Loading...
2017-06-21 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Chair Walker called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Tom Walker, Chair Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Cary Guenther Lois Broadway Joe Herr Athene Tarrant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Brian Boroflca Staff Present Kernan Lien, Senior Planner Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2017 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER TARRANT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: 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 MEETING: PHASE 2 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW FOR GRAPHITE ART STUDIOS AT 202 MAIN STREET (PLN20170016) Mr. Lien advised that the proposal is for a new mixed -use building at 202 Main Street at the southeastern corner of 2nd Avenue South and Main Street. The site is located within the Downtown Business (BD2) zone. The applicant is proposing a two-story, 20,000 square foot building, referred to as the "Graphite Art Studios." The project will contain art studios, art gallery space, a cafe, three 2-bedroom apartments and an additional 9,540 square feet of underground parking. The project site is 14,411 square feet and is currently developed with the Marvel Marble Building, which will be demolished to make room for the new building. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 1 of 14 Mr. Lien reminded the Board that projects within the BD2 zone are subject to district -based design review under the regulations in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.12. According to ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.12.010, district -based design review applications that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III-B Decisions that require a 2-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB conducted Phase 1 of the hearing on May 3rd, and then continued the hearing for Phase 2 on June 21St. He explained that the purpose of Phase 2 is for the applicant to design or redesign the initial concept to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. The Board will complete its review of the project design and make a final decision on the design proposal at the conclusion of the Phase 2 portion of the hearing. Mr. Lien reviewed that height calculations were not provided at the Phase 1 hearing, and the height limit in the BD2 zone is 30 feet. The applicant recently submitted the calculations, identifying that the proposed building would reach a maximum height of 29.7 feet. At the Phase 1 hearing, the applicant indicated that the ground floor height would be 15 feet, but this was reduced to 14.5 feet in order for the building to comply with the maximum height allowed in the zone. He noted that the BD2 design standards require that the ground floor have a minimum ceiling height of 12 feet, so the proposal would still be compliant. Mr. Lien advised that, at the Phase 1 hearing, he reported that the City's Recycling Coordinator determined that the garbage enclosure was too small for the site. The applicant has revised and enlarged the enclosure, which now opens onto the alley on the east side of the building. The Recycling Coordinator has indicated that the new trash enclosure design is adequate, provided that the gate facing the alley opens to the full expanse of the enclosure. Mr. Lien reviewed that the City's Traffic Engineer has noted that a traffic impact analysis will be required for the project, and the analysis has been submitted. However, the traffic mitigation fees identified in the analysis were outdated. At the time of building permit application, an updated traffic impact analysis will be required with current impact fees as identified in Edmonds City Code (ECC) 3.36. Mr. Lien advised that the proposal must comply with the Downtown Design Objectives found in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Design Standards for the BD zones, which are found in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 22.43. He noted that the design objectives and standards that apply to the proposed project are outlined in the Staff Report. He specifically noted the following: Comprehensive Plan Goal B.6 calls for "covered walkways for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways, " and ECDC 22.43.040(D)(1) states that "structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a metal or other framework. " Mr. Lien pointed out that the awning over the primary entry provides cover for pedestrians entering the building, but it does not extend much into the sidewalk to provide cover for pedestrians traveling along the public sidewalk. The Board should discuss ways to provide more coverage for pedestrians. The applicant has indicated that it might be possible to extend the awning out over the sidewalk, but the question is how far. He noted that if the awning does not extend out far enough, it ends up become more of a nuisance that drips rain on people who are walking under it. ECDC 22.43.050(B)(1) states that "the ground level facades of buildings that face a designated street front shall have transparent windows covering a minimum of 75 percent of the building facade that lies between an average of 2 feet and 10 feet above grade. " Mr. Lien that while the proposed building contains significant expanses of windows, it appears to fall short of the 75% requirement. As per his calculations, the 2nd Avenue facade contains approximately 35 to 45% of windows between 2 and 10 feet above grade, and the Main Street facade contains approximately 70%. To address this issue, staff has recommended a condition of approval that the window area be expanded to provide more transparent windows, particularly on the 2nd Avenue facade. The applicant will be required to provide calculations to verify this requirement at the time of building permit application. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 2 of 14 Mr. Lien advised that, based on the findings, analysis, conclusions and exhibits in the Staff Report, staff is recommending that the Board approve the proposal under File Number PLN20170016 with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report pertaining to screening of mechanical equipment, transparency, and traffic impact analysis. The Board could also add another condition to address awnings. Mr. Lien advised that the City received two comment letters since the Phase 1 hearing. One was from Brian Moll, providing historic pictures of the Marvel Marble Building and suggesting that it be restored rather than torn down to make way for a new building. Another letter was from Kristen Striker, who had similar sentiment about restoring the existing building. Board Member Broadway asked how wide the existing sidewalk is along Main Street. Mr. Lien indicated that he does not know the exact width of the existing sidewalk, but the frontage improvements associated with the project will require a minimum width of 7 feet. Scott Miller, Scott G. Miller Design Services, was present to represent the applicant, Mary Olsen. He provided a 31) model of the building to better illustration of the proposed design for all four sides of the building. He noted that four street trees will be provided on each side of the building, but they were not included in the drawing. He reviewed that at the Phase 1 hearing, the Board voiced concern about the windows on the residential portion of the building. To address this concern, the windows on the alley side of the project were changed to become more residential in scale. The windows on the south elevation were also changed to be more residential in nature. In addition, the garbage enclosure was redesigned and enlarged to address the Recycling Coordinator's concerns. Since the Phase I hearing, one of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking spaces along the alley was eliminated, but the other two were retained. Regarding the issue of weather protection along the sidewalk, Mr. Miller advised that the overhang on the building actually protrudes out further than shown in the 31) rendering, and the applicant is perfectly willing to continue the roofline along the front to provide a covered pedestrian walkway. He suggested that it would be possible to extend the roofline out four feet on both the 2nd Avenue and Main Street facades. Mr. Miller explained that the topography of the building slopes down from Main Street, but the main entrance on Main Street is at grade. Planters will be located at the corners of the building along the street facades. In addition, the upper decks will provide open space and the interior atrium will have a skylight. A balcony will be provided for the residential units, and there will be a public balcony on the other side of the building, as well. A natural wood finish would be used under the soffits around the entire building to enhance the warm feeling of the Corten Steel. Bob Gregg, Bob Gregg Architects, pointed out that the canopy along the 2nd Avenue and Main Street facades would actually be a structural canopy and not a fabric awning. He explained that the building was not brought all the way up to the property line, so a portion of the sidewalk would actually be located on private property rather than public right-of- way. The applicant agrees with the City's request for an awning or canopy, but it should not be required to cover the entire sidewalk width. He suggested that extending the awning out four feet from the building fagade would be an appropriate requirement. He summarized that the applicant has reviewed the Staff Report and agrees with the findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations contained therein. Board Member Tarrant pointed out that if the roofline is brought out to provide a canopy over the sidewalk for weather protection, it will be important to pay attention to the entryway so that it does not lose its prominence. Mr. Miller noted that the entryway canopy would also be extended further out over the walkway so that it maintains its prominence. Mr. Lien said that as he walks along the sidewalks in downtown Edmonds, he tries to stay close to the buildings when it is raining so he can stay dry. He expressed his belief that extending the canopy out four feet from the building fagade would be an appropriate distance to provide adequate weather protection. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 3 of 14 Board Member Broadway asked if the street trees would be located in planter boxes or tree wells. Mr. Miller answered that they would be located in tree wells with grates, as per the City's Street Tree Standards. Chair Walker asked what species the street trees would be, and Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the City has an adopted Street Tree Plan, which identifies species for different areas of the downtown. He does not know the specific species for the subject property, but it will probably be consistent with what was planted at the post office site that is located across the street. Board Member Guenther noted that no roof equipment was provided on the 3D illustration. He asked how the applicant proposes to screen the equipment. Mr. Miller said the equipment would be located towards the center of the building so that it would not be visible from the street or sidewalk. In addition, the equipment would be fully screened and blocked from view as required by the code. To comply with the height limit for the zone, the equipment can be no taller than 4 feet. Depending on the type of elevator used, it may be necessary to take advantage of the additional height allowed by the City to accommodate the elevator shaft. Mr. Lien clarified that elevator shafts can go three feet above the height limit, but other rooftop equipment must meet the height limit. Mr. Miller said the intent is to stay below the City's established height limits for the zone. Board Member Broadway asked what type of material would be used to screen the mechanical equipment, and Mr. Miller said it would most likely be wooden slats. The intent is to use a material that has longevity to withstand weather conditions. They will try to limit the amount of rooftop equipment as much as possible. Board Member Strauss pointed out that, as currently designed, the entrance area along Main Street sticks out the furthest. She asked how far the currently proposed canopy would extend out over the sidewalk. Mr. Miller noted that the building is located two feet back from the property line, and the canopy protrudes out three feet. That means that it would cover 2 feet of the sidewalk that is located on private property, and 1 foot over the sidewalk within the right-of-way. He noted that the existing sidewalk is about 8 feet, and it will likely be made wider as part of the project, since some of the width will be located on the subject property. Board Member Strauss asked if the 3D model provides an accurate representation of how the windows will look, and Mr. Miller answered that it is very close. However, they are thinking