Loading...
2015-05-20 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY 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 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 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 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 2nd 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 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 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 2nd 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 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 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. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 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. &"1 L11111"111 / I 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