ADB-08-15 revision code and comp.pdfEdmonds Community Development Code
22.43.040 Awnings/canopies and signage.
A. Intent.
1. To integrate signage and weather pro-
tection with building design to enhance busi-
ness visibility and the public streetscape.
2. To provide clear signage to identify
each business or property, and to improve
way -finding for visitors.
3. To protect the streetscape from
becoming cluttered, and to minimize distrac-
tion from overuse of advertisement elements_
B. Standards.
1. Structural canopies are encouraged
along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is
not provided, then an awning shall be provided
which is attached to the building using a metal
or other framework.
2. Awnings and canopies shall be open -
sided to enhance visibility of business signage.
Front valances are permitted. Signage is
allowed on valances, but not on valance
returns.
3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or
canopy shapes are not permitted.
4. Retractable awnings are encouraged.
5. Awnings or canopies shall be located
within the building elements that frame store-
fronts, and should not conceal important archi-
tectural details. Awnings or canopies should
be hung just below a clerestory or transom
window, if it exists.
b. Awnings or canopies on a multiple -
storefront building should be consistent in
character, scale and position, but need not be
identical.
R
22.43.040
Open -sided nonstructural awning with front
valance.
Open -sided structural canopy.
7. Nonstructural awnings should be con-
structed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic
materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not
appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning
materials are not permitted.
8. Signage should be designed to inte-
grate with the building and street front. Com-
binations of sign types are encouraged, which
result in a coordinated design while minimiz-
ing the size of individual signs.
Attachment 7
22.5 Revision ADB -08715
22.43.050
9. Blade or projecting signs which
include decorative frames, brackets or other
design elements are encouraged. This type of
detail can be used to satisfy one of the required
elements under ECDC 22.43.030(B).
10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce
the need to have large expanses of lettering.
11. Instead of broadly lighting the face
of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or
backlit to only display lettering and symbols or
graphic design.
12. Signage should be given special
consideration when it is consistent with or con-
tributes to the historic character of sites on the
National Register, the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places, or on a city council -approved
historic survey.
13. Signage shall include decorative
frames, brackets or other design elements. An
historic sign may be used to meet this standard.
Refractable and open -sided awnings allow
signage to be visible.
(Revised 11108) 22-6
Examples of projecting
signs using decorative
frames and design ele-
ments.
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 20081.
Awning or
canopy
shapes:
4
Standard
Box
Convex
... .. .. 4
Marquee
22.43.050 Transparency at street level.
A_ Intent. To provide visual connection
between activities inside and outside the build-
ing.
B. Standards.
1. The ground level facades of buildings
that are oriented to streets shall have transpar-
ent windows with a minimum of 75 percent
transparency between an average of two feet
and 10 feet above grade.
2. To qualify as transparent, windows
shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or
prohibit visibility between the street and inte-
rior.
3. Where transparency is not provided,
the facade shall comply with the standards
under ECDC 22.43.060.
Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design
objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to
encourage high duality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown waterfront area
that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds.
1. SITE DESIGN
The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral
part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and
site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential
negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a district
and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment.
Vehicular Access and Parking
a. Minimize the number of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto
safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. When alleys are present, these are
the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there
is no reasonable alternative available.
b. Design site access and circulation routes with pedestrians' comfort and ease of access in mind.
c. Provide adequate parking for each development, but keep cars from interfering with the
pedestrian streetscape.
d. In the Retail Core, adopt a "park and walk" policy to reinforce pedestrian safety and case of
access. Within the Retail Core, new curb cuts should be discouraged and there should be no
requirement to provide on-site parking.
c. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles
and pedestrians, but that do not disrupt the pedestrian streetseape.
f. Provide safe routes for disabled people.
Pedestrian Access and Connections
a. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general
commercial, and residential areas.
b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and
pedestrian sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be
accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments.
c. In all of the retail and commercial downtown districts, pedestrian access to
buildings should be maximized, enabling each retail or commercial space at
street level to be directly accessed from the sidewalk.
d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant
waiting areas.
Building Entry Location
a. Create an active, safe and lively street -edge.
b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment.
c. Provide outdoor active spaces at the entry to retail/commercial uses.
d. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to
the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade.
Building Setbacks
a. Provide for a human, pedestrian -friendly scale for
downtown buildings.
38
Attachment 8
Revision ADB -08-15
b. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor.
c. Provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe pedestrian routes to encourage travel by
foot.
d. Create public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor
interaction.
Building/Site Identity
a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and massing in large mixed use or
commercial projects.
b. Improve pedestrian access and way -finding by providing variety in building forms, color,
materials and individuality of buildings.
c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the Downtown Edmonds through the use of
similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements.
d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in
downtown.
Weather Protection
a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians
traveling along public sidewalks in
downtown.
b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain or
snow.
c. Provide a covered waiting area and
walkway for pedestrians entering a building,
coming from parking spaces and the public
sidewalk.
Lighting
a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by pedestrians, including building entries,
walkways, bus stops, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of
security.
b. Special attention should be paid to providing adequate public lighting to encourage and support
nighttime street activity and safety for pedestrians.
c. Minimize potential for light glare to reflect or spill off-site.
d. Create a sense of welcome and activity.
