2017-05-03 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Chair Walker called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5 h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present
Tom Walker, Chair Brian Borofka Kemen Lien, Senior Planner
Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Joe Herr Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Cary Guenther Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recorder
Athene Tarrant
,�1]i�1 �I1`11yY11;1
BOARD MEMBER TARRANT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2017 BE APPROVED
AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FA11 W 0 Lei W601011 Of I `Y�f.
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
MINOR PROJECTS:
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: WESTGATE VILLAGE MIXED -USE BUILDING AT 10032 EDMONDS WAY (FILE
NUMBER PLN20160054)
Chair Walker reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules
and invited members of the Board to disclose any conversations they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing
outside of the public process. None were noted. He asked Board Members to identify any conflicts of interest that
would render them unable to consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None were noted. He also if
anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members participating as decision makers in the hearing, and no
one stepped forward. Lastly, he asked that everyone who wanted to testify during the hearing stand and be sworn in.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 1 of 18
Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report. He explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a new mixed -use building
with 91 multi -family residential units, 3,100 square feet of retail space, structured parking and a reconfigured surface
parking area providing additional parking spaces. He reminded the Board that the application is a Type III-B decision,
which means that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) conducts a public hearing and makes a decision, which is
appealable to the City Council. In order to approve the project, the ADB must find that the project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and applicable Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requirements (ECDC 16.100 —
Westgate Mixed Use Zone District, ECDC 22.110 — Design Standards for the Westgate Mixed Use District, ECDC
20.11— General Design Review, and ECDC 20.13 — Landscaping Requirements).
Mr. Lien provided a site map and noted that the development is proposed for the southwest corner of the intersection of
Edmonds Way and 100'h Avenue West. Other portions of the site were developed under PLN 200100170 and include a
Bartell's Drug Store and another 6,000-square foot commercial building with multiple businesses. The site where the
proposed building will be located is currently undeveloped, and a McDonalds Restaurant is located directly west of the
subject property. Other surrounding uses include banks, a service station, two grocery stores, restaurants and numerous
neighborhood commercial businesses. Above the protected slope to the south of the site is a single-family neighborhood
with an RS-8 zoning classification.
Mr. Lien referred to the Staff Report, which goes into detail about the staff s findings with regarding to the design
guidelines and zoning standards. He highlighted that the subject site is located at 10032 Edmonds Way and is zoned
Westgate Mixed Use (WMU). It consists of four parcels that are approximately 92,490 square feet. As part of the
project, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the property. The portion of the property that will encompass the
project would contain 56,047 square feet following a lot line adjustment. This 56,047-square foot figure is the area that
is being used in the analysis for compliance with open space and amenity space requirements. Staff understands that the
property owner will be redeveloping the Westgate Village area in phases and there will be more opportunities to provide
additional open space and amenity spaces with future phases. Given the configuration of the lots for the current
development, staff wants to ensure that areas of the site that are left out of the open space and amenity space calculations
for this development will be included in future development phases. Therefore, staff is proposing a condition that
covenants must be recorded on Westgate Village properties confirming that areas not included for the open space and
amenity space requirement must be included in future phases of development of the Westgate Village site. Another
proposed condition is that the lot line adjustment be completed prior to permit issuance.
Mr. Lien briefly reviewed the general site plan for the proposed project, noting that all required parking will be located
within the project area, with some additional parking provided outside of the subject parcels. He also noted the location
of the proposed main entrance, retail space, open space, etc.
Mr. Lien said the City received several comments relative to parking for the proposed project, as well as the entire
Westgate Village area. He reviewed that, as per the parking standards in ECDC 16.110.020.1), 1.2 parking space is
required for all units that are less than 900 square feet. As all the units in the proposed project would be less than 900
square feet, a total of 110 parking spaces would be required for the residential portion of the development. Parking for
the commercial area is one space per every 400 square feet of commercial floor area associated with the project, which
equates to 8 commercial spaces. He summarized that a total of 118 parking spaces would be required for the project, and
the applicant is proposing 121 spaces within the project area. The applicant also did a parking calculation for the entire
Westgate Village, including Bartells and other commercial buildings. In total, 171 parking space would be required; and
following the project, there would be 217 parking space provided.
Mr. Lien advised that 28 of the parking spaces identified by the applicant are shared parking spaces, all of which would
be located in the surface lot area and publicly accessible at all hours. These parking space are consistent with the criteria
detailed in ECDC 20.30.030, but a parking agreement would be required. A proposed condition of approval requires
that the parking agreement be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 2 of 18
Mr. Lien noted that the parking figures provided in the Staff Report are different than those submitted by the applicant.
He advised that the City's Recycling Coordinator reviewed the project and noted that the proposed trash collection area
for the site (in the southeast corner) appears inadequate and more space is needed for the trucks to have access. A
proposed condition of approval would eliminate the 5 parking spaces just north of the trash enclosure. This condition
would reduce the number of parking spaces from 126 to 121. However, he summarized that as conditioned, the
proposal is still consistent with all of the parking requirements.
Mr. Lien advised that building heights in the WMU zone are described in terms of stories. However, the overall building
height cannot exceed 25 feet for a two-story building, 35 feet for a three-story building, and 45 feet for a four-story
building. He further advised that building height is normally established by measuring the average grade. However, in
the WMU zone, height is established by the finished grade at the street front, which means that buildings may not use
adjoining slopes to increase the average height of the building above the street front level. He provided a cross section of
the site, noting that the finished grade at the street front is between 316 and 361 feet. The applicant is proposing a four-
story building, and the subject property is eligible for a fourth -story height bonus if certain criteria can be met. However,
the 4d' story must be set back at least 10 feet from a building fagade facing SR 104 or 100d' Avenue West. In addition, no
3rd or 4d' story may be located within 30 feet of the intersection of SR-104 and 10e Avenue West.
Mr. Lien referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet in ECDC 20.110.090, which requires that an applicant obtain 8
points, with points in at least four of the categories in order to obtain the height bonus. He explained that:
• The WMU zone requires that development meet LEED or Green Standards, and the height bonus requires at least
LEED Silver, which is what the applicant is proposing.
