No preview available
2021-10-06 Architectural Design Board PacketC)p E 04 � O Architectural Design Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, October 6, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting at: https://zoom.us/s/95360544929?pwd=ZmdOREFORkE3RkRaeVdBRmpkNUxMZzO9 Meeting ID: 9536 0544 929. Password: 818962 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 I. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived II. Public Portion A. Audience Comment III. Approval of Minutes 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5821) Approval of Minutes Background/History Request approval of July 21st meeting minutes. Staff Recommendation Review and approve minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • ADB210721_Complete transcript edited pending approval_mm (PDF) IV. Approval of Agenda 11. Board Discussion 1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5826) Multifamily Design Standards: Initial Discussion and Board Feedback Background/History Architectural Design Board Page 1 Printed 101112021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda October 6, 2021 On June 24, 2021, City Council formally asked staff to begin the code amendment process for multifamily design standards. These standards were part of a larger list of housing related policy options recommended by the Citizen's Housing Commission. Then on September 7, 2021, City Council asked that green space requirements also be considered for this possible amendment. The City Council minutes pertaining to this topic are provided (Attachment 1). Staff Recommendation No recommendation at this time. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1- City Council Minutes (Abbreviated) (PDF) • Attachment 2 - Presentation (Draft) (PDF) V. ADB Member Comments VI. Adjournment Architectural Design Board Page 2 Printed 101112021 3.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/6/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History Request approval of July 21st meeting minutes. Staff Recommendation Review and approve minutes. Narrative Meeting minutes attached. Attachments: ADB210721_Complete transcript edited pending approval_mm Packet Pg. 3 3.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom July 21, 2021 Chair Lauri Strauss called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Lauri Strauss Bruce Owensby Maurine Jeude Kim Bayer Joe Herr BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien: Go for it. Lauri Strauss: Okay. So, let's call this meeting to order. Should we have a role call? Kernen Lien: Lauri Strauss? Lauri Strauss: Here. Kernen Lien: Bruce Owensby? Bruce Owensby: Here. Kernen Lien: Maurine Jeude? Lauri Strauss: Maurine is on mute still. Joe Herr: She's on the mute, yeah. Kernen Lien: Mute, but here. There she comes. Lauri Strauss: Here she comes. Okay. Maurine Jeude: I'm here. I'm sorry. Lauri Strauss: Thanks Maurine. 4- 0 0 L Q Q Q Packet Pg. 4 3.1.a Kernen Lien: Kim Bayer? Kim Bayer: Here. Kernen Lien: And Joe Herr? Joe Herr: Here. Kernen Lien: I believe that's all the ADB members we have at the moment. rn c Lauri Strauss: All right. Okay. 4- 0 Next, approval of the agenda. Have you all had a chance to look at it? 0 Bruce Owensby: Yes. a Q Kim Bayer: Yes. E EI Lauri Strauss: I need a motion to approve. Bruce Owensby: Motion to approve, I second. Whatever! 0 a Lauri Strauss: All right. All those in favor, aye. a� All: Aye. c m a Lauri Strauss: All right. The agenda's approved. 0 a) All right. Approval of minutes. So, this is the last meeting minutes, did you all — I read through them, they m looked okay to me. I need a motion for approval. a Kim Bayer: I motion for — L c 0 L Joe Herr: I can't; I wasn't in on them. ar a� Lauri Strauss: Okay. a E 0 V� Kim Bayer: I motion to approve. r N ti Lauri Strauss: Bruce? c N Bruce Owensby: I second. p Q Lauri Strauss: Okay. Any discussion on the meeting minutes? All right. Hearing none, we're gonna — c aD E Kim Bayer: I did see comments that I didn't quite hear on the meeting that I actually read. I don't know if you caught z those. ca Lauri Strauss: Okay, I didn't. Kim Bayer: I went, "Oh, who's the male speaker and female speaker?" But, yeah. Bruce Owensby: I think it caught everything. I think the recording just catches everything Q Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 Kim Bayer: Yeah. It caught everything, so... Lauri Strauss: Okay, so the minutes are approved. Do we have an audience? Do we have any audience comments for tonight? Kernen Lien: There are three people there now, but they're all here for the project. Lauri Strauss: Okay. N m .r So, we will go on to the public meeting. This is a wastewater treatment plant. Kernen, you wanna take over and tell us about this project? 2 4- 0 Kernen Lien: Yep. Let me let everybody into the meeting here first. 0 Lauri Strauss: Okay. a Kernen Lien: Then I will share my screen All right. Everybody can see my screen? Bruce Owesnby: Yes. Kim Bayer: Yes. Kernen Lien: All righty, then we'll get rolling. So, I'll give an overview of the review process for this project, we'll give a broad overview of the proposal, my presentation and recommendation. The applicant is here; we got Phil Williams, the Director of Public Works, Steve Porterman from Landel, Lonn Inman from — I forget the name of that firm, but they're also working on the wastewater treatment plant carbon — Phil Williams: Amaresco Quantum. Kernen Lien: So, this is one of the projects that the ADB just holds a public meeting and not a public hearing on it. There's actually three permits that are associated with the wastewater treatment project. There's two variances: one for carbon filter, one for loading dock that would be located within the setback, and then there's design review because design review is required for public providence as well. There's two different permit types. So, a variance is a Type III -A, and design review is Type III-B. The difference between those two is III-B is appealable to the Hearings Examiner, whereas variances — are appealable to the city council, whereas variances are not. Wait, I have that backwards; III -Bs are appealable to the city council, where III -As are not. And I think I have these labelled wrong. So, the variances are III -Bs, where design review is a III -A. And they're consolidated; when a type III -A and III-B permits are consolidated, that follows the III -A process. So, in total, this project would not be appealable to the city council, it would be only appealable to the superior court. When we have these consolidated processes like this, the ADB holds a public meeting and makes a recommendation to the Hearings Examiner. The ADB's meeting is only a public meeting because there are restrictions against — to open records public hearings. Phil, I see a Kyle Jones here. Should they be let in as well? Phil Williams: Yes, thank you. Gl Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 Kemen Lien: Yes. Okay. We'll let them in. So, like with all ADB projects, this is not subject to a district design review, so it's just general design review standards in the comprehensive plan. The aspects of this project that have any design part to it are pretty limited, and of course we reviewed for consistence for the zoning. Apart from the variance request, it will be consistent with the zone. Oh, Kyle didn't make it in. Hmm, there we go. So, the wastewater treatment plant located on the southeast corner of State Route 104 and Dayton Street. It's N Zone P. We got Harbor Square across the street. It's primary wetland south of the site, and some residential development around it. This is the old Public Works building there. c 2 Doot, there we go. Aerial photo of it. So, the project location that we're looking at is kinda really up just o down here on this corner of the wastewater treatment plant, where the carbon filter will be going in. So, this is that zoom in to that area. So, the red box there is kinda that area that they're gonna have to clear out for construction activities. The carbon o filter, which will be one aspect of the variance of it, is gonna be located on kind of a catwalk that exists on the west side of the a wastewater treatment plant already. Then there's a loading dock that's gonna be installed here, and a door that would