CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890

Transcription

1 CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360) :00 1. CALL TO ORDER: Roll Call NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING DESIGN REVIEW BOARD In the Postmaster Conference Room Snohomish City Hall 116 Union Avenue WEDNESDAY May 8, :00 PM AGENDA 7:05 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on items not on the agenda. 7:10 3. APPROVE the minutes of the April 10, 2013, regular meeting. 7:15 4. ACTION ITEMS a. DRB File: DRB (P. 1) Applicant: Denney Taylor, LLC Proposed: Window replacement and garden wall Location: 212 Avenue D 1) Staff presentation 2) Comments from applicant 3) Public Comment 4) DRB Discussion b. DRB File: DRB (P. 15) Applicant: John First Proposed: Columbarium Location: 913 Second Street 1) Staff presentation 2) Comments from applicant 3) Public Comment 4) DRB Discussion 8:45 5. INDIVIDUAL DESIGN REVIEWS (P. 23) Staff summary of individual member reviews from the preceding month.

2 8: ADJOURN NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 12, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Postmaster Conference Room, Snohomish City Hall, 116 Union Avenue.

3 CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES Snohomish City Hall 116 Union Avenue Postmaster Conference Room April 10, :00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Darcy Mertz Krewson, Chair Ed Poquette Rolf Rautenberg Joan Robinett Wilson Members Absent: Phillip Baldwin Staff Present: Owen Dennison, Planning Manager Brooke Eidem, Permit Coordinator Others Present: Jim Kane Paul Kaftanski, City Council Liaison 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on items not on the agenda. There were no public comments on items not on the agenda. 3. APPROVE minutes of March 13, 2013 Mr. Poquette moved to approve the minutes of March 13, 2013, as written. Ms. Robinett Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed ACTION ITEM Mr. Dennison stated the first action item, file DRB, was withdrawn. The item was removed from the agenda. DRB File: DRB Applicant: Jim Kane Proposed: Commercial deck Location: 111 Avenue C Mr. Dennison presented the proposal to the Board. The subject building was constructed in 1908 and is on the City s list of designated historic structures, referred to as the Snohomish Hardware Building. The applicant would like to construct a roof-covered deck and stairway off the rear of Design Review Board Page 1 Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013

4 the building, on the east façade. There is no view from a public street or sidewalk; the vehicular access to the rear of the building is via an easement on the neighbor s property. Proposed materials include a corrugated steel shed roof at a 3:12 pitch with a 9:12 gable above the existing second story French doors, composite decking, wood structural elements, and one-inch and twoinch metal tube railings. Images from a 1995 application have been provided. Prior to 1995 the east wall was solid. The two double French doors and two windows were added, as well as the stairs shown on the application. The stairs have since been removed; decking will provide access to the second floor doors. Applicable standards include 1.B.2, Commercial Building Style. The standard states that each façade shall be finished in architectural detail. The deck will be constructed against the existing building, but will not alter the building itself except where it is attached. The current detailing on the building will not be altered, and the deck will create additional modulation to the east façade. The standard also requires modifications to be consistent with the identity and visual character of Snohomish. Mr. Dennison stated the deck will not be visible except from the rears of adjacent buildings. Standard 1.B.2 also requires architectural style to be consistent throughout. Staff has no concerns with style, as the porch structure does not appear to be reflective of a particular era of construction and creates no appearance of false history. Proposed building materials are metal, wood, and composite decking. All proposed materials appear to be consistent with the standard, though it is unclear whether perforated, pressure treated wood will be used for the support posts. Fence standards were used to review the proposed railings. Standard 3.B states that no hollow metal tubing smaller than one-inch outside diameter is to be used. The proposed railings are one- and two-inch outside diameters. Standard 3.C.5 states that plain pipe is not permitted for railing and fencing. Staff would appreciate the Board s comment on the applicability of this standard, as it has been discussed with previous proposals. In the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard nine state that additions and alterations to an existing building shall not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. In addition, new work shall be differentiated from the old and be compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion. The proposed deck will modify the visual appearance of the east façade, but will not alter the building itself and will be clearly differentiated from the existing structure. Standard ten states that new additions and construction should be removable. The proposed deck appears to meet the standard. Mr. Kane confirmed the deck will be removable. The attachment holes will be drilled into the walls to bolt in the eight-by-ten beams. There are already some holes in the building which are not noticeable. He does not intend to use perforated, pressure treated wood; he plans to purchase timbers, then seal the wood and stain it for an aged look. He stated he is open to alternatives to plain metal piping, but he chose it because he thought it looked nice. The railing will be custom work done by a family member, so it is possible to change the design. Stairway risers will be Design Review Board Page 2 Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013