• The WMU zone requires that development meet a Green Factor of 0.3, but a Green Factor of 0.4 is required for the
height bonus. The applicant's proposal shows that that the project would meet the Green Factor 0.4 requirement.
• The WMU zone requires that 15% of the total area be dedicated as amenity space, but 20% is required for the height
bonus. The applicant is using the new project area to calculate the required amenity/open space.
• The WMU requires that projects meet street standards, including bikeway and pedestrian networks. In addition, the
applicant is proposing to provide a charging facility for electric cars, indoor/covered bicycle storage and indoor
changing facilities, and public art will be integrated into public amenity space.
Mr. Lien summarized that the proposal will result in 8 points, which makes it eligible for the height bonus. However,
staff is proposing a number of other conditions. Two conditions are related to LEED Design and Green Factor, which
would require third -party verification that the building is being designed to LEED Standards and Green Factor, and there
will be inspections throughout development to make sure the project meets the standards. A condition was also added
regarding the value of the artwork. Given that the art is being used for the height bonus, staff is proposing a condition
that requires that the value of the art must be no less than 1% of the total building value as determined by the Guiding
Valuation Data published by the International Code Council. The building is valued at about $9.5 million so the value of
the art would have to be about $95,000. The condition also calls out that the art is subject to review and approval by the
City's Arts Commission.
Mr. Lien briefly reviewed how the amenity and open space requirement was calculated, noting that 20% of the project
area is 11,209 square feet, and the applicant is proposing 11,245 square feet of amenity space. The amenity space must
meet certain requirements related to pervious and impervious surfaces, vegetation, etc. He further noted that 15% of the
project area is 8,407 square feet, and the applicant is proposing 8,419 square feet of open space. The protected slope
behind the proposed new building would be set aside as open space for the project. While the amenity space must be
accessible to the public, the open space does not. Staff is recommending a condition that would require the applicant to
file a document with the Snohomish County Auditor's Office related to the amenity space to address issues such as
maintenance, public access and hours of operation.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 3 of 18
Mr. Lien provided a map that identifies the protected slopes in the WMU zone and advised that no development is
allowed within these sloped areas. He pointed out that the contour line for the protected slope on the subject property
ranges between 332 and 322 feet. There is an existing retaining wall that would be extended behind the building. The
top of the retaining wall would have a contour of between 324 and 326, which is below the protected slope area. The
existing trees on the slope would be retained.
Mr. Lien referred to the detailed Staff Report and summarized that staff finds the proposal is consistent with the criteria
listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. He
recommended approval of the application with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Board Member Tarrant said she understands the point system for determining a height bonus. However, she asked if the
applicant could have a slightly higher retail ceiling height. Although it would not increase the square footage of the
development, it might enhance the larger retail spaces. She is normally a big believer in keeping heights down, but given
the slope, an additional few feet would not impede views. Mr. Lien answered that the slope was taken into consideration
when the height limits were established for the WMU zone, and additional ground floor ceiling height is not part of the
height bonus system. However, the Height Bonus Score Sheet also has a category for large format retail space, which
applies to development that contains one or more retail spaces that are greater than 15,000 square feet. In the WMU
zone, the ground floor ceiling height must be a minimum of 12 feet and the applicant is proposing a height of 13 feet.
Board Member Tarrant asked if it would be possible to combine the trash pickup areas for the entire Westgate Village
site. Mr. Lien answered that Bartell's already has a designated trash enclosure, and the trash enclosure for the other
existing development would be expanded to cover a greater area and serve the new development, too. He suggested the
applicant address this issue more in his presentation.
Board Member Broadway referred to the parking matrix provided by Mr. Lien and asked if 43 refers to the retail parking
spaces that are required or what is there already. Mr. Lien said it is the number of parking spaces required, and he did
not count the number of existing spaces. Board Member Broadway asked if the 28 shared stalls are being counted as
part of the parking that is required for the retail space. Mr. Lien answered that all of the parking required for the
development would be located within the project area, and the shared parking spaces are beyond what is required for
parking for the site.
Chris Davidson, Project Manager, Studio Meng Strazzara, said his presentation would focus on the design and how
it ties into the existing site. He advised that the design is intended to:
• Create a contemporary northwest -style building that blends with the existing site and works with the existing,
vibrant retail businesses.
• Balance the public and private connection within the site with the plaza element and amenity spaces.
• Benefit the overall neighborhood by providing additional parking space and amenity space for tenants and the public
to use, as well as by providing an art installation.
Mr. Davidson provided a diagram showing the layout of the proposed new development, particularly noting the
locations of the ingress and egress. He explained that access for the new building would be from existing curb cuts, and
no new curb cuts are proposed. He also provided a drawing to illustrate how the proposed new building would be
situated on the site. He pointed out the location of the single-family residential properties behind the subject property, as
well as the retail and office development on both sides. He provided several photos to illustrate the existing site
conditions, as well as views of adjacent properties.
Mr. Davidson provided drawings to illustrate the proposed floor plans, specifically noting the following:
• The lower level would be reserved for approximately 35 parking spaces and additional storage for tenants.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 4 of 18
• The retail spaces are focused in areas where they will have the most impact, off of SR-104 and towards a centralized
location near the proposed new plaza area.
• The plaza area will not only provide an amenity to tenants, but pull in the neighborhood at large. It will be broken
up with a lot of planting areas and activity.
• There will be pedestrian connections from the parking areas to the new building, as well a connection from the street
front to the main entrance via the existing pergola that will serve as a gateway into the plaza area.
• All of the upper story residential units would have trash chutes that go into a trash room. Tenants will put their trash
in the chutes and maintenance staff will roll the bins out into the collection zone.
• The main entry into the lobby of the new building will come from the pedestrian pathway that leads from the
existing pergola. The lobby area will include a leasing office, indoor covered bicycle storage, and other amenities.
• The residential units will be a mixture of 1 and 2 bedroom and studio units, with about 30 units on each floor. The
idea is to get the bulk of the units looking out over the plaza area and towards SR-104. Those on the back side will
have a view of the protected slope buffer.
• Tenant amenity space will be provided on the 0 floor where the building is required to be stepped back adjacent to
SR-104 and 100th Avenue W. One will be more of a fitness space, and the other will be more of a lounge -type
space.