of using taupe window frames rather than black. Board Member Strauss asked what materials would be used for the roof, which will be flat for most of the building. Mr. Miller answered that the intent is to use metal roofing for the two sections that slope and composition roofing for the remainder of the roof. There will be downspouts around the roof that lead to a collection area, and the roof will be sloped slightly to allow the water to flow to the downspouts. The canopy on the front entrance would slope slightly towards the building and water will drain into a downspout. Chair Walker asked if the downspouts would connect to the City's stormwater system. Mr. Miller answered that they would drain to a system in the basement that would hold the water until it is released into the City's stormwater system. Chair Walker opened the public hearing. Brian Moll, Edmonds, advised that he is principal in charge at SCBC Engineering, which is located at 540 Main Street. He referred to a historic photograph of the Marvel Marble Building, when it was originally constructed as the Bacon Garage. He encouraged the property owner to renovate, refurbish and restore the building and incorporate it into the design of the new art facility. This would be more in keeping with the architectural nature of the buildings on Main Street and 5"' Avenue that tourists and residents all enjoy. He said that when he looks at the proposed design, he sees a Kirkland or Bellevue type building. He commented that many people have affection for this historic building, and he would hate to see it lost for a Bellevue -style, mixed -use condominium development. He expressed his belief that the City failed when it allowed the post office structure to be torn down and replaced with a mixed -use development, and he would like them to consider opportunities to restore the building and incorporate it into the design. Tracy Felix, Edmonds, said she is president of the Downtown Merchants Association, on the Board of Art Start Northwest, and owner of Art Spot on Main Street in downtown Edmonds. She said it was her privilege to meet with the architect of the proposed project and hear how incredibly thoughtful the building has been designed. She appreciates Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 4 of 14 that it is designed to be very inviting to the public and not intimidating. This design allows the public to become part of the arts, as people will be able to see what is going on inside the building as they pass by. It will also invite artists to come and experience the culture the facility will provide. This is an important corner of Edmonds, and it serves as a gateway to the downtown. She disagreed with the idea of preserving the existing building; this option probably passed many decades ago. Last year, the City had to block off part of the sidewalk because bricks were falling from the building. It is not aesthetically pleasing and its layout does not lend itself to the types of activities the owner wants to provide in the new building. She realizes it is nice to have a bit of overhang on the building for weather protection, but the design is also intended to provide as much natural light and sunlight as possible into the building. She summarized that she hopes the Board will approve the proposed new beautiful, upscale building. Tana Axtelle, Edmonds, said she attended the Phase 1 hearing and has spent a lot of time thinking about the proposed design. She has walked the Marvel Marble block a number of times. While she understands why people want to preserve historic buildings and keep Edmonds unique, the building is in bad shape, both inside and out. She commented that she appreciates the 3D drawing that was provided by the applicant, since it provides a better opportunity to view how the building will look and how it will sit on the block. Chrystal Lanning, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Axtell and Ms. Felix. The proposed new structure will be an awesome addition to downtown Edmonds. Although Edmonds is in a progressive state, she still likes the character of the older buildings, as well. There is no reason why they can't have a bit of both. As the owner of a 110-year-old home in Edmonds, she loves the nostalgia and character of old construction. However, at some point, it is not possible to restore a historic building because it is damaged beyond repair. The existing building has been in a state of disrepair for a long time. She respectfully requested that the Board approve the project, which will be an asset to members of the community (students, teachers, residents, etc.) who want to practice and/or learn art. She disagreed with Mr. Moll that the proposed design is representative of a Bellevue condominium. She noted that there will only be three units available for residential use, and the rest of the proposed building will feature art studios and other elements that will support people who want to practice and/or enjoy art. James Spangler, Edmonds, said he owns a bookstore on 5"' Avenue and he also writes a column for THE EDMONDS BEACON. He said he has lived in Edmonds since 1994, and he supports the proposed new Graphite Building. From his point of view, if someone puts together a non-profit organization that will benefit the community and goes to great lengths to design a building that meets the specific needs of the community, the Board should not go too far in the direction of trying to second guess the design. He said he understands that some constraints must be considered, but the Board should also recognize that a great deal of thought has gone into the design of the building. He recalled that, just two years ago, Mayor Earling convened an Arts Summit that was attended by over 200 members of the community. The commitment of the City to the arts is unquestionable. When someone offers to put a gem like this in the center of downtown, the City should "not look a gift horse too much in the mouth." Ellen Chappelle, Edmonds, said she is an artist and works around Edmonds a lot, and she has seen all of the different buildings up close and personal. While she agrees that there is a lot of neat history involved with the Marvel Marble Building, it does not look stable. She loves the design of the new building, which is in keeping with the design of the new Waterfront Center that has been proposed where the Senior Center is currently located. She shared the following thoughts about what the new facility could bring to the City: According to an American Journal of Public Health meta -analysis of more than 100 studies, personal engagement in the arts has been shown to reduce heart rates, respiratory rates, blood pressure, pain fatigue, cortisol levels, anxiety, depression, preoccupation with illness and physical and emotional distress during medical treatment. It can also improve sleep immunity, cognitive function, emotional processing and self- esteem. Data from the Knight Foundation reveals that cities with high concentrations of art tend to have higher social cohesion and lower crime rates, not to mention lower poverty rates, higher civic engagement and better child welfare. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 5 of 14 Michigan State University found that STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) graduates who had started businesses or developed patented technologies had received up to 8 times more arts exposure as children than the general public. Art also contributes to the local economy. Communities with art centers and cultural events draw travelers who stay longer and spend more. Arts attendees who travel from other cities shell out twice as much as residents on things like meals and shopping. Studies show a correlation between creativity and a more accurate memory. Neurological research shows that making art can improve cognitive function by producing new neural pathways and thicker, stronger dendrites. This enhances cognitive reserve, helping the brain actively compensate for pathology by working more efficiently or using alternative strategies. Making art, or even viewing art, causes the brain to continue to reshape, adapt and restructure. Ms. Chappelle emphasized that the process of creating art is so good for kids! • Researchers have observed that visual art can act as a gateway linking critical thinking and language development. • New brain research shows that not only do music and art improve skills in math and reading, but they also enhance creativity, social development, personality development and self-worth. • When working with the visual arts, individuals use more of their brains, better incorporating information and abilities learned even from other, unrelated disciplines. • One project where students worked together to create a mural revealed that students who had previously been known as troublemakers caused fewer problems with authorities, while finding an appropriate method of self-expression. • Children involved in community -based arts programs are 4 times more likely to be top academic performers and 3 times more likely to be awarded for school attendance. • In a study of schools in Chicago, those that were part of the city-wide arts education program made the largest strides in closing the academic achievement gap between high and low-income students. Ms. Chappell concluded that if art enhances everything from quality of life to brain function, what possible downside could there be to having the proposed new facility join the community? Greg Arnold, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for more than 20 years, and he has had the pleasure of being the first president of the Edmonds historic preservation group. He applauded those who brought up the idea of saving historic buildings in Edmonds. However, in this case, the opportunity to restore the building has passed. He has thought a lot about what his kids were able to do with art and other educational opportunities in the City and what his grandchildren will be able to do. In this case, he felt the benefits of the new building far outweigh any of the benefits associated with preserving the historic structure. Ann Arnold, Edmonds, said she has lived in Edmonds for about 24 years, and she is an educator. She commented that what kids have access to in arts in the public schools is minimal. It is only through the incredible efforts of people like Mary Olsen and Tracy Felix that kids are allowed to have access to materials, resources and space to do art. The proposed project is an incredibly unique and forward -thinking proposal. Not only will it provide a place for artists to practice their crafts, it will also provide opportunities for teachers to learn how to bring art back into the classrooms in an environment where public funding is just not available. She encouraged the Board to approve the proposal. Chair Walker closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Herr asked about the proposal's economic model. Mary Olsen, Applicant and Property Owner, advised that the project will include three residential units that will be available for rent, as well as private and public art studio space, a restaurant, workshop space, photo lab, media space and gallery space. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 6 of 14 Board Member Tarrant commented that the requirement of 75% transparency on the street -facing facades can be a double-edged sword. The more windows, the more heat there will be inside the building. While natural lighting will be important to the artists, too much glare would be undesirable. She expressed her belief that the proposed design provides adequate transparency to meet the intent of the code. Board Member Broadway said she is particularly concerned about the northside of the building where the main entrance will be located because it will not get a lot of direct sunlight and northern lighting is the most natural light for doing artwork. She said she supports the amount of transparency proposed for the north side of the building, but she suggested that more could be done on the west and south sides of the building. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that the 2 d Avenue facade will get a lot of sunlight during the summer months, and a number of large windows have already been included in the design. She suggested that extending the awning out over the sidewalk could help, as well. Board Member Guenther added that the existing 2-story building on the west side of 2" d Avenue will also provide some shade to the new building during the day. While some sunlight may enter the building during the middle of the day, most of the natural light will come from the north. Chair Walker noted that the times when there will be direct sunlight will be minimal given the area's climate. He said he would prefer to have as many windows as possible. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the transparency requirement only applies to the portion of building at the sidewalk level and not to the entire street -facing facade. Mr. Lien clarified that it applies to the portion of the building between 2 and 10 feet above grade. Board Member Tarrant said she understands the point of view of those who to preserve the existing structure. She recalled that she has been involved in historic preservation in other jurisdictions throughout her life, but this building would have had to be maintained at a much higher level throughout its life in order to qualify for restoration. There comes a point where civic people can really only put so much burden on an owner of historic property. The proposed use is a gift to the community, and the existing building has gone too far beyond to be salvageable. The City cannot really require a property owner to spend millions of dollars to prop up a building facade and incorporate it into the design of the new structure. On the other hand, she can appreciate the genuine concerns of those who want to preserve historic buildings. She suggested that the City's code should be amended to include an element relative to preservation of historic structures. Mr. Lien advised that the City has a Historic Preservation Commission, but it is a voluntary program. Even properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places can be removed from the list and demolished at any time. Being on the Register does not guarantee that a property will be preserved. Board Member Tarrant suggested that, in deference to these concerns, perhaps the City should consider creating a zone where historic preservation is required. Mr. Lien said the option has been discussed by the City Council and Historic Preservation Commission. It has been suggested that the City form a Historical District. However, it would still be a voluntary program that will not guarantee preservation. Board Member Broadway suggested the Board could entertain an invitation to the applicant to consider incorporating a plaque with a photo of the original building and a paragraph of information to pay homage to and recognize the historic building. The plaque could mention that the slant roofs at the corners of the new building are similar to the angle that was on the original gas station building. It could also point out that the large windows are similar to those that were on the historic building. Another idea would be to paint a mural of the historic building on the blank wall that faces the alley. Vice Chair Strauss commented that there is a point at which a building can no longer be saved, but she loves the idea of somehow paying homage to the historic building. Board Member Herr voiced concern with the City's transparency requirement. He struggles to understand how the applicant could provide more windows without compromising the structural integrity of the building. Mr. Lien explained that the intent of the requirement is to provide a visual connection of activity both outside and inside the building. Staff recognizes the concern and has flagged this requirement for potential amendment at some point in the Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 7 of 14 future, and the ADB could put forward their own recommendation, as well. Mr. Miller agreed with Board Member Herr's concern about the structural integrity of the building if more windows are added. Board Member Broadway suggested that, when considering transparency, the Board should focus on the intent of the provision. She specifically referred to ECDC 22.43.050(B)(2) and explained that the intent is to provide visibility between the street and interior. The arbitrary number provided in the Design Standards is open to interpretation when the intent of the standard could be meet. Board Member Herr asked how staff calculated the percentage of transparency on the 2nd Avenue and Main Street facades. He specifically asked how the angled corners were counted. Mr. Lien advised that the angled corners were counted as part of the Main Street Fagade rather than the 2nd Avenue facade. Staff's calculation for the Main Street facade was about 70% transparency, but transparency on the 2nd Avenue facade was only between 35% and 45%. Board Member Herr said it could be argued that the angled corners should be counted as part of the 2nd Avenue facade, as well. Chair Walker voiced concern that requiring substantially more windows on the 2nd Avenue facade could reduce the aesthetics of the proposed design. Board Member Guenther commented that, currently, there is no set method for calculating transparency. He pointed out that that the standard assumes that most of the glass will be parallel to the street, but that is not the case with this proposal. The Board Members generally agreed that staff's proposed Condition 2 should be amended to require that, at the time of building permit, the design must represent no less transparency than what was reviewed at the Phase 2 hearing. Mr. Lien said it would also be helpful to include a requirement that the windows cannot be mirrored or darkly -tinted glass that prohibits visibility between the street and interior. Mr. Miller pointed out that the subject property is sloped, which creates a triangle that must be incorporated into the facade but cannot be windows. If transparency of the Main Street facade is measured from two feet above the grade level, the actual amount of transparency would be 72%. However, this approach for measuring transparency is problematic when applied to the sloped facade on 2nd Avenue. It does not make sense to add windows to the foundation because they would simply look into the parking garage. Mr. Gregg added that the windows on the 2nd Avenue facade were originally larger, but the structural engineer indicated that the building would not be structurally sound. He concluded that the windows proposed on the 2nd Avenue facade are as large as they can be. Rather than applying the transparency requirement to two feet above the ground level, it should be applied to the portion of building two feet above the floor level. Vice Chair Strauss reminded the Board that the transparency provision is intended to allow people walking by the building to see what is going on inside. She asked how high above the sidewalk the windows on 2nd Avenue would be. Mr. Miller said they would be between 4 and 6 feet above the sidewalk on the portion of facade closer to Main Street, but much higher on the other end of the facade. Currently, the windows do not go all the way to the floor because the artists need to put equipment below the windows. The intent is to give the occupants some wall space. Chair Walker commented that the applicant's explanation relative to transparency makes sense, and Board Member Broadway's recommended condition seems reasonable. Mr. Lien agreed that it would give staff enough information to work with the applicant during the building permit application phase. Board Member Tarrant said she is trying to balance the need to provide weather protection via a canopy and the desire to allow as much sunlight as possible to enter the new building. She suggested that a 4-foot canopy seems reasonable. It was pointed out that most of the sunlight coming into the building will be from the north side, and a 4-foot awning should not have a significant impact. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the deck area above the proposed cafe would be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 8 of 14 extended an additional four feet, as well. Mr. Miller answered that the deck areas on the northeast and west sides of the building would be expanded, too. Board Member Broadway said she is in favor of extending the second -floor roof line beyond what is shown on the drawings. She felt that would be sufficient enough to cover a single individual walking in the public walkway, but still short enough that the applicant would not have to redesign the support of the building. Mr. Lien clarified that rather than requiring the canopy to extend 4 feet beyond the property line, the Board is suggesting that the canopy extend 4 feet beyond the leading edge of the building on the street facades. He reminded the Board that the building is set back two feet, which means that the canopy would only extend into the right-of-way by two feet, but would cover 4 feet of sidewalk. Board Member Broadway voiced concern that extending the canopy 4 feet beyond the leading edge of the building would mean that there would only be two feet of covered area where the planters are located. Mr. Gregg clarified that the planter boxes would be considered part of the leading edge of the building, so the canopy would extend 4 feet beyond the edge of the planter boxes, too. Board Member Broadway agreed that the canopy should extend 4 feet beyond the edge of the building, which should include both the building and planters. Chair Walker pointed out that the entrance awning extends beyond 4 feet as currently designed. He asked if this awning would also be extended an additional four feet so that the entrance is still prominent and the roofline remains undulated. He said he would like the rooflines to flow with the building. Mr. Miller answered affirmatively. The Board continued to discuss the pros and cons of using the property line or the leading edge of the building to measure the 4-foot canopy. They agreed that requiring the canopy to extend 4 feet beyond the property could present a significant structural challenge, and the best approach would be to require the canopy to extend 4 feet beyond the leading edge of the building. They further agreed that the concept should be applied on both the 2"d Avenue and Main Street facades. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGIN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFEED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43; AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. 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. 2. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE TOPOGRAPHY, AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE WINDOW CONFIGURATIONS ALONG THE MAIN STREET AND 2ND AVENUE FACADES ARE NO LESS THAN WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE PHASE 2 HEARING. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE WINDOWS ARE TRANSPARENT AND NOT MIRRORED AND/OR DARKLY TINTED. 3. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 9 of 14 4. AN UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS MUST BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WITH TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES CONSISTENT WITH ECC 3.36. 5. AWNINGS ON THE 2ND AVENUE AND MAIN STREET FACADES SHALL PROJECT A MINIMUM OF FOUR FEET FROM THE VERTICAL FACE OF THE BUILDING, VERTICAL FACE BEING EITHER THE BUILDING FACADE OR PLANTERS BELOW. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: MIETZER BROTHERS PROPERTIES, LLC PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT ELEVEN (11) NEW DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED AT 8609, 8611 AND 8615 244TH STREET SOUTHWEST (PLN20170017) 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. Shipley presented the Staff Report, advising that the applicant is proposing to construct 11 new detached single- family homes with attached garages. The subject site consists of three parcels zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM- 2.4) in southwest Edmonds. He reviewed that the subject site is in the southern portion of Edmonds near Highway 99 along 244"' Street. There is currently RS-8 zoning to the west and north of the subject site and RM-1.5 zoning to the east. The properties are well served by public transportation, with a bus stop about 150 feet away and the Aurora Village Transportation Center close by, too. The site is currently developed with three single-family homes, a garage, a shop and two sheds. The applicant is proposing to eliminate the two existing curb cuts, and replace them with a single curb cut that will serve all of the units. Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that RM-2.4 zoning allows a density of one unit for every 2,400 square feet of land, and the required setbacks are 15 feet from the street, 10 feet on the sides and 15 feet from the rear property line. The maximum height allowed in the zone is 25 feet, with an additional 5 feet provided the design includes at least a 4/12 pitched roof. As proposed, the project would result in an overall density of one unit for every 3,546 square feet of land, and the development would come up to the required setbacks. The height of the proposed buildings is 28'8", and the proposed lot coverage would be a little more than 37%. Mr. Shipley provided an illustration of the colors that would be used for the 11 homes, noting that the color of the homes would change throughout the site, but the colors would be very similar and compatible. ECDC 20.11.030(B) requires that landscape treatments on the subject sites must provide visual interest and enhance the building design. Type III landscaping is required throughout the interior of the site, and the applicant is proposing landscaped areas that border all of the homes, as well as small pathways to the rear yards. Staff is recommending a condition that would require curb stops near the guest parking spaces to prevent damage to the landscaped areas. Type 11 landscaping is required around the border of the subject site, and the applicant is proposing primarily evergreen trees so there will be little change from summer to winter. Mr. Shipley referred to the Comprehensive Plan Design Objectives, which encourage the applicant to reduce the number of curb cuts, and the applicant has agreed to reduce the curb cuts from two to one. The remaining curb cut will be moved from its current location. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for connections to transit, and the sidewalk along 244"' Street provides this connection. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 10 of 14 Mr. Shipley advised that about 5 feet of open space is provided around each of the units in all directions. However, the Comprehensive Plan encourages developments to provide places for people to interact, play, sit and do other activities. A point of discuss is whether the proposed open space meets this standard. Mr. Shipley said that after the Staff Report was prepared, the applicant submitted additional elevation drawings of two of the proposed unit designs. The intent was to show the variation of the three different models that will be used for the 11 townhomes. He noted that one comment in the Staff Report is relative to what appears to be blank walls. Staff recommended that there be more variation in materials, decorative materials, or other features to break up these facades. In response to staff s concern, the applicant provided alternative right elevations that add windows and change some of the design elements and materials. Board Member Herr noted that, as proposed, there would be two parking spaces for each of the 11 units, but there would be no driveways. Mr. Shipley advised that the parking would have to be located inside the garages rather than on the street in front of the units. Board Member Herr voiced concern that if cars park on the street in front of the units there will not be sufficient space for emergency access. He recognized that a homeowner's association could establish rules that prevent people from parking anywhere but their garages, but he questioned how it would be enforced. Mr. Shipley advised that the Fire Department reviewed the proposal and did not raise any red flags. The assumption is that parking would only be allowed within the garages and in the guest parking spaces. Mr. Lien added that, oftentimes, the Fire Department will require that there be signage to limit where parking can occur. For example, the streets in front of the units could be identified as emergency access only, and parking could be prohibited. This issue will be addressed during the Building Permit phase. Chair Walker asked the applicant to explain what the hatched area at the entrance to the development is intended to be. Mike Mietzner, Mietzner Brothers Properties, LLC, was present to represent the applicant. He noted that his son, Benjamin was present to assist him with the presentation. He explained that he purchased the property in 2016 and the original intent was to develop 16 residential units that were each 3-stories tall. However, the height limit in the RM-2.4 zone prohibits buildings over 30 feet in height, which means that 3-story buildings are very difficult to construct. He noted that a 3-story design would have allowed him to provide additional parking space in front of each of the units. Mr. Mietzner referred to the three plans that will be used to construct the 11 units. He said the intent is to mix up the designs amongst the 11 units. In addition to the three plans submitted with the initial application, he also submitted alternate right -elevation plans to address concerns raised about blank walls facing the public street. The alternate plans provide additional window treatments and siding changes to break up the facades. Seven color schemes would be used on the 11 units. All will look similar and be of an earth tone. The design criterion calls for avoiding bright colors and many buyers prefer earth tones, anyway. There will not be a drastic contrast between the seven color schemes. Mr. Mietzner advised that the proposed landscaping will be drought tolerant and will not need regular maintenance. There will be a lot of shade on the subject parcels, so grass will not likely grow well in this tight site. Mr. Mietzner said it has been suggested that the design provide some opportunity for a play area or gathering place. He said he lives in a small community similar to what he is proposing, and they have block parties in the street between the homes. People can gather in the street or on the front porches of the homes, and he did not feel it would be necessary to provide a separate gathering place as part of the project. Mr. Mietzner advised that there will be two parallel parking stalls at the T-intersection, but the remainder of the 10 guest parking spaces will be perpendicular to the drive aisle. As proposed, there will be 10 guest parking spaces, and each of the units will have two garage parking spaces. There will be covenants in place to make sure that residents of the units are not using the guest parking spaces on a regular basis. People who have two cars will not have space within their garage to store items. Resident parking will not be allowed to overflow into the guest parking spaces, but it will be up to Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 11 of 14 the homeowners to enforce the covenants once they are set up. Signage could be provided to make sure people understand the parking restrictions. Mr. Mietmer said the hatched area near the entrance was intended to identify the location of a stormwater system that is no longer part of the proposal. There was no one in the audience, and the public portion of the meeting was closed. Vice Chair Strauss noted that, as proposed, there would be a single curb cut onto 244"' Street. She asked if the applicant is proposing to construct a fence along the property line that would obstruct the view of cars trying to get out onto the street. Mr. Mietmer responded that the drive aisle would be 24 feet wide and the City would require a new curb cut. Right now, there are three houses on the subject parcels, with at least two curb cuts. He said he is not sure about the City's requirements for fences on public