No preview available
2018-08-01 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Mike Clugston, Associate Planner Joe Herr, Vice Chair Karin Noyes, Recorder Lois Broadway Cary Guenther Joshua Shope Athene Tarrant Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2018 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR HERR SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER SHOPE MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR HERR 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. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Public Hearing on proposed Paradise Heights Condominiums for three. 4-unit multifamily residential buildings landscaping and associated site improvements. Site is located at 546 Paradise Lane (File No. PLN20180025 Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She reminded the Board of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication regarding the application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. She also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. She asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 1 of 11 indicated a concern. Lastly, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Members' participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Clugston presented the Staff Report for a 12-unit multifamily condominium project located at 546 Paradise Lane. He explained that, due to its location and because it requires a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination, general design review is required by the Architectural Design Board using the requirements in ECDC 20.11 for Type III-B permits. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to make a final decision on the application. He referred them to the Staff Report, which includes 15 Attachments. He noted that three additional attachments (public comments) were added to the record after the Staff Report was sent out. Mr. Clugston advised that the project site is located at the western end of the Westgate Corridor where SR-104 (Edmonds Way) descents into the bowl. The parcel is a peninsula surrounded on three sides by rights -of -way (Paradise Lane and SR-104). Immediately adjacent to the southeast are single-family (RS-6) zoned and developed properties. The larger area is a mix of single and multifamily residential development with commercial further to the southeast along Edmonds Way. The subject site is currently developed with a single-family home. The Board approved a similar project to the one being proposed in 2007, but it was never built. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that in order to approve the application, they must find that it is consistent with the General Design Review Criteria (ECDC 20.11.030), the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Regulations. He reviewed the Comprehensive Plan objectives applicable to multifamily development and explained how the application is consistent: Design Objectives for Site Design. The project is broken into three buildings to create more of a pedestrian scale when viewed from Paradise Lane, and the proposed landscaping will provide some visual buffer to the side of the site. Vehicular access will come from the southeast side of the property, using the existing curb cut, which would be brought up to standard. Frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) will be required on Paradise Lane adjacent to the development. In addition, the street in front of the subject site will be widened. The buildings will be located towards the street front, and parking will be located in the garages attached to each unit. Trash and recycling will be handled within each unit. • Design Objectives for Building Form. The applicant's intent is to reduce the apparent bulk and mass of the project by breaking it into three buildings. A mixture of materials, along with wall and roof modulation, will help reduce the apparent mass and create pedestrian scale, as well. • Design Objectives for Building Facade. Each fagade includes a variety of materials, window sizes, and articulation with roof overhangs and knee braces. Next, Mr. Clugston referred to the General Design Criteria found in ECDC 20.11.030 and explained how the project is consistent: Building Design. The intent of the building design criteria is to ensure that development is done at a human scale, with a variety of windows, screened mechanical equipment, etc. The applicant is proposing to use numerous windows and a variety of materials. No brilliant colors are proposed, and the applicant has advised that all mechanical equipment will be screened or located inside the buildings. A condition requiring this screening is proposed. Rather than one, large building, the 12 units will be contained in three separate buildings to create a more human -scale project. No signage is proposed at this time. If the applicant wishes to add signage at a later time, it will require a separate building permit. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 2 of 11 • Site Treatment. The subject site is a slightly elevated peninsula at the end of Paradise Lane. The buildings will be located in the center of the site, which is primarily flat, so the existing topography will be largely retained. Block walls will step the project down towards the end of the road at the northwest end of the site near the cul-de-sac. The landscaping proposed will provide a year-round buffer and interest. No exterior trash facilities are proposed. Wall sconces typical of residential development will be provided, but no exterior lighting is proposed. • Other Criteria. No street furniture is proposed, and the location of the mailbox has not been decided. It will likely be located somewhere within the Paradise Lane right-of-way. Mr. Clugston reviewed the development code standards applicable to multi -family residential development as follows: • Dwelling Units: The subject parcel is 0.69 acres. At 2,400 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, the maximum number of dwelling units would be 12, and that is what the applicant is proposing. • Height: The base height limit for the RM-2.4 zone is 