2023-06-15 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15, 2023
Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall, 121— 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Kim Bayer, Chair
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair
Joe Herr
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Steve Schmitz
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Michele Szafran, Planner
A. 7592: 611 on Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing (continued from May 25, 2023)
Chair Bayer reviewed the purpose of the Phase 1 hearing which was continued from the May 25 regular
meeting. She reopened the public hearing, discussed procedures. She asked if any board members had engaged
in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the design review of this project outside of this
hearing process. All members replied they had not. She solicited any conflict -of -interest issues. None were
raised. She asked if anyone objected to her participation or any other board member's participation as a decision
maker in the hearing. No one raised any objections. She asked anyone planning to testify to affirm that their
testimony would be truthful.
Planner Michele Szafran made the staff presentation. She explained there was an updated Staff Report in the
packet along with 19 attachments. Public comments are included as attachment 19. Three additional comments
have been received. The commentors have been listed in the staff report as a party of record. She discussed
Phase 1 of the two-phase hearing process, reviewed the site and proposal context, discussed BD2 zoning
requirements, and highlighted design standards. Staff believes that there could be a little more improvement
with massing and treating blank walls as well as transparency at street level. Staff has recommended additional
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Pagel of 9
design elements be used on the northern fagade to help break up the fagade to echo historic patterns. Historically
building widths vary from 30-60 feet.
Staff recommendations for ADB consideration:
• Prioritize design guidelines and standards.
• Revisions to transparency.
• Address city staff corrections (visibility, fire).
• Break up north fagade.
• Provide additional trim around windows.
• Additional sidewalk amenities on Main if power lines are buried.
• Screening of utility cabinets.
Staff recommends August 24 as a date certain for Phase 2 of the design hearing. Clarifying questions and
answers followed.
Applicant Testimony:
Phil Frisk, architect, stated they have worked hard to make sure they are in compliance with the zoning and
design requirements. They are looking forward to having this building be a positive impact to the neighborhood.
He expressed appreciation for all the input and stated they would continue to work with city staff to address the
questions raised. They can easily accommodate the issues raised in the presentation and will have changes ready
for the August hearing.
Public Testimony:
Lynda Fireman, 600 Bell Street, commented on the impact the development would have on those who live
across from and on the alley on the north side. The impact to the alley is never addressed. She expressed concern
about noise impacts of HVAC equipment. She proposed a mural on the entire blank wall commemorating and
including the historic cottage that is being torn down with many trees and shrubs showing in the background.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of alley entrances and courtyards to beautify back alleys and
commercial spaces. Even though the property is below the threshold to require open space she believes there
should be more than one outdoor bench. She wondered if there is air conditioning or a heat pump. She wondered
if the height of the lofts could be reduced to allow HVAC on the roof.
Will Magnuson stated that the building design lacks creativity. Neither the commercial nor the residential entry
is dominant. The overall design is not consistent with downtown character, nor does it provide any beneficial
interest to the community. He expressed concern that the design for commercial portions does not meet many
of the commercial requirements for the BD2 zone. The residential levels reflect much of the same design as the
Dayton Street apartments providing ADA units isolated to the lower level because the building does not have
elevators to the upper floor. Residential entry is located around the corner with access gained by descending
stairs or ramps to the basement level. This appears to be more of a side alley entry approach than a prominent
entry and represents an overall safety issue. He stated that the community wants creative, interesting,
community -oriented mixed -use development in the downtown area and other core walkable communities. They
need better mixed -use development than what this project proposal provides. He does not think the community
will be supportive of this project if it goes forward. This proposal could paralyze further public support for real
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 2 of 9
progress on the development code and future quality, mixed -use projects. Neither Dayton nor Main Street are
the quality projects the community desires as they offer little enhancement or benefit to the community.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds resident, stated that the proposed project on 611 Main has problems that need to be
addressed. He is a citizen and builder in Edmonds. He is not opposed to development, but he is opposed to bad
development in the quaint downtown core. This building does not check all the boxes and he implored the ADB
to suggest specific changes to this building. It's a plain, big, ugly box that doesn't fit, and if allowed to be built,
will be an eyesore for the foreseeable future. This building's lack of design features has stirred the criticism of
many citizens, and the developer doesn't seem to care. The building doesn't seem to even meet the bare
minimum design standards. Much of the building's design goal appears to be to yield the cheapest possible
structure for the highest profit. He stated that the following items need work:
• The public and private amenity space is extremely small for such a large building.
