Loading...
2019-07-03 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 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 Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Kim Bayer Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Tom Walker (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. 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 Main Street Commons Located at 550 Main Street (File No. PLN20190024) Chair Herr explained that tonight is Phase 1 of the design review hearing for the Main Street Commons 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 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 1 of 11 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. Mr. Clugston explained that the application requires a two -phased design review because of its location in a 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. The Board will review the revised proposal based on its previous guidance and the applicant's response and issue a decision. Mr. Clugston referred to the Staff Report, which includes 13 attachments: Two additional attachments were provided just prior to the meeting: A series of color schemes (Attachment 14) and trash enclosure comments from the building permit submittal (Attachment 15). He explained that, typically, design review is done first, followed by building permits. In this case, the applicant has applied for design review and building permits at the same time, and staff is reviewing the applications concurrently. Any modifications or conditions identified by the Board during design review must be reflected in the building permit. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photograph and a site plan and explained that the applicant is proposing two commercial buildings and site improvements on property located at 550 Main Street. Phase 1 of the redevelopment project will include extensive renovation and alteration of an existing 9000 square foot building on the west side of the site and creation of an adjacent plaza to replace a portion of an existing surface parking lot. Phase 2 will replace the rest of the existing parking lot with a new 5,600 square foot, two-story building to the east of the plaza at the corner of Main Street and 6' Avenue South. The plaza will be extended south of the new building to connect to 6'' Avenue South and eight surface parking stalls will be created that load from the alley on the south side. Mr. Clugston reviewed that there are no setback requirements in the BD-1 zone because it is not adjacent to residential. The height limit is 30 feet and the lot coverage requirements allow for development lot -line -to -lot -line. The BD-1 zone also requires that the buildings address the designated street fronts, which in this case is the Main Street side of the project. That means the ground floor height must be at least 15 feet and the depth of the commercial space must be at least 45 feet. The majority of the east building will meet the 15-foot height requirement, but a portion of it will not. Because the west building is a remodel, it does not have to meet the 15-foot height requirement. Both the new building and the existing building will meet the commercial depth requirement. Mr. Clugston advised that no parking is required for commercial uses in the BD-1 zone, but the applicant is proposing to provide eight stalls off the alley. The project is required to provide 990 square feet of open space (5% of the lot area), and the applicant is proposing approximately 1,000 square feet of open space at the northern edge of the site along Main Street between the buildings. The plaza wrapping around the new building will provide additional open space and touch 6' Avenue South on the southeast corner of the project site. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the Phase 1 hearing is to primarily address zoning issues, but there are a few design elements that are important to highlight as something the applicant will need to address prior to the Phase 2 hearing. West Building. There is a question about whether the proposal for this building should be classified as a remodel or new construction. If it is determined to be a new building, all of the current building and zoning code requirements and design standards would apply and the building would have to be redesigned from what is being proposed. The threshold for a remodel is 75% of the valuation of the building. One of the main features of the BD design code is to provide a pedestrian connection, including weather protection, between the primary building and the street (Main Street). As currently shown, there would be no pedestrian connection to Main Street. Also, the proposed design does not meet the requirement that 75% of the fagade of the building must be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 2 of 11 transparent between 2 and 10 feet. Lastly, the applicant is proposing two restaurants and other commercial uses, and the Recycling Coordinator questioned if there would be sufficient room for the trash facilities in the rear of the west building off the alley. The Board should consider whether the proposed trash facility is adequate or if additional facilities will need to be provided with the new building. East Building. The design of this building is fairly industrial looking, there is not an identifiable top and base, and the building does not provide sufficient transparency to meet the 75% requirement. He suggested that the utility doors in the center of the building could be relocated to the back of the building to open up space for more transparency along the street front. The building meets the 15-foot minimum height requirement for the front 45 feet of the ground floor, but the last 5 to 10 feet does not. There are no exceptions in the code for the