2013-11-06 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
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
Brian Borofka
Lois Broadway
Cary Guenther
Rick Schaefer
F.1111' ' : 1]i/:�1[I ►I1711 Idly D[.y
Board Members Absent Staff Present
Bruce O'Neill Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
The Commission approved the minutes of October 2, 2013 as amended.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. BOARD
MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION 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.
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS:
File Number PLN20130046 -- Phase 2 of a two-phase public hearing process for district -based design review of a
proposed mixed -use building, including multi -family residential and commercial space for the new post office, to
be located at 130 - 2°d Avenue North within the Downtown Business (BD2) Zone
Mr. Clugston presented the Staff Report for the proposed project (File Number PLN201300460). He explained that
Phase 1 of the public hearing was held on September 4", at which time the applicant presented conceptual design plans
for the Board's review. Using the Design Guidelines Checklist, the Board prioritized specific items the applicant should
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 1 of 12
address as part of the 2nd phase. He reported that the applicant has responded to the Board's direction with new
information. He specifically referred the Board to the Staff Report for Phase 2, which includes the following exhibits:
• Exhibit 1— Staff Report and Attachments from Phase 1 Public Hearing (September 4, 2013)
• Exhibit 2 —Architectural Design Board Minutes of September 4, 2013
• Exhibit 3a — 3q —Applicant's Phase 2 Submittal based on the prioritized Design Guidelines Checklist
• Exhibit 4 — Public Notice Information
• Exhibit 5 — Email from Jolene Usitalo Smith dated September 4, 2013
Mr. Clugston advised that Ms. Smith submitted another email on November e (today), which was forwarded to each of
the Commissioners. He added the email to the record as Exhibit 6.
Mr. Clugston explained that the Phase 2 hearing will be based on a more detailed design that was prepared by the
applicant using feedback the Board provided at the previous hearing. He said the Board's review should focus on the
proposal's compliance with the Design Guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Plan, the prioritized Design
Guidelines Checklist, and the applicable design standards and zoning code. He reminded the Board that the project is
still in the design review phase. If the design of the building is approved, the applicant's next step would be to apply for
a building permit. Issues such as building height, setback, impact fees, etc. would be addressed as part of the building
permit review process.
Mr. Clugston displayed Exhibit 3e (a colored view of the west and north elevations). He expressed his belief that the
proposed design addresses all of the elements the Board typically considers when reviewing projects (i.e. bulk, massing,
pedestrian scale, etc.). For example, there are different elements on the street front facades that provide pedestrian scale
such as canopies on the 2nd Avenue facade and above the residential entrances. The recessed residential entrances and
the mid -level cornices provide the building with good pedestrian scale and break up the building vertically. The building
is also broken up horizontally through the use of materials and modulation. For example, there appears to be three
distinct buildings on 2nd Avenue, and the townhouse entrances have a different feel than the commercial storefronts. The
trellis on the second level further breaks up the facade. On the Bell Street side, the building would be pulled back from
the property line to site the required open space and allow the existing view corridor to continue. The entire building
would be capped by a fairly substantial roof form that would echo the building facade modulations along 2nd Avenue and
Bell Street. He summarized that while the building would be fairly large, the applicant has done a nice job of reducing
its scale and making it more pedestrian friendly by using a variety of materials, colors, shapes and modulation.
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the proposal must comply with the specific design standards in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC), and he expressed his belief that the proposal appears to meet the zoning
requirements. He noted that there is no setback requirement for the BD2 zone, but there is a height limit of 30 feet above
the average original grade. He advised that Exhibit 3c provides a general elevation view, and it appears that the
proposed building would meet the height requirement of the BD2 zone. He emphasized that height compliance for all of
the features of the project would be verified at the building permit stage.
Mr. Clugston explained that the way the site is configured, the commercial ground floor requirement would extend into
the building along 2nd Avenue. Rather than a commercial use, the applicant is proposing to use this area for a garage
entrance. The applicant is also proposing 75 feet of commercial space adjacent to the garage entrance. Although this
commercial space is not located adjacent to a designated street front and would not be required to meet the depth and
height requirements that would otherwise be applicable, the applicant has indicated that the ground floor level would
have a 12-foot ceiling height and a depth of 45 feet.