25 feet, with an additional height of 5 feet allowed for projects that include a 4:12 or greater pitched roof. Each building would have a 4:12 roof, which allows a height of up to 30 feet. It appears the proposal will meet the height requirements. • Structural Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage allowed in the RM-2.4 zone is 45% or about 13,500 square feet for the subject parcel. The applicant is proposing a lot coverage of 41.5% or 12,441 square feet. • Setbacks. The subject parcel is irregularly shaped, and street setbacks (15 feet) will be measured from the property lines adjacent to the Paradise Lane and SR-104 rights -of -way. Side setbacks (10 feet) will be measured from the east and south property lines. It appears that the proposed project will meet all of the setback requirements. • Parking. The number of parking spaces required is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Based on staff s calculations, 23 parking spaces will be required, and the applicant is proposing to provide 24 spaces inside the garages of the 12 units. • Landscaping. For this particular site, a dense landscape buffer (Type 1) would be appropriate along the west and southwest sides of the site facing the busy SR-104 right-of-way. A mixed buffer (Type III) would be appropriate along the south and east sides of the project where it is adjacent to single family residential parcels. While there are specific requirements for each of the landscaping types, the Board may interpret and modify the requirements as long as the proposal is consistent with the purpose of the design review chapter (ECDC 20.10.000). Type I landscaping is shown adjacent to the SR-104 right-of-way along the southwest property line, but the landscaping shown on the west property line would not meet the Type 1 requirements. However, existing mature trees and vegetation within the right-of-way along those property lines meets or exceeds the Type I buffering required by code. While off -site landscaping does not typically satisfy buffering requirements for new projects, in this case, the Board could consider interpreting the code in the broader context since it appears that the purposes of the landscaping chapter would be meet. The Department of Transportation has no plans for this area, and the existing trees and lower -growing vegetation will continue to be maintained. Landscaping that meets the Type III criteria is shown along Paradise Lane and on the south and east sides of the project. Three existing fir trees will be retained and supplemented with new evergreen and deciduous trees, numerous shrubs and groundcovers along the property line in some location and closer to the buildings in others. A 4-foot fence with an arbor is also proposed along the south property line. This combination of vegetation and screening appears to meet the Type III requirements along the south, north and east sides of the site. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 3 of 11 • Vehicular Access. The current access will be improved to meet the current code requirements. No additional vehicular access has been proposed. In addition, Paradise Lane will be widened in front of the subject parcel to meet current code requirements, and curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be added, as well. Mr. Clugston summarized that a number of citizen comments were received prior to the meeting, and most voiced concern about parking, access, noise and tree loss. He acknowledged that some trees would be removed to accommodate the project and the site will change. However, the existing trees within the rights -of -way will remain and additional landscaping along Paradise Lane will improve the buffer. He also noted that the buildings will help reduce noise from SR- 104 to properties on the other side of Paradise Lane. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions and attachments contained in the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston recommended the Board find that the Paradise Heights Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Design Criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, and zoning regulations and approve the design with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. He explained that once the design has been approved, the project will be further analyzed as part of the Building and Engineering Permit process. Once permits have been approved, staff will do inspections to make sure that development matches up with the Development Permit Plans. Chair Strauss asked if the street improvements would extend to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Clugston answered that the City does not have the authority to require the developer to extend the street improvements beyond the boundaries of the subject site. Board Member Broadway asked if there is a fire hydrant on Paradise Lane. Mr. Clugston answered that there is a hydrant where Paradise Lane turns and heads north. The Fire Marshall is also requiring an on -site hydrant. Board Member Shope asked if parking is allowed along Paradise Lane. Mr. Clugston said he does not anticipate that "no parking" signs will be installed along Paradise Lane, but it is important to note that the roadway would be widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic, as well as some additional space along the side that could be used for parking. If the Engineering Department determines there is not adequate space for on -street parking, "no parking" signs could be installed. Vice Chair Herr asked if the buildings would have sprinklers, per the fire code, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Rob Michel, Michel Design, was present to represent the applicant. He referred to the elevation drawings and pointed out that the first floor of each of the buildings will cantilever out from the ground floor, which will be smaller. This will allow light into the project and make the buildings appear less massive. Because of the irregular shape of the lot, the applicant is proposing to reduce the lot coverage below what is allowed to minimize impacts to neighboring properties. He pointed out the rectangular