2023-05-25 Architectural Design Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Architectural Design Board
REGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MAY 25, 2023, 6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION
This is a Hybrid meeting. Attendees may appear in person or on-line via the zoom link provided.
Physical Meeting Location: Brackett Room, 3rd Floor Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N.
Zoom Link: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88959586932?pwd=RzdPWUIwM09PZ1k1MHN2eWM1YXphZz09 Passcode:591531
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Statement: This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as
public hearing. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please clearly state your name and city of
residence.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Minutes
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Phase 1 Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089)
3. 611 on Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing
8. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB.
9. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
4. Design Review after House Bill 1293
10. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda
May 25, 2023
Page 1
O
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2023
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Staff Recommendation
Approve the minutes from the ADB's regular February 23, 2023 meeting and the minutes from the
March 8, 2023 special meeting.
Minutes from the February 23 regular meeting and March 8 special meeting are attached.
Attachments:
February 23, 2023 draft minutes
March 8, 2023 special meeting draft minutes
Packet Pg. 2
1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall, 121— 5ffi Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Kim Bayer, Chair
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online)
Joe Herr (online)
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
Steve Schmitz
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Susan McLaughlin, Planning Director
Other:
Councilmember Dave Teitzel
The Approval of Minutes was moved up before Audience Comments.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 26, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Brian Bergstrom, Woodinville, stated his company is representing the proposed multifamily development on
84th and 236th. He reviewed background on this project which was planned because of work the City had done
to develop the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Emergency Ordinance requiring step backs was passed while the
applicant was responding to comments on their application in the City's design review process. He expressed
concern about the loss of months of time as well as new structural requirements and associated costs. At the
same time, they are facing a decrease in residential units. As a result, the economic viability of the project has
been called into question. They understand the concerns but do not feel that requiring step backs when a single -
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Pagel of 9
Packet Pg. 3
family residence is across the street from a project in the CG zone with 80-90 feet of separation is an appropriate
response. He asked the Board to consider if it was really necessary to change from the streamlined administrative
process provided by the subarea plan to a two-step process involving the ADB so each individual project can
argue whether this 80-90-foot separation needs to be more. Their belief is that the subarea plan already took
this into account. They believe the current emergency ordinance should be vacated along with its requirements
for these step backs, and they should return to the subarea plan.
Natalie Seitz spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SR 99 Planned Action until a Supplemental EIS can be
completed. Interim Ordinance 4283, regarding CG zone step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments
made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She urged the City to challenge its perception of why residential density
is being maximized here above the Planned Action. Although excess housing here would seek to address some
of the housing shortage, it eliminates middle housing and does not seek to address equity issues that the state
laws are seeking to address. She stated that the impacts of rental housing (poverty, displacement) are being
concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of wealthier and white areas. Based
on the issued permits and pending applications, this area is being used for residential development far in excess
of the commercial redevelopment and densities in the Planned Action. She stated she was in support of low-
income housing but urged the City not to cause undue harm to a community that is already overburdened. She
spoked in support of requiring step backs to require the CG to function with the densities envisioned by the
Planned Action, or, at a minimum, keep the city's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a
Supplemental EIS can be completed. She expressed sympathy for developers impacted by the interim ordinance
but stated that this would simply be keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community.
Deborah Arthur did not think step backs would make a huge difference to single family homes when the
buildings are as tall as they are. She stated she would like to see that kind of structure in the Highway 99 area
where views aren't really an issue and where trees aren't being taken out. She acknowledged she does not live
in the area. She had a question about whether the proposed building would have parking for the people that live
in the building. In other areas, she recommended using imagination and coming up with other ways to design
housing such as keeping buildings lower, having duplex type developments connected with green space behind
them.
Becki Chandler stated she lives in the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor. She works in the design
build industry as a construction project manager. She is also a volunteer leader who does public policy work for
a national non-profit organization advocating for cancer patients and survivors. She thinks it is important to
understand who lives in this neighborhood and who is advocating for their neighbors. She asked the ADB to
provide thoughtful consideration for implementation of design that supports the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in
the same spirit it has considered development in other parts of the city. The proposed subarea plan was for three
and four-story apartment buildings and five and six -story mixed use buildings. Mixed use buildings on the
Highway 99 corridor would provide housing resources and equity for community members. It has been
alarming to hear the City and citizens boards question whether or not the Gateway Corridor neighbors should
be given an opportunity to advocate for their own neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed concerns over the
past several months about shortcomings in the city's proposed budget and timeline that don't align with the
growth of the Gateway neighborhood. As a result of raising these concerns they saw changes implemented
immediately. This is an example of why a democratic process is so important. Single family homeowners and
taxpayers should have the same rights regardless of where they live in Edmonds. A two-step process should be
adopted throughout the entire city, not just downtown. If not, this will further divide the community. She spoke
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 2 of 9
Packet Pg. 4
1.a
to the importance of developers designing buildings which encourage people to live, work, and own businesses
in Edmonds. Washington needs more housing, but the city's leadership needs to reinforce this space to serve
the people in the community and strategically do business with developers who align with the community goals.
Stanley stated he is one of the owners of the vacant parcel of land located at 236th and 84th West which has
been the subject of discussions over the last several months. They have been under a Purchase and Sale
Agreement to sell the land to a builder who planned to construct a transit -oriented development on the site in
accordance with the CG zone of the Highway 99 Sub Area. No deviations or exceptions to the code were
requested. Since a July 22 presentation to the Planning Board of pending projects to the City, a firestorm of
misinformation by a handful of residents raged to stop this project. Without notice to any affected property
owner of the Highway 99 Sub Area, an emergency ordinance was put into place by the City Council requiring
step backs for projects in the CG zone in the subarea that were across the street from single-family zoned
properties. According to the complaints, step backs across the street from single-family zoned properties were
not discussed in 2017 when the subarea plan was adopted. After Planning Director McLaughlin presented
irrefutable evidence that indeed, step backs for single-family zoned properties across the street from CG zones
were presented, the emergency ordinance was vacated; however, it was replaced with the present emergency
ordinance they will be discussing this evening. He cautioned that the next move by the opponents to
development in the corridor will be to question the adequacy of the EIS issued when the subarea plan was
adopted in 2017. He stated that the subarea plan was adopted to streamline the processing of permits by
administrative review. Unfortunately, the City Council has signaled a vote of no confidence in its own planning
department and its director by removing the streamlined administrative review from their oversight. He stated
that transit -oriented development and adding housing should be a significant focus of this board and the
Planning Board as it is by the State. He urged the ADB to reject the task it is being tasked with by the Council
and send a message that the Planning Department is more than capable to administratively review projects in
the corridor. The intersection of 238th and Highway 99 is one of the most, if not the most significant, transit -
oriented hubs in the city. Access to both bus rapid transit and light rail via a Community Transit shuttle are and
will be in place. There is an opportunity here to build housing with exceptional access to public transportation
and within walking distance to a major grocery store with a pharmacy. This would benefit those most in need
of transit -oriented development attributes.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, reviewed background on how they got to the lack of transition zoning
between CG and single-family zoning although transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. She
summarized the current debate going on before the Council and citizen boards as neighbors' needs against the
developers' needs. She discussed setback and step back requirements for nearby jurisdictions of Kirkland,
Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell. She urged the ADB to do research on this which she believes will show that
Edmonds' current interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating
the impact of mass on single-family homes. She encouraged the ADB to continue the interim ordinance and to
use future work sessions to develop criteria for transitions to residential around the boundary of the CG zone.
Written Comments:
Planning Manager Levitan stated that they also received written comments which were distributed by email to
ADB members and made available as hard copies at the meeting:
• Stanley Piha - 1/17 Memorandum
• Theresa Hollis — 2 emails
• Natalie Seitz — 2/20 email
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 3 of 9
Packet Pg. 5
1.a
NEW BUSINESS
Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Planning Director Susan McLaughlin presented on the CG Zone Step Back and ADB Design Review Process
for developing permanent standards. She referred to the discussion about larger issues and content associated
with the subarea plan, the Planned Action, and the corresponding EIS. She attested that the process in 2017 was
robust, followed protocol, and actually won an award through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). She
asked the ADB to focus tonight on the emergency ordinance and requested that the decision regarding the
proposed step back be based on architectural justifications.
She reviewed the history of Interim Ordinance 4283. She stated that the fact that there was no transition zone
was not a mistake. It was intentional when the subarea plan for Highway 99 was adopted in 2017 to make this
zone capable of higher density and transit -oriented development given the proximity to the high -capacity transit
corridor. Concerns were later raised in 2022 that CG zone did not reflect subarea plan language regarding to
step backs. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted in 2022 but later repealed following additional
Council research and discussion. She pointed out that the step back across the street from residential was part
of the design analysis that happened and was a point of discussion in the EIS. It was determined at that time that
given the distance and then the subsequent setbacks of the land use requirements, that the distance would be so
great that it would mitigate the massing.
She mentioned that shadow studies were conducted on the project under discussion and found that the shadow
did not even reach the street; however, she stressed that this is not about one project. The discussion tonight
needs to be about the entire CG zone and the impacts or the benefits of requiring the step back. Even so, staff
recommended that the Council consider public notice and even a public meeting to start to socialize design
projects before they were approved. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283 (2022) incorporated language from
Ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in the CG zone. It requires public notice,
removes administrative review, requires ADB review, and requires step backs as an initial requirement unless
the ADB does not determine them necessary.
Chair Bayer asked who conducts the shadow studies. Director McLaughlin replied that the design team does
the studies. Chair Bayer asked how the studies are conducted. Board Member Strauss commented she has asked
for those studies for other projects. She noted that it is a product of the programs that the architects use.
Vice Chair Brooks asked if the shadows on both sides of the street are considered. Director McLaughlin replied
that they are; it is project specific.
Director McLaughlin explained that Ordinance 4283:
• Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the ADB for projects above 35 feet. This replaced
the administrative review process that had been in effect since 2007.
• Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed
unnecessary by the ADB.
• Is valid for six months from adoption date (June 10, 2023), with a permanent ordinance required beyond
that date.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 4 of 9
Packet Pg. 6
1.a
Considerations on the design review process:
• Based on recent trends, the ADB would see 1-2 more projects per year.
o Projects maybe controversial.
• Should ADB have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities?
o ADB is a volunteer board; do they want the extra responsibilities?
• If so, is two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing?
o Phase 1 hearing is for "ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply
... during subsequent design review".
o Phase 2 hearing involves review of how project meets criteria identified during Phase 1; must
occur within 120 days of Phase 1 public hearing.
o As noted in previous meetings, a two-phase hearing is required within downtown zones.
Director McLaughlin reviewed the existing CG step back adjacent to the RS zone and the interim step back
across the street from the RS zone. Both standards would apply unless ADB finds step backs aren't needed.
How should that determination be made? With a shadow study? There was general discussion and clarification
about the setback and step back requirements. Director McLaughlin added that there are other mitigating factors
for massing that are currently included in the development standards in Chapter 16. That toolkit that is already
available for administrative review. It goes beyond setbacks and step backs and includes articulation,
modulation, materiality, etc. She solicited feedback from the ADB on potential permanent ordinance language.