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that, based on the size of the site, at least 5% of it must be open space. He referred to
Exhibit 3g, a colored rendering of the north facade, and noted that open space would be provided along the northern
(Bell Street) and western (2nd Avenue) facades. He specifically noted that a concrete transformer pad is proposed next to
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 2 of 12
the residential entrance. He suggested the applicant could work with the utility company to eliminate this feature to
provide additional open space.
Mr. Clugston explained that there is no parking requirement for the commercial component of the proposed project, but
the residential component would be required to provide one parking space per unit. The applicant is proposing 43 units
and 51 parking spaces in the basement parking garage, which meets the parking requirement.
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that there are specific Design Standards for the BD zones, which track along with the
Design Guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Guidelines Checklist, which the Board
completed at the Phase 1 hearing. The standards discuss massing, articulation, orientation to the street, ground level
details, awnings/canopies, transparency, blank walls, etc. Again, he referred to Exhibit 3e, which shows a visually
distinct building base through the use of a middle cornice. Using different colors and materials gives an articulated feel
and depth. Along the 2nd Avenue facade, the building gives the appearance of three separate buildings, which echoes the
historic character of the area (60-foot building fagade widths). He noted that the building is clearly oriented towards the
street; the townhouse units would exit to the street and the primary residential entrance would be from the street. The
commercial portion of the building would also be located at the street front. There are five requirements related to
ground level details, and the applicant's proposal shows lighting, medallions, plinths for columns, bulkheads for
storefront windows, clerestory windows, etc. that are intended to create a good ground level entrance. Canopies would
be provided on all the entrances, and the proposed design for the commercial element addresses the requirement for
transparency at the street level. There are no blank walls on any of the facades, and the applicant has proposed a small
green wall at the southwest corner to add diversity.
Mr. Clugston said the code also has requirements for landscaping and street trees. He referred to Exhibit 3m, which
identifies the types of street trees and landscaping proposed by the applicant. He reminded the Board that street tree size
and type, as well as the landscaping requirement, would be verified as part of the building permit phase. Mr. Clugston
concluded his presentation by stating that staff is recommending the Board approve the proposed building design with
certain conditions.
Board Member Borofka clarified that issues related to parking and traffic would be addressed as part a development
permit. He asked if signage would also be addressed under a separate permit. Mr. Clugston answered that traffic,
including impact fees) would be dealt with as part of a larger development permit application. While the applicant could
have chosen to include signage as part of the current design review, he did not. Therefore, a separate sign permit would
be required.
Chair Gootee asked if the building location was shifted since the Phase 1 hearing. Mr. Clugston replied that no change
was made to the building's proposed location and there are no required setbacks for the BD2 zone. The applicant is
proposing to pull the northern portion of the building back from Bell Street to provide open space area, but that was
shown in the Phase 1 drawings, as well.
Board Member Borofka asked how the Board would address the specific questions that were raised in written comments
from citizens, particularly those related to traffic. Mr. Clugston explained that, although traffic is an element the Board
should generally consider, a specific traffic analysis would be completed and mitigation fees would be assessed as part of
a building permit application.
Doug Spee, Applicant, Edmonds, emphasized that he has no intention of selling the subject property after it has been
developed. He pointed out that the project is not as simple as just replacing the old post office with a new post office. It
was very tricky to fit their needs into the building. For example, two large semi -trucks come to the current site each
morning, blocking traffic. With the new site, the post office has agreed to downsize to two -ton trucks similar to moving
trucks that can be rented. In addition, there will be 45 feet available between the back of the sidewalk and the face of the
actual loading docks to accommodate the trucks. The traffic situation should improve as a result of the proposed project.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 3 of 12
He noted that the Edmonds Post office has more outgoing mail than incoming mail, and the proposed design will
adequately meet their needs.
