2017-10-18 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Vice Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council
Chambers, 250 - 5'' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Tom Walker, Chair (arrived at 7:25)
Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair
Brian Borofka
Lois Broadway
Cary Guenther
Joe Herr
Athene Tarrant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Members Absent
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
MINOR PROJECTS
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE 2 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW FOR HOMESTREET BANK
(PLN20170024)
Vice Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing.
Mr. Clugston presented the Staff Report, reminding the Board that projects within the Downtown Business (BD) zones
are subject to district -based design review under the regulations of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
20.12. According to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.12.010, district -based design review applications that trigger State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III-B decisions, which require a 2-phase public hearing and design
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 1 of 11
decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council. The Phase
1 portion of the hearing process was conducted on August 2'. During that meeting, the hearing was continued to October
4' for Phase 2. Due to lack of a quorum on October 4', the hearing was continued to October 18'. He reviewed that
during the Phase 1 hearing, the Board looked at the conceptual design of the project and completed the Design Guideline
Checklist, which provided guidance for the applicant going forward. The purpose of the Phase 2 hearing is to allow the
applicant to design or redesign the initial concept to address the input provided by the public and the Board by complying
with the prioritized Design Guideline Checklist criteria.
Mr. Clugston advised that the project is located at 614 — 616 5' Avenue South and will include a new two-story office
building with a HomeStreet Bank branch and drive -through on the 1st floor and leasable office space on the 2" d floor. The
site will be developed with surface parking and a retaining wall, as well as new landscaping and site utilities. The subject
parcel is zoned BD3, as are the parcels directly to the north and south. To the west and east are multi -family and single-
family zoned properties that are developed. He provided an aerial photograph of the site, which is located south of Howell
Street. The new building will be situated closer to the street, with parking behind, and will blend in with development to
the north and south. Access will be from the north and come around the back of the building to exit at the south property
line.
Mr. Clugston summarized that because the project site is immediately adjacent to a multi -residential (RM-2.4) property, a
15-foot landscaped setback must be maintained along the west property line. He explained that, typically, the setback
between commercial and residential zones requires Type I landscaping, which creates a dense barrier with two rows of
evergreen trees and ground covers. The proposed landscape plan does not quite meet code, but staff believes that it meets
the intent of Type I landscaping. The landscape plan in Exhibit 4 shows a variety of landscaping in the area. An existing
overgrown Photinia hedge will be retained and maintained, and ground covers will separate the hedge from the two planters
next to the retaining wall. If the Photinia hedge is removed, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply
with the Type I landscape standards. He recalled that, at the Phase 1 hearing, the Board expressed a desire to break up the
appearance of the retaining wall, and the applicant is proposing a mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers in the planters.
Lastly, Mr. Clugston reviewed that the maximum height allowed in the BD3 zone is 30 feet above average original grade,
and the building elevation sheets in Exhibit 4 indicate the building will be less than 30 feet in height. Height will be
verified again during building permit review and during construction through inspections. He recommended the Board
approve the application with two conditions relative to the Photinia hedge and compliance with all relevant codes and land
use permit conditions.
Brad Barbee, Project Manager, MG2 Corporation, was present to represent the applicant and provide highlights of the
proposed project. He provided a photograph of the existing Photinia hedge that would be left intact as a visual buffer to
the retaining wall. He referred to the site plan, which identifies the proposed improvements. He noted that the plan did
not change significantly following the Phase 1 hearing, but the open space design was further developed. He also referred
to the landscape plan and said the intent is to make the open space an inviting space for the community to enjoy and to
create a buffer between the open space and the driveway. He noted that a different type of concrete would be used for the
plaza area to set it apart from the sidewalks.
Mr. Barbee referred to the photometric plan and recalled that a lot of concern was expressed at the Phase 1 hearing that
lighting would flood onto adjacent residential properties. He explained that the light fixtures will have shields so the light
will drop off drastically as it reaches the wall on the back edge of the property. The intent is to properly light the parking
lot for safety, but the light will be focused on site without a lot of spill over onto adjacent properties.
