Loading...
2023-07-27 Architectural Design Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 27, 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 A. 7741 : Approval of May 25 and June 15, 2023 Minutes 6. NEW BUSINESS A. 7744 : Site and Building Design Review of the Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 7740 : Request for continuance of public hearing for 627 Dayton Apartments 8. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS A. Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. 9. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 10. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda July 27, 2023 Page 1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2023 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Staff Recommendation Approve the minutes from the ADB's regular May 25, 2023 meeting and June 15, 2023 special meeting. Minutes from the May 25 regular meeting and June 15 special meeting are attached. Attachments: May 25, 2023 draft minutes June 15, 2023 draft minutes Packet Pg. 2 O CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair (online) Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online) Joe Herr Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Board Members Absent Maurine Jeude (excused) Lauri Strauss APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Michele Szafran, Planner AUDIENCE COMMENTS (on items not on the agenda) None APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 23, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes and March 8, 2023 ADB Special Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERB, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS • Phase 1 Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 3 O Chair Bayer introduced the Phase 1 design review meeting for a proposed 17-unit multifamily residential building at 627 Dayton Street and reviewed the purpose and the process of the hearing. She asked if any member of the Board had engaged with communication with proponents or opponents regarding the design review of this project outside of the public hearing process. All members stated they had not. She asked if any members of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed that they could not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner. All members stated they did not. She asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to her or any other board member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one indicated that they did. All participants affirmed that they would tell the truth. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Clugston made the staff presentation. He reviewed the two-phase hearing process; the packet, 19 attachments and review context; site context; BD2 zoning requirements, and design standards. Staff recommended that the Board consider: • Design Guidelines and Standards • Public Comments • Revisions to private amenity space to make it more usable. • Additional variety in materials • Additional trim around windows • Additional sidewalk amenities along Dayton if power lines are buried. • Screening of openings in west garage wall Staff is recommending that the Board work through the design guideline checklist and continue the hearing to a date certain. July 27 was suggested by staff. Applicant Testimony: Phil Frisk with PWF Architecture stated they went to great lengths to conform to the new codes that the City has for modulation, articulation, variety of materials, etc. For the most part, they are in compliance. They appreciate the work the City has done over the past several years to have a really nice pedestrian environment. They like to think they are contributing by introducing a lot of more pedestrians/residents to the downtown core because this is within walking distance of downtown. He noted that it is not unusual to have objections when there is change in an area. The City has done a good job of mitigating impacts of bigger buildings and has also given a lot more opportunity for more people to enjoy living in downtown Edmonds. Public Testimony: Ann Christianson stated she had submitted a letter and asked how that would be addressed. Senior Planner Clugston stated that written comments would be addressed in Phase 2 in the next staff report. Ms. Christianson commented that there are five huge trees along Durbin Drive that are not mentioned and not shown in any of the drawings. The smallest tree is 20 inches around and the other ones are three times that size. What is going to happen with those trees? She also had a question about how vehicular trips are being calculated. The City said that because an office building is being taken down that there would be four less peak evening car trips although they're netting 13 parking spaces. She also asked how high the parapet is. She would like a definition of private amenity space. If they are counting people's decks and porches as private amenity space then the little Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 4 O strip of grass along the west side isn't private amenity space; that is amenity space for the entire building. She asked about the placement of the electric meters. Are these in the garage or the private amenity space? Greg Brewer, Edmonds resident, asked why they are jamming these two projects together in one meeting? Why would there be a 100% multifamily building in the BD2? Whey did it take six months to have the first public hearing? He expressed frustration with the process. He contended that the Dayton Street project was not properly vested in time for consideration as a 100% multifamily building and that it should be denied until it complies with Ordinance 4282. The fact that there were no plans available to the public on the posting date of December 5 leads him to believe that this application did not have completeness on the date of November 18. An inquiry to the Planning Department on January 19 still yielded no access to Dayton Street plans. Since Ordinance 4282 was officially adopted on November 23, and no plans for public comment were available until sometime after January 19, 2023, this project does not appear to have property public notice. The project is not properly vested under the old code and needs to be resubmitted under Ordinance 4282 with business on the ground floor. Will Ma _ n� noted that the first attempt to permit these two projects early last year was met with huge public outcry. The City Council issued a moratorium to provide a measure of time to refine standards and the extent of the BD2 zone with the focus on true mixed -use development. A great deal of effort reviewing building details, public space, and downtown storefronts was expended. Additionally, a good amount of time and effort was focused on public private space so that future development would enhance the downtown experience for residents, visitors, and community alike while providing for diversity, opportunity, and inclusion within a walkable downtown core. They need development that provides an adequate amount of public private space to gather and socialize with the community and provide a vibrant place to live and visit. Both of these projects fail to meet these goals. The Dayton Street project should include commercial space. Neither project even attempts to provide adequate public or private amenity space. Locating the ADA units within the lower level without an elevator to move about the building sends a message to the community that these projects are not interested in diversity, inclusion, or community. Visiting your fellow residents in a multifamily building should be a primary amenity, and ADA access is required to all amenities. Public space is essentially a non-existent corridor. Private space amenity for Dayton is primarily located between buildings in the buffer zone so units don't face into the adjacent building. The buffer space is minimal, creating an amenity space with little benefit. The building exteriors reflect the efficiency of design and an attempt to minimally meet standards and maximize profit. Mr. Magnuson stated that he wants mixed use development in the downtown core, but he wants it to be good for the residents and the community alike. The projects need to provide public and private space with commercial that activates the street front and enhances the downtown experience. Neither of these projects meets the goals. Marta Card, Edmonds resident, asked how many people live in the downtown Edmonds area. She has lived right next door to 627 Dayton for 17 years. Her neighbor has lived there for 36 years. There is a lot of green space there with rabbits and vegetable gardens. The way this building is going to be built there will be no space between the buildings. The entrance to the garage will be right next to her neighbor's apartment. He is worried about fumes, noise, and access. She expressed concern about adequate parking for the residents of the new buildings. She commented that the idea of bringing more business downtown is nuts because they already have a lot and have challenges getting dinner reservations. She knows every business owner downtown and loves this city. She feels they are turning it into Ballard, and they didn't sign up for that. She expressed concern about the rents for the new units and the impacts on housing prices in the city. Who is going to pay for burying the cable? She again expressed concern about the lack of adequate parking being provided for these new buildings. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 5 O Lothar Biermanski, Edmonds resident, agreed with Ms. Card's comments. He does not think what is being presented is in keeping with what he has seen in his 40-some years in Edmonds. It's a great big structure that doesn't fit in Edmonds. They need to cater to people who would come to enjoy a walk in Edmonds. They don't need more people. They have people here that really enjoy the city the way it was. He had questions about structures that will be taken out. He wishes they could retain what they have in Edmonds. Karen Biermanski, Edmonds resident, stated she lives on Bell Street between 6th and 7th. There frequently is not parking on the street so it is necessary to park in the alley. What is the square footage of the units? What is the height of the trees? She hopes they will not be taller than 25 feet. How many parking spaces will there be? There should be at least one per unit and a lot of people have two cars. Parking is a problem in Edmonds, and we don't need to add to it. Kathy Brewer, Edmonds resident, lives really close to this building. She stated that they have already have parking problems. They have a historical home with no driveway. Residents' parking is going to flood onto the already crowded streets. She loves the building that is going to be torn down and is upset that it will be replaced with this building which doesn't fit Edmonds. It is very inappropriate and looks like it could be anywhere. She can't believe they say they took the time to carefully consider things. She agrees with all the previous comments. If there is going to be a building there, a lot more thought should be put into the design for the quality of life for the tenants there and for all of the neighbors who will be looking at it and dealing with its impacts. She very much opposes this building. Abraham Mathew, Edmonds resident, lives across the street from the current beautiful building on Dayton. He asked for clarity on the improvements that are going to be made on Durbin Drive. He expressed concern about increased traffic. The left turn from Durbin to Dayton is a dangerous one. Are there any safety measures or other improvement plan to manage the flow better? He would also like to know details of the plan for burying power lines on Dayton. Will this require tearing up the newly paved Dayton Street? The renderings are quite an eyesore. It looks like the cheapest possible finishes are going to go on this building. That is not what we want in Edmonds. He hopes the ADB is going to make some suggestions to make it fit in with the rest of the neighborhood because right now it does not. Linda Fireman, 600 Bell, expressed concern about proper access to the disabled units. The building is way too big. The outside amenity space looks like a little strip of land you would take your dog to pee. There is nothing else for people at this building or at 611. These two buildings need to be done again with more outdoor space, more compliance. They are the worst design. She can't believe they would have something like this in Edmonds. She also expressed concern about more people and more parking challenges in Edmonds. Board Questions: Board Member Loch asked if there is a requirement for onsite landscaping. Senior Planner Clugston replied that the street side amenity space along Dayton and Durbin are required. That is 5% of the project plat area. In this case those areas are landscaped. No other landscaping is required. Board Member Loch asked if that counted as private amenity space. Mr. Clugston replied that it does not. It is street side amenity space. Board Member Herr addressed the ADA question. He stated that one unit has a ramp. The other unit has another entrance from the lobby that does not have stairs. Both of those units are in compliance with the code. He commented that when the City of Edmonds has a design code and someone designs something to that code, it Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 6 O is very difficult to say you don't like the building. If you don't like the building, you have to address the code issues. He commented that he had spent a lot of time looking at the various multifamily buildings in Edmonds. He noticed that condominiums tend to have more architectural features because you have to sell them. A developer who is building market rate apartment tends to not have as pretty a building as could be had if it were a condo. There is adequate parking in this building per the code — one space per unit. Additionally, the State has passed regulations allowing a fourplex or triplex on single family lots all over Edmonds. Edmonds didn't want it but the State ignored that and said it will be allowed. Also, with the new Energy Code coming up there is going to be some significant building detailing that is going to be difficult to implement. Board Member Schmitz asked if the code gives a minimum width for the private and public amenity areas. Senior Planner Clugston replied that there are no dimensional requirements. It's just a percentage of lot area. Board Member Schmitz asked if the code spells out the type of activities the private or public amenities should foster. Senior Planner Clugston replied that it does not. Board Member Schmitz asked if there are regulations regarding the types or number of trees on the site. Senior Planner Clugston replied that there are not. Board Member Schmitz asked for clarification about staff s recommendation for additional screening of the parking area. Senior Planner Clugston referred to the three openings on the west side of the building adjacent to the private amenity space. Typically, they see screening of those areas with landscaping. Since there is no landscaping here, staff suggests some grating or grill work that could take the place of that. Board Member Schmitz asked about the building height. Senior Planner Clugston explained that as shown in preliminary drawings it would be at 30 feet. They have also shown an architectural element to be an additional two feet which is an allowed exception for height. Board Member Schmitz asked if there is anything other than building height and ceiling height that limits the architect from maximizing the amount of building on the site. Mr. Clugston replied that there is not. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the garage is the only designated spot for parking. Senior Planner Clugston replied that it is. There are 17 stalls in the garage — one per dwelling unit as per code. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the trees on the site currently have to be taken down for construction. Senior Planner Clugston replied that they do. There are trees along Durbin and Dayton. The power lines that are along Dayton are going to have to be buried, so the sidewalk along Dayton will certainly have to be replaced along with those trees. There are five trees along Durbin. Four of those have been identified by the Parks arborist as being in poor condition and will be removed. There is one additional tree that is younger and in better health but they are all sweet gum trees which are not recommended as street trees. The intent is to remove all five trees and replace with new frontage and new street trees as determined by the Street Tree Plan and the Parks Department. Chair Bayer referred to a concern raised about Durbin and traffic safety issues. She asked staff about the traffic study that was done. Senior Planner Clugston explained that the traffic engineer and the fire district did not mention any needed improvements in their comments. Planning Manager Levitan added that those items would be addressed as part of the review. He pointed out that the intent of this public hearing is to focus on the design guidelines which is within the purview of the ADB. Although there have been public comments about ADA and traffic those are things that will be addressed primarily through the building code, through traffic impact fees or things that are outside the purview of the ADB's review. Chair Bayer asked staff to review their recommendation for revisions to private amenity space. Senior Planner Clugston explained there are a couple balconies on the northwest units and then some private amenity space along the ground level along the west side of the building which is not very accessible for residents of the building. He recommended another way to access that space or possibly additional balconies. Chair Bayer Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 7 O commented that they need more open space, and she hopes that will be corrected with the process they are currently going through. She also asked about the recommendation for additional variety in materials. Board Member Clugston commented that the Board should consider requiring some additional materials. The code specifies a preferred set of materials- natural stone, metal, those sorts of things. It is not a requirement that only those are used but it needs to be a balance of materials. He recommended additional materials that could look like the preferred products. Board Member Schmitz asked Mr. Frisk if there is anything else he could see doing with regard to materials, maybe at the entrance to the building. Mr. Frisk replied that there are opportunities to introduce more variety to the exterior wall services. They will continue to work with the City on this. Board Member Schmitz asked if there is anything staff is recommending with the canopy at the front entrance. Senior Planner Clugston replied that there is nothing extra that they would require. Board Member Schmitz commented that the building materials are very monolithic. He thought they could do more perhaps up under the eaves to maybe break that down one last step or put bands in some places to somehow break up the lap siding. He suggested more detailing or design thought be put into this. He also wondered if there is more they could do with the window treatments. Mr. Frisk agreed that they could add some more details but stated that they don't want it to get too busy. He stated that there are all kinds of opportunities with the exterior design. Board Member Schmitz commented that he goes to the market every weekend. He parks at the library and there are often not many spaces. He has noticed and complained about not being able to walk on the Durbin sidewalk; you have to walk in the road. He asked if the setback here increased public right of way or just expands on what was already public right of way by taking out the obstructions. Senior Planner Clugston explained that as envisioned the area from the sidewalk to the face of the building would be updated. There would be a new 5-foot sidewalk and street trees along there. The whole length would be pedestrian friendly with appropriate street trees along that side of the building. Board Member Schmitz suggested that street trees would be required to replace the ones that are removed. There was some discussion about the rendering not displaying correctly. Senior Planner Clugston commented that the engineering division had additional corrections as well dealing with that Durbin street front, street trees, sidewalk, and all the other requirements they would need. Those will be part of the Phase 2 materials. Chair Bayer asked if staff made recommendations to add modulation to the north wall. Senior Planner Clugston replied they did not, but the Board could if desired. Chair Bayer commented that it looks like it needs something more to address the scale and mass on the north side, especially on the corners that wrap around. It looks very boxy. She hopes the Board would want to address that. Board Member Schmitz recommended that the north base of the building be further developed by continuing it and turning in at the garage entrance a little bit. By further defining that entrance with the brick veneer, it would allow it to be a more cohesive part of the building. He also asked Chair Bayer if her recommendation would be to add a secondary panel or other natural material that meets the Board's recommended materials suggestion. Chair Bayer confirmed that it would. Chair Bayer asked for clarification about the process concerns raised by Greg Brewer about the legality of the vesting of the application under the interim ordinance. Senior Planner Clugston stated he could address that in the Phase 2 staff report. Planning Manager Levitan added that there is another legal avenue to challenge that. It isn't something that would be handled through the ADB decision process since it is not directly related to the design guidelines and the role of the ADB. Mr. Brewer explained that it has everything to do with the design because if it turns out that this is not legally vested it will have to have business on the ground floor. He believes this has to be considered along with what they are doing today. He agreed that this is not the avenue to address those concerns legally, but it is important to address it here because it affects the project. Planning Manager Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 8 O Levitan agreed but noted that it shouldn't factor into the ADB's decision making until there has been a legal challenge to the vesting status. That is a risk the applicant is taking. Design Guidelines Checklist Site Planning. - Reinforce site characteristics • Bayer - High priority. • Brooks - High priority. She added that aside from the trees that need to be taken down, the existing building is mainly surrounded by concrete and not much landscaping. She sees this as an opportunity to improve on that. • Schmitz — He echoed the comment about improving what is there currently. The existing site characteristics don't lend themselves well to the pedestrian environment. He feels like that should be a priority for this project. It appears that there is an effort being made to connect the site to the street and that should continue to be prioritized. • Herr - High priority. • Loch — Low priority. He doesn't see the project as reinforcing anything that is there now because it is basically stripping the site clean and starting over. For him it is a lower priority because the new development doesn't look anything like the existing site. In response to a request from the public, public testimony was reopened. Public Testimony (continued): Ann Christianson said she lives directly across the alley from this building so she has the view of the north side of the building. She appreciates them bringing up the flat scape that is the north view. She thinks something needs to happen about that. She is interested in the comment that the height is 30 feet plus the two -foot parapet. She would like to know where the 30 feet is measured from because according to the renderings it is measured at the lowest part of the alley. Board Member Schmitz noted that it is measured by the average grade of the site. Mr. Frisk added that where it says "30 feet" on the rendering is just where it is visually shown. It doesn't mean it is measured there. Ms. Christianson noted that Durbin is not a street. It is part of the exit of the parking lot. She is upset about the sick trees that she watches leaf out and bloom each year. She wonders when the City would take them out and when they would put a new sidewalk in. She doesn't think it would be in the near future with the Tree Code going on right now. Senior Clugston replied they would come down with the project. Chair Bayer asked if the ADB has the latitude to ask or strongly recommend that they keep those trees. Senior Planner Clugston replied they could make that recommendation, but due to the health of the trees he does not think they will be retained. Ms. Christianson asked if they could ask that larger trees be put in. Senior Planner Clugston replied that the Street Tree Code requires a certain size but he wasn't sure what that was. Greg Brewer referred to comments about the corner where the stairwell is and pointed out how basic and plain that is. He thinks they would want a treatment on that corner to break it up. Also, the pole going into the parking garage looks like a real hazard and a liability for the owner. He would like to see them pull back a little bit from the sidewalk to give more livability, walkability and interplay between the sidewalks, the pedestrians, and the building. Even if it was two feet, it would be a huge difference. He agreed that Durbin is part of the parking lot Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 9 O which people back out onto. Technically, it's a street but the use of Durbin is not a normal use. To say it is a normal street is not accurate. Suzanne James, resident, asked why there isn't an elevator in the building. How would disabled residents go visit other residents in the building? Mr. Frisk replied that they would come down to the ADA units. Ms. James replied that is not equitable. She asked if there is a certain percentage of the apartments that will be set aside for affordable housing. Mr. Frisk was not sure. They will be market rate apartments. They are building these units for teachers, first responders, professionals, retired people ... Ms. James commented that that average teacher can't afford a market rate apartment. Mr. Frisk disagreed and noted that they have other buildings they rent to these groups. It was noted that the International Building Code does not require users to build an elevator simply so someone can get to a top level if it's not required. The City is not allowed to require that either. Karen Biermanski stated that one of her concerns is that this is a multifamily high -density building. What is the possibility that this is going to happen again? Board Member Schmitz replied that they are not allowed to disallow development in the City. If a developer comes to the City with a development goal that meets all of the requirements, they can't stop them. Lothar Biermanski commented that common sense should be used. Design Guidelines Checklist/Site Planning (continued from above) 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics • Schmitz - Low priority because the existing streetscape doesn't lend itself well to a walkable downtown. He thinks that reinforcing the existing streetscape characteristic would go against the number 1 point which was reinforcing site characteristics and enhancing those as a higher priority. • Herr, Loch, and Brooks - Low priority • Bayer - High priority 3. Entry clearly identiflable from the street • Consensus was high priority. 4. Encourage human activity on street • Bayer — High priority. This is a high visibility street with a lot of walkers. The lack of open space does not encourage a lot of human activity. The design should encourage human activity. Senior Planner Clugston had recommended adding benches, hanging flowers, etc. when they replace the sidewalk. • Schmitz — High priority if they are talking about walking and enjoying the public realm. • Herr — There is already a sidewalk and landscaping. He feels this is already addressed. Notice how much human activity is happening anywhere in Edmonds. He doesn't see people congregating out on the sidewalk. • Brooks — High priority S. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites • Schmitz — High priority • Herr — Low priority or not applicable • Bayer — Low priority Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 10 O Board Member Loch stated he didn't find this process useful. He thinks all of the criteria are important so he doesn't want to minimize any of them, although some may not be applicable. He thinks it would be more beneficial for the audience and architect to hear from the ADB things that should be changed in the design to achieve the criteria in a better way. Senior Planner Clugston stated that the code requires the ADB to go through this checklist; however, with the passage of House Bill 1293 they are going to have to go back through and look through the Design Board's review processes and the standards and guidance themselves. He noted that as they go through it, they can offer design -related points related to the concept. 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy, and interaction (residential projects) • Consensus was low priority. 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site • Consensus was high priority. 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property • Schmitz — Low priority because they have done this for the most part. • Herr — Low priority because the requirements have been met. • Brooks, Bayer, and Loch — High priority 9. Discourage parking in street front • Not applicable 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts • Consensus that it is a high priority, but they have done it. Bulk and Scale: Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones • Consensus that this is a low priority for this location. Architectural Elements and Materials: Complement positive existing character and/or responds to nearby historic structures • Brooks — High priority • Bayer — High priority • Senior Planner Clugston noted that the parcel to the north is on the Edmonds Historic Register and then there's another historic site two parcels down on Dayton Street. • Schmitz — High priority to complement nearby historic structures but not to match them. • Herr — Low priority 2. Unified architectural concept • High priority 3. Use human scale and human activity Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 11 O • High priority 4. Use durable, attractive, and well -detailed finish materials • High priority — recommendations have already been made. S. Minimize garage entrances • Low priority based on the design. Pedestrian Environment: Provide convenient, attractive, and protected pedestrian entry • High priority but they have done this. 2. Avoid blank walls • Bayer - High priority — She still has an issue with the north side. • Schmitz — Low priority because they have already done this. They already talked about this when they talked about the lap siding and additional treatments the architect could potentially take. High priority to address that portion. • Brooks — High priority • Herr — They could make the corner with the little windows in the stairwell much more attractive. 3. Minimize height of retaining walls • Not applicable 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas • Not applicable S. Minimize visual impact of parking structures • Schmitz - High priority — The City has already recommended some screening potential. • Herr — High priority — He agreed with screening the garage openings. 6. Screen dumpsters, utility, and service areas • Low priority 7. Consider personal safety • High priority • Loch — He said he didn't see a gate or door on the garage. Landscaping: Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood • High priority — Improve what is existing. Follow city standards and do even better if you can. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site • High priority — This seems similar to item 1. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 12 O 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions • Not applicable MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO JULY 27. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • 611 on Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing (PLN2022-0085) Chair Bayer recommended moving this item to the June 22 meeting due to the late hour. Board Member Schmitz disagreed because he thought the applicant needed to get the answers as soon as possible so they are provided the best opportunity to have their Phase 2 in a similarly timely fashion. Planning Manager Levitan commented that they also had the option of scheduling a special meeting prior to June 22. Chair Bayer said she did not want to rush through this big project and preferred to postpone it. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO CONTINUE WITH THE 611 PHASE 1 HEARING. MOTION TIED (2-2 WITH BOARD MEMBER LOCH ABSTAINING). There was significant discussion about whether to conduct the hearing tonight and to find a future date that would work for the participants. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, TO RESCHEDULE THE PHASE 1 HEARING OF 611 MAIN TO JUNE 15. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, THAT THE MEETING BEGIN AT 5:00 P.M. Board Member Schmitz thought that 5:00 might not work for the members of the public and might give the impression that the Board is trying to avoid additional public comment even though they aren't. He thinks that 6 p.m. should work. Others agreed. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REFLECT THE STARTING TIME OF 6:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 13 O Design Review after House Bill 1293 Senior Planner Clugston explained that changes will be coming the Board's way regarding process. The two- phase public hearings will go away, and design standards need to be clear and objective. The City has until June 2025 to complete this. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board members congratulated Vice Chair Brooks on her new baby. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 14 O CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting June 15, 2023 Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Michele Szafran, Planner A. 7592: 611 on Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing (continued from May 25, 2023) Chair Bayer reviewed the purpose of the Phase 1 hearing which was continued from the May 25 regular meeting. She reopened the public hearing, discussed procedures. She asked if any board members had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the design review of this project outside of this hearing process. All members replied they had not. She solicited any conflict -of -interest issues. None were raised. She asked if anyone objected to her participation or any other board member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one raised any objections. She asked anyone planning to testify to affirm that their testimony would be truthful. Planner Michele Szafran made the staff presentation. She explained there was an updated Staff Report in the packet along with 19 attachments. Public comments are included as attachment 19. Three additional comments have been received. The commentors have been listed in the staff report as a party of record. She discussed Phase 1 of the two-phase hearing process, reviewed the site and proposal context, discussed BD2 zoning requirements, and highlighted design standards. Staff believes that there could be a little more improvement with massing and treating blank walls as well as transparency at street level. Staff has recommended additional Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 15 O design elements be used on the northern facade to help break up the facade to echo historic patterns. Historically building widths vary from 30-60 feet. Staff recommendations for ADB consideration: • Prioritize design guidelines and standards. • Revisions to transparency. • Address city staff corrections (visibility, fire). • Break up north facade. • Provide additional trim around windows. • Additional sidewalk amenities on Main if power lines are buried. • Screening of utility cabinets. Staff recommends August 24 as a date certain for Phase 2 of the design hearing. Clarifying questions and answers followed. Applicant Testimony: Phil Frisk, architect, stated they have worked hard to make sure they are in compliance with the zoning and design requirements. They are looking forward to having this building be a positive impact to the neighborhood. He expressed appreciation for all the input and stated they would continue to work with city staff to address the questions raised. They can easily accommodate the issues raised in the presentation and will have changes ready for the August hearing. Public Testimony: Lynda Fireman, 600 Bell Street, commented on the impact the development would have on those who live across from and on the alley on the north side. The impact to the alley is never addressed. She expressed concern about noise impacts of HVAC equipment. She proposed a mural on the entire blank wall commemorating and including the historic cottage that is being torn down with many trees and shrubs showing in the background. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify back alleys and commercial spaces. Even though the property is below the threshold to require open space she believes there should be more than one outdoor bench. She wondered if there is air conditioning or a heat pump. She wondered if the height of the lofts could be reduced to allow HVAC on the roof. Will Ma 1g,� uson stated that the building design lacks creativity. Neither the commercial nor the residential entry is dominant. The overall design is not consistent with downtown character, nor does it provide any beneficial interest to the community. He expressed concern that the design for commercial portions does not meet many of the commercial requirements for the BD2 zone. The residential levels reflect much of the same design as the Dayton Street apartments providing ADA units isolated to the lower level because the building does not have elevators to the upper floor. Residential entry is located around the corner with access gained by descending stairs or ramps to the basement level. This appears to be more of a side alley entry approach than a prominent entry and represents an overall safety issue. He stated that the community wants creative, interesting, community -oriented mixed -use development in the downtown area and other core walkable communities. They need better mixed -use development than what this project proposal provides. He does not think the community will be supportive of this project if it goes forward. This proposal could paralyze further public support for real Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 16 O progress on the development code and future quality, mixed -use projects. Neither Dayton nor Main Street are the quality projects the community desires as they offer little enhancement or benefit to the community. Greg Brewer, Edmonds resident, stated that the proposed project on 611 Main has problems that need to be addressed. He is a citizen and builder in Edmonds. He is not opposed to development, but he is opposed to bad development in the quaint downtown core. This building does not check all the boxes and he implored the ADB to suggest specific changes to this building. It's a plain, big, ugly box that doesn't fit, and if allowed to be built, will be an eyesore for the foreseeable future. This building's lack of design features has stirred the criticism of many citizens, and the developer doesn't seem to care. The building doesn't seem to even meet the bare minimum design standards. Much of the building's design goal appears to be to yield the cheapest possible structure for the highest profit. He stated that the following items need work: • The public and private amenity space is extremely small for such a large building. The glazing on the streetside is not even close to being in compliance. • Main street entrance is small and will limit future use of the building. It does nothing for the interplay between pedestrians and visitors to the building. • The ADA is horrible. There is no elevator connecting the first and second floors. One elevator going to all floors is the right thing to do. • The dumpster space appears to have two large doors opening five feet out into a 15-foot alley. This design shows a complete lack of respect for the neighbors' access to the alley use. • He stated he also has ideas about the front and plaza side of the building he would like to share later in the hearing if allowed by Chair Bayer. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds resident, referred to design objectives and goals in the code and expressed concern about the following aspects: • Building entry location — The building should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings and be oriented to pedestrian walkways and pathways and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. • Building entry space — An area for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed -use buildings. • Setbacks — Create and maintain a landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for its transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. • Open space — For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. • Building Form, Wall Modulation — A variety of materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes or help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. The back of the building is blank, so it is not to scale with the condos directly behind it. • Building Facade — The exterior of the building is the portion of the building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. • She stressed that the code says that urban design in the downtown waterfront area should encourage its unique design, character, and important placemaking status within the city. • Building Setbacks — Create common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. This is not achieved, and the ADB should recommend a setback. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 17 O • She encouraged the ADB to carefully review all Comprehensive Plan elements that apply to this project. Cathy Brewer, Edmonds resident, said she is dismayed at what is about to happen to Edmonds' historic, quaint downtown with two proposed buildings by one developer that may meet building codes but definitely do not meet the design standards that Edmonds residents expect and desire in this special city. Both of the buildings require the removal of historic buildings that add charm to our town, while replacing them with bland, oversized, boxy, cheap looking structures that will negatively impact our downtown. She hopes that the ADB and planners will take this to heart and act appropriately to request the improvement of these buildings' designs so they won't be regrettable structures that we will all have to live with. Good design is of the utmost importance for both of these buildings. She shared many criticisms. This building would be an out -of -scale eyesore compared to the moderate -sized historic buildings surrounding the charming fountain nearby. The street appeal from Main is uninviting. The entry is smaller than what most houses have. The building spans from sidewalk to alley with no open space which is conducive to livability and pedestrian access. The continuous planter box along the front is a barrier to pedestrian traffic. The glazing requirements are meant to connect business and pedestrian traffic. The small area of windows does not meet the BD2 standards. The public amenity space is Spartan at best. There are no outside private community spaces of any kind. Plazas, patios, and decks are lacking or non -existing. The ADA access is the bare minimum. The ADA ramp takes up 40% of the plaza and would be better located at the front where the planter box is. There is no elevator to the second story units. She stated that this design needs to go back to the drawing board, and some major thought and consideration must be put into it before the planners should even consider it. 6th and Main is a gateway and deserves a quality building, not this one that could mar it forever. She urged the ADB to request positive changes for this development. Clarification Questions by the Board: Board Member Loch asked staff about permitted uses in the BD2 zone. Staff reviewed allowed uses. Vice Chair Brooks said she was also curious about the HVAC location and noise pollution. Mr. Frisk stated that this is a conceptual design so they haven't yet engaged a mechanical contractor to figure out the HVAC systems. There are a lot of minimum code requirements that address the sound of compressors and other equipment so they are sensitive to that and will be code compliant. Chair Bayer asked Mr. Frisk about the suggestion to have a mural on the north wall. He replied that he is open to it and has already contacted the Art Walk group regarding the process. There is a waitlist, and it could take 18 months to two years depending on the funding. He added that they reduced their windows because on the first review they were told there were too many windows. Chair Bayer asked about the 75% versus 45% transparency being proposed by the applicant. Ms. Szafran replied that the 75% minimum is in the code. Board Member Schmitz asked how they calculate the area and requirements for the windows. Ms. Szafran reviewed how this is calculated. Mr. Frisk explained they were asking for the reduction because of the expectation that this will be office space needing privacy and relief from the sun. He expects that the windows will be covered with miniblinds anyway. He asked if the ADB has the authority to reduce the requirement to 70%. Board Member Jeude commented on the high amount of use that the alleys in Edmonds get by pedestrians and noted that with the building so close to the edge it doesn't seem to be allowing for community access to those areas. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 18 O Chair Bayer asked if staff had any comments on the location of the dumpster. Ms. Szafran replied that the applicant still needs to address comments from fire and engineer. Staff does not have a problem with it as long as it is screened and on the property. There was some discussion about having a sliding gate to address the swinging door issue. Chair Bayer asked about reason for the location of the residential entrance. Mr. Frisk explained that that there is a requirement of 45 feet of commercial space on the designated street front so they had to go around the corner. He stated it is coming off a very large plaza with stairs and an ADA ramp right off the Main Street side. It will be quite visible. Chair Bayer asked staff if there is a requirement for awnings on Main Street. Ms. Szafran explained the code says that structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. Mr. Frisk said there is a small canopy over the residential entrance with signage so which will be visible from the Main Street sidewalk. Chair Bayer asked Greg Brewer about his ideas about the entry. Mr. Brewer commented that the building on 2nd and Main has the same situation with the slope, but they pulled the main floor back slightly. He recommended eliminating the planter box on this building and pulling the wall back three feet. That would provide a five-foot access that can then go along the front of the building. The window glazing can drop down lower and to allow a higher percentage of glazing. They could get rid of the ADA ramp in the plaza and allow it to actually be a plaza. Then you could roll a wheelchair all the way across the front of the building and have a level entry. He noted that the first design the applicant had showed a central entrance. Mr. Brewer also suggested backing up the back of the building two feet to have enough room for cars to pass. Chair Bayer asked if there has been a traffic study on the alley. Ms. Szafran replied that they have a transportation impact analysis worksheet that has already been provided. She didn't think it would require a study. Mr. Frisk said they thought they were below the threshold to require a traffic study. Planning Manager Levitan explained that the general threshold is 25 PM peak hour trips. He agreed that this project wouldn't be anywhere near that. Staff can consult with engineering to get their opinion. Clarifying Questions from the Public: Lynda Fireman noted that the alley width is only 15 feet, and the entrance on 66' is 12 feet. There are drop offs on either side, and you cannot pass a car in that alley. Chair Bayer asked where most people who live on that alley park their cars. Ms. Fireman replied that her building has garages that enter onto the alley. Some others have parking in the back, and some have garages that you enter from the street. A member of the public noted that the idea that the office windows would be covered by miniblinds is conceptual, as it would be up to the commercial tenants. Mr. Frisk agreed. The commentor also said that the issue with the gate on the dumpster is not just once a week when the dumpster is emptied but every time a resident opens the gate to throw garbage in. Another Edmonds resident commented that the applicant doesn't want to have any move ins and outs off Main Street so that means that the moving truck will be parked in front of her garage in the alley for hours on end every time someone moves in or out. She thinks they should be able to move in and out from the front of the building. Mr. Levitan indicated he would check with the building traffic engineer prior to the Phase 2 hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 19 O Mr. Brewer asked if it is the intent of the development code to put residential entries on the side of the building. He didn't think it made sense that they couldn't do both commercial and residential on the streetside. Regarding the dumpster, he wondered if they could just turn them 90 degrees so they open into the property and not the alley. Board Member Strauss asked how the ADA residents would get to the dumpsters. Mr. Frisk replied that there would be separate garbage cans that are accessible in the parking area. Deliberation: Board Member Strauss referred to the front elevation. She agreed that it is very blank and seems sort of haphazard. She would like to see smaller chunks that go all the way up on the front elevation to break it up a little bit. She recommended eliminating the planter near the front entrance, coming up to the sidewalk, and putting a canopy over it. She thinks an awning across the commercial space would help to make it more appealing and blend into the downtown area. She also agreed with pulling the first floor level back several feet and getting the ramp out of the plaza. She noted that putting an elevator up to the second floor would be very helpful. Regarding the back side of the building, the mural idea is nice, but just some modulation would be helpful. Mr. Frisk made some suggestions, and stated they were open to suggestions. Board Member Strauss recommended adding some balconies. If they are able to open up the plaza, she recommended putting some big planters and trees to make it feel like a courtyard and not just a big ramp. Vice Chair Brooks commented that the south side colored rendering looks "patchworky" and confusing. Board Member Schmitz thought extending the brick under the sill of the second -floor unit and along the stair going down into the residential area could help. Board Member Herr recommended pitching the roofs on both sides to give it more character. There was some discussion about other roof design possibilities. There appeared to be interest in this by the ADB. Board Member Schmitz asked if there is a minimum size for the commercial space other than the back wall being 45 feet back. Ms. Szafran replied that there was not. Board Member Schmitz noted that there is some opportunity to add more articulation to the fagade on the first floor. Mr. Frisk asked about getting a height variance so they could do a pitched roof with a ridge at 35 feet. There was discussion about the variance process which Ms. Szafran said was not an easy process. Board Member Herr asked when they made the 30-foot maximum height. Mr. Levitan indicated he would have to look at the legislative history. Board Member Herr commented that this is the reason they are getting the "boxy" buildings. Design Guidelines Checklist Site Planning: Reinforce site characteristics Bayer — High priority. High visibility area, gateway to downtown Herr, Strauss, Schmitz — Low priority. The existing site has no characteristics to reinforce. Jeude — High priority. Minimizing shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. This is a consideration for the folks to the north of the building. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 20 0 • Consensus was low priority. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics • High priority 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street • High priority 4. Encourage human activity on the street • High priority 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites • High priority 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy, and interaction (residential projects) • High Priority 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site. • High priority 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property. • High priority 9. Discourage parking on street front. • Not applicable. 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) • Not applicable. Bulk and Scale: 1. Provide sensitive transition to nearby, less -intensive zones • High priority — alley, neighbors to the east Architectural Elements: 1. Complement positive existing character and/or responds to nearby historic structures • Low priority — not a consistent character on the street except the awning 2. Unified architectural concept • High priority 3. Use human scale and human activity • High priority based on where it's at. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 21 O 4. Use durable, attractive, and well -detailed finish materials • High priority based on where it's at 5. Minimize garage entrances • Low priority — It's where it needs to be. They can't make it any smaller. Pedestrian Environment: 1. Provide convenient, attractive, and protected pedestrian entry • High priority 2. Avoid blank walls • High priority 3. Minimize height of retaining walls • Low priority — Zero lot line. There are retaining walls but you can't make them any smaller 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas • Not applicable 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures • Not applicable 6. Screen dumpsters, utility, and service areas • High priority 7. Consider personal safety • High priority Landscaping: 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood • High priority — Everyone has flowers and nice landscaping along the pedestrian path. How the architect decides to treat that front will play a big role in how the community responds to it. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site • High priority 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions • Low priority MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE PHASE 2 HEARING ON AUGUST 24. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15,2023 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 22 O The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting June 15, 2023 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 23 CD r c M N O N L d C 7 C R LO N w O R O L Q Q N N r 7 C E r R L M N O N L d C 7 7 a+ C d E t V R r r Q Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2023 Site and Building Design Review of the Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development (PLN2022- 0049) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History This is a new application. Staff Recommendation The ADB is asked to review and provide feedback on the site and building design elements of the Greenwalk Park PRD. Staff is proposing that the Board recommend that the Hearing Examiner approve the design of the project, subject to the conditions included in Section III of the attached staff report. Per ECDC 20.35.080.A.3, the July 27 meeting is a public meeting, not a public hearing - no public testimony will betaken. Narrative Fernandez and Barnes LLC is proposing a preliminary planned residential development (PRD) and formal subdivision of a three -acre site at 540 and 550 Edmonds Way into 16 single family residential lots. The existing houses, outbuildings and most other site improvements would be removed. A new access road would connect to Edmonds Way (SR-104) and two secondary drives would serve the new lots. PRDs provide flexibility in development standards that allow more compact development while still requiring projects to meet the underlying zoning density. The applicant is proposing to alter several development standards, and the design review process serves to ensure that the development is compatible with the surrounding area, which includes larger lots and homes. Per ECDC 20.35.080, the preliminary PRD application in PLN2022-0049 is first reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB), who reviews site layout, landscaping, and the home designs. ADB review occurs at a regularly scheduled meeting but does not include a public hearing or the ability for the public to comment on the project. The ADB will make a recommendation on project design to the Hearing Examiner, who makes the final decision on both the preliminary PRD (PLN2022-0049) and the associated preliminary formal subdivision application (PLN2022-0053) following a public hearing. An analysis of the proposal's compliance with applicable site and building design elements are included in the attached staff report. Attachments: Packet Pg. 24 PLN2022-0049 Greenwalk Park PRD staff report to ADB Attachment 1 - PRD Aerial Map Attachment 2 - Applicant Narrative Attachment 3 - Site Plan Attachment 4 - Building Plans Attachment 5 - Preliminary tree retention and landscape plans Packet Pg. 25 'nC. 1 S9V 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 Project: Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development File Number: PLN2022-0049 Date of Report: July 20, 2023 Staff Contact: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner ADB Meeting: Thursday -July 27, 2023 at 6:00 P.M. Brackett Room, 3rd Floor City Hall 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Or on Zoom at: https://edmondswa-gov.zoom.us/i/88959586932 Passcode: 591531 Join by phone at: 253 205 0468 I. PROJECT PROPOSAL Fernandez and Barnes LLC is proposing a preliminary planned residential development (PRD) and formal subdivision of a three -acre site at 540 and 550 Edmonds Way into 16 single family residential lots. The existing houses, outbuildings and most other site improvements would be removed. A new access road would connect to Edmonds Way (SR-104) and two secondary drives would serve the new lots. PRDs provide flexibility in development standards that allow more compact development while still requiring projects to meet the underlying zoning density. The applicant is proposing to alter several development standards, and the design review process serves to ensure that the development is compatible with the surrounding area, which includes larger lots and homes. Packet Pg. 26 Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 O II. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS A. PROCESS Per ECDC 20.35.080, the preliminary PRD application in PLN2022-0049 is first reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB), who reviews site layout, landscaping, and the home designs. ADB review occurs at a regularly scheduled meeting but does not include a public hearing or the ability for the public to comment on the project. The ADB will make a recommendation on project design to the Hearing Examiner, who makes the final decision on both the preliminary PRD (PLN2022-0049) and the associated preliminary formal subdivision application (PLN2022- 0053) following a public hearing. B. ATTACHMENTS The following materials are included with this report: 1. Aerial photo of project surroundings 2. Applicant's project narrative 3. Site plan 4. Building plans 5. Preliminary tree retention and landscape plans C. SITE CONTEXT 1. Address: 540 & 550 Edmonds Way (Tax IDs: 27032500308300 & 27032500308400) 2. Zoning: Single Family Residential — Master Plan (RS-MP). The PRD process is the master plan process appropriate for the location. 3. Neighborhood: The project site is located at the western end of the Westgate commercial area on the south side of Edmonds Way (SR-104) where the road splits off to the ferry lanes and begins to descend into the Edmonds Bowl (Attachment 1). To the west is the Town of Woodway, which is characterized by large lots and homes. To the north and south are parcels zoned RS-MP, which are developed with houses of varying size. Across SR-104 is an area of mixed zoning and development including single and multifamily residential together with small businesses. 4. Environment: A critical area determination was completed for the project site in 2022 (file CRA2022-0009) and found potential erosion hazard areas across the site consistent with the generally rolling topography. There is a small steep slope off the site in the SR-104 right-of- way that will not be disturbed as part of the proposed project. No streams or wetlands were found on or adjacent to the site but there are two artificial ponds on the property. The site contains a mix of native and ornamental trees around the more open areas near the existing houses, driveways, outbuildings, and ponds. Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 27 O Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 D. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN CRITERIA While the Hearing Examiner will ultimately determine whether the proposal meets the criteria to establish alternate development standards for a PRD, the ADB must evaluate the project relative to the specific single-family design standards that apply to planned residential developments: The design board will review the project for compliance with the urban design guidelines, landscaping, and/or the single-family design criteria in ECDC 20.35.060 and forward their recommendation of the site and building design on to the hearing examiner for his consideration. Their review will be at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, but will not include a public hearing or the ability for the public to comment on the project. [ECDC 20.35.080.A.31 Because PRDs may utilize alternative bulk development standards in residential zones, the following single-family design criteria are established to ensure that development of PRDs in single-family zones will maintain a single-family character. Although the criteria listed here are not necessarily consistent with every design characteristic of every single-family neighborhood in the city of Edmonds, the criteria have been developed to create a reasonable single-family residential setting. The intent behind these criteria is to ensure a high quality of design and construction for all buildings located in single-family neighborhoods where development standards may be modified through the PRD process. [ECDC 20.35.060] The applicant provided a narrative addressing compliance with the PRD criteria (Attachment 2) Staff's analysis of how the project meets the standards in ECDC 20.35.060 for single-family projects regarding design, placement, relationship, and orientation of structures is provided below. 1. Site Design a. Retain Significant Features Significant trees, topography and other environmental features as well as historic or landmark structures should be retained and/or integrally included in the design of the project. This might be done by designing homes that are multilevel to respond to the existing topography or buildings which have an irregular footprint to preserve healthy significant vegetation. The site is characterized by gentle slopes and contains a mix of native and ornamental trees around more open areas near the existing houses, driveways, outbuildings, and ponds, as shown on the aerial photo and site plan (Attachments 1 & 3). The applicant is proposing to remove 84 significant trees to allow for the site development and retain 36 significant trees, as shown on Attachment 5. An existing pond would be retained in an open space area near the center of the site (Attachment 3). Compliance with the tree Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 28 Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 O code in ECDC 23.10, including applicable tree replacement requirements and mitigation fees, will be verified as part of the subdivision review in PLN2022-0053. b. Vehicular Access Driveway widths shall not exceed 20 feet at curb cuts. Curb cuts should never exceed this width even if they provide direct access to a three -car garage. Shared driveways between adjacent homes are encouraged as a way to reduce the number and size of curb cuts and impervious surfaces. As shown on Attachment 3, most lots would have an individual driveway off the main plat road or secondary drives. Lots 14 and 15 would share a driveway. Driveway widths range from 10' to 18', except on Lots 6 — 8, which appear to be about 25' wide. A condition is proposed to verify driveway widths for those lots. c. Garage Locations Homes should have a visually diminished garage front. The elevations in Attachment 4 show a variety of two- and three -car garages across the eight proposed home designs. Some garages are more visually diminished than others from the curb while all are visually diminished or not visible from the exterior of the development at Edmonds Way. The front entries of each design project out further than the garages in each case, some more than others. While these designs would appear to meet the code, side -loaded or one -car garages would further reduce the visual impact of the garages from inside the development. The code requires a minimum of two off-street parking stalls for each unit but tandem parking (front -to -back rather than side -by -side) is permitted for those stalls in single family residences. d. Landscaping and Buffering Landscaping and buffering shall be consistent with the requirements of the urban design guidelines. The urban design guidelines for landscaping are codified in Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Because the project is surrounded by larger lot single family zones, a Type II or Type III landscape buffer could be used along north, west, and south edges of the development while a Type IV landscape buffer would be appropriate along Edmonds Way. Staff recommends using the Type III landscaping; a condition is proposed for the Board to recommend either the Type II or Type III. There are no specific requirements or recommendations for landscaping on the interior of the development except for street trees in the PRD design standards in ECDC 20.35.060.B.7 (discussed in section (g) below) According to ECDC 20.13.030: Type 11 Landscaping. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center; and Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 29 O Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. Type 111 Landscaping. Type 111 landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Type IV Landscaping. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is desired to see signage or into adjacent space for safety concerns. 1. Trees shall be deciduous and planted 25 feet on center and the trunk shall be free of branches below six feet in height. 2. Plant materials which will cover the ground within three years, and which will not exceed three and one-half feet in height. As shown on the preliminary landscaping plan (Sheet L3.1 of Attachment 5), a mixture of retained and proposed landscaping will screen the development from the surrounding area. Along Edmonds Way, an existing group of trees in the right-of-way north of the entrance to the plat road would remain undisturbed. South of the entrance, several existing large evergreens would be retained and several new trees would be installed. Other plant materials are not shown along that side of the development but the landscaping is generally consistent with the Type IV standard. Submittal of an updated landscaping Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 30 O Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 plan is included as a recommended condition of approval to allow the Hearing Examiner to verify compliance with the Type IV landscaping requirements. A mix of retained and proposed trees would buffer the north, west and south edges of the project. Other plant materials are not shown along that side of the development, but the landscaping is generally consistent with the Type III standard. The recommended condition of approval requiring an updated landscaping plan would allow the Hearing Examiner to verify compliance with the Type III landscaping requirements. Regarding street trees, 31 deciduous Prunus Cerasifera 'Cripoizam' Crimson Pointe Plum tree are proposed along the plat road and secondary drives. A condition of approval is proposed for the City to determine the appropriate street tree during the civil improvement phase on the associated subdivision. e. Building Entrances Homes should have a dominant front porch and/or entry expression. A separate pedestrian access should be provided from the sidewalk to the main building entrance. Each of the eight house designs have front porches or entries that are identifiable, but some are more dominant than others (Attachment 4). Some designs also have a separate pedestrian walkway from the entry to the plat road or access easements while others connect with driveways and broad surface parking areas. f. Open Space Requirements For PRDs with critical areas, separate open space tracts designated "critical areas open space" should be created for their protection. Usable open space shall be provided in accordance with ECDC 20.35.050(D). As mentioned previously, there are no critical areas on the site other than erosion hazard areas so no 'critical area open space' areas are proposed. Usable open space is required and proposed. ECDC 20.35.050(D) states: Usable open space and recreation facilities shall be provided and effectively integrated into the overall development of a PRD and surrounding uses and consistent with ECDC 20.35.060(B)(6). "Usable open space" means common space developed and perpetually maintained at the cost of the development. At least 10 percent of the gross lot area and not less than 500 square feet, whichever is greater, shall be set aside as a part of every PRD with five or more lots. Examples of usable open space include playgrounds, tot lots, garden space, passive recreational sites such as viewing platforms, patios or outdoor cooking and dining areas. Required landscape buffers and critical areas except for trails which comply with the critical areas ordinance shall not be counted toward satisfaction of the usable open space requirement. Since the project site is approximately 134,121 square feet, a minimum of 13,412 square feet of usable open space is required (there are no required landscape buffers or critical Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 31 Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 O areas). The site plan (Attachment 3) shows two open space tracts totaling 14,096 square feet (10.5% of gross lot area). The code requires that the open space must also be usable. Tract A (6,850 sq. ft.) includes a playground area with a basketball court while Tract B (7,246 sq. ft.) retains a portion of the existing pond and deck and adds a small play area. Guest parking is shown in both areas. Guest parking is not required for the development and is not listed in the 'usable open space' examples in the referenced code but nor is it specifically excluded. The road widths proposed in the development are reduced from standard width to reduce impervious surfaces so no on -street parking is available. As a result, the Board must determine whether it considers guest parking to be an acceptable use of the usable open space areas for the purposes of this project and make a recommendation on that to the Hearing Examiner. g. Street Design Site design should include a residential neighborhood street design which includes elements such as sidewalks on both sides, street trees and planting/parking strips. Each residential lot should have at least one associated street tree planted in the parking strip if present or in the front yard if not. As shown on the site plan (Attachment 3), the main plat road would be 24 feet wide at its intersection with Edmonds Way and includes a right -only turn movement to exit the development. Further into the development, the road narrows to 18 feet wide with 5- foot sidewalks on both sides that connect with the existing sidewalks at Edmonds Way. Parking would be prohibited on the plat road and landscaped parking strips are not provided. Two secondary access drives off the main plat road are 12 feet wide. No sidewalks are proposed in those locations due to low traffic volumes. Street trees are not proposed within a landscaped parking strip (no parking will be allowed on the plat road due to fire access) but rather on most individual lots along both sides of the plat road and secondary drives. An area for a project sign is shown near where the plat road joins Edmonds Way (Attachment 3). Any signage anticipated for the entrance must meet the requirements of ECDC 20.60.025.B.2 which states: The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential subdivisions, planned residential developments (PRD), or multifamily structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per main street entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be provided at each main entrance. A monument sign in that location could be up to 6 feet in height if it is set back at least 5 feet from any street or access easement. 