Document Redmond_doc_b94bc55a03

CITY OF REDMOND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD December 6, 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, Henry Liu, Ralph Martin, Kevin Sutton and Shaffer White EXCUSED ABESENCES: Stephanie Monk STAFF PRESENT: David Lee and Benjamin Sticka, 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 1, 2018 MEETING MINUTES. SECONDED BY MR. SUTTON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL LAND-2018-00376, Modera River Trail Neighborhood: Downtown Description: New 6-story mixed-use development with approximately 233 apartment units and approximately 5,605 square feet of retail space Location: 15801 and 15945 Northeast 85th Street Applicant: Dale Turner with GGLO Prior Review Dates: 05/17/18 and 08/02/18 Staff Contact: Benjamin Sticka, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 2 Mr. Sticka stated that the applicant had made changes to the building as a result of FEMA flood information, with the results being that no portion of the building which had been underground would no longer be, as the result of a FEMA requirement. The site is approximately 1.5 acres located on the southeast corner of Northeast 85th Street and 158th Avenue Northeast. At the August 2, 2018 meeting, Board comments included changes to the northwest corner design and arcade. There are revisions to the courtyard elevation. Staff is recommending approval and looked to the Board for concurrence. Mr. Steve Yoon with Mill Creek Residential, the Developer and Contract purchaser, explained the changes made to the northwest corner. While the garage had been relocated, the façade remained as constant with themes discussed previously with the Board as possible. Mr. Ted Panton with GGLO explained that the design, by and large, remained intact from the last meeting even with changes made. Take-aways from the last Board meeting included refinements at the northwest corner, ground plane of the northwest retail area and a deeper look at the south frontage. The site is unique in that an urban statement would be created. The corner element in previous iteration was a block form that filled out the corner, but this has been changed to a scallop which eases the site lines and gives more of a sculptural feel. An upturn to a roof had been adjusted per a Board recommendation but there were some technical limitations given the use inside. The gradual taper upwards would provide more energy than the previous version. Mr. P.J. Benenati, Landscape Architect with GGLO, stated that weather protection at the arcade along the north side of the project was an issue for the Board at the last meeting, and that planting had been moved to the lower side of a low retaining wall 18” tall leaving an approximately 10’ wide walkway completely undercover. While the area is a deep recess, this is not sunken and retail remains active to the street. Integrating seating for the bus stop would be important as well as easy access up and down the arcade. Part of the terrace at the corner had been pulled back at the corner to pick up on the architectural massing move above. Bike parking would be on the street and a pedestrian ramp to the Bike Room would be for easy access. Mr. Panton continued that there was a volume in outdoor views creating a strong visual connection to retail, reducing the barrier to being a pedestrian through-way. A deviation request was being made regarding awning heights in the arcade as a design other than presented would add additional clutter. A stair had technical issues and had been moved inside. The vertical element in the center of the courtyard had been retained as this created an interesting shelter element. Parking was extended up but the same design expression was kept; the last version was determined to have the most depth, three dimensionality and serving the courtyard best. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 3 Mr. Benenati believed that landscaping remained similar to the previous presentation. There would be pedestrian scale banding of the decorative paving. The trellis structure would give a visual connection into the courtyard as well as a canvas for lighting elements and potential art. Mr. Panton stated that a service room had been replaced with a functioning stair to help activate the street. Regarding materials, the north façade featured contrasting warm tones, wood-type textures and cementitious materials. The material board was displayed. The west façade included resin core panel and metal siding for bays and spaces, and cedar along the retail storefront, bike room and stairway. On the east façade there would be a metal ribbon element transitioning to lap product. The courtyard elevation would be lap product. Mr. Benenati reviewed that the transition from ground plane to courtyard to roof deck had been discussed as needing to be visually connected to each other and some reconfiguration had occurred. The roof included mounted conifer trees, fire pit lookouts and outdoor dining. Planting remained consistent with the previous presentation, northwest native. Mr. Krueger asked if anyone in the audience had questions or comments and there were none. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Atvars: • Did not have any criticisms. • Ms. Atvars stated that a good job had been done for aesthetics in moving the parking. • Ms. Atvars asked if the material board panels with white at the top would have contrasting pieces or brown tones. Mr. Benenati replied that the light tone matched the same product, but a change added to the base metal top expression. • Ms. Atvars stated liking this material. • Ms. Atvars commented that the material on the sign element still had issues but this was not a major concern and was curious if other Board members had comments. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 4 Mr. Liu: • Stated that the northwest corner now established a better dialog with City Hall. • Mr. Liu stated that on the northeast canopy felt high and asked how high this was. Mr. Benenati replied 14’ and acknowledged that the scale on the slide drawing was off. • Mr. Liu asked how far the canopy projected out. Mr. Benenati replied • Mr. Liu believed the project was good and had no further comments. Mr. Martin: • Believed that the project was always good and had become stronger. • Mr. Martin asked if something could be done on the opposite corner of the truncated corner in the courtyard plan for perspective or geometry. • Mr. Martin commented that the lattice work to the garden was more sculptural than the previous version. • Mr. Martin stated the project was fantastic and looked forward to seeing the project built. Mr. Shaffer: • Also liked the previous version of the lattice work better as there was more definition. • Mr. Shaffer liked the change to the northwest arcade. • Mr. Shaffer liked the bay windows that become balconies at upper levels. • Mr. Shaffer stated this was a fantastic project. Mr. Sutton: • Asked where the box rib siding would go. Mr. Benenati replied on the west façade and at the ribbon element. • Mr. Sutton asked if the material was flat or box. Mr. Benenati replied box. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 5 • Mr. Sutton did not see this reflected in the rendering. • Mr. Sutton asked if this ran horizontal or vertical. Mr. Benenati replied vertically on the ribbon, and on the west façade horizontally. • Mr. Sutton stated that although the scale is hard, the rendering could have included a zoomed-in view. • Mr. Sutton stated being in favor of the project, but that staff should look at this detail to be sure this makes sense. Mr. Benenati commented that flesh panel tends to pillow, as seen around town. • Mr. Sutton asked if along the long horizontal stretch, a vertical orientation to the box rib, would continue around the east side. Mr. Benenati replied yes. • Mr. Sutton stated this was a great project and that the other Board members could decide if the detail truly would need scrutiny by staff. Mr. Krueger: • Stated that the project had come along way since the first presentation. • Mr. Krueger liked the facing towards the north and towards the public space. • Mr. Krueger liked the northwest corner. • Mr. Krueger asked what the material would be at the sculptural element on the south side. Mr. Benenati replied Epay with a composition of steel and wood frame creating the scrim pattern. • Mr. Krueger stated that this would possibly be climbable. • Mr. Krueger stated that the elimination of weather protection underneath the cantilevered portion of the building made sense. Mr. Sticka stated that the Board could decide if the sculptural element should be brought back to the Board at a later date after a recommendation. Mr. Sutton suggested that staff pick some corners to review and if staff remained comfortable, there would be no need to bring back to the Board. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 6 MOTIONED BY MR. SUTTON TO APPROVE LAND-2018-00376, MODERA RIVER TRAIL WITH THE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR INCONSISTINCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS AND THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE RENDERINGS TO STAFF OF THE BOX RIB PANEL ON THE ROOFLINE; IF STAFF FEELS NECESSARY, THIS CAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD, AND WEATHER PROTECTION CAN BE ELIMINATED UNDER THE CANTILEVER. SECONDED BY MR. WHITE. 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: 09/20/18 and 11/15/18 Staff Contact: David Lee, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] Mr. Lee stated that Board members had expressed a desire to take more time in presentation on this project at the last meeting, particularly with the north building. Mr. Bryan Bellissimo with Encore Architects stated that at the last 60% meeting the decision had been made to examine different parts of the project separately. Larger massing moves hoped for did not adhere to the zoning code and a formal deviation request would be submitted. This presentation would be for the purpose of a working session and discussion, and more renderings would be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Bellissimo continued that the material pallet proposed continues to have angled corrugated metal. The building has four predominant corners, with some more predominant than others. Part of the project is creating 69th Street, a privately held but publicly accessible and shared street. Much of the vehicular approach will come from Redmond Way towards the new train station. The area is multi-modal. Various options at corners had been reviewed and the play between the base element helps with depth and dynamic play between the street and upper stories. At the last meeting, the Board recommended marrying upper and lower volumes together. The setback remains in tact as it relates to the rest of the project proceeding south, as well as in relation to a proposed development across the street with similar condition. The northeast corner is out to break the box. Art is being explored for the façade. The corner is a kind of boomerang into the heart of Marymoor, inviting and drawing attention to retail at the base. New details in renderings were described. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 7 A more dynamic language around the brick tower and entire structure were proposed. Variation in the façade has been added to bring a more curved nature to the parapet. A common language for the façade and fenestration patterns were being considered. Recessed balconies would provide depth in corners. Some art locations were dropped to the pedestrian level. Further details were pointed out in slides but locations not identified for the audio recording. Mr. Krueger asked if there were questions or comments from the audience and there were none. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD: Mr. White: • Believed there was a danger in using corrugation that is too wide and hoped for something less typical. • Mr. White stated that in the south perspective, the ribbon with black as the accent would be desirable with a transition at the east to become more transparent or glassy. • Mr. White stated that the northeast corner felt cluttered and that motion could be included. • Mr. White stated that a more traditional brick base was desired. • Mr. White stated that at the northwest corner, opportunities to create motion will benefit the project. • Mr. White stated that the parapet should be an introduction. • Mr. White stated that each building interprets brick in a different way and questioned that expression. • Mr. White appreciated that 8” in depth was good but that more would be better. • Mr. White stated that shifting windows to avoid stacking was a benefit. • Mr. White believed the project was headed in the correct direction. Mr. Sutton: • Believed the project was headed in the correct direction. • Mr. Sutton appreciated that a corner had been brought down. • Mr. Sutton would like to see the same proportion as the corner brought all the way down without the canopy. • Mr. Sutton did not like the density at the window at the corner and this would be stronger if larger openings were maintained. • Mr. Sutton struggled with the depth of believed that this could be larger and suggested that a frame element connecting windows be added. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 8 Mr. Bellissimo replied that this had been explored but design was becoming complex. • Mr. Sutton agreed that this should be kept simple. • Mr. Sutton stated that more cantilever would be helpful. • Mr. Sutton agreed with Mr. White that a more traditional brick base would work and liked the new rendering better. Mr. Bellissimo replied that a taper in the actual building added play to the parapet while keeping the parapet sleek and round. • Mr. Sutton stated wanting to see a little more taper. • Mr. Sutton commented on the thickness of the ribbon element. • Mr. Sutton suggested stacking the cut out. Mr. Martin: • Liked the dynamic better than previous renderings. • Mr. Martin stated that the building could twist and shift in a seismic way. • Mr. Martin stated that a light color or pattern could be used in each building base while keeping the feel the same. • Mr. Martin agreed about the canopy. • Mr. Martin agreed with shifts in windows. Mr. White asked [inaudible] • Mr. Martin [inaudible] Mr. Bellissimo replied that art gasket elements could be a break point. • Mr. Martin believed that the project was headed in the correct direction. Mr. Liu: • Believed that the shape was unique and that simplicity for fluidity and purity should be kept. • Mr. Liu agreed that horizontal movement was desirable and that at the density of windows at the northeast corner in the upper massing, all facades should have a spontaneous but uniform pattern. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 9 • Mr. Liu stated liking the idea of various setbacks at the retail podium between lower and upper massing but that the rectangle ending undercuts the purity. • Mr. Liu stated that proposed materials were better than brick because of the contemporary shape but if brick is used, textures would be better than traditional courses. • Mr. Liu stated that recessed balconies were great and south side reveals were better but can be subtle; with a uniform façade, punctuations or reveals become secondary. • Mr. Liu stated again that purity should be emphasized and language uniform. Ms. Atvars: • Stated that the perspective being displayed was the most dynamic and interesting but that the side that would actually be facing towards the busier roads and entry should have that language pulled around to it. • Ms. Atvars stated that the gasket should punch all the way through; the building felt flat topped and too continuous, and one purposeful break would help. • Ms. Atvars asked if there might be an opportunity to pull the band of the mural in a horizontal direction more. • Ms. Atvars stated that the parapet ribbons should be broken. • Ms. Atvars asked if there would be an opportunity to bring in the light and movement of the stair in a purposeful way with art; that something moving in the gasket would be interesting and dynamic. • Ms. Atvars stated liking the window gradient and the forced perspective and wondered if negative space could be played with, such as wider non-glazed elements in key places to help with interest. Mr. Krueger: • Stated that the new renderings were great. • Mr. Krueger hoped to avoid too much uniformity and liked accenting with the base. • Mr. Krueger stated that eliminating the band at the top was good. • Mr. Krueger stated that the project was very eclectic, and liked using brick in a more contemporary way in type or pattern to imply the buildings were built in different eras. Mr. Bellissimo replied that brick would be introduced as moments at columns. • Mr. Krueger asked about wood canopies. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 10 Mr. Bellissimo replied that this would bring warmth to the pedestrian as much of the materials are monochrome, bringing natural elements in a modern way. More canopy detailing would be brought to the next meeting. Glass canopies present hard maintenance issues with cleaning. Mr. White: • Stated that irregularity in sizing would be interesting at the podium. Mr. Martin: • [Inaudible] Mr. Bellissimo replied that at rounded corners there is a tighter language, a parallax effect that bleeds out becoming larger storefront expanses. • Mr. Martin commented on the stairs [inaudible]. Mr. Bellissimo replied that this element could be brought down to the ground to create a full move; the stair could also have a sculptural element at the top. Mr. Krueger: • Stated that a joint meeting with the Arts Commission could be productive with the interaction of art and architecture. Mr. Bellissimo replied that by early January 2019 artists should be short-listed, example works can be presented, and that specific proposals would be submitted starting in February 2019. PRE-APPLICATION LAND-2018-01130, Microsoft Augusta Complex – B42 and B43 Neighborhood: Overlake Description: Outdoor plaza to include built-in and movable seating, new planting area, canopy structure and a water feature Location: 15590 Northeast 31st Street, 15580 Northeast 31st Street and 15584 Northeast 31st Street Applicant: Phoebe Bogert, PLACE Staff Contact: Benjamin Sticka, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 11 Mr. Sticka stated that the overall property is 1.3 acres in size. The scope of the project was to change an existing circular lawn area to add trees, evergreen planting, wood benches, movable furniture, a water feature and an approximately 1,700 square foot canopy for weather protection. This will also be a gathering space for employees. Staff is comfortable in recommending approval to the Board as long as there is concurrence from the Board. Ms. Phoebe Bogert with PLACE Landscape Architecture representing Microsoft and the CBREN team. The project will turn unused space into a usable exterior space. The site is approximately 9,500 square feet of area inscribed by an exit fire lane which will remain. Existing circulation is on 156th Avenue Northeast and Northeast 31st Street, and the area is known to the Microsoft campus as the Skip-to-My-Lou round-about as the result of a previous art feature. The area services buildings 42, 43 and the café, and there is an existing café plaza about 15 feet below a series of stairs. Exterior spaces matter for the everyday experiences of those on Campus. Ms. Bogert described slide renderings showing details of the proposed area. The most sizable piece of the project will be the glass and dark matte black steel canopy with an organic pattern, cantilevered and free standing at 14 feet creating a separate zone within the space. The pattern and design would appeal to resonate with employees, the landscape, and reflect powerful imagery. The plan pallet is a green matrix providing a low edge wrapping up at the ramp edge. The planting migrates inside. A different but subtle texturized banding is poured-in-place concrete. Proposed wood is firmery which has been a good choice throughout the campus and a good alternative to Epay. The idea for the canopy is to create a lounge-type atmosphere. Furniture and curtains that can create three different bays or outdoor rooms. The water feature is a gravity fill shallow skim of water. Cherry trees will create energy in Winter and Spring. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. White: • Asked about the glass. Ms. Bogert replied that the glass would be clear, but patterning would probably be more organic than displayed. Different opacities were being discussed for a layering effect. • Mr. White stated having felt conflicted regarding color but the reply sounded good. • Mr. White stated liking the curtains. • Mr. White suggested that a source of heat be provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 12 Ms. Bogert replied that at the back of each bay, interspersed with the curtains, would be a heater mounted to the back-beam angling out. • Mr. White stated being happy with the project. Mr. Martin: • Asked about shading to the grass for the pattern. Ms. Bogert replied that this was an interesting idea; the purity of the lenticular art based on the notion of movement and verticality had been the focus in the design. • Mr. Martin liked the structure but believed black seemed heavy. • Mr. Martin stated that the Sunbrella curtain fabric was great but asked other materials. Ms. Bogert asked to confirm that replying to questions was appropriate at this point in the process. This was confirmed and Ms. Bogert continued. Initially, heavy to light materials were considered. The Sunbrella curtain is removable during winter months and durability would be less of an issue. A more sheer, soft direction was desired to make the spaces feel warm and welcoming. • Mr. Martin stated that the project looked great. Mr. Liu: • Stated that the canopy was a great feature. • Mr. Liu asked why the canopy was one piece only, and only in one direction. Ms. Bogert replied that the notion of the circle was being honored, and the path of travel allowing less light in the afternoon was comfortable. Given the pedestrian motion, the side felt appropriately weighted. • Mr. Liu asked for clarification that the zone had been studied. Ms. Bogert replied yes, that the circulation patterns had been examined. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 13 MOTIONED BY MR. WHITE TO APPROVE LAND-2018-01130, MICROSOFT AUGUSTA COMPLEX WITH STANDARD CONDITIONS AND RECOGNIZING THE MATERIALS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING. SECONDED BY MR. LIU. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PRE-APPLICATION LAND-2017-00727, Rose Hill Cottages Neighborhood: Willows/Rose Hill Description: Construction of 28 detached residential units and necessary site improvements Location: 13xxx Northeast 112th Place Applicant: Albert Torrico with TOLL WA, LP Staff Contact: Benjamin Sticka, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] Mr. Sticka stated that this was the first pre-application meeting. The project is located at the northeast corner of 132nd Avenue Northeast and Northeast 112th Place, currently undeveloped. The overall site is approximately 10.85 acres in size. The Design Review Board typically does not review single family products; however, the project is being processed through a site plan entitlement. Design focus requirements for cottage developments include but are not limited to; that total floor area of a cottage shall not exceed 1,500 square feet, open space shall provide a centrally located focal area, cottages are required to be oriented around the main entry from the common open space areas, and porches must be at least 80 square feet in size with a minimum dimension of eight feet on any side. Boundaries between cottages and neighboring properties shall be screen with landscaping. Mr. Albert Torrico with TOLL Brothers stated that also present were Mr. Aaron Hollingbery, also with TOLL Brothers, Mr. Justin Julian from Dahlin Architecture and Mr. Greg White from DTJ Design – Landscape Architecture. On the east edge of the vacant site there is a 100-foot power and gas easement at the bottom of the hill. Slides would not depict significant grades on the site. Two groups of twelve cottages would surround an open space. While 42 parking spaces are required, 43 were being provided outside of the attached garages of the units. Mr. Julian continued that the desire was to have the cottages nestle within the thick forestry already present on the site. There are three different site plans with three different styles for plans one and two and these were displayed in slides. There would be a diverse and dynamic elevation from the community green spaces. For every unit that would not have an attached garage, enclosed garages would be available. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 14 Mr. White commented that while the site has topography challenges, the majority will be nestled to the context of a dense forest. A fairly dense evergreen mixture to the northwest would satisfy the screening requirement for privacy. The parking area and perimeter in native screening was being considered. Unified plantings would occur in three core areas; the north cottage green, central cottage green and community center, and south cottage plaza. Further requirements include that 50% of units must be located on a green, and front doors must be within 60 feet to the common areas. Porches play an important role. The transition from common to private open space would be thoughtful. Mr. Krueger asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience and there were none. Mr. Krueger stated for transparency having done consulting work for Toll Brothers and had also having collaborated with DTJ Design in the past but not on this project. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Mr. Sutton: • Asked for clarification regarding the buffer area. Mr. White replied believing that this would be ten feet and code requirement did not specify density. A significant number of evergreen plantings were planned. An easement has been granted to an adjacent neighbor because over time that landscape has encroached onto the proposed project site. Mr. Hollingbery replied that as a part of negotiations with neighbors, a Leland Cypress hedge had been agreed to be retained close to the property line. While a screen will be installed on the project property, the screening hedge would also be provided on the neighbor side of the easement line as well. • Mr. Sutton asked if there are photos of the existing area. replied that these were in the Design Review Board package. Mr. White: • Asked about the access from the community center to the plaza or Cottage Green. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 15 Mr. White displayed a rendering. • Mr. White liked the location of bedrooms. • Mr. White asked if there might need to be an elevator due to the grade from parking. Mr. White replied that a way to solve this had not been discovered yet. • Mr. White stated imagining people trying to bring grocery bags home from a parked car. • Mr. White appreciated the idea of the three greens but suggested the Seabrook model with three different characters or amenities. • Mr. White suggested that the south cottage plaza could be larger. • Mr. White believed the team was on the right track. Mr. Martin: • Asked for clarification around the distinction between the three styles of houses. Mr. White replied distinction was in textures and difference in materials highlighting shadows. Massing would create a different look in front for each. The distinction is mostly materials and massing changes between styles. • Mr. Martin did not see very much difference in styles. • Mr. Martin stated that accessibility needed to be addressed, particularly in this type of community setting. • Mr. Martin asked how many units would require stair climbs. Mr. White displayed a rendering which showed various types of approaches and stairways. More than half of the units would not have an issue. Mr. White: • Asked if there would be an opportunity at the round-about for ADA stalls if that is the accessible location. Mr. White replied that emergency requirements needed to be considered. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 16 Mr. Martin: • Asked for more clarification regarding any contemporary design look. Mr. White replied that more natural materials than displayed on slides were hoped for. Color choices should make the houses disappear within the landscape. The public space was being looked at differently than the cottages. Mr. Liu: • Asked how wide the private drive would be. Mr. White replied 20 feet. • Mr. Liu asked if people were anticipated to park on the street. Mr. White replied that there would be no parking allowed on the street, and that parking stalls and garages were for parking. There would be 43 off street parking stalls, nine of which in attached garages. Ms. Atvars: • Stated that an overlay of the site plan with site contours and topography would be helpful as this appeared to be the source of most of the concerns. Mr. White showed a slide with existing conditions. The area to be developed was four acres out of 11 and relatively flat. Sewer will need to be brought up the hill and difficulties have been around separation of utilities and managing the 12% grade. Mr. Hollingbery further described slides for the Board. Mr. Liu: • Commented that if a site plan could be rendered with different shades or lines indicating contour this would be easier to understand. Ms. Atvars: • Suggested that if families with children were being considered, one of the plazas could have a family friendly amenity. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 17 Mr. White replied that this had not specifically been discussed but that this was a good idea. The spaces have been perceived as calm and clean with the space constraints of the site, but there could be a creative way to find something that functions as a play feature as not everyone around the plaza may want a playground in front of their house. Mr. White: • Asked if there were plans for paths or trails through the remaining site. Mr. White replied that areas not being developed are 40% steep slopes and cannot be entered. There would be a split rail fence to protect these areas. • Mr. White asked if there could be a play area far enough out that would not disturb the neighborhood but would give a family an area to be. Ms. Atvars: • Stated that a trail would be a nice amenity for any age and it is unfortunate that the area would be too steep. Mr. Hollingbery replied that there would be a public easement pathway west to east through the property on the walkway to the bottom of the hill, and also potential for a north-south corridor down the Puget Sound Energy easement. The grade through the Puget Sound Energy easement is challenging. Mr. Krueger: • Asked for clarification regarding the north courtyard and bollards to prevent parking. Mr. Hollingbery replied that bollards were not currently proposed at this point. Mr. White replied that emergency service criteria would prevent the area from being blocked. The hammerhead would disappear and separate paving would occur. • Mr. Krueger commented that bollards that could be removed by emergency personnel could be included, and that parking in the courtyard may occur despite the intention of the Developer. • Mr. Krueger asked about architectural and landscape treatment of the facing to the roads. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 18 Mr. White replied that when private spaces would be backed up to a public roadway, a buffer system with landscape would be installed. Elevations facing public spaces would be enhanced. • Mr. Krueger commented that more elevations were included in the Board packet. Mr. White replied yes, that elevations had been condensed for the presentation slides. • Mr. Krueger asked about the landscape concept at the street. Mr. White replied that smaller, upright evergreens would be used. As much privacy as possible for houses was desired as well as separation from the street. Mr. Martin: • Asked if further consideration had been given to the placement of garages. Mr. White replied that there had been an earlier site plan with the garages in a different location, but this had to be changed in order to accommodate some stormwater requirements as well as to provide enough space for the stormwater vault. Grade also worked against design. PRE-APPLICATION LAND-2018-01082, 165th WP Town Homes Neighborhood: Downtown Description: Demolish existing one-story building and construct four new three-story townhomes with enclosed parking Location: 8015 – 165th Avenue NE Applicant: Daniel Umbach with Daniel Umbach, Architects, LLC Staff Contact: Benjamin Sticka, [PHONE REDACTED], [EMAIL REDACTED] Mr. Sticka stated that this was the first meeting for the project. The townhomes will contain attics and pedestrian access will be from 165th Avenue Northeast. The project is within the Anderson Park Zone in the Downtown area of the City, and the applicant is proposing a more contemporary design with materials consisting of painted cement board panel siding. Street trees are being provided along both 165th Avenue Northwest and Northeast 80th Street. Staff believed the project is generally code compliant but also believed some refinements could be made in variety of color, roofline and opportunities for additional glazing. Staff would appreciate Board feedback. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 19 Mr. Tim Connelly with White Peterman Properties, Inc. appreciated staff help through the process. Mr. Dan Umbach with Daniel Umbach Architects, LLC described the neighborhood adjacent to the project including a parking lot and church; there is not a strong architectural character to the block at this time. Parking comes off the alley to the north of the project and all units have private garages and enter from 165th Avenue Northeast. Three of the units are essentially identical and a fourth unit is unique to address both corners. Front yards are small but roof decks have usable open space. The project would be similar in scale in what is built to the north but taller. This project was intended to be more urban that the traditional project but still intended to feel residential as a more urban environment is expected to eventually grow here. Further renderings and floorplans were displayed. Brick would be used at the base of the buildings. The ground floors include a bedroom/office and access to the garage, and will not be as open as the upper floors where living space is. Neutral wood or similar product, more rustic in nature, is being considered to contrast the clean, urban look. Railings would be powder coated metal. Mr. Kreuger asked if there were questions or comments from the audience and there were none. COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD Ms. Atvars: • Asked if the materiality of the other apartment projects being built in the immediate area was considered. Mr. Umbach replied that this had not been considered but should be looked at. • Ms. Atvars stated that seeing how this will fit in with the rest of the neighborhood was the only feedback. Mr. Liu: • Believed that the south end units appeared to face east. • Mr. Liu asked if there were balconies or large windows present at the middle section. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 20 Mr. Umbach replied yes, there is a balcony off the dining space. Mr. Umbach commented that pedestrian entry was not allowed from Northeast 80th Street. • Mr. Liu asked if there was a low fence around the project. Mr. Umbach replied that this had not been proposed because the space was not counted on as usable space of the owner. This could be considered, however. Landscaping was not specifically represented at this stage of the renderings. • Mr. Liu commented that fencing would create a space that would be another layer from the street. Mr. Martin: • Asked if there might be a treatment at the back of the garages facing the street. Mr. Umbach replied yes, something that would line up under balconies. • Mr. Martin asked what the wood material would be. Mr. Umbach replied that this had not been decided on, but samples of a reclaimed and weathered natural wood product were being examined. • Mr. Martin asked what the panel material would be. Mr. Umbach replied that the panel would probably be Hardee with a subtle joint pattern. • Mr. Martin asked if there were privacy screens between upper decks. Mr. Umbach replied that this was the intention. • Mr. Martin commented that dormers coming out would integrate this into the architecture. Mr. Umbach replied that one version had included solid walls up to the dormer roofs. Restrictions on the extension of dormer roofs was not known. • Mr. Martin liked the strong, simple expression and the design was a good start. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 21 Mr. White: • Liked the massing, and there was an interesting transition to the four areas. • Mr. White commented that the south elevation felt flat. • Mr. White commented that the east elevation also felt flat. Mr. Umbach replied that an earlier version included brick extending to sill height on the second-floor windows. • Mr. White hoped that the south elevation would be addressed for more depth as this will be prevalent. • Mr. White commented that on the south elevation, the double window could be pulled in to give more of a corner, and the third story window needed to be addressed. • Mr. White stated that other than having small ideas, liking the project. Mr. Sutton • Agreed with the recent comments. • Mr. Sutton also had issues with the south elevation. • Mr. Sutton wanted the brick elements at the east to cantilever. • Mr. Sutton commented that the decks could be pushed back to not be in plane with the gray paneling. • Mr. Sutton believed this was a good start but a few small moves were needed for depth and to change the planes. Mr. Krueger: • Asked if staff would be bringing colors. Mr. Umbach replied that final colors would be brought to the Board at a later meeting. A simple pallet was in mind. When the wood plane material and color is finalized, the combination should be rich. Accent colors on the doors could be enough. There is contrast and more may not be necessary. • Mr. Krueger asked if a treatment for the driveway in the back would be considered; in example, scored concrete. • Mr. Krueger liked how the architecture wrapped around the south. commented liking the subdued color pallet along side warmth with the brick and wood. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Redmond Design Review Board December 6, 2018 Page 22 ADJOURNMENT MOTIONED BY MR. WHITE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:05 P.M. SECONDED BY MR. SUTTON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MINUTES APPROVED ON RECORDING SECRETARY