Loading...
Exhibit 4 - ADB Minutes Excerpt.pdf APPROVED CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, th 250 - 5 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Cary Guenther, Vice Chair Jen Machuga, Associate Planner Brian Borofka Karin Noyes, Recorder Lois Broadway Bruce O’Neill Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 1, 2015 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: File Number PLN20150016: A request from Edmonds 2020 LLC for a district-based design review for a new mixed-use building (Phase 2) at 201 Main Street Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT 4 1.ADDITIONAL INTEREST SHALL BE ADDED TO THE BLANK GROUND FLOOR WALL ALONG THE ALLEY OFF OF MAIN STREET. STAMPED CONCRETE, A MURAL, OR SIMILAR 3-D RELIEF WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 2.IDENTIFY THE SPECIES USED FOR THE LIVING WALLS AND ON THE TRELLIS ABOVE THE MAIN STREET TERRACES. 3.A PUBLICLY-ACCESSIBLE SEATING ELEMENT (BENCH, SEAT WALL OR THE LIKE MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE LANDSCAPED AREA TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE BUILDING IF THAT AREA IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE CALCULATION PER ECDC 16.43.030.E.1. 4.THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. File Number PLN20150036: A proposal from GBH Holdings LLC for Phase 1 of a two-phase design review process for a proposed 9-unit residential building at 303 Edmonds Street and the re-cladding of an existing mixed-use building at 311 Edmonds Street. The subject site is located within the Downtown Business (BD2) zone. Board Member Broadway disclosed that the application is being submitted by her work colleagues. None of the Board Members voiced a concern about her participation in the hearing and no one in the audience indicated a concern, either. Ms. Machuga presented the Staff Report, advising that Steve Butterfield of TGB Architects has submitted a land-use application on behalf of GBH Holdings LLC for design review of a new 9-unit residential building and the re-cladding of an existing mixed-use building located at 303 and 311 Edmonds Street. She explained that the site is located within the Downtown Business (BD2) zone and within the general vicinity of commercial, mixed-use, single-family residential rd and multi-family residential uses. The site is a corner lot at Edmonds Street and 3 Avenue, and is approximately 7,000 square feet in size. The eastern portion of the site contains an existing two-story building (311 Edmonds Street) that is currently being used as an office on the ground floor and four residential units on the second floor. The western portion of the site is currently an undeveloped gravel area that is occasionally used for parking, but it is not an improved parking lot. The site is fairly level, with no critical areas on or adjacent to it. She provided photographs to illustrate the existing conditions on the subject property. Ms. Machuga advised that the proposal includes re-cladding the existing mixed-use building on the eastern side of the site and constructing a new 9-unit residential building on the currently vacant western portion of the site. Pedestrian access to both buildings will be directly off of Edmonds Street, and no vehicular access or on-site parking is included in the proposal. She noted that the zoning code for the BD2 zone does not require parking for buildings that have a floor area of 4,800 square feet or less. She provided pictures to illustrate what the applicant is proposing for both buildings. Ms. Machuga explained that, pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010, proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determinations also require review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) in a two-phased public hearing process. The intent of this process is to provide public and design professional input at an early stage. She further explained that Phase 1 of the review process requires the applicant to provide a preliminary conceptual design and a description of the property to be developed, noting all significant characteristics. The Board will use this information to make findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and prioritize the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 5) based on these facts in addition to the design objectives in the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 8), the BD Design Standards in ECDC 16.43 and 22.43 (Attachments 6 and 7) and the Landscaping Standards in ECDC 20.13. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Ms. Machuga referred to the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 5), which includes guidelines related to site planning, bulk and scale, architectural elements and materials, pedestrian environment, and landscaping. Following the applicant’s presentation and public testimony, the Board should establish the project’s priorities within the Design Guidelines Checklist and continue the hearing to a date certain for Phase 2 of the process. The purpose of continuing the hearing is to allow the applicant to refine and redesign the initial concept to address the input received from the public and Board by complying with the prioritized Design Guidelines Checklist criteria. She noted that the applicant submitted updated plans after the Staff Report was sent out to the Board Members, and copies of the new drawings were provided. The Staff Report would be identified as Exhibit 1 and the new drawings as Exhibit 2. Ms. Machuga summarized that once the applicant has submitted an updated design, staff will review the proposal again, complete the SEPA determination and schedule the project for Phase 2 of the public hearing. At the Phase 2 hearing, the Board will solicit public testimony, review the design, and make a final decision on the project. Steve Butterfield, TGB Architects, Edmonds, indicated he is the project manager for the proposed application. He noted that the property owner, project designer, landscape