Design Review Board

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD/HPC BOARD CITY OF BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON TUESDAY GUIDANCE MEETING 3:00 P.M. June 6, 2023 In Person and Via Zoom www.cob.org CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Shannon Taysi ROLL CALL: Jan Hayes, Michael Knapp, Maggie Bates, Ryan Van Straten, Coby Jones and David Heck / Lexie Costic, David Christensen for HPC Staff Present: Lindsey Kershner, PCDD , Shannon Taysi, PCDD, Kathy Bell, PCDD Project Review Development of a seven-story, mixed-use building on the corner of N. State and E. Chestnut Streets. The conceptual plans include three different use options for the first and second floors that vary due to the proposed vehicle parking locations; two options propose vehicle access from the alley, and one proposes vehicle access from N. State St. All first-floor options are proposed to include commercial uses on the ground floor. Floors three through seven would include residential uses. Design Review is required because the project is in the Downtown urban village design review district and the Downtown Historic District. The project proponent is not requesting any departures from the urban village design standards at this meeting. . Staff Overview Lindsay Kershner said this is the first application being reviewed is subject to the city's newly adopted design review process for projects in urban villages. The Design Review Board evaluates whether the project meets the ten design intents outlined in the urban village design guidelines. The proposal is located in the downtown urban Village Design Review district and the downtown historic district, hence requiring design review. The applicant's written justification for meeting the design intents can be found on pages 9 through 13 of the Design Review Board's packet. The board uses a checklist to organize their discussion since the design intents and the applicant's approach to meeting them are listed on the same page. Additionally, staff provided a memo to the board, starting on page 2 of the packet, which includes background information on the project's pre-application process. The memo also discusses the site's location in the historic district, the design review district, and its position on a pedestrian-oriented street. It further includes details about the surrounding buildings that contribute to the downtown historic district and are listed on the historic register, shown on page 4 of the packet. Applicant Presentation: Applicant Team: Jed Clark, Architect Jed Clark said he is presenting a high-density building proposal for the Color Pot site downtown. The goal is to construct an apartment building with 81 units and 40 parking spaces. The design aims to be modern and complement the historic buildings in the area. The proposed building would be a vertical, wood-frame structure with six stories of apartments on top of a concrete base, limited to 75 feet in height. There are two potential plans for parking access—one with parking on the alley side and one with a courtyard facing the street. The preferred plan is the latter, which allows for a more engaging community space. The design intends to follow guidelines and draw inspiration from adjacent historic buildings. It features a tall, vertically oriented structure with well-defined entries, masonry base, and articulated details. The building would include roof elements, and bold forms and colors will be used to make it stand out in the area. Overall, the proposal is viewed as a study, and further refinements may be made based on feedback and final design recommendations. Board Clarifying Questions: Ryan Van Straten inquired about exploring different parking layouts with a one-way drive lane for better space utilization. The applicant discussed the advantages of the proposed parking layout and how it integrates with the building's design. Jed Clark said mentioned a possible diagonal approach that could be less efficient but might be more space- effective. The plan involves entering from one point and exiting from another. They believe this approach could result in a better parking lot layout, possibly creating more usable space around State Street or on the side street David Heck mentioned two schemes with courtyards, one facing south and the other facing east. In the south- facing courtyard scheme, there is a public amenity located beneath the courtyard, allowing people to access it from below. The question raised was whether this understanding is correct and whether the east-facing courtyard scheme would also have a public amenity. Jed Clark clarified that the courtyard is intended for the tenants of the building and not for the general public. It is located about 10-12 feet above the sidewalk and will have views of the surrounding areas. The space is proposed to be a community area, possibly with amenities such as meeting rooms and a gymnasium. It will have a different appearance from the rest of the apartment building, with lots of glass to create a more public- like feel. However, the courtyard itself is not considered a public space, and the majority of the development is private, with retail and commercial uses planned for State Street and the corner. Public Comment Chris Adams, the owner of Old World Deli, is excited about a new project. He expressed concern about the entrance to the parking garage on State Street, suggesting that it would be highly problematic due to the heavy traffic. Chris prefers that all traffic enter and exit through the alleyway instead. He also wonders about the potential impact of construction on State Street and its residents and business owners. Jed Clark responded to the comment regarding access to State Street, which has limited parking spaces at the bottom. He suggests creating a narrow access with one car in and one car out, using safety barriers, mirrors, and flashing lights to mitigate any potential issues. He mentioned that such setups are common in other places like Seattle. The speaker believes that having only 20 cars going in and out twice a day is a reasonable trade-off to maintain a lively second level with decks and people for interaction. He is not as supportive oft turning the second level into parking, as it would result in a less vibrant