be installed Q on the side of the building there as well. So, variances would be for the loading dock and this because it's located within the setbacks. Some other aspects to this: there's a wetland south of the site; the green dash line that you see here is actually the wetland buffer that's associated with that. I included the critical area report in my staff report. And so, there's gonna be some mitigation for the critical area involved with that. You can add to existing structures within the wetland buffer. This would be less than 200 square feet. So, the mitigation ratio is at 3:1 because it's less than 300 and there's gonna be some mitigation in here for that. And the trees that they cut down, they're gonna put over in the wetland buffer for LWD. Just not really part of ADB's review, but it's part of the bigger project on this. Existing conditions, this is really where we're looking at. I believe this is pretty close to where that loading ramp would be loaded, and that carbon filter is gonna be placed over there. So, kinda the vegetation that you see in this area is what would be removed with this project and replanted. That's that catwalk that I mentioned on the side of the building, so you can kinda see it right there — and it's the end of the catwalk that runs along there. And back over here is where they're gonna be placing that carbon filter. If you want some details about why they're doing the project, when the Public Works goes, I'll let them get into the technicality of it. But they're basically replacing the biosolids incinerator with a newer technology is my understanding of that. You can talk about it later, Phil, when you'll see me on mute. So, it's in the P Zone. Some of those standards that would apply to this is setbacks. There's a 25' setback for structures in the P Zone. This building is already — I think about 7 'h' from the property line. So, right now it's not beating the setback, so that's why the variance is required for adding anything new within that setback area. 16.80.030 requires that setback to be fully landscaped. So, there's not much of a setback there, but there's gonna be some landscaping also within the State Route 104 right away there. And also, the P Zone has a 25' height limit if there's not a conditional use or something associated with it. So, this is the only elevation view that I had for the carbon filter project. So, this is the existing wastewater treatment building. This is the carbon filter, and there'd be some pipes going into the building there. And looked at this for height too; the maximum height is 42, and this falls in underneath that. Kind of a bigger view of the elevation view of that. Okay. And this is the primary design review aspect of this. There's gonna be a lot of vegetation that was removed for this. The setback's supposed to be fully landscaped. The property line would be kinda running right about here through there, so there's gonna be a lot of landscaping within the right of way and between the building. The carbon filter would be sitting over right about here. Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 3.1.a One of the important design criteria would be that mechanical equipment is supposed to be screened from the street view of that. Most of the vegetation that proposed to be planted here is evergreen vegetation. I would say Type III landscaping would be required, which would have trees at least every 20' on center. There's more that meets that, I think would do a pretty good job of screening the carbon filter, which is gonna be over here. This area over here was an additional planting overlay area that they have that — there's a path here that runs to the southside of the wastewater treatment plant over along the marsh and kind of a little picnic area over there. I don't know who picnics over near the wastewater treatment plant but there is a little area over there next to the wetland on that. So, not a whole lot of criteria to apply to this project. I think the landscaping is kind of the biggest thing. It's an existing building that is not gonna change much. There will be a door that's installed there, didn't really have a good c elevation that would show that door. But it looked like kinda a metal roll -up door for future maintenance to the building. But 2 area's gonna be landscaped to kinda screen all that. 0 c� Let me get forward here. So, like I said, not a whole lot to look at. Staff has proposed that the ADB 0 recommend approval of design review to the Hearings Examiner. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions on here or a we can have Public Works go through their presentation or add anything to what I gave. Q Lauri Strauss: Any questions from the board for Kernen right now? E E Bruce Owensby: Not at this point. > 0 L Lauri Strauss: Okay, well let's have the applicant do his presentation. a 0 0 Phil Williams: Well, I don't know that we have an actual presentation, but I might just make a few comments if I could about the project. We're pretty excited about it. The incinerator's been in place for over 32 years. c m a Lauri Strauss: Whoa. -0 Phil Williams: And as you can imagine from the name of the technology, not exactly carbon friendly. So, when you take all of the biosolids that we collect, remove from the wastewater as we receive it, and then more biosolids that are produced by the process — the biological growth — we take all that, dewater it currently, and then throw it into the incinerator and burn it up at about 1,450' Fahrenheit. So, pretty much every molecule of carbon goes up as CO2. We have lots of air pollution control equipment attached to it to keep certain really objectionable pollutants from being discharged at levels above highly regulated standards that we have to meet. But from a carbon perspective, it's a complete loss. So, what this project uses is a different technology; it's a thermal process, as is incineration, but certainly not at 1,450' where you just immediately combust the organic matter. You heat it up, and instead of incineration, which supplies lots of oxygen to make the combustion process go forward, we do it in the absence of oxygen, so you're heating up all this organic matter to about half that temperature and it makes the biosolids sort of evolve and exude gases right out of the organic matter. Some of that's methane, some of it is CO2 which can be combined there and burned, and it's called syngas, and so we then take the gas that's produced, and instead of having it burn with biosolids, we burn it offline cleanly and use the heat to heat the biosolids. So, you're recycling the energy content in the biosolids and a large amount of it is leftover after it's dried as essentially pure carbon, which we will call biochar, that's the name for it in the industry. And biochar has a lot of recyclable markets you can access with that. So, instead of putting that carbon up the stack, you're recapturing it as a soil conditioner or filtering media. There's a wide variety of uses that you can put it to. So, we think it's a big step forward from an environmental perspective, from an energy -consumption perspective, and also efficiency of operation; we can run it 24 hours -a -day, not have to start it and stop it like an incinerator Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 3.1.a where we use diesel fuel to do that now. It's a real winner from a technology standpoint. And I'll just say, as $26 million project, it's the biggest single project we've really ever done as a capital project here in Edmonds. Lauri Strauss: Whoa, that's great. Kim Bayer: I have a question. Lauri Strauss: Kim, would you like to ask your question? to Kim Bayer: Yeah. So, the 7 — so I went down there today, so 7 ''V2% I saw that. And I thought I read that now with the ' carbon filter added, it will be just 1' from the lot line? Or did I read that wrong? Kernen Lien: Yeah, let me share my screen again, I'll go to the site plan here. Did I share my screen? o Kim Bayer: Yeah, thanks. o L Q Phil Williams: That picture you just went past, Kernen. No, go back a little bit. Q Kernen Lien: That one? Phil Williams: No. The one that shows the walkway. That, right there. So, this carbon filter, if that's the one you're asking about, would be located right on top of that. That's