Loading...
2019-06-05 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Joe Herr, Chair Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby Lauri Straus Tom Walker ,�1]i�1 �I1`11yY11;1 Board Members Absent Staff Present Cary Guenther (excused) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner The May 13, 2019 minutes were approved as presented. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. 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 HEARING: PHASE 1 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW FOR GRAPHITE ARTS STUDIO #1 AND #2 LOCATED AT 202 MAIN STREET AND 117 2ND AVENUE SOUTH (PLN20190009) Chair Herr explained that tonight is Phase 1 of the design review hearing for the Graphite Arts Studio Project. After accepting public testimony, the Board will provide feedback to the applicant and continue the hearing to a date certain in order to take additional testimony, deliberate and make a decision on the project. He emphasized that no decision would be made tonight. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Chair Herr 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, he 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, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and no one raised a concern. At his invitation, all who wanted to participate in the hearing were sworn in. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 1 of 9 Mr. Clugston advised that the application requires a two -phased design review because of its location in the Downtown Business (BD) zone and because it triggered State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. During the Phase 1 hearing, the applicant will provide conceptual design and the Board will prioritize the design by checklist and continue the hearing to a date certain. During the Phase 2 hearing, the applicant will respond to the guidance provided by the Board at the Phase 1 hearing and the Board will review the revised proposal based on its previous guidance and issue a decision. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the applicant was previously before the Board for review of a project at the corner of 2' Avenue and Main Street, but that project was abandoned. The applicant is now proposing two buildings, one at 202 Main Street and another at 117 2nd Avenue. Building 1 will be an 11,000 square foot, 1-story building that will house arts studios, a gallery and caf6, with parking in the rear off the alley. Building 2 will be a 17,000 square foot, 2-story building with 8 residentials units over flex space and parking. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photo to illustrate the location of the two building sites. Access would be taken from the alley that runs between the two parcels. He provided photographs to illustrate the existing condition of the properties, as well as the surrounding properties. He pointed out that adjacent properties are developed as post office, multi -family residential and office. Mr. Clugston explained that both parcels are zoned BD-2 and the height limit is 30 feet, measured from the average grade. As proposed, Building 1 would be approximately 28 feet and Building 2 would be approximately 26 feet. Due to its location on a "Designated Street Front," Building 1 will require a ground floor height of 12 feet, and the applicant is proposing a height of 14.5 feet. The ground floor height requirement does not apply to Building 2. In addition, Building 1 will require a minimum commercial floor depth of 45 feet from Main Street and 2' Avenue, and the applicant is proposing a depth greater than 45 feet. The commercial depth requirement does not apply to Building 2. Mr. Clugston reviewed that no parking is required for commercial development in the BD zones, and one parking stall is required for each residential unit. Building 1 will be all commercial, so no parking spaces will be required. Building 2 will need to provide 8 parking stalls to serve the 8 residential units, and the applicant is proposing 16. Mr. Clugston advised that the BD zones require open space for properties that meet a certain threshold. As per code, Building 1 will require open space equal to 5% of the lot area, and the applicant is proposing 1,412 square feet of open space in seating areas and patios adjacent to the street front on Main Street. Building 2 will not require open space because the lot is not big enough or wide enough. Mr. Clugston explained that the buildings will occupy most of the lot area, but there will be some landscaping on each site. Street trees will also be required on both 2' Avenue and Main Street. Mr. Clugston referred to the Design Guidelines Checklist (Attachment 5 of the Staff Report). Following the applicant's presentation and public comments, the Board will review the checklist and prioritize the different elements to provide guidance to the applicant. Following tonight's public hearing, he recommended the Board continue the hearing to August 7', which allow sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the design guidance and staff to review the resubmittal and prepare a Staff Report. Bob Gregg, Applicant's Representative, said the proposed project is intended to provide economical studios for artists to rent on a month -to -month or long-term basis. It will include a gallery for the artists to display their work and provide a venue for the public to watch the artists work. The project will also provide a place for public school teachers to receive free training on how to teach art to their students. The Graphite Art Studio is a non-profit that is dedicated to providing art supplies to teachers. The associated restaurant will provide catering for on -site events and the 8 living units will provide housing for the artists who are working in the art studio. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 2 of 9 Mr. Gregg introduced the design team. Mary Olsen is an Edmonds resident, a degreed artist, and the benefactor for the project. Scott Miller was the architect for the original design, which previously received approval from the Board. Mr. Miller is continuing as a consultant for the revised project. David Pelletier, Pelletier + Schaar Architects, prepared the design that is being presented tonight. Mr. Gregg explained that the original design was for a single, 3-story building (one below ground and 2 above ground). The proposal was changed due to high construction costs, specifically the costs associated with below -ground parking. The new proposal retains most of the design elements, including the very large windows and outside seating. The ground floor of the main building will have the exact layout as what was previously approved, but the upper story was eliminated. The second building will provide more living space than the original proposal. Besides the commercial space along the street front, the ground floor of Building 2 will provide parking for the residential units on the upper floor. Board Member Owensby asked what types of artists the proposed project would serve. Mary Olsen, Applicant, answered that there would be studios for ceramics, painting, drawing, printing, etc. It can also accommodate art history lectures and classes. The artists will likely be juried in and the intent is to have a variety of artists that focus on fine arts rather than crafty arts. Dave Pelletier, Pelletier + Schaar Architects, explained that Building 1 would be the art studio/cafe building, and Building 2 would be residential over commercial. He explained how the proposal meets the BD-2 zoning requirements, as well as the BD guidelines. He pointed out that the cafe and large overhangs encourage human activity and interaction, which is a very important zoning criterion. In addition, the project incorporates landscape features, including planters, and the entrances will be oriented toward Main Street and 2' Avenue. The proposed design will be consistent with surrounding buildings, both office and retail, and all parking access will come from the alley to protect pedestrian access. The buildings are consistent in size and proportion with neighboring buildings and will not exceed the maximum height allowed in the zone. The building mass in both buildings would be subdivided with awnings, plantings, a variety of materials, recessed building corners, and large storefront windows. Mr. Pelletier said that frontage improvements will include new sidewalks and street trees, and the materials chosen will be durable glass, stone, metal and wood. The dumpster will be screened and located off the back alleyway. Adequate lighting will be provided for safety, and the two buildings will meet the minimum ground floor height requirement of 12 feet. The portion of Building 1 that is located on a "Designated Street Front" will meet the 75% transparency requirement on Main Street. However, the slope on 2' Avenue will not allow for this criterion to be met. The HVAC equipment will be hidden behind towers, and bike storage and access will be provided from the alleyways. Mr. Pelletier provided samples of the proposed materials, noting that one of the predominant siding materials on the Main Street and 2' Avenue facades will be Corten steel. The planters will be a darker color of sling file to further break up the facades along Main Street and 2nd Avenue. Hardy board will be used to create a more economic material for the alleyway facades. Architectural cement will be used at the base of the building along 2' Avenue and Main Street. Natural stained wood will be used to create some interesting architectural highlights to break up the facades and provide a natural, organic look to the building. The storefront windows will be black aluminum to create a nice contrast and good flow, and the roof will be metal. All of the lighting (stair, safety, landscape and entry) will meet City code requirements. Board Member Owenby commented that designers of projects like this have two clients: the developer and the City. As a representative of the City, he is responsible for reviewing three things: how well the project fits within the City's urban environment, the architecture and the viability of the project. In downtown Edmonds, almost all of the buildings appear as frontal buildings, similar to what you would see in an older western town. Typically, there are just a few identifiable buildings that people recognize and the other buildings are background buildings. He expressed his belief that some of the best buildings in an urban environment are the background buildings that are nicely detailed. He said he sees the proposed new buildings as rotational or object buildings rather than background buildings. There is a corner element Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 3 of 9 that is very important in an urban environment. Generally, object buildings in urban design are town halls, churches, museums, schools, etc., and most of the other buildings on the street are just background buildings. With the current proposal, he notices new 1- and 2- story buildings next to existing 1-story buildings that are near the end of their lifecycle and will be coming down soon. The buildings across the street are all 2- and 3-story buildings. He questioned what the scale of the two new buildings will be over time in relationship to these taller buildings. The new buildings will eventually become more like object buildings rather than urban buildings. He said he does not think the proposed buildings fit in Edmonds as urban buildings. Board Member Owensby said he loves the idea of a school, and he likes the thought of bringing artists together and educating people in the arts. However, in his experience, he knows that northern light is extremely important to painters. While the proposed building does take advantage of the street front, which