Signage
a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered.
b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements.
c. Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and
to improve orientation and way -finding downtown.
d. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large letters.
e. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display
lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the
face of the sign.
f. Signage and other way -finding methods should be employed to assist
citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services.
g. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the
historic character of sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Land Use 39
Site Utilities, Storage,
Trash and Mechanical
a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and
composting.
b. Minimize noise and odor.
c. Minimize visual intrusion.
d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas
Art and Public Spaces
a. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be
provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be
continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape.
b. Art should be integrated into the design of both public and private developments, with
incentives provided to encourage these elements.
c. In the Arts Center Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater
design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design.
2. BUILDING FORM
Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms,
minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance
with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building
entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of
Edmonds character and urban form.
Height
a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds.
b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions
are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two
stories in exterior appearance, design and character, However, incentives or design standards may
be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which
allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian -scale
appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on
pages 36-37 could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view
corridors.
c. Preserve public view corridors along east -west. downtown streets — such as Main Street and
Dayton Street — that afford views to the mountains and Puget Sound to the west.
Massing
a. Large building masses shall be avoided in the downtown waterfront activity center. Large
building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or horizontally to replicate the smaller scale
streetscape elements found along downtown's pedestrian streets.
b. Require human scale elements in building design that reinforce the difference between the
pedestrian streetscape and the upper levels of a building.
c. Use combinations of other techniques, such as roof and wall modulation or combinations of
different wall materials with windows and trim, to break up apparent building masses into smaller
elements. When the size or configuration of a site does not lend itself to varying building mass,
these alternative techniques should be employed to obtain a pedestrian -friendly result.
40 Land Use
Roof Modulation
a. Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or architectural
detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest to its shape and form.
b. Create and reinforce the human scale of the building.
c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building.
d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building.
e. Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building design. Features
such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique architectural forms can be used to
improve the view of buildings from above as well as from the streetscape.
Wall Modulation
a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds.
b. Break up large building masses and provide elements that accentuate the human scale of a
facade.
c. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades.
d. Design the building to be compatible with the surrounding built environment.
e. Encourage designs that let more light and air into the building.
3. BUILDING FACADE
Building facade guidelines ensure that the exterior of buildings, the portion of buildings 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.
Facade Requirements
a. Improve the pedestrian environment in the Downtown retail/commercial area by differentiating
the pedestrian -oriented street level of buildings from upper floors.
b. Ensure diversity in design.
c. Reinforce historic building patterns found in Downtown Edmonds.
d. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a
pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas.
e. Improve the visual and physical character and quality of Downtown Edmonds.
f Create individual identity in buildings.
Window Variety and Articulation
a. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. In the
retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts must be
dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and
encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space.
b. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall
design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade.
Building Fagade Materials
A. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also
help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in
the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings, From the foundation to the roof eaves, a
variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building's style and allows the
design of a building to respond to its context and client's needs. It is particularly important to
differentiate the lower, street level of a building from the upper floors that are less in the
pedestrian's line of sight.
Land Use 41
Accents/Colors/Trim
A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and
colors applied to a fagade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds
on doors and windows provide variation in the scale, style and
appearance of every building facade. Awnings and canopies also add to
the interest and pedestrian scale of downtown buildings. The objective
is to encourage new development that provides:
• Compatibility with the surrounding environment,
• VisuaI interest and variety in building forms,
• Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses,
• Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood.
42 Land Use
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
MAY 7, 2008
Chairwoman Kendall called the May 7, 2008 meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:02 p.m., at the City
Council Chambers, 250 6"' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
1. ROLL CALL:
Board members present
Valerie Kendall
Rick Schaefer
Michael Mestres
Steve Bullock
Bryan Goolee
Staff present
Michael Clugston, Planner
Linda Hynd, Recorder
Chairwoman Kendall noted that Boardmember O'Neill would not be attending.
2. APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 16 2008:
BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER MESTRES, TO
APPROVE THE DESIGN BOARD MEETING MINUTES FROM APRIL 16, 2008.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
BOARDMEMBER MESTRES MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER SCHAEFER, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS:
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, recalled the action on the Milltown project where the board required a number of
items to come back for review and he felt it was an excellent practice for the City and that it ought to be a standard
procedure. He requested that if the board reviews all of the drawings for this project that they could tell him where the
electrical vault and the transformer are located, what they look like and whether or not they meet the design criteria that
the board operates under. He suggested that they were not even on the property. He thought it was important for people
who live around the structure to have some appreciation for the outside architecture and the outside environment of a
building and there needs to be a place for those utilities. He did not believe that was identified.
5. CONSENT AGENDA:
None.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MINOR PROJECTS:
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page l
Attachment 9
Revision ADB -08-15
a. FILE NO. ADB -2008-15: Application by Ralph Allen of Grace Architects, representing Gregg Production
Associates, Inc., for revisions to the Old Milltown Phase 1 & 11 approvals. Phase I was approved in February
2007 as file ADB -2007-02 under the BC zoning code. Phase II was approved in November 2007 as file ADB
2007-67 under the BD -1 code.