Mr. Barbee advised that the rooftop units would be a bit visible and screening would be provided for them. They will also
take advantage of the height of the tower to further screen the rooftop units. He also noted that the retaining wall and 15-
foot landscaped setback would further screen the building from adjacent properties. He provided a street view of the
property, showing the open space and entrance to the property, as well as the existing alleyway. He noted that the retaining
wall would be constructed of stone to be more of an architectural element, and there will be landscaping along the wall.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 2 of 11
Mr. Barbee said the building elevations have not changed since the project was presented in August. He pointed out the
pedestrian connection between the public space and the sidewalk, noting that the memorial bench and flower post would
be reinstalled in their current locations. He recalled that, at the Phase 1 hearing, there was some concern about visibility
for the existing driveway and alleyway. The retaining wall was cut back as far as allowed by code to create better visibility.
Board Member Tarrant asked how tall the light standards in the parking lot would be, and Mr. Barbee answered that they
would be about 16 to 20 feet tall, with a 3-foot concrete base. Board Member Tarrant questioned if the light standards
need to be that tall. Mr. Barbee answered that the photometric plan analyzes the height the fixtures need to be, as well as
the shields that will be on them to help shield the light from adjacent properties.
Board Member Tarrant asked if the applicant is required to replace the memorial bench in the same location. Mr. Barbee
answered affirmatively, and noted that both the bench and the flower pole are located within the right of way and not on
the subject parcel. Board Member Tarrant asked if the applicant has given any thought to creating a billboard of some
type that advertises community events at the northeast corner of the building to break up the blank wall. She noted that
the streetscape would be very different than what currently exists, and the blank wall could become something that
contributes to the community. Mr. Barbee replied that each HomeStreet Bank branch has a community board inside,
typically in the lobby area. The new bank will also provide a conference room that can be used for community events.
Board Member Broadway asked the applicant to describe or explain why a 6-foot chain link fence is needed along the
landscaped area on the western edge of the property. Mr. Barbee said the intent is to discourage pedestrians from crossing
through the landscaped area and to provide additional security. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that there is already an
existing chain link fence underneath the plantings on the west side of the property. Mr. Barbee said the intent is to provide
a fence from the front to connect to the current fence that is intertwined with the existing vegetation.
Board Member Broadway asked if the Photinia hedge would maintain its integrity and continue to meet the requirements
of Type I landscaping if it is trimmed back. Mr. Clugston said he cannot speak to the long-term survivability of the hedge,
but it has been there for a long time, and he knows they can be significantly trimmed and still come back. He said the
intent is to maintain the hedge to a reasonable height.
Brian Way, Landscape Architect, PACE Engineers, said the existing hedge is mature and Photinia tends to want to
grow larger and larger. As much as they are long lived, it is possible that the hedge will decline because of construction
disturbance. If that occurs, the applicant would provide a double row of trees as required by the Type I landscape standard.
In addition to retaining the hedge, the applicant is proposing to plant 6-foot tall conifers in the area, as well. By the time
the conifer trees grow, they will compensate if the hedge has to be removed.
Mark Williams, President, Park Place Edmonds Condominium Association, noted that the condominiums are
adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank property. He voiced concern that the proposed light standards would intrude
onto the condominium properties. He also noted that the existing Photinia hedge does not extend all the way to the
condominium property, but there are Bromeliad trees that block their view of the proposed new building.
Board Member Borolka asked if the applicant would consider lowering the light standards adjacent to the residential
properties. Board Member Tarrant said she would prefer light standards that are just tall enough to provide proper lighting.
Vice Chair Strauss referred to the photometric layout, noting that there would only be two lights along the back wall, and
the existing hedge will block light from encroaching onto adjacent properties.