areas near the access way, which are requirements of the Fire District and one reason why the access was designed as it was. The new fire hydrant will be located at the west end of Building B in a centralized location, and the Fire District is requiring connections to feed the fire suppression systems in all three buildings. Mr. Michel said the applicant had originally proposed a trash facility in the far -right corner of the site, but staff suggested that the existing fir trees be retained. The applicant agreed to handle trash collection inside each of the units. This area would also have been a good location for guest parking. However, because it is not required, the applicant has elected not to include it in the plan. Mr. Michel recalled that traffic concerns and the narrow width of Paradise Lane were prime concerns when the subject site was rezoned in 2006. However, at that time, Paradise Lane met the City's minimum width requirement of 16 feet for existing streets. Today, the required street standard (ECDC 18.90.030) in the multifamily residential zone is 22 feet, and the applicant is proposing to widen the street to meet that requirement. In addition to widening the street, the applicant will also be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalks along Paradise Lane. The sidewalk improvements will help improve safety for pedestrians. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 4 of 11 Board Member Tarrant noted that the north elevations of the buildings appear to be elevated to accommodate parking underneath. She asked if landscaping would be provided to screen the bottoms of these buildings. Mr. Michel answered that there will be a terraced rockery and the foundations of the buildings will be screened with landscaping. Board Member Broadway asked about the width of the required sidewalk, and Mr. Michel answered that a 7-foot wide sidewalk is required in multifamily residential zones, and that is what the applicant is currently proposing. However, the Engineering Department may require a 5-foot sidewalk to match the sidewalk that is a few lots to the south. Chair Strauss noted the stairs that lead from the sidewalk to the subject site and asked if the project would also provide ADA access in this location. Mr. Michel answered that there will be a ramp to provide ADA access. Board Member Walker said he anticipates the project will result in increased traffic at the corner of Paradise Lane and SR- 104. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that traffic impacts will be addressed through the collection of Traffic Impact Fees at the building permit phase. Board Member Shope asked if the applicant gave any thought to providing another access from the buildings to the sidewalk, such as between Buildings A and B, so pedestrians do not have to go all the way up the driveway to access the sidewalk. Mr. Clugston pointed out that there will be a walkway and stairway between Buildings B and C to go down to the sidewalk. Mr. Michel added that the access couldn't be moved further north because of the grade change. William Mezger, President of the Spinnaker Homeowner's Association, Edmonds, said he submitted written comments on behalf of the homeowner's association that were included in the Staff Report as part of Attachment 11. He voiced concern that Paradise Lane is inadequate to handle the 60% increase in traffic that will likely occur with a 60% increase in density. The roadway is only 18 feet wide, making it impossible for two vehicles to pass. He also voiced concern about construction disruptions while the project is being built. The neighborhood residents anticipate there will be a large number of trucks accessing the site during construction, and the only access to the western portion of the site is via Paradise Lane. He is concerned that current residents will be unable to access their homes. He noted that during the recent construction of one unit in the cul-de-sac, some construction vehicles had to trespass onto the Spinnaker Condominium Property in order to maneuver the street. They are also concerned about access for delivery trucks, waste disposal trucks, etc. Mr. Mezger pointed out that Paradise Lane serves as a trailhead for the walking and bicycle path to downtown Edmonds, and pedestrian often have to walk on Paradise Lane in order to access the trail. When accessing the condominiums, drivers have to pull to the opposite side of the road to allow toddlers and parents to safety walk to and from the trail entrance. He hopes the required sidewalk will be sufficient to address this safety concern. The average household size in Edmonds is 2.3 people and there are 8.7 vehicles for every ten people in Washington State. Based on these statistics, the 24 parking spaces proposed by the applicant would be insufficient to meet the needs of the anticipated residents. No guest parking has been proposed by the applicant. The amount of parking along Paradise Lane is already severely restricted by the density and narrow road, and he anticipates the proposed new project will make it even worse because many of the occupants will have more than two cars. It is likely that visitors and even residents of the units will have to park on Paradise Lane where there is already limited space. He hopes that widening the roadway will provide additional area for visitor parking. Lastly, Mr. Mezger said he is concerned about the environmental impact of removing the mature trees and foliage from the subject site. Edmonds Way is an extremely busy roadway, particularly when a ferry lands. The removal of mature trees will increase the noise level in the neighborhood. The removal of foliage will also expose neighbors to the back side of the proposed complex. He shared his experience with another property near Interstate 5 where noise significantly increased when the trees between the residential homes and the freeway were removed. Mr. Mezger concluded that the neighbors would have loved to meet with the developer in an informal setting to discuss their concerns. They understand that infill development is inevitable, but they want to make sure it is done correctly. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Lonnie Kopp, Edmonds, said he was also present to represent the Spinnaker Homeowner's Association. His main concern about the project is related to the removal of trees and other vegetation. He pointed out that the trees along SR- 104 are deciduous, and most of the old growth trees are located along Paradise Lane. Many of the trees along Paradise Lane will have to be removed to accommodate the wider road, a 7-foot sidewalk, and other street improvements. Removal of these trees will increase noise pollution from SR-104. He summarized that traffic, density and parking in the immediate area surrounding the subject site will get significantly worse, and visitor and resident parking will be permanently compromised. Unfortunately, it will be the existing residents who will suffer the most. Toni Sillicio-Prevasak, Edmonds, said she lives across the street from the subject site and agrees with the concerns raised by Mr. Kopp and Mr. Mezger. One of her big concerns is that emergency vehicles will not have adequate access to the existing properties during construction of the new project because large construction vehicles will be blocking the roadway. She is also concerned about noise and air pollution, noting that it is already quite loud as a result of the ferry lane that operates 16 hours a day. The fumes from the cars that are left idling wafts into the neighborhood, and the problem will increase if trees are removed. She questioned why the trees have to be removed and replaced with shrubbery. She pointed out that a lot of the vegetation that was supposed to be planted at Point Edwards still remains in containers. She asked if developers have to pay a fee to remove a significant tree. Removing the vegetation can cause drainage problems. In addition, all of the large trucks associated with construction will end up blocking Paradise Lane, making it difficult for the current residents to get in and out of their neighborhood. She voiced concern that guest parking is already a problem in the neighborhood, adding 12 new units with only 24 parking spaces will make the problem worse. Nancy Wienstroth, Edmonds, asked if the applicant would be required to widen the roadway all the way up to the bank or just to the point where Paradise Lane turns into the cul-de-sac. She also asked if the sidewalks would end at the property line, too. She pointed out that, currently, the roadway is not wide enough for two cars to pass each other, and one has to go off the road to let the other go through first. She also pointed out that the ferry traffic is already quite loud, and removing the evergreen trees will definitely increase the noise pollution. She suggested that the Board Members drive down Paradise Lane to notice the unevenness of the street. She said she is also concerned about the ability of the current residents to get to work on time given the turmoil and congestion that will come with construction. Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant will be required to submit a plan for how traffic will be managed during construction. Typically, for a project of this size, there would be flaggers at each end of the street to make sure traffic can get through. Mr. Clugston said the applicant will be required to meet all engineering and zoning codes, which include landscaping. He agreed that trees will be removed from the site to accommodate construction, but Type III landscaping will be provided on Paradise Lane between the sidewalk and proposed new buildings. This landscaping will include evergreen shrubs at a variety of heights, as well as ground cover. The intent is that, eventually, the buildings will be buffered from the street. Chair Strauss asked about the boundaries of the required road and street improvements, and Mr. Clugston answered that they will extend to the edges of the property lines. Again, he reminded the Board that there is nothing in the code that allows the City to require the developer to extend the road and street improvements along the entire length of Paradise Lane. He noted that a recent development east of the subject parcel resulted in street improvements, as well. He advised that no road or sidewalk projects are identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan or Capital Facilities Program for Paradise Lane. However, as properties are redeveloped, frontage improvements will be required. Mr. Michel advised that, even though it is not required, the applicant is proposing to provide a strip of land where the sidewalk will eventually be located to use for construction parking. He emphasized that no construction parking will be allowed on the existing asphalt or concrete, but there will be plenty of space for construction vehicles to park along the front of the subject site. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that developers are required to pay substantial fees into a fund for traffic and sidewalk mitigation, and there are other groups in the City that have control over how this money is spent. He suggested that concerned citizens should contact these groups to voice their concerns about Paradise Lane. Board Member Shope asked if the applicant will be required to pay a fee to remove the trees on the north side of the subject site. Mr. Michel said that used to be the case, but the code was changed a few years ago. Now there are landscape requirements that must be met. Board Member Shope asked if City code requires developers to save trees above a certain size. Mr. Michel responded that there is criterion, which was considered by the Planning Division staff when reviewing the application. Vice Chair Herr pointed out that all of the trees along the property line that are slated for removal are on City right-of-way. If the neighborhood wants the street to be widened, it will require tree removal. The developer is not removing the trees to accommodate the buildings. He is doing it at the behest of the City to put in sidewalks, widen the road and provide landscaping along the front of the property. Chair Strauss asked Mr. Clugston to remind the Board on what they are being asked to rule on. Mr. Clugston said the Board is being asked to make findings that the project does or does not meet the objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, the design criteria in ECDC 20.11.030 and the zoning regulations. Staff has recommended approval, with a number of conditions. If the Board determines that the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, they can either add more conditions or deny the application. If they deny the proposal, they need to provide specific reasons and references to support their decision. Board Member Tarrant said she understands the neighborhood concerns, but the Board has a limited scope of responsibility. Most of the concerns are related to zoning matters rather than design. The subject site was rezoned in 2006, and that is when all of the concerns and issues would have been addressed. Chair Strauss closed the public portion of the hearing and returned to the Board for deliberations. Board Member Tarrant asked staff to explain the procedures for notifying the public when zoning changes are proposed. Oftentimes, when people receive notice of a proposed rezone, they do not realize the implications the change could have on their neighborhood. She suggested the City review the notice procedures and identify ways to better communicate with the citizens in the future. Mr. Clugston explained that the code outlines the process for notifying the public whenever a proposal comes forward that requires a public hearing. A mailing is sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, and a notice is also posted on the site. In addition, notice of the hearing is posted in the local newspapers, in various public buildings throughout the City, and on the City's website. In the case of a rezone application, notice would be given twice: once for the Planning Board hearing, and again for the City Council hearing. Board Member Shope asked if the posted notices provide sufficient details to inform the public of the proposed action. Mr. Clugston answered that the notices provide narrative language to describe what is being proposed and directs people to other information and references. Board Member Guenther said he was a member of the Planning Board in 2006 when the property was rezoned. He voiced concern that people tend to be reactive rather than proactive and only comment on sensitive proposals. The concerns voiced by citizens in 2006 were also about the narrow street and potential increases in traffic. Both of these issues will be addressed as the project moves forward to the Engineering and Development Permit stage. Board Member Broadway commented that, based on the project's location abutting a row of dense vegetation along SR- 104, it will be a wooded development and the areas between the buildings will be quite dark. She suggested that more on - site lighting would be appropriate in addition to the individual sconces on each of the units. However, she emphasized that she does not want the lighting to spill out onto neighboring properties. Board Member Shope agreed that the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 7 of 11 development, as proposed, would be very dark. He suggested that the developer consider a variety of colors to lighten it up. Chair Strauss agreed and asked about the materials the applicant is proposing. Mr. Clugston referred the Board to the lighting plan on Page 46 of the Staff Report, which identifies where the light sconces will be located. He also advised that the applicant did not identify building materials and specific colors as part of the application. Vice Chair Herr noted that the proposed lighting meets the code requirement. He reminded them that it is not desirable to have bright lighting that spills out onto adjacent properties. He said he drove through the neighborhood prior to the meeting and took note of the large trees that currently exist within the right-of-way along SR-104. Board Member Broadway said she also visited the site and likes the monochromatic design of the buildings, which blend into the forest as its backdrop. However, she is concerned that there will be insufficient lighting along the driveway, sidewalks, and pathways between the buildings. With the attractiveness of the dark buildings against the dark trees, the residents living in the buildings might appreciate some additional on -site lighting. Board Member Walker commented that it appears the proposed landscaping meets code. He agreed with Board Member Broadway that the monochromatic color of the building blends in well with the forested background. Chair Strauss asked if the Fire Marshall has reviewed the application for compliance, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. He noted that the Fire Marshall's comments can be found on Pages 115 and 116 of the Staff Report. Vice Chair Herr emphasized the Board's purview is to decide on whether or not the project meets all of the code requirements and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Their personal and emotional feelings relative to the proposal should not enter into their decision. Board Member Broadway suggested an additional condition of approval that the applicant consider some low-level lighting for pedestrian circulation on site. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the only street light is across the street and north of the driveway. VICE CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THE PARADISE HEIGHTS PROPOSAL (FILE NO. PLN20180025) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030 AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AN UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 23.80 IS REQUIRED AT BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. 2. RETAINED TREES MUST BE PROTECTED DURING DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 18.45.050.H. 3. THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON SHEET Ll OF ATTACHMENT 5 MEETS THE INTENT OF CHAPTER 20.13 OF THE ECDC. 4. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW AT STREET LEVEL OR INSIDE THE BUILDING. 5. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. 6. THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE LOW-LEVEL, PEDESTRIAN -ORIENTED SITE LIGHTING (I.E. BOLLARDS) AT WALKWAYS AND STAIRWAYS. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 8 of 11 BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): Edmonds-Woodwav High School Svnthetic Turf Conversion Mike Clugston presented the Staff Report for Edmonds School District's proposal to upgrade the existing baseball and soccer fields along with the tennis courts at Edmonds Woodway High School. Phase I of the proposed project includes the relocation of a storage building and three storage containers north of the baseball field, relocation of the javelin and discus areas, a new synthetic turf multi -purpose baseball field that can accommodate both football and soccer practices, bullpens and lighting. Four new tennis courts are proposed east of the baseball field, along with three batting cages south of the tennis courts. A portion of the two tennis courts directly north of the baseball field and one tennis court to the east will be demolished to accommodate the improvements. If additional funding becomes available, Phase H of the project would include the installation of an unlighted natural turf football and soccer field west of the proposed baseball field, but separate land use and building permits would be required for this additional work. Mr. Clugston explained that because the school site is zoned Public, the Architectural Design Board must review the design of the proposed improvements. However, the applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the baseball field lighting, as well as the baseball backstop, fencing and light poles at the tennis courts, which extend beyond the 25- foot height limit. In addition, the applicant is requesting two variances, one for increased height for the baseball field light poles that will be taller than 60 feet and another for a reduced setback to accommodate the covered batting cage structure near 216'. Because this a consolidated review involving variances, the decision -making process in ECDC 17.00.030.0 is used. The Board first holds a public meeting (no public comment) and makes a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will then hold a public hearing on the design and three associated land use permits and, rather than issuing a decision, will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will conduct a closed -record review of the record established by the Hearing Examiner and issue the final decision on all four permits. Mr. Clugston shared some before and after pictures to compare the existing development on the subject site with the proposed new development. He reviewed that in order to recommend approval of the design, the Board must find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the design criteria of ECDC 20.11.030 and the zoning regulations. He advised that the athletic fields are described in the Edmonds-Woodway High School Master Plan that was adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1994, and the proposed changes are consistent with this plan. Next, he reviewed the design criteria the Board must consider when reviewing the application: Building Design. The only building proposed is the batting cage at the southeast corner of the site. It is proposed to be a simple building with steel siding, CMU wainscoting with a netted interior structure, and roll -up doors on the east fagade. The Board may want to discuss how the proposed color of the batting cage structure does not match the red brick of the school building. The covered dugout will have a chain link perimeter fence and netting, with a galvanized roof. The backstop fencing will have a black vinyl coating, and the netting will be black, as well. The proposed height for the backstop is 40 feet. The fence along the side of the field will have a black vinyl coating, as well. Small metal bleachers are also part of the proposal. As per the lighting plan, the LED lighting will be directed down onto the playing field and tennis courts so very little will directly spill off site. The additional lighting will create a glow at night similar to the existing football field, but it will not be directed at any adjacent residential properties. Site Treatment. A fair amount of grading will be required to elevate the baseball field about six feet above the existing grade as seen from the sidewalk along 216' Street. The landscaping proposed will provide year-round interest. While the grass baseball field will become artificial turf, the existing landscaping east of the batting cage and tennis courts will remain. Type III landscaping will be required along the 216' Street frontage to buffer the field and batting cage. While the exact tree species mix requirement for Type III is not met by the proposal, the mix of deciduous Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 9 of 11 and evergreen trees shown in the landscape plan meets the intent of the screening criteria. The ball control fencing, batting cages and light structures will all still be visible from the street, but their appearance will be softened by the proposed vegetation. The batting cage will be screened by a row of arborvitae. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions and attachments in the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston suggested the Board recommend approval of the design of the proposed Edmonds-Woodway High School Synthetic Field Conversion Project with the condition outlined in the Staff Report. Bob Harding, Principle Landscape Architect with DA Hogan and Associates, and Nick Chou, Edmonds School District Project Facilities Manager, were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Harding said the proposal is to restructure and update the baseball field in its existing location. He noted the field's odd dimension and explained how the fence lines would be adjusted. He said, overall, the upgraded facility would be similar to other facilities in the school district. The baseball field would be constructed to accommodate soccer and football practice when baseball is not in season. The field would be completely fenced with a combination of chain link fencing and ball -control netting at a height of 50 feet along the backstop and north side adjacent to the track and field facility. Mr. Harding said portions of two tennis courts would be removed and two new tennis courts would be built. In total, there would be six tennis courts. He noted that the tennis courts would be open for public use when not being used by the school district, and there is a parking lot adjacent to the courts. Mr. Harding said three batting cages would be constructed as part of the project. Two would be basic net structures that are 80 feet long, 14 feet wide and 12 feet tall. The third batting cage would be a structure, similar to those built at adjacent school districts. It would be about 100 feet long, with a building at one end for storage. The batting cage area would be 80 feet long, 14 feet wide and 12 feet tall. Rather than being completely enclosed, the intent is to have an open structure so that coaches can see in and talk to the players who are using the batting cage. The only enclosed portion of the structure will be the 20-foot storage area at the end. As per the code, no brilliant colors have been proposed. The batting cage structure color would be more muted, but the wainscoting or metal siding could pick up the red color in the brick on the school in the wainscoting or metal siding. Mr. Harding advised that a fair amount of grading will be required, as the current field has a grade change of about 7 feet between home plate and the outfield. The fence and structures will be pulled away from the right of way to meet the 20- foot setback requirement. Landscaping around the current field is nonexistent, similar to the situation that exists on the north side of the property where there is grass and just one or two trees along the length of the softball field. The proposed landscape plan meets the intent of the Type III landscape requirement. Mr. Harding said the proposed new light poles would be consistent with the other light fixtures on site, metal poles with concrete foundations and a series of LED fixtures. The new LED fixtures are very efficient in terms of adding lighting without spilling onto adjacent properties. Board Member Broadway asked if the tennis courts would remain at the higher level. Mr. Harding answered that the tennis courts would follow the contour of the parking lot. They will be stepped down towards the lower elevations to the south. Board Member Walker asked if the doors on the eastside of the batting cage structure would accommodate large trucks. Mr. Harding said the space would be used to store small utility vehicles that are needed to maintain the site. Board Member Walker asked if the fir tree at the corner in this location would remain, and Mr. Harding said that is the intent. Board Member Walker suggested the applicant consider doing more landscaping where the existing strip of landscaping separates the parking island and the fagade of the new batting facility. Mr. Harding said the intent was to leave the area open to provide clear access and make the site more defensible. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 10 of 11 Board Member Tarrant said she doesn't mind the utilitarian design of the batting structure. She prefers the current design rather than making it relate to the design of the school. She suggested the batting structure would be a wonderful location to have a student contest to design something more playful for the exterior. On the other hand, Board Member Broadway said she likes the idea of matching the color of the brick on the school. Board Member Walker noted that no shrubbery or groundcover has been proposed on the south side where Type III landscaping is required. Mr. Harding said the intent was to make the area not only easy to maintain, but consistent with the landscaping in other locations on campus. There are only three trees along the entire length of the softball field, and the grass in this location is mowed and maintained. They are trying to meet the intent of the Type III landscaping requirements by providing trees, but still have low maintenance grass that is erosion proof. Board Member Walker asked if the sloped area could accommodate a lawn mower, and Mr. Harding answered affirmatively. Board Member Walker said he understands the district's desire to have the site defensible and open, but he felt it would be appropriate to include some shrubbery to break up the batting facility wall. Mr. Harding suggested that rather than requiring specific species, the Board could add a condition that additional screening be added. BOARD MEMBER WALKER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT IN FILE NO. PLN20180014; FIND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND RECOMMEND THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL SYNTHETIC TURF CONVERSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON SHEET F-1.6 OF ATTACHMENT 9 MEETS THE INTENT OF THE TYPE III LANDSCAPING CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.13. 2. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING SHALL BE ADDED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BATTING CAGE FACILITY. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Mr. Clugston recalled that, last December, the Architectural Design Board met jointly with the Planning Board to discuss their future roles and responsibilities. Based on that discussion, staff will prepare some options for the Board to consider at their October 3'd meeting. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: The Board discussed that they would like staff to send them a personal email to notify and/or remind them of meetings and to provide links to the agenda and packet materials. The Board also discussed the materials that are required to be submitted for design review. Mr. Clugston said there is a handout that identifies the required elements. Board Member Guenther said it important that the materials presented to the Board for review are consistent and complete so the Board can make a fair and equal judgement on each application. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 1, 2018 Page 11 of 11