Loading...
2019-08-07 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Joe Herr, Chair Maureen Jeude Kemen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kim Bayer (arrived at 8:00) Cary Guenther (arrived at 7:10) Bruce Owensby Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 3, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY 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 HEARING: Phase 2 District -Based Design Review for Grauhite Arts Studios #1 and #2 Located at 202 Main Street and 117 2" d Avenue S (PLN20190009 Chair Herr explained that tonight is Phase 2 of the design review hearing for the Graphite Arts Studio Project that began on June 5, 2019. He reviewed that, at the June meeting the Board took a first look at the project, received initial testimony and prioritized the Design Guidelines Checklist for the applicant to take and make improvements to the proposal. At the Phase 2 hearing, the Board will review the applicant's revisions and take additional testimony from the staff, applicant and the public. If the Board requires additional information to make a decision, a specific request will be made to the applicant, and the public hearing will again be continued to a date certain. However, if the Board finds that the record is complete, it will close the public hearing, deliberate and make a decision on the proposal. If members of the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 1 of 13 public want the opportunity to speak at any fixture appeal of the matter and did not testify on June 5'' or did not submit written comments, they will need to testify at this hearing. At his invitation, all those who wanted to participated in the hearing (excluding those who testified at the Phase 1 hearing on June 5) were asked to stand and be sworn in. No one stood. Chair Herr briefly reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing and invited Mr. Clugston to present the Staff Report. Mr. Clugston advised that the proposed project would be located at the southwest corner of Main Street and 2" d Avenue S. The Marvel Marble building has been removed, and both lots are gravel at this time. He provided an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the subject parcels, as well as adjacent properties. He also provided a picture looking east towards the site. The site is generally level, with a slight slope from east to west. He noted that most or all of the utility lines shown in the picture would be removed as part of the project. Mr. Clugston explained that Graphite I will be a 1-story, 11,000-square-foot structure at the corner of Main Street and 2' Avenue S. It will house art studios, a gallery, a cafe and parking behind the building. Graphite 2 will be a 2-story, 17,000-square-foot structure at 117 — 2" d Avenue S. It will house 8 apartments over flex space and parking. Mr. Clugston referred to the criteria the Board must consider when reviewing the application. In order to approve the application, the Board must find that it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Design Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the Design Standards in ECDC 22.43. He reviewed that, on June 5', the Board talked about how the proposal was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as far as height, setbacks, ground -floor depth requirements, parking, open space, etc. During his presentation, he will explain how the proposal would meet the Design Objectives and Design Standards. Mr. Clugston explained that there are a host of objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that guide design in the downtown area. The objectives are more aspirational, and the intent is that proposals should address the objectives as best possible. He provided a site plan for Graphite 1 and reviewed how it would meet the Design Objectives as follows: • Vehicular Access and Parking. The goal is to move parking off the street front and eliminate curb cuts. The applicant is proposing to locate parking at the southeast corner of the building off the two alleyways. There will be no curb cuts on either Main Street or 2" d Avenue S, and one existing curb cut will be removed. The building will be located right at the street front, and vehicles access and parking will be minimized to the extent possible. • Pedestrian Access and Connections. Because the building will front the street, its primary entry will be on Main Street. The entryway will be level with the sidewalk and recessed just a bit. • Building Entry Location. Because Main Street is a Designated Street Front, the entry must be at the sidewalk level. • Building Setbacks. The intent is for buildings to appear to frame the street, and the proposed building accomplishes that goal. There will be some recessed areas, such as the terraces on the northeast and northwest corners. The pedestrian entrance at the center off of Main Street will also be slightly recessed. • Art and Public Spaces. This objective indicates that, to the extent possible, art, street furniture, etc. should be located within the sidewalk area to activate the street front. The applicant is proposing street trees in grates, but no art, benches, flower baskets, etc. are shown. Staff is recommending a condition that will require the applicant to include street furniture, hanging baskets, etc. to the extent possible. • Building/Site Identity. This objective has to do with whether or not the building contributes to the identify of the site and the area. He provided an illustration of the northwest corner of the proposed building (Main Street and 2' Avenue S) and said he believes the proposal accomplishes this objective. He pointed out that the new Post Office Building and the Harbor Building are located on the corner, too, and the proposed new building will be an interesting addition. • Signage. No signage has been proposed as part of the project. • Building Height. Building height should be minimized and broken up, which the proposed building will do. The zoning standards limit height to a maximum of 30 feet, and the building will be approximately 28 feet tall. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 2 of 13 • Window Variety and Articulation. Rather than using the same stock windows over and over, the objective encourages the use of different window forms and shapes. The proposed building accomplishes this objective. Because it has a 75% transparency requirement on both Main Street and 2" d Avenue S, a lot of glass is required. • Massing. The intent is to reduce massing by discouraging large, blank walls. The building will be set back a little way from the sidewalk, and it will be broken up both vertically and horizontally. • Building Fagade. Proposed building materials include exposed wood, with masonry plinths on the bottom. Corten siding will be used on both buildings. • Weather Protection. The goal is to protect pedestrians on the sidewalks and at the entries. The applicant is proposing a series of roof forms and projections over the entries to provide some weather protection for people on the sidewalk. Next, Mr. Clugston explained how the Design Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan dovetail with the Downtown Business (BD) Design Standards. He described how the project is consistent with the following standards: • Massing and Articulation. The intent is to avoid blank walls, flat roofs, etc. Graphite 1 will be single story, with a few vertical projections. There will also be articulation coming out to the sidewalk and then falling back to the entries. • Orientation to Street. All three entrances (cafe, terrace and primary) will be at street level. • Ground Level Details. The project includes a variety of detail at the ground level, including masonry, Corten siding, and exposed wood. The storefront windows will present well to pedestrians. • Awnings/Canopies and Signage. No signage is being proposed at this time. The roof forms in this particular project (larger than typical eaves and angled roof projections over the entries) will provide weather protection. • Transparency at Street Level. The building is required to provide 75% transparency on the Main Street and 2' Avenue S facades. The applicant provided a calculation for the Main Street fagade that meets this requirement, but no calculation has been provided for the 2' Avenue S side. A condition has been proposed to address this requirement as part of the Building Permit process. • Treating Blank Walls. There will be no blank walls facing the streets. At the last meeting, there was some discussion that the blank wall at the left edge of the building is a possible place for art. The Board may want to add a condition requiring the applicant to include art or something else to dress up the wall a bit. • HVAC. The HVAC equipment will be located on top of the building rather than at street level. It will be hidden behind the vertical projections on the roof at the southeast corner of the building. Mr. Clugston provided a site plan for Graphite 2. He explained that because the buildings are fairly similar in their design and location, they address the Design Objectives and Design Standards in a similar fashion. The main difference is that there is no ground -floor, street -front requirement. He reviewed how Graphite 2 would meet the Design Objectives as follows: • Vehicular Access and Parking. The applicant is proposing to provide access to the building via the alleyway, and the existing curb cut at the southwest corner will be eliminated. • Pedestrian Access and Connections. The entry on the left edge of the building will be slightly recessed from the sidewalk. • Building Entry Location. The building entry will be up a couple of steps. • Building Setbacks. Both of the proposed new buildings, as well as the existing building to the south are at the property line, creating a visual cue. • Art and Public Spaces. Tree grates are shown in the sidewalk, but a proposed condition would require that hanging baskets or street furniture should be added if there is available space to activate the sidewalk area. • Building/Site Identity. The Graphite 2 design is very similar to Graphite 1. However, the ground floor will not necessarily be commercial, and there will be residential above. • Signage. No signage has been proposed as part of the project. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 3 of 13 • Building Height. The building height will be between 28 and 29 feet, which is below the 30-foot maximum height for the BD2 zone. • Window Variety and Articulation. The same theme is used throughout, including recessed entries, heavy roof forms, punched -up forms on the north and south ends of the building, etc. • Massing. Massing is reduced by the proposed design, which provides articulation, as well. • Building FaVade. The same types of materials will be used for both buildings. • Weather Protection. Again, the series of roof forms and projections over the entries will provide some weather protection for people on the sidewalk. Next, Mr. Clugston explained how the Design Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan dovetail with the Downtown Business (BD) Design Standards. He described how the project is consistent with the following standards: • Massing and Articulation. The design of Graphite 2 is consistent with the design for Graphite 1 and both adequately address massing and articulation. • Orientation to Street. Graphite 2 will be oriented towards the street, and the pedestrian area will be right on 2' Avenue S. Vehicular access will come from the alleyway. • Ground Level Details. The ground level details will be similar to Graphite 1, which uses a base, with a band in the middle and strong roof forms on the top. • Awnings/Canopies and Signage. No signage is being proposed at this time. The roof forms in this particular project (larger than typical eaves and angled roof projections over the entries) will provide weather protection. • Transparency at Street Level. This requirement is not applicable to Graphite 2. However, the applicant is proposing a lot of windows, using the same forms as Graphite 1. • Treating Blank Walls. This requirement is not applicable to Graphite 2. • HVAC. The HVAC equipment will be located on top of the building rather than at street level. It will be hidden behind the south vertical element on the roof behind the elevator penthouse. Mr. Clugston recommended the Board approve the project as proposed with the following conditions: 1. The hazardous materials plan in Exhibit 11 must be implemented with the building permit and construction of Graphite 1 at 202 Main Street. The first iteration of the project included some underground parking, which would have required a lot more digging. The current proposal does not have that. However, the Department of Ecology still wants to see the plan implemented because some work may need to be done on the underground storage tanks during the development process. 