Loading...
2023-08-31 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 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— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr Maurine Jeude Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent Corbitt Loch (excused) APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. PUBLIC HEARINGS Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Michele Szafran, Planner Continued Phase II Public Hearing for 611 Main St (PLN2022-0085) Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of the process to date. Chair Bayer swore in all those intending to testify that had not already been sworn in. Applicant Testimony: None Public Testimony: Ann Christiansen said she spent hours combing through the ADB handbook and the ECDC regulations that are available online, and she sent the ADB a lengthy document. She highlighted several issues: • A-7, Residential Open Space — Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well -integrated open spaces. Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site planning elements: courtyard which organizes architectural elements while providing common garden or other uses, entry enhancements such as landscaping along the common pathway ... Does the seating area on the east side of the building maximize this opportunity? This building has none of the features listed as examples. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 1 of 7 • Bulk and scale - Projects should be compatible with the scale development anticipated by the applicable land use policies for the surrounding area ... Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived bulk and scale between anticipated development potential for the adjacent zone. The east side of this project is on the border between BD2 and RM-1.5. Is this a sensitive transition, or a step in perceived bulk and scale? The explanation says that for projects on or near the edge of a less intensive zone, a substantial incompatibility in scale may result from different development standards in the 2 zones, and may be compounded by physical factors, such as large development sites, slopes, or lot orientation. • Landscaping to reinforce design continuity with adjacent sites - Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of the neighborhood properties and abutting streetscapes. Landscaping is a part of the ADB's purview. Does the conceptual version of the "landscaping" "reinforce the character of the neighboring properties and abutting streetscape"? Which landscaping features enhance the building and or site? • The ECDC says that building design should encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siding types, structures, and adaptation to, and conservation of topography and other natural features to minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings. Does this development feature excellence in this regard? Does it minimize incompatibility? Does this building design avoid conflict with the nearby area? This should be the starting point of all decisions. Does the landscaping plan provided offer the buffer required? • She stated that the east side of the building has to have two rows of trees along the sight obscuring fence. She understands that this is a conceptual plan, but is there space allotted for that? • The south side of the building along the streetscape should be 5% of the lot area. Is the planter 5%? • 22.43.030 Ground Level Details says that ground floor, street -facing facades of commercial mixed -use buildings shall incorporate at least five elements listed. She doesn't think five elements are included. Samantha Sather stated she lives on Main Street, is concerned about the project, and may have more comments later. Greg Brewer said he has listened to the board members and citizens throughout the process trying to effect change for the better. Why have changes have come at the last minute when the developer has had months to prepare? He stated that if this building is built as is there will be plenty of public outcry. Most people have no idea what is coming and many citizens don't like the project. He thinks there are many things that could be improved. He stated that the following problems remain: • The interaction between business and pedestrian traffic is terrible. The sidewalk space is precious and vital to a safe and pleasant pedestrian experience. They should be improving the sidewalk, not downgrading it. The two -foot planter box on the front of the building puts the structure essentially on the edge of the sidewalk and will add yet another barrier to pedestrians leaving no room for mingling in front of the business. • The small business entry design severely limits future business options and uses. A single door with an unlevel entry for all the business space is awkward at best. • The main residential entry on the side of the building is more than three feet below the sidewalk grade. This is a safety issue with limited visibility from the street. How safe will tenants feel going down into a separate plaza before reaching for their keys to enter the building? There is nothing in the current code saying the residential entry can't be through the front of the building where visibility is best. Just because the developer is allowed to do it by code doesn't mean they should. He would rather have the two feet of additional room on the sidewalk instead of the planter box. If they still want the planter box, they should push it back two feet off the sidewalk. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 2 of 7 • The front of the building now includes many design elements suggested by the public and the Board including pitched roof, modulation, varied materials, bigger windows, etc. There is a lot going on, and now it looks chaotic. He thinks it needs some tweaking to make sense. • There is still no elevator to all floors which is a no-brainer in this day and age. Mr. Brewer summarized that this project should not be approved until safety concerns with the residential entry and the limitations of the business entry are approved. The other issues and concerns should be addressed as well. This is not a quality building or a good addition to downtown Edmonds. He encouraged the Board not to let this opportunity to improve end on a last-minute revision. He encouraged them to request a final revision before voting. Clarification Questions: Board Member Strauss referred to Ms. Christiansen's comment about open space and asked for clarification from staff. Ms. Szafran explained this doesn't hit the threshold for the open space requirement because it is not a stand-alone multiple dwelling building; it