• A side view of the proposed development illustrates the height difference between the nearest residential neighbor
and the subject property, which is about 50 feet. The green belt will be maintained because of the steep slope, and it
will act as a buffer between the new project and the existing single-family homes.
• The building will be setback from SR-104 by about 29 feet to meet the separation requirements of the code. This
area will include a 16-foot amenity space, and 8-foot sidewalk, and a 5-foot landscaped strip.
• The facade of the retail spaces will be activated with a significant amount of glass. There will be large amounts of
glazing that is broken up by the structure and the concrete columns.
• The large number of existing trees between the subject property and the existing McDonalds will be retained to
provide a buffer, and the exposed portion of the parking lot will be screened with a fiber composite material.
• Exterior materials will include a combination of hardy board siding and a new composite material that mimics cedar
siding but is more durable.
• Modulation is proposed to break up the facade into smaller pieces. The glazing on the retail space will wrap around
the corner.
• The retaining wall will be closer to 8 feet, which will help screen the cars from adjacent properties.
• The building will be tucked into the existing area and nestled into the hillside. There will be a meandering pathway
into and throughout the site.
• The retail corner amenity space will offer opportunities for searing elements that will benefit the retail clients.
• The concept of the plaza area is to create nodes and wayfinding throughout the pathway so it is inviting to all types
of people. The existing gateway element (pergola) will be relocated and be used to transition into a quasi-
private/public seating area for the retail component as well as people from the other retail buildings. The intent is to
activate the area with streetlighting for safety and aesthetics. Art would be integrated into the site in the plaza area,
and most of the pavement will be permeable and create a flow throughout the site.
• The main residential entry from the sidewalk will be a different material, a metal panel, that will highlight the entry
point, and there will be dense plantings around it.
• The pathway to the new building will be demarcated with paving elements.
Alexandra Zamba, Architect Designer, Studio Meng Strazzara, said they were looking to create a contemporary
northwest style that integrates and matches the existing neutral tones that are used on other buildings on site, as well as
matching with the protected slope. They are proposing a hardy board system on the facade with a variety of neutral
tones to break down the scale of the building and accentuate the different parts. In addition, they propose to use an
aluminum long board product, which mimics wood and is more durable, sustainable and recyclable. The building will
have a concrete base. Wherever there is more concrete, they will consider a green screen, as well. The accent materials
include a black metal panel and matching black vinyl windows, along with a black aluminum store front system. The
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 5 of 18
black trim works well to create the contemporary, clean design and will work well with the clear vision glass that will be
employed at the retail levels. She concluded that accent panels will be used to accentuate the residential lobby area as
separate from the retail canopies.
Forrest Jammer, Landscape Architect, Thomas Rengstorf & Associates, explained that the project design is
intended to enhance the character and color that already exists in the area. The building will be nestled back into the
existing trees to help transition from the upper level down to the street. A lot of the proposed vegetation speaks to that
concept, as well, adding some contrast.
Mr. Jammer said one of the circulation pieces will include the existing pergola on SR-104, as well as a stamped asphalt
pathway. Another existing pergola will be relocated to carry the theme throughout the project to connect with 100"'
Avenue West. The intent was to retain and incorporate these elements into the new design. He explained that the
stamped asphalt in a brick pattern is existing and will continue to one of the access points where it will reconnect the
parking area to the retail space. The intent is to maintain consistency where it is already established on the site.
Mr. Jammer advised that the public plaza was required to meet specific requirements to allow the water to permeate
normally into the site, and he feels the proposed plan accomplishes this requirement. The Staff Report includes a
breakdown of the pervious and impervious surfaces that will be used in amenity spaces. He noted that one amenity
space will be about 3,315 square feet with less than 300 square feet of impervious surface. The rest will be pervious
pavement and plantings. Another larger amenity space will be about 7,930 square feet with about 1,800 square feet of
impervious surface. There will be impervious surface near the art installation and to transition into some of the entry
points to provide a nice contrast to the permeable materials as well as reinforcing the planting spaces. The walkway in
front of the building will be permeable pavement, as well. Permeable pavement will be used in the parking lot to assist
in meeting the water infiltration, and a bio-retention area is planned on the west side of the property to collect stormwater
from the back of the property and help to clean it before it is released.
Mr. Jammer pointed out that there is a great stand of trees on the protected slope (primarily Douglas Fir, Western Red
Cedar and Big Leaf Maple) that are all very healthy. The retaining wall associated with the project will have minimal
impact on these trees and the majority will be retained. In order to meet the Green Factor requirement, the applicant is
proposing to save 700 caliper inches of trees on the site, and most will be in the protected slope area. The trees between
the subject property and the McDonald's site will also provide good screening.
Mr. Jammer advised that there will be a 5-foot wide planting area along the street to provide separation between the
sidewalk and the street. The sidewalk will be 8-feet wide, which is wide enough for two people to walk side -by -side and
a third person to pass. The existing trees that flank the circulation pergola will all remain, as will the heavy plantings that
exists in the shared parking area.
Mr. Jammer they are looking at using a few different paving materials outside of concrete to create more texture and
contrast and define spaces. It will be a subtle difference, more of a color band changing back to permeable concrete or
pavers on the amenity space walkway in front and continue to the plaza space. The main entry and the entry from the
retail space will both have contrasting impervious paving that will highlight the entries for pedestrians. The retail space
in the southeast corner will have circulation graphics to help invite people into the area.
A variety of planting material will be used throughout the site, including ornamental accent trees, approximately 15 feet
tall and 15 feet wide, that will flower in the spring. They are looking at creating a green screen on the blank concrete
space that is located at the front near the entry area, and specimen trees will be planted in circular planters to give a nice
statement right away. Small fingers of landscaping will be provided to create separation for the trash enclosure, which is
yet to be finalized.
Board Member Tarrant asked if it would be possible to more clearly mark the entrance from SR-104 so it is more visible
upon approach. Mr. Jammer answered that there is an existing marker at the entrance to the entire site, as well as the
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 6 of 18
visual cues provided by the existing pergola. There is also a power vault for two different utilities that limits the
opportunities for providing a clearer entrance. However, he said he understands her concern, and perhaps there is an
opportunity to provide additional direction via the pavement.