Mr. Spee said the design team also worked hard to split the 2nd Avenue facade into three looks. The goal was to bring
the classy, brick look of the post office into the ground floor commercial space. The brick theme would be taken right to
the roof, all the way through the center body of the building on 2nd Avenue to create a distinctive look. The brick would
be mixed up with some bands of charcoal. They are proposing a classier residential look at the north end, which would
extend around to the Bell Street side. He provided a sample of the stone veneer that would be used along this facade,
particularly noting that the great colors in the sample would allow for a variety of choices for accent coloring. The north
end would have a more distinct feel by using a rust theme mixed with a marine (blue/gray) combination. He recalled
that several citizens have expressed concern that the building would be too large. He pointed out that from the most
prominent view point (Main Street), the building facade would be broken up. In addition, a courtyard would be located
on the south side. At the request of the City to avoid beige colors, they have chosen to use dark brown and a natural
finish. The cement board would have a light trim color to accent the brown and work with the charcoal and brick color.
He summarized his belief that the proposed design does a great job of breaking the building into three, classy -looking
thirds. He said the direction provided by the Board at the Phase 1 hearing was helpful. While the design is not perfect, it
is much improved and he is proud of it. He said he wants to construct a building that is very close to the design shown in
the renderings.
Scott Boyer, Haller Architects, LLC, Seattle, reviewed the applicant's response to each of the higher priority items on
the Design Guidelines Checklist as identified by the Board during the Phase 1 hearing.
A. Site Planning
2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. Mr. Boyer pointed out that the building would front on both
2nd Avenue and Bell Street. He said Mr. Clugston did a great job of describing how the proposed design would
address this standard.
3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street. Mr. Boyer noted that the residential entry on Bell Street would be
articulated with stone and a glass canopy. The post office entry would be inset with a wide concrete seat wall
with signage and a glass canopy.
4. Encourage human activity on street. Mr. Boyer advised that the applicant is proposing to use canopies, street
trees and open space at the north end to bring building to a pedestrian -friendly scale and encourage sidewalk
intimacy along 2nd Avenue and Bell Street.
6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential
projects). Mr. Boyer pointed out that the townhomes on 2nd Avenue and the north entry to the apartment
building would be set back from the street to provide open space but keep visual connection with the street.
7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects). Mr. Boyer advised that Mr. Clugston's
presentation noted how the applicant is proposing to address this standard.
8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property. Mr. Boyer noted that the
parking would be located below grade, so there would be no parking impact associated with the project.
10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots). Mr. Boyer
advised that the residential portions of the building would be oriented towards both 2nd Avenue and Bell Street.
B. Bulk and Scale
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 4 of 12
1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones. Mr. Boyer recalled that, at the Phase 1 hearing,
a citizen raised concern about the scale of the building from the east side. He briefly explained how the building
would tuck into the natural rising topography to minimize its height on the alley side in relation to the neighbors
to the east. He also noted that the design would use bays and decks to articulate the building facade along the
alleyway. Contrast in color would be used to further articulate the building and break up the mass.
C. Architectural Elements and Materials
2. Unified architectural concept. Mr. Boyer reviewed that both Mr. Clugston and Mr. Spee discussed how the
proposed design would meet this standard.
I Use human scale and human activity. Mr. Boyer said that the Staff Report provided by Mr. Clugston also
explained how the proposal would meet this standard.
4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials. Mr. Boyer recalled that Mr. Spee provided
information previously regarding the high -quality materials that would be used.
5. Minimize garage entrances. Mr. Boyer noted that two garage entrances are proposed for the building. The
residential entrance would be located at the south end, with the commercial entrance at mid building. Not only
would the proposed design minimize the number of garage entrances, it would separate them, as well, to
minimize impact on street activity.
D. Pedestrian Environment
1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. Mr. Boyer pointed out that canopies would
be provided for protection from the elements.
2. Avoid blank walls. Mr. Boyer recalled that the Staff Report provided by Mr. Clugston demonstrated how the
proposal meets this standard.
6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. Mr. Boyer pointed out that the trash enclosure would be located
on the alleyway, and the transformer and electrical room would be located in the basement of the new building.
7. Consider personal safety. Mr. Boyer explained how openings in the masonry wall and glazing would be
utilized to provide "mini" view corridors so pedestrians could see cars that are exiting from the parking garages.
E. Landscaping
1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. Mr. Boyer said the goal is for the landscaping to
have a more urban feel along the post office fagade. More vegetation would be used in the open space areas in
front of the residential elements.
2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. Mr. Boyer advised that a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees
would be planted to provide seasonal interest.
