Loading...
2022-06-29 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting June 29, 2022 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. via Zoom and welcomed new board members, Corbitt Loch and Steve Schmitz. All board members introduced themselves. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 6, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes Staff Present Kernen Lien, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Michelle Szafran, Associate Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERB, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS Edmonds Greenhill 6-Unit Townhomes (PLN2021-0018) Chair Bayer opened the public hearing and introduced the purpose and procedures of the hearing. She asked if any members had engaged in any communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. All board members indicated they had not. Chair Bayer solicited any conflict -of -interest issues. None were raised. She asked if anyone in the audience objected to her participation or any other board member's participation in the hearing. There were no responses. She then swore in all participants in the hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Pagel of 8 Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Szafran made the staff presentation. She discussed the review process and highlighted the property on a zoning and vicinity map. The proposed use is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM1.5 zone. The proposal is for six townhomes which is consistent with the density requirements. The existing duplex structure would be demolished. Grading to the site should be minimal. The application has been reviewed by all relevant city departments. Comments were included as attachments to the Staff Report. She reviewed additional details regarding the development including access, parking, design, setback & coverage, and height. The applicant's proposal appears to be consistent with the design guidelines in the Urban Design Chapter, the Comprehensive Plan, and ECDC 20.11.030. The height is also consistent with ECDC 16.30.030. Proposed parking of 12 spaces is consistent with ECDC 17.50. The proposed landscaping along the boundaries appears to meet the intent of the landscaping standards in ECDC 20.13 by softening the appearance of the building elevations and providing screening to adjoining uses. The site plan as proposed shows 25% retention of trees as required by the tree code. Staff recommended approval with conditions as noted on pages 14 and 15 of the Staff Report. Applicant Introduction/Comments: BK Chen, the applicant, thanked everyone for their participation in the process. He recommended approval of the plan. Public Testimony: Noah Noecker (sp?), President of Edmonds Court Townhome Association, just east of this property, asked clarification questions on behalf of his homeowners' association. • What is the process for dealing with any potential damage to the wood fence between the two properties? Mr. Clugston replied that is not something that is necessarily within the ADB purview. That would be more appropriate to deal with at the time of construction and inspection. Mr. Chen added that he would work with all the neighbors closely to make sure that everything is protected. • Is the stump that houses the red-headed woodpeckers going to be retained? Mr. Chen thought it would be removed. Is there a sidewalk that is going to be on the east side of the building where Trees 1-8 are proposed to be removed? Mr. Chen replied that there would be a walkway. Was there be a sound report submitted and approved for the heat pumps in accordance with the sound requirements in the City of Edmonds? Ms. Szafran replied that would not be provided until the time of building permit. Board Questions and Deliberation: Board Member Jeude asked if the development would be set down or even with the road. George Sheng reviewed the elevations in the drawing. Board Member Strauss asked about the possibility of doing a different paint color on the bottom to help break up the mass of the building. She also asked about dressing up the east fagade which will be facing the street. Mr. Chen noted they would consider that and other options to make it look nice. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 2 of 8 Board Member Loch asked if 71 st is a public street and if it would ever be improved as a through street. Ms. Szafran replied that it is a public street. She stated that Engineering reviewed this and there would not be any improvements required for this proposal. Board Member Schmitz commended Mr. Chen on the project which looks like a well -thought-out set of townhouses. He referred to the site plan and asked if it might be more useful if the walkway in front of the buildings connects to the sidewalk along the street. Mr. Chen concurred and stated they would add that. Board Member Herr commented that the existing building is in very bad shape. Regarding the street next to it, he pointed out it just services a couple houses and will never be a thoroughfare. He referred to concerns about things like construction noise and dust and noted that those things are temporary. He commented that noise is not an issue with the heat pumps because they make less noise than a refrigerator. He commended the developer for bringing much needed missing middle housing to Edmonds. In his opinion everything about this project is in compliance with what Edmonds is trying to do. Board Member Brooks asked if there is any hardscaping in the entry way. Ms. Szafran replied that there is a walkway. Board Member Brooks agreed with Board Member Herr and agreed with Board Member Strauss that the exterior of the property is bland and could be improved. She asked what groundcover was being proposed. Mr. Chen explained it has not been chosen yet. Regarding the exterior, he noted the front door on the east side will have a little area set back. He agrees that the street side/south side can be made more attractive. Board Member Brooks agreed that a walkway from the street would be helpful. Board Member Brooks asked if it would be inviting and clear where the front entrance is. Board Member Strauss requested that it be very well lit along the walkway. She was concerned that the back end of the property would be very dark and tunnel -like, especially next to taller buildings. Chair Bayer agreed that it should be more inviting on the east side. She agreed with Board Member Herr that this will be a great improvement to the neighborhood. She concurs with Board Member Strauss on the need to break up the massing. She asked for clarification that there would be a sidewalk on 210th. Mr. Chen replied that there is and it will be connected to the walkway inside the property. Chair Bayer asked if there have been any thoughts about adding some open space. Mr. Chen pointed out that there is six feet between the property line and the walkway which will be beautified with landscaping. Board Member Herr noted that the site plan on page 77 shows a different configuration of the sidewalk. Mr. Chen explained that the correct configuration is that the walkway goes on east side of the building from the north to the south end of the building and will connect with the driveway. Board Member Strauss asked if it would be possible to add steps on the north side up to the landscaped area. Ms. Szafran thought it would depend on setbacks. Mr. Chen replied they could consider that as they go through the process. Board Member Schmitz raised a concern about privacy for the last unit if they allow access to the area at the end. There would also be a need for safety measures such as a railing. It might be better to just improve the streetscape in front of the project that is already accessible. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Board Member Brooks thought that the last unit should not be the only unit to enjoy the landscaping at the end of the building. They already have the benefit of extra windows and natural light that the other units do not have. She liked Board Member Strauss's idea of making it more accessible to all the residents. Board Member Strauss requested that the ADB or staff see the final plans regarding the massing. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS, THAT THE ADB ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDS 20.11, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY HOMES WITH THE TEN CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • ADD ADDITIONAL COLORS AND VARIETY OF MATERIALS TO ADD ADDITIONAL INTEREST AROUND THE BUILDING, PARTICULARLY AT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. • CONNECT THE WALKWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH THE NEW SIDEWALK ALONG 210TH AND TO THE SETBACK PORTION OF THE NORTHERN LANDSCAPE AREA. • CONSIDER ADDING SOME KIND OF PEDESTRIAN INTEREST ENTRY FEATURE AT THE WALKWAY AT 210TH TO DRAW A PEDESTRIAN'S EYE TO THE ENTRY IN THE FORM OF AN ARBOR OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone Senior Planner Clugston referred to the set of Interim Design Standards that the Council adopted as part of their work earlier this spring. It is required that permanent standards be adopted by October, and staff is seeking the Board's input. He emphasized that this is only focused on multifamily design standards in the BD2 zone and reviewed the proposed timeline for this work. Designated Street Front Standards: • Commercial and mixed -use buildings • 45-foot depth of ground floor commercial • Floor height minimums • Transparency and access at sidewalk • Detail at ground level • Multifamily allowed behind 45-feet and above Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Some parcels on the edges of the downtown area but in the BD2 zone do not have Designated Street Front requirements. Since there is no ground floor commercial requirement for those parcels, it is possible that you could have a multifamily -only building. During the Interim Design Standard process Council adopted regulations further extending the Designated Street Front in certain areas. The Interim Design Standards dealt with materials, private amenity space, street -side amenity space, and roof modulation/stepdown. Materials: • Breaks up massing and strengthens identity • Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass • Man-made okay if made to look like preferred materials. Private Amenity Space: • Improves livability for smaller residential units • Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation, and style • Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade, and increases 'eyes on the street' The private amenity space has to be 10% of the project area. It can be divided up between balconies, decks, patios, and yards. It can be provided with each individual dwelling unit (if at least 40 so or can be grouped for resident use. Example photos of this were reviewed. Street -side Amenity Space: • Results in a setback to the street to serve as amenity space • Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity Street -side amenity space is 5% of the lot area. It must be between the building and the sidewalk only and open to the sky. It must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. The street -side amenity space excludes private amenity space area. Canopy/awnings are required and do not impact the amount of street -side amenity space. The intent is to move the building back from the property line and activate that space. Discussion topics: Roof modulations/step downs — The existing language says: "Some roof modulation is required with preference for step downs that follow the slope when slope exists." The intent is to provide variation in roof plane and to reduce bulk. Step downs (or step backs) are useful where tall and short buildings are near each other. They are less useful where adjacent zoning heights are very similar. Are step backs appropriate for buildings of similar heights? Another option is to have roof modulation with similar heights. Board Member Strauss recommended deleting, "follow the slope when slope exists." Board Member Schmitz agreed. He thought that the modulation was important. He cautioned against being overly prescriptive in order to allow creativity by developers. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 5 of 8 Board Member Brooks said she likes the idea of the variation of rooflines because it provides more interest and allows for more creativity by the developers. She spoke in support of the roof modulation language rather than step backs but thinks that the language should be precise in so they can get the desired outcome. This approach seems to be more appropriate for Edmonds. Board Member Loch commented that the step back is unnecessary with the scale of buildings they are talking out. He suggested that buildings should have visual interest in human scale. He recommended offering the designer a menu of things they can pick from such as modulation, change in materials, varied roofline, awnings, eves, etc. Board Member Herr commented from a builder perspective that the more restrictions they have the more expensive it gets to build. He thinks it will become that no one will build in Edmonds if it gets too restrictive. Board Member Jeude pointed out they are talking only about this particular zone in the city. She thinks that the roof modulation and step back are important to make the transition from downtown to residential. Chair Bayer agreed with Board Member Jeude. She thinks step backs may be important depending on the situation. She is concerned about lack of light and human scale development. Board Member Strauss suggested language such as: "Some roof modulation is required with using variations in slope, variations in overhang projections, setbacks, and step downs." She also recommended requiring a variation from building to building. Private Amenity Space — Rooftop Decks: "A maximum of 50% of the required private amenity space may be provided as a roof top