Loading...
2023-08-24 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair (online) 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. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 27, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Michele Szafran, Planner MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARINGS 611 Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing (Continued from May 25, 2023; Amended August 23, 2023) Chair Bayer opened the hearing and introduced this item. She discussed the procedure and swore in those testifying. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 1 of 8 Staff Presentation: Planner Michele Szafran made the presentation. She reminded the group that the ADB had prioritized the Design Guideline Checklist and completed the Phase 1 hearing on June 15, 2023. Phase 2 of the hearing was continued to a date certain of tonight. The applicant has responded to guidance from Phase 1. ADB will review this proposal based on guidance from that hearing. Changes were made to address site visibility concerns with the trash enclosure location which resulted in the structure being pulled further away on the ground floor level from the alley. This also ended up providing more modulation as shown in the images. There was also room for additional landscaping added. Five new public comments have been received and forwarded to the ADB and included in the packet. Ms. Szafran reviewed the location, the revised images, BD2 zoning requirements, landscaping plans, and design standards. Staff believes that the project now complies with BD2 design standards. She discussed the project's compliance with the Design Guideline Checklist. To better achieve architectural consistency, the street fagade could benefit from the addition of a "belly band" to tie off the ends of the perceived brick pillars. This is included as a recommended condition. Staff is recommending approval with conditions as listed on page 14 of the staff report with revised condition #6 as noted in attachment 12 or to amend the conditions as necessary. Board Member Loch noted there had been some discussion last time about how the garage could be made a safe environment. He asked if a gate had been proposed. Ms. Szafran replied there was not one proposed. Vice Chair Brooks asked how pulling the building back from the street a bit was achieved. The applicant explained they squeezed the northeast unit on the main floor to provide visibility sight lines to the alley. Chair Bayer asked what "slightly reduced" means. Ms. Szafran referred to the north side that had been pulled back. They also shrunk the overall volume of the structure. The applicant added that on the south side they have symmetrical cantilevers that slightly reduce the overall mass of the building. Chair Bayer asked staff why the ADB received these changes so late. Planning Manager Levitan explained staffing and procedural reasons for this. Board Member Schmitz asked if the one -foot height exception being requested was related to the center parapet. Ms. Szafran confirmed that it was. Planning Manager Levitan explained that staff is recommending that as part of the Board's final design decision, they acknowledge that the parapet wall is an architectural element that warrants the one -foot projection. Applicant Testimony: Phil Frisk expressed appreciation to city staff and the Board for all the input. They were challenged after that meeting but think they have improved the design. The pitched roof makes it fit into the neighborhood better. Chair Bayer asked for clarification about staffs recommendation about the awning over the commercial space. Ms. Szafran explained there are some limitations around the height of it. Those comments were included in the conditions. Board Member Strauss asked about the 30% rule related to the eaves. Ms. Szafran explained the code says that for the eaves, 30% of the length of the fagade can project into the right of way. Board Member Strauss asked how much over they are. Ms. Szafran thought it was 14 inches into the right of way. The Board generally thought it looked good the way it was. Staff indicated that the Board didn't have the authority to change that requirement. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Chair Bayer asked if the hanging basket and bench are still along Main Street. The applicant explained there is a bench on the east side of the building. There isn't room between the face of the building and the sidewalk for a bench. Hanging baskets would be easy to attach to the front of the building. Public Testimony: Greg Brewer, Edmonds resident, stated he is confused about the plaza. He commented that it would be nice to have a bench in the front, and he thinks this could be accomplished by pulling the building back. He acknowledged that the architect has made some improvements to the project but it still falls short, and more changes need to be made. After the last hearing he spoke with the developer and the architect about this project. He asked them if it was possible to have a level entry across the entire front of the building and into the plaza. This would provide a level ADA-compliant access to the entire main floor business and dwelling units much like the post office development down the street. The architect mentioned the grade from one side to the other was close to six feet which would make it difficult. He commented on changes in the images in the number of risers from the plaza to the sidewalk which is just over three feet of elevation. If this is accurate, then a level entry is possible. A level entry would allow full glazing required by the BD2 zone. It would also provide the pedestrian business connection needed to satisfy the BD2 requirements. If it can be accomplished, it should be required by the ADB. After the last meeting the developer suggested for market space to be marketable it would need to be 800 square feet. It would be too expensive for most to lease if it was any bigger. Doing the math for this project, according to the developer, three business spaces would be ideal for the development. The best way to prepare for future flexibility and 800 square foot spaces would be to have a level entry. It allows the additional connection and multiple entry points. This appears not to be the case in this plan, and he thinks they are missing an opportunity. He asked if this is an accurate depiction of what is to be built. Is it actually five risers from the sidewalk to the plaza or will the real details be hashed out behind closed doors after ADB approval? Furthermore, several high importance items have not been met. The