Loading...
2022-12-07 Architectural Design Board PacketA. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. o Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board tn.. }nyo REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DECEMBER 7, 2022, 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION As of November 1, 2022, we have resumed in person meetings Meeting location: City Hall Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes PUBLIC HEARINGS BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Election of Officers for 2023 ADB MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda December 7, 2022 Page 1 C.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2022 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve August 3, 2022 minutes. Narrative Draft meeting minutes attached, pending approval. Attachments: Draft August 3, 2022 minutes Packet Pg. 2 C.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting August 3, 2022 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:01 p.m. via Zoom. Board Members Present Staff Present Kim Bayer, Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Board Members Absent Lauri Strauss (excused) Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (absent) APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 29, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Recommendation on Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone (AMD2022- 0001) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting August 3, 2022 Pagel of 4 Packet Pg. 3 C.1.a Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced a presentation regarding Permanent Design Standards for BD2 properties that do not have Designated Street Front requirements. Mr. Clugston reviewed changes made by staff in response to comments from the last meeting. Questions and comments were taken throughout the presentation. Board Member Loch asked why they were only discussing this only for the standalone multifamily buildings and not including mixed use and commercial buildings. Mr. Clugston explained how this came about with an application this year when they realized there was a hole in this zone related to parcels with no Designated Street Front requirements. He reviewed the moratorium enacted by Council in February which gave time to develop an interim ordinance. Now they are taking the interim standards and developing permanent standards for these parcels. Mr. Clugston explained that commercial and multiuse buildings would presumably have first floor heights that would match or be very similar to first floor heights that the code calls for where the street front standard does exist. d Chair Bayer thought there should be clarification about what "compatible" means in the Intent section. Mr. 'c Clugston explained this was a general statement to make sure the intent is to make sure the building fits in to the downtown area. Board Member Schmitz commented that downtown has an eclectic mix of buildings and ° not one particular style. He suggested what they really want is for it to look nice with higher end materials. He c said he liked the language the way it is. �. a Private Amenity Space: • Board Member Schmitz commented that the 10% gross lot number seems in line with what he has seen in a lot of other jurisdictions. • Chair Bayer expressed concern about the lack of privacy with a three-foot fence and asked if this is standard. Mr. Clugston explained that the intent is to have the building interact with the sidewalk. He acknowledged that units on the street level would have less privacy than those in other areas. Tenants would be aware of this going into the situation. • Board Member Schmitz asked about allowing clear or translucent balcony -like features to enhance privacy of ground -level private amenity space. Mr. Clugston referred to the post office building and three units that exit right to the sidewalk as an example of what they are looking for. The idea was that they could put a small fence there, but not a solid barrier to screen off the building. • Board Member Loch asked about any flexibility available in these standards. Mr. Clugston replied that the design standards have very little flexibility built in. It would take a separate code amendment to provide the director or the Board to allow some flexibility in certain, specific design standards. He agreed that this would be desirable. • Board Member Loch referred to Private Amenity Space, item 3, and suggested it might be better to state how far away from the property line patios and decks could be rather than stating how far into the setback they could go. Mr. Clugston explained that the building must be set back a certain amount, but there are elements that can project into that space. • Board Member Schmitz commented that from an accessibility perspective, a five-foot turning radius is the minimum for a wheelchair. A five-foot balcony would not allow for this by the time railings are considered. He suggested allowing balconies to encroach six feet, instead of five feet, into the setback to allow for this kind of accessibility. He noted that the Washington State Building Code requires a certain number of units be ADA accessible and be provided with amenities that are accessible generally. There was consensus to change this amount to six feet. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting August 3, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 4 C.1.a Roof Modulation: • Chair Bayer asked how the roof modulation requirement would impact the ability to have rooftop decks. Mr. Clugston replied that the entire roof wouldn't have to be modulated. • Board Member Schmitz agreed that they don't want to have a single expression on a roof. He commented that sometimes the edge of the roof is different than the rest of the roof. Requiring a slope could complicate things for the builder who must keep the building within a certain height. He suggested adding language to clarify that this refers to just the frontage or fagade and not necessarily the roof itself. • Board Member Herr expressed concern about having a false front that looks like a "cowboy town". • Chair Bayer and Board Member Jeude asked about verbiage related to requiring "horizontal" modulation to break up the boxy look of a building. Mr. Clugston replied that the private amenity space and roof modulation requirements are attempts to address this. There are other places in the code that address modulation such as the Comprehensive Plan and design standards in use for the downtown area. • Chair Bayer said her biggest concern is trying to avoid a big flat box with just balconies and/or patios in this zone. She doesn't understand how this language avoids that. Mr. Clugston thought this language would give builders options of ways to not make a flat roof since they must choose three of the options. Portions of it can be flat, but other portions must use various methods. He envisions multiple ways to achieve the objective she raised. • Board Member Jeude also was concerned that the amenity space requirement and the roof modulation language would not prevent the box issue. Mr. Clugston agreed and noted that the existing Comprehensive Plan and design guidelines address and require modulation of walls. He reviewed how the development feedback process generally works. • Board Member Loch agreed with Board Member Schmitz that they are referring to the part of the building that they can see. He wasn't sure if requiring that developers use three of the options was the way they should go. He suggested that the intent statements and policy goals be included here for clarity. • There was some discussion about the intent for these small pockets of buildings to make a smooth transition between residential and downtown commercial. • Board Member Schmitz suggested calling it parapet modulation or roof treatment modulation instead of rooftop modulation. To him, rooftop modulation implies the whole roof instead of just the part you can see. There was discussion about revised verbiage for this section to include: "In order to avoid the appearance of a well -modulated roof, three types of roof modulation are required ..." Street -side Amenity Space or Pedestrian Area: Board Member Schmitz asked about allowing a rain cover or trellis instead of "open to sky". Mr Clugston explained the intent behind the "open to sky" requirement. Roof Top Deck: • Board Member Loch asked where the 10-foot setback from the roof edge came from. Mr. Clugston explained there had been some concern at a previous meeting about having a railing at roof edge which is why the change was made. However, per building code, it can go right up to the roof edge. • Chair Bayer commented that since this BD2 zone is transitional and right next to multifamily or single- family residential, having the deck go all the way to the edge of the roof could be problematic. • Mr. Clugston proposed that it could be a 10-foot setback on a roof edge adjacent to a residential zoned property. In other cases, it wouldn't have to be set back. • Board Member Jeude noted that the City Council was very concerned about people hanging over the edge. She agreed that ten feet was a lot. Five feet might be sufficient. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting August 3, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 5 d 3 0 0 a a C.1.a Board Member Schmitz commented that the roof is already set back a certain distance from the property line and balconies can already project into that space. He is not sure that being on top of a building behind a railing would be more problematic. He spoke in support of getting rid of the setback requirement on the roof. Chair Bayer was supportive of leaving the language as it was written. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, TO AMEND THE LAST SENTENCE OF ITEM F REGARDING ROOF TOP DECKS TO READ: "ALL RAILINGS MUST BE SET BACK AT LEAST 5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF A ROOF LINE ADJACENT TO AN R-ZONED PROPERTY." Board Member Schmitz commented that there are already roof decks allowed to the edge of some buildings. He stated he was open to compromising on a lesser setback amount if necessary. N d THE MOTION TO AMEND PASSED. 2 MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, TO ° FORWARD THE LANGUAGE AS REVISED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION PASSED c UNANIMOUSLY. a a BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS v, There as discussion about pros and cons of meeting in person versus remotely. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting August 3, 2022 Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 6 F.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2022 Election of Officers for 2023 Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Elections are held at the end of the year for the upcoming year. Staff Recommendation Elect a Chair and a Vice Chair Narrative N/A Packet Pg. 7