Loading...
2019-09-04 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY 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 Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 1 of 14 PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing on Proposed 18-Unit Multi -Family Development Located at 22810 Edmonds Way and zoned RM-1.5 (Applicant: Kisan Enterprises LLC) (File Number PLN20190003) Chair Herr explained that this is a public hearing for an 18-unit multi -family development located at 22810 Edmonds Way. After accepting public testimony, the Board will deliberate and make a decision on the project. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. Next, he asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believes he/she would be unable to hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. Again, all Board Members answered no. Last, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members' participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and no one raised a concern. At his invitation, all who wanted to participate in the hearing were sworn in. Mr. Lien reviewed that applications that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III permit processes. Until a few months ago, they were Type III-B processes, where the Board's decisions were appealable to the City Council. Now they are Type III -A decisions, so appeals to ADB decisions are to the Superior Court. The ADB is required to make finding for general design review projects such as this one that are consistent with ECDC 20.11.030, the Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Chapter, and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lien provided a map to illustrate the location of the proposed project, which is on the bend along Edmonds Way. The site is currently developed with one single-family residence that takes access directly off of Edmonds Way. There is another driveway cut that is not currently being used. The site is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5), which means one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. Mr. Lien referred to the Staff Report and highlighted the following: • Setbacks: Required setbacks include a 15-foot street setback, 10-foot side setbacks and a 15-foot rear setback. In the RM zone, parking is not allowed within the street setbacks, and the applicant is proposing none. • Height Limit: The maximum height allowed in the RM zone is 30 feet, but the roofs on buildings above 25 feet must have at least a 4:12 pitch. The applicant is proposing a hip roof over each of the residential units, and each property would also have a shed element with a bump out. The applicant is proposing a 4:12 pitch on the portions of buildings above 25 feet. The applicant is not requesting a height variance. • Parking: The parking standard for multifamily development is based on the number of bedrooms. While he is not sure the number of bedrooms proposed within the development, the maximum required is two spaces for units with three or more bedrooms. Each of the units in the proposed development would have a 2-car garage, so regardless of the number of bedrooms, the project would comply with the parking requirement. • Landscaping: Type III landscaping will be required all the way around the exterior of the development, and the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that complies. In addition, street trees are required along the frontage improvements, and there is also a planter strip. • Screening: The general design standards in the ECDC and Comprehensive Plan Goal A.11 both talk about screening mechanical equipment from street view. This is often an issue after design review when unsightly utilities pop up. Because he doesn't yet know where all the utilities will be located, he is recommending a condition of approval to ensure all of the utilities are screened. • Massing, Roof Modulation and Window Variety: Three design standards talk about the overall layout of the buildings (massing, roof modulation and window variety). The project includes four different buildings, and they all have a similar look. As per the proposed design, the buildings will be subdivided both horizontally and vertically so that each unit stands out. There is roof modulation on the buildings, with a different hip for each unit, as well as the shed roof. There is also a variety of window sizes and forms. • Vehicular Access: The Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing the number and width of driveway cuts in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular safety. The existing two driveway cuts on Edmonds Way will be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 2 of 14 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 specific location is on a curve and traffic speeds are fairly high. Two lanes would provide dedicated lanes, one for the Cascadian Apartments and another for the proposed development. People turning in using the westernmost lane would have a dedicated right turn only to the Cascadian Apartments, and the easternmost lane would be a dedicated left turn into the proposed development. Separating the two traffic flows on the site would allow for individual queuing, if necessary, within that area to get vehicles off of Edmonds Way and onto the site and into the respective developments. One egress lane is appropriate because there is sufficient space on the site for any queuing necessary for people leaving the site onto Edmonds Way at the signalized intersection. Chair Herr asked how the ingress lanes shown in the alternative proposal would be separated. Ms. McConnell responded that the plan is preliminary and conceptual in nature. The City has not done a full review to dictate what they would want to see if the alternative proposal moves forward, but her understanding is that the separation could be either striping or curbing. In the applicant's proposal, the two ingress lanes would be separated with striping, and c-curb would be used to separate the ingress and egress lanes. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 3 of 14 Rob Michel, Edmonds, was present to represent the applicant, Kisan Enterprises, LLC. He thanked Mr. Lien for his thorough report. He pointed out the irregular shape of the site, which is nearly 32,000 square feet. Although up to 20 units would be allowed on the site, the applicant is proposing just 18 units in four buildings. The four buildings will be more pleasing to the eye than one massive building. He pointed out that the irregular shape of the lot allowed them to do some extra things that are not normally done with townhomes. For example, the units on either end of Building A are different shapes and sizes, allowing more modulation and light. The other buildings have units with varied floor plans, as well. There is a sizeable space near the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unit, and every unit will have a 2-car garage, so there will be no outdoor parking. This gives a more residential feel to the project. Chair Herr asked if visitor parking would be required for a project of this size. Mr. Lien answered that the City's code does not require visitor parking. Chair Herr asked if the units would be for sale or rent, and Mr. Michel answered that they would be rental units. Board Member Guenther asked the applicant to review the exterior elevations. He said he was a little concerned about the elevations facing Edmonds Way. From the drawings, it appears that the fagades would be flat. Mr. Michel referred to the site plan, noting that there would be quite a bit of modulation on the elevations facing Edmonds Way, with the sloped roof and modulation pointing out. Each individual building would be modulated, as well. Mr. Lien referred to Attachment 5, which labels all of the proposed materials. Chair Herr asked if the garage doors would be glass. Mr. Michel answered that they would be either glass or aluminum or wood that is painted to match. Chair Herr observed that glass doors would look much different than wood doors that are painted. Vice Chair Strauss asked if all of the units would be accessed from the site's interior. She also asked if the units would have doors to the outside or if the only access would come via the garage. Mr. Michel said the end units would have side entries at an upper grade that will access the level above the garage. The interior units would have walkways to the garage and a door from the garage to enter the interior. Vice Chair Strauss asked if all four buildings would meet the height requirement. Mr. Lien answered that all would meet the 30-foot height limit, with 4:12 pitched roofs for the portions above 25 feet. He emphasized that the height limit would be verified at the building permit stage. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the average grade was calculated for the entire project or for each separate unit. Mr. Lien said it was calculated separately for each building. Reid Shockey, President, Shockey Planning Group, Everett, said he is a planning consultant representing the adjacent property owners, Jeff and Lisa Sterling, who proposed the alternative access plan. He said he has submitted three letters, including the one that was provided to the Board Members at the meeting. They have also submitted other records that were attached to the Staff Report, including a document pertaining to the easement that was adopted in 1978 between two parties (the owners of the property that the Sterlings now own and Snohomish County). The easement has been "conveyed to the public," which is rather unusual language. He said the Sterlings have absolutely no opposition to the proposed project. Their concern is related to the easement and the access that is being proposed. He explained that the 100' x 100' foot easement lies on the Sterling's property. When the prior owners conveyed the easement that sits on top of their property to the public, the easement document indicates the reason was to provide for ingress and egress. It also allows the City to enter on the property for maintenance purposes. He said that, if asked, staff will indicate to the Board that once the townhouses are developed and the access is completed through the easement, it is not the City's intent to maintain the access on an ongoing basis. Mr. Shockey observed that the public easement is at an arterial intersection that is signalized, and three of the four approaches to the intersection are public right-of-way. The easement coincides with the development that occurred on the Sterling's property. It is the Sterling's position that the purpose of the easement was to make sure that the County and now the City could control what development occurs on the Sterling's property so that it is consistent with what happens on the other corners of the intersection. However, with the current proposal would essentially allow a private easement from the Kisan property to cross the boundary line onto the easement and then continue out until it exits on Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 4 of 14 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 could be met within the easement. He