The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-05-19 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom May 19, 2021 Chair Lauri Strauss called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Lauri Strauss Bruce Owensby Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Kim Bayer BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Planning Division PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED PHASE 2 PUBLIC HEARING FOR PINE PARK 614 DESIGN REVIEW (PLN2002-0053) Lauri Strauss: So, we are going to start with the public portion of the meeting tonight. I will start with what we need to do here. So, the public hearing for the Pine Park 614 Design Review Proposal that began on March 3, 2021, is still open. In that meeting, the board took a first look at the project, received testimony from staff, the applicant, and members of the public and prioritized the design guideline check for the applicant to take and make improvements to the proposal. At the Phase 2 of the hearing on May 5, the board reviewed the revised proposal and took more testimony from staff, the applicant, and some members of the public. However, due to incorrect Zoom information provided on the board's agenda memo for that evening, the hearing was continued, again, to May 19, today, to allow additional opportunity for public testimony. Tonight, the board will take testimony from any member of the public who would like to speak about the proposal, additional testimony from staff and the applicant will be allowed as will comments from members of the public who have commented before. Once all of the testimony is received and the board has asked all the questions it has, we will likely be able to close the public hearing, begin deliberations, and decide on the proposal tonight. However, if the board requires additional information with which to make a decision, a specific request will be made to the applicant and the public hearing will be continued again to a date certain. Those who have not already testified, you must be sworn in. If you were previously sworn in, you do not need to be sworn in again. If you are testifying for the first time tonight, please raise your hand. And I am going to ask Mike has everybody that's on the — have all of the attendees been sworn in already? Lauri Strauss: So, anyone who wasn't here two weeks ago, please raise your right hand. And do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Michelle Dotsch: Yes. Lauri Strauss: Perfect. This meeting is being recorded so please speak slowly and clearly when you're testifying. The primary reason for tonight's meeting is to obtain additional testimony from the public. We will start first with any additional testimony from staff. Mike Clugston: Thank you. Mike Clugston with Planning Division. I didn't have a whole lot. I copied the agenda memo from two weeks ago. And the only thing that I wanted to bring up and highlight for you tonight was regarding the trash and recycling pickup. There was a proposed condition in your packet that said the applicant must work with Sound Disposal to determine a process and configuration for recycling and trash. And at the time a couple of weeks ago, it was still somewhat up in the air about whether using Fifth Avenue could be an option. And it turns out that the code and the guidance in the comprehensive plan and, particularly, in the checklist indicates that screening, dumpsters, utilities and service areas should be screened and unsightly service elements can detract from the compatibility of new projects and create hazards for pedestrians and autos. So, while using Fifth is an option, it should be the last option. If there is something available onsite from the alley that should certainly be the first thing that is looked at for trash and recycling pickup. And so, for Proposed Condition 6, 1 would just add a few words to the end of that for the board's review. Maybe something to the effect that the applicant must work with Sound Disposal to determine a process and configuration for recycling and trash that does not involve staging on Fifth Avenue. Just to make it clear that the board does not want pickup off of Fifth Avenue. Alley access should be the primary way to make that happen. Other than that, I don't have anything else this evening. I, certainly, can answer questions when we get to that point. Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Let's continue with any additional testimony from the applicants. Isaac Greenetz: Yes, hi. Isaac Greenetz here. I represent the owners of the property. As far as the trash goes, we did reach out to Sound Disposal and they let us know that the collection on Fifth was fine but then, they also said that they have a fair amount of traffic that can pose challenges for collection. And they said that the alley would be a decent place for the staged collection area. They said they currently provide service in the alley to the neighboring restaurant. And so, they were okay with collections happening on the alley. Isaac Greenetz: And I think in addition to some comments that were happening last time, there were some concerns about the landscaping on the west property line. I think the intent there is that we provide whatever is deemed appropriate. We're not trying to kind of skim out on landscaping there by any means. The idea is it will provide whatever is necessary to give enough privacy to the neighbors to the west and then, also provide a nice, lush background for that drive aisle and give the privacy that the neighbors to the west are seeking. So, that's the intent. Lauri Strauss: Anything else? Isaac Greenetz: I think that's it for now until there are other questions. Lauri Strauss: Thank you. Let's continue with any additional testimony from the public. If you wish to provide comments using a computer or smart phone, you can raise your virtual hand and be recognized. After you're called on, please state your name and type your preferred contact information in the chat box so that we can keep track of you. Persons wishing to provide comments by dial up phone must press Star 9 to raise your hand. When prompted, press Star 6 to unmute and then, state your name and contact information. Anyone from the public wish to be recognized? Mike Clugston: Yes. Michelle? Lauri Strauss: Michelle has got her hand raised? Mike Clugston: Yes. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 2 Michelle Dotsch: Okay. My name is Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds resident. You should have my info right there. I am just commenting on this project being the first of its kind with a little bit of manipulation of property to create smaller lots to give the appearance of smaller spaces that they are supposed to work with. But in reality, you have a large lot that they are cutting up now. And the parent lot is supposed to be indicative of what the Unit Lot subdivisions become. So, that five percent open space that is required is being manipulated to say well, it's a small lot. We don't really have the space, which isn't true. And I feel in Edmonds five percent is not much. You can rework things to have some open space, especially green space. With these buildings being right up to the sidewalk, I think on the streetscape, too, it seems a little different as far as the feeling on the street talks about feeling of the neighboring properties that are set back. Those have common areas in the front, gathering areas that are supposed to be part of this plan for the public, the community. Obviously, if it's a commercial spot, the uses for commercial. That is not here. A few trees on a sidewalk is not that. So, that concerns me. And then, you're also cutting it up to allow on the work portion of the live/work, a 30 foot depth. Now, if you have a small lot and you're building it that makes sense. You have a parking area that's not really a big space. But you're artificially carving this up to maximize pretty much zero lot line to zero lot line with a little piddly thing on the west side. And it's pretty much paved and building and cement. This is the first of its kind. Again, Unit Lot subdivision and live/work. If this is a template of what we're doing in Edmonds now, I'm very concerned. If this proliferates, I don't believe this really matches the intention of the BD, especially on the cusp here with residential. And so, I feel that I would request with Architectural Design Board is that we don't pretend this is three lots. This isn't. It's one lot. And in doing so, like I said, we're taking away some of the things that make Edmonds, Edmonds with open space, with green space. A couple of planters and a couple of trees isn't really, I think, what the intention was. Other developments in Edmonds are even going bigger for open space. I would hope, at some point, that might even be a norm. So, I just want more consideration on this. I do believe on your Packet Page 8 and 15 where it talks about open space, design, entries, it's just not there. And I feel like this design is purposefully eliminating these types of things that, I think, in Edmonds are what makes Edmonds a little different than other towns. So, I respectfully request that this is considered being the first of its kind in town on that. I did have one other question, too. On the entrance off of Fifth on the design, I'm looking on Page 40, on the entrance to the south, what is the width of that entrance? Because as you go down, it almost looks like there's a white block out. And the width of that alley is not cut. And I was of the understanding that was a zero lot line there. But now, it's showing this extension of white into the alley that I think has to be a certain dimension as an entrance and exit now, especially for a business. So, I was just curious what that — I just don't see really what that is in the width of that entrance if that's up to code on that. And so, that's just kind of my concerns. With this being the first of it, I think this needs careful consideration of how this is being done. It could be really helpful for the future. So, thank you. Lauri Strauss: Thank you, Michelle. Any other of our attendees from the public that would like to be heard? Now is your chance. Mike Clugston: We do have one. Ed Lorah. Ed Lorah: Hi, it's Ed from the Park Twin Condominiums. I'm here with a couple of my neighbors watching the meeting. And I think we would just like to echo what Michelle just brought up about the precedent setting tone of this construction and being able to do a project like this without regard to green space or something on the property that's not concrete. And I think that we've tried to convey that in our correspondence with you guys. And I'm just pleased to have Michelle give voice to that in the meeting. And I think that's probably all we need to say. So, thanks. Lauri Strauss: Thanks, Ed. We'll continue with the public testimony. Anyone else? Mike Clugston: No one has their hands raised. Lauri Strauss: Okay. At this point, we finish with public testimony. Board members may now ask clarifying questions of anyone who has testified with an opportunity for the staff, applicant, or public to respond. I would like to ask a question Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 3 following up on something that Michelle pointed out that I hadn't noticed. The width of the alley at Fifth Avenue and then, it looks like there's a sidewalk that goes part way down to the back of that alley and then, the width of the alley at the lower building, can someone tell me what those dimensions are? Isaac? Isaac Greenetz: I guess, are you asking right off of Fifth on the alley? Lauri Strauss: YesYes. The width of the alley where it meets Fifth Avenue right there. It's right next to it. There's a building there, obviously, Barkada'sright there. And it looks like there might be a 5 foot sidewalk that runs along Building B down the alley. And then, what's the width of the alley right there? Isaac Greenetz: I will have to pull this up. Lauri Strauss: And if the sidewalk is 5 feet then that, obviously, adds 5 feet to the alley at Building C, from Building C over to the property line. Isaac Greenetz: So, I'm not sure if it's intentional that that's drawn that way. I know whatever is there, the alley width is still maintained as whatever is true code. So, we're not trying to break any rules by providing a walkway. I think, if anything, it's more of just to add a nice walkway that will come down the ramp there. I don't think that it's required. I think it's just something that we're proposing. And the alley would still remain the width that it needs to be per code. I don't know what the exact dimension is. We don't have that dimension on the site plan. Lauri Strauss: So, the reason I'm asking is because we are adding people. We're adding one, two, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen — well, we're adding, actually, twenty cars regularly coming in and out of this alley. And it's not a one way. I've had to several times to back up and pull into the side there so that someone can come through. But I'm just concerned about there is supposed to be like a traffic study or something done on this yet that's not been done? Isaac Greenetz: I don't think so. Isaac Greenetz: So, currently, the alley is 20 feet wide. Lauri Strauss: Right here by Building C? Isaac Greenetz: No. The total width is 20 feet wide without the little walkway. Isaac Greenetz: That's kind of what we have on the survey. And it looks like that walkway is probably 4 or 5 feet as well. So, it would still be a 15 foot wide alley access. Kim Bayer: So, to tag onto that Lauri, I just drove up that today and the same thing happened to me. And without the 5 foot sidewalk, I had to backup to be able to allow another car to go by. So, I'm not sure how that's going to work. I think it's going to be a little problematic. But that's going to be pretty skinny. That's all I can say. Isaac Greenetz: YesYes. I'm not sure why that's being shown there. I don't think it's a requirement where it's even necessary. I think it was just something to make it nicer. But I don't think there's a problem with making it go away. It might have had something to do with how they're going to have to regrade to get to the new driveway. There is going to be some kind of ramping that will happen between the alley and the building like that slope work to get into the driveway. So, maybe that's kind of designating. Lauri Strauss: Well, I think there was a comment from staff also that the first parking space at Building B that this turn radius, actually, cuts that parking space off. And that was something that you guys were going to have to address. It's still shown that way. I haven't gotten any new exhibits. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 4 Isaac Greenetz: Yes. We didn't update it from our meeting two weeks ago. Lauri Strauss: But you're planning on updating that radius? Isaac Greenetz: Yes. I think we'll have to take a look at the way that parking layout works. Lauri Strauss: It looks like there might be a retaining wall there or maybe that retaining wall has to come down all the way to the end of the parking space so that you're not pulling people into that parking space. Isaac Greenetz: Yes. Potentially. This is all stuff that we'll kind of work through in the detail phase once we get past design review. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Any board members, questions, concerns for the applicant? Joe Herr: Lauri, I would just like to clear up one statement you made earlier where you said a constant — maybe I misheard you but you said there was going to be just 12 cars going in and out constantly. I just think that's a slight exaggeration. Lauri Strauss: Oh, no. I didn't mean constantly. I meant added to what is there now, there will be 20 more people using that alley. Joe Herr: Okay. Lauri Strauss: Sorry. If I said constantly, I didn't mean that. Kim Bayer: I have a question. Lauri Strauss: Go ahead, Kim. Kim Bayer: So, a couple of things and I agree with Michelle as far as this I setting precedent. So, I think the board should do their due diligence in making sure that we do this right off the bat because we're going to have a lot more of these probably coming to our city of Edmonds. So, the first thing is the trash. I know you're working through Sound Disposal. But I just want to be able to hear from I guess it would be Isaac that you're not going to be bringing trash cans out on Fifth Avenue. Is that correct? Is that correct, Mike, or whoever can answer that? I just need to — Isaac Greenetz: That is correct. Currently, the plan is that they would, actually, bring the trash out of their buildings. Building B to — that would be the north, that would be the southeast building will have to bring them onto the sidewalk of Fifth and then, into the alley. So, the staging area will be in the alley per Sound Disposal. So, they won't be staging anything on Fifth at all. It will be in the alley. Kim Bayer: So, this is the alley we just talked about on the south side that's 15 feet technically? Isaac Greenetz: Twenty feet.. I think the area that's being shown there that's kind of white is a drafting error. It's not necessarily a sidewalk. We don't have it called out as anything other than being pavement. So, it's not meant to be a sidewalk or anything of that nature. I think it was something we were probably using to delineate where our radiuses were going to start in the drafting and it didn't get hatched correctly. So, it's not supposed to be a sidewalk. Kim Bayer: So, again, I just am bringing up the issue of the cars coming in and out and you have trash there. Again, way better there than on Fifth Avenue. But I think it could be a little problematic. So, hopefully, you guys can work through that. My other question is on the hatch going up to the rooftop. I know we talked a little bit about that last time. You guys had to change your plans to accommodate that approach. How is that ADA or is it? Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 5 Isaac Greenetz: It doesn't need to be ADA. They're not commercial spaces. And so, they're not accessed by anybody that owns the building. So, ADA requirements don't apply to that. It's the same way you would get into using a penthouse. There will be stairs up to it. It's just at the very top, there's a different type of door. Kim Bayer: Okay. So, that meets code? Isaac Greenetz: Yes. It all meets code. The residential code is different from the commercial code. It's not like it has to be wheelchair accessible. You're going to have to get upstairs to get to that top floor anyway. Kim Bayer: Okay. And then, my last one is, again, this open spacing. So, I know we had talked to Augustus. He kind of threw out that if you have to do the five percent open space then, you're going to just do a commercial building or something like that. I'm trying to remember exactly how that conversation went. So, basically, what you guys are saying is there's no opportunity to do five percent open space and doing maybe something different on the plan that would accommodate maybe one less condo or whatever. Isaac Greenetz: I think that's kind of what Augustus was trying to get at in this. He's like, "We're trying to propose a project that's less bulky and less massive than a big commercial building would be, which is what's allowed here." And in doing that, in breaking up the buildings, we're having to utilize as much of the site as possible to get the amount of units that make sense for the project to pencil. I think that he's trying to do something that's still going to look nice here and be appropriate in scale and size to the neighborhood. But they're just having to be creative with how they're doing it. And this is that creative solution in order to get as many units as they're trying to get on here. We've messed with unit sizes and we've tried to look at areas that we can pull away. But this was just kind of how the project worked out. And so, I think what we're trying to do in terms of having the space at the front, I know it seems like a minimal thing to do with the trees and the benches and the plantings. But we're following the design guidelines in terms of providing what we need to provide for store front and visible access to the street, the little passthrough in the buildings. Instead of it just being a continuous one, big building along the front, we're breaking it up into two buildings and creating that open space in between that connects you down