Loading...
2019-04-03 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting April 3, 2019 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Joe Herr, Vice Chair Cary Guenther Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Kemen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Michelle Szafran, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2018 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was amended to place the public hearing before the administrative reports and items for discussion. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC MEETING: Public Hearing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development (Edmonds Crossing Apartments) and associated parldng. The site is located at 23830 Edmonds Way and is zoned RM-1.5 (File No. PLN20180069) Chair Strauss explained the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this design review matter outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. Next, Chair Strauss asked if any member of the Board has a conflict of interest or believes he/she cannot hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. Again, All Board Members answered no. Last, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 3,2019 Page 1 of 5 the Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and no one raised a concern. At her invitation, all who wanted to participate in the hearing were sworn in. Ms. Szafran presented the Staff Report. She explained that the proposal before the Board is a Type III-B decision, and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review was required. A SEPA determination was issued with the notice of application, and staff also reviewed the proposal for consistency with ECDC 20.11.030, the Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Chapter, and the zoning ordinance. Ms. Szafran provided a map and advised that the subject property is currently zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5), and the proposal will meet the density requirements for the zone. The property is located right off of Edmonds Way and adjacent zoning includes Single -Family Residential (RS-8) and Community Business (CB). The lot is irregular shaped, and a 15-foot setback is required along Edmonds Way and a 10-foot setback is required along the other two property boundaries. Ms. Szafran explained that the height limit in the RM-1.5 zone is 25 feet, with an additional 5 feet if the roof pitch is 4:12 or greater. The proposed building height will meet the height requirement, as the applicant is proposing a 4:12 roof pitch. The project will include a combination of studio, 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units, and a total of 16 parking spaces will be required. At the request of Chair Strauss, Ms. Szafran used the site plan to illustrate the location of the proposed 16 parking spaces. Ms. Szafran advised that staff also reviewed the proposal for compliance with the City's landscape requirements and found that the project would meet the requirements as proposed. She recommended the Board approve the application, along with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Haynes Lund, Wilson Lund Architects, LLC, provided a picture to illustrate the existing conditions on the site. It is currently heavily vegetated, and the existing houses are set back from the street. He also provided elevation drawings to illustrate what the site and each side of the building would look like after construction. He explained that the building would be located towards the street in order to fit the maximum density within the confines of the small and irregular - shaped site. Mr. Lund explained that the irregular roof shapes on the proposed new building resulted from trying to create an orderly roof plan on an irregular footprint. The roofs are all orthogonal north/south and are sometimes cut off at angles. They have accepted these odd angles and shapes and made them part of the interest of the building. The perpendicular slopes and different roof angles are based on the idea of a courtyard scheme. He provided floor plans for all three levels, and pointed out that each floor would have one 2-bedroom unit and two 1-bedroom units. The ground floor would have an additional studio apartment, and the roof of the studio unit would become an outdoor activity space. Mr. Lund advised that the materials proposed for the project are very standard northwest materials (horizontal siding, exposed wood columns, vinyl windows, etc.) He advised that the trash pickup needed to come off of Edmonds Way, and creating a driveway with a full turnaround for trash handling would consume about 30% of the site. The proposed semi -circular driveway was a way around that issue. He noted that there is a concrete medium at this section of Edmonds Way, so there is no left turns in or out of the site. The semi -circular driveway helps to encourage this flow of movement. Mr. Lund advised that all utilities would come to the site from Edmonds Way. The existing power pole at the very north corner of the site will need to be moved. The existing sidewalk is directly at the curb line, and the new design that will be implemented for the project has a planting strip along Edmonds Way and the sidewalk is setback. This puts the existing pole right in the middle of the new sidewalk. He commented that they may not even be able to use the existing power pole because there is insufficient power for the project. In talking with the Snohomish County Public Utility District, it is likely that an underground vault will be installed. At this time, he is not sure if both the new vault and relocation of the power pole will be required. He referred to the floor plan for the ground floor and pointed out the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 3,2019 Page 2 of 5 location of the utility building where the utilities will come to the site. On the upper floors, this area will become storage for the apartment units and help provide some privacy for the 2-bedroom units from the parking lot. Mr. Lund said a storm drainage vault will be located under the parking lot to collect stormwater runoff. The intent is to provide fairly dense landscaping in front of the patios. The building will be located very close to Edmonds Way, and the landscaping will provide some privacy for the units. Jason Anderson, Design Two Four/Two Six, advised that the landscaping in front of the patios will be mostly native and/or acclimated species, heavily planted to meet the City's landscaping requirements. As proposed, there will be Type II landscaping on the long side of the triangle, with Type III on the two remaining sides. The goal is to provide a lot of variation and color, but also more conifer trees than are required by the City. Mr. Anderson advised that a retaining wall would be constructed along the north/south property line. He explained that in order to accommodate the space needed for the building and parking, the retaining wall would be a straight vertical wall on the curb line along the edge of the parking lot. Rather than planting Boston Ivy near the wall, the intent is to use more dense plantings. Mr. Lund explained that the original design had the wall midway in the space, but that made it impossible to accommodate trees. The retaining wall will be a maximum of 3 feet in height and is needed to create a level parking lot on a gently sloping site. The wall will be mostly screened by plantings. Mr. Lund advised that there will be a bit of a slope along the south/east property line behind the building. They will be cutting into the site a bit to try and get to a level building pad. In doing that, there will be a bit of a hump in the middle of the site. The design at this point looks at doing an ecology block wall that will be put in for construction and left. The dirt will then be wrapped around it so it will be covered by the plantings when the project is finished. Vice Chair Herr commented that, as a builder and designer, the proposed design is very creative given the irregular site and the pitched roof. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the hearing, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Guenther agreed with Vice Chair Herr that the proposed design offers a creative solution for an awkward site. Board Member Walker commented that he likes that the site will be so heavily landscaped with a variety of plants. BOARD MEMBER WALKER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT, FIND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY HOMES (FILE NO. PLN20180069) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: im 1901O&AINMY:11eam1,IO/;7Cei111go]DMIMMI&II/:\/111:3Bel»UY0M;7u11e10111311 No' 1317\; N-410EXETe4:l;-M 2. THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS USBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH VAROIUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 3. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 3,2019 Page 3 of 5 ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUIDLING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Election of Officers BOARD MEMBER WALKER MOVED THAT BOARD MEMBER HERR SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2019. BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS SECONDED MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board agreed to postpone election of Vice Chair until the newly appointed Board Members were present to participate. Update on Architectural Design Board (ADB) Roles Mr. Clugston provided a chart comparing the Board's current powers and duties found in Edmonds City Code (ECC) 10.05 with the expressed work preferences the Board discussed last fall. He noted that the current powers and duties are very similar to the Board's expressed preferences of what they actually want to do. The powers and duties were originally adopted in 1973, and he doesn't know how the Board went from a policy advisory board to a quasi-judicial decision -making Board. For example, the Board' expressed desire to provide design guidance earlier during the project review cycle rather than making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of projects when they are typically fully designed is consistent with ECC 10.05. He reminded them that the City Council has also indicated that they do not want the Board to continue making quasi-judicial decisions. Mr. Clugston also provided a flow chart of a hypothetical design review process that would get the Board out of its decision -making role and put its expertise more at the beginning of the review process. Staff's thought is that Board Members could participate in pre -application meetings where State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review is required. He explained that in a pre -application meeting, staff from all different departments meet with an applicant to review tentative plans. Board Members could sit in on these meetings to review the plans and provide input at the beginning of the process. This would enable them to provide design direction early in the process when their input can be better applied. Mr. Clugston explained that, whether design review is done by staff or by the Hearing Examiner, the Board Members could be called upon for specific input. They could be consulted on an "as needed basis," but they would not be asked to make the final decision on an application. Mr. Clugston suggested that the next step in the process would be a joint meeting with the Planning Board to discuss potential code changes and how the ADB might become more involved in policy -level work. He explained that the Planning Board handles the bulk of the policy recommendation work right now, and the discussion could focus on how the ADB's design knowledge might be incorporated into the Planning Board's policy work. The intent would be for the two Boards to work in parallel. Board Member Guenther said he is intrigued by the idea of Board Members attending pre -application meetings, but he asked if the Board would only be invited to participate in meetings when applications trigger SEPA review. Mr. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 3,2019 Page 4 of 5 Clugston explained that, currently, there are two types of pre -application meetings. In formal pre -application meetings, applicants submit fairly detailed drawings and staff provides written comments back to them. A development review committee meeting is a higher -level review. He explained that SEPA review was used in the draft flow chart as a placeholder concept, but the Board could be involved in all pre -application meetings if that is the desire. Board Member Guenther recalled that when he served on the Planning Board, the ADB was the "color police" of the City. They also reviewed signage. At some point, all of those responsibilities were cut back, and now they are simply reviewing projects that are almost complete as far as design. He is interested in the pre -application meeting concept because it would enable the Board to get involved earlier in the process and have more say in the design. Chair Strauss suggested that it could be a mandatory requirement that certain members of the ADB attend pre - application meetings and provide input on projects that trigger SEPA review. For projects that do not require SEPA review, ADB members could be invited to attend pre -application meetings and provide input, but their attendance would not be mandatory. Mr. Clugston agreed that is a possible approach. Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, pre -application meetings are held on Thursday afternoons at 1:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., which will make it difficult for Board members to attend. They will need to work out some of these details. Perhaps a rotating group of Board Members could be assigned to attend the pre -application meetings. He advised that, currently, the pre -application meetings are scheduled two to three weeks out. Chair Strauss suggested the Board wait until the new ADB Members are on board before meeting jointly with the Planning Board. Mr. Lien reported that Mayor Earling has interviewed two candidates and will forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval on April 16'. Staff will re -advertise the remaining position on the Board. The intent is to have a full Board in place soon. Mr. Clugston agreed to set up a joint meeting with the Planning Board in the next month or two. He advised that there will be three or four applications for design review within the next few months, as well. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no additional comments from Board Members. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 3,2019 Page 5 of 5