There's habitat for the blue herring. Our major work is almost 1000 feet from the discovered nest. It's over 1200 to 1500 feet from the nest that sits on the edge of Harbor Square. There's nothing close to us. And we're mitigating everything we can do. There is no balance in what the Save Our Marsh organization is asking you to adopt. Lauri Strauss: All right. Thank you for that. Kernen, have we got any more folks who have questions? Kernen Lien: No one else has raised their hand. We do have those few questions, in the Q&A. Lauri Strauss: Okay. It looks like — I can read them if you want. Kernen Lien: Go ahead. Lauri Strauss: One of them is about echo in the microphone. I don't think we need to worry about that. The next one — they're all from Marty. The next one is, does cutting include all pruning coppicing and making snags? Or is it just tree removal? Cutting in quotation marks. I'm not sure what the question is referring to. Justina Kraus: It would all be cutting, so I'm not sure what they're after. Lauri Strauss: Yeah. It seems — Justina Kraus: Pruning is more like a haircut versus — it's something grows back, and you do over time, and it maintains shape and builds structure. Removals, you're removing all the wood and killing the tree. Coppicing, removing the tree, expecting it to live so it will resprout. The roots stay alive and resprout. It can be managed as a shrub or allowed to become a tree again. a Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 C.1.a And then wildlife snags, that is something special about this project because deadwood is all cleared out of our daily environment. Humans don't usually like to look at it. It can provide additional hazards. So, dead trees get cut down. But in the forest, dead trees provide really essential habitat for keystone species. So, I know, Alexa, you asked about are these snags just going to be for bird watching. And absolutely you can get some amazing activity on all different kinds of species and even sometimes at the same time on a snag. So, it will certainly provide those opportunities, but that's not the goal of us creating the wildlife snags. It's really to provide some of these older features, features from the forest before. And since there wasn't a forest before and there are not features left, we will be artificially helping create that. So, succession is the process of forests. From when they start. They grow mature. New species come in. Some do better than others. And it's a long-term process over time. As some of those trees die and are replaced by new trees, the dead standing trees that Kernen talked about in a natural forest, that's how that happens. And like Alexa asked, what about nurse logs? Well, those standing dead trees fall over. They provide a little bit of height above the forest floor. You get new trees. So, it's a whole process. So, in ecological forestry, there is scientific bases for it. For example, in the Cedar River Watershed, that area has been managed to try to promote old -growth features. They do that modifying trees, cutting them, trimming, pruning, partial removals. And so, there is a significant amount of research and bodies of work where it's been done. They've had time to adapt the management. How did it work? Did we get those species we wanted when we cut? We're not creating any of that. We're following other existing projects that have done things like that. 0 Lauri Strauss: All right. Justina Kraus: I think I went on a tangent. Sorry about that. [Inaudible, Crosstalk]. Sorry about that. 0. 0. Lauri Strauss: All right. And the last question was, what are the species of the 45 trees that are being added? And I think Q Alexa asked that already. But if you want to mention those again. 0 Justina Kraus: I think she — sorry to interrupt. She did ask about what this coppicing species were because that's kind of — Lauri Strauss: Okay. Justina Kraus: — a niche little treatment that you don't always see in landscape management. And so, the — do you want to speak to — Bel is a design master. And so, she has really been sort of the... [inaudible] on that. Bel Johnson: What I can do is speak to the types that we're talking about. And we're trying to add that diversity back in. And so, we're talking about one that that is— Justina Kraus: The Corpus nuttallii, which is the native dogwood. Bel Johnson: Right. So, we're using a different dogwood that does have that in it but doesn't have the type of disease. So, we will be using a dogwood species. We'll also be doing, uh, using cedar. And we have birch as well that will be growing in. There are two types of [inaudible] that are native species and will go onto a couple different areas as well. And I think that's about it. Justina Kraus: A lot of the retaining trees are the short pine. So, we have a lot of the evergreens. And so, bringing in some deciduous features that flower at different times, offer berries, offer different structure, lose their leaves that provides forage on the forest floor. And so, even though it sounds like it's only deciduous trees we're putting in, it's because there's so many retained trees that we're working around. We're trying to not damage those. Those need potential so that encroachment isn't an issue. Sort of that proper planning — the right plant in the right place. And yeah. And the plan's — I'm sorry I don't have the list, but it's in both Kernen's staff report and in our document. Lauri Strauss: Okay. All right. Kernen, did you have something else that you wanted to say? Kernen Lien: No, we do have one more hand up — Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 Lauri Strauss: Okay. Let's go. Kernen Lien: — for Susie Schaefer. I will let Susie in. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kernen Lien: Susie, unmute yourself. You can go. Susie Schaefer: Thank you very much. I'm sorry. I didn't get on here earlier. But I want to thank you all. I happened to go on the trip when we — with the Save Our Marsh group. And we went with you out to see the land and everything, and it was a very good trip. Unfortunately, I didn't feel good. But other than that, it was a very good trip, and I learned a lot and made a good friend with your staff there. The other thing that I wanted to say, that I like the plan. You also can see that we're all — in this town, we're all heron lovers. I don't know what else to say. We're a big heron lover. And so, anything that creates habitat for herons, the bird lovers in town are very enthusiastic about it. And I'm certainly one of them. r But I also wanted to say, the thing that I'm most concerned about, not in your plan, but I'm concerned that we keep looking 3 cC ahead and we keep preparing for global — for climate change because we're having a lot of different things happen in our — environment, both naturally and unnaturally, with the kinds of fires we're having, with the intensive heat that we had earlier in the summer. We need to keep that in mind as we go along and keep talking about that, and keep moving on it, and keep planning c that. And that isn't critical of this report or anything else. I'm just reminding all of us that we need to keep that in mind, and Q. particularly in the next few years when we are going to see more and more changes in our environment from the changes that Q are due to us through climate change. ., That's really all I wanted to say. I wanted to thank you all. And I enjoyed meeting all of you when we went on the trip. That was a fun trip. And I got to see things that I hadn't seen up there. I've been up there many, many times looking at birds. But anyway. And I thank you, and I look forward to the next few years. Thank you. Bye. Lauri Strauss: Thanks, Susie. So, I noticed that Ronald has his hand up still. Does he have another comment to make? Or is that just from before? Ronald Eber: It was more a question. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Ronald Eber: Because what I heard being presented was not that no trees could be cut down; it was more inventory information. And so, it seemed to me that a way to get at that is if — instead of maybe — I think I put this in my original written submittal, that the comment that the annual report really be a biannual report. So, something is submitted at the beginning of the year of the work season that says, "This is what we're going to do this coming season. And we will be monitoring and doing further inventory work on any nesting sites." And then at the end of the work season, in the spring, they would report on what they did and what they found so that Point Edwards is able to proceed and still meet the suggestion from Joe that there be ongoing inventory and monitoring of the heron, especially the heron nesting situation, since that is fluid. And the question I was just clicking in was just, will the annual reports that are turned in by public and available for review? And can citizens also put in new information as it comes forward and is found? That's all. Thank you. Lauri Strauss: All right. Thanks, Ronald. Kernen, I have a question about the — so, the reporting, I think that's a good question. Is the annual reporting, is that required by the city because of previous permit requirements? How did that come — is that just a condition that we need to put on this particular permit? I guess I'm just curious where that came from. Kernen Lien: Yeah. That's a typical condition for development within critical areas, particularly that include planting associated with it. So, the critical area code requires monitoring of the site for five years after installation of the plant. So, the Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 C.1.a landscaping that's being involved here, those annual reports are to ensure that what's being planted is growing as intended, and do they need to make any corrections along the way. So, that's typical for developments where critical area involved. As far as whether reports will be public, everything I submitted to the city is a public record. So, yes, they are publicly available. Lauri Strauss: So, with that report, the report is going to cover information that's the whole year long, right? The only requirement is that once a year they submit it to the city for a review or for the record. So, I think to answer Ronald's question is it's not just a report about one time of the year. It's a report over what's happened over the whole year, right. I assume it would include anything that's going on with the blue herons. Is that a correct assumption? Kernen Lien: I guess the condition didn't specifically spell that out. But, yeah, it's monitoring implementation of the landscape modification that they've applied for. And reports are on that. Lauri Strauss: So, that's something that we could maybe add to the condition of the report, that it also reports on any blue heron activity I guess in the area. Is that something that we can add? Kernen Lien: That is something you can add. to N Lauri Strauss: Being specific because it seems like it's a real point of contention, so it seems like it would be good to have some information about that, whether it's derived from public comment coming into Point Edwards, or whether it's the folks who are doing the reporting. o Kernen Lien: Yeah. That can be added to the condition. c L Q Lauri Strauss: Okay. I think Joe had another comment. It was about the inventory of the heron nests. So, I think that that's Q what I was just talking about, making that part of the condition. Just making sure that it's put into the report. All right. Is there any other public testimony? Susie, is your hand still up, or is it up again? m Kernen Lien: I think it's still up. Lauri Strauss: Okay. All right. And I think we've answered all the chat questions. So, let's see where we're at on here. Okay. So, at this point, we finished with the public testimony. If the board has questions remaining, it may now ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to anyone who testified, with an opportunity for the staff, applicant, or public to rebut response. If members of the public wish to rebut an answer given in response to a question, they should raise their hand and wait to be called to the microphone — or to be clicked on, I guess, or be let into the meeting. So, I guess I want to just go to the board and say, do you guys have any other questions for the applicant, the staff, any comments to public testimony? Alexa Brooks: I don't have any questions, but are comments allowed as well? Lauri Strauss: Yes. Alexa Brooks: I'm just looking over the plant list. And I just want to say that it's very well thought out. And there are a lot of great seeds, and berries, plants that will provide a lot of food for wildlife. So, I just want to congratulate. Lauri Strauss: Good. Alexa Brooks: Or just, yeah, give a thumbs up to the plant list and the consideration behind that. So... Lauri Strauss: Thanks, Alexa. Maurine, Joe, Kim, any other questions or comments you want to ask? Kim Bayer: The only question I have is just, again, a clarification. So, did you say that we're adding in an amendment about inventory of the blue heron nest? Or are we — Lauri Strauss: That was just a question I was asking at the time. We haven't decided what we're adding in or not. So, just a possibility. It's something we can talk about when we start deliberating. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 Kim Bayer: Okay. Thank you. Lauri Strauss: So — Kim Bayer: I'm good then. Bel Johnson: Do you want to say something? (inaudible background speaking) Lauri Strauss: Point Edwards, do you guys have another comment? Oh, you're putting yourself on mute. Okay. Okay. Well, I guess I — wait, I think they're trying — Mike Mitchell: [Inaudible] Lauri Strauss: Go ahead. Mike Mitchell: Okay. On inventorying heron nests, I have concerns. We're working on our property. Are you talking about inventorying potential nests on our property, on Point Edwards property, or the entirety of the marsh? That is an onerous obligation. I don't see the city undertaking that. We can't get on Unocal property. The only thing that we can do is photograph from Harbor Square and potential drones. So, every time we say we found five heron nests — they're old; they look abandoned. And someone else, some other citizen, says, "But I found one over here." We're going to have a fight on our hands. And who's going to resolve that fight? The Architectural Review Board will have closed its case. Will it go to the city planning? We are more than willing to inventory our property. But unless we can get out on the Unocal property, we're not going to be able to — we're not equipped to go through there and look closely. There were some photographs and a PowerPoint submitted by Save Our Marsh. And it was a find piece of work. It really was. And I looked through their PowerPoint presentation. They could not identify if particularly points, that they were in fact heron nests. There was a potential heron nest here, potential heron nest here, potential heron nest here. They identify two. They may have identified a couple other with some degree of surety. There is no real way to do an inventory like that. And if there is a dispute, who is going to resolve the dispute? I don't see Kernen raising his hand. Lauri Strauss: No. Let me just — what's your name again? Mike Mitchell: Mike Mitchell. Lauri Strauss: Hi, Mike. Sorry, I'm sure you said that before, but I missed it. Mike Mitchell: Oh, that's all right. Lauri Strauss: So, I don't think that we could require you to do anything on other people's property. So, that would not be part of this. Yeah. That's not what I was thinking at all. So, yeah — Mike Mitchell: Our property, no problem. On our property, no problem. We will search our property diligently. And why will do that? Because we like heron too. We don't want to hurt them. This is our backyard. Lauri Strauss: Yeah. Mike Mitchell: We live here. And we want the little critters and the birds that fly through to prosper. Lauri Strauss: All right. Well, thank you, Mike for that. Appreciate that. Kernen, anything else to add? a Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 C.1.a Kernen Lien: No, I'll just add about the Unocal property. They have not been amenable over the years to allowing anybody on the property — the city when we did our study of the marsh a few years, even public works when they needed to get out there. They basically don't want anybody on their site at all. Lauri Strauss: Yeah. Kernen Lien: I would note Joe Scordino raised his hand again, assume to rebut the comments by Mike. Want me to allow Joe in? Lauri Strauss: Okay. Justina Kraus: Joe. Joe Scordino: Yeah. I'm not going to rebut. Kernen Lien: Okay. r 3 c Joe Scordino: What I'm going to clarify is that everyone should understand you're dealing with a protected species. Great blue heron are protected species. That's why they're on the priority habitat list, priority species list, with the Washington o Department of Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, the approach you take throughout the state is a precautionary approach. You look for, you monitor, are there nests? And will you impact them. It's not a difficult question. And it doesn't matter if it's on one side c of a line or not, a property line. As Allen Mains (sic) photograph showed, you can during the winter months inventory the area, L Q. the slope, of Point Edwards, which includes the Unocal property. And you can say here — you can locate what are potential Q heron nests. They're large enough size where you can see them. �- A qualified wildlife biologist would every one of those and could note them on a map clearly so that when Point Edwards takes action, they know whether their action is near or in an area that has heron nests. Very simple. And it's just a precautionary approach when you're dealing with protected species. Make sure you're not affecting the herons. Not a big deal. If you have a qualified wildlife biologist that knows what he's doing, he would call a potential nest because you can't say it a nest until you see a bird in it. Obviously, it's called a "potential nest." That's a scientific term. So, anyway, it's not a big deal. It shouldn't be restricted to Point Edwards property because it can be viewed. It's one slope. It's one wildlife quarter. You don't split a wildlife quarter along property lines. That's not consistent with wildlife needs. So, it's just realistic here. And all we're saying is, make sure that there aren't any nests and that you're not seeing an increasing colony occurring, which may be happening here in the marsh. And if that's happening, yes, you need to have more restrictions. It's very simple. That's all I have to say. Lauri Strauss: All right. Thanks, Joe. I noticed that, Point Edwards, you guys pointed the camera at someone else. So, I assume you want to make a comment. Andrew Rossi: Ok great, thanks. And just to clarify, the great blue heron is a priority species, and those are regulated in the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds in the code under the critical area requirements. And they defer to those 2012 Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines that we mentioned earlier. And as I also mentioned, even if nests are found onsite, and a core area encroaches onto the property, we are incorporating the mitigation measures that are required for a heron core zone when you're conducting a project within a core area. So, we're consistent with whatever the Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines are, which is the regulating agency in this case. Lauri Strauss: All right. Thank you. Justina Kraus: Can I add one thing? Hi, again. Justina Kraus, I'm the arborist. We just conducted a survey. We shared those images. That was just done. And if we do get approval to implement this project, it will be done by January or February of 2022. The plants will be in. Monitoring will begin. So, I just wanted to make sure that everybody knows we just did a recent survey. And if given approval, work will take place and should be completed fairly rapidly because we want to work within Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 C.1.a the critical time zone and get it all done without additional disturbance. So, I just wanted to make that point that we're not going in to disturb year after year. Once we remove, coppice, and plant, we're not going to do that again in the same spot. And so, it's this initial pulse of activity, followed by growth, maturity, and monitoring. I just wanted to point that out. Lauri Strauss: Good point. All right. Kernen, you seeing anything else? Kernen Lien: No. Nobody else has their hand raised. Well, Susie still has hers up, but I think she's been up the whole time. Lauri Strauss: You want to let her in just for a minute and make sure that she doesn't have another question? Kernen Lien: Susie, do you have anything else to say? Susie Schaefer: No, I don't know how to get my hand down. [Inaudible]. Okay. Oh, I raised it again. Lauri Strauss: Okay. There we go. Susie Schaefer: Okay. r 3 Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Susie Schaefer: Sorry. M Lauri Strauss: Oka folks if there are no further questions, we will not close the testimony portion of this public hearing. Y, q Y p PQ. Going once, going twice. All right. So, now the board will begin deliberations. So, if we can, we want to make sure that there's Q no public interruption during this point. But I want to open it up to the board for comments, questions, thoughts. ., Kim Bayer: I'll go first. Yeah, I had a little concern about the blue heron. I appreciate Joe's contributions and the responses from the HOA and the parties involved. At this point, I am satisfied. I think it's going to be a good project. I think there is a lot of oversight. As long as — I just want to make sure, and I'll reiterate, that you guys keep a watch on the blue herons. And I will vote yes for this. So, that's my contribution tonight. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Maurine? Maurine Jeude: Yeah, I agree. The project's obviously adding species, and habitat, diversity of landscape, and even a wider variety of trees that all seems to contribute to a lot of growth and wildlife and other things. And the 45 trees and I think it was 417 other plants being planted, that's a pretty substantial project that I think will really contribute to the marsh life there. And kudos for going after that damn ivy and the other invasive species. I've spent many hours pulling those out of other parks in the city. And anything we can do to keep that at bay is, I think, admirable. I think it's a wonderful project. And again, the herons are a concern. But it sounds like there's plenty of alders that are going to be remaining there as well. And more will crop up over time as well. Lauri Strauss: Yeah. All right. Joe, any comments, thoughts? Joe Herr: I listened to all the things, and I understand the concerns about the herons. But when I read through all the material and everything that — I think this is going to be an enhancement. And I think that the heron issue has been addressed. And I think we've got a good project here. Again, the invasive species being gone and the other things, I'm in favor of the project. I mean, I looked at it extensively when I read through it. By the way, that is one heck of a download to try and get that package download. Lauri Strauss: I know. Joe Herr: But I did read through it all. And kind of without even hearing any testimony sort of made up my mind going in that it was going to be a good project. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 Lauri Strauss: All right. Thanks, Joe. And, Alexa, what have you got to say? We heard a little bit from you today, so that was good. Alexa Brooks: I would just like say that I hope this project leads an example for the rest of Edmonds, just for future projects — implanting native planting and sustainable planting ideas throughout the Edmonds community. So, I think this is a really exciting project. I vote yes for it. And I think that it's very future and forward thinking. So, I think even though it is — there is a minimal impact, there is an impact. And I think that the outcome of that is ultimately going to be a positive impact. So, I think this is a great project. Lauri Strauss: All right. And as for me, I was really happy to hear that there's nothing that's leaving the site, that you guys are reusing that and using that as food for the next generation of trees that's going to go on that site. I like the thought that you guys are using native plants, getting rid of the invasive species, and putting in the native plants. I like to hear that there will be bunnies again. The heron issue seems like a contentious issue. I guess I would encourage you guys to monitor that. I'm glad that your arborist — and I can't remember her name, sorry — pointed out that that is — it really is. This is a project — the removal's going to happen at once. It's not going to happen for the next five years in an ongoing removal process, so that's a good thing. We're not logging up there. We're just doing some landscape maintenance. So, appreciate that. Kudos to you guys, too, for getting the scientists and the biologists and all that involved. That is a big ordeal, and it's — you've done your homework. And the report shows it. And I think you've done a good job. Bel Johnson: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: All right. So, let's go on to — so, the suggested motion. And it sounds like we're all in agreement here. But we can — I want to talk about that heron thing just a little bit once we get there. So, the suggested motion includes four conditions. And I don't know, have you guys looked at those? I don't want to read the motion yet because I don't know if we're ready to place that motion. But it talks about any reports are required to be submitted to the City of Edmonds until five years after the landscaping has been installed. Do we want to add anything about the herons? Like, I don't know if they need to do an inventory, or maybe just at least monitor heron. Maybe a part of the report can monitor any heron activity on the Point Edwards site. Do we want to add any of that? Or do we just — are we comfortable with they've done their homework; they've done the inventory; and we think that it should be fine? I'm going to defer to others. Kim Bayer: Just a quick question, Lauri, or to Kernen. What is the city's involvement in that? Or would they have involvement? If we approve this as is, does the city still get involved as it related to blue heron? Lauri Strauss: Good question. Kernen Lien: The city would be reviewing the annual reports that come in, but we would not be conducting reports or doing any inventory of the heron sites. Is that your question? Kim Bayer: Yeah. I guess I appreciate the HOA president and what he was stating; that their jurisdiction is only so far. They can't monitor everything. So, I just was wondering how the city works hand -in -hand with that. At this point though, I am satisfied with what has been presented. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Anyone else feel like we need to add anything to those comments? Okay. I am going to read the motion, and then I'll ask someone for just approval of the motion as read. "The Architectural Design Board adopts the finding's conclusion and analysis of the staff report, and finds the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan, policies of ECDC 20.10, design criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, and zoning regulations, and approves the proposed Point Edwards landscape modification and maintenance plans with the following conditions. No. 1, consistent with SEPA Mitigation Determination of NonSignificance, all tree removal, coppicing, and snag creation activity must occur outside of the nesting season. These tree cutting activities may occur approximately late -August through early -February. No. 2, utility locates shall be called for prior to any tree removal. No. 3, an itemized cost estimate for the cost of landscaping, which includes materials and labor, must be provided. A performance bond in the amount of 120 percent of the cost estimate is required prior to any tree cutting. Once the a Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 C.1.a landscaping has been installed, a performance bond in the amount of 15 percent of the performance will be required for a five- year period. And No. 4, any reports are required to be submitted to the City of Edmonds until five years after the landscaping plan has been installed." All right. That is the motion. Who would like to make that motion? You guys are all muted. Kim Bayer: I'll make the motion. Lauri Strauss: All right. I need a second. Maurine. All in favor? Aye. Kim Bayer: Aye. Alexa Brooks: Aye. Lauri Strauss: All right. Joe Herr: Aye. Lauri Strauss: The motion passes unanimously. r 3 c Bel Johnson: Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Lauri Strauss: All right. Thank you, guys. That was a great presentation. All right. From here on out, it's board discussion. C You all are welcome to stay on if you like. But it's late, so it's not necessary. And it's really just some housekeeping stuff. So, c it's totally up to you. Q. Q. Bel Johnson: We appreciate- [audio cuts out]. Q Lauri Strauss: All right. Board members — Justina Kraus: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: — we have a couple other items on the agenda. Just approval of the minutes from last month. Was it last month? Seems like it wasn't that long ago. Motion to approve? Kernen Lien: I don't think minutes were actually included in the packet. Alexa Brooks: They weren't. Lauri Strauss: They aren't? Oh, gosh. That shows you — that giant package that I read. I didn't even think about minutes. Okay. So, no minutes. Kernen Lien: Yeah. So, minutes were in the packet that didn't get sent to the company that's basically doing a transcription of it, of the meetings right now. I think we've done an RFQ for a minute taker, but we don't have one yet. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kernen Lien: So, I failed to get those sent out to you. I don't have minutes this time. I'll have minutes next time to approve. Lauri Strauss: Okay. So, let's show that we're going to remove approval of the minutes from the agenda. Administrative reports. Kernen, is that you? Kernen Lien: I don't have anything to add for administrative report, unless we want to welcome Alexa. That's kind of an administrative report, we have a new board member. We got a landscape architect on board before this evening. Lauri Strauss: I'd love — Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 C.1.a Alexa Brooks: Not a landscape architect. Lauri Strauss: Yeah — Kernen Lien: And landscape professional? Alexa Brooks: Just a landscape designer. Lauri Strauss: Can we just get a little intro from Alexa? Hi. Sorry we're not altogether in person, but glad to have you on board. And love to hear just a quick little intro. Alexa Brooks: Hi, yeah. Well, thank you for welcoming me on. I have Lauri to thank for this position because I live in Edelweiss as well. And she saw me driving around my little landscape truck and asked if I was a landscape architect. And I said no, but I'm a landscape designer. And she told me that this position has been open for quite a while and told me I should apply. And so, I did. And here I am. And I'm just very thankful and excited for this opportunity to learn and grow. to N I love Edmonds. I am from Washington State, but I lived in Nashville for the last 10 years. And my husband and I recently moved back up here in 2018. And we love Edmonds because of the smaller, warming, welcoming community. We love the waterfront and everything that it has to offer. And so, I just wanted to really get involved with a community that I was passionate o about. And I — M Lauri Strauss: Talk about the company. 0 a Q. Q Alexa Brooks: What was that? Yeah. And I looked at some of the previous meetings that the Design Board had, and I'm just really excited about a lot of the projects in Edmonds that are taking place. And it's just very exciting to be a part of that. So... Lauri Strauss: Now tell us about your company. Alexa Brooks: Oh, yes, my company. Sorry. And I work for a company called The Artful Garden, and I work as a — the owner of the company, I work as her design assistant. And it's just a small company located in Seattle. About five of us gardeners. And we design and maintain gardens around the Seattle area. And we largely implement native plants. So, that's kind of the area that I'm most interested in. So... Lauri Strauss: Good. Kim Bayer: Great. Lauri Strauss: Anyone else? Maurine Jeude: I just have one thing. I could not get into the meeting earlier here. But I phoned in and was listening to the whole thing. So, I couldn't say that I was present, but I was from the beginning. I don't know if that needs to be corrected or not. Lauri Strauss: Let the record show that Maurine was here from the beginning of the meeting. Maurine Jeude: Thank you. Lauri Strauss: Any other board member comments? All right. With that, do we have a move to adjourn? Maurine Jeude: I move we adjourn. Joe Herr: I move we adjourn. Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 C.1.a Lauri Strauss: Sounds like everybody's moving, and everybody's seconding. Okay. We're adjourned. It is 9:24 p.m. Bye, everybody. Joe Herr: Bye, everyone. Kim Bayer: Have a good night. Maurine Jeude: Take care. Lauri Strauss: Goodnight. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. a Planning Board Minutes September 1, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 C.1.b CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom October 6, 2021 Chair Lauri Strauss called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Lauri Strauss Alexa Brooks Maurine Jeude Joe Herr BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bruce Owensby Kim Bayer (excused) STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Senior Planner, Development Services Lauri Strauss: Calls the meeting to order Eric Engmann: Does roll call. Present: Lauri Strauss; Maurine Jeude; Joe Herr; Alexa Brooks Absent: Kim Bayer (excused); Bruce Owensby Approval of Agenda Lauri Strauss: Asks for a motion to approve the agenda. (Moved and seconded) Agenda is Approved 4-0. Approval of Minutes Lauri Strauss: Asks for a motion to approve the July I' minutes. (Motioned and seconded) Maurine: Mentions that they are pretty verbatim. Packet Pg. 34 C.1.b July 111 Minutes are Approved 4-0. Lauri Strauss: Discusses the agenda components. Confirms these is one item on the agenda. Discussion Item- Multifamily Design Standards Lauri Strauss: Introduced the new item and reads the memo. Asks if Eric has a presentation for the Board. Eric Engmann: Introduces himself as a new planner in Edmonds, who primarily works on code amendments. Mentions that tonight's meeting will be an introduction of the topic and to hear initial thoughts from the Board. Asks for a quick introduction from each Board member so he can get to know them and a bit about their background. Lauri Strauss: Introduces herself. • Chair/president of ADB • Is an architect who lives and works in Edmonds • On the Board for at least seven years Maurine Jeude: Is a citizen member of the Board. • Always was interested in architecture • Second year on the Board • Retired after career at the Seattle Times as a writer Alexa Brooks: Als a resident of Edmonds. • Lived here for a little over two years • Found out about the Board from her neighbor, Lauri Strauss • Is a landscape designer Joe Herr: Has been on the Board about six years. • Is a professional building designer • Talks about he became Board member after working on a project in Edmonds • Talks about affordable housing and how design standards can mean that the costs of projects go up Eric Engmann: Talks about the three phases of a code amendment. • First is the formation phase. This phase is for creating the initial ideas, brainstorming, early outreach, scoping, and big picture thinking • Next is articulation phase. This takes the big picture and refines it into a workable draft. There is lots of scenario testing and public input, then results in the draft code. • Last phase is the adoption phase. There is formal draft that requires public meetings. Planning Board Minutes October 3, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 35 C.1.b It goes through environmental (SEPA) and then City Council review. • The best processes have engagement and public involvement early in the process and allows for in in all three stages. Talks about the dual role with ADB and the Planning Board (PB) • Mentions the ADB specialized role with design and building • Lists the responsibilities listed in the Code for ADB • PB is the local planning authority • PB holds public hearings and makes official recommendations on code amendments to council • Sees ADB as diving deep into the issues and working with residents on the draft solutions. Utilizing their expertise. • Mentions PB has a lot of background in public outreach and will really utilize them to help with that strategy. • Sees PB reviewing a lot of the components of the plan and making suggestions and asking questions • Mentions there will be some meeting dialogue between ADB and PB Talks about the set goals, what this is set up to do. • Discusses the related goals in the Comprehensive Plan, the overarching document that sets the City's goals for the future • Housing Goal J1 "encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods" • Talks about the consensus from City Council to move this project forward • Mentions the minutes from the Council meetings are summarized as an attachment Discusses how to establish the scope of the project • Talks about creating the framework of what goes into this multifamily design guideline code amendment • One set of scoping is the development types and zones of the city • Not discussing single-family • Focus will be on multifamily zones • Talks about other zones that already have existing design standards • The other set will be the design components themselves • Talks about buildings form, setbacks, facades, and many other topics Discusses the types of topics • Mentions that form and massing are important • But will also want to consider things like sustainability, affordability, and equity Discusses the intended stakeholders. Sees three main groups. • Government- city staff, boards, and council that will review and rule on the regulations • Residents- people and groups that live in the community Planning Board Minutes October 3, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 36 C.1.b • Developers- people that will be building using these regulations Talks about the importance of balancing between flexibility and specificity Mentions the pros and cons of having each of these components Suggests a balanced approach Asks the Board for any questions up to this point. Laurie Strauss: Mentions specificity can limit creative design and can lead to some bad decisions. Provides an example about window requirements that can be bad for energy efficiency. Agrees with a balanced approach. Joe Herr: Talks about a specific project that required window specificity where there was no room to allow interpretation. c Lauri Strauss: Agrees that if it gets too specific, it can end up with bad design. o Eric Engmann: Mentions that he likes scenario testing to see potential outcomes of the code. L a Q. Introduces the second part of the presentation. Would like to hear/interview the a Board about the current regulations. Would like to hear about what works well, what doesn't, and final goals for this code amendment. Starts with asking about what works well with the current guidelines. Mentions that it is ok if some of the members aren't very familiar with the existing code. There will be time to understand the background moving forward. Alexa Brooks: Still unfamiliar with the code. Joe Herr: Likes how the requirements are shown in the staff reports. Feels that it helps a lot. Mentions that there are a lot of different guidelines to keep track of. Mentions the need for flexibility in some instances. Lauri Strauss: Provides an example of code conflicts on a project on Main Street. It required an entrance off Main Street but wasn't ADA accessible because of the slope. Would like to see some flexibility in the Board's decisions. Talks about the good and bad of the 30-foot height limit. Doesn't want to change the feel of Edmonds but the code doesn't allow for different roof types. Eric Engmann: Asks the Board to talk about areas outside of downtown. Mentions they have a lot of townhome type projects there. Lauri Strauss: Talks about multifamily in many mixed (uses) now. Talks about multifamily having Planning Board Minutes October 3, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 37 C.1.b Joe Herr: Eric Engmann: Maurine Jeude more density and concerns from the neighbors. Mentions the Board doesn't have control about the zoning components, but how it looks. Talks about the difficulty on the Board to address resident concerns about zoning when that isn't part of the ADB decision. Mentions that problem is a struggle with decision making planning (type) board across the country. States that is often