Loading...
2020-08-05 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting via Zoom August 5, 2020 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Kim Bayer Cary Guenther Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Mr. Clugston briefly reviewed the remote meeting information. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARING: WESTGATE STATION GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW (APPPLICATION #PLN2020- 0015 Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the virtual public hearing and then opened the hearing. She reminded those present of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which requires that the hearing is fair in form, substance and appearance. She asked if any of the Board Members had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the design review matter outside of the public hearing process. All of the Board Members answered no. She asked if any of the Board Members had a conflict of interest or believes that he/she cannot hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. All of the Board Members answered no. Last, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members participating as decision makers in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. She invited all those planning to testify during the hearing to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give will be the truth. Mr. Clugston said the proposal is for a two-story, mixed -use building at 9601 Edmonds Way. The property is zoned Business Commercial -Edmonds Way (BC-EW). The applicant is proposing 20 market -rate apartments over approximately 4,700 feet of commercial space and enclosed parking (33 garage stalls). There would also be 16 surface stalls. Public amenity space would be provided at the street level, and private amenity space would be provided on the Arcbitectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Pagel of 7 second floor above the street. Fifteen existing trees would be retained as part of the development, and new landscaping would be mixed in. Mr. Clugston explained that, due to the project's location and because it requires a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determination, general design review is required by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) using the requirements found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.11. Prior to the meeting, the parties received a Staff Report with 12 attachments, and two public comments were received in April following the initial notice of application. No additional comments have been received since. Mr. Clugston presented a zoning map, noting that the subject parcel is located on the eastern edge of the Westgate commercial area. A residential subdivision is located to the north, and there is an existing gas station to the west. The parcels to the east are zoned BC-EW but currently developed with older single-family residences that are used as rentals. The parcel was rezoned in 2017 from Westgate Mixed -Use to BC-EW. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photograph of the site, advising that it is currently vacant. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the proposal is subject to the design guidance found in the Urban Design Guidance and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, the Development and Design Standards for the BC-EW Zone in ECDC 16.50, and the General Design Criteria in ECDC 20.11.030. He specifically noted the following: Comprehensive Plan Design Objectives • Site Design. Locate buildings in proximity to the street and place parking to the side and rear. The proposed building would be set fairly close to the street, with some amenity space at the street level that links to the sidewalk. • Building Entry Location. Entries should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings, and space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed -use buildings. The proposal meets with requirement in terms of activating the street front area along Edmonds Way. • Building Form. Reduce the mass and bulk of buildings and encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. The applicant is proposing to reduce the mass of the building using a number of techniques. A variety of materials would be used, as well. Development and Design Standards Specific to the BC-EW Zone (ECDC 16.50) • Setback. The Development Code requires a 10 foot street setback, and a 15 foot setback is required on the north property line that is adjacent to residentially -zoned property. The applicant is proposing to set the building back 15 feet from the street, 50 feet from the east property line and 5 feet from the west property line. The building will be 35 feet from the north property line. • Height. The maximum height for the zone is 25 feet. As proposed, all elements of the proposed building appear to be less than 25 feet in height. • Parking. Seventeen parking stalls would be required for the residential uses and up to 16 stalls could be required for the commercial space. The applicant is proposing 33 residential stalls and 16 commercial stalls. • Ground Floor Commercial Space. At least 60% of development on the ground floor must have only commercial uses to a minimum depth of 30 feet. The applicant is proposing at least 80% commercial space on the ground floor. • Massing and Articulation. There are massing and articulation requirements similar to the Comprehensive Plan Objectives. The proposed design breaks up the mass of the building both horizontally and vertically, with a defined base and top, decks and receding facades. • Ground Level Detail. Ground floor, street facing facades must incorporate at least five of the ten elements listed in the section. The idea is to make the street front level inviting to pedestrians. The proposed building would meet six of the 10 ground level elements. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7 General Design Criteria (ECDC 20.11.020) Building Design. The intent of these design criterion is to avoid massive, long, plain buildings. The proposed building would not be long, massive or monotonous. It would have a pedestrian scale, and a variety of materials are proposed to be used throughout. Mechanical equipment would be screened within the structure, and no signage has been proposed. Site Treatment. Grading should be minimized and landscape treatment provided to enhance building design and buffer the development from surrounding properties where conflict may occur. Service yards must be screened, and exterior lighting must be the minimum necessary for safety. The applicant is proposing minimal grading since the bulk of the site if fairly level. Mixed landscaping will provide year-round interest and buffer, and cut-off light fixtures are proposed so the light will be downcast right onto the site. The trash and recycling area will be screened and located at the rear of the parking area. Landscaping. A dense landscape buffer (Type I) is required along the north edge of the site adjacent to the single-family residential area. A mixed -buffer (Type III) would be appropriate along the east and west sides of the project, with less dense landscape along Edmonds Way where sight distance is a concern. Type V landscaping would be required in the surface parking lot. The applicant is proposing a mix of new and existing landscaping around the site. However, the landscaping proposed on the north property line does not exactly meet the standard for a Type I buffer and no fence is proposed. Due to the topography change from the residential lots above and because there are existing fences at the south end of each of the residential lots up the slope, staff is recommending the Board approve this portion of the layout as proposed since the dense buffer would meet the intent of the code. Mr. Clugston advised that two public comments were received earlier in the process. One was from the Snohomish County Public Utility District indicating that the developer would be responsible for any upgrades to the site. In this case, a fairly large transmission line runs through the eastern portion of the site, and it will need to be raised to a minimum of 14 feet to comply with the fire requirement. The developer will be responsible for this work. The adjacent residents to the north had questions about project timing, access, noise and zoning, and he responded to them in April with the project plans and information about timing. The existing access points on Edmonds Way would be upgraded and reused, and construction noise is covered by Edmonds City Code (ECC) 5.30. The proposed building complies with all of the zoning requirements. Mr. Clugston concluded his presentation by recommending that, based on the finding that the project is consistent with the Urban Design Guidance and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan, the Development and Design Standards for the BC-EW Zone in ECDC 16.50, and the General Design Criteria in ECDC 20.11.020, the ADB approve the project with the 7 conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Board Member Herr observed that, given the steep grade change at the north property line, it would not likely be possible to plant two rows of evergreen trees and add a fence. He felt that the landscaping, as proposed, would comply with the intent of the code. Chair Strauss concurred. Carl Pirscher, Pirscher Architects, said he has been involved in the project for some period of time, and he has grown to know the site well. He said he was the applicant and proponent for the property's most recent rezone to BC-EW. He explained that a number of potential development options were explored for the site. He pointed out that a greater height is allowed for projects that meet the LEED Gold standards, but the applicant has decided to keep the design as simple as possible. The applicant also considered underground parking, but determined that it would add extra stress to the steep slope along the north property lines. The applicant settled on a two-story building that follows the existing grade, minimizing the need to excavate into the site and potentially disturb the critical area to the north. The site is also constrained by a number of setbacks and easements. There is a 12-foot shared driveway easement on the west property line, and the applicant is proposing to develop the driveway as part of the project. On the east property line there is a 50- Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7 foot utility easement, which hosts a number of utilities. Along the street front there is a 15-foot easement for utilities. Lastly, a power pole is located in the southeast corner of the site, and the applicant was notified by the City that there is a required setback from the pole and the wires, themselves. He summarized that the proposed project does a great job of addressing all of the limitations. Mr. Pirscher shared the site plan and noted the following: • The ground floor commercial space will significantly exceed the required 60% standard. • The entry grade for the building will be at the far southeast corner of the site, with parking stalls behind the commercial space. • There will be brick columns, lighting fixtures and a substantial sidewalk along the front of the building. • In some locations, the storefront sidewalk will be higher in elevation than the adjoining grade, so some stair features have been added to connect to the sidewalk. Picnic tables and benches will also be added for public use. • The entrance to the units will be at the southwest corner, and a lobby, administration office, elevators, etc. will be located in this area. • There will be a few outside guest parking stalls at the southwest corner of the building, and the balance of the surface parking will be located along the east property line. There will be handicap parking stalls both outside and inside the parking garage. • The small area of basement space will be set back to reduce the need to excavate near the hillside. There will