Mr. Williams asked if the lights would remain on all night. Board Member Broadway said her expectation would be that
they would be on whenever it is dark to provide safety. Chair Walker suggested that if there is concern about the lights
being on all night, perhaps they could be on a timer and turn off at some point during the night. Board Member Guenther
pointed out that there will be 5-foot panels under each light pole and the cutoffs will be designed so that all the light shines
towards the parking area and does not spill onto adjacent properties. Board Member Broadway said she would be
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 3 of 11
concerned about using a timer for the lights because the lights are needed for security reasons. She agreed with Board
Member Guenther that the lighting would be more intense on the parking lot, but would drop off dramatically as it reaches
the edge of the property. Board Member Tarrant suggested that perhaps a condition of approval could be that the applicant
be sensitive towards any light pollution after the project is complete. Chair Walker cautioned that the Board must make a
decision based on the information provided in the staff report, and he agreed with Board Member Guenther's conclusion
that the light would not spill over onto adjacent properties.
No one else indicated a desire to speak to the Board, and the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Board Member Borofka asked if the landscaping plan must be approved by staff. Mr. Clugston answered that the
landscape plan would be reviewed and approved by staff as part of the Building Permit. If the hedge on the western
boundary is removed, the applicant would be required to provide additional landscaping to meet the Type I requirements.
Board Member Broadway said she is bothered by the idea of having a fence with a locked gate along the hedge. She felt
this could create an indefensible locked space where bad things could happen. If the gate is locked, someone could be
trapped in that area, which would not be visible from the alley or street. Board Member Herr pointed out that the proposed
new retaining wall would be an excellent target for taggers, and the applicant is likely trying to keep people from getting
into that area. While he understands Board Member Broadway's concern, he felt the locked gate was necessary. Board
Member Tarrant asked if it would help to require security cameras in the area. Board Member Broadway did not believe
this would be an effective solution. She said she agrees with Board Member Herr's perspective as to why the applicant
wants to keep people out of the area. Vice Chair Strauss said she lives close to the subject parcel and knows that people
walk through the area to get from the alley to the businesses on the other side of the subject parcel. Blocking off this cut -
through access will disappoint a lot of people who currently use it. Chair Walker asked if blocking off the access would
cause pedestrian traffic to spill into others where it is not desirable. Vice Chair Strauss said people will have to use 4r' or
5'' Avenues instead of cutting through the subject property.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA
IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC
22.43; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR HOME STREET BANK (PLN20170024) WITH THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND
LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING
PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT
THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
2. IF THE PHOTINIA HEDGE IS REMOVED FROM THE 15-FOOT LANDSCAPED SETBACK AT
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE DURING DEVELOPMENT, FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TYPE I PLANTING STANDARDS FOUND IN ECDC 20.13.030.A IS REQUIRED FOR THAT SPACE.
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING —
DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION (PLN20170030) AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN20170029)
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 4 of 11
Kernen Lien explained that the Port of Edmonds has submitted an application for a new marine -related building located
on property at 471 Admiral Way, which is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Two applications have been submitted,
one for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and another for design review of the project. Because the scope of
work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board
(ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decisions pursuant to Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A
decisions, and a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. The two applications are being combined
pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design aspects of a proposal
will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who will make the decision on both design and the shoreline
permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken.
Mr. Lien provided a map and an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the subject parcel. He explained that the
minimum required setback for C-zoned properties that are not immediately adjacent to residential properties is 15 feet
landward of bulkheads for buildings and 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. The section of the Admiral Way
right-of-way adjacent to the subject site is 60 feet wide, so the site well exceeds the setback requirement. Additionally, the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way is approximately 100 feet wide, so parking is also more than 60 feet
from the ordinary high-water mark of the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek outlet.
Mr. Lien advised that the maximum height allowed in the CW zone is 30 feet, and the proposed structure would be 30 feet
tall to the top of the parapet. As noted in the Staff Report, the subject parcel is located within the flood plain according to
the draft Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain maps. The City has decided to use the draft FEMA
maps to determine which properties are to be subject to the regulations with regard to flood plain development. Normally,
zoning height is determined by measuring from vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site
covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure. However, for properties within the Coastal High Hazard
Areas and Coast A Flood Zones, such as this site, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above the base
flood elevation. According to the draft FEMA flood zone map (Attachment 16), the base flood elevation for the subject
parcel is 12 feet, so zoning height would be measured from 14 feet for the proposed development.