current plan is limiting future flexibility for business on the ground floor with its single corner entry. The street side windows do not meet BD2 glazing standards. There is still no elevator to the second floor. This will preclude a segment of the population from occupying these dwellings. It is not inclusive, and in this day and age feels substandard. The building does not fit well with the surrounding buildings, although it is getting better. The alley access is going to be a problem. There's an angled sight line for the garage that has been added, and it appears there is a tree planted in the sight line. The process with one packet coming one week in advance and a revised packet coming the day before seems unfair to concerned citizens trying to participate in the process. The confusion has likely turned off some citizens from commenting which is a shame. Board Member Strauss explained that the architect had raised the plaza which resulted in only five steps, but the plaza is now higher than the first floor. You just have to go down another ramp to get to it. It's still six feet. Lynda Fireman, 600 Bell Street, stated that the whole process concerning 605 and 611 Main has been very disrespectful and a waste of time, resources, and money to all concerned. One day prior to the hearing is not sufficient time to review the changes. The changes are not on all the drawings, and it's very confusing. The plans have not been done correctly, completely, and with attention to detail. With all that, staff is still recommending that the ADB approve it. How can that be? This meeting should have been postponed, and she recommended that this happen now. The public should have had all the information at least a week prior to the hearing. This project is being treated like a game by the architect and the developer. Instead of beginning with a thoughtful, well -designed building that fits into our quaint and historic downtown, they are coming up on two years with the fifth rendition of changes. Every one of which has been different and with different problems and Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 3 of 8 a lack of attention to detail or consideration of those who live there and will be impacted by the building. It's being dragged out in hopes that people will lose interest or that the time will run out and they won't have to make the changes. There are some improvements to the building, but it still needs changes and is not at the stage of completion. It's difficult to comment on the new changes because the drawings are not consistent. She is still concerned about lack of elevators and the ADA compliance. She commented on how vulnerable the disabled are and how easy it is for others to disregard their needs and safety. The ramp should have remained as it was with the switchback. Although the applicant says it is ADA compliant there are no measurements of the elevation from the sidewalk, and the straight design seems too short, too steep, and too dangerous for someone using a cane, a walker, a scooter, or a wheelchair. Additionally, units 102 and 104 each only have one small window overlooking the parking lot. What is the actual size, and where is the location of that window in the suite. Can it be made bigger? The units look very claustrophobic as there is no available common space in the building. Does it comply with fire safety regulations? What is the door width going into these units? Will it accommodate wheelchairs? What is the ceiling height of the lofts? Are they to code? Can they be reduced in total by the one foot they are asking for in elevation? Why so many small windows? What is the actual size of the windows? There are no measurements anywhere. How will the refuse from the ADA apartments be addressed? Last time the applicant said that Sound Disposal would go down and pull out small bins. She called them, and they do not do that. She thanked staff for clarifying that the city issues permits directly in or out of a building to use 3-hour parking for limited periods of time and does not allow alleys to be blocked for this purpose. This is a real concern for the neighbors. She referred to the new covered porch and asked how it is accessed. Is it ADA-accessible? What does a "slight reduction in shadows cast on adjacent structures" actually mean and what are the specifics? The alley is still a problem. This needs to be clarified with measurements and clear drawings. Ann Christiansen said she is a realist who lives in 900 square feet with her husband. She cannot imagine being in a wheelchair and living in 390 square feet or 420 square feet which are the sizes of units 102 and 104. Those seem extremely small, even for a studio, and they are ridiculous for someone with mobility challenges. She referred to the rendering of the south side and noted that it is not correct. In reality, the trees are equally spaced with four feet grates and three feet of sidewalk. What does that do to the access to the entry to the commercial space or the entry to the plaza? She stated that she was irritated that they can't even have a realistic rendering of what the sidewalk will look like. Mr. Frisk responded that the drawing was intended to show the building more clearly. The other issue is they have to work with the engineering department on the spacing to make sure they are not over a utility box or waterline. He acknowledged that this is a conceptual plan, not a final plan. Ms. Christianson expressed concern that the rendering is not accurate. She also had concerns about the placement of the trees in relation to the entrances and the windows. Board Member Schmitz acknowledged her concerns and stated that staff had noted them, but the ADB does not regulate trees in the right of way. He encouraged her to continue to follow up with staff on this issue because the Civil Engineering department will weigh in on this as well. Vice Chair Brooks referred to the ADA units and suggested combining the two extremely small units into one larger unit because nobody wants to live in 390 square feet. Mike McMurray thanked the ADB for their work on this and the developer for his patience. He supports the developer in some ways, but also supports the community in their concerns about the design. He made some comments regarding the design. He recommended considering using brick on the whole fagade on Main and possibly the entire building where there is hardy board. He thought using cedar around the windows would Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 4 of 8 really jazz up the building. He thinks that density in the downtown core is welcome and realistic but it's