Loading...
2017-07-05 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting July 5, 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 Brian Borofka Cary Guenther Joe Herr Athene Tarrant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Lois Broadway Staff Present Keman Lien, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2017 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER HERR 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 HEARING FOR EDMONDS VISIT APARTMENTS, A 19-UNIT MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIAETD PARKING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8509 — 244TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND IS ZONED RM-1.5. 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 July 5, 2017 Pagel of 5 Mr. Lien presented the Staff Report, advising that the applicant is proposing to construct a 19-unit, multi -family development and associated parking. The 19 units are proposed to be divided between two structures. Three of the units will have garages, with the remainder of the parking being provided in a surface parking area. He explained that the proposal is a Type III-B review process, which requires a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold determination. Projects that require SEPA are reviewed by the Architectural Design Board in a public hearing, and the Board's decision is appealable to the City Council. He reviewed that, when recommending approval of a development application, the Board must find that the proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Mr. Lien advised that the subject property is located near the intersection of SR-104 and Highway 99 and is zoned Multi - Family Residential (RM-1.5). The RM-1.5 zone allows a maximum density of one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of property. The lot size allows a maximum of 19 units, and that is what the applicant is proposing. He provided an aerial photograph of the site, which is located behind the existing Denny's and Arby's Restaurants. The subject property is a flag lot, with no direct access from 240 Street. Access is proposed via an easement through the Denny's property. Mr. Lien explained that because the property is a flag lot, only side setbacks apply. The side setback requirement in the RM-1.5 zone is 10 feet, but there is an exception that allows uncovered decks, porches and patios to extend into the setback area. Both of the proposed structures are compliant with the side setback requirements. However, some patios and stairs on the western side of Building 2 extend into the setback, but no more than the one-third allowed by the exception in ECDC 16.30.040.C.3. The height limit in the RM-1.5 zone is 25 feet, but an additional 5 feet is allowed if the project includes a 6:12 pitched roof. As proposed, both buildings would have roof pitches of 6:12, and both buildings would be less than 30 feet in height from average grade. He summarized that the proposed project is consistent with the setback and height requirements for the RM-1.5 zone. Mr. Lien advised that 33 parking spaces will be required for the project, and the applicant is proposing that three be located in the Building 2 garages. The rest of the spaces will be surface parking area in front of the buildings. As proposed, 13 of the spaces will be compact size. ECDC 18.95.020 allows up to 50% of the parking stalls to be reduced in size if it can be demonstrated that there is enough area to provide all the stalls at full size. The applicant has demonstrated that there is enough area to provide all the parking spaces at full size, and less than 50% of the stalls are proposed at reduced size. Therefore, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements in ECDC 17.50. Mr. Lien noted that, because the parcel is landlocked, addressing stormwater has been a struggle. One option is to come out into the Denny's property, where a project is currently under design review, but the applicant has had trouble negotiating an easement with the property owner. The applicant is now proposing to take stormwater water out the north side, and the adjacent property owner has submitted a letter saying he would be willing to work with the applicant in that regard. Mr. Lien advised that the applicant has proposed a trash enclosure with a 6-foot fence in the northeastern comer of the site. The enclosure area will include sufficient space for a 20-foot turnaround radius to accommodate both fire trucks and garbage trucks. Mr. Lien reviewed that, as per ECDC 20.13, three types of landscaping are required for the proposed development: Type 1 landscaping is required along the eastern property boundary to buffer the site from the adjacent commercial development. The applicant is proposing a 4.5-foot wide planting strip along the eastern property line, which will be planted with arborvitae, infilled with shrubs and ground cover and backed by an existing 5- foot fence. The proposed landscaping should provide a dense barrier consistent with the intent of the Type I landscaping requirement. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 5, 2017 Page 2 of 5 • Type III landscaping is required along the northern, western and southern property boundaries, and the proposed landscaping is consistent. • Type V landscaping is required within the surface parking area. With 30 parking spaces proposed in the surface parking area, 525 feet of Type V landscaping is required. The proposal includes 603 square feet of landscaping in six landscaping islands within the surface parking area, which exceeds the requirement. Mr. Lien recommended that the Board approve the project, as proposed, with the two conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Board Member Borofka asked if the configuration of the trash enclosure would be impacted if the stormwater is changed from the north to the east, and Mr. Lien answered no. Board Member Borofka asked if changing the stormwater would impact the site design or landscaping, and Mr. Lien answered that it should not alter the layout on the site too much. However, the site design could be impacted if the applicant fails to obtain an easement on adjacent properties to the east or north. While staff does not foresee this happening, Condition 2 in the staff recommendation is intended to provide flexibility to address situations of this type. Steve Barnes, Cornerstone Architectural Group, said he was present to represent the applicant, Ron Gursh. He provided a view of the proposed project, noting that the intent of the design was to appear more single-family residential in nature. For example, the project was divided into two units rather than one large one. In addition, each of the units has an outside entrance, with a covered entryway. The buildings are situated on the west and north property lines so that the parking area will be hidden from adjacent properties. With the exception of the Denny's site, none of the surrounding multi -family residential units will be able to see the parking area. Mr. Barnes noted that the west side of the Building 1 will be built into the hillside to allow for 3-story units, and some outdoor space will be provided for each of the individual units. Sidewalks will be provided for people to move from the buildings to the street. The trash enclosure will provide easy access for both garbage trucks and fire trucks. As proposed, the project will provide a good mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units. The 3-bedroom units will be two stories with their own garages. In addition, there will be a small office for the property manager in the middle of Building 2. Mr. Barnes summarized that the proposed design uses many elements that are common in single-family housing, such as covered porches, individual storage areas, etc. In addition, windows will be oriented towards the east where there is a nice view of the Cascades. The proposed design includes modulation of both the facades and the rooflines to provide a variety of interest on the buildings. Board Member Tarrant asked if the applicant gave any consideration to covering the parking areas to provide weather protection. Mr. Barnes said this has been discussed as an option, but the applicant didn't want to complicate this portion of the review by including canopies over the parking spaces. Although it is still a possibility, space is tight and adding covered parking would require a reduction in the landscaped areas. Chair Walker commented that the north elevation of the proposed Building 2 seems to be less attractive. Mr. Barnes pointed out that the rooflines on the north fagade are articulated, and there are railings on the decks. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that the building would be separated from the adjacent property by trees. Chair Walker pointed out that Vine Maple and Hinoki Cypress trees do not grow tall. He suggested that another type of tree might create a better barrier. Mr. Barnes said he likes Vine Maple because they do not grow tall and it is possible to decorate around them with other types of landscaping. Vine Maples are also a native species, which the landscape architect tries to use as much as possible. Chair Walker agreed that Vine Maples are attractive, but he suggested that perhaps a taller species could be mixed in. Mr. Barnes pointed out that there are existing trees along the property line, and the intent is to keep the new landscaping light. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 5, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Board Member Herr asked if all of the units would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible, and Mr. Barnes answered that all of the lower units could be made ADA accessible, and they will definitely build the number that is required by code. Board Member Borofka asked if the applicant is proposing any other lighting standards other than those identified on the buildings. Mr. Barnes said there are already lights in the parking area, and the applicant plans to add one new standard. The rest of the lighting will come from the cutoff fixtures on the buildings. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that, based on the proposed parking plan, the best approach would be to locate the ADA accessible units at the end of Buildings 1 and 2 near the proposed ADA parking spaces. Mr. Barnes agreed. Vice Chair Strauss requested more information about the proposed office space in the middle of Building 2. She asked if it would require additional parking. Mr. Barnes answered that the space would be occupied by the property manager, and there would be no additional parking requirement to serve the office space. Vice Chair Strauss asked where visitors would park, and Mr. Barnes suggested that perhaps visitors could park in the turnaround space near the trash enclosure when there are no trucks present. Mr. Lien reminded the applicant that parking would not be allowed in the turnaround space if it is also designated for fire access. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the turnaround space for the garages meet code standards, and Mr. Barnes answered affirmatively. Chair Walker asked if there is sufficient space for cars parked in the garages to back out. Mr. Barnes responded that the turnaround space in front of the garages would remain open at all times. No parking would be allowed in this area. Chair Walker closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Strauss commented that the applicant did a great job of submitting documentation and staff did a great job of analyzing it. Board Member Guenther concurred and said it looks like a complete package that is nearly ready to submit for building permit. He commented that if the Board is expected to provide design input, it would have been better for it to occur earlier in the process. Mr. Lien explained that there has been a lot of discussion between the staff and applicant, and he treats design review similar to preliminary plat review to make sure what applicants are proposing is feasible and meets the code requirements. Because stolrnwater was a concern, a stonnwater plan was required. He agreed that the application provides a lot of details, particularly when it comes to site layout to make sure everything works. This is particularly important given that the applicant is proposing to construct the maximum number of units and sketching in all of the required parking was difficult. The intent was to make sure the application met all of the code requirements before it was submitted to the ADB for review and approval. Board Member Herr pointed out that some of the doors appear to be exposed to weather. He commented that, from a builder's perspective, he would not use wood doors in exposed areas. Mr. Barnes agreed and said no decision has been made yet regarding door material. CHAIR WALKER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHESNIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030 AND ZONING REGULATIONS; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED EDMONDS VISTA APARTMENT PROJECT 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 THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE CODES. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 5, 2017 Page 4 of 5 2. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: There was no administrative report. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Vice Chair Strauss proposed that the Board have an opportunity to review the design guidelines and development code and perhaps identify provisions that give too much leeway to an applicant. She would particularly like to review the design guidelines to identify how they can be made tighter. Board Member Borofka agreed that it would be appropriate for the Board to spend some time reviewing the design guidelines and development code, in general. For example, the City Council has adopted resolutions related to sustainability, climate change and energy. Given the talent on the Architectural Design Board, it would be appropriate to consider how they can help in terms of brainstorming ideas on how to freshen up the code to address these concepts better. Vice Chair Strauss referred to the comment letter the Board received relative to the Edmonds Vista Apartment Project, suggesting that there are already too many apartments in the area and green space would be preferable. She suggested the Board take a fresh look at the design standards and consider how to preserve green space in Edmonds, particularly in the downtown area. Mr. Lien advised that the City has been working to update the development code for a number of years, including the design guidelines. He agreed to discuss with Mr. Chave the possibility of scheduling a discussion between the staff and Board relative to the development code and design guidelines. Board Member Borofka inquired regarding the Board's extended agenda. Mr. Lien reviewed that he is currently working on a 10-unit townhouse development on Edmonds Way with an associated variance request for height. He is also working on an application for a new marine retail space on the Port's property. Both of these projects will come before the Board soon. In addition, the Board will be asked to revisit the multi -family residential project at the corner of 3'd Avenue and Edmonds Street again. He explained that there have been a substantial number of small changes that could result in a larger cumulative change. Staff will be bringing the application back to the Board to make sure the project is consistent with their approval. Board Member Tarrant informed the Board that she is no longer living within the City of Edmonds, and she questioned whether or not it would be appropriate for her to continue to serve on the Board. Mr. Lien advised that if she is serving in one of the "professional" positions, there is no residency requirement. However, there is a residency requirement for those who serve on the Board as lay persons. He agreed to check the requirements and report back. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting July 5, 2017 Page 5 of 5