Board Member Tarrant asked if the proposed plantings would provide a sense of containment and enclosure around the
plaza area. Mr. Jammer answered that trees would be planted between the parking area and the plaza to provide
separation, but more could be added if the Board deems it appropriate.
Board Member Tarrant asked if lighting would be provided in the plaza area and other landscaped areas, and Mr.
Jammer answered that there would be accent lighting, street lighting and ambient lighting throughout the site to address
safety and comfort issues.
Board Member Broadway commented that the bioswale proposed for the northwest corner seems small for the area it is
intended to pick up. She asked if it would also pick up drainage from the retaining wall. Mr. Jammer said it is only
intended to pick up surface water for a portion of the parking area. The bioswale will be about 1,000 square feet, which
should be adequate to collect all of the moisture from the surrounding area. Board Member Broadway asked how deep
the bioswale would be, and Mr. Jammer answered that it would be about 3 feet deep, with a 3:1 slope from the back of
the curb.
Vice Chair Strauss requested more information about the types of permeable surfaces that would be used for the project.
Mr. Jammer answered that it would include a variety of permeable materials, such as permeable concrete, slabs or
pavers.
Board Member Tarrant commented that the project includes a lot of great elements for the location, and her dream would
be for some of the buildings at the corner to disappear to make room for a roundabout to improve this very difficult
intersection. She further commented that the applicant has worked hard to align the design with the City's design
guidelines, and she likes the concept of residential units on top of retail space, which she believes is a good option for a
City the scale of Edmonds. She thanked the design team for their careful planning that provides good pedestrian access
through a difficult site.
Board Member Broadway asked if the proposed project would be done in phasing, or if the phasing was in reference to
redevelopment of other portions of the site. Mr. Davidson answered that the proposed project would be a stand-alone
project known as Phase 1. Future phasing refers to redevelopment of the Bartell's and other retail locations.
Board Member Broadway asked if staff is comfortable with the stability of the steep slope behind the proposed
development. Mr. Lien answered that three geotechnical reports have been done for the site and found that the slope
meets the requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance.
Although she recognized that it is outside of the Board's purview, Board Member Broadway noted that the project is
fairly large. If it goes up as one phase, the construction staging and laydown area will dramatically affect the existing
parking and retail spaces. She asked that the developer give serious consideration to the existing site circulation so as not
to impact the businesses that are open. Mr. Davidson agreed that they would do their best.
Vice Chair Strauss referred to Mr. Davidson's comment that the project was designed with a Pacific Northwest Style.
She said she moved to Edmonds because she likes the seaside community feel. Many of the houses in the bowl area
have a more Cape Cod or Craftsman design. She asked if the applicant considered other designs and/or materials. She
said it seems like the design is popped in the middle of Edmonds and does not have anything to do with Edmonds. It is
important to note that once you pass the corner, the view starts to open up, making the area a gateway to the City. Mr.
Davidson responded that multiple design styles were considered before arriving at the proposal. The Cape Cod style
would not work for a structure of this size. There are some restrictions as far as height so pitched roofs diminish the
ability to get the fourth floor. He said he understands Board Member Strauss' concern, but they attempted to mix the
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 7 of 18
materials by going with a toned -down pallet and wood materials that have more of a residential scale. He felt the
proposed design ties well with the newer projects that have come to Edmonds.
Chair Walker asked Mr. Lien to share his perspective relative to traffic and mitigation. He noted this is already a busy
street corner. Mr. Lien advised that a traffic analysis was submitted with the project as part of the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) review. The project, itself, did not raise the level of service at any of the corners below what is
required by the City's Transportation Plan and no specific mitigation was triggered by the increased traffic associated
with the project. A traffic study was also done for SR-104 that looks at development along the corridor in the fixture, and
the staff has talked with the applicant about looking forward to future phases to make sure what is done now will not
impact the ability for future development along the corridor. Again, he said no specific mitigation measures were
required for this project.
Chair Walker opened the public hearing. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public
hearing, and the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Board Member Tarrant commented that there is a burden upon future generations to deal with the problems at this
intersection, but she acknowledged that her concern has nothing to do with the current application.
Board Member Broadway said she has a contrary opinion to that expressed by Vice Chair Strauss. She would view a
Cape Code or seaside design as out of place because the intersection is becoming very urban. However, she is
concerned that the building sits back in a very dark corner. It faces north and there is very little sunlight. She is bothered
that the proposed materials appear too dark. She asked that the applicant consider using a lighter material, particularly
on the side that faces the slope, which will be in the shade all day. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the pallet of colors
proposed by the applicant, but agreed with Board Member Broadway's concern that the building may be too dark. On
the other hand, she did not believe that yellow tones would be right in this location. Perhaps the building could be
lightened by bringing the white color down one more floor. Board Member Broadway said it was not her intent to
change the color to a yellow tone. The lighter colors on the pallet board would be sufficient to address her concern. She
asked the applicant to consider using the lighter tones on a greater percentage of the building to lighten the fagade.
Board Member Guenther pointed out that a Pacific Northwest design is typically more horizontal with deep overhangs,
and these features are not present on the proposed design. However, the design is good for capturing the color pallet that
is more suitable to Edmonds. While he likes the proposed colors, he agreed with Board Member Broadway that it could
be brightened up a little.
Board Member Tarrant agreed with Board Member Broadway about the more urban nature of the location, and she felt
the proposed design is more attractive than the bits and pieces of development that is already there. She said it is rather
difficult to find fault with the proposed design given the existing development. She said the proposed design is similar to
other development in the area, and it will provide a wonderful gateway to the City.
Chair Walker said he likes the proposed color pallet because it fits within the landscape. He said he does not like
buildings that stand out too much. He likes them to blend into the landscape, particularly when talking about a four-story
building. On the other hand, he would support Board Member Broadway's recommendation that a little more brightness
should be added to the building colors.
