2014-01-15 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present
Bryan Gootee, Chair Brian Borofka (excused) Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
Bruce O'Neill, Vice Chair
Lois Broadway
Cary Guenther
Rick Schaefer
E ' C t11 1:�1[� U 17� Idly xy
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2013 BE APPROVED
AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
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:
Application by Greg Jacobsen of Jacobsen's Marine for general design review of an approximately 10,000 square
foot boat sales and repair shop at 345 Admiral Way in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) Zone (File Number
PLN20130070
Ms. Machuga presented the Staff Report, explaining that the application is for design review of an approximately 10,120
square foot boat sales and repair shop at 345 Admiral Way. The project site is located within the Commercial
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Page 1 of 6
Waterfront (CW) Zone. It is approximately 36,000 square feet, and is a portion of a larger parcel that is owned by the
Port of Edmonds. The parcel fronts Admiral Way and backs to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad.
Currently, the site is developed as a parking lot with a combination of pavement and gravel. It is relatively level, and the
proposal is for a new single -story building for boat sales and repair. Parking would be provided on both the east and
west sides of the building, and space for boat storage and display would also be provided on the west side.
Ms. Machuga reviewed that the same project was proposed in 2008. At that time, the Port of Edmonds issued a State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), and the applicant obtained a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit through the City. Since the scope of work remains unchanged from that time, both the
SEPA Determination and the Shoreline Permit are still valid. She advised that the applicant also submitted a design
review application in 2008, but the application was withdrawn due to the economic downturn. The applicant must now
go through the design review process and obtain the necessary building permits.
Ms. Machuga referred to the Staff Report, which provides a thorough analysis of the proposal and its compliance with
the zoning standards. The proposed building meets and exceeds the requirements for setbacks and parking, and meets
the requirement for building height (30 feet). Compliance with the zoning standards will be verified as part of the
building permit review.
Ms. Machuga said the Staff Report also reviews the proposal's compliance with the design standards contained in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Although the Staff Report calls out a
few concerns, staff believes the proposal would enhance the surrounding area. The proposed building would be
approximately eight feet from the edge of the right-of-way, and there is currently a fence between the property and right-
of-way. Although the applicant is proposing to fence off part of the parking area, there would be no fence between the
building and street. Providing a direct connection between the building and the sidewalk would create a pedestrian -
friendly feel. The front of the building (northern fagade) would have several windows facing Admiral Way. The single -
story building would be similar in scale and bulk to the surrounding buildings in the area, and the wide horizontal band
(blue) that is proposed at the top of the building would add more human scale and create a small covered area at the main
entrance. The applicant is proposing a variety of horizontal and vertical siding materials, as well.
Ms. Machuga pointed out that the applicant is proposing a single type of siding for the southern building fagade, which
faces the railroad. However, different colors would be used to break up the fagade. The Board may want to talk about
other options for the south elevation. In addition, the roof of the proposed building does not include a parapet to screen
rooftop mechanical equipment. Although the applicant is not proposing any rooftop equipment at this time, staff is
recommending a condition that would ensure that any future mechanical equipment is adequately screened.
Ms. Machuga said the zoning code requires Type V landscaping within the parking area, and the applicant's proposal
does not meet the minimum area required for landscaping or the type of plants required. Staff is recommending an
additional condition to help augment the landscaping in the parking area.
Ms. Machuga noted that no public comments regarding the proposal have been received, and staff recommends the
Board approve the proposal with the five conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Board Member Schaefer inquired about the width of the existing sidewalk and whether it is consistent with the sidewalk
width called out in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Machuga answered that the Engineering Department reviewed the
proposal and did not comment on a need to widen the sidewalk further.
Chair Gootee asked how much additional landscaping would be required in the parking area to meet the current code
requirement. Ms. Machuga said Type V landscaping is required at a ratio of 17.5 square feet per parking space, and the
applicant is proposing 30 parking spaces. This equates to a total of 525 square feet of landscaping, and the current
proposal only provides 234 square feet. As the applicant is proposing more parking than what's required and could
potentially replace some of the parking spaces with landscaping, the required quantity of landscaping could decrease.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Page 2 of 6
Board Member Guenther noted that one of staff s recommended conditions pertains to fence height. He asked if the
applicant is proposing a fence height of greater than six feet. Ms. Machuga said the applicant stated in a letter to the City
that they would like the fence to be eight feet in height, and staff wanted to make it clear that the maximum height limit
for fences is six feet. A variance would be required to exceed that height.
Greg Percich, PKJB Architectural Group, Seattle, said his company is serving as architect for the proposed project.
He said he is happy with the Staff Report and recommendation. The design works well for the City, and they are
seeking approval as presented. The applicant is looking forward to moving his business to Edmonds.