Ralph Allen, from Grace Architects, Ed Lee, the applicant, and Bob Gregg were present.
Staff Planner Michael Clugston provided two comment letters to the board members from Mary Stoval and Bob Masuo
that were received after the staff report was prepared.
Mr. Clugston pointed out that the project is identified as revisions to the approved plans. The revisions to Phase 1 were
looked at in November and those included changes to the awnings at the street level, a change by removing the planters
and replacing those with hanging baskets, a change to the stone cladding siding and changes to the coping. The board
had looked at those changes in November and was satisfied with the changes to the cladding. The board wanted the
applicant to return with more information regarding the awnings, as well as the cornice. In addition to those changes,
there are two new changes to the second phase of Old Milltown, which include the addition of a privacy screen on the
third floor, southern side, and the inclusion of a skylight feature on the roof.
Mr. Clugston discussed the privacy screens and the question whether they meet the height criteria for the zone. The
building has been established as a 30 -foot building, according to code. While no elevations were given, it appears from
the drawing that the screens will be lower than the roof of the structure. The roof of the third floor was previously
approved, so it would seem that the screens could be approved with respect to height. There are no setbacks in the BD -1
zone; however, the screens appear to be slightly set back from the edge of the roof According to the applicant's
narrative, he felt that the intent appears to be that the screens will be used for privacy for the third -floor residential
bedrooms, and that would be okay from a zoning perspective.
Mr. Clugston recalled that previously in the approval from last November there was essentially a flat roof with a raised
circle in the middle. From November to this point it has become a slightly more elevated feature with skylights on top of.
it. The applicant is attempting to use a feature of the code that is fairly new to the BD zones pertaining to an exception
for height. In Section 16.43.30(C4a), there is an opportunity for five additional feet of height for certain structures if the
following criteria are satisfied. "Height Exceptions: In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the
following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this chapter: A single
architectural decorative element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower may extend a maximum of five feet above the
specified height limit if it is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The
decorative architectural element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building." His question to
the board was whether this particular feature is a single decorative architectural element that is an integral architectural
feature of the roof. Mr. Clugston explained that staff struggled with this and came to the conclusion that it did not satisfy
the criteria. The idea that it has the same visual weight as a clock tower or a similar feature on the corner of, say, 5th and
Main Street, and the idea that it does not seem to have enough visual weight to classify it as something that is allowed to
have a height exception is something staff that would like the ADB to look at and determine whether it meets the criteria
that is discussed in the code.
From the elevation drawings, Mr. Clugston pointed out that it appears that the feature is found at the 100 -foot level,
which makes it approximately 3 feet above the existing height, five feet being the maximum for this exception. The
feature is approximately 800 square feet and cannot be more than five percent of the total roof area, the total roof area
being 19,000 square feet, and it meets that criteria.
Mr. Clugston explained that originally the awnings were approved to be Cal -Wall glass awnings and there were
supposed to be planter boxes along the windows at 5th and Dayton. The idea changed to replacing the Cal -Wall material
with fabric material and removing the planter boxes and replacing them with hanging baskets to create an outdoor
seating space on the sidewalk area. He thought that would be a nice exchange and a more functional use of space.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
Mr. Clugston talked about the building form, the roof and the skylight/atrium feature and that the Comprehensive Plan
outlines criteria that address the modulation of the roof, giving criteria that the code lists out and is useful to break up the
roof structure, but the fact that it is trying to use the five-foot exception is the question. Staff also had issue with the
skylight feature itself and with light spillage that could occur from it. The applicant had indicated that it would not be
up -lit; however, from the material he saw, it glows to some extent. Dimmers could be utilized to minimize the glow.
For the building facade, coming back to the cornice, the board discussed in November the awnings and the coping, so
those are things that are being brought back with more detail. The privacy screens are a new feature. The Fire
Department has noted with the potential change in awning material from glass to the fabric that, depending on the type
of material, they want to know what the specifications are for combustibility, and if the awnings are found to not meet
the criteria, they may require sprinklers. Staff recommends approval of the project with changes, with the exception of
the decorative architectural element.
Boardmember Mestres inquired about the vantage point for identifying the significant architectural element that would
be allowed over the 3 0 -foot height of the building.
Mr. Clugston explained that staff looked at the project primarily from a pedestrian standpoint, with people walking along
5�' Avenue, along Main, coming down Dayton, but there are also other vantage points to consider and from those
vantage points it may have more or less weight. Because this is a new part of the code and it has not been applied
before, staff is trying to get an idea of how the ADB feels for these kinds of things and how to approach it in the future.
He described how someone walking down the street and seeing a clock tower on the comer, above the corner of the
building, would likely think it was a significant feature. He did not feel that the proposed feature met that kind of criteria
because it did not have enough weight to define the structure. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the desire for roof
modulation, for example, for features that let more light into the building, and this proposal would do that. He felt that
primarily the main perspective staff had coming from a pedestrian standpoint was somebody walking down the street.
Chairwoman Kendall invited the applicant to speak.
