2023-07-27 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Vice Chair Brooks called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall, 121— 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair
Joe Herr
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
Kim Bayer, Chair (excused)
Steve Schmitz
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
May 25, 2023 and June 15, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS
Site and Building Design Review of the Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development
Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the presentation on the Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development
(PRD). He explained what a PRD is and discussed the PRD review process. This is currently at the preliminary
review where the ADB reviews and makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on design at a public
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Pagel of 5
meeting. He reviewed the location at 540 and 550 Edmonds Way, the preliminary site plan, and single-family
design standards for PRDs.
Site Design Standards
Retain Significant Features: This site has rolling topography. The applicant intends to retain 36 significant trees
and the existing pond for open space.
Vehicular Access:
• Driveway widths 20' max — lots 6-8 seem to exceed 20 feet. May need to add verification as a
conditional approval.
• Shared driveways are encouraged — lots 14 & 15 share.
• Primary plat road 24' at SR 104 (Edmonds Way(, reduces to 18' with sidewalks on both sides.
• Secondary access drives are 12' wide
Garage Locations: Homes should have visually diminished garage fronts. The designs appear to meet the code,
but side -loaded or one -door tandem parked would further reduce the visual impact.
Landscaping and Buffering:
• 36 trees will be retained out of 119 existing trees.
• 31 street trees are proposed.
• Additional trees will be installed throughout the site.
One of the conditions will be to get a landscaping plan that shows landscaping for all the particular lots
in order to determine compliance with Type II/Type III buffer landscaping along north, west, and south
property lines. The Board will need to determine the appropriate type of buffer landscaping (Type II or
Type III) for this site.
Building Entrances:
• Homes should have a dominant front porch with pedestrian access to main entrance.
• Front porch entries are identifiable; some are more dominant than others.
• Some designs have pedestrian connection to entry; some connect to driveway.
Open Space Requirements: 10% of the lot area is required for usable open space. 10.5% is proposed which
includes a play space and pond/seating. Both open space areas show guest parking over the areas, and there
were question about whether that was consistent with the open space requirements; the code is not clear on this.
Because of the street width reductions there is no parking allowed on the streets or access easements. There will
be a fair amount of parking for each unit. Staff asked several questions, including whether the proposal needs
more guest parking or if guest parking over open space areas is a reasonable use for a usable open space. A
condition is proposed.
Building Design Standards:
Characteristics of Single -Family Development: Demonstrate residential quality — pedestrian access, human
scale, sidewalks on plat road.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Page 2 of 5
Materials: Materials should be consistent on all four sides. Each of the house designs uses varied modern design
elements on all sides. Human scale — horizontal and vertical difference.
Staff has proposed two conditions before the project is ready to go before the Hearing Examiner. One is
verification that all curb cuts for driveways are a maximum of 20' wide. The other is an updated landscaping
plan consistent with ECDC 20.13 showing all retained trees and proposed trees and landscaping throughout the
development. It should also show any fencing being considered throughout the project.
Additional questions/conditions to address in the Hearing Examiner staff report:
1. Whether guest parking can be included in usable open space.
2. Whether Type H or Type II landscaping is appropriate for the north, west, and south sides of the
development.
Guest Parking in Open Space: Staff feels that guest parking is not consistent with usable open space. Open space
is to be used by people, not cars. However, the code is not clear on that.
Board Member Loch asked if they would still meet the 10% requirement for open space if the parking areas are
removed. Senior Planner Clugston did not think so.
The applicant explained the original plan for those parking spaces was to provide basketball hoops. At the public
hearing some of the neighbors were concerned that parking could overflow onto their neighboring streets. The
idea is that most of the time these will be basketball hoops, but every once in a while, somebody could park on
them. They would be paved but not necessarily striped. The developer is fine with removing the parking if
desired by the City. He also noted that all of the yards will be fenced with 6-foot-tall cedar fences, especially
the perimeter. The fences were important to neighbors because of the removal of trees and the proximity of
homes to the property lines. He noted that there are 16 lots with 8 different housing types. The housing types
were designed so that they will not necessarily have the same roofline and siding, and there will be variety.