floor height requirement, so the entire ground floor height will need to be 15 feet. This will require the floor plans to be altered. Lastly, it appears that the rooftop HVAC unit will extend beyond the 30-foot height limit. Mr. Clugston referred to the Design Guideline Checklist (Attachment 5 of the Staff Report), which the Board will review and provide guidance to the applicant. At the conclusion of the Phase 1 hearing, he recommended the Board schedule the Phase 2 hearing for October 2'. This will provide sufficient time for the applicant to respond to the design guidance and the initial round of building permit corrections. It will also allow staff sufficient time to review the building permit and design review submittals and prepare the Staff Report for the Phase 2 hearing. Chair Herr asked if the west building would have to meet the 75% transparency requirement if it is determined to be a remodel rather than new construction. Mr. Clugston answered that there are some building and zoning requirements that would not have to be met with a remodel, but the connection to Main Street and transparency requirements would still apply. The floor -to -floor height requirement would not apply to a remodel, but most of the other requirements would have to be met. He summarized that, if the west building is classified as new construction, the form of the building will have to change substantially. Chair Herr asked who would determine whether the west building is a remodel or new construction. Mr. Clugston said the Building Official provided a checklist to help the applicant do a valuation for the proposed project. If the replacement value of the building is greater than 75% of the value of the existing structure, it would be considered new construction and would have to meet all of the current codes. The determination has not been made yet. Board Member Owenby asked if the 75% transparency must happen between 2 and 10 feet, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Board Member Owenby asked if there is an allowance for taking the transparency down to the floor level only when the floor level is higher than the street. Mr. Clugston answered that, in the past, an existing building has been allowed to provide transparency horizontally rather that at an angle. In this case, the criterial would be satisfied if the building above the foundation is 75% transparent. Board Member Owensby asked if tradeoffs can be made by providing more windows higher up, and Mr. Clugston answered no. That is why it can be difficult to reuse existing buildings and bring them up to today's standards. Chair Herr voiced concern that the transparency requirement could kill the project because it would not be possible for the applicant to put windows below the existing floor. Mr. Clugston clarified that, if the building is considered a remodel, the applicant would not have to cut down into the foundation to provide windows, and the transparency area would be measured above the foundation. However, if the building is considered new construction, the 2 and 10 measurement would follow the track of the sidewalk. Board Member Becker observed that the only parking for the project will be the 8 stalls along the 6' Avenue alley. She pointed out that parking is a growing issue for retailers in the downtown, and this project would add to the concern. Again, Mr. Clugston advised that no parking is required for commercial uses in the BD zones, but the applicant is providing 8 stalls that are not required. Mike McMurray, Applicant, pointed out that there are currently curb cuts along Main Street that serve the property. These will be closed off and four new public parking spaces can be provided along the street. If the City agrees to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 3 of 11 change to angle parking then six additional public parking spaces could be provided in front of the subject property and the angle parking could extend down the street, as well. Mr. McMurray said some of his motivation to take on the project is to bring variation to the downtown. The BD-1 zone is special and was created for commercial development. He said there has been some push back from the community because he has been letting people park in the parking lot for free since he purchased the property in 2017. Sometimes there is a perception that something is being taken away, even though it was never really theirs to begin with. He said he is sensitive to parking and even lobbied for designated parking at Civic Field, which is just two blocks away. Density expansion around the City is enormous and he anticipates 20,000 to 30,000 more people with a 6-mile radius of Edmonds in the next five years. Parking needs to be taken seriously. Mr. McMurray commented that his proposed project is risky. He enjoys the existing building that was built in 1954 and was the main grocery store in town. Mid-century style development (warehouse style with large, open beams) is not common now. His goal is to bring the building back to its former glory, removing all of the country -western features that were added later. The goal was to design a building that fits with the character of the downtown. Walkability is a central amenity in the downtown, and the proposed new building would be set back rather than consuming the entire lot. He shared a picture of the inside and outside of the original Thriftway Building that was constructed in 1954. Mr. McMurray explained that the development of Civic Park just two blocks north of the subject property had a significant impact on the design of his project. He felt it was important to assimilate his project into the pedestrian - friendly downtown Edmonds. He can imagine people leaving events at the park and filtering down 6' Avenue to get to Main Street, and the