Mr. Lien reviewed that in the CW zone, all new buildings must provide parking at a flat rate of one on -site parking space
for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. With the proposed building size of 6,500 square feet, 13 parking spaces
would be required. The applicant is proposing 24 parking spaces, so the proposal exceeds the minimum parking standard.
The parking standard would still be met if some of the stalls are eliminated to accommodate a garbage enclosure at some
point in the future.
Mr. Lien advised that Type IV landscaping is required along the western property boundary adjacent to Admiral Way. As
per the landscape plan, the landscaping adjacent to Admiral Way will include a variety of shrubs and ground cover, as well
as street trees. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping along the western edge of the property meets the requirement
and will provide a visual separation and soften the appearance of the building and parking area when viewed from the
street. He advised that Type III landscaping would typically be required around the perimeter of the site. However,
because the site is surrounded by similar uses and no side or rear setbacks are required in the CW zone, staff feels the ADB
could waive any landscaping requirements along the eastern, northern and southern boundaries pursuant to ECDC
20.13.000.
Mr. Lien explained that because the proposal includes 24 on -site parking spaces, the applicant is required to provide 420
square feet of Type V landscaping (17.5 square feet per parking space). As per the landscape plan, there will be four areas
of Type V landscaping for a total of about 440 square feet of landscaping. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with
the Type V landscaping requirements.
Mr. Lien provided elevation drawings of the proposed new building, noting that the mass of the building is subdivided
vertically and horizontally. The building displays a distinct top and bottom, and window variations, awnings, material
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 5 of 11
changes, color variations and roof form all help to break up the building's mass. He advised that no rooftop mechanical
equipment has been proposed for the new building.
Mr. Lien recommended approval of the design for the proposed new building with conditions pertaining to rooftop
mechanical equipment, street trees, and a trash/recychng collection area.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, commented that this is the last developable piece of land on
the marina side of the Port. The Port is really excited to have the opportunity to develop the parcel very selectively.
Ultimately, the intent is to incorporate the same design features as the Jacobsen's Marine Building, which has been a very
successful development. They are encouraged by the market factors that will bring new business to Edmonds, creating a
benefit to the customers, the port and the general community. The building will provide a book -end affect, with Jacobsen's
Marine to the north of the boatyard and the new building to the south.
Sean Rafferty, Project Manager, Jackson Main Architecture, explained that, currently, the site is a vacant lot that is
semi -paved. There is a parking lot to the south and a boatyard to the north, and Jacobsen's Marine is located on the other
side of the boatyard. In addition to a signature marine -related tenant, the building will accommodate multiple smaller
tenants. The design features similar elements to those used for the Jacobsen's Marine Building (same materials, same
colors, same brick base, and a nautical theme). Materials will be non -reflective metal panels and windows will be added
to provide visual interest and opportunities to display products. The front of the site (northwest corner) was dressed up
using rod -iron fencing and posts to mimic the pilings you find on buildings along the waterfront.
Board Member Herr asked if the sign identifying the "Port of Edmonds" is part of the proposal. Mr. Rafferty answered
that there will likely be a sign for the signature tenant. The sign reads "Port of Edmonds" because the Port does not yet
know who the signature tenant will be.
Board Member Borofka referred to the chain link fence that is proposed on the south and east sides of the property. He
voiced concern about the long-term integrity of the appearance of the fence. He asked how it would be maintained and if
the Port would consider putting a rod -iron fence on the south side extending from Admiral Way. Mr. Rafferty said fencing
on the south side would be limited and would not extend all the way to the corner of the building. While the fence would
be visible from the parking lot, it would not be highly visible from the street. Board Member Broadway noted that the
existing portable building would also help block the fence from street view.
Chair Walker asked how many tenants the Port anticipates for the new building. Mr. McChesney said that is unknown at
this time. The common thought is that the tenants would include boat sales, marine retail, marine repair, marine insurance,
etc. He advised that there will be a huge closure of marine -related businesses that are currently located in South Lake
Union to make room for the new Vulcan project. The Port anticipates there will be quite a number of opportunities to
recruit the types of tenants they want.