2. Hanging baskets and street furniture must be provided on Main Street and 21 Avenue if there is sufficient room between other required frontage improvements and utilities. This condition is intended to provide more interest on the street front. 3. Provide a 75% transparency window calculation for the 2nd Avenue S facade of Graphite 1 consistent with ECDC 22.43.050.B. This is a code requirement, and staff included it as a condition to provide clarity to the applicant. 4. Staff will verify compliance with the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions through review of building and engineering permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be approved by staff at the time of building permit without further design review by the Board as long as the design is substantially similar to that originally approved. This condition will allow staff to approve small design changes. Significant changes will be brought back to the Board for review and approval. Bob Gregg, Project Manager and the Applicant's Representative, said the applicant agrees with information provided in the Staff Report, including the recommended conditions. He advised that he and Dave Pelletier, Pelletier + Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 4 of 13 Schaar Architects, were prepared to respond to the comments and questions that were raised by the Board at the last meeting: The Board asked if the Corten material would drip and leave stains. Mr. Gregg explained that, in most places, the bottom edge of the Corten panels is over landscaping or planter boxes, which will prevent rust stains from occurring. However, there are a few areas where it could be an issue, so changes were made to prevent this from happening. The design has been updated so there is a drip strip along the sidewalk abutting the building. He pointed out that the portion of the sidewalk next to the building will actually be owned by the applicant and not the City. A question was raised about whether or not Corten an appropriate material given the climate. Mr. Gregg explained that there are two conditions where Corten can have problems. One is in corrosive atmospheres (acid rain) and the International Standards Organization (ISO) has conducted a worldwide atmospheric exposure program that created a classification system for the effective atmosphere corrosivity on various metals, including steel and weathering steel, which Corten is. He provided a map that was produced by ISO to illustrate the corrosive categories that were created. Per the map, Edmonds is in the second lowest corrosive category, and the corrosive weight of weathering steel in this zone is less than 1 min per 100 years. The proposed panels will be between 4 and 5 mm thick, and will be held on with fasteners. The panels will be accessible and removal, so defective ones can be pulled and replaced. Mr. Gregg explained that salinity is another concern for Corten. According to the ISO, there are three different categories of solidity, and Edmonds is in a combination of S-1 and S-2, and Corten is only not recommended in subtropical climates and S-3 categories, which Edmonds is not. He said he also sought feedback from the developer of the new Waterfront Center, who has installed nearly 1 million square feet of Corten, and learned that it works well in the Seattle area. In addition, he spoke with a homeowner about ten houses down from the ferry terminal on the beach in Clinton. His home uses a lot of Corten and is holding up very well right on the beach. Vice Chair Strauss and Board Member Owenby thanked Mr. Gregg for his research. However, Board Member Owensby said he was still concerned about the drip edge. From his personal experience, drip edges work well when there is no breeze. But if there is any breeze, the rust may end up staining whatever is below it. He asked if there is a treatment that would keep the rust from penetrating into the concrete or slate. Mr. Gregg responded that where the Corten comes straight down to the sidewalk and will create a stain, the design team has recommended cleaning procedures to stay ahead of it so the stains do not become permanent. • There were comments that the window tops were uneven. Mr. Pelletier said the design has been changed to align all of the windows on both buildings. • It was suggested that the northwest corner of Graphite I (corner of Main Street and 21 Avenue S) should be made more open and transparent. Mr. Pelletier said the design has been updated to change the solid planter to an open steel railing that will be painted. Board Members wanted to know what the buildings would look like together. Mr. Pelletier advised that an additional elevation was provided to show how the two buildings will appear together. Larry Luke, Edmonds, said he was present to represent the owners of the 3' Avenue Condominiums, which is the building directly across the alley on the west side of proposed Graphite 1. He also represents Betty Luke. He said he attended the June 51 meeting, where the height of Graphite 2 was stated as 26 feet. He asked why the building height was increased to 29.5 feet. He voiced concern that his view would be impaired by the proposed new building. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Gregg responded that the building height has not physically changed since the last meeting. He suggested that perhaps the 26 feet referenced by Mr. Luke is the absolute height, which is measured above the average elevation of the native ground. The 29.5-foot height would just be to the highest peaks (shed roofs), so the entire middle part of the building will be significantly lower. He reminded the Board that the allowed height limit is 30 feet. He answered a question raised by Mr. Luke at the Phase 1 hearing by saying that there would be no air conditioning for the apartments. The only HVAC unit on Graphite 2 will be for the commercial space in the front of the building, and it will be hidden between the elevator shaft and the back of the front projection. Mr. Luke will not be able to see or hear this small 14VAC unit. At the request of Vice Chair Strauss, Mr. Gregg confirmed that the middle portion of the building, which is directly across the alley from Mr. Luke's property, would be 6 to 7 feet lower. Vice Chair Strauss summarized that the middle portion of the building would be between 22 and 23 feet high. Mr. Clugston referred to Sheet GO.10 (Page 41 of the Staff Report), which shows the height calculations for the building. He said he misspoke earlier, and the actual building height will be just a bit over 27 feet. He emphasized that the building height has not changed since the Phase I hearing. Lauren Ruskauff, Pelletier + Schaar, explained that they recalculated the average grade and that which changed the absolute height. Mr. Luke voiced concern about the gutter system proposed for containing the stormwater runoff. Mr. Gregg responded that the current proposal required extensive engineering, including addressing stonnwater. The stormwater report for the project is several hundred pages long and meets all of the state code requirements. The water must go into the detention vault on site and will then be released at a certain rate. Mr. Luke asked if the roof would be accessible via the interior for maintenance, and Mr. Gregg answered yes. Mr. Luke asked if the roof would be accessible to the renters, and Mr. Gregg answered no. He said the access to the roof would be locked and the renters would not have an access key. He said they could add to the lease agreement that tenants are not allowed on the roof of the building. Mr. Luke observed that there is a problem in Edmonds with seagulls and crows leaving fecal matter and food on roofs. Mr. Gregg explained that the roof has to be kept clean to maintain its reflectivity so it can meet energy goals and targets. Mr. Luke said he is concerned about the accumulation of debris and dust on decks during construction. He asked what could be done to mitigate construction impacts. Mr. Gregg said the applicant has not signed a contract with the builder yet, but they have worked with the company before. They are very sensitive to issues such as noise, dust, etc. Mr. Luke commented that access to the existing parking garage via the alley needs to be maintained. Mr. Gregg explained that, typically with property -line -to -property -line development, the sidewalk and parking strip are closed during construction, and the applicant's builder can work with the adjacent property owners to find a workable solution for the alley access. Mr. Luke asked if the applicant would provide any security measures to ensure safety around the proposed development and within the new parking garage. Mr. Gregg answered yes. He explained that the garage door would have solid ground rails that will allow air to get through, but it won't be possible to cut through them with a bolt cutter. Mr. Luke asked for clarification about the HVAC equipment that would be located on the rooftop of Graphite 2, and Mr. Gregg explained that there would be an HVAC unit for the commercial space located west of the elevator tower and east of the shed. There will be no HVAC units for the apartment units. Mr. Luke asked how the applicant would prevent trash and graffiti and homeless people from camping out between the Graphite 2 Building and the existing adjacent building. Mr. Gregg answered that a CMU wall would be constructed right on the property line, and the adjacent building is very close to the property line, as well. There would be very little space for access, and a fence could be provided to keep people out. Board Member Owensby asked if the building construction would be slab on grade or if there would be a crawl space. Mr. Gregg answered that both buildings would be slab on grade. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 6 of 13 Chair Herr closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin deliberations. Vice Chair Strauss asked about the grey material that would be used on the back portion of the building. Mr. Gregg answered that it would be hardy plank. He recalled the Board's earlier suggestion that the wall would be a great place for a mural. He noted that there is already a mural across the alleyway closer to Main Street. Vice Chair Strauss asked what color the hardy plank would be painted, and Mr. Gregg answered a brownish color to compliment the Corten. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE GRAHITE ART STUDIOS PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43; AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PLAN IN EXHIBIT 11 MUST BE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OF GRAPHITE 1 AT 202 MAIN STREET. 2. HANGING BASKETS AND STREET FURNITURE MUST BE PROVIDED ON MAIN STREET AND 2ND AVENUE SOUTH IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN OTHER REQUIRED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES. 3. PROVIDE A 75% TRANSPARENCY WINDOW CALCULATION FOR THE 2ND AVENUE SOUTH FACADE OF GRAPHITE 1 CONSISTENT WITH ECDC 22.43.050.B. 4. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Herr commended the applicant's representatives for doing a great job addressing the Board's concerns and questions. He commented that the elevation looks better without the staggered windows. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION Ouasi-Judicial Decision Presentation by the City Attorney Mr. Clugston invited the Board Members to attend a meeting on August 21 st where the City Attorney would talk to them about quasi-judicial decisions. They could also continue their discussion regarding the ADB's role in design review and the design review process, itself. The Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the Planning Board on September I I` This will enable the Planning Board to present the Architectural Design Board's recommendations to the City Council at their joint meeting on September 24. Mr. Lien noted that the Board also has a regularly scheduled meeting on September 4. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 7 of 13 Ten -Year Review of ADB Projects Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board has had recent discussions about how projects have changed between design review and project completion. The purpose of this discussion is to review past projects and consider how well they stack up against what the Board felt it approved. The intent is to apply the lessons learned in this exercise to new codes and standards going forward. Mr. Lien advised that, including the projects currently under review, the Board has reviewed 38 major projects over the past 10 years. Major projects are those that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. For each of the projects, he pulled the design drawings that were presented to the Board and took pictures of what was actually built. Given the City's intent to adopt design standards specific to multifamily projects, he suggested the Board pay particular attention to the multifamily developments included in the presentation. He reviewed the following projects: • File Number PLN20090021 is an Olympic View Water and Sewer District Project on Edmonds Way. • File Number PLN 0100044 is a cover on a crosswalk for the Interurban Trail. The Board reviewed the overall design, including the crosswalk, park area and signage. File Number PLN20100054 was a Columbia Bank Project that was never constructed. The bank was to be located on the gravel parking lot next to the gas station on Edmonds Way. The bank abandoned the project due to a utility easement in the parking lot and stormwater from the subdivision on top running down through the site. At the time of application, the site was zoned Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW) but was later rezoned to Westgate Mixed Use (WMU). A number of developers attempted to develop the site under the WMU zoning, but found it was too restrictive. For example, there is a certain elevation in the WMU zone that you can't build past, and that was way down on the flat part of the property. This restriction meant a developer couldn't count anything above that line to meet the open space/amenity space requirements. The property was rezoned back to BC-EW but remains a gravel parking lot. • File Number PLN20100075 is the Woodhaven Veterinary Building on Edmonds Way. File Number PLN20110007 is the GRE multifamily development on Edmonds Way. The project generated a lot of public comment. When the project was constructed, the setbacks were 10 feet from the property line. Some people felt the building was too close to Edmonds Way and the zoning was changed to require a deeper setback. The height limit was also adjusted. The GRE project was one of the first with a landscape strip between the building and the sidewalk along Edmonds. When the project was completed, the trees in the landscape strip were much smaller and the building seemed imposing on Edmonds Way. However, as the landscaping has matured, the building blends in well and doesn't feel quite as imposing. Moving forward, staff plans to take pictures right after a project is constructed, and then follow up with additional pictures a few years later after the landscaping has matured. Board Member Owensby asked for additional information behind the feeling that the building needed to be 10 feet further back from street. Was the intent to create a greater landscape strip between the sidewalk and street or between the sidewalk and the building? Mr. Lien answered that the concern was less about a landscape strip and more about the building, itself, being too close to the street. Some people felt it was too imposing. Mr. Clugston added that the code, then and now, included incentives for an extra level of height. The developer took advantage of this incentive to get another floor, and many were concerned about such a tall building being located so close to Westgate. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 8 of 13 • File Number PLN20110044 is the Swedish Cancer Institute on Highway 99 in front of the hospital. The project was changed slightly from what was approved during design review. While the horizontal bands were included in the project, they are a different color than what was shown on the image. File Number PLN20119961 is the Key Bank on the corner of Edmonds Way and 100' Avenue, which was constructed under an interim zoning ordinance. The City was in the process of adopting the Westgate Subarea Plan, and the interim zoning ordinance allowed projects to be constructed within 8 feet of the property line, which is closer than what the current WMU zone allows. The building has received a lot of comments due to its orientation to the corner rather than either Edmonds Way or 100' Avenue. However, the final product is consistent with the design that was approved by the ADB and the code standards in place at the time. • File Number PLN20110076 is the Walgreens that was also constructed under the interim zoning ordinance. The project was controversial because it required demolition of the bowling alley. There has been some talk about potential redevelopment on the parking lot that is shared by both Walgreens and the PCC Market. Board Member Bayer asked who is responsible for reviewing and approving the ingress and egress for each project. Mr. Lien answered that internal circulation is within the Board's purview when reviewing applications, and there are design standards that talk about circulation between properties. When the Walgreens Project was reviewed, the City requested a wider access around the