2022-04-06 Architectural Design Board PacketOF FdM Architectural Design Board
� O
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, April 6, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting at: https://edmondswa-
gov. zoom. us/j/89087813540?pwd=WmJ WQOg4VzRrOTM3Qndtc1150DJaZz09
Meeting ID: 890 8781 3540. Password: 612943
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 # 6261)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve March 2nd meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• ADB220302d (PDF)
D. Audiance Comments
This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as a
public hearing or a recommendation to the hearing examiner.
E. Public Hearings
1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6285)
Phase 2 Public Hearing - 611 Main Street 24-Unit Apartment Building (PLN2021-0066)
Architectural Design Board Page 1 Printed 313012022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda April 6, 2022
F.
Background/History
Architect Phillip Frisk, representing property owner GBH Holdings, submitted a design review application
for a new 24-unit apartment building at 605/611 Main Street. Twenty-four parking spaces will be
provided below the building. The site is located within the Downtown Business (Downtown Mixed
Commercial), BD2, zone. The project site contains 9,889 square feet across two parcels and the current
structures on the parcels will be demolished to make room for the apartment building. A subsequent
lot line adjustment would be necessary to combine the two parcels into a single lot for construction of
the apartment building.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) threshold determination are reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). District based
design review in the BD zones are reviewed by the ADB in a two-phase public hearing process. The ADB
provides design review guidance during Phase 1 of the process and will issue a decision following the
Phase 2 public hearing.
The Phase 1 public hearing was held on January 5, 2022 and the Phase 2 public hearing was set for April
6, 2022.
Staff Recommendation
Set new date for continued Phase 2 public hearing.
Board Review Items
Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB.
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6286)
PLN2019-0003 Revision of Kisan Multi -family Development
Background/History
The ADB held a public hearing and approved the design of an 18-unit multi -family development
at 22810 Edmonds Way on September 4, 2019 (minutes provided in Attachment 1). Building
permits have been issued for the development, however, during development of the site, site
conditions were different that expected and revisions to the buildings are being considered.
Since this project was originally approved the ADB, staff will present the proposed revisions for
consideration prior to the applicants submitting building permit for revisions.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the ADB approve the proposed revisions to the building designs approved
under PLN2019-0003.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: September 4, 2019 Architectural Design Board Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 2: Original Kissan Building C Elevations (PDF)
• Attachment 3: Revised Building C Elevations (PDF)
• Attachment 4: Applicant Cover Letter (PDF)
Architectural Design Board Page 2 Printed 313012022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda April 6, 2022
G. Board Discussion Items
H. ADB Member Comments
Adjournment
Architectural Design Board Page 3 Printed 313012022
C.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/6/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve March 2nd meeting minutes.
Narrative
March 2nd draft minutes attached.
Attachments:
ADB220302d
Packet Pg. 4
C.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
March 2, 2022
Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom.
Board Members Present
Kim Bayer, Chair
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair
Maurine Jeude
Lauri Strauss
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board Members Absent Staff Present
Joe Herr Susan McLaughlin, Devt. Svcs. Director
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 5, 2022 Meeting Minutes
a
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS
TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 5, 2022 MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
Comprehensive Plan: A Tool to Guide Growth in Edmonds
Development Services Director McLaughlin explained how to use the Comprehensive Plan as a tool for
planning. She gave some background on the Growth Management Act (GMA) which is intended to coordinate
development and prevent urban sprawl. The Comprehensive Plan starts with a community vision which guides
the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, implementation strategies (development regulations, infrastructure
spending priorities). Every permitted project and every spending decision is to be consistent with the community
vision. Development regulations help to implement the Comprehensive Plan and set the standards for
development. These regulations include traditional zoning, critical areas regulations, subdivision regulations,
public works standards, and other standards such as design standards, signs, landscaping, and parking. Ms.
McLaughlin reviewed the purpose and effect of the Comprehensive Plan on planning. She highlighted the
Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan as examples of showing design
objectives within the element.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of virtual Meeting
March 2, 2022
Pagel of 3
Packet Pg. 5
C.1.a
Vice Chair Brooks asked for a list of the focal points within the Comprehensive Plan that are relevant to the
ADB. Ms. McLaughlin stated that staff could provide that but also encouraged board members to read through
and be familiar with the Plan.
Board Member Strauss agreed that it would be helpful for staff to highlight areas of focus. Ms. McLaughlin
concurred.
Chair Bayer thanked staff for the presentation. She asked about the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update
process. Ms. McLaughlin noted that the City is hiring a Planning Manager who will be an expert in the Growth
Management Act and subsequent Comprehensive Plan. She generally reviewed the process including growth
targets and re-engaging with the community about the 20-year vision.
Chair Bayer asked how the Multifamily Design Standards fit into this process. Ms. McLaughlin stated that the
Multifamily Design Standards are much more specific than the level of detail in the Comprehensive Plan
language typically is. There is a relationship, but the Comprehensive Plan is much broader. She noted there is a
moratorium on the BD2 zone downtown, but they are working on interim design standards which will be N
moving through Council in April. The Multifamily Design Standards are on hold until they find a replacement
for Eric Engmann. Because the interim design standards are an "emergency" ordinance they go directly to
Council for approval. After that there will be a public process to incorporate them into the Multifamily Design 4-
Standards. 0
�a
0
There was some discussion about how the scheduled April 6 Phase 2 public hearing regarding the 6th and Main a
project would be impacted. Ms. McLaughlin explained the Board would still need to review this item on April Q
6. At that meeting they will likely pick another date in the future to reconvene the hearing. New designs for 6th N
and Main are expected to be available for the April 6 Council meeting. Chair Bayer was a little concerned M
because the public was expecting the designs mid -March. Board Member Strauss noted that the Board has the N
discretion to continue the hearing if needed. m
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
City Attorney Training and Discussion
City Attorney Jeff Taraday gave a PowerPoint training regarding Board regulations and guidelines. General
clarification questions and answers about hypothetical scenarios were interspersed throughout the presentation.
Mr. Taraday reviewed:
• Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (Chapter 42.36)
o Ex Parte Communications
o Bias
o Open Public Meetings Act
o Disqualification
o Conflict of Interest issues
Board Member Strauss thought it was curious that in all her time on the Board no one has ever said that they
had a conflict of interest or ex parte communication. City Attorney Taraday agreed and encouraged the members
to not feel any shame about this or that they had done something wrong if they need to disclose something on
the record. Situations which would cause a board member to step down from a hearing were also discussed.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
March 2, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 6
C.1.a
One Open Record Hearing (RCW 36.70B.050, RCW 36.70B.020(3))
o Only one open record hearing
o Record of the hearing
o Support your decision
o Take your time
• Anderson v. Issaquah (briefly summarized)
o Key idea: Provide clear, specific, objective feedback consistent with design standards
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Chair Bayer referred to the Baskin Robbins site and asked if the fact that this would be a subdivision and not a
unit lot subdivision would change anything for the ADB. Mr. Clugston replied that it would not.
Chair Bayer noted that the Market is redoing its roofline to have an overhang on the sidewalk. She wondered if 0)
this would need to come to the ADB. Mr. Clugston said it would not; it would just be a staff level decision.