proposed plaza would provide a nice place for people to walk through. The plan calls for four small-scale shops on the ground floor of the new building. Mr. McMurray advised that public feedback and participation is key to the project. He solicited public feedback via My Edmonds News, a website, etc. and received over 200 emails from local residents. For the most part, he responded to each comment he received. His original plan had an outdoor bar and restaurant. However, public feedback indicated a strong desire for a small performance stage for local musicians, and the bar was switched to a music stage. Mr. McMurray said the landscape consultant for the project is the same company that did Salish Crossing. The goal was to make the plan as agriculturally based as possible to tone down some of the more industrial appearance of the two buildings. A plaza would be located between the two buildings, with a walkway along the alley. The idea would be for people to hang out in the plaza area, and seating would be provided similar to the Hazel Miller Plaza. The proposed commercial paver system would be attractive yet durable. A mature tree would be installed at the back side of the property where there is currently an asphalt lot. Mr. McMurray observed that his half acre parcel is located in the middle of downtown. Rather than a large, 2-story condominium building, his idea was to create a project that assimilates into the culture of the downtown. Based on public feedback, it appears that people are generally happy with the proposed project that is intended to contribute to other elements of what makes Edmonds unique (farmers markets, arts festivals, murals, art walks, etc.) He shared the concept of a mural alley that provides three mural panels to contribute to Edmonds' growing mural scene. The panels and awnings could be used to create two farmer's market like stalls to house multiple vendors for a variety of purposes. He pointed out that the panel closest to 6' Avenue would be turned slightly so that people stopped at the intersection of 6' Avenue and Main Street could see part of it. As people continue down Main Street, they would actually be able to see the murals through the warehouse -style windows on the new building. Mr. McMurray provided a rough floor plan for the existing building and explained that the whole point of keeping the building is to retain the nostalgic feel of the 1954 architecture. He hopes the Board and the City can be somewhat forgiving in regards to code requirements. The cost of retrofitting the building to bring it back to its original glory will be significant. The idea is to create space for a family -style pizzeria restaurant. He referred to Mr. Clugston's earlier comment about having a door on Main Street and explained that the architect for the project has been designing Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 4 of 11 restaurants for over 20 years and has cautioned against putting a door directly on Main Street because patrons would be confused about where the restaurant is located. It makes more sense to locate the restaurant entrance towards the plaza, which is the showpiece of the property. Mr. McMurray said about two-thirds of the building will be open to create a safe place for families and teenagers to hang out. A game area would be located on the second floor and he envisions a miniature bowling facility. There would also be space to host private small events. This is in direct response to the community's desire for a place to have fun. Mr. McMurray advised that the new building would house four boutique retail spaces on the ground floor, and he already has an agreement with an ice cream company to locate in the corner. The top floor of the building would be designed as special event space. He described the difficulty of constructing a two-story building on a sloped lot given the 15-foot ground floor height requirement. In this case, there would be a 3-foot rise on the east side of the building to accommodate the slope and meet the code requirements. Mr. McMurray said he considered the option of providing underground parking, but the cost would be astronomical. It is hard to justify underground parking for 800 square foot retail spaces. However, he listened to the community concerns about parking and is providing 8 spaces that are not required. It would not be feasible to leave the existing parking lot in place and only renovate the existing building. The parking lot must also be developed to make the project pencil out. He explained that property taxes are assessed based on best use, which is condominiums for the subject property. The only way he can get more parking is by building condominiums and apartments, which is not why he acquired the property. He recalled that four or five families own most of the properties in downtown Edmonds, and his family's acquisition of the property is an opportunity to create six new businesses to the downtown core that are in character with the existing downtown. Mr. McMurray shared several more pictures to illustrate the proposed balcony with steps so that people can enjoy the music or hang out in the courtyard. He shared an example of a similar building in Portland where two rectangular, modern, 2-story commercial spaces were situated around a parking lot to create an alley walkway for pedestrians, with shops on both sides. This project uses an open -beam design similar to what he is proposing for the new building. Mr. McMurray summarized that he made a concerted effort to not rush the project. The current proposal is the result of a 2-year process that included a lot of community involvement. He shared color and material samples and explained that, based on feedback from the public and a variety of experts, the color of the buildings was