difficult. Asks if anyone else has a comment on what works well. Also appreciates the staff reports that show the criteria and how they have been addressed. It is very helpful Lauri Strauss: Mentions it is important to have different guidelines for different areas- Westgate. Talks about having a theme. Likes the lower, middle, top design components for downtown. Like guidelines that are specific but open to interpretation. Eric Engmann: Reiterates that she is talking about blending those type of standards. Asks about the guidelines that they don't like. • Asks what hasn't worked well • Things that are difficult to ensure established goals are met • Mentions there have been several discussed already Lauri Strauss: Talks about what happens with minimum standards. • That contractors and developers are going to do the minimum, gives examples • Likes the idea about testing the new guidelines to see if they will work in most situations. Eric Engmann: Mentions staff will look at getting outside help with graphics to help with this Alexa Brooks: Asks to correct that she represents landscape designers, not landscape architects Asks how residents can have a say in the process. Mentions that the Edmonds landscape can have a lot of different challenges. How do the standards affect wildlife, native plantings, sustainability, all those challenges? Lauri Strauss: Agrees with Alexa's point. Talks about how minimum landscape standards affect sites differently. Reiterates that minimum standards can be a major challenge. Will need to think about many different scenarios: area, zoning, lot size, etc. Alexa: Says that it can't be one size fits all. N r 7 0 0 L a 0. a Planning Board Minutes October 3, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 38 C.1.b Eric: Mentions this will be one of the things talked about moving forward. Provides an example of a five-foot landscape strip. States this is the specific requirement, but the guideline can influence how and where it is located. There is the standard itself and the guideline that can be more flexible. Lauri Strauss: Adds that this example could also discuss an environmental benefit; a habitat benefit for wildlife or wetlands. Maurine Jeude: Talks about the variance process. Mentions the difficulty the Board has will not being able to grant some form of variances. How allowing some small changes to a project, that would require a variance today, could have a positive impact. Eric Engmann: Talks about that flexibility. Mentions it is a double-edged sword because some y people may not like the flexibility the Board could have if it could grant some variance type approvals. Mentions it is something to discuss in this process. Talks about having public involvement early. Mentions this will go to the planning 0 board next week to discuss the outreach plan. 'o L. Q. Q. Joe Herr: Asks if the Master Builders will be involved as a stakeholder. g d Eric Engmann: Confirms that he has contact with the Master Builders and will reach out to be a 3 developer stakeholder. Lastly, asks about what the Board wants to see as the goal of this code amendment. What does the end of this process look like? Mentions that it is about the goals for these multifamily design guidelines. Lauri Strauss: Would like to see more leeway for sustainability. Allowing things like extra height for LEED Gold buildings, as an example. Would like to have "carrots" for doing more sustainability, such as extra area or height. Joe Herr: Mentions that Lauri is mentioning incentives. All developers love incentives. Lauri Strauss: Reiterates that this could lead to better design and help mitigate effects of climate change, etc. Maurine Jeude: Mentions that the overall idea is to account for the character of Edmonds. How will these new buildings fit into what is envisioned for Edmonds? Would like to protect that character and not another small city that got big. Mentions the theme of development. Lauri: Also talks about the character of Edmonds. Wants to keep that character. Planning Board Minutes October 3, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 39 C.1.b Maurine: Talks about the sense of community throughout every district, even as someone walks from one district to the next. Alexa: Discusses the charm being the community. Would like to integrate the community more with these decisions. Lauri: Reiterates that the guidelines should bring in sustainable design and keep historic buildings. Talks about resiliency, from storms and tsunamis as an example. Eric: Mentions a lot of this is getting the tools to make those decisions. Ends the discussion by thanking the Board. Discusses Next Steps: • There will be bigger discussions with a lot of different groups • Will be sending out a survey to the Board about some preferences • Will continue initial discussions with stakeholders • Asks the Board to let people know about this. • Will come back next month to talk about the big picture and the scope • Let's the Board know about the webpage for this code update topic Lauri Strauss: Mentions the Boards interest in other areas too, downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, (Highway) 99. But says that multifamily has been difficult for approving projects over the past five or six years. Mentions the roofing, how they fit on the site, windows as examples. Talks about the scenarios as being a good place to focus. Member Comments Maurine Jeude: Mentions she won't be able to attend next month's meeting. Lauri Strauss: Hopes Kim and Bruce will be there. Mentions they will have some good comments to discuss. Asks for any other comments. (None) Moves to adjourn the meeting. (Moved and Seconded) ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. N c 0 0 L 0. 0. a Planning Board Minutes October 3, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 40 C.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting November 3, 2021 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:06 p.m. via Zoom. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Eric Engmann, Senior Planner Kim Bayer Maurine Jeude (excused) Joe Herr Alexa Brooks (excused) There was no quorum so no action could be taken. There was discussion about how the group wanted to proceed with the meeting. Board members agreed to hold off on the Multifamily Design Standards presentation until more members were present. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: 2 Board Member Bayer referred to the last set of minutes and asked what it meant for the ADB to be taking a "deeper dive" and how this compares to what the Planning Board will be doing. Senior Planner Engmann explained that there is a wide breadth of experience and technical ability on this Board — architect, builder, designer, etc. Since these are the very types of people who would see these kind of projects come through, staff is recommending going into the standards a little deeper and testing scenarios with the ADB. This would be followed by taking it to the Planning Board for further comments and refinement. Board Member Bayer asked how staff envisions the two groups working together. Senior Planner Engmann replied that remains to be seen; joint meetings may be a possibility. The main thing is to have lots of different eyes on this process and have opportunities for different boards and groups of people to weigh in on this. Board Member Bayer also asked about the public engagement process. Senior Planner Engmann replied that they are still in the very early stages of this and just beginning to get people up to speed without making any recommendations. He noted that there will be a new Director in Development Services coming on board on November 16. Staff will be talking with the new management about strategies and how to be effective with public engagement. The Planning Board also has a lot of experience with public engagement. He expects the Planning Board will discuss this topic in December and start the actual engagement in the new year. Board Member Bayer reported that she has noticed in her circles that there is a lot of citizen engagement and interest in the ADB right now. Senior Planner Engmann commented that this is what staff is expecting. He advised the Board that all of the code updates staff is working on right now can be found at www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates. People can also sign up for the mailing list to receive ongoing emails with information specific to certain topics. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting November 3, 2021 Pagel of 2 Packet Pg. 41 C.1.c Board Member Herr recommended making the link to the Zoom meeting on the web page into a hot link to make it more user friendly. Senior Planner Engmann indicated he would look into that. Chair Strauss stated she would send an email to board members to reiterate the importance of attending the next meeting. There was discussion about getting a new appointee on board since Board Member Owensby will be leaving. Board Member Bayer commented on the value of the diverse makeup of the board. There was general agreement that finding a new member as soon as possible should have priority since they are at the beginning of this important topic. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting November 3, 2021 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 42 2 F.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2021 Multifamily Design Standards Discussion Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History On June 24, 2021, City Council formally asked staff to begin the code amendment process for multifamily design standards. These standards were part of a larger list of housing related policy options recommended by the Citizen's Housing Commission. Then on September 7, 2021, City Council asked that green space requirements also be considered for this possible amendment. The City Council minutes pertaining to this topic are provided (Attachment 1). Staff met with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on October 6, 2021 to introduce the topic and interview the Board about challenges with the current regulations. Staff Recommendation No recommendation at this time. Narrative Today's objective will be to review and discuss the scope of the code amendment. The first part of the meeting will focus on scoping the framework for the zoning components. This will mainly focus on the Residential Multifamily (RM) zoning districts. The zoning standards that apply to the RM zoning districts are included as Attachment 2. There will be discussion on: RM zoning locations in Edmonds Building regulations (height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) Existing design guidelines/requirements General discussion of goals and challenges There will also be discussion of some of the other zoning and use types. Namely: Subdivisions/Unit Lot Commercial Zoning Downtown Zonings Westgate Mixed Use (MWU) General Commercial (CG) Packet Pg. 43 F.1 The second part of the meeting will focus on discussing several of the possible design components. This will include a review of existing standards and guidelines for these topics. This discussion will include topics like: Building Mass and Articulation Setbacks and Stepbacks Building Facade Treatments Entryway Features Garage and Driveway Placement Open Space and Green Space Other Features and Components The general design standards and guidelines that apply to RM zones are included as Attachment 3. The draft presentation is separated between the first and second part of the discussion ( Attachments 4 & 5). Action Needed No action is needed at this time. This is an informational discussion as part of a larger code amendment (update) effort. Attachments: Attachment 1- City Council Minutes (Abbreviated) Attachment 2- Residential Multifamily (RM) Zoning Regulations Attachment 3- Multifamily (RM) Existing Design Guidelines Attachment 4- Presentation Part A (Draft) Attachment 5- Presentation Part B (Draft) Packet Pg. 44 F.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES June 24, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Susan Paine, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Council President Paine. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmembers L. Johnson and Fraley-Monillas, and Mayor Nelson. Council President Paine reported Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and L. Johnson had conflicts and were excused from attendance today. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Approval of the Agenda be added to the agenda. Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order, commenting this was a special meeting. Council President Paine said it was her understanding the Council had to stick to the agenda but the Council could approve it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 45 seen successful cluster housing in Shoreline. A presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow illustrated how this concept had been used successfully by ARCH in the past. She still preferred to do the larger vision, looking at subareas, neighborhood and the environment first. She summarized cluster/ cottage housing could be advantageous to the environment if done properly. Councilmember K. Johnson said the City did not currently have cluster/cottage housing. Councilmember Olson may be referring to planned residential developments (PRD) which locate houses closer together to save the environment. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was lukewarm on this topic and it was not something she wanted to move ahead with but she was very intrigued. Churches in Edmonds seem to be located on some of the largest parcels; she wondered if this would be an appropriate use of their land and could it be zoned in a way or regulations developed in such a way that they could have their own cluster housing to support their immigrant, homeless, or senior populations. Ms. Hope said that could be one of the ways the City could go. There are currently have a few PRDs in Edmonds; cluster /cottage housing is smaller units and probably some extra units that have a smaller footprint, have their own parking and open space. It possibly could be designed to take advantage of large parcels, perhaps owned by a church or someone else. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized this was not her highest priority but she was very interested in learning more about it. Councilmember Distelhorst said in addition to PRDs, there are also Unit Lot Subdivision (ULS). Some ULS are close to cluster/cottage housing, but the lots are approximately 2400 square feet which is bigger than traditional cluster/cottage housing. He would love to see the Planning Board evaluate this, observing as Councilmember Buckshnis stated, this is a very popular option with non-profit housing organizations; Housing Hope and HASCO are both involved with properties that use a cluster/cottage housing model. He relayed this recommendation had unanimous support from the Housing Commission. Council President Paine said she has seen examples of this in other cities and would love to see cluster/cottage housing treated similar to multifamily design standards so there would be visuals. This could be a way to provide flexibility, preserve large trees and native growth, and be environmentally sensitive. There needs to be a strong environmental review of all the Housing Commission recommendations to ensure environmental, sustainability and conservation strategies are front loaded into the process. She supported having this recommendation go to both the ADB and the Planning Board. She agreed super large houses were not the best use of the City's limited land. Ms. Hope summarized there was interest in the topic, some were not ready to move it on right now, but it could be revisited later. Multifamilv Design Standards (tonic normally subiect to Planning Board review • Housing Commission recommendation: o Enhance current design standards of new multifamily dwellings to maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use buildings, small multifamily building and large multifamily buildings. Note: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement • Multifamily Design Standards — Improving Design o City currently has no design standards except in Gateway, Highway 99 or downtown) o Examples of design standards ■ Neighborhood Focused Elements ■ Massing and Scale ■ Variety of Building Materials ■ Front Entry Features ■ Connections and "Presence" along Sidewalk ■ Better Context for Design Approvals Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 46 ■ Treatment between Sidewalk & Building ■ Weather Protection for Pedestrians ■ Garage/Parking Placement Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Comprehensive Plan Housing Element o (Housing Goal J) Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. o (11) Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Sustainability Element o (A.1) Adopt a system of codes, standards, and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds' community character and charm in a sustainable way. o (A.2) Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning. Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Community Culture and Urban Design Element o (Design Goal A) Design goals and objectives (should)... guide future development to result in high quality, well designed and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds (including to): ■ Improve physical appearance and character ■ Improve retail and pedestrian circulation options ■ Protect natural environments using sustainable design practices ■ Protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds If Planning Board reviews and makes recommendations on this, what process would happen? 1. Multiple public meetings/hearing by PB (incl. in person meetings) 2. Visual preference surveys/exercises 3. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input 4. Public meeting(s) and input from the Architectural Design Board 5. Eventual more detailed recommendation (whether in opposition or support) for proposal to City Council probably in spring 2022 6. Subsequent City Council consideration of Planning Board's detailed recommendation (including minutes & public comments 7. Additional community input, information, & Council public meetings 8. Council decision whether to reject, revise, or approve the Planning Board's detailed recommendation What kinds of things should Planning Board consider for multifamily design standards? o Architectural appearance o Windows and doors o Location of garages & parking o Pedestrian accessibility o Landscaping o Outdoor lighting o Open space o Orientation of building to street o Building materials o Placement of outdoor utility equipment o Site plan o Entry features o Neighborhood context Possible Next Steps o Council questions & discussion tonight Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 47 F.1.a Should Planning Board be asked to work on options for Multifamily Design Standards & seek more public input? If so: - Planning Board could aim to have a recommendation back to City Council by spring 2022 for more consideration & public input. - Planning Board would consider possible design standards for townhomes and multifamily development, including building appearance, site layout, open space, and other issues. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were multifamily design standards for Highway 99. Ms. Hope answered there are three areas with design standards: Highway 99 where the most work done as they were part of an EIS, the Gateway area, and downtown has some design standards in the zoning code. There are many other areas of the City that do not have design standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was very interested in multifamily design standards as they are long overdue. She recognized there would need to be density in some areas. She referred to the two Compass buildings on SR 104 as examples of the need for multifamily design standards. Councilmember Olson said she was very excited about this and enthusiastic about moving it forward. She was a fan of courtyard apartment complexes and complexes with more attention to detail would be an enhancement to the overall look and feel of the City. She was excited to have the ADB and Planning Board involved. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her enthusiastic support for this recommendation and moving it forward to the ADB and Planning Board. A lot can be learned by a visual preference survey especially examples of what works and doesn't work in Edmonds. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support, relaying that it was unanimously supported by the Housing Commission. Council President Paine agreed this was long overdue and she was excited about it. She asked if it would go to the ADB first followed by the Planning Board. Ms. Hope envisioned a dual, iterative process as each board will inform the other. Council President Paine said after working in Seattle particularly with multifamily townhouses and unit lot subdivisions, Edmonds has dodged a huge bullet not having multifamily design standards and has avoided some of the design problems in nearby communities. She supported moving this forward right away. Ms. Hope summarized there was concurrence to move this forward to the Planning Board and ADB and with the public, to be thoughtful about the context for the local neighborhoods with better quality design. Community and Regional Partners (topic not normally subject to Planning Board review) • Housing Commission Recommendation o Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for: ■ Low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI) ■ Special needs residents ■ Seniors ■ Veterans ... o This policy establishes community partnerships with for profit/non-profits to build affordable housing... o (Additional information is contained in the Commission's statement.) • Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Housing Element o Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 48 Council President Paine asked if this would cover CC&Rs and bylaws associated with existing HOA documents. She recalled when she lived in a condo, their age restrictions did not allow children over the age of five. She was in favor of the Council pursuing this recommendation. She asked if it include CC&Rs, noting it may be useful to provide education to condominium. Mr. Taraday answered the same review could apply to condominiums and subdivision homeowner documents. Ms. Hope summarized there was consensus to move forward on this recommendation. Council President Paine thanked everyone for attending. Recognizing this may be Ms. Hope's last meeting before her retirement, Councilmember Distelhorst congratulated and thanked her for her service to Edmonds and other cities in the region. He thanked Councilmembers for attending the study session and having this discussion. He pointed out there were a lot of resources available; the Housing Commission looked at a lot of them and he was sure Ms. Hope and other planning staff who supported Housing Commission could share that information so Councilmembers could see the same data that the Housing Commission considered in making their recommendations. He encouraged Councilmembers to ask staff, Councilmember Olson or him for more information. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was Ms. Hope's last hurrah. Having known her before she was an employee of Edmonds, Councilmember Buckshnis said Ms. Hope had always been a rock star. She was happy for Ms. Hope to retire but sad for the City as her departure would leave a big hole. She wished her the best and expressed her thanks for the help she has given her all these years. Ms. Hope said she will miss the Council and many people in the community. She always tried to give professional advice, bring information whether she agreed with it or not, and help the process. She expressed appreciation for the Council's efforts and assured things will continue on and hopefully she has been a help. Councilmember K. Johnson added her thanks to Ms. Hope for all the work she done for the community, the City, and for the Council. She has appreciated her professionalism and that she never lost her cool in tight spots. She asked who would be the Acting Development Services Director. Ms. Hope advised Rob Chave will be the Acting Development Services Director. HR started the recruitment process not long after she gave her notice. Councilmember K. Johnson said Ms. Hope has worked hard and deserves the next phase of her life; she wished her happiness and success. Council President Paine expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hope, commenting she has known her since before she was on Council. She has great leadership qualities and Edmonds has benefitted from them. Council President Paine assured Ms. Hope she will be missed, but it will be great for her to spend time with her family. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 49 F.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES September 7, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, with the exception of Councilmember L. Johnson, participating remotely. Council President Paine advised Councilmember L. Johnson was celebrating her 25t1i wedding anniversary and asked to be excused from tonight's meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION ON SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 50 some leeway with regard to what they presented. If the Council was not satisfied with what was provided, the Council could to look into what leverage they specifically have under contract. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 8.3 TO DISCUSS GIVING THE PLANNING BOARD ADDITIONAL DIRECTION REGARDING THE TASKING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE FROM COUNCIL ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THEIR TASK. Councilmember Olson commented the Council discussed this at a previous meeting but did not give formal direction to the Planning Board. Therefore a discussion and ultimately a vote is needed to direct the Planning Board regarding how they should proceed. She anticipated the discussion and vote would not take very long. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. In accordance with RCW 42.17A.555, public comments shall not include statements which promote or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures, except in the course of a public hearing specifically scheduled for such purposes. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said in the second largest timber export state of Washington, Edmonds City Council has illegally possessed private property owners' trees, forcing them to purchase them again from the City before being allowed to use their property for what it is zoned for, building single family homes on single family zoned property. She has begged at nearly every meeting for the City Council to rescind the illegal ordinance that authorizes the City to steal their property rights, forces them to buy the trees back to use their property for what it is zoned for. This Council is breaking the laws of the constitution to accomplish their own agenda. In February 2017, her 81-year old parents, her husband and she purchased a challenging, sloped 1.2 acre property with trees and views of Puget Sound and the mountains. Before purchasing, her husband asked Edmonds Planning Department if the property could be divided into four lots to build their homes and was told it was no problem. After the purchase, the Planning Department told them it would be difficult to subdivide because it was in a critical area. After working with surveyors, engineers, lawyers and architects for two years, they could divide the property into three lots once the small corner containing the critical area was given to a neighbor. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, with construction demands slowing engineering, COVID and complications with her mother's multiple myeloma, the engineers were to submit their application in November 2020 but found a moratorium had been placed on subdivision applications. It was placed to z halt subdivisions so the City could draft a tree ordinance making it impossible for them to build without U repurchasing their trees from the City before they and their roots can be removed and the homes built, a Q $250,000 unconstitutional governmental taking. Since then they have paid architects, engineers, and arborists to re -inventory each tree and reposition the three homes that they have not yet been allowed to build. The new 50% retention to escape the takings of their trees means their views are gone and large trees will be 10 feet from their homes. Eighty percent of the property will have to remain as open space instead of the 30% required for Edmonds properties or 5% in commercial developments. If they go below the 50% tree retention, they will be forced Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 51 said he had received responses from Cascadia Art Museum and Arts Start; he offered to provide it now or send it to Councilmembers. Councilmember Olson suggested he email it to Councilmembers. Councilmember Olson preferred to have this as an Unfinished Business item instead of on the Consent Agenda so Councilmembers would have an opportunity to amend a grant request without removing the item from Consent. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Paine about getting funds out the door quickly. She suggested the Council analyze all the categories next year, commenting it was obvious this was an underfunded category. She agreed with Mr. Doherty that the use of some of the fund requested by Art Starts were construction related. She referred to Mr. Doherty's indication that a request of $18,000 was more appropriate, explaining she calculated $30,000. Mr. Doherty explained their request includes 5 areas, the first is $20,000 related to finishing construction and the second is $12,000 for tools related to the workplace, finishings and furnishings for the building. If those 2 were view as less comporting with the guidelines and the $32,000 was deleted, it left $18,000 of their $50,000 request. The remaining items are for educational enhancement, administration expenses and community outreach. Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Mr. Doherty regarding Arts Start. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Paine about getting the funds out the door now, and taking whatever is left over and looking at places like the Food Bank and others that did not apply. Most of the organizations are in the arts which is what brings people and tax dollars to Edmonds. She felt it would be a gigantic mistake to micromanaging by reducing requests by $1,000. She would agree with having it on the agenda under Unfinished Business if she could be assured it would be moved forward at that meeting and not put on a future Consent Agenda. She concluded many of these organizations seriously need the money. Councilmember Olson agreed with getting the money out quickly, but there said there is still some information coming in. As it often takes more time to remove something from the Consent Agenda, she preferred to have it on the agenda under Unfinished Business. She understood the urgency and will not ask it be placed on a future Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of Council to schedule this as Unfinished Business on the September 21 st agenda. Mr. Doherty will send Council the additional information he received. 3. DISCUSS GIVING PLANNING BOARD ADDITIONAL DIRECTION REGARDING TASKING ALREADY HAVE FROM CITY COUNCIL ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THEIR TASK Councilmember Olson said she wanted to ask the Planning Board to include consideration of green space along with the multifamily design standards that the Council has already tasked them with as one of the Housing Commission recommendations. It came up during the conversation regarding Unit Lot Subdivision and a lot of Councilmembers were interested in exploring whether more green space could be required in multifamily complexes in the future. Council President Paine said she had an opportunity to talk with Acting Development Services Director Chave earlier today but he was not available at tonight's meeting. The intent would be to have both the Planning Board and the Architectural Design Board (ADB) consider green space requirements; there are already landscape requirements for multifamily design. She summarized the majority of Council was interested in having the Planning Board and ADB consider this. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO INCLUDE GREEN SPACE IN THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 52 BOARD AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD WHEN THIS BODY OF WORK COMES TO THOSE BOARDS. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the intent was to have both the Planning Board and ADB study the inclusion of green space. He pointed out green space drives up construction costs and drives down the number of units, things the City needs to be sensitive to when considering this as increased regulations that prevent construction of housing only further exacerbate the problem. He was in favor of studying it but not mandating a requirement before the boards had an opportunity to consider what would and would not work. Councilmember Olson anticipated that was what their discussions and ultimate recommendations would be based on, a balancing act between the environment and housing costs. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Paine reminded there is an opening for a Council student representative and she encouraged students to apply. She expressed a huge thank you to City staff across the board. COVID has been a burden for all and she recognized during tonight's discussion about suicide prevention for youth and people of all ages that people are affected in different ways. She thanked staff for keeping the work coming through whether in office, at home or outside. She recognized Park and Public Works staffs do not have the option to work from home or in a protected environment. This is a long haul and she appreciated them all. She was reminded by a staff member that the 1918 pandemic lasted three years. Perhaps not the best news, but this is a squirrelly virus that keeps changing. She recognized that patience is a strength and she wanted staff to hang in there and continue doing the best they can. Councilmember Buckshnis commented suicide is real and it impacts a lot of people. She encouraged anyone who felt depressed to seek help, talk to a friend, etc. Depression is a chemical imbalance and if a person reaches a certain point, they can snap. Councilmember Olson commented tonight had been a productive meeting. She encouraged the public to volunteer for the last marsh restoration work party of the year on September 1 I' from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.; it is dirty, hard work and waders are encouraged. She advised town halls will be announced soon to gather citizen input on the budget and spending priorities so the Council and the Administration is aware of the priorities before the 2022 budget is finalized. She encouraged residents to attend the town hall that is most convenient for them. Councilmember K. Johnson observed Council committee meetings will be held next week and respectfully requested that the municipal court reorganization be remanded back to the Public Safety, Planning and Parks Committee for continued discussion as requested in July. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Paine's comments about City staff. Ensuring City staff are safe and healthy and not sick and quarantining ensures they are available to deliver essential services to residents. If staff are not well, residents will not be well because they will not receive the services they need. Tomorrow is the first day of school for the Edmonds School District. As a parent with a child in the Edmonds School District who lost 18 months of school, he was very excited to have kids back in school and his child was looking forward to being back in school, but it is a matter of public health and safety and ensuring areas of potential spread are reduced. He was thankful to educators, administration, coaches, and support staff for working to keep themselves and children healthy and safe and learning in the best possible environment. He wished everyone a good year moving forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 53 Councilmember Distelhorst referred to today's message from the Health District, Snohomish County is now at the highest rate of infection in the entire pandemic. He appreciated public comment about adults being able to make choices for themselves, but many people in the community are not making good choices for themselves and are still unvaccinated. People need to get vaccinated, wear masks and reduce their risk factors as much as possible to ensure schools, businesses and essential functions can continue to operate. He hoped people would make smart and responsible decisions that will start driving the rate down. He thanked Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers for supporting suicide prevention efforts as it impacts residents of all ages in the community. To Carolyn Strom and Susan Hughes, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not drunk two weeks ago. She mistakenly grabbed a glass of wine from dinner and drank some of it. Unfortunately she seems to think she is irreplaceable on the Council. She rarely takes vacations or goes any place. For example, she had lung cancer in her first year on the Council and had most of her right lung removed followed by five months of chemotherapy during which she missed three meetings. She would have chemotherapy on Wednesdays so it did not interfere with Council meetings. She acknowledged she probably should not have done that and probably should have taken time off. A lot of people respond to illness in different ways; she was in extreme pain as she was ten years ago when she had lung cancer, but she chose to serve the citizens of Edmonds. She suggested anyone who wanted to criticize her and her illnesses to call her, she was more than happy to explain. Not much keeps her down when it comes to serving on the Council, anything from cancer to a face infection that infected her sinus and her eye. The hate speech from Ms. Hughes and Ms. Strom was inappropriate and not relevant to her and her service to the City. 110. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed he would have liked to have keep City buildings open to the public, however, case counts continue to climb, 464/100,000, which is the highest yet. Due to people's personal choices, 95% of ICU beds are full with COVID patients and only 56% of Snohomish County residents are fully vaccinated which is not enough to defeat a pandemic. Over 200,000 in Snohomish County are eligible but choose for whatever reason not to get vaccinated. Because hospitals are filling up, emergency help, surgery and beds are not available because of COVID patients, the majority of whom are unvaccinated. To keep everyone as safe as possible, steps such as closing City Hall to the public are necessary. When numbers decline and people are healthier, safer and more are vaccinated, he will happily reverse all the closures. He does not like Zoom any more than anyone else and is anxious to get back in person. The virus keeps mutating because it continues to find unvaccinated hosts. As soon as everyone is vaccinated, there will be no more mutations and no more virus. He urged everyone to please get vaccinated so we can go back to our regular, normal lives. There are 125,000 people in Snohomish County, children under age 12, who are not eligible to be vaccinated but have the potential to be exposed to COVID. He urged anyone who was eligible to get vaccinated. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 54 F.1.b Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 16.30.000 Purposes. The RM zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for residential zones of ECDC 16.00.010 and 16.10.000: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment; B. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are compatible with multiple residential uses. 16.30.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. Multiple dwellings; 2. Single-family dwellings; (Other listed used have been removed from this Attachment- not pertinent to this discussion) 16.30.020 Subdistricts. There are established four subdistricts of the RM zone, in order to provide site development standards for areas which differ in topography, location, existing development and other factors. 16.30.030 Site development standards. A. Table. Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Subdistrict Per Dwelling Street Side Rear Height Coverage Unit3 (Sq. Ft.) Setback2 Setback2 Setback RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25" 45% RM-EW 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25'4 45% RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10, 15' 25" 45% RM-3 3,000 15' 15' 15' 25'1 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. 2 RS setbacks may be used for single-family homes on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in all RM zones. 