is purely north light. The studios will be located on the west side, and shades will likely be needed because the light coming into the building will change the color of the paint as the sun moves across the room. He questioned if the building, as currently proposed, would be a viable art center. Most of his artist friends prefer lofts or mixed spaces where they can have a number of projects going at the same time, and the proposed residential units will be 2-story apartments without any edges. There will be a studio in the middle of the building, but there will be no natural light. Board Member Owensby summarized that from an architectural, urban design and viability standpoint, he doesn't think the proposed design will result in a viable art studio. He pointed out that the cafe will set three feet down, and patrons will end up looking at the ankles of pedestrians walking by. He felt that more thought is needed in the design. He said he loves the idea of Corten steel siding, but he questioned if it would work in this application since it takes 2 to 3 years to develop its patina. During that time, it will drip and leave rust stains everywhere. On the west side, the applicant is proposing 4 feet of architectural concrete below the Corten steel siding, and he can imagine a lot of rust stains going across it. He suggested that Corten is an edgy, artist type of material that should be used in a less traditional way. Mr. Gregg commented that, in his experience as a long-time developer in downtown Edmonds, there has been a lot of opposition to taller buildings. In this proposal, the design is well under the height limit, and there has been no opposition. As a LEED accredited professional, he carefully considered how much light would get deep into the building. The proposal includes very large windows, including the clerestory windows and skylights coming to the middle of the building. The studios do not have ceilings so natural light can come down from all places. Board Member Owensby commented that, rather than soft, natural light, the light will come across and change the colors. Northern light is preferred because there are no shadows or colors coming in. Mr. Gregg pointed out that the longest fagade of the building is on Main Street, which is northern light. Board Member Owensby agreed but noted that the studios would not be located on that side of the building to take advantage of this light. Mr. Gregg responded that the windows would be large enough to go deep into the center of the building, and there will be skylights above. While he appreciates Board Member Owensby's concerns, he respectfully disagreed and said the applicant has no intention of abandoning the project to a different location. Board Member Owensby agreed it is a great location, but as an artist center, there are more creative solutions than what the current design provides. Ms. Olsen said the proposed project includes a lot of flex space on the north side where they envision artists working. She explained that part of the vision is that people can see artists working rather than having the artists hidden in their own studios. Chair Herr reminded the Board Members that their responsibility is to examine a proposal and determine whether or not it meets the City's design guidelines. A personal opinion that the design might not work from an artist perspective should not enter into the Board's deliberation. The Board's discussion should focus on those items that are within their purview. Board Member Strauss said she loves the Corten steel siding but questioned whether it would work since it is not supposed to be good for salty environments or environments that have a lot of fog. She asked that the applicant reconsider whether it will be a good material in this application. Rust dripping is an issue, particularly given the concrete base on 2" d Avenue. She suggested that perhaps a few feet of base could be provided underneath the Corten to help mitigate for dripping rust. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 4 of 9 While the main awning extends over the sidewalk, Board Member Strauss noted that the other awnings do not. Board Member Walker pointed out that if the awnings only extend part way, they will end up dripping on pedestrians on the sidewalks below. Board Member Strauss asked the applicant to reconsider the awnings. Mr. Pelletier agreed that is a good point. He explained that there will be continuous awnings of varying depths along Main Street and 2" d Avenue. Mr. Gregg advised that the awnings match those that were approved by the Board as part of the original proposal. He recalled that they were made wider based on feedback from the Board. Board Member Strauss said she understands the requirement for a lot of windows on the street front, but she doesn't like the look at the top where the clerestory windows are different heights. She asked if the window heights could be adjusted and still meet the design criteria. Mr. Gregg responded that the varying heights are an attempt to meet the code requirement. However, he recalled that the original proposal did not meet the requirement, either. The resolution was to not come back with a building permit application that shows fewer windows than what the Board approved. The current design is very close to what was originally proposed. Board Member Strauss asked the applicant to reconsider the balance. The proposed building is very symmetrical, and the two windows on the top not being the same looks odd. Mr. Gregg responded that this issue could be addressed if the Board agreed to allow the lower percentage that was approved as part of the original design. Board Member Strauss observed that the main floor on 2" d Avenue will be 4 feet above the sidewalk and the window will be 4 feet above that. If the goal is to provide an opportunity for the public to see inside the building and watch the