Board Member Broadway observed that the site plan submitted as part of the Phase 1 hearing showed a dimension of 31
feet from the face of the south wall to the face of the existing post office once the roof has been removed. However, in
the updated site plan (Sheet Al, Exhibit 3b), that portion of the existing post office would remain and the dimension
would be decreased to only 14 feet. She asked the applicant to clarify this change. Mr. Boyer explained that, under a
separate future permit, the applicant would remove the roof of the existing post office and create a new loading dock for
the new post office. The current loading dock would continue to function during the construction of the proposed
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 5 of 12
building. Chair Gootee noted that this concept is clarified in Exhibit 3ff, Mr. Boyer clarified that the original site plan
did not identify the existing boiler, which cannot be removed.
Board Member Broadway asked if Federal Law requires that all post offices have flag poles. Mr. Spee acknowledged
that the existing post office has a flag pole, and a new flag pole could be added to the plan.
Board Member Broadway asked if the post office would provide individual boxes that are accessible during non -office
hours. If so, will the parking garage be assessable as well. She noted that the current post office provides a few five-
minute parking spaces for these customers. Mr. Spee answered that the post office would screen off their retail store
portion at the end of office hours each night. The garage door would likely be closed at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. each night, but
the front door to the post office would remain open. People could park in the loading zone to access the building during
the off hours.
Board Member Borofka said that the previous site plan showed a generator/transformer cover on the north end. He
asked if the applicant is still considering a generator in this location or just a transformer. He also asked if the cover must
be located next to the pad mount. Mr. Boyer answered that a generator would be located in the basement, which would
exhaust through the garage exhaust shaft. The transformer would also be located in the basement, but the Snohomish
County Public Utility District (PUD) is requiring a cover in this location in order for their equipment cranes to remove
defunct transformers. He will contact Seattle City Light to find out what they use to remove defunct transformers from
buildings and then work further with Snohomish County PUD.
Board Member Borofka noted that on the building the applicant constructed at 3rd Avenue and Bell Street, the
transformer is offset to the side near the gas meter. He suggested that perhaps the transformer cover for the new building
could be moved around the corner. Mr. Spee noted that there is already an electric switch box at the corner where the
alley meets Bell Street. He said he would be happy to purchase a surface transformer, but they are unsightly. He
believes the best option is to bury the equipment in a transformer room right off the parking level with a hatch door. He
expressed his belief that the lid would not be highly visible once the project has been completed. Staffs question is
whether this area to the left of the main entry to the building should be lawn or concrete. He suggested there are a
number of options besides planting grass. He said the applicant met numerous times with the Snohomish County PUD
to get approval to place the switch box inside the building in the basement, but their request was denied. The box will
only be two feet tall and green, and it could be camouflaged with plantings.
Board Member Borofka thanked the applicant for addressing the issue regarding visibility in and out of the parking
garages. He referred to Exhibit 3c and noted there is a sizeable opening on the south elevation. He asked if a similar
opening would be provided on the north elevation. Mr. Boyer answered affirmatively. Board Member Borofka asked if
the architect is satisfied that the proposal would provide the necessary vision for both drivers and pedestrians. Mr. Boyer
answered affirmatively.
Board Member Borofka noted that in Exhibit 3c, the elevator overrun would be set back. He asked if there would also
be HVAC overruns. Mr. Boyer said there would be a mechanical shaft for the garage exhaust, but it would be just high
enough to provide a waterproof termination (about 8 to 10 inches). Elevator overruns have hoists that push them a little
higher.
Board Member Borofka referred to Exhibit 3i, which is a drawing of the south elevation. He noted that individual
HVAC units for each residential unit will be located under the short windows next to the doors. Mr. Boyer said that is
correct for the south and west elevations only. There would also be whole -house ventilation throughout the building to
meet the fresh air energy code.
Board Member Borofka once again referred to Exhibit 3e and asked if awnings would be provided over the lower
windows in the northwest corner. Mr. Boyer answered that sunshades would be located over the windows to shade the
windows from the summer sun. He advised that the sunshades would be located above the cornice and would be
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 6 of 12
constructed of either painted steel or aluminum. Broad overhangs would be provided on the top floor to shade the
windows. He acknowledged that the sunshades are not yet identified in the cad drawings.
