Loading...
adb100804f excerpt.pdf Board Member Gootee observed that this is a difficult site, and he supports the directional sign in the location proposed, particularly since the Board does not have a specific recommendation as to a better location. Chair Kendall agreed and suggested it would be inappropriate to postpone approval until the applicant could come up with an alternative location. Board Member Broadway asked if the sign is intended to provide direction to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Roberts answered affirmatively. That being the case, Board Member Broadway observed that, as proposed, the lettering on the sign would not be visible to vehicular traffic that travels by the site at 20 miles per hour. If it is intended to serve drivers when they get out of their cars, a better location would be in the rooftop parking area. Board Member Gootee pointed out that the sign could not be made larger because of current City codes that limit size. VICE CHAIR SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVE FILE NUMBER PLN20100045 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN A SIGN PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNS FROM THE BUILDING DIVISION. 2.A SEPARATE STREET USE PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE ENGINEERING DIVISION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED BUSINESS DIRECTORY SIGN. 3.A SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY VEHICLES OR STAGING OCCUPYING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 4.CATCH BASINS IN THE VICINITY OF AND DOWNSTREAM OF THE SUBJECT SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM POSSIBLE PAINT RUNOFF. ANY RUNOFF FROM PAINTING OPERATIONS WITH RELEASE OF CONTAMINIATED WATER INTO THE STORM SYSTEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLICIT DISCHARGE AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO FINES OF UP TO $500/ DAY. 5.SUGGEST THE APPLICANT RECONSIDER THE DIRECTORY SIGN’S LOCATION. BOARD MEMBER MESTRES SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. File Number PLN20100045: Application by Grace Architects for new storefronts, awnings and planters at the th Upper Dayton portion of Old Milltown at 201 – 5 Avenue South (BD-1 Zone) Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is proposing to create three individual storefronts at the Upper Dayton portion of Old Milltown by installing new aluminum storefronts, awnings and planters while improving the sidewalk and drainage (see Attachment 1). He referred to Attachment 2, which is a current photograph of the Upper Dayton storefronts, and Attachment 3, which is a rendering showing the proposed updated look. He noted that the colors are proposed to match th those used on the portion of Old Milltown at the corner of 5 and Dayton. He also referred to Attachment 4, which is a plan view of the Upper Dayton storefronts and a general site plan. Attachment 5 includes elevations along the Dayton and Upper Dayton lengths of Old Milltown. Mr. Clugston explained that because the property is located within the BD-1 zone, the proposal must meet specific site development standards. He reviewed that ECDC 16.43.030.Brequires that the ground floor must be designated commercial storefront for the first 30 feet of the parcel. It states that the building may be broken up into multiple frontages so that each entry/ground floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk and that the existing building may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height as long as the addition or remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25 percent. It requires that each commercial space located on the ground floor within the designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk. Mr. Clugston advised that there is no indication in the application as to whether the ground floor commercial space requirement would be met, but specific uses would be verified through review of a business license or building permit. He said the applicant is proposing to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes August 4, 2010 Page 4 of 9 create three storefronts that appear to be at sidewalk level, and each store front would have an individual entry. No additional square footage is proposed. Mr. Clugston advised that several BD-1 zone design standards must also be met. He reviewed each of the applicable design standards as follows: ECDC 22.43.040 requires that ground floor facades incorporate five elements that provide visual interest as identified in Section B. The current proposal includes bulkheads, transom or clerestory windows and planter boxes. While awnings are included in the design, they are a required element and would not count as a ground level detail. The applicant must provide two additional ground level details, which could include hanging baskets, decorative lighting, tile work, medallions or a similar element as approved by the ADB to meet the intent of the code. ECDC 22.43.040 requires that awnings and canopies be open-sided to enhance visibility of business signage. It also requires that they be consistent in character, scale and position. The awnings shown in Attachment 3 are closed- sided and cannot be approved. Similarly shaped standard awnings without returns would be acceptable, as would th those that are on the façade of Old Milltown at 5 and Dayton. The proposed awnings would use the same wine th color as those at the corner of 5 and Dayton, as well. ECDC 22.43.050 requires that ground level facades of buildings that are oriented to streets must have transparent windows with a minimum 75 percent transparency between an average of 2 and 10 feet above ground. The proposed storefronts appear to satisfy the requirement. Mr. Clugston advised that because the proposal is consistent with the applicable zoning code requirements and the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends the Board approve the proposed storefronts, awnings and planters with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Board Member Gootee expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent a significant improvement over what currently exists, as long as all engineering