2. Building Design Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 32 O Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 a. Characteristics of Single -Family Development To demonstrate a residential quality, single-family homes should have a strong connection between the street and the house. This can be accomplished by providing a pedestrian access or walk from the street to the front door or porch. From the street, the design should not emphasize the garage, but rather the human scale and elements of design (this could include pedestrian entrances, windows, and details that are a smaller, more human scale and texture). The eight proposed house floor plans range from about 2,750 — 3,700 square feet (Attachment 4). While fairly large, the houses exhibit human scale elements typical of most single-family projects using a modern design theme including facades divided horizontally and vertically with different materials and projections and flat roofs. Most of the houses have a pedestrian connection to the plat sidewalk or access drives. b. Entries and Porches Porches contribute to the richness and warmth of a neighborhood, therefore houses should have front porches consistent with the style and scale of the house and the neighborhood. Main entries should be prominent and oriented to the street. Each of the house designs in Attachment 4 shows a well -integrated pedestrian entry oriented toward the primary or secondary access drives. Most of the porches appear to be large enough to be used for outdoor seating, encouraging an opportunity for neighborhood interaction. c. Materials Materials should be used in a consistent manner on all sides of the house. In other words, do not use several materials to enhance the front of the building but leave the sides and back unembellished. Each of the houses in Attachment 4 shows varied modern design elements on all four sides of the building. d. Garages Garages facing the street or located at the front of a house should be no wider than one-half the width of the house. Per the elevation drawings in Attachment 4, all of the garages are less than 50% of the width of the house; however, a one -door garage using a permitted tandem space would be less dominant than side -by -side two -car garages. III. RECOMMENDATION According to ECDC 20.35.080.A.3, in order to recommend approval of a planned residential development of single-family residences, the ADB must find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria in ECDC 20.35.060. Based on the findings and analysis in this report, Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 33 Greenwalk Park PRD PLN2022-0049 staff is proposing that the ADB recommend that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the design for the proposed Greenwalk Park project in PLN2022-0049, subject to the recommended conditions. The recommendation is divided into two parts. THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE GREENWALK PARK PROPOSAL IN FILE PLN2022-0049 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.35.060. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DESIGN. PRIOR TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REVIEW OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Verification that all curb cuts for all driveways are a maximum of 20 feet wide. 2. An updated landscaping plan consistent with ECDC 20.13 showing all retained trees and proposed trees and landscaping throughout the development. Also show any fencing being considered throughout the project. THE BOARD ALSO RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING DESIGN CONDITIONS TO THE HEARING EXAMINER: 3. As noted in Section II.D.1.f, guest parking is being proposed over required usable open space areas. Guest parking is not required for the development, but it is also not specifically excluded from the definition of usable open space. No on -street parking would be possible due to the narrower road widths used in the PRD. Given those facts, the Board has determined that guest parking [can/cannot] be included as part of the usable open space areas. 4. Street tree species will be determined by the City during the civil phase of the subdivision review in PLN2022-0053. 5. Based on the Board's analysis of landscaping and tree retention, Type [/0//] landscaping is required on the north, west, and south sides of the development. 6. Any transformers, utility meters and similar features must be screened from view or camouflaged to minimize their visual obtrusiveness from the sidewalk along Edmonds Way and internal plat road and drives. 7. Staff will verify compliance of the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions through review of building, engineering, and fire permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of building permit without further design review by the Board if the design is substantially similar to that originally approved. Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 34 Map Title 0 225 450 Feet 8/12/2022 0 b Snohomish Coun y Assessor washingtnf -------------- -- -- -- --{ t' 1 dr}� tF:• r Legend Parcel Recent Sales 2022 Recent Sales 2021 Recent Sales 2020 --------; City Boundary County Park National Forest Water Street Ty pes Interstate State Route Local Road All maps. oata, and Information selforth herein ("Data'), are for Illustrative purp.. only and are not to be oons,damd an official citation to, or representation of, the Snohomish County Code. Amendments and updates to the Data, together with other applicable County Code provisions, may apply which are not depicted heroin. Snohomish County makes no representation or ranty concerning the content, accuracy, currency, completeness or quality of the Data contained harem and expressly darlaims any warranty of merchantability or fines. forany particular pmin— All parsons accessing or otherwise using this Data assume all responsibility for se thereof and agree to hold Snohomish County harmless from and against any damages, loss, claim om or liability arising out of any error, defect cr ission c,me ined within said Data. Washington State Law, Ch. 42.5 RCW, prohibits state and local agencies from providing access to lists of intlivitluals intended for use for commerdap pose antl, thus, no commercial use may be made of any Data comprising lists of i'Od!. u 1 Pjjg Packet Pg. 35 20 4) a 0 a r- d E s �o a a� E M a GREENWALK PARK PLAT 540 & 550 EDMONDS WAY PROJECT NARATIVE Parcel ID: 27032500308300 & 400 Property Address: 540 & 550 EDMONDS WAY City: EDMONDS Zip Code: 98026 Owner: Fernandez Barnes LLC SW1/4 SEC25 T27N R3E Existing and proposed occupancy: Single family residential Number of stories: 2 story individual dwelling units Zoning: RS-MP (plan to use RS-8 for underlying zoning requiring a PRD with master plan). Number of dwelling units: 13 on 540 & 3 on 550. Lot area: 2.33 + .55 acres = 2.88 acres SEC 25 TWP 27 RGE 031RT-106) N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 LESS RDSLESS N 35FT OF W 262.9FT LY W OF CO RD LESS PTN LY NELY ST HWY 1 W & LESS BEG 321. 83FT S & 30OFT E OF NW COR NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 TH CONT E 327.80FT M/L TO E LNNW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 TH N ALG SD E LN TO SWLY MARG ST HWY TH NWLY ALG SD MARG 175FT M/L TO A PT 20OFT SELY OF INT N LN SW1/4 SW1/4 & WLY LN ST RD TH SWLY 285FTM/L TPB LESS ST HWY Develop this site in accordance with RS-MP zoning criteria by developing a master plan for the two lots complying with the requirements or a PRD. This includes two lot parcels 27032500308300 2.33 acres & 27032500308400 .55 acres. Compliance with ECDC 16.20.045 Site development standards — Single-family master plan. A. The site at 540 & 550 resides within the area designed MP. We are submitting a design that is intended to occur at RS-8 densities and higher. B. This project shall participate in the PRD (planned residential development) process. 1. Access and lot configurations are designed to reduce the number of curb cuts and unmitigated traffic impacts on SR-104. Owners are currently working with WSDOT and have received preliminary approval for the new access drive which will be an access and utility easement, not a public road as determined by the City of Edmonds through the pre -application process. 2. The configuration and arrangement of lots provide setbacks for all the perimeter lots that abut neighboring zoning to utilize setback requirements for those lots, in this case RS-12 setbacks. Some of the neighboring lots are in the same RS-MP zone, in these cases we have maintained the RS-12 setbacks. Only lots that are internal or do not physically touch neighboring lots are we proposing different setback requirements. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 36 I Compliance with ECDC 20.35 A. Our design promotes a higher density development than the base zoning of RS-8 which is allowed through the PRD process. B. The layout has different size lots and a variety of different orientations so there are a number of different size houses and their design will be arranged to work with existing contours and maintain as many significant trees as possible. C. We have provided vehicle circulation systems using finger lots and access easements to reduce the environmental impact of impervious surfaced roads, a significant portion of the site will be set aside for shared use (Common Spaces) which will contain water feature, walking and viewing areas and outdoor play areas for children. D. The design promotes a variety of different building designs (currently using 8 different building designs) and the relationships of houses to one another are varied with a combination of two story houses, some with daylight basements and others with parking in the basement. The architectural style will be contemporary in order for us to meet current housing needs. E. Our proposal has combined the two adjacent parcels which have the most significant vehicular constraints since the both front on SR-104 and combines access to a single new road with controlled access to the highway that will comply with WSDOT requirements. Intersection will be designed in accordance with WSDOT requirements. F. The intent of the RS-MP zoning is to increase density in this somewhat under -developed corner of the city that is within walking distance of downtown but is still a single family neighborhood. By saving existing site features such as the water feature and perimeter trees along with a portion of the existing orchard we can maintain the privacy of neighbors. A portion of the short plat will include dedicating property to the neighbor to the south who feels that he has rights to a portion of the property that extends past the fence on the south side of the property. G. It is the intent to have 4 different price groups for housing within this community to meet the needs of a wide range of income and age groups. H. Existing site amenities are being preserved as previously discussed. I. Permanent usable commonly owned open space is being provided for both active and passive recreation which will be owned by the community and under the direction of the HOA that will be established. J. In order to create the open space, we have clustered the housing onto smaller lots and created two separate open space areas for different types of activities. There are no steep slopes or environmentally critical areas on this site. K. We have reduced the amount of impervious surfaces but minimizing the amount of road we need to building and have provided narrower access easements which will need to meet the width requirements of the fire marshal. Since parking will not be allowed on the access easements we have provided visitor parking areas adjacent to the common spaces. L. The comprehensive plan designation for our sites is Single Family— MP. Our design willfully comply with all tree retention standards. 1. Since we will be building the houses they will all meet current Washington State Energy code and Built Green standards provide outdoor covered space in both the front and rear of the homes for outdoor cooking and living. 2. Our storm drainage systems will be designed to meet low impact development requirements and we will use pervious paving wherever it is allowed by code. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 37 3. Natural elements such as the water fall feature on the site along with it's surrounding landscaping will be maintained. 4. We will be setting a quality standard for future developments within the RS-MP zone to emulate. 5. The new access easement entry drive we are building will provide access to city utilities and public transportation. 6. By creating a higher density development near the downtown core of Edmonds we are meeting the much loftier goal of reducing sprawl and increasing the livability of the urban environment. 7. We are doing what we can for affordable housing but within this portion of the city the only way to increase affordable housing is to allow ADU and DADU development to further increase densities on these sites. Since this is not allowed we cannot take advantage of this opportunity. REGIONAL GOALS By developing these pieces of land to allow for more inhabitants in a restrained manner that doesn't move any vehicular traffic on to any adjacent city streets, only on to the state highway we are promoting the goals for the central Puget Sound region. This is the strategy of urbanization that is designed to minimize environmental impacts, support economic prosperity, promote adequate and affordable housing, improve mobility and make efficient use of existing infrastructure. Due to the site's proximity to the downtown core and adjacent services such as grocery stores and restaurants we have a unique ability to create this community where people can walk to downtown, to grocery stores, banks, restaurants, etc. A truly pedestrian oriented location that is also well service by existing public transportation. By combining multiple parcels within our project we are combining access from multiple sites that will benefit good pedestrian and transit access to the already vibrant downtown area. This will also provide the new residents convenient access to the waterfront and other city owned parks. SUSTAINABILITY Fernandez Barnes LLC are committed to sustainable development as has been a part of their development and construction processes since the company began. This commitment is enhanced when they are able to control the land development from a pre -developed condition to a fully integrated design which includes roads, driveways, access walks, the buildings, how the buildings are oriented to take advantage of the sun, covered outdoor spaces to combine outdoor and indoor living spaces so they work together seamlessly. This is why we prefer to be able to do our own short platting prior to building design so we can define the perimeters of the sites and setbacks to meet the needs of the new residences and how they interact with adjacent houses and access points. We are always willing to participate in green built technologies and processes because we feel our buildings will be better and last longer. There are small things we do in our buildings to implement climate change policies on a micro level such as always providing charging stations for electric cars, providing ductless heating systems and highly efficient ventilation systems into each house to maintain good indoor air quality while minimizing the amount of greenhouse gas that is created. We do include access to natural gas for cooking appliances for practical reasons. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 38 COMMUNITY HEALTH Our community spaces will be designed to encourage outdoor activities and provide a good reason to get out of the house and go for a walk. A good connection to transit and sidewalks that lead to downtown Edmonds and other local businesses further encourages people to get out and walk rather than driving to the store. Most of our developments have been in urban areas and our designs have enhanced the new owners access to activities outside the home. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GOALS AND POLICIES We will be fully landscaping the sites where we build homes using native species and laid out in a natural way to maintain existing wildlife habitat as much as possible. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Residential Goal A: A. The homes designed by Greenwalk Designs have been consistently varied and provide changes of materials and opening designs along with roof designs that enable them to harmonize with one another without duplicating the exact same design over and over again. B. Although we can't keep people from adding on to their home in the future our initial designs will discourage future additions because they will be included within the original design and our use of property configurations will not allow a lot of room outside of setbacks that will allow for future additions. C. Although we are situated on the top of a hill there are no real views within this new neighborhood except the peaceful neighborhood and it's amenities. No views from adjacent properties will be interrupted by this development. D. There are a few houses on this site that are not historic and are not very well designed so rehabilitation of these older buildings is not practical and would not provide the environmentally sensitive solutions we will be proposing. E. The new neighborhood we are designing will be built by us so we will control compatibility of the entire community which will enhance the value of neighboring properties. F. The houses we design are already planned to work with existing topography, trees, soils, drainage and vegetation. Atta PLN2 Packet Pg. 39 0 Residential Goal B: A. We have laid out the lots to allow for good residential design where the interior spaces and flow to exterior spaces provides significant benefits for the owners. B. We specifically comply with "single family dwelling units near downtown" although the zoning doesn't allow for attached dwelling units or ADU/DADU development. C. Our site is located right on SR-104 and we are constructing all access roads and drives. D. Preservation of privacy and views of surrounding buildings will be maintained. E. Building heights will comply with same codes that surrounding neighbors had to comply with. F. We will be constructing single family residences adjacent to existing single family residences. G. Since we are designing and building nearly all the structures they will have a unified yet varied design. H. We have done our best to preserve natural features and have maintained some existing natural features. The only grading we are proposing is for entry drives and parking. Houses will be built within the existing contours. SITE AND TOPOGRAPHY GOALS & POLICIES As we have presented in this project description we intend to comply with all the comprehensive plan policies that apply to the relatively small land locked piece of property. Such as, we intend to minimize impervious surfaces and cuts and fills. Streets and access will conform to the natural topography and be designed to reduce runoff. We have no hazardous soil conditions and will comply with all the soils and topography goals defined in 'GOAL B". Erosion control will be built into our permitting packages. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE As previously mentioned we are committed to maintaining and enhancing native vegetation plantings. There are no wildlife habitats or critical areas on this site that will be disturbed. Removal of trees will comply with new city ordinances and the open areas we will be leaving will include the existing vegetation that are within or surround these areas. AIR POLLUTION GOALS & POLICIES We will do everything we can on this micro scale to reduce air pollutants by providing power charging stations at each home for electric cars to providing only contained gas fireplaces within the houses. Our location will do the most for reduction in vehicle pollution but being close to the downtown core and services. There will not be any noticeable noise pollutants from this site with the possible exception of playing children in peoples back yards. Our outdoor play areas are mostly well within the heart of the development keep this type of noise as far as possible from existing neighbors. 20.35.040 Criteria for establishing alternative development standards A. The new residential development will respect the neighbors and building massing will be the same as adjacent properties. 1. It is our intent to fully landscape all lots taking care to buffer buildings and parking from neighbors. Attar" PLN2 Packet Pg. 40 0 2. Provide safe and efficient site access, on -site circulation and off-street parking in driveways. 3. Provide a consistent yet varied use of materials and building shapes to create individually designed dwellings. B. No setbacks from the exterior lot lines are reduced from that required by the underlying zoning. C. Minimize the visual impact of the planned development by reducing building volumes by having front and rear covered porches and other techniques to reduce building scale such as changes in materials. D. Preserve unique natural features or historic buildings which does not apply to this site although the existing water feature has been saved and will be enhanced with play areas for children, seating and lighting. E. Reduction of impervious surfaces is a standard design feature currently used in all our development projects. 20.35.060 Single family design criteria for PRD's. A. Building design. 1. Characteristics of Single -Family Development. a. All homes will have a strong physical connection to the street or access easement to show a strong sense of entry and ownership. b. Home elevation facing the street never have more than 50% of that elevation that is taken up with the garage. Some of the homes have a 2 car garage and an additional 1 car garage stepped back 10 feet from the front of the house to reduce the impact on the front elevation. All of the two car garages have a second floor above the garage so the actual garage door area is never more than 25% of the front elevation. 2. Entries and Porches: a. All houses will have a front porch facing the access easement. Some will have a separate roof line over the front porch and others will have the second floor extending over the front porch to create variety. b. All main entries will be prominent and face the street or access easement. 3. Materials: Materials will be used in a consistent yet varied manner to create consistency and interest. All materials will be used around all sides of the home including window trim and various materials, there will not be a front wall with different materials than the rest of the house. Attar" PLN2 Packet Pg. 41 r` 00 ry � U J]f Q LL_ � Q 0 O O Q LLI C� Cn Q 0 LLJ 0 Lo 0 w Q z C) z Q 0 _71- 0 6j 0 N Co 0 0 L�J Q 0 O W 2 O U z z O c Z J J c o Q Luz z �z c ' ^ N m C1� �J Q OLu zLu Luw ZN Lu Qo' cl w Q r� I N Lu - C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARk'ES STATE OF IWASHI TO: HOUSE DATA GREENWALK LOT COVERAGE LOT 1: 2,030 SF/6,757 SF=30% LOT 9: 2,030 SF/7,337 SF=28% HOUSE 1: (2) 3,686 SF 5 BEDROOM, 3 1 BATHS, REC ROOM, 3 CAR GARAGE LOT 2: 1,862 SF/7,627 SF=24% LOT 10: 1,657 SF/6,545 SF=25% HOUSE 2: (3) 2,561 SF 5 BEDROOM, 3 BATH, 2 CAR GARAGE LOT 3: 2,346 SF/7,889 SF=30% LOT 11: 1,884 SF/5,124 SF=37% HOUSE 3: (3) 2,907 SF 5 BEDROOM, 3 BATHS, 2 CAR GARAGE LOT 4: 2,346 SF/7,701 SF=30% LOT 12: 1,884 SF/5,022 SF=38% HOUSE 4: (2) 3,195 SF 4 BEDROOM, OFFICE, 3j BATH, REC ROOM, 3 CAR GARAGE LOT 5: 2,262 SF/7,213 SF=31% LOT 13: 1,657 SF/5,752 SF=28% HOUSE 5: (1) 3,607 SF 5 BEDROOM, 4 BATHS, REC ROOM, 2 CAR GARAGE LOT 6: 2,284 SF/6,437 SF=35% LOT 14: 1,862 SF/6,909 SF=27% HOUSE 6: (2) 3,601 SF 5 BEDROOM, 3� BATHS, REC ROOM, 3 CAR GARAGE LOT 7: 2,262 SF/6,397 SF=35% LOT 15: 1,844 SF/6,626 SF=28% HOUSE 7: (2) 2,753 SF 4 BEDROOM, 2� BATH, 2 CAR GARAGE LOT 8: 2,284 SF/6,700 SF=34% LOT 16: 2,030 SF/6,757 SF=30% HOUSE 8: (2) 3,223 SF 5 BEDROOM, 3 BATH, 3 CAR GARAGE \ RS-MP " X N 88°138'01 W O 0 a SDMH RIM=266.00' E(NW)250.46' 48" IE(SE) 250.80' 48" IE(S)=262.08' 8"CONC \ LEGEND \ \ CONCRETE PAVING a , ASPHALT PAVING - L PAVERS • - �l\v- I • • • II•._�►I ♦♦♦✓✓ AEI _ .. �`��!�, ' ,��1����i����' ���i,�\ • ♦ ♦�I ♦1 ♦i✓i .♦�w�!�._�i� ►✓r ♦�► . ♦> ♦ » ♦ ♦i ♦.. ��.. ��' ter\" ►, ' �♦I♦♦♦✓✓♦�'1♦I ✓✓♦��*Zvi✓-��-��►��.- . �•1 �>j♦♦I♦♦♦♦I♦♦;♦I♦♦I>♦I>j♦♦ �I�♦I♦♦I �';�?►0♦♦�;`'►I�. �.�� °,���'��� � , � I. I .� • VWX ♦♦>�♦ ♦� �t�.... �� !,✓�✓ ♦ �♦.+✓�♦ 1 1 1 1 ►✓� ei • • is♦i a �.� . \�. / r ,��✓♦I �' �►♦ ♦♦♦♦♦I ✓✓♦♦� , : a�►✓♦j♦I♦ I♦✓✓ I> ,i� vj♦I ♦ ,I,C♦ �¢ ��r � � � `I%I�� ,.�iy ��♦♦♦♦r►,I♦♦�ij✓♦I♦♦I�►�♦OI♦� : i��♦I>j,♦j�♦I♦j,♦j�♦I♦j,�.�� ^' �.�I♦♦I♦♦♦I ♦Idi`►�♦♦I . � �_-���!.� ►�♦♦♦♦j♦O�♦♦I�♦�I�A♦0�♦���E /♦>♦j;♦♦.>+♦♦>♦�♦jam♦������,',+��v'� ►i. jI✓♦Oj♦♦�♦♦O�♦♦�♦♦O�� ♦I �`� ♦�♦ i hFA 111 1 -_-- Oj♦♦I>♦♦♦ wj♦� IO�''I♦IO♦ �j♦♦I� ♦I ��-- w�A�♦I♦♦♦♦♦♦I✓ II♦♦✓♦I♦♦I♦♦♦♦I♦��`� SIZZ-1� ` • • .. . �� 1 � ♦I ♦ I ► ♦I ♦i ♦♦ ♦I ♦ ♦ - � � III ;�� i ►- .--'�, � ..►♦i>✓✓ice♦i>,►♦i ♦>♦i>♦♦, .,. ►♦i♦�♦ . - . ♦� ►♦i♦♦♦♦i✓�, �i✓✓ ♦♦♦♦i♦♦♦i♦�� � ��o - • � ►♦> ♦ > - . .._. � �:��� . �E .--- �--°� Frei✓✓♦ ♦i✓i ♦♦� i ♦ i �••� "i Fir �:_ �♦♦off✓,>i�♦io,,� ,::, ���� IN ��>♦♦i�ei�♦i���♦i♦♦i� - - . LINE I♦I�,I>✓✓♦h �� 1 ...�� � ;:_� � �♦♦I�♦I�i��♦��S�r�� ��♦I-♦f♦oi� 1 c ��� ►. �►,• ... • �. ii�- -� � . NIM mom \ ■.��'��yi.���I,iv✓••�I���I,�w�+�.�/\..►✓,✓O1I�►✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓,��✓✓jI✓1>✓>✓�✓♦j�>✓✓>I✓✓��✓>isj����♦wOwl7�.�is-�.�✓j.1 _ _____� I �� _ rIw�•►•�i�I ,►�✓- ✓✓_✓ ✓�v�I�✓✓✓,♦✓✓✓,IiI �✓✓✓✓✓��ii'✓ ✓i ��n ric♦•��✓ j✓ /p✓ ✓�,,II♦ ✓�.�1+ :�f�,gefl1gmo✓��►I� ME ✓ I�El..�..�..�..�..�-.�-.�-.�-.�-.�-.r . ®may"' .�.�.Y�.:`. ,'i�.�� • - �Y"Y�Yvw - ►♦♦ ✓ ✓i ✓ I ♦O� I✓ ✓ I � > I' ✓ ♦ I✓ � wYYY►Y`Y�.�YYY -Y►Y! IO ♦�►I> ,1OI> I✓I✓ �✓I> I✓✓✓ q+♦✓ ✓ I � I✓✓✓♦♦ �;I I ►✓✓ 1I0♦✓✓O � Y �.Y Y Y ••.�,� 1✓✓,►✓✓ I✓I> I>✓✓ 1I✓I✓a✓✓✓I� 1,O�I✓I✓✓✓!✓I ►I✓✓✓✓✓✓ ,i ♦ ✓♦✓✓ ♦ v . , , ��10'� II'IO ✓.�✓I«+✓✓j� II �II `'mot; �,Y..YY �•►YY��..�..v Y�Y• ►,..- ♦ I>♦✓✓,�,✓✓j�►+I✓✓✓✓�✓✓✓j,✓✓✓I>j�l • - ��I,pyO I✓✓I>✓,♦✓�I ►✓I✓�I✓✓�✓,� ie�0✓i����✓✓� • • ♦ I> ✓ IO ✓ ✓> _ 1► "� ,wY YY� ••: YY Y� Y►' I � ►v ♦♦ IOI ✓ ✓✓�✓ 1♦ ✓ ✓✓� � ♦ ✓✓✓� ,.� ✓�✓ ��I�♦ r►✓I'O✓ ✓� ►.� ► wY.. ., �..i,�..Y�Y .�••YY•,. � � \.-• ► LI ♦ I> .�► ✓ � > ✓ ✓ yv/ I ♦♦ ✓ •I ♦ ✓ v` > ✓✓ � � �YYY Y Y�,Y► YY Y► . � .,I_O.►�O�O�:,.i�1I�✓✓✓✓,✓I� I;✓✓✓✓ ✓ �✓✓� 1 1 � r�� �' ✓O-iv ✓ ✓✓✓� � ,✓♦j >I✓✓✓ Ili L:�I✓✓✓j ►�✓✓I>✓✓ I>✓�►♦j�►-I_v'►��o �����Y..Y �.�Y..Y�Y►YYY ✓ ✓♦ ✓ . - . ✓�, ► ��r� ►O✓I>✓✓✓✓j,✓✓✓✓✓♦I I✓ ✓I✓✓✓III'✓I.+�✓jam✓I+ 1✓ ✓ 1►� ♦ � Y� Y .►. �Y �.Y YY 1'� ►I♦j I ►✓ >I! �� •• ►✓✓✓✓✓✓ ✓✓✓>✓,j O✓✓j ✓>✓, �_v0�.�is.!�1 ►I>✓✓j✓I✓✓I� i� ��.,,.•�YYY Y•yY,.Y�YYYYY..� � , 1>✓,✓i�,I I�i . A� m ��% ►✓I✓ ✓✓✓•+� �✓✓✓✓♦✓>✓✓j��. w �.�.� ��tl♦✓✓�> �� , �.,.►Y,•�Y Y,>:•GYYYY�.Y�Y►YYY. '� I✓� I-�I> • ✓♦I, II /� I✓> • ✓✓I>I ►✓I✓✓✓✓✓I>✓♦�`'.1 I �.I✓✓✓I�•✓01►, , - , �/ �Y Yv��-�Y YY Yv Yam' - ► •A� ► I�t I0✓✓✓ I> �! ,. �� �✓✓ ✓I✓✓v 1✓✓✓✓✓I>✓✓✓'✓i+✓✓✓ i;�i�j>✓♦�,✓L✓ s . ,I � L. ���Y►.w,�Y'��YYi�Y..YY''�► ,� - ♦ ♦I♦♦> 'tI' ✓♦✓ ✓✓I✓w! I>I I O✓✓II ✓> � � ��I►��� .Y�Y•yY�Y�..Y.�YiYYYYv.'-,'� �♦i► 10I✓✓ `✓✓✓ ✓✓ �-' I>✓✓ ✓v✓II ►LIj✓✓✓✓✓✓I,I ® �' �� ��I� ��,•v ���,. ����►Y.•iYYYY..Y� � . t1" 1> .1♦ � ,� • ► ♦♦IO ♦ I✓ ► ♦ • � G♦ I I �. . .Y �Y YY wY / / i��� ��✓IO�;�;ip>I � ' I � �I✓✓,♦,✓✓✓�,OI� :I-�✓�✓ ✓,�I� � I>✓✓✓,I✓,I✓� . .. ... YY YYY, ✓ I> ✓ � � � ► I✓I✓ ►I✓✓✓j✓I>I✓ ►-I✓isI_OiI�►i_s�� i/\ ���� �,,�Y.� �r�► -1 I , , �✓✓,✓✓✓✓✓, �i �✓✓,♦✓✓�✓✓✓,♦jam✓��; � i��� �-!Y� • �a✓O✓✓I'✓>✓,� ` �' 1 ■- ��i� �� h �.NMI FINE ►✓> ✓> � -ti ► ��_ ♦✓ .✓ is . -- - __ - 1 ♦> all a- • ✓> ✓ ✓v - �� --- ►v ✓ ✓✓i � % .. . • r " 1✓I✓I,✓✓>✓I✓`i---��. ► ���� ►L�✓✓� ��i✓I>✓Iv`•♦vI✓✓O.'jI✓✓�✓I�►�✓✓O.� :- _. .: I>+�+jp 1>✓✓jet✓I✓! �� ,Iv✓>✓✓��j✓I ►•✓Oj✓✓I✓✓� `• , • • • 1 � � �I✓j�✓I>✓✓✓ICJ✓,✓I>� ��i�.✓� 1> ✓✓ > � ✓.. ✓II' - _ / I>✓✓ I> ✓✓II ✓✓ .� � � IO ♦ I> ✓j IO � �I ✓✓ ♦I -.. ��� y Ii.I✓✓�✓✓I, I✓✓✓✓✓I✓✓O �♦I✓✓✓✓♦I, • ���� 1 .-L� I✓ » � OI O�lo1 O� %� •�. �I✓I I✓✓✓ I>IO ►♦ ✓�,' qtI✓✓✓j✓I� I✓�✓w�•rli ►✓> , - O + -�� ''•✓I��'I ! ✓I�+✓✓j •. �� ,I dr✓✓✓ 0rt o IO I> ✓ I✓ v . - . I ✓✓I✓ ✓ ► I> I> ► ♦ tl ., ��►✓✓✓� • ,.I>p✓ •✓I>I`�✓✓✓I✓✓i' I! _ , I��✓✓✓O✓✓✓✓✓✓>✓✓✓✓v.� � �+ 1✓✓✓✓✓I✓✓✓ • • • 1 1 . • ►✓I>✓✓j�>✓✓'y� ,✓✓✓ I, ►v.>�.�r,✓ ✓j�✓>� ���..✓OI •�✓✓✓>✓✓,I • ... - I✓✓✓✓✓✓�s✓✓✓✓j,✓I✓✓✓j,✓✓ , ✓�>✓✓j,✓✓>I • • • 1 1 • • 1>✓✓✓✓♦•�D✓✓, �>✓✓y✓ ✓✓✓:y✓✓� II �.�+:�:,i.��:ii�♦j✓✓>✓✓�i�>✓✓+r�� -.-��i �✓✓�`✓✓✓✓✓✓Id1, �� � �✓✓✓j✓✓✓✓,► ✓✓ ✓✓✓✓✓v �✓>j✓✓,.✓✓j✓� O✓>j✓✓,.✓v ui IO✓I✓��✓�+'I✓✓�,I✓✓I✓✓I>✓✓✓I>I✓�� ■ ��.. ✓ ✓I ♦ •' ♦ ✓I✓✓ ♦✓I✓> ✓I✓ ✓I✓✓ ✓ ♦r' ►✓I>✓✓✓✓I>✓� ✓✓I✓✓♦✓✓ >✓I>✓✓ .1✓ O I,� ✓>I , . • s�T•,� •y --'I✓ ✓Ic=''.,I✓ ✓✓I'.✓✓ ✓I� �► ► ✓I ✓� ✓I �� _ f:',: +�✓,✓I♦✓✓✓> • ,'I>I.+✓✓✓✓j✓✓✓' i✓I✓✓✓✓✓Ih - 1 •1 1 • • • 1 1 1 �I>j,✓I✓✓✓✓✓I✓✓I>✓✓ ��I>i�20wlis-I �'- ::=.�' � '✓✓✓.I✓✓✓✓>I✓I✓✓✓✓pvi!.'✓> ✓I♦I> ���'� ✓I `_ _ - ,O ✓✓✓I I✓✓✓j✓O a►.►I✓i��o�♦.� yI✓✓♦j✓��✓ 1 ✓i�s�✓;�✓✓✓✓j.✓✓`'y✓j.L���✓j�L� �I n . I✓�> ✓✓♦✓ I ✓> ✓✓l►✓✓✓✓✓�1j.✓� 1 a.► 1 1 -�'�y��✓✓✓✓`'. ✓✓✓✓��►4�✓✓>✓✓I -., i�iu � i � i�✓✓✓ ✓✓✓ ✓✓✓✓ � ..� � �.�-- - ✓>✓✓ ✓.�I ►O?I>v�✓j,�I✓✓�>✓✓�I>✓✓ ✓✓ p✓✓,.✓IO�:� , s;:: • I✓IO . - . ✓� Mill ►✓I,'♦>✓p✓I�`�+✓✓�>Iv0✓✓% , •✓✓I✓ m ✓✓✓✓✓✓✓� • .�I✓I✓�,✓,✓IO�h+�O♦jam✓L1 I ►✓✓�yv♦✓++✓Oi♦:I>✓✓� ��7 1 i ��o✓✓✓♦i�:�'�•o✓ ✓✓♦✓✓✓♦wi .;- %♦:.✓�✓✓✓» moo... °✓✓.�✓✓ ✓e ✓��•ei♦, i�E;II�iIN�. ,✓✓ ✓i �s ,� ✓✓ ✓> � ,, ��i Ij♦✓✓j.►tI✓✓✓I✓✓I>✓✓✓✓✓I✓✓� .�y :.� I ✓✓✓✓�Ivjl�✓�✓I� r - �✓✓�jj I►♦I�✓✓>II'I✓,`-�, � 1� .♦;♦ �oier � Owl, ✓�✓✓ ,♦-- Ie.,.�✓♦I ✓✓♦✓✓��♦✓✓✓✓✓✓� , � ',~������,io°ice° MEMNON NO RS-MP SMH RIM=271.15' IE(NE)=260.59' 12" IE(SW)=260.73' 12" -ITEM 3-10' SEWER ESM'T, A.F.N. 201316 N 00054' 15" E 4.75' NORTH PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SITE SCALE: 1"= 20'-0" 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE w U) 0 O O z ULLJ c� CM N co z N O N C/) Lu > ~ w m fy_ Attach nt PLN2022-0049 Packet Pc a M CD u c d s 0 m Q I. 42 I Ln 6j 0 N N 0 N LiJ Q 0 0 w ZN w � Q Q o� LL J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO � o Co 00 0 Co cl J MQ 0 w� � w 0 2 Z O O Q LO J O � O O z O LL- w O z � w w w cn Q m LiIN N U) N O w w L:Li > � U) o Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 43 PLN2022-0 I C N c� Q Cn N Q 0 / C7 0 E Lw 0 Lei / (-o 6j 0 N N 0 N FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'—O" BASEMENT 834 SF FIRST FLOOR 1,292 SF SECOND FLOOR 1,560 SF TOTAL FINISHED AREA OF HOUSE 3,686 SF GARAGE 686 SF AVERAGE GRADE: 51.17X263+67.42X269+51.17X272+67.42X267=63,513/237.2=267.8 51.17X270+67.42X271 +51.17X278+67.42X275=64, 852/237.2=273.4 © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO Lot No Z Q J Of (D 0 J Li V) L.� LLJ J Lu Lu U) 0 L0 O z U Lu 0 N N N � z N O 'r- U) Li > ~ LLJ o 0� Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 44 PLN2022-0 I c I 6j 0 N N 0 N 1 A'— P" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,560 SF SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" w ZLo LLi �; Q of Q 0- Co w Co J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO � o CM C1� � °80 C) J MQ 0 w� � 90 0 2 O O Z Ln O Q J � O z � ~ 0 0 L.0 L.L- 0 0 Z 0 U LLJ LiIN N N O w w w > � U) o Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 45 PLN2022-0 I Q Lw LLJ Q Cn 0 / Cn C7 0 E Li -I 0 Lei LL 6j 0 N CD N zs=a y ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................... .................................................................................................................................................. ...................................................... I .......... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 0 Lid- d� � 88 El o�� e I I I I I I I I I I ------------]----------- --------------------------------------� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" u SIDE ELEVATION u ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 0 00 © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. rye pEQISTER T AR CT aloe I VEN A. BARNES EQF'WASHINGTO "" 267.8' Lo >- N ao U) � oa O z� J 0 Mo 292.8' r W W z 0 9M 0 O 10'-0" 0 o z o C) Q o w � W U W 8� 267.LLI � W X LLJ - - LLI N N (n N z N o W W = w i Q W Cn M CC a Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 46 PLN2022-0 Q w w Q (D Cn 0 Cn C7 0 E w 0 L2 / I L_ -- — — — — — L — REAR ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 292.8� 1' —399 - -- 0'-01, 267.8' 292.8� 2 O U 2 Z O Z z J J c O Q ` w z c 8z ' ^ N m � v w . J Lu Q O Lu z w w ZN LU w Q � o, Co w V Co J Cl) Q N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M4 REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARN'ES STATE QF 'WASHMTO:�l � o Co Go 0 03 J MQ 0 w� � w 0 1W1. (/) O Z Ln O o Q O > z w F--- I U w w O ry ry n W X LLJ LLI N N N N z O � w r � w = � w Q a > w fy_ A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 47 PLN2022-0 Q I / 2 O U z U c u� z O c N C Q, O 9 U p� z O Q CV m w . Z J O� a w J Z N w ;0- Q o1 2 ch w J Cri Q N LU to © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REM" ikmrcCT 1� q�{ CT STEVEN A. BARNES STATE OF-WASKsNOTC L0 N r or- r N It 7 u FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0 Go O�' M0 no w0 gMo w 1,239 SF SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" O O Lid AREA: O FIRST FLOOR 1,239 sf z T— SECOND FLOOR 1,367 sf Q Oz TOTAL LIVING AREA 2,606 sf I--- O U LU GARAGE 464 sf O O LL w cr) LL LEI N N O w w LLi > � U) o Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 48 PLN2022-0 m E a E a I c I a c I r SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,367 SF SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" Z 0 E c z O w z c N m u . Z J 0� aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO� N r o r Qo oo Cl) CO F- z� OO J no �z CO N wO W o Cn w 0 0 Z In O Q a. O z r O O w LL- O o z O U W Li N O IV- w Li > � U) o Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 49 PLN2022-0 Q rl-) / LLJ L� Q / N cc 0 / T M 0 Lw 0 Lr� 0 0 0 a� z 0 0 a� / w Q z z 0 0 304� 10.0' -279.0' -------------- FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SIDE ELEVATION EL- SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 304' h { ).0' $ 2 0 U 2 Z c z J J c O Q ` w z 8z c ' ^ N m � v u . J Q O Lu z w w ZN LJJ w Q � o, co w V co J Cl) Q N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M4 REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARN'ES STATE QF 'WASHMTO:�l r N r o Qo r oo Cl) pQ OO J no �z CO CV w O W o Cl) w M 0 1W1. (/) O z L0 O o Q O > z W F--- I U w w O_ ry ry n w X W LLI N N (.6 r c/) O ~ r � w = c/) w Q M > w fy_ A3Ml Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 50 PLN2022-0 Q Q w w w Q N cc 0 T M 0 Lw 0 L� 0 0 w 0 a� z 0 0 a� M / DOC I I I I I I I I I L------ — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - REAR ELEVATION E,' SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I I I _ 304' h 10.0' Mpl, I I I I I I I I ------------------------------------------------------- SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" _ 304' h 279.0' � , 2 0 U 2 Z c 10 z J J c O Q0 ` w z c 8z ' ^ N m � v u . J Q O Lu z w w ZN LJJ w 01 Q 01 C, co w V co J Cl) Q N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M4 REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARN'ES STATE QF 'WASHMTO:�l N r o Q Csj 0 r Go Cl) ca o Q Z 00 J no 00 CV w Z O W o w M 0 1W1. (/) O z L0 O o Q O > z W F--- I U w w O_ ry ry n w X w LLI N N (.6 r c/) O ~ w r � w = c/) w Q M > w fy_ A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 51 PLN2022-0 Q _ 304' 0 Q / LLJ L� Q / N cc 0 / T cn 0 Lw 0 Lr� 0 0 0 a� z 0 cn 0 a� / 10.0' J� Y 0� I I I I I I I ------ _i FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I I I I �--------------------------- I I I I ------------------- I I I I ---- I I I I -- -----------------------------E--------- SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 304'� 79.0' h © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CTVENA. BARN'ES E QF 'WASHMTO:�l T C> r r �Go cl) ca O O �Z CV w O �w � 0 1W1. (/) O z LO O o Q O > z W F--- I U W W O_ ry ry n LLI N N r O W W = Cn w Q m W CC ttac ment Packet Pg. 52 PLN2022-004-9 Q 0 Q LLJ w Q N cc 0 / T M 0 Lw 0 Lr� 0 0 0 a� z 0 0 / / M / w Q z c� z 0 0 Di 0 nnn 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I REAR ELEVATION EEEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 304' h Y I I I I I I I I SIDE ELEVATION EEEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" • 279.0' { 2 0 U 2 Z z J J Z c O Q ` w z z c 8 ' ^ N m � v w . J Lu Q O Lu z w w ZN LU w Q � o� � w V J Cl) Q ! N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M54 REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARkES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO J w w U00) N r o Q CM 0 Go Cl) ca o Q Z 00 J no 00 CV w Z O W o Cl) w M 0 O O L0 O T- O z U w O ry (i N N z r O w j <w afy_ A302A Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 53 PLN2022-0 Q I N cn N Q Cn 0 i 0 N 0 N N 0 0 1 A'—Q" FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'—O" FIRST FLOOR 1,244 sf SECOND FLOOR 1.640 sf TOTAL FINISHED AREA OF HOUSE 2,884 sf GARAGE 482 sf COVERED PORCH 90 sf COVERED DECK 193 sf 2 O U z U c u� z O c N Q O s U p� z O Q CV m L.L J Z J O2 a w J Z N w ;0- Q o1 2 ch w J Cri Q N Lu to © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. TERED REM" ikmrcCT 1� q�{ CT STEVEN A. BAFINES STATE OF-WASKsNOTC .11 r + T C) Q O CD Go ca 0 Z 3 J OCO CV3 wz � �0 0 2 O O Ln O Z Q O z Of Lu O O O 1 0� LL V) Of LL- LiN N J ~ z N O U) Lu . Lu w > LLJ U) 0 0� M .3 m E a E a LLJ 0 0 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 54 PLN2022-0 I 1 Q'_!1" 1 A'—R" N N cn N Q Cn 0 0 NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,640 SF SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 2 0 U z U c u� z O c N Q O s U p� z O Q CV m L.L J Z J O2 a w J Z N w ;0- Q of 2 ch w J Cri Q N LU to © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REM" ikmrcCT 1� q�{ CT STEVEN A. BAFINES STATE OF-WASKsNOTC.11 'u u liw-tl It VBW Lok ON Z Q J ry O O 1 LL- z O U LLJ Li J LU LU U) O O L0 O O z U LU O N N N ZO c6 0 ui > ~ LLl 0 0� M .3 m E a E a LLJ 0 0 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 55 PLN2022-0049 I I I I I I I I I I I e Q I I SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION EEC,; SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" C C �0 I --- - I - ---- — ---------I------------------ ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" N N \ 0 0 297.0'� — 10'-0" — 0'-0 w 272.0� 297.0� �uu U J J rz C1� W 0 © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiC3� r + C) ao Cl) Go Co 0 z� J OCo M wz � �0 0 2 (� O Z Ln O o Q O > z w F--- U 0'-0" w L 272.0' O — � n ry w X -----� w N L LI N J ~ z N O C/) L L Lu > = Q L Cn M CC a Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 56 PLN2022-0 N N 0 0 297.0'-�v 0 of 272.0� I I I I I I I I I I I I REAR ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" ............................ ............................ . ............................ ............................ II I I I I I II I----------------------- ----------------------------- L ------ I I I I SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" _ 297.0� � U __j J Q co rZ C1� LU LU 0 W LU c� Z 0 E c z 0 �w �z c N m u . Z J 0< aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CT VENA.BARNES E or iNASHlNlGiO 0 x Ld W J W LU 0 : Go :(3) O�' �0 �z w0 gMo w O O Ln O O z U LU 01-0 c� N N z N O c6 0 w j ~ LLJ afy_ A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 57 PLN2022-0 a I N N N Ln © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO V 7T Lot No 22'-0" BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN o z 0 490 SF SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" J U') 836 SF GARAGE I C) � O O z O LL w O z L.LJ LLJ Q m N N LiLo O w w w > � U) o Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 58 PLN2022-0 I c c I c Cn 0 0 Lw 0 L� 0 0 / 0 a� z 0 0 a� / a� c� Z O E c z 0 w z c N m u . Z J 0< aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF 'WASHINGTO:" M M ME 0 Cf) Go Cf) Q �3 J Mo q�T wo � �o w 0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'—O" HOUSE 5 BASEMENT 490 sf FIRST FLOOR 1,368 sf O SECOND FLOOR 1,337 sf O TOTAL FINISHED AREA OF HOUSE 3,195 sf Lid O GARAGE 840 sf COVERED PORCH 69 sf Z COVERED DECK 220 sf Q I z n I--- U AVERAGE GRADE: Of W 52.5X280+43.83X272+52.5X276+43.83X282=53,482/193=277 O 52.5X280+43.83X273+52.5X274+43.83X280=53,323/193=276.2 O 0 0 Li W V) Of L.L- N N Li J Lid z ~ W W w i LLJ U) 0 0� Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 59 PLN2022-0 I c I c NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,337 SF SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" r,t Z 0 E c z O w z c N m u . Z J 0< aw w ZLo w �; Q Q o� w J Cl) Q N Lu © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO� LTJ M M ME 0 Go Cf) Q �3 J Mo q�T wo � �o w 0 O O Z Ln O Q a. O z r O O w LL O o z O U LLJ � N N LEI J Lid O W W w i LLJ U) 0 0� Q Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 60 PLN2022-0 Q LLJ w Q cc 0 T O Cn 0 Lw 0 Lr� 0 0 / O N Z / O Cn / N / L2 N N L2 FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" MAX ELEV. 301.2' MAX ELEV. 301.2' MM ?76.2' 69.5' D I V rye w ZLo w �; Q 01 Q 0- Co w Co J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CTVENA.BARNES E or iNASHlNlGiO O 0 �� ~ z3 O �Co � w0 �0 � w 0 2 1W1 . C) z L0 O o r Q O > z Ld I U w w O_ ry ry n w X W N N W J L z ~ r C/) LU 1-1-' > Qw afy_ A3E Attachment 4E P W 2022-0049-- Q Packet Pg. 61 r Q w w w Q cc 0 T Cn 0 Lw 0 0 0 0 a� z 0 Cn 0 a� V) U w Q z z Q 0 MAX ELEV. 301.2' REAR ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" ------ ---------------� SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 0'-0" 269.5.E MAX ELEV. 301.2' :: �Mlfi 78.4� 276.2 0'-0" 269.5.E 2 0 U 2 Z O Z J J c 0 O Q V) ` w z 8z c ' ^ N m v u . J Q O Lu z w w ZN LJJ w Q � o, Co w V Co J Cl) Q N Lu r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AH CTVENA. BARN'ES E QF 'WASHMTOII l M M r M O 0 �� ~ z3 O �� qzT w0 �0 � w 0 2 1W1. (� O z L0 O Q d > z W F--- U W W 0 ry ry W W X W N N W J L z ~ W W w i = Q W Cn M CC A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 62 PLN2022-0 Q I N Q N Q Ln 0 Cn 7D 0 E w 0 Ln w N N N N 00 0 LiJ Q 0 0 1 A'_()" 1 A'- A') NORTH BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 793 SF SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO 5• � o 0 Go CD � z3 LU�p �0 wso o `� w Z O O Q L0 J O � O O Z O Li LU O Z � LLJ W (/) Q m LiIN N U) Z N O 0. U) LU LU LU > � U) o a Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 63 PLN2022-0 I w 0 N 6j N N 0 0 77'_n° 1 W—A" 1 d'_Q" FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'—O" FIRST FLOOR 1,244 sf SECOND FLOOR 1.640 sf TOTAL FINISHED AREA OF HOUSE 2,884 sf GARAGE 482 sf COVERED PORCH 90 sf COVERED DECK 193 sf AVERAGE GRADE: 40.42X287+62.83X284+40.42X282+62.83X288=58,938/206.5=285.4 Z 0 E c z O w z c N m u . Z J 0� aw w ZLo w �; Q Q o� w J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO Z Q n Of (D 0 Li V) L.� W J W W U) �• � o 0 Go LO z3 W �p Cl) 0 wc�o _ `� w O (D Li) O O z U W w N i N c6 ui Q 0 z O U) W a Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 64 PLN2022-0 I N Q c� Q LFi Cn 0 / 77 0 11 0 Ln / 0 N N N 00 0 ,)7'-o" 1 A'-()" 1 A' -A" NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,640 SF SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 2 0 U z U c u� z O N Q O s LU p� z O Q CV m w . Z J O� a w J Z N w ;0- Q of 2 ch w J Cri Q N LU to © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REM" ikmrcCT 1� q�{ CT STEVEN A. BAFINES STATE OF-WASKsNOTC.11 � o 0 Go Lo z3 W �p Cl) 0 wso o `� w O O Z L0 O Q a. O z r O O w LL O o z O U W Li N J ~ � z N O 00 U) LU Lu �i > � U) o a Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 65 PLN2022-0 0 6j N N 0 0 L�J Q 0 0 FRONT ELEVATION EC- SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0' 00 n L II I II I II I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — - SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I OI ------------- I � I i 310.4� —9' 11 —4 310.4� 10'-0" � C C C C C C _ 285.4' C C C C IF --------------- - — — — — — — —--9'-4" II I II I II I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — - SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I OI ------------- I � I i 310.4� —9' 11 —4 310.4� 10'-0" � C C C C C C _ 285.4' C C C C IF --------------- - — — — — — — —--9'-4" 2 O U 2 Z O Z z J J c O Q ` LUz c 8z 0 Nm w . J Lu Q O Lu z w w ZN LU Q o� � w V J Cl) Q N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CT VENA. BARN'ES E QF WASHlNlGiO 5i1i � o 0 �:: Go z3 U**) W �p � 0 wo �w _ o z Ln 0 0 Q o > z Ld U LEI w O L LI X LLJ N L LI N J ~ z N O 00 LU C/) LU w > = Q LU c/) M CC A3 0 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 66 PLN2022-0 a - 310.' rye F I C C C� CC e, REAR ELEVATION 0� 1� --- :1L SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I I F I I I I I I I SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0„ I I I I I I I I I Z7 I Wil 285.4' -9'-4� 310.' 10'-0" � � U J J Q U) rz� (/ U) LU LU 0 W LU V © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CTVENA. BARN'ES E QF 'WASHMTOII l � o 0 �:: Go z3 U**) LU�p � 0 wo go _ O (� O ZO O Q O > z w I--- o'—o11 Ld w U LU O 285.4' llf LLI LLJ N L LI N J ~ z O ONO Cn W LU w > = Q LJ Cn M fy_ A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 67 PLN2022-0 a N Q / C7 0 N Q / 0 / ED C 0 F LLJ 0 Ln 0 a� 0 a� 7D 0 a) z CL 0 0 / / Cn / N N rn 0 N LJ_J Q 0 0 CV I 0 0 I 17'-0" 21'-6" 22'-6" BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 875 SF SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" J J J (z� V U) LU LU 0 LU LU ry V © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M4 REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO Z Q J O O LL- z LLJ LLJ c/) Q m W J W W U) O O Lid O O z U W O N N N U) z N o 'r- U) ui > ~ LLJ 0 0� Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 68 PLN2022-0 I Cn O LLI O L� Cn O 0 O a� z O Cn 0 / / Cn / N N \ 0 N d I c I c c NORTH FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1,431 SF SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" BASEMENT 875 sf FIRST FLOOR 1,343 sf SECOND FLOOR 1,383 sf TOTAL LIVING AREA 3,601 sf GARAGE 748 sf AVERAGE GRADE: 49.83X263+66.09X268+49.83X270+66.09X268=61, 984/231.8=267.4 49.83X276+66.09X274+49.83X284+66.09X282=63,726/231.8=274.9 Z O E c z O Lo w z c N m LJ . zJ O< aw ,REENWALK DESIGNS LLC. 64 REGISTERED AR CT 7 EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF 'WASHINGTO:XI Of O O LL V) L� Li J w w U) O Go Co O Z 3 J OCo (0 wz Cl) � o 0 C) O Lid O O z U w O N N i N N LU 0 U) z O_ U) LLJ Q Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 69 PLN2022-0 I M 0 Lw 0 L� M 0 0 0 a� z 0 M 0 / / Cn / U SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,383 SF SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" LLJ ZLo w �; Q Q o� w J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO Z Q n Z O U LLJ J w w 2 U) O Go CD O Z J OCO 3 (0 wz Cl) � o 0 C) O Lid O O z LU N N i N N ui Q 0 z O U) LLJ Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 70 PLN2022-0 Q 292.4' 1 Q / LLJ L� Q C0 cc 0 T 0 Lw 0 L� 0 0 0 a� z 0 0 / / M / 0 N CD N I I I I I I I I FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" M — 267.4� -9'-4„ ---- ------------ L-- t ----------------------- --- -----------�-------------------------------------------- SIDE ELEVATION EL- SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0„ 292.4' gL � U J J Q U) rZ W zr) W LJJ V z O E c z O w z c N m u Z Q O:E aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CT VEN A. BARNES E or iNASHlNlGiC3" 00 co H 0 J (10 Co 0 () Z O Q w I w O ry w x w W J W W Cn O O Ln O T- O z U w O ry n N N N Cn N O r � w j ~ W a CC A3M Attachment 4E P W 2022-0049-- Q Packet Pg. 71 N N 0 0 297.0'-�v 0 of 272.0� I I I I I I I I I I I I REAR ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" ............................ ............................ . ............................ ............................ II I I I I I II I----------------------- ----------------------------- L ------ I I I I SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" _ 297.0� � U __j J Q co rZ C1� LU LU 0 W LU c� Z 0 E c z 0 �w �z c N m u . Z J 0< aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CT VENA.BARNES E or iNASHlNlGiO 0 x Ld W J W LU 0 : Go :(3) O�' �0 �z w0 gMo w O O Ln O O z U LU 01-0 c� N N z N O c6 0 w j ~ LLJ afy_ A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 72 PLN2022-0 a I I. N Q N Q 0 0 0 Cn 7D 0 E w 0 Ln / LiJ Q 0 0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'-0" AREA: FIRST FLOOR 1,158 sf SECOND FLOOR 1,601 sf TOTAL LIVING AREA 2,759 sf GARAGE COVERED PORCH COVERED DECK 416 sf 85 sf 164 sf Z 0 E c z O Lo w z c N m u . Z J 0< aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO Z Q I Elf O O LL- cn LL Li.i J w w U) 0 Go OM Co �' C)z w0 9M0 w C) O Lid O O z U w N N Cfl � z O U) ui < w o 0� Q Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 73 PLN2022-0049-- I w 27'-11" 6'-9" 8'-4" 7'-0" ol 15'-8" 3'-10"ol 4'-10" 7'-0" 0 0 N 0 O I 00 I b BATH O i i CV .4 O 0 O 0 ^ I " Co N MASTER CLOSET BEDROOM 17'0"x18'8" 00 3'-8„ W D N - I 0 I BEDROOM 2 11'O"x14'8" N 00 I I ;n LAUNDRY 1 0'-6" N I D N j t° N ^ I N O o Co I F,3-4 N - O I 7 " � 10'-$„ 7 —7ol 17 0� I -- N N BEDROOM 1 11'8"x12'4" 00 I OPEN TO BELOW BATH lo I 0 BEDROOM 3 12'0"x12'0" C � N F O 0 Lo I O � N 12'-10" 2'-10" 8'-0" 12'-6" 15'-8" 20'-6" 13'-10" SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1,601 SF SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" z Ln N w �; Q Q �w J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. 8 RNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO MEMEW-M bol ME ME N C) CA 3:: GoCo 0 �3 J �Q � wz c� O Cf) w 0 C) Ln z O Q � 0 a_ z O 0 LU 0 Li C z 0 U LLJ (n N LU N J � z LU LULU w > � U) o Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 74 PLN2022-0 Q Q a� Q a� 0 / C7 Cn 0 F LLJ 0 Ln / I I I I I I I I I I I I ------- - FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C I� L I IL �I II SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 297' 10.0, 0. 0, �o 272.0 297' 272.0 2 O U 2 Z O o c oz J J c O Q ` w z c 8z ' ^ N m � v u . J Q O Lu z w w ZN LJJ w Q � o, Co w V Co J Cl) Q N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CTVENA. BARN'ES E QF 'WASHMTO:�l Zi N C) Go 0 Co 03 J �Q wz O Cf) �w 0 1W (/) O ZO O Q O > z w F--- I U W LU O ry ry n w w LLI N N r C/) O ~ r � w = c/) w Q M > w CC A3 0 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 75 PLN2022-0 Q Q 0 a� r7 Q Cn 0 / Cn C7 0 F w 0 L2 / I L:1- 11 L:I- I I Ll. F L. Ll E I F-1 00 I T - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 297' � �r 297' h Y 10.0' _272.0� � U J J Q C/) z 0 C1� zw 0 LJJ LJJ (D rNoo w ZLo w cc) Q Q o� �w J Cl) Q N w © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M54 REGISTERED AR CT 75 EVEN A. BARNES STATE OF 'WASHINGTO:' () O Q w w O ry w X W W J w w O O Lo 0 T— O z U W O ry n N N C� C/) z r O w > < w a fy_ A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 76 PLN2022-0 Q I FKS 1 FLUUK FLAN SCALE: 1 /4"= 1'—O" FIRST FLOOR 1,373 SF SECOND FLOOR 1.850 SF TOTAL FINISHED AREA OF HOUSE 3,223 SF GARAGE 697 SF AVERAGE GRADE: 61.5X276+51.17X275+61.5X277+51.17X276=62,204/225.3=276.0 w Q 0 0 Z 0 N� Q, O s o Lop Z N w. ZJ =2 Q-w w Z N Q 01 2 O~- 04 W © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CT aloe VEN A. BARN'ESE OF -WASHINGTO:\' C'7 �:J 7T Let 00, Z Q J n Of O O LL CIO ry J w LLJI U) C) C) Lid C) O z U w O ry I N N N z N O Irl- F) pj Q W 0 � Q Attachment 4 LPacket Pg. 77 PLN2022-0049 I NORTH SECOND FLOOR PLAN Q 1,850 SF SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" z Q 0 W N N 0 N © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. REGISTERED AR CT aloe EVEN A. BARNES STATE QF iNASHlNlGiO� M ao CD Go CO 0 z3 J OCO C)C) no LU O C!� � w C) C) LO z O Q � � O a_ z O LU O LL- U W (n N LU N J � N O w � U) w w > � U) o Q Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 78 PLN2022-0 Q LLJ J w Q 00 M 0 T 0 Lw 0 Lr� 0 0 0 a� z 0 0 / / / N N N 0 N I I I I I I ------------ ------------ - — — — — — - FRONT ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I I �L II-———— — — —LI—— — — — — — — SIDE ELEVATION ELEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 301.0' _ 301.' z O E c z O so z c N m u . Z J O< aw © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. I REGISTERED AR CTVENA. BARN'ES E QF 'WASHMTO:�l CO.) H 0 J 00 W Cl) 0 2 () Z O Q w I w W J W LU 0 Go O�' M w amz 0 gMo w O O Ln O T- O z U w O ry n N N &j z N 0 r C/) w j <w afy_ A3M Attachment 4E P W 2022-0049-- Q Packet Pg. 79 Q / w w w Q co M 0 T M 0 Lw 0 Lr� 0 0 w 0 a� z 0 0 a� V) / — 301.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REAR ELEVATION EEE'; SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0'° SIDE ELEVATION EEEV SCALE: 1 /8"= 1'-0" 2 0 U z z O c z J J c O Q `z z �z c ' ^ N m � v u . J Lu Q O Lu z w w ZN LJJ w Q � o, Co w V Co J Cl) Q N w r C/) © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M4 REGISTERED AR CT EVEN A. BARN'ES STATE QF 'WASHMTO:�l M 40 ao Go Co 0 z� J OCo 00 LU wz O Cl)9 M � w Xn o 1W1. (/) O z L0 O o Q O > z W F--- I U w w O_ ry ry (i W X W LLI N N N N z O ~ w r � w = w Q afy_ > w A302 Attachment 41 Packet Pg. 80 PLN2022-0 Q I 47 e wa l SS, 1 �,/-- --H1 V ��` I' , -.1 \- �� ���� I`�' 1/ ///\I I I � ,►',�1 / 1\ ,� -� -�I - - �, �/ �,I1�1I ,I _ , �° 89 30"CED p N 88°138'01 51. ' rt o -------------------- TREE PROTECTION FENCE CE 478' 4"CED--4 2 CED All -'$97° 12"SPR 8P M;� 5 10 ---6 lo- ° 047`7 50,'CED ,-----� V' 98 12„DE g I48ED r\- 8 \ \ — DF D S0 ss --L AS TO CREATE ME N 0 N 0 Q0 CD 1496 N OJ,�L �-' \ � I`s i -' ? ', � �o � - - - - - © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. 50 16"DEC D 111 848 P 8 � 0 �ED8 L.� ° °NP 1 CE 915 46"CED -I---- ----T \ ♦ ° � \ ,� / v ♦ i 41 12 ALLY \ ss 514 0 LY _- ' ', I , / I�4 4 E / I 1--I-------� `11 513 8" H ��� 1 ° 1 , ts 4�74 ',8" E R I 4� 8 APB I 1 ' I 8' AL I - 0-2'10 52" 4' „ —� R=1004.94'• 1'41 " 1 D s� ` L=38.26, -77 �� 472,E g„A L - li -I',� i ' \ I / /I ccbb I I 512,H ��� / / i v li - � I 1 ` v ' y / I 150?; 6 MAP I i 1 i / '� / 403 � 18 CE[� i�. w �o \ 4 \ — Z—' I % i It A2 a-2 +---�---- I i i \ / 404 / , 8"'FIG , - _ iX 1 , - �03 6 MAP _�_ _ - I I /� ; I / A 1 jv 4�18 latl 26.." 4 0 12 FI � � --Lr � x � -' _ _ ° �T 73 6 P I I / � � , � � _ � - -- I- - L � � � I I 5'��$ 48 ED��_,,-'>, \ � I �I _ I 1 f N 63'02 07 W 467 21'i / Ix 48 �8 U M I \ 4 1 `� 1 EC ` I �` 1 I - �— - - I �i / / / I �\\ �\ ,/I / \,, _ , i �, �,� I I 1 ECG \ `� v _=DEC=� I �_ 412 5 4 32 C 4�� �E / .\ 1 I I \ I I - - I 2 I p , 502 /(5)13 MAP \ it /- - �- _ I' , „ I Imo,, A , I I / / A _ v �/ I �- - - - - - I 509 1'�EQ '10 4��\$� P LE�/- �I ' I�v__,� +--- I ,V--1-'---___ 1 I / i� / �, I i \/ 4ti 'CED �� �// v �� = II ;w ,� v II I� �� \ I I / / V I 24"D � — / � 8 2 -- ' I I ,Z _ - / ED40 E5102f I CCE 464- 0"L ' ,7 -�90 a6' ' I RL SPR �\�414/2 �\ I-P I - , �50 38 D 4� �rt --- 5b C/ AS 1 /V6 ,r400 `• \ ---- ,5- „ „ -�- - � � � - t - � � / � �- - TREE PR TECTION FENCE � c0 1�� _,�_-%�--I� �'4 3 4��GE�� ?I `� _ I / r� 1 ��\ // / 0 , 445V 32 - \ I / � \ � I �� � � �--- I \,--/ / ,'� � \ 418 4X"ED\ I /I \I, / � �' \ \ 8"D C CLUS ER N \ 415 4 CE I 44 I 13 3 YY1 /392 40 F W ; , , , ,ail' I I t �I 6-I- ; - -\ I ' , T - `\ I ; ;� ; �;(� �' - �� ,�' / /� \ \ �' , v� v / -sco / / I 1 / Ln -- — / \ 4+/8-4,0 ICED Lo z ��; ' II �// '/- _ I 'I �� /I �� \ -_�_�_';' \I I ♦ I v _ --IV I „ Ln 7 8G461 / ♦� / , 9 6"CH %416/�4 CEDO /3 C-Ep', 58S O / I/ "�E_ / I39 16 ol / i� / �6 SPR I 2„F 4�42 C D 4�6 9 1�/1I � 100 op 4ED- --1 671 /20 D60 4 5 6 MAP CT N EI 04 1 12 BIR 1 - __-r- _ I� ° ♦ 5 10 DEC / /_400-7,6�_, )MI♦ ) _� 424 MP�� _�_- \ 4� ,A' �- --- ---� / 1 ��\ g / 4"D� ,� v �, 'T ' 1� 36 Q 39 AD I /, 28 < \7/ 0i�\ - (lC D/I I - 2-! ED -7 R �7) / I I / Z �26 4CED I \.yI I I , I \ I /�z40 20 D \429 18 ED IC�j A V I O > 0 ED33-t6-C `ED�36 ED- a7 8; FI �CRANp O �I �\ „ I ;r i / ♦ / I / / 435 / 6"'LU C I 1142 1 Lf�L I �\ , yl ♦ / i �/ I I 1 I / Z _ - - � ,/ I ' `� \� I it l° of �� Sc /(� I \ / I; / '� \ / /�� / 70,6 38 DFI \I I/ ITREE PROTECTION FENCE � r420 4 C�6 � � �-CEQ----- I L_ 44' ' 0' E 430° 2"DF --------„-- �w 1 \ \�� �� . �I-'-- _- / 1-� \ I // / W 519 12/1vIA LEA \l �/ - " ,�--- - L--------� \ /I 43 27 40 CED 426 44 FIR(GF� ND� \ �� ���_--- _- 2 26 LRL 70 206 MAP 1\ , ,N -� T / -- --- - - _ _ w - 'W 30' SEED - ` _�-- �_- TREE PROTECTION FENCE 8.61 TREE PROTECTION FENCE TREE PROTECTION FENCE - - - - - N 00054' 15" E 4.75' TREE RETENTION PLAN SITE SCALE: 1"= 20'-0" 0 20 40 GRAPHIC SCALE W W U) 2 0 U z U z O Nn QR O s U p�.p z N W J O C aw REGISTERED I AR CT 'EN A. BARR''E$ OF WASHMTC: I Q 3 N Go �L Z Q o3 wW W � o W +o � gw O W U Lo C) Z LU LL z Z U O w U w 0 Z Q W W co N N N w Q 0 O W Atta n t PLN2022-0049 Packet PI W CROWN DRIP LINE OR CRITICAL ROOT ZONE AS DETERMINED SEE TREE PROTECTION FENCE ALIGNMENT ON L1 n / o 11 �I o J ,o c /­7 J 0 Z LU c I / 412 - 182 sf �J w oQ 426 - 125 sf z LU Tree Protection fence: High 387 - 43 sf 392 - 51 sf 427 - 118 sf 441 - 36 sf 433 - 112 sf 445 - 30 sf � w w 8.5"x11" sign 0 `� density polyethylene fencing w Z N laminated in plastic I with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; OC)o _ - __LLJ - 0 spaced every 50' Color- orange. Steel posts Q along the fence. installed at 8' o.c. 2"x 6' steel posts "'or approved equal. D c) (D ^ Q KEEP OUT " 5" thick layer of mulch. `�' � o TREE Maintain existing grade with PROTECTION the tree protection fence AREA Per ECDC 23.10.070 20 TREE = 314 SF X 30 TREE = 706 SF X 40 TREE = 1,256 SF X 30 TREE = 706 SF X 30 TREE = 706 SF X 20 TREE = 314 SF X 30 TREE = 706 SF X 20 TREE = 314 SF X -- --- 0.2 = 62 SF 0.2 = 141 SF 0.2 = 251 SF 0.2 = 141 SF 0.2 = 141 SF 0.2 = 62 SF 0.2 = 141 SF 0.2 = 62 SF 387 - 14 % 392 - 7 % 412 - 14 % 426 - 18 % 427 - 17 % 441 - 11 % 433 - 18 % 445 - 10 % © GREENWALK DESIGNS LLC. M54 REGISTERED SECTION VIEW AR CT CONTRACTOR TO BORE UNDER CROWN DRIPLINE OF TREE - - EVEN A. BARNES Outside of the crown dripline I� C ATEOF i41 SHINGiC3:�1 of the tree contractor can _ J TREE PROTECTION DETAIL open trench. DD a - I �� ;J I SCALE: 1 �4 1,-0„ I �I TREE PROTECTION NOTES: - 478 88 sf w 516 - 136 sf 1. Pruning shall be performed by approved arborist to remove deadwood. Do not 462 63 sf overprune. I 501 - 90 sf 2. During the pre -construction phase of development the project arborist shall inspect 515 - 16 sf tree protection fencing and the completion of pre -construction treatments. this inspection shall be clearly documented by the applicant and provided to the city - prior to commencement of any construction activity. A preconstruction meeting will - - - 484 - 18 sf be scheduled with city staff per ECDC 23.10.070.A. 485 - 14 sf 493 - 50 sf 3. Significant trees designated to be retained by these plans shall be protected from damage per ECDC 23.10.070. 