Mr. Clugston stated that the advertisement for new board members closed on Monday. 4-
0
�a
ADJOURNMENT: o
L
Q
The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. Q
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
March 2, 2022
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 7
E.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/6/2022
Phase 2 Public Hearing - 611 Main Street 24-Unit Apartment Building (PLN2021-0066)
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Architect Phillip Frisk, representing property owner GBH Holdings, submitted a design review application
for a new 24-unit apartment building at 605/611 Main Street. Twenty-four parking spaces will be
provided below the building. The site is located within the Downtown Business (Downtown Mixed
Commercial), BD2, zone. The project site contains 9,889 square feet across two parcels and the current
structures on the parcels will be demolished to make room for the apartment building. A subsequent
lot line adjustment would be necessary to combine the two parcels into a single lot for construction of
the apartment building.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010, proposed developments that require a State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) threshold determination are reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). District based
design review in the BD zones are reviewed by the ADB in a two-phase public hearing process. The ADB
provides design review guidance during Phase 1 of the process and will issue a decision following the
Phase 2 public hearing.
The Phase 1 public hearing was held on January 5, 2022 and the Phase 2 public hearing was set for April
6, 2022.
Staff Recommendation
Set new date for continued Phase 2 public hearing.
Narrative
While the Phase 2 public hearing date for this project was set for the April 6, 2022, the project is not
ready for continued review at this time due to a moratorium and interim design standard review that
effect the proposed development. The City of Edmonds adopted Ordinance No. 4247 on February 15,
2022 which placed a moratorium on building permit applications for new multifamily buildings in the
BD2 outside of a designated street front (which applies to this property) to allow the city some time to
adopt interim design standards. The interim design standards were introduced at City Council on March
29, 2022 are and on the Council's agenda for consideration again on April 5, 2022. The project at
605/611 Main Street will be subject to the interim design standards and since the standards have yet to
be adopted, the project could not be updated to implement the new design standards by this ADB
meeting.
Since the public hearing was continued to a date certain (April 6th), the ADB must hold this meeting if
just to continue to another date for the Phase 2 public hearing. As of the drafting of this agenda item,
Packet Pg. 8
E.1
the interim design standards have not yet been adopted. If the Council adopts the interim design on
April 5, 2022 the applicant will need time to apply the interim design standards to the subject project
and submit to the city in time for staff to prepare a report and recommendation for the Phase 2 hearing.
Staff will provide an update on the status of the interim design standards at this meeting.
Packet Pg. 9
F.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/6/2022
PLN2019-0003 Revision of Kisan Multi -family Development
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The ADB held a public hearing and approved the design of an 18-unit multi -family development at 22810
Edmonds Way on September 4, 2019 (minutes provided in Attachment 1). Building permits have been
issued for the development, however, during development of the site, site conditions were different
that expected and revisions to the buildings are being considered. Since this project was originally
approved the ADB, staff will present the proposed revisions for consideration prior to the applicants
submitting building permit for revisions.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the ADB approve the proposed revisions to the building designs approved under
PLN2019-0003.
Narrative
The development at 22810 Edmonds Way consists of 18 dwellings units divided between four structures
with each contain a two car garage. The proposed revisions will not change the overall layout of the
development, landscaping, utilities, access or footprint of buildings. The revisions will only alter the roof
line changing the buildings from a hipped roof design to a gabled roof design. Change materials are also
proposed and additional windows will be added to one of the facades.
Staff feels the proposed revisions will be an improvement to the buildings design and finds the revisions
consistent with the Design Objectives for Building Form in the Comprehensive Plan and General Design
Review criteria for Building Design in ECDC 20.11.030.A.
The original building elevations are provided in Attachment 2 and the proposed revision are in
Attachment 3. Attachment 4 provides the applicants rationale for the proposed changes.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: September 4, 2019 Architectural Design Board Minutes
Attachment 2: Original Kissan Building C Elevations
Attachment 3: Revised Building C Elevations
Attachment 4: Applicant Cover Letter
Packet Pg. 10
F.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 4, 2019
Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p. in., at the City Council Chambers, 250
- 5d' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present
Joe Herr, Chair Kim Bayer (excused) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Tom Walker (excused) Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Cary Guenther Jeannie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Maureen Jeude Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Bruce Owenby
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS AMENDED. BOARD
MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda.
MINOR PROJECTS:
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of District -Based Design Review for Main Street Commons Located at 550
Main Street (File Number PLN20190024
Mr. Clugston reviewed that Phase 1 of the two-phase hearing began on July 3' and was continued to September 4t1i for
Phase 2. Unfortunately; the applicant was unable to provide a resubmittal in time to make the September 4t1i agenda. As
a result, the Board must take formal action to continue the hearing.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE MAIN STREET COMMONS APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 2, 2019. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS
SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Architectural Design Board Meeting ►p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 1 of 14
Packet Pg. 11
F.1.a
PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing on Proposed 18-Unit Multi -Family Development Located at 22810
Edmonds Way and zoned RM-1.5 (Applicant: Kisan Enterprises LLC) (File Number PLN20190003)
Chair Herr explained that this is a public hearing for an 18-unit multi -family development located at 22810 Edmonds
Way. After accepting public testimony, the Board will deliberate and make a decision on the project. He reviewed the
rules and procedures for the hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules and asked if any member of the
Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter
outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. Next, he asked if any member of the Board had
a conflict of interest or believes he/she would be unable to hear and consider the application in a fair and objective
manner. Again, all Board Members answered no. Last, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board
Members' participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and no one raised a concern. At his invitation, all who
wanted to participate in the hearing were sworn in.
Mr. Lien reviewed that applications that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III permit
processes. Until a few months ago, they were Type III-B processes, where the Board's decisions were appealable to the
City Council. Now they are Type III -A decisions, so appeals to ADB decisions are to the Superior Court. The ADB is
required to make finding for general design review projects such as this one that are consistent with ECDC 20.11.030,
the Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Chapter, and the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lien provided a map to illustrate the location of the proposed project, which is on the bend along Edmonds Way.
The site is currently developed with one single-family residence that takes access directly off of Edmonds Way. There is
another driveway cut that is not currently being used. The site is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5), which means
one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. Mr. Lien referred to the Staff Report and highlighted the
following:
• Setbacks: Required setbacks include a 15-foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 15-foot rear setback.
In the RM zone, parking is not allowed within the street setbacks, and the applicant is proposing none.
• Height Limit: The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 30 feet, but the roofs on buildings above 25
feet must have at least a 4:12 pitch. The applicant is proposing a hip roof over each of the residential units, and
each property would also have a shed element with a bump out. The applicant is proposing a 4:12 pitch on the
portions of buildings above 25 feet. The applicant is not requesting a height variance.
• Parking: The parking standard for multifamily development is based on the number of bedrooms. While he is
not sure the number of bedrooms proposed within the development, the maximum required is two spaces for
units with three or more bedrooms. Each of the units in the proposed development would have a 2-car garage,
so regardless of the number of bedrooms, the project would comply with the parking requirement.
• Landscaping: Type III landscaping will be required all the way around the exterior of the development, and
the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that complies. In addition, street trees are required along the
frontage improvements, and there is also a planter strip.
• Screening: The general design standards in the ECDC and Comprehensive Plan Goal A.11 both talk about
screening mechanical equipment from street view. This is often an issue after design review when unsightly
utilities pop up. Because he doesn't yet know where all the utilities will be located, he is recommending a
condition of approval to ensure all of the utilities are screened.