Ralph Allen, from Grace Architects, and Ed Lee, the applicant, introduced themselves.
Ed Lee expressed that the part that affects him the most is the privacy screen and he hoped to leave that to the board's
good graces to give them some privacy for their bedroom. He wanted to put the skylight in context. In this case, one
goal was to make the roof uncluttered and nice and they are dealing with an elevator shaft and a doghouse that will go
around the elevator shaft and will protrude up above that level. He thought staff had missed a key point. He discussed
that the Comprehensive Plan uses a combination of roof forms and decorative types, and the proposed element fits with
that. He was not sure that the element created and reinforced the human scale of the building, but it uses roof forms to
identify different programs or functional areas within the building. It provides ways for additional light to enter the
building. He felt staff overlooked the item to encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to the
building design with features such as roof gardens, terraces, which he pointed out occur, and interesting or unique
architectural forms that can be used to improve the view of the building from above, as well as from the street scape. He
agreed with staff that this was not a weighty matter with respect to what is seen from the street scape, although it can be
seen driving down Dayton and from far enough in the distance it can be seen coming in the parking lot off the street to
the south.
Mr. Lee pointed out that roofs are messy and the Comprehensive Plan has language in it that is designed to clean them
up. He discussed the roof of the Bank of Washington building across the street. He felt in this case staff did not consider
that part of the Comprehensive Plan enough. The code says that there can be a single decorative architectural feature.
He was sure that the board would agree that this is a single decorative architectural feature and it applies not only to the
fagade, but also to the roof. It is unfortunate that the code, in mentioning a clock tower, tower or turret, only mentions
facade enhancements and does not give guidelines for roof enhancements. He pointed out a screen or a protrusion of the
elevator shaft that would stick up and could go up three feet above, and their proposal goes up three feet above. He
asked what would qualify as a decorative architectural element that improved the roof view from above. He confirmed
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
that they will build a skylight if this is not approved. They can do it and it will look nice, but it will be a skylight with an
elevator shaft protruding above it. They preferred to look at a beautiful vaulted barrel that takes advantage of and
introduces interest to the. roofline. He believed that it would improve the view of the property, especially from above.
Ralph Allen commented that people have asked how visible the skylight will be from some of the street frontage of the
building. He felt that it would not be very visible at all, except for small slivers. There will be some indication possibly
coming in off of Maple. Their primary goal was to clean up the roof scape and make it a better looking element from up
above. The forms might be seen in elevation, but the primary viewing component will be from up above. In starting to
deal with the height of the elevator penthouse, they thought they could make something attractive that would contain the
elevator and there would be more freedom on the skylight form and it could come into a cruciform vaulted skylight that
is unusual and interesting. He suspected the board agreed that there was enough curvilinear language brought into the
building to consider this an integral form and reinforcing the central organizing theme of the architectural composition.
They could flatten the oval form down and come into a more simply formed skylight that would work around the
penthouse and that would be fine, but it would not be as elegant or as nice. It seemed like an appropriate application for
the code allowance for the additional height.
Mr. Allen explained that as they started to deal with the functionality at the edge of the building and the exposure to the
downtown environment they needed a way to appropriately screen the more private areas of the living area. There was a
lot of modulation and interest happening across the top rail with the planters that are integrated into the railing and the
coping and they felt that if they could integrate a woven artistic design with bamboo, cedar and various metal pieces,
rising up through the railing system, so that it is anchored and part of the extending condo railing five and a half to six
feet up, it would provide a sense of privacy for the occupants behind it. It will not be obtrusive and will be set back from
the face of the building. They wanted to do something with a strong artistic value and needed it to be lighter in scale so
that it fit appropriately on the mass of the building. The form of the verticals will probably morph somewhat as they are
developed and they might use a stronger horizontal cap to it to pick up some of the horizontality of the building, and the
weaving will happen within that framework. The weaving will consist of interesting, durable, exterior materials.
Mr. Allen explained that they have refined the awning. The basic system has a series of arched plant hangers and the
awning structure sits on that. There is an exposed pipe structure, with an industrial quality to it. On top of that is a
simplistic, inch and a half, steel tube frame that has a SunbreIla fabric awning stretched around it and it will be stretched
around back to the first cross piece. From underneath, there is a texture and detail to it. He will check on the fire specs
regarding it, but Sunbrella is a commercial awning fabric that is used all the time and a high grade material and very
suitable to the established informality of the building. He displayed color boards to show the colors and the fabric
proposed.
Mr. Allen addressed the coping and he thought that there was some concern about the layered wood approach and how
that was going to appear. They had devised how that would be built and it will be very solid, refined, and appropriately
scaled for the building. He displayed a sample of the coping piece and discussed its construction and placement.
Boardmember Mestres inquired about materials composing the skylight. Mr. Allen explained that they initially looked
at a Cal -Wall skylight, but Cal -Wall will not build it for them. They are now looking at Crystal Light company out of
Everett for a translucent skylight with a metal frame and very little exposed metal. There will be some trim frames at the
tops of the vault that will be anodized or some sort of carbon aluminum. The skylight has a similar feel to the Cal -Wall.
