Loading...
2017-10-18 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Vice Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5'' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Tom Walker, Chair (arrived at 7:25) Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Brian Borofka Lois Broadway Cary Guenther Joe Herr Athene Tarrant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 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 GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 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: PHASE 2 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW FOR HOMESTREET BANK (PLN20170024) Vice Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Mr. Clugston presented the Staff Report, reminding the Board that projects within the Downtown Business (BD) zones are subject to district -based design review under the regulations of 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, which require a 2-phase public hearing and design Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 1 of 11 decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council. The Phase 1 portion of the hearing process was conducted on August 2'. During that meeting, the hearing was continued to October 4' for Phase 2. Due to lack of a quorum on October 4', the hearing was continued to October 18'. He reviewed that during the Phase 1 hearing, the Board looked at the conceptual design of the project and completed the Design Guideline Checklist, which provided guidance for the applicant going forward. The purpose of the Phase 2 hearing is to allow the applicant to design or redesign the initial concept to address the input provided by the public and the Board by complying with the prioritized Design Guideline Checklist criteria. Mr. Clugston advised that the project is located at 614 — 616 5' Avenue South and will include a new two-story office building with a HomeStreet Bank branch and drive -through on the 1st floor and leasable office space on the 2" d floor. The site will be developed with surface parking and a retaining wall, as well as new landscaping and site utilities. The subject parcel is zoned BD3, as are the parcels directly to the north and south. To the west and east are multi -family and single- family zoned properties that are developed. He provided an aerial photograph of the site, which is located south of Howell Street. The new building will be situated closer to the street, with parking behind, and will blend in with development to the north and south. Access will be from the north and come around the back of the building to exit at the south property line. Mr. Clugston summarized that because the project site is immediately adjacent to a multi -residential (RM-2.4) property, a 15-foot landscaped setback must be maintained along the west property line. He explained that, typically, the setback between commercial and residential zones requires Type I landscaping, which creates a dense barrier with two rows of evergreen trees and ground covers. The proposed landscape plan does not quite meet code, but staff believes that it meets the intent of Type I landscaping. The landscape plan in Exhibit 4 shows a variety of landscaping in the area. An existing overgrown Photinia hedge will be retained and maintained, and ground covers will separate the hedge from the two planters next to the retaining wall. If the Photinia hedge is removed, staff recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the Type I landscape standards. He recalled that, at the Phase 1 hearing, the Board expressed a desire to break up the appearance of the retaining wall, and the applicant is proposing a mix of trees, shrubs and ground covers in the planters. Lastly, Mr. Clugston reviewed that the maximum height allowed in the BD3 zone is 30 feet above average original grade, and the building elevation sheets in Exhibit 4 indicate the building will be less than 30 feet in height. Height will be verified again during building permit review and during construction through inspections. He recommended the Board approve the application with two conditions relative to the Photinia hedge and compliance with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions. Brad Barbee, Project Manager, MG2 Corporation, was present to represent the applicant and provide highlights of the proposed project. He provided a photograph of the existing Photinia hedge that would be left intact as a visual buffer to the retaining wall. He referred to the site plan, which identifies the proposed improvements. He noted that the plan did not change significantly following the Phase 1 hearing, but the open space design was further developed. He also referred to the landscape plan and said the intent is to make the open space an inviting space for the community to enjoy and to create a buffer between the open space and the driveway. He noted that a different type of concrete would be used for the plaza area to set it apart from the sidewalks. Mr. Barbee referred to the photometric plan and recalled that a lot of concern was expressed at the Phase 1 hearing that lighting would flood onto adjacent residential properties. He explained that the light fixtures will have shields so the light will drop off drastically as it reaches the wall on the back edge of the property. The intent is to properly light the parking lot for safety, but the light will be focused on site without a lot of spill over onto adjacent properties. Mr. Barbee advised that the rooftop units would be a bit visible and screening would be provided for them. They will also take advantage of the height of the tower to further screen the rooftop units. He also noted that the retaining wall and 15- foot landscaped setback would further screen the building from adjacent properties. He provided a street view of the property, showing the open space and entrance to the property, as well as the existing alleyway. He noted that the retaining wall would be constructed of stone to be more of an architectural element, and there will be landscaping along the wall. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 2 of 11 Mr. Barbee said the building elevations have not changed since the project was presented in August. He pointed out the pedestrian connection between the public space and the sidewalk, noting that the memorial bench and flower post would be reinstalled in their current locations. He recalled that, at the Phase 1 hearing, there was some concern about visibility for the existing driveway and alleyway. The retaining wall was cut back as far as allowed by code to create better visibility. Board Member Tarrant asked how tall the light standards in the parking lot would be, and Mr. Barbee answered that they would be about 16 to 20 feet tall, with a 3-foot concrete base. Board Member Tarrant questioned if the light standards need to be that tall. Mr. Barbee answered that the photometric plan analyzes the height the fixtures need to be, as well as the shields that will be on them to help shield the light from adjacent properties. Board Member Tarrant asked if the applicant is required to replace the memorial bench in the same location. Mr. Barbee answered affirmatively, and noted that both the bench and the flower pole are located within the right of way and not on the subject parcel. Board Member Tarrant asked if the applicant has given any thought to creating a billboard of some type that advertises community events at the northeast corner of the building to break up the blank wall. She noted that the streetscape would be very different than what currently exists, and the blank wall could become something that contributes to the community. Mr. Barbee replied that each HomeStreet Bank branch has a community board inside, typically in the lobby area. The new bank will also provide a conference room that can be used for community events. Board Member Broadway asked the applicant to describe or explain why a 6-foot chain link fence is needed along the landscaped area on the western edge of the property. Mr. Barbee said the intent is to discourage pedestrians from crossing through the landscaped area and to provide additional security. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that there is already an existing chain link fence underneath the plantings on the west side of the property. Mr. Barbee said the intent is to provide a fence from the front to connect to the current fence that is intertwined with the existing vegetation. Board Member Broadway asked if the Photinia hedge would maintain its integrity and continue to meet the requirements of Type I landscaping if it is trimmed back. Mr. Clugston said he cannot speak to the long-term survivability of the hedge, but it has been there for a long time, and he knows they can be significantly trimmed and still come back. He said the intent is to maintain the hedge to a reasonable height. Brian Way, Landscape Architect, PACE Engineers, said the existing hedge is mature and Photinia tends to want to grow larger and larger. As much as they are long lived, it is possible that the hedge will decline because of construction disturbance. If that occurs, the applicant would provide a double row of trees as required by the Type I landscape standard. In addition to retaining the hedge, the applicant is proposing to plant 6-foot tall conifers in the area, as well. By the time the conifer trees grow, they will compensate if the hedge has to be removed. Mark Williams, President, Park Place Edmonds Condominium Association, noted that the condominiums are adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank property. He voiced concern that the proposed light standards would intrude onto the condominium properties. He also noted that the existing Photinia hedge does not extend all the way to the condominium property, but there are Bromeliad trees that block their view of the proposed new building. Board Member Borolka asked if the applicant would consider lowering the light standards adjacent to the residential properties. Board Member Tarrant said she would prefer light standards that are just tall enough to provide proper lighting. Vice Chair Strauss referred to the photometric layout, noting that there would only be two lights along the back wall, and the existing hedge will block light from encroaching onto adjacent properties. Mr. Williams asked if the lights would remain on all night. Board Member Broadway said her expectation would be that they would be on whenever it is dark to provide safety. Chair Walker suggested that if there is concern about the lights being on all night, perhaps they could be on a timer and turn off at some point during the night. Board Member Guenther pointed out that there will be 5-foot panels under each light pole and the cutoffs will be designed so that all the light shines towards the parking area and does not spill onto adjacent properties. Board Member Broadway said she would be Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 3 of 11 concerned about using a timer for the lights because the lights are needed for security reasons. She agreed with Board Member Guenther