Board Member Schaefer asked what materials would be used for the canopies over the town house doors. Mr. Boyer
answered that these canopies would be constructed of painted steel and glass to be translucent.
At the request of Chair Gootee, Mr. Spee reviewed the variety of proposed materials and where they would be located on
the building as shown in Exhibit 3j (a colored night rendering of the proposed project). He noted that materials include
stone veneer, brick, wood, metal, glass and fiber cement products. Colored samples were provided by the applicant, as
well as pictures of other developments on which the proposed materials and colors were used.
Chair Gootee asked if cherry and maple street trees would be planted across the front of the west facade (2nd Avenue).
Mr. Boyer answered affirmatively. Chair Gootee asked how tall these trees would be when mature. Mr. Spee said he
requested trees that will minimize view blockage. He noted that cherry trees were planted in front of his other building
on Bell Street, and they have been kept trimmed so they do not grow above the railing of the first level of residential.
His goal would be the same for the proposed new building.
Chair Gootee asked if accent lighting would be provided as part of the proposed project. Mr. Boyer answered that each
residential unit would have a porch light, and accent lights would be provided for each of the piers at the post office and
at the main entrance to the residential units. The accent lighting would be subtle.
Board Member Schaefer said he was pleased to see the setback that is proposed for the Bell Street facade. He asked if
the 5% required open space would include the space in the atrium. Mr. Boyer answered that the atrium would be for the
private use of tenants and would not be counted as part of the required open space.
Board Member Schaefer noted that the Design Guidelines talk a lot about upper story setbacks. He asked the applicant
to provide measurements to indicate what the second floor setback would be.
Board Member Schaefer noted that the green (living) wall on the south facade is not called out in the plan, but it has been
included in the colored rendering. He suggested that this feature should be added to the landscape plan. Mr. Boyer said
it was not included on the landscape plan because it will be part of a second permit for constructing the loading dock.
Although the irrigation piping will be provided as part of the building project, construction will not occur until the
loading dock project moves forward. Board Member Schaefer expressed his belief that the green wall is an important
feature that should be formally documented as a requirement of the project. Mr. Clugston noted that staff's proposed
Condition 3 would require the applicant to add the climbing vegetation at the southwest corner of the building to the
landscape plan that is submitted with the building permit. Mr. Boyer agreed that would be possible, but it should be
noted that the actual construction would occur as part of the loading dock project.
Bob Groeschell, Edmonds, said he lives in Edmonds and also owns commercial property at the corner of 3rd Avenue
and Bell Street, located immediately east of the proposed project. He observed that, as per the recent election, Edmonds
voters once again repudiated candidates that are supportive of increasing building heights and density in the downtown.
He said he recently an opportunity to visit Port Townsend where he was reminded of the efforts they have gone through
over many years to forge a sense of identity, sometimes at the cost of expediency of development in their downtown
core. As he came back across on the ferry, he had a chance to view the Edmonds streetscape and found that the
buildings constructed before the current requirements were in place continue to stand out as the "sore thumb." These
buildings have been identified and recognized as examples of the type of development they don't want going forward.
His said his Certified Public Account (CPA) has an office in downtown Kirkland, which had a similar downtown core
years ago. There is now an 8-story building being constructed across the street from his CPA's office, and they are
moving because customers find it impossible to access and do business. He said all these examples are portends of
future decisions on scale of projects.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 7 of 12
Mr. Groeschell noted that the proposed project would be the largest, continuous downtown building in the City of
Edmonds. Given that, the City should have a very cautious understanding of what they are establishing as a precedent.
He said he has done a fair number of government contracts during his years in human services, and he is not sure how
certain the post office relocation is. He understands the procurement and bidding process, and he has not heard that there
is a guarantee that the post office will, in fact, be located at this particular site and building. If that is not the case, the
City should be cautious about how they describe the proposed project. There is certain cache of describing it as the new
post office as opposed to the new west side Teriyaki/espresso stand. If accommodations are being made based on the
post office being located in the building, that fact needs to be established before concessions are granted.