• Massing, Roof Modulation and Window Variety: Three design standards talk about the overall layout of the
buildings (massing, roof modulation and window variety). The project includes four different buildings, and
they all have a similar look. As per the proposed design, the buildings will be subdivided both horizontally and
vertically so that each unit stands out. There is roof modulation on the buildings, with a different hip for each
unit, as well as the shed roof. There is also a variety of window sizes and forms.
• Vehicular Access: The Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing the number and width of driveway cuts in order
to improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety. The existing two driveway cuts on Edmonds Way will be
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 12
F.1.a
eliminated and the proposed project will take access via an ingress/egress easement that was granted to the
public.
Pedestrian Access: A Comprehensive Plan goal calls for locating the building in proximity to the street to
facilitate pedestrian access. One building will be against the street setback, and pedestrian access from the
development will connect in with the new sidewalk along the front.
Connections On and Off Site: The Comprehensive Plan calls for designing site access and circulation within
and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles and bicycles. Special attention should be paid
to providing and improving connections to transit. There is no transit directly in front of the site, but there is
transit to the west.
Ms. McConnell explained that access to the site is one of the project elements that will be reviewed by the Engineering
Division. There are two existing driveway access points on Edmonds Way that will be eliminated as part of the project,
and access is proposed to be taken from an ingress/egress easement to the public. This will meet the Comprehensive
Plan goal of reducing the number of access points along Edmonds Way, focusing access at the signalized intersection
and improving pedestrian safety. Staff reviewed the proposal, looking for alignment with the existing signal, traffic
flow into and out of the site, and vehicle queuing. They required the applicant to hire a transportation consultant (Gibson
Traffic Consultants) to analyze the proposal and provide a report, which was attached to the Staff Report. The City's
Transportation Engineer agreed with the report and the proposed layout meets all of the City's requirements (signal
alignment, traffic flow and queuing). Eliminating the driveways along Edmonds Way is also seen as a positive change.
She explained that at the design review stage, staff is looking for feasibility. Striping, pavement markings, curbing,
additional signage, etc. are not elements that staff deals with at this stage. Staff will work with the applicant to further
fine tune the project at the building permit phase.
Ms. McConnell provided a map to illustrate the applicant's proposal for access, as well as a layout proposed by the
property owner to the west (Cascadian Apartments). The adjacent property owner's preferred layout would have a
single ingress lane and a single egress lane. However, no analysis on this particular layout has been done by a traffic
consultant. From the City Transportation Engineer's cursory review, there was a concern with queuing for vehicles
entering the site, whether they would be turning into the new project or the Cascadian Apartments. Without this further
analysis, staff is not certain the layout would be feasible. Staff did not ask the applicant to review the alternate layout
because the one provided in the application meets the criteria for feasibility that staff was looking for. The City's
Transportation Engineer preferred having two ingress lanes coming into the site.
Mr. Lien advised that an additional comment letter from Reid Shockey was submitted after the Staff Report was issued
last week, and copies were provided to the Board Members. He summarized that staff is recommending approval of the
proposed project, with the six conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Vice Chair Strauss requested more information about why the City's Traffic Engineer prefers two ingress lanes but only
one egress lane. Ms. McConnell responded that when reviewing access to the site and the turning movements off of
Edmonds Way onto the site, it was noted that this speck location is on a curve and traffic speeds are fairly high. Two
lanes would provide dedicated lanes, one for the Cascadian Apartments and another for the proposed development.
People turning in using the westernmost lane would have a dedicated right turn only to the Cascadian Apartments, and
the easternmost lane would be a dedicated left turn into the proposed development. Separating the two traffic flows on
the site would allow for individual queuing, if necessary, within that area to get vehicles off of Edmonds Way and onto
the site and into the respective developments. One egress lane is appropriate because there is sufficient space on the site
for any queuing necessary for people leaving the site onto Edmonds Way at the signalized intersection.
Chair Herr asked how the ingress lanes shown in the alternative proposal would be separated. Ms. McConnell
responded that the plan is preliminary and conceptual in nature. The City has not done a full review to dictate what they
would want to see if the alternative proposal moves forward, but her understanding is that the separation could be either
striping or curbing. In the applicant's proposal, the two ingress lanes would be separated with striping, and c-curb would
be used to separate the ingress and egress lanes.
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 13
F.1.a
Rob Michel, Edmonds, was present to represent the applicant, Kisan Enterprises, LLC. He thanked Mr. Lien for his
thorough report. He pointed out the irregular shape of the site, which is nearly 32,000 square feet. Although up to 20
units would be allowed on the site, the applicant is proposing just 18 units in four buildings. The four buildings will be
more pleasing to the eye than one massive building. He pointed out that the irregular shape of the lot allowed them to do
some extra things that are not normally done with townhomes. For example, the units on either end of Building A are
different shapes and sizes, allowing more modulation and light. The other buildings have units with varied floor plans,
as well. There is a sizeable space near the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unit, and every unit will have a 2-car
garage, so there will be no outdoor parking. This gives a more residential feel to the project.
Chair Herr asked if visitor parking would be required for a project of this size. Mr. Lien answered that the City's code
does not require visitor parking. Chair Herr asked if the units would be for sale or rent, and Mr. Michel answered that
they would be rental units.
Board Member Guenther asked the applicant to review the exterior elevations. He said he was a little concerned about
the elevations facing Edmonds Way. From the drawings, it appears that the fagades would be flat. Mr. Michel referred
to the site plan, noting that there would be quite a bit of modulation on the elevations facing Edmonds Way, with the
sloped roof and modulation pointing out. Each individual building would be modulated, as well. Mr. Lien referred to
Attachment 5, which labels all of the proposed materials. Chair Herr asked if the garage doors would be glass. Mr.
Michel answered that they would be either glass or aluminum or wood that is painted to match. Chair Herr observed that
glass doors would look much different than wood doors that are painted.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if all of the units would be accessed from the site's interior. She also asked if the units would
have doors to the outside or if the only access would come via the garage. Mr. Michel said the end units would have side
entries at an upper grade that will access the level above the garage. The interior units would have walkways to the
garage and a door from the garage to enter the interior.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if all four buildings would meet the height requirement. Mr. Lien answered that all would meet
the 30-foot height limit, with 4:12 pitched roofs for the portions above 25 feet. He emphasized that the height limit
would be verified at the building permit stage. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the average grade was calculated for the
entire project or for each separate unit. Mr. Lien said it was calculated separately for each building.
Reid Shockey, President, Shockey Planning Group, Everett, said he is a planning consultant representing the
adjacent property owners, Jeff and Lisa Sterling, who proposed the alternative access plan. He said he has submitted
three letters, including the one that was provided to the Board Members at the meeting. They have also submitted other
records that were attached to the Staff Report, including a document pertaining to the easement that was adopted in 1978
between two parties (the owners of the property that the Sterlings now own and Snohomish County). The easement has
been "conveyed to the public," which is rather unusual language. He said the Sterlings have absolutely no opposition to
the proposed project. Their concern is related to the easement and the access that is being proposed. He explained that
the 100' x 100' foot easement lies on the Sterling's property. When the prior owners conveyed the easement that sits on
top of their property to the public, the easement document indicates the reason was to provide for ingress and egress. It
also allows the City to enter on the property for maintenance purposes. He said that, if asked, staff will indicate to the
Board that once the townhouses are developed and the access is completed through the easement, it is not the City's
intent to maintain the access on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Shockey observed that the public easement is at an arterial intersection that is signalized, and three of the four
approaches to the intersection are public right-of-way. The easement coincides with the development that occurred on
the Sterling's property. It is the Sterling's position that the purpose of the easement was to make sure that the County
and now the City could control what development occurs on the Sterling's property so that it is consistent with what
happens on the other corners of the intersection. However, with the current proposal would essentially allow a private
easement from the Kisan property to cross the boundary line onto the easement and then continue out until it exits on
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 14
F.1.a
Edmonds Way. He expressed his belief that it is incorrect to allow a private easement to occur on a public easement.