that the lighting would be more intense on the parking lot, but would drop off dramatically as it reaches the edge of the property. Board Member Tarrant suggested that perhaps a condition of approval could be that the applicant be sensitive towards any light pollution after the project is complete. Chair Walker cautioned that the Board must make a decision based on the information provided in the staff report, and he agreed with Board Member Guenther's conclusion that the light would not spill over onto adjacent properties. No one else indicated a desire to speak to the Board, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Board Member Borofka asked if the landscaping plan must be approved by staff. Mr. Clugston answered that the landscape plan would be reviewed and approved by staff as part of the Building Permit. If the hedge on the western boundary is removed, the applicant would be required to provide additional landscaping to meet the Type I requirements. Board Member Broadway said she is bothered by the idea of having a fence with a locked gate along the hedge. She felt this could create an indefensible locked space where bad things could happen. If the gate is locked, someone could be trapped in that area, which would not be visible from the alley or street. Board Member Herr pointed out that the proposed new retaining wall would be an excellent target for taggers, and the applicant is likely trying to keep people from getting into that area. While he understands Board Member Broadway's concern, he felt the locked gate was necessary. Board Member Tarrant asked if it would help to require security cameras in the area. Board Member Broadway did not believe this would be an effective solution. She said she agrees with Board Member Herr's perspective as to why the applicant wants to keep people out of the area. Vice Chair Strauss said she lives close to the subject parcel and knows that people walk through the area to get from the alley to the businesses on the other side of the subject parcel. Blocking off this cut - through access will disappoint a lot of people who currently use it. Chair Walker asked if blocking off the access would cause pedestrian traffic to spill into others where it is not desirable. Vice Chair Strauss said people will have to use 4r' or 5'' Avenues instead of cutting through the subject property. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43; AND APPROVE THE DESIGN FOR HOME STREET BANK (PLN20170024) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. 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 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. 2. IF THE PHOTINIA HEDGE IS REMOVED FROM THE 15-FOOT LANDSCAPED SETBACK AT THE WEST PROPERTY LINE DURING DEVELOPMENT, FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TYPE I PLANTING STANDARDS FOUND IN ECDC 20.13.030.A IS REQUIRED FOR THAT SPACE. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING — DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION (PLN20170030) AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN20170029) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 4 of 11 Kernen Lien explained that the Port of Edmonds has submitted an application for a new marine -related building located on property at 471 Admiral Way, which is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Two applications have been submitted, one for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and another for design review of the project. Because the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decisions pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A decisions, and a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design aspects of a proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who will make the decision on both design and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken. Mr. Lien provided a map and an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the subject parcel. He explained that the minimum required setback for C-zoned properties that are not immediately adjacent to residential properties is 15 feet landward of bulkheads for buildings and 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. The section of the Admiral Way right-of-way adjacent to the subject site is 60 feet wide, so the site well exceeds the setback requirement. Additionally, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way is approximately 100 feet wide, so parking is also more than 60 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek outlet. Mr. Lien advised that the maximum height allowed in the CW zone is 30 feet, and the proposed structure would be 30 feet tall to the top of the parapet. As noted in the Staff Report, the subject parcel is located within the flood plain according to the draft Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain maps. The City has decided to use the draft FEMA maps to determine which properties are to be subject to the regulations with regard to flood plain development. Normally, zoning height is determined by measuring from vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure. However, for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coast A Flood Zones, such as this site, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above the base flood elevation. According to the draft FEMA flood zone map (Attachment 16), the base flood elevation for the subject parcel is 12 feet, so zoning height would be measured from 14 feet for the proposed development. Mr. Lien reviewed that in the CW zone, all new buildings must provide parking at a flat rate of one on -site parking space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. With the proposed building size of 6,500 square feet, 13 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is proposing 24 parking spaces, so the proposal exceeds the minimum parking standard. The parking standard would still be met if some of the stalls are eliminated to accommodate a garbage enclosure at some point in the future. Mr. Lien advised that Type IV landscaping is required along the western property boundary adjacent to Admiral Way. As per the landscape plan, the landscaping adjacent to Admiral Way will include a variety of shrubs and ground cover, as well as street trees. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping along the western edge of the property meets the requirement and will provide a visual separation and soften the appearance of the building and parking area when viewed from the street. He advised that Type III landscaping would typically be required around the perimeter of the site. However, because the site is surrounded by similar uses and no side or rear setbacks are required in the CW zone, staff feels the ADB could waive any landscaping requirements along the eastern, northern and southern boundaries pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000. Mr. Lien explained that because the proposal includes 24 on -site parking spaces, the applicant is required to provide 420 square feet of Type V landscaping (17.5 square feet per parking space). As per the landscape plan, there will be four areas of Type V landscaping for a total of about 440 square feet of landscaping. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the Type V landscaping requirements. Mr. Lien provided elevation drawings of the proposed new building, noting that the mass of the building is subdivided vertically and horizontally. The building displays a distinct top and bottom, and window variations, awnings, material Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 5 of 11 changes, color variations and roof form all help to break up the building's mass. He advised that no rooftop mechanical equipment has been proposed for the new building. Mr. Lien recommended approval of the design for the proposed new building with conditions pertaining to rooftop mechanical equipment, street trees, and a trash/recychng collection area. Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, commented that this is the last developable piece of land on the marina side of the Port. The Port is really excited to have the opportunity to develop the parcel very selectively. Ultimately, the intent is to incorporate the same design features as the Jacobsen's Marine Building, which has been a very successful development. They are encouraged by the market factors that will bring new business to Edmonds, creating a benefit to the customers, the port and the general community. The building will provide a book -end affect, with Jacobsen's Marine to the north of the boatyard and the new building to the south. Sean Rafferty, Project Manager, Jackson Main Architecture, explained that, currently, the site is a vacant lot that is semi -paved. There is a parking lot to the south and a boatyard to the north, and Jacobsen's Marine is located on the other side of the boatyard. In addition to a signature marine -related tenant, the building will accommodate multiple smaller tenants. The design features similar elements to those used for the Jacobsen's Marine Building (same materials, same colors, same brick base, and a nautical theme). Materials will be non -reflective metal panels and windows will be added to provide visual interest and opportunities to display products. The front of the site (northwest corner) was dressed up using rod -iron fencing and posts to mimic the pilings you find on buildings along the waterfront. Board Member Herr asked if the sign identifying the "Port of Edmonds" is part of the proposal. Mr. Rafferty answered that there will likely be a sign for the signature tenant. The sign reads "Port of Edmonds" because the Port does not yet know who the signature tenant will be. Board Member Borofka referred to the chain link fence that is proposed on the south and east sides of the property. He voiced concern about the long-term integrity of the appearance of the fence. He asked how it would be maintained and if the Port would consider putting a rod -iron fence on the south side extending from Admiral Way. Mr. Rafferty said fencing on the south side would be limited and would not extend all the way to the corner of the building. While the fence would be visible from the parking lot, it would not be highly visible from the street. Board Member Broadway noted that the existing portable building would also help block the fence from street view. Chair Walker asked how many tenants the Port anticipates for the new building. Mr. McChesney said that is unknown at this time. The common thought is that the tenants would include boat sales, marine retail, marine repair, marine insurance, etc. He advised that there will be a huge closure of marine -related businesses that are currently located in South Lake Union to make room for the new Vulcan project. The Port anticipates there will be quite a number of opportunities to recruit the types of tenants they want. Board Member Broadway asked how the boats would access the showroom space given that the boatyard would be located directly adjacent to the fence on the north side. Mr. Rafferty answered that there would be gates on the north and south sides, and