Loading...
2015-09-02 Architectural Design Board Packeto Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 2, 2015, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve Draft Minutes of 7.5.15 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE 5. CONSENT AGENDA 6. MINOR PROJECTS 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS A. Public Hearing for Edmonds 2020, LLC B. Public Hearing on 303 Edmonds St - GBH Holdings, LLC 8. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (NO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION) 9. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 10. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda September 2, 2015 Page 1 2.A of FpM °�° Architectural Design Board 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 f��c. 1 890 SCHEDULED CONSENT/APPROVAL ITEM (ID # 1038) Meeting: 09/02/15 07:00 PM Department: Planning Division Category: Minutes / Meeting Summary Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Initiator: Diane Cunningham Approve Draft Minutes of 7.5.15 Architectural Design Board review and approve the draft minutes of 7.5.15 Sponsors: DOC ID: 1038 Updated: 8/21/2015 8:49 AM by Diane Cunningham Page 1 Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Brian Borofka Lois Broadway Bruce O'Neill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Rick Schaefer (excused) Cary Guenther (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2014 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOAD MEMBER O'NEILL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON JENNA LANE TOWN HOMES (FILE NUMBER PLN20140009) The applicant is seeking design approval for two duplexes and a single unit at 8506 and 8510 — 240th Street Southwest. Two existing single-family residences will be removed while new frontage, utility and landscaping improvements will be constructed in conjunction with the five new dwelling units. The site is zoned Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4). This is a Type IH-B permit with a public hearing and a decision made by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a Chair Gootee emphasized that this is a continuation of the June 4t" public hearing. Mr. Clugston added that the Board reviewed the project in detail on June e and requested the applicant provide additional materials to clarify the proposal. Because they continued the hearing to a date certain (July 2°d), no additional public notice was required. After the staff and applicant have presented the additional materials and information requested by the Board, the Board will accept additional public testimony. After closing the public hearing, it is anticipated that the Board will deliberate and make a decision. He advised that, in addition to the exhibits presented on June 0, the following exhibits were added to the record: • Exhibit 0 — Staff Memorandum dated June 24, 2014 • Exhibit 5 — June 4, 2014 Meeting Minutes • Exhibit 6 — Applicant's Response Letter • Exhibit 7 — Revised Elevation Drawing for Units A and B • Exhibit 8 — Revised Elevation Drawing for Units C and D • Exhibit 9 — Revised Elevation Drawing for Unit E • Exhibit 10 — Unit B Cross Section • Exhibit 11— Unit C Cross Section • Exhibit 12 — Unit D Cross Section • Exhibit 13 -- Revised Landscape Plan He noted that at the June 4d` hearing, the Board requested the applicant: Provide south elevation drawings and artist renderings depicting how the buildings will look from 240th Street Southwest, Edmonds Way and the eastern property line. Mr. Clugston reviewed that no south elevation drawings were provided in the original submittal. At the request of the Board, the applicant provided revised elevation drawings for Unit E (Exhibit 9), Units A and B (Exhibit 7) and Units C and D (Exhibit 8). In response to the Board's comments at the last meeting that the original design for the three buildings was fairly sparse, the applicant has added detail to each of the buildings through the use of additional materials, colors, roof lines, etc. • Provide a drawing illustrating what the retaining wall system will be. Mr. Clugston recalled that the Board requested more information about the proposed retaining wall along Edmonds Way. The applicant has indicated that the retaining wall would be eliminated from the proposal by lowering the pad elevation of Unit E. This should make the building less prominent and easier to screen with landscaping. Provide revised north, east and west elevations that break up the facade. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board requested cross sections of the proposed buildings to get a feel for how they would look relative to the existing buildings to the east. Currently, there are two single-family homes on the site, and it is clear that the new set of buildings would be larger. He referred to Exhibits 10, 11 and 12, which provide cross sections for Units B, C and D. He noted that the proposed new buildings would be sunk down into the site a bit. The site elevation for the existing building to the east would be about 429 feet adjacent to Unit B (Exhibit 10), 427 adjacent to Unit C (Exhibit 11) and 426 adjacent to Unit D (Exhibit 12). He explained that the building to the east is three stories tall. Although it is also sunk into the site, it is a little taller than the proposed new buildings. He acknowledged that the first and second floors of the existing building would look directly at the new buildings, but the third story should have a view over the new buildings. He emphasized that the buildings would be constructed to code, which means the applicant would not be allowed a greater height than what is allowed for any other development in the RM-2.4 zone. • Provide a revised landscape plan. Mr. Clugston explained that in response to the Board's concern that the original landscape plan was insufficient in some locations, the applicant has presented a new landscape plan (Exhibit 13) showing Type I landscaping along Edmonds Way and Type III landscaping along 24& Street Southwest. In addition, the landscaping along the west and east property lines is more in line with Type R specifications. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a In addition to these items, Mr. Clugston recalled that the Board also discussed requiring additional lighting in the landscaped areas west of the driveway (See Condition 3 in Exhibit 1). The majority of the Board agreed that lighting should not be required and Condition 3 should be eliminated. They also discussed the need to screen utility and other structures. It was agreed that rather than requiring the landscape plan to be updated to incorporate the required screening, the issue could be addressed by Condition 2 of Exhibit 1, which simply requires the equipment to be screened. With the additional information provided by the applicant, Mr. Clugston recommended the Board approve the revised design of the Jenna Lane Townhouses, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. 2. All above -ground utility equipment must be located interior to the site or camouflaged or screened. 3. All light fixtures shall be dark -sky compliant cut-off fixtures. 4. The deck off the back of the house to the west will have to be removed, modified or otherwise provided for during building permit review. 5. A pedestrian walkway must be created connecting each of the dwelling units with the 24e Street Southwest right- of-way. Board Member Borotka noted that the original submittal included a site grading plan (Exhibit 1 Attachment 7e). He asked if the applicant submitted an updated grading plan with the new submittal to incorporate the changes in the elevation of Unit E and elimination of the retaining wall. Mr. Clugston answered that no new plan was submitted for site grading. There is a note in the record that the retaining wall is proposed to be removed, but the rest of the features on the site would still be constructed as originally proposed. Board Member Borotka asked if the applicant has provided any additional information in response to concerns raised at the previous hearing regarding stormwater runoff. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that stormwater issues would be addressed as part of the building permit phase. Board Member Borotka noted that in the original Staff Report (Exhibit 1) Type I landscaping was recommended along Edmonds Way. He asked if the applicant's updated proposal addresses this request. Mr. Clugston explained that the landscaping proposed along Edmonds Way does not exactly meet the requirements for Type I landscaping. However, it does show screening very much in keeping with Type I requirements, including a 5-foot wood fence and a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and ground cover. This is one situation where the Board has the ability to approve something that is different than a strict interpretation of the code given the narrowness of the area, as well as the stormwater dispersion trench. Board Member Borotka pointed out that the proposed roofline for Units A and B (Exhibit 7) and Unit E (Exhibit 9) is much different than the proposed roofline for Units C and D (Exhibit 8). He asked if the alternative designs were presented as design options or if the applicant is proposing that all three building be different in design. Mr. Clugston said Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 indicate that the buildings would each have a different design. The applicant, Luay Joudeh, P.E., D.R. Strong, expressed his belief that the additional information he provided adequately addresses all of the issues and concerns raised by the Board at the last hearing. He thanked Mr. Clugston for a thorough Staff Report describing the new information and proposed changes. Although the final design plans have not been prepared, Mr. Joudeh said he anticipates that the utility boxes will be located in the 10-foot franchise easement along Edmonds Way. After consulting with the utility company, he learned they would prefer there be no screening in front of the utility boxes. Board Member Broadway asked Mr. Joudeh to point out on the landscape plan (Exhibit 13) where the utility boxes would be located. Again, Mr. Joudeh said that, from his experience, utility equipment is generally located within the 10-foot franchise easement. If a transformer is required for the five units, the utility company has indicated they would like it to be visible and accessible from the public right- of-way. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a Board Member O'Neill requested more information about the proposed change that would eliminate the need for a retaining wall on the eastern side of the property. Mr. Joudeh explained that some grading along the east and west property lines will be required to create the building pads and access to the units. Only the retaining wall proposed along Edmonds Way was eliminated from the proposal. The retaining walls on the east and west property lines would be constructed as originally proposed at a height of about three feet. Board Member O'Neill recalled that several neighbors raised concern at the last hearing about the relative height of the proposed buildings in relation to the existing multi -family residential building to the east. He noted that the cross sections provided by the applicant (Exhibits 10 through 12) do not reflect the new building designs proposed in Exhibit 7 through 9. In addition, the cross sections do not illustrate the relationship of the proposed new building to the existing building. Chair Gootee agreed that the Board specifically requested a profile drawing showing the neighboring condominium units relative to the adjacent sections of the proposed new buildings. Mr. Joudeh explained that he did not go onto the adjacent private property to measure the finished height of the existing building, but each block in the elevation drawings (Exhibits 7 through 9) represents 10 feet. The existing buildings are three stories tall, but the height is only about 24.5 feet tall because they are sunken into the ground. A person standing on the third floor would be able to see above the roof elevation of the proposed new buildings. As per the proposal, some excavation will occur to establish new building pad elevations, and the buildings will be sunk into the ground in some places. For example, Unit D would be about eight feet below grade near the east property line. Mr. Joudeh commented that the purpose of his project is to develop a place for his mother to live, with his sister living next door. They decided to construct five units on the two properties; two for the family, and three to rent out. Five units would be consistent with what the current zoning allows. The two existing homes are situated above the existing grade and are run down. Both are visible from the condominiums to the east and from Edmonds Way. He expressed his belief that the proposed development would not negatively impact the character of the site; it would actually improve it. Chair Gootee commented that the Board had previously indicated a desire to see a profile drawing of the adjacent multi- family development relative to the proposed buildings. Mr. Joudeh pointed out that the proposed buildings would not block the view of a person standing on the third floor of the adjacent units. However, he acknowledged that people in the first and second floor units would look out at the new buildings, as they currently look out at the existing homes. Board Member Broadway clarified that the Board is really interested in a territorial view of the heights of the proposed buildings relative to the adjacent building. They are not so concerned about the floor levels of each individual unit, but the relationship between the rooflines. Mr. Joudeh pointed out that the outcome would not likely change if he decided to build four rather than five units on the subject properties; and a four -unit development would not require ADB review and approval. Again, he questioned how he could prepare a territorial drawing without surveying the buildings. Board Member Borofka suggested there may be as -built drawings and other materials on file with the City and/or county that would show elevations or building heights for the adjacent buildings to help the applicant prepare the information. Board Member Borofka summarized that the Board is wrestling with the fact that they requested something at the last meeting in response to relatively strong public, and the new information does not appear to be responsive. The Board is the only venue that provides the public an opportunity for formal input regarding the project, and the Board is duty bound to be responsive. The issue is not about whether four or five units are developed on the site, but responding to questions and comments brought forward by neighbors. Mr. Joudeh said he appreciates the Board's concerns related to the public comments. However, he observed that staff did not raise any concerns with the additional materials he submitted. He cautioned that there must be a benefit to providing the materials requested by the Board, and there must be an end to the process. He said he could understand the Board's request for more detailed elevation and cross section drawings if he were asking to exceed the height limit allowed for the zone, but he doesn't understand why he is being put through this process when his proposed project meets all of the zoning code requirements. Because the code allows a building height of 25 feet in the RM-2.4 zone, the outcome for the neighbors would not be different if he were to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a construct fewer units on the site. He said he is not aware of any view corridors on the subject property, and he does not understand how the City can place conditions on his property to protect the neighbors' views. Chair Gootee commented that the ADB is not required to approve a project just because it meets code. If they feel that design elements need to be addressed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, they can request additional information or modifications. At the last hearing, several of the neighbors were having a hard time understanding the relationship of