space. Overall, the speaker believes that with appropriate safety features, the proposed access plan can be successful. Board Discussion Ryan Van Straten said the plan is to go through each intent one by one, allowing everyone to share concerns or comments. If there is a clear consensus on a response, they will summarize the feedback for the applicant and proceed to the next intent. In case of disagreement, they will discuss further if time permits but may move on to stay on schedule. He acknowledged that some concerns may span multiple intents and might be better addressed in a detailed review later. The aim is to communicate important points of contention to the applicant so they can prepare for the subsequent meetings. Intent S1 - Preserve and use natural systems and features  Achieved: Yes w/ Recommendations  Consensus: Southern facing orientation of the courtyard meets intent. Design in fixed planters along E Chestnut St. have some native plants. Intent S2 - Contribute to the community identity and architectural character of the surrounding area  Achieved: Needs some work  Consensus: Building needs to integrates well with the neighborhood. They are particularly concerned about the signage/cladding due to being in a historical district. The preference is for the courtyard to fit by making the Chestnut side, resemble multiple buildings and following a traditional architectural style with distinct base, middle, and top sections. Intent S3 - Organize the site to prioritize the public realm  Achieved: Not entirely  Consensus: No curb cuts off of N. State Street. Explore covered outdoor seating. Intent P1 - Create an attractive, safe, lively, and inviting community-oriented pedestrian environment  Achieved: Mostly  Consensus: The group would prefer to see more rain coverage in the design of the awnings. There were no other discussions or differing opinions on the matter. Intent P2 - Provide visual interest to and from buildings  Achieved: Too Early  Consensus: The main point conveyed is that the applicant should continue working diligently to follow the guidelines or requirements specified. Intent P3 - Create a network of safe, convenient and attractive off-street linkages for pedestrians  Not applicable to this site Intent P4 - Enhance the overall visual cohesiveness of the surrounding area Achieved: Somewhat Consensus: Feedback for the applicant is encouraging them to utilize the balconies strategically to enhance the design of the building. By incorporating horizontal elements, the design can achieve a more balanced and visually appealing appearance. This approach can help soften the building's vertical emphasis, creating a more harmonious and inviting architectural composition. Intent B1 - Express a clear architectural design concept appropriate for the proposed structures and contextually compatible with the surrounding area Lengthy Discussion  Jed Clark comment: The guidelines explicitly state that the new building should not mimic or replicate historic buildings. The speaker emphasizes the need to be careful when suggesting that the new building should "match" historical buildings. The intent is not to replicate the adjacent historic building's details or appearance, contrary to an earlier comment suggesting adding details that mimic the neighboring building. The new building is intended to have a strong sense of verticality, even though it may appear more horizontal in the mass model. The concern is that once windows and balconies are added, the vertical lines will be broken up, reducing its perceived height. The speaker clarifies that the intent is not to introduce horizontal banding but to maintain verticality in the design.  Ryan Van Straten Response: Overall, the design feedback provided in the meeting should be seen as a broad, conceptual guide for the architects to consider as they continue with the building's design. The feedback aims to capture the desired visual impression of the building, and the architects are encouraged to present a fully rendered version that aligns with the consensus feedback provided by the group. The focus is on achieving the conceptual vision rather than making specific changes to the current massing model. Intent B2 - Create high-quality, durable and interesting buildings that have texture and depth Consensus: The general guidance provided is to ensure a stronger connection to the historical buildings in the surrounding area during the design process. This involves selecting materials and finishing elements for the exterior that consider the context of the neighborhood. The aim is to avoid creating a standalone building that feels disconnected from its surroundings and instead integrate design elements that draw from the existing architecture in the area. Extended discussion tied to B1 and B2: During a discussion among various participants, including Ryan Van Straten, Lexie Costic, David Heck, Jan Hayes, and others, the main topic was the design of a building and its connection to the historical buildings in the surrounding area. The participants emphasized the importance of selecting materials and design elements for the exterior that integrate well with the neighborhood's historic character without necessarily mimicking or matching the existing buildings. They discussed the concept of creating visual cohesiveness with the surrounding area by using materials that relate to the historical buildings without being an exact replica. The idea of a courtyard location was also brought up, with Jan suggesting the possibility of breaking up the mass of the building to visually separate it from the rest of the structure, making it look like three different buildings together. However, it was noted that the decision on how to treat this area should be left to the architect-owner, as there are no clear and objective development regulations, and it's more of an architectural decision. Overall, the participants wanted to ensure that the building's design respected the historical context and integrated well with the neighborhood rather than being an alien structure. They provided feedback and ideas for the architect to consider while making creative decisions for the project. Intent B3 - Reduce the overall impact on the environment and human health during and after construction  Board had nothing to add