4. Tree protection barriers shall be installed 5 feet beyond the driplines of significant � - - trees identified for retention and completely encompass the trees prior to I - -- -- -- -- -- commencing any construction. protection barriers shall consis of fencing at least four feet high, constructed of chain link or polyethylene laminar safety fencing or silt - - - - - - - J 0 0 0 0 - - Q fence. trees designated for preservation that are damaged or removed shall be 0 considered noncompliant with ECDC 23.10, subject to violation, enforcement and N penalties per ECDC 23.10.00. 30" TREE = 706 SF X 45" TREE = 1,590 SF 0.2 = 62 SF 0.2 = 62 SF 0.2 = 62 SF 0.2 = 141 SF 0.2 = 62 SF 0.2 = 251 SF 20" TREE = 314 SF X 20" TREE = 314 SF X 20" TREE = 314 SF X 30" TREE = 706 SF X 20" TREE = 314 SF X 40" TREE = 1,256 SF X Co C) 5. No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing. Protective fencing shall remain in place for the duration of the project until the city authorizes it's removal 0.2 = 141 SF X 0.2 = 318 SF Q (3)per ECDC 23.10.070.C.4. - - 5 01 - 13 � 515 - 5 � 516 - 11 � � Z 6. Native understory trees, shrubs and other vegetation shall be protected within the 462 - 9 % 478 - 6 % 484 - 6 o 485 5 / � oho 49 3 16% designated tree protection area. no storage of materials or equipment within the J O Q dripline plus 5 feet of protected trees. 7. Project arborist shall observe the status of the trees during regular inspection site 0 visits. Tree damage at the project site, including overstressed, dying or dead trees, w shall be reported to the project manager as soon as it is observed. the project ENCROACHMENT INTO DRIP Ll N E o manager will coordinate with the arborist to determine the cause of the damage, � � Z assess the value of loss based on the tree's cost shown in the project documents, and direct any remedial action required to restore the tree. SCALE: 1 = 20'-0 w 0 8. Provide soil amendments and fertilize trees to encourage tree growth. + M 9. Water trees that have been worked on to reduce stress. 1 1 1 Q ANY ENCROACHMENT INTO THE APPROVED TREE PROTECTION FENCE W w BOUNDARY IS SUBJECT TO CITY REVIEW/APPROVAL 10. For trees where it is required to work within the critical Root Zone that area shall be determined by one of the method described below: WORKING WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE OF TREES: TREE RETENTION CALCULATIONS 0 ul A. The dbh of the tree. Each inch dbh equals to 1 foot root zone radius. Two thirds THERE ARE 121 SIGNIFICANT TREES ON THE SITE, 1 IS NOT VIABLE SO THERE ARE A of this area is considered Critical Root Zone. 1. ROOTS OF SUBJECT TREES SHOULD BE HAND DUG AND EXPOSED JUST OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCING PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION TOTAL OF 120 VIABLE SIGNIFICANT TREES. B. On -site CRZ establishment based on actual investigation with an airspade ACTIVITIES. THE EXPOSED ROOTS SHOULD BE CUT WITH A SHARP CLEAN SAW AND TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHOULD THEN BE INSTALLED. ROOTS SHOULD NEVER BE discovering locations of the roots. Airspade exploration must be supervised by an SEVERED WITH SHOVELS OR EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT. TOTAL TREES BEING REMOVED = 84 arborist. 2. ANY NECESSARY PRUNING SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED ARBORIST AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE THECHNIQUES AND STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN THE CURRENT TOTAL TREES BEING RETAINED = 36 8. Any trees that require working within the drip line shall have 5" of wood chips EDITION OF ANSI A300. PERCENT OF TREES BEING RETAINED: 36/120 = 30% = 30% MINIMUM RETAINED ALLOWED (mulch) placed around the tree to completely cover the root zone. 3. THE PROJECT ARBORIST SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON -SITE TO CONSULT, DOCUMENT AND PROVIDE PRUNING OF SIGNIFICANT ROOTS (GREATER THAN 3 INCHES), TO ENSURE 9. When large vehicles need to drive within the root zone contractor shall provide steel BEST PRACTICE IS BEING FOLLOWED. plates over the root zone to protect the soil from compaction. Should the soil 4. ACTIVITIES TO AVOID IN THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: SIGNIFICANT TREE TYPES BEING REMOVED become compacted contractor shall airate the soil within the root zone to the satisfaction of the arborist. 0STOCKPILING CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR DEMOLITION DEBRIS. A 6"-10" 21 10. If roots are damaged during excavation, they must be recut with a sharp, 0 PARKING VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT. B 10.1"-14" 5 disinfected saw blade, protected with a moist plastic or burlap and covered with soil • PILING SOIL AND/OR MULCH. C 14.1"-24" 17 as soon as possible. • TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES INSTALLATION OR REPAIR, OR FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION. D 24:+ 41 • CHANGING SOIL GRADE BY CUTTING OR FILLING. • DAMAGING ROOTS BY GRADING, TEARING OR GRUBBING. TREE 24" DBH REMOVAL FEE U) • COMPACTING SOIL WITH EQUIPMENT, VEHICLES, MATERIAL STORAGE AND/OR FOOT TRAFFIC. TOTAL SITE AREA: 135,272 X 2 - $270,544 U O • CONTAMINATING SOIL FROM WASHING OUT EQUIPMENT (EXPECIALLY CONCRETE) AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE. J (D • INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS AND WALKWAYS. U Q • ATTACHING ANYTHING TO TREES USING NAILS, SCREWS OR SPIKES. T_ • WOUNDING TRUNKS WITH STRING WEED TRIMMERS AND LAWN MOWERS. Z 0 • CAUSING INJURY BY FIRE OR EXCESSIVE HEAT. 5. BEST PRACTICES FOR TRENCHING INCLUED THE FOLLOWING: F___ I- • PROTECT THE TRUNKS OF HIGH -VALUE TREES FROM SCRAPING AND GOUGING TO A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST EIGHT FEET. Z W • KEEP EQUIPMENT AND EXCAVATED BACKFILL ON THE SIDE FURTHEST FROM THE TREE, NOT AGAINST THE TRUNK. w • PLACE EXCAVATED BACKFILL ON A PLASTIC OR CANVAS TARP OUTSIDE THE CRZ. LLI Iry • PRUNE AWAY JAGGED ROOTS BACK TO THE TRENCH WALL CLOSEST TO THE TREE. USE A HANDHELD PRUNER OR PRUNING SAW TO MAKE SHARP, CLEAN CUTS. (y LL • REPLACE THE BACKFILL ON THE SAME DAY IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. COVER EXPOSED ROOTS WITH WET BURLAP TO PREVENT THEM FROM DRYING OUT: IN HOT DRY L J CONDITIONS, SMALL ROOTS MAY BE INJURED IN AS LITTLE AS 30 MINUTES. L J • DO NOT ALLOW CHEMICALS, TRASH, OR OTHER FOREIGN DEVRIS TO BECOME MIXED WITH THE BACKFILL. ry • IF EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS ALLOW IT, FIRM THE BACKFILL TO THE SAME CPMPACTION AS THE SURROUNDING SOIL AND NO MORE. • WATER THE BACKFILL TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE ROOT DRYING. W .. C� CV 6. BEST PRACTICES FOR FILL OPERATIONS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: � � • NEVER PLACE ANY FILL OR ORGANIC MATERIALS DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TREE. N Z • NEVER COMPACT THE SOIL WITHIN THE CRZ. 0 • IF USING NO MORE THAN TWO TO FOUR INCHES OF FILL AROUND EXISTING TREES, SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE MAY BE AVOIDED IF THE FILL HAS A COARSER TEXTURE THAN W N THE EXISTING SOIL. W 6i N Q W Cn C� N N Ln 0 L�J Atta L2 O PLN2022-0049 Packet Pg. 82 I 1t"" 28 C 14" LR SW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC. 25, T27N, R3E, W.M., CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA W (fl UCo LLJ F— U J) O N J 7 1 F d W \ ° \ \ \ d V W UJ \ \ W W O N 88°38 01 °' W 251 jQ1' g'p 2�1.09'------------------------- \ 12 ° (Ii ) V/4' o v 0 PR 7 ff \\ V ' 36 8 PL �j �9 8 DF 0 `, „ I\\ "DEC ��'� ;, \ \ ��, \\s\ \2\ 5/23/23 \ x �\ �, LOT-, \ • . _OLL f ,� - \\ �6 PPLE v,, I - _ ' 4 �E\\\T 3 LOT 4 � 180 \v \s � � saO QED � \ ° 2 LD E Ll T\1Q oQ STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED o O 1,284 2j7g'9' / LAN ?CHITECT LOT 2 ---- SCAPF N l��� . I L- ----- 6 �M _ J I ■ \ ® •. _ _ - — — — - - - — — — — \ \ �CERTIFICATE NO.SAKAIDA = I - — — < / � s 1 - i Lr •• ••< :• � \ � �,• � �\' '� \ • � � � EXPIRES 06/16/24 E 48" .�' e �� a . 12 1 p r N 63 02 07 W L F o „ < 6' ° v �v a 2 .• 4 ,_ J � ■ C Y� t44.17 LO lid .-� QA� 1\ \\ I •I7 �},• • '� I •� .< I 6' / •�278I a. \• ' / // :x \ • \\ /'' . ;+' �y/ / °.< f9Lj I I •�' i I I < 'e• •• O � ••o • O • co _ •`TJ . \ / / • = —j ,<\ a / \ • \ Gi • __ r a •' I I•. /i 9 • \ / / /" OIL •/< ,/ • \ • 8 �— --- •o .g. o ,; � _�_ vv i c / �! 1 '�� ff �_ •' t ° < • •a/sr'ta • ti ° •1 61 a .°/ ° 24 I I /// S r •vwv / �W W— W —W W — \\\ .•if;!/�� I vd '' O ff RL N/i'� - N `�> / / — Wes— / / I�Q o C 10 L I— — — — — — — — — O � - �\ I STREET ` R 1899\C\ED / W / „ ° q_ �� , / r•/ \ `, MW LRL LIGHT (TYP) \ q _4 \ \ •\s �� / // i < / /'� N 00 "-- ' / CN OLLJ /' A V A/ / / v .• <d •e • . .< - a °1a—. .c•, \ _ �' _ ' • .gyp, • a ° ° /° � I� ' •N •7 TTT O . \ ,> v 4E 0- \�,3.4A \ Ln —�----- 32 t�2 �r • . ;' /'/ (f 4v\ z >, • ••� • I — — \ \ \ (CLUSTER ) Co 3:I I I RACT ' / s - r- O Z w I I 0 ON SP I I u I I`� sco / \ • O L N LOT 1 I o . 2,2 16 N I ' -- 1 / --- 28 . << , < o I /' 40 CED <I..,�f .•,�� � ��--�i_-' I`� ,. s �2 . --- . L 12 T O w LJJ y•,<<, z -- I`� •., I y vvv I 4;4 CEDE I 3�„CIEv 1• • ,, �� .� N,v /vv %/ Lo c 1 '.� I v ff �; ,�E�u �// -, M -- X/\\ /CQfi <„ -'<" -N 6"SP I `\\\ I CED 2"DF 0 \ - - ,' 1 ffDEC V6 i /270 <--_-- / %\ a 12BIR a� — — - — — — _ — — — �� �' 3"DF — v r + 4"'DF OF V - -----I '� v --=-- I p s IV! ° _ — — /' ••,' 218 1w < v // vI I �• • /'q' • C Q LT V I •)I vv M' I / vvv vvv I J' O / ' ���; /�• . u1. I r— — —� L—•T ' // v� v 34 L 1 22" C z S „ I I AV // �0 ED/ I LOT 10• 13 / „ \\ 1 v �� 0 C :. '\• ,< I 1 I o I / 36 CED ! -/I--_ - ' '� 14 E D �/ --- \ ' •• :\\=G ' 2 CED --- _ -- o 8© �,v I I O 8 F A — R R D 112 MAP---, CED 1 4 E� o / ov AP vv „ — — — -� v /^v 2"CE �� '6' x 6"MAP® vvvv 88 5 12,9.59 _ o N 8 %38' 2" W y300.0 — ---- — _ w Z \ N -__ ---- 00 28.61' — — — — — Q (n 3 "0 — z TREE PLAN 0 10 20 40 N 1 inch = 20 ft. X ()- N p w UJ Cn N 00054'l5" E w w 4.7 5' C/) Attach S ■ 2022-0049 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS IPacket Pg. 83 O SET TREE STRAIGHT AND PLACE RO ON SOLID GROUND OR ON COMPACT BACKFILL. BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE 1/2 FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL REMOVED OF DEBRI. TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALI WATER THOROUGHLY. CUT AWAY AND REMOVE STRING / BURLAP. IF IN WIRE BASKET REMOVE COMPLETELY. BE CAREFUL NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS. BACKFILL REMAINING PLANTING HOLE WITH A MIXTURE OF APPROVED TOPS0ll AND NATIVE SOIL. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN LANDSCAPE NOTES. 3 TIMES ROOT BALL DIAMETER TREE PLANTING DETAIL �.2SCALE: N.T.S. 2" x6" WOOD STAKES, LOCA ROOTBALL. FASTEN WITH Cl TIES. STAKE MAY NOT TOI TRUNK. STAKE HEIGHT MU 5' FROM FINISHED GRADE. PLACE 3" OF BARK MULCH WITHIN 3" OF THE TRUNK. 3' DIAMETER MIN. REMOVE CONTAINER OR TO FROM ROOTBALL PRIOR B, FORM 5" HT. WATER DAM AROUND TREE WITH SOIL T, HOLD WATER. FINISH GRADE. SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTIN HOLE. MAKE SURE HOLE F GOOD DRAINAGE. EXISTING NATIVE SOIL OR P PLACED TOPSOIL. 0 SW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC. 25, T27N, R3E, W.M., CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA PLANT SCHEDULE TREES SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN WITHIN CONSTRUCTION AREA TREES: COUNTED AS TREE REPLACEMENT CREDITS 0 SIZE (MIN.) IS CALIPER AND HEIGHT CALIPER IS MEASURED AT 4.5' HIGH QUANTITY HEIGHT IS FROM TOP OF SOIL LEVEL SPACING (MAX.) NOTES REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT REFER TO SHEETS L1 AND L2 REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT, L1, L2, AND Al SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE TREES TO REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED AND TO BE REMOVED. REFER TO OWNER OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE FOR ANY CLARIFICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED. REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO OWNER REPRESENTATIVE. MEDIUM TO LARGE CONIFERS: 15 6' HIGH ABIES GRANDIS: GRAND FIR AS SHOWN FULL TO GROUND. NICE BRANCHING. STRONGLY UPRIGHT. CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS: INCENSE CEDAR THUJA PLICATA 'HOGAN': HOGAN CEDAR ® MEDIUM TO COLUMNAR CONFIERS: 19 ABIES KOREANA: KOREAN FIR CHAMAECYPARIS OBTUSA GRACILIS: SLENDER HINOKI CHAMAECYPARIS NOOTKATENSIS PENDULA: WEEPING ALASKA CEDAR TAXUS MEDIA HICKSII: HICKS YEW STREET TREE: DECIDUOUS PRUNUS CERASIFERA 'CRIPOIZAM': CRIMSON POINTE PLUM GROUP TREES: BETULUS PAPYRIFERA 'RENCI': RENAISSANCE REFLECTION BIRCH NYSSA SYLVATICA 'HAYMANRED': RED RAGE TUPELO MEDIUM TO LARGE DECIDUOUS TREES: ACER RUBRUM 'AUTUMN FLAME': AUTUMN FLAME MAPLE CERCIDIPHYLLUM JAPONICUM: KATSURA TREE CLADRASTIS: YELLOW WOOD MEDIUM DECIDUOUS TREES: AMELANCHIER: SERVICEBERRY CORNUS KOUSA : KOUSA DOGWOOD HALESIA: SILVERBELL SMALL DECIDUOUS TREES: ACER CIRCINATUM: VINE MAPLE CORYLUS CORNUTA: HAZELNUT HAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA: WITCH HAZEL MALUS "XX?": CRABAPPLE (VARIES) NOTE: - TREES LISTED SHOW DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT CAN BE USED FOR THAT TYPE OF TREE (SYMBOL). ROOT BALL DIAMETER 31 9 7 I[i 6' HIGH 1 " CALIPER 1" CALIPER 1" CALIPER 1" CALIPER 1" CALIPER _E 1/2 FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL REMOVED OF TABILIZE ROOTBALL. WATER THOROUGHLY. CUT 'ING AND BURLAP. IF IN WIRE BASKET IE CAREFUL NOT TO DAMAGE ROOTS. BACKFILL DLE WITH A MIXTURE OF APPROVED TOPSOIL ND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN LANDSCAPE NOTES. AS SHOWN FULL TO GROUND. NICE BRANCHING. STRONGLY UPRIGHT. AS SHOWN SINGLE TRUNK, MATCHING FORM, LOWEST BRANCHES AT 4' CLEARANCE, DO NOT PRUNE TO ACHIEVE LOWEST BRANCHING HEIGHT. AS SHOWN SINGLE TRUNK, MATCHING FORM, LOWEST BRANCHES AT 4' CLEARANCE, DO NOT PRUNE TO ACHIEVE LOWEST BRANCHING HEIGHT. AS SHOWN SINGLE TRUNK, MATCHING FORM, LOWEST BRANCHES AT 4' CLEARANCE, DO NOT PRUNE TO ACHIEVE LOWEST BRANCHING HEIGHT. AS SHOWN SINGLE TRUNK TO 3' MINIMUM. STRONGLY UPRIGHT. MATCHING FORM. AS SHOWN SINGLE TRUNK AND MULTI - STEM ACCEPTABLE AFTER 18" NOTE: ALL WEEDS ARE TO BE REMOVED WITH ROOT(S) IN PLANTS DELIVERED, UPON ARRIVAL. DISPOSE OF WEEDS OFFSITE. IF EXCESSIVE WEEDS OCCUR AROUND THE BASE OF PLANTS WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WEED REMOVAL BY MECHANICAL MEANS. ROOT BARRIER ALONG SIDEWALKS AND CURBS: REFER TO CITY CODE OR PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS FOR EXACT SPECIFICATIONS. TYPICALLY 18"-24" DEEP CONTINUOUS ROOT BARRIER, 15' CENTERED ON TREE AREA WHEN TREE IS WITHIN 5' OF A PUBLIC CURB AND OR SIDEWALK/PAVING/WALKWAY r 5/23/23 STATE OF WASHINGTON o REGISTERED +° LAN SCAPF CHH�I^�TE,�CT�T'� �G/`�lGafiu� D N % w AKEMI RAt SAKAIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 794 EXPIRES 06/16/24 12 d Y L w d R c m L Q a� o O N° O � ) c Qm J Z 0 O 75 00 0 V °3 W QC Z'^ O ZNm O c WG r'1 Ua N c R LLJ o w� y U7) �a c O C d E a� L Lo c E J C Lo v ( r r a � b c z E �o V �a Z U a Z W Lu N J (D I \ z N � 0 W W Lo U) w ui Lu H > Lij U 0 Attach am 2 2022-0049 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS I Packet Pg. 84 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/27/2023 Request for continuance of public hearing for 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Per 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 held Phase 1 of the public hearing for the proposed 17-unit multifamily residential building at 627 Dayton St. at their May 25, 2023 meeting. At that meeting, the hearing was continued to a date certain of July 27, 2023 as required by ECDC 20.12.020.A. It was felt that would allow the applicant sufficient time to update the project plans based on the feedback the Board provided and resubmit so staff could prepare a staff report for Phase 2 of the hearing. Unfortunately, the applicant was not able to resubmit during that window and is requesting additional time to prepare updated plans. The request is to extend the public hearing until the Board's September 28 meeting, since a separate public hearing is already scheduled for the Board's August 24 meeting. An additional extension of 60 days would be consistent with ECDC 20.12.020.A. Per ECDC 20.12.005.13, the applicant must submit the updated design within 180 days or the Phase I design checklist will be deemed void. Staff Recommendation Continue the public hearing until September 28, 2023. The hearing is still open so the Board needs to make a motion to further continue the public hearing for the 627 Dayton Apartment design review in file PLN2022-0089 until September 28, 2023 and vote on it. Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 85