The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-01-26 Architectural Design Board Packeto Agenda VEdmonds Architectural Design Board ,HvREGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JANUARY 26, 2023, 6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION This is a Hybrid meeting: The in -person portion of the meeting will now be at 7PM in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall. Zoom Link below for those attending online. Zoom Link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/j/88959586932?pwd=RzdPWUIwM09PZ1k1MHN2eWM1YXphZz09 Passcode:591531 Physical Meeting Location: Brackett Room, 3rd Floor Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N. A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA C. 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. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) F. PUBLIC HEARINGS G. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. H. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Review ADB Handbook I. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS J. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda January 26, 2023 Page 1 D.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/26/2023 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History NA Staff Recommendation Approve amended minutes from December 7, 2022. Narrative Under the title, it should read "Minutes of Regular Meeting" The first sentence should read "Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. " Attachments: ADB221207d Packet Pg. 2 D.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting December 7, 2022 Chair Bayer called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent Joe Herr APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner THE AGENDA WAS APPROVED AS PRESENTED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • August 3, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None BOARD REVIEW ITEMS • Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB. Architectural Design Board Meeting December 7, 2022 Pagel of 3 Packet Pg. 3 D.1.a Senior Planner Clugston gave a brief overview of the past few months and noted that he is expecting Multifamily Design Standards and other items to come to the ADB as soon as Edmonds gets a new Planning Manager and gets staff up to speed. Director Strauss stated she wasn't present at the last meeting but read the minutes and noted it sounded like there was a very good discussion. Senior Planner Clugston agreed and stated he was very pleased with the quality of the discussion. He is confident there will be more of this in the future. Board Member Jeude asked about the project going in between 232nd and 236t' on 104 down by the cannabis place. She expressed concern that they completely cleared the land without retaining any trees. Senior Planner Clugston wasn't sure, but noted it is possible that the project received preliminary approval before the new tree code was adopted in July of 2021. Now there is a requirement for retention of trees for plats, short plats, single family residences, etc. Upon clarification of the location, Mr. Clugston noted that the project is in Esperance, not Edmonds. Board Member Loch referred to Mr. Clugston's earlier comment about the concept of the Board reviewing N development along Highway 99. He thought it was odd that the Board didn't have that role already and asked for clarification. Mr. Clugston explained that since 2007 all design reviews in the CG zone have been done by staff regardless of the size of the building. In the last few months there has been discussion about whether that 4- makes sense or whether to include the ADB in design review of certain projects. The Council is still discussing 0 this. Chair Bayer asked for more history on this. Mr. Clugston wasn't sure about the background. Board Member o Jeude noted there has been a strong push for neighborhood identity work and that the ADB would be critical in a this work. It seems reasonable that the ADB would be involved. Q Chair Bayer asked for an update on BD2. Mr. Clugston explained there are design standards for multifamily - only buildings in the BD2 zone; however, since that time Council has adopted a longer designated street front line that applies to buildings in the BD zones. He thinks that applies to almost all parcels in the BD2 zone and a couple on the outer edges. Essentially, there can't be any more multifamily -only buildings in the BD2 zone. Chair Bayer asked about the Greenway Park 16-home plat project on Edmonds Way. Mr. Clugston explained they have applied for a Planned Residential Development and a plat for 16 lots at that site. As part of the PRD part of the project, the ADB looks at the design of the project first and makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. He was not sure of the timeline. Mr. Clugston commented that IT has recently installed a camera in the Brackett Room at City Hall. This will enable boards and commissions to have hybrid meetings in early 2023. The code will need to be updated to reflect the new location. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS • Election of Officers for 2023 BOARD STRAUSS NOMINATED KIM BAYER TO CONTINUE AS CHAIR AND ALEXA BROOKS TO CONTINUE AS VICE CHAIR. BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ SECONDED THE NOMINATION. Architectural Design Board Meeting December 7, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 4 D.1.a HIM BAYER WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED AS CHAIR, AND ALEXA BROOKS WAS UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED AS VICE CHAIR. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Chair Bayer expressed concern about the lack of meetings due to staffing issues, and stated she hopes this can be avoided in the future. Mr. Clugston concurred. Board Member Loch suggested moving meeting times to 6 p.m. rather than 7 p.m. Mr. Clugston replied that it was up to the Board. After some discussion, there was consensus to move forward with this time change. Mr. Clugston explained there would need to be a code amendment reflecting the change in time along with the previously discussed change in location. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting December 7, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 5 a E.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/26/2023 Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Council adopted emergency interim ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. That ordinance adds an ADB design review process for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone in addition to a design standard for building step backs in certain situations. The code change would require a two-phase design review process by the ADB, similar to that in the Downtown Business (BD) zones, for proposed buildings in the CG zone that are taller than 35 feet (buildings less than 35 feet tall would continue to be reviewed by staff as the process has been since 2007). At the same time, when a proposed building in the CG zone is across the street from a single family zone, the CG building would have to apply a step back on that side on the project unless the ADB finds that the step back is not needed. Prior to Ord. 4283, Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance that contained required step back language (Ord. 4278). That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the step back concept for buildings across the street from single family zones was included in Ord. 4278. Staff Recommendation Discuss the new step back language. Consider the need for the requirement, whether it addresses the need, and how it can be implemented. Consider alternative solutions and whether the two-phase design review process would be the appropriate process. Due to timing issues, this will come back for an ADB recommendation on February 23. The Planning Board will begin their discussions on February 8 and hold a public hearing on the permanent language in March or April. Ordinance 4283 is in effect until June 10, 2023, and Council must adopt any permanent language prior to that date. Narrative Because Ordinance 4283 is interim, final regulations need to be adopted by Council after review by other boards. Because design -related language is involved, the ADB should review the interim language and make a recommendation to the Planning Board on final language. The interim language alters the building step back requirements in the general site development Packet Pg. 6 E.1 standards in ECDC 16.60.020.D. Existing step back language in that subsection applies when a single family (IRS) parcel is adjacent to a General Commercial (CG) parcel. In that case, a new building on the CG parcel must step back from the required zoning setback as the height of the building increases. The interim language would provide a similar building step back across the street from a single family (IRS) zone. The intent is the new step back would reduce the bulk of the new building and provide additional transition from the CG zone to the IRS zone. However, the proposed language indicates that both step backs are requirements unless the ADB finds them not to be necessary. That provides the ADB with some discretion but as it is worded the ADB could waive both the 'across the street' step back as well as the 'adjacent' step back. Attachments: Ordinance 4283 emergency interim Council Minutes 12.10.2022 Packet Pg. 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a ORDINANCE NO.4283 AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds completed a subarea planning process for the Highway 99 corridor in 2017, which included adopting the subarea plan into the Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 4077), updating the General Commercial zoning in Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ord. 4078), and establishing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a planned action (Ord. 4079); and WHEREAS, concerns were raised in 2022 as to whether Ordinance 4078 properly excluded upper story step back language that was contained in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4278 as an emergency interim ordinance to establish upper story step backs for development across the street from single family zones until additional consideration could be given to whether such step backs should be adopted as a permanent regulation; and WHEREAS, additional research was done after the adoption of Ordinance 4278, which indicates that the 2017 city council expressly evaluated and rejected the upper story step backs that were described in Alternative 2 to the Planned Action EIS and that their exclusion from Ordinance 4078 was intentional; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on whether to leave Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, public testimony was provided both for and against leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect; and WHEREAS, the city council deliberated the merits of leaving Ordinance 4278 in effect on November 15, 2022 and November 22, 2022 and ultimately determined to repeal Ordinance 4278; and WHEREAS, the city council considers the step back concern to be indicative of a larger procedural deficiency in the CG zone, namely, that Ordinance 4078 did not create any design review process in which the public could meaningfully participate; and WHEREAS, the creation of a public design review process (as opposed to a merely administrative process) would allow concerned citizens to express design -related concerns through a design review hearing on a project -specific basis; and Packet Pg. 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a WHEREAS, in appropriate instances, step backs could be a result of the new design review process, but, unlike through the initially proposed interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278), step backs would not necessarily be required in every instance where a project is across the street from a single-family zoned property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 16.60.030, entitled "Site development standards — Design," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in str4kethfough). Section 2. ECDC 20.12.010, entitled "Applicability," is hereby amended to read as shown on Attachment A hereto (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in Section 3. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 4 herein), this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner. Section 4. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 17, 2023 unless the city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a Section 5. Applicability of Sections 1 and 2 to Pending Applications. Any pending application for design review that has not yet received a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.13 and that would be within the scope of applicability for ADB review pursuant to ECDC 20.12.010 (as amended by this ordinance) shall receive a staff recommendation to the ADB who will make the final decision on the design of the project following a public hearing under ECDC 20.12.020 instead of a staff decision under ECDC 20.12.030.B. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate adoption of the interim regulations described herein, development applications could become vested, leading to the development of property without public input as to the design of the development. Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent the vesting of building permit applications to other regulations. This ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Packet Pg. 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: DocuSigned by: Nl,L,1�4 MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: DocuSigned by: 7R7'2'JFFAFAf1f1dCR CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARAD Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 9, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 10, 2022 PUBLISHED: December 14, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 10, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 4283 al Packet Pg. 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4283 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 10th day of December, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4283. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO CREATE A PUBLIC DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CG ZONE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 101h day of December, 2022. DocuSigned by: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a ATTACHMENT A 16.60.020 Site development standards - General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: Minimum Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Minimum Side/Rear Maximum Maximum Floor Area Width Street Setback Setback Height Area CG None None Y/10'2 U/15'' 75" None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property; otherwise no setback is required by this subsection. 2 The five-foot minimum width applies only to permitted outdoor auto sales use; otherwise the minimum is 10 feet. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the comprehensive plan map. B. Maximum height for purposes of this chapter need not include railings, chimneys, mechanical equipment or other exterior building appurtenances that do not provide interior livable space. In no case shall building appurtenances together comprise more than 20 percent of the building surface area above the maximum height. C. Pedestrian Area. 1. For purposes of this chapter, the pedestrian area described herein is the area adjacent to the street that encompasses the public right-of-way from the edge of the curb (or, if no curb, from the edge of pavement) and the street setback area, as identified in the table in subsection (A) of this section. 2. The pedestrian area is composed of three zones: the activity zone, the pedestrian zone, and the streetscape zone. Providing improvements to the pedestrian area, as needed to be consistent with this subsection on at least the primary street, is required as part of development projects, excluding development that would not add a new building or that consists of building improvements that do not add floor area equaling more than 10 percent of the building's existing floor area or that consists of additional parking stalls that comprise less than 10 percent of the existing parking stalls or that consists of development otherwise exempted under this chapter. a. Activity Zone. The activity zone shall be the open-air pedestrian area from the building front to the edge of the pedestrian zone. The activity zone is the section of the pedestrian area that is reserved for activities that commonly occur immediately adjacent to the building facade. Typical amenities or activities included in the activity zone include, but are not limited to, sidewalks, benches, potted plants, outdoor dining and shopping. The area shall be paved to connect with the pedestrian zone in an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be constructed in a portion of the activity zone. Packet Pg. 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a b. Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone is located between the activity zone and the streetscape zone. The pedestrian zone consists of a minimum five-foot clear and unobstructed path for safe and efficient through traffic for pedestrians. Architectural projections and outdoor dining may be permitted to encroach into the pedestrian zone only where a minimum five-foot clear path and seven -foot vertical clearance is maintained within the pedestrian zone. c. Streetscape Zone. The streetscape zone is located between the curb or pavement edge to the edge of the pedestrian zone and shall be a minimum of five feet wide. The streetscape zone is the section that is reserved for pedestrian use and for amenities and facilities that commonly occur between the adjacent curb or pavement edge and pedestrian through traffic. Typical amenities and facilities in the streetscape zone include, but are not limited to, street trees, street lights, benches, bus stops, and bike racks. Street trees shall be required in conformance with the Edmonds Street Tree Plan. IF4 i Q C ro m Y N .- v a a a a� inN 0.N <N -,, —5'min. —f 5'-SO'r, Nate: Numerical Ranges far the Pedeslrrarf Zone and tfre Activity Zone are typical but do not control over WhLr requirements of this chapter. (Illustration: Pedestrian area) D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from RS Zones. 1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback to are adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a desian review by the Architectural Desian Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Packet Pg. 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a 2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and architectural features. IO W,&a nay (Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to RS zones) [Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007]. 16.60.030 Site development standards - Design. A. Screening and Buffering. 1. General. a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights -of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Tree landscaping may be clustered to soften the view of a building or parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to minimize visual impacts and integrate landscaping into the design. d. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping, consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Packet Pg. 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a e. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multifamily zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and continuous in length. f. Type I landscaping is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I landscaping is required for commercial and multifamily uses adjacent to single- family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and 10 feet in height and continuous in length. h. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multifamily zone, there shall be a minimum of a six -foot -high masonry wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single- family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. i. Landscape buffers, Type I, shall be used along the edge of parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. j. Outdoor storage areas for commercial uses must be screened from adjacent IRS zones. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. a. Type IV landscaping, minimum five feet wide, is required along all street frontages where parking lots, excluding for auto sales use, abut the street right-of-way. b. For parking lots where auto sales uses are located, the minimum setback area must be landscaped to include a combination of vegetation and paved pedestrian areas. c. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls that have architectural treatment meeting at least three of the elements listed in subsection (D)(2)(e) of this section; ii. Type III planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque; or iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque. Packet Pg. 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a ATTACHMENT A Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 1 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has Packet Pg. 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a ATTACHMENT A failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart: Design Review for Major Projects Proposed New Review Process &Eaa nal}ryyvy 7 RqndFM +�9 P�hlc AppYe�spnn Fy,ffw qwo o} AnRrI I COd Cid1u A� DKWW DOW ! I1—rT----- T_L_ Ys. I � E � k— — — — — — — ----------_ hood D"ee 4JA41PPV-W [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.010 Applicability. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the application shall be processed as a Type III -A decision. In the General Commercial (CG) zone, -_design review by the architectural design board is required for anv Droiect that includes buildinas exceedina 7-535 feet in heiaht as identified in ECDC 16.60.020 regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.12.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the Packet Pg. 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a ATTACHMENT A process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in +onECDC 16.60. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification (s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. Packet Pg. 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. Packet Pg. 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D E.1.a ATTACHMENT A f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection (13)(1)(f) of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: Packet Pg. 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.030 Design review by city staff. A. Optional Pre -Application Meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre -application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this chapter. B. Application and Staff Decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. When conducting its review, city staff shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 1 20.12.070 Design guidelines, criteria and checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the design guidelines. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. Packet Pg. 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a 1. Criteria to be used in design review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design objectives for the downtown waterfront activity center contained in the Edmonds comprehensive plan. b. (Reserved). 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the medical/Highway 99 activity center or the Highway 99 corridor as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map include the following: a. Design standards contained in Chapter 16.60 ECDC for the general commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the comprehensive plan addressing the medical/Highway 99 activity center and Highway 99 corridor. [Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020(B) are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. These are the only decisions by the ADB in this chapter that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW. C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. [Ord. 4154 § 17 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 45, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section, the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. Packet Pg. 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D ATTACHMENT A E.1.a 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one-time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as a Type I decision (Staff decision — No notice required). [Ord. 3736 § 46, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 20071. Packet Pg. 24 E.1.b Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson's comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the budget process. Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information back to 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very instrumental in the Mayor's climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in heaven with Bob. Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses. Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about councilmember's priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic about what the council has achieved. Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards. Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman's sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed. 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Council President Olson said the council's legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda. She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10t1' regular meeting agenda and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2) adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 25 E.1.b Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: • Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs o October 4, 2022 - Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) o November 15, 2022 - Council held a public hearing o November 22, 2022 - Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278 Proposed Code Revisions - 16.60.030 o 16.60.030 Site development standards ■ Design buildings exeeeding75 feet in height identified in ECDC eixeeeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type 1 deeision. Rega oess of-I.Ah-At -dir-ed, all pr-qjeets proposed in the GG zone must meet the design ;., .h-is se tio_, Proposed Code Revision - 20.12.010 o 20.12.010 Applicability ■ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III -A decision. ■ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III -A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in ECDC 16.60. Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III -A decision. In the first step, the project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale, materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible. Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design decisions can also be beneficial. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 26 E.1.b Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained, which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, "regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required." It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the ADB if it is over 35 feet in height. Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re -review the planned action ordinance and maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET. Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up the language as recommended by the city attorney. Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process. Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, "The portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessaa pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not. Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 27 E.1.b Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate. Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him. Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time, it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100 feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with the history of discussing it and saying it isn't actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not include step backs, even if they don't think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won't use the other tools they have at their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves 16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr. Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff or the ADB does the design review is "The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as fagade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details." This provides a menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back, setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment. Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step backs are one of those at the development service director's discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision. Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB. However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 28 E.1.b step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of who carries the burden to make the case. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when the tree code was proposed. Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has been debated in the past. Some of the ADB's discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019 largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively before it gets to the ADB. Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board. Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III -A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court. Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated, the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices, whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation. Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read proposed language for 16.60.020.1) that was provided by a resident, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods... Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 29 E.1.b Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.1) that she would propose if Councilmember Teitzel's amendment failed, "When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind." Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City. Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital's conference rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in the driver's seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for a typically Type 111-A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be thoughtful about that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 30 E.1.b Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make important decisions. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice. He appreciated other councilmembers' thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel's amendment. During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB's consideration of the BD zones with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment: RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared earlier still applied. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, "WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND." Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design approaches which would have included step backs. Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass. Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement, just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment necessary. Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 31 E.1.b Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide to staff. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6, Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda item 2 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 32 H.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/26/2023 Review ADB Handbook Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here} Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Staff created a handbook for the ADB in 2022 which summarizes the Board's scope and processes and related information. It is still in draft form and now would be a good opportunity to review and make changes to the document prior to finalizing it. Staff Recommendation Review and provide any feedback on the draft handbook. Narrative NA Attachments: Draft ADB Handbook v1 w appendices Packet Pg. 33 Architectural Design Board Handbook This handbook was organized to provide an overview of who the ADB is and what they do. It is not exhaustive but touches on many of the aspects of the Board's organization and work. Two documents that are referenced in the handbook are not included but are available on the City's website - the City's Comprehensive Plan and related policy documents and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). If you have any questions about anything Board - related, contact your Board liaison for assistance. Contacts pg 1 Meetings pg 1 Membership, Officers & Quorum pg 2 Powers & Duties pg 3 Design Review Processes & Standards pg 3 Miscellaneous pg 7 Appendices pg 8 Contacts A City email address will be assigned for your use. All Board -related correspondence and meeting agendas will be sent to that email. Do not use your personal email for City or Board business as it could be disclosed during a request for public records. The Board liaison from the Planning Division is Mike Clugston (michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov). If you have any questions, concerns, or comments, let Mike know. Michelle Martin is the Administrative Assistant for Planning (michelle.martin@edmondswa.gov). Michelle sends out the meeting agendas and otherwise keeps staff in line. Kernen Lien is the Planning Manager (kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov). Kernen oversees daily operations of the Planning Division and the Boards and Commissions that Planning supports. Other Planning staff members may add items to an ADB agenda if a particular development permit application requires ADB review. Development Services (Planning, Building and Engineering Divisions) is located on the second floor of City Hall (121 5t" Ave. N) and can be reached at 425-771-0220. Meeting Date, Time and Location Regular meetings are the first Wednesday of the month at 7 PM. An alternate meeting may be held as needed, typically on the third Wednesday of the month. Revised on 511112022 P Packet Pg. 34 H.1.a During COVID, meetings have been virtual at: httDS://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/i/89087813540?pwd=WmJWQ0g4VzRrOTM3Qndtc1150DJaZz09 Passcode: 612943 Once the pandemic restrictions are lifted, in -person meetings will be held again in the City Council Chambers in the Public Safety Building at 250 5t" Ave. N. Meeting agendas along with minutes and video from past meetings are available at: httD://edmondswa.iam2.com/Citizens/default.aSDX. 11C O Membership, Officers & Quorum �° c Architectural Design Board consists of: _ m 0 Q 1) an architect or building designer 3 2 2) a landscaper or landscape architect 3) a builder or developer N a� 4) a person educated or having practical experience in planning c 5) a person trained or having practical experience in any of the above categories or any related m a design science 3 6) two lay persons, who must reside within the City > Members are appointed by the Mayor and can serve no more than two full, four-year terms. The Chair and Vice -Chair are usually selected at the last meeting of a year to serve the following year. The Chair presides at meetings with the Vice -Chair as back up. A majority of the sitting Board makes up a quorum and can conduct business. For example, if there are only five sitting members and two vacancies at some point, a majority of the five (three) is a quorum and can conduct business. Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) Trainin The Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and Edmonds codes strive for greater government transparency by requiring all board business be conducted in open public meetings. All new board and commission members are required to take OPMA training within 90 days of appointment and to retake the training every 4 years. Please take this training at your convenience (https://www.atg.wa.gov/open-government- training) and provide Mike a copy of your training certificate when you're done so he can notify the City Clerk that you have completed the training. Revised on 511112022 Pl—" -� 'j-g Packet Pg. 35 H.1.a Powers & Duties The ADB was created in 1973 and was known as the Amenities Design Board until 1982 when it was renamed the Architectural Design Board. Originally a five -member Board, today's seven - member Board has nearly the same Powers and Duties as in 1973: The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor, city council, planning commission and the planning department on matters hereinafter enumerated and on such matters as may be specifically referred to the board by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department: A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and policies for each established design district. E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. While the Powers and Duties indicate more of a policy development focus for the ADB, the Board has spent most of the past 50 years acting as a decision -maker on design for projects large and small. In the mid-1990s, staff started to take a greater role in design review, taking some smaller projects off the ADB's plate. In 2007, the scope of what requires design review was updated to focus on a more limited set of projects and to further clarify what types of projects are reviewed by the Board and what types are reviewed by staff. Design Review Processes and Standards Why do design review? The City of Edmonds uses design review to promote development practices that enhance the environmental and aesthetic quality of the community as a whole. Design review is intended to apply to all development including any improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored. The following types of development are exempt from design review: 1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds city council. Revised on 511112022 P Packet Pg. 36 H.1.a 2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in RS — single-family residential districts. 