Board Member Herr asked about the garages which appeared to be three -car garages with two doors. The
applicant explained that this was so the garage doors don't cover more than 50% of the front of the house. They
are large garages, but they are only two -car garages. People like to have the extra space. Board Member Herr
referred to Lot 6 and said it looks like it has a full -width driveway. The applicant said all the driveways should
be less than 20 feet. Mr. Clugston commented that when staff looked at this, it looked like 6, 7, and 8 were wider
than 20 feet. This should be verified.
Board Member Strauss asked about access to SR 104. The applicant explained that you have to turn right coming
out of the development but coming down the hill there is a left turn lane to turn into the development. This is a
limited access portion of 104. There was an easement on this property that limited the access to one access drive
per lot. The applicant had to work with WSDOT in order to get that to be a road instead of an entrance drive.
They are planning on putting a gate on it for added security and to prevent accidental public access.
The applicant explained they are required to plant a minimum of 80 trees, but they are planting 120 trees. He
added that the pond is actually a beautiful waterfall from the previous property owners.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Page 3 of 5
Board Member Strauss thought one of the houses looked very close to the sidewalk on 104. The applicant
explained it has the prescribed setback. Mr. Clugston said it was 25 feet. The applicant explained they have
larger setbacks around the perimeter per the PRD requirements.
Board Member Strauss referred to the basketball court/guest parking area and said she didn't have a problem
with the basketball court being used for guest parking occasionally. The houses have large driveways that can
accommodate four cars plus two in the garage. She wondered about just taking the word parking off it.
Board Member Jeude recommended doing away with the guest parking.
Board Member Herr noted these are nice large lots. It's a shame they have three car garages that can't be used
as three -car garages, but he understands why they did it. He likes the shared easements. There are only a few
people that live on the main street; everybody else lives down their own private little drive. He thinks the site
layout is really good. He said he was impressed with the plans.
Board Member Loch said he thinks there will be a need for extra parking, and there really isn't a place for
overflow parking in the neighborhood. He suggested keeping one of the two guest parking areas.
Board Member Jeude did not think guest parking should be included in open space.
There was consensus that guest parking cannot be included as part of the usable open space, the applicant should
change the wording to basketball hoops, leave the concrete where it is, and let the neighborhood figure out how
they want to use it.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH,
THAT THE GUEST PARKING CANNOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE USABLE OPEN
SPACE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Clugston reviewed the difference between Type II and Type III landscape requirements.
Board Member Loch asked if perimeter landscaping would be required if this was a regular subdivision. Mr.
Clugston replied that it would not. Board Member Loch said, based on that and based on the fact that it is single-
family on the other side of the fence, he thinks it should be the lesser requirement (Type II1). He thinks this is
adequate to screen from another single-family home.
Board Member Herr asked what the advantage was of doing a PRD instead of a subdivision. The applicant
explained it allows them to build the houses closer to the street. As long as they have a 20-foot-deep driveway,
the front porch can be within 10 feet of the back of the sidewalk. This makes a suburban area look more urban
because the houses appear to be closer to the street. It also gives modulation. They can also adjust the lot sizes
so some are smaller and some are larger. The PRD also allows modification of the access drive and allows them
to go a little above the 35% lot coverage.
Board Member Herr expressed frustration with the City of Edmonds requirement that the sidewalk has to come
up to the entry because nobody uses it. Everyone comes from the driveway to the front door. This creates issues
for builders because of the lot coverage area. Mr. Clugston acknowledged that the PRD code needs some
updates.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Page 4 of 5
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH,
TO ALLOW TYPE III LANDSCAPING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY DON'T TAKE OUT
ANY TREES THEY ALREADY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER HERB, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS,
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 ON PAGE 34 AS AMENDED ABOVE. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Strauss commented that she was also impressed with the design.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Request for continuance of public hearing for 627 Dayton Apartments
Mr. Clugston explained that the hearing had previously been continued to July 27, 2023. 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 hearing is already
scheduled for the Board's August 24 meeting.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 627 DAYTON APARTMENTS TO SEPTEMBER 28,
2023. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD REVIEWS ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member Strauss said she would be out of town for the September 28 meeting and on east coast time, but
she will try to join in remotely.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Page 5 of 5