Loading...
2022-01-05 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting January 5, 2022 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:03 p.m. via Zoom. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Kim Bayer, Chair None Kernen Lien, Environmental Prog. Mgr. Lauri Strauss Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Joe Herr Jeanie McConnell, Eng. Programs Mgr. Maurine Jeude Alexa Brooks APPROVAL OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ADB211201 Minutes MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS Fire Truck Display Building at Main Street Commons Mr. Clugston explained the applicant has applied to make some changes to the design of a portion of the Main Street Commons site to create a display building for the antique Edmonds fire truck and a permanent roof over the performance stage area. Staff believes the change meets the intent of what the ADB approved a couple years ago and also meets the intent of the code. Board Member Herr thought this was a positive change. All board members agreed. PUBLIC HEARINGS Phase 1 Public Hearing — 611 Main Street 24-Unit Apartment Building Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Pagel of 8 Chair Bayer read the public hearing script and opened the hearing at 7:15 p.m. She reviewed the purpose of the hearing and hearing procedures. She asked each board member if they have been in communication opponents or proponents of this project outside of this public hearing process. All members answered no. She asked if any board members had any conflict -of -interest issues. All board members answered no. She asked if anyone in the audience objected to any board member's participation in this hearing. No one did. Chair Bayer asked anyone who would be testifying to agree to tell the truth. Staff Presentation: Mr. Lien reviewed the two-phase hearing process, the proposal overview, ADB packet and attachments, site context, zoning requirements including setbacks, height limits, parking, landscaping, building form/design standards, alley use, and Comprehensive Plan design standards. He highlighted the Design Guideline Checklist. Staff is suggesting April 6 for the date certain for Phase 2 Public Hearing. Board Member Strauss asked about the status of the two lots becoming one. Mr. Lien explained that it is a lot combination and would be a separate application. Chair Bayer asked if a traffic study was done. Mr. Lien explained this project did not trigger a traffic study because there would not be 25 new PM peak hour trips. Applicant Testimony: Phillip Frisk, Architect, discussed the project, design elements, and how they believe the project meets the design standards. Board Member Brooks asked about the square footage of the units. Mr. Frisk replied that they range from 600 to 800 square feet. Chair Bayer asked for clarification about the parking spaces. Mr. Frisk indicated they are still working on the best arrangement. Board Member Strauss suggested putting the ADA parking on the same side of the building as the elevator. Mr. Frisk indicated they considered that but ran into issues with allowing for vans. Board members asked clarification questions about parking lot configuration and maneuverability. There was discussion about some landscaping options. Board Member Strauss asked about any studies that had been done to see how this project would impact neighbors' access to sunlight. Mr. Frisk replied that there had not been formal studies, but anecdotally they believe at certain times of the day direct sunlight would be blocked on either side of the building. Chair Bayer commented the applicant is getting around the requirement for open space based on the zoning and the fact that the building is under 12,000 feet. She questioned the adequacy of three feet of proposed landscaping on the side for residents. Mr. Frisk explained they wouldn't want people to walk in that area anyway because it would be a fall hazard to the parking lot. Chair Bayer commented that there were 94 people in attendance at tonight's meeting. There has been a significant amount of public engagement. To date there have been 46 letters that have been sent to ADB, staff, and City Council on this project. 43 of those written comments were in strong opposition to the project; 3 letters were in support. She let the citizens know that those comments are also being considered. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Public Comments: Lynda Fireman lives directly behind the proposed building. Her windows will be 231/2 feet from the lot line and instead of light she will be looking at a four-story concrete wall. She will lose all privacy, sunlight, view, and enjoyment of her home. She expressed concern about the safety issues on the alley for all other residents using the alley and visual pollution for all involved. Chris Cossu urged the Board to take the current character of the area into mind, especially the concentration of historic buildings within just a few blocks of this project. They asked that the Board and staff look at line items in the checklist related to space between the buildings and the sidewalk, as well as open space. They also asked that the setback be reconsidered and that it would be reasonable. They noted that four buildings full of current residents will lose their sound and mountain views and all their access to sunlight. This was not accurately reflected in the developers answers to questions in the application. They expressed concern about the mass, bulk, and scale of this project. Beth Plumbing (sounds like) thanked the ADB for the expertise and service to the City. She asked whether the current proposed size the best