architect and civil engineer were also present to assist in the presentation. He advised that the proposal is to construct a new 9-unit, 3-story apartment building alongside the existing nd mixed-use building, which is a 2-story building with four residential units on the 2 story and commercial space on the ground floor. The two structures will be connected with a breezeway and the exterior finishes on both buildings will be complementary. Alex Bautz, TGB Architects, Edmonds, said the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Edmonds Street rd and 3 Avenue, and there is an existing building on the 311 site. The property is zoned BD2, which does not require on- site parking. The applicant is not proposing any on-site vehicular parking, but some on-site bicycle parking will be available. The property is located within close proximity of several bus stops. Mr. Bautz said the applicant is proposing a 3-story, 8,000 square foot building that will house six, 1-bedroom units and three, 2-bedroom units. The new building will have a fire sprinkler system. The first floor entry will be defined by above-ground planters that will also be used for signage to identify the site’s address. The entrance will be set back from the street to provide a protected courtyard area and a small private area near the entrance. A protected common area for the residents will be located behind the gate. Each of the ground floor units will have patio space and the upper level units will have deck space. Exterior lighting will consist of wall sconces on the patios and decks, as well as pathway ndrd lighting. The 2 and 3 floors will be similar to the ground floor units, but there will be some modulation on the south ndrd façade of the building. Undulating the 2 and 3 floor façade creates more interesting facades on the south elevation rd along Edmonds Street and on the West elevation along 3 Avenue. Mr. Bautz advised that both buildings will utilize the same materials consisting of brick veneer cedar wood siding, and Hardie Reveal panels. The patio fences and privacy fences will be cedar to match the buildings. The roof on the new building will be sloped to create a change in the roofline. He provided color samples of the proposed materials. He also provided a vicinity map to illustrate the location of the subject property, as well as several photographs to illustrate the surrounding uses. Jared Underbrink, CG Engineering, Edmonds, said the proposal is classified as a small site category, which allows them to use a detention pipe to drain stormwater between the existing and proposed buildings. The pipe will connect rdrd into a storm main on 3 Avenue. The project will connect into the water and sewer lines on 3 Avenue, as well. The street improvements shown on the plan are per discussion with the City’s Engineering Department and include a 2.5-foot rd planting strip and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. Street trees will be planted on both 3 Avenue and Edmonds Street. Shawn Parsons, PacLand, Edmonds, said he is the landscape architect for the project. He pointed out that the space between the two buildings will be shaded most of the day, so shade loving plants have been proposed in this location. rd The proposed landscaping along 3 Avenue and Edmonds Street is consistent with code requirements for streetscape improvements. There will also be landscaping in the entryway to create a more intimate space for tenants. The Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 6 of 11 landscaping on the north side is intended to create a barrier, as well as buffer the commercial use from the adjacent residential uses. He summarized that the intent is to create a country-style landscape versus commercial to match the residential character of the buildings. Mr. Butterfield pointed out that only minor changes were made to the drawings that were submitted as part of the original application. Board Member Borofka asked if it is the applicant’s intent that the upper story on the south elevation of the existing building will only have awnings over the easternmost window. Mr. Butterfield said the current design only has an awning on the easternmost window, but he agreed that awnings could be added to the other windows, as well. Board Member Borofka expressed his belief that adding awnings over each of the windows on the southern façade of the existing building would provide additional modulation to break up the plainness of the façade. Board Member Borofka inquired if the applicant is proposing to replace the existing stairs on the east elevation of the existing building. Mr. Butterfield answered that the applicant is planning to use the existing stairs. Board Member Borofka asked if there would be any treatment to make them more aesthetically pleasing, and Mr. Butterfield said the plan is for the stairs to remain in their current condition. Board Member Borofka voiced concern that the entryway on the south side of the proposed new building seems to be set too far back, which raises concerns about safety. The same is true for the courtyard. The lack of side view into these spaces could create a safety hazard. Mr. Butterfield explained that the client liked the idea of having an exterior courtyard at the entrance of the new building, which will include benches to sit on. The courtyard will meander in and out and they have taken the landscaping back. The entryway will also house the built-in mailboxes that serve the tenants. Board Member O’Neill said it appears the existing building is getting “short sheeted” on quality and materials. It has some massive monolithic forms on all four sides, and he would like to see more definition and character in the siding of the existing building, particularly the north and west elevations. He asked if the applicant has considered adding a canopy over the western entrance on the existing building. Mr. Butterfield pointed out that this entrance is the back entrance to the commercial space. While he likes the thought of providing a little more