Mr. Groeschell expressed concern that the view corridor has not been accurately portrayed in the renderings he has
received. Walking from 3rd Avenue to Sunset Avenue, looking left and right at the setbacks and existing buildings down
the two -block corridor, you will find that the buildings are set back 20 to 30 feet to provide a broad view corridor. The
proposed plan calls for a 10-foot setback on Bell Street, and some of the drawings show five street trees and some do not
show any trees. Some drawings show the sidewalk relocated out to the street, with a small strip of grass in between.
However, no matter how it is carved up, the building will be significantly closer to Bell Street than any of the existing
buildings up and down the street. It will also be as tall, if not taller, than the existing buildings. The streetscape of the
north end of the building will be significantly different than the existing view lines and intrusions of the street.
Mr. Groeschell also expressed concern about the mass of the proposed building. He questioned if it would be possible
include a condition on Phase 1 of the project that would place restrictions on any future Phase 2. He said the worst case
scenario in his mind is that Phase 2 is a continuation of Phase 1, which means they would end up with a 30-foot tall,
block wall. Regardless of the number of materials and modulations that are provided as part of the plan, the building
will be a large wall. Unless there is some interruption, the resulting building will be a very dominating piece of work
that is far out of scale with existing structures in that area. He encouraged the Board to consider the long-term impact the
project will have on the community. While the renderings are important considerations, the big picture is the impact.
Will they look at this building in the future as the condominium building that is down on the water or will they look at it
as an asset that blends appropriately with downtown Edmonds?
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said this is his first opportunity to review the proposed plan since the original drawings
were provided months ago. He expressed concern that the building would be very large in relation to the surrounding
buildings. He referred to Exhibit 3f, which shows the west elevation of the building. He noted that, on the west side of
2nd Avenue, there are four buildings from Main Street to Bell Street, and there are four residences on the east side of the
building within the same general area that this one, long building would sit. The existing development provides breaks
between the buildings, and the proposed building would result in a very large wall. He noted that, as per the Design
Guidelines, the alley facing the four proposed residential units is supposed to be used for vehicular access. On the post
office side, there would be two entrances to the building. He understands that one is needed for the post office, but he
does not believe the residential entrance is necessary because the Design Guidelines call for the alley to be used for
residential access.
Mr. Hertrich referred to Exhibit 3h, which portrays the roofline of the proposed building. Regardless of the modulation
along the fagade, the roof would be absolutely flat horizontally. This type of situation is encouraged by the City
Council's recent decision to change the height requirement in the BD zones from 25 feet, plus an additional five feet for
roof modulation, to a straight 30-foot height limit. This will be the first building in Edmonds that portrays a long, flat,
unbroken surface for the entire roofline, making the building look square.
Mr. Hertrich expressed concern about the traffic that would enter the building from the post office side. A high number
of people currently use the post office site each day, and the access has a circular pattern with wide driveways and plenty
of room to maneuver. However, he noted that the proposed new post office does not include a drop off site, which he
thought was part of any post office operation. Mr. Hertrich asked if there would be a continuous weather protection
canopy where pedestrians will walk on 2nd Avenue. Given the climate, he suggested that weather protection is needed
along all walking areas in Edmonds, if possible.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 8 of 12
Mr. Hertrich voiced concern that the design of the east side (alley) of the building does not have much variety, yet it will
be highly visible. He said he likes some of the features that have been proposed for the west side of the building, but the
roof would be long, flat, monotonous and unbroken. He recalled that the Design Guidelines speak to long, unbroken,
monotonous as something the City does not want. He summarized that there is no opportunity for vertical variety
because of the 30-foot height limit that was recently adopted by the City Council.
Mr. Hertrich said he is particularly concerned about the traffic that would result from having two entrances on 2nd
Avenue. The current post office has on -street parking, off-street parking, and drive -through. Providing parking and
access for all of the post office patrons, in addition to the residential tenants, will result in just too much activity. He felt
the proposed entrances have been poorly placed.
