Loading...
2021-05-05 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting May 5, 2021 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:12 p.m. Board Members Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Kim Bayer Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Board Members Absent Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PINE PARK 614 — PHASE 2 DESIGN REVIEW (FILE NUMBER PLN2020-0053) Chair Strauss reviewed that the public hearing for the Pine Park 614 design review proposal, which began on March 3, 2021, is still open. At that meeting, the Board took a first look at the project (Phase 1), received initial testimony, and prioritized the Design Guideline Checklist for the applicant to make improvements to the proposal. At this hearing (Phase 2), the Board will review the applicant's revisions and take additional testimony from staff, the applicant, and the public. Should the Board require additional information with which to make a decision, a specific request will be made to the applicant and the public hearing will be continued again to a date certain. However, if the Board finds that the record is complete, the public hearing will be closed and the Board will begin deliberations and make a decision on the proposal. She emphasized that anyone who wants an opportunity to speak at any future appeal of the matter and did not testify on March 3' or submit written comments, would need to testify at this hearing. She invited those who wanted to testify for the first time to affirm that their testimony would be the truth. (Note: Those who testified at the Phase I hearing did not need to be sworn in again) Mr. Clugston explained that because the project is located in the Downtown Business (BD3) zone, a 2-phased public hearing is required for projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. At the Phase 1 hearing on March 3rd, the applicant presented the conceptual design, and the Board prioritized the Design Guideline Checklist and continued the hearing to May 5'E'. The applicant has responded to the guidance from the Phase 1 checklist, and at this hearing, the Board will review the design for consistency with zoning, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Design Guideline Checklist. The Board may ask for additional information or close the hearing, deliberate and issue a Type III -A Decision. Mr. Clugston shared an aerial photograph of the project site, noting there is a mixture of multifamily and commercial development to the north, south and west, and primarily single-family development to the east across 5' Avenue S. He reviewed that multifamily, live/work, parking and loading are all allowed uses in the BD3 zone. However, the designated street front requirement along 5' Avenue S triggers ground floor height and depth requirements, as well as other design standards. The Development Code requires a 15-foot setback from the west property line, which is adjacent to a multifamily -zoned parcel, and the maximum building height is 30 feet. Off street parking is required, and each of the units in Building C would have one parking stall. Each of the three units in the two buildings on 5' Avenue S have two parking stalls, one for the live portion of the use and another for the work portion. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Pagel of 8 Mr. Clugston reviewed that the two proposed buildings facing 5' Avenue S (Buildings A and B) are about 60-feet wide and 30-feet deep, and Building C, which is located further into the site, would be 30-feet deep and about 120-feet wide. As discussed at the Phase 1 hearing, the layout is compliant, but only if a subdivision is approved to create a lot line in between Buildings A and B and Building C. The parcel needs to be subdivided to allow the two eastern buildings to have the reduced street -front depth. Typically, the depth requirement is 45 feet, but if the site is less than 90-feet deep, the requirement can be reduced to 30 feet, which is what the applicant is proposing for Buildings A and B. With the subdivision, no open space would be required because Buildings A and B would be less than 120 feet long, and both of the lots would be less than 12,000 square feet. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to ensure that the subdivision happens. Mr. Clugston reviewed the design elements in the design guidelines and Design Guideline Checklist, the design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan, and the design standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 22.43. As noted in the Staff Report, the design guidance from the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guideline Checklist was generally met when the project was presented for the Phase 1 hearing, so he will focus on the design standards in the ECDC. He reviewed the standards as follows: Massing and Articulation. Pictures were provided to compare the Phase 1 submittal to the Phase 2 submittal. The intent is to have a top and a base, and then mimic the historic building widths in the area. Typically, the older buildings in Edmonds are between 50 and 60-feet wide, and the two buildings facing 5r' Avenue S (Buildings And B) will be 60-feet wide, and they will be further divided into 20-foot-wide units through the use of windows, canopies, etc. There is a cornice at the top to provide a definite edge, and the base of the buildings is identified via the storefronts and different materials. Although the design standards would not apply to Building C on the west side of the property, the proposed building provides differentiation for each of the units. The applicant is proposing a top deck area, and the bottom area would be set off by some recessed garages. He noted that the exterior stairs that were shown on the Phase 1 drawing were not included in the Phase 2 drawing, so the applicant will need to advise on how the rooftop decks will be accessed. • Orientation to the Street. The intent of this standard is to activate the street front, and the buildings that front on 5' Avenue S (Buildings A and B) will be built right to the eastern edge of the property line. The entrances should have a distinct expression, and the applicant is proposing a forecourt in the area beneath the canopies. 