The Sterlings would be willing to work with the City if the City wants to dedicate the easement area for public right-of-
way so that a public street can be developed, but that is not what is being proposed as part of this application.
Mr. Shockey summarized that if the design is corrected to address the Sterling's concerns, their objection to the access
would go away. He referred to Page 14 of the Staff Report, which outlines the criteria that must be met before the ADB
can approve a project. Specifically, the Board must make the finding that community facilities and public or quasi -
public improvements do not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. In the Staff Report, the
staff simply responded that the proposed building is not a community facility. He expressed his belief that staff's fording
is incorrect. The private access drive that is being allowed to cross the public easement that occurs on the Sterling's
property should be considered a quasi -public facility. He concluded that the current proposal conflicts with this
requirement and an alternative design is needed to meet the criteria.
Mr. Shockey explained that in an attempt to be constructive and cooperative, the Sterlings presented an alternative access
plan, and staff reported that no analysis has been done of that alternative. When a developer proposes a plan and the
public is notified that such a plan has been submitted, he asked why the City staff would tell an adjacent property owner
who submits an alternative plan that the plan would not be accepted or considered by the City because an analysis had
not been done. When a public comment is given, and an alternative is offered to satisfy a concern, the City should
require the applicant to analyze the concern, as well as the alternative, and report back. That is common practice for
development permits of this type. He emphasized that it is not the Sterling's responsibility to hire a consultant to
validate an alternative plan that they offered in the spirit of cooperation to overcome a concern they have.
Mr. Shockey said he and the Sterlings have had successful, well -intended and cooperative discussions with the applicant
as late as this morning. When the meeting ended, they all agreed that further discussions should continue to resolve the
issue. However, as he indicated in the letters he submitted, they must ask the Board to deny approval of the proposed
project until there can be further discussions about what is going to happen to the easement on the Sterling's property
that is causing them harm as far as the operation of their business (apartments). He asked them not to approve the design
until these discussions have occurred and they come up with a mutually -agreed -to plan for the easement. He said the
City has been very cooperative in these meetings, but he suggested they owe it to the Sterlings to analyze their alternative
proposal and either agree it is equal as far as impact and meeting design standards to what the developer has proposed, or
it is not. If it is the former finding, then it is a simple matter for the developers to accept the alternative plan, and then the
Sterlings would be in total support of the project.
Jeff Sterling, Edmonds, said he has owned the property at 9504 Edmonds Way (a 48-unit apartment building) for five
years. After purchasing the property, they were surprised to learn the nature of the easement on their driveway. They
have known about and had discussions regarding the easement for several years, but the nature of the easement has been
a moving target. Over the past year, both of the property owners and the City came to realize that it was an easement to
the public. In June of 2018, the City Attorney rules that, for the purposes of permitting, the City was going to treat the
easement as a public right-of-way." That means that, for the purposes of permitting, his property will be appropriated for
a period of time to allow a neighbor to reconfigure the flow patterns of the driveway in order to optimize the number of
units that can be built.
Mr. Sterling said his intention was to put together an alternative plan/offer so that his needs and the needs of his neighbor u
could be met within the easement. He paid a professional traffic engineer to develop the conceptual plan that would
have allowed all of the traffic to stay within the easement. In the alternative plan, the existing pedestrian path to the
sidewalk (near the crosswalk) would remain, but the applicant chose not to use the alternate plan. He voiced concern i
that the applicant's proposed plan would eliminate the pedestrian pathway that is located on his property and outside of
the easement. Instead, the proposed ingress lane would extend outside of the easement, hugging the curb where his
tenants used to walk down to the sidewalk. Secondly, the original study proposed that his turning lane could be reduced
to 16 feet. It is already a 45-degree hairpin turn to get onto his property from Edmonds Way, and you are lucky if you i
can get your speed down to 15 miles per hour to make the turn without being hit by ferry traffic. In the current proposal, s
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting +
September 4, 2019
Page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 15
F.1.a
the radius would be tighter and the width would be reduced to 12 feet, and 4 feet would be outside of the easement. The
applicant's proposal would push his western ingress lane out of the easement.
Mr. Sterling said that when meeting with the applicant, he voiced concern that the proposal would eliminate the
pedestrian pathway and push the lane over to a point where people can barely make a turn without transgressing into the
other lane. He also voiced concern about the 90-degree radial turn coming into the subject property that is described as a
hammerhead. The eastern ingress has been designed to maximize the applicant's ability to develop units. The
applicant's only response to his concerns is to tell him not to worry, to wait for them to get through the process, and his
concerns will be worked out. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a lot of confidence in that approach. Since the applicant
proposed the two-lane ingress idea, he has been unable to find an example of this approach anywhere. There is no need
for the two-lane ingress that pushes his traffic outside of the public right-of-way in order to gain access to the subject
property using the public easement. He observed that the intersection is one of the most dangerous in the entire City. In
his opinion, there are several parts of the applicant's proposal that are dangerous, including the sweeping turn that is
required by the fire department. Traffic will not slow down and wait for traffic going the other way, and the intersection
is already dangerous.
Mr. Sterling said he is concerned that, once the project is permitted, he will be responsible for addressing all of the
problems that are caused by the development. The applicant's proposal and the City's response is unacceptable. The
current process of meeting with the applicant and City staff to resolve the issues is not working. The whole notion of
designating the easement as a public easement for the purposes of permitting has iced him out of the process. This is the
first time he has been able to voice his concerns in a public setting, and he appreciates that the Board is listening to him.
Mr. Sterling suggested that if the City wants to support the developer and approve the project, the Board should ask for a
continuance of the process until the City staff can work with him to declare the easement a public right-of-way. The
City could then do the right thing to support both sides in the design and make the access safe for the residents of both
properties. Anything short of that would be unacceptable to him.
Chair Herr asked if the signal works well for the current residents to exit the Cascadian Apartments. Mr. Sterling said
there is a detector in the ground that causes the signal to change for residents of his property to exit. Chair Herr pointed
out that some of the danger that Mr. Sterling voiced concern about is mitigated by the signal at the intersection that stops
traffic and allows his residents to exit onto Edmonds Way. Mr. Sterling said the danger would be caused by the traffic
coming in from the eastern egress the developer would add. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the traffic coming
in off the street without yielding to traffic that is already queued up to go out at the intersection. The applicant is
proposing to cut in too close to where the traffic is coming in.
Chair Herr pointed out that, in Mr. Sterling's alternate plan, emergency vehicles would not have adequate access if a
curb is provided to separate the ingress and egress lanes. He asked why the City couldn't simply require one ingress and
one egress lane to address the Mr. Sterling's major concern that the design encroaches onto his property. Ms.