Board Member Broadway noted that the main entrance to the residential units is located at the apex of the building, but it
is difficult to identify from the renderings provided in the Staff Report. She suggested that more should be done to draw
attention to the front entrance feature. While the entryway design includes a variety of colors and modulation, it is still
not highly visible and people are required to take their cues from the pavement patterns to find the entrance. Perhaps the
entryway is an area where more lightness could be introduced. Vice Chair Strauss questioned if they really want to
accentuate the entrance to the residential units since it could have an impact on privacy and security. Mr. Davidson
reminded the Board that the residents would have access via the secure underground parking area, and the front entrance
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 8 of 18
would primarily be used by guests and people riding bicycles. A sliding gate will be located at the entry to the
underground parking to provide security for residents and tenants.
Vice Chair Strauss noted that there is a gap between the top of the retaining wall and the building. She asked if this
would allow people to access the back of the building, creating safety concerns for the residents. Mr. Davidson agreed
that would be possible, but he would be surprised if it became a problem. He reminded the Board of the steep slope
behind the retaining wall.
Board Member Broadway asked if there would be a covered awning over the entrance to the retail space, and Mr.
Davidson answered affirmatively. Board Member Broadway noted that the awning along the front fagade would not be
continuous, and Mr. Davidson agreed and pointed out that there are landscape buffers between the two.
Mr. Lien asked if Board Member Broadway is suggesting that the application come back before the Board after the
applicant has addressed the issue of color and accentuating the entrance. If not, the Board should give clear direction for
staff as the project moves forward to the Building Permit stage to make sure the design is consistent with the Board's
intent. Board Member Broadway advised that if the solution is a substantial change to the architecture and undulation of
the roof at the entry, she would like to see the project again. But if it is simply color or a change in the entry for
articulation without affecting the roof line, the Board does not need to see it again. The remainder of the Board
concurred. Mr. Lien said he would prefer that the Board provide this direction as a condition of approval rather than
relying solely on the minutes.
Mr. Davidson suggested that a roofline change would not do a lot to emphasize the entryway. Any changes would
probably be at the ground level in materials and color and less about what is going on above. He said he thinks the
design team can do something to make that work without making wholesale changes in the structure, itself. Board
Member Broadway said she likes the roof line as it is currently proposed.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE DESIGN, AS PRESENTED AND WITH THE
COMMENTS, SO LONG AS THERE ARE NO ROOF LINE CHANGES, IS SUBJECT TO THE
REMAINING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THE PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN
CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 22.110 AND ZONING REGULATIONS;
AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED WESTGATE MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT UNDER FILE NUMBER
PLN20160054 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. A PARKING AGREEMENT FOR SHARED PARKING WITHIN THE WESTGATE VILLAGE SITE
SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY. SUCH AGREEMENT MUST BE
RECORDED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED FOR THE
BUILDING.
2. LEED SILVER OR BUILT GREEN 4-5 RATING MUST BE CONFIRMED THROUGH THIRD -PARTY
VERIFICATION AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE. THE APPLICANT MUST ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WHO WILL SELECT THE CONSULTANT TO
VERIFY THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO THE IDENTIFIED LEED
OR BUILT GREEN STANDARD.
3. GREEN FACTOR CERTIFICATION MUST BE CONFIRMED THROUGH THIRD -PARTY
VERIFICATION AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE. THE APPLICANT MUST ENTER INTO A
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 9 of 18
CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WHO WILL SELECT THE CONSULTANT TO
VERIFY THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO THE IDENTIFIED GREEN
FACTOR SCORE.
4. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, A COVENANT WITH AND IN A FORM APPROVED BY
THE CITY OF EDMONDS MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR'S
OFFICE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ANY AREA WITHIN PARCEL NUMBERS 00610700200600,
00610700200601, 00610700200701 AND 00610700200702 LEFT OUT OF CALCULATIONS FOR THE
AMENITY AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPOSAL MUST
ULTIMATELY BE INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS FOR AMENITY AND OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMENTS IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PHASES ON PARCELS 00160700200803 AND
00610700201001.
5. AN EASEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR THE PORTION OF THE
SIDEWALK LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE EIGHT -
FOOT SIDEWALK WIDTH REQUIREMENT.
6. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MUST BE COMPLETED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO BUILDING
PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE AREA CONTAINING THE DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING THE LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE USED IN DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN
SPACE AND AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 22.110.
7. THE GROUND LEVEL FACADES OF BUILDINGS THAT FACE A STREET FRONT SHALL HAVE
TRANSPARENT WINDOWS COVERING A MINIMUM OF 40 PERCENT OF THE GROUND FLOOR
FACADE THAT LIES BETWEEN AN AVERAGE OF TWO FEET AND 10 FEET ABOVE GRADE. TO
QUALIFY AS TRANSPARENT, WINDOWS SHALL NOT BE MIRRORED OR CONSIST OF DARKLY
TINTED GLASS OR PROHIBIT VISIBILITY BETWEEN THE STREET AND INTERIOR.
8. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS
OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL.
SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING
AND/OR FENCING.
9. THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEKING AND OBTAINING ALL OTHER REQUIERD
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS.
10. A DOCUMENT SUMMARIZING APPLICABLE CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE AMENITY
SPACE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MAINTENANCE, PUBLIC ACCESS AND HOURS OF
OPERATION, SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY,
AND RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
11. THE APPLICANT SHALL PURCHASE ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL WORKS OF ART TO BE
PERMANENTLY DISPLAYED IN A REASONABLY -ACCESSIBLE AREA OF THE EXTERIOR
PUBLIC AMENITY SPACE. THE ART WORK SHALL HAVE A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF NO
LESS THAN 1% OF TOTAL BUILDING VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING
VALUATION DATA, PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL ON FILE WITH
THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL. FINAL SELECTION OF ART WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 10 of 18
12. THE FIVE PARKING SPACES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SHALL BE
ELIMINATED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MANEUVERABILITY FOR SERVICE
VEHICLES.
13. THE ENTRANCE TO THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDINGS SHOULD STAND OUT
MORE AND THAT CAN HAPPEN PRIMARILY WITH COLOR OR MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE
FACADE. IF THE CHANGES RESULT IN A STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO THE ROOF LINE, THE
PROPOSAL WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR
APPROVAL.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ADD ONE MORE
CONDITION TO READ:
14. THE APPLICANT WILL RE-EVALUATE THE PROPOSED COLOR PALLET AND ADJUST SUCH
THAT THERE ARE GREATER PROPORTIONS OF A LIGHTER PART OF THE PALLET USED IN
THE PROJECT.