It will be off white. On the lighting plan for the condominiums, they intend to use down -lighting on to the floor surface
and place and size the lighting for a minimum of reflection.
Boardmember Mestres inquired about the code allowance for how far an awning can extend into the sidewalk. Mr.
Allen thought it was five and a half feet and their awnings are out at least that far.
Boardmember Mestres asked if the applicant regarded the use of an awning as opposed to the Cal -Wall product as an
economic or aesthetic choice. Mr. Allen expressed that it was both. He explained that when they came back and
revisited the exterior materials of the building, the previous scheme from the aesthetic side was pretty dressed up. They
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
had a lot of stone cladding and finished stone plinths and the Cal -Wall. It was an elegant material. As they simplified
the building and the third floor came more into view in terms of its character, with the exposed timber and the cedar
shingles, they wanted to go to a more informal expression, which he thought fit better with the rugged character of the
building and was appropriate to the building design.
Boardmember Schaefer inquired whether the applicant planned to downsize the weight of the braces for the awnings at
all because they supported less weight. Mr. Allen responded no, that visually he did not think they would want them any
smaller than what they are. They are spanning column to column, almost 16 feet, so they want to have some mass to
them to look right on the building. The tensioning cords are visible at the under side of the awning and it adds texture
and interest.
Boardmember Bullock recalled a comment by the applicant that if the board did not approve the barrel vaulted skylight,
there would go to some kind of skylight installed, but the elevator penthouse would project up. He asked where the
elevator penthouse would go and wondered if it would be entirely inside of the proposed barrel vault.
Mr. Allen explained that in terms of the barrel vault skylight, it is part in and part out. It is completely within the oval
roof form that projects up from the lobby. If they were to go to a strict code compliance and work the skylight in they
would compress the oval form down so that it is concurrent with adjacent roofs, and let the penthouse come up, and then
go to a simpler form of skylight and cope it around the penthouse. It would still look good, but by getting up above and
covering the elevator penthouse they are able to look at a form that is a bit more complex than a straight pitched skylight
and he thought the cruciform barrel vault was a beautiful form and appropriate to the rest of the language for the
building.
Boardmember Bullock clarified that the top of the elevator penthouse is somehow enclosed in a bigger overall circle.
Mr. Allen concurred.
Boardmember Schaefer noted that they had talked about down -lighting inside the atrium area and he asked about the
proposed flooring. Mr. Allen stated that it will be stone flooring for the lobby, with a tone close to quartzite. It will be a
recycled terra cotta tile, a rusticated brick with a honed finish that will have low reflectivity.
Chairwoman Kendall invited comments from the audience.
Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Place Southwest, Edmonds, thanked the board for the opportunity to speak. She
provided copies of a letter to the board. She related that she had studied the ADB staff report and looked at the designs
and was now hearing about other revisions that she could not find and it was very difficult for a Iay person. She is an
interested and concerned citizen in Edmonds' development and finds it difficult to know what is going on. She was glad
for the meetings and the ability to speak, but she could not see that all of the new information was in the staff report. She
recalled last year that Mr. Gregg spoke to the public and displayed materials and colors and designs that he planned for
the Old Milltown building, but now there seemed to be continuous changes with awnings, facade, cornice materials of
lesser quality and higher maintenance, privacy screens that "appear to be below the height of the roof and appear to be
slightly set back." Attachment four in the report shows a huge domed sky light and trees higher than the roof line. The
Comprehensive Plan design objectives states that, "Good design minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent
development." She invited them to imagine the negative impacts of the screens and the big dome on the view corridor to
the neighbors. She noted that the neighboring business is a bed and breakfast that brings a lot of shopping into Edmonds
and such a business should be enhanced, not burdened. The skylight is a negative impact day and night. Allowing extra
height for such an add-on structure sets an unfortunate precedent for Edmonds development. Current architectural
practice uses skylights that are constructed underneath the roof level and surrounded with short unobtrusive screens to
prevent glow from the sides. This skylight could easily be made flat below the roof level and within existing height
limits. She concurred with staffs' recommendation on the skylight.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, referred to an exhibit from Elisabeth L.arman who discussed that the domed
skylight is an add-on to the project and cannot be considered as an essential or integral part of the design that was
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 5 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
presented on Milltown. He concurred with this opinion. Mr. Hertrich felt the board needed to know the word "integral"
and make a determination from that. He referred to Attachment 10, a letter from Finis Tupper, which discussed EDC
16.43.030. In the third paragraph from the bottom of the back page, "The architect submitted this skylight as a minor
change, not as an integral part of the design." He thought staff had made a reasonable decision. He felt that the City
Council was very strict on what building heights meant in the city and in this zone, and he recalled a discussion about
only one or two specific things that would be a potential signature for the building, which would be something like a bell
tower or a clock tower. He thought the particular skylight that the board was discussing is more of a utility function that
has been embellished. He commented that maybe if these two Quonset huts on a cross form were lit up it might make a
wonderful trip for pilots who fly over to have a religious experience.
Mr. Hertrich's main concern regarding the awnings, other than durability, was that the City is going through an
introduction into the green building aspect of design and construction in Edmonds, and the light that would come
through the Cal -Wall into the building, especially when there are street trees, which provide shade from direct sun,
would allow light to come inside the building. He thought that was an important green feature for the board to consider.