The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing in March, and make a recommendation to Council.
Ultimately the ADB will be making recommendations on what the permanent ordinance should look like.
Board Member Herr referred to previous actions on this topic and expressed concern that they are opening an
avenue for every project to be contested by someone. He noted there is already zoning in place that has worked
for a long time. How long are they going to keep doing emergency ordinances that keep killing projects?
Director McLaughlin encouraged the ADB to stay narrowly focused.
Board Member Strauss said they cannot be focused on one particular project. It is not the ADB's duty to worry
about one particular developer. It is their duty to think about the citizens and City of Edmonds as a whole. She
likes the part that says it is at the ADB's discretion. Board Member Herr expressed concern that the discretion
would be subjective while developers will spend a lot of money tying up property and doing design work.
Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s concerns is that this step back language results in a hyper focus
on step backs instead of looking at the project holistically. Board Member Strauss commented there is a
precedent for the ADB using discretion when it comes to landscaping requirements.
Vice Chair Brooks cautioned against putting heavier weight to non -citizens' comments over comments of
Edmonds' citizens. Several citizens of Edmonds have expressed concerns tonight that she believes are very real.
She also wondered if the landscape requirements are subject to change as well. Director McLaughlin stated that
is not the purpose of the emergency ordinance.
Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of balancing the needs of the developer and all the stakeholders including
the residents. To her, the important parts of this ordinance are the transition area, that the ADB has discretion
and flexibility, and that they maintain a focus on design review and not housing issues. She realizes that step
backs are just one tool in the arsenal, but she thinks the community needs them as building heights increase in
the CG zone. She spoke to the importance of the ADB having some discretion on projects that fall in this zoning
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 5 of 9
Packet Pg. 7
1.a
ordinance. She stated that the ADB's mission is not for providing affordable housing, providing a certain profit
margin for developers, or for blindly accepting staff or elected officials' recommendations. Their role is to
review design standards and recommend language for code changes to ensure good design for the community.
She was in support of the two-phase process to receive public input and for the developer to hear that feedback
and respond. As far as this being a burden on the ADB, she noted they only had six meetings in 2022 and didn't
review a whole lot so she doesn't see this as being an added burden. Although it could be a concern for some
stakeholders that the ADB is making decisions, she stressed that it is quasi-judicial. It goes through the Planning
Board, and the City Council has the ultimate say. Director McLaughlin clarified that when ADB approves
decisions they would not go to City Council. They would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner.
Board Member Jeude commented the original zoning was three to four-story buildings and now they are talking
about going up to 75 feet across the street from single family zoning. She asked how many instances there would
be of this kind of building going in across from single-family residences. She was in support of having the step
backs as protection in transition areas which could potentially have a lot of impact. She noted that the area has
changed considerably from what they were looking at in 2017.
Director McLaughlin replied that it hasn't changed since the adoption of the Planned Action. Her understanding
is that the height allowances in the CG zone were already quite high. The difference is the edges that were
converted to CG may have previously been lower density but then were added to the CG zone. The land use
changes were very intentional to foster transit -oriented development given the high -capacity transit corridor.
She questioned the logic of having the adjacent property step backs should be the same as step backs across the
street.
Board Member Jeude referred to Board Member Schmitz's suggestion at the last meeting about having the step
backs begin at 65 feet instead of 55 feet because of construction stacking techniques and in order to maximize
efficiency of units. She thought the ADB had been somewhat in agreement with that idea. Planning Manager
Levitan concurred and summarized options for the ADB. He encouraged them to come up with clear and
objective standards. For example, he asked if there is some number for distance between buildings where they
can provide a clear and objective standard that could provide more predictability and reliability to the
development community while still considering community concerns.
Board Member Strauss referred to the two-phase process and noted it is not about if the staff is capable of doing
it; it is about giving the public the opportunity to have some input. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s
early proposals was to have design review but not recommend the step back. That is an option available to the
ADB. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are ways to allow for public comment without requiring a
public hearing before the ADB such as a Type II process.
Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of allowing citizens the ability to provide input on huge projects. She
thinks it should be a two-step process.
Issue 1: Design Review Process
• Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; all buildings in CG zone require ADB review via
two-phase public hearing, even those not adjacent or across the street from RS zone
• Option 2: Require ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS
zone
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 6 of 9
Packet Pg. 8
1.a
Option 3: Require a Type II administrative (staff) review which includes public notice but no public
hearing
Option 4: some combination of the above, such as only requiring ADB review when adjacent or across
the street from RS zone
Board Member Loch said he is hearing that previous decisions regarding having no transition area were well
debated, part of a public process, and intentional. It seems like those previous decisions deserve some deference.
He is not supportive of step backs from the street side in this location because the design standards and design
review process already provide adequate authority for mitigation. He agrees that this is where maximum
development should occur since it is on a transit corridor. He commented that this appears to be a zoning map
issue. He encouraged staff to come up with better graphics for upcoming meetings in order to evaluate cross
sections of the streets with the scenarios. In terms of the process, he is supportive of the ADB being more
involved and having more projects come through the ADB. He noted that hearings are very formal and one-
sided. He thinks it would be more useful to have a workshop or open house for the initial meeting. He is also
okay if the Board only makes a recommendation after its hearing, and the staff makes the final decision.
Board Member Strauss spoke in support of the two-phase public hearing. She commented that when they have
the two-phase public hearing the ADB has a discussion afterwards. In the past they have even gone back and
asked questions of people who made comments. She reiterated that this is not going to be a big burden for the
ADB since there will only be one or two projects a year. She doesn't have a problem with doing it for all the
buildings in the CG zone as opposed to just the ones across the street from residential. Her recommendation
would be to accept the interim emergency ordinance with the understanding that it needs to be massaged. She
thinks further studies need to be done. What is the smallest street they have where there might be an issue with
the 75-foot height? What's the biggest one? Once they know this they can come up with some clear and
objective standards; however, there will still be some subjectivity.
Board Member Jeude agreed that they should accept the interim ordinance as it has been presented. She also
noted that it needs to be massaged. Director McLaughlin noted that this is the time to do the massaging. She
stressed that the ADB always has the power to require step backs through the discretionary design review
process. It's just that step backs are not required by default at this very specific dimension. Chapter 16 allows
for administrative staff review to mitigate building size and massing by using architectural design tools such as
step backs, setbacks, modulation, articulation, materiality, and other design tools. It is the job of the ADB and
staff to interpret policy and code and shape architecture and design in keeping with that. Staff feels that
defaulting to a required dimension puts a lot of onerous on that first meeting for the design team to spend their
money on design consultants fighting that requirement. Instead, their opinion is that they should be able to look
at the design as a whole, have a discussion with the ADB, and let the ADB use the design tools that are already
regulated at their discretion.
Chair Bayer said she was leaning toward Option 2 because she doesn't feel they need to do design review for
all the CG-zoned projects. She believes it is very important to have the two-phase process for the review of
developments adjacent or across the street to residential. For step backs across the street from single family, she
thought they should put some parameters on minimum distance.
Board Member Herr also spoke in support of Option 2 for the design review process (requiring ADB review
for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone). For the step back issue, he spoke
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 7 of 9
Packet Pg. 9
1.a
in support of factoring in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum
distance is a above a certain threshold, no step backs would be required (Option 2).
Planning Manager Levitan asked about a distance the Board was comfortable with for not requiring step backs
across the street. Board members indicated they needed more information to make an informed decision.
Director McLaughlin stated that staff could provide a visual to depict various distances in scale with 75-foot
building heights.
Vice Chair Brooks agreed with Option 2 for Issue 1 (leaving the interim ordinance as -is). This would best
benefit the residents of Edmonds and consider multiple options.
Board Member Jeude was also in support of Option 2 for the design review process.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE
TO REQUIRE THE ADB TO REVIEW PROJECTS ABOVE 35 FEET THAT ARE ADJACENT OR
ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE, AND TO REQUIRE A TYPE II PROCESS FOR ALL
OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35 FEET BUT ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OR
ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Issue 2: Step backs when RS property across the street
• Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; step backs required unless deemed unnecessary by
ADB (would be evaluated during Phase 1 public hearing)
• Option 2: Factor in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum
distance is above a certain threshold (50 feet? 60 feet? 80 feet?), no step backs required
• Option 3: Don't require any step backs at all; leave it to the code
Chair Bayer spoke in support of Option 1. She stated she was not comfortable with making a determination
about distance in Option 2 without more information. Director McLaughlin agreed and stated that if that was
the preferred option this could come back to the ADB with better visuals in order to make an informed decision.
There was discussion about how this might impact the timing of Planning Board hearings.
Board Member Strauss agreed that they need more information about sizes of streets, directional information,
and better graphics. She was in favor Option 2 and letting the Planning Board decide the details if staff feels
they can provide the necessary information. If not, she was in favor of Option 1.
Chair Bayer asked about the City Council's justification for requiring step backs outright in the interim
ordinance. Director McLaughlin thought some of the comments just wanted to respect the community
members' comments about concerns around step backs.
Vice Chair Brooks spoke in support of Option 1, leaving the interim ordinance language as it is.
Board Member Herr was in support of Option 2.
Board Member Loch commented that he couldn't support Option 1 because there was no criterion for knowing
when you were going to waive the step back requirement. This isn't fair to the developer, the property owner,
or the community. However, he could see Option 2 being combined with Option 1.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 8 of 9
Packet Pg. 10
1.a
There was discussion about the best way to handle working out the remaining details with the time constraints
they have. Director McLaughlin noted they could have a special meeting, and staff could bring back more
information.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE,
TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 8 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS ISSUE 2, STEP BACK
SCENARIOS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
February 23, 2023
Page 9 of 9
Packet Pg. 11
1.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Special Meeting
March 8, 2023
Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall, 121— 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Kim Bayer, Chair
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair
Joe Herr (online)
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Steve Schmitz
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Devt. Director
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Teressa Hollis, Edmonds resident, urged the Board to get the most complete information available to make a
decision on the interim ordinance. She cautioned against listening to the developers' perspective when they say
that step backs call the economic viability of a project into question. She discussed other projects this developer
has done and noted that it's not possible to make any accurate predictions about the future of a specific project
in light of this ordinance. She referred to a question from the Board about the why the City Council created the
interim ordinance and referred to Resolution 1512 which was created to answer that question and explain why
the debate from 2017 is being reopened. She asked if the Board had considered the implications of Edmonds
adopting a one-off approach when staff suggested that right-of-way width is a criterion for defining step back.
She couldn't find this criterion in the codes of any other city in the region when she checked. She stated that
mandating step backs with a sensitive boundary is a judgement call. She noted that in 2022 staff presented
background information to the City Council and concluded that step backs across the street were consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and supported by policies in the Planned Action report. She played a recording of
Director McLaughlin from a previous meeting related to this topic. She recommended code language that
describes the step back dimensions on those CG parcels that have a boundary with single family but no other
criteria. She recommended adding verbiage to the itemized list about design review in the code which invites
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
March. 8, 2023
Page 1 of 6
Packet Pg. 12
1.b
the applicant to submit departures that provide equal or better moderation of the bulk and mass than would result
from strict application of the code.