5 metal. Applicable standards were discussed. A majority of the Board agreed that the proposed deck will enhance the modulation of the east façade. Mr. Rautenberg stated the building gets its identity through its commercial industrial appearance, and the proposed deck is a departure from the integrity of the building. He stated the gable roof in particular is inappropriate for the original style of the building. Ms. Robinett Wilson stated the deck is located on the rear of the building and does not affect the visual character. Mr. Poquette noted the building has already been modified through the addition of the doors and windows in Ms. Krewson stated there is flexibility in the standards to allow modifications that do not create a false sense of history. She pointed out the proposed addition to the Carnegie building as an example of a modern addition to an historic building. The newer construction could be removed in the future, and the original structure would remain intact. Mr. Kane noted he is still working with a structural engineer on the project, and an I-beam may be added to the deck, which could make it look more industrial. Proposed railings and balusters were discussed. Ms. Krewson noted plain pipe railing is specifically not permitted in the Historic District Design Standards. The Board showed examples of details that could be added to bring the railings into compliance with the Standards. The Board agreed a revision to the railings could be reviewed by an individual member. As the work will be a custom job done by a family member, Mr. Kane agreed to bring photos of previous work, or renderings of a revised proposal. Mr. Poquette moved to approve the proposal with clarification that perforated, pressure treated wood is not proposed, and with the condition that the design of the railings will be revised and resubmitted for individual design review. Ms. Robinett Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1, with Mr. Rautenberg voting nay. 5. INDIVIDUAL DESIGN REVIEWS Staff presented individual design reviews conducted the previous month. 6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Postmaster Conference Room, Snohomish City Hall, 116 Union Avenue. Approved this 8 th day of May, 2013 Design Review Board Page 3 Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013

6 By: Darcy Mertz Krewson, Chair Meeting attended and minutes prepared by Brooke Eidem. Design Review Board Page 4 Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013

7 CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Design Review Number: DRB Meeting Date May 8, 2013 Applicant: Property Address: Denney Taylor, LLC 212 Avenue D Application Date: April 30, 2013 Project Description: Window replacement and garden wall Subject Proposal: The proposal concerns a listed, historic, single-family dwelling in the Historic District. According to Snohomish County Assessor s records, the building was constructed in The property also contains a 323 square foot structure at the rear alley that was constructed in 1910 and a garage of indeterminate age on the alley. While in need of maintenance, the primary structure has retained significant features, including wood siding, window trim, and wood windows on the ground floor of the front façade, and glass detailing around the door. None of the structures on the site have evidently been maintained in recent decades. The smaller, rear structure appears to be in derelict condition. According to the applicant, the floor of the accessory structure has rotted and is unsafe. The current owner, who, by his own account, has lived on the property for 38 years, stated that the structure has not been occupied for about 30 years and that the foundation posts are decayed. The proposal has several components. As part of an overall restoration of the primary structure, the applicant proposes to replace existing wood and aluminum windows on the side, rear, and second floor on the front façade with double hung vinyl windows. Existing window trim will be preserved. The existing wood windows and door on the first floor of the front façade will be restored. Existing ornamental shutters will be removed. Architectural composition roofing is proposed. This is among the pre-approved improvements identified in the Historic District Design Standards. Pursuant to SMC , the applicant requests approval to demolish the small rear residential structure based on findings that preservation of the structure is physically and/or economically infeasible. In addition to general restoration of the garage, new carriage style, roll-up doors are proposed to replace the existing doors. The applicant also proposes to construct a six-foot garden wall along the south property line. The subject property is designated Single Family. The property to the south is designated Design Review Board Page 1

8 Historic Business and contains a gas station and several retail uses. The lighted canopy over the gas pumps is in the north portion of the gas station adjacent to the subject property. As part of the development of the gas station, a four-foot chain link fence with wood slats was installed on the property line as a screen. Due to canopy lights, vehicles, and other activity on the commercial site, the current fence provides inadequate screening for the single family use of the subject property. The wall would be comprised of cinder block or concrete masonry units with stone mortared to the wall on the north side and ends and a top cap. Project Location: The site is addressed as 212 Avenue D. Land-Use Designation: Single Family Residential in the Historic District Compliance with the Land Use Development Code - Title 14 SMC Per Chapter SMC, fences are limited to three feet in height within the front yard setback and six feet along other site boundaries in residential designations. Staff believes that a six-foot wall within the front yard setback along the south boundary can be justified according to the commercial standards applicable to the gas station property. It is not clear whether either the primary structure, the garage, or the accessory residential structure fully comply with required setbacks. However, no increase in any potential nonconformity is proposed. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 2.B.1. GARAGES AND PARKING AREAS Garages shall be at the side or rear of residential structures. Garage doors shall not be forward of the front façade of the residence. No off-street parking shall be in the front yard setback. Site details shall highlight and provide a sense of pedestrian scale at building entries, and help offset the prominence of cars, garages and driveways. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The existing garage is located at the rear of the property with the garage doors facing the alley. 2.B.2. ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL AT FAÇADES Each façade shall be finished with architectural detail. Board evaluation: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Design Review Board Page 2