0 Ground Level Details and Canopies. The applicant is required to use a minimum of five design elements from the list provided, and the applicant is proposing to use detailed concrete, sconces, planters, medallions, etc. The entrances will be immediately accessible from the sidewalk, and canopies are proposed over each one. • Transparency at Street Front. The code requires that the space between 2 and 10 feet on the street -front fagade must be at least 75% transparent. Based on a quick calculation, it doesn't appear that the proposed design would meet this requirement, and the applicant will need to address this issue. • Blank Walls. The applicant is not proposing any blank walls on the fagades facing east (5' Avenue S) and west, and there will be some interest on the walls that face the alleys through the use of banding and different materials, as well as lighting along the alleyway. • HVAC and Utilities. A transformer will be located at the northeast corner of Building C, and he isn't sure where the other utility equipment will be located. However, it will all need to be screened or camouflaged, and staff is recommending a condition of approval to make sure that happens as part of the Building Permit application. • Landscaping. The site will be fairly well built out, and there won't be a lot of landscaping. The applicant is proposing several street trees, as well as planters adjacent to the storefronts. There will also be some small planters in the area between Buildings A and B. In addition, Type I Landscaping (two rows of evergreens, fence, shrubs, Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 2 of 8 and groundcover) will be required on the western property line adjacent to the multifamily development to the west. The applicant is proposing one row of mixed canopy (deciduous and evergreen), as well a fence, shrubs and groundcover. The code allows the Board to deviate from the exact Type I Landscape requirements if they feel the proposal meets the screening intent. In this case, it probably does since the adjacent site to the west is developed with multifamily and the subject parcel will be developed primarily with multifamily, too. Mr. Clugston reviewed that, at the Phase 1 hearing, Ed Lorah spoke on behalf of residents of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner's Association, which is located just west of the subject parcel. He voiced concern about drainage and parking, as well as lighting. While the code primarily addresses the buildings that face 5' Avenue S, they were hoping the applicant would also address the western fagade. Drainage will be dealt with per code, and each of the units will have required parking on site. The applicant has provided a lighting plan for the Phase 2 submittal, which includes low cut-off lights and sconces on each side of the building. Because the site will be developed as primarily residential, there won't be any big parking lot lights. Mr. Clugston advised that a written comment was received on May 4r' from Patrick Allain, the property owner to the south of the subject parcel. He read the comment letter (Exhibit 10) into the record as follows: We are the owners of the property adjacent to the south side of the building site for the proposed Pine Park development. Our property has two buildings, a commercial building that is currently occupied by the Barkada Restaurant and a 3-unit apartment building. After reviewing the project documents, we have a few concerns that may not have been addressed yet: Buildings A and Parking a. There may be a safety concern regarding drivers exiting the parking. It appears that visibility may be obscured by Building C to the west and a retaining wall to the east. Both vehicle and pedestrian traffic should be considered. b. Since the parking access is located directly across from our apartment entrance, we are concerned about headlights shining into our units while exiting. 2. Construction a. Construction will always result in noise, dust and disruptions, but to the extent possible, we hope that these can be minimized. b. Since the private driveway is the only means of access for our apartment units and for restaurant deliveries, we would request that it remain available throughout the construction project. Mr. Clugston responded that because the proposed buildings will be located at the property line on the alley side, the Traffic Engineer agrees that mirrors or some other mitigation will be required to ensure safe access from the two driveways into the alleyway. There isn't a lot that can be done to address concerns about headlights shining onto adjacent properties. However, there are performance, noise and sediment/erosion control standards that apply to all construction projects to address potential impacts. These standards will be monitored throughout building construction. There may be some temporary disruption to the alley, but the Engineering Department will require a traffic control plan, and flaggers may be required at the 5' Avenue S and alley entrances to ensure that traffic can get through during construction. Mr. Clugston said staff also has a few remaining concerns about the proposed project: • The Building C roof access that was shown in the Phase 1 submittal was omitted from the Phase 2 submittal. The applicant will need to show how the rooftop will be accessed. • It doesn't appear that the proposed design meets the requirement of 75% Transparency along 5' Avenue S. • Staff is proposing an additional condition of approval to require the applicant to provide and identify pedestrian pathways. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 3 of 8 • It is the applicant's understanding that trash service would be provided by Sound Disposal at the 51 Avenue S curb. If that is the case, there should be some pedestrian markings on the alleyway to make sure that people in Building C can get up to the street. Another option would be to locate a trash receptacle on the alley at the southwest corner of the site. In the downtown area, most of the trash is picked up from the alley. Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending approval of the project with the nine conditions outlined in the Staff Report, as well as an additional condition to address alley access safety. It was noted that a wrong link to the Zoom meeting was published on the agenda memorandum that was posted on the City's website. However, a courtesy notice was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel with the correct link. Council Member Olsen voiced concern that people who relied on the City's website had the wrong link to the meeting. Augustus Bukowski, Edmonds, said his company owns the subject property and is the applicant for the proposed project. They purchased the property with the thought that it would be a great place to develop live/work units that allow self- employed people, like himself, to live and work in the community. Instead of developing one large square structure that houses commercial or office uses with limited parking, they are proposing to develop the site with three small buildings. He noted that his company owns the parcel that is the alley, as well. He said his company, Seattle Luxury Homes, is known for developing very nice, high -end housing in Seattle, and they want to share their great product with the Edmonds community. He emphasized that the project is designed to meet all of the code requirements. If they wanted to maximize the site, they would have proposed a larger building with more units. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborators, said his company designed the project. In response to the concerns raised by staff, he advised that the design team has spoken with Sound Disposal regarding the trash/recycling facility, and they indicated that both the 5t1i Avenue S and alley locations would be acceptable to them. The design team would be willing to work with the location that is deemed best for the community. Rather than doing exterior stairs to provide rooftop access on Building C, the applicant is proposing an internal stairway with a hatchway on the roof. Due to the height limits, a full -height penthouse would be problematic, but there are a number of products available to provide a mechanically - operated hatch that rolls back to provide safe rooftop access. This results in a much lower profile on the roof. Mr. Pontius concluded that Mr. Clugston did a good job of explaining the modifications that were made in response to the direction provided at the March 3' Phase 1 hearing. Ed Lorah, Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner's Association, requested clarification about what is being proposed for the 15-foot setback on the western side of the property. Mr. Clugston displayed the site plan, noting that the required 15-foot setback from the west property line can be development with pavement or a driveway, but no building can be located there. Bob, a resident of the Park View Twin Condominiums voiced concern about stormwater runoff and potential flooding on adjacent properties as a result of the proposed development. Mr. Clugston answered that stormwater from the site will be managed in accordance with current stormwater code. All stormwater must be dealt with on site through low -impact development technology, retention vaults, etc. He shared the utility plan, noting that the applicant is proposing two infiltration vaults to deal with all of the stormwater generated by the site. Mr. Pontius added that the driveways would be permeable, so the water can soak through them. The retention vaults will be tanks with no bottom, filled with rocks. As they fill with stormwater, the water will slowly percolate into the ground through the rocks. There will be an overflow that allows stormwater to flow into the City's stormwater system during significant storm events. Chair Strauss asked if there would be roof drains that flow into the retention vaults or if the roof runoff would just spill off onto the ground. Mr. Pontius said the roof drainage would be collected and routed into the collection tanks. Chair Strauss closed the public portion of the hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 4 of 8 Board Member Bayer expressed her belief that the proposed project would add a lot to the area. She said several citizens have voiced their concern to her that, if the property is subdivided, no open space would be required as part of the project. She noted that other projects in Edmonds are providing even more open space than what the code requires. Chair Strauss voiced concern that the proposed project does not meet the design objectives for site design. The design objectives talk about: • The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscape features as an integral part of how a building interacts with its surrounding site and environment. • Open space for residential settings and creating green spaces enhances the visual attributes of the development and provides places for interaction, play, seating and other activities. • Site utility storage addresses trash, mechanical areas, noise minimization, etc. Locating the trash receptacles from 14 units on 5' Avenue S is not workable in her mind. • Landscape buffers that integrate natural landscape features and unique land forms. The applicant is proposing a single line of trees along the western property line rather than a double line. Mr. Bukowski explained that because the lot slopes, the building footprints need to be located as proposed in order to get the three stories necessary for the project, which is lower density than what is allowed in the zone. If open