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE
OF 3-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS TARRANT AND WALKER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Board took a five-minute break at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE 1 DISTRICT BASED DESIGN REVIEW FOR GRAPHITE ART STUDIOS AT
202 MAIN STREET (FILE NUMBER PLN2017001�
Chair Walker reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Rules
and invited members of the Board to disclose any conversations they might have had regarding the subject of the hearing
outside of the public process. None were noted. He asked Board Members to identify any conflicts of interest that
would render them unable to consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None were noted. He also if
anyone in the audience objected to any of the Board Members participating as decision makers in the hearing, and no
one stepped forward. Lastly, he asked that everyone who wanted to testify during the hearing stand and be sworn in.
Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report, advising that projects that require a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
threshold determination are reviewed by the ADB in a two-phase public hearing process. The ADB's decision on such
applications is a Type 111-B decision, which is appealable to the City Council. He explained that the purpose of Phase 1
design review is for the applicant to present conceptual designs to the Board and for the Board to give direction to the
applicant based on the design review standards. They will not be making a decision tonight. Following public testimony
and establishment of the Design Guidelines Checklist by the ADB, the public hearing will be continued to a date certain,
not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing date. The purpose of Phase 2 is to allow the applicant to redesign the
initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB. Once this is done, the design will be submitted
to staff, who will review the proposal and schedule the project for final review. Staff will provide a more detailed
analysis of the proposal's compliance with the prioritized design guidelines as well as all applicable zoning standards in
advance of the Phase 2 hearing. The Board will make a final decision on the design proposal at the conclusion of Phase
2 of the public hearing.
Mr. Lien advised that the application is for a new mixed -use building at 202 Main Street within the Downtown Business
(BD2) zone. The proposed two-story, 20,000 square foot building, referred to as the "Graphite," will contain art studios,
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 11 of 18
art gallery space, a caf6, three two -bedroom apartments and an additional 9,540 square feet of underground parking. The
project site is 14,411 square feet and currently houses the Marvel Marble business, which would be demolished to make
room for the new building.
Mr. Lien reviewed that, in accordance with ECDC 15.43.030.E, at least 5% of the lot area of the project must be devoted
to open space. With a lot area of 14,411 square feet, 720 square feet of open space is required. The proposal provides
open space in the northeast corner in front of the cafe and the northwest corner with a patio that is accessible from the
sidewalk. The total amount of open space currently proposed by the applicant is 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the maximum allowed height in the BD2 zone is 30 feet, measured from the average
grade. Measuring from the main floor elevation, which appears to be close to what the average grade would be, the
building is 29'9" in height. While it appears that the proposed building will comply with the height restrictions, specific
calculations should be provided with Phase 2 in order to verify the proposal is consistent.
Mr. Lien explained that parking is not required for the commercial floor area of permitted uses located in the BD2 zone,
and one parking stall is required per residential unit. The applicant has indicated that approximately 20 parking stalls
would be provided in a parking garage within the building, which exceeds the required ratio of one stall for each of the
three residential units.
Mr. Lien reviewed that the BD2 zone requires that the minimum height of the ground floor must be 12 feet. The
elevation views found in Attachment 3 indicate a ground floor height of 15 feet, but compliance with the requirement
will be confirmed during future review of more detailed plans.
Mr. Lien explained that, pursuant to ECDC 20.12.070.A, the ADB will use the Design Guidelines and Design Review
Checklist applicable to the district -based design review process when conducting its review. The guidelines and
checklist are included in Attachment 4. The intent is that the ADB will use the checklist to prioritize the design
guidelines as they pertain to the proposal. He noted that the design standards applicable to the BD zones are found in
ECDC 22.43 (Attachment 6).
Mr. Lien reported that the City's Recycling Coordinator has advised that the space provided for trash collection on the
proposed plan appears to be inadequate and will need to be expanded so that both containers can be rolled out
independently and serviced in the alley with enough room for the drivers to access the space.
Mr. Lien advised that the City received one comment letter prior to the hearing from Brian Mull, suggesting that the
Marvel Marble Building be retained and refurbished.
Mary Olsen, Property Owner and Applicant, Edmonds, said the building would be a very large art studio space with
room for classes, workshops, and instruction. The ground floor space would be occupied by studios where artists can
work and the public can watch. The gallery will allow artists to display their work, and the flexible area will be a nice
space for artists to draw. The new building will also house a non-profit, art -education organization called Heartland
Northwest, whose purpose is to get art education back into schools by teaching teachers how to teach art.
Scott Miller, Architect, Scott G. Miller Design Services, reviewed the floor plan for each level of the proposed new
building. He noted where the main entrance would be located and advised that the entrance would have a projected
awning and street trees would be provided along the sidewalk. The ground floor will include public space for receptions
and meetings, art studios with moveable walls, a center area with moveable tables for various projects, and large
skylights above to bring in natural light to the lower part of the building. It will also include office space, a secondary
entrance for artists and residents, gallery space, a cafe with a covered sidewalk for outdoor dining and landscape planters
outside of the building. Space for deliveries, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) parking and restrooms will also be
provided on site.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 12 of 18
Mr. Miller referred to the Recycling Coordinator's comments relative to the size of the trash enclosure and noted that it
has already been relocated to a different area on the site and could be expanded to meet whatever size the City deems
necessary. An additional trash container would be located in the parking garage below ground, along with bicycle
storage space, utilities and a stormwater retention system. The parking garage would be accessed via the alley.
Mr. Miller advised that the upper story would be served by both an elevator and stairs and would provide more art
studios, flexible space, drawing space, an open area to the ground floor, restrooms, three residential units with decks, and
storage units for the occupants. The underground parking will be for the residential tenants, as well as the more
permanent artists who use the studios. The street parking would remain open for visitors of the new building, as well as
the general community. While the parking garage is a rather costly element and is not required by code, it will relieve a
lot of pressure related to parking.