back of the building to accommodate two lanes, provide better circulation, and be consistent with the City's vision for the Westgate area. Although not required by the interim zoning, the developer accepted this revision. • File Number PLN20110076 was originally intended to be a bank building. The bank was never constructed, and the project ended up being a Starbucks. The project did not come back to the Board for additional design review because the project was underneath the SEPA threshold. However, the applicant had to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to change the drive thru circulation. File Number PLN20130002 is the McDonalds on State Route 104. For the most part, the building is consistent with what the Board approved. However, the back piece by the drive thru might not be as tall as depicted in the plan. This was likely a result of a zoning height issue. File Number PLN20130022 is Building 10 of the Point Edwards Development. The plan that was originally approved by the Board was never constructed. Prior to this project, the staff report provided a general overview of how a project met the design standards. When this project was appealed, the attorney representing the City Council pointed out that the Board's decision was not based on any criteria. The project was remanded back to the Board for additional review and a decision based on specific criteria. The project was ultimately appealed to Superior Court, which resulted in a number of settlement agreements between the existing Point Edwards Development, Woodway and residential property owners behind, and a revised project was presented to the Board for design review. Board Members Guenther and Walker indicated that they both participated in this design review, which was controversial. Mr. Lien recalled that the original design for Building 10 was different than the other nine buildings that had already been constructed, and there was concern that it included too many units. The residents in the other nine buildings voiced concern that the design was inconsistent with what was depicted at the time they purchased their properties. Board Member Guenther added that the entire Point Edwards Development was master planned, with a specific number of units allowed. Building 10 was redesigned to accommodate all of the remaining units allowed on the site. Instead of the large, townhouse condominiums, the applicant proposed apartment units for Building 10. Mr. Lien clarified that Building 10 was constructed by a different developer, is separate from the rest of the Point Edwards Development and is governed by a separate homeowner's association. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Lien said the final project includes 68 condominium units as opposed to the originally proposed 85. Consistent with the settlement agreement, additional on -street parking was provided and the overall height was adjusted to protect the view of an uphill property owner in Woodway. The building design is also more consistent with the other nine buildings. Mr. Lien summarized that, as a result of this project and its associated appeals, the Board Chair now reads a script to ensure that the public hearing procedures are carefully followed. In addition, staff now prepares more detailed staff reports that outline the specific findings and conclusions. If the Board disagrees with any of the findings, they must clearly state that when making a motion. • File Number PLN20130027 is the Animal Hospital on 5d' Avenue. • File Number PLN20130046 is the Post Office Phase I project at 2nd Avenue Sand Bell Street. • File Number PLN20130062 is the Swedish Hospital Parking Garage. Two sides of the project are landscaped well, and the parking garage is hidden. Although consistent with the plan, one side doesn't have as much landscaping. • File Number PLN20130066 is the Brackett Court Development on 212' Street. The Board could refer to this project when considering potential multifamily design standards and how a project presents to the street. In this situation, the street presence could be significantly improved. Board Member Guenther recalled that when the project was first presented for design review, the elevations facing the street were even plainer. Board Member Owenby asked if there has been any discussion about having a maximum plate height that allows more leeway for roof design. Mr. Lien responded that, with this particular project, height led to some other issues that were unrelated to design review. The project is located in the Multifamily Residential (RM) zone, which has a 30-foot height limit. Structures greater than 25 feet must have a 4:12 roof pitch. The developer really wanted an overall height of 33 to 35 feet to accommodate taller ceiling heights. Because the City measures height from the average existing grade, the developer was able to get this additional height by grading down 3 to 4 feet. However, some tree roots were severed during the grading process, and that led to some other issues with an adjacent property owner who didn't receive notice because he purchased his property after the project had gone through the design review and building permit processes. His concern about how the grading would impact his trees led to some court cases. At this time, the trees are still standing and appear to be healthy. Board Member Owensby said he understands the need for height restrictions to protect views. However, the City's 25-foot height requirement places limitations on roof design and results in extraordinarily boring consistency throughout the City. Again, he asked if the City has considered the option of having a maximum plate height, but allowing a little bit taller rooves. Mr. Lien said the Downtown Business (BD) zones have had the same overall height limit for a long time, but what can be done above 25 feet has changed over the years. The Planning Manager has a good presentation that illustrates development in Edmonds throughout the years given the changing building and design standards. He cautioned that there is not a lot of public support for increasing