3. Detached single-family homes or duplexes in RM — multiple residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds historic preservation commission. 5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit. 6. Signs that meet all of the standards in the sign ordinance. 7. Underground utilities. What are the applicable design standards and processes? Y 0 Design guidance is found in both the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and applies to general areas of the City or to specific zoning districts. These documents and the others referenced below are available on the City's website at: m https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development services/planning divis a ion. 3 2 1. General and district -specific urban design goals, policies, and objectives are found in the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 122 — 127). 2. ECDC Title 16 — Zone Districts. Some zoning districts have specific design standards, particularly the Residential Multifamily (Chapter 16.30), the Community Business — Edmonds Way (Chapter 16.50), the General Commercial (Chapter 16.60), and the Westgate Mixed -Use (Chapter 16.100) zones. 3. ECDC Chapters 20.10 — 20.13. These chapters include standards and processes used in design review. a. Chapter 20.10 — Design Review b. Chapter 20.11 —General Design Review c. Chapter 20.12 — District -Based Design Review d. Chapter 20.13 — Landscaping Requirements 4. ECDC Title 22 —Design Standards. Specific design standards for the Downtown Business (BD) zones, the Westgate Mixed -Use District (WMU) and the Firdale Village (FVMU) zones. 5. Street Tree Plan. This portion of the Edmonds Streetscape Plan contains specific requirements for street tree installation in certain locations throughout the city. Other sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code that will affect the design of a project include: ECDC Chapter 17.50, off-street parking standards; ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements (including stormwater, streets and sidewalks, and parking lot construction); ECDC Title 23, Tree and Critical Area codes; ECDC Title 24, the Shoreline Master Program. Are there different types of design review? Yes. The type of design review depends on the location of the project within the City. Revised on 511112022 P Packet Pg. 37 H.1.a 1. District -based design review applies for projects located in: a. The Downtown Business zones (BD zones) located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. b. The General Commercial (CG) zone located within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center or the Highway 99 Corridor. 2. General design review applies to all multifamily, business and commercial areas of Edmonds. Who does the review? Depending on the scope of the project, design review is done either by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) or City staff. The ADB reviews projects where a threshold determination is required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); except, the ADB is only required to review projects that include buildings exceeding 75 feet in height in the CG zone. All projects under the maximum height in CG and all those elsewhere in the City that do not require a SEPA determination are reviewed administratively by city staff. In limited cases, the Board will review a project make a recommendation on design to the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner will then hold a public hearing and make the final decision on design as well as a related land use permit. Examples include planned residential developments and other consolidated land use projects where the Examiner is the final decision maker. What is the process for General Design Review? The following findings must be made by staff or the ADB when doing general design review: Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. • Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff Review (Type I decision) Most commonly, staff completes design review as part of the building permit application review. Staff reviews the project for design compliance while looking at related bulk zoning criteria. In some instances, a separate design review application may be reviewed and approved prior to building permit application. ADB Review (Type III -A decision) This is a quasi-judicial process where the Board makes the final decision after a public hearing (see Appendix 2 for more details about the quasi-judicial decision process). At permit submittal, staff will review the application for completeness; the contact person for the project will receive a letter indicating whether the application is complete and/or identifying any additional items or information that is required. Once complete, the application is reviewed for compliance with city codes, and the proposal is scheduled for an Revised on 511112022 P Packet Pg. 38 H.1.a ADB meeting agenda. One week before the meeting, a staff report with recommendation and suggested conditions is sent to the ADB and the project contact. The ADB meeting is a public hearing with testimony taken from staff, the applicant, and interested citizens. Before the meeting, staff will provide the Chair a meeting script to run through at the meeting as a process guide. At the meeting, staff presents their report and the applicant then makes a presentation about the proposal. Citizens can comment on the proposal as well. After deliberation and consideration of the testimony presented, the Board will make a motion to approve the proposal, deny it, or approve the proposal with modifications or conditions. There are occasions where a hearing may need to be continued to obtain additional information or clarification before the Board can make a decision. In that instance, the Y Board must continue the hearing to a date certain so the hearing can be completed and a decision issued. �°o c x What is the process for District -Based Review? m The following findings must be made by staff when using district -based design review: 0 Q 3 • Design Guidelines. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives m contained in the Comprehensive Plan. • Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning c chapter(s). as Q- a The following findings must be made by the ADB when using district -based design review: 3 • Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 0 • Design Criteria. The proposal incorporates the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing (see ECDC 20.12.020). x m • Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning 0 a ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning r L chapter(s). o Staff Review (Type I decision) As with general design review, staff usually completes district -based design review as part of the building permit application review, reviewing the project for design compliance while looking at height, setbacks, parking and other zoning criteria. In a limited number of instances, a separate design review application may be required. ADB Review (TVDe III -A decision This is a quasi-judicial process where the Board makes the final decision after a public hearing (see Appendix 2 for more details about the quasi-judicial decision process). The district -based review by the ADB involves a two-phase hearing process developed in order to obtain public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In general, the process is as follows: Revised on 511112022 Pl—" A 'j-g Packet Pg. 39 H.1.a 1) Public Hearing (Phase 1). The applicant submits a preliminary conceptual design(s) to the City. Staff schedules the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of the application being found to be "complete." During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB makes factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and establishes a prioritized design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the City's design guidelines, and elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following review of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing is continued to a date -certain not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 date. 2) Continued public hearing (Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to allow the applicant time to further refine or redesign the initial conceptual design to address the Y input of the public and the ADB by complying with the design guideline checklist criteria. �°o When refinement or redesign is complete, it is resubmitted for final review; the review of this design is the subject of Phase 2 of the public hearing. This design must be = submitted within 180 days of the Phase 1 meeting, or the two-step process must begin m 0 again as a new application. Q 3 m Miscellaneous as Appeals Design review decisions may be appealed to Snohomish County superior court within 21 days of the issuance of the decision. Prior to Construction In those instances where design review is performed as a stand-alone review (not with a building permit application), building permits must be obtained from the Building Division prior to any construction. The building permit submittal must substantially agree with the approved design or the project may be subject to additional design review by the appropriate reviewing body or returned to the applicant for revision. Expiration of Approval Design approval is valid for eighteen (18) months from the date of approval. The approval shall expire and be null and void unless a building permit is applied for within that time. The permit holder may file a written extension request with the Planning Division prior to the approval's expiration, which may be granted by the City if circumstances warrant. Augmented Design Review and Optional Vesting Design review application and approval does not vest a project to the development regulations and fees in effect at the time of application or approval. Building permit applications vest development standards. At the option of the applicant, an augmented design review application to vest rights under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025 may be submitted at the same time as the design review application. The application is processed like standard design review but vesting rights are determined under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. Revised on 511112022 P Packet Pg. 40 H.1.a Appendices 1. Design Guideline Checklist 2. Presentation from City Attorney on Quasi -Judicial decision making Y O O C R 2 m 0 a 3 m m Revised on 511112022 P Packet Pg. 41 H.1.a Applying the Design Guidelines When designing projects and issuing permits for new developments, applicants and City staff will rely on these guidelines to help define specific design conditions that will be required for project approval. As these design guidelines get applied to particular development projects, some important things to remember are: 1. Each project is unique and will pose unique design issues. Even two similar proposals on the same block may face different design considerations. With some projects, trying to follow all of the guidelines could produce irreconcilable conflicts in the design. With most projects, o reviewers will find some guidelines more important than others, and the guidelines that are most important on one project might not be important at all on the next one. The design review process will help designers and = reviewers to determine which guidelines are most important in the context Q of each project so that they may put the most effort into accomplishing the 3 intent of those guidelines. 2 2. Project must be reviewed in the context of their zoning and the zoning of their surroundings. The use of design guidelines is not intended to change the zoning designations of land where projects are proposed; it is intended to demonstrate methods of treating the appearance of new projects to help them fit their neighborhoods and to provide the Code flexibility a necessary to accomplish that. Where the surrounding neighborhood exhibits a lower development intensity than is current zoning allow, the lower -intensity character should not force a proponent to significantly c reduce the allowable size of the new building. 