Natalie Seitz said she had sent some information to the ADB previously about this topic. She asked that they
give this area the same due consideration that they gave to the folks who live near the BD2. She expressed
concern about the heights and stated that the development being permitted for residential apartments is already
two stories more than was envisioned for this Planned Action. She hopes for fair and equal treatment for all
Edmonds residents.
Deborah Arthur said she agreed with Natalie Seitz that height is the issue. She hopes they can figure out a way
to build these places without creating a tunnel view for residents and a vacuum of heat with no breeze or sky.
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Ordinance Related to the CG Zone
Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of this topic related to step back requirements for projects 35 feet
and above in the CG-zoned properties with single-family residential (RS) zoned properties across the street. The
ADB is being asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Board on potential permanent language. The
Planning Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council to consider adoption
of that permanent ordinance.
At the February 23 ADB meeting there was consensus and a motion approved that recommended that these
types of projects be required to go through a Type II quasi-judicial review process meaning there would be a
two-phase public hearing before the ADB when projects are adjacent or across the street from RS-zoned
properties. As part of that same motion the Board recommended that the City implement a Type II review
process for all other CG projects. This requires public notice and public comment but does not require a public
hearing. Projects below 35 feet in height would continue to be reviewed through a Type I review process. There
was a consensus from the ADB on the step back requirement. Staff was provided direction to provide better
graphics to illustrate the potential impacts of step backs as it relates to massing and scale and potential shadow
impacts. He emphasized that tonight they are not focusing on the height of the buildings but only on the impacts
of the step back requirements. The interim ordinance, as currently written, requires an initial step back of an
additional 10 feet at a 25-foot building height. Once you get to 55 feet you are required to have an additional
10-foot step back. There was discussion from the ADB at previous meetings and general consensus that Board
members were comfortable with having that second step back be elevated from 55 feet to 65 feet. This also
should be clarified as part of the motion tonight.
Director McLaughlin clarified the context and background of the quote by her referred to by Teresa Hollis from
a previous Council meeting. She stressed that staff supports the design tools that the ADB has access to and
recommends they are used on all projects. Step backs may very well be the answer for projects that are across
the street from single family residences, but staff wants the ADB to be able to make that decision with all the
tools that are available based on the contextual nature of the site. Clarification questions were asked and
answered.
Director McLaughlin made a presentation showing illustrations of the impacts of potential step back
requirements for CG properties across the street from RS zones with various scenarios. She showed examples
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
March. 8, 2023
Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 13
1.b
of differences in modulation which is another tool available to the ADB in their toolkit. She reviewed the effects
of heights and various step backs on shadows. She reiterated that this is not a conversation about building heights
but only the step back. She also pointed out that these images are worst -case scenarios which would only happen
for a portion of the day in the spring. From noon on there would not be any shadow impacts from across the
street.
Board Member Strauss commented that the graphics help to really see the impact. She notices a bigger visual
difference with the step backs at 55 feet rather than 65 feet.
Board Member Schmitz commented that when the ADB reviews buildings taller than 35 feet things like
modulation will be strong tools for them.
Board Member Herr said he didn't see a big difference with the shadows. By the time summer comes around
those shadows don't even exist. There would be more in the winter, but there's also not much sun in the winter
so there is no shadow. He pointed out that the illustration also shows a sunny day with a clear sky which is not
very common until summer. He stated it is important to keep in mind where they live. He also stressed that the
number of available lots where this shadow impact is going to apply is limited.
Chair Bayer pointed out that if a house is sitting west of a 75-foot building they aren't going to see morning sun
regardless of step backs.
Vice Chair Brooks commented that considering that they live in the Pacific Northwest, they need to optimize
what little sun they have in the wintertime.
Planning Manager Levitan clarified that the major issue is specifically in the way that the step back requirements
are phrased. The ADB already has existing discretion to recommend a whole host of design principles and
standards when something comes before them as part of the Phase 1 public hearing. The interim ordinance says
that step backs are required unless the ADB says they are not. The options available to the ADB are:
• To not carry forward the language related to step backs in the interim ordinance and use the authority
they already have with in the two-phase public hearing to require step backs on a case -by -case basis.
This would effectively strike the applicability of the section that previously applied only to adjacent
properties, but Ordinance 4283 amended it to apply to properties across the street as well.
• To keep the language the way it is written now which requires step backs at 25 feet and 55 feet for
properties across the street from RS-zoned properties unless the ADB deems they are not warranted in
the Phase 1 public hearing. An applicant would have likely have to come forward with two proposals.
They could present without step backs and state their case why they don't think they should be required
for their project, but they would be taking a risk in doing all that work without any input from the ADB.
• To modify criteria such as right-of-way width or other situations where step backs shouldn't be required.
Director McLaughlin emphasized that with regard to light, the difference between the step backs is very small.
Chair Bayer stated that the issue for her is still the mass. What are significant issues with requiring step backs?
Is it financial? Director McLaughlin noted there are a lot of expenses that go into the first design review. The
developer's team makes their own design judgements based on their interpretation of the codes and policies that
are in place on that particular site. With the current code the design team would be forced to put the step backs
in or make two sets of designs which is double the expense. Also, with the design justification the discussion
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
March. 8, 2023
Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 14
1.b
at the first meeting is going to be solely about step backs and not about all the other tools the ADB has at their
disposal to mitigate massing. Staff s preference has always been to mitigate massing and use all the design tools
available in the existing development standards. This allows the ADB to use their full discretion to optimize
design to make a building effective and fit into a site. She believes that when it is done in a prescriptive way it
hyper focuses the conversation and puts the design team on the defense when it may not be the best tool for
mitigating massing.
Board Member Strauss asked if staff is available to architects/developers to come in with some sketches of the
site and proposing ideas. Planning Manager Mike Clugston said there are two types of meetings where that
could happen — a pre -application meeting which is a paid meeting and a Development Review Committee which
is a free meeting. Anybody who is going to build a building like this is going to come and talk to staff
beforehand. Board Member Strauss noted that the developers have plenty of opportunity to come in and discuss
with staff what the requirements are.
Board Member Loch asked what the City has in terms of policies or guidelines regarding shadow impacts. He
also referred to the tree code and noted that many single-family homes could be shadowing themselves with
trees. He wondered about the difference between shadows from buildings and shadows from trees. To him they
seemed the same. He also asked if a 75-foot building would be allowed on a street that only has 60 feet of right-
of-way or would there be a dedication requirement so that ultimately the setback is more like 80 feet. Mr.
Clugston said that 60 feet is the right amount to be looking at. The setback is taken from the property line.
Whether the whole area is developed doesn't matter. 60 feet is the right of way for most of Edmonds; there are
only a few that are different widths. It includes the street and sidewalk. Regarding shadows in the code, he stated
he was not aware of any code that had any sort of numerical values that they would measure. There may be
some language in the Comp Plan but it would be very general. Director McLaughlin thought that this is
something that could be included in the submittal packet. Board Member Jeude noted there is language around
light. Director McLaughlin agreed but said it is very subjective. Regarding the question about trees and
shadowing, Director McLaughlin was not aware of any language preventing trees from shadowing houses.
Board Member Brooks commented that a building is solid, and a tree has branches so you will get some filtering.
You can see through a tree, and they blow in the wind so it's a shifting shadow.
Board Member Schmitz agreed with addressing the bulk and scale of buildings but expressed concern about
focusing solely on property line step back height because they may lose the nuance of the developer and architect
being able to address other concerns. There may be better techniques to make those units valuable to people
who will ultimately be living in them such as balconies, shadow box windows, and other techniques that will
address privacy concerns. In his experience if there are very strict requirements it limits how you can design a
building and makes a lot of buildings look very similar. If there's very little flexibility a lot of developers won't
approach the City with options, and Edmonds will end up with a lot of similar looking "wedding cake"
buildings. By using the toolkit the ADB already has, they would still have the ability to address privacy issues,
especially these across the street shadowing issues, with simpler mitigations than broad brush requirements.
Board Member Strauss argued that it is really hard for the ADB to tell developers who come in and present their
designs that they can't do what they want. If it's not in the code she thinks the developers won't agree to it.
Board Member Schmitz replied that the ADB already has the authority to tell developers what the City would
like to see. Director McLaughlin agreed. Board Member Strauss noted that step backs are a big suggestion.
Also, the ADB does not end up seeing the developer again so they don't even know if they comply. Director
McLaughlin noted this would be a quasi-judicial decision; the developer would have to abide by it. Planning
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
March. 8, 2023
Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 15
1.b
Manager Levitan noted that the first phase of the two-phase public hearing is where the developer would
introduce the concept. If they introduce a concept, is within the ADB's purview to say what they want to see
before the applicant comes back for the Phase 2 public hearing. This is something that the ADB is already able
to do. Director McLaughlin noted that staff ensures the ADB's decision is adhered to all the way to the certificate
of occupancy.
Board Member Jeude asked about a previous project the ADB had reviewed which the applicant had later
parceled off. She wondered if this was a way they had gotten around the ADB's recommendation. Senior
Planner Clugston explained that it was not. The buildings will end up looking exactly like the ADB
recommended; they are just parceling it in a different way. Board Member Strauss commented on difficulties
with that decision because the Board was mixed in their opinions. She thought it would have been easier if it
had been clear in the code.
Board Member Loch recommended bifurcating the question into the topic of step back above 25 feet and then
any other step back issues. Board Member Strauss asked Board Member Schmitz to explain his reasoning for
recommending the step back at 65 feet instead of 55 feet. Board Member Schmitz explained how this makes it
less complicated and more affordable for developers. This has a big impact for those trying to provide affordable
housing. He asserted that from the street the average person would never notice the difference between a 55-
foot step back and a 65-foot step back. Board Member Strauss referred to the graphics provided by staff and
said there appeared to be a big difference between the 55 and 65-foot step backs. Chair Bayer agreed. Board
Member Schmitz thought that the lower -level step back would make the most difference.
Board Member Brooks asked if modulation causes similar complications for developers. Board Member
Schmitz explained that modulating creates depths in the facade. Vertical modulation provides the most relief in
a building because you can break the mass up into what looks like several smaller buildings. Horizontal step
backs reduce the bulk of the building by pulling the building back further. Director McLaughlin noted that they
don't have prescription around modulation. She thought if there is prescription in the step back, the developers
might spend their money there in lieu of modulation or other techniques that could be used to mitigate massing.
There was discussion about the ADB's ability to require modulation on projects they review.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ,
THAT THE PERMANENT REGULATIONS NOT INCLUDE A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE
PORTION OF THE BUILDING ABOVE 25 FEET WHEN ACROSS FROM SINGLE FAMILY (RS)
ZONE.
Upon request, Board Member Loch clarified his motion. He explained that he hasn't been shown that it makes
a material difference in the impacts to the area. He also doesn't think it's good for the City to put an optional
regulation that the applicant won't know how to satisfy. This is not fair to the applicant or the neighborhood.