space is required, they would close off the oversized walkway that goes through the middle of the building and there would be no see -through light. Instead, there would be a long facade facing 5' Avenue S. Also, because the site is not being developed to its maximum density, there will actually be more outdoor space for residents to the south, west and north if the project is done in three separate buildings with an approximately 24-foot setback between the structures. He concluded that there will be a lot of open space for the actual residents of the development, as well as those who surround the property, a lot more than would be afforded with a 5% open space provided at the building entries. He doesn't believe it would be better for the residents to do a singular structure, and the proposed design will result in a more appealing, residential feel to the neighborhood while blending with other residential development in the area. Mr. Bukowski advised that, due to the parking and backup distance requirements, the only other site design that would work would be a large multifamily project that would have much more parking and lot coverage. From a top -down perspective, the project will only cover about 50% of the site, and the code would actually allow up to 70% coverage. He pointed out that the design incorporates planters, trees and a variety of design elements. He expressed his belief that the proposed building would most likely have as much or more greenspace as the existing storefronts in the area. Chair Strauss disagreed and observed that the intent of the residential code is to create not only open space, but green space. It feels like the proposed design is really crowded with a lot of blacktop, and there is no intent to create any green space on the site. Mr. Bukowski asked if she would have that same concern if the blacktop were replaced with building, which would be allowed per the code. Chair Strauss answered affirmatively and pointed out that the area is residential. Mr. Bukowski clarified that the property is located in the BC zone, which is the highest density zoning in the entire City. The property is not zoned residential, but the project would add a residential component to the commercial space. He referred to an aerial view of the surrounding properties, noting that many of them are developed with large building footprints and significant blacktop. The proposed project will have a lower footprint than a large, multifamily condominium. Based on the pictures provided, he pointed out that the adjacent properties have no greenspace in front, where the proposed project would have trees. If they were to do an alternative design aside from the proposed townhome concept, the buildings would have a larger impact on the lot. He said he would support the argument for more green space if the property were zoned residential, but it is zoned commercial. The property already doesn't have a lot of greenspace, and they are proposing more than what is provided on surrounding properties. Chair Strauss commented that no one lives on the properties that are developed as commercial, but Mr. Bukowski previously mentioned the goal of providing affordable residential units for small business owners and their families. Absent open space, it isn't likely that the units will be desirable to families. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 5 of 8 Board Member Herr cautioned that the code would allow the applicant to develop a bigger, more dense building on the site. The Board is asking the applicant to do something that he doesn't have to do, and he is trying to be creative with his site planning by mixing it up with more than one building. The applicant could decide to develop the site to its full potential, and the City could end up with a worse project that is completely code compliant. Mr. Bukowski commented that there are already a number of requirements the project must meet, and if additional requirements cause even one of the units to be eliminated, the project might not be feasible. He noted that construction costs have increased significantly over the past year, as well. If the project is not approved, the next best option would be to construct a two-story commercial office space, which was formally approved by the Board for the banks. He said he would rather do a commercial/residential project, as it would be better for the community and fit with the integrity of the area. Vice Chair Owenby agreed with Board Member Herr. He expressed his belief that the proposed project would result in good background buildings. While it won't stand out or make a statement, it will be a pleasant building to walk by. He noted that most of the development in downtown Edmonds is right up to the property line, and many of the buildings are bland and plain. As a commercial development, the project could be a lot worse. However, he suggested a few minor changes could bring a little more green into the project. For example, something narrow and tall, such as bamboo, could be planted along the walkway between the two buildings. Grass and a tree could also be planted between the two parking areas to create more depth. Mr. Bukowski noted that the existing structures on the property abut the street frontage with no articulation, and the neighboring properties have no greenery, either. He shared a drawing of the proposed new buildings, noting that there would be planters in front of each of the units, as well as in the area between the two buildings. There will be a pathway between the two buildings, as well as a pathway behind Building C. The pathways will be constructed of some type of stonework. In addition, staff has recommended that the project be approved based on the condition of adding more pedestrian walkway. For example, they could add a pedestrian walkway in front of Building C to create a courtyard feel. He noted that the intent is to incorporate planters into that space, as well. Board