the proposed new buildings to what they currently see outside their windows. The Board requested the applicant provide a profile of the proposed new buildings and the existing buildings. He said he was expecting the applicant to provide more information than what is contained in Exhibits 10 through 12. Board Member O'Neill agreed with the applicant that there are certain code and zoning requirements that must be met. While the Board was asking for clarification for the neighbor's understanding, the applicant has a right to build to the height allowed in that zone. If the proposal meets all of the zoning requirements, which will be determined during the building permit phase, the Board does not have the purview to restrict the building height allowed in the zone. The Board was simply asking for clarification of the proposed buildings in relationship to the neighboring development. r L6 Mr. Joudeh said he does not object to the Board asking for more information. However, when he submitted the cross ti c section drawings, he did not receive any feedback from staff to indicate they were inadequate to meet the Board's intent. He understanding was that staff felt the information he provided met all of the items discussed at the first hearing. If he had received different feedback a week ago, he could have provided additional information. Board Member Borofka asked if the applicant provided samples of the colors and materials proposed for the new o buildings. Mr. Joudeh answered no. 0 Board Member Broadway pointed out that the updated Landscape Plan (Exhibit 13) identifies evergreen trees planted 20 L a feet on center for 130 feet along Edmond Way. However, the planting legend indicates that only four of the evergreen Q trees would be planted 20 feet on center and three would be clustered in the southwest corner of the property. Mr. co Joudeh said the landscaping identified in Exhibit 13 is correct. There is a gap between the trees to accommodate the o dispersal drain. w N O Board Member O'Neill asked why the applicant is proposing a different design for each of the buildings. Mr. Joudeh c explained that the architect may have gone overboard trying to address the Board's concern that there needed to be more m variation in the building design, and he would prefer to use a single design for all three buildings. Board agreed that they o did not intend for the applicant to have separate designs for each of the three buildings. Their goal was to create more a variation, and the design shown in Exhibit 8 is a vast improvement over the other two (Exhibits 7 and 9). E Eric Hartsfield, Edmonds, said he is on the Board of Directors for the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums. He asked if 0 the trees identified on the landscape plan as existing trees would be retained. Mr. Joudeh said the two trees on Edmonds a Way, west of the property line would be retained, as would the trees on his property towards the southeast corner. Chair Gootee added that trees identified as "existing trees" on the landscape plan will be retained. Mr. Hartsfield pointed out that the applicant's drawings are wrong. The existing building to the east is actually located further south, which means that Unit D is the only one that would have a building directly behind it. The existing unit is not sunken into the ground as suggested by the applicant. Instead, the first floor is about even with the existing grade. Units A, B and C would be adjacent to a parking lot. Lily Bojic, Edmonds, said she owns property to the west of the proposed building site. She explained that she and her husband purchased the home several years ago and the fence and deck had already been constructed. In the proposed plan, the property line has been moved so their deck is located on the applicant's property. The proposal will require that the deck either be modified or removed. She questioned how the property lines were determined and requested to see an official report from the County Assessor. Mr. Clugston advised that the property line issue would be addressed as part of Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 7 the building permit process. In this case, it sounds like a survey would be necessary since it appears the deck encroaches over the property line. Ms. Bojic said she is also concerned about noise during construction of the proposed project. She is planning to open a medical facility in her home, and development noise could have a negative impact on her clients. Mr. Clugston explained that noise is addressed in Edmonds City Code 5.30, which establishes the days and hours in which construction can occur. Typically, construction would be allowed Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Work outside of those hours would require a variance. He acknowledged that there will be noise associated with construction activity on the site. If she believes the noise is too loud, she could file a complaint with the City. The construction activity on the subject property is not likely to be different than any other development in Edmonds, but the code is intended to protect from noise impacts. Deborah Givens, Edmonds, said she also lives in the Edmonds Greenery Condominiums. She said she recently spoke with Mr. Clugston to gain a better understanding about the elevations of the proposed new buildings. Based on the Board's request at the last meeting, she anticipated the applicant would provide a height comparison of the proposed and existing buildings. Ms. Givens asked about the composition of the proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property. She also asked if it would be visible or located underground. Mr. Joudeh answered that the retaining wall would likely be constructed of keystone. It will be visible to the new units, but not from the existing units. Ms. Givens pointed out that the existing fence is located 1.4 feet east of the property line in one location and .1 feet west of the property line in another location. She asked if the fence would be relocated to follow the property line. Mr. Joudeh explained that the existing fence meanders in and out and does not exactly follow the property line. It will be examined to determine its condition. If necessary, it will be replaced with a new solid cedar fence within the subject property boundaries. Ms. Givens asked if the 10-foot setback requirement would be measured from the building wall or the roofline. Mr. Clugston advised that the building setback would be measured from the property line to the building wall. Projections such as roof eves can protrude up to 30 inches into the setback area. Ms. Givens agreed that she now looks down on the existing houses, but they do not obstruct anyone's view from the complex. She acknowledged that developing the subject property into a high -density living area will change the area. She asked that the applicant consider either raising the bedroom window on the east side of Unit D or making it shallower. The living spaces face each other, and changing the location or size of the window would improve privacy for both units. Mr. Joudeh said he would like the window to be as large as possible to allow more light into the unit. However, if the larger window would be detrimental to the project, he would consider a smaller one. The Board indicated their preference to retain the window size and location shown on the drawings. Ms. Givens agreed with Mr. Hartsfield that the existing building is actually located further south, so that only about 10.5 feet of it would face directly towards Unit D. Mr. Clugston agreed that the existing building to the east of the subject property is shifted too far north in the illustrations. Mr. Joudeh clarified that the locations of the proposed buildings are accurate based on a field survey, but the adjacent buildings were placed on the map based on drawings from the public record. Mr. Joudeh summarized that Ms. Given's property is located directly east of Unit D, with a little overlap. It is on the ground floor, and she looks out at trees from her patio. As currently proposed, the existing trees on the subject property would be removed and replaced with Type II Landscaping, which would not be high enough to mitigate for the existing view. It will take time for the trees to grow. If that is her concern, providing a cross section drawing of the two buildings will not help. Whatever he builds there will block her view. To be a good neighbor, he proposed that Type I Landscaping be planted along the eastern property line to provide better screening between the two buildings. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Chair Gootee asked Mr. Clugston if Type I Landscaping would be appropriate along the eastern property line. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. As with the Type I Landscaping proposed along Edmonds Way, it might not exactly meet the requirements given the location and size of the planting area. However, it would provide a buffer of evergreen trees to address the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Joudeh said he is willing to work with adjacent property owners to come up with an appropriate landscape plan for this area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:30 PM. Board Member Borofka observed that the applicant has responded to a number of the concerns raised by the staff, the Board and citizens. However, he is concerned that the current grading plan is not consistent with the most recent changes associated with Unit E and the retaining wall along Edmonds Way. He suggested it might be appropriate to request the applicant update the plan accordingly. Board Member Borofka also noted that an adjacent neighbor expressed concern that the proposed development would r result in additional stormwater runoff that would impact his property. He referred to Exhibit 14, which is a ti memorandum from the City's Stormwater Engineer related to stormwater control. He recognized that stormwater will c be addressed as part of the development permit but expressed concern that the Board may not have an opportunity to review the property again if significant changes are required to meet the stormwater requirements. Mr. Clugston clarified that issues related to stormwater and grading will be addressed as part of the development permit and are not within the Board's purview. The applicant has shown it is feasible to address stormwater on site; and how it is done will be decided at the building permit stage. An accurate grading plan will also be required as part of the building permit. He o reminded the Board that Condition 1 would require the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits. It also clarifies that the application is subject to applicable code requirements. o a Q. Board Member Borofka observed that the colored renderings of the proposed new buildings show a purple color, which Q is likely a result of the printer that was used to produce the copies. He suggested that perhaps an additional condition of co approval could be added to ensure that the paint colors are appropriate. Mr. Clugston said the building colors shown in o Exhibit 8 appear to be tans and similar earth tones. w N O Board Member Broadway voiced concern that Type I Landscaping might not be appropriate along the eastern boundary c given that the space would only be 10 feet wide and include a retaining wall. Mr. Clugston explained that Type I r Landscaping is "intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts." The o goal is to use evergreen rather than deciduous trees. He agreed there would probably not be enough space along the a eastern property line to exactly meet the Type I Landscaping requirements. Perhaps the condition could require Type I or similar landscaping. Board Member Broadway stressed the importance of planting evergreen species that can survive E in a very narrow margin. It was pointed out that the landscaping would be located on the west side of the fence, and 0 would not have a significant impact on the neighbor's view of the proposed development. Q Board Member Borofka recalled the inconsistencies between the landscape plan and the drawings, and the applicant indicated that the landscape plan was correct. He questioned if staff has enough information to move forward with the building permit or if an updated landscape plan would be needed. Chair Gootee pointed out that the landscape plan is solid enough for the Board's review and approval, but an updated plan could be a condition of approval. Board Member Borofka pointed out that the applicant has not provided drawings for the southern elevations in Exhibits 7, 8 and 9. Chair Gootee did not believe the additional drawings are necessary since the applicant's intent is to duplicate the northern elevations. He noted that the Board has done numerous approvals with elevations representing just two or three sides of a proposed building. However, the issue could be clarified via an additional condition of approval. Board Member Broadway applauded the applicant for taking her written comments from June 0 to heart and generating three options for building design. She said her comments were meant to imply that she was looking for variety in design Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 9 and not necessarily different designs for each of the buildings. She said she prefers the design identified in Exhibit 8 (Units C and D). The addition of shingles and articulation of the pitched roof bring the design more to a residential and craftsman style that makes it feel homier. She suggested that the design identified in Exhibit 8 be applied to all three buildings. The remainder of the Board concurred. Board Member Broadway said she would like to add an additional condition of approval that requires the applicant to use earth tones and neutral colors in nature. The colors on the renderings in Exhibits 7 through 9 appear to be a purple color. BOARD MEMBER O'NEILL MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OR ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED JENNA LANE TOWNHOMES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 2. ALL ABOVE -GROUND UTILITY EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TRANSFORMERS, HOT BOXES, MECHANICAL UNITS, ETC.) MUST BE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE SITE OR CAMOUFLAGED OR SCREENED WITH ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, FENCING AND/OR LANDSCAPING. 3. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL BE DARK -SKY COMPLIANT CUT-OFF FIXTURES. 4. THE DECK OFF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO THE WEST PROJECTS OVER THE PROJECT SITE'S WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS DECK WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED, MODIFIED OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR DURING BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. 5. A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY MUST BE CREATED CONNECTING EACH OF THE DWELLING UNITS WITH THE 240TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE WALK MAY BE STRIPED ASPHALT, ALTERNATE MATERIALS, OR THE LIKE. 6. ALL BUILDING DESIGN WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH EXHIBIT 8. 7. COLORS WILL BE EARTH TONES AND NATURAL COLORS SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. 8. PLANTINGS ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE WILL BE TYPE -I LANDSCAPING OR SIMILAR, SUBJECT TO STAFF REVIEW. 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: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a The Board reviewed draft language outlining policies and procedures for public meetings. They agreed it would be appropriate to print the information on the back of each of their agendas, subject to review by the City Attorney. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None of the Board Members provided additional comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 2, 2014 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 11 7.A of FpM °�° Architectural Design Board 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 f��c. 1 890 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING (ID # 1036) Meeting: 09/02/15 07:00 PM Department: Architectural Design Board Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Initiator: Diane Cunningham Public Hearing for Edmonds 2020, LLC Sponsors: DOCID:1036 Public hearing for Edmonds 2020 LLC for a district -based design review for a new mixed -use builfing (Phase 2) at 201 Main Street (PLN20150016). Updated: 8/21/2015 8:18 AM by Diane Cunningham Page 1 Packet Pg. 12 7.