Loading...
2021-02-03 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting February 3, 2021 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:04 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Joe Herr Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Kim Bayer Maurine Jeude APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER BAYER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BAYER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: PLN2020-0040 WOODWAY STATION: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure that was formerly used as a convenience store and gas station and construct a new two-story, approximately 11,000 square foot commercial building. The project will also provide 22 parldng spaces and new landscaping. The site is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). The proposed development is subject to the zoning standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.11. Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She asked if any Board Member had engaged in communications with opponents or proponents regarding File Number PLN2020-0040 outside of the public hearing process, and all Board Members answered no. Next, she asked if any Board Members had a conflict of interest or believes that he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner, and all answered no. Lastly, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to a Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and there were no objections. Chair Strauss invited all those who wanted to testify in the hearing to affirm that their testimony would be the truth. She then invited staff to present the application. Mr. Lien explained that projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review are a Type III -A Process, which is a decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) following a public hearing. The ADB's decision is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Pagel of 8 appealable to Superior Court. In order to approve the project, the Board must find it is consistent with the Design Standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.11.030, the Urban Design Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lien advised that the application is for the Woodway Station Project, located at the corner of 238' Street and 100' Avenue W. The applicant is proposing an approximately 11,000-square-foot, 2-story office building, with 22 parking spaces and associated landscaping. The site is located within the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone. He provided a zoning map, noting that the site is primarily surrounded by Single -Family (RS-8) Zoning. However, there are three parcels, including the subject site, that are zoned BN. He also provided an aerial view of the three BN-zoned properties, and advised that the subject site is currently being leased by Sound Disposal and is used for truck parking. Mr. Lien reported that all of the comments received to date regarding the project were from the 101' Avenue Neighborhood. They were primarily concerned about access. Currently, the site can be accessed from one location on 100' Avenue W and two locations on 238' Street. The access points will change with the proposed project. The existing building was constructed in the 1960s, as were most of the homes in the 101 st Avenue Neighborhood. Mr. Lien further explained that the subject site is a corner lot, with street setbacks on three sides (100', 238' and 1015t). The BN zone requires a 20-foot street setback, and the applicant is proposing a setback greater than 20 feet on 238' Street and 100r' Avenue W, and the setback is right at 20 feet on the 101 st Avenue W side. The BN zone does not require side setbacks unless adjacent to residentially (RS) zoned properties. Because the subject site is located adjacent to property that is zoned R-8, a 15-foot, permanently landscaped setback would be required. He summarized that, as proposed, the project is in compliance with the zoning setback requirements. Mr. Lien advised that the BN zone has a maximum height limit of 25 feet, and the proposed building would be 24'6". There will be an overrun for the associated elevator, which is allowed as an exception. Many of the comments received from neighboring property owners were related to the size and scale of the proposed building. While the 25-foot height limit in the BN zone is the same as the height limit in the RS-8 Zone, most of the homes on 101st Avenue W are single - story. Mr. Lien advised that the adjacent neighbors have voiced concern about parking. He said the parking requirements are outlined in ECDC 17.50. The project is being designed as an office building, and two parking standards could apply: professional offices that have on -site customer service (1 space per 400 square feet) and offices that do not provide on - site customer service (1 space per 800 square feet). The applicant is proposing 22 parking spaces, which is not enough to meet the requirement for a building that is entirely professional office uses with on -site customer service. However, the applicant could use a combination of the two different types of uses. For example, 21 spaces would be required if half of the building is used for offices with customer service and the other half without customer service. At this time, the applicant has not proposed a specific use for the building. Compliance with the parking standards will be verified as part of the Business License review. Provided that the uses are split 50150, the project