The glazing on the streetside is not even close to being in compliance.
• Main street entrance is small and will limit future use of the building. It does nothing for the interplay
between pedestrians and visitors to the building.
• The ADA is horrible. There is no elevator connecting the first and second floors. One elevator going to
all floors is the right thing to do.
The dumpster space appears to have two large doors opening five feet out into a 15-foot alley. This
design shows a complete lack of respect for the neighbors' access to the alley use.
He stated he also has ideas about the front and plaza side of the building he would like to share later in
the hearing if allowed by Chair Bayer.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds resident, referred to design objectives and goals in the code and expressed concern
about the following aspects:
• Building entry location — The building should be configured to provide clear entry points to buildings
and be oriented to pedestrian walkways and pathways and support the overall intent of the streetscape
environment.
• Building entry space — An area for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed -use
buildings.
• Setbacks — Create and maintain a landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood and provide
a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired
streetscape, providing for its transition areas between public streets and private building entries where
a variety of activities and amenities can occur.
• Open space — For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the
development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities.
• Building Form, Wall Modulation — A variety of materials, decorative elements, or other features should
be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes or help break up large building
masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. The back of the building is blank, so it is not
to scale with the condos directly behind it.
• Building Fagade — The exterior of the building is the portion of the building that defines the character
and visual appearance of a place is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and
integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds.
• She stressed that the code says that urban design in the downtown waterfront area should encourage its
unique design, character, and important placemaking status within the city.
• Building Setbacks — Create common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its
neighbor. This is not achieved, and the ADB should recommend a setback.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 3 of 9
• She encouraged the ADB to carefully review all Comprehensive Plan elements that apply to this project.
Cathy Brewer, Edmonds resident, said she is dismayed at what is about to happen to Edmonds' historic, quaint
downtown with two proposed buildings by one developer that may meet building codes but defmitely do not
meet the design standards that Edmonds residents expect and desire in this special city. Both of the buildings
require the removal of historic buildings that add charm to our town, while replacing them with bland, oversized,
boxy, cheap looking structures that will negatively impact our downtown. She hopes that the ADB and planners
will take this to heart and act appropriately to request the improvement of these buildings' designs so they won't
be regrettable structures that we will all have to live with. Good design is of the utmost importance for both of
these buildings. She shared many criticisms. This building would be an out -of -scale eyesore compared to the
moderate -sized historic buildings surrounding the charming fountain nearby. The street appeal from Main is
uninviting. The entry is smaller than what most houses have. The building spans from sidewalk to alley with no
open space which is conducive to livability and pedestrian access. The continuous planter box along the front
is a barrier to pedestrian traffic. The glazing requirements are meant to connect business and pedestrian traffic.
The small area of windows does not meet the BD2 standards. The public amenity space is Spartan at best. There
are no outside private community spaces of any kind. Plazas, patios, and decks are lacking or non -existing. The
ADA access is the bare minimum. The ADA ramp takes up 40% of the plaza and would be better located at the
front where the planter box is. There is no elevator to the second story units. She stated that this design needs to
go back to the drawing board, and some major thought and consideration must be put into it before the planners
should even consider it. 6th and Main is a gateway and deserves a quality building, not this one that could mar
it forever. She urged the ADB to request positive changes for this development.
Clarification Questions by the Board:
Board Member Loch asked staff about permitted uses in the BD2 zone. Staff reviewed allowed uses.
Vice Chair Brooks said she was also curious about the HVAC location and noise pollution. Mr. Frisk stated that
this is a conceptual design so they haven't yet engaged a mechanical contractor to figure out the HVAC systems.
There are a lot of minimum code requirements that address the sound of compressors and other equipment so
they are sensitive to that and will be code compliant.