9 Notes: Staff comments: and restored. Except for the existing shutters, architectural detailing will be preserved 2.B.4. HISTORIC BUILDING MATERIALS ARE ENCOURAGED Building and surfacing materials are appropriate which are the proven equivalent in texture and appearance to historic materials such as wood, brick, masonry, and stucco. The use of vinyl siding is prohibited. Modern building materials may be used if consistent with historic design standards. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The applicant has indicated that existing surface materials will be restored, except that the roof will be replaced with composition roofing. 2.B.9. WINDOWS Window size and spacing shall depend on architectural context. Historically, vertically formatted, double hung, single hung, and casement windows are typical. These window formats have wide vertical trim and a wider cornice at the top. Multi-paned windows, with wood or lead mullions are appropriate. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: No format change or removal of trim is proposed for windows. 2.B.11. WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM All windows and doors shall have trim and be stylistically appropriate. Vertical side trim shall be at least 3.5 wide. Head trim at windows and doors shall be at least 20% wider than side trim. Corner boards are encouraged. All windows shall have sills. In historic houses, the glass plane is set back from the plane of the exterior wall. Board evaluation: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Design Review Board Page 3

10 Notes: Staff comments: No change to the window trim is proposed. The Board may wish to confirm that the vinyl inserts will preserve the current recess of panes from the exterior wall surface. 2.B.12. WOOD WINDOWS ARE PREFERRED Wood windows are preferred. Original wood windows shall be retained and restored when possible. Where new windows are to be used, trim details shall resemble historic window trim by use of simulated sills and wide trim. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The existing wood windows on the front façade will be retained and restored. The proposal will replace all other windows on the structure. It appears that some original windows have been replaced with aluminum frames. However, several upper, rear windows appear to be original wood windows with mullions. The Board may wish to discuss the potential for restoration of these windows with the applicant. 3.B.8. NO PLANIN CONCRETE BLOCK FOR FENCES AND WALLS Plain concrete block or cinder block shall not be used. Manufactured masonry block may be used provided it exhibits decorative surface, with the DRB determining its acceptability. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The proposal is for exposed cinder block on the south side facing the gas station. The north side and ends would be sheathed in stone and mortar. The Board may wish to discuss other alternatives, such as split-face CMU that would provide a less austere block face to the gas station. 3.C.1. FENCE HEIGHT No fence may be of a height greater than six feet, except to provide screening for commercial activities as required by state, county or city law or ordinances. Design Review Board Page 4

11 Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: Standard is met. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION 2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: In general, historic materials, features, spaces, and construction techniques that characterize the property will be preserved and restored. However, several windows on the rear that appear to be original from the submitted photos will be replaced with vinyl windows. Staff does not have information on the current condition of these windows. 6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: Most historic features will be restored rather than replaced. PLANNING STAFF CONSIDERATIONS: Staff has no particular concerns regarding this application, which will restore a significant historic resource. After interior and exterior review of the small accessory building, staff Design Review Board Page 5

12 concurs that restoration would likely be extensive and costly and would result in a structure with potentially little utility. Staff suggests that exterior boards should be considered for replacement of deteriorated siding boards on the house or garage, as appropriate. Design Review Board Page 6

13 View of main house. Lower windows are proposed to remain. Design Review Board Page 7

14 Northeast corner of primary structure Rear of primary structure Design Review Board Page 8

15 Front façade. Lower windows proposed to remain, upper aluminum windows are proposed for replacement Design Review Board Page 9

16 View of garage building. Doors proposed to be replaced with carriage style doors. Garage from the east Design Review Board Page 10

17 Proposed carriage style garage doors View of neighboring property. Design Review Board Page 11

18 View of neighboring property from backyard of 212 Avenue D. Proposed garden wall. Design Review Board Page 12

19 Interior view of existing accessory building, proposed for demolition. Interior view of existing accessory building, proposed for demolition. Design Review Board Page 13

