Loading...
2018-04-04 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting April 4, 2018 Chair Walker 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 Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Cary Guenther Joe Herr Athene Tarrant Joshua Shope APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Lois Broadway Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2017 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER TARRANT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE MODIFIED TO ADD "ELECTION OF OFFICERS" UNDER ITEM 8 (ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS). BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. MINOR PROJECTS: SIGN MODIFICATION AT 22019 HIGHWAY 99 (PLN20170060) Mr. Clugston presented the Staff Report, advising that the applicant, Edmonds Village LLC, is seeking relief from the sign code to be able to apply signage on a nonqualifying building frontage at 22019 Highway 99. The application is tricky because the proposed new building has not been approved yet. The development application (BLD20171452) is currently being reviewed by staff. He noted that design drawings for the proposed project were attached to the Staff Report (Pages 26-28). Mr. Clugston explained that sign permits are typically reviewed by staff for code compliance according to ECDC 20.60.105.A. However, review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required for an application that requests modifications to any of the sign code standards. In this case, the applicant is requesting a modification to allow signage Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 4, 2018 Pagel of 5 on the north fagade, which is a nonqualifying building fagade. The project does not require a public hearing, but the Board must review the request and make the final decision. Mr. Clugston advised that the subject site is located at the southeastern corner of Highway 99 and 220' Street SW. The existing building at 22019 Highway 99 has a sign on the north fagade that was approved in early 2000. It is now nonconforming because the fagade is a not a qualifying building frontage per ECDC 20.60.025.A.2. Although nonconforming signs can be maintained, they cannot be expanded, extended, rebuilt, reconstructed or altered in any way except for replacing a sign face. Again, Mr. Clugston advised that Edmonds Village LLC currently has a building permit in review at the City for an extensive remodel of the existing building. As proposed, the north wall would be removed and reconstructed with a drive- thru window. The existing nonconforming sign would be removed as part of the project and could not be replaced because the north wall of the proposed new building would not be a qualifying fagade. The applicant is seeking a modification to allow a sign on the north fagade. He referred to the renderings of the proposed elevations, noting that they show only the applicant's desired fagade appearances and signage, not what has been approved or could be approved. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that, as per ECDC 20.60.015.13, the Board can only approve modification requests that arise from one of the following two conditions: The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography. Mr. Clugston explained that the site is rectangular in shape and fronts only two streets, but the subject building sits towards the middle of the larger site and the site slopes gradually down to the east. There are three existing curb cuts to the site off of Highway 99 and two off of 220' Street SW. Viewing the subject building from entrances on 220' Street SW, where the site topography is lower, is a challenge. Therefore, the request for signage on the north fagade is not unreasonable. However, signage on the north fagade would not be visible from the south left turn lane on Highway 99 as indicated by the applicant in Attachment D of the Staff Report. He referred to photographs on Pages 37-39 of the Staff Report, which were taken from various locations around the site to provide context for the requested modification. He also referred to photographs on Pages 40-42 of the Staff Report, which illustrate what the site looks like from a car driving up the hill on 220' Street SW. If you look hard, you can see the existing sign on the existing building. Because of the unique access setup and the topography of the site, staff believes that the request meets this condition. • The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. Mr. Clugston advised that staff does not believe this condition is present. The proposed remodel does not have architectural elements that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage compared to other buildings in the area. Mr. Clugston advised that, if the Board agrees that the requested modification meets at least one of the two conditions (see above), they must also consider the following two criteria: • The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design andproportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity. Looking at the proposed elevation drawings on Pages 26-28 of the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston said it appears that the proposed new signs on the north fagade would be consistent with the site's overall sign design theme. The new signs will provide a fresh look for the building and be more attractive than what currently exists. • In no event shall the modification result in signage that exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent, Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is not requesting any additional sign area. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Clugston summarized staff s belief that the sign modification request seems premature and not well considered. However, it does meet the situational requirement for review, as well as the criteria for approval. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: A. The approval is valid for wall signage on the north facade if a drive-thru window is approved and constructed at 22019 Highway 99 pursuant to BLD20171452. If the application in BLD20171452 is not approved or is revised to not include a drive-thm window on the north wall, this sign modification approval is null and void. B. A building permit is required for signs pursuant to ECDC 20.60.010. C. In accordance with ECDC 20.12.090.A, this approval must be acted on within 18 months of the date of approval, unless an extension request is timely filed and approved per ECDC 20.12.090.13. It was noted that the applicant was not present to present his/her proposal. Board Member Herr pointed out that there are currently signs on the south facade of the existing retail building located to the north of the proposed building renovation. By allowing these signs on a nonqualifying facade, the City has already set a precedence. Mr. Clugston responded by clarifying that qualified facades are those that front on a street or those that have a main pedestrian entrance. In the case of the existing retail building, the main pedestrian entrance is located on the south facade. If a pedestrian entrance were added to the north facade of the proposed building renovation, it would be considered a qualifying facade, too. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the "coffee" sign on the south facade of the subject building is code compliant. Mr. Clugston answered that it is not because the south facade is not considered a qualifying facade. He said the Staff Report makes note of this and clearly states that a sign on the south facade would require ADB approval. The applicant has discussed the idea of adding a pedestrian entrance to the south facade, but it is not shown on the current drawings. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the sign and the pedestrian entrance would have to be tied to the same retail space. Board Member Herr answered that the code does not require that the sign must be for the business with the pedestrian entrance. It simply requires that there be a pedestrian access in order to be a qualified facade. Mr. Clugston confirmed that is the case. Board Member Tarrant said she supports the proposed modification for this particular site. She emphasized that signage is important on a 45 mile -per -hour roadway. From a safety standpoint, the more visible the sign, the more clearly people will know where they are going. As the project progresses, it would also be helpful to provide some signage along the street for people to see as they approach the site. If people are able to identify where they are going, they can make safer turns into the property, avoiding the need to slam on the breaks at the last minute. Board Member Guenther asked how the total sign area is calculated for the subject property. Mr. Clugston answered that the allowable sign area is measured on the west facade only, which equates to about 85 Square feet. This total sign area can be applied to signs on the facade of the building or a pole sign. If the applicant's request for a modification is approved, the sign area would stay at 85 square feet, but there would also be a sign on the north facade. If the applicant were to add a pedestrian entrance on the south facade, the total sign area would increase. Board Member Guenther asked if the additional sign area allowed via a pedestrian entrance on the south facade could also result in additional sign area on the north facade. Mr. Clugston answered that the additional sign area would not apply to the north facade. Vice Chair Strauss expressed her belief that a sign on the north facade would be of little value because it would only be visible from the street for a few seconds as a car drives by. She said she has driven by this corner a lot and has rarely noticed the building that is set back from the street. She did not believe that a sign would help the situation. Board Member Herr commented that once the building is renovated to an increased height, it would be more visible from the street. Board Member Shope agreed and asked if the proposed renovation includes a two-story building. Mr. Clugston answered that Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 the current rendition for the building permit identifies a two-story structure. Board Member Shope felt that a taller building would be more visible from the street. Chair Walker commented that the applicant's request for a modification appears to be reasonable, particularly given the topography change coming up the hill on 220' Street SW. Having a sign on the building would be helpful. He concluded that, all around, the renovated building would look better than what is there now. Board Member Tarrant commented that signs are not just needed to direct people who are looking for a business, they are also used for advertising. They want businesses in Edmonds to do well, and she supports the staff s recommendation. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVE THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO ALLOW SIGNAGE ON THE NONQUALIFYING BUILDING FACADE BECAUSE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN ECDC 20.60.015 AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOUND IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED: A. THIS APPROVAL IS VALID ONLY FOR WALL SIGNAGE ON THE NORTH FAQADE IF A DRIVE- THRU WINDOW IS APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED AT 22019 HIGHWAY 99 PURSUANT TO BLD20171452. IF THE APPLICATION IN BLD20171452 IS NOT APPROVED OR IS REVISED TO NOT INCLUDE A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW ON THE NORTH WALL, THIS SIGN MODIFICATION APPROVAL IS NULL AND VOID. B. A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR SIGNS PURSUANT TO ECDC 20.60.010. C. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 20.12.090.A, THIS APPROVAL MUST BE ACTED ON WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF APPROVAL, UNLESS AN EXTENSION REQUEST IS TIMELY FILED AND APPROVED PER ECDC 20.12.090.B. BOARD MEMBER HERR SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Election of Officers BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2018. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER HERR TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2018. BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS, AND THE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: The Board Member welcomed new member, Joshua Shope. The Board asked if there are any projects on the calendar for Architectural Design Board review. Mr. Clugston answered that he anticipates the Edmonds School District's project to redo the baseball field at Edmonds Woodway High School will come before the Board in June. There are a few other larger projects that are working their way through the process, as well. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting April 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5