Chair Bayer asked Mr. Frisk about the suggestion to have a mural on the north wall. He replied that he is open
to it and has already contacted the Art Walk group regarding the process. There is a waitlist, and it could take
18 months to two years depending on the funding. He added that they reduced their windows because on the
first review they were told there were too many windows.
Chair Bayer asked about the 75% versus 45% transparency being proposed by the applicant. Ms. Szafran replied
that the 75% minimum is in the code. Board Member Schmitz asked how they calculate the area and
requirements for the windows. Ms. Szafran reviewed how this is calculated. Mr. Frisk explained they were
asking for the reduction because of the expectation that this will be office space needing privacy and relief from
the sun. He expects that the windows will be covered with miniblinds anyway. He asked if the ADB has the
authority to reduce the requirement to 70%.
Board Member Jeude commented on the high amount of use that the alleys in Edmonds get by pedestrians and
noted that with the building so close to the edge it doesn't seem to be allowing for community access to those
areas.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 4 of 9
Chair Bayer asked if staff had any comments on the location of the dumpster. Ms. Szafran replied that the
applicant still needs to address comments from fire and engineer. Staff does not have a problem with it as long
as it is screened and on the property. There was some discussion about having a sliding gate to address the
swinging door issue.
Chair Bayer asked about reason for the location of the residential entrance. Mr. Frisk explained that that there
is a requirement of 45 feet of commercial space on the designated street front so they had to go around the
corner. He stated it is coming off a very large plaza with stairs and an ADA ramp right off the Main Street side.
It will be quite visible. Chair Bayer asked staff if there is a requirement for awnings on Main Street. Ms. Szafran
explained the code says that structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. Mr. Frisk said
there is a small canopy over the residential entrance with signage so which will be visible from the Main Street
sidewalk.
Chair Bayer asked Greg Brewer about his ideas about the entry. Mr. Brewer commented that the building on
2nd and Main has the same situation with the slope, but they pulled the main floor back slightly. He
recommended eliminating the planter box on this building and pulling the wall back three feet. That would
provide a five-foot access that can then go along the front of the building. The window glazing can drop down
lower and to allow a higher percentage of glazing. They could get rid of the ADA ramp in the plaza and allow
it to actually be a plaza. Then you could roll a wheelchair all the way across the front of the building and have
a level entry. He noted that the first design the applicant had showed a central entrance. Mr. Brewer also
suggested backing up the back of the building two feet to have enough room for cars to pass.
Chair Bayer asked if there has been a traffic study on the alley. Ms. Szafran replied that they have a
transportation impact analysis worksheet that has already been provided. She didn't think it would require a
study. Mr. Frisk said they thought they were below the threshold to require a traffic study. Planning Manager
Levitan explained that the general threshold is 25 PM peak hour trips. He agreed that this project wouldn't be
anywhere near that. Staff can consult with engineering to get their opinion.
Clarifying Questions from the Public:
Lynda Fireman noted that the alley width is only 15 feet, and the entrance on 6th is 12 feet. There are drop offs
on either side, and you cannot pass a car in that alley. Chair Bayer asked where most people who live on that
alley park their cars. Ms. Fireman replied that her building has garages that enter onto the alley. Some others
have parking in the back, and some have garages that you enter from the street.
A member of the public noted that the idea that the office windows would be covered by miniblinds is
conceptual, as it would be up to the commercial tenants. Mr. Frisk agreed. The commentor also said that the
issue with the gate on the dumpster is not just once a week when the dumpster is emptied but every time a
resident opens the gate to throw garbage in.
Another Edmonds resident commented that the applicant doesn't want to have any move ins and outs off Main
Street so that means that the moving truck will be parked in front of her garage in the alley for hours on end
every time someone moves in or out. She thinks they should be able to move in and out from the front of the
building. Mr. Levitan indicated he would check with the building traffic engineer prior to the Phase 2 hearing.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 5 of 9
Mr. Brewer asked if it is the intent of the development code to put residential entries on the side of the building.
He didn't think it made sense that they couldn't do both commercial and residential on the streetside. Regarding
the dumpster, he wondered if they could just turn them 90 degrees so they open into the property and not the
alley.