the height limits at this time. Board Member Guenther said that, when he served on the Planning Board, there was a recommendation to increase the height in the BD zones by three feet, and there was a lot of opposition. The current building height limitation create situations where building entries have to be pushed below grade in order to accommodate three floors, and that is not really an optimal situation. He summarized that building heights is a very touchy issue in the City of Edmonds. Board Member Owenby asked if adjusting building heights outside of the downtown bowl would receive less push back because views would not be impacted. Mr. Clugston said the same 25-foot height limit has existed across the entire City since 1980, and it is right to talk about it. Oftentimes, the concern are less about height Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 10 of 13 and more about appearance. No one wants a 30-foot blank wall, and it makes sense to use modulation and different rooflines to make the buildings interact better with the street front. Staff would like to review the design standards for multifamily zones with the Board to identify changes that would result in better development. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council is in the process of forming a Housing Task Force, and increasing the height limit in some areas of the City where views are not an issue could be one option for increasing density. He pointed out that the maximum height limit is 75 feet along Highway 99, and there is also a high-rise node along Highway 99 that allows development above 75 feet. Mr. Clugston commented that it would be nice to have better design standards for the small infill development that is typical in Edmonds. • File Number PLN20130070 is the Jacobsen's Marine Building at the Port of Edmonds. Board Member Guenther recalled that the Board requested that the applicant use a different material to create a base, middle and top. The brick that was added at the bottom improved the appearance of the overall building. • File Number PLN20130070 is the Prestige Care Building on 76' Avenue W near the high school. • File Number PLN 20140002 is the Swedish Edmonds Hospital Addition. The materials in this project provided a lot of texture to the design, which adds to the pedestrian scale of the building. • File Number PLN 20140009 is Jenna Lane, a multifamily development on 240' Street. Mr. Clugston pointed out that this project is a good example of why the City needs to adopt better design standards for multifamily projects. He recalled that the developer was not really interested in working with the Board during design review. He presented a super vanilla plan, and they were only able to convince him to make some very minor changes. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the applicant's drawing did not show the stepped -down garage doors. • File Number PLN20140065 is the Old Woodway High School Playfields. Two fields were proposed in phases, and the ADB approved Phase I. The project required a number of permits, including design review, conditional use and variance. File Number PLN20150016 is the Post Office Phase 2 Development at the corner of Main Street and 2" d Avenue S. This project is nearing completion. Board Member Bayer asked if the Board provided any pushback on this project. Mr. Clugston answered that the project uses a similar design as Phase 1, and he doesn't remember a great deal of back and forth between the applicant and the Board. Board Member Guenther said the Board spoke to the applicant about the need to create a more inviting pedestrian/outdoor space that will be part of the connection from the roundabout to the ferry dock. The grade difference is unfortunate because it requires people to walk to the corner before entering the site. Board Member Bayer said it seems there is a lot of congestion and confusion with the Post Office down the street, and she would have liked to see more pedestrian -friendly spaces. Mr. Lien explained that on -site circulation is within the Board's purview to address, but the Board has a lesser role in addressing off -site circulation on public streets and sidewalks. Mr. Clugston agreed that it is difficult to locate the parking access and people are still trying to get used to the changes. Vice Chair Strauss commented that there is a significant difference between what was approved by the Board and what is actually being constructed. For example, the Board -approved design included pop -ups on the roofs, but the actual building has flat rooflines. The balconies were also changed from glass to metal, and building modulation changed, too. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the railings were metal in the Board -approved design, too. Board Member Owensby asked if the high-level of modulation was required by the code, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. He explained that buildings are supposed to respect the historical building widths by providing 30 to 60-foot breakups as you go along the street. The applicant tried to achieve that. With the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 11 of 13 exception of the 2' Avenue S and Main Street corner where an additional 5 feet was allowed, the applicant ran into height issues with the roof pop ups. Board Member Owensby commented on the simplicity of the texture in downtown Edmonds where buildings basically touch each other. While one may be different than the next, most do not have a lot of modulation between them. He voiced his opinion that the required modulation creates too much visual chaos. He suggested the Board consider whether changing textures and materials would be better than a lot of modulation. Mr. Lien agreed this is something the Board could consider when reviewing potential design standards. Mr. Lien recalled that one of the conditions for the Graphite 1 and 2 Project allows staff to approve some alterations, as long as they are consistent with design review. He asked the Board Members to share their thoughts about whether the Post Office Project is consistent