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Cary Guenther, Vice Chair Brian Borofka Lois Broadway Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Bruce O'Neill Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2015 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED Lei L,"Ll1 r/_[Illjy APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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: Design Review of a New Mixed -Use Building at 201 Main Street for Edmonds 2020 LLC (File Number PLN20150016) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 1 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 13 7.A.a Mr. Clugston reviewed that the applicant, Edmonds 2020 LLC, has submitted a land -use application for design review of a new mixed -use building (Building 2) at 201 Main Street where the post office is currently located. He recalled that a few years ago, the Board completed design review for a new building (Building 1) to the north of the subject property, which is currently under construction. The post office will relocate into the new building, and the existing post office building will be demolished and replaced with the proposed new mixed -use building, which will include below -grade parking, three, ground -floor commercial storefronts, and 26 residential units on the upper floors. He noted that the parking would be accessed from 2nd Avenue North using the same access provided for Building 1 to the north. Mr. Clugston advised that the site is currently zoned Downtown Business (BD-2). Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010, proposed developments in this zoning district that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination also require review by the ADB in a two-phase public hearing process. The intent of the two-phase review process is to provide public and design professional input at an early stage. He 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 factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and prioritize the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 4) based on these facts in addition to the design objectives in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 6), the BD design standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43 and 22.43 (Attachments 5 and 7), and the landscaping standards in ECDC 20.13. He further explained that, following public testimony at the Phase 1 hearing and establishment of the Design Guideline Checklist by the Board, the Board should continue to the hearing to a date certain for Phase 2 of the process. Mr. Clugston said the purpose of continuing the hearing (Phase 2) is to allow the applicant to refine or redesign the initial concept to address the input received from the public and Board by complying with the prioritized Design Guideline Checklist criteria. 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 hearing. At the Phase 2 hearing, the Board will solicit public testimony, review the design of the project, and make a final decision on the design. Doug Spee, Edmonds 2020 LLC, said he is very happy with the two -phased project up to this point. The Post Office will relocate into a smaller space in Building 1, and the existing post office will be demolished and replaced with the proposed Building 2. He explained that the design of Building 2 was driven by the fact that it will be located on a strictly commercial street front environment as opposed to Building 1, which has more of a residential characteristic on Bell Street. It was tricky to develop the portion of the building at the corner of 2nd Avenue North and Main Street because of the slope, but he is pleased with how it came out. He emphasized that the commercial space will be the high point of the project, and will include an outdoor seating area for the restaurant space on Main Street. Mr. Spee said he has chosen to use the same development pattern that was used in Building 1 for the upper residential units, as they are happy with the variety of apartments it provides. However, they plan to provide more size variety, both smaller and larger. There will be an open courtyard in the middle to create a light, airy feeling, and a bridge would connect the courtyards of the two buildings together. The goal is to create a unique building that is not just an extension of Building 1 and offer a variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs of every type of person who wants to live in downtown Edmonds long term. Building 2 will include some different materials and more modulation. Scott Boyer, Haller Architects LLC, Seattle, said that as with Building 1, he worked hard to incorporate articulation and setbacks into the design of Building 2 to avoid a "boxy" appearance. He noted that the scale of the older buildings that still exist in the surrounding area are of a roadhouse scale, and the three bays proposed for the building along Main Street are intended to compliment this existing style by giving the appearance of three smaller buildings rather than a single, larger building. Mr. Boyer said he is now proposing an additional design element that was not included in the renderings submitted in the Staff Report. The City's Development Code allows an additional five feet in height for a single decorative corner element if it is no more than 5% of the roof area. He will likely propose that the corner bay (2nd Avenue North and Main Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 2 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 14 7.A.a Street) be extended an additional 2.5 feet to allow for a more generous roof line, more definitive transom windows, and more definition at the corner. He said the entryways have also been revised. He emphasized that the proposed design represents a tight building package and every square foot is valuable. They now believe it would look better to bring the bay out to make it a more prominent and expressive entrance for the residential units. A brick base is proposed, similar to the one that will be on Building 1. Mr. Boyer briefly reviewed the floor plans for the proposed new building, explaining that the ground floor would provide three retail spaces. The retail space along Main Street would include a stepped -up terrace and outdoor seating for the restaurant. A courtyard would be provided for the occupants of the residential units. After meeting with the City's Fire Marshall and planner to review the building and fire code requirements, he learned that it is possible to link the courtyards of Buildings 1 and 2 together via a bridge. He said that 13 residential units would be located on each floor, and the units located at the corner of 2nd Avenue North and Main Street will enjoy a view of Puget Sound. In addition to larger units, the plan is to provide some smaller units (500 to 600 square feet), which are in demand at this time. Board Member Broadway recalled that the current code requires that the ground -floor retail space have a minimum ceiling height of 12 feet. She asked the height of the additional stories, given the 30-foot building height limitation in the BD-2 zone. She noted that the bays on the building have been bumped up slightly in height. She asked what the differentiation in height would be. Mr. Boyer explained that the maximum height is calculated from average grade. Given the slope of the property, the high point would actually raise the average grade up a bit. The proposed design identifies a 12-foot ceiling height for all three commercial spaces, and eight -foot ceiling heights in the residential units above. The bays would be bumped up about 18 inches in height, but they will still meet the 30-foot height requirement based on the way height is measured. Board