actually a walkway that's half -buried and half -exposed concrete. And the carbon filter would be placed right on top of that. And I think it overhangs by 1' outside of that current footprint. I believe that's probably what you were referring to by the 1'. Kim Bayer: Oh, yeah. Kernen Lien: Right. So, this here — the edge of this walkway is what's 7 'h' from their property line right now. Let me go up one. So, you can see the property line, that's the dashed line right here. So, the carbon filter's gonna be back about 5' from their property line. What's gonna be 1' from the property line would be this loading dock when it's constructed right there. So, that's what would be 1' from their property line, and the carbon filter would be 5' from their property line sitting on top of that. Phil Williams: Kernen, if you would let me, I might mention that the reason why we're building that — it is expected to be temporary, but first thing we're gonna do out there is cut a hole inside of the building right where that platform is because we have to remove all of the stuff that's in that incinerator room just to the right, just to the east of where that platform is. The incinerator has to be completely demoed right off the bat. It hasn't been in operation for several weeks now. And we're waiting on these permits so that we can cut the hole in the building and start cutting up all the piping in the incinerator and then putting it out on that loading dock so that we can get it out and off the site, and as much as we can, recycled. And then once we've cleaned up the space, we can start loading the new equipment back in for assembly. Kim Bayer: Okay. Thanks, that — Lauri Strauss: I was curious about that too. So, you're saying that that's temporary. So, you're not going to be driving up to that everyday and dropping something off. Is that kind of the — Phil Williams: Well, we'll be pulling trucks that — basically in that kinda that red polygon you see on there, we have to have a lot of equipment taken from where it's either currently stored. Some of this will be brought just -in -time, but there's a lot of it already stored that needs to be shuffled around, come back again on the highway on a flatbed, and then back in there so that a crane can pick it off and set it up there where it can be moved into the building. And then the truck will leave and another one will come a day or two later, whatever, with more stuff. That's the only way we can do that is — and we've worked with — Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: No, what I'm saying is it's not gonna be like a regular dock, where every day — after the construction is done, you're not gonna — Phil Williams: No. Lauri Strauss: You don't plan on using that very often? Phil Williams: It is not our plan at this time at all to have that in place after the project. Lauri Strauss: Okay, okay.' rn c Phil Williams: If we did decide to try to do that, that'd be a separate process. But, that's not our thinking at this time. 4- 0 Kim Bayer: Go ahead. E 0 Kernen Lien: There was two proposals there - a Lonn Inman: I'm sorry, this is Lonn Inman, and I was Kernen Lien: Go ahead Lonn. Gl Lonn Inman: I was just gonna clarify a little bit in the picture that you have there Kernen. You can see the purple -dashed rectangle, that is the — that signifies the dimensions of the, what we call the "loading dock" or the "dance floor", if you will, during construction. It's about 12' wide x 25' long, and you can see how the square — it's divided in two right now. So, [audio cuts out] [00:21:041. Phil Williams: Uh-oh. Kernen Lien: He's kinda logged out, but I think he was saying what I was gonna say. There's another aspect to it, so you can see the blue square over here would be a permanent loading dock that would be in place post -project. Something that's being considered for future maintenance. Phil Williams: Upon our property, the part that's — Kernen Lien: Yeah, yeah. Phil Williams: Yeah. Kim Bayer: So, would there be vegetation at all, from the — you're in the ferry line and looking east, would you see what you just showed, but with a door? And obviously an in and out. Kernen Lien: I'm trying to stop here. Okay. So, this is the replanting plan that's proposed by Lonn over there, so that's the loading dock position. There would be some shrubs in here, but no trees. So, you would still be able to see in there similar to — which way am I going? Where's the photo? So, there'd be more ground cover in this area. No trees to hide the door because with that loading dock there, you're gonna want to get to it at some point in time because you do still have to get to the door. [Crosstalk] Phil Williams: It wouldn't be something we'd use frequently. Kernen Lien: Yeah. Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 3.1.a Phil Williams: It's not something that we would use every day. Lauri Strauss: That was my question, yeah. Anything else from anyone? Questions? Joe Herr: I don't have a question, but I have a statement. So, let's just talk about — it is an existing building. Right now, the landscaping hides it fairly well and they're going to replace that landscaping. We're going to be taking an outdated technology and replacing it with something that's much more environmentally conscience. The really — the only people who N ever sort of view this — and even if they do, they're sitting in their car waiting for the ferry. It's not — when you're leaving from the ferry, man, I drive right on by there without even kinda glancing at that because on the right-hand side, you've got the c marsh. So, you're sort of more focused there than you are over at this thing. 2 4- 0 But I don't see a downside here. The building's already there, we're already close to the setbacks, we're not really encroaching on them a whole lot, and the idea of the project is just what forward -thinking we ought to be doing. There, 0 that's my statement. a Q Lauri Strauss: I agree with you, Joe. Kernen Lien: And Joe's comments about what you would see there — so, even if there was kind of a direct view straight in in this area here, people driving up and down State Route 104 never gonna get a view at it because they'll be trees on both sides of it kinda blocking that view, and it would really — maybe people exiting Harbor Square in this location would be the only ones that would really get a straight shot at it. Phil Williams: Well, I would just say as treatment plants go, it's not as ugly as most. Joe Herr: Oh, no. I agree. Phil Williams: A lot of care was taken many, many years ago. Long before I got here. Try to do that in a way that even if you did see it, it wouldn't be all that objectionable. Joe Herr: I agree. I looked at that building for a long time before I really knew what it was, because it just is nicely done. Lauri Strauss: Any other questions from the board? Bruce Owensby: Not from me. Kim Bayer: For me. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Well, should we make a motion? I have a motion I could read. Bruce Owensby: I'd read the motion. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Let's read the motion. "The Architectural Design Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and analysis of the staff report enfiled PLN 2021-0030 and finds the proposal as consistent with the comprehensive plan design criteria of ECDC 20.11.030 and zoning regulations, and recommends that the Hearing Examiner approve the design of the proposed wastewater treatment plant recovery project." Any second? Bruce Owensby: I second it. Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: All in favor? Any other discussion? Bruce Owensby: Aye. All: Aye. Lauri Strauss: Okay. Motion is passed. rn Phil Williams: Well, thank you very much. c Kernen Lien: One note that the Hearing Examiner meeting is scheduled for August 2nd on this. That's when this will be M going before the Hearing Examiner for design review on the variances. So... o Lauri Strauss: That's fairly quick, that's good. o L Q Kernen Lien: Yep. Q Lauri Strauss: Okay. r- Joe Herr: Hey, Phil. Phil Williams: Yes? Joe Herr: Real quick. What's your timeline once you get approval? What kind of thing — how long do you think it's gonna take? Phil Williams: Oh, thank you for asking. Well, we're in a hurry to get started. A little bit later than we'd hoped right now, but we wanna get the bulk of this construction done so we can start the system up. There's a lot of tests that we'll have to go through, but we want it to be in production processing biosolids by the really wet portions of the year, if we can. Because otherwise right now, we're hauling every shred of biosolids by truck and rail to the big landfills in eastern Oregon. I think we're going to Waste Management, aren't we Lonn? Or are we going to Ally? I think we're going to Waste Management, but... Lonn Inman: Waste Management by railcar. Phil Williams: Yeah. Lauri Strauss: Whoa. Phil Williams: And so, that's expensive as heck. Lauri Strauss: Yeah. Phil Williams: It'd be much less costly if we could process it on site. Bruce Owensby: That's great. Lonn Inman: Generally speaking, we're talking about roughly seven months of demolition and construction until we achieve the point where the equipment can start to be commissioned and operated. And then, by about the total of nine months elapsed construction, we should be at full biosolids processing. Kernen Lien: Cool. Lauri Strauss: Whoa. So, you're going to be hauling waste for the next nine months. Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 3.1.a Phil Williams: Partially. It'll drop down as soon as we can start it up, it'll be processing some of it. And then our hauling drops off until we get it in complete production, yeah. Lauri Strauss: Yeah, okay. Good. All right, should we — there is — the next thing on the agenda was ADB member comments. Any comments from the board they wanna discuss? Bruce Owensby: I think it's a great project. I think it'll do a lot of good things. rn Lauri Strauss: Yeah, me too. c Phil Williams: Well, for $26 million, this better work. 2 4- 0 Kim Bayer: I had a question for Kernen in regards to a past project. Can I ask about that, or do we need to — E 0 Kernen Lien: Yeah, go ahead. a Lauri Strauss: They're comments. Kim Bayer: Pipe — what is it? What is it called? Pine Park project? Lauri Strauss: Yeah. Gl Kim Bayer: Is that the providence one? So, I know that that needed to be approved for the subdivision. What is the process, and has that happened yet? Kernen Lien: So, they had actually applied — so, this was the project on Fifth, right? Kim Bayer: Right, right. Kernen Lien: Pine Park something or other. Yeah so, they had applied for a code amendment to allow — Phil, you don't have to stick around to listen to all this if you don't want. Phil Williams: Okay. Kernen Lien: Unless you find it interesting. Phil Williams: If it wouldn't offend anybody, I'll just take off then. Thank you. Kernen Lien: Thank you. Joe Herr: Thanks, Phil. Lauri Strauss: Thanks, Phil. Phil Williams: And thanks to our team too, so ... Bye. Bruce Owensby: Thank you. Kernen Lien: So, they applied for a code amendment that would allow unit lot subdivisions in the BD zones as well. So, right now unit lot subdivisions are only allowed in the RM zones, Westgate, and I think maybe the CD zones. And it's not currently allowed in the BD zones. So, they applied for a code amendment for that. I believe the public hearing on that before city council was next week. So, they haven't applied for the subdivision yet, and we'll see if the city council actually approves Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 the code amendment; I'm not sure how amenable they have been to considering the townhouse subdivisions in the BV zones, I haven't been following it that closely. But it has to be approved from council. Even if that wasn't approved, they could still go forward with the project and do the condo process to divide it that way, it's just a different process in a unit lot subdivision. Kim Bayer: Hmm. Lauri Strauss: I noticed that they've got their markings on the ground for the underground piping. So, I figure they're N probably moving forward with something. a' c Kim Bayer: Lauri, you must be on a bumpy road. 4- 0 Kernen Lien: Yeah, they're probably. If they're doing a unit lot subdivision, they would have to apply — yeah, I forgot she was in a car for a minute. 0 0 L Q CL Kim Bayer: I said you're on a bumpy road, Lauri. Q Kernen Lien: Yeah. But, so, if they're doing a unit lot subdivision, they can't apply for the golden permits until they apply E for the unit lot subdivision. It's gotta kinda come in at the same time. So, they may just be getting ready to do the work and EI having everything marked out there. Lauri Strauss: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, we're almost to the airport, so if there's no other comments, I move to adjourn the meeting. I think we're done. Kernen Lien: All right. Thanks for meeting on a different night than your regular meeting, this was kind of a time -sensitive project. Trying to get everybody to — Bruce Owensby: No problem. More — Joe Herr: Hey Lauri? Lauri? Lauri Strauss: Yeah? Joe Herr: I'm glad you said you're in the car because I am watching you, and I'm like, "Why is that girl fidgeting around like that?" Lauri Strauss: Bouncing everywhere. You missed — I Joe Herr: You're bumping. Lauri Strauss: I said at the beginning kinda off the record that I'm in a car, I'm not driving. I'm riding. But it's very bumpy down I-5. Joe Herr: I missed that part because I'm like, "Whoa, what is going on over there?" Lauri Strauss: No, I'm very nervous. Joe Herr: All right. Okay, all right. Good meeting everybody. See ya. Lauri Strauss: All right guys. Bruce Owensby: Good seeing you guys. Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 3.1.a Lauri Strauss: All right. We'll talk to you later. Bruce Owensby: Take care. Kim Bayer: Take care. Joe Herr: Yeah. Hey Bruce, we gotta have a beer soon. Bruce Owensby: Hey, give me a call. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at p.m. Q Planning Board Minutes April 28, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/6/2021 Multifamily Design Standards: Initial Discussion and Board Feedback Staff Lead: Eric Engmann Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Eric Engmann Background/History On June 24, 2021, City Council formally asked staff to begin the code amendment process for multifamily design standards. These standards were part of a larger list of housing related policy options recommended by the Citizen's Housing Commission. Then on September 7, 2021, City Council asked that green space requirements also be considered for this possible amendment. The City Council minutes pertaining to this topic are provided (Attachment 1). Staff Recommendation No recommendation at this time. Narrative Today's discussion has two main objectives; introduce the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to the anticipated multifamily design code amendment process and hear initial feedback from ADB about the current design review process. See the draft presentation for more generalized information (Attachment 2). 1) Information about Goals and Process Staff will introduce the goal of creating effective and workable guidelines. The intend will be to address compatibility and create high -quality design principles. This will start out by offering insight about the proposed process. There will be discussion about the three phases of the code amendment: formation, articulation, and adoption. As part of this initial overview, there will be discussion about several of the key factors that need to be considered. These are: Reviewing Goals and Policy Directives Establishing the Project Scope Reviewing Criteria Considerations Identifying Stakeholders Balancing Outcomes Packet Pg. 16 4.2.1 One of the earliest components of the formation stage of the project is to interview and discuss this topic with stakeholders. These stakeholders are individuals or groups that are familiar with this topic and/or have major interest in the outcome. 