20 Interior view of existing accessory building, proposed for demolition. Accessory building, southwest corner (from alley) Design Review Board Page 14

21 Accessory building, northwest corner (from alley) Aerial image of site Design Review Board Page 15

22 Action Item 4b CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Design Review Number: DRB Meeting Date May 8, 2013 Applicant: Property Address: Application Date: Project Description: Subject Proposal: John First 913 Second Street Columbarium The site is on the grounds of the St. John s Episcopal Church. The proposal is to install landscape improvements at the rear of the church to create a formal garden with trees and other plantings, benches, a water feature, cenotaph, and columbarium. While the location is within the Historic District, only a fence permit would be required, if applicable. To create a private context for visitors to the space, vegetated wire structures in metal frames or living fences are proposed along the south boundary, which abuts a parking lot for a commercial use. These structures appear to be the only elements subject to design review. The vegetated walls would vary between six and eight feet tall. The questions for the Design Review Board are 1) whether the vegetated fence or wall structure should be regulated as a fence, in which case the materials and the height would not be permitted, or a hedge or similar landscape element; or 2) whether the Board believes that the SMC provides adequate latitude to permit the installation as an approvable alternative to the standards under the modification provisions in Chapter SMC. Project Location: 913 Second Street in the Historic District Land-Use Designation: Historic Business District Compliance with the Land Use Development Code - Title 14 SMC If approved by the Design Review Board, the proposal will comply with the provisions of Title 14 SMC. Chapter SMC contains regulations for landscaping, fences, and walls. Fence requirements for non-residential and non-public uses require only compliance with the Design Standards. As both the subject site and the adjacent lots share the same land use designation, no landscape buffers are required. As no site clearing, grading, or removal of significant trees or other vegetation is proposed, no prior approval of a landscape plan is required. However, SMC Design Review Board Page 16

23 Action Item 4b F allows applicants to submit for consideration a landscaping plan that differs from the specific criteria set forth in this chapter, if the proposed landscaping complies with the stated purpose and intent of the chapter and, in the opinion of Design Review Board or City Planner, is more effective than would result by following this chapter. Therefore, staff believes that the Design Review Board has authority to approve modifications to the regulations in Chapter SMC, subject to a determination that a modified approach to screening the site is more effective than would result by following the chapter. Among the intent statements in SMC A are provide screening between different land uses and provide transition between different land uses. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 1.A.4. PUBLIC OUTDOOR SPACES ARE ENCOURAGED Public outdoor space such as eating and seating areas, plazas, retail alcoves and inner courtyard spaces are encouraged. Board evaluation: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Notes: Staff comments: The proposal furthers the intent of this standard. 3.B. MATERIALS FOR FENCES AND WALLS The following items shall not be used in the visible construction of fences and walls: chain link, wire mesh, plastic, barbed wire, razor wire, hollow metal tubing smaller than one-inch outside diameter, plywood, chipboard, particleboard, engineered wood products, pipe fittings used for plumbing or steamfitting, cast concrete without decorative treatment. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The structure will be constructed with a wire grid, which appears to be a specifically prohibited fence material. The structural components of the fence are designed and required to support climbing vegetation. At maturity, the plants are anticipated to largely cover and conceal the underlying structure. The appearance that the Design Standards are evidently intended to prohibit would not be visible. Without the vegetation, the structure will not provide the intended screening. 3.C.1 FENCE HEIGHT No fence may be of a height greater than six feet, except to provide screening for commercial activities as required by state, county or city law or ordinances. Board evaluation: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Design Review Board Page 17

24 Action Item 4b Notes: Staff comments: If considered a fence, elements that are eight feet tall would not comply with the six-foot maximum height in the Design Standards. PLANNING STAFF CONSIDERATIONS: The proposal is somewhat unique in terms of the land use and the use of landscape materials. It is staff s interpretation that the Design Review Board has the latitude to recommend approval of the proposal based on findings that the use, site, and materials constitute a unique circumstance. Adequate findings should avoid establishing a precedent for other applicants in dissimilar circumstances. Design Review Board Page 18

25 Action Item 4b Design Review Board Page 19

26 Action Item 4b Design Review Board Page 20

27 Action Item 4b Design Review Board Page 21

28 Item 5 Date: May 8, 2013 To: From: Design Review Board Owen Dennison, Planning Manager Subject: Summary of Individual Member Design Reviews April 4, 2013 May 3, DRB Fence at 907 First Street Ms. Robinett Wilson reviewed and approved the subsequent proposal for a metal fence. The proposal was originally discussed by the full board at the December, 2012 regular meeting. Staff will have the file available at the meeting. Design Review Board Page 22