project for this location. She wondered if a smaller size project (perhaps 20 units) could alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised related to parking and safety issues with alley access. She questioned whether the proposed 600-800 square foot apartments would adequately meet the housing needs of Edmonds. She asked about possibly relocating the very old house. She expressed concern about the proposed design of the project, noting it was unattractive and did not fit the Edmonds aesthetics or echo the historic patterns of the downtown area. She urged the ADB to require the architect to go back to the drawing board so they can all be proud of his work. Karen Haase Herrick explained that she served on the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission which submitted their final recommendations to City Council at the end of January 2021. As part of that work, she also led the zoning standards work committee which was responsible for the Multifamily Design Standards Recommendation. The proposed building is the embodiment of the type of building that triggered the Multifamily Design Standards Recommendation. She commented on the straight -up, box -type design with no open space or balconies for residents. She expressed concern about the lack of protected space for Uber or other drop-offs, no safe turnaround area, no visitor parking, too -small parking spaces, and lack of setback on ground floor apartments. She summarized that this building lacks adequate modulation, design features, and the ability for residents to enjoy fresh air. Max Biby asked if a lot line adjustment is actually needed. Staff had commented that the right of way was unzoned. He noted that if the right-of-way was vacated, the alley would default to the parent property and be zoned the same as the parent property. He commented that the parking requirements for the proposed project is inadequate and will result in people parking on the streets. Michelle Dotsch referred to the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and stressed the importance of Commercial and Mixed Use. The proposed residential only building is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal to encourage Mixed Use as a key feature of emphasis. The proposed development is not in compliance with Downtown Waterfront Goal A, page 46, to promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive destination. She stressed the goals of pedestrian -scale and protecting the strong visual quality and identity. She also spoke to the goal of historic preservation in the Comprehensive Plan. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Keith Soltner stated he was also on the Edmonds Housing Commission and worked on the Multifamily Design Standards. He commented that the current design is developer -driven and developer -oriented. This type of design is the reason they need to re-evaluate the Multifamily Design Standards. This project needs modulation, landscaping, light, and open spaces. This will cost more initially but would result in increased rents and better quality of product. Mr. Lien read/summarized questions and comments submitted on the chat. Staff and the applicant responded to most of them. Ray Carden: • Since this is a Mixed -Use area what are the developer's accommodations for commercial space? — Mr. Lien explained that since there is no designated street front in front of this property, commercial space is not required. • Why has the developer not tried to accommodate the scale and feel of the City s Main Street Commons and Graphite Arts Center? — Mr. Frisk explained that the Graphite Arts Center is a steel panel building and is not residential. He thought that there was some affinity with his proposed building to the Main Street Commons. He felt it had a similar massing. • How is the developer addressing added wear and tear and safety issues on the alley? - Ms. McConnell addressed below. • How is the developer addressing the danger increased traffic in the alley will pose? — Ms. McConnell addressed this below. • Is it possible to install speedbumps in the alley to slow drivers and discourage people from cutting through? There are many people that walk and bike in the alley. — Ms. McConnell explained this would have to be reviewed closer by the traffic engineer. • 24 units will likely add 15 to 24 cars to the street taking up the few remaining parking spaces. — The project meets the parking requirements. • The design does not address massing. How might the board/developer account for this? - Regarding massing, modulation and setbacks, Mr. Frisk explained their goal is to get the largest building they can in order to keep the units affordable. Board Member Strauss commented that she feels and is hearing from people that a little more greenspace and modulation and setbacks would be a better project. She suggested he spend some time looking at how this project looks from the perspective of the neighbors. Mr. Frisk replied they would take all that into consideration as they try to create an affordable project. • With 24 units plus a property manager, isn't that 25 cars traveling at least twice a day. Seems like a traffic study is warranted. — Mr. Frisk explained they hired a traffic engineer to look at this. They are well below the level to trigger a traffic study. • This is an ugly building and too big for the setting. • Why would the driving goal for the developer be to max units? Why not compromise the number of units with important livability factors? Chris Cossu: • Do the balconies count toward the distance setback?