Loading...
ADB170503_Synopsis.pdf CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Chair Walker called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, th 250 - 5 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Tom Walker, Chair Brian Borofka Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Joe Herr Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Cary Guenther Karin Noyes, Recorder Lois Broadway Athene Tarrant APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER TARRANT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2017 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 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: WESTGATE VILLAGE MIXED-USE BUILDING AT 10032 EDMONDS WAY (FILE NUMBER PLN20160054) Chair Walker reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules and invited members of the Board to disclose any conversations they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the public process. None were noted. He asked Board Members to identify any conflicts of interest that would render them unable to consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None were noted. He also if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members participating as decision makers in the hearing, and no one stepped forward. Lastly, he asked that everyone who wanted to testify during the hearing stand and be sworn in. Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 1 of 7 Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report. Chris Davidson and Alexandra Zomba from Studio Meng Strazzara and Forrest Jammer from Thomas Rengstorf & Associates were present to represent the applicant. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE DESIGN, AS PRESENTED AND WITH THE COMMENTS, SO LONG AS THERE ARE NO ROOF LINE CHANGES, IS SUBJECT TO THE REMAINING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 22.110 AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED WESTGATE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT UNDER FILE NUMBER PLN20160054 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A PARKING AGREEMENT FOR SHARED PARKING WITHIN THE WESTGATE VILLAGE SITE SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY. SUCH AGREEMENT MUST BE RECORDED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED FOR THE BUILDING. 2. LEED SILVER OR BUILT GREEN 4-5 RATING MUST BE CONFIRMED THROUGH THIRD-PARTY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WHO WILL SELECT THE CONSULTANT TO VERIFY THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO THE IDENTIFIED LEED OR BUILT GREEN STANDARD. 3. GREEN FACTOR CERTIFICATION MUST BE CONFIRMED THROUGH THIRD-PARTY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WHO WILL SELECT THE CONSULTANT TO VERIFY THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO THE IDENTIFIED GREEN FACTOR SCORE. 4. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, A COVENANT WITH AND IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS OFFICE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY AREA WITHIN PARCEL NUMBERS 00610700200600, 00610700200601, 00610700200701 AND 00610700200702 LEFT OUT OF CALCULATIONS FOR THE AMENITY AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL MUST ULTIMATELY BE INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS FOR AMENITY AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PHASES ON PARCELS 00160700200803 AND 00610700201001. 5. AN EASEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR THE PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE EIGHT- FOOT SIDEWALK WIDTH REQUIREMENT. 6. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MUST BE COMPLETED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE AREA CONTAINING THE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING THE LOT Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 2 of 7 LINE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE USED IN DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN SPACE AND AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 22.110. 7. THE GROUND LEVEL FACADES OF BUILDINGS THAT FACE A STREET FRONT SHALL HAVE TRANSPARENT WINDOWS COVERING A MINIMUM OF 40 PERCENT OF THE GROUND FLOOR FAÇADE THAT LIES BETWEEN AN AVERAGE OF TWO FEET AND 10 FEET ABOVE GRADE. TO QUALIFY AS TRANSPARENT, WINDOWS SHALL NOT BE MIRRORED OR CONSIST OF DARKLY TINTED GLASS OR PROHIBIT VISIBILITY BETWEEN THE STREET AND INTERIOR. 8. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING. 9. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEKING AND OBTAINING ALL OTHER REQUIERD LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS. 10. A DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING APPLICABLE CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE AMENITY SPACE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MAINTENANCE, PUBLIC ACCESS AND HOURS OF OPERATION, SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY, 11. THE APPLICANT SHALL PURCHASE ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL WORKS OF ART TO BE PERMANENTLY DISPLAYED IN A REASONABLY-ACCESSIBLE AREA OF THE EXTERIOR PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE. THE ART WORK SHALL HAVE A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF NO LESS THAN 1% OF TOTAL BUILDING VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING VALUATION DATA, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL ON FILE WITH THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL. FINAL SELECTION OF ART WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION. 12. THE FIVE PARKING SPACES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SHALL BE ELIMINATED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MANEUVERABILITY FOR SERVICE VEHICLES. 13. THE ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDINGS SHOULD STAND OUT MORE AND THAT CAN HAPPEN PRIMARILY WITH COLOR OR MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE FAÇADE. IF THE CHANGES RESULT IN A STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO THE ROOF LINE, THE PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD ONE MORE CONDITION TO READ: 14. THE APPLICANT WILL RE-EVALUATE THE PROPOSED COLOR PALLET AND ADJUST SUCH THAT THERE ARE GREATER PROPORTIONS OF A LIGHTER PART OF THE PALLET USED IN THE PROJECT. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 3-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS TARRANT AND WALKER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 3 of 7 THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The Board took a five-minute break at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE 1 DISTRICT BASED DESIGN REVIEW FOR GRAPHITE ART STUDIOS AT 202 MAIN STREET (FILE NUMBER PLN20170016) Chair Walker reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules and invited members of the Board to disclose any conversations they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the public process. None were noted. He asked Board Members to identify any conflicts of interest that would render them unable to consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None were noted. He also if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members participating as decision makers in the hearing, and no one stepped forward. Lastly, he asked that everyone who wanted to testify during the hearing stand and be sworn in. Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report, and Mary Olsen, Property Owner and Scott Miller, Architect, GeoDimensions, were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Lien advised that the City received one comment letter prior to the hearing from Brian Mull, suggesting that the Marvel Marble Building be retained and refurbished. During the public hearing, the Board received testimony from Tam Axtell, Edmonds; Kim Fiene, Edmonds; Diane Ellis, Edmonds; Krystal Lanning, Edmonds; Julie Green, Edmonds; and Deloris Hogland, Edmonds. All speakers indicated support for the proposed project. Checklist and made the following findings: A. Site Planning 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics Low Mr. Lien pointed out that this item refers to the Priority topography, environmental constraints, solar orientation, etc. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics High Board Member Broadway pointed out that there Priority are existing trees, and she would like them to remain. Mr. Lien advised that there would be street frontage improvements that include sidewalks and new street trees. Although the existing ones might not remain, new ones would be planted. 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street High Board Member Broadway noted that members of Priority the public indicated the need to draw pedestrians from the ferry terminal to the new building, and accentuating the entryway would help with that. 4. Encourage human activity on street High Board Member Broadway commented that the Priority restaurant component is valuable and will draw people who are not artists through curiosity. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the outdoor dining space will also be consistent with the space that is available across the street. 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites Low Priority Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 4 of 7 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide Low security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) Priority 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential High Mr. Lien pointed out that 5% open space is projects) Priority required and the proposal provides significantly more than that via the outdoor dining space and the patio on the corner. 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians High It was noted that this is already a priority of the and adjoining property Priority applicant, who is proposing significantly more parking space than what is required by code. 9. Discourage parking in street front N/A Mr. Lien noted that the applicant is not proposing to add any parking in front of the building, and they are allowed to use the existing street parking. 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from High Vice Chair Strauss commented that this item is corner on public street fronts (corner lots) Priority important to attract people coming from the ferry. Board Member Broadway said she supports the proposal to provide access to the underground parking via the alley. B. Bulk and Scale 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics N/A Mr. Lien noted that all of the surrounding properties are zoned BD-2, as well. C. Architectural Elements and Materials 1. Complement positive existing character and/or High Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that the proposed respond to nearby historic structures Priority building is large compared to adjacent structures. While there is some vertical separation, perhaps they could bring that down to a smaller scale. 2. Unified architectural concept High Board Member Guenther pointed out that Priority drawings provided by the applicant are flat elevations, which make it difficult to see the modulation that is proposed. He agreed that he would like to see a rhythm or pattern for the windows rather than all being the same size. 3. Use human scale and human activity High Board Member Broadway commented that she Priority likes the materials, proportions and modulation of the building, and she appreciates that the ground floor public space is very visible and clear, but she would like to see more modulation in the upper floor private space. She would also like the windows on the residential portion to be a different scale. While it is important that the ground floor windows be transparent to draw people in, the residential windows should provide privacy. The applicant pointed out that there is only one set of residential windows on the front of the building. The remaining residential windows are on the sides facing the Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 5 of 7 alleys. 4. Use durable, attractive and well-detailed finish High Chair Walker commented that he likes the materials. Priority overall design, as well as the proposed materials. It is funky and has an artistic flavor to it. Vice Chair Strauss expressed her belief that a lot of the same materials are used, and the building seems really dark and heavy. Perhaps a lighter color or different material could be used on the upper floor. Board Member Broadway said she likes the Corten building materials, as well as the proposed color pallet. 5. Minimize garage entrances High The Board indicated support for the proposed Priority garage entry from the alley. D. Pedestrian Environment 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected High pedestrian entry Priority 2. Avoid blank walls High Regarding the blank walls along the alley, Board Priority Member Broadway pointed out that the alleyways are narrow and nothing looks onto the wall from these locations. She felt that this is a good location for the restaurant function. Mr. Lien suggested there could be some variation in color and materials to provide definition. Chair Walker suggested that perhaps an art installation could be on that large, blank wall. 3. Minimize height of retaining walls N/A 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking N/A lots on pedestrian areas 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures High It was pointed out that the applicant is already Priority addressing this requirement. 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas High Priority 7. Consider personal safety High Priority E. Landscaping 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of High Mr. Lien reminded the Board that street trees neighborhood Priority would be required. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site High Priority 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site N/A It was noted that there are no special site conditions conditions. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 6 of 7 There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There were no administrative reports. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Synopsis of Regular Meeting May 3, 2017 Page 7 of 7