CITY OF SNOHOMISH. Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360)

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 SPECIAL MEETING DESIGN REVIEW BOARD In the Postmaster Conference Room Snohomish City Hall 116 Union Avenue WEDNESDAY October 9, :00 PM AGENDA 7:05 2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on items not on the agenda. 7:10 3. APPROVE the minutes of the September 5, 2013, special meeting. 7:15 4. ACTION ITEMS a. DRB File: DRB (P. 1) Applicant: Larry Countryman Proposed: Addition Location: 119 Cedar Avenue 1) Staff presentation 2) Comments from applicant 3) Public Comment 4) DRB Discussion 7:45 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. INDIVIDUAL DESIGN REVIEWS (P. 16) Staff summary of individual member reviews from the preceding month. 8:00 6. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Postmaster Conference Room, Snohomish City Hall, 116 Union Avenue.

2 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 Special Meeting September 5, :00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 6:05 p.m. Members Present: Darcy Mertz Krewson, Chair Ed Poquette Rolf Rautenberg Members Absent: Joan Robinett Wilson Phillip Baldwin Staff Present: Owen Dennison, Planning Director Brooke Eidem, Permit Coordinator Others Present: Robert Lorentson 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 June 12, 2013 Mr. Poquette moved to approve the minutes of June 12, 2013, as written. Ms. Krewson seconded the motion. The motion passed 2-0, with Mr. Rautenberg abstaining. 4. ACTION ITEM DRB File: DRB Applicant: Eddie Trujillo Proposed: Exterior modifications Location: 130 Avenue D Mr. Dennison presented the proposal to the Board. The applicant proposes several exterior improvements to a small commercial building, originally constructed in An application for a parapet roof structure was considered and denied by the Board in December, However the Board did approve trimming the current roof overhang on the east and west, with a condition that the overhang was not reduced more than the overhang on the north and south. The Design Review Board Page 1 Meeting Minutes September 5, 2013

3 current proposal is a phased package of improvements that begins with a cornice and decorative corbels for the roofline. One item of discussion from the recent parapet proposal was whether the slope of the roof is an important aspect of the building to be preserved. The question is still outstanding with the current proposal. The proposed improvements would significantly change the character and appearance of the building. Phase one includes the cornice and corbels at the roofline, and replacing a decorative metal fence surrounding an existing small deck on the east side with a four-foot cedar fence, to create more separation between an outdoor dining area and Avenue D. Painted signs on the east and west façades are also proposed under the initial phase, as an interim measure. Subsequent phases include awnings on the east and west with the name of the business on the apron. Low board and batten wainscoting, with cedar lap siding above, are proposed for a later phase. A treatment for the south window including a header is proposed for the third phase, as well as an alteration to the north window, in which the new siding would partially cover a storefront-style window that is currently obscured by signage. New lighting will be installed, however specific fixtures have not been submitted for review. A wall mural depicting flames is also proposed for the east façade. Overall the proposal complies with applicable Historic District Design Standards. The Secretary of the Interior s Standards for Rehabilitation was important to the parapet discussion, specifically the standard that emphasizes preservation of historic character and materials. The question is whether there is historic value in the existing building that would serve as a cultural resource to the community and warrant preservation, or if the building is merely historic by virtue of age. The building is currently a CMU structure with a sloped flat roof and substantial windows on the north side. Staff believes the proposal will transform the building so that there will be little left of the existing character, aside from the window openings. If certain modifications are allowed and others are not, the project may result in mixing eras on a single building, which is inconsistent with standard 1.B.2.c. of the Historic District Design Standards. If the proposal is denied, the question becomes, what can the property owner do to improve the building, aside from restoring it to its original appearance? Mr. Lorentson stated the building is a very basic 1950s CMU block building and he would like to improve it somehow. He feels the building is ugly and wants to make it blend gently into typical Snohomish architecture as much as possible. The roof has a dip in it along Avenue D; three roof joists are rotted and the roof needs to come off in order to repair it. He would like input from the Board on what would be an appropriate treatment. Ms. Krewson noted the structure is now classified as an historic building, and personal aesthetics should not be a factor in determining whether it is appropriate for preservation efforts. Though the building is very basic, it would be in the best interest of the building and the community to apply the standards. The building does need restoration, however she is concerned that the changes proposed would obscure the original character of the building and create a false sense of history, as it would no longer be recognizable as a 1950s drive-in. Mr. Poquette disagreed, stating it is difficult to determine anything in the building s existing condition that warrants preservation. It no longer looks like a 1950s drive-in. He noted if the Design Review Board Page 2 Meeting Minutes September 5, 2013