design effort on the other elevations, he does not know if it would be appropriate to emphasize this back entrance. Board Member O’Neill asked if the canopy along Edmonds Street on the existing building would cover the office entrance, as well, and Mr. Butterfield answered affirmatively. He advised that the property owner recently completed extensive tenant improvements on the ground floor to create office space. The building had a lot of damage and a significant amount of structural work was required. The building was constructed in the 1940s, and it will not support any more load associated with changes to the roof structure or additional modulation. Board Member Walker referred to the brown band that runs just under the roofline on the south façade of the proposed new building and suggested that adding a similar band to the south façade of the existing building would give some additional modulation and tie the two buildings together. Vice Chair Guenther asked if the applicant is proposing to change any of the windows on the existing building. Mr. Bautz answered that the windows were replaced several years ago. Chair Gootee voiced concern that the south elevation on the existing building, which is very visible from the street, is quite stark and does not flow at all with the proposed new building. Mr. Bautz said the intent when designing the changes to the existing building was to be cost efficient. The structural capacity of the existing building does not allow any new undulation, and the proposed materials are intended to carry over as much of the language as possible from the new building, but not compete with it. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 7 of 11 Board Member Borofka noted that electrical service for the existing building comes from the west. He asked if this would be true for the new building, as well. Mr. Butterfield pointed out that the site is currently served from an existing rd power pole at the corner of 3 Avenue and Edmonds Street. The project engineer has indicated that a transformer vault will be placed near the dumpster, and the electrical wiring will be placed underground from the power pole to the new transformer. Board Member Borofka asked if the good-sized shrub located at the northwest corner of the proposed new building is on Glen Safadago, Property Owner, the subject property. advised that the shrub is actually a holly bush located about 16 inches inside his property line. Per the survey, the property line is actually on the north side of the fence. Board Member Walker voiced concern that the applicant is proposing to plant Viburnum Davidii in the planters near the entrance to the new building. He noted that the width of the planters is identified to be 1.5 feet, and this plant species grows quite large. The same is true for the Viburnum Davidii that is proposed along the western façade, as well. Mr. Parsons explained that the goal was to get a blend of evergreen and grasses in each landscaped area. The actual dimensions for the planting areas have not been worked out yet, and they are hoping to get at least two feet. He agreed that it will be a little tight, but it has been his experience that this species tends to grow to the space that is available. No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment regarding the application, and Chair Gootee closed the public hearing. Board Member O’Neill expressed his belief that the existing building needs more enhancement, and the remainder of the Board concurred. Ms. Machuga pointed out that the applicant actually submitted more design information than what is typically required for the Phase 1 hearing. The point of Phase 1 is to establish the priorities for the project. She encouraged the Board to go through the Design Guidelines Checklist, identify the priorities, and make comments and suggestions to provide more specific direction to the applicant. The Board reviewed the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 5) as follows: A.Site Planning 1.Reinforce existing site characteristics (N/A). It was noted that there are no desirable characteristics on the site, and the applicant is proposing to make the existing building better. The proposed design would exceed the existing site characteristics. 2.Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics (N/A). There are no existing streetscape characteristics to . reinforce 3.Entry clearly identifiable from the street (Higher Priority). It was discussed that the entryway for the new building is tucked back in, but that is by intent. Concerns about safety were expressed, and the applicant was encouraged to use lighting and landscaping to ensure that the entryway and courtyard are safe and defensible. Mr. Butterfield pointed out that the planters proposed at the entry will be about 2 feet tall, with an element extending up an additional 4 to 4.5 feet with address numbers on it. The entryway will be green and include appropriate lighting, as well. 4.Encourage human activity on the street (Lower Priority). It was pointed out that the subject property is not in close proximity to Main Street, and there is not a lot of pedestrian activity because it is far enough away from the retail businesses that it will be difficult to create more activity. 5.Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites (Lower Priority). The applicant is providing a fence along the northern property line to separate the subject property to minimize the project’s intrusion into the adjacent properties. 6.Use space between buildings and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) (N/A). It was discussed that this building is constructed right up to the sidewalk and only has a small landscaping strip for separation. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 8 of 11 7.Minimize open space opportunity on site (residential properties) (Lower Priority). It was discussed that the subject property is a smaller site, and there is not a lot of additional area for open space given the number of units proposed. The courtyard between the two buildings will maximize open space for the residents. The applicant is proposing patios and decks for each unit, as well. 8.Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining properties (N/A). It was noted that on- site parking is not required for a development of this size in the BD2 zone. 9.Discourage parking in street front (N/A). Again, it was noted that the applicant is not required to provide on- site parking so residents will have to park on the street. 10.Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) (N/A). The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing building and maximize the space with the proposed new building. B.Bulk and Scale 1.Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less-intensive zones (N/A). It was discussed that the adjacent property is developed as residential, but it is zoned BD2. C.Architectural Elements and Materials 1.Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures (Lower Priority). The Board agreed that the existing character is not a positive one, and they do not want the new building to complement it in its existing design. 2.Unified architectural concept (Higher Priority). The Board voiced concern that there is not enough unity between the proposed new building and the changes to the existing building. They encouraged the applicant to make this a priority when preparing the final designs. 3.Use human scale and human activity (Higher Priority). The Board discussed that the applicant is proposing canopies over the entrances, which brings the scale of the two buildings down. 4.Use durable, attractive and well-detailed finish materials (Higher Priority). 5.Minimize garage entrances (N/A). D.Pedestrian Environment 1.Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry (Higher Priority). 2.Avoid blank walls (Higher Priority). 3.Minimize height of retaining walls (N/A). 4.Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas (N/A). No parking lot is proposed for the project. 5.Minimize visual impact of parking structures (N/A). 6.Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas (Higher Priority). 7.Consider personal safety (Higher Priority). The Board discussed concerns about the existing stairway. Ms. Machuga advised that the Building Division will review the existing stairway in preparation for the Phase 2 hearing. They will also review the stairway as part of the building permit submittal. If the Building Division finds it does not meet code requirements, they may require the applicant to replace it. E.Landscaping 1.Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood (Lower Priority). 2.Landscape to enhance the building or site (Higher Priority). 3.Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions (N/A). Mr. Machuga suggested that the Board provide direction on the following: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 9 of 11 The west elevation of the proposed new building could use more modulation. The center column seems a bit blank. More detail could be added to the windows of the proposed new building. A transformer is proposed to be located on the eastern side of the proposed new building (adjacent to the alley). The Board could provide suggestions for how the applicant could screen the equipment or locate it elsewhere on the site so it is not visible from the street. Board Member O’Neill requested more information regarding the proposed material for the lower part of the new building’s western façade. Mr. Butterfield answered that the material would be a black toned brick veneer. He said the applicant has discussed ideas for a better design of the western façade of the new building, which can be presented at the Phase 2 hearing. Board Member O’Neill pointed out that the common fence that is proposed along Edmonds Street would probably require that the holly tree be removed. Mr. Butterfield concurred. He explained that the fence on the adjoining northern property line would be six feet tall and constructed of cedar materials. The other fence will be more open and horizontal, using the same cedar materials. Mr. Butterfield agreed to bring back revised designs for screening the proposed transformer, which will be located close to the dumpster. He recalled that the City has very specific requirements for dumpster screening, and they will use similar screening for the transformer. Chair Gootee said he likes to be practical and avoid adding a lot of unnecessary cost to a project. However, he felt the existing building needs to be designed to better complement the proposed new building. Perhaps the applicant could add a band on the existing building that ties with the band along the parapets of the proposed new building. Instead of the “old school” stairs on the east side of the existing building, he suggested they could be boxed in. Board Member Borofka observed that adding the Hardie Reveal Panel product to the exterior of the existing building will make the stairs look even worse. He suggested the applicant consider opportunities for upgrading the stairs in such a way that would provide more modulation to the eastern elevation. He suggested the applicant also needs to work on the design of the existing building’s southern façade. Board Member Borofka asked if signs would be included as part of the overall design package. Mr. Butterfield answered that the sign permit application would be submitted separately. Ms. Machuga advised that sign applications are administrative decisions unless an applicant is requesting a modification to the sign code. Board Member Borofka suggested that perhaps the sign design could help complement and modulate the existing building. Chair Gootee suggested the applicant provide more information about signage at the Phase 2 hearing. VICE CHAIR GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER PLN20150036 TO NOVEMBER 4, 2015. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There were no administrative reports. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Page 10 of 11