would comply with the off-street parking requirements. Mr. Lien advised that the applicant is proposing Type IV landscaping along 100' Avenue W and 238' Street, and Type 1 landscaping along 101 st Street to create a barrier between the residential and commercial uses. He said he is also proposing landscaping (evergreen species) along the western side to help screen the building from the residential properties. This was included as a condition in Staff s recommendation. A 6-foot fence will be provided along the property line. With 22 parking spaces, 385 square feet of Type V landscaping will be required (17.5 feet per parking space) and the applicant is proposing 562 square feet. Mr. Lien referred to the Staff Report, which provides a detailed analysis of how the project is consistent with all the design standards in the Comprehensive Plan and the ECDC. He specifically referred to the following standards: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 2 of 8 A.1 — Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. As mentioned earlier, there are currently three curb cuts; one on 100' Avenue W and two on 238' Street. The driveway cut closest to 100th Avenue West will be removed, and there will be new sidewalks along 100t` Avenue W and 238' Street. There will only be two access points to the project. There won't be any vehicular access to the property via 101' Avenue W, and the landscaping will extend all the way from the property to the edge of 101 ' Avenue W to help discourage spill -over parking. A.3 — Connections On- and Offske. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. In this neighborhood, there are no other commercial areas that you would want to connect the subject parcel to. There will be a pedestrian connection from the walkway along 100' Avenue W. There will also be a pedestrian connection out the back part of the property. There is a transit stop just north of the site. • A -IS — Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. The applicant is proposing a horizontal band across the front of the building, with large expanses of windows. There will also be some vertical elements with the staircases and colored entries. • A-17 — Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. The applicant is proposing some wall modulation with step ins and cantilevered portions of the building. • A-16 —Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. There isn't a lot of roof modulation, but there will be some indents. • A-19 — Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. The applicant is proposing large expanses of windows on the primary facades of the building, with some smaller windows on the side and back. Mr. Lien referred to the public comments received to date, which were included in the Staff Report. The primary concerns were: Traffic. There was concern about the amount of traffic that would be produced by the proposed development. The traffic analysis that was prepared for the project and reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer identified a total of 93 new trips per day, with 11 in the peak AM and PM hours. The intersection at 100' Avenue W and 238' Street has a Level of Service (LOS) A, which is the highest level provided in the City's Transportation Plan, and the project would not change the LOS. Limiting the access points to 100' Avenue W and 238' Street should also minimize traffic impact to 101 ' Avenue W. The site would no longer be accessible from 101 st Avenue W. • Parldng. Earlier comments were provided to address this issue. Use of the Site. There were comments that the site has been underused for years, and it is currently used for some neighborhood uses. However, that can't be part of the staff's analysis when reviewing the proposal. Construction Disruption. A pre -construction meeting will be held with the developer prior to start of construction and will include discussions to help minimize impacts to the neighborhood and ensure proper Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 3 of 8 coordination and communication with any street utility disturbances. There are also City regulations that restrict when construction can occur (lam to 6pm Monday through Friday and loam and 6pm on Saturday). Any activity that exceeds the noise level would not be permitted on Sundays or federal holidays. Scale of Building. Most of the structures in the neighborhood are single -story, single-family residences, and most were built in the late 1950s. He acknowledged that the project would be a newer building with a more modern style, but it would be consistent with the 25-foot height limit, which is the same height allowed in the single-family zones. As houses in the neighborhood are redeveloped, they would likely be rebuilt to the 25-foot height limit, as well. As proposed, the building would meet all of the design standards to help reduce its bulk and scale. Chair Strauss voiced concern that the trash would be serviced from 101 ' Avenue W. Mr. Lien said the plan was reviewed by the Engineering Department, and they work with the trash hauler to identify the best location for the trash enclosure. He noted that there were no public comments regarding this aspect of the proposal. Chair Strauss noted that the trash enclosure would be perpendicular to the street, which means the hauler may have to block the street to pick up the trash. Mr. Lien said the enclosure would meet the dimensional requirements. He commented that office uses are not typically associated with large amounts of trash, so the pick up would probably