deck. Deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the height limit provided the railing and guard system has the appearance of being transparent, such as a frameless glass railing system. No permanent structures are allowed within the roof deck area." This was originally in staff s draft to Council. They didn't like having the required private amenity space in the roof top deck area, but he thought they might be open to allowing it after some other amount of private amenity space requirement is met. Chair Bayer thought the Council was mainly concerned about privacy of neighbors and those on the street. Board Member Herr thought that roof top decks provide outdoor space that people aren't getting otherwise. He noted that most of what is being built in Seattle now has rooftop decks. Seattle allows you to use it as outdoor space which provides for more density on the site. Normally the decks don't go all the way to the edge of the building which alleviates some of the privacy concerns. Board Member Schmitz commented that he has designed many buildings, and the rooftop deck is one of the most coveted amenities because it is the largest area you can get in that type of building and allows for enjoying the great views in this region. He commented that many buildings often have patios, but they aren't used as much as rooftop decks because they are smaller and just not as usable. Since height limits aren't changing in the downtown core, it is one of the best and most valuable resources they have. Regarding privacy, he commented that anyone on the street can stand outside your house and look in anytime they want for as long as they want. Finally, he noted that rooftop decks provide accessible space if there are allowances for an elevator core that is a little over height (15 feet typically) to allow for accessible use. He noted that accessibility should also be considered when looking at limiting the sizes of private balconies. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Board Member Loch agreed that rooftop decks enhance the livability and often the appearance of structures. He could see not orienting them to face adjacent single-family residences. Board Member Strauss agreed with Board Member Schmitz. She also agreed that it should be accessible. She asked about the elevator core being allowed above the height limit. She also recommended having a minimum size for balconies in order to have usable space. Mr. Clugston noted that the code right now says they must be a minimum of 40 square feet. Board Member Strauss added that she doesn't think builders should be able to take away ground open space and put it on the roof. Board Member Brooks agreed that rooftop decks are a great addition to a living space. She is also in favor of rooftop gardens. One of the great uses of a rooftop garden are that it is a natural coolant for the building. Board Member Jeude agreed that a rooftop deck is a positive thing. From what she recalled of Council's discussion on this, she thought they were concerned about privacy and about people hanging over the deck and yelling at people in the street. She didn't think they were opposed to rooftop decks. They also were concerned that if you could put all that private amenity space on top of the building then you could mass out the building and not provide any other space around it. She likes the option that after a certain percentage of private amenity space is met that a rooftop deck would be allowed. Chair Bayer said she loves rooftop decks. Her concern is height limits and that other green space be provided. She asked if rooftop decks would limit roof modulation. Mr. Clugston did not think it would. Mr. Clugston summarized that the consensus appeared to be that in addition to the 10% of open space, some type of rooftop area could be allowed. Refinements to materials, private or street -side amenity Mr. Clugston asked for any discussion on the list of materials suggested on page 349 of the packet. He noted that the intent is to add interest and to allow flexibility in how builders could achieve these standards. Board Member Strauss liked the list of materials and suggested adding a living wall to the list of options. She also suggested banning LAP siding. Board Member Loch suggested applying these standards to the offending building at 6r' and Main to see if it would help or not. He commented that design standards can't prevent ugly. Board Member Schmitz agreed with Board Member Loch that aesthetics can't be regulated. For example, LAP siding can be very classic in the right situation. Asking for natural materials is kind of irresponsible because they are so expensive and hard to get. A green material or recycled material made of fibers or recycled contents could be a good alternative to the natural materials they are looking for. He noted that there are a lot of different kinds of fiber cements that look very nice. Mr. Clugston noted that concrete laminates, veneers, fiber cement products and the like may be permitted by the director or the Board if they replicate the appearance of the intended materials. Board Member Schmitz did not think that the alternative materials should require approval. He thought there should be more objective standards. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Board Member Strauss suggested saying that other materials could be approved by the director or the ADB if they contribute to the appearance of the building. She expressed frustration that even with all their work on the design guidelines they still end up with some ugly buildings. She stressed that they are only talking about this certain zone. She felt they could give ideas of what they are looking for without prescribing the design or the materials. Board Member Loch referred to a case from Issaquah regarding clarity in design review. He stressed that the applicant needs enough information in order to turn in an application that can be approved. He cautioned against being too wishy washy or vague. Chair Bayer agreed and noted they had reviewed the Issaquah case several times, and it is a good reminder. Board Member Schmitz noted that today's ugly building is tomorrow's gem. He cautioned the Board not to become the arbiter of beauty. He said he joined the board to help in that process and to help keep things sane. Chair Bayer stated that her goal is to line standards and designs up with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston indicated he would take the guidance provided tonight and work on some additional draft language for August. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Clugston asked the Board to provide feedback at some point on the draft Architectural Design Board Handbook he had sent out a couple months ago. Chair Bayer thanked him for handbook. She thinks it is very helpful. Board Member Brooks stated she hadn't received a copy. ADJOURNMENT: The next meeting will be held on August 3. The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting June 29, 2022 Page 8 of 8