is a mixed -use development. Board Member Schmitz asked if the buffer requirement for two rows of trees along the fence as brought up by Ms. Christiansen applies to this project. Ms. Szafran explained that the ADB is allowed to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements. Chair Bayer asked the applicant what their plans are for the east side of the project. The applicant replied that it would be landscaping and a sight obscuring fence. Vice Chair Brooks added that it looks like arborvitae. Board Member Herr commented that having two rows of arborvitae would kill them because it would be too dense. There was discussion about the fact that although these are two different land uses, they are still considered compatible because they are both residential on the east side. Board Member Schmitz asked if the open spaces that are included in the front half of the building would meet the landscaping requirements in a normal development. Would a footpath which was included in a landscape area count? Planning Manager Levitan indicated he could look that up. Mr. Frisk reviewed details of the landscaping and hardscaping on the east side and answered clarifying questions. Vice Chair Brooks noted that the requirement says, "backed by a sight obscuring fence or the required width of 10 feet." It appeared to her that the project has one of those as required because of the fence. Planning Manager Levitan noted that is the way he interprets it also. Since they have the fence, they don't also need the ten feet of landscaping. Mr. Brewer commented that the General Design Standards encourage a variety in layout and plants and not a continuous, long, unbroken row of plants. Board Member Schmitz referred to the previous discussion about widening the sidewalk and pushing the area back so it feels like a more generous space. He stated he would be open to considering some additional landscaping goals to help meet this goal. Having extra public space, and then a buffer between that and the residential entrance is a good goal. And then, where possible, he recommended that the applicant consider doing some additional work along the eastern edge. He referred to Mr. Brewer's comment about the planter and asked if he was asking the applicant to make the sidewalk wider in that area, maybe up against the building. Mr. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 3 of 7 Brewer affirmed that making the sidewalk wider would do a lot for general pedestrian flow. He urged the ADB to encourage the pedestrian experience. Chair Bayer referred to the north side and asked the applicant if he had looked into doing a mural there as was previously mentioned. The applicant explained they had done modulation instead. Samantha Sather expressed concern about parking and asked if there would be adequate parking for all the residents and the business. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are 20 spots now which meets the requirement. There is one space required per residential unit which would be a minimum of 18 spots. Within the BD zone, off-street parking is not required for non-residential uses so they are not required to provide additional off-street parking dedicated to the office uses. The applicant explained the two extra spots are meant to be flexible. The City also provides employee parking permits in certain areas which is convenient. Linda Fireman, 600 Bell Street, commented on employee parking permits. She noted that the people that work downtown take up so much parking that there is no parking left for anyone else. She thinks it is time they require developers to provide parking in the building for those who work there. Ms. Sather agreed. Ann Christiansen asked if there was ever clarification of if the planter box is 5% of the space. Planning Manager Levitan indicated he could look it up. Mr. Brewer stated that if it is a requirement to have 5% on the street frontage, he would retract his previous statement and recommend pushing the building back to get a better pedestrian experience. It was noted that this only applies to standalone multiple dwelling units. Chair Bayer asked what the current percentage of open space is now. This was not clear. Vice Chair Brooks noted that the applicant had also mentioned putting in hanging baskets. The applicant asked about the process for getting some of the upright baskets that currently line the streets. No one was certain, but there was discussion about looking into it. Ms. Christiansen referred to 22.43.030 Ground Level Details which says that ground floor, street -facing facades of commercial and mixed -use buildings shall incorporate at least five of the listed elements. Hanging baskets are listed there, but they are talking about the kind that are attached to the building. Staff agreed but noted they could do both if desired. There was discussion about the elements this project contains and the fact that they appear meet the requirement with at least five of the elements. The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed at 6:43 p.m. Deliberation: Board Member Strauss spoke in support of making it a condition to extend the plaza to make it more useful. Board Member Brooks expressed disappointment about the elevator situation. Board Member Jeude agreed. She noted that the changes were nice but it still feels like putting lipstick on a pig. Pedestrian -oriented amenities and open space are very important to Edmonds. They have a chance to build a legacy building that people will enjoy. Right now, she is not hearing that anyone is really impressed with this building. Regarding the open space in the front of the building, every other building on that street is back considerably further than what this one is planned. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Chair Bayer commended the ADB for making it through four public meetings helping to improve this design which started out as a big box at the gateway to the city. She also thanked the citizens for speaking up with their concerns. She explained she still has concerns about this process. Many of the issues the citizens brought up regarding this project in the BD2 zone cannot be changed because of the current city codes. The codes absolutely need to be updated to better reflect the Comprehensive Plan. Currently many do not do this or they're left open to interpretation. For example, regarding accessibility and inclusivity to all, the code does not require an elevator. The code does not require the design to represent Edmonds as a Creative Arts District even though they fought really hard to get that designation. The design standards and code are too loose to properly enforce designs to support Edmonds as a creative city. The developer understands the code and is looking to maximize his investment within the system; she does not fault him for this. Her frustration is with the City administration and City Council not prioritizing resources to get codes updated, especially in the downtown business zones. At this point she would like to see additional conditions of approval related to providing more amenities and green space even if the code doesn't require it. She would also like to see better handicap accessibility. She is struggling with the lack of an elevator to all floors. She commended the improvements to the north wall but said there could still be further improvements. Board Member Herr reminded the Board that they do not have anything more than an advisory capacity. They cannot require that someone do anything more than the code requires. A lot of the ideas that people are asking for have to do with zoning, which is another place that needs to be changed. He noted that the ADB has made suggestions, and to the developer's credit, they have acted on a lot of those suggestions. The building is certainly better looking than it was originally presented. In fact, the applicant has gone above and beyond by doing some things that the ADB didn't ask for such as making better sight lines for the alleys and improving the dumpster situation. He stated that the market will dictate how this building does. If people think they can't live here because it doesn't have an elevator, they won't rent here. He agrees that a true elevator would be nice, but the code doesn't require it, and therefore, the ADB can't either. He emphasized that they can't stop a project just because they don't like it. He encouraged the ADB to be aware of the limits of their role in this. Board Member Schmitz expressed appreciation for all the online and in person testimony from the residents that shows they care about Edmonds. He stressed that the Board also cares about Edmonds. He acknowledged that the developer and the architect have taken the brunt of a lot of comments and taken them well. He noted that they cannot please every person in the room but the architect and developer have come to the table with something that is compliant to the best of staff s ability to determine. The applicant has adapted to many of the ADB's requests, but the ADB will try to get them to adapt a little further. He stated that it is a privilege to live in Edmonds and a privilege to invite new people to live here. What they are seeing here is not a culmination, but it has a lot of improvement. Regarding accessibility, making something as accessible as possible is not always something that can be done along with everything else the developer is trying to do. Planning Manager Levitan reviewed staff s recommended motion and along with the 8 conditions as presented by staff, noting that the ADB had already agreed to remove Condition 6 at the last meeting. Board Member Strauss suggested replacing the original Condition 6 with, "Increase the street level plaza area to promote use of the street front and provide places for neighborly interaction." Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Board Member Herr expressed concern about requiring hanging baskets within the public sidewalk (Condition 5) without knowing who is responsible for making sure these are cared for. Edmonds in Bloom was mentioned but it wasn't clear how one gets included in this. Chair Bayer recommended removing the words, "if there is sufficient room" from Condition 5. Board Member Strauss agreed because they are creating additional room with Condition 6. There was general agreement. Board Member Schmitz recommended suggesting to the applicant that they incorporate as many plantings as they can while effectively creating additional pedestrian space and plaza are. He suggested weaving this into Condition 6. The Board agreed to encourage the applicant to keep tweaking the overall building design. There is still opportunity to improve. Board Member Schmitz recommended asking the applicant to take a second look at the elevation to include a Juliet balcony or a facsimile of one for the two accessible units for the sake of equity. The applicant explained that they had done it the way they had for privacy, but additional architectural treatments would be easy to accomplish. Board Member Schmitz proposed, "Incorporate additional treatments to the accessible units on the east -facing side to better match the treatments of the remainder of the structure." This was added as Condition 9. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPTS THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43, AND APPROVES THE PROPOSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING AND ENGINEERING DIVISION AND SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS 9 & 11 OF THE JUKE 15 MEETING PACKET AND ATTACHMENT 8 TO THIS STAFF REPORT. 2. ANY MURALS WILL REQUIRE A SIGN PERMIT PER ECDC 20.60.015.C. 3. STREET -LEVEL WINDOWS ON BOTH BUILDINGS ALONG MAIN STREET MUST BE TRANSPARENT AND UNOBSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH ECDC 22.43.050.B. 4. ALL UTILITY CABINETS MUST BE RELOCATED, BURIED, SCREENED WITH VEGETATION, OR CAMOUFLAGED WITH ART TO REDUCE THEIR VISUAL IMPACT. 5. ADDITIONAL HANGING BASKETS AND STREET FURNITURE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK BETWEEN OTHER REQUIRED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES. 6. PROMOTE THE USE OF STREET FRONTS AND PROVIDE PLACES FOR NEIGHBORLY INTERACTION AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND INCREASE STREET LEVEL PLAZA AREA. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 6 of 7 7. AWNING AND EAVES ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST COMPLY WITH ECDC 18.70.030.D AND F. 8. 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. 9. INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS TO THE ACCESSIBLE UNITS ON THE EAST FACING SIDE TO BETTER MATCH THE REMAINDER OF THE STRUCTURE TREATMENTS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Bayer requested that the Planning staff do a little more vetting with regard to design standards on future projects so the burden doesn't fall so heavily on the ADB. Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged her concerns and discussed changes to code that need to be made. He explained that the two-phase public hearing process will need to be eliminated by June of 2025 because of state legislation that says you can't require more than one public meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting August 31, 2023 Page 7 of 7