artists, perhaps the windows should be moved down to floor level inside the studios. She noted that there might be an opportunity to shade some of the western sun coming in by using the other buildings and lowering the openings. Mr. Gregg agreed that the windows could be lowered. Board Member Strauss asked how the Corten steel siding would be installed. Mr. Pelletier said the Corten material would be raised off the wall with the waterproof continuous rainscreen behind. They would use exposed fasteners and the panels would have a gap to accentuate the wall. Board Member Strauss felt this would help break up the long, smooth walls. Board Member Strauss suggested the applicant use a different, lighter material on the top and create more of a base on the Main Street elevation. She observed that other buildings along Main Street have a base of brick, stone, etc. Board Member Owensby asked why the entrance was not created towards the corner so that everything could be lowered a bit. Mr. Gregg responded that the code requires the entrance to be within 7 inches of the average grade, and the center ended up being the only spot for the entrance. Board Member Owensby asked if the design could be stair stepped up the slope. He noted that the code talks about the importance of the corner and askes for the entrances to be located at the corner rather than somewhere in the middle. Board Member Owensby pointed out that the corner terrace would not be street friendly at the level proposed because it would be taller than the people walking by. Mr. Gregg pointed out that the terrace would be a patio off the interior space. If the terrace cannot be lowered, Board Member Owensby suggested that perhaps a transparent material could be used, instead. Board Member Strauss agreed that the design looks very solid around the corners, and opening it up with a glass, cable or wooden rail that allows people to see in would be appropriate. Mr. Gregg agreed to consider this change. Board Member Owensby suggested the corner would be a much better location for an outdoor restaurant or cafe in terms of seating. Edmonds is trying to promote this type of activity, with more things happening on the edge. He asked why the proposed cafe space is buried within the project rather than at the corner. Mr. Gregg reminded the Board that the project is an art studio with a restaurant and not a restaurant with an art studio. They want the building to be iconic for people coming off the ferry into downtown Edmonds. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 5 of 9 Board Member Strauss asked if the buildings would be located on two separate sites. Mr. Gregg answered that the project consists of two separate buildings on two separate parcels. Board Member Strauss asked if two separate building permits would be required. Mr. Clugston responded that the City asked the applicant to combine the SEPA review, and that is why the design review looks at both sides at one time. The building permits will almost certainly be separate. Board Member Strauss voiced concern that one building could be permitted and another could get delayed or even terminated. She asked if the applicant is planning to construct the buildings at the same time. Mr. Gregg said the project is not planned as a phased project, and the intent is to construct both buildings simultaneously. Board Member Strauss asked if the residential units would be reserved for artists only. Mr. Pelletier answered that the apartments would be open to anyone and not just artists. Chair Herr noted that the project would require 8 parking stalls to serve the residential units. He asked if the public would be allowed to park in the excess stalls. Mr. Gregg said the design includes 16 parking spaces. While only 8 spaces are required, it is difficult to market apartments with only one parking space. The parking would be designated primarily for the residential uses. Although Building 2 does not have the same requirements because it is not on a "Designated Street Front," Board Member Strauss said her comments related to Building 1 would also apply to Building 2. She noted the large, blank wall on the south facade and asked if the two buildings would be attached. Mr. Gregg responded that there will be a CMD wall literally up against the existing building. It will be sealed off and not visible from any angle. Board Member Owensby asked the applicant for an elevation showing both of the buildings together along 2' Avenue. The applicant was unable to provide the drawing at this time. Board Member Walker asked if it would be possible to display art in the windows for the public to view. Another opportunity would be to use a blank wall for murals. Mr. Gregg said the blank wall is actually the south wall, which is just a short distance from the north wall of the existing building. However, there is some potential for murals or changing art along the alley facades. Ms. Olsen said there will be an art installation piece that is visible as you walk into the building, and the gallery will be located to the left. The entrance is designed in such a way that the public can walk in without walking directly into someone's studio. The building will be open to the public during normal business hours. Board Member Strauss asked if there will be skylights for the interior studios and gallery. Mr. Gregg answered yes. Larry Luke, Edmonds, said his building is directly behind the proposed Building 2 (west side) and he will lose part of his view. He said his building is both commercial and residential, with approximately 28 cars exiting onto the alley on the west side of the building, which is directly across from Building 2. He asked where the exit for Building 2 would be located. Mr. Gregg answered that the City encourages the use of alleys for access. Board Member Strauss commented that vehicles would exit the parking garage via the alleyway between the two