McConnell pointed out that, on the applicant's submittal, the western curb that falls outside of the easement is the
existing curb and not the proposed layout. That is how traffic enters the site currently, and that wouldn't change. The
City did not dictate that the developer propose an access in any specific way. Staff provided two options at one point
based on previous conversations with the applicant and Mr. Sterling. They also felt at the time that Mr. Sterling was
open to those two designs, one being the two-lane ingress design. The current design was presented by the applicant,
and that is what staff reviewed as part of the application.
Chair Herr asked why would the pedestrian path be eliminated by the applicant's proposal. Ms. McConnell explained
that the City doesn't view it as a pedestrian pathway because it is in the driveway. A safe ADA-compliant pedestrian
pathway would not follow the line of the driveway access to the site, and that would be especially true coming off of
Edmonds Way. Mr. Sterling has indicated that pedestrians currently use the pathway, but if the City had a requirement
for Cascadian Apartments to provide a pedestrian pathway; it would not approve a pathway that falls within a driveway.
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 16
F.1.a
City Attorney Taraday cautioned that it is important to distinguish between a pedestrian pathway and pedestrian use of
the driveway. His understanding is that pedestrians sometimes use the driveway, but that doesn't mean there is an
existing pedestrian pathway there. A September 2018 Google street view image was displayed, showing that there is an
actual curb dividing the current ingress and egress. Chair Herr observed that there is already a landscaped area within
the easement. Mr. Lien advised that a portion of the landscape strip would be removed and a new pedestrian path and
landscaping would be installed. Chair Herr asked who currently maintains the landscaped area located within the
easement. Mr. Sterling said it is on his property and he maintains it.
Board Member Owenby referred to the parking spaces shown on the Google street view image and asked if these
spaces would be lost as a result of the proposed project. Mr. Sterling answered affirmatively. Board Member Owenby
asked if Mr. Sterling is voluntarily giving up these spaces. Mr. Sterling said that is yet to be determined. His
development has sufficient parking stalls to meet the code requirement, and they can afford to lose a few. Board
Member Owenby asked if the Cascadian's parking is ever full, and Mr. Sterling answered that it gets full in the evening.
Board Member Owenby voiced concern that the applicant is trying to maximize the number of units at the adjacent
property owner's expense by taking advantage of a loophole. The proposal does not provide for the people who will live
in the units (i.e. no balconies, visitor parking, etc.). He questioned if the Board could make a decision relative to the
easement other than to postpone the hearing. Chair Herr cautioned against using the word "loophole." It's not a
loophole, the parking requirements are spelled out in the City's code. Board Member Owenby said he was referring to
the loophole associated with the easement. He commented that, although the City doesn't require visitor parking, it is
common sense that a development of the size proposed should provide it. Chair Herr cautioned that is a personal
opinion, and not a code requirement.
Chair Herr said he can imagine that the easement was proposed at the 4-way intersection to enure safe access as
development occurred. He asked if the easement was recorded before the Cascadian Apartments were constructed, and
Mr. Sterling said it was the last thing done before the developer transferred the property to the previous owners. Again,
Chair Herr suggested the City's intent was to establish an easement to maintain control over what happened at this 4-way
intersection. Mr. Sterling said he believes the intent of the easement was to improve the entire intersection, including the
two existing crosswalks that are unsafe. He explained that one of the crosswalks is adjacent to a driveway because of the
way it was laid out 40 years ago. One of the developer's original proposals was to complete the sidewalk and curb and
add a pedestrian walkway exactly where they are now saying it can't go. Given the 40-mile-per-hour traffic on
Edmonds Way, a small pedestrian walkway with a C-curb on his driveway is nothing compared to the other dangers that
people experience in the neighborhood.
Chair Herr asked why the current ingress/egress is not good enough to provide access for the existing and proposed
developments. The entrance already exists, and the applicant is simply proposing to put a line across the pavement to
delineate there are two ways to go. He doesn't understand Mr. Sterling's objection that the applicant is moving his
driveway out of the easement, since it's already out of the easement. Mr. Sterling clarified that the lane for his traffic
would no longer be in the easement. Again, Chair Herr pointed out that Mr. Sterling's driveway already encroaches over
the easement, and all the applicant would be doing is delineating a line on the pavement. Mr. Sterling explained that up
until now, his property was the only one that used the public easement. All the traffic went the same way, and it works
the way it was designed 40 years ago. Now two parties want to use the same easement, and according to the applicant's
drawing, part of the 12-foot lane on the east side would have to be outside of the easement. His argument is that the
easement is for everyone, and he wants his traffic to go within the public easement, too. Again, he suggested the City
should declare the easement a public right-of-way.
Chair Herr observed that the current access extends 4 feet beyond the easement. If the center line and one of the arrows
were eliminated, the ingress would be 20 feet wide instead of 24 feet. He asked if Mr. Sterling would accept that
solution. Mr. Sterling answered that he would accept a 20-foot wide access lane, as long as the traffic making the radial
turn onto his property has a 20-foot radius. You have to allow space for the traffic going onto the applicant's property to
go further south so they can queue up a car or two and still allow cars from his property to get past. In addition, when
traffic comes in for the other property and reaches the point where they need to cross the outbound traffic, they need to
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 17
F.1.a
have a stopping point before making the turn. He said the alternative he presented is conceptual and intended to
communicate his desire because he was not consulted in the access design. He said the City needs to step up. If they
want to permit the project, they need to declare the easement as a public right-of-way.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if the applicant intends to separate the two ingress lanes with curbing or paint. She asked if the
applicant would be opposed to having a one wide ingress lane instead. She noted that some grading would be required
to change the entrance, and she asked if the applicant would provide new curbs, etc. Mr. Michel answered that these
issues will be addressed during the permitting phase, but the City has revealed that the current ramp is steeper than what
is required at the stop light, and the bump would have to be removed. The existing C curb would have to be replaced, as
well. The line separating the two ingress lanes would likely be painted. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the code requires a
painted line, and Mr. Michel said the Traffic Engineer did not require a line. The line was provided on the drawing to
delineate where the traffic would flow. Vice Chair Strauss commented that, even if there are two ingress lanes, people
will pull in where ever they want unless there is a curb or wall that blocks them. It shouldn't matter if there are two lanes
or one lane.
Vicky O'Rico, Attorney for the Applicant, cautioned that this hearing is for design review and to consider the project's
feasibility overall. She isn't a traffic engineer, and none of the Board Members are either. The technical details related
to ingress, egress, pedestrian pathways, curbing, striping, etc. will be worked out by the City's Traffic Engineer during
the permitting phase. She expressed her belief that, as outlined in the Staff Report, the application meets all of the
criteria the Board must consider when reviewing an application. Mr. Shockey commented about whether the subject
property was quasi -public, he didn't get into whether it was out of character with the neighboring properties, which is
really the criteria the Board needs to be looking at. There has been a lot of discussion about stuff that the Board is not
qualified to respond to, and that's why the City has a Transportation Engineer on staff. Her understanding is that the two
ingress lanes are needed to prevent backups on Edmonds Way as they queue to turn in. Again, she suggested that these
issues will be worked out during the building permit phase, as opposed to just the general feasibility layout.
Vice Chair Strauss disagreed. Before an applicant proceeds to the permitting phase, he/she needs to have a plan. City
staff will review the plan and determine whether or not it meets the code. Applicant's shouldn't wait for the City to
design a project. They must have a plan in mind that includes access. Ms. O'Rico agreed and said a plan has already
been submitted and City staff has determined that it is code compliant. The questions about whether there will be turtles
or striping, etc. are details that will be worked out at permitting. Things may change, which is why the City has
requested a condition of approval that allows the details to be tweaked later as additional information comes forward.