adjusted to create a more comfortable appearance that will last for a longer period of time. The roof of the existing building appears as a giant mass to people coming down Main Street, and it is the first thing that will be seen. The color must be toned down to be less visible. The currently proposed earth tones will be different from but complement existing development in the downtown. He commented that a lot of buildings in Edmonds look the same, and the proposed design for the existing and new buildings will be different and more modern. However, the proposed landscaping will help them blend in and fit with the surrounding development. Mr. McMurray explained that if the existing building is not classified as a renovation, he does not believe it will be feasible for him to completely demolish the building and put in a new foundation. He hopes this is not something the City requires him to do. He also explained that it is not possible to put brick on the facade of the existing building without pouring a new foundation. The metal siding is a way to give the building a new look without breaking the bank. He is doing all he can to preserve the integrity of the architecture. Board Member Owensby requested clarification on the large number of elevations that were provided in the Staff Report. Mr. McMurray said the elevations were provided to illustrate how the project design evolved over time based on feedback from the public, the City, etc. Mr. Clugston clarified that Attachment 2 contains the previous design concepts, and Attachment 3 outlines the current proposal. Mr. McMurray added that Page 4 of Attachment 14 is the final schematic. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 5 of 11 Chair Herr requested more information about the original building, and Mr. McMurray advised that the element along the top was added later and would be removed as part of the project. He explained how the windows bring in a lot of natural light into the half-moon warehouse and how the building can be renovated to activate the street front. He said there are only a few pictures of the original building. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Vice Chair Strauss referred to staff s comment about the lack of a clear base, middle and top on the new building. She expressed her opinion that the element along the top of the existing building should be retained since it is consistent with other buildings in downtown Edmonds. Perhaps the element could be worked into the design in a different way. She understands the intent to restore the building to its original design, but sometimes that isn't a great look. Vice Chair Strauss said she understands the design standard that calls for having an entrance on Main Street, but she likes the garage type opening where people can look out but it is partitioned off. She asked if the alleyway could be the entrance onto Main Street via an arch, canopy, etc. She felt this could take the place of providing an entrance into the new building from Main Street. Mr. McMurray pointed out that the existing building has two entrances, one for each of the tenants, as well as an outdoor area that is more defined. This entrance to the courtyard could be built up more to better define the space. He noted that the new building design uses signage that wraps around the building from Main Street to lead people to the entrances to the retail spaces. He said the architect preferred having an entrance on Main Street, but it was much easier to meet the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements via an entrance from the courtyard. Vice Chair Strauss agreed that the proposed entrance locations from the courtyard would work, but she is interested in better defining the entrance to the alley. Mr. McMurray pointed out that there would be an archway on 6' Avenue to define the entrance to the alley. The thought was to do the same on the Main Street side, but it didn't feel right. There is a utility equipment at the corner, so landscaping is needed to disguise it. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the design of the new building, but it is lacking definition between the base, middle and top. In addition, there are only two entrances on the Main Street side. Mr. McMurray said that, when looking at the site plan, the new building design appears sterile, but there would be a tree in front of the two smaller doors at the center of the building. There would also be sunken seating along Main Street and planter boxes. He pointed out the entrances to the ice cream shop and pizzeria, noting that each would have a canopy. Vice Chair Strauss said she would like to see a little more design to emphasize the base, middle and top of the building. Mr. McMurray described some of the potential uses for the retail spaces, noting that if possible, he would like to have a pop-up gallery where people could lease the smaller boutique spaces on a short-term basis. Vice Chair Strauss voiced concern that the proposed mural walls will appear as large billboards. She said the art on the buildings in downtown is at street level where people can walk by and feel a part of it. The proposed mural walls would end up blocking views and would not connect with the pedestrians. Art walls are more spontaneous and are used to cover blank walls. She suggested that the mural walls should be brought down to a pedestrian level so they aren't so imposing. Mr. MacMurray asked if Board Member Strauss would support a continuous wall, and she answered no. Board Member Owenby commended Mr. McMurray on taking such a risk to do a project that is special for the community. He worries about the fagade of the existing building. He understands the intent to restore the original building, but sometimes original buildings are ugly. He voiced concern