It is a positive thing and worth the extra cost that was originally proposed for the Cal -Wall. He understood that fabric
awnings usually deteriorated within three to five years and there are replacement problems, and it may not be a concern
for the original developer, but it would be a concern for people later on. He understood from reading the report that the
person who is going to occupy the space inside the building preferred the Cal -Wall design.
In regard to screening, Mr. Hertich felt that to get a good effect for the look of the building, to get some change between
the second and third floor, that if there are screens, if they are set back a ways, that will have an effect of opening up a bit
of a corridor for the people that live close by and give more detail to the building and it will not go straight up a full three
floors and would look better. He wondered how far elevator shafts are allowed to go above the building height.
Michael Clugston read the definition of height from the code, which allowed exceptions for church steeples, elevator
penthouses, chimneys, and for elevator penthouses, should not exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section or three feet in
height for that portion above the height limit.
Chairwoman Kendall invited the applicant to respond to continents.
Bob Gregg, Edmonds, referred to the comments about the elevator shaft/penthouse, reiterating Mr. Clugston's remarks
that the shaft can be 72 square feet, three feet above the roof height. He informed them that the City Council and the
ADB would have to address the elevator at some point because there are new code requirements that require a 12 -inch
beam to be installed above an elevator doghouse for those rare times when personnel are going in to service an elevator.
It is presently 36, but will probably have to go to 48 inches.
Mr. Gregg explained that the awnings material is a Sunbrella type of material and is the same material that Tully's uses
and the same material that almost all of the boats at the marina use. With regard to the "cheap developer" who is going
to put this off on to future owners, he noted that he is a future owner, retaining ownership of the whole ground floor, and
the Sunbrella material, especially in the wine color that has been selected, will be attractive and extremely durable.
With regard to light flooding into the building, Mr. Gregg explained that the windows are huge, approximately 16 by 12.
He explained that restaurant users require more tonnage of air conditioning than any other type of office or retail or
commercial space, and even a little bit of extra sun protection, although a very small amount would help.
Mr. Gregg reminded everyone that they do not want to be compared to a poor standard, rather, a very high standard and
pointed out that right across the street is an example of his friends at the Bank of Washington who have the most
abominable awnings in Edmonds and they are brand new. He felt that the applicant's awnings would be elegant, classy
and nice, including the elements holding them up.
Mr. Allen related that the screens are set at the back of the coping and are essentially part of the railing system, so they
are set back from the face of the wall. Against 5"' Avenue, they are set back about 20 feet, and run concurrently along
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 6 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
the south wall. In terms of the Maple Street, they are about 100 feet off. The screens are consistent with the south wall
of the building. He would be surprised if they created any view blockage from any of the properties up above because
they are pulled so far back into the building proper.
Chairwoman Kendall expressed that she would like the board to discuss the awnings first, then the cornice, then the
privacy screen, and then the skylight. She preferred to start with the awnings because she recalled the discussion when
this project came to the board before and the members had different feelings about awnings. She felt the architect's
comments about the formality versus the informality of the building were good. She was also sensitive to Mr. Gregg's
comment about the serviceability of the awnings. She recalled that the former architect on the board, Mr. Utt, requested
that the awnings be five and a half feet to provide more shelter. There is also an issue of solar gain during the summer,
which increases air conditioning. She thought the awnings were lovely and that they satisfied the requirements and met
the spirit of what the board was talking about at the initial review. It made sense to her now and she felt it was in
keeping with the tone of the whole building.
Boardmember Bullock recalled being at the first hearing and had hoped to see what he considered a more permanent
type of awning structure with solid materials as opposed to fabric. He liked what the applicant had done. Previously
there was a planting box at the base of the building and he thought that the solution to get the plants up above and allow
the whole five-foot area underneath the awning to serve as a walkway was a marked improvement. He still preferred a
more solid awnings structure and was unhappy about how things had turned out with the Bank of Washington awnings.
He felt that there was a lot more detail on what had been submitted this time and, although it was not necessarily his
preference, he believed it was attractive and fit with the building.
Mr. Allen replied that the awnings at the two corners of the building along 5f' Avenue will be solid, standing seam metal.
Boardmember Bullock indicated that he had no problem with the proposal.
Boardmember Schaefer noted that as long as the applicant is retaining the nice curved brackets that add some weight to
them it dispels his bias against fabric awnings and gives it a more permanent look than a fabric awning might alone.
Boardmember Mestres preferred the Cal -Wall, but stated that the code does not determine what has to be used and there
is no way to justify a specific determination. He thought that the applicant was using suitable, quality materials. He was
prejudiced against inadequate awnings. He believed functionality should be the height of it. After their discussion, he
felt five feet was the limit of what he supposed safety precluded going further out and since it is a horizontal awning it
will create the necessary cover for people and have an aesthetic value.
Boardmembcr Gootee commented that he was not involved in this project at all but he had never seen a clean glass
awning and favored the fabric awnings because he felt they were easier to maintain.
