Loading...
2024-03-28 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting March 28, 2024 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Board Members Absent Alex Hutchinson (excused) Steve Schmitz APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 22, 2024 ADB Meeting Minutes Staff Present Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Jeff Levy, Senior Planner Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS A. PLN2023-0015 Port of Edmonds North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction Associate Planner Amber Brokenshire made the presentation. She discussed the review process, site context, and proposal. She reviewed how the proposal will meet site development standards including setbacks, height, parking, landscaping, and two proposed conditions highlighted in the staff report regarding landscaping and screening of mechanical equipment. Staff is recommending that the ADB forward a recommendation of approval to the Hearing Examiner with staff two proposed conditions. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 28, 2024 Pagel of 3 Clarification questions were asked about the screening, parking, accessibility of the restrooms, access to the portwalk, opportunities for art, and landscaping. A concern was raised about the potential slipping hazard of the proposed glass blocks. Ms. Brokenshire responded that a condition could be that materials are used that prevent slippage. The applicant explained the Port would have to put "melt" down; the blocks also come with non -slip coating. A concern was also raised about the heat of glass blocks for dogs' feet. The applicant did not think this would be an issue due to open air circulation underneath. Commissioners were pleased with the extensive landscaping plan. Additional clarification questions were asked about seating and the potential for historical plaques or recognition of the native tribes who historically used the waterfront area. The applicant stated they have not settled on artwork yet. There was a question about whether the project actually complies with the design criteria especially regarding being a unique, creative, beautiful place unlike any other. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan talks about everything in the downtown area being an identity element; encouraging a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment, and associated business; providing for a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, and natural features; providing space for local businesses and cottage industries; and providing open space for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. There were comments that this is a nice place to just sit and enjoy the nature. It doesn't necessarily need a lot of retail, but opportunities for food trucks or other ways to make it a little more exciting would be nice. There was discussion about the bathroom being a very utilitarian structure that could be more creative in its design. The applicant explained the bathroom was designed to match the other one. There was brief discussion about whether a bathroom is even necessary in this location. Several board members felt it was important. The Board discussed possible conditions of approval such as emphasizing the tribal connection in an educational/historical way and including various additional art installations such as public sculptures. There was also some question about what could be done with the restroom. The applicant discussed cost constraints for the Port and noted that reasons for selecting the restroom were because of the cost, to match the other restroom, and for the longevity of the building. In general, board members suggested that the restroom needs additional architectural detailing to comply fully with the design guideline. There were suggestions about putting something on the building to add more interest such as a mural or other artwork. Another idea was adding planters/landscaping to add more interest. It was also noted that the illustration of the restroom looking west isn't consistent with the drawings in the packet. The plans don't have the different treatment of the waterline. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 1) INCORPORATE MURAL ARTWORK/PAINT ON THE SIDE OF THE RESTROOM BUILDING, AND 2) INCORPORATE CREATIVE ARTWORK, TRIBAL REFERENCE WITH HISTORICAL/CULTURAL/EDUCATIONAL ASPECT WITHIN THE SITE. MOTION PASSED (3-1). AYES: BAYER, BROOKS, JEUDE NOES: LOCH Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 28, 2024 Page 2 of 3 BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Review of Individual Member Comments on the 2020 Urban Design Element Senior Planner Jeff Levy said he would compile all the comments/edits for discussion at the next meeting, highlighting any areas where there might be conflicting ideas. This would be followed up by a first draft for review at the following meeting. There was a suggestion that it would be easier to start from scratch than to try to edit an outdated document. Staff explained that was an option. There was discussion about the process and the anticipated timeline in order to complete the first complete draft of the Comprehensive Plan component by June. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Loch expressed frustration about the large size of this meeting's packet for the ADB to review and requested that only the material necessary for the ADB to consider be included in the future. Mr. Clugston concurred. Chair Bayer requested getting the consolidated document with enough time prior to the next meeting to be able to review it. Mr. Clugston agreed and stated their intent is to get the packets out a week before the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 28, 2024 Page 3 of 3