that the design is too flat. When walking along the street, people will encounter a frontal plane they will want to bypass. Something needs to be done along the fagade to capture people's vision. Board Member Owensby expressed his belief that a lot more windows are needed on the Main Street facade of the existing building. Mr. McMurray explained that putting in more windows is challenging because he has to have a certain amount of sheer wall. Board Member Owensby suggested that perhaps a rear wall behind the facade would provide enough depth to allow more openness at the front with a sheer wall 10 feet back. He also asked if the architect Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 6 of 11 considered a steel, rigid frame. Mr. McMurray answered that a considerable amount of construction engineering was involved in the design to renovate the existing building, and a metal frame would be added across the front. There will also be some sheer walls inside with some openings to get the building up to code. Some sacrifices will have to be made in order to retain the existing building. Board Member Owensby commented that it would be nice to have a canopy or awning along the street. He would like to see something that helps him identify the project as a place. Perhaps an awning or canopy could expand between the two buildings to create a gateway to development. Mr. McMurray agreed that is a possibility. Board Member Owensby explained that activating the space requires more opportunities for people to interact. However, he cautioned that the space will seem less active if they allow too much space between the buildings. He suggested they consider making the building larger and the public space smaller to tighten up the public space to create better interaction. Mr. McMurray commented that the proposed plaza would only be 3,500 square feet, which is similar in size to the Hazel Miller Plaza. Again, Board Member Owenby suggested the plaza might be too big for the number of people who will use it. He asked if the proposed evergreen tree would be visible from the street to draw people into the plaza area. Mr. McMurray said it would be seen from some the street over the balcony. Again, Board Member Owensby cautioned that the proposed commercial space may not create the level of activity the applicant is envisioned. Whatever can be done to activate the space will make the project more successful. Board Member Owensby said he likes the proposed mural walls. However, he is concerned about the space behind them. He asked if a third building could be built as a backdrop above the parking. Mr. McMurray said the mural walls will have a more subtle backside. Board Member Owensby said he likes the fact that, as you walk down the alleyway, there will be a backdrop other than the building across the way. This allows you to contain the space rather than letting it dribble away. Mr. McMurray explained that the cost of developing another boutique building is not feasible in today's market. Even the boutique building on 6t' Avenue and Main Street is a bit of a stretch. The existing building can be renovated to be feasible, but it is hard to make a small-scale building pencil out. Board Member Owensby suggested the applicant consider a building above the parking as a Phase 3 option to implement if the project is successful. Board Member Jeunke asked if locating the trash enclosure near the parking would result in a loss of parking stalls. Mr. McMurray responded that the proposed plan includes a cutout for the trash enclosure on the alley. He advised that the sushi business that was looking to locate next to the pizzeria rescinded their offer, and the space is now designated as a yoga studio. Therefore, the proposed trash enclosure should be adequate to meet the City's requirement. Board Member Jeunke commented that it is not easy to renovate an old building. She loves the idea of having a walkway, a venue for music events, etc. However, she agreed with Vice Chair Strauss that something else is needed on the front fagade. She also agreed with Board Member Owensby's recommendation for a canopy extension between the two buildings. She concurred that the proposed mural walls could appear as billboards. She suggested they solicit feedback from the arts community. Mr. McMurray pointed out that the mural walls would be part of Phase 2, so there would be plenty of time to reach out to artists. Some artists prefer a continuous wall and others prefer separate panels. Board Member Juenke said it is important that people can interact with the murals without having to look up. She commended the applicant on the proposed pop-up gallery. More places for art and galleries will be a wonderful addition to the City. Board Member Owensby referred to his earlier comment about the mural walls and the building behind them and suggested it may be possible to make the walls somewhat transparent. He referred to artwork he saw on a stainless -steel wall with holes. You could see the images on the murals, but also the stuff behind the wall. There was another image on the backside, as well. Board Member Guenther asked if the proposed mural walls would be considered signage or murals. Most murals are at pedestrian level, but the proposed mural walls would be up in the air. He likes the idea of having images to focus people down the alley, but some of the murals in town are not permanent. Mr. McMurray said that Francis Chapin, the City's Cultural Services Manager recommended that two of the murals be changed out every four to five years, but one of them Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 7 of 11 could be permanent. This would allow artists an opportunity to use the space, but the permanent one could serve as a marquis mural. Mr. Clugston explained