Ms. McConnell referenced Attachment 7 of the Staff Report and explained that the dashed line is the ingress/egress
easement granted to the public. In the initial discussions related to access to the site, it was really looked at from a
perspective of keeping those accessing the Kisan development inside the easement area. If that entire drive approach
were to stay open without a painted line to guide traffic for the Kisan development, then the residents of the new
development would be crossing over an area that could fall outside of the ingress/egress easement. That was one of the
considerations for the two ingress lanes coming into the site, and queuing was another element. The alternate concept of
a singular ingress lane has not been determined to be insufficient, but an analysis would have to be done in order for the
City's Traffic Engineer to agree or disagree.
Vice Chair Strauss suggested that the applicant's access proposal would be confusing for people trying to get off the
Cascadian Apartments property. Ms. McConnell said she understands the concern. The specific layout in the drawing,
with signage and striping to guide traffic, has not been reviewed at that level of detail. However, staff has had
discussions that the sweeping striping will not exist in the final development proposal. It needs to have an appearance
that traffic can flow out through the area and not be blocked by the ingress lane into the Kisan development. The
applicant is currently proposing striping rather than curbing to separate the lanes. However, staff is not providing
comments back to the applicant at this time because these elements (stop signs, striping, turtles, arrows, signage etc.) will
be dealt with at the Building Permit phase of the project. At this point, the Traffic Engineer's review focused on the
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 18
F.1.a
feasibility of the layout at the intersection, alignment with the signal, queuing, getting traffic off of Edmonds Way, etc.
The applicant's proposal meets the feasibility checks.
Board Member Juenke asked if the easternmost ingress would be for traffic coming from 95t' Avenue straight across. If
you have queuing going eastbound on Edmonds Way, there's no way that two cars can turn in at the same time. She
asked the purpose of having two lanes. Chair Herr pointed out that there is a left turn lane from Edmonds Way into the
subject property. Ms. McConnell commented that the signal controls traffic through the intersection, which means
people can come straight across or make a left or right turn into the subject property. She explained that queuing would
happen on site. Regardless of where the traffic comes from, there will be vehicles on the site that either need to turn left
into the Kisan development or right into the Cascadian development. With the 2-lane ingress and the length of the
driveway before turning into the Kisan and Cascadian developments, the traffic consultant that did the analysis
determined there would be sufficient space to get vehicles off of Edmonds Way and onto the site.
Board Member Owenby recalled Mr. Shockey's point that the proposed use of the easement would be considered a
"taking" of property. He asked if the City Attorney has weighed in on the issue. City Attorney Taraday said he has
reviewed the issue. He explained that the City already has an easement conveyed to the public by deed, but they don't
know what the exact circumstances were at the time the easement was granted. As has been eluded to earlier, it appears
it was possibly a condition of approval for the Cascadian Apartments development. Regardless, there is an easement to
the public, which mean the public is entitled to use it for ingress and egress. That is the purpose of the easement that is
set forth in the deed. From a real property rights standpoint, those rights have already been conveyed to the public, so it
is hard for him to see what other right is being taken from the Sterlings that would support an inverse condemnation
claim or something like that. Having said that, what was eluded to by Mr. Sterling and Mr. Shockey was the possibility
of the Sterlings electing to dedicate the easement area as right-of-way to the City. There's a subtle difference between the
ingress/egress easement that's been conveyed to the public and a full dedication of right-of-way. While it is difficult to
articulate the exact differences, with a full dedication of right-of-way, there wouldn't be a lot left of the property owner's
right to use the property. It would essentially be a City street. For the purposes of permitting the development, the City
has opined that an ingress/egress easement conveyed to the public gives anyone that happen to abut that public
easement the right to use it for ingress or egress, which this applicant is doing. That seems to be within the scope of the
easement that was deeded to the public. If the Sterlings want to talk to the City about possibly accepting a dedication of
the public easement area as right-of-way, he wouldn't rule it out as a possibility, but he cannot guarantee it would
happen, either. It would have to be approved by the City Council.
Board Member Owenby asked if the meaning of "public" is the same now as when the easement was dedicated. He
asked if there were other easement dedication at the time that might give an indication of the City's thinking on "public"
easements. He commented that this does not appear to be a typical public deed. Mr. Taraday explained that easements
are interpreted according to the purpose stated on the face of the easement. In this case, the stated purpose is for ingress
and egress and the recipient of the easement is the public. He is not going to take the position, necessarily, that this deed
is the same as a deed of dedication, but the word "public" is frequently used in this context. It is not surprising to him
that "public" was used in this instance, too. Chair Herr pointed out that the wording on the easement says "to the public
for the authority to construct, improve, repair and maintain the easement for ingress and egress." It can't be any clearer
than that.
Mr. Sterling commented that the public (his residents) has been using the easement for 40 years for ingress and egress.
His concern is that the applicant gets 100% of the say over what traffic circulation will look like for the public. The
residents of his apartment building would comment if asked, but they have not been invited to share comments up to this
point. His side of the public has as much right to determine what ingress and egress looks like in this new road as the
person who is doing the permit, but they have been excluded from the process until tonight. There are reason for their
concern and why they don't simply accept the applicant's proposal.
Lisa Sterling, Edmonds, said she is joint owner of the Cascadian Apartments. She pointed out that there is only one E
right-hand turn lane on Edmonds Way into the subject property, and a 2-lane ingress would be confusing. She expressed z
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 19
F.1.a
her belief that signage would be key because there are two developments using the same driveway. The Cascadian
Apartments has a one-way traffic flow that makes a loop around the entire property. There is only one way out of the
development, and having two arrows coming in will cause confusion. She and her husband are on the property every
day, and their sons are resident managers on the property. They see the traffic flow there and understand the impacts, yet
they were not asked to provide input to either the City or the consultant doing the traffic study. She said she was present
at the hearing to represent her tenant's safety and wellbeing.
To clarify Chair Herr's earlier comment, Ms. Sterling pointed out that the entire easement is on her property. The notion
that they are being pushed on to her property implies to her that perhaps the City is already viewing it as a public right-
of-way. As far as she knows, the easement is on her property and she has responsibility for maintaining it. This is the
only forum for them to express their concerns, and she is grateful for the Board's attention.
Chair Herr said he was simply following Mr. Sterling's logic when he said the driveway was pushed off the easement.
Ms. Sterling explained that, based on the applicant's proposal, the new development's ingress/egress may trespass onto
her property outside of the easement. While the painted line proposed by the applicant would guide people from the new
development away from the Cascadian Apartment property, a better approach would be to simply guide all of the traffic
down a single wide lane. It doesn't make sense to have two lanes.