2) ADB Interview and Feedback The second part of the meeting will involve discussing the current design review process with ADB. The ADB plays a major role in creating these new policies and standards. The ADB has the technical knowledge and experience reviewing many of the past developments for design and form. The Board will be asked some general questions, what works with the current process, what doesn't work, what needs refinement, and what should be added. This helps to establish the issue at hand and options to create better multifamily design standards. Following this ADB meeting, staff will be sending out surveys to the board members to further refine and narrow in on current issues and possible solutions. Action Needed No action is needed at this time. This is an informational discussion as part of a larger code amendment (update) effort. Attachments: Attachment 1- City Council Minutes (Abbreviated) Attachment 2 - Presentation (Draft) Packet Pg. 17 4.2.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES June 24, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Susan Paine, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Council President Paine. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmembers L. Johnson and Fraley-Monillas, and Mayor Nelson. Council President Paine reported Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and L. Johnson had conflicts and were excused from attendance today. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Approval of the Agenda be added to the agenda. Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order, commenting this was a special meeting. Council President Paine said it was her understanding the Council had to stick to the agenda but the Council could approve it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 18 4.2.1.a seen successful cluster housing in Shoreline. A presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow illustrated how this concept had been used successfully by ARCH in the past. She still preferred to do the larger vision, looking at subareas, neighborhood and the environment first. She summarized cluster/ cottage housing could be advantageous to the environment if done properly. Councilmember K. Johnson said the City did not currently have cluster/cottage housing. Councilmember Olson may be referring to planned residential developments (PRD) which locate houses closer together to save the environment. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was lukewarm on this topic and it was not something she wanted to move ahead with but she was very intrigued. Churches in Edmonds seem to be located on some of the largest parcels; she wondered if this would be an appropriate use of their land and could it be zoned in a way or regulations developed in such a way that they could have their own cluster housing to support their immigrant, homeless, or senior populations. Ms. Hope said that could be one of the ways the City could go. There are currently have a few PRDs in Edmonds; cluster /cottage housing is smaller units and probably some extra units that have a smaller footprint, have their own parking and open space. It possibly could be designed to take advantage of large parcels, perhaps owned by a church or someone else. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized this was not her highest priority but she was very interested in learning more about it. Councilmember Distelhorst said in addition to PRDs, there are also Unit Lot Subdivision (ULS). Some ULS are close to cluster/cottage housing, but the lots are approximately 2400 square feet which is bigger than traditional cluster/cottage housing. He would love to see the Planning Board evaluate this, observing as Councilmember Buckshnis stated, this is a very popular option with non-profit housing organizations; Housing Hope and HASCO are both involved with properties that use a cluster/cottage housing model. He relayed this recommendation had unanimous support from the Housing Commission. Council President Paine said she has seen examples of this in other cities and would love to see cluster/cottage housing treated similar to multifamily design standards so there would be visuals. This could be a way to provide flexibility, preserve large trees and native growth, and be environmentally sensitive. There needs to be a strong environmental review of all the Housing Commission recommendations to ensure environmental, sustainability and conservation strategies are front loaded into the process. She supported having this recommendation go to both the ADB and the Planning Board. She agreed super large houses were not the best use of the City's limited land. Ms. Hope summarized there was interest in the topic, some were not ready to move it on right now, but it could be revisited later. Multifamilv Design Standards (tonic normally subiect to Planning Board review • Housing Commission recommendation: o Enhance current design standards of new multifamily dwellings to maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use buildings, small multifamily building and large multifamily buildings. Note: Additional explanation is contained in the Commission's statement • Multifamily Design Standards — Improving Design o City currently has no design standards except in Gateway, Highway 99 or downtown) o Examples of design standards ■ Neighborhood Focused Elements ■ Massing and Scale ■ Variety of Building Materials ■ Front Entry Features ■ Connections and "Presence" along Sidewalk ■ Better Context for Design Approvals Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 19 M c c� co c .y d 0 E M 4.2.1.a ■ Treatment between Sidewalk & Building ■ Weather Protection for Pedestrians ■ Garage/Parking Placement Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Comprehensive Plan Housing Element o (Housing Goal J) Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. o (11) Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Sustainability Element o (A.1) Adopt a system of codes, standards, and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds' community character and charm in a sustainable way. o (A.2) Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning. Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Community Culture and Urban Design Element o (Design Goal A) Design goals and objectives (should)... guide future development to result in high quality, well designed and sensitive projects that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds (including to): ■ Improve physical appearance and character ■ Improve retail and pedestrian circulation options ■ Protect natural environments using sustainable design practices ■ Protect and enhance the residential character of Edmonds If Planning Board reviews and makes recommendations on this, what process would happen? 1. Multiple public meetings/hearing by PB (incl. in person meetings) 2. Visual preference surveys/exercises 3. Online info, media announcements, & other outreach/public input 4. Public meeting(s) and input from the Architectural Design Board 5. Eventual more detailed recommendation (whether in opposition or support) for proposal to City Council probably in spring 2022 6. Subsequent City Council consideration of Planning Board's detailed recommendation (including minutes & public comments 7. Additional community input, information, & Council public meetings 8. Council decision whether to reject, revise, or approve the Planning Board's detailed recommendation What kinds of things should Planning Board consider for multifamily design standards? o Architectural appearance o Windows and doors o Location of garages & parking o Pedestrian accessibility o Landscaping o Outdoor lighting o Open space o Orientation of building to street o Building materials o Placement of outdoor utility equipment o Site plan o Entry features o Neighborhood context Possible Next Steps o Council questions & discussion tonight Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 20 4.2.1.a Should Planning Board be asked to work on options for Multifamily Design Standards & seek more public input? If so: - Planning Board could aim to have a recommendation back to City Council by spring 2022 for more consideration & public input. - Planning Board would consider possible design standards for townhomes and multifamily development, including building appearance, site layout, open space, and other issues. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were multifamily design standards for Highway 99. Ms. Hope answered there are three areas with design standards: Highway 99 where the most work done as they were part of an EIS, the Gateway area, and downtown has some design standards in the zoning code. There are many other areas of the City that do not have design standards. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was very interested in multifamily design standards as they are long overdue. She recognized there would need to be density in some areas. She referred to the two Compass buildings on SR 104 as examples of the need for multifamily design standards. Councilmember Olson said she was very excited about this and enthusiastic about moving it forward. She was a fan of courtyard apartment complexes and complexes with more attention to detail would be an enhancement to the overall look and feel of the City. She was excited to have the ADB and Planning Board involved. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her enthusiastic support for this recommendation and moving it forward to the ADB and Planning Board. A lot can be learned by a visual preference survey especially examples of what works and doesn't work in Edmonds. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support, relaying that it was unanimously supported by the Housing Commission. Council President Paine agreed this was long overdue and she was excited about it. She asked if it would go to the ADB first followed by the Planning Board. Ms. Hope envisioned a dual, iterative process as each board will inform the other. Council President Paine said after working in Seattle particularly with multifamily townhouses and unit lot subdivisions, Edmonds has dodged a huge bullet not having multifamily design standards and has avoided some of the design problems in nearby communities. She supported moving this forward right away. Ms. Hope summarized there was concurrence to move this forward to the Planning Board and ADB and with the public, to be thoughtful about the context for the local neighborhoods with better quality design. Community and Regional Partners (topic not normally subject to Planning Board review) • Housing Commission Recommendation o Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for: ■ Low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI) ■ Special needs residents ■ Seniors ■ Veterans ... o This policy establishes community partnerships with for profit/non-profits to build affordable housing... o (Additional information is contained in the Commission's statement.) • Some relevant Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies from Housing Element o Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 21 4.2.1.a Council President Paine asked if this would cover CC&Rs and bylaws associated with existing HOA documents. She recalled when she lived in a condo, their age restrictions did not allow children over the age of five. She was in favor of the Council pursuing this recommendation. She asked if it include CC&Rs, noting it may be useful to provide education to condominium. Mr. Taraday answered the same review could apply to condominiums and subdivision homeowner documents. Ms. Hope summarized there was consensus to move forward on this recommendation. Council President Paine thanked everyone for attending. Recognizing this may be Ms. Hope's last meeting before her retirement, Councilmember Distelhorst congratulated and thanked her for her service to Edmonds and other cities in the region. He thanked Councilmembers for attending the study session and having this discussion. He pointed out there were a lot of resources available; the Housing Commission looked at a lot of them and he was sure Ms. Hope and other planning staff who supported Housing Commission could share that information so Councilmembers could see the same data that the Housing Commission considered in making their recommendations. He encouraged Councilmembers to ask staff, Councilmember Olson or him for more information. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was Ms. Hope's last hurrah. Having known her before she was an employee of Edmonds, Councilmember Buckshnis said Ms. Hope had always been a rock star. She was happy for Ms. Hope to retire but sad for the City as her departure would leave a big hole. She wished her the best and expressed her thanks for the help she has given her all these years. Ms. Hope said she will miss the Council and many people in the community. She always tried to give professional advice, bring information whether she agreed with it or not, and help the process. She expressed appreciation for the Council's efforts and assured things will continue on and hopefully she has been a help. Councilmember K. Johnson added her thanks to Ms. Hope for all the work she done for the community, the City, and for the Council. She has appreciated her professionalism and that she never lost her cool in tight spots. She asked who would be the Acting Development Services Director. Ms. Hope advised Rob Chave will be the Acting Development Services Director. HR started the recruitment process not long after she gave her notice. Councilmember K. Johnson said Ms. Hope has worked hard and deserves the next phase of her life; she wished her happiness and success. Council President Paine expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hope, commenting she has known her since before she was on Council. She has great leadership qualities and Edmonds has benefitted from them. Council President Paine assured Ms. Hope she will be missed, but it will be great for her to spend time with her family. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m. MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 24, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 22 4.2.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES September 7, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Tom Brubaker, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, with the exception of Councilmember L. Johnson, participating remotely. Council President Paine advised Councilmember L. Johnson was celebrating her 25t1i wedding anniversary and asked to be excused from tonight's meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION ON SUICIDE PREVENTION MONTH Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 23 4.2.1.a some leeway with regard to what they presented. If the Council was not satisfied with what was provided, the Council could to look into what leverage they specifically have under contract. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 8.3 TO DISCUSS GIVING THE PLANNING BOARD ADDITIONAL DIRECTION REGARDING THE TASKING THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE FROM COUNCIL ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THEIR TASK. Councilmember Olson commented the Council discussed this at a previous meeting but did not give formal direction to the Planning Board. Therefore a discussion and ultimately a vote is needed to direct the Planning Board regarding how they should proceed. She anticipated the discussion and vote would not take very long. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. In accordance with RCW 42.17A.555, public comments shall not include statements which promote or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures, except in the course of a public hearing specifically scheduled for such purposes. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said in the second largest timber export state of Washington, Edmonds City Council has illegally possessed private property owners' trees, forcing them to purchase them again from the City before being allowed to use their property for what it is zoned for, building single family homes on single family zoned property. She has begged at nearly every meeting for the City Council to rescind the illegal ordinance that authorizes the City to steal their property rights, forces them to buy the trees back to use their property for what it is zoned for. This Council is breaking the laws of the constitution to accomplish their own agenda. In February 2017, her 81-year old parents, her husband and she purchased a challenging, sloped 1.2 acre property with trees and views of Puget Sound and the mountains. Before purchasing, her husband asked Edmonds Planning Department if the property could be divided into four lots to build their homes and was told it was no problem. After the purchase, the Planning Department told them it would be difficult to subdivide because it was in a critical area. After working with surveyors, engineers, lawyers and architects for two years, they could divide the property into three lots once the small corner containing the critical area was given to a neighbor. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, with construction demands slowing engineering, COVID and complications with her mother's multiple myeloma, the engineers were to submit their application in Q November 2020 but found a moratorium had been placed on subdivision applications. It was placed to halt subdivisions so the City could draft a tree ordinance making it impossible for them to build without repurchasing their trees from the City before they and their roots can be removed and the homes built, a $250,000 unconstitutional governmental taking. Since then they have paid architects, engineers, and arborists to re -inventory each tree and reposition the three homes that they have not yet been allowed to build. The new 50% retention to escape the takings of their trees means their views are gone and large trees will be 10 feet from their homes. Eighty percent of the property will have to remain as open space instead of the 30% required for Edmonds properties or 5% in commercial developments. If they go below the 50% tree retention, they will be forced Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 24 4.2.1.a said he had received responses from Cascadia Art Museum and Arts Start; he offered to provide it now or send it to Councilmembers. Councilmember Olson suggested he email it to Councilmembers. Councilmember Olson preferred to have this as an Unfinished Business item instead of on the Consent Agenda so Councilmembers would have an opportunity to amend a grant request without removing the item from Consent. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Paine about getting funds out the door quickly. She suggested the Council analyze all the categories next year, commenting it was obvious this was an underfunded category. She agreed with Mr. Doherty that the use of some of the fund requested by Art Starts were construction related. She referred to Mr. Doherty's indication that a request of $18,000 was more appropriate, explaining she calculated $30,000. Mr. Doherty explained their request includes 5 areas, the first is $20,000 related to finishing construction and the second is $12,000 for tools related to the workplace, finishings and furnishings for the building. If those 2 were view as less comporting with the guidelines and the $32,000 was deleted, it left $18,000 of their $50,000 request. The remaining items are for educational enhancement, administration expenses and community outreach. Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Mr. Doherty regarding Arts Start. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Paine about getting the funds out the door now, and taking whatever is left over and looking at places like the Food Bank and others that did not apply. Most of the organizations are in the arts which is what brings people and tax dollars to Edmonds. She felt it would be a gigantic mistake to micromanaging by reducing requests by $1,000. She would agree with having it on the agenda under Unfinished Business if she could be assured it would be moved forward at that meeting and not put on a future Consent Agenda. She concluded many of these organizations seriously need the money. Councilmember Olson agreed with getting the money out quickly, but there said there is still some information coming in. As it often takes more time to remove something from the Consent Agenda, she preferred to have it on the agenda under Unfinished Business. She understood the urgency and will not ask it be placed on a future Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of Council to schedule this as Unfinished Business on the September 21 st agenda. Mr. Doherty will send Council the additional information he received. 3. DISCUSS GIVING PLANNING BOARD ADDITIONAL DIRECTION REGARDING TASKING ALREADY HAVE FROM CITY COUNCIL ABOUT MULTIFAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF ADDING GREEN SPACE TO THEIR TASK Councilmember Olson said she wanted to ask the Planning Board to include consideration of green space along with the multifamily design standards that the Council has already tasked them with as one of the Housing Commission recommendations. It came up during the conversation regarding Unit Lot Subdivision and a lot of Councilmembers were interested in exploring whether more green space could be required in multifamily complexes in the future. Council President Paine said she had an opportunity to talk with Acting Development Services Director Chave earlier today but he was not available at tonight's meeting. The intent would be to have both the Planning Board and the Architectural Design Board (ADB) consider green space requirements; there are already landscape requirements for multifamily design. She summarized the majority of Council was interested in having the Planning Board and ADB consider this. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO INCLUDE GREEN SPACE IN THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 25 4.2.1.a BOARD AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD WHEN THIS BODY OF WORK COMES TO THOSE BOARDS. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the intent was to have both the Planning Board and ADB study the inclusion of green space. He pointed out green space drives up construction costs and drives down the number of units, things the City needs to be sensitive to when considering this as increased regulations that prevent construction of housing only further exacerbate the problem. He was in favor of studying it but not mandating a requirement before the boards had an opportunity to consider what would and would not work. Councilmember Olson anticipated that was what their discussions and ultimate recommendations would be based on, a balancing act between the environment and housing costs. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Paine reminded there is an opening for a Council student representative and she encouraged students to apply. She expressed a huge thank you to City staff across the board. COVID has been a burden for all and she recognized during tonight's discussion about suicide prevention for youth and people of all ages that people are affected in different ways. She thanked staff for keeping the work coming through whether in office, at home or outside. She recognized Park and Public Works staffs do not have the option to work from home or in a protected environment. This is a long haul and she appreciated them all. She was reminded by a staff member that the 1918 pandemic lasted three years. Perhaps not the best news, but this is a squirrelly virus that keeps changing. She recognized that patience is a strength and she wanted staff to hang in there and continue doing the best they can. Councilmember Buckshnis commented suicide is real and it impacts a lot of people. She encouraged anyone who felt depressed to seek help, talk to a friend, etc. Depression is a chemical imbalance and if a person reaches a certain point, they can snap. Councilmember Olson commented tonight had been a productive meeting. She encouraged the public to volunteer for the last marsh restoration work party of the year on September 1 I' from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.; it is dirty, hard work and waders are encouraged. She advised town halls will be announced soon to gather citizen input on the budget and spending priorities so the Council and the Administration is aware of the priorities before the 2022 budget is finalized. She encouraged residents to attend the town hall that is most convenient for them. Councilmember K. Johnson observed Council committee meetings will be held next week and respectfully requested that the municipal court reorganization be remanded back to the Public Safety, Planning and Parks Committee for continued discussion as requested in July. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Paine's comments about City staff. Ensuring City staff are safe and healthy and not sick and quarantining ensures they are available to deliver essential services to residents. If staff are not well, residents will not be well because they will not receive the services they need. Tomorrow is the first day of school for the Edmonds School District. As a parent with a child in the Edmonds School District who lost 18 months of school, he was very excited to have kids back in school and his child was looking forward to being back in school, but it is a matter of public health and safety and ensuring areas of potential spread are reduced. He was thankful to educators, administration, coaches, and support staff for working to keep themselves and children healthy and safe and learning in the best possible environment. He wished everyone a good year moving forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 26 4.2.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst referred to today's message from the Health District, Snohomish County is now at the highest rate of infection in the entire pandemic. He appreciated public comment about adults being able to make choices for themselves, but many people in the community are not making good choices for themselves and are still unvaccinated. People need to get vaccinated, wear masks and reduce their risk factors as much as possible to ensure schools, businesses and essential functions can continue to operate. He hoped people would make smart and responsible decisions that will start driving the rate down. He thanked Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers for supporting suicide prevention efforts as it impacts residents of all ages in the community. To Carolyn Strom and Susan Hughes, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not drunk two week. ago. She mistakenly grabbed a glass of wine from dinner and drank some of it. Unfortunately she seems to think she is irreplaceable on the Council. She rarely takes vacations or goes any place. For example, she had lung cancer in her first year on the Council and had most of her right lung removed followed by five months of chemotherapy during which she missed three meetings. She would have chemotherapy on Wednesdays so it did not interfere with Council meetings. She acknowledged she probably should not have done that and probably should have taken time off. A lot of people respond to illness in different ways; she was in extreme pain as she was ten years ago when she had lung cancer, but she chose to serve the citizens of Edmonds. She suggested anyone who wanted to criticize her and her illnesses to call her, she was more than happy to explain. Not much keeps her down when it comes to serving on the Council, anything from cancer to a face infection that infected her sinus and her eye. The hate speech from Ms. Hughes and Ms. Strom was inappropriate and not relevant to her and her service to the City. 110. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed he would have liked to have keep City buildings open to the public, however, case. counts continue to climb, 464/100,000, which is the highest yet. Due to people's personal choices, 95% of ICU beds are full with COVID patients and only 56% of Snohomish County residents are fully vaccinated which is not enough to defeat a pandemic. Over 200,000 in Snohomish County are eligible but choose for whatever reason not to get vaccinated. Because hospitals are filling up, emergency help, surgery and beds are not available because of COVID patients, the majority of whom are unvaccinated. To keep everyone as safe as possible, steps such as closing City Hall to the public are necessary. When numbers decline and people are healthier, safer and more are vaccinated, he will happily reverse all the closures. He does not like Zoom any more than anyone else and is anxious to get back in person. The virus keeps mutating because it continues to find unvaccinated hosts. As soon as everyone is vaccinated, there will be no more mutations and no more virus. He urged everyone to please get vaccinated so we can go back to our regular, normal lives. There are 125,000 people in Snohomish County, children under age 12, who are not eligible to be vaccinated but have the potential to be exposed to COVID. He urged anyone who was eligible to get vaccinated. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 7, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 27 4.2.1.b N a+ C d E t V a+ CD a E 2 a Packet Pg. 28 4.2.1.b TONIGHT'S TOPICS 1)INTRODUCTION OF THE CODE AMENDMENT 2)DISCUSSION / INTERVIEW WITH ADB MEMBERS Packet Pg. 29 Three Phases of Code Amendment Process L R v! PhaseFormation C� C W M Articulation Phase Q 0 r N L a N Adoption Phase C N E s R r Q c aD E s Timeline a Packet Pg. 30 Three Phases of Code Amendment Process Create Initial Ideas Creates Objectives Establish Outreach Plan Background Research/ Gather Info Initial Stakeholder Discussions Discuss with ADB and Planning Board (PB) Refine Ideas / Produce Draft Crafting a Working Draft Discuss Scenarios Heavy Stakeholder Discussion Refining Draft Language Produce Draft Code Language with support of ADB, PB, Stakeholders Review Draft / Adopt Code Comments on Official Draft Revisions Based on Feedback PB Recommendation S E PA Review City Council Review / Adoption 4.2.1.b Packet Pg. 31 4.2.1.b ADB PROCESS GENERAL ORDER FOR ADB DISCUSSIONS Packet Pg. 32 4.2.1.b Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals Housing Goal J - Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings Policy J.1- Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. City Council Direction Consensus for multifamily design updates. Felt it was long overdue. Many discussed character and compatibility. See ADB Attachment A for more on the conversation from Council. 1 0. 6. 2 1 Packet Pg. 33 Development Types / Zones Unit Lot Subdivisions Multifamily Zones (RM Zones) Commercial Zones Downtown Zones (BD Zones) Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Community General Zones (CG) 1 0 . 6 . 2 1 r r l ICLL, J a VY 1 L,1 111 1 the framework? N L .N 0 Development Components 3 Building Form 2 L Setbacks/Stepbacks o Building Fagade Treatments a N Entryway Features 0 Garage/Driveway Placement a E Open Space/ Green Space U a Density, Landscaping, Lighting, et — Packet Pg. 34 4.2.1.b The Usual Suspect Others of Great Importance N L Cu C 'b+ v! C .N 0 M L f+ t+ C a) N L a 1 0. 6. 2 1 Packet Pg. 35 4.2.1.b 1 0 . 6 . 2 1 Packet Pg. 36 Specificity Ensures Compliance Easier to Interpret But it can also Limit Creative Design Create Uniformity Flexibility Allows More Creativity Accommodates More Site -Specific Scenarios But it can also Lead to Uncertainty Have Unintended Outcomes 4.2.1.b Examples of Design Standards • Neighborhood Focused Elements • Massing and Scale • Variety of Building Materials • Front Entry Features • Street Presence • Better Context for Design Approvals • Pedestrian Realm I • Weather Protection for Pedestrians • Garage/Parking Placement • Green space location 07- U107 Mw0i10lm lETt01I!10 - FRONT ELEVATION Large windows promote casual supervision of skdewalk. Porches and Sidewalk ancorlrage knteractkon between neighb4rg_ R Paying and architectural treatmen R define puhllc and private zones. � C Z31 .N 0 Goad pedestrian -scaled Ilghtrng oe streel. — Low landscaping and fences define property lines without L creal ing hiding places. C O = W — — — a o N I £ �a Packet Pg. 38 4.2.1.b Start with a Look at Existing Regulations and Policies r What works? What doesn't? What needs adding? �. . :. Fj . II i N a+ C d E t V 2 a+ a ■�W-ffiCD Packet Pg. 39 4.2.1.b N a+ C d E t V a+ CD a E 2 a Packet Pg. 40 4.2.1.b N a+ C d E t V a+ CD a E 2 a Packet Pg. 41 4.2.1.b N a+ C d E t V a+ CD a E 2 a Packet Pg. 42 NEXT STEPS 1)EMAIL SURVEY TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD(ADB) 2)CONTINUE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS 3)DISCUS OUTREACH APPROACH WITH PLANNING BOARD 4)RETURN TO ADB NEXT MONTH TO DISCUSS BIG PICTURE / FRAMEWORK AND SCOPE OF THE ISSUE a Packet Pg. 43 4.2.1.b Visit the Edmonds Code Update webpage for more information or to sign up for notifications. Multifamily Design Standard (Update) specific page coming soon! www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates FOR QUESTIONS, ERIC ENGMAN N, Q. •• �0 ---- - - ---- - - - -- Webpage QR Code CONTACT: A I C P SENIOR PLANNER I CITY OF EDMONDS r- m i%,. t N U ri H ig 1-4 @ E D M v 1-4 D S WA . U U V ( 4 2 5 ) 9 9 7 - 9 5 4 1 oV E D �o � �d cn a Packet Pg. 44