THE MOTION FAILED 3-4.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS,
THAT THE ORDINANCE REMAIN AS WRITTEN IN THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH
THE 25-FOOT STEP BACK AND THE 55-FOOT STEP BACK.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
March. 8, 2023
Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 16
1.b
Board Member Schmitz commented that if they push the step backs higher it won't make a difference with
shadows, and they have other tools that can be used to address bulk and scale better than step back in an arbitrary
way.
Board Member Strauss agreed that it would not make a difference with shadows, but from a bulk standpoint it
will make a difference.
MOTION PASSED 4-3.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
March. 8, 2023
Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 17
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/25/2023
Phase 1 Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
According to ECDC 20.12.010, proposals in the BD zones that require a SEPA threshold determination
are reviewed by the ADB in a two-phase public hearing process leading to a Type III -A decision by the
Board. The ADB will hold the Phase 1 meeting for a proposed 17-unit multifamily residential building at
627 Dayton St at their May 25 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Review the Phase 1 staff report and 19 attachments. Take initial public testimony and provide guidance
to the applicant by completing the design guideline checklist. Continue the hearing to a date certain for
Phase 2 of the hearing process. Staff recommends July 27, 2023, to allow sufficient time for the
applicant to respond to the Board's direction and for staff to review the resubmital and prepare the staff
report for the Phase 2 public hearing.
Narrative
Phil Frisk, representing Glenn Safadago and GBH Holdings, has applied for design review of a multifamily
residential building and site improvements at 627 Dayton Street. The building would be three stories
and include 17 dwelling units: three accessible units (plus parking and amenity space) on the first floor,
and seven units each on the second and third floors. A mix of studio, one -and two -bedroom units are
proposed. Two existing buildings (built in 1901 and 1930, respectively) and surface parking would be
removed.
On November 17, 2022, the applicant submitted an augmented design review application per Section
20.10.045 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to vest to the development standards
in effect at the time of application in accordance with ECDC 19.00.025:
At the option of the applicant, an augmented ADB application to vest rights under the provisions
of ECDC 19.00.025 may be submitted. Such applications may not be submitted in conjunction
with the concept review provided for by ECDC 20.10.040. The application shall be processed in all
respects as a regular application for review, but vesting rights shall be determined under the
provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. The architectural design board shall not be required to, and shall
not, consider the application of vesting rights or the interpretation of ECDC 19.00.025 and any
appeal with respect thereto shall be taken only as provided in that section. [This section is
codified as ECDC 19.00.030.]
Packet Pg. 18
O
The development standards in effect at the time of application included the interim designated street
front map in Ordinance 4262, which did not extend up Dayton to the subject parcel. The Council
ordinance extending the designated street front line up Dayton Street (Ordinance 4282) did not take
effect until November 23, 2022, so as a result, the building at 627 Dayton can be a multifamily -only
residential building. The building is subject to the design standards for multifamily -only buildings
approved in Ordinance 4276, which are codified in ECDC 22.43.080.
The subject site is located within the Downtown Mixed Commercial (BD2) zone, which requires district -
based design review when necessary. Since the project triggers a threshold determination under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design is reviewed as part of a two -phased public hearing process
before the Architectural Design Board (ADB). This design process was developed to provide for public
and design professional input at an early point in the permitting process. The process is identified in
Chapter 20.12-ECDC and is summarized below.
For Phase 1 of the process, the applicant must provide a preliminary conceptual design and a description
of the property to be developed noting all significant characteristics, according to ECDC 20.12.005.A.
The ADB uses this information to make factual findings regarding the characteristics of the property and
to prioritize the design guideline checklist based on these facts, in addition to the design objectives in
the City's Comprehensive Plan and those within the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following
public testimony at the Phase 1 hearing and completion of the design guideline checklist by the ADB, the
public hearing is continued to a date certain, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing date.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.005.13, the purpose of the continuance of the hearing to Phase 2 is to allow the
applicant to design or redesign the initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the
ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. Once this is done, the design
will be submitted to staff, who will review the proposal and schedule the project for final review (Phase
2). Staff will provide additional analysis of the proposal's compliance with the prioritized design
guidelines and criteria as part of the Phase 2 hearing. The ADB will further review the design of the
project and will make the final decision on the design at the conclusion of Phase 2 of the public hearing.
The staff report includes a general assessment of the proposal's compliance with city code as well as
initial staff recommendations for the board to consider (Section IV) when evaluating the project during
the Phase I hearing.
Attachments:
PLN2022-0089 Phase 1 staff report
Attachment 1 -
Ordinance 4262 Interim BD Designated Street Front
Attachment 2 -
Land use application
Attachment 3 -
Criteria_Compliance_Narrative
Attachment 4 -
Vicinity Map and site photos
Attachment 5 -
Context renderings
Attachment 6 -
Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
Attachment 7 -
Elevation renderings
Attachment 8 -
Landscape plan
Attachment 9 -
Lighting cut sheets and electrical plans
Attachment 10
- PLN2022-0089 Combined corrections 1
Attachment 11
- Applicant response to corrections 1
Attachment 12
- RESUB 1 PLN2022-0089+Preliminary_Civil_Plans
Packet Pg. 19
O
Attachment 13 - APPROVED_RESUB 1 PLN2022-0089+Preliminary_Storm_Drainage_Report
Attachment 14 - APPROVED PRELIM TRAFFIC PLN2022-0089+Traffic_lmpact_Analysis_Report
Attachment 15 - ENG COMMENTS 2 PLN2022-0089 DAYTON APTS DESIGN REVIEW
Attachment 16 -
Letter of complete application and noticing documentation
Attachment 17 -
PLN2022-0089 SEPA Checklist and DNS
Attachment 18 -
Public comments received prior to May 18
Attachment 19 -
Design Guidline Checklist
Packet Pg. 20
2.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION REPORT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
"PHASE 1" DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Project: 627 Dayton Apartments
File Number: PLN2022-0089
Date of Report: May 18, 2023
31
Staff Contact:
Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner
ADB Meeting: Thursday — May 25, 2023 at 6:00 P.M.*
Brackett Room, 3rd Floor, Edmonds City Hall
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Or by Zoom at: https://edmondswa- y
ov.zoom.us/i/88959586932?pwd=RzdPWUIwM09PZ1k1MHN2eWM1YXphZz09
Passcode: 591531 0
a
Or join by phone: 253 205 0468
* Note: The public hearing will be continued to a date certain for Phase 2
of the two -phased design review process.
I. PROJECT PROPOSAL
Phil Frisk, representing Glenn Safadago and GBH Holdings, has applied for design review of a
multifamily residential building and site improvements at 627 Dayton Street. The building
would be three stories and include 17 dwelling units: three accessible units (plus parking and
amenity space) on the first floor, and seven units each on the second and third floors. A mix of
studio, one -and two -bedroom units are proposed. Two existing buildings (built in 1901 and
1930, respectively) and surface parking would be removed.
On November 17, 2022, the applicant submitted an augmented design review application per
Section 20.10.045 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to vest to the
development standards in effect at the time of application in accordance with ECDC 19.00.025:
Packet Pg. 21
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
At the option of the applicant, an augmented ADB application to vest rights under the
provisions of ECDC 19.00.025 may be submitted. Such applications may not be submitted
in conjunction with the concept review provided for by ECDC 20.10.040. The application
shall be processed in all respects as a regular application for review, but vesting rights
shall be determined under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. The architectural design
board shall not be required to, and shall not, consider the application of vesting rights or
the interpretation of ECDC 19.00.025 and any appeal with respect thereto shall be taken
only as provided in that section. [This section is codified as ECDC 19.00.030.]
The development standards in effect at the time of application included the interim designated
street front map in Ordinance 4262, which did not extend up Dayton to the subject parcel
(Attachment 1). The Council ordinance extending the designated street front line up Dayton
Street (Ord. 4282) did not take effect until November 23, 2022, so as a result, the building at
627 Dayton can be a multifamily -only residential building. The building is subject to the design
standards for multifamily -only buildings approved in Ordinance 4276, which are codified in
ECDC 22.43.080.
II. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
The subject site is located within the Downtown Mixed Commercial (BD2) zone, which requires
3
district -based design review when necessary. Since the project triggers a threshold
determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design is reviewed as part of a
two -phased public hearing process before the Architectural Design Board (ADB). This design
process was developed to provide for public and design professional input at an early point in
o
the permitting process. The process is identified in Chapter 20.12 ECDC and is summarized
r
below.
N
R
For Phase 1 of the process, the applicant must provide a preliminary conceptual design and a
t
a
description of the property to be developed noting all significant characteristics, according to
0
ECDC 20.12.005.A. The ADB uses this information to make factual findings regarding the
0
characteristics of the property and to prioritize the design guideline checklist (Attachment 19)
based on these facts, in addition to the design objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan and
those within the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following public testimony at the
Phase 1 hearing and completion of the design guideline checklist by the ADB, the public hearing
is continued to a date certain, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing date.
a
Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.005.13, the purpose of the continuance of the hearing to Phase 2 is to
allow the applicant to design or redesign the initial conceptual design to address the input of
the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria.
Once this is done, the design will be submitted to staff, who will review the proposal and
schedule the project for final review (Phase 2). Staff will provide additional analysis of the
proposal's compliance with the prioritized design guidelines and criteria as part of the Phase 2
hearing. The ADB will further review the design of the project and will make the final decision
on the design at the conclusion of Phase 2 of the public hearing.
The following Attachments are included with this Phase 1 staff report:
1. Ordinance 4262 — Interim BD Designated Street Front Map
Page 2 of 18
Packet Pg. 22
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
2.a
2. Land use application
3. Applicant's compliance narrative
4. Vicinity map and site photos
5. Neighborhood context renderings
6. Site plan, floor plans and elevations
7. Elevation renderings
8. Landscape plan
9. Lighting cut sheets and electrical plans
10. Combined staff corrections #1
11. Applicant response to corrections #1
12. Preliminary civil plans
13. Preliminary storm drainage report
14. Preliminary traffic impact analysis
15. Engineering Comments 2 to address for Phase 2
16. Letter of application and noticing materials
17. SEPA checklist and threshold determination
18. Public comments received prior to May 18
19. Design guideline checklist
III. FINDINGS
A. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
The subject property is located at the eastern edge of the Edmonds downtown commercial r
area. The property is zoned BD2 (Downtown Mixed Commercial) as are the properties to the
north and west. Properties to the south of Dayton Street are zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS-6) and the Edmonds Public Library and Frances Anderson Center are to the east. The BD2
parcels are developed with a mix of small-scale commercial and multifamily residential uses. a
B. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Topography. The site is relatively level with a gentle downward slope from east to west with an
elevation change of about seven feet across the 90-foot-wide site.
2. Critical Areas. A critical areas checklist was reviewed under file CRA2022-0164 and it was
determined that no critical areas were located on or adjacent to the site; therefore a "waiver"
from further critical area study was issued.