- Mr. Lien replied that balconies would have to meet setbacks. • Is the building from 1915 considered historic? • Can the architect provide samples of these wooden screens they plan to place on the first floor Main Street residents' windows? • Are builders currently required to repave the alley? — Ms. McConnell addressed this below. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Hank Turner: Is there an opportunity to rethink the development as a townhouse project? — Mr. Lien explained there was a code amendment proposed recently to allow unit lot subdivisions in the BD zone but it was denied by the City Council. 623 Main Street Association: • Realistically there will be at least 36 additional cars just based on bedrooms. Kathy: If there is at least one handicapped parking space will that be assigned to a tenant? If not, then only 23 spaces? What if more than one resident needs a handicapped spot? Will any electric car charging spots be available? — Mr. Lien replied that this is not a requirement in this zone currently. Roger Pence: • Will parking be secured behind a gate or fence? • Can the City designate a loading zone at the front door to accommodate delivery vehicles, Uber, etc. ? — Ms. McConnell addressed this below. Marni Merr: • Was my letter received? — Mr. Lien replied that it was. Ms. McConnell responded to questions about the use of the alley. She referred to city code language which states that when there is an alley available that is where access shall be provided. The alley is the preferred point of access as it is a lower intensity road. Board Member Strauss acknowledged that they all agree the alley is where access should be; the concerns are more around the sight lines. Ms. McConnell explained the applicant will need to respond to a request for Phase 1 review to address sight lines for vehicles exiting the building. Mr. Frisk commented that they want safe egress and ingress. He suggested they might look at using mirrors or cutouts to provide visibility. Ms. McConnell noted that they would not allow vehicles to back out of the parking area onto the alley. There must be an adequate turnaround in the parking area. As far as wear and tear on the alley and any repaving, all of that would be handled during the construction phasing of the project. She noted that in many developments the entire width of the alley gets repaved adjacent to the development. Staff will also look at the intersection of the alley and 6th Avenue to see if it needs to be widened as well. This would not impact the design of the building though. Chair Bayer asked what it would take to trigger a traffic study. Ms. McConnell explained that a traffic study is triggered based on the number of PM peak trips for a development. The threshold is 25 PM peak hour trips. This development did not trigger that. Chair Bayer asked who maintains the alley. Ms. McConnell replied that it varies throughout town, but ultimately it is public right-of-way. Ms. McConnell responded to the question about a loading zone on Main Street. She explained it would be up to the transportation engineer to determine if that would be appropriate. She was not sure what the criteria was for determining whether that would be appropriate. There are accommodations that can be made for short periods of time such as moving in or moving out. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Regarding the lot line adjustment questions, Mr. Lien explained it is actually a lot combination and is approved as a matter of right. He explained the regulations surrounding this. Regarding parking concerns, one space per unit is what is required in the BD zone. Staff cannot require more. Board Member Jeude asked why this zone only requires one space per unit. Mr. Lien explained that the BD zones only require one space per unit. The multifamily zones have different requirements depending on the number of bedrooms. Chair Bayer asked staff when the ADB is anticipating finalizing the Multifamily Design Standards. Mr. Lien wasn't sure but clarified it would not apply to this project because the BD zone has its own design standards. Chair Bayer referred to Mr. Frisk's comparison of his project with the Main Street Commons project and noted that the Main Street Commons project could have been a lot bigger but they chose to blend in and have a lot more open space. She doesn't see any similarities between the two projects. Board Member Brooks commented that the voice of residents and business owners in Edmonds should be considered. She doesn't see anything in this project that points to energy efficiency or sustainability. She also added that a lot more greenspace should be considered and more than just one native plant. Chair Bayer commented she does not see this supporting the Comprehensive Plan based on things like privacy and light and other things that were brought up. She asked staff to guide them in assisting the developer to create a product that will better support the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan alignment, design, traffic, parking, and safety are the major issues that need to be resolved. Board Member Strauss spoke to this project meeting the bare minimum standards without much regard for the aesthetic of the community. It would be nice if the developer would listen to the community's comments so that the development is the best that it can be. She referred to some of the letters received regarding businesses being displaced. This is very concerning to her. Regarding the historic buildings around there, the application said there were none known. This is something that should be researched further by the developer/applicant. She is concerned about this setting a precedent in Edmonds, especially in this location. The public hearing portion