buildings. Mr. Luke said his understanding is that Building 2 would be 26 feet tall. He asked if that would include the rooftop mechanical equipment. Ms. Olsen answered that the air conditioning units would be hidden behind the raised roofs. Mr. Luke shared his experience with a building south of the subject site where the air conditioning units on top are so loud that he can't open his windows. He questioned if Building 2 would create a similar problem. Mr. Gregg pointed out that the residential units would not be air conditioned. The only air conditioning unit would serve the art studios located in the center of the building. The unit will be smaller and newer units tend to be quieter. Gregg Arnold, Edmonds, expressed his belief that the proposed project offers a great opportunity for Edmonds to have a building that is accessible for the public to view artwork. The project will start to build a corridor between the waterfront and the downtown that will increase the amount of sidewalk appeal. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 6 of 9 Cheree Brodrick, Edmonds, said she is excited about the proposed project and would like to reserve her opportunity to testify at the Phase 2 hearing. She has a private studio and is a potential client of the new building and she is very excited about having another commercial space available that fits the type of business she operates. She felt the project will be a great fit for Edmonds, and her clients are very excited. She noted that her business would not require a lot of additional parking. Chrystal Lanning, Edmonds, said she is also excited about the project and agrees with Mr. Arnold. The new development that has occurred in the area is more contemporary looking, and she likes the mix of the old and new. The Board reviewed the Design Guidelines Checklist as follows: A. Site Planning Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics X 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. Board Member Owenby said he doesn't believe the proposal reinforces the existing streetscape, which has glass and awnings all the way down the street, with buildings set at the street. The proposed building would be set back from the street. Chair Herr said he sees Edmonds as an older town that is in need of coming of age. The building that previously existed on the site, as well as many other buildings in the area are at X the end of their life. Styles change over time and he questioned whether the project should be required to reinforce existing streetscapes. Board Member Walker said he would like the project to reinforce the connection between the downtown and waterfront. Board Member Jeude said she doesn't see the proposed design as that much different than the post office building across the street, and the other corners seem very similar, too. Board Member Strauss said she loves the eclectic downtown where all the buildings are different. She doesn't want every building in downtown to look the same, and she hopes the project is designed with more character. Board Member Owensby said his concern is related to the streetscape (overhangs, close connections to the building, etc.) He said he would like the buildings to be located closer to the street. Mr. Gregg pointed out that the property is not square, which makes it difficult to bring a square building out to the sidewalk. One reason for pulling the building back is the Corten siding. Rather than dripping onto the sidewalk where it will stain, it will go into planter boxes and other landscaped areas. 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street X 4. Encourage human activity on street X 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites X 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction residentialprojects) X 7. Maximize open sace opportunity on site (residentialprojects) X 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property X 9. Discourage parking in street front X Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 7 of 9 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) X B. Bulk and Scale N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the zoning on surrounding properties is the same as the subject parcels. While they may be developed differently X than what the applicant is proposing, they could presumably be redeveloped into larger buildings. There is no adjacent residential development. C. Architectural Elements and Materials N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures X 2. Unified architectural concept X 3. Use human scale and human activity X 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials X 5. Minimize garage entrances X D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry X 2. Avoid blank walls X 3. Minimize height of retaining walls X 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas X 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures X 6. Screen dum sters, utility and service areas X 7. Consider personal safety X E. Landscaping Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. The Board agreed that street tree continuation is important, as required by X code. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. Board Member Walker commented that, although minimal landscaping will be required for the project, what is provided should be designed to fit the character of X the building. 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions X Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 8 of 9 CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 7, 2019. BOARD MEMER STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS There were no consolidated permit applications. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR FOR 2019 BOARD MEMBER HERR NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There were no administrative reports. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 5, 2019 Page 9 of 9