4 preservation standards are strictly enforced, it would force the owner to leave it as it is. It would be difficult for the applicant to come up with a safe and attractive design that the Board could approve. He noted the cornices are inappropriate for the building, and something less angular would be more consistent with the simple architecture. Mr. Dennison reviewed traditional 1950s drive-ins and stated many of them had large projecting roofs with broad, wraparound, storefront windows, and large, sweeping neon signs on the roof. The building is of the era and is representative of the use and function, but it is difficult to see it as an example of that architecture. The question therefore becomes a philosophical one: is it the age alone that makes the building worthy of preservation, or is it the intrinsic value of the building itself? Ms. Krewson asked what the intrinsic value would be based on, if not age. If opinion or materials, it may be construed as an arbitrary decision when presented with another building under different circumstances. The cornice was discussed. Mr. Rautenberg agreed that the proposed rounded cornice is inappropriate for the building. He suggested a cornice with straight 90-degree edges for consistency with the style of building. The corbels would then be unnecessary as a supporting element and could either be removed, or modified to blocks for visual interest. The applicant stated the roof overhang will be cut back to match the corbels, and the roof slope will be removed as part of the repair work. It could be built up if the slope element is important and if requested by the Board. Ms. Krewson stated a flat roof is consistent with design standards. Proposed siding was discussed. The applicant stated the reason for the siding is to hide the cinder blocks and make the building feel warmer. Cedar was chosen because it has been used for centuries. The application materials show board and batten siding at the bottom, with cedar lap siding above. However, Mr. Lorentson believes it is the other way around, with the cedar lap siding below. Ms. Krewson noted while the materials are consistent, the combination of board and batten with lap siding makes the building appear shorter and is inconsistent with the 1950s era. Temporary signage was discussed. The Board determined the typographic characters are consistent with the Design Standards, however the scale shown on the east façade is too large and becomes a dominant visual element. The Board agreed if the east façade matched the west façade in size and appearance, it would be less dominating. If the design is changed beyond matching the west façade, it will need to be re-submitted for review. Permanent signage can be reviewed by an individual member of the Board once it is designed. The Board agreed the proposed fence is consistent with design standards. Other items such as the awnings, the mural, permanent signage, and lighting cannot be determined due to insufficient information. Mr. Poquette moved to recommend approval of phase one of the proposal including the cornice as revised to vertical angles, removal of the corbels or alteration to a block format; a flat roofline is consistent with design standards; cedar fencing for the outdoor dining area is approved as proposed; temporary painted signage is approved with the east sign matching the west sign. The Design Review Board Page 3 Meeting Minutes September 5, 2013

5 awnings, murals, permanent signage, lighting, and siding needs to be reviewed in greater detail by the Board before a determination can be made. Mr. Rautenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed DISCUSSION ITEMS a. INDIVIDUAL DESIGN REVIEWS Staff presented individual design reviews conducted the previous three months. b. HISTORIC DISTRICT RAILINGS Mr. Poquette moved to defer discussion of the historic district railings until the next meeting. Mr. Rautenberg seconded the motion. The motion passed ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. NEXT MEETING: The next regular meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the Postmaster Conference Room, Snohomish City Hall, 116 Union Avenue. Approved this 9 th day of October, 2013 By: Darcy Mertz Krewson, Chair Meeting attended and minutes prepared by Brooke Eidem. Design Review Board Page 4 Meeting Minutes September 5, 2013

