Loading...
2024-09-26 Architectural Design Board Packet41 OE LUMG do Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 SEPTEMBER 26, 2024, 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION This is a Hybrid meeting. Attendees may appear in person or on-line via the zoom link provided. Physical Meeting Location: Brackett Room, 3rd Floor Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N. Zoom Link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/88959586932?pwd=RzdPWUIwM09PZ1k1MHN2eWM1YXphZz09 Passcode:591531 1. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. Previous Meeting Minutes 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Statement: This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as public hearing. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please clearly state your name and city of residence. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Upcoming Board Work and Special Meeting 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. 8. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 9. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda September 26, 2024 Page 1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/26/2024 Previous Meeting Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the 8/22 meeting minutes. Narrative Draft minutes from 8/22 meeting attached. Attachments: ADB 08222024_draft Packet Pg. 2 CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 22, 2024 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall, 121— 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Staff Present y Kim Bayer, Chair Nick (providing tech support at the meeting) S Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch =_ Todd Stine Board Members Absent y c Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (excused) Alex Hutchinson a. Steve Schmitz $ APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS An audience member (unidentified) stated he was present to learn more about Edmonds. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS A. ADB Recap of First Half of 2024 Chair Bayer discussed the significant changes in staffing that have happened recently in the Planning Department. She reviewed the motion the ADB had passed at the June meeting to reject the work product delivered to the ADB, to remain supportive of developing an urban design element appropriate for Edmonds, and to support the use of existing regulations as interim regulations. She outlined many of the ADB's concerns in a letter she had drafted to the City Council, the Mayor, and the Planning Department back in June. She gave a recap of the ADB's work to date and expressed frustration and disappointment with what they have been able to accomplish this year. She also expressed hope and optimism that the path for the rest of the year can still be better. B. ADB Role and Current vs. Future Scope of Work Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 22, 2024 Pagel of 3 Packet Pg. 3 Chair Bayer shared the ADB's description and role as stated on the website and solicited feedback from the group about whether or not they think it still applies. • Board Member Jeude wondered what happened to the documents they had worked on. She stated she would like to know where the ADB stands on their ability to really have input on the design elements. • One of the board members asked if they ever found out if the document from Via was the correct document. Chair Bayer replied that Susan McLaughlin shared with her that it was not meant to come to the ADB at that point. • It was noted that the website does not state that the ADB reviews design for projects. Chair Bayer thought this might be part of bullet point 2. When she first joined the ADB, that is primarily what they did as opposed to the policy work. Because of the massive turnover in the Planning Department there has been no continuity, and project work has continually dwindled. There was some discussion about the one project the ADB worked on in 2024 and the few they worked on in 2023. • Board Member Loch discussed the need for a holistic, well -thought-out, universal review of the design review process and this board's role for the future. This includes a clear evaluation of the design review standards and the process by which they are applied and the properties to which they are applied. He expressed a willingness to help with the process, but right now, he feels the work is not particularly enjoyable or rewarding. • Chair Bayer commented on her experiences with the ADB and her desire to see that change is managed in a smart way. She noted that they have never had the Planning Department support that they need, and this has been a significant barrier to their work. She wants to know if this board still has a relevant role moving forward. She spoke to the need for more meaningful citizen input on project reviews. She noted there has also been a vision that did not include the ADB coming from the leadership of the Planning Department. She wants to understand where the ADB fits into the City's vision. • Board Member Jeude commented that she has seen it work well and has seen results when it was working well. She believes there is still a role for the ADB. She pointed to vast improvements in projects from what was originally brought to them because of their input. More recently staff has been bringing things to them for their approval without a real opportunity to provide input. It is important that the ADB has Planning Department and Planning Board support and in a timely manner in order to do good work. There was some review of the impact of the Planning Board review of projects at 6th and Main and 6I' and Dayton. Board Member Jeude emphasized that she thinks the ADB can have an important role in all five zones of the city, not just the Bowl and downtown. • Chair Bayer spoke to the need for the ADB to get updates on all the project reviews they do because they never really see what happens. • Board Member Stine said he feels that the ADB is a benefit to the City and to the staff. He commented on the beneficial working relationship between the design review board and staff in the City of Seattle. There was some discussion about the new state mandates and how they would impact the ADB — only one hearing; clear, concise, and objective standards. Chair Bayer solicited feedback on what the group would recommend in order to get to these standards. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 22, 2024 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 4 • Board Member Loch again spoke to the need for a holistic approach. He thinks there needs to be a summit or something at the beginning of the year (hopefully with Council) to understand this process. He noted that the new urban design standards will presumably still be on the work plan. That can lead to a broader discussion about how the design process, the design standards, and this board can fit into the city's process or where there's changes needed. He commented that the board should also be involved in sign codes, which they currently are not. He thinks the group has been neglected for a long time, and that needs to be remedied. • Chair Bayer noted that even if the design standards are written in a way that the ADB is not needed for review, there will still be some subjectivity. This is concerning because there would be no opportunity for oversight. Board Member Jeude concurred and referred to what would have been built without the ADB's input on a lot of projects. She spoke to the value of community engagement in Edmonds. Chair Bayer agreed and commented on the need to understand how the ADB fits into the bigger picture moving forward. In the meantime there are a lot of projects happening, and she is concerned that the ADB isn't involved. She was very pleased that Mike Clugston is back on board but was not sure who would be the staff liaison c going forward with all the changes that have happened. g • Board Member Stine commented that he sees part of the ADB's role is to help the staff do their = job more effectively. Some communication with staff on how the ADB can best do this would be helpful. Chair Bayer concurred. C. Questions for Planning Department/City of Edmonds y 3 SD L Board Member Loch: IL • What is the ADB's work plan for the remainder of the year and for 2025? 2 • What is the Board's role going forward? Council input on this is critical.i Chair Bayer: • What should the ADB be reviewing? • How is what is coming to the ADB being decided? • How do they make that clear and objective? • Why certain projects and not others? There was discussion about opinions shared tonight being individual board members' thoughts and not necessarily the ADB's recommendation. There was consensus for Chair Bayer to move forward with sharing the comments with that clarification with the Administration. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stine noted that the spelling of his name should be corrected in the previous minutes (Stine, not Stein). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 22, 2024 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 5 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 09/26/2024 Upcoming Board Work and Special Meeting Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History NA Staff Recommendation NA Narrative The Board met on August 22, 2024 without a liaison present from the Planning Division; this was an unusual situation and not typical of standard practice. During that meeting, the Board discussed the design -related aspects of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the state mandate for clear and objective design standards required by House Bill 1293. Several general questions were also raised about the Board's upcoming work plan. Regarding work on the design element of the Comp Plan, it is still too soon to know how review of that material will occur given recent staffing changes. It is anticipated that over the next few weeks that portion of the work plan will be revised and hopefully ready to share at the October 24 meeting. It is anticipated that the Board's review work on the existing Comp Plan design language would be incorporated into the revised work plan in some way. Regarding HB 1293, the Department of Commerce has not provided guidance on how to satisfy the mandatory requirements. Between that and the staffing changes, little progress has been made on this item. As has been previously discussed, HB 1293 requires that: Only clear and objective development regulations governing the exterior design of a new development are allowed in design review. The standards must have at least one ascertainable guideline, standard, or criterion by which an applicant can determine whether a given design is permissible. The design guidelines may not reduce density, height, bulk, or scale beyond the underlying zone. Design review must be conducted concurrently with consolidated project review and may not include more than one public meeting. The HB 1293 work is due six months after the Comp Plan is adopted so there is time, but the Planning Division is actively trying to bring additional staff onboard to work on that project. It is anticipated that Packet Pg. 6 staff will ultimately produce an annotated redline/strikeout version of possible code amendments to share for review at an upcoming meeting. With respect to project reviews, there should be several projects that require design review coming to the Board over the next three months. To that end, a special meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 9, 2024. That meeting would take the place of the two meetings cancelled for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Packet Pg. 7