0 3. Many of the guidelines suggest using the existing context to determine appropriate solutions for the project under consideration. In some areas, the existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, the new project should be recognized as a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In light of number 2 above, the site's zoning should be considered an indicator of the desired direction for the area and the project. 4. Each guideline includes examples and illustrations of ways in which that guidelines can be achieved. The examples are just that — examples. The are not the only acceptable solution. Designers and reviewers should consider designs, styles and techniques not described in the examples but that fulfill the guideline. 5. The checklist which follows the guidelines (Checklist) is a tool for determining whether or not a particular guideline applies to a site, so that the guidelines may be more easily prioritized. The checklist is neither a regulatory device, nor a substitute for evaluating a sites conditions, or to summarize the language of examples found in the guidelines themselves. Page 1 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 42 H.1.a Considering the Site Edmond's Land Use Code sets specific, prescriptive rules that are applied uniformly for each land use zone throughout the city. There is little room in the Code's development standards to account for unique site conditions or neighborhood contexts. A project architect can read the Code requirements and theoretically design a building without ever visiting the site. However, to produce good compatible design, it is critical that the project's design team examine the site and its surrounding, identify the key design features and determine how the proposed project can address the guidelines' objectives. Because they rely on the project's context to help shape the project, o the guidelines encourage an active viewing of the site and its surroundings. �° For a proposal located on a street with a consistent and distinctive architectural character, the architectural elements of the building may be key to helping the m building fit the neighborhood. On other sites with few attractive neighboring a buildings, the placement of open space and treatment of pedestrian areas may be the most important concerns. The applicant and the project reviewers should consider the following questions and similar ones related to context when looking W at the site: U) ■ What are the key aspects of the streetscape? (The street's layout and visual character) ■ Are there opportunities to encourage human activity and neighborhood interaction, while promoting residents' privacy and physical security? ■ How can vehicle access have the least effect on the pedestrian environment and on the visual quality of the site? ■ Are there any special site planning opportunities resulting from the site's configuration, natural features, topography etc.? ■ What are the most important contextual concerns for pedestrians? How could the sidewalk environment be improved? ■ Does the street have characteristic landscape features, plant materials, that could be incorporated into the design? ■ Are there any special landscaping opportunities such as steep topography, significant trees, greenbelt, natural area, park or boulevard that should be addressed in the design? ■ Do neighboring buildings have distinctive architectural style, site configuration, architectural concept? Page 2 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 43 H.1.a Design Guidelines Checklist This checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines. It is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. A. Site Planning N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Encourage human activity on street ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Discourage parking in street front ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Bulk and Scale N/A Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less- ❑ ❑ ❑ intensive zones Page 3 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 44 H.1.a C. Architectural Elements and Materials N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Unified architectural concept ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Use human scale and human activity ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize garage entrances ❑ ❑ ❑ D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Avoid blank walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Minimize height of retaining walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Consider personal safety ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Landscaping N/A Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site ❑ ❑ ❑ conditions a Page 4 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 45 H.1.a A-1: Responding to Site Characteristics The siting of buildings should respond to specific site conditions and opportunities such as non -rectangular lots, location on prominent intersections, unusual topography, significant vegetation and other natural features. Explanations and Examples Site characteristics to consider in project design include: 1) Topography • Reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. For instance, buildings should be designed to "step up" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. • Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions in their sites in a consistent and positive way, consider similar treatment for the new structure. • Designing the building in relation to topography may help to reduce the visibility of parking garages. 2) Environmental constraints • Site buildings to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. 3) Solar orientation • The design of a structure and its massing on the site can enhance solar exposure for the project and minimize shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. 4) Existing vegetation • Careful siting of buildings can enable significant or important trees or other vegetation to be preserved. 5) Existing structures on the site • Where a new structure shares a site with an existing structure or is a major addition to an existing structure, designing the new structure to be compatible with the original structure will help it fit in. A-2: Streetscape Compatibility The siting of buildings should acknowledge and reinforce the existing desirable spatial characteristics of the right-of-way. Explanation and Examples The character of a neighborhood is often defined by the experience of traveling along its streets. We often perceive streets within neighborhoods as individual spaces or "rooms." How buildings face and are set back from the street determine the character and proportion of this room. Page 5 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 46 H.1.a A-3: Entrances Visible from the Street Entries should be clearly identifiable and visible from the street. Explanation and Examples Entries that are visible from the street make a project more approachable and create a sense of association among neighbors. A-4: Human Activity New development should be sited and designed to encourage human activity on the street. Explanation and Examples Livelier street edges make for safer streets. Ground floor shops and market spaces providing services needed by residents can attract market activity to the street and increase safety through informal surveillance. Entrances, ; porches, awnings, balconies, decks, seating and other elements can promote use of the street front and provide f places for neighborly interaction. Siting decisions should consider the importance of these features in a particular context and allow for their incorporation. Also, architectural elements and details can add to the interest and excitement of buildings and spaces. Elements from the following list should be incorporated into all projects. Projects in pedestrian oriented areas of the City should include an even greater number of these details due to the scale of the buildings and the proximity of the people that will experience them. ■ Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets ■ Belt courses ■ Plinths for columns ■ Kickplate for storefront window ■ Projecting sills ■ Tilework ■ Transom or clerestory windows ■ Planter box ■ Variations in applied ornament, materials, colors or trim. ■ An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Page 6 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 47 H.1.a In pedestrian oriented areas, ground floor commercial space is encouraged to be at grade with the sidewalk. If the entrance can not be located at the grade of the sidewalk, special care must be taken to ensure that there is both a visual and physical connection between the pedestrian way and the entrance that enhances the pedestrian orientation of the building. The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to street fronts in the CW, BC, BN, and BP zones shall have transparent windows to engage the public. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under the section 'Treating Blank Walls'. In the Downtown Commercial Core The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to streets should have a substantial amount of transparent windows, especially in the retail core. A primary function of the pedestrian oriented retail core is to allow for the visual interaction between the walking public and the goods and services businesses located on the first floor are providing. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under the section 'Treating Blank Walls'. Buildings that are entirely residential do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all -residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the guidelines under the section 'Treating Blank Walls'. That portion of Ground level spaces that opens up to the sidewalk through means of sliding or roll up doors shall be considered to comply with any transparency requirements regardless of the amount of glass in the opening. Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. Th structural (permanently attached to and part of the buildin structural (attached to the building using a metal or other 1 To enhance the visibility of business signage retractable av encouraged and should be open -sided. Front valances are and signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance reti Marquee, box, or convex awning shapes are not permitted should be located within the building elements that frame and should not conceal important architectural details. Awr also be hung just below a clerestory or "transom" window, Awnings on a multiple -storefront building should be consist character, scale and position, but need not be identical. No awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resista materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not appropriate; tnererore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Structural Awnings Page 7 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 48 H.1.a should be designed to incorporate natural light. Artificial lighting should only be used at night. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail is consistent with the design elements mentioned above that enhance the interest of the area. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Signage in the "Arts Center Corridor" defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places A-5: Respect for Adjacent Sites Buildings should respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings. Explanation and Examples One consideration is the views from upper stories of new buildings into adjacent houses or yards, especially in less intensive zones. This problem can be addressed in several ways. ■ Reduce the number of windows and decks on the proposed building overlooking the neighbors. ■ Step back the upper floors or increase the side or rear setback so that window areas are farther from the property line. ■ Take advantage of site design which might reduce impacts, for example by using adjacent ground floor area for an entry court. ■ Minimize windows to living spaces which might infringe on the privacy of adjacent residents, but consider comfort of residents in the new building. ■ Stagger windows to not align with adjacent windows. Page 8 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 49 H.1.a A-6: Transition Between Residence and Street For residential projects, the space between the building and the sidewalk should provide security and privacy for residents and encourage social interaction among residents and neighbors. Explanation and Examples The transition between a residential building and the street varies with the depth of the front setback and the relative elevation of the building to the street. A-7: Residential Open Space Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well -integrated open space. Examples and Explanations Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site planning elements: ■ Courtyards which organize architectural elements, while providing a common garden or other uses. ■ Entry enhancement such as landscaping along a common pathway. A-8: Parking and Vehicle Access Siting should minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties and pedestrian safety. Explanation and Examples Techniques used to minimize the impacts of driveways and parking lots include: ■ Locate surface parking at rear or side lots. ■ Break large parking lots into smaller ones. ■ Minimize number and width of driveways and curb cuts. ■ Share driveways with adjacent property owners. ■ Locate parking in lower level or less visible portions of site. • Locate driveways so they are visually less dominant. Access should be provided in the following order of priority: I i) If there is an alley, vehicular access should use the alley. Where feasible, the exit route should use the alley. -V5'f kcAeq-FAZ { /N Page 9 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1 /06 Packet Pg. 50 H.1.a ii) For corner parcels, access should be off the secondary street rather than the primary street. iii) Share the driveway with an adjacent property. This can be a driveway with two-way traffic. iv) A driveway serving a single project is the least preferred option. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., should comply with the following: i) Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. ii) Drive -through speakers shall not be audible off -site. iii) The entrance and exit from the drive -through shall be internal to the site, not a separate entrance and/or exit to or from the street. A-9: Location of Parking on Commercial Street Fronts Parking on a commercial street front should be minimized and where possible should be located behind a building. Explanation and Examples Place Parking located along a commercial street front where Holder pedestrian traffic is desirable lessens the attractiveness of the area to pedestrians and compromises the safety of pedestrians along the street. A-10: Corner Lots Building on corner lots should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. Parking and automobile access should be located away from corners. Explanation and Examples Corner lots offer unique opportunities because of their visibility and access from two streets. Page 10 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 51 H.1.a B-1: Bulk, and Scale Compatibility Projects should be compatible with the scale of development anticipated by the applicable Land Use Policies for the surrounding area and should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to near -by, less intensive zones. Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived bulk, and scale between anticipated development potential of the adjacent zones. Explanation and Examples For projects undergoing Design Review, the analysis and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts will be accomplished through the Design Review process. Careful siting and design treatment based on the technique described in this and other design guidelines will help to mitigate some bulk and scale impacts; in other cases, actual reduction in the bulk and scale of a project may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts. Design Review should not result in significant reductions in a project's actual bulk and scale. Bulk and scale mitigation may be required in two general circumstances: 1. Projects on or near the edge of a less intensive zone. A substantial incompatibility in scale may result from different development standards in the two zones and may be compounded by physical factors such a s large development sites, slopes or lot orientation. 2. Projects proposed on sites with unusual physical characteristics such as large lot size, or unusual shape, or topography where buildings may appear substantially greater in bulk and scale than that generally anticipated for the area. Factors to consider in analyzing potential bulk and scale impacts include: ■ distance from the edge of a less intensive zone • differences in development standards between abutting zones (allowable building width, lot coverage, etc.) ■ effect of site size and shape ■ bulk and scale relationships resulting from lot orientation (e.g. back lot line to back lot line vs. back lot line to side lot line) ■ type and amount of separation between lots in the different zones (e.g. separation by only a property line, by an alley or street, or by other physical features such as grade changes). Y 0 0 c x m 0 a 3 m W W Page 11 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 52 H.1.a In some cases, careful siting and design treatment may be sufficient to achieve reasonable transition and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts. Some techniques for achieving compatibility are as follows: ■ use of architectural style, details (such as roof lines or fenestration), color or materials that derive from the less intensive zone. (See also Guideline C-1: Architectural Context.) ■ creative use of landscaping or other screening ■ location of features on -site to facilitate transition, such as locating required open space on the zone edge so the building us farther from the lower intensity zone. ■ treating topographic conditions in ways that minimize impacts on neighboring development, such as by using a rockery rather than a retaining wall to give a more human scale to a project, or stepping a project down a hillside. ■ in a mixed -use project, siting the more compatible use near the zone edge. In some cases, reductions in the actual bulk and scale of the proposed structure may be necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts and achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. Some techniques which can be used in these cases include: ■ articulating the building's facades vertically or horizontally in intervals that conform to existing structures or platting pattern. ■ increasing building setbacks from the zone edge at ground level ■ reducing the bulk of the building's upper floors ■ limiting the length of, or otherwise modifying, facades ■ reducing the height of the structure ■ reducing the number or size of accessory structures. C-1: Architectural Context New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Explanation and Examples Paying attention to architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, especially historic buildings, can help new buildings be more compatible with their neighbors, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar: Page 12 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 53 H.1.a ■ building articulation ■ building scale and proportion ■ or complementary architectural style ■ or complementary roof forms ■ building details and fenestration patterns ■ or complementary materials Even where there is no consistent architectural pattern, building design and massing can be used to complement certain physical conditions of existing development. In some cases, the existing context is not so well-defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a new project can become a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In most cases, especially in the downtown commercial area, Buildings shall convey a visually distinct 'base' and 'top'. Abase' can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible 'plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line Architectural Features Below are several methods that can help integrate new buildings into the surrounding architectural context, using compatible: ■ architectural features ■ fenestration patterns, and ■ building proportions. Building Articulation Below are several methods in which buildings may be articulated to create intervals which reflect and promote compatibility with their surroundings: ■ modulating the facade by stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade ■ repeating the window patterns at an interval that equals the articulation interval ■ providing a porch, patio, deck or covered entry for each interval ■ providing a balcony or bay window for each interval ■ changing the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval ■ changing the materials with a change in the building plane ■ providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature with each interval C-2: Architectural Concept and Consistency Building design elements, details and massing should create a well-proportioned and unified building form and exhibit an overall architectural concept. Buildings should exhibit form and features identifying the functions within the building. In general, the roofline or top of the structure should be clearly distinguished from its facade walls. Explanation and Examples This guideline focuses on the important design consideration of organizing the many Page 13 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 54 H.1.a architectural elements of a building into a unified whole, so that details and features can be seen to relate to the structure and not appear as add-ons. The other objective of this guideline is to promote buildings whose form is derived from its function. Buildings which present few or no clues through their design as to what purpose they serve are often awkward architectural neighbors. For example, use of expansive blank walls, extensive use of metal or glass siding, or extremely large or small windows in a residential project may create architectural confusion or disharmony with its neighbors. Conversely, commercial buildings which overly mimic residential styles might be considered inappropriate in some commercial neighborhoods. Often times, from an architectural design perspective buildings will convey a visually distinct base' and 'top'. A base' can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Other architectural features included in the design of a building may include any number of the following: ■ building modulation or articulation ■ bay windows ■ corner accent, such as a turret ■ garden or courtyard elements (such as a fountain or gazebo) ■ rooflines ■ building entries ■ building base Architectural details may include some of the following: • treatment of masonry (such as ceramic tile inlay, paving stones, or alternating brick patterns) ■ treatment of siding (such as wood siding combined with shingles to differentiate �. floors) • articulation of columns ■ sculpture or art work ■ architectural lighting A ■ detailed grilles and railings MI a ■ special trim details and moldings ■ a trellis or arbor �J 0 0 r Q r Ile Page 14 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 55 H.1.a C-3: Human Scale The design of new buildings should incorporate architectural features, elements and details to achieve a good human scale. Explanation and Examples The term "human scale" generally refers to the use of human -proportioned architectural features and site design elements clearly oriented to human activity. A building has a good human scale if its details, elements and materials allow people to feel comfortable using and approaching it. Features that give a building human scale also encourage human activity. The following are some of the building elements that may be used to achieve better human scale: ■ pedestrian -oriented open space such as a courtyard, garden, patio, or other unified landscaped areas ■ bay windows extending out from the building face that reflect an internal space such as a room or alcove ■ individual windows in upper stories that o are approximately the size and proportion of a traditional window o include a trim or molding that appears substantial from the sidewalk o are separated from adjacent windows by a vertical element • windows grouped together to form larger areas of glazing can have a human scale if individual window units are separated by moldings or jambs • windows with small multiple panes of glass ■ window patterns, building articulation and other treatments that help to identify individual residential units in a multi -family building ■ upper story setbacks ■ a porch or covered entry ■ pedestrian weather protection in the form of canopies, awnings, arcades or other elements wide enough to protect at least one person ■ visible chimneys C-4: Exterior Finish Materials Building exteriors should be constructed of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing are encouraged. Explanation and Examples The selection and use of exterior materials is a key ingredient in determining how a building will look. Some materials, by their nature, can give a sense of permanence or can provide texture or scale that helps new buildings fit better in their surroundings. Materials typical to the northwest include: Page 15 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 56 H.1.a ■ clear or painted wood siding ■ shingles ■ brick ■ stone ■ ceramic and terra-cotta tile Many other exterior building materials may be appropriate in multifamily and commercial neighborhoods as long as the materials are appropriately detailed and finished, for instance, to take account of the northwest's climate or be compatible with nearby structures. Some materials, such as mirrored glass, may be more difficult to integrate into residential or neighborhood commercial settings. D-1: Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrance Convenient and attractive access to the building's entry should be provided. To ensure comfort and security, paths and entry areas should be sufficiently lighted and entry areas should be protected from the weather. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian -oriented open space should be considered. Explanation and Examples If a building is set back from the sidewalk, the space between the building and public right-of-way may be conducive to pedestrian or resident activity. In business districts where pedestrian activity is desired, the primary function of any open space between commercial buildings and the sidewalk is to provide visual and physical access into the building and perhaps also to provide a space for additional outdoor activities such as vending, resting, sitting or dining. Street fronts can also feature art work, street furniture and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building's setting. Where a commercial or mixed -use building is set back from the sidewalk a sufficient distance, pedestrian enhancements should be considered in the resulting street front Examples of desirable features to include: ■ visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) into the site from the public sidewalk ■ walking surfaces of attractive pavers ■ pedestrian -scaled site lighting ■ areas for vendors in commercial areas ■ landscaping that screens undesirable elements or that enhances the space and architecture ■ signage which identifies uses and shops clearly but which is scaled to the pedestrian ■ site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, benches, pergolas, kiosks, etc. Examples of features to avoid are: ■ asphalt or gravel pavement ■ adjacent unscreened parking lots ■ adjacent chain -link fences ■ adjacent blank walls without appropriate screening Page 16 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 57 H.1.a The following treatment of entrances can provide emphasis and interest: ■ special detailing or architectural features such as ornamental glazing, railings and balustrades, awnings, canopies, decorative pavement, decorative lighting, seats, architectural molding, planter boxes, trellises, artwork signs, or other elements near the doorway. ■ visible signage identifying building address • Higher bay(s) ■ Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) ■ Forecourt D-2: Blank Walls — See pages 8-9 from guidelines blank walls Buildings should avoid large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. Where blank walls are unavoidable they should receive design treatment to increase pedestrian comfort and interest. Explanation and Examples A wall may be considered "large" if it has a blank surface substantially greater in size than similar walls of neighboring buildings.l The following examples are possible methods for treating blank walls: • installing vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plants materials ■ setting the wall back and providing a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, including plant materials that could grow to obscure or screen the wall's surface ■ providing art (mosaic, mural, decorative masonry pattern, sculpture, relief, etc.) over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface • employing small setbacks, indentations, or other means of breaking up the wall's surface ■ providing special lighting, a canopy, horizontal trellis or other pedestrian -oriented features that break up the size of the blank wall's surface and add visual interest ■ An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent D-3: Retaining Walls Retaining walls near a public sidewalk that extend higher than eye level should be avoided where possible. Where higher retaining walls are unavoidable, they should be designed to reduce their impact on pedestrian comfort and to increase the visual interest along the streetscapes. Page 17 of 22 windowslighting fixture opaque giass medallion rrriwi;rrwrawiWarrawrri metal canopy recess ■wwwwwrw�:..i rr■ii■■ was OVUM fr A wool pfinth Blank walls shall be treated with architectural elements to provide visual interest. /06 Packet Pg. 58 H.1.a Explanation and Examples The following are examples of methods to treat retaining walls: • any of the techniques or features listed under blank walls above ■ terracing and landscaping the retaining walls ■ substituting a stone wall, rockery, modular masonry, or special material • locating hanging plant materials below or above the wall D-4: Design of Parking Lots Near Sidewalks Parking lots near sidewalks should provide adequate security and lighting, avoid encroachment of vehicles onto the sidewalk, and minimize the visual clutter of parking lot signs and equipment. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate some considerations to address in highly visible parking lots: Treatment of parking area perimeter the edges of parking lots pavement adjacent to landscaped areas and other pavement can be unsightly and difficult to maintain. Providing a curb at the perimeter of parking areas can alleviate these problems. Security lighting provide the appropriate levels of lighting to create adequate visibility at night Evenly distributed lighting increases security, and glare -free lighting reduces impacts on nearby property. Encroachment of cars onto the sidewalk without wheel stops or a low wall, parked cars can hang over sidewalks. One technique to protect landscaped and pedestrian areas from encroachment by parked cars is to provide a wide wheel stop about two feet from the sidewalk. Another technique is to widen a sidewalk or planting bed basically "building in" a wheel stop into the sidewalk or planting bed. This is more durable than wheel stops, does not catch debris and reduces tripping hazards. Signs and equipment ■ reduce sign clutter by painting markings on the pavement or by consolidating signs. Provide storage that is out of view from the sidewalk and adjacent properties for moveable or temporary equipment like sawhorses or barrels. Screening of parking • screening of parking areas need not be uniform along the property frontage. Variety in the type and relative amount of screening may be appropriate. ■ screen walls constructed of durable, attractive materials need not extend above waist level. Screen walls across a street or adjacent to a residential zone could also include landscaping or a trellis or grillwork with climbing vines. ■ screening can be designed to provide clear visibility into parking areas to promote personal safety. Page 18 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 59 H.1.a D-5: Visual Impacts of Parking Structures The visibility of all at -grade parking structures or accessory v parking garages should be minimized. The parking portion of a structure should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the structure and streetscape. Open parking spaces and carports should be screened from the street and adjacent 5 properties. } Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate various methods of improving the appearance of at -grade parking structures: ■ incorporating pedestrian -oriented uses at street level o can reduce the visual impact of parking structures in commercial areas. �° Sometimes a depth of only 10 feet along the front of the building is enough to provide space for newsstands, ticket booths, flower shops and other viable = uses. m ■ setting the parking structure back from the sidewalk and installing dense a landscaping 3 ■ incorporating any of the blank wall treatments listed in Guideline D-2 2 ■ visually integrating the parking structure with adjacent buildings ■ continuing a frieze, cornice, canopy, overhang, trellis or other devices at the top of the parking level ■ incorporating into the parking structure a well -lit pedestrian walkway, stairway or ramp from the sidewalk to the upper level of the building a ■ setting back a portion of the parking structure to allow for the retention of an cL existing significant tree 3 ■ using a portion of the top of the larking level as an outdoor deck, patio or garden with a rail, bench or other guard device around the perimeter �c D-6: Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas Building sites should locate service elements like trash dumpsters, loading docks and mechanical equipment away from the street front where possible. When elements such as dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot be located away from the street front, they should be situated and screened from view and should not be located in the pedestrian right-of-way. Explanation and Examples Unsightly service elements can detract from the compatibility of new projects and create hazards for pedestrians and autos. The following examples illustrate considerations to address in locating and screening service areas and utilities: ■ plan the feature in a less visible location on the site ■ screen it to be less visible. For example, a utility meter can be located behind a screen wall so that it is not visible from the building entrance. ■ use durable materials that complement the building ■ incorporate landscaping to make the screen more effective ■ locate the opening to the area away from the sidewalk. Page 19 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 60 H.1.a ■ incorporate roof wells, utility rooms or other features to accommodate utility and mechanical equipment needs. D-7: Personal Safety and Security Project design should consider opportunities for enhancing personal safety and security in the environment under review. Explanation and Examples Project design should be reviewed for its contribution to '-`- enhancing the real and perceived feeling of personal safety and security within the environment under review. To do this, the question needs to be answered: do the design elements detract from or do they reinforce feelings of security of the residents, workers, shoppers and visitors who enter the area? Techniques that can help promote safety include the !� following: ■ providing adequate lighting ■ retaining clear lines of site ■ use of semi -transparent security screening, rather than opaque walls, where appropriate ■ avoiding blank, windowless walls that attract graffiti and that do not permit residents or workers to observe the street ■ use of landscaping that maintains visibility, such as short shrubs and pruning trees, so there are no branches below head height ■ creative use of ornamental grille as fencing or over ground floor windows in some locations ■ absence of structures that provide hiding places for criminal activity ■ design of parking areas to allow natural surveillance by maintaining clear lines of sight both for those who park there and for occupants of nearby buildings ■ clear directional signage ■ encouraging "eyes on the street" through placement of windows, balconies and street -level uses ■ ensuring natural surveillance of children's play areas. E-1: Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with Adjacent Sites Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of neighboring properties and abutting streetscape. Explanation and Examples Several ways to reinforce the landscape design character of the local neighborhood are listed below: ■ Street Trees If a street has a uniform planting of street trees, or a distinctive species, plant street trees that match the planting pattern or species. Page 20 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 61 H.1.a Similar Plant Materials When many lots on a block feature similar landscape materials, emphasis on these materials will help a new project fit into the local context. Similar construction materials, textures, colors or elements Extending a low brick wall, using paving similar to a neighbor's or employing similar stairway construction are ways to achieve design continuity. E-2: Landscaping to Enhance the Building and/or Site Landscaping, including living plant material, special pavements, approach, screen