Mr. Lien recalled Mr. Shockey's comment relative to the design review criteria in ECDC 20.11.030.C.1, which
specifically states that community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the
existing and planned character of the nearby area. He still supports the opinion he stated in the Staff Report that the
proposed development is not a community facility, and therefore, the criteria is not applicable. He advised that ECDC
21.15.071 defines "community facilities" as "any use, structure, building or development that 1) is primarily used or
dedicated for a use by members of the general public for educational, religious, informational, recreational, artistic or
social purposes, or 2) serves members of the general public by providing for utility, transportation, police, fire, parking,
or services, or 3) is primarily used or dedicated for use by local, state, regional, federal governments for the purposes of
providing governmental services." He explained that Item 2 mentions transportation, but staff interprets this to apply to
things such as a transit center, the waterfront connector, or other types of public transportation facilities. Other projects
the criterion has been applied to include the Senior Center, school district projects and the Interurban Trail shelters and
signs. A project done by the Edmonds Center for the Arts, which is a non-profit organization that is not public but
within a public facilities district would be considered a quasi -public use, and others might include public utility projects
and the senior center, itself. He summarized his belief that the proposed project would not be considered a public
project, a community facility or a quasi -public facility. The criteria have never been applied to a private development
that accesses a public easement or right-of-way. Just because it accesses a public easement, doesn't make it a public
project.
Next, Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 20.11.030.A, which states that the building should not conflict with the existing and
planned character of the nearby area. The Comprehensive Plan, which describes the City's vision for the future,
designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Commercial Development Goal E, which is specific to the Edmonds
Way Corridor designation, states that the corridor serves as a key transportation corridor and also as a key link between
Edmonds and Interstate 5. It is an established pattern of multifamily residential development that lies along both sides of
the corridor, with small businesses primarily near the intersections. A major concern is that intensive development
occurring along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established
communities. There are four specific criteria for the Edmonds Way Corridor:
1. Permit uses in planned multifamily or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize
contributing significantly to traffic congestion.
2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to the development.
3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-
104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner.
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 20
F.1.a
4. Use design to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in
transitional areas adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of
facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs
compatible with single-family development whenever possible.
Mr. Lien reviewed that the proposed project meets all of these criteria. The access plan was analyzed and found
adequate by both the City Engineer and a traffic consultant. It will address concerns related to vehicle queuing and
minimizes the number of access points. Mr. Sterling referred to the existing pedestrian use of the driveway, but there is
also another pedestrian access on the Sterling property that connects directly to the transit bus stop in front of the site. In
addition, the applicant is proposing a new pedestrian access.
Once again, Mr. Lien summarized that the 20.11.030.C.1 does not apply to the subject property because it is not a
community facility or a public or quasi -public facility. Even if it were, it would meet all of the criteria in ECDC
20.11.030.A and fit with the character of the surrounding area.
Regarding Mr. Shockey's and Mr. Sterling's comment that they have been left out of the process, Mr. Lien explained
that the proponent of the project submitted a specific application to use an easement that was recorded in 1978, and the
City has determined that they have the right to do so. The comment letters from Mr. Shockey concede that the applicant
probably has the right to use the easement, and the City has an obligation to process the application. Staff reviewed the
application for consistency with the design standards and codes and determined that, for this design review phase, which
is just a feasibility stage, it meets the City's Development Code and Design Standards. It appears it will also meet the
City's Engineering Standards once it moves to the permit phase.
Mr. Lien said staff reviews the public comments that are submitted. There are many ways a site can be developed. Just
because a public comment suggests an alternative way for the site to be accessed doesn't mean the City will do a detailed
analysis on the alternative. This applies to all development that occurs in the City. The City does do further analysis on
public comments when the public has information on the property that was not previously known, such as an additional
easement, a potential conflict with a utility line, or a situation where the project does not comply with a code
requirement. Staff did not receive any public comments of this type. They have reviewed the application and found that
it meets the code and design standards. They have looked at the Sterling's proposal, and Ms. McConnell noted that, of
the two access designs that have been presented so far, the 2-lane ingress is the City's preferred design.
Mr. Shockey emphasized that he is a land -use consultant and not an attorney. When he and Mr. Sterling met with the
applicant and City staff earlier in the day, the City staff set forth the ground rules, pointing out that the intent of the
meeting was to find a solution to the access issue. Staff indicated that the meeting was not intended to discuss the merits
of the access easement and the right of the applicant to access the easement. However, twice during the public hearing,
once by Mr. Taraday and again by Mr. Lien, a City representative began to open that door. He emphasized that the
purpose of the hearing is not to discuss whether or not Kisan Enterprises has access to the easement. He urged them to
stick by the rules they all agreed to. He and Mr. Sterling are present to talk about the ADB reviewing alternatives for
access within the existing easement.
Mr. Taraday explained that the meeting earlier in the day had a very different purpose than the public hearing. The
earlier meeting was to try and resolve a conflict and get the two neighbors to agree on an access configuration. At the
earlier meeting, City staff was present to facilitate the discussion and he indicated that arguing about legal rights would
not be a productive use of time. However, this is a public hearing, and questions have been raised about the history and
proper use of the easement. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for anyone, including Mr. Shockey, to speak to the
easement issues. He apologized if Mr. Shockey was confused by the "ground rules" that were set forth for the earlier
settlement meeting, but he didn't intend to bar him or anyone else from speaking about the easement during the hearing.
Mr. Shockey said he clearly understood that the intent of the earlier meeting was to find a compromise on access. The
d
Sterling's attorney, Mr. Cattle, also attended the meeting but chose not to attend the public hearing so they could stick to
z
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes ofRegular Meeting
Q
September 4, 2019
Page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 21
F.1.a
the issue of access to the property and various alternatives. At a minimum, if that door has now been opened, they need
to continue the hearing so that Mr. Cattle has an opportunity, as attorney for the Sterlings, to appear at the next meeting
and begin arguing the issue of access to the easement.
Vice Chair Strauss said she understands the City's position that, because the easement has been granted to the public, it
can be used by the proponent for access to the new development. She asked why the applicant didn't consider using the
existing access that currently serves the single-family home on the subject property. Was it because the code encourages
access from intersections? Mr. Lien referred to Urban Design Objective A.1, (Page 7 of the Staff Report), which calls
for reducing the number and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety, and
Commercial Development Goal E.3 (Page 6 of the Staff Report) again, which encourages the shared or joint use of
driveway and access points by development along SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and
efficient manner. He explained that the proposed project would reduce the number of potential driveways by using the
existing entrance at the traffic light adjacent to the development. The applicant's access proposal is supported by both
the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McConnell concurred that eliminating one driveway access
and directing traffic through a combined access at the intersection would be the City's preferred approach. She referred
to Attachment 19 of the Staff Report, which is an aerial photograph of Edmonds Way, and specifically noted the
curvature of the highway. There is limited sight distance for vehicles exiting the subject property onto Edmonds Way,
and the Transportation Engineer is asking that traffic be directed to the signalized intersection as the safer access.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if the City would have denied a request by the applicant to use the existing driveway to access
the new development. Ms. McConnell said previous proposals for the property used the existing driveway for access,
and in both cases, the Traffic Engineer indicated that the access points on Edmonds Way had to be eliminated. Instead,
traffic should be directed to use the access easement at the signalized intersection.
Board Member Owenby said he understands that no visitor parking is required for the project, but commonsense tells
him it is necessary. He pointed out that anyone who visits the residents of the new development will have to park off site
and likely on the adjacent property without permission. He asked how the Board can resolve this concern. Mr. Taraday
said the Board's purview is to determine whether or not the decision criteria are met. His understanding is that there is
nothing in the Board's decision criteria that would allow them to require supplemental parking when it is not required by
code. The Board might disagree with a legislative policy choice that is set forth in the code, but the choice was made a
long time ago when the code was adopted. If the Board feels the policy is flawed, they could request a potential code
amendment as a totally separate process from the application before them.