Board Member Broadway asked how the boats would access the showroom space given that the boatyard would be located
directly adjacent to the fence on the north side. Mr. Rafferty answered that there would be gates on the north and south
sides, and the showroom space could be accessed via the parking area. Mr. McChesney added that the boatyard is directly
across the street from the marina and the travelift, which hauls boats out of the water and crosses Admiral Way into the
boatyard. There would be access from the boatyard to both Jacobsen's Marine and the new building. Board Member
Broadway asked if a right-of-way access is needed given that the boatyard and subject property are both owned by the
Port. Mr. McChesney affirmed that no right-of-way access would be needed.
Board Member Tarrant asked who would adjudicate the maintenance and aesthetic performance of the display area so that
it does not become unsightly. Mr. McChesney answered that the Port takes pride in its facilities, and it maintains them to
the highest standard. The marina is the "front porch" of Edmonds, and it is the Port's duty and obligation to make sure it
is kept up to that standards. The standards will be written into all leases for the subject property. The Port's administration
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 6 of 11
building is located right across the street from the subject property, and the Port staff will not allow a blight to occur on the
site.
Board Member Tarrant said she anticipates that the signature tenant of the new building will want to have its own sign on
the front of the building. However, it would be wonderful if there was some type of signage to also identify the building
as part of the Port of Edmonds. This would be particularly helpful on the railroad side for people who travel through
Edmonds by train. Mr. McChesney agreed that is a good idea to explore further.
Board Member Guenther observed that the Jacobsen's Marine Building, as well as the new building, are one-story
structures that are 30 feet tall. The buildings seem huge in scale for single -story structures. This height is often associated
with "big box" stores. However, he understands the need for the taller buildings to accommodate boats, and he likes the
horizontal elements of design that help break up the building and bring it down to a human scale.
Board Member Tarrant asked how much reflective factor the glass will have. Mr. Rafferty answered that low -reflective
glass could be used if that is what the Board desires. Board Member Tarrant commented that the building will be in a
good location to pick up the sunset.
Board Member Herr asked if any portion of the new building would accommodate two stories. Mr. Rafferty advised that
a portion of the building (up to 3,000 square feet or 50%) can be mezzanine space. Board Member Herr asked about the
large doors on the south side of the building. Mr. Rafferty explained that the doors are intended to provide access for large
boats to be moved in and out of the building. They also help break up the blank fagade on the back.
Chair Walker asked for more information about the fence that is proposed for the south side of the property. Mr. Rafferty
said the fence will separate the boatyard from the subject property, but there will be a gate that allows access between the
two properties, as well.
Board Member Borotka asked if the applicant is proposing any rooftop mechanical equipment. If so, it will be important
for staff to review and approve the location of the equipment, as well as appropriate screening, as part of the Building
Permit review. Mr. Rafferty answered that the building will be a pre-engineered structure, which typically does not have
rooftop equipment because it cannot handle the load. All of the mechanical equipment will be internally located, and no
units will be mounted on the roof.
Board Member Broadway said she has walked by the subject site for many years. While she acknowledged the City could
not require it, she suggested it would be nice if a bench were located somewhere on the west side of the building along the
sidewalk. She noted that it is a long way between the two City parks, and it would be great for pedestrians to have a place
to rest. The remainder of the Board agreed that a bench would be desirable, but not required. Mr. McChesney emphasized
that the Port is in the "public access" business and pedestrians are invited and appreciated to visit the marina and other Port
properties. He agreed to take Board Member Broadway's suggestion under advisement.
Board Member Broadway said she would like the project to include a trash enclosure, particularly because she anticipates
future uses on the site will generate hazardous waste that will need to be disposed of. Mr. McChesney advised that the
Port has stringent requirements for handling storage of hazardous waste, and not only because it is required by the
regulatory agencies. The Port does not allow containers of liquid chemicals to be cast about freely.
Chair Walker asked if lighting is proposed along Admiral Way. Mr. Rafferty said there are existing street lights, and some
of the signs on the building may also be illuminated. There may be some ground lighting, as well.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF
REPORT, VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER (PLN20170029 AND PLN20170030) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 7 of 11
1. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF,
GROUNDS, OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM
STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS,
LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING.