walls, planters, site furniture and similar features should be appropriately incorporated into the design to enhance the project. Examples Landscape enhancements of the site may include some of the approaches or features listed below: ■ Soften the form of the building by screening blank walls, terracing retaining walls, etc. ■ Increase privacy and security through screening and/or sharing. ■ Provide a framework such as a trellis or arbor for plants to grow on. ■ Incorporate a planter guard or low planter wall as part of the architecture. • Distinctively landscape open areas created by building modulation. ■ Incorporate upper story planter boxes or roof planters. ■ Include a special feature such as a courtyard, fountain or pool. ■ Emphasize entries with special planting in conjunction with decorative paving and/or lighting. ■ Screen a building from view by its neighbors, or an existing use from the new building. E-3: Landscape Design to Address Special Site Conditions The landscape design should take advantage of special on - site conditions such as high -bank front yards, steep slopes, view corridors, or existing significant trees and off -site conditions such as greenbelts, ravines, natural areas, and boulevards. Explanation and Examples The following conditions may merit special attention. The examples suggest some ways to address the issue. High Bank Front Yard Where the building's ground floor is elevated above a sidewalk pedestrian's eye level, landscaping can help make the transition grades. Several techniques are listed below. ■ rockeries with floral displays, live ground cover or shrubs. ■ terraces with floral displays, ground covers or shrubs. ■ low retaining walls with raised planting strips. ■ stone or brick masonry walls with vines or shrubs. between Barrier -free Access Where wheelchair ramps must be provided on a street front, the ramp structure Page 21 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 62 H.1.a might include a planting strip on the sidewalk side of the elevated portions of the ramp. Steep Topography Special plantings or erosion control measures may be necessary to prevent site destabilization or to enhance the visual qualities of the site in connection with a neighborhood improvement program. Boulevards Incorporate landscaping which reflects and reinforces . Greenbelt or Other Natural Setting ■ Minimize the removal of significant trees. ■ Replace trees that were removed with new trees. o ■ Emphasize naturalizing or native landscape materials. �° ■ Retain natural greenbelt vegetation that contributes to greenbelt preservation. x ■ Select colors that are more appropriate to the natural setting. m 0 On -site Vegetation Q 3 ■ Retain significant vegetation where possible. 2 ■ Use new plantings similar to vegetation removed during construction, when that vegetation as distinctive. Page 22 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Pg. 63 Architectural Design Board Training March 2. 2022 ' Lighthouse LLaw Packet Pg. 64 Part 1 Appearance of Fairness Doctrine • Chapter 42.36 RCW Why the name? —Quasi-judicial hearings involving local land use matters must be fair in fact and must appear to be fair. ' Lighthouse L Law' What does quasi-judicial mean? • acting likejudges • not policy makers ' Lighthouse L LaW When is it used? "...those actions of the legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, ..., or boards which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or other contested case proceeding." RCW 42-36 - 010 ' Lighthouse L Law' When is it NOT used? "legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning documents or the adoption of area - wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning amendment that is of area -wide significance." RCW 42-36 - 010 ' Lighthouse "_6 8 L haw . What types of Edmonds � applications? • Type I I I -A (e.g. design review before ADB) • Type III-6 (e.g. variances, conditional use permits by Hearing Examiner) • Type IV (site specific rezones) ' Lighthouse LLGw Packet "Pgg. 69 Edmonds applications that are NO subject to doctrine? • Type I (e.g. lot line adjustment) • Type II (e.g. preliminary short plat) • Type V (e.g. comp plan amendments) 0 Lighthouse L Law' Ex Parte Communications — general rule "During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision - making body may engage in ex pane communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the proceeding..." RCW 42-36-060 0 Lighthouse L Law - . Ex Parte Communications — exception, part 1 " unless that person: (1) Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex pane communications concerning the decision of action; and RCW 42-36-060 Lighthouse L Law - . Ex Parte Communications — exception, part 2 " and (2) Provides that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties' rights to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action is considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related." RCW 42-36-060 Lighthouse L Law - . Ex Parte Communications — not precluded ... • "... seeking in a public hearing specific information or data from such parties relative to the decision if both the request and the results are a part of the record." • "...correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if any such correspondence is made a part of the record when it pertains to the subject matter of aquasi-judicial proceeding." RCW 42.36.060 Lighthouse Lhaw —Packet Pg. 74 BIAS A decisionmaker may be challenged for: • prejudgment concerning issues of fact about parties • partiality evidencing a personal bias or personal prejudice signifying an attitude for or against a party (as distinguished from policy leanings of a decision maker) A challenger must present evidence of actual or potential bias to support an appearance of fairness claim. Lighthouse L Law - . Disqualification "Anyone seeking ... to disqualify a member of adecision-making body ... must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for disqualification is made known to the individual...." RCW 42-36-080 0 Lighthouse LLaw - . 76 Lack of quorum? "In the event of a challenge ... which would cause a lack of a quorum or would result in a failure to obtain a majority vote ..., any such challenged member(s) shall be permitted to fully participate in the proceeding and vote as though the challenge had not occurred, if the member or members publicly disclose the basis for disqualification prior to rendering a decision." RCW 42.36.090 Lighthouse L Law - . What's wrong with ex pane communication? • Not fair *Without opportunity to challenge, board could make wrong finding Hard to defend decision if evidence supporting decision is not in the record Lighthou LyawPacket Pg. 78 How to handle it when it happens? • Try to cut off the communication • Disclose it at earliest opportunity • Put substance of communication on record • Opportunity for rebuttal 0 Lighthouse LPacket Pg. 79 Law' M Script for chair, part 1 • Has any member of this decisionmaking body engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this appeal outside of the public hearing process? 0 Lighthouse L Law .. Script for chair, part 2 • Is there any member who has a conflict of interest or believes that he or she cannot hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner? ighthouse LyawPacket Pg. 81 Script for chair, part 3 • Is there anyone in the audience who objects to my participation or to any other Board member's participation as a decisionmaker in this hearing? Lighthou LyawPacket Pg. 82 What to ask yourself? • Would a disinterested person, with knowledge of the totality of my personal interest or involvement, be reasonably justified in thinking that my involvement might affect my judgment? Lighthouse Lyaw Packet Pg. 83 Part 2 RCW 36.70B.050 " no more than one open record hearing and one closed record appeal" ighthouse L yaw RCW 36,70B4O20(3) "Open record hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the local government to conduct such hearings, that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution. 0 Lighthouse LyawPacket Pg. 85 Record of the hearing • Ensure that there is a complete recording of the hearing. • No remarks away from the microphone. • All exhibits made part of record. ' Lighthouse L Law' Only one open record hearing! • All evidence must be introduced during the open record hearing. • City is relying on you to ask all relevant questions. • Should request supplemental information for questions that cannot be resolved. 0 Lighthouse LyawPacket Pg. 87 Support your decision • Not enough to just vote • Make clear findings of fact • Expressly adopt, amend, or reject staff's proposed findings, as appropriate 0 Lighthouse LyawPacket Pg. 88 Take your time • Ask for drafting help, as necessary • Not required to make final recommendation on same night 0 Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah Lighthouse L �aw'� Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah During the ensuing discussion among the commissioners, Commissioner Larson stated that the revisions to the front facade had not satisfied his concerns from the last meeting. In response to Anderson's request for more specific design guidelines, Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Development Commission had "been giving direction; it is the applicant's responsibility to take the direction/suggestions and incorporate them into a revised plan that reflects the changes." ' Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah Commissioner Larson then suggested that "[t]he facade can be broken up with sculptures, benches, fountains, etc." Commissioner Nash suggested that Anderson "drive up and down Gilman and look at both good and bad examples of what has been done with flat facades." ' Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah Commissioner Nash agreed stating, "[T]here is a certain feeling you get when you drive along Gilman Boulevard, and this building does not give this same feeling." Commissioner Steinwachs wondered if the applicant had any option but to start "from scratch". ' Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah Anderson responded that he would be willing to change from stucco to wood facing but that, after working on the project for 9 months and experiencing total frustration, he was not willing to make additional design changes. 0 Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah At that point, the Development Commission denied Anderson's application... ' Lighthouse "-9 5 L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah [A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men [and women] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. Lighthouse L Law'._ Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah The vagueness test does not require a statute to meet impossible standards of specificity. 0 Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah The purpose of the void for vagueness doctrine is to limit arbitrary and discretionary enforcements of the law. 0 Lighthouse L Law' Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah The point we make here is that neither Anderson nor the commissioners may constitutionally be required or allowed to guess at the meaning of the code's building design requirements by driving up and down Gilman Boulevard looking at " good and bad" examples of what has been done with other buildings, recently or in the past. We hold that the code sections here at issue are unconstitutionally vague on their face. Lighthouse L Law�._ Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah As they were applied to Anderson, it is also clear the code sections at issue fail to pass constitutional muster. Because the commissioners themselves had no objective guidelines to follow, they necessarily had to resort to their own subjective "feelings". The "statement" Issaquah is apparently trying to make on its " signature street" is not written in the code. In order to be enforceable, that "statement" must be written down in the code, in understandable terms. ' Lighthouse L Law' a Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah Design professionals need to know in advance what standards will be acceatable in a given community. It is unreasonable to expect applicants to pay for repetitive revisions of plans in an effort to comply with the unarticulated, unpublished " statements" a given community may wish to make on or off its " signature street" . ' Lighthouse L Law' a Part 3 Anderson v. Issaquah It is equally unreasonable, and a deprivation of due process, to expect or allow a design review board such as the Issaquah Development Commission to create standards on an ad hoc basis, during the design review process. ' Lighthouse LLaw'PPacket a Questions? 0 Lighthouse LLaw'-N103