Vice Chair O'Neill asked if the proposed siding would be corrugated metal. Mr. Percich provided a rendering of the
siding to illustrate the actual colors proposed. The blue across the top of the front elevation would be metal siding. The
horizontal siding would be 1-foot wide HardiPlank that is painted white. The reveal strips between the HardiPlank
siding would be aluminum.
Board Member Schaeffer asked where the mechanical equipment would be located if not on the roof. Mr. Percich said
the intent is to have a heat pump that provides air conditioning and heating for the office area. The shop and sales areas
would be heated with Reznor or unit heaters. No mechanical equipment would be located on the roof, and any
equipment on the ground would be screened per the condition recommended by staff.
Board Member Broadway asked if the services provided inside the building would require an emergency generator. Mr.
Percich answered no.
Vice Chair O'Neill said there's a statement in the building site identity section of the Staff Report that the proposed
building utilizes some design elements tied to historic forms and patterns from downtown and along the waterfront. He
asked the applicant to identify the historic design elements. Ms. Machuga said this statement was in reference to the
scale of the building being smaller and similar in scale and color to existing buildings around the waterfront.
To provide further clarification, Mr. Percich said the applicant is proposing an 8-foot fence around the boat storage area
so that the site can be secured from potential vandalism.
Chair Gootee said the applicant is proposing to mix up the south elevation by using different colors of the same material.
No modulation is proposed. Mr. Percich advised that the south fagade would be adjacent to private property, and the
applicant believes the proposed design is the best way to accommodate the two-hour wall that is required by the Building
Code. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the southern fagade would not be highly visible since it faces the
railroad tracks and the marsh is located on the other side of the tracks.
Board Member Schaefer asked why the applicant is proposing boat storage on both the east and west sides of the
building. Mr. Percich said that most of the boat storage would be located on the east side of the building, but the west
side could also be used for boat storage if the additional space is needed. Board Member Schaefer expressed concern
that the applicant is proposing three swing gates for the parking and boat storage areas.
Chair Gootee asked if the storefront windows would be tinted or clear. Mr. Percich answered that the windows would
all be clear.
Board Member Schaefer asked if the applicant has considered the potential for spills and other contamination that might
occur on the site and how they might impact the marsh that is located on the other side of the railroad tracks. Mr.
Percich said the applicant is not proposing to have any large fuel tanks on site. Board Member Schaefer noted that the
Port of Edmonds has agreed to provide water -quality treatment for the applicant's stormwater. Ms. Machuga advised
that stormwater issues would be addressed by the Engineering Department as part of its building permit review.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 6
Chair Gootee asked the applicant to describe the anticipated signage. He noted that many businesses of this type display
logos from the various companies they work with. Mr. Percich said he anticipates that most of the dealer signs would be
located inside the building behind the window. Chair Gootee encouraged the applicant to keep the City's sign code
standards in mind.
Vice Chair O'Neill expressed concern that there is little variation on the southern facade, which is actually visible from
the properties to the south. He suggested that perhaps panels could be mounted externally to the siding to create some
relief. Chair Gootee said the painted panels on the southern elevation make the building appear incomplete. Mr. Percich
said the intent was to provide some rhythm and break up the flat wall. He summarized that the southern facade would be
110 feet long and located just two feet from the property line where the railroad tracks are located. Chair Gootee
suggested that perhaps a horizontal band along the bottom of the southern facade would be more pleasing.
Terry McCartney, Jacobsen's Marine, Seattle, said he was present to represent the applicant and answer any
questions the Board might have regarding the proposed project. He said it would be likely that service boats would
frequent the west parking area, with new inventory located in the east parking area. The two gates on the south side of
the building would allow customers who are towing boats to pull in one gate, unhook the boat, and then exit through the
other gate. This provides a better flow of traffic and eliminates the need for people to back out into the street.
Mr. McCartney suggested that perhaps some of the panels on the south wall could be skylights or window to add more
dimension, light and thermal gain. He said signage is undecided, but they will want to display some brand logos in a
tasteful way. Their current location does not have a lot of signage because they are a destination store. He said the Port
has been wonderful to work with, and he and Mr. Jacobsen are anxious to be part of the community.
Chair Gootee opened the public hearing.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, urged the Board to support the proposal. The Port believes it
will be a great addition to the Port of Edmonds, the waterfront and the entire community. He referred to earlier questions
about water quality and stormwater and explained that, as per the Port's agreement with Jacobsen's Marine, any
requirement the City may have for off -site detention or filtration would be the Port's obligation. The Port has been
working with the City Engineer to complete a stonnwater analysis, and it has been determined that no off -site detention
would be required. Because there would be direct discharge to Puget Sound through the marina, filtration would be
required and could be provided strictly on site. The Port also hired the services of a registered engineer to complete a
downstream analysis, which confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the existing outfall line. Board Member
Broadway asked if an oil/water separator would be required for the surface parking lots. Mr. McChesney said there are a
number of alternatives for filtration that are included in the City's existing stormwater manual, including oil/water
separators, catch basin canisters, and rain gardens.