Mr. Miller reviewed that the building facade uses a variety of materials and architectural accents on the lower half of the
building, accentuated by slate riles, landscape planters, distinct overhangs and fixed awnings on the entryways. The
building has substantial exterior modulation on both sides facing Main Street and 2"d Avenue, as well as the alley to the
south. The main entrance faces Main Street and a secondary entrance faces the alley to the south. All entryways are
accessible from the street and have sloped awnings or overhangs that provide pedestrian protection and additional
modulation of the fagade. Ground level details include projecting slate tile planters, sitting areas, large column bases,
recessed building corners for greater visibility, natural wood soffits at awnings and large storefront windows for
increased visual connection from the exterior to the interior spaces. Building signage will be located above the main
entrance below the awning, and a sign will be placed above the cafe entrance, as well. Blade signs might also be used on
the building. Two small areas of sloped roof are also included in the design for aesthetics. Due to the slope of the site,
the Main Street fagade will be two feet below grade on one end and about four feet above grade on the other end.
Mr. Miller advised that the proposed building would be a mixture of compatible uses that are complementary to each
other and to the downtown. The proposed Corten steel material will be of a warm color and the natural wood beams and
columns will provide modulation. The Corten steel material and wood beam design also wraps around to the alley
sides, and there is a lot of modulation on the alley side, as well.
Mr. Miller commented that, although the building would not be fully LEED certified, it will contain a number of LEED
elements, including materials that are easy to recycle, natural lighting for ventilation and lighting, and the Corten steel is
made out of 2/3 recycled steel.
Board Member Tarrant asked if the wood beams would be a natural color, and Mr. Miller answered affirmatively.
Board Member Tarrant asked why the applicant has chosen to use Corten material. She also asked the applicant's
reasoning relative to the scale of the windows, noting that the windows on the two corners appear to be smaller panes
than the larger panes in the middle of the building. Mr. Miller said the windows are actually the same size, but they look
smaller in the drawing because they are on an angle and the elevation drawing is flat. Board Member Tarrant suggested
that the applicant consider different, perhaps smaller windows for the residential units to set them apart from the
windows that are provided for the studios and other artist spaces. Mr. Miller agreed that the windows for the residential
units could be more residential in scale.
Board Member Tarrant asked if the Corten material would be used around the entire building, and Mr. Miller answered
affirmatively. He noted that the pieces would be fairly small and the attachment pieces would make it appear "claddish."
They want a material that is both ecologically helpful as well as something that will last without a lot of maintenance.
The Corten material also has more of a high-tech flavor.
Board Member Broadway asked if the building height would be measured to the top of the flat roof. If so, could the
applicant obtain a variance for the sloped roof pieces? Mr. Lien said the height would be measured to the peak of the
sloped section of the roof. The maximum height of the roof structure could be no greater than 30 feet, but there are some
height exceptions for elevator penthouses, stand pipes, etc.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 13 of 18
Vice Chair Strauss observed that the applicant is proposing 20 parking space on site when only three are required. While
she gets the desire to provide parking space for the artists, she asked if the intent is to attract artists from outside of the
area, as well. She noted that downtown Edmonds is very walkable, and she questioned the need to dig up the ground to
put in 20 unneeded parking spaces. Mr. Miller said the underground parking would provide secure parking for both
residents and artists who bring equipment and materials. Even though downtown Edmonds is walkable, it is often
difficult to find street parking.
Vice Chair Strauss asked if the applicant is required to provide ADA parking. Mr. Miller answered that it is not a
requirement, but the applicant believes it would be appropriate to accommodate disabled artists, guests and tenants.
Board Member Broadway asked if the surface ADA parking space would be designated as ADA only or if it would also
be used for drop off parking. Mr. Miller said it is not intended to be a loading stall. Board Member Broadway asked if
there would be access from ADA parking spaces to the building. Mr. Miller answered that there would be access from
the surface parking space to the side entrance of the restaurant, but there would not be ADA access from the parking
space to the main entrance. However, the ADA parking spaces located in the underground parking area would be
accessible to the main portion of the building via elevators. He reminded the Board that the ADA spaces are not
required.
Board Member Guenther asked what structure type the applicant is anticipating for the new building. He also asked if
the expression of wood and steel would be carried into the interior of the building, as well. Mr. Miller said he anticipate
that the exposed wood beams will be used inside the structure, and there will be some Corten elements inside, as well.
The basic framework for the new building will be wood construction, and the open areas will be beamed with columns.
Vice Chair Strauss observed that downtown Edmonds is eclectic, with a lot of different designs. She said she likes the
Marvel Marble building with its angled gables. Edmonds buildings are all unique, but also have common elements like
parapets that go up with crenellation to define entries and pitched roofs to provide modulation. She does not see any of
this in the proposed design. The roofs are more symmetrical without any parapets or awnings at the street level. While it
is a nice design, she did not feel it fits downtown Edmonds. The metal siding is not used on any other building in
downtown. She said she understands that the applicant is trying to bring in a new design that plays into the eclectic
nature of Edmonds, but she feels it is too busy for the corner.
Ms. Olsen said her intent was to reflect what is going on inside the building, which is artists and artwork. She looked at
remodeling the Marvel Marble Building, but it would have been too difficult and costly. She felt that what is going on
inside the building should be reflected in the exterior design. It needs to be different to catch your eye and attract people
to come inside and see what is going on.
Chair Walker opened the public hearing.
Tam Axtell, Edmonds, said she is not an artist or a designer, but she has been a resident of Edmonds for 30 years and is
very excited about the project. She is heartened that the ADB spends time considering what is built in Edmonds, but she
likes the design and is excited about the new art facility. She is particularly glad that it will accommodate a non-profit
organization that focuses on art education in public schools.
Kim Fine, Edmonds, said she supports the proposed project and thinks the design represents an exciting building.
With all due respect, she said she likes that it is different for Edmonds, but fits in with the Pacific Northwest feel. She
loves the large windows and the multiple uses of the building, with the cafe, art studios and common space for events.
She also really appreciates the idea of parking below ground. She summarized that the proposal is a unique and exciting
design for Edmonds.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 14 of 18
Diane Ellis, Edmonds, said she is excited about the proposed new building on a number of levels. She commented that
the Marvel Marble building has been an eyesore in the downtown for thirty years, yet it is the first thing you see while
coming up SR-104 from the ferry. The proposed project will be cutting edge for what it will provide in opportunities for
the community. It will be a nice anchor that will attract more businesses to an area that is not currently as popular as the
downtown core. The project will be fun and exciting, and she likes the Corten material that has an urban village feel. It
is a brilliant project that should be embraced by the City.