paid a professional traffic engineer to develop the conceptual plan that would have allowed all of the traffic to stay within the easement. In the alternative plan, the existing pedestrian path to the sidewalk (near the crosswalk) would remain, but the applicant chose not to use the alternate plan. He voiced concern that the applicant's proposed plan would eliminate the pedestrian pathway that is located on his property and outside of the easement. Instead, the proposed ingress lane would extend outside of the easement, hugging the curb where his tenants used to walk down to the sidewalk. Secondly, the original study proposed that his turning lane could be reduced to 16 feet. It is already a 45-degree hairpin turn to get onto his property from Edmonds Way, and you are lucky if you can get your speed down to 15 miles per hour to make the turn without being hit by ferry traffic. In the current proposal, Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 5 of 14 the radius would be tighter and the width would be reduced to 12 feet, and 4 feet would be outside of the easement. The applicant's proposal would push his western ingress lane out of the easement. Mr. Sterling said that when meeting with the applicant, he voiced concern that the proposal would eliminate the pedestrian pathway and push the lane over to a point where people can barely make a turn without transgressing into the other lane. He also voiced concern about the 90-degree radial turn coming into the subject property that is described as a hammerhead. The eastern ingress has been designed to maximize the applicant's ability to develop units. The applicant's only response to his concerns is to tell him not to worry, to wait for them to get through the process, and his concerns will be worked out. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a lot of confidence in that approach. Since the applicant proposed the two-lane ingress idea, he has been unable to find an example of this approach anywhere. There is no need for the two-lane ingress that pushes his traffic outside of the public right-of-way in order to gain access to the subject property using the public easement. He observed that the intersection is one of the most dangerous in the entire City. In his opinion, there are several parts of the applicant's proposal that are dangerous, including the sweeping turn that is required by the fire department. Traffic will not slow down and wait for traffic going the other way, and the intersection is already dangerous. Mr. Sterling said he is concerned that, once the project is permitted, he will be responsible for addressing all of the problems that are caused by the development. The applicant's proposal and the City's response is unacceptable. The current process of meeting with the applicant and City staff to resolve the issues is not working. The whole notion of designating the easement as a public easement for the purposes of permitting has iced him out of the process. This is the first time he has been able to voice his concerns in a public setting, and he appreciates that the Board is listening to him. Mr. Sterling suggested that if the City wants to support the developer and approve the project, the Board should ask for a continuance of the process until the City staff can work with him to declare the easement a public right-of-way. The City could then do the right thing to support both sides in the design and make the access safe for the residents of both properties. Anything short of that would be unacceptable to him. Chair Herr asked if the signal works well for the current residents to exit the Cascadian Apartments. Mr. Sterling said there is a detector in the ground that causes the signal to change for residents of his property to exit. Chair Herr pointed out that some of the danger that Mr. Sterling voiced concern about is mitigated by the signal at the intersection that stops traffic and allows his residents to exit onto Edmonds Way. Mr. Sterling said the danger would be caused by the traffic coming in from the eastern egress the developer would add. Sufficient attention has not been paid to the traffic coming in off the street without yielding to traffic that is already queued up to go out at the intersection. The applicant is proposing to cut in too close to where the traffic is coming in. Chair Herr pointed out that, in Mr. Sterling's alternate plan, emergency vehicles would not have adequate access if a curb is provided to separate the ingress and egress lanes. He asked why the City couldn't simply require one ingress and one egress lane to address the Mr. Sterling's major concern that the design encroaches onto his property. Ms. McConnell pointed out that, on the applicant's submittal, the western curb that falls outside of the easement is the existing curb and not the proposed layout. That is how traffic enters the site currently, and that wouldn't change. The City did not dictate that the developer propose an access in any specific way. Staff provided two options at one point based on previous conversations with the applicant and Mr. Sterling. They also felt at the time that Mr. Sterling was open to those two designs, one being the two-lane ingress design. The current design was presented by the applicant, and that is what staff reviewed as part of the application. Chair Herr asked why would the pedestrian path be eliminated by the applicant's proposal. Ms. McConnell explained that the City doesn't view it as a pedestrian pathway because it is in the driveway. A safe ADA-compliant pedestrian pathway would not follow the line of the driveway access to the site, and that would be especially true coming off of Edmonds Way. Mr. Sterling has indicated that pedestrians currently use the pathway, but if the City had a requirement for Cascadian Apartments to provide a pedestrian pathway; it would not approve a pathway that falls within a driveway. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 6 of 14 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 Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 7 of 14 have a stopping point before making the turn. He said the alternative he presented is conceptual and intended to communicate his desire because he was not consulted in the access design. He said the City needs to step up. If they want to permit the project, they need to declare the easement as a public right-of-way. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the applicant intends to separate the two ingress lanes with curbing or paint. She asked if the applicant would be opposed to having a one wide ingress lane instead. She noted that some grading would be required to change the entrance, and she asked if the applicant would provide new curbs, etc. Mr. Michel answered that these issues will be addressed during the permitting phase, but the City has revealed that the current ramp is steeper than what is required at the stop light, and the bump would have to be removed. The existing C curb would have to be replaced, as well. The line separating the two ingress lanes would likely be painted. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the code requires a painted line, and Mr. Michel said the Traffic Engineer did not require a line. The line was provided on the drawing to delineate where the traffic would flow. Vice Chair Strauss commented that, even if there are two ingress lanes, people will pull in where ever they want unless there is a curb or wall that blocks them. It shouldn't matter if there are two lanes or one lane. Vicky O'Rico, Attorney for the Applicant, cautioned that this hearing is for design review and to consider the project's feasibility overall. She isn't a traffic engineer, and none of the Board Members are either. The technical details related to ingress, egress, pedestrian pathways, curbing, striping, etc. will be worked out by the City's Traffic Engineer during the permitting phase. She expressed her belief that, as outlined in the Staff Report, the application meets all of the criteria the Board must consider when reviewing an application. Mr. Shockey commented about whether the subject property was quasi -public, he didn't get into whether it was out of character with the neighboring properties, which is really the criteria the Board needs to be looking at. There has been a lot of discussion about stuff that the Board is not qualified to respond to, and that's why the City has a Transportation Engineer on staff. Her understanding is that the two ingress lanes are needed to prevent backups on Edmonds Way as they queue to turn in. Again, she suggested that these issues will be worked out during the building permit phase, as opposed to just the general feasibility layout. Vice Chair Strauss disagreed. Before an applicant proceeds to the permitting phase, he/she needs to have a plan. City staff will review the plan and determine whether or not it meets the code. Applicant's shouldn't wait for the City to design a project. They must have a plan in mind that includes access. Ms. O'Rico agreed and said a plan has already been submitted and City staff has determined that it is code compliant. The questions about whether there will be turtles or striping, etc. are details that will be worked out at permitting. Things may change, which is why the City has requested a condition of approval that allows the details to be tweaked later as additional information comes forward. Ms. McConnell referenced Attachment 7 of the Staff Report and explained that the dashed line is the ingress/egress easement granted to the public. In the initial discussions related to access to the site, it was really looked at from a perspective of keeping those accessing the Kisan development inside the easement area. If that entire drive approach were to stay open without a painted line to guide traffic for the Kisan development, then the residents of the new development would be crossing over an area that could fall outside of the ingress/egress easement. That was one of the considerations for the two ingress lanes coming into the site, and queuing was another element. The alternate concept of a singular ingress lane has not been determined to be insufficient, but an analysis would have to be done in order for the City's Traffic Engineer to agree or disagree. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that the applicant's access proposal would be confusing for people trying to get off the Cascadian Apartments property. Ms. McConnell said she understands the concern. The specific layout in the drawing, with signage and striping to guide traffic, has not been reviewed at that level of detail. However, staff has had discussions that the sweeping striping will not exist in the final development proposal. It needs to have an appearance that traffic can flow out through the area and not be blocked by the ingress lane into the Kisan development. The applicant is currently proposing striping rather than curbing to separate the lanes. However, staff is not providing comments back to the applicant at this time because these elements (stop signs, striping, turtles, arrows, signage etc.) will be dealt with at the Building Permit