streets, but he understands concerns about visibility and he is not proposing that there be a fence along 244"' Street. However, he anticipates that there will be a 6-foot tall fence on the other three property lines. Board Member Broadway asked if the significant tree identified adjacent to Unit 4 is an existing tree. Mr. Mietmer answered no. He said that, as currently proposed, there would be three large ash trees at the front and one next to Unit 4, but nothing next to Unit 8. He said he would recommend that an additional tree be added next to Unit 8 to provide symmetry. Chair Walker agreed that would be appropriate. Chair Walker said he understands that the project is a tight space. Regarding the public gathering space concept, he suggested that a small sitting area could be provided at the end of the hammerhead where there is plenty of room. Mr. Mietzner agreed that would be a better location than near the entrance to the development along the busy street. Chair Walker asked if there is any opportunity to save existing landscaping. Mr. Mietmer responded that there is currently a lot of asphalt on the site, and the two existing trees are located in the middle of a proposed building site. He said he does not see the reality of trying to save any of the existing landscaping. Vice Chair Strauss asked if duplexes are allowed in the RM-2.4 zone, and Mr. Shipley answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Strauss questioned why the applicant did not propose duplex development rather than squishing 11 detached units onto the site. She expressed her belief that duplex development would have allowed more space for parking, landscaping, etc. Mr. Mietmer commented that duplex development would likely result in denser development, and buyers ideally want detached units. He said he prefers to develop detached units, as well. Again, he said he tried to build 3-story units, but the height restrictions would not allow it. Board Member Herr asked if the three building designs would have varying elevations so they do not appear to be the same. Mr. Mietmer advised that the garage in Unit 7 would actually be flipped to the left side before submitting the building permit application, and the varying paint colors would also provide contrast. Board Member Herr commented that it is possible to build mirrored units and people are not even aware they are the same design. He said he was hoping the applicant could add more variety to the roof lines or gables while still maintaining the footprint of the three designs. Mr. Mietmer agreed to consider this option. Board Member Tarrant asked if the landscaped areas behind each of the units would be fenced off and private. Mr. Mietmer answered that he does not intend to put privacy fences between the units, but residents may decide to do so at a later time. On the other hand, he said he does not intend for the space to be communal. He explained that the project will be a multi -family development and the intent is to sell the units off after construction is complete. He noted that there has been some discussion about adopting new provisions for unit lot subdivisions, but until the new provisions are approved, the property will be recorded as a condominium development that does not have lot lines. Mr. Shipley announced that the City's new provisions for unit lot subdivisions was recently approved by the City Council, and Mr. Mietzner said he would likely take advantage of the opportunity provided by the new provision. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 12 of 14 Board Member Tarrant suggested that perhaps a sign could be placed at the entrance to the development on 244th Street to acknowledge the entryway. Mr. Mietzner said he is not sure the City would be willing to put up a street sign for the private road. Regarding the gathering area, Board Member Herr expressed his belief that people who live in the development are not likely to use a bench if provided as suggested earlier. He said he lives in a new area and it is very unlikely for him to even see his neighbors. The mix of people who live in these places is different. While a bench sounds nice, it will not really amount to a significant amenity. While he understands staff s recommendation, from a builder's perspective, he does not believe that a bench would add value to the development. He questioned the need to impose "feel good" requirements on applicants. Board Member Broadway agreed that this type of development is a different type of community and people who live there accept that the recreational lifestyles happen somewhere else and not in their front yards. Vice Chair Strauss observed that the applicant is not required to provide guest parking, but the applicant is proposing to provide 10 guest parking spaces to serve 11 units. That means that one unit will not have a guest parking space. Mr. Mietzner explained that the guest parking spaces would be on a first -come -first -serve basis and would not be assigned to the individual units. He pointed out that it is not likely that all eleven units will have guests visiting at the same time. Board Member Broadway recalled that the applicant provided alternate designs for the elevations that face 244", Street (Units 1 and 11), as well as those that face the T hammerhead (Units 4 and 8). She said she would like the applicant to entertain the idea of applying the alternate design to Units 5, 6 and 7, as well. These units will be visible from adjacent properties and it is not respectful to require them to look at blank walls. Mr. Mietzner agreed that would be possible. CHAIR WALKER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 201.0, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZOING REGULATIONS; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. 2. ADDITIONAL INTEREST SHALL BE ADDED TO THE SIDE AND REAR WINDOWS IN THE FORM OF VARIED SILL OR CASING WIDTHS, MATERIALS, OR COLORS. 3. ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST, SUCH AS ADDITIONAL WINDOWS, VARIATION OF MATERIALS OR DECORATIVE ELEMENTS, SHALL BE ADDED TO THE SIDES OF THE UNITS, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE STREET FACING FACADES, TO AVOID BLANK WALLS. 4. CURBSTOPS SHALL BE INCLUDED FOR GUEST PARKING SPACES TO KEEP FROM DAMAGING LANDSCAPED AREAS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 13 of 14 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There was no administrative report. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting June 21, 2017 Page 14 of 14