to the parking lot. And so, the opportunity for green space is really along the eastern property line and that's where we're providing the landscaping. But it's a tight site and so, we're doing the best that we can to kind of get what's allowed on there and also meet the intent of the design guidelines. Kim Bayer: Thanks, Isaac. Lauri Strauss: So, I'm just going to say I agree with Kim. I think I wonder what the penciling out is that you can't lose one unit to, actually, make some green space on this site. Saying that, I realize that you guys are trying to do a good thing. I think it's a great project. I feel like you're trying to just squeeze a little too much out of it. And I really don't appreciate that the alternative to our approving this is you'll get something worse. We have a right to design something worse. It feels like you're telling us that we have to approve this or you'll take it back and do something terrible, which I didn't really appreciate in the last meeting. Isaac Greenetz: I don't think that the intent is to say that they're going to do something terrible. I think what the developer is trying to say is that what is allowed here is a much larger building for the new zone. And the reality is it sounds like what the design guidelines want are much smaller, more appropriately scaled buildings for this kind of neighborhood. And I think that's what this design is really trying to do. And in order to do that, it has to be broken up a certain way. And so, the alternative is to do a much bigger building, which I think could work and we could make very nice and it could be exactly what you guys are looking for. But this is the direction — Lauri Strauss: And I get that. I realize what you're trying to do, I guess. I just feel like you're sort of taking our comments and saying — I don't know. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 6 Isaac Greenetz: No. I don't think it was meant to sound as to be a threat. And I think no matter what, we want to propose a nice project. And I think that's everybody's intention here is to provide something that is going to be a positive impact for the community. And this being the first project of its kind, I think it's going to set a good precedent in that there are different ways to approach these problems and different ways to approach the different needs that Edmonds is going to have as a growing town as businesses start to go there and they want different types of units and different types of office spaces. And so, I think this kind of creative solution is unique and probably will stand out as something that will set a good precedent and not a bad one. Lauri Strauss: Yes. And I just want to point out though that there was a commercial building proposed for this site that — Isaac Greenetz: It was a bank, correct? Lauri Strauss: A nice building. It had lots of green space. It had parking spaces that was approved. You can do something nice. Just because a commercial building wouldn't make it horrible. But I like the design. I like the colors. I think it's a real good effort. I just would like to see one less unit and a little patch of grass. Kim Bayer: I agree. Mike Clugston: Patrick Allain had a comment. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Go ahead, Patrick. Can we hear Patrick? Mike Clugston: We should be able to. He is unmuted. Patrick Allain: Can you hear me now? Lauri Strauss: There we go. Patrick Allain: Yes. Just going back to the alley discussion, I just was looking at the parcel map. And I think maybe it's just that it hasn't been well defined in the design yet. But from the parcel map, it looks like the alley has been shifted towards my property, which includes Barkada. And, specifically, it looks like the line of the alley is right up against what is a well window of Barkada. And there is concern that — I'm sure that they can do whatever is appropriate but it would be nice to see what the actual property line is there and where the alley is going to be at the end, including where that supposed sidewalk is on the other side. And part of the traffic study, which I think needs to be done, I would say that should be done soon to make sure that it's viable for traffic to get in and out of that first AB unit in that narrower alley on a hillside going into that. It may be a difficult task. Maybe one consideration might be making that alley one way. But I'm sure that the traffic study will add ress all of those issues. I just wanted to raise that as something that should be looked at sooner than later. Lauri Strauss: All right. Thanks, Patrick, for that. Bruce Owensby: I just wanted to say something really quick. I'm on more side with what Isaac is trying to say. I know it sounds easy to get rid of one unit to say five percent in a green space. The reality is development is becoming tougher and tougher. And when you're in cities like Edmonds, which has height restrictions, it makes it even more difficult. I think that they've come up with a very creative approach to try to create nice buildings that responds great to the street front of Edmonds and that whole street facade that Edmonds has going along. And then, if you consider how much the price of materials have gone up in the last four or five months, I think taking away one unit could, actually, kill the project. I don't know if they've got that much of a — how much leeway there is in there. But I just have more of a tendency to side with Isaac on this. I think that it's a very difficult type of project to do. I think they're trying to do a high end project for development. We could see several little mansard roofs and cheap siding on it and that's not the way to develop. So, I, actually, want to commend them for what they're doing. I want to commend them for their creativity. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 7 There's a natural growth process that happens in small towns and small cities that is you move further and further away, the houses start being removed, units start being put in, office buildings start being put in. I've just seen that in Edmonds since I've been here for 22 years. And I think that that's just something that has to be kind of accepted. And I think the fact that they're trying to do something that is responding to the street and not just building one big building that sits back 5 feet or 6 feet that's got no pedestrian interest as you're walking past it, no windows to look in, no potential coffee shops or whatever. I think this is a great project. And I think it's going to do well for Edmonds. And I think once it's built, I think people will probably respond to it very positively. And that's just what I wanted to say. Joe Herr: I would like to chime in a little bit and kind of support what Bruce is saying and disagree a little bit with you, Lauri. I don't get that the developer is trying to bully us into saying if you don't approve this, what could be there is worse. I think some of that comes out of exasperation to unreasonable requests for a project that somebody is really trying hard to put something good into Edmonds. I understand having sat on the opposite side being the applicant in projects like this and different jurisdictions the frustration that can come because you come to a hearing and you present everything and you're trying to do something good and then, people are just like, "Well, if you could do this and well, if you could do that." And at some point, people throw up their hands. The bank threw up their hands on this project because remember, we were going to build a bank there the first time. And that was all going. So, I'm not trying to be contradictory and make the board feel like we're at odds with each other. But I just want to say that I don't feel that the developer is bullying us in any way. I'm thinking that what he's saying is, "Yes, there are alternatives. And you're going to like those even less. And yes, we could go ahead and do those and then, where are we going to be?" So, I commend them for trying to do something different and a lot more attractive than what could be. I think it's more or less what he's trying to say but it can come out looking like the opposite of that. So, that's just my opinion on all of that. Lauri Strauss: Anyone else? Maurine, do you have anything? Maurine Jeude: No. I'm kind of in agreement with that. I don't think that they could provide enough open space to make it utilitarian for the public to use it in any way. And they're adding the trees in the front, the trees in the back. It's open in the middle. It has some planters and the benches and that. I think the windows that are there, it is an opening and I think it definitely is far better than putting a massive apartment complex in there. I think that they've done about as much as they can with the area that they have to make it open and inviting and not an eye sore for that part of the Fifth Avenue entry into Edmonds there. So, I think that they've done a pretty good job of breaking it up and adding some green. And I'm a big tree fan. So, again, I think that they've done a nice job with what they have. If you ask them to push it back or add more green space that it's going to take away from what they can do with the property and the people who are going to live in it and really not add that much to the public. Lauri Strauss: Yes. I wasn't really looking for a public space. I was just thinking about the people that live there wanting a little bit of green space, some landscaping. Kim Bayer: So, I had one last question to Isaac on the commercial piece of it in the front on Fifth. So, can you, again, explain what kinds of businesses or what kind of workspace is it? Is it insurance companies, studios? I'm just curious. Do you have anybody lined up so far? Do you have any idea of what you're thinking of? Isaac Greenetz: I think it's kind of open to any kind of commercial activity that you could run out of a small space. So, we're talking about it could be small coffee shops. It could be a massage studio. It could be a little yoga studio. It could be an art studio. These are probably one or two person businesses that they're going to be living in the unit above and working out of below. So, it could be their personal office. It would be a lawyer. I think it's kind of open to whatever somebody really wants. I don't think there's a lot of restrictions on it. Obviously, there will be restrictions like it can't be manufacturing. It could be these more larger, industrial type things. So, there are limits to what people can do. But it's kind of guided by the zoning. Kim Bayer: Mike, can you elaborate a little on what is allowed and what's not? I go through all of the code. You don't have to go to every little thing. But I'm just curious what's the city's viewpoint on what's allowed and what's not? Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 8 Mike Clugston: The BD zone allows a variety of commercial uses there. So, it could be, again, small scale stuff. It could be office. It could be retail service. There are restrictions in the building code about heavy industrial stuff and chemicals and that kind of thing. But smaller offices and service uses, I think, would probably be, typically, what you would find there or maybe a small retail space. Kim Bayer: And they go through a process to be approved? Mike Clugston: Yes. So, every business needs a business license. And so, that would have to go through staff review. Kim Bayer: Okay. Mike Clugston: Michelle had a question or a comment. Lauri Strauss: All right. Go ahead, Michelle. Michelle Dotsch: Thank you. On the workspace, I just want to be understanding this having a business myself. So, are they required on the ground floor there to have an ADA bathroom, emergency exits, things like that? What are the requirements for this particular type of project since we don't have one of these in town? Isaac Greenetz: Yes. It's a commercial space so it will be required to have an ADA bathroom. It will have to be accessible from the sidewalk. It will have to comply with all the rules of any commercial space. Michelle Dotsch: Okay. And then, what is the width of each? I don't see it. I know it was 30 feet deep but what's the width? Isaac Greenetz: Each of them are about 20 feet wide. Michelle Dotsch: Wow. So, you put an ADA bathroom in there and you put stairs in there. I beg to differ that you're going to put a coffee shop in there. I beg to differ that there is going to be really other than maybe a table and two chairs. I don't know. This live/work thing I know in Seattle, they're getting rid of it because the We Works went under. I would hate to see this type of project have empty store fronts there. We don't really have guidelines on what that could be. Again, obviously, it's not architecturally, it's not your deal. But I really feel like the city needs to be pretty upfront on exactly what this is. If you buy it, you have to have a business license. If you sell it, you have to sell it to somebody with a business license. That could be pretty difficult. So, just a lot of things to think about with this. I appreciate you guys taking the time to — and then, I think that alley is a big deal. That's a zero lot line. You got a zero lot line there. You got Barkada. So, if you're, literally, coming out on that sidewalk where pedestrians are going back and forth, there is no sight line there. You, literally, are going onto the sidewalk coming out of the alley. And I just think that's another consideration with zero lot lines on that corner. There is no extra space for any sight line for somebody walking to see you. Electric cars are not going to hear you. So, I really worry about that corner. And maybe that's why that extra extension was there originally. I don't know what the fire codes or what it is with an alley. An alley is your main business ingress and egress. I don't know of any others in Edmonds on that street that do that other than residential. So, just something to consider, again, there, the safety of the people walking up and down that street if you're heading south. You're really at a disadvantage there. And driving up, especially it's uphill there, too, which puts even further lower to see you. So, anyway, just another consideration there. Thank you. Mike Clugston: Ed Lorah had another comment if you want to hear that. Ed Lorah: Oh, thanks. We have a question about maintenance of the property, maintenance of the landscaping, and also just the integrity of the design. With townhouses in the live/work units, people buying these places, are they free to paint them as they wish? Or how does that work? Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 9 Isaac Greenetz: Mike can probably speak to that more than I can. But I believe that this will be under an HOA. And you will not be allowed to change things like colors of building because it goes to this process. There will be limitations to what people can do to their own building without making public hearing or going through this process again to get approved. Mike Clugston: Yes. That's right. If it is made into condominium ownership, condominiums have an HOA. They have conditions, covenants, and restrictions that need to be followed. If the council adopts a Unit Lot subdivision process for the BD zones and they decide to apply the Unit Lot subdivision process to this lot, Unit Lot subdivision also requires an HOA and conditions, covenants, and restrictions. And the one benefit of having that Unit Lot subdivision process would be that the city would, actually, get to review those and comment on those as part of the platting process. Whereas during condominiumization, we don't have that say. Developers file the HOA and CCR documents right with the county as well as the condo plat. The city doesn't review those. Lauri Strauss: So, I have a question just kind of following up on one of Michelle's questions. So, if I buy one of these units in Unit A or in Building A and I decided instead of that work suite, I'm going to move my mother-in-law in there so that she has a place to live that's right off the street, is that okay? Or do I have to have a business in there? And now, I've got windows that are transparent and everybody can look in there on her. Mike Clugston: Yes. It has to be a business. It has to be an allowed commercial use in that ground floor space. That's a requirement of the code. Lauri Strauss: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Anyone else? Comments, questions? All right. If there are no further questions and the board feels the record is complete, we can close the public hearing. Last minute, anything anybody wants to add? All right. The public hearing is now closed. The board may begin deliberations. So, now we can't take any new testimony. We can ask questions, I believe, but we cannot take any new testimony. So, I guess I'll start. I don't know if you all had a chance to look at the suggested motion from staff. Have you guys looked at that? Mike Clugston: I can pull it up on screen. Lauri Strauss: Would you? That would be great. Lauri Strauss: Because I think we might want to change some of the wording of some of these conditions. So, we should all look at that and talk about it. Mike Clugston: Okay. Can you see Packet Page 22 on your screen? Lauri Strauss: Yes. Perfect. So, Item No. 1 is just that they have to create that division line to divide the site so that these buildings will, actually, be compliant. If they don't do that then, the buildings won't be compliant and they wouldn't get a certificate of occupancy. So, that's that Item 1 condition. Item 2 is pedestrian paths have to be established from the base of the stairs between the Buildings A and B and to C using striping or some alternative method. There has to be some sort of a pedestrian path created even though it's more of a parking lot sort of between those two buildings. No. 3 was HVAC equipment has to meet the screening requirements. And I don't know if they're just not showing any right now. I think there's a transformer shown on the site is all. Item 4 is the landscaping along the western property line. And I do want to add something on this one that says, "The proposed landscaping along the western property line must be consistent," rather than "is" because it sounds like it already is but it's not yet. Mike Clugston: And so, I think the issue is it's not consistent with the code direction. Lauri Strauss: Right. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 10 Mike Clugston: But that was one of the things that was discussed last time. The board has the ability to alter the landscaping requirements a little bit. And if they feel that what is shown is consistent with the Type 1 landscaping, although it doesn't meet that Type 1 standard, if they feel it's consistent with it then, they could approve that alteration. So, it doesn't meet that Type 1 standard, which it, typically, would. But it does meet the intent of the Type 1 standard or it's consistent with it. Lauri Strauss: So, the Type 1 standard is that they have to have two rows of trees, right? Is that the biggest difference, Mike? Mike Clugston: Yes. So, two rows of evergreen trees. That's the primary difference. And so, it would just be a wider or deeper landscaping area than the 5 foot that's shown now. Typically, it would be maybe 10 feet or something like that. Bruce Owensby: So, we would be allowing this kind of leeway with them if they're doing something like that trash receptacle bin in that location so that that location they don't have to meet it. Is that what you're, basically, getting at? Mike Clugston: Yes. The code allows the board flexibility in interpreting the landscaping standards. And so, if you feel that what they're showing, although it doesn't meet the specific letter of Type 1 landscaping to buffer a commercial parcel from a multifamily parcel, if you think it's consistent with what the landscaping is trying to do, which is, essentially, buffer two disparate uses. But in this case, like we talked about last time, the uses really are fairly similar, right. The proposed use is multifamily, even though it is a commercially zoned site on that western building. And then, to the west is a multifamily parcel with a condo on it. So, the uses that are adjacent to each other are really fairly similar, as it turns out. So, that's why I think maybe in this case, the landscaping doesn't meet the exact Type 1 buffer requirement. But it's pretty close. And I'd say it's consistent with the intent to buffer those