Mr. Boyer commented that his firm designs buildings throughout the region with similar height restrictions. Architects
have used all kinds of shenanigans to make rooflines gyrate up and down. Rather than using these decorative elements
to articulate the building, the modulation (decks and spaces that go in and out) on the proposed building would be more
spacial and useful. While the proposed roofline may appear flat when viewed from out on Puget Sound, the building
would be very articulated from a pedestrian scale He summarized that the roofline could be flat, but still very interesting
in a horizontal way. Mr. Spee said he modeled the proposed roof after an 18-story condominium that was developed on
Old Main Street in Bellevue. This same roof looked fantastic from the ground. He commented that Mr. Hertrich loves
to get historical about everything to his advantage. What he didn't share is that during the evolution of the "25 plus 5"
height limit, a mansard roof became the standard, vanilla roof of Edmonds. There was no interesting architecture
whatsoever. Because a pitched roof was required on the upper five feet, developers simply used a mansard roof, pulled
the brim of the cap down to the window header of the top floor, and still got the floors they needed for the project to
pencil out. However, the architecture was very disappointing. He said he is quite proud of the proposed design, and Mr.
Hertrich's comments that the roof is dead and flat would apply if you were a hummingbird and could look at the building
from a height of 30 feet. That is not the case. No one on the street will ever view the building from that perspective.
Mr. Spee clarified he signed a lease with the post office two years ago to be included in this specific project. They are
interested in downsizing from their current 8,000 square foot space to a 4,000 square foot space. The lease is a legal
document that is signed and official. He simply needs to get the building constructed so the new post office can move in.
There is nothing tentative about how the space will be used. It will be leased by the United States Post Office for a retail
store.
Contrary to citizen comments, Mr. Spee expressed his belief that the proposed building would compliment what is
currently happening on Bell Street. He noted that he owns a building at the corner of Bell Street and 3rd Avenue that was
developed with a zero setback. The code allows full build out in the BD2 zone, which is exactly what he is allowed to
design to. He has voluntarily agreed to set back the building 10 to 12 feet from the sidewalk to be consistent with other
development along the street. This was a design sacrifice. Rather than a full build out that would have provided more
square footage, he felt it was more valuable to preserve the look that takes you down Bell Street.
Regarding citizen remarks about the proposed building being enormous and oversized, Mr. Spee pointed out that Mr.
Groeschell works out of an old home that is now used as a commercial building, as are the other structures going down
3rd Avenue on the back side of the alley. These structures were never designed to be commercial buildings, and they are
not in any way, shape or form representative of the Design Standards for renewing downtown Edmonds. These are old
homes that are being operated as commercial uses.
Mr. Spee pointed out that the condominium located directly to the north of the subject property is definitely taller than
the proposed building. He knows that for a fact because when he originally pitched a 35-foot high building, his structure
would have been a foot lower than the condominium. His building will also be lower than the office building currently
located across the street to the west of the subject property. As far as scale, if the Board looks at the condominiums that
currently exist on To Avenue, they will not find the building to be a "dinosaur in the middle of a bunch of giraffes." The
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 9 of 12
proposed building is very reflective of what is going on on 2nd Avenue, as well as some of the streets outside of Main
Street. He agreed that the building is good sized, but it is not a monstrosity that grossly out sizes everything else. It may
be larger than the buildings across the street, but it is not out of scale with other buildings in the vicinity. The building is
well designed and articulated.
Chair Gootee referred to Exhibit 3h to address Mr. Hertrich's comment about the lack of variety in the proposed design
for the alley side of the building. He suggested that the building would be modulated more than it appears. Mr. Boyer
pointed out that the building would have recesses to accommodate the decks, which would extend beyond the edge of
the building by about 1 %2 feet.
The Board agreed that a stand-alone flagpole would likely be required for the post office site, and they discussed whether
the application could be conditioned to provide sufficient direction for staff to review the flagpole design or if the
application should come back to the Board for additional review before final approval. Chair Gootee suggested that
design approval should be contingent upon the applicant meeting the United States Post Office requirements for
flagpoles. Because the post office portion of the building would be located directly adjacent to the sidewalk, Board
Member Broadway questioned where a free-standing flagpole would be located. If the pole must be incorporated onto
or within the building, additional Board review should be required. Mr. Boyer agreed to consult with the architect who
will design the interior of the post office space to address the flagpole concern. Mr. Spee pointed out that there are
hanging baskets, street trees, post indicator valves, and fire department connections located on the sidewalk, and the
flagpole could be mounted within the public right-of-way, as well. The Board agreed their preference would be for a
freestanding flagpole. Mr. Clugston summarized that the Board would like to review the application again if the flagpole
is attached to the building. No additional Board review would be required if the flagpole is located within the landscape
buffer or sidewalk area.