Boardmember Bullock remarked that it seemed awkward how far the bull -nose protruded. He expected the top piece to
be the part that stuck out the furthest, not two layers down. He wondered if the applicant would consider a piece of
metal flashing, with even a broken nose on it that came out to that same depth.
Boardmember Schaefer asked about the wear and tear on the protruding bull -nose.
Mr. Allen expressed that it is also a canted top, so it is an exterior sill profile. It is a stock piece that can be obtained, and
they might retool it to get a bit more slope out of it. It would be like any exterior wood and have to be kept up, but it is
high quality material and appropriate for the environment.
Boardmember Mestres expressed that there is a zero property line, the privacy screen is going to be set back and it is
going to be below the 30 -foot height limit, composed of quality materials, and he did not think there was anything that
precluded the applicant from having that.
Boardmember Schaefer felt that the privacy screen ran counter to the discussion that the board had about the third floor
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 7 May 7,200S - Approved Minutes
back in November and it was already on the cusp of the mass question with the first application. Now it was going to be
recessed and they are bringing a wall extension up and it is reintroducing the mass issue. He knew the sense of privacy
was important, but the sense of massing was also important. He did not know how far it could be recessed to reclaim
that and get it back into the shadows. It looked like a parapet to him and he was not inclined to go along with it.
Boardmember Bullock pointed out that on the south side of the building, where the building is adjacent to the rest of the
Milltown plaza shops, it appeared to him that the third floor was somewhere between five and ten feet away from the
south building line of the building. Mr. Allen expressed that it is about four and a half feet to the back of the coping.
Boardmember Bullock referred to the roof plan on attachment 4 and the picture in the bottom right corner that looked
down towards the 5th Avenue South fagade. On the right side of that is where the screen is proposed to go and it is
going three feet back from the face edge of the parapet wall. He asked if the applicant felt that these screens would not
get up to the cornice height of the third floor and would stay below the eave line. Mr. Allen replied that they do not get
that high; their intent is to bring them up to about five to six feet above the deck surface to provide enough privacy.
Boardmember Bullock stated he was comfortable with the screens.
Boardmember Schaefer remarked that everyone values privacy. He was trying to determine where the intrusion is
coming from.
Mr. Allen explained that the screen further back screens a glass block configuration over the master bath area, which is
set back further in the wall. It is in a slight recess and it is only one story up from the south parking lot, so it feels close.
The screen furthest towards 5th is screening an outdoor master bed/patio area, providing privacy from 5th Avenue,
because people will be able to look up and see it as they are walking down 5h Avenue.
Boardmember Schaefer observed from the rendering that it still appeared like a wall going up from 5th. He did not think
that they could push it back much further because they could not get between it and walk around. If it were a darker
color so that it seemed more shadowed and recessed, perhaps that might work. He had read some objections concerning
views from other folks and concern about something else cluttering the view corridor,
Hearing no further comments about the privacy screen, Chairwoman Kendall moved on to skylights.
Boardmember Mestres discussed that in the past, since the codes were changed to permit buildings to go to a height of
36 feet plus five, the board has reviewed a few projects in the BEW zone that are conforming to the code and the
significant thing about the designs is that the roof lines are not remarkable. They are flat, non -modulated and very
monotonous. The notion of architectural embellishment on buildings is a good thing. Currently a lot of the
embellishment that can be seen up on 9`h Avenue and down to 6th is air conditioning units and false fronts. His main
critique with the building was its flatness. He thought they had done some aesthetically -pleasing things, ranging from
preserving the fascia to creating some modulation in the building. He felt there was a lot to be said about skylights being
an architecturally integral component and thought that function enhanced the livability of a building. He wanted to see
more information as to the specific manufacturer of the skylight materials because he believed that it could be a
significant architectural element integral to the structure because it would be the focal point of the roof.
Mr. Allen explained that they are still pursuing the manufacturer on this item. Crystal Light will do it and it will be an
acrylic -skinned, aluminum -framed product. There is some expressed metal, he believed, at the primary edges, but it is
not the historic or proto-typical wrought iron steel in glass skylights. He pointed out that the intent was that the structure
of the skylight would still be visible and expressed, but it would be show more as dark reveal lines through the
translucent acrylic, with a pattern and a structure to it. They opted for translucence because of its utility and the diffuse
nature of the light on the interior.
Boardmember Mestres commented that it is hard to project where the light pollution is going to be. It is subjective
unless there is a quantifiable way to determine it. He did not see how they could decide on subjective evidence. He felt
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 8 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
that the board had an obligation to the people in and around the block and also to the visual cues that people see up on 9t'
Avenue and the surrounding areas.
Mr. Lee replied that in terms of the light, there are streetlights and he could not imagine that these lights would give off
more light than the streetlights, but their intent is to keep it hushed and have a quiet light because it is a corridor. With
respect to the question about the quality of the skylight, he knew nothing about skylights, but they would not be
presenting this if they were going to value -engineer it. He viewed this as a significant item for both the exterior and the
interior of the building and the only way it would be work for him was by doing it the right way. The issue of how
much light will be dealt with, no matter what it is, because there will be a skylight. He Iiked the look of what they are
presenting and thought it capped off the building and made it more interesting.