3. SEPA Review. Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for this
proposal because the new building exceeds four residential units, the categorical exemption
threshold in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b) adopted by reference in ECDC 20.15A.080. A SEPA checklist
was submitted with the application and a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on May
11, 2023 (Attachment 17). A notice of the SEPA determination was included with the Notice of
Public Hearing for the project, and declarations of posting and mailing and an affidavit of
publication of the SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance are included for reference with the
public notice materials in Attachment 16.
Page 3 of 18
Packet Pg. 23
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
C. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS
A "Notice of Application" was issued on December 5, 2022. This notice was posted at the
subject site, Public Safety Complex, and the Planning & Development Department. It was not
posted at the Edmonds Branch of Sno-Isle Library, which was still closed from the water leak in
co
the summer of 2022. The notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site g
and published in the Everett Herald and on the city website. N
0
A "Notice of Public Hearing and SEPA Determination" was issued on May 11, 2023. This notice J
was posted at the subject site, Public Safety Complex, Planning & Development Department, a
and at the Library (the lobby of which is now open). The notice was also mailed to property c
owners within 300 feet of the site and published in the Everett Herald. E
The public notice materials are included as Attachment 16. a
a
To date (prior to May 18), two public comments were received. _
0
Will Magnuson wondered how the application for a multifamily -only building was consistent o
with the code given the changes to the designated street front line in Ordinance 4282. N
Ordinance 4282 did not apply at the time of application in this case. The applicant submitted t°
an augmented design review application as allowed b code to vest under interim Ordinance 0
g g pp Y 3
4262. The designated street front line in Ordinance 4262 did not extend all the way up Dayton •!
Street to Durbin Drive. a
c
Jack and Ann Christiansen were concerned about parking and traffic. The proposal includes one •y
parking stall per dwelling unit, as required by the code. The off-street stalls would be accessed CD
from the alley between Durbin Drive and 6t" Avenue. The preliminary traffic impact report
provided with the application was reviewed and approved by the City's Transportation Engineer
(Attachment 14). It indicates that $61,557.20 in traffic impact fees would be due at issuance of a
the associated building permit application. V_
D. TECHNICAL STAFF REVIEW
The design review application was reviewed by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue and
the City of Edmonds Building and Engineering Divisions. The Building Division and South County
Fire provided several comments for the applicants to address with the associated building
permit (Attachment 10).
Engineering, Stormwater, and Planning also had several corrections which the applicant
addressed with a response letter (Attachment 11) and updated plans. The Engineering Division
provided several further corrections in Attachment 15 that need to be addressed as part of the
Phase 2 design review resubmittal. The alignment of the Durbin Street sidewalk, curb and
gutter is still under review and additional information will be provided to the applicant when
that becomes available.
South County Fire noted that access for ladder trucks from Dayton Street would require the
existing overhead power lines in that location to be rerouted or undergrounded. The power
Page 4 of 18
Packet Pg. 24
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
lines in front of the project site on Dayton are shown to be undergrounded on Sheet C5.1 of
Attachment 13.
E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Downtown Mixed Commercial" within the
"Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center" overlay. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project
include:
Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive setting
for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents
and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the
region.
A.6 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown,
especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population.
Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core
along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements,
while protecting downtown's identity.
D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce
Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character.
D.SCoordinate new building design with old structure restoration and renovation.
r
D.8 Building design should discourage automobile access and curb cuts that interfere
as
N
z
with pedestrian and bicycle activity and break up the streetscape. Encourage the use
a
of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify the back alleys in the commercial and
o
mixed use areas in the downtown area.
a
Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and
office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong
central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting
commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and
plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas.
E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial,
and cultural activities.
The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following specific goal for the Downtown Mixed
Commercial designation:
Downtown Mixed Commercial. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should
be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial
uses., with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line.
Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale
development. The first floor of buildings must provide pedestrian weather protection along
public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian -scale design features,
Page 5 of 18
Packet Pg. 25
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design
of interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space, so that individual
business spaces can be provided with individual doorways and pedestrian access directly to
the public sidewalk. When the rear of a property adjoins a residentially -designated property,
floor area that is located behind commercial street frontage may be appropriate for
residential use. Where single family homes still exist in this area, development regulations
should allow for "live -work" arrangements where the house can accommodate both a
business and a residence as principal uses.
Design objectives for the downtown area addressing site design, building form and building
fagade are provided in the Comprehensive Plan (pages 125-127). Refer to Attachments 5 — 9
for site and building renderings and plans.
Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards
should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique
design character and important place -making status within the city.
B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a
consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the
preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there
is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and
walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian
streetscape.
Staff Response: No curb cuts exist on Dayton Street. The existing surface parking accessed o
from Durbin Drive will be removed and the alley from 6t" Avenue to Durbin will be used for
access to the proposed building's off-street parking.
a
B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating
buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key
intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving
treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate.
Staff Response: The proposed building will be constructed near the property lines and
sidewalk and will define the street edge at Dayton and Durbin.
B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and
oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade.
Staff Response: While not a commercial building, new pedestrian entrances will be created
for the building. Each of the entries is covered by a canopy and near or accessible from the
sidewalk.
B.4 Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each
site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes
of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the
railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer
from existing each areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with
existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces,
and easy pedestrian access to the beach.
Page 6 of 18
Packet Pg. 26
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
Staff Response: The two other existing buildings on the north side of this Dayton Street block
were built 1916 and 1967 and are set back from the sidewalk. The proposed building would
be the first on the short block built near the sidewalk and would create an updated street
front appearance.
B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character
of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building
elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate
historic forms or patterns.
Staff Response: The proposed three-story building is consistent with the scale and proportion
of other buildings in the downtown area. A variety of materials or appearances are proposed
that are consistent with historic forms including brick, metal, and glass. The proposed fiber
cement siding in lap form is similar to the surrounding area while the fiber cement panels
would give the building a more modern appearance. As noted further below, staff does
recommend that the ADB consider options to break up the large expanses of fiber cement
siding.
B.6 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public
sidewalks or walkways.
Staff Response: The proposed building would have canopies over the individual pedestrian
entries but not along the length of the sidewalk either along Dayton Street or Durbin Drive.
B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and
symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using 0
r
graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be y
encouraged.
a
Staff Response: Two wall signs are anticipated for the proposed building. Signage will be
reviewed by staff with a future sign application but wall -mounted signs with external
illumination as shown are allowed by the sign code.
B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street
furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever
possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that
adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common
element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central
feature of the design.
Staff Response: The site is not located within the 4t" Avenue Arts Corridor. In the public
right-of-way, street tree grates are part of existing and proposed frontage improvements but
the ADB should consider recommending inclusion of additional hanging baskets and street
furniture if there is sufficient room in the sidewalk area.
B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building
frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale.
Staff Response: The proposed building is three stories and consistent with the 30-foot height
limit of the BD2 zone.
Page 7 of 18
Packet Pg. 27
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that
emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building facades should respect and echo
historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets.
Staff Response: The proposed building uses horizontal and vertical modulation together with
varied materials to reduce the bulk of the building.
B.11 Building Facade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined
forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and
mixed use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design
elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or
cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base).
Staff Response: The building provides variation in materials and form along the public
frontages using human scale elements and has a distinct top and base (brick veneer).
B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts,
building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and
encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and
surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should
use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade.
Staff Response: Nearly all of the proposed windows have a narrow frame and little trim; staff
recommends that additional interest be added to the windows. The sliding doors at the
juliet balconies have both trim and ornamental railings.
With adherence to the staff recommendations in Section IV and any additional design guidance r
provided by the ADB, staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the referenced
goals and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
V_
F. DESIGN GUIDELINE CHECKLIST °a
m
L
The ADB uses design guidelines and design review checklist applicable to the district -based
design review process when conducting its review. These guidelines and checklist are included y
for reference as Attachment 19. The ADB will use the checklist to prioritize the design
guidelines for the subject proposal. The applicant will take this information and respond to the
direction provided by the Board for Phase 2 of the review process. a
o�
00
0
0
G. APPLICABLE CODES ci
N
O
1. ECDC 16.43 — Downtown Business Zone (131321 N
A. ECDC 16.43.020 Uses.
The site is in the BD2 zone and subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.43. The proposal
is for a multifamily residential building and off-street parking. These are permitted
primary and secondary uses, respectively, in the BD2 zone pursuant to ECDC 16.43.020.
Per ECDC 16.43.030.G, there is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling
units.
B. According to ECDC 16.43.030, development standards in the BD2 zone include:
Page 8 of 18
Packet Pg. 28
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
Minimum
Height of
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Ground
Minimum
Maximum
Zone
Lot Area
Street
Side
Rear
Floor within
(Sq. Ft.)
Lot Width
Setback
Setback'
Setback'
Heightz
the
Designated
Street Front4
BD2
None
None
0'
0'
0'
30'
12'
The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and
structures entirely below the surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line
adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
' Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
"Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street -front" means the vertical
distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the
ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC 16.43.030(B)); and, if the
ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top
of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. "Floor
finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and
includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete, as
illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows an example of a ground floor height of 15
feet; note that the "finished" ceiling height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
C. Setbacks. Since the subject site is not adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property, no
setbacks are required for the proposed building.
a
D. Height. The maximum allowed height in the BD2 zone is 30 feet with certain exceptions
provided in ECDC 16.43.030.C.3. The preliminary elevations in Attachment 7 show a
building height of 30 feet with an additional 2-foot tall parapet by the main pedestrian
entrance on Dayton Street.
E. Ground Floor. Because the project is vested to the designated street front map in
Ordinance 4262 — which did not extend from Dayton Street to Durbin Drive - the ground
floor requirements of the BD zone do not apply.
Parking. Per ECDC 16.43.030.D and ECDC 17.50.010.C, one parking stall is required for
each dwelling unit. The proposal includes 17 parking stalls (one per unit).
G. Open Space. Because the site is less than 12,000 square feet and less than 120 feet
wide, no open space is required in accordance with ECDC 16.43.030.E. The private and
street -side amenity spaces required for multifamily -only buildings are addressed below
2. ECDC 17.115 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
According to ECDC 17.115, electric vehicle charging must be provided for multifamily
buildings according to the following table:
Page 9 of 18
Packet Pg. 29
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
Table 17.115.040: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Requirements
Type of Use
Number of EV Capable
Number of EV Ready
Number of EV Installed
Parking Spaces
Parking Spaces
Parking Spaces
Multiple dwelling units
40% of parking spaces
40% of parking spaces
10% of parking spaces
Seventeen parking stalls are proposed in the new building, so at least 7 stalls must be
provided as EV Capable, 7 stalls as EV Ready, and 2 stalls must be EV Installed. The required
stalls are shown on Sheet E1.0 of Attachment 9.
3. ECDC 17.120 Bicycle Parking Facilities
According to ECDC 17.120, short- and long-term bike parking must be provided for
multifamily buildings according to the following tables:
Table 17.120-1: Short -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements
Type of Use Minimum Number of Spaces Required
Multiple dwelling units 1 per 10 dwelling units; not less than 2 spaces
Table 17.120-2: Long -Term Bicycle Parking Requirements
Type of Use
Minimum Number of Spaces Required
Number of E-bike
Installed Spaces
Multiple dwelling
0.75 per unit
40 percent of
units
spaces
Seventeen dwelling units are proposed in the new building, so at least 2 short-term bike stalls
and 13 long-term stalls are required. Of those 13 long-term stalls, 3 must be E-bike installed
spaces. The required stalls are shown on Sheet E1.0 of Attachment 9.