Board Member Owenby voiced concern that the Board is being asked to approve a project that punishes an adjacent
property owner because the applicant's proposal is consistent with the zoning code. Because the public easement would
be used to access the subject site, visitors to the new development would likely use the easement for parking, too. If the
existing access were used instead, there wouldn't be an issue with people using the public easement for parking. Chair
Herr suggested that parking could be addressed by signage. Mr. Taraday cautioned that the City doesn't have any
evidence that parking, in fact, would be diverted onto the Sterling property, and they can't just assume that is going to be
the case. Parking is an issue that must be addressed by the property owners, and there are a variety of parking
enforcement strategies that could be used. If parking becomes an issue, the Sterlings would have the right to prevent
guests of the Kisan project from parking on their property.
Mr. Lien reviewed the findings the Board must make when reviewing projects (ECDC 20.11.020):
A. The proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.IL030 and in accordance with the techniques
and objectives contained in the urban design chapters of the Community, Cultural and Urban Design
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report details how the project meets this criterion.
B. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or a variance for modification
has been approved Staffs finding is that the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements. The proposal
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 22
F.1.a
complies with the zoning standards as presented in the Staff Report, and compliance will be verified again at the
Building Permit phase.
Chair Herr closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and the Board began its deliberations. He reminded the
Board that they must decide whether the applicant has made the showing required by ECDC 20.10 and ECDC 20.11 and
related design criteria if applicable. The Board must base its decision on evidence in the record.
Board Member Guenther said he feels the Board is in a position of having to mediate between two property owners who
can't come to a common ground. He commented that the Board's roll is to review the design of the building and site,
but the discussion has focused solely on the access. That being said, the Board is also concerned with the health, safety
and welfare of the community, and it appears that using the public easement for access would be the safest approach. He
expressed his belief that having two ingress lanes is far better than one. His only concern is that there needs to be more
space for vehicles waiting to enter Edmonds Way to queue up, but that would require the elimination of one or two units.
He said he supports staff s position that both properties should be able to use the easement for access.
Vice Chair Strauss said her biggest concern is egress off the Sterling's property. As proposed, the lanes would be
separated with painted lines and there would be no provision for getting people off the property and into the egress aisle.
She wants to make sure this issue is resolved before a building permit is issued, and she is confident that City staff can
work it out. She said she doesn't believe it is necessary to have two ingress lanes. While it can be wide enough for two
lanes, people will do what they are going to do. Other than that, the proposal meets all of the code requirements.
Board Member Juenke agreed that the proposed project meets all of the criteria. While the facades facing Edmonds
Way are not the most attractive, the addition of sidewalks and landscaping will be a vast improvement over the current
situation. She feels very unsafe when walking down that portion of the highway.
Board Member Owensby agreed that the project meets all of the code requirements, and issues related to ingress and
egress will be taken care of during the Building Permit stage. The building design meets the general idea of what the
City would like, but not necessarily to the quality he would like to see. His biggest concern is the idea that there is no
visitor parking requirement for multifamily residential development of this type.
CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS
OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030 AND
ZONING REGULATIONS; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED KISAN 18-UNIT
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS
APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES.
2. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF,
GROUNDS OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM
STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL
ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING.
3. A FIRE HYDRANT IS REQUIRED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
4. FIRE LANES MUST BE MARKED AND SIGNED PER SOUTH COUNTY FIRE STANDARDS.
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 23
F.1.a
5. COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING CODES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS WILL BE
REVIEWED WITH THE BUILING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SITE. APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW PHASE OF THE PROJECT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED
PLANS.
6. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES
AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND
ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE
APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN
REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design
Review Process
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED UNTIL THE OCTOIBER 2, 2019
MEETING. BOARD MEMBER JUENKE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the initial goal was for the Board to provide some recommendations for staff to take to the
Planning Board on September 12t'. However, there is no rush and the discussion could be postponed to a future meeting.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
There were no comments from Board Members.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting �p
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
September 4, 2019
Page 14 of 14
Packet Pg. 24
I F.1.b I
IIIo
3b7.48'
0
..
EC) -
N N
N�
17
- 357.48
B HT: 351.00'
INSULATED GARAGE DOORS- P/
30 YEAR ARCH COMP ROOF- (BI
FASCIA -(GRAY) -SW CITYSCAPE
VINYL WINDOWS - (BLACK)
PANELS -(GRAY) -SW PEPPERCOR
BELVEL SIDING (GRAY) SW GRIZ2
�n
0
a�m�mmo cam
SCALE: 1/4" =1'-O"
.48'
.VE GRADE: 357.48'
------------
AB HT: 351.00'
LC
AVE GRADE:
LC
A943
'Ir�rs� Ea
A �r,r
�, C-12�
SLAWOMM PdROWSKI
TATE OF WASHlNtiTQN
0
'"M
4.�u;16 2021
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
4.6.21
SCALE: 1/4" =1'-O"
SCALE: 1/4" =1'-O"
Packet Pg. 25
I F.l.c I
m
. .
. . . . .. .
APPROVE,
Ql"
12-
RESUB
Feb 02 2022
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
so"A oot 0
REVISIONS:
4.6.21
12.27.21
1.28.22
BLD2021 -0111
1.28.22
Packet Pg. 27
I F.1.c I
.._. ,,.
71
u
RESUB
Feb 02 2022
CITY OF EDMONDS
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
a . a:+ a e ar a
REVISIONS:
4.6.21
12.27.21
1.28.22
BLD2021-0111
1.28.22
Packet Pg. 28
F.1.d
5lawek Porowski
Interurban Architects porowskirkearthtink.net
600 — North 3611 Street, Ste 328
Seattle, WA, 98103
206 — 372.1015
Seattle, March 30th, 2022
Kernen Lien - Interim Planning Manager
City of Edmonds
Subject: Kisan Townhomes at 22808 — 22814 Edmonds Way
Good afternoon, Kernen!
Allow me to present our rationale behind the revisions proposed for this project:
The concept, and its consequent technical solutions started life pre-Covid, before the labor and building
materials market went into the stratosphere. Adding to the already difficult supply situation, the long-
term ownership of the project by Kisan Enterprises demanded another look at the maintenance issues,
these being much more significant for the rental market, especially as it pertains to the longevity of roofs
The proposed conversion from hip roofs to gable roofs addresses both issues; uniform roofing trusses of
the gable roofs eliminate much of the hand labor inherent in the hip -roof layout, with its potential for
errors and inconsistencies. Also reduced is the number of roofing material variety and the number of
surface intersections, where most initial leaks might occur.
With regard to the very prominent dormers facing the driveway, the proposed change results in triple
2
benefit: removing the reverse angle of the roof and dropping in beneath the planes of the main roof
reduces the back flow of rainwater, limits the actual and perceived height of the dormers, and reduces
L
the framing complexity inherent when the bay window or dormer extends past the plane of the adjacent
roof. These changes speak to the simpler design being a long-term advantage.
J
L
0
All of these revisions can be done without affecting the agreed -upon form of the main building, nor its
L)
volume, both of which had been reviewed in Design Review prior to the issuance of the Building Permit.
Q
We hope that you will agree that the revisions uphold the value of Design Review and that they are in 0.
a
harmony with end effects intended for this project. v
Best regards —
Slawek Porowski
Architect
Packet Pg. 29