something they need to be smart about. He appreciates the effort on the plaza to the east but it is in the shade and seems a little weird. He agrees with previous comments about having it more in the front to be more welcoming. He has a development across the street and shifted the building away from the street which is more inviting and creates more opportunity for open space. It is mind boggling to him to hear that this size lot does not have an open space requirement. He understands it costs more, but he thinks a mix of materials would be well received. On the other hand, Main Street parking should probably not be allowed overnight. He thinks there will be an overflow of visitors and more people living in this building. Eventually they will be taking up valuable surface street parking. They are already seeing some of this. Overall, he offered his support for the project and recommended that the ADB approve the one -foot height variance for the roof. As this building is currently designed it looks very homogenous and like it could be in any other city but he thinks it has potential if the architects are willing to listen to the Board and to the community. Clarifying Questions: Vice Chair Brooks asked if there is a space for extra storage in the garage since these units are so small. Mr. Frisk replied there is just the bicycle room. Chair Bayer asked if the windows shown with balconies are sliders. Mr. Frisk confirmed that they are. Chair Bayer said she was struggling with the commercial part of this since they don't have direct access from the sidewalk. Is there just one occupant planned for the commercial use or is there an opportunity to have other occupants? Ms. Szafran explained there isn't a requirement from staff regarding this. Board Member Schmitz added that the space can be subdivided by the tenant in any number of ways. Chair Bayer asked where the signage would go? On the southwest corner entrance? Mr. Frisk thought that was likely but they would work with the tenant and the City to get a location set. Board Member Jeude agreed with the concern about people just getting this information. It feels a little rushed for community input. Planning Manager Levitan explained there is an opportunity to continue the hearing if they feel like they don't have the ability to make their final decision. Board Member Herr referred to the east elevation and commented that it is misleading. He recommended superimposing the sidewalk over the front of the retaining wall and dashing in behind it because that elevation is misleading. He asked if the landscaping is on top of the retaining wall. Mr. Frisk confirmed that it is. Board Member Herr said he was able to understand this but he doesn't think the public is getting a realistic view of the east elevation with the way it is drawn. Even the upstairs is out 8 feet beyond the windows and it is very hard to grasp that with a flat elevation. Board Member Schmitz referred to the open railing looking over to the driveway from the plaza and suggested it might look nicer and offer more privacy to units beyond the railing to make that a solid piece and add a planter. The public testimony portion of the public hearing was closed. Deliberations: MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO STRIKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6 REGARDING PROVIDING Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 5 of 8 ADDITIONAL INTEREST TO THE SOUTH FACADE BY ADDING A BELLY BAND. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Strauss expressed appreciation to the applicant for what they have done and for listening to feedback but noted that there is still room for improvement. She just saw the revised plan when she arrived at the meeting tonight. She likes that they tried to address the vision issue in the back with the angle. She'd like to see more of that, maybe on the front of the building somewhere. She agrees that the planter around the trash area would be unnecessary and might cause more vision issues. Since the second floor overhangs that area a tree probably wouldn't work, but some low ground cover would be good. The front elevation looks much better with more glass, the canopy, the raised plaza, and the ramp being moved to the inside. She would have loved to see the plaza on the other side of the building. She likes the sloped roofs. The vertical pop outs in between create the modulation they are always looking for. She isn't crazy about the blue color. She agrees with comments about the ADA units being too small. She recommended taking another look at that. She agrees with comments that it would be nice to have elevators going up to the second floor. The trash enclosure is better, but there is still the question of how handicapped individuals would get their trash down there. Is there a possibility to add a chute at the end of the hallway? Vice Chair Brooks agreed with a lot of Board Member Strauss's comments She thinks a plaza on the west side would be nice but with some added planters, it could be a nice space. If the Board has the authority to approve the one -foot projection on the top, she would support that. She agreed that having an elevator would be nice. She likes the changes; it's a lot more interesting on the outside. She appreciates the added landscaping. She recommended having another meeting so they aren't making a rushed decision. Board Member Loch stated that he appreciates and heard the comments that were expressed, but a lot of them are not germane to the design guidelines and therefore, don't necessarily pertain to the ADB's decision. There is nothing in the design guidelines that says how big the units should be, so he does not feel empowered to impose something based on his values. It seems like the project satisfies the literal design guidelines. Board Member Schmitz agreed that they have seen quite an improvement over the first version they saw a few months ago. He commended the developer for taking a lot of their recommendations and running with them. He appreciates that the entrances feel more prominent. There are always things that can be improved. He loves what has been done with the symmetry in the facade, especially the modulation. He agreed that more brick would be wonderful but he knows it is costly. He agrees that the color could be better. The pilasters and the larger windows on the front have helped the composition a little more. He disagreed that having a flat breezeway similar to the post office would help this building because you lose some things with that. If you have a flat path from one end of the building to the other, you would have a much more significant drop to the plaza and you would gain a very unattractive handrail or guardrail. He thinks that the Edmonds City Council and the community would rather see a lot of activity and especially transparency into the street. He thinks this design has been successful with that. The roof composition is much better. He wishes they could allow certain exceptions to the eaves. The one improvement he would make that no one else has suggested is some sort of treatment with the small windows in hardy panels on the front. Overall, he thinks the changes are pretty good. He would challenge them to think about putting in an elevator but acknowledged that the code does not require it. Board Member Strauss asked if it would be possible to have the plaza at street level a little bigger before going down to the plaza. That way they could put a bench and have a little more activity at the sidewalk level. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Board Member Herr asked how many units were required to be ADA. Mr. Frisk replied that the three or four on the main floor. There are two types of accessible units. 104 is the only one that is wheelchair accessible. Board Member Herr noted that the market will dictate if anyone wants to move into those small units. He agrees with Board Member Loch that they can't tell him to make the units bigger, but he agrees they are small. There was some discussion about types of elevators and how this could work with this building. Board Member Jeude said she agreed with other comments. She likes Board Member Strauss's idea about expanding the plaza at the street level to give people more room to interact. She thinks this is a high priority. Chair Bayer also expressed appreciation for the changes and the applicant's responsiveness to suggestions. She stated she was frustrated about the changes coming so late and not having the opportunity to really review them thoroughly. She understands the position staff was in but she would prefer postponing to allow more comments on this if that is the wish of the rest of the Board. Otherwise, she likes the sloped roof She thinks it is a great change and would be in favor of allowing the extra foot because it adds a lot and takes away from the boxy look. She is glad they met the transparency guidelines in the commercial portion. She loves Board Member Strauss's recommendation about the plaza which would make it look a lot better from Main Street and more accessible to those living there. She would love to see even more open space. She also is not partial to the blue color, but that is just a personal preference. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS. Board Member Jeude asked when the original packet came out to the public. Planning Manager Levitan replied it came out a week in advance on Thursday afternoon. The new material was submitted late on Thursday and some of it on Friday. Ms. Szafran wasn't in the office on Friday and Monday, and it took another day for them to work their way through it and for him to make a decision about whether to include it. His thoughts were that not including it would have just allowed the applicant to share the changes he had made at the meeting. They ultimately decided on getting it to the ADB and the public prior to the hearing even if it was a very short time. He understands the frustration and the rationale for continuing the hearing. He asked when they would want to continue it to. Board Member Schmitz commented that a lot of the changes were made to the original packet positively affect the design and go in the right direction. He's not sure that additional testimony would change their minds on any of those things or make any difference to this group. He doesn't think delaying it another month would make any of these changes already made better except to give the applicant time to update them in the interim which they wouldn't normally get to see. Vice Chair Brooks said she joined the ADB to listen to the residents of the city. She feels she is a voice for the residents and so she would agree with continuing the meeting. Board Member Herr said that continuing the hearing is not going to change any opinions. There are people out there who just don't like the project. There aren't any changes coming. There's no testimony that was given today other than the ADB's recommendations to move forward on. He doesn't see what they are going to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 7 of 8 achieve by having another meeting. They have heard people and have made recommendations. He thinks the plaza recommendation is an easy one that they don't even have to review. Board Member Strauss agreed that it might not change any minds, but she thinks the next meeting would be really fast. She noted they are there to represent the citizens of Edmonds, and they feel that they didn't have enough time to review it. It would have been nice to have more time to think on it. She doesn't want to make it look like they are trying to rush things through and they don't care what the citizens say because it's not going to change their minds. Chair Bayer said she would like to see the visuals updated based on the feedback. She agrees that they don't want to keep delaying but she thinks it would be in the best interest of the Board. Mr. Frisk asked what they want to see. Board Member Strauss suggested a 31) view of the back. Mr. Frisk said that would probably take two weeks. Board Member Jeude added they wanted to see the landscaping. Board Member Loch said he wanted more clarity on what changes they were asking the applicant to make. There was discussion about whether the Board was asking for new changes from the applicant or if they were just asking for more time for the public to review what had already been submitted. THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN AND RESTATED. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 31 AT 6 P.M. TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS. THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THAT MEETING. Board Member Loch noted that the public comment portion of the hearing had been closed earlier and would need to be reopened. Planning Manager Levitan agreed that would need to reopen the public comment portion to allow for additional written comments and to guarantee the public the opportunity to provide additional public testimony at the August 31 meeting. BOARD MEMBER LOCH MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-1 WITH CHAIR BAYER VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENT None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 24, 2023 Page 8 of 8