Full Text
CITY OF REDMOND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 20, 2018 NOTE: These minutes are not a full transcription of the meeting. Tapes are available for public review in the Redmond Planning Department. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Craig Krueger Board members: Diana Atvars, Stephanie Monk, Kevin Sutton and Shaffer White EXCUSED ABESENCES: Henry Liu and Ralph Martin STAFF PRESENT: David Lee and Cameron Zapata, Redmond Planning MEETING MINUTES: Carolyn Garza, LLC The Design Review Board is appointed by the City Council to make decisions on design issues regarding site planning, building elevations, landscaping, lighting, and signage. Decisions are based on the design criteria set forth in the Redmond Development Guide. CALL TO ORDER The Design Review Board meeting was called to order by Mr. Krueger at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTIONED BY MR. WHITE TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 15, 2018 MEETING MINUTES. SECONDED BY MR. SUTTON. MOTION CARRIED (2 abstentions). APPROVAL LAND-2018-01157, Honeywell Cleanroom Phase 2 Neighborhood: Overlake Description: Proposal includes a 5,300-square foot addition, cleanroom facility and office work stations Location: 15015 Northeast 36th Street Applicant: Kirt Neal with Ware Malcomb Prior Review Date: 07/19/18 Staff Contact: Cameron Zapata, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 2 Ms. Zapata stated that the project includes a ground-level addition in the center of the property. Materials have been chosen to match the existing building and includes weather protection, mechanical screening and landscaping. Mr. Neal continued the presentation. The design has not changed significantly since the prior review, but some items have been added to respect previous comments from the Board. A materials board and photographs of the existing site had been requested at the last presentation and these were displayed. Board comments had been generally positive and encouraging. The project is located in the center of the Microsoft campus and not on any public streets or walkways, with one-level business office or manufacturing uses and production on-site. The addition to Building Three is to support this production, the extension of an existing concrete masonry building. Similar materials and scale will be used. Slides of the plan were displayed and described. The space will have very few particulates in the air to benefit production of small components. Outside are workstations in support of the Cleanroom. There are several other Cleanrooms on-site. An employee courtyard is adjacent. Modulation, windows and a canopy area to cover part of the walkway and to create outdoor café space seating will be designed. The canopy will add human scale and general interest to the courtyard. Landscaping will be low shrubs and ground cover with textured walkways. A photo of the existing building was shown to demonstrate that while similar materials will be used, another level of modulation around the building would be designed. Aluminum metal panels surrounds windows. Screening which shields mechanical units is a perforated awning material supported by an aluminum structure. Wood paneling is soffit material from underneath the canopy. Two large trees and two smaller trees will be removed to be replaced according to City requirements. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Krueger: • Asked about the use of the landscaped area to the north of the building and if open space enhancements similar to what Microsoft is doing is planned. Mr. Neal replied that smaller elements were being applied to design. Trees will provide a good cover for the space. A plaza amenity would take away from the casual space. The campus has added a plaza adjacent to Building One, outside of this project. Landscaping is in support of the building and walkways. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 3 Mr. White: • Asked what the second-floor space would be used for. Mr. Neal replied that there was a two-story height space but the extra space was to accommodate equipment, duct work and access around and above the Cleanroom area. • Mr. White asked about access around the crux of the building. Mr. Neal described a slide. All spaces along the east side are for functionality and not an approach to the building. • Mr. White stated no having any issues or questions about the project. Ms. Monk: • Stated liking the effect on the soffits. MOTIONED BY MS. MONK TO APPROVE LAND-2018-01157, HONEYWELL CLEANROOM PHASE 2, WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND STANDARD CONDITIONS. SECONDED BY MS. ATVARS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PRE-APPLICATION LAND-2018-00869 LMC Marymoor Neighborhood: Southeast Redmond Description: Proposal to construct six-story and five-story multi-family residential buildings with commercial space Location: 17611 Northeast 70th Street Applicant: Rocky Flores with Encore Architects Prior Review Date: 09/12/18, 11/15/18 and 12/06/18 Staff Contact: David Lee, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] Mr. Lee stated that at that last meeting the north building had been discussed, and now the remaining east and west buildings would be examined. Mr. Bryan Bellissimo stated that the project would be brought back together as much as possible at the next meeting. Comments from the Board regarding the west building included that balconies could add art pieces for more interest, particularly on the public facing façade to the west; that the overall base appeared heavy; that brick could be brought into the southwest corner, and around varying parapet heights and roofline conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 4 Comments regarding the east building had included more variable window fenestration; gradient panels at edges, and that wood and serrated barriers could simply be white to match windows. Slides of prior renderings compared to changes made were displayed. A holistic and eclectic material pallet will be brought to the next meeting. Art shown was representational as artist have not been selected at this point. Changes effecting F.A.R. have caused the sixth floor to extend to the stair tower. Ribbons of wood tone break up and create a Brick proportions have been played with at the west retail exposure façade. To the southwest, a proposal is to increase balconies to add more weight and depth to the façade. The frequency of art balconies has been increased. The north-south connector has a green wall that screens a portion of the parking garage. Mr. White commented [inaudible]. Mr. Bellissimo pointed out further details for the Board but did not identify locations for the audio recording. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Ms. Monk: • Stated that the project was shaping up nicely. • Ms. Monk liked the west elevation façade. • Ms. Monk stated that the south façade looked more muted in terms of material and color. • Ms. Monk stated that the trail connector looked good. • Ms. Monk agreed with Mr. White that more of a statement could be made in the southwest corner. Ms. Atvars: • Stated that the south elevation would be an important side to wrap the personality of the building. • Ms. Atvars asked about balconies in the corridor between two buildings. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 5 Mr. Bellissimo replied that there were still Juliet balconies and that 1% for the Arts Commission must be publicly facing; however, the corridor is a public through-block connector and the Arts Commission will not identify this as publicly facing. Mr.White: • Asked if there was a reason the balconies were Juliet. Mr. Bellissimo replied that the decision was from a privacy standpoint, and full depth balconies would pinch the width of the space. Ms. Atvars: • Asked if lights connecting buildings would be part of the art. Mr. Bellissimo replied no, but this was being designed by a Lighting Designer on the Consultant Team. Renderings were still in process but there would be approximately thirty lights following the pathway. This detail can be focused on at the next meeting. Mr. Sutton: • Preferred to have maintained on the warehouse concept area rather than broken beams and facings. • Mr. Sutton asked if there was a reason the grade did not return on the left side. Mr. Bellissimo replied that a horizontal gasket and stair pushed in for modulation created a depth change. • Mr. Sutton hoped to see more detail in elevations on the courtyard to the south as the area seems uninspired at this point. Mr. Bellissimo replied that a moment of minimalism had been the idea for the courtyard. • Mr. Sutton agreed with Mr. White regarding adding windows on the upper roof. • Mr. Sutton agreed that the more could be done with the corner other Board members had mentioned. Mr. White: • Asked if there might be an opportunity for a mural at a recess, a hidden piece of art as one turned the corner. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 6 Mr. Bellissimo replied yes, this was a good idea. Mr. Krueger: • Agreed with all Board comments. • Mr. Krueger asked if the eclectic feel would be not just between buildings but within. • Mr. Krueger stated that the south corners could be an opportunity to distinguish from the rest of the building. Old Town Lofts was referred to for a possible dramatic change in materials. • Mr. Krueger agreed with the Board and liked the rest of the project. Ms. Monk: • Loved the green screen at the parking garage and wondered if something eclectic and naturally inspired could be tied in to connect to the trail or park. Mr. Bellissimo continued with the east building. A bay window concept adds varied parapet and interest. Colors are warmer with green colors and earth tones. A material pallet was displayed. An iron spot brick at the internal corner picks up on metal colors, is an anchoring element and plays off the brick tower in the west building. Board form concrete was proposed for texture. The courtyard has more interest and detail based on previous Board comments. More renderings showing different perspectives were displayed. At the south elevation, live-work units have a Portland Pearl District feel. Elevated sidewalks are shared for entering units. Mr. Sutton: • Believed the extra element was not necessary and played more to the north building. • Mr. Sutton asked if serration at linear stretches of the façade could be taken to the corner and around. Mr. Bellissimo replied that turning a corner and also being angled eroded the cleanliness and • Mr. Sutton encouraged the team to re-examine the corners toward the eclectic goal. • Mr. Sutton liked the brick portion at the corner. • Mr. Sutton agreed with the forehead changes. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 7 • Mr. Sutton stated that the thickness of the serrated wall felt better and was okay with the white. • Mr. Sutton asked about the wood. Mr. Bellissimo replied that wood was not on this building any longer but mostly focused on the west building. • Mr. Sutton hoped to see the corners treated differently. Ms. Atvars: • Stated that the exposed side of the building felt bland. • Ms. Atvars agreed with Mr. Sutton that the metal texture could be more productive. • Ms. Atvars preferred the wood to white. • Ms. Atvars asked what material would be used in the corridor between buildings at ground level. Mr. Bellissimo replied that the rendering did not read well, but that this would be board form concrete panel. • Ms. Atvars stated that the concrete panel material would need texture. • Ms. Atvars stated that the three balconies felt tacked on and removing may be better. Ms. Monk: • Appreciated the color scheme. • Ms. Monk gave further comments but did not specify locations for the audio recording. • Ms. Monk stated that the courtyard could have more interest. • Ms. Monk liked the idea of the Pearl District concept. • Ms. Monk stated that natural materials could be tied in more. Mr. White: • Liked the previous lap siding. • Mr. White [inaudible] • Mr. White asked if board form concrete would only be in the corridor. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 8 Mr. Bellissimo replied that board form concrete would be in this location and also wrap around at some of the southern façade areas. Landscape walls were also a board form concrete possibility. • Mr. White stated that the northeast corner could be less typical. • Mr. White liked the flow in the interior courtyard although the materiality was complicated. • Mr. White liked the shape of the northern building but suggested that something different could be done at the edge. Mr. Krueger: • Agreed with looking into the courtyard further. • Mr. Krueger liked the northwest corner with brick, a good start. • Mr. Krueger agreed with Ms. Atvars regarding the visual from the east side and southeast corner; a blank canvas area could be utilized with either color or materials. Ms. Atvars: • Asked to see what would be visible from State Route 520 and other areas, as the rest of the City would not be inside the development but rather would only see the outside from a distance. Mr. Bellissimo stated that the exterior rim has a fun nature and that this should be brought into the courtyard. Renderings read more beige than intended but lighter materials would provide light reflection and remain vibrant in daylight. Mr. Sutton?: • Stated black metal would be hard to make work. • Mr. Sutton? stated that the southeast corner would be a good view from Whole Foods and a significant playground nearby, and themes could be tied in. Mr. Bellissimo replied that the Art Commission was considering all age groups and not only adult art throughout and this would be a great place for this. Mr. Krueger: • Stated that this area could be unexpected in design or art. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 20, 2018 Page 9 Mr. Lee stated that staff would like to extend a thank you for the hard work of the Design Review Board this year and that there would be a full plate of projects in 2019. ADJOURNMENT MOTIONED BY MR. WHITE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:11 P.M. SECONDED BY MR. SUTTON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MINUTES APPROVED ON RECORDING SECRETARY