Member Bayer asked Mr. Bukowski to share more information about the proposed landscaping on the western property line. Mr. Bukowski said Type I Landscaping is intended to screen adjacent residential development from the potential impacts associated with a large commercial development. However, in this case, the proposed development (8 residential units) is similar to what is developed on the adjacent property. Therefore, he believes they can accomplish the goal of separating the two similar building types by tightly packing the trees with ground cover and shrubs, as proposed. He said he would rather plant nice trees for the adjacent residents to enjoy rather than pack the space with conifer bushes. Board Member Bayer asked Mr. Clugston to share his perspective on the proposed landscaping. Mr. Clugston explained that the intent of Type I Landscaping is to create a dense buffer, typically between disparate land -use districts, such as commercial and residential. In this case, the proposed use multifamily residential, which isn't any different than the use on the adjacent property. The landscape code allows the Board to alter the standards if they think what is being proposed still meets the intent of providing a buffer screening. Because the wrong Zoom information was published on the Board's meeting agenda, Mr. Clugston suggested it would be best to continue the public hearing again to either May 19'h or June 2" d to make sure that all who want to comment about the project have an opportunity to do so before the Board takes action. Chair Strauss expressed her belief that providing individual trash receptacles for each of the units will be a problem. She suggested the applicant consider providing a single, large container near where the transformer will be on the north property line. Mr. Bukowski said he would continue to work with Sound Disposal to incorporate the trash plan they can best accommodate, but it is important to recognize that the locating a trash/recycling facility is prohibited by other zoning requirements. If the City prefers a single, large container, it may require leeway to reduce the parking or setback Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 6 of 8 requirements, but that is outside of the Board's purview to do. He noted that other residential units in the vicinity have their trash picked up individually. Chair Strauss said she lives in Edelweiss, which has one large trash receptacle and one large recycling container for all of the units to use. Mr. Bukowski pointed out that Edelweiss is a larger building (17 units). If the proposed project was larger, it would be easier to put a trash/recycling facility inside the parking area. Their project is intended to be fee -simple townhomes, where the people own both the land and the building and there is no homeowner's association. He commented that the site is difficult to develop given the slope and the City's height restrictions. If they can't build the project as proposed, the property will likely be developed with a single, large building that will eliminate a lot more open space and push the building towards commercial. He would prefer to stick with the current design and work to find solutions. For example, they could talk to Sound Disposal about potential options for locating a large container or picking up the individual containers from the alley instead of 5' Avenue S. Board Member Jeude said she would prefer to not have the trash collected from 5' Avenue S., too. Board Member Bayer noticed that the color of the proposed s changed to a lighter grey. She said she preferred the dark color that was presented at the Phase 1 hearing. Mr. Bukowski said many people thought the darker color was ominous. The lighter color is an attempt to brighten the buildings for the community. Board Member Jeude asked how the applicant proposes to address the requirement of 75% transparency on the 5th Avenue S fagade. Mr. Pontius responded that this calculation will be done as part of the final elevation review. Mr. Bukowski said the intent is to meet the transparency requirement, and it may require wider windows or additional doors. Mr. Pontius said the building articulation is intended to differentiate the three separate units in each of the buildings, but some adjustments may be needed to meet the requirement. They are trying to maximize as much window as possible, while still providing some structure to keep the building standing. Mr. Bukowski pointed out that many of the buildings in the area do not have 75% transparency, either. Mr. Clugston responded that, regardless of whether existing development meets the requirement, the current code requirement is to have 75% transparency on a designated street front. The Board has had discussions in the past where they would like to have some flexibility to address certain situations, but that is not currently allowed. Mr. Bukowski commented that the design could be modified, if necessary, to meet the requirement. CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PINE PARK 614 PROJECT BE CONTINUED TO MAY 19, 2021. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION. Bob asked if a survey has been completed to identify the property line on the west side. Mr. Bukowski answered that the site they are proposing for development is based off an official survey of record. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. \ BOARD MEMBER JEUDE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 3, 2021 MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BAYER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. Clugston thanked the Board for their willingness to continue the public hearing to May 19'. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 7 of 8 Board Member Herr announced that he will be moving out of state by the end of the year, which means he will eventually resign his position on the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 5, 2021 Page 8 of 8