6 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 October 9, 2013 Applicant: Property Address: Larry Countryman 119 Cedar Avenue Application Date: September 5, 2013 Project Description: Second story sunroom addition Subject Proposal: The proposal is to construct a 270 square foot, second story sunroom addition to a bed and breakfast in the Historic Business District. The proposed addition is located on the south façade, enclosing an existing deck. The deck, exterior stairway, and a rear entry area on the alley were all constructed in 2001 based on a recommendation of approval by the Design Review Board in 1996 with confirmation by an individual member in The area, though located on the rear of the property, is visible from Pearl Street as well as the alley. According to Snohomish County Assessor s records, the property was originally constructed in Various improvements, additions and renovations have been conducted over the years including the rear entry and deck addition, and a large adjacent workshop addition in The property is included among the City s Designated Historic Structures. The current proposal includes a large number of single hung windows on three sides with a band of inoperable windows above. A doorway is proposed on the south façade, although no exterior door is evidently proposed at this time. Existing lap siding will be continued up to the windows. One roof vent is proposed on the east façade. Proposed materials include Hardiplank siding, architectural composition roofing and vinyl windows. The proposed sunroom will not be heated. Project Location: The site is addressed as 119 Cedar Avenue, in the Historic District. Land-Use Designation: Historic Business District Compliance with the Land Use Development Code - Title 14 SMC The proposal does not appear to conflict with development regulations in Title 14 SMC. Design Review Board Page 1

7 HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS The site is designated (zoned) Historic Business District, which allows a broad range of commercial and residential uses. The current uses of the property are as a home and a bed and breakfast, which are listed under the residential uses in Chapter SMC. The bed and breakfast use maintains the primarily residential appearance of the property. Therefore, staff has evaluated the proposal with respect to the residential standards in Section 2 of the Historic District Design Standards. 2.B.2. ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL AT FAÇADES Each façade shall be finished with architectural detail. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The proposed addition includes a substantial number of windows. The only new non-glazed façade area appears to be under the proposed gable, where lap siding is proposed, consistent with existing materials below the windows. Apart from a roof vent, no additional details are evident. 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: Hardiplank siding has been approved as an appropriate material, and composition roofing is among the list of pre-approved materials. 2.B.6. ROOFS All single gable roofs shall have a minimum 6:12 roof. Cedar shingle and composition roofs, hot-dipped corrugated metal and standing seam metal roofs are historically accurate. Roofs for porches or roof decks may have less than 6:12 slope. Eaves shall be substantial, projecting no less than twelve inches. Board evaluation: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Design Review Board Page 2

8 Notes: Staff comments: Composition roofing is proposed with a pitch of 5:12. If determined to be a porch, the roof pitch is consistent. 2.B.8. SKYLIGHTS AND ROOF VENTING Skylights shall be flat, no matter where they are used. Roof venting shall not significantly alter the appearance of historic homes and shall not be visible from the street face of the structure. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The proposed vent will be visible from the alleyway. It is staff s assessment that similar roof venting has precedents in historic homes and it will not significantly alter the appearance of the home. 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: Side-by-side single hung windows are proposed, which will provide a multi-paned appearance. The Board may wish to seek clarification from the applicant on whether wood trim is proposed between window columns and between the hung and fixed windows, as suggested by the submitted image. Design Review Board Page 3

9 2.B.10. 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: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The window arrangement is unusual for Historic District residential buildings but consistent with a conservatory use of the space. As noted above, additional clarification of materials and design for trim materials may be helpful in determining consistency with the standard. 2.B.11. 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. APPENDIX A, SECTION C. Vinyl-clad, operable sashes with the same design and vertical and horizontal dimensions of the existing windows are approved to replace wooden sashes. If vinyl inserts are used, the Design Review Board encourages reuse of existing wood window frames... Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: Vinyl windows are proposed. While vinyl windows are not the preferred material, the standards clearly provide for them for replacement and, by logical extension, new construction. 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. Design Review Board Page 4

10 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false since of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Board evaluation: Notes: Consistent: Inconsistent: More information needed: Staff comments: The proposed addition will abut an exterior wall of an older portion of the building. The Board may wish to inquire about whether and how the existing façade and window will be preserved and whether it can be restored if the new construction is removed in the future (Standards 9 and 10) Design Review Board Page 5

11 Design Review Board Page 6

12 Design Review Board Page 7

13 Design Review Board Page 8

14 Facing north in alley. Photo taken 9/4/13. Design Review Board Page 9

15 Facing northwest in alley. Photo taken 9/4/13. Design Review Board Page 10

16 Area of proposed addition Viewed from Pearl Street at alley Design Review Board Page 11

17 Item 5a Date: October 9, 2013 To: From: Design Review Board Owen Dennison, Planning Director Subject: Summary of Individual Member Design Reviews September 1, 2013 October 3, 2013 There have been no individual reviews this month. Design Review Board Page 12