4. ECDC 20.12 District -Based Design Guidelines
A. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.070.A, the ADB must use the design guidelines and design
review checklist applicable to the district -based design review process in conducting its
review. These guidelines and checklist are included for reference as Attachment 19.
The ADB will use the checklist to prioritize the design guidelines for the subject
proposal.
B. Compliance with the district -based design guidelines will be reviewed by the ADB during
Phase 2 of the hearing and review process.
5. ECDC 22.43 Design Standards for the BD Zones
Design standards applicable to the BD zones are provided in ECDC Chapter 22.43.
A. ECDC 22.43.010 Massing and Articulation. Intent —To reduce the massiveness and bulk
of large box -like buildings, and articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale.
Page 10 of 18
Packet Pg. 30
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A "base" can be emphasized
by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which
the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by
a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a
shadow line.
Staff Response: The proposed building shows a brick veneer base and roof elements
that create a shadow line. A metal canopy highlights the main pedestrian entry at
the corner of Dayton Street and Durbin Drive.
2. Building facades shall respect and echo historic patterns. Where a single building
exceeds the historic building width pattern, use a change in design features (such as
a combination of materials, windows or decorative details) to suggest the traditional
building widths.
Staff Response: Older building widths in the downtown area typically vary from
approximately 30 to 60 feet. The proposed building uses materials as well as vertical
and horizontal modulation to create 'widths' that are between 10 and 40 feet wide.
B. ECDC 22.43.020 Orientation to Street. Intent — To reinforce pedestrian activity and
orientation and enhance the liveliness of the street through building design.
1. Building frontages shall be primarily oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a
parking lot or alley.
Staff Response: The building has pedestrian entries on both Dayton Street and o
Durbin Drive. Canopies emphasize the entrances. r
as
N
2. Entrances to buildings in the BD1, BD2 and BD4 zones shall be visible from the street
and accessible from the adjacent sidewalk. a
Staff Response: The entries are accessible from the sidewalks along Dayton Street
and Durbin Drive.
3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of
the following elements:
a. Higher bay(s),
b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet),
c. Forecourt and entrance plaza.
Staff Response: As noted above, canopies are utilized to emphasize the entrances
The entrances are also proposed to be slightly recessed porches.
C. ECDC 22.43.030 Ground Level Details. Intent — To reinforce the character of the
streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of visual interest along the ground level
of buildings facing pedestrian streets.
1. Ground floor, street facing facades of commercial and mixed -use buildings shall
incorporate at least five of the following elements:
a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets;
b. Medallions;
c. Belt courses;
Page 11 of 18
Packet Pg. 31
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
d. Plinths for columns,
e. Bulkhead for storefront window,
f. Projecting sills,
g. Tile work,
h. Transom or clerestory windows,
i. Planter box,
j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent.
Staff Response: This standard is not applicable since the proposal is for a
multifamily -only building. The applicant is proposing six elements as noted in the
narrative in Attachment 3.
2. Ground floor commercial space is intended to be accessible and at grade with the
sidewalk, as provided for in ECDC 16.43.030.
Staff Response: Not applicable. The three ground -floor units are accessible from
the sidewalk, however.
D. ECDC 22.43.040 Awnings/Canopies and Signage. Intent —1) To integrate signage and
weather protection with building design to enhance business visibility and the public
streetscape. 2) To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to
improve way finding for visitors. 3) To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered,
and to minimize distraction from overuse of advertisement elements.
1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not
provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a
metal or other framework.
Staff Response: A structural canopy is proposed at the main pedestrian entrance at
the corner of Dayton and Durbin. Additional canopies highlight the unit entrances at
street level on Durbin Drive (Attachment 6).
2. Awnings and canopies shall be open -sided to enhance visibility of business signage
Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance
returns.
Staff Response: All canopies are open -sided.
3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted.
Staff Response: None of the canopies are marquee, box, or convex in shape.
4. Retractable awnings are encouraged.
Staff Response: No retractable awnings are proposed.
5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame store-
fronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies
should be hung just below a clerestory or transom window, if it exists.
Staff Response: The building does not have storefronts. The proposed canopies
highlight pedestrian entrances.
Page 12 of 18
Packet Pg. 32
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple -storefront building should be consistent in
character, scale and position, but need not be identical.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
7. Nonstructural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic
materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic
awning materials are not permitted.
Staff Response: Nonstructural awnings are not proposed.
8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Com-
binations of sign types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while
minimizing the size of individual signs.
Staff Response: Signs in the BD zones are subject to the design standards in ECDC
22.43.040. While staff will approve signage through future building permits, the wall
sign concepts shown in Attachment 6 would appear to be in keeping with the code.
9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design
elements are preferred. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or
less are permitted and are not counted when calculating the amount of signage
permitted for a business in ECDC 20.60. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one
of the required elements under ECDC 22.43.030(B).
Staff Response: See #8 above.
10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. r
as
Staff Response: See #8 above.
a
11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or
backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. o
Staff Response: No signage was included with this proposal. Signage will be
reviewed for compliance with the applicable design standards of ECDC 22.43.040
and the sign code requirements of ECDC 20.60 when a sign application is submitted.
12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or con-
tributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, or on a city council -approved historic survey.
Staff Response: Not applicable. The subject site is not on the National Register, the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places, nor on a city council -approved historic survey.
13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An
historic sign may be used to meet this standard.
Staff Response: See #8 above.
E. ECDC 22.43.050 Transparency at Street Level. Intent— To provide visual connection
between activities inside and outside the building.
Page 13 of 18
Packet Pg. 33
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
1. The ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have
transparent windows covering a minimum of 75 percent of the building facade that
lies between an average of two feet and 10 feet above grade.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or
prohibit visibility between the street and interior.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
3. Where transparency is not required, the facade shall comply with the standards
under ECDC 22.43.060.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
4. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be
transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings
intended to obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
F. ECDC 22.43.060 Treating Blank Walls. Intent — To ensure that buildings do not display
blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street.
1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where
windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under
ECDC 22.43.050). At least five of the following elements shall be incorporated into 0
any ground floor, street facing facade:
a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block);
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall; a
c. Belt courses of a different texture and color, V-
0
d. Projecting cornice,
L
e. Decorative tile work, r-
f. Medallions,
g. Opaque or translucent glass,
h. Artwork or wall graphics,
i. Lighting fixtures,
j. Green walls,
k. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent.
Staff Response: There are no blank walls proposed as part of this project which abut
streets or are visible from residential areas. However, three fairly large openings are
proposed along the west side of the building to the garage area that are adjacent to
the proposed private amenity space. Grillwork or similar screening feature should
be included within the openings since no landscaping is proposed to screen the area.
G. ECDC 22.43.070 Building HVAC Equipment. Intent — To ensure that HVAC equipment,
elevators, and other building utility features are designed to be a part of the overall
building design and do not detract from the streetscape.
Page 14 of 18
Packet Pg. 34
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to
fit in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall
be located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street
below. If these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall
use screening, decoration, plantings (e.g., rooftop gardens), or other techniques to
integrate these features with the design of the building.
Staff Response: An elevator is not proposed. A raised parapet area is proposed
along Dayton Street above the pedestrian entrance which appears to be intended as
an equipment screen.
2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building
design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on
adjoining properties.
Staff Response: An enclosed electrical vault room is proposed at the garage level
which would be accessed from the alley.
H. ECDC 22.43.080 Additional design standards for stand-alone multiple dwelling
buildings in the BD2 zone. Intent — To ensure that buildings entirely comprised of
multiple dwelling units are compatible with the downtown area.
1. Materials. Building facades must be clad with preferred building materials which
include natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Alternative a�
materials may be permitted by the director or architectural design board if they
contribute to a cohesive design theme for the building. 0
r
Staff Response: The applicant's narrative (Attachment 3) notes that "building fagade
include wood, brick, glass, and an architectural metal canopy at the main entrance." a
While those materials are proposed, the bulk of the facades are still large expanses
of fiber cement siding in lap and panel forms (Attachment 7). The ADB has the a
discretion to determine whether the proposed mix of materials contributes to a
cohesive design theme for the building or if additional materials and design
elements are needed.
2. Private Amenity Space. An exterior area equivalent to at least 10 percent of the
project's gross lot area must be provided as private amenity space for residents of
the development. This standard can be met through a combination of balconies
(cantilevered, recessed or semirecessed), decks, patios or yards for individual
dwelling units or the site as a whole.
a. Not all dwelling units are required to have private amenity space. When it is
provided, it must be immediately accessible from the dwelling unit and be a
minimum of 40 square feet.
b. If the space is at ground level facing a street, no fence maybe over three feet in
height.
c. Balconies may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up
to a maximum of six feet. Patios and decks may encroach into a required setback
adjacent to R-zoned property up to a maximum of 10 feet.
Page 15 of 18
Packet Pg. 35
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
Staff Response: Per the site plan (Attachment 6), 1,231 square feet of private
amenity space is proposed, which would be 12.1% of the total lot area. This includes
the main plaza entry at Dayton, porch entries off Durbin, decks on the northwest
corner units on the second and third floors, and ground -level space west of the
building. While the 789 square feet of ground -level space on the west side of the
building technically meets code, it is located on the other side of the building and
not directly accessible from any of the building entrances or ground flood units,
which are located on the eastern side and southeast corner of the building. Staff
recommends that the ADB consider options to make the private amenity space
design more usable and accessible for the building's residents.
3. Roof Treatment and Modulation. In order to provide the appearance of a well -modulated
roof, three types of roof modulation are required and can include differing heights,
projections, slopes, materials, step downs, step setbacks, or a similar expression.
Staff Response: This standard allows the use of flat roof forms as proposed by the
applicant, so long as the design includes modulation elements to break up a large
expanse of flat roof. As noted in the applicant's narrative, "roof modulation is
accomplished with varying heights, varying projections, and contrasting materials," as
can be seen on the elevation drawings in Attachment 7.
4. Street -Side Amenity Space or Pedestrian Area. An exterior area equivalent to at least five
percent of the project's gross lot area must be provided as street -side amenity space or
pedestrian area. This space must be arranged along the street front between the buildingEn
and the sidewalk and must be open to the sky, unless otherwise excepted. The space must
r
be pedestrian -oriented and may include the following elements:
a. Landscaping, a
b. Seating area,
c. A similar feature as approved by the director or architectural design board,
d. Areas allocated to private amenity space cannot be used toward the street -side
amenity space or pedestrian area requirement.
Staff Response:
As indicated on the site plan (Attachment 6), 529 square feet of street -side amenity
space/pedestrian area is proposed, which would be 5.3% of the total lot area. The
landscaping plan indicates that these areas will primarily be landscaped (Attachment 8)
A seating element is included in the entry plaza at the southeast corner of the building.