coincide with the normal neighborhood schedule. Mr. Lien concluded that staff finds the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, policies of ECDC 20.10, the design criteria in ECDC 20.11.030 and the zoning regulations. Staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. As mentioned earlier, one of the conditions would require that the trees on the west side of the building be evergreen species. Another would require that all mechanical equipment and other roof hardware must be screened from the street view. Carl Pirscher, CDA Pirscher Architects, said he has been working on the project for several years and has considered a number of different site plans. The current ownership is very interested in doing a quality project. The 11,000-square- foot, 2-story building will be a Class A office building focusing primarily on the office market. The setback and parking requirements, as well as the limited access from 101 ' Avenue W became the determining factor for the building's placement. Mr. Pirscher advised that the site is currently developed with a gas station and convenience store with a partial second - story office component that has been there for decades. The metal -framed building is not very attractive, and the proposal would remove it entirely. He reviewed the proposed project plans, specifically noting the following: • The primary access point for the new development will come from 100' Avenue W. Traffic will either exit back onto 100' Avenue W or onto 238t` Street. • The applicant will provide new sidewalks along 100'' Avenue W and street frontage and landscaping between the curb along 100' Avenue W and the property line. Sections of the sidewalk along 238' Street will also be replaced or improved. • The current asphalt edge on 101 ' Avenue W will be replaced with a continuous raised curb. Landscaping will be provided from the back of the curb to the face of the building, with the exception of just a few elements. • The trash enclosure will be fenced with a material that matches the other fencing that is part of the project, so the view from the street front will be similar. There will be a locking gate that is strictly devoted to handling the refuse from the office building. In his experience, office users are requiring significantly less refuse than was the case 10 years ago. The containers will likely be residential -style totes or very small dumpsters. The gates will be unlocked on removal day, and the dumpsters will be wheeled out for the collectors to pick up. • The traffic analysis was based on the proposed building's gross square footage and does not acknowledge the presence of the elevator shaft, stair areas, fire sprinkling room, electrical room, etc. While these elements are Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 4 of 8 not traffic generators, the applicant will provide traffic mitigation fees of $100,000 based on the gross square footage of the building and not the net square footage. • There will be some small decks on the second floor on the western fagade. While the decks will provide a sense of modulation and an opportunity for fresh air, they will only extend 1.5 from the building. • The color scheme will be somewhat muted, with distinction at the entry point. Red metallic panels will be used to highlight and emphasize the presence of the entry on the eastern fagade. • No signage is proposed at this time, but a separate application may follow. • The building's material will be veneer brick of a subdued grey color, with metal panels for the roof. The overhang on the south and east sides will be pronounced for both energy efficiency and to provide roof modulation. • The east and south lower elevation facades will be primarily storefront, and there will be columns on the east fagade with an overhang of the second floor to further modulate and give texture to the building elevation. • There will be a larger deck near the stairway on the south elevation to provide protection for people exiting the stairway and to provide more modulation to the building. • Landscaping of densely populated evergreens, shrubs and ground cover will be planted on the western fagade, so the building will not be clearly viewed from the adjacent single-family properties. • A solid screen fence would be provided on the north and west sides of the property. Concerns were raised about potential graffiti being applied to the fence, and he would be willing to work with City staff to address the issue if it is deemed a real problem in the area. With the recommendation to provide greater screening of evergreens, the image of the building will be significantly diminished by the growth that would be established by the required landscaping. • There will be a slight overhang along the west and north facades to add modulation to the roofline. • Cut-off style light fixtures will be used around the building, one at the main entry and another at the corner to provide ambient light and reduce scale. There will be soffits lights at the first level window areas and probably some safety lights at the exit. All of the lights will be directional to avoid impacting the adjacent residential neighborhood. Board Member Jeude asked if there will be a pedestrian pass -through next to the trash enclosure. Mr. Pirscher answered that there will be a pathway that is intended to provide access to the sprinkler room and allow access from the building to the trash enclosure. He said he believes this access is important for fire access, as well, but he could put a door directly into the