Krystal Lanning, Edmonds, said she became a resident of Edmonds in the early 80s, and she loves the design of the
proposed new building. She likes the lines, and having some extra parking, even if not required, is an awesome
opportunity for both guests and tenants. Extra ADA parking is fabulous, as well. The opportunity for teachers to learn
how to teach art is incredible. The people who will be involved in the new building are active in the community and
artists themselves. Bringing people to a learning center and offering an opportunity for kids to experiment with art will
broaden their horizons. She thanked Ms. Olsen for bringing the project forward
Julie Green, Edmonds, said she would probably work in the new studios until she needs to use one of the ADA parking
spaces. She thanked the applicant for going above the standard by providing the additional parking spaces. She likes
that there will be secure parking when she works late into the evening.
Deloris Hogland, Edmonds, said she is a local artist, and she supports the proposed project. Having a place for artists
to park and unload their supplies is important and the atrium design is a dream that will attract good things to the City.
She agreed with the other citizens who spoke in favor of the project.
The Board reviewed the Design Review Checklist and made the following findings:
A. Site Planning
1. Reinforce existing site characteristics
Low
Mr. Lien pointed out that this item refers to the
Priority
topography, environmental constraints, solar
orientation, etc.
2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics
High
Board Member Broadway pointed out that there
Priority
are existing trees, and she would like them to
remain. Mr. Lien advised that there would be
street frontage improvements that include
sidewalks and new street trees. Although the
existing ones might not remain, new ones would
be planted.
3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street
High
Board Member Broadway noted that members of
Priority
the public indicated the need to draw pedestrians
from the ferry terminal to the new building, and
accentuating the entryway would help with that.
4. Encourage human activity on street
High
Board Member Broadway commented that the
Priority
restaurant component is valuable and will draw
people who are not artists through curiosity.
Board Member Guenther pointed out that the
outdoor dining space will also be consistent with
the space that is available across the street.
5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites
Low
Priority
6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide
Low
security, privacy and interaction (residential projects)
Priority
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 15 of 18
7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential
High
Mr. Lien pointed out that 5% open space is
projects)
Priority
required and the proposal provides significantly
more than that via the outdoor dining space and
the patio on the corner.
8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians
High
It was noted that this is already a priority of the
and adjoining property
Priority
applicant, who is proposing significantly more
parking space than what is required by code.
9. Discourage parking in street front
N/A
Mr. Lien noted that the applicant is not proposing
to add any parking in front of the building, and
they are allowed to use the existing street
parking.
10. Orient building to corner and parking away from
High
Vice Chair Strauss commented that this item is
corner on public street fronts (corner lots)
Priority
important to attract people coming from the
ferry. Board Member Broadway said she
supports the proposal to provide access to the
underground parking via the alley.
B. Bulk and Scale
1. Reinforce existing site characteristics N/A Mr. Lien noted that all of the surrounding
properties are zoned BD-2, as well.
C. Architectural Elements and Materials
1. Complement positive existing character and/or
High
Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that the proposed
respond to nearby historic structures
Priority
building is large compared to adjacent structures.
While there is some vertical separation, perhaps
they could bring that down to a smaller scale.
2. Unified architectural concept
High
Board Member Guenther pointed out that
Priority
drawings provided by the applicant are flat
elevations, which make it difficult to see the
modulation that is proposed. He agreed that he
would like to see a rhythm or pattern for the
windows rather than all being the same size.
3. Use human scale and human activity
High
Board Member Broadway commented that she
Priority
likes the materials, proportions and modulation
of the building, and she appreciates that the
ground floor public space is very visible and
clear, but she would like to see more modulation
in the upper floor private space. She would also
like the windows on the residential portion to be
a different scale. While it is important that the
ground floor windows be transparent to draw
people in, the residential windows should
provide privacy. The applicant pointed out that
there is only one set of residential windows on
the front of the building. The remaining
residential windows are on the sides facing the
alleys.
4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish
High
Chair Walker commented that he likes the
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 16 of 18
materials.
Priority
overall design, as well as the proposed materials.
It is funky and has an artistic flavor to it. Vice
Chair Strauss expressed her belief that a lot of the
same materials are used, and the building seems
really dark and heavy. Perhaps a lighter color or
different material could be used on the upper
floor. Board Member Broadway said she likes
the Corten building materials, as well as the
proposed color pallet.
5. Minimize garage entrances
High
The Board indicated support for the proposed
Priority
garage entry from the alley.
D. Pedestrian Environment
1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected
High
pedestrian entry
Priority
2. Avoid blank walls
High
Regarding the blank walls along the alley, Board
Priority
Member Broadway pointed out that the
alleyways are narrow and nothing looks onto the
wall from these locations. She felt that this is a
good location for the restaurant function. Mr.
Lien suggested there could be some variation in
color and materials to provide definition. Chair
Walker suggested that perhaps an art installation
could be on that large, blank wall.
3. Minimize height of retaining walls
N/A
4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking
N/A
lots on pedestrian areas
5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures
High
It was pointed out that the applicant is already
Priority
addressing this requirement.
6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas
High
Priority
7. Consider personal safety
High
Priority
E. Landscaping
1. Reinforce existing landscape character of
High
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that street trees
neighborhood
Priority
would be required.
2. Landscape to enhance the building or site
High
Priority
3. Landscape to take advantage of special site
N/A
It was noted that there are no special site
conditions
conditions.
Mr. Miller asked if the Board would prefer that he provide an actual model of the proposed development. The Board
agreed that a computer -generated model that is available electronically would be helpful.
The Board discussed potential dates for the Phase H hearing and tentatively scheduled it for June 21' at 7:00 p.m. Mr.
Lien indicated that he would need all of the applicant's materials by May 29th in order to prepare for the continued
hearing on June 21 st. He would prefer that the materials are submitted as early as May 22nd
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 17 of 18
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE HEARING BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE.
BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
There were no administrative reports.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
There were no Board Member comments.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
May 3, 2017
Page 18 of 18