Member Borofka asked if the applicant would propose signage for the building. Mr. Spee answered that he would likely propose a tasteful sign or plaque at the ground level to identify the building at the corner of 2ad Avenue North and Main Street, and the individual retail tenants will likely propose a sign package, as well. He anticipates the signage would be low key and good night lighting would be provided. Board Member Borofka referred to the rendering of the east fagade and noted the extensive amount of gray that is proposed along the base of the building. He asked if this would be concrete material and if landscaping would be used to soften the appearance. Mr. Boyer explained that the concrete at the base of the building along the alley side is actually the wall for the parking area. Because the City's code requires 24-foot drive isles, the building had to be pushed out to the 120-foot maximum site coverage allowed from side to side. If the wall is pulled in from the alleyway, a significant amount of parking space would be lost. Landscaping would not be allowed in this location because it would extend into the right-of-way. He agreed that the wall looks bland in the rendering, but it would be constructed of decorative concrete. Board Member Borofka asked if the applicant is proposing additional mechanical equipment, such as transformer boxes or trash containers, to accommodate the commercial uses, particularly the restaurant. Mr. Boyer replied that the applicant has a good working relationship with the Snohomish County Public Utility District, and they were allowed to relocate the transformer for Building 1 near the back of the post office loading dock. It is proposed that the transformer for Building 2 be located directly adjacent to the transformer for Building 1. In addition, he noted that the restaurant space would require a grease exhaust, which will be taken care of via shafts. Most of the other mechanical equipment that is required for both the commercial space and the residential units will be placed is less visible locations. Chair Gootee noted the location of the parking area along the east side of the restaurant space and asked what would be located at the southwest corner of the building. Mr. Boyer answered that an entryway would be provided in this location. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 3 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 15 7.A.a Chair Gootee observed that, as the submittal is preliminary, no colored renderings were included as part of the Staff Report. He asked the applicant to describe how the materials and colors for Building 2 would be consistent or compliment the materials and colors for Building 1. He said he understands that Building 2 would be articulated differently than Building 1, but he asked if the colors and materials would blend together. Mr. Boyer said the plan is to make the two buildings relate to each other, but have some differences. The brick base on Building 1 would also be used on Building 2. While they are considering some different material types, they could be tied to Building 1 by color. Chair Gootee emphasized that more colored renderings would be required for the Phase 2 review. Vice Chair Guenther pointed out that Main Street provides the main connection between the downtown and waterfront. He asked Mr. Boyer to describe the pedestrian amenities that would be included as part of the project. Mr. Boyer answered that the building would be stepped back from the sidewalk along Main Street to create a terraced, public outdoor seating area that includes a ramp for access. The goal is to keep the building related to the sidewalk grade coming down Main Street. Above the seating area, planters and lattice trellis would be provided outside the residential units to create a more inviting place for people to sit down and enjoy the light provided by the building's southwest orientation. The southwest corner of the building would extend out to the sidewalk, and as common in downtown Edmonds, tile would be used as a decorative element at the base below the windows. Glass and steel canopies would be provided along both the street facades to provide weather protection for pedestrians, as well. On 2nd Avenue North, the bulk of the building would extend out to the sidewalk, but a small open space would be provided at the northwest corner of the building to break up the facade and provide safety for vehicles exiting the loading area. Chair Gootee asked if the applicant anticipates the roof would remain clean as shown in the renderings or if roof -top pertinences would be added. Mr. Boyer said they do not anticipate a massive air system for the residential units, but there may be some vents located on the rooftop. He also anticipates a mushroom vent on the rooftop to accommodate the restaurant use. The equipment needed for the commercial space would be taken care of inside the building with no large equipment on the rooftop. Board Member Walker asked how the open space at the northwest corner would be used. Mr. Boyer said it is considered part of the 5% open space requirement, and the intent was to provide vegetation. The original design identified an entrance in this location when it was anticipated that a stair access would be required. As the City has now agreed to allow the stair entrance to come from Building 1, the plan is to put benches in the open space and make it a resting place for people to enjoy. Chair Gootee asked if the concrete wall proposed at the base of the east elevation along the alley has to be a solid wall. Mr. Boyer recalled that the applicant emphasized the need to be sensitive with the east elevation given that it is visible to people traveling down Main Street. To address this issue, he added articulation to the upper levels, and it appears the Board is interested in having some type of treatment on the lower wall, as well. Chair Gootee suggested that one option would be to continue the brick veneer around the corner. Board Member Borofka said his understanding is that the two below -grade parking areas in Buildings 1 and 2 would be connected and accessed via a single entry point. Mr. Boyer confirmed that is the intent and no additional curb cuts would be required. He explained that the residential parking would be located below -grade, and the City is not actually required to provide off-street parking for the commercial uses. The applicant has chosen to do so anyway. Richard Eadie, Edmonds, said he owns property directly across the alleyway from the subject property, and he has always known that the property would be redeveloped someday. He said he has every respect for the applicant's desire to develop the property to its highest and best use, but he is concerned about the new proposal to exceed the height limit to add a decorative element at the southwest corner. He said his property is also zoned BD-2, and a similar development to the subject proposal would be its highest and best use. His property is located at a slightly higher grade than the subject property, so he assumed he would be allowed to maintain at least some of his view potential after the proposed project is completed. The additional pop up would be a non-functional feature that is intended to add to the appearance of the building, but it could end up obstructing his view potential, which is a valuable amenity for his property. When Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 4 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 16 7.A.a considering this option, he asked the Board to keep his property in mind. The optional element may not be as benign as it sounds. Chair Gootee reminded the Board and the public that it is not within the Board's purview to consider view as part of a design review, and the height limit would be addressed as part of the building permit requirements. Mr. Clugston explained that the code allows a few exceptions to the height limit, one being for decorative, articulating elements. If the proposed feature meets the criteria outlined in the Code, it would be considered an allowed exception. Mr. Clugston explained that the process is ideally designed for a much more conceptual building design at this phase of the review. The fact that the applicant has a well -designed building based on what was done with Building 1 makes this review different than what is envisioned by the process outlined in the code. That being said, the Board should focus on the elements outlined in the Design Guidelines Checklist and give direction to the applicant to prepare for Phase 2 of the review. The Board reviewed the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 4) as follows: A. Site Planning 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics (N/A). The proposed building would be an improvement over the existing building, which is currently developed as a post office and parking lot. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics (N/A). The proposed building would improve the streetscape. 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street (Higher Priority). The proposal presented by the applicant enhances the design of the residential portion of the building. It is important to clearly distinguish the entrances to the building, and it appears the applicant has made this a priority. 4. Encourage human activity on the street (Higher Priority). The sidewalk along Main Street is one of the most heavily used in the City, and the applicant is making an effort to improve the pedestrian experience by providing a terraced seating area and by providing weather protection via the awnings. 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites (Higher Priority). The criterion requires that buildings respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings. The applicant has addressed this criterion by providing an internal courtyard area to contain the activities of the residential tenants so there would be minimal impact on adjacent properties. 6. Use space between buildings and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) (N/A). Although the building includes a residential element, the street level space would all be commercial. 7. Minimize open space opportunity on site (residential properties) (Higher Priority). The criterion requires that residential projects be sited to maximize opportunities for creating useable, attractive, well -integrated open space. The applicant is proposing an internal courtyard, as well as open space in the northwest corner on 2ad Avenue North to address the open space needs of the residents. 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining properties (Higher Priority). The applicant has worked with the Fire Marshall and planning staff to create an off-street parking solution that minimizes the impact on pedestrians and adjoining properties. 9. Discourage parking in street front (Lower Priority). There is already street parking available on 2nd Avenue North and Main Street, and the applicant is proposing to provide internal commercial parking, although not required. 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) (Higher Priority). The applicant has already given this criterion a high priority with the proposed parking garage and entrance. B. Bulk and Scale Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 5 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 17 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones (Higher Priority). The project is surrounded by similar -zoned parcels, as well as streets and alleyways. In addition, the terraced outdoor seating area at the southwest corner along Main Street will open up the view corridor from the east. C. Architectural Elements and Materials 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures (N/A). The proposal is to demolish the existing post office building, and the new Building 2 is intended to complement Building 1. 2. Unified architectural concept (Higher Priority). The Board was anxious to see colored renderings and material samples to learn how Building 2 would be consistent in character with Building 1. 3. Use human scale and human activity (Higher Priority). The proposed awnings along Main Street and 2" d Avenue West will provide weather protection for pedestrians. 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials (Higher Priority). The majority of the project adequately addresses this criterion, but more work is needed on the fenestration and detail of the alleyway wall. It was noted that this would be a gate front building for people traveling from the ferry and the detail of the building should express the quality of Edmonds. 5. Minimize garage entrances (Higher Priority). The applicant addressed this by using a single entrance for both Building 1 and Building 2 parking areas. D. Pedestrian Environment 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry (Higher Priority). The applicant has addressed this criterion well. 2. Avoid blank walls (Higher Priority). The applicant and architect have both indicated that the alleyway wall would be addressed as part of the Phase 2 submittal. 3. Minimize height of retaining walls (Higher Priority). The outdoor dining area would be terraced so it is not located in a hole. 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 (Higher Priority). 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas (Higher Priority). This is a concern of the applicant, who indicated that these building features would be well screened. 7. Consider personal safety (Higher Priority). The applicant has considered personal safety by providing the open space at the northwest corner to improve visibility for delivery vehicles using the loading area. Safety was also addressed when designing the entrances, and the applicant has indicated that sufficient lighting would be provided to avoid the creation of indefensible space. E. Landscaping 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood (N/A). The existing landscaping on site would be removed. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site (Higher Priority). It was noted that street trees would be required. There is a lot of pavement on the sloped side, and no landscaping has been proposed. The Board requested that the applicant provide a detailed landscape plan as part of the future submittal. 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions (N/A). Mr. Clugston reviewed that input provided by the Board would be summarized in the minutes and sent to the applicant. The applicant will make the appropriate changes and respond in a narrative and updated plans for the next phase of the public hearing. He recommended the Board continue the public hearing to a date certain, recognizing that it would take some time for the applicant and staff to prepare for the continued hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 6 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 18 Board Member Broadway said she would like the applicant to provide actual colored renderings and sample materials for both Buildings 1 and 2 so the Board can understand how the two buildings will be tied together. She would also like the applicant to provide a more detailed landscape plan, particularly for the open space at the northwest corner of the site and the required street trees. The plan could also identify planters and trellises. Chair Gootee said he would also like the applicant to provide a night rendering of the exterior lighting. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER PLN201500016 TO JULY 1, 2015. SHE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AT THE CONTINUED HEARING: • MATERIAL SAMPLES AND COLORED RENDERINGS FOR BOTH THE PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 BUILDINGS. • AN EVENING RENDERING TO ILLUSTRATE LIGHTING. • A MORE DEFINED LANDSCAPE PLAN TO ADDRESS STREET TREES AND TO ADDRESS THE OPEN SPACE PROPOSED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Boyer asked if it would be more helpful for the colored renderings to be provided on 24" x 36" sheets rather than on the overhead projector. The Board agreed that they preferred the renderings to be presented via PowerPoint. However, they asked that the smaller renderings provided in the Staff Report be colored. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. I: I 0 I I►I �I Y 7: \I ' 17:11 Kyl�l Y llu L.YTI : I Y�IiI.XY[17►A Mr. Clugston announced that the City is transitioning away from the use of paper, and they would like the Board Members to become more comfortable with electronic submittals. At some point, they will no longer receive large paper packets for each meeting. Mr. Clugston announced that Rick Schaefer is no longer a member of the Board, as he has completed the full two -terms allowed. He advised that staff would begin the process to fill the vacant position. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board Member Gootee thanked Rick Schaefer for his service as a member of the Architectural Design Board for the past eight years. The Board directed staff to contact the Mayor's Office to arrange an opportunity to recognize Mr. Schaefer for his service to the community. &"I I111T'71IU 1 D10" The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 20, 2015 Page 7 of 7 EX Packet Pg. 19 7.A.b needs to carefully review the information they receive and what they are being told by the staff. If there are issues, the Board's decisions should include very clear criteria to address them. Right now, his only option is to go to court, which will cost money. Chair Gootee commented that the Board will take Mr. Blomenkamp's comments under advisement. The Board does try to make their findings as clear as possible. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: Architectural Design Board review of the design of a new mixed - use building at 201 Main Street for Edmonds 2020 LLC (File Number PLN20150016) (Continued from May 20, 2015 Mr. Clugston reviewed that at their May 20th meeting, the Board took testimony on Phase 1 of the public hearing for a new building at the Post Office Site. They established the design checklist and set a date certain for Phase 2 of the public hearing, which was tonight. Unfortunately, the applicant has not turned in the materials required for the continued hearing. Mr. Clugston explained that, because the public hearing for the application is still open, the Board could invite members of the public to testify relative to the existing information. Following any public testimony, the Board could continue Phase 2 of the public hearing to a date certain. The applicant has indicated that the required materials will be submitted next week, and he requested that the hearing be continued to August 5, 2015. Doug Spee, Edmonds 2020 LLC, Edmonds, said he is the applicant for the proposed project. He reported that good progress has been made to prepare for the Phase 2 public hearing, but additional information is still being prepared. He reported that a landscape plan has been completed, and a civil plan is underway. They are also preparing a night rendering of the proposed project. As challenged by the Board, they have worked to address the blank, grey wall along the alley. One option is to cast various designs into the concrete, and another option is a 3D mural with an outdoor theme. He summarized that the floor plan has been polished more, and some of the smaller apartments were combined into larger units. However, the project still includes a spectrum of small to large units, with 12 on each floor. He believes the new plan is a better fit for clients who will rent long-term. He also noted that there will be ample parking for the project (residential and commercial) in the basement. Board Member Borofka asked if changing the civil engineer for the project will impact the colors and materials proposed for the building. Mr. Spee answered no. He explained that the project architect will not change, and the civil engineer will address such things as sewer and water hookups, etc. There will be no curb cuts or aprons. There will be a simple sidewalk on two sides of the property, with a connection on the third side and alley on the fourth side. He said the materials proposed by the architect are intended to provide more originality but be consistent with theme of the Phase 1 Building. Richard Eadie, Shoreline, said he owns a house on the other side of the alley from the subject property. He asked how he could become informed about whether the hearing will go forward in August or not. Mr. Clugston answered that notice of the continued hearing will be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on or about July 22rd (two weeks before the hearing). Mr. Edie indicated that he did not receive any of the previous notices, and Mr. Clugston agreed to ensure he is included in the next mailing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 1, 2015 Page 3 of 4 EX Packet Pg. 20 7.A.b VICE CHAIR GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE PHASE 2 PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER PLN20150016 BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 5, 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: Mr. Clugston invited Board Members to attend the Volunteer Appreciation Day Picnic on August 9th at 2:00 p.m. at City Park. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Clugston reported that the vacant Board positions have been advertised, but the City has not received any applications to date. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 1, 2015 Page 4 of 4 EX Packet Pg. 21 7.6 of FpM °�° Architectural Design Board 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 f��c. 1 890 SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING (ID # 1037) Meeting: 09/02/15 07:00 PM Department: Architectural Design Board Category: Public Hearing Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Initiator: Diane Cunningham Sponsors: DOC ID: 1037 Public Hearing on 303 Edmonds St - GBH Holdings, LLC Application for district -based design review of a new residential building on the western portion of the site and re -cladding of the existed mixed -use building on the eastern portion of the site. Updated: 8/21/2015 8:42 AM by Diane Cunningham Page 1 Packet Pg. 22 7.B.a g CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING Name of Applicant: GBH Holdings, LLC (rep. Steve Butterfield) Date of Application: 7/24/2015 Date of Completeness: 8/17/2015 Date of Notice: 8/19/2015 File Number: PLN20150036 Project Location: 303 & 311 Edmonds St., Edmonds, WA (Tax ID #: 00434202600102) Project Description: Application for district -based design review of a new residential building on the western portion of the site and re -cladding of the existing mixed - use building on the eastern portion of the site. District -based design review applications that require a SEPA determination are Type III-B decisions, which require a two-phase public hearing and decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The site is zoned Downtown Business (BD2). Requested Permit: District -Based Design Review. Information on this application can be viewed at the City of Edmonds Development Services Dept., 121— 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020 (office hours are Mon., Tues., Thurs., and Fri. from 8:00am to 4:30pm, closed on Wednesdays), or on the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov through the Online Permits link. Search for PLN20150036. Other Required Permits: Building permit. Required Studies: None at this time. Existing Environmental Studies: Critical Areas Checklist and Environmental Checklist. Comment Period: Comments due by September 2, 2015. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record pre -decision hearing, if any, or, if no open record pre -decision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: Phase 1 of a two-phase hearing process will be held by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on September 2, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at the Public Safety Complex, 250 — 51h Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020. The hearing will be continued to a date certain for Phase 2 at the conclusion of the Phase 1 hearing. City Contact: Jen Machuga, Associate Planner (425) 771-0220 Jen.Machuga@edmondswa.gov Packet Pg. 23