2. STREET TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES IN CALIPER. SPECIES, LOCATION AND
SPACING OF THE STREET TREES WILL BE DETERMINED DURING CIVIL PLAN REVIEW
WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.
3. IF A TRASH/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA IS ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT
SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A GATED TRASH ENCLOSURE TO SCREEN VIEW OF THE WASTE
AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES DESIGN REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION (PLN20160061) AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (PLN20160060)
Mr. Lien advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds
Way. The ten units are proposed to be divided between two structures, each with five units. The applicant is also seeking
a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. He explained that design review
projects that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and variance applications are both Type III-B
decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the applications are being combined. The Architectural Design Board will
forward a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner regarding design, and the Hearing Examiner will issue the decision
regarding both design and the variance request.
Mr. Lien provided an aerial view of the subject parcels, noting that the properties are zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM-
1.5). He explained that the subject site is a corner lot, with frontage on three sides: 228' Street Southwest on the north,
95' Place West on the east, and Edmonds Way on the south. Access to the site will be via a single driveway accessed off
228' Street Southwest. The proposed buildings meet all of the setback requirements for the RM-1.5 zone.
Mr. Lien advised that the height limit in the RM-1.5 zone is 25 feet, with an additional 5 feet if all portions of the roof
above 25 feet have a 4:12 pitch or greater. The applicant is seeking a height variance for both of the proposed buildings
due to special circumstances related to shape, size, topography and location. The site is essentially down in a hole and fill
will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and appropriate slope for connection to
utilities in the adjacent rights -of -way. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this
negatively impacts the potential height of the buildings. The proposed structures are designed to be 30 feet in height from
finished grade, and the project is designed to have a 4:12 pitched roof above the 25-foot elevation of the building.
Mr. Lien said the parking requirement for 3-bedroom units is two spaces per unit. The proposal actually identifies 22
parking spaces, two in the garages of each individual unit, and two additional surface parking spaces for guests on the
internal drive aisle. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements in ECDC 17.50.
Mr. Lien noted that Type III landscaping is required around the perimeter of the site, and Type II landscaping is required
along the western boundary. There is existing vegetation on site that will have to be removed to accommodate
development. The applicant is proposing to plant Emerald Green Arborvitae along the western boundary, which will be
backed by a 6-foot board fence. Arborvitae is typically used more as a hedge than trees, but together with the fence, shrubs
and ground cover, staff believes it will create a visual separation between the subject property and the adjacent single-
family property. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the Board and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify the
landscaping requirements, and staff feels the proposed landscaping along the western property is consistent with the intent
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 8 of 11
of the Type H landscaping standards. Staff also recommends that the Type III landscaping provided along the northern,
eastern and southern property boundaries is consistent with the requirements of the Type III landscape standards.
Mr. Lien concluded that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Westgate Woods Townhomes with the condition
that the applicant must either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit -lot subdivision in order to comply with the
setback requirements. He reminded the Board that the development site consists of two parcels, and Building B would
straddle the property boundary.
John Bissell, Project Planner, Harmsen Associates, commented that Mr. Lien did a great job of presenting the project
and explaining how it complies with the design requirements. He advised that the project utilizes a variety of materials,
and modulation and different roof types and cap ends have been used to provide interest. While Mr. Lien already described
the difficulties associated with developing the site, Mr. Bissell added that the south side of the property along Edmonds
Way has an existing wall. Sometime in the past half century, the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) improved Edmonds Way using a self -elevated curb, raising the elevation on the north side of the street. They
put a wall on the subject parcel, which was already below the elevation of the road. It is also difficult to make the project
work because it has street frontage on three sides.
Board Member Broadway asked what would be done to compact the soil to avoid future problems caused by settling. Mr.
Bissell answered that the developer would use a process that requires the soil to be compacted each time a layer of fill is
added. The details of the process will be provided as part of the construction plans that are submitted at the time of Building
Permit application. Each lift that is put down will be inspected to ensure there is adequate compaction. This is a Building
Code requirement, and settling is no longer a significant risk or problem.