3 See definition of townhouse. 2 Packet Pg. 55 F.1.b The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be increased to 35 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development: (a) At least two of the following techniques shall be incorporated into the building and/or site's design: (1) Achievement of at least LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification; (2) Inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income as determined by Snohomish County Tomorrow. The number of affordable units must be at least 15 percent of the gross number of units proposed; (3) Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed. LID best management practices include, but are not limited to: bioretention/rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use. B. See Parking (Chapter 17.50 ECDC), Design Review (Chapter 20.10 ECDC), and Sign Code (Chapter 20.60 ECDC) for additional standards. The following design standards shall also apply to buildings within the RM-EW zone: 1. Seventy-five percent of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted if they replicate the appearance of the listed preferred materials. At least 55 percent of building facade materials must be salvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigenous. C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. A. Maximum height for accessory structures is 15 feet. B. Satellite Television Antenna. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. C. Setback Encroachments. 1. Eaves and chimneys and bay windows, utility lines and meters, and "similar minor improvements," etc., may project into a required setback not more than 30 inches. 2. Except as authorized by subsection (C)(3) of this section, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided, that they are no more than 30 inches above the ground level at any point. 3. In the RM — Edmonds Way zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks may occupy up to one-half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided, that these structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point. D. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall have no rear setback; all setbacks other than street setbacks shall be side setbacks. Packet Pg. 56 F.1.c Design Components that Apply to Multifamily Development 1) Comprehensive Plan Design Components 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 tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. 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. 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. Packet Pg. 57 F.1.c 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. Design Objectives for Building Fagade. 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 Fagade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. Packet Pg. 58 F.1.c A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a fagade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building facades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. 2) 20.11 ECDC — General Design Review ECDC 20.11.030.A Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area, 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturally detailed entries; iv. Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials, 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. ECDC 20.11.030.B Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: Packet Pg. 59 F.1.c 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect natural resources, limit disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. ECDC 20.11.030(C) Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 3) ECDC 17.S0.020 — Off -Street Parking Regulations Off-street parking requirements for multifamily developments are detailed in the table in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b. 4) Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscape Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are permitted to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. ECDC 20.13.030 provides the requirements for each landscaping type. Packet Pg. 60 F.1.c Type 111 Landscaping. Type Ill landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. 5) Tree Code Packet Pg. 61 F.1.d c Q 0 r L) m 0 L. IL y L R N C .N T Y C� C L a L R CL C 0 R cn L Q_ 4 E V a d E c.i a Packet Pg. 62 F.1.d TONIGHT'S TOPICS 1)RECAP OF OCTOBER ADB MEETING 2)SCOPING/FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION ON ZONING a 3)SCOPING/FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION ON DEV. COMPONENTS a 4)N EXT STEPS Packet Pg. 63 F.1.d TOPIC 1: RECAP 2 a Packet Pg. 64 F.1.d • Three Phases: Formation, Articulation, Adoption • Components of Each Phase: Currently, we are early in the Formation Phase • Comp Plan Goals & Direction for Council: Part of 9idesand Attachments from Council Meetings • Criteria Considerations: Not just buildings, but also addressing sustainability, affordability, and equity • Identifying the Stakeholders: Residents, Government, and Development Community • Public Engagement: Will have plan to discuss with Planning Board for stakeholder involvement • Balancing Outcomes: Discussed waying the pros and cons of specificity vs. flexibility • Establishing Scope: Our discussion for today, setting the framework for the topics 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Packet Pg. 65 IVIF DESIGN STANDARD PROCESS 'a 1 . � PUBLIC - ALL ALL 12.1.21 ig INTROS & EARLY DISCUSSIONS ON SCOPING INTROS & BRINGING UP-TO-DATE EARLY WORK (W EBPAGE AND MAILING LIST) BEGIN FULL OUTREACH / INVOLVEMENT EFFORT START DISCUSSING PREFERENCES AND SOLUTIONS 2 El L a. 0 a+ a Packet Pg. 66 F.1.d • Flexibility: Flexibility in standards for better design outcomes • Engagement: Ensure public is informed & part of decision -making • ADB Anticipated Involvement: Deep dive into the specific standards • Relations: Protect the character and charm of Edmonds • Adjustments: Allow ADB to adjust standards for site specific context • Affordability: Housing affordability costs and impacts should be considered • Theme by Type: Have design types based on the development type (townhomes, apartments) • Challenges: Difficult to make design decisions when public concerns are often about zoning standards • Likes: Like how criteria is shown in staff report and how downtown standards differentiate between portions of the building (bottom, middle, top) 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Packet Pg. 67 F.1.d TOPIC 2: ZONING FRAMEWORK c Q 0 r L) m 0 L. a. N cu .N L 0 a L R 0 R cn L Q_ E V a d c.i a Packet Pg. 68 Development Types / Zones Multifamily Zones (RM Zones) Subdivisions/ Unit Lot Commercial Zones Downtown Zones (BD Zones) Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Community General Zones (CG) 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 --n!I--- W hat's goes within the framework? a� c .Q 0 U co r m 0 L. IL N L Development Components .y N Building Mass and Articulation E 3 Building Facade Treatments L c Entryway Features a Garage/Driveway Placement 0 Open Space/ Green Space a Set backs/St epbacks E Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc. r r a C N E L V fC a+ a+ a Packet Pg. 69 F.1.d Involves Residential Development between 9ngle-Family and Mid -Rise Often Called the" Missing Middle" Housing Stock Acts as a Transition from Commercial to 9ngle-Family Zones and as a Residential Buffer along Major Roads and near Transit DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 �'■ - � r MULTIPLEX LiVEILUOR< TOWN40U5E COLIRTYARD BUNGALOW a \ DUPLEX TRIPLEX I Ap RTI••1EHTCOURT � \ FouRPLeX — MI5S4NG MvI)LE POUSINC� — — — — c Q 0 r L) m 0 L. Q_ to L R .N 0 L a R B . Nr, I. 0 Source: Daniel Parolek & Opticos Design www.missingmiddlehousing.com C N d a 4 c OPTICO$ v r a r-i c a� E a Packet Pg. 70 Makes up 6% of City's Area Area that Allows Future Growth Focused in 4 Mein Areas Other Public Facilities, 1 194 Parks, 5.8% cornmercia Mixed Use', I Multi -Family, 5 12. 1 .2 1 Rlghts-of-Way, 19.0%. single Downtown 0 U (j) 0 196th St 212th St E Lynnwood El a .0 Montlak( Ter r ace E U r E fC Packet Pg. 71 Downtown Multi Family RM-3 Muld Family, 3,000 sq. fr. of lot area per unk RM-2.4 Multi Family, 2.400 sq. rt. of lot area per an It _ RM-1.5 Multi Family, 1,500 sq. rt. of lot area per unit - RM-EW Multi Family, RM-Edmonds Way ... 2.1.21 a+ Q Packet Pg. 72 MULTIFAMILY ZON ES i _AM r r"qzl EV- I MULTIFAMILY ZON ES IN m MULTIFAMILY ZON ES ,� ■r �,��„iw�F�� 11 ■11 11111 �'t■■■ i I Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Subdistrict Area Per Dwelling Street Side Rear Height Coverage Unit (Sq. Ft.) Setback Setback Setback RM-1.5 1,500 15' 14' 15' 25.1 45% RM-EW 1,500 15, 10' 15' 25-4 45% RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15, 25" 45% RM-3 3,000 15' 15' S' 25" 459 Simmary of Footnotes 1. Fbof may extend 5' if it has a slope of 4" in 12" or greater. 2. Reduced setbacks for single-family homes in RM on smaller lots. 3. How it applies to Townhouses 4. Max height on RM-EW (Edmonds Way) up to 35 feet if at least two of the following occurs: a LEED gold certification or comparable green building certification; b. 15%of units reserved for people with low/moderate income levels (per 9iohomish County) c. Low impact development (LID) techniques are employed 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 _ Q 0 U W r U m 0 L. Q_ y L R _ .N a� 0 E M r L a L CU a _ 0 L Q_ _ E t r a 1 d E t V R a Packet Pg. 76 Minimum Lot Minimum Minimum Minimum Comparison with denser sine -family (S� zones Subdistrict RM-1.5 Area Per Dwelling 3 Unit {5q. Ft.] 1,500 Street Setback � 15' Side Setback z 10' Rear Setback 15' Maximum Height 25" Maximum Coverage 45% Multifamily has: RVI-EW 1,500 15' 10' 15' 254 45% Reduced Street Setbacks RM-2.4 2,400 15' 10' 15' 25" 45% RNl-3 3,000 15' 15' 15' 25"45%Greater Sde Setbacks Smilar Rear Setbacks Smilar Height... Sub District Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum MinimumMinimum Density Lot Width Minimum Street Street Setback Minimum Side Setback Minimum Rear Setback Maximum Maximum Overage (0/0) w/ some exceptions RS-10 10,000 4.4 75' 25' 10' 20' 25' 35% Greater Lot Coverage RS-8 8,000 5'5 70' 25` 7-112' 15' 25' 35% RS-6 6,000 7.3 60' 20' 5 15' 25' 35% 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Packet Pg. 77 F.1.d Allows individual "Fee Simple" ownership of lots Usually for townhomes or individual home development Follows subdivision regulations Done with a site plan Must also meet standards for that zoning district i.e. Multifamily (RM) Zones New design standards in Multifamily Zones would apply here 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 _ �AWO9 Ima0 0 U� } �I JI 1 ---------------------- i-------------- L_____________._____� c Q 0 U .r m 0 L- a. N L R U) C .N 0 21 T L 0 a CU a 0 a C V a C 0 E t V R a Packet Pg. 78 F.1.d Neighborhood Business (BN) & Community Business (BC) BN is a zone for smaller, neighborhood -oriented businesses - Lowest density commercial (Perrinville, Five Corners, etc.) - Does not allow multifamily development BC is for businesses geared toward the entire community - A few parcels on Edmonds Way and Bistro 76/ Fat Rig BBQ Ste - Allows multifamily as part of mixed -use development - Has design standards for development 12.1.21 Perrinville 5 Corners c Q 0 U r U m 0 L. Q_ y L R Chevron/Benjamin Moore Ste — a' R 1 Nosrsw 42 3 �+ a`. BN• s i�n�n�iun�u�u�+�■�rIIllYrif'��if�ui� � BK/ 7 Beven/ Dairy Queen a ' s MgTHSTSW _ RM-2.4 RM-2:4 PPO 1978 1 .' - H 9i SW 4 E Edmonds Woodway RM-2,4 V RM-2.4 High School r r P Q d E t V R a Packet Pg. 79 ,z• • AIRAWAS • Multifamily only allowed as a mixed -use development • BD has extensive design guidelines • Has many standards that apply to the entire building/site • Highlights the historical development pattern and mixed - use character of the area Downtown Business BDI Downtown Retail Core BD2 Downtown Mixed Commercial oilBD3 Downtown Convenience Commercial Chapter 22.43 eoln BD4 Downtown Mixed Residential BD5 Downtown Arts Corridor DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BD ZONES 22.43.000 Applicability. 22.43.010 Massing and articulation. 22.43.020 Orientation to street. 22.43.030 Ground level details. 22.43.040 Awn ingslcanopies and signage. 22.43.050 Transparency at street level. 22.43.060 Treating blank walls. 22.43.070 Building HVAC equipment. 12.1.21 4q*-w ��'44 �, /+► X III 1go2�t r i BD1 BE)1 R-1979-4 GG BDr o RM-2Jim Edmonds � S��Y Mar �sh �• � BD. _ k-1995-1ri . Gwrse �lde W06 Ibwxr 0ds <et dod msdeli PWf?l/ 1/ 111e1'___*-1dowWJ c Q 0 U r m 0 L. Q_ to L R .N 0 E 3 L a 1a d c 0 R c rn m a 4 C (D L U Q w d t U R a Packet Pg. 80 Commercial General (CG) Zones W A N a C G ZONES H LM15 [u ■ .■11 rF1�_ � � br■ ZION 1 1��1 r I�111�- ■111= -� -phpj I • � • I • I • yam. _ .� i ., �/ 1 �' � �X# s. a■�inr :: :=�"�'�►iul ,r�ll��� :Ili#i- us urnn�i� I.NX R11. sr■ 1 w ka•� -� �.—E11111•E � I • • • I wi �11� �: �IE11111111 I`rw� _ - ■■ ■� �Qj.- ^. ni■■aF1♦IF� IIIF`' _II+IE- .q �i1111 IR'Xk =tiT+ �■ —ram �L ■_ !•�IINt = ■�� 1 � 11�� ■ . ■ � ■T=���I �.. 17111E +iiiie� ■f-.: a �1�-.■..rsr �� � ;FI!■I■ ■� � �� ��� 1 ' ■ ;=ii■�='�i:� � .�L�:•1�;:�ii: r f -:.■r:rrc • � � �-. �� � �r �� � � . n-ugh—�'��:�i�+rr�a r F f 7 7fR� EI■ iTV Nis CFI• IIk111 RT;111i 11f1 ,�� � �11•.FI• .11• u111liauul■uEl.u■ �1 LL on [ = ` - ■Elms F.1.d --------------- ■ roc------------- d usr.4 >.d all/ -- Chapter 22.110 DESIGN STANDARDS FORTH EWMU—WESTGATEMIXED- U SE D I STRI CT Sections: 22.110.000 Purpose and intent. 22.110.010 Building types. 22.110.015 Design treatments. 22.110.020 Frontage types. 22.110.030 Green building construction and housing. 22.110.050 Circulation and parking. 22.110.070 Amenity space, open space, and green factor standards. 22.110.080 Public space standards. 