Board Member Broadway expressed concern that the proposed building is very large, broad and tall, but there is nothing
textural or human scale about it. She suggested that some sort of textural element be introduced and grounded at the
base of the building on the north, east and west facades to help bring some human scale to the building. However, she
questioned if adding the textural element to the base would be sufficient enough to break up the scale of the south facade.
Board Member Gootee expressed his belief that the southern facade is visible from Harbor Square, and the proposed
mixed panels do not seem sufficient. He likes Board Member Broadway's suggestion of adding a base that wraps
around the building. This would be an economical solution to the problem. Board Member Broadway cautioned that
window openings would not be allowed on the south facade given its proximity to the property line, and simply adding a
base element would not be sufficient to address the Board's concerns. She suggested that perhaps a base element could
be added at the bottom of the south facade and a false parapet at the top, with a solid color in between. This would create
a vertical instead of horizontal rhythm and make the building appear more grounded. She summarized that changing the
color of the continuous metal panel is not significant enough to make the facade interesting. She encouraged the
applicant to think about breaking up the mass of the building as opposed to putting a rhythm on the building.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Page 4 of 6
Board Member Broadway referred to staffs recommended condition that the project must comply with the Type V
landscaping requirements, which means that applicant must provide an additional 300 square feet of landscaping. She
said that rather than one large landscaped area, she would prefer that the landscaped areas be dispersed throughout the
parking area to provide rhythm and shade. Board Member Guenther said the applicant would likely locate the
landscaping along the west property line since adding islands in the middle of the parking areas would make circulation
difficult. Mr. Percich agreed but said the applicant would give some consideration to how the landscaping is spread
out.
Board Member Guenther agreed that adding a base to the east, west and north facades would result in a more human
scale design, but the approach might not be as effective on the southern fagade. Board Member Broadway agreed and
noted that the base element could end where the HardiPlank siding ends on both the east and west facades. A different
approach could be used to break up the south fagade. Mr. Percich agreed to give consideration to design elements that
give rhythm and a sense of modulation to the south fagade without actually modifying the construction of the building.
Chair Gootee suggested that a glass roll up door on the west elevation would be more pleasing from a retail standpoint
than a solid door that matches the shop doors. This would not result in a significant cost but would make the building
more open. Mr. Percich reminded the Board that the business is a destination, and they are not worried about displaying
products to passersby. He also expressed concern that a glass door could create other issues with the energy code.
Board Member Guenther observed that the applicant is proposing a standing seam metal roof, which provides a great
opportunity to add photo voltaic arrays to capture sunlight. He asked if solar panels would require screening, as well.
Ms. Machuga said the City does not have specific requirements for screening of solar panels.
No one else in the audience indicated a desire to participate and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE ADB APPROVE THE PROPOSAL UNDER FILE
NUMBER PLN20130070 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. All new fences shall comply with the maximum allowed height of ECDC Chapter 17.30, or as amended.
2. 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.
3. Street trees shall be a minimum of 3 inches in caliper. Species location and spacing of the street trees will
be determined during civil plan review.
4. The project shall comply with the Type V landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.E, including the
need to expand and/or add additional landscape beds to meet the minimum required total area, ensure
that all Type V landscape planters meet the minimum size required per planter, and all planters must be
planted in accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.E.2, including one tree per planter.
5. The project will provide a base across the street side of the building and wrapped around each end to
provide a human scale to the building and will provide a similar horizontal pattern to the rear of the
building facing the railroad tracks.
6. The applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits. This application is subject to the
requirements in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is up the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Broadway recommended that Condition 5 be modified to clarify the Board's intent.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Page 5 of 6
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT CONDITION 5 BE MODIFIED TO READ:
5. The project design shall be revised on the street side (north elevation) and the west and east elevations to
the extent of the proposed HardiPlank to incorporate a base of textural material. In addition, the south
elevation shall be revised so that the scale of the elevation is reduced by the introduction of multiple
textural materials.
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE ADB ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT FOR FILE
NUMBER PLN20130070 AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR O'NEILL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
No consolidated applications were scheduled on the agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Election of Officers
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER GOOTEE AS CHAIR OF THE ADB
FOR 2014. BOARD MEMBER O'NEILL SECONDED THE NOMINATION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER AS VICE CHAIR OF THE
ADB FOR 2014. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE NOMINATION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member Schaefer recalled that the design approved by the ADB for the new McDonald's restaurant on Edmonds
Way included a more pronounced and defined entrance, but this element was not included as part of the final project.
Because it was included in the plans, he assumed it would be part of the final design. The Board discussed the need to
be more specific in their actions and recommendations in order to ensure that important design elements are carried
forward to the final designs that are submitted for development permits.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 15, 2014
Page 6 of 6