Board Member Herr asked if the units would be sold or rented. Mr. Bissell said it is the developer's intent to sell the units,
but no one in City government nor the builder can control who ends up owning the units after they are finished. Board
Member Herr commented that, with land at a premium, it is very ambitious for the applicant to take on a project in what
was once used as a quarry site that needs significant fill. Mr. Bissell agreed that it is both difficult and costly to develop
the site, and he believes the proposed plan will work on the site.
Vice Chair Strauss said it appears that the rooflines on the back of the buildings will all be the same. She also asked if
modulation would be used to separate the units on the back side. Mr. Bissell referred to the elevation drawings where the
modulation is more apparent. He advised that the back of the building would have modulation, as well as roof overhangs
and cantilevering. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the units would be differentiated by color on the back, similar to what is
proposed for the front. She noted that the back of the units would face 228'' Street Southwest, so they should be
aesthetically pleasing to look at. Mr. Bissell said he assumes that the color scheme depicted on the front of the buildings
could be carried over to the back of the buildings, as well. Vice Chair Strauss asked how the units would be separated so
that each can have its own color. She suggested that the trim on the face of the building could be carried all the way up
the 3' floor to provide a differentiation between the colors.
Chair Walker referred to the landscape and vicinity planes, noting that the back side of the building would be visible from
228' Street Southwest. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that Type III landscaping would be required around the property to
screen it from the streets. Type H Landscaping will be required along the western boundary to screen the development
from adjacent residential uses.
Board Member Borofka voiced concern about the large expanse of wall at the ends of each of the buildings. He asked if
the proposed vegetation would screen the wall from the street view. Mr. Lien said that dense vegetation with trees would
cover the entire wall and screen it from the street view. Looking from Edmonds Way, the end units would be down in a
hole, with landscaping between the buildings and Edmonds Way.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if the new grade of the site would meet up with the street on the west side of the property or if a
retaining wall would be needed. Mr. Lien said there is no plan to add a retaining wall in this location, but a 6-foot fence is
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 9 of 11
proposed. The property is in a bowl, with slopes on all sides. The intent is likely to bring the site closer to the level at the
property line on all sides.
Board Member Tarrant pointed out that when traveling westbound on Edmonds Way, the proposed development will be
quite visible. She voiced concern that headlights from oncoming cars may impact those who live in the units. Board
Member Herr pointed out that the living spaces would be a full height above Edmonds Way so headlights should not be a
problem.
Board Member Guenther pointed out that Edmonds is becoming more built out. With fewer sites to develop, it is likely
that the sites with more extenuating circumstances will also be developed. It seems appropriate that they allow the height
to be measured from the fill level in this case and not the original grade.
At the request of the Board, Mr. Lien reviewed the variance criteria, noting that, in order to obtain a variance, the applicant
must meet all of the criteria:
• Special Circumstances. Because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the
zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity
with the same zoning.
• Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in
comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
• Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance
and the zone district in which the property is located.
• Not Detrimental. That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone.
• Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if issues relative to the bus stop have been worked and if the bus stop would remain in its current
location. Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively.
Chair Walker asked if there would be a 6-foot fence on top of the retaining wall, and Mr. Bissell noted that there is an
existing fence on top of the wall, and the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that they add something to
protect from falls.
Board Member Broadway asked if 228' Street Southwest is the only place to access the site from street grade, and Mr.
Bissell answered affirmatively. He said 95'' Place West would still be lower, and the wall would wrap around the site.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF
REPORT, BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES (PLN20160061) TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURES, THE
APPLICANT MUST EITHER COMLETE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR APPLY FOR A UNIT
LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 20.75.045.
BOARD MEMBER HERR SECONDED THE MOTION.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 10 of 11
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL
CONDITION TO READ,
2. THE REAR ELEVATION OF BOTH BUILDINGS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FRONT IN
COLOR MODULATION.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Mr. Lien announced that the Board's next meeting will be a joint meeting with the Planning Board on December 13'
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
The Board discussed the proposed change that would make Board Member Strauss the lay member and Board Member
Tarrant the professional member. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the change must be approved by the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
October 18, 2017
Page 11 of 11