phase of the project. At this point, the Traffic Engineer's review focused on the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 8 of 14 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 right-hand turn lane on Edmonds Way into the subject property, and a 2-lane ingress would be confusing. She expressed Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 9 of 14 her belief that signage would be key because there are two developments using the same driveway. The Cascadian Apartments has a one-way traffic flow that makes a loop around the entire property. There is only one way out of the development, and having two arrows coming in will cause confusion. She and her husband are on the property every day, and their sons are resident managers on the property. They see the traffic flow there and understand the impacts, yet they were not asked to provide input to either the City or the consultant doing the traffic study. She said she was present at the hearing to represent her tenant's safety and wellbeing. To clarify Chair Herr's earlier comment, Ms. Sterling pointed out that the entire easement is on her property. The notion that they are being pushed on to her property implies to her that perhaps the City is already viewing it as a public right- of-way. As far as she knows, the easement is on her property and she has responsibility for maintaining it. This is the only forum for them to express their concerns, and she is grateful for the Board's attention. Chair Herr said he was simply following Mr. Sterling's logic when he said the driveway was pushed off the easement. Ms. Sterling explained that, based on the applicant's proposal, the new development's ingress/egress may trespass onto her property outside of the easement. While the painted line proposed by the applicant would guide people from the new development away from the Cascadian Apartment property, a better approach would be to simply guide all of the traffic down a single wide lane. It doesn't make sense to have two lanes. Mr. Lien recalled Mr. Shockey's comment relative to the design review criteria in ECDC 20.11.030.C.1, which specifically states that community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. He still supports the opinion he stated in the Staff Report that the proposed development is not a community facility, and therefore, the criteria is not applicable. He advised that ECDC 21.15.071 defines "community facilities" as "any use, structure, building or development that 1) is primarily used or dedicated for a use by members of the general public for educational, religious, informational, recreational, artistic or social purposes, or 2) serves members of the general public by providing for utility, transportation, police, fire, parking, or services, or 3) is primarily used or dedicated for use by local, state, regional, federal governments for the purposes of providing governmental services." He explained that Item 2 mentions transportation, but staff interprets this to apply to things such as a transit center, the waterfront connector, or other types of public transportation facilities. Other projects the criterion has been applied to include the Senior Center, school district projects and the Interurban Trail shelters and signs. A project done by the Edmonds Center for the Arts, which is a non-profit organization that is not public but within a public facilities district would be considered a quasi -public use, and others might include public utility projects and the senior center, itself. He summarized his belief that the proposed project would not be considered a public project, a community facility or a quasi -public facility. The criteria have never been applied to a private development that accesses a public easement or right-of-way. Just because it accesses a public easement, doesn't make it a public project. Next, Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 20.11.030.A, which states that the building should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. The Comprehensive Plan, which describes the City's vision for the future, designates the site as Edmonds Way Corridor. Commercial Development Goal E, which is specific to the Edmonds Way Corridor designation, states that the corridor serves as a key transportation corridor and also as a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. It is an established pattern of multifamily residential development that lies along both sides of the corridor, with small businesses primarily near the intersections. A major concern is that intensive development occurring along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. There are four specific criteria for the Edmonds Way Corridor: 1. Permit uses in planned multifamily or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. 2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access to the development. 3. Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR- 104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 10 of 14 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 Sterling's attorney, Mr. Cattle, also attended the meeting but chose not to attend the public hearing so they could stick to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 11 of 14 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 Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 12 of 14 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 Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 13 of 14 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 Minutes of Regular Meeting September 4, 2019 Page 14 of 14