the showroom space could be accessed via the parking area. Mr. McChesney added that the boatyard is directly across the street from the marina and the travelift, which hauls boats out of the water and crosses Admiral Way into the boatyard. There would be access from the boatyard to both Jacobsen's Marine and the new building. Board Member Broadway asked if a right-of-way access is needed given that the boatyard and subject property are both owned by the Port. Mr. McChesney affirmed that no right-of-way access would be needed. Board Member Tarrant asked who would adjudicate the maintenance and aesthetic performance of the display area so that it does not become unsightly. Mr. McChesney answered that the Port takes pride in its facilities, and it maintains them to the highest standard. The marina is the "front porch" of Edmonds, and it is the Port's duty and obligation to make sure it is kept up to that standards. The standards will be written into all leases for the subject property. The Port's administration Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 6 of 11 building is located right across the street from the subject property, and the Port staff will not allow a blight to occur on the site. Board Member Tarrant said she anticipates that the signature tenant of the new building will want to have its own sign on the front of the building. However, it would be wonderful if there was some type of signage to also identify the building as part of the Port of Edmonds. This would be particularly helpful on the railroad side for people who travel through Edmonds by train. Mr. McChesney agreed that is a good idea to explore further. Board Member Guenther observed that the Jacobsen's Marine Building, as well as the new building, are one-story structures that are 30 feet tall. The buildings seem huge in scale for single -story structures. This height is often associated with "big box" stores. However, he understands the need for the taller buildings to accommodate boats, and he likes the horizontal elements of design that help break up the building and bring it down to a human scale. Board Member Tarrant asked how much reflective factor the glass will have. Mr. Rafferty answered that low -reflective glass could be used if that is what the Board desires. Board Member Tarrant commented that the building will be in a good location to pick up the sunset. Board Member Herr asked if any portion of the new building would accommodate two stories. Mr. Rafferty advised that a portion of the building (up to 3,000 square feet or 50%) can be mezzanine space. Board Member Herr asked about the large doors on the south side of the building. Mr. Rafferty explained that the doors are intended to provide access for large boats to be moved in and out of the building. They also help break up the blank fagade on the back. Chair Walker asked for more information about the fence that is proposed for the south side of the property. Mr. Rafferty said the fence will separate the boatyard from the subject property, but there will be a gate that allows access between the two properties, as well. Board Member Borotka asked if the applicant is proposing any rooftop mechanical equipment. If so, it will be important for staff to review and approve the location of the equipment, as well as appropriate screening, as part of the Building Permit review. Mr. Rafferty answered that the building will be a pre-engineered structure, which typically does not have rooftop equipment because it cannot handle the load. All of the mechanical equipment will be internally located, and no units will be mounted on the roof. Board Member Broadway said she has walked by the subject site for many years. While she acknowledged the City could not require it, she suggested it would be nice if a bench were located somewhere on the west side of the building along the sidewalk. She noted that it is a long way between the two City parks, and it would be great for pedestrians to have a place to rest. The remainder of the Board agreed that a bench would be desirable, but not required. Mr. McChesney emphasized that the Port is in the "public access" business and pedestrians are invited and appreciated to visit the marina and other Port properties. He agreed to take Board Member Broadway's suggestion under advisement. Board Member Broadway said she would like the project to include a trash enclosure, particularly because she anticipates future uses on the site will generate hazardous waste that will need to be disposed of. Mr. McChesney advised that the Port has stringent requirements for handling storage of hazardous waste, and not only because it is required by the regulatory agencies. The Port does not allow containers of liquid chemicals to be cast about freely. Chair Walker asked if lighting is proposed along Admiral Way. Mr. Rafferty said there are existing street lights, and some of the signs on the building may also be illuminated. There may be some ground lighting, as well. BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER (PLN20170029 AND PLN20170030) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 7 of 11 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. STREET TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES IN CALIPER. SPECIES, LOCATION AND SPACING OF THE STREET TREES WILL BE DETERMINED DURING CIVIL PLAN REVIEW WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 3. IF A TRASH/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA IS ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A GATED TRASH ENCLOSURE TO SCREEN VIEW OF THE WASTE AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION (PLN20160061) AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (PLN20160060) Mr. Lien advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The ten units are proposed to be divided between two structures, each with five units. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. He explained that design review projects that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the applications are being combined. The Architectural Design Board will forward a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner regarding design, and the Hearing Examiner will issue the decision regarding both design and the variance request. Mr. Lien provided an aerial view of the subject parcels, noting that the properties are zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM- 1.5). He explained that the subject site is a corner lot, with frontage on three sides: 228' Street Southwest on the north, 95' Place West on the east, and Edmonds Way on the south. Access to the site will be via a single driveway accessed off 228' Street Southwest. The proposed buildings meet all of the setback requirements for the RM-1.5 zone. Mr. Lien advised that the height limit in the RM-1.5 zone is 25 feet, with an additional 5 feet if all portions of the roof above 25 feet have a 4:12 pitch or greater. The applicant is seeking a height variance for both of the proposed buildings due to special circumstances related to shape, size, topography and location. The site is essentially down in a hole and fill will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and appropriate slope for connection to utilities in the adjacent rights -of -way. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this negatively impacts the potential height of the buildings. The proposed structures are designed to be 30 feet in height from finished grade, and the project is designed to have a 4:12 pitched roof above the 25-foot elevation of the building. Mr. Lien said the parking requirement for 3-bedroom units is two spaces per unit. The proposal actually identifies 22 parking spaces, two in the garages of each individual unit, and two additional surface parking spaces for guests on the internal drive aisle. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements in ECDC 17.50. Mr. Lien noted that Type III landscaping is required around the perimeter of the site, and Type II landscaping is required along the western boundary. There is existing vegetation on site that will have to be removed to accommodate development. The applicant is proposing to plant Emerald Green Arborvitae along the western boundary, which will be backed by a 6-foot board fence. Arborvitae is typically used more as a hedge than trees, but together with the fence, shrubs and ground cover, staff believes it will create a visual separation between the subject property and the adjacent single- family property. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the Board and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements, and staff feels the proposed landscaping along the western property is consistent with the intent Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 8 of 11 of the Type H landscaping standards. Staff also recommends that the Type III landscaping provided along the northern, eastern and southern property boundaries is consistent with the requirements of the Type III landscape standards. Mr. Lien concluded that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Westgate Woods Townhomes with the condition that the applicant must either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit -lot subdivision in order to comply with the setback requirements. He reminded the Board that the development site consists of two parcels, and Building B would straddle the property boundary. John Bissell, Project Planner, Harmsen Associates, commented that Mr. Lien did a great job of presenting the project and explaining how it complies with the design requirements. He advised that the project utilizes a variety of materials, and modulation and different roof types and cap ends have been used to provide interest. While Mr. Lien already described the difficulties associated with developing the site, Mr. Bissell added that the south side of the property along Edmonds Way has an existing wall. Sometime in the past half century, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) improved Edmonds Way using a self -elevated curb, raising the elevation on the north side of the street. They put a wall on the subject parcel, which was already below the elevation of the road. It is also difficult to make the project work because it has street frontage on three sides. Board Member Broadway asked what would be done to compact the soil to avoid future problems caused by settling. Mr. Bissell answered that the developer would use a process that requires the soil to be compacted each time a layer of fill is added. The details of the process will be provided as part of the construction plans that are submitted at the time of Building Permit application. Each lift that is put down will be inspected to ensure there is adequate compaction. This is a Building Code requirement, and settling is no longer a significant risk or problem. Board Member Herr asked if the units would be sold or rented. Mr. Bissell said it is the developer's intent to sell the units, but no one in City government nor the builder can control who ends up owning the units after they are finished. Board Member Herr commented that, with land at a premium, it is very ambitious for the applicant to take on a project in what was once used as a quarry site that needs significant fill. Mr. Bissell agreed that it is both difficult and costly to develop the site, and he believes the proposed plan will work on the site. Vice Chair Strauss said it appears that the rooflines on the back of the buildings will all be the same. She also asked if modulation would be used to separate the units on the back side. Mr. Bissell referred to the elevation drawings where the modulation is more apparent. He advised that the back of the building would have modulation, as well as roof overhangs and cantilevering. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the units would be differentiated by color on the back, similar to what is proposed for the front. She noted that the back of the units would face 228'' Street Southwest, so they should be aesthetically pleasing to look at. Mr. Bissell said he assumes that the color scheme depicted on the front of the buildings could be carried over to the back of the buildings, as well. Vice Chair Strauss asked how the units would be separated so that each can have its own color. She suggested that the trim on the face of the building could be carried all the way up the 3' floor to provide a differentiation between the colors. Chair Walker referred to the landscape and vicinity planes, noting that the back side of the building would be visible from 228' Street Southwest. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that Type III landscaping would be required around the property to screen it from the streets. Type H Landscaping will be required along the western boundary to screen the development from adjacent residential uses. Board Member Borofka voiced concern about the large expanse of wall at the ends of each of the buildings. He asked if the proposed vegetation would screen the wall from the street view. Mr. Lien said that dense vegetation with trees would cover the entire wall and screen it from the street view. Looking from Edmonds Way, the end units would be down in a hole, with landscaping between the buildings and Edmonds Way. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the new grade of the site would meet up with the street on the west side of the property or if a retaining wall would be needed. Mr. Lien said there is no plan to add a retaining wall in this location, but a 6-foot fence is Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 9 of 11 proposed. The property is in a bowl, with slopes on all sides. The intent is likely to bring the site closer to the level at the property line on all sides. Board Member Tarrant pointed out that when traveling westbound on Edmonds Way, the proposed development will be quite visible. She voiced concern that headlights from oncoming cars may impact those who live in the units. Board Member Herr pointed out that the living spaces would be a full height above Edmonds Way so headlights should not be a problem. Board Member Guenther pointed out that Edmonds is becoming more built out. With fewer sites to develop, it is likely that the sites with more extenuating circumstances will also be developed. It seems appropriate that they allow the height to be measured from the fill level in this case and not the original grade. At the request of the Board, Mr. Lien reviewed the variance criteria, noting that, in order to obtain a variance, the applicant must meet all of the criteria: • Special Circumstances. Because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. • Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. • Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. • Not Detrimental. That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. • Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Vice Chair Strauss asked if issues relative to the bus stop have been worked and if the bus stop would remain in its current location. Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. Chair Walker asked if there would be a 6-foot fence on top of the retaining wall, and Mr. Bissell noted that there is an existing fence on top of the wall, and the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that they add something to protect from falls. Board Member Broadway asked if 228' Street Southwest is the only place to access the site from street grade, and Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. He said 95'' Place West would still be lower, and the wall would wrap around the site. BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES (PLN20160061) TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURES, THE APPLICANT MUST EITHER COMLETE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR APPLY FOR A UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 20.75.045. BOARD MEMBER HERR SECONDED THE MOTION. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 10 of 11 VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION TO READ, 2. THE REAR ELEVATION OF BOTH BUILDINGS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FRONT IN COLOR MODULATION. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Mr. Lien announced that the Board's next meeting will be a joint meeting with the Planning Board on December 13' ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: The Board discussed the proposed change that would make Board Member Strauss the lay member and Board Member Tarrant the professional member. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the change must be approved by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 11 of 11