Boardmember Mestres expressed that the code that the board is reviewing this project under is relatively brand new and
he thought that they would need to see more quantifiable evidence of what the applicant is talking about. He felt that if
this was going to be a significant integral center piece, the board should see exactly what it is.
Boardmember Bullock did not see the skylight as being outside of the code. He felt that the code allowed for something
like this and has specific criteria for how to approve something like it and that it could be approved. He did not have a
problem with the skylight being considered to be an integral part of the building and something that added to the design
of the building. He shared some of the same concerns that Michael Mestres had and would love to see what it is, but felt
that he would support it. He noted that there are goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that encourage and allow
something like this to happen.
Boardmember Schaefer concurred with Mr. Bullock about the code. He did not know that he would consider it an
integral architectural feature but he thought it did break up the roof. He thought there were legitimate concerns from
some of those who would be viewing from up close and above and the idea of seeing a glowing bubble as opposed to a
flat surface with light coming up through it. He discussed using some technique, possibly photo metrics, to show what it
might look like and how bright it might be. He did not know if that would affect anyone's perception one way or
another.
Boardmember Gootee suggested a solution might be to use photo metrics to provide some light analysis. He was more
concerned about the neighbors viewing the night light and photo metrics could be explained to them, showing them what
is proposed. It is not quite as subjective and they could get something that is quantifiable. It might help if it was done
with down -lighting and shown with photo metrics.
Ralph Allen agreed that was a workable exercise. He thought that a good lighting engineer could help them do that and
felt sure that it would show a low level of light.
Boardmember Schaefer expressed that he shared the neighbors' concerns.
Chairwoman Kendall found the design of the skylight fascinating. She thought it was attractive and felt that it was an
architectural element that is desirable on the roof, but also had a concern about the light and its effect on people above
and looking down on it. She believed that five of the members had expressed concern about light and felt it would be
good to see some objective measurement in order to gauge its effect.
Summarizing, Boardmember Mestres recommended that the board approve a motion that the applicant provides more
information with regards to the skylight, the manufacturer, the materials, and the lighting conditions, and how they will
be treated, and that the board approves the existing manufacture of the cornice. With regard to the bamboo screen, he
noted that the board would like to see some type of materials to indicate of what it is. The board approves the awnings as
they have been shown.
Boardmember Bullock clarified that Boardmember Mestres's summary indicated an approval of the cornice, approval of
the awnings, further review of the screen and the skylights, and with possible materials and colors provided.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 9 May 7, 2008 - Approved Minutes
Boardmember Mestres noted that the motion should include the manufacturer and the materials for the skylight.
Chairwoman Kendall expressed that the board is concerned about horizontal light spillage from the skylight and would
like to see more specifications on the design, and they were not unanimous about what may be needed or whether they
are in favor of the bamboo screen.
Mr. Allen suggested that the applicant come back and address the size, material and design, and placement, because he
thought there may be some latitude to vary the placement between the two screens.
Chairwoman Kendall inquired whether the screens let light through. Mr. Allen stated they do.
Ed Lee expressed that from his standpoint he would like to leave the meeting knowing that the skylight and the screen
have been approved, but for the types of materials and so forth, subject to the board's further approval of those specifics.
Boardmember Bullock commented that he thought that the applicant could absolutely do something that he would be
willing to approve, but it sounded like the board did not have enough votes to approve that.
Boardmember Mestres explained that it is under the auspices that this is an architectural integral significant component
to the building the. board feels compelled to have hard and fast information with regard to what the materials are and
what it is going to look like. It does not provide the board with enough information in terms of the manufacturer, in
terms of the materials, in terms of the light pollution and/or lack of light pollution.
Boardmember Schaefer commented that the status is similar to the status that the cornice and the awnings were left in
before. The board needs to see how the skylight is going to behave in terms of light. He did not think that the board
could give a conditional approval.
Mr. Clugston concurred, explaining that the board should create a motion as to how they would like to see the other
features come back with more detail for further review.
BOARDMEMBER MESTRES MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER BULLOCK, FOR THE
BOARD TO APPROVE THE REVISIONS TO THE AWNING AND CORNICE FEATURES AS PART
OF ADB -2008-15; HOWEVER, THE BOARD DID NOT ACT ON THE REVISIONS FOR THE
PROPOSED SKYLIGHT AND PRIVACY SCREENS, RATHER:
THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE MATERIALS AND DESIGN
AND THE LIGHT FACTOR OF SKYLIGHTS;
THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE MORE MANUFACTURING AND MATERIAL
INFORMATION ON THE BAMBOO SCREEN AND ITS PLACEMENT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairwoman Kendall called for a five-minute recess, reconvening the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS — MAJOR PROJECTS:
a. FILE NO. ADB 2008-11: Application by Tony Shapiro of AD Shapiro Architects, representing Jeanine
Jansen, for the Andersen Office Building, a new two-story commercial office building of approximately 5,700
square feet at 665 Edmonds Way in the Planned Business (BP) zone.
Tony Shapiro, 624 Edmonds Way, was present.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 10
Minutes
May 7, 2008 - Approved