that, typically, murals in the City are located on blank walls. This is a different approach, but they would likely be treated as murals rather than signage. Mr. McMurray commented that the City would prefer to see a continuous wall, and it might also be more palatable to the community. Vice Chair Strauss again commented that the proposed walls are too tall to be continuous. Board Member Guenther suggested it wouldn't be too difficult for the applicant to delineate a horizontal band across the east building facade to break up the building and satisfy the design requirement. The detail could also be repeated across the top of the building to break up the facade. Mr. McMurray said the architect for the existing building originally indicated he would include a pinstripe element to break up the building, and he was surprised that this element was not included on the new building, too. Mr. McMurray suggested that perhaps the mural panels could be placed directly on the ground. Board Member Owenby voiced concern that this change would eliminate the potential for market areas below the panels. Mr. McMurray said they could still accommodate the market space as long as the awnings are retractable. Mr. McMurray said he is very open to making cosmetic changes to make the project better. Vice Chair Strauss asked the staff or applicant to respond to the concern that a portion of the new building would not meet the 15-foot ground floor ceiling height requirement. Mr. Clugston responded that a portion of the restroom area on the ground floor does not meet the height requirement, and the applicant will have to adjust the floor plan to address this code standard. Awnings and canopies on the west building will also need to be addressed in the next phase of design review. Chair Herr asked if the City has a variance process to address the elements of the project that do not meet code. If the height and transparency requirements cannot be met, the project cannot go forward. He summarized that the Board appears to like the project, yet the zoning requirements may kill it. Mr. Clugston confirmed that the project cannot be approved if it does not meet the code requirements, and there is no variance process for waiving the zoning and design standards. He acknowledged that it is difficult to shoehorn a new code on an existing building, but said he believes it is possible to tweak the proposal to meet the code requirements. Mr. McMurray suggested that the doors on the Main Street facade where there is currently a railing for restaurant patron could be changed to an entrance with steps. The main entrance from the courtyard could provide the ADA access. Mr. Clugston agreed that it makes sense to have the main entry on the east side of the building. As long as the east entrance is ADA accessible, providing an entrance with steps on the Main Street facade would meet the code requirement for access. It would better meet the requirement if it were relocated to the corner of the building. Mr. McMurray commented that relocating the door to the comer would be problematic because of the utilities, etc. However, he would support providing steps to make an entrance to meet the nuances in the code. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that the face of the building is right on the sidewalk, so the steps would have to be inside the building or the entrance would need to be recessed. Board Member Owensby asked how far the utilities are located from the corner of the building, and Mr. McMurray answered they are quite close. Mr. Clugston provided a map to illustrate the location of the utilities, and Mr. McMurray explained that the landscapers have proposed decorative plantings to camouflage the utility equipment. Board Member Owenby asked if there could be an entrance at the corner, with steps coming up off of Main Street. He noted that if the entrance were located at the corner, it would be at or near grade level for an ADA entrance. Mr. McMurray agreed to consider that options but said he is just now learning that his building needs to have an entrance on Main Street. Chair Herr said he is confused about why the applicant must provide an entrance on Main Street when there is no entrance on the existing building now. Why does changing the inside of the building require changes to the outside, too. Mr. Clugston explained that if this were a straight tenant improvement project, the entrance would not have to change. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 8 of 11 The existing entrance, which is at the corner of the building facing Main Street and is a bit recessed, would meet the code requirement. However, the proposed renovation has the entrance pointing away from the street into the interior plaza. Mr. McMurray expressed his belief that altering the doors that are proposed at the center of Main Street fagade to provide an entry from the street would meet the code requirement. He agreed to take the Board's advice to clean up the roofline to make it more aesthetically pleasing, add more awnings, and tweak some other elements to make the project better. However, he is apprehensive about redesigning the project at this stage. Chair Herr suggested the applicant could leave the entrance in its current location at the corner of the building and eliminate the entrance from the courtyard. The current entrance is already ADA compliant, and using this entrance would also allow for more windows to meet the transparency requirement. The Board reviewed the checklist and provided the following guidance: A. Site Planning Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics. They agreed that this would X X be a high priority for the existing building and a low priority for the Existing New new building that will replace an existing parking lot because there Building Building are no site characteristics they want to reinforce. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. They agreed this X X would be a high priority for the existing building and a low priority Existing New for the new building that will replace an existing parking lot. Building Building 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street. It was noted that this is X not only a high priority, but a code requirement. 4. Encourage human activity on street. The applicant's intent is to X pull people off the street to the courtyard. The thought is that the project would encourage people to walk fixrther down the street. 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites. This is a X corner lot, so there would be no intrusion into privacy on adjacent lots. Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, X privacy and interaction (residentialprojects). 7. Maximize open sace opportunity on site (residentialprojects). X 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining X property. This is a high priority and the proposal addresses the issue adequately. The proposal provides parking that isn't even required. 9. Discourage parking in street front. X 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on X public street fronts (corner lots). They felt the applicant has accomplished this. B. Bulk and Scale Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 9 of 11 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones. It X was noted there are no less -intensive zones nearby. C. Architectural Elements and Materials Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to X nearby historic structures. 2. Unified architectural concept. It was noted that Edmonds is very X eclectic, with a lot of different types of architecture. However, the buildings all have similar height, canopies, bases, middles, tops, etc. They agreed this is a high priority when talking about design elements, details and massing. 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 Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. X The Board referred to discussions relative to canopies. 2. Avoid blank walls. X 3. Minimize height of retaining walls. While there would be a X retaining wall, it would be minimal. 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on X pedestrian areas. It was noted that the applicant has accomplished this by providing parking that was not required. 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures. X 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. The trash enclosures X would be located on the alley side and appear to have screening. 7. Consider personal safety. This has to do with providing adequate X lighting, clear sight lines, semi -transparent security screening, avoiding blank windowless walls, clear directional signage, etc. E. Landscaping Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. It was X discussed that street trees are a priority in the downtown and would constitute the bulk of the landscaping that is provided as part of the project. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. X 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. There are X no special site conditions. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Mr. McMurray asked about the process for modifying the proposal to meet code requirements and to incorporate the Board's guidance. Mr. Clugston explained that the modified proposal would be presented to the Board at the Phase 2 hearing for final approval. He said he would expect staff to provide their comments relative to the Building Permit application sometime in the next month. It will likely take the applicant a month to make the necessary modifications and submit an updated proposal. The project could be submitted for a Phase 2 design review hearing on October 2'. Mr. McMurray asked if they could attempt to have the proposal ready for the Phase 2 hearing on September 4'. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be possible, but if the submittal is not ready at that time, the Board would still have to meet on September 4' to open the hearing and continue it to October 2'. The hearing would also have to be re -advertised. Given his experience with projects of this type and the fact that the necessary changes are not insignificant, his recommendation is to schedule the Phase 2 hearing for October 2' Mr. Clugston announced that the Phase 2 hearing for the Graphite project is scheduled for August 7'. Both the September 4' and October 2" d meetings are open at this time. There was a back and forth conversation with the applicant about whether or not the project modifications would be ready in time for a September 4' hearing. Mr. McMurray assured the Board he could be ready in September as long as the staff submits their comments to him in a timely manner. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that perhaps they could have the Phase 2 hearing for design review on September 4' regardless of the status of the building permit. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be possible. CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 4th, 2019. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Mr. Clugston announced that the Planning Board would like to hold a joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board on July 24' at 7 p.m. to talk about moving them out of the decision -making processes and become more involved in policy making. He announced that the City Council recently voted to get out of the quasi-judicial appeal process. The intent is to go back to what the Architectural Design Board was originally intended to do in the early 1970s, which is more policy work, guidance and recommendations. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 3, 2019 Page 11 of 11