Based on the above analysis, staff finds that the proposal, when incorporating the staff
recommendations in Section IV, is consistent with design standards contained within ECDC
Chapter 22.43. The amenity spaces serve to set the building back somewhat from the east,
south and west property lines and provide on -site spaces for recreation, pet exercise, and
the like.
6. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
Page 16 of 18
Packet Pg. 36
2.a
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
Attachment 8 shows the proposed landscaping on the site. The existing street trees and
sidewalk are intended to be retained along Dayton Street while new sidewalk and street
trees are proposed along Durbin Drive. However, it is possible that undergrounding the
power lines along Dayton could impact the existing sidewalk and require removal of the
existing street trees. In that event, the street trees along Dayton would need to be replaced
consistent with the city's Street Tree Plan.
The required street -side amenity space areas at Dayton and Durbin will be landscaped. It is
unclear at this phase whether the private amenity space area along the west side of the site
will be vegetated, hardscaped, or a mix of the two.
When incorporating the staff recommendations in Section IV, the proposed landscaping is
consistent with the requirements of the Street Tree Plan and ECDC 20.13.
7. ECDC 20.60 Signs
Signs in the BD zones are subject to the design standards in ECDC 22.43.040. While staff will
approve signage through future building permits, two indirectly lit wall signs are indicated
on the electrical sheets (Attachment 9), which would be consistent with the code.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
According to ECDC 20.12.020.A.1, the purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing process is for
the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project a�
proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on
the design guidelines checklist (Attachment 19). In identifying the relative importance of the
r
design criteria, the ADB must use the applicable design guidelines of the BD2 zone, the y
downtown design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, and any relevant district -specific ii
design objectives of ECDC Chapters 20.12 and 20.13.
Staff recommends that the ADB consider the following during the Phase 1 public hearing:
1. All applicable design guidelines and standards referenced throughout this report and
included in the design guideline checklist (Attachment 19), prioritizing all applicable
design guidelines and objectives.
2. Public comments provided in advance of and during the public hearing.
3. Issues identified by staff during its review, including:
a. Potential revisions to the private open space proposed on the west side of the
building to make it more usable and accessible to building residents.
b. Additional trim around windows.
c. More variety and diversity in building materials, which currently includes large
expanses of fiber cement siding.
d. If the power lines are buried along Dayton Street for fire access, include street
furniture and hanging baskets.
Page 17 of 18
Packet Pg. 37
627 Dayton St. Apartments
File No. PLN2022-0089
2.a
e. Add grating or a similar screening element within the garage openings on the west
side of the building to provide screening for the proposed amenity space and
adjacent building.
4. The public hearing must be continued to a date certain for Phase 2 of the public hearing
process, not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 meeting date. Staff recommends the
July meeting to allow sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the Board's
direction and for staff to review the resubmittal and prepare the staff report for Phase
2.
V. PARTIES OF RECORD
City of Edmonds
121— 5t" Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Will Magnuson
willomagnuson@gmail.com
Applicant: Glenn Safadago
1319 E. Howell St.
Seattle, WA 98122
Jack and Ann Christiansen
wethreecs@msn.com
Page 18 of 18
Packet Pg. 38
2.b
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.4262
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH
ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255.
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which
established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots
that do not front on a designated street front; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on
April 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended two more times by virtue of Ordinances 4254
and 4255; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium extensions were intended to allow planning staff and the
city attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD
zones and to carefully evaluate the intent behind the designated street front regulations and the
ramifications of possible changes to those regulations, particularly in the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, that research led to a heightened understanding of the intent behind the BD
designated street front map and the BD permitted use table; and
WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the
downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that
certain blocks are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed
street front map; and
WHEREAS, the city council would like to encourage the continued vibrancy of the
downtown commercial core by expanding the limits of the designated street front map to require
at least some commercial use of new structures within the expansion area; and
WHEREAS, the city council would also like to remove an ambiguity in the permitted use
table; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 39
2.b
Section 1. Designated Street Front Map Revision. Map 16.43-1, contained within
ECDC 16.43.030, and entitled "Designated Street Front for BD Zones," is hereby amended to
extend the designated street front as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (extended street fronts are shown in
crosshatch).
Section 2. BD Permitted Use Table Revision. Table 16.43-1, contained in ECDC
16.43.020, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (new text is shown
in underline; deleted text is shown in kedffetigh)•
Section 3. Repeal of Moratorium. Ordinance 4247, which had established a
moratorium on certain development in the BD2 zone, and Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255
which collectively extended that moratorium through June 2, 2022, are collectively hereby
repealed.
Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim
regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of
this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings
and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 5 herein),
this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is
repealed sooner.
Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on July 19, 2022 unless the
city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 40
2.b
than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall
adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued
effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
C CLE , SCO P SSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 20, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 24, 2022
PUBLISHED: May 27, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2022
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 41
2.b
N
ORDINANCE NO. 4262 0
N
Z
J
d
N
r
C
d
E
Q
Q
C
O
r
R
N
w
4-
0
3
m
m
c
.N
a�
0
m
m
a
U
r
Q
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 42
2.b
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4262
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 241h day of May, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4262. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH
ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 24th day of May, 2022. c0Ma
a
0
CLERK, S PASSEY U.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 43
Designated Street Front
/// / - -' // - ""Np
IN
No
.
IN
w
Q
0
M
N
-3=1,
�BD3
L WAY
LE ST
ALDE
DALEY ST
lz
:11---r7—
I o—
o—
C
W� C r
NL
CD
> BELL
=L
o
� D2
w
m
W L
I a `nCO
—
o
E
ELET m
c
WALNUT = ST
O
c
m
s
ea
a
_
4)
E
Packet Pg. 44
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 1/3
2.b
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses
BD1
GBDI
BD2
BD3
BD4
BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales
A
A
A
A
A
A
Offices
A
X
A
A
A
A
Legal/law firms
A
X
A
A
A
A
Financial
A
X
\
A
A
A
Advising
A
X
A
A
A
A
Mortgage
A
X
A
A
A
A
Banks (without tellers)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Accounting
A
X
A
A
A
A
Counseling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Architecture
A
X
A
A
A
A
Engineering
A
X
A
A
A
A
Advertising
A
X
\
\
A
\
Insurance
A
X
\
\
A
A
Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club)
A
X
\
A
A
A
Service uses
A
A«1
A
A
A
A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer
sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy
equipment storage, sales or services
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property
as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service
establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public
A
A
A
A
A
A
Automobile sales and service
X
X
A
A
X
X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive
cleaning agents
C
X
A
A
A
X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments
C
X
A
A
A
C
Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC'
A
A
A
A
A
A
Residential
Single-family dwelling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must he-, Inented onsecend floor or behind first ^ [ feet
fromside-walk or rights e f waysee ECDC 16.43.030.13 for further location
standards
A
X
A
A
A
A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters
A
A
A
A
A
A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020
A
A
A
A
A
A
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 45
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 2/3
2.b
Permitted Uses
BD1
BDI
GFSF0)
BD2
BD3
BD4
BD5
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G)
through (R)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050
C
C
C
C
A
C
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A
A
A
A
A
A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use
B
X
B
B
B
B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this
zone
B
X
B
B
B
X
Commercial parking lots
C
X
C
C
C
X
Wholesale uses
X
X
X
C
X
X
Hotels and motels
A
A
A
A
A
A
Amusement establishments
C
C
C
C
C
C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions
C
X
C
C
C
C
Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities)
X
X
C
A
C
X
Laboratories
X
X
C
C
C
X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use
X
X
X
C
X
X
Day-care centers
C
X
C
C
A
C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums
X
X
C
C
A
X
Medical uses, e.g.,
A
X
A
A
A
A
Physicians
A
X
A
A
A
A
Dental
A
X
a
A
A
A
Optometrist (without retail)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Physical therapy (without retail)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Counseling
A
X
\
1
1
1
Other similar medical services
A
X
\
1
1
\
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria
for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
A
A
A
A
A
A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for
regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
C
X
C
C
C
A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and
drug abusers
X
X
C
C
A
X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C
C
C
C
C
C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use
D
X
D
D
D
D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC
X
X
D
D
D
D
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 46
Exhibit B Z.b
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 3/3
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
NOTES:
(1) BD Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public
rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1:
Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to
the BD Zone GFSF requirements.
(2) Services — by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary
component of the business are not allowed within BD 1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate
offices, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed.
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for
conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be
provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be
compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to
the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be
permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and
when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the
following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping.
B. Exception to the BD GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD zone may apply for an exception from the
restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the
following criteria:
1. The space is less than 500 square feet;
2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk;
3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and
4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 §
6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 47
2.b
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH955511 ORD NO 4262 4263
as it was published in the regular and entire
issue of said paper and not as a supplement
form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 05/27/2022 and
ending on 05/27/2022 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers Linda Phillips
during all of said period. Morary Public
EMY
te of VVashinroton
l"'r"C"i �,;1iiM$ El2;l2025
The amount the fee fors h publicarion is ip:lon tiunibe, 4417
$34.40.
Subscribed and sworn
7� day of
before, a on this
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416
NICHOLASAALK
m
rn
M
t
a
a+
Q
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 48
2.b
Classified Proof
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
of" City of Edmonds, Washiroon
On ms 241h day of Mayy, 2f1Q2, the Clly Cduft" of the Cily o}
EdRlond3. p'dBsad If}a foGoxinf� Ordinances, dr6 awnmades Of said
ordinances tonslslin9 of int are Provided as f000we:
OR iNAN NO.42B
AN CROJNANCE CIF I DS, WASHINGTON.
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES,
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED
THROUGH ORDINANCES 425a. 4264. AND 4255,
AN ORDINANCE OF�NRNE 4 OS, WASH INGTON,
AMENDING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 1830 FCDC,
ENTITLED '$TO RMWATE R MANAGEMENT,' IN ITS ENT1RE7Y.
The full isxt of these ordnance will be sent upon requrat
DATED this 241h Day of May.2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Published: May 27, 2022- EDH956511
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 05/27/2022 01:23:13 pm Page: 2
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 49
2.c
CITY OF EDMONDS nnyst,ilaingPermit.com
Land Use Application #1227240 - 627 Dayton Apartments
Applicant
First Name Last Name Company Name
Phil Frisk PWF Architecture
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address
141 Phil. Frisk(aD_PWFArchitecture.com
City State Zip Phone Number Extension
Edmonds WA 98020 (206) 920-3554
Contractor
Company Name
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number
City State Zip Phone Number Extension
State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address
Project Location .N
a�
Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number
r
627 DAYTON ST
City Zip Code County Parcel Number �
EDMONDS 98020 00434209703100 a
Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name
O
cC
V
Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions).
Q
Q
R
Work Location
N
N
3
C
Property Owner04
R
J
First Name Last Name or Company Name
C
GBH HOLDINGS LLC
E
Number Street Apartment or Suite Number
V
5325 CRAWFORD RD PO BOX 1389
Q
City State Zip
r
LANGLEY WA 98260
m
E
Certification Statement - The applicant states:
I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and
Q
authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I
have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work
requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance.