Board Member Schaefer asked if there would be a continuous canopy on the commercial frontage to provide weather
protection for pedestrians. Mr. Boyer answered affirmatively. Board Member Schaefer pointed out that because of
grade, access to the residential garages from the alley would be impossible. He recalled this was discussed at the
previous hearing. Mr. Boyer agreed that it is not physically possible to provide access to the residential parking garage
from the alleyway.
Board Member Schaefer recalled that the Board has received several comments about the mass and size of the proposed
new building. He reminded the Board that the code calls for avoiding mass that is long and continuous, and the
applicant has proposed a considerable amount of modulation around the perimeter of the building, including the alley
side. While the roof would be flat, the applicant is proposing 11 distinct blocks of varying textures and colors, as well as
modulation. From his viewpoint, the proposed design is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the BD zones.
Chair Gootee observed that the applicant has adequately and properly addressed all of the items raised by the Board
during the Phase 1 hearing. The proposed project meets the code requirements and is consistent with the Design
Guidelines. He expressed his belief that the design provides more than sufficient modulation along the street front. The
modulation for the alley fagade is minimal, but adequate. He said he would support approval of the proposed design. He
emphasized that the Board can only review the application before them for consistency with the code and the Design
Guidelines. They cannot speculate as to how the property to the south will be developed at some point in the future.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43; AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 10 of 12
1. THE PAD MOUNTED SWITCH CONNECTION AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 3g SHALL BE SCREENED OR CAMOUFLAGED TO REDUCE ITS
VISUAL IMPACT AT THE STREET LEVEL.
2. ADDITIONAL INTEREST SHALL BE ADDED TO THE RESIDENTIAL WINDOWS AND DOORS
IN THE FORM OF VARIED SILL OR CASING WIDTHS OR ADDITIONAL COLOR.
3. THE CLIMBING VEGETATION AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING BY THE
POST OFFICE LOADING AREA AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR TRELLIS ADJACENT TO 2ND
AVENUE SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE
BUILDING PERMIT.
4. THE "CONCRETE LID OVER BASEMENT TRANSFORMER" SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN
(EXHIBIT 3b) SHALL BE ELIMINATED UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT IT IS INFEASIBLE TO
INSTALL AND ACCESS THE TRANSFORMER IN ANY OTHER WAY. IF THE CONCRETE LID
IS ELIMINATED FROM THE PROPOSAL, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE SHALL
BE PROVIDED IN THAT LOCATION BY THE APPLICANT.
5. A SEATING AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA ADJACENT TO BELL STREET OR 2ND AVENUE.
6. THE PARKING GARAGE DOORS SELECTED FOR THE BUILDING SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED USING MATERIALS AND COLORS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE USED
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
7. STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY STREET TREE PLAN.
SPACING AND VARIETY WILL BE SPECIFIED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW
PHASE.
8. THE ENGINEERING DIVISION HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TRAFFIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES WILL BE ASSESSED DURING THE BUILDING
PERMIT REVIEW PHASE.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING CODES AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS WILL BE
REVIEWED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SITE. THE APPLICANT IS ENCOURAGED, WHEREVER FEASIBLE, TO INCORPORATE LOW
IMPACT DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES INTO THE PROJECT DESIGN.
10. IF IT IS FOUND THAT POST OFFICE REGULATIONS REQUIRE A FLAGPOLE BE ATTACHED
TO THE BUILDING, THE DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD.
11. 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 TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES.
BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
No consolidated permit applications were scheduled on the agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Mr. Clugston announced that Board Member Gootee's term expires at the end of the year. He asked him to notify Ms.
Cunningham if he plans to continue for an additional term. He reminded the Board that they need to elect 2014 officers
at their next meeting, as well.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 11 of 12
Mr. Clugston advised that there are a few projects coming down the road. One may be available for design review on
December 18t' or January 15ffi. Staff will notify the Board when the applications are ready for review.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
None of the Board Members provided comments during this portion of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
November 6, 2013
Page 12 of 12