with what was approved by the Board during design review. He acknowledged that the building doesn't have quite the same modulation, but the applicant ran into some zoning issues that required changes. He asked if the Board would want changes of this type to come back for more design review before a Building Permit is issued. Vice Chair Strauss and Board Member Guenther commented that the actual building is a lot different than what the Board approved, and the project should have come back for additional design review. On the other hand, Board Member Walker felt the changes did not warrant additional design review. Mr. Clugston suggested that perhaps projects should come back for more design review if the modulation of a building is changed significantly. Board Member Guenther commented that the Board reviews projects that are in varying stages of design, and this may be a situation where the Board reviewed and granted design approval earlier in the design process before the final drawings were available. Board Member Owensby suggested that, if the Board wants to be involved earlier in the design process, it would be helpful for applicants to provide photographs of the adjacent buildings so the Board can get a clear understanding of the street texture and scale. He recalled that, with the project they reviewed earlier in the meeting, the applicant originally submitted separate drawings for each of the buildings, and the Board requested a drawing showing the two buildings together. This helped the Board realize that the buildings do not really relate to each other. File Number PLN20150036 is the Beach Place Apartments on 3' Avenue S and Edmonds Street. With this project, the applicant requested multiple changes, and staff brought the project back to the Board for additional design review. At the time of project approval, no parking was required for buildings in the BD zones with a footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. No parking was required for this project, and a number of citizens raised concerns. The code has since been changed to require 1 parking space per residential unit in the BD zones. No parking is required for commercial development in the BD zones. Board Member Owensby observed that the roof texture shown in the design drawings is not present on the actual building. The fence texture changed, as well. Mr. Lien agreed but reminded the Board that they conducted a second design review and approved the changes. He recalled that the project retained the existing cinderblock building and tried to match the design to it. • File Number PLN20150050 is the Brackett's Corner Project on 80' Avenue and 212' Street. While the overall shape of the building is the same as what the Board approved, the facade was changed significantly and the middle window was eliminated. Chair Herr expressed his opinion that stone materials must be anchored to the ground and should not be used higher up on buildings. The remainder of the Board concurred. • File Number PLN20160027 is the Madrona School Project. • File Number PLN20160053 was supposed to be the Edmonds Vista Apartments located behind the Denny's Restaurant on Highway 99, but it was never built. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 12 of 13 • File Number PLN20160054 is the Westgate Village Development, a large multifamily complex. Removing the orange wrapping from the building, as suggested by the Board, significantly reduced the massing of the building and allowed it to blend better into the hillside. • File Number PLN20160061 was supposed to be the Westgate Woods Development on Edmonds Way, but it was never constructed. • File Number PLN20170016 is the first version of the Graphite Project, but it was never constructed. • File Number PLN20170017 is the Metzner Project on 2441 Street and is currently under construction. • File Number PLN20170024 is the HomeStreet Bank Building on 5th Avenue. The property changed ownership, and the new owner has requested an extension. • File Number PLN20170030 is a Marine Retail Building at the Port of Edmonds. The Port completed design review for this project and obtained the required Shoreline Permit with the hope of enticing someone to construct the building. So far, no one has come forward and the Port has asked for an extension. • File Number PLN20180014 is the Edmonds Woodway High School Playfield Project is currently under construction. They will be using a cork infill material on the field instead of crumb rubber. • File Number PLN20180025 is the Paradise Lane Development, which is a multifamily residential project that is currently under Building Permit review. • File Number PLN20180040 is the Waterfront Center Project, which is currently under construction. • File Number PLN20180069 is the Edmonds Crossing Apartments on Edmonds Way and is currently under Building Permit review. Mr. Lien advised that there are currently three projects undergoing design review at this time: Graphite 1 and 2, Main Street Commons, and an 18-unit multifamily development on Edmonds Way. Board Member Guenther said there is also a project on Highway 99 near 220' Street, but Mr. Lien advised that the Board does not review projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone. Mr. Clugston said the project was originally intended to be a tear down and new construction, but the developer ran into problems and decided to do an extensive remodel of the existing building. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Guenther commented that, at the joint meeting with the Planning Board, the discussion focused primarily on the review process. While they came up with a lot of good ideas, they should also discuss opportunities to expand the ADB's role in future updates to the design -related elements of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He would also like the Board to be involved in discussions related to district -based zoning. Mr. Clugston agreed that this should be part of the ADB's discussion with the Planning Board on September 11'. The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 13 of 13