of the meeting was continued to Phase 2. Design Guidelines Checklist discussion: Site Planning • Reinforce existing site characteristics — The ADB felt this should be a high priority. • Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics — The ADB felt this should be a high priority. • Entrances identifiable from the street — Low priority because it has already been addressed. • Encourage human activity on the street. — ADB felt this was a high priority. The Main Street Commons did a great job of getting people out on the street. Making a nice space for people is about more than just checking off boxes. Board Member Herr commented that there are no apartment buildings in Edmonds that encourage activity in front of them. Commercial spaces are different. Board Member Jeude noted this building is in a transition spot between commercial and residential. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 6 of 8 • Minimize Intrusion into Privacy and Adjacent Streets — This was a high priority because it is on the edge of two zones. There was a suggestion to step back upper floors. Make sure windows don't align with neighbors' windows. Get access to sunlight. • Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy, and interaction. — High priority because of residential rooms right on main street — suggested larger setbacks, fewer units, lower floor commercial, encourage social interaction. Board Member Herr stressed that they need to not have so many conditions that this project becomes impossible. He urged balance. Board Member Strauss pointed out that this is the Architectural Design Review Board not the Affordable Housing Board. • Maximize open space opportunity on site — High priority - Zoning did not require open space because of the size of the lot. Board Member Strauss thought this was important anyway — courtyard, enhanced landscaping, seating to enjoy coffee out front • Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property— High priority from a safety perspective • Discourage parking on front street — High priority — concern about parking spilling over to library and neighborhoods. • Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) — N/A Bulk and Scale • Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less intensive zones — High priority — Many comments from citizens that this looks like a big square box. Suggestions to increase setbacks, make more compatible to scale around it, possible step back, variation in wall, possible reductions in the actual bulk and scale, articulating building fagade, reducing the bulk of the upper floors Architectural Elements and Materials • Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures — High priority — New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern or neighboring buildings, especially historic buildings. Articulation, scale, proportion, complementary roof forms, variety in materials, changing roofline • Unified architectural concept — High priority - Distinct base, middle, and top; more masonry • Use human scale and human activity — High priority — walkable community, pedestrian -oriented open space such as a courtyard, garden patio or other unified landscaped areas, upper story setbacks, window patterns, building articulation, pedestrian weather protection • Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials — High priority — brick, materials typical to the Northwest • Minimize garage entrances — N/A Pedestrian Environment • Provide convenient, attractive, and protected pedestrian entry — Low priority • Avoid blank walls — High priority — Base, middle, top levels; different materials; setbacks, textures • Minimize height of retaining walls — Low priority • Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas — N/A • Minimize visual impact of parking structures — N/A • Screen dumpsters, utility, and service areas — Low priority Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Consider personal safety — High priority — especially with the alley — retaining clear lines of sight, absence of structures that provide hiding spaces for criminal activity, adequate lighting, design of parking areas to allow natural surveillance Landscapes • Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood — High priority - Where possible landscaping should reinforce the character of the neighboring properties and abutting streetscape, extending a low brick wall • Landscape to enhance the building or site — High priority - planters for seasonal color, living plant material, upper story planter boxes, soften the form or building by screening blank walls, terracing retaining walls, etc., distinctively landscape open areas created by building modulation • Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions — Low priority Mr. Frisk summarized it is a delicate balance to address these concerns while providing housing that is affordable. There was consensus to approve the Phase 2 Meeting Date Certain of April 6, 2022 BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Chair Bayer stated she met recently with staff to get up to speed. They discussed the possibility of having a review of the Comprehensive Plan at a separate ADB meeting. Board Member Strauss asked about progress in filling the open board positions. Mr. Lien wasn't sure about the status but noted the positions have been advertised. Chair Bayer asked if the Planning Board is looking at changing any codes in the Business Downtown zone prior to April. Mr. Lien noted a change in code could not happen by that time for the BD zone, although there are some other code changes in the works. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting January 5, 2022 Page 8 of 8