be 22 storage units in this location for the exclusive use of the building tenants. • The second floor will have 20 market -rate residential units, with a mixture of 1-bedroom and studio apartments. • There will be a rooftop area for landscaping and recreational opportunities for the residents to enjoy. A small roof -element will also be included to provide shelter during inclement weather. Mr. Pirscher provided a cross section taken looking through the commercial space to the parking behind. He pointed out the approximately 50-foot separation of height between the subject property and the single-family residential zone to the north. He also pointed out that they worked hard to create an articulated building with a lot of interesting roof forms. However, all of the roof forms, as well as the main roof itself, will be below the 25-foot height limit. Mr. Pirscher shared a view from the southeast corner of the site, progressing west down Edmonds Way and noted the varied rooflines. There will be a classical cornice look at the southeast corner of the building, which transitions to some gable and shed forms. The roofing material will be metal, standard seam to amplify the building articulation and northwest architecture that the building design is trying to achieve. At the center of the building there will be a heavy, timbered expression for the gazebo roof form over the courtyard on the second level. Mr. Pirscher provided a view looking towards the east from the southwest corner of the building, which depicts the grade separation. He advised that a stairway would ascend from grade level to the entry for the residential units. If there is a need for handicap accessibility, the sidewalk along the storefront is all at one level and connects to the portico at the entry to the residential units. Decks and other shed roof forms have been included so the composition carries around the building with a lot of roof and fagade articulation. Similar materials would be used throughout. Chair Strauss asked how much of the existing landscaping on the hillside would have to be removed to construct the building. If the applicant is allowed to plant just one row of evergreen trees on the northern property line, it is important to make sure that the existing landscaping remains in place. Mr. Pirscher answered that the majority of disturbance will be towards the east side where the slopes are less steep. The slope becomes much steeper on the west side. Some of the lower vegetation between the building and the residential properties above will temporarily be removed to make the cut, but the intent is to minimize the amount of landscaping that is removed from the slope to avoid potential impacts. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Board Member Herr observed that a lot of the landscaping on the north property line will be the existing native plantings. Mr. Pirscher applicant is proposing to add landscaping, but doesn't intend to go all the way to the property line. Board Member Guenther asked if the applicant is working towards a level of LEED Certification. If not, does the project include any sustainable elements? Mr. Pirscher responded that it may be possible to increase the height of the building by doing LEED Gold Certification. However, it would necessary to cut further into the slope in order to make the parking work, and this created a cascading series of technical issues. The applicant decided to keep the project simple and not pursue LEED Certification. Vice Chair Owenby pointed out that the property is located at the tail end of the commercial development at Westgate. He asked what type of commercial uses the applicant envision. He questioned the viability of commercial space in this location given the current market shift where stores are closing and more people are ordering online. He asked if the commercial space would have sufficient parking to accommodate office or restaurant uses. Mr. Pirscher said that from his experience with mixed -use buildings in today's market, he is seeing a demand for smaller spaces for salons, insurance agencies, micro -offices, etc. He said he doesn't foresee that a single retail tenant will occupy the commercial space. Vice Chair Owenby said he doesn't see that the access to the lobby for the upper residential units would be an American with Disabilities Act) ADA accessible emergency egress. He asked if this configuration meets the code requirements for accessibility. Mr. Pirscher said he hasn't submitted a building permit application yet, but an ADA parking space will have direct access into the lobby and there will be another ADA stall at grade in the eastern parking array. If required as part of the building permit, a ramp would be a potential addition to address this concern. Chair Strauss reminded the Board that ADA accessibility will be addressed at a later time and is not part of what the Board is being asked to consider. The commercial space will have to comply with all of the ADA requirements. Board Member Bayer said she likes the proposed design. She recognized that there are space limitation, but the building seems to be too close to the busy street. She asked if the City has had any discussions with the applicant about lowering the speed limit and/or addressing ingress and egress concerns. Mr. Clugston said he is not aware of any concerns. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the plan and didn't raise that concern, either. Vice Chair Herr suggested that, once a building has been developed on the site, drivers will likely be more cognizant of their speed. He expressed his belief that the project will help to mitigate this concern. Mr. Pirscher said he supports the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations of the City staff. Rachel Ross, Edmonds, said she her residential property is located along the applicant's northern property line. She had previous discussion with Mr. Pirscher regarding the zoning changes and the previous development proposal. She said she appreciates the considerations that have been made in the new proposal, and she and her neighbors support it. She was pleased to see that the building would be two rather than three stories, that the number of potential trips to and from the stie would be limit, and that there would be minimal grading at the slope. Her only concern is how to mitigate potential accidents as people speed through the corner, which happens frequently. Chair Strauss asked if there would be a retaining wall at the back side of the new building or if the retaining wall would be the actual building wall. She said it appears the proposal would cut into the hillside on the east side to make room for the three parking spaces near the trash enclosure. Mr. Pirscher said the grade would be cut on the east side of the north elevation, but there would be no cut into the hill on the west side where it is steeper. Rather than excavating all the way up the hillside to build a wall, they would cut sheer and establish a system of shoring. The foundation wall would be constructed behind the shoring wall. This approach would minimize the disturbance and difficulty and provide a great measure of stability during construction. He recognized that the slope is an engineering issue and ample engineering drawings will be provided to prove that cutting into the slope will be handled well and will not jeopardize the stability of the soils. The slope will be stabilized before foundations are poured. Vice Chair Herr suggested that the slope will be more stable after the piles have been installed than it is in its native state. Mr. Pirscher agreed. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Chair Strauss closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Guenther said he is excited that someone is moving forward with development plans. Board Member Jeude said she likes the pedestrian scale of the proposed development. The area is a blight, and the added landscaping and new building will create a welcoming entrance into the Westgate area. She likes that the parking will behind the building and that public amenities will be provided. Board Member Herr concurred. Chair Strauss commented that the applicant has done a good job with project design, and the development will create a nicer entry into Edmonds. CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FIND THAT THE WESTGATE STATION PROPOSAL (FILE NO. PLN2020-0015) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS. SHE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. AN UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ADDRESSING THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 23.80 FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED AT BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. 2. RETAINED TREES MUST BE PROTECTED DURING DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 18.45.050.H. 3. EXISTING POWER LINES ON SITE MUST BE RAISED TO AT LEAST 14 FEET TO ALLOW EMERGENCY ACCESS. SEPARATE PERMITS FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE ALARM AND A TEST WILL NEED TO BE DONE TO SEE IF A DISTRIBUTIVE ANTENNA SYSTEM (DAS) IS REQUIRED. 4. THE LANDSCAPING SHOWN NORTH OF THE BUILDING ON SHEET L-1 OF ATTACHMENT 3 MEETS THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPING CHAPTER IN ECDC 20.13. 5. STREET TREE SPECIES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE PARKS MANAGER AT BUILDING PERMIT. 6. ANY TRANSFORMERS, UTILITY METERS AND SIMILAR FEATURES OUTSIDE THE BUILDING MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OR CAMOUFLAGED TO MINLVIIZE THEIR VISUAL OBTRUSIVENESS FROM THE SIDEWALK ALONG EDMONDS WAY. 7. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING, ENGINEERING, AND FIRE 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. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7 Board Member Bayer requested an update on the Main Street Commons Project. Mr. Clugston reported that the Building Permit applications are still in house, but they are getting close to issuance. Board Member Bayer also asked for an update on the Graphite Project at Main Street and 2' Avenue. Bob Gregg, Project Manager for the Graphite Project, reported that the project is underway and no shoring or excavation will be required. The project is scheduled as an 8-month build. He recalled that the ADB reviewed a few different iterations of the project design. Instead of a two-story building with apartments on top, the project will be a single -story building. Currently, there are no plans to construct another building on the vacant lot to the south. The building will be a dedicated art studio. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Vice Chair Owensby asked staff to provide an update on discussions regarding the ADB's role in design review. Mr. Clugston reported that the City Council and Planning Board met jointly in July to discuss the upcoming work program. There was some discussion about reviewing the ADB's role in design review. However, the City Council wants the primary focus for the rest of 2020 to be on the tree code and subdivision regulations. The Housing Commission will present their findings in early 2021; and hopefully, the ADB's role in design review can be addressed at that time, as well. Mr. Clugston reported that the City just received a design review application for a project at the old Woodway Gas Station site (238t1i and 100'1i). This project will likely come before the Board for review in a few months. Chair Strauss asked if staff must wait for an official resignation letter from Tom Walker before they can start the process to fill his position. Mr. Clugston recalled that, last December, Mr. Walker talked about leaving the Board, but the City did not receive official confirmation. Staff will reach out to him again. Board Member Guenther recalled that the Mayor presented Mr. Walker with a plaque at the December meeting. C I -DIN 7�lU 10I0" The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting August 5, 2020 Page 7 of 7