trash enclosure to further restrict access to the street. He reminded them that the goal is for the trash enclosure is to have very little impact to the street. Board Member Jeude voiced concern that spill -over traffic from the development is bound to go onto 101' Avenue W. A pedestrian pass -through in this area might encourage people to use 101' Avenue W for parking. She asked if the pass - through will provide access to the front of the building, and Mr. Pirscher answered no. Vice Chair Owenby asked about the proposed fence material and Mr. Pirscher answered it would be vertical slats that are stained appropriately. He felt that vertical slats would be more well -received as they would be more residential in style. If the City is concerned about graffiti, he would be open to changing the material. Vice Chair Owensby asked if the applicant has considered modulating the fence with some recesses to capture more landscaping. Mr. Pirscher answered no, but said it is something they could explore to provide greater visual interest, particularly on 101" Avenue W. Vice Chair Owensby felt that modulating the fence would help break up the building and provide a more residential feel. Mr. Pirscher agreed that would be a good strategy. Board Member Bayer said she thinks the proposed design is great and will help lift a neighborhood that has been an eyesore for many years. She said she reviewed the public comments, and the applicant has done studies to adequately address the traffic concerns. The applicant has also done a nice job of separating the project from 101" Avenue W to discourage spill -over parking. She asked where the evergreen trees that were recommended by staff as a condition of approval would be planted. Mr. Pirscher said the current landscape plan shows a fairly dense planting of evergreen, Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 5 of 8 shrubs and ground cover on the north side. The original application showed deciduous trees on the west side, and staff is recommending that these be replaced with evergreens. The applicant is happy to make that change and will likely treat the area with even more density of evergreens. Board Member Bayer agreed that the decks on the west facade help break up the building and provide a nice benefit for the people in the building, but there is concern about privacy. Planting evergreens, as recommended by staff, will help address this concern. Board Member Bayer asked for more information about how the decks on the west facade would be used. Mr. Pirscher said they will be about 5 feet wide and extend out 18 inches. They are somewhat ornamental, but a door will be provided. Board Member Bayer recalled that adjacent property owners have raised concerns about privacy. She asked if the applicant considered placing the decks on the north facade rather than the west facade. Mr. Pirscher commented that most of the building functions, such as restrooms will be on the north facade, so the balconies wouldn't be enjoyed to the same extent as they might be on the west side. In addition, the dense evergreen trees and other landscaping should help to address privacy concerns. Board Member Bayer said she loves the proposed colors and materials, particularly the red at the entry, and she understands that it would be difficult for the building to blend in with the existing commercial development in the area. Mr. Pirscher said the primarily building colors will be beige, blue and grey, with a splash of red at the entry. The red horizontal element will project out past the overhanging floor above to further emphasize the prime entry point. Mr. Pirscher said he supports the Findings of Fact and Recommendations presented in the Staff Report. Chair Strauss asked if the applicant is going for a LEED rating. Mr. Pirscher said the project will meet the requirements of the recently updated Washington State Energy Code, but the applicant does not intend for the project to be LEED certified at this time. The new energy code demands a lot more accountability in how walls, enclosures, HVAC systems and lighting systems are addressed. He summarized that the new building will be significantly more efficient than a comparable building that was constructed last year. Chair Strauss opened the public comment portion of the hearing. Judy Motree, Edmonds, voiced concern about traffic flow on 100"' Avenue W and 238"' Street and asked if both entries would allow for right and left turns into the subject site. Mr. Lien said he doesn't believe people would be able to cross traffic to turn into the subject property from 100' Avenue W because there will be a curb. Christine Weir, Edmonds, said she is concerned about parking, particularly during construction. She asked where construction workers would park. Mr. Pirscher explained that City staff will meet with the applicant in a pre - construction meeting and impose standards for working hours, where parking can be established, etc. He said there won't be a lot of excavation required, so the construction site will be fairly easy to manage. In recent years, contractors have gotten very good at managing the flow of equipment, men and materials to construction sites. Ms. Weir asked if retail space would be provided in the building. If so, would it be open late at night and on weekends? Mr. Pirscher said the original traffic analysis was based on 50% retail and 50% office. However, the applicant does not anticipate any retail use at this time because it would require more on -site parking than could feasibly be provided on site. Board Member Bayer asked if retail uses would be allowed in the building at some point in the future. Mr. Lien answered that retail uses are allowed in the BN zone. However, the parking requirement would be greater than for an office use. If and when a business license application is submitted for a retail use, the City would review the application to make sure the parking requirement could be met. Ms. Weir asked if there would be sufficient sight distance for her to see adequately when she enters 2381b Street from 101' Avenue W. Mr. Lien answered that the Engineering Department would review the application during the Building Permit phase to make sure the fence and landscaping will not obstruct view. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 6 of 8 Board Member Bayer reiterated the privacy concerns on the west side of the property. While she doesn't disagree with the proposed decks, the applicant should make sure the landscaping offsets them so people cannot look directly onto the residential properties on 101'Avenue W. Chair Strauss closed the public comment portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin its deliberations. Chair Strauss agreed that the corner has been dilapidated and blighted for a long time, and it will be nice to have a new development. She likes the building design, but she is also concerned about privacy on the western fagade. She said she is leaning towards supporting staffs recommendation. Vice Chair Owensby asked about the growing timeline for the vegetation that is planted on the western facade. He questioned how long the adjacent property owners would have to wait for the landscaping to grow to sufficient size to screen the building. Mr. Lien said the landscaping requirements designate minimum planting size, and evergreen trees must be a minimum of 6 feet in height and deciduous trees must be a minimum of 1.5 to 2 inches in caliper at the time of planting. Vice Chair Owenby observed that it could take 15 years for the landscaping to reach a sufficient height to provide an adequate screen to address the privacy issue. Board Member Jeude pointed out that the privacy issue would be the same whether a person was standing inside looking out a window or standing out on a deck. Adding the evergreen trees will certainly help over time. Chair Strauss concurred. The applicant has agreed to plant evergreen rather than deciduous trees, which is good. CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FIND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, THE DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS. SHE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 2. 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. 3. TO PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE SCREEN FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE PROPOSED TREES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING MUST BE EVERGREEN SPECIES. 4. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE STREET LEVEL. VICE CHAIR OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board Member Bayer requested that staff share any noteworthy updates on past projects the Board has worked on. Mr. Lien responded that the Westgate Station and Main Street Projects are the two most recent projects the Board reviewed. Mr. Clugston said that no Development Permit application has been submitted for the Westgate Station Project yet. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 7 of 8 Chair Strauss noted that redevelopment has been proposed on the old Baskin Robbins site on 5'' Avenue South. Mr. Clugston said the goal is to present this project to the Board for the first of a two -phased public hearing in March. The applicant is currently proposing three buildings on the site. The two facing 5' Avenue would have six live -work units, and the other building would have eight residential units. Board Member Bayer asked if the Art Complex Project at 21 and Main Street is still proposed to be one story. Mr. Clugston said it will be primarily one story, with a few punch ups in the roof by main street. Mr. Lien said the project was originally reviewed by the ADB as a two-story building, but it was later reviewed and approved as a one-story building. Mr. Clugston said the project was approved as two buildings, but the building at the corner is being done first. Board Member Bayer asked what the uses would be. Mr. Clugston answered that the corner building would house art studios with a retail component, as well. The southern building will be eight residential units. Chair Strauss asked about the City's progress in filling the vacant positions on the Board. Mr. Lien recalled that the City has had a difficult time finding someone to fill the landscape architect position. He agreed to check to see if the positions have been advertised. Board Member Bayer asked where they are in the process of redefining the ADB's role. Mr. Clugston said the project is still on the longer -range plan, but other issues have taken precedence (Housing Commission Report, Tree Code, etc.). The pandemic also presented some additional challenges. Board Member Bayer asked what the Board could do to speed the discussion up. Mr. Clugston said he doesn't know of anything at this time. The City's priorities have changed for the time being. Based on the City Council's direction, the ADB may have a role in implementing some of the Housing Commission's recommendations. I:\ Pirelli 4 .7�-U i L IA The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting February3, 2021 Page 8 of 8