Date Submitted: 11/8/2022 Submitted By: Phil Frisk
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 50
Page 1 of 2
2.c
CITY OF EDMONDS M BuildingPerrnit.com
Land Use Application #1227240 - 627 Dayton Apartments
Project Contact
Company Name: PWF Architecture
Name: Phil Frisk Email: Phil. Frisk@PWFArchitecture.com
Address: 141 Phone #: (206) 920-3554
Edmonds WA 98020
Project Type Activity Type
New New Development Activity
Scope of Work
Design Review
Project Name: 627 Dayton Apartments
Description of Demolishing two existing buildings and constructing an 18-unit 3-story apartment building
Work: of about 20,000 square feet. We are seeking augmented architectural design review in
order to be vested under current zoning.
Project Details
Development Type
Multifamily
Page 2 of 2
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 51
nF r.o.
2. C
MyBui ld i n gPermit. com
f`+r. i yea
Jurisdiction: Edmonds
Project Name: 627 Dayton Apartments
Application ID: 1227240
Supplemental Name: Applicant Certification - Planning
The applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify
defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any
action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant,
his/her/its agents or employees. The property affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the applicant or that the
application has been submitted with the consent of all owners of the affected property.
I certify, under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that the information and exhibits herewith submitte
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on behalf of the owner of the subje
property.
I do so certify.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 52
2.d
y rchitecture
PO Box 141
Edmonds, Washington 98020
(206(920.3554 phone
PWFArehite0tire.00m
November 8, 2022 (Update April 4, 2023)
Michael Clugston, Senior Planner
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121 51h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RE: Zoning compliance for 627 Dayton Multi -Family project
Dear Mr. Clugston,
Below is a summary of how the proposed project complies with the design standards listed in Edmonds Community
Development Code, Chapter 22.43, and the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan General Design Objectives.
Items below are listed according to the corresponding code and comprehensive plan sections.
Edmonds Community Development Code
22.43.010 Massing and Articulation
A visually distinct base to the building is accomplished with masonry veneer at the lower portion of the Dayton Street
and Durbin Drive frontage, visually grounding the building. A projecting pre -cast cap at the top of the brick veneer
provides additional architectural detail. A combination of panel siding with metal reveals and lap siding is applied to
portions of the building above the brick, arranged to enhance the modulation of the building envelope and articulate a
"middle" to the fagade. The change of colors and materials provides a distinct layering and reduces the apparent
bulk of the building. A projecting cornice provides a distinct "top" to the fapade. The entry to the ground -level units
along Durbin Drive and the main entrance to the building at the corner are deeply recessed, further reducing the
apparent bulk of the building at the street level and providing additional articulation and visual interest.
22.43.020 Orientation to Street
The main building entrance is oriented to the corner of Dayton and Durbin, and features a large, covered entry plaza
accessed from the Dayton Street sidewalk. Landscaping is provided around most of the perimeter of the plaza as a
subtle buffer to define the space, yet of a small scale to allow for a visual connection between pedestrians on the
sidewalk and the plaza. The entrance is recessed and the entry door clearly visible to provide visual cues to
pedestrians. The entrance plaza features a large canopy to provide not only weather protection, but also to serve as
a visual cue to the entrance from those further down the sidewalks along both frontages.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 53
2.d
627 Dayton Multi -Family Zoning Compliance Summary
November 8, 2022 (Updated April 4, 2023)
Page 2 of 4
22.43.030 Ground Level Details
Six elements are provided:
1.Ornamental light fixtures at the recessed and covered main entrance plaza as well as the ground -level unit entries.
2.Ornamental metal railings at the upper floor units' sliding glass doors.
3. Masonry veneer at the lower level of the street fagade.
4. Projecting precast masonry cap at the top of the masonry veneer.
5. Projecting canopies at the main entrance and two unit entrances along Durbin Drive, visible from the street.
6. Decorative lighting in the landscaped areas along the sidewalks.
22.43.040 Awnings/Canopies and Signage
Decorative building signage displaying the name of the building is provided on the streetside fagades. A large
permanent canopy is provided at the main entrance to the building, visible from the street. Two units accessed
directly from the Durbin Street sidewalk also have canopies at their entrance.
22.43.060 Treating Blank Walls
There are no blank walls on the entire building so additional treatments are not required.
22.43.070 Building HVAC Equipment
Rooftop HVAC equipment will be screened by the parapet and projecting cornice.
22.43.080 Multi -Family -Only Buildings (Updated April 4, 2023)
B. Building facades include wood, brick, glass, and an architectural metal canopy at the main entrance.
C. 1,231 square feet of private amenity space is provided, as noted on the architectural site plan.
D. Roof modulation is accomplished with varying heights, varying projections, and contrasting materials, as noted on
the architectural building elevation drawings.
E. 529 square feet of street -side amenity space Is provided, as noted on the architectural site plan. An additional
678 square feet of adjoining street -side amenity spice is located within the right-of-way of Durbin and Dayton Streets,
but presumably can't be included in our calculation because it technically is not on the project property. But the
perceived amenity area will be 1,207 square feet (12% of the lot area), assuming we are allowed to extend the
landscaping to the edge of the sidewalks adjacent the frontages.
Citv of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan/General Desian Obiectives
A.1 Vehicular Access
Vehicle access is from the alley at the back of the building, minimizing the interaction of pedestrians and vehicular
traffic. No curb cut or vehicle parking is along the Dayton Street or Durbin Drive frontage. Existing street parking will
remain.
A.2 Layout of Parking
Parking is located within the first floor the building and is not visible from the Dayton Street or Durbin Drive frontage.
A.3 Connections On- and Off -site
Pedestrian connection to the main entrance of the building is from the Dayton Street sidewalk. Two units are
accessed directly from the Durbin Drive sidewalk. Community Transit service is within walking distance. Bicycle
access is provided from the Dayton Street sidewalk.
A.4 Building Entry Location
The main entrance to the building is through a covered entry plaza at the corner of Dayton and Durbin. The covered
space accommodates limited gathering along the sidewalk just outside the main entrance, and features a bench for
the enjoyment of the outdoors.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 54
2.d
627 Dayton Multi -Family Zoning Compliance Summary
November 8, 2022 (Updated April 4, 2023)
Page 3 of 4
A.5 Setbacks
The building is set back from the west property line varying from six feet to almost ten feet, providing additional
distance to the existing adjacent building. Along Dayton Street the building modulates between two feet and four feet
from the property line, allowing for landscaping along the sidewalk. The building setback along Durbin Drive varies
from just over three feet to nearly six feet, providing additional landscaping along the sidewalk that also acts as a soft
buffer along the ground -floor units.
A.6 Open Space
According to the recently -adopted rules governing open space, ten percent of the lot area must be provided as
private amenity space for the residents, and five percent of the lot area must be provided as pedestrian area, located
between the building and the sidewalk, and open to the sky. See separate revised site plan and section above
relating to 22.43.080.
A.7 Building/Site Identity
The distinctive architectural treatments of the building exterior, including variations in colors, materials, patterns, and
the modulation of the building massing, provide for an easily identifiable landmark structure. The south and east
fagades provide a strong edge to the streetscape, helping to reinforce those portions of Dayton Street and Durbin
Drive as outdoor "rooms." Future development of a similar density and character, as allowed for in the
comprehensive plan, will further reinforce that.
A.8 Weather Protection
A covered main entry to the building and canopies above the entrances to the two units accessed directly from
Durbin Drive provide ample weather protection and provide human -scaled architectural elements.
A.9 Lighting
Lighting will be provided for both pedestrian and vehicular security in entering and exiting the building and throughout
the parking level. Fixtures are chosen to minimize glare visible from nearby properties. Decorative fixtures will be
featured at all pedestrian entrances.
A.10 Signage
Signage is limited to that which displays the name and address of the building.
A.11 Site Utilities
The dumpster is located within an enclosure accessed from the alley. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be hidden
behind the parapet. Electric meters are located in the parking area. Pedestrians will not be exposed to such
necessary features for building services.
A.13 Landscape Buffers
Landscaping is provided along the west, south, and east edges of the site, to provide a pedestrian -friendly edge to
the property and enhance the pedestrian experience both from on the property as well as the adjacent sidewalks.
AN Building Form
The rectangular form utilizes the allowable building envelope, yet features modulation and articulation on all sides to
create visual interest and reduce the apparent bulk of the building. Variations in the roof form also add visual
interest, with the portions of sloped roof identifying with contemporary residential architecture. The proposed project
is seen as a guide for future redevelopment allowed and encouraged by the comprehensive plan.
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 55
2.d
627 Dayton Multi -Family Zoning Compliance Summary
November 8, 2022 (Updated April 4, 2023)
Page 4 of 4
A.15 Massing
The apparent bulk of the building is mitigated by providing human -scaled modulation along both the Dayton Street
and Durbin Drive frontages, as well as a variation in the materials, textures, and colors of the exterior finishes. A
discernable visual rhythm is created by the projecting building elements being clad with lap siding of a light color, and
the receding elements clad with paneled siding and metal reveals of a darker color. The effect has the appearance
of several smaller building elements grouped together to form a larger composition.
A.16 Roof Modulation
The roof parapet varies with the modulation of the exterior walls and contrasts with elements that have a sloped roof,
to further reduce the apparent bulk of the building and add visual interest.
A.17 Wall Modulation
The modulation of the west, south, and east fagades visible from Dayton Street and Durbin Drive provide visual
interest and respond to building functions and characteristics of the site. Variations in exterior finish materials and
colors enhance the reduction of the apparent mass of the building.
A.18 Building Fagade Design
The combination of varied materials, selective modulation, identifiable patterns of fenestration, and the use of
complimentary colors provides a distinctive fagade visible from Dayton Street and Durbin Drive and establishes a
strong identity along the streetscape.
A.19 Window Variety and Articulation
Variations in window sizes provide visual interest yet are arranged in a cohesive manner to provide an identifiable
architectural pattern and intentionally ordered aesthetic. The units on the two upper floors also feature sliding glass
doors and ornamental railings, adding additional architectural detail and interest.
A.20 Variation in Fagade Materials
Materials featured on the Dayton Street and Durbin Drive fagades include masonry, lap siding, paneled siding, and
extensive wood trim at the parapet, with each material having a unique complimentary color. This fagade treatment
is consistent on each side of the building, providing a uniform treatment while accommodating variations of the
building massing.
We look forward to reviewing our application materials with you and other staff as we continue along our approval
process.
Sincerely,
PWF Architecture, LLC
Philip W. Frisk, AIA, Principal
Washington State Architect Registration Number 7320
cc: Glenn Safadago, GBH Holdings
Atta
PLN2 Packet Pg. 56
627 Dayton
-LAI=
� � • �� � M - o'`l��s-�r.�"LYrS
04
L�iIC-JWIJ — -- UAL-.lJuuVLS - _ (0
Oft
4w
A.4
0
imp
>/ i• s L:f
I l N s
..11LAli
Ao
Its
,, _ Packet Pg. 57