22.110.090 Height bonus. 22.110.100 Green factor tools. 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Lf.)'iq'rA EDMONDS99 HIGHWAY Chapter 16.60 CG — GEN El COM M ERCIAL ZON E 16.60.000 CG zone. 16.60.005 Purposes. 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. No,e: Numerv�olRm�ger Iw IhePNeftrfen lmeo� fhrK,h+ry lonrar typ,col Du, do na metro! o'm atl,n rMulrcmmrs o r ehl, dwtprer. c Q 0 r m 0 L ii y L R .N a� 0 L Q R it C 0 R C aD to d L c tV E t v R r Q d E t t) R a Packet Pg. 82 Development Types / Zones Multifamily Zones (RM Zones) Subdivisions/ Unit Lots Commercial Zones Downtown Zones (BD Zones) Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Community General Zones (CG) 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 1 - y - W hat's goes within the framework? 1L, a� c .Q 0 U co r m 0 L. IL N L Development Components .y N Building Mass and Articulation Set backs/St epbacks c Building Fagade Treatments a Entryway Features Garage/Driveway Placement a Open Space/ Green Space E Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc. r r a r N E L V fC a+ a+ a Packet Pg. 83 F.1.e TOPIC 3: D EV E LOPM ENT FRAMEWORK COMPONENT c Q 0 r L) m 0 L. y L R .N 0 L m.+ L R 0 R cn L Q_ Lo E 0 a d E c.i a Packet Pg. 84 F.1.e Development Types / Zones Multifamily Zones (RM Zones) Subdivisions/ Unit Lot Commercial Zones Downtown Zones (BD Zones) Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Community General Zones (CG) 12.1.21 vv naL s goes wit nin the framework? c Q 0 r m 0 L. Q_ y L R Development Components 21 Building Mass and Articulation Set backs/St epbacks L Building Fagade Treatments CU a Entryway Features 0 Garage/Driveway Placement a Open Space/ Green Space LO Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc. i a C d E t V R a Packet Pg. 85 F.1.e • Contains some general design guidance for Design Review • Comp Plan design criteria are very broad, citywide goals • Doesn't specifically address the context or needs of this housing type Applicable Designponents Design Components in the Comp Plan • Objectives for Ste Design • Objectives for Building Form • Objectives for Building Fagade Design Review Standards- Chapter 20.11 (Other than SF or Duplexes) • Building Design • Ste Treatment • Other Criteria 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Applicable Zoning Standards General RM Zone Requirements- Chapter 16.30 • Setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc. Off -Street Parking Requirements- Chapter 17.20 • General calculations & location requirements Landscaping Requirements- Chapter 20.13 • Type I through V • General planting & design standards Tree Code- Chapter 23.10 c Q 0 U r U m 0 L Q_ N L .N 0 i L 0 m CU a L Q_ LO E M a w C d E t V R a Packet Pg. 86 F.1.e Massi nq Addresses the three-dimensional shape and bulk of a building Initially done by finding the buildable area of a site (setbacks, lot coverage, height) Difficult to address in RM zones because of relatively small building sizes Represents one of the most difficult and cost additive things for builders to address Art iciilafinn Addresses exterior design components or modulation Things like building extensions, balconies, rooflines Goes a long way to reduce repetitiveness and bulk III Usually easier to adjust or add than the massing ., Little Articulation 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 a� c .Q 0 U CO r m 0 L a N L U) C MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT I mp 1 RJR YARD .+.p IP 14�c4° pSEl9W r Jr, I j BgCr, 'E NI Mum (� OTIC,04ERn;if- �F F � YARo ' ell L Primary Massing Exercise p m M a Maximum fapde Maximum facade Maximum facade C incerval in-1 I i interval N L a Ln ANNIN U C More Articulation r Q C N E L V fC a+ a+ a Packet Pg. 87 F.1.e Comprehensive Plan Policies 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. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. 12.1.21 Design Review Policies 1. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided... a. In multifamily (RM)... selections from... the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; Packet Pg. 88 F.1.e Comp Plan calls it "the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place" Components can include: • Materials, textures, colors to provide verticality or differentiate units • Window Sze, Location, and Placement (Fenestration) • Eaves, cornices, balconies, etc. Great way to address how a building is viewed from the streets Helps break up building monotony Allows variety and variation in the architecture between units Major component of "fitting in" with other buildings 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Use of Color and Texture Use of Ea✓es and Cornices Use of Balconies and Overhangs A Packet Pg. 89 F.1.e Comprehensive Plan Policies Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives om en= that the exterior of a building is of high quality and demonstrates t e stronI sense of pIMS and integrity... A.18 Building Facade Design. Reinforces 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... window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade.... 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. 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Design Review Policies 1. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided... a. In multifamily (RM)... selections from... the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; v. The use of multiple materials, RM Zoning- RM-EW Zoning District only. • 75% of a building facade facing a public right-of-way shall be clad with preferred building materials which include natural brick and glass. • At least 5510of building facade materials must ALsalvaged, recycled content, bio-based or indigen Packet Pg. 90 F.1.e Major component to provide a sense of place Quintessentially part of a neighborhood feel Provides a pedestrian level connection to the development Unless addressed in standards, doors and entries are often an afterthought For longer inset developments, most important along the public street 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 ,, DiJ N'P O N' I' OW 1V HOUSE Packet Pg. 91 F.1.e Comprehensive Plan Policies 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. 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Design Review Policies 1. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided... a. In multifamily (RM)... selections from... the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: iii. Architecturally detailed entries, Packet Pg. 92 F.1.e Garage Placement Presents a design obstacle for wide, short lots along a street Wider, shorter lots can work to minimize garage clutter Parking RM Zone already prohibits parking in the front setback The location and layout of parking is a key factor Driveway Placement Narrow, longer lots can work to minimize impact of shared Driveway Another goal is to create a safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 a� c .Q 0 U r U m 0 L IL N L C .y N G E L 0 m IL 0 c� N d L a LO C 0 M a N E L V a+fC a+ a Packet Pg. 93 F.1.e Wider, Shorter Lots Narrow, Deeper Lots 12.1.21 Packet Pg. 94 F.1.e Comarehensive Plan Policies 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.... 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 e placed tot the si e Fe Mr. 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. 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 RM Zoning- 16.30.030 Site development standards C. Location of Parking. No parking spaces may be located within the street setback. Public Works — Streets and Driveways 18.80.060 Driveway and curb cut requirements. B. Location. 1. No driveway shall... create a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists or motorists or invite or compel illegal or unsafe traffic movements. C. Size and Number. The width of any residential driveway shall not exceed 20 feet exclusive of the radii of the turns... except as otherwise provided. Public Works — Parking Lot Construction 18.95.030 Tandem parking prohibited. Tandem or stacked parking may not be utilized to provide any required parking space... Packet Pg. 95 F.1.e •R M = 0 The amount of open and green space on a property adds to the feel of a specific neighborhood Can be a difficult part of the site programming Protection of existing natural resources should be considered • Trees • Watersheds • Wetlands • 9opes Can maximize streetside landscaping treatment Can involve a mixture between standards and guidelines f, L-1 12.1.21 0 c Q 0 U r L) m 0 L. Q_ y L R 3 M� I M. a L I Courtesy: Cone Architecture o al Packet Pg. 96 F.1.e Comprehensive Plan Policies 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.12 Integrating Site Features. ntegrate natural landscape Rptures and unique an forms — 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.... 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. 12.1.21 c Q 0 U W r U m 0 L. Q_ y L Cu Chapter 20.13- LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS (highlights) .N 0 Planting Schedule (Amount & Min/Max Sizes at Planting) E Gen. Design Standards • Enhance Building Design • Screen Uses • Preference for preserving existing trees • Utilize NW friendly species • Adjacent to street and property lines General Planting Standards • Help with blank walls • Help to soften building elevations Landscaping Types I through V • Depends on what the landscaping is adjacent to r L 0 m Cu a 0 Cu c Cn a� a c aD E 0 r a C 0 E t V R a Packet Pg. 97 F.1.e Design Review Policies ECDC 20.11.030.B Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to Frotect natural resources, limit disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the surf where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Packet Pg. 98 F.1.e Setbacks Setbacks involve the distance (usually from a property line) that something can be built St epbacks Stepbacks usually involve further recessing or pushing back an addition portion or feature Stepbacks are usually done for larger buildings or to break up the massing of a building Observation Based on the limited height and similar setbacks to RS (Sngle- Family Zones), additional setbacks or stepbacks may not be needed 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 yard side yard side yard rear yard SetbacStepback Image courtesy Salt Lake City public documents Packet Pg. 99 F.1.e Comprehensive Plan Policies A.6 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries1where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Packet Pg. 100 F.1.e Option- Focus on how the buildings interact with the public realm (street) to create awelcoming, visually pleasant, and safe environment W al kways and Pat hways • Often seen as an afterthought on occurs on common driveway • Promoted and codified to promote pedestrian connections Utility and Mechanical Equipment Placement • Affects how a building is viewed from the street • Not always shown on a site plan Fencing (limits) along Street in Front Setbacks • Could specify or establish openings or transparency requirements Li ght i ng 0 ement s • Ensure lighting is welcoming and fits with the design scale 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 00 Packet Pg. 101 F.1.e Comprehensive Plan Policies A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. 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. Desian Review Policies 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level; 1 2 . 1 . 2 1 Packet Pg. 102 Exam pies of D esign St andards • Building Articulation Percentages • Using a Variety of Building Materials • Requiring Front Entries along Street • Guidelines for Window Placement • Guidelines for Garages and Driveways • Screening Certain Uses in Front Yard • Front Yard Landscaping Guidelines • Promoting Porches and Other N eighborhood Elements 00,A!, FRONT ELEVATION c Q 0 r L) m 0 L. IL Large windows promote U1 casual supervision of skiewalk. L POrCheS and S+dewalk encourage (Q tntenmtion between neighbors- $ C Paving and architectural treatment R define puhltc and private zones. ++ C a1 .N Goad pedestrian -scaled Q Eightmg on sleet. CC� Law landscaping and fences G define property lines without creaking homing placea- 0 m .to F Cn L _ a t U R Q d E t :i R a Packet Pg. 103 F.1.e Development Types / Zones Multifamily Zones (RM Zones) Subdivisions/ Unit Lot Commercial Zones Downtown Zones (BD Zones) Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Community General Zones (CG) 12.1.21 vv naL s goes wit nin the framework? c Q 0 r m 0 L. Q_ y L R Development Components N 21 Building Mass and Articulation Set backs/St epbacks L Building Fagade Treatments CU a Entryway Features 0 Garage / Driveway Placement a Open Space/ Green Space LO Density, Landscaping, Lighting, etc. r a Packet Pg. 104 F.1.e TOPIC 4: NEXT STEPS 1) MEET WITH PLANNING BOARD- DECEMBER 8TH 2) FINALIZE OUTREACH/ENGAGEMENT PLAN 3) NARROWING SCOPE 4) ASSESSING COMMUNITY PREFERENCES Packet Pg. 105 F.1.e a� c .Q 0 U r The Multifamily Design Standard (Update) specific page is now available! 0 Visit the Edmonds Code Update webpage for more information. You can sign up for our a. notification list for all code updates or just this topic. Take a picture of the Q R code to visit the Multifamily specific page. www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates FOR QUESTIONS, CONTACT: ERIC EN GMAN N , AICP E M fA N G >+ E MFDS Webpage Q R Code r SENIOR PLANNER I CITY OF ED M O N D S ERIC.EN GMAN N @ED MO N DSWA.GOV ( 4 2 5 ) 9 9 7 - 9 5 4 1 o m -� o N d L a 1 a a E a Packet Pg. 106 F.2 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2021 Election of Officers for 2022 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History Elections are held at the end of the year for the upcoming year. Staff Recommendation Elect a Chair and a Vice Chair Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 107