fairly similar uses. Bruce Owensby: Could we find out from Isaac about what size that trash receptacle is going to be? Does he know? Lauri Strauss: It's not one right now, Bruce. He's got individual trash pickup for each unit. Bruce Owensby: But I thought he was talking about having a —isn't there going to be —so, each unit is going to have individual trash cans. It's not going to be one — well, then how much space is that going to take up? Isaac Greenetz: So, I think the idea is that they would stage it along the alley if not within their own little driveways there. So, there are a couple of different things happening. You could have the buildings along Fifth that have unique conditions. So, they're going to have to bring their trash out either onto Fifth and then, down the alley. Or I think Building A can bring it out from — they, actually, have access to the driveway from their unit. So, they could bring it out through their driveway and onto the alley. There could be, potentially, a proposed staging area in that back corner in that landscape buffer but it's not currently planned to do that. Kim Bayer: I don't know if you know the answer to this question but does the business get one trash can and the residential unit get another so there will be two? Isaac Greenetz: It will probably be something like that, yes. Kim Bayer: So, again, I would advise the board if you haven't driven down that alley, please do so because I'd like you to understand how that's going to all work. I'm just saying it's going to be a little problematic with I don't even know. I've lost track of how many trash cans are going to be there. But I think that could be a big issue. Bruce Owensby: Is there a reason why it's got to be multiple trash cans rather than some more dumpster type? Isaac Greenetz: I think the larger dumpster just means you have to kind of put that somewhere. So, where do you put that big dumpster. I think the smaller ones are easier to manage. And so, those can be within the units or in their parking areas. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 11 So, it's the larger dumpster that are just harder to manage. And with a sloping driveway, you're going to have big dumpsters kind of rolling around, which I think is part of the — Bruce Owensby: All right. If everyone in their unit is bringing down their trash cans, is there going to be a place in that area where they put it or is it just going to be at the back of the parking lot? Isaac Greenetz: Sound Disposal said that we can stage it in the alley. Kim Bayer: So, where are they stored on the property when they're not in the alley? Bruce Owensby: Garages. Lauri Strauss: So, there's 20 units or 20 trash cans if you count the business has a separate trash can from the unit. And another thing is I live in this area. Trash comes every day. He comes every day at 8:30 in the morning. So, are you telling me that all the trash cans have to be out here every day? That's a lot of — there's just no way that's going to work. I can't see how that would work at all. Kim Bayer: And you haven't asked what's recycled as well. Lauri Strauss: Yes. And then, you've got a recycle bin. So, that's 40, a recycle bin plus a trash can for each business and every person. Bruce Owensby: Do they have compost down there as well like out of the — Lauri Strauss: We do, Yes. We, actually, have one of those for our unit as well. So, our townhome just has one bin for recycling, one for trash, and one for yard waste. I don't know why you couldn't put it down at the end of either the first level or the second level parking area and just call that good. That middle parking area, it seems like you'd have to be able to get it down there somehow. I don't know. Bruce Owensby: I think they'll let us store them in the garages. Lauri Strauss: Well, not just for the Building C, you're on the lower level. But I could see maybe Sound Disposal backing down the parking lots of each one of these levels and emptying the trash as long as they keep their trash bins next to their units or in their garages. I would rather see that than being staged in the alley. And maybe we can put a condition on that. I don't know. Bruce Owensby: That is a problem if it's staged in the alley if it's a two way alley. I think it would have to be turned into a one way. So, I don't know if that's something that the city will look at, Mike, or how that would be determined. Mike Clugston: Yes. And so, I think there needs to be additional discussion. Again, this can occur at the building permit level about pickup. I think maybe for ADB's perspective, you don't want it all on Fifth Avenue. That's that. Then, how it gets done, I think Sound Disposal was probably fairly flexible whether if this space could be used for staging, if something newer that each of the buildings can be used. I'm pretty sure they can probably back their trucks into those alleyways and access it. It might be more difficult to do that and, therefore, more costly for the residents. But I think it's doable. So, and as far as the alley, the traffic study will be coming with the building permit, too. And if they recommend making it a one way or some sort of, we talked about it last time, having mirrors or some ability to see around the buildings when pulling out, those kinds of things. I think the traffic engineer will be taking a look at that with the building permits submittal to make sure that those things are addressed. Lauri Strauss: Is this an easement, Mike, do you know that alleyway? Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 12 Mike Clugston: It's a private alley that the applicant owns. Lauri Strauss: Yes. So, why couldn't the applicant just close it off, make it a nice green space and just make it so that once a week, the trash guy can use it to get out on the street on Fifth Avenue? It seems like that would solve a couple of problems. Mike Clugston: So, I think the developer is here. I'm going to let him in. And maybe he can lend a little bit of information. Augustus Bukowski: Yes. So, you can't just close down an alley that's in use. That's why. Lauri Strauss: Is that a code? Augustus Bukowski: It's being used by the other buildings. So, first, you were worried about pickup in the alley. Now, you're saying get rid of the alley? Which is it? Which is it, lady? I'm just being honest. Get rid of it? Fine, get rid of it. I'll put my parking there. You want me to take back the alley? That's fine. I already pay tax on it. Are you telling me I can just go restrict access from all of the surrounding buildings? What are we talking about? Lauri Strauss: I'm just wondering what's — oh, gosh. Augustus Bukowski: No. But you're asking a question that's two different — so, which is it? Are we not picking up from the alleys — Lauri Strauss: Well, it's a question. It's a question. Augustus Bukowski: Well, that's fine. Let's do it. Let's pick up in the alley. You said you didn't want that. Let's do it. I agree. Let's do it, lady. Can we put her comments on the record? We should pick up in the alley is what she's saying but instead of allowing it to be alley, we should shut it down. That doesn't make sense. Lauri Strauss: That is not what I said. That is not what I — Augustus Bukowski: You just said it. Could we go back on the recording? You said can you just shut down the alley — Lauri Strauss: What's stopping you from doing that? Augustus Bukowski: Because it's being accessed by the surrounding buildings. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Well, that's all I needed was an answer to the question. Augustus Bukowski: Well, it's a silly question. Lauri Strauss: I don't think so. Augustus Bukowski: Okay. Lauri Strauss: And I don't think that it's very nice to be disrespectful to the board either. Bruce Owensby: I second that. Kim Bayer: I third it. Mike Clugston: So, moving on with deliberations, we were still talking about the proposed landscaping condition at No. 4. So, again, it's just recommended language for sure. So, you can change it, alter it, remove it, do whatever you'd like. Again, Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 13 just looping back to that, the intent was that because the two uses, essentially, facing each other are multifamily residential that the buffer didn't need to be that usual Type 1 thickness or density. You, basically, have like uses facing each other. Lauri Strauss: So, with that condition, Mike, what you're doing is capturing that even though it doesn't meet the Type 1 requirements, we would be saying it's consistent and so it meets the purpose of it. And we're capturing that in the conditions. Mike Clugston: That was the intent, yes. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kim Bayer: Hey, Mike, what is the code for the width of an alley, public alley? Mike Clugston: I don't think there's a standard width for alleys. It depends on when they were platted years and years and years ago. Typically, many of them are 15 feet. This one seems to be 20 but it does vary. Lauri Strauss: All right. No. 5 was the existing memorial bench. It has to be sited per the Parks Department. That makes sense. No. 6, the applicant, this talks about the trash. So, Mike, you had added some language. Is that captured on your — Mike Clugston: It isn't, no. So, I could just read it again. In my notes, I just said, "The applicant must work with Sound Disposal to determine a process and configuration for recycling and trash that does not involve staging on Fifth Avenue." Lauri Strauss: Do we want to add, "or the alley," or do we want to leave that alley open for them? Isaac Greenetz: So, again, Sound Disposal has said that they are okay with us using the alley for pickup and disposal. And they also said they were okay with us picking up on Fifth but they said that we could also use the alley. Lauri Strauss: So, hearing nothing from the board — Maurine Jeude: Just hearing what Mike said that the alley is, typically, 15 feet and that one is 20 feet then, doesn't that give you 5 extra feet to do something that will accommodate even covering those things up on the back of that back strip somehow? Mike Clugston: I don't think we can build in the alley but we can definitely stage our trash there, which is what we're planning to do. Maurine Jeude: I was just thinking if you could shift the green space another 5 or make it 5 feet deeper that's in the back there then, there would be room within that space to have a staging that wasn't really sitting out in the alley but may be accessible to Sound Disposal. I may have misunderstood that. Isaac Greenetz: Yes. The problem with the eastern property line and that backup distance is that the backup distance that we're showing now is the minimum that you need to back out of your garage. And so, the remainder is what we're giving to the landscaping space, which is 5.5 feet. Bruce Owensby: Isaac, in the front building up there in the alley in that 5 foot area, it looks like it's a pretty good slope there. Has that been addressed with them? Are you going to have runaway trash cans? Isaac Greenetz: Yes. So, we've been dealing with that site with the civil engineer and getting into the grading of that whole area. So, we're trying to make it as flat as possible. So, there are some areas that will be kind of steeper than others. But for the most part, we're trying to make it — Bruce Owensby: So, that area may or may not be suitable for trash cans then at this point? Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 14 Isaac Greenetz: I think as we're getting closer next to the buildings, you'll be able to see that it will flatten out. Obviously, we need the site to drain. And so, there will be some sloping. We're going to try to make the parking spaces and the areas where the trash are as flat as possible. Lauri Strauss: So, Mike, the only other thing I was going to say is you said to determine a process and configuration. Shouldn't it say, "to determine a compliant process?" It seems like there's a word missing there to me. It needs to be "compliant" per Sound Disposal's requirements. Does that make sense to you or am I thinking it out too much? Mike Clugston: It would seem to work. I guess if Sound Disposal says they're just not going to pick up, I think that would be a bad thing. But yes— again, I think they had some flexibility in their processes whether the site would have used a dumpster or whether they have individual carts. I think Sound can work with whatever is sort of thrown at them for the most part. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Kim Bayer: So, when would the traffic study be completed? Mike Clugston: As part of the building permit application. That would be the next step if they get design review approval then, they'll apply for building permits. Kim Bayer: And so, what happens if the traffic study comes back where it doesn't meet whatever code or standards you have? Mike Clugston: If it doesn't then, they'll need to come up with some sort of alternative solution. Again, it might be the mirrors on the buildings and that kind of thing. Or it might be creating a one way situation. I think that's a possibility. So, I think there are some options. But it's a little bit too early to say without knowing what the traffic folks are seeing. Lauri Strauss: All right. No. 7 is the ground floor windows in the live/work units have to be 75 percent transparency on Fifth Avenue. No. 8 is the ground floor store front windows must be transparent to qualify as transparent windows, shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted. And then, the last one is staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions for the review of the building and engineering permits. Minor changes to approved design would be approved by staff. So, what I want to get from just — I don't want to read all of these right now because I'm going to have to read them in a minute. But does anybody have any other considerations that we want to add? Do we want to take any of these out of the motion? Does somebody want to make the motion? Are we ready for that yet or is there more discussion? Bruce Owensby: I'm ready for it. I'll second it. I think a lot of these have already been taken care of. And I think the other thing — Lauri Strauss: Well, it has to be made before you can second it. Bruce Owensby: Okay. Lauri Strauss: You can make the motion, Bruce, if you want to. Bruce Owensby: I motion that we move forward with this as is. Joe Herr: I second. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Does somebody want to — do we need to read all of these or are we just going to leave it? I do want to say that No. 4 is changed — I'm sorry, not No. 4. No. 6 is changed to add the words at the end, "that does not involve staging on Fifth Avenue," after the word "trash". Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 15 Bruce Owensby: Assuming they were already there but yes, I would agree because I think Mike said earlier it can't be. Mike Clugston: So, I think you adopt the staff's findings and recommendations and conditions and then, you'd make a small change to Condition 6 to add that additional language. Lauri Strauss: Okay. So, Bruce, do you want to try that motion again? Bruce Owensby: What Mike said. I motion we just move forward with this and on No. 6, we'll add the comment that you just said. Bob Fairchild: I have a comment on Item 6. It appears to me that the space required for the dumpster or whatever the garbage people demand should not encroach above the existing alleyway at all. The rest of us have been using that alleyway. We have a built in right to use it. And it should not be encroached upon. Lauri Strauss: Does somebody want to add something about that to the motion to Item 6? Bruce Owensby: I think some of that would be determined by what the parking study says or the traffic studies as to whether or not that becomes a one way alley or it stays a two way alley. If it stays a two way alley, I think it would be very difficult to have staging of trash cans in that alleyway. If they, for some reason, decide it should be a one way alley then, I think the staging in that alleyway couldn't be possible. Lauri Strauss: So, there's nothing that we want to show in this about a traffic study? That's part of the building permit process, is that correct, Mike? Mike Clugston: It is. Lauri Strauss: We could add a condition that it complies with the traffic study, I guess, couldn't we? Mike Clugston: You can. Lauri Strauss: Would that be useful? Mike Clugston: It would just serve as an added reminder. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Let's add Condition No. 10. How would we say that? Staff will verify compliance with the traffic study during the building permitting? Bruce Owensby: I think you have to be more clear than that. But if it's a two way alley, it would be no staging in the alleyway if the traffic study determines it's going to be a one way alley. Then, we could stage in the traffic area. I think it has to be clear as to exactly what we're saying. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Mike, can you capture that somehow? I'm trying to. Mike Clugston: Well, it could be a separate condition or we could say something to the effect that a traffic study will be required with the building permit application. Kim Bayer: I would think that would need to happen. Bruce Owensby: But the traffic study really isn't talking about trash disposal or anything. So, I think they need to be tied together. Maybe it should be a subset of six as opposed to its own number. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 16 Lauri Strauss: I was thinking that I could add that a traffic study would be required with the permit application. And if the alley remains two way driving then, no staging of trash cans there. Something like that. Augustus Bukowski: I would object to that because aren't we talking about the traffic study, in general, being compliant with it? So, if we're compliant with the traffic study and the traffic study — Bruce Owensby: Is the traffic study looking at trash cans in the alleyway, Augustus? Augustus Bukowski: What was that? Repeat. Bruce Owensby: I said is the traffic study going to be looking at trash cans as part of its study. Augustus Bukowski: Could you repeat? Isaac Greenetz: I don't think that it needs to because there are two different jurisdictions we're dealing with here. The traffic study will talk about the traffic that's coming off of Fifth and through the alley and how that's getting used. And then, the other jurisdiction that gets probed here is Sound Disposal, which will say whether or not they're okay regardless of traffic picking up trash on the alley or not. And so, they've already said yes, they can pick up trash in the alley and they can also pick it up on Fifth. And so, they're allowing either. And so, it's kind of up to us to say where do we want the trash to get picked up. Do we want it in the alley or do we want it on Fifth? They said we're okay to do it on either. The traffic study will just illustrate what, if any, improvements need to be made to the alley. Bruce Owensby: So, the traffic study would not determine whether or not it should be a one way or two way. Isaac Greenetz: Well, it's two separate issues. So, you're talking about a one way or two way alley but we're also talking about trash. And you're talking about whether it's code. And it sounds like Sound Disposal is saying the alley or Fifth is fine. And you guys are preferring not Fifth. So, again, also our alley, as pointed out, is 20 feet versus the 15 feet minimum. So, trash cans aren't, typically, over 5 feet. So, what I'm saying is that Sound Disposal says it's code compliant for them, what would it have to do with a traffic study? Lauri Strauss: So, here's a question. If complying with Sound Disposal is one thing, complying with the traffic study is another thing, we're the architectural design review board, complying with our requirements are a third thing. So, can we just say that we don't want trash cans in the alley if the alley gets reduced from the 20 foot width and put a condition on our review for that? Isaac Greenetz: Mike, does the design review board have the authority to say that? Mike Clugston: They could say they don't want to have trash pickup from the alley. They could say it needs to be on site. Lauri Strauss: So, I'm asking the board if we want to say that they can't stage trash in the alley. That they have to leave it at their buildings and the trash guys have to go down — the only way that would override that, I guess, is if Sound Disposal refuses to pick up on their site, which I can't imagine. Kim Bayer: Well, the question I have is will the — the traffic study doesn't have anything to do with trash. Lauri Strauss: No. Kim Bayer: So, they're two separate things. But they do impact each other based on this one way or two way and all of that. If you have — so, Mike, I'm looking for your guidance on how you would recommend we handle this. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 17 Mike Clugston: I guess, I think the important thing is that it's off of Fifth. We don't know yet whether the alley will work effectively or not exactly. It could if they go to a one way if they have some additional room. Then, that might work but we don't know that. And I think that's something we won't know until the traffic study happens. So, I would think that you would want to create a condition that allows the most flexibility for pickup. And so, if you want if off Fifth, okay, that's easy. Then, you have to say do you want it at all possible off the alley. So, if you do want it at all possible off the alley then, you should leave that on the table. And, of course, pickup on site works as well. So, I think the way the Condition 6 is worded that provides some flexibility to see what the traffic study says. The traffic study won't tell us yay or nay. But that will be in the next part of the information that we have to make a decision on where pickup should occur. It won't occur off Fifth. That's out. But it could occur off the alley and it could occur off the site. We just don't quite know yet how that will work. Bruce Owensby: I'm looking at the aerial view right now. And I know we're sitting here talking about this and it may be fair or unfair to Augustus and his team, but I'm wondering what all of these other apartments back there, what do they do? Do they, actually, put their trash in the alley or is it off the other back alley? The parking lot directly behind where their project will be, do the Sound Disposal go in there to pick up the trash or do the come and bring it out on the alley? Because if those people bring it out on the alley then, I think we should allow Augustus and them to bring it out on the alley because I don't think we should penalize them for something that the other ones are doing. So, this is what I don't know right now. And in looking at it, I think we should be fair and, at the same point, if everybody else is storing theirs inside, I think it's good will on Augustusi's part to say okay, we'll pick up ours on the inside, too, so as to not create any traffic issues with the people moving in and out of that alleyway and the back parking lots and stuff. Isaac Greenetz: Sound Disposal said that they currently use the alley to pick up trash from the restaurant. Bruce Owensby: What about the other apartments behind it? That's more of what I'm getting at in the other — Isaac Greenetz: They didn't reference that. They just said that they currently use it to pick up from Barkada's. So, they would be okay with us using the alley as well. Bruce Owensby: I will make a recommendation then that perhaps you find out and talk to them about how do they address the building behind them. And I think that you guys should be applied the same standard as what they should be applied to is what I'm getting at. Isaac Greenetz: Yes. I don't think we're trying to get away with anything here. Bruce Owensby: Oh, no, I don't think you are either. I was the one talking about it shouldn't be on the alleyway but then, when I look at the aerial, I'm realizing I may be restricting you of something that everybody else is doing and expecting you to do something and that's not what I'm trying to do. Isaac Greenetz: Right. Bruce Owensby: I'm trying to create a fairness on the playing field. Lauri Strauss: So, Bruce, just so you know looking at that aerial, Barkada is sort of the whiteish roof and then, there's a little, small, white roof. That's like a little shed that's been added. Their trash is right next to that. So, it's kind of off the alley. It's not in the alley. And then, the three apartments that are attached to that, their trash is also off the alley right there in the corner where the cars are parked kind of behind it. Augustus Bukowski: To be fair, when the trash is in an aerial photo, it would not be where it is when it's being collected. Lauri Strauss: Well, those are there — they get collected from there. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 18 Augustus Bukowski: If you looked at our property from aerial while the trash was being stored in the people's units, you would also not see it on the alley. Lauri Strauss: Right. Augustus Bukowski: So, that's not a fair representation. Lauri Strauss: No. I'm telling him where the trash is. This is where the bins are. They're stored there. They stay there all of the time. Augustus Bukowski: Right. But when they're picked up, they would probably be moved out of those locations. Bruce Owensby: For me, I'm not so much looking at that one because there is a lot of room around that alleyway. The one I was looking at, which is more similar to Augustus's concept is the properties due west of that that's got the parking lot in the back. Where do they put their trash cans? Lauri Strauss: Yes. I can't remember how their trash is done. Bruce Owensby: And all I'm just trying to say is that I think we should allow them the same fairness that the other people are granted if they put theirs out on the alleyway. Lauri Strauss: Yes. I'm just saying that these always are out, these trash cans in the alley. They don't take them in. So, if you guys are taking them in, that's a good thing. Bob Fairchild: Ours pick up on Fourth Avenue, not in the alleyway. Lauri Strauss: I think we have somebody from that unit. Augustus Bukowski: If you look at the street view, you can see the garbage from the neighboring buildings and the neighboring apartment sitting on the side of the alley if you look at the street view from Google Image Search. They're sitting in there across the street at both the apartment and Barkada. Lauri Strauss: Yes. And they stay there. Kim Bayer: They don't move. I suggest, again, that you drive up and down there and take a look yourself. Augustus Bukowski: Well, you can see it in the video from —you can also see it from the neighboring apartment building if you look down to the southwest corner. That apartment building also has their trash sitting off the alley. And you can see it directly from Google, which tracks it as an unbiased party. Mike Clugston: So, I guess, looping back to Condition 6 again, it seems like the board's general preference is to allow some flexibility. So, on site is okay. The alley is okay. We don't quite know if that will work relative to the traffic study. We won't know that until the building permit application. So, it's a bit of an unknown but it provides them some flexibility to find a solution that doesn't involve Fifth Avenue, which I think is in agreement that that just doesn't work. Lauri Strauss: Well, board, what do you think? Do we want to add anything about the alley in there? Joe Herr: Well, I think, Lauri, it's going to be a little difficult until we, actually, know what Sound Disposal or whoever the disposal company is is going to say. So, we can put that condition in there but it doesn't have anything binding if they say, "No, we're not going to walk up there and collect all of those trash cans. They all have to be assembled at a common point." So, we can say it and we can feel good about it but it doesn't mean it's going to happen. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 19 Bruce Owensby: Yes. Kim Bayer: So, I think that the lot lines need to be clearly marked. I think that they could run into the cement. When you drive up there, I don't care, Augustus, if you're looking at a Google map. I think that there are some issues there. And that would be my recommendation is that we get that clearly marked. Augustus Bukowski: And it will be because you have to with the survey. Lauri Strauss: So, Kim, did you want to add something? I guess I don't understand what you're saying there. Kim Bayer: I'm just saying that I think that the lot lines on that alley are not clearly marked. I think if you've driven up, it's like you got — it's a difficult alley just to navigate just currently going one way with no trash cans, nothing. So, again, I would ask everybody involved to navigate that alley with 20 more people or more cars coming in and out and try to figure that out with trash cans. Augustus Bukowski: Well, and to your point, it will be much more defined because we're redoing it. So, right now, it's not good, which is what you're saying. As part of the process of construction and development, we're, actually, decreasing the slope and making it much nicer and easier for access in general. So, yes. That's 100 percent part of our plan. We don't want to build a nice project and then, have a bad alley. Bob Fairchild: It just seems to be that if they need space for a dumpster, none of the space should come out of the alley. It should come out of their property, the properties being served. Augustus Bukowski: And sir, it does. So, we are having the trash receptacles at our property stored at the individual units. What we're talking about is for the collection of trash, which as you know as a resident when you look across the street to the south, all of the residents to your south put their trash out on that alley for pickup. Bob Fairchild: No. We do not put ours on the alley. Ours is picked up — Augustus Bukowski: You're on the north. Bob Fairchild: The Park Twin's is picked up on Fourth Avenue in front of the condos. Augustus Bukowski: Correct. So, you guys have your trash picked up out on the street, which we are not allowed to be picked up on the street because we can't be on Fifth. Our street would, therefore, become the alley. If you think about it from your building, would you rather have a garbage truck, which is noisy, going in and out of two different alleys next to your property or quickly taking all of the trash into its receptacle and leaving as quickly as possible? I don't think you really want a trash compactor right there next to your window going in and out and trying to get all of those trash cans. That's going to take forever. Lauri Strauss: Let's move along here. We're not supposed to take anymore testimony here. It's supposed to be the board's deliberations. So, I think that we could add something to No. 6. It could say something like, "The applicant must work with Sound Disposal to determine a process and configuration for recycling and trash that does not involve staging on Fifth Avenue. The applicant is encouraged to find another solution besides staging in the alley." Can we say that? Maurine Jeude: I like that. Lauri Strauss: We're encouraging them to do something. We know that it might not happen. But it gives them some flexibility. And I think it captures some of the — I think that we have to capture some of this conversation that we're having. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 20 Joe Herr: I agree, Lauri. That sounds like a reasonable solution. We just have to be cognizant of the fact that it might not come to that. Lauri Strauss: I understand. But that's why I'm saying encourage them. Joe Herr: That's why I say I agree. We can write it. We just need to be aware that we may be disappointed. Bruce Owensby: I agree. I just don't think that we can require them to do things that other people are not required to do. Mike Clugston: So, we can add that for sure. You talked about adding a No. 10 about the requirement for a traffic study. Do you still want to do that? It's part of the building permit application but we could add the condition for sure. Lauri Strauss: I don't think it's necessary. Bruce Owensby: I don't think it's necessary. Mike Clugston: Okay. Bruce Owensby: Personally. Joe Herr: I agree. Maurine Jeude: I agree. Lauri Strauss: So, for Condition No. 6, Mike, it readsjust like yours and I've added the words, "that does not involve staging on Fifth Avenue." And then, I added, "The applicant is encouraged to stage trash and recycle in the parking lots next to the units rather than in the alley." Mike Clugston: To stage trash and recycle — Lauri Strauss: "In the parking lots next to the units rather than in the alley." Mike Clugston: Okay. I think that captures that we do have concerns about the alley but we're not limiting that they can't put it in the alley if that's what Sound Disposal wants. Bruce Owensby: Yes. We're not mandating it. Lauri Strauss: All right. We had a motion from Bruce. Did we have a second? We did have a second from somebody? Joe Herr: I seconded. Lauri Strauss: Joe seconded the motion. I don't think we need to go through and read all of these again. I guess we'll take a vote. All of those in favor? Group: Aye. Lauri Strauss: Who was all of that? Bruce Owensby: Joe, Maurine, Bruce. Is Kim still around or is she — Kim Bayer: I'm here. I voted no. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 21 Lauri Strauss: Yes. Opposed? Kim Bayer: Me. Lauri Strauss: Kim? Kim Bayer: Yes. Lauri Strauss: Well, it sounds like it passes at a 3 to 2 margin. Mike Clugston: Bruce, Maurine, and Joe, affirmative. Lauri and Kim, negative. Lauri Strauss: Correct. Kim Bayer: Correct. Mike Clugston: Okay. The vote is 3 to 2. Augustus Bukowski: I'm super excited to get this project out to you guys. Lauri Strauss: Thank you, guys. Staff will distribute a copy of the meeting minutes and the decision to the parties of record as soon as they are available. Isaac Greenetz: Thank you so much, guys. Augustus Bukowski: Thank you, everybody. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Lauri Strauss: Mike, do we have any other business tonight or is that it? Mike Clugston: We do. We'll let folks clear out if they're all done. Approval of minutes of May 5. Lauri Strauss: May 5? Okay. I read through those this afternoon. I move to approve. Mike Clugston: I just had one correction I'd like to put out on Page 7 or Packet Page 253, Karen Noyes wasn't sure wasn't sure who Bob was. And she highlighted that. And so, it was Bob Fairchild who was also in attendance tonight. I just wanted to make that clear. Lauri Strauss: Correct. Okay. Do I hear a second? Kim Bayer: I second. Lauri Strauss: All of those in favor? Group: Aye. Lauri Strauss: Opposed? Okay. Meeting minutes are approved with that correction. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 22 STAFF AND BOARD COMMENTS Mike Clugston: Approval of agenda. I don't know why the agenda is so goofed up. So, administrative reports and member comments, I'm going to stop share here since we're done with this. From staff, I don't have anything, except there will be a new project on your docket for June 2. There will be another public hearing on that night. So, at least there is something coming up for sure. Lauri Strauss: Okay. What project is that? Mike Clugston: I believe it's a five unit multifamily project off of 236, 1 think, or 238, one of those. It's just a small, multifamily project. Lauri Strauss: Okay. All right. Go ahead, Bruce. Bruce Owensby: Are we kind of open where we just talk about things right now? This isn't on the record, is it? Lauri Strauss: I was just coming up to — Yes, it's still on the record, ADB member comments. Mike Clugston: If I could just add one more administrative note. Lauri Strauss: Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Mike Clugston: No. I'm sure you guy have been watching the new tree codes that have been adopted recently. Bruce Owensby: Oh, Yes. Mike Clugston: And so, those are going to start to come to you projects that have those. And so, we're trying to do the best we can as staff to administer them. But it's new code so it's going to be a little bit of a challenge. So, I think the project next week will have that issue to take a look at. So, I just wanted to make you be aware that there is new tree code. It applies to multifamily developments and mixed use and commercial and that sort of stuff. So, it's going to provide maybe just a small added layer of nuance that we haven't had before. And so, you'll get that started in June. But just bear with us as we try to figure out how to administer it. We'll do the best we can for sure. Lauri Strauss: Will that affect this one that we talked about tonight? Mike Clugston: It will not. Well, I guess, yes, it would if there were any trees. It would. Design review does not vest building permits, vest. And so, when they apply, they will have to deal with trees. I don't know that there are very many trees on the site, except for maybe one or something like that. Lauri Strauss: Well, they've got trees out front. Mike Clugston: Now that you mention it, Yes, we'll have to take a look at that with their building permit. In that particular case, there are one or two trees. So, I don't think it will be too big of a deal. But for some of the multifamily projects not in the bowl where there are a fair amount of trees on this site, the thought process is going to have to be a little bit different for those. Maurine Jeude: Is that just limited to the bowl area or the downtown? Mike Clugston: It's not. It's single family, part new residential tear downs, multifamily business commercial pretty much throughout the city. And for pure plats and subdivisions, there's a 30 percent retention requirement. For multifamily projects, there's a 25 percent retention requirement. So, before they can do anything, the developer has to attempt to retain 25 Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 23 percent of the trees on the site. So, you can see on a site with a lot of trees that could be a challenge. So, that's something we're going to have to work through to try to make that work. Bruce Owensby: Are all trees created equally? If you have a bunch of 5 inch trees and a bunch of 30 inch trees, does the 5 count the same as the 30? Mike Clugston: Five no, but six yes. Six is a significant tree. Bruce Owensby: I wasn't sure about the cut off. Mike Clugston: And so, that's the cut off. The 24 inch trees are also another threshold. Those are considered landmark trees. And so, they have a little bit extra review process for those as well. But Yes, anything above 6 inches is going to have to be analyzed as far as retention, replacement, possible fees in lieu, all of that sort of thing. And, again, it's just new for staff. So, again, bear with us as we try to implement this to try to make it as easy as possible for both the developers and for you guys to understand. Lauri Strauss: There might be some significant trees on this lot over here, the one that we just approved. Because if 6 inches, those 2 front trees, the street trees, I think, are that big. Mike Clugston: Yes. Well, it doesn't apply to the existing street trees. But I think there's maybe one or two trees that are above 6 inches. Lauri Strauss: There's a big tree in the back, Yes. Mike Clugston: And so, that's something you'll have to look at. But with one or two, it's probably not that big a deal. If they had 30 or something then, that would be a bit more of an issue for sure. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Maurine Jeude: How do you plan on policing something like that? The development that's on 104 that's just south of 238th was a rundown apartment complex and that and they've got a tractor there. They came in and it was after March 2 and the just cleared all of those big trees off of that land. And they didn't get stopped from what I — they can do it in a couple of hours and then, they go oops. What happens? Mike Clugston: Yes. And so, that project was approved prior to the adoption of the new tree code so it was under the old code so they could remove the trees. And there are a few projects out there like that we've gotten calls about. Oh, we got this new tree code. Why are these people taking down trees? Well, because the projects are a little bit older and they're just getting going now. So, there are a few like that. But for the new ones, it will be a much different calculus, I think, for the developers for sure. Maurine Jeude: Good. Lauri Strauss: All right, guys. Comments, move to adjourn? Joe Herr: Second. Lauri Strauss: All right. We are adjourned. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Architectural Design Board Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 24