Board Member Strauss asked how the ADA residents would get to the dumpsters. Mr. Frisk replied that there
would be separate garbage cans that are accessible in the parking area.
Deliberation:
Board Member Strauss referred to the front elevation. She agreed that it is very blank and seems sort of
haphazard. She would like to see smaller chunks that go all the way up on the front elevation to break it up a
little bit. She recommended eliminating the planter near the front entrance, coming up to the sidewalk, and
putting a canopy over it. She thinks an awning across the commercial space would help to make it more
appealing and blend into the downtown area. She also agreed with pulling the first floor level back several feet
and getting the ramp out of the plaza. She noted that putting an elevator up to the second floor would be very
helpful. Regarding the back side of the building, the mural idea is nice, but just some modulation would be
helpful. Mr. Frisk made some suggestions, and stated they were open to suggestions. Board Member Strauss
recommended adding some balconies. If they are able to open up the plaza, she recommended putting some big
planters and trees to make it feel like a courtyard and not just a big ramp.
Vice Chair Brooks commented that the south side colored rendering looks "patchworky" and confusing. Board
Member Schmitz thought extending the brick under the sill of the second -floor unit and along the stair going
down into the residential area could help.
Board Member Herr recommended pitching the roofs on both sides to give it more character. There was some
discussion about other roof design possibilities. There appeared to be interest in this by the ADB.
Board Member Schmitz asked if there is a minimum size for the commercial space other than the back wall
being 45 feet back. Ms. Szafran replied that there was not. Board Member Schmitz noted that there is some
opportunity to add more articulation to the facade on the first floor.
Mr. Frisk asked about getting a height variance so they could do a pitched roof with a ridge at 35 feet. There
was discussion about the variance process which Ms. Szafran said was not an easy process. Board Member Herr
asked when they made the 30-foot maximum height. Mr. Levitan indicated he would have to look at the
legislative history. Board Member Herr commented that this is the reason they are getting the "boxy" buildings.
Desian Guidelines Checklist
Site Planning:
1. Reinforce site characteristics
Bayer — High priority. High visibility area, gateway to downtown
Herr, Strauss, Schmitz — Low priority. The existing site has no characteristics to reinforce.
Jeude — High priority. Minimizing shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. This is
a consideration for the folks to the north of the building.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 6 of 9
• Consensus was low priority.
2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics
• High priority
3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street
• High priority
4. Encourage human activity on the street
• High priority
5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites
• High priority
6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy, and interaction (residential
projects)
• High Priority
7. Maximize open space opportunity on site.
• High priority
8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property.
• High priority
9. Discourage parking on street front.
• Not applicable.
10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (comer lots)
• Not applicable.
Bulk and Scale:
1. Provide sensitive transition to nearby, less -intensive zones
• High priority — alley, neighbors to the east
Architectural Elements:
1. Complement positive existing character and/or responds to nearby historic structures
• Low priority — not a consistent character on the street except the awning
2. Unified architectural concept
• High priority
3. Use human scale and human activity
• High priority based on where it's at.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 7 of 9
4. Use durable, attractive, and well -detailed finish materials
• High priority based on where it's at
5. Minimize garage entrances
• Low priority — It's where it needs to be. They can't make it any smaller.
Pedestrian Environment:
1. Provide convenient, attractive, and protected pedestrian entry
• High priority
2. Avoid blank walls
• High priority
3. Minimize height of retaining walls
• Low priority — Zero lot line. There are retaining walls but you can't make them any smaller.
4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas
• Not applicable
5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures
• Not applicable
6. Screen dumpsters, utility, and service areas
• High priority
7. Consider personal safety
• High priority
Landscaping:
1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood
• High priority — Everyone has flowers and nice landscaping along the pedestrian path. How the
architect decides to treat that front will play a big role in how the community responds to it.
2. Landscape to enhance the building or site
• High priority
3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions
• Low priority
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE,
TO CONTINUE THIS TO THE PHASE 2 HEARING ON AUGUST 24. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15,2023
Page 8 of 9
The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
June 15, 2023
Page 9 of 9