and Development Code requirements can be met. Kaylon Roberts, Grace Architects, Seattle, was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the proposal is for new aluminum storefronts in the three openings of the Upper Dayton portion of Old Milltown. Along with that, canvas box-framed awnings would be added to the storefronts. The Lower Dayton portion of the storefronts would have concrete bulkheads under the windows. Space would be provided to accommodate double doors at some point in the future, but single doors would be installed at this time with a panel of infill glass. Mr. Roberts advised that the awnings would be open on the side to meet the requirement found in ECDC 22.43.040. In addition, rosettes, similar to those on the lower portion of Old Milltown, would be added on each of the concrete bulkhead sections, and these would qualify as one of the five required architectural elements. They also propose two wall-mounted light fixtures between the three storefronts as another architectural element. He summarized that their goal is to bring the storefronts to the level and character of Old Milltown proper. Vice Chair Schaefer agreed that the proposed rosettes and lighting would tie this section of the building to the anchor building. At the request of Board Member Gootee, Mr. Roberts provided a colored rendering showing the additional architectural elements, the proposed color of the storefronts, and the open-ended awnings. Vice Chair Schaefer pointed out potential issues associated with the meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements given the slope of the sidewalk. Mr. Roberts said the applicant intends to meet ADA and other engineering requirements. BOARD MEMBER MESTRES MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVE FILE NUMBER PLN20100046 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes August 4, 2010 Page 5 of 9 THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED REMODEL. TWO ADDITIONAL GROUND LEVEL DETAILS (FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE) MUST BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO ECDC 22.43.030. THE AWNINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ECDC 22.43.020. THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF TO ENSURE THAT CODE-COMPLIANT AWNINGS ARE SELECTED AT BUILDING PERMIT. ANY FUTURE SIGNAGE FOR THE UPPER DAYTON STOREFRONTS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN ECDC 22.43.040.b(8) – (13) AS WELL AS ECDC 20.60. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE USE OF THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STAGING AND MATERIALS. SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY TO USE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DURING THE PROJECT, A SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED. BOARD MEMBER GOOTEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: File Number PLN20100044: Public hearing on Interurban Trail. The City of Edmonds is proposing to construct a 1.37 mile paved recreational trail that will connect the Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Everett Interurban Trails to the north with the Shoreline Interurban Trail to the south. A portion of the project includes the th construction of Ballinger Station Plaza on the east side of 76 Avenue West along McAleer Way that will include a cement plaza, steel shelter, kiosk, water fountain and trash receptacle. th Mr. Lien advised that the proposed trail would extend from the east edge of Mathay Ballinger Park northward along 74 thth Avenue West to 228 Street Southwest. An additional trail section would extend north from 244 Street Southwest to intersect with the main trail improvement section at McAleer Way (See Attachment 9). He said State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review was required for the Interurban Trail Project, which triggers the requirement for a public hearing before the Architectural Design Board. However, apart from the trail itself, the only real improvements for the th Board to review are those at the intersection of 76 Avenue West and McAleer Way known as the Ballinger Station Plaza. No other landscaping or street furniture is proposed for other reaches of the Interurban Trail within the City of Edmonds. He explained that, as proposed, the Ballinger Station Plaza would include a shelter with a bench and historical interpretive panels, information kiosk, drinking fountain, lighted bollards, and associated landscaping. Basket- th weave paving is proposed for the plaza and the associated 76 Avenue West crossing. He noted that the bollards are th intended to protect the existing driveways that serve the residents along 74 Avenue West. He provided a drawing to illustrate what the proposed project would look like. Mr. Lien explained that the Ballinger Station site is located completely within the City of Edmonds right-of-way and the City does not have landscaping regulations that apply to City projects within the right-of-way. The closest landscaping regulations from ECDC 20.13 is Type III, which is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. It calls for evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous. The trees must be a minimum six feet in height and be planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center. He referred to Attachment 3, which illustrates the proposed landscaping for Ballinger Station. It appears to approximate Type III Landscaping, with the exception that no evergreens have been proposed. He noted that general design review site treatment guidelines states that landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result and that all screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. In addition, the objective of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Element for landscape buffers is to create a visual barrier between different uses and maintain privacy of single-family residential uses. He expressed staff’s